Mr Faulks? Could we have a word?
The Telegraph, with slightly cruel mockery, has poor Sebastian Faulkes saying in the headline that he really can’t put down the Koran – giving us the irresistible impression that he can’t put it down because he has been wired to explode if he does.
While we Judaeo-Christians can take a lot of verbal rough-and-tumble about our human-written scriptures, I know that to Muslims the Koran is different; it is by definition beyond criticism. And if anything I said or was quoted as saying (not always the same thing) offended any Muslim sensibility, I do apologise – and without reservation.
Well there you go. Some people (though not all ‘Judaeo-Christians,’ whatever the hell they are) can put up with criticism and joking about their ‘scriptures’ but Muslims have defined the Koran as beyond criticism and so everyone else has to defer to the way Muslims have defined the Koran, or else. Or else what? Faulks of course is careful not to say, but we know he has it in mind, poor bastard. Anyway – however obvious it is, it’s still worth pointing out that the fact that People X have defined something as beyond criticism does not impose an obligation on all people in the world to agree with People X and not ever criticize the thing that has been defined as beyond criticism. It’s also worth pointing out that the whole idea is pathetically childishly stupid and a hindrance to reasonable thinking.
One of the books I read as background to my novel was Islam: A Short History, by Karen Armstrong. She writes movingly of how Arabs in the Peninsula longed for a voice-hearing prophet of their own to match the many Jewish prophets, famed for hearing the voice of God over many generations…
Yeah, that’s very moving – but can we move on now? Fourteen centuries later? We have other forms of entertainment now – we can even hear voices! Arabs in the peninsula have other things to do, we have other things to do, everyone has other things to do – so can we get over it already?
What a craven response. “Poor bastard” my ass, Ophelia (I say as a chiding friend). Those who bend over to lick boots shouldn’t be surprised when they get their teeth kicked.
Faulkes goes beyond the defensive hand-wringing we’ve come to expect from some – “I’m so sorry if I offended,” etc. – he actively feeds into it and justifies it, internalizing as his own fault the mad, overweening Entitlement to Be Offended.
I find his response disgusting. And cowardly. If I thought it was coming from a genuine place (a place like, “hey, I don’t want my novel and its message to be completely missed because someone thought I was taking a cheap shot”) that would be different. But it doesn’t seem that way. It seems like pure, slavish, misplaced cowardice.
One wonders what Salman Rushdie is thinking.
Oh, that was pure beauty, O. I was reading so fast and furious I missed that – apologies. My last verbal ejaculation came from pure outraged frustration (and no small measure of disgust for spineless bootlickers).
This apology is far more insulting to Muslims than Faulkes’ opinion of the Koran – they apparently are sensitive adolescents who can’t handle the slightest bit of criticism, discussion, or contrary opinion. They’re children. If I were Muslim, I’d be more teed off over the apology than the alleged insult.
Emphasis on the word speculate there. And it should also be mentioned that such speculation could only be made by someone who has never heard of Occam’s Razor.
One thing that always bugs me about people who romanticize the past is how insensitive it is to the human condition. Szasz reads these glorified legends about voice-hearers and concocts a big fantasy about “different ways of seeing the world”. But what he’s not considering is that his speculation is based only on who was written about in legends–the modern equivalent of American culture only by GQ magazine.
But what about all the illiterate, non-famous individuals who lived back then? Nobody wrote their story. And there were a lot more of them than there were of Jesus and Mohammad. Maybe a small number of “voice-hearers” became revered prophets. But I bet quite a few of them were labeled “demon possessed” and ostracized by their friends and family. Not very romantic, sure. But reality rarely is.
A gem, OB.
Its pure orientalism, thats what it is!
THe colonialism of the PC suck-up, denying the rational powers and adulthood of ‘Muslims’, who in reality probably include a great many grown-ups who are nauseated by this twaddle.
I think you are too hard on Faulkes, Josh. I would have done exactly what he has done. It is grimly humiliating for him but he does not want his life ruined by a piece of journalistic mischief-making. The villain here isn’t Faulkes (although it is harder to forgive him for his novels).
The whole thing makes me sick to my stomach. Faulkes was right the first time. The Koran is a graceless book, with little more to offer than acres of warnings to those who know the truth – of course they know it, they’ve got the Koran, haven’t they – and yet they do not respond and deserve to be burnt in lakes of fire for eternity. The Koran has got to be one of the most intellectually barren pieces of writing – we shan’t call it literature – every inflicted upon the world, and some people have to audacity to think it is the best writing and the holiest. That Faulkes backed down is understandable. Not many of us want out lives trashed by speaking out about a book, but if we don’t speak out about it, then we’ll have our lives trashed by a book. Not to criticise is, implicitly, to accept the absurd claims that are made for this piece of desert hysterics. It needs to be criticised and criticised often, until those who make exalted claims for it recognise that it is not the best writing, but amongst the worst. I don’t know Faulkes novels, and now certainly do not want to know them. He’s got to put this right.
Sorry about the spelling. I’ve seen ‘Faulk’, ‘Faulks’ and ‘Faulkes’. Presumably it’s one of those.
The assumption Faulks makes is that Muslims will be offended. He could as reasonably make the assumption that some Muslims who have had the Koran ladelled down their throats at madrasas might be saying, This really is a terrible book and it’s been a waste of my life learning it off by heart when I could have been studying something else. Thank god someone has finally said that.
There’s this bit in Samuel Butler’s Way of All Flesh where the hero, Ernest, is becoming disillusioned with the Christianity he is trying to preach:-
“I once saw a very young foal trying to eat some most objectionable refuse, and unable to make up its mind whether it was good or no. Clearly it wanted to be told. If its mother had seen what it was doing she would have set it right in a moment, and as soon as ever it had been told that what it was eating was filth, the foal would have recognised it and never have wanted to be told again; but the foal cold not settle the matter for itself, or make up its mind whether it liked what it was trying to eat or no, without assistance from without. I suppose it would have come to do so by-and-by, but it was wasting time and trouble, which a single look from its mother would have saved, just as wort will in time ferment of itself, but will ferment much more quickly if a little yeast be added to it…” —from Chapter LVI of *The Way of All Flesh*, by Samuel Butler.
Let’s hope that Faulks has read and digested all the outraged comments that appear after the Telegraph article. I think an apology is in order.
Quite so about how insulting to Muslims all this is – I said the same thing during the (remarkably similar) worked-up fuss about DGHW. It treats the touchy and potentially violent response as the general, normal, to be expected one. That’s considerably more insulting to Muslims than is criticism of the Koran!
That little excerpt about the Arabs feelings of inadequacy at not having a voice-hearer could also be an indicator that Muhammad’s story about hearing the voice of the angel was, shall we say, completely fictional. That’s the easy thing about being a prophet – hearing voices in one’s head needn’t be proved, only claimed.
So, there may have been some schizophrenics who were prophets. There may have also been profiteers who were profits. We know of several with megachurches who are “voice hearers” in the current day.
The Koran is a damnable book, on par only with The Bible.
….or the Book of Mormon….
According to Faulks, the basic tenet of the Koran is simply that: “It says ‘the Jews and the Christians were along the right tracks, but actually, they were wrong and I’m right, and if you don’t believe me, tough – you’ll burn for ever.’ That’s basically the message of the book.”
Doesn’t Jesus have pretty much the same message in the “ethically developed” New Testament? Only with better framing…