More like this
Sebastian Faulks outburst risks anger of Muslims
The bestselling author has dismissed the Koran as the ‘rantings of a schizophrenic’ and ‘barren’ compared to the Bible
The best-selling author Sebastian Faulks has dismissed the Koran as a "depressing" book that is the "rantings of a schizophrenic" after researching the Islamic scriptures for his latest novel.
In an interview with the Sunday Times about his forthcoming novel A Week in December, a sweeping and satirical look at present-day London, Faulks risked the wrath of Muslims by saying that, compared to the Bible, the Koran is "barren" in terms of both ethics and rip-roaring stories.
"It's very one-dimensional, and people talk about the beauty of the Arabic and so on, but the English translation I read was, from a literary point of view, very disappointing," he told interviewer Cathy Galvin.
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."
The Birdsong and Charlotte Gray author's 10th novel is set in 2007, as a young London barrister reads the Koran to prepare for the case of a Muslim schoolgirl who hasn't been allowed to wear traditional dress to school.
Faulks admits he did not talk to many British Muslims before beginning to write. "I read some books and I've got a few Muslim friends, but I thought I'd get it better from books and from reading the source."
In 1989 a fatwa was issued against author Salman Rushdie, after the Iranian spiritual leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini said his novel The Satanic Verses was "blasphemous against Islam". Two years ago, fellow novelist Martin Amis caused a furore when he said that "the Muslim community will have to suffer until it gets its house in order".
A spokesman for the Islamic Society of Britain, Ajmal Masroor, said Faulk's statements ran the risk of stirring religious hatred against Muslims. "Attacks on Islam are nothing new, but the danger is this will have a 'drip, drip' effect. People don't seem to understand the consequences of saying things like this could be quite severe. History tells us it can encourage hatred." ·
Comments are now closed on this article
Comments
NF, as a Muslim, I agree with you that Middle Eastern countries of majority Muslim populations do not demonstrate acceptance to other faiths to the degree to which I wish they did. That being said, it is not fair to call these 'Muslim' countries just as it is not fair to call Canada or the UK 'Christian' countries, even though that is the dominant religious denomination in those countries. Blaming an individual Muslim of intolerance is shouldering the blame of a government's actions on an individual who lives a continent away- and quite possibly for reasons related to that governance. The point Iftikhara brings is that a country should live up to the title with which it presents itself: a country that boasts free speech and tolerance should stand true to its image. Sadly, although it may seem that Western countries are unconditionally accepting of all faiths, the reality is not always the case. Ask any immigrant- regardless of faith.
This brings me to another point, that of choice of residence. For many second and third generation Muslims, 'home' is Britain (or another Western country). For a Muslim born, living, and practicing in a Western state, there is no problem with being 'British' and Muslim at the same time. What we really need to question is how one defines 'assimilation'. Sure as a Canadian-Muslim, I can assimilate with fellow Westerners on many levels, but assimilation should not mean rejection of my Islamic values. Sadly, I see in your post what I see in the attitudes of many others: an indifference to and sometimes lack of respect and understanding for the basic tenents of my religion that dictate the way I may dress and worship my God. On top of that, any anger or frustration emitted from someone carrying a title of Muslim is immediately branded 'Islamic' anger... are anger and frustration not universal elements of human nature?
Iftikhara, I could see the Islamic anger in your words. It amazes me that you could ramble on about freedom of speech and dress in a secular society but Muslim countries do not reciprocate basic human rights to Jews, Christians, Hindus and non-believers. You are intolerant but you expect me to be tolerant of you. British ministers know that the world is made up of different people but many are worried about Islamic extremism, welfare abuse, criminal behaviour and the lack of assimilation that many Muslims show their host. If Islam is such agreat religion why live in Britian, isn't it better for you and your people to be together in a Sharia Islamic state? Remember tolerance is something that needs to be practised both ways, the West and esp. Britain is too tolerant while in my opinion muslims are the intolerant. Pls. show some respect and tolerance towards the British people. If your people and religion did practice tolerance the world would be a much better place.
Jim Fitzpatrick, a British minister criticized the segregation of male and female guests at Muslim wedding. Yet another 'Gaffe' from another jumped up, half-baked, ill-educated Labour moron; a former fireman indeed. He learned nothing about putting out fires rather than starting them. He actually has a GCSE 'D' in Politics? God Help us internationally if he is ever made a Diplomat. I suppose he left in a huff because there was no beer an' 'Am sandwiches at the buffet. The Minister's action is just a stupid, attention-getting stunt appealing to prejudices. This serves only to inflame the prejudices so widespread today. People have their customs, and you don't insult them. It hasn't been that long since our society had some public institutions that kept men and women separate. And it hasn't been that long since women in our society typically wore hats with veils. Plenty of Western customs, we accept as normal, are unacceptable or ridiculous to others.
Muslim marriage is a religious ceremony. He insulted the bride and groom for his own political gain. They should not walk out because it would have been bad manners and rudeness to do so. They should respect the couple wishes, it's their big day. He should have ascertained what the customs are beforehand, and then not attended if he thinks the practice offensive. One should have respect of others people's customs, even if one does not agree. Perhaps he should grow up and get an injection of reality. If you are not prepared to accept this then don't go or don't insult the bride and groom by walking out. What a disgusting small minded little man. Just shows the caliber of today's MP's from all parties. Well being a Labour politician his appalling ignorance of Islamic tradition plus downright rudeness to his hosts does not surprise me in the least. He should do his homework instead of ruining someoneâ??s day. He is totally an ignorant person. If a Muslim wants to have separation at a wedding (like much of the Muslim world) then they should be allowed to, and don't insult them when they do. Jewish wedding has observed the tradition of separating of men & women at ceremonies, without raising any eyebrows. Men and women are separated in Masajid and Synagogues. Muslim secondary schools are also segregated.
In the past another British Minister Jack Straw caused a similar furore when he referred to Muslim veils as 'a visible statement of separation and difference' and called for women to remove them during surgeries in his Blackburn constituency. No one has the right to ban the freedom of choice in a secular and democratic country. The right to choice is a basic fundamental right the person should have. To veil or not to veil should be an individual choice. Dress codes are for children. Muslim women should be free to wear burqas. If women get Away with wearing cropped shirts and pants that show their panties, they should be able to wear burqas too.
Globalisation is here to stay, Muslims are here to stay and so are other communities. Those idiot British ministers need to learn that the world is made up of different people and the British society and its Establishment need to learn to accept and tolerate every culture for what it is and most importantly respect and tolerate the values of each and every religion.
Iftikhar Ahmad
www.londonschoolofislamics.org.uk
Sebastian Faulks is a brilliant man and he is telling the truth about Islam, this would surprise most muslims and western liberals as they have no knowledsge of the Koran, Hadiths or Sharia law.
Shirull said, "We have to pray for the safety of the people who write such remarks regarding the Quran or the Holy Prophet"...yes we do because any criticism of Islam is met with violence and murder. Islam is a dangerous religion which is hellbent on war against the dhimmi and kaffir.
Thanks Andrew for your well worded and decent comment esp. when you said, "Muslims cannot preach tolerance when they are not prepared to practice it"........well said mate!
There will always be tensions between christians ,muslims and Jews.
While muslims tend to feel that Islam is constantly under attack, they barely shoulder any blame or acknowledgement for the wrongs other muslims do in the name of their religion.
In this day and age, there is only one religion that allows religious aparthied, and that is the muslim faith.
Christians are forbiddden from openly practicing their religion in Saudi Arabia and are barred from entering Mecca and Medina. Can your imagine if christians said that no muslims were allowed to enter Rome as the Vatican lies within its confines, our churches would be set alight throught the Islamic world.
Muslims cannot preach tolerance when they are not prepared to practice it.
As long as the Saudi's allow the suppression of other religions on their soil, we can expect tensions throughout the wolrd.
The Saudi money plays a large part in the financing of mosque building and madressa's throughout the world. With that comes radical Saudi trained preachers, who spew out hatred for other religions.
We have to pray for the safety of the people who write such remarks regarding the Quran or the Holy Prophet (p.b.u.him). The world has still to name one single person who claims to be a Muslim and has written bad remarks for any of the holy Prophets (p.b.u them) . Please do not encourage such people who are out to seek worldly profits while writting such... this is not a wise venture to seek profit from ...
No, the Quran was not "interpreted" from previous books since Mohammad was an illiterate; nice try though. No, intelligent Muslims will only shake their heads at such ignorance; he has no knowledge of the Arabic language; otherwise, he'd hang his head in shame. I find it ironic that those who insult the Quran would do well to quote even a few scriptures from their own Holy Books. I suppose the numerous accounts of incest, murder and Paul's degradation of women is NORMAL?
I hope the BBC will make the Koran in its entirety, the Book of the Week or whatever. Faulks said much more and whatever translation one reads he has stated the key features. Have a Moslem actor read the text.
More westeners should read the Koran, barely 150 (very) widely spaced pages. Ignore hadith or sharia - not even the most foam-flecked pretend they are divine/inspired, being merely interpretations of previous interpretations and anecdotes..
He is spot on about the basic tenet of the book. The reason Mohammed's cover has not yet been blown after fourteen centuries, is that the paradise he promised is posthumous and therefore unverifiable, unlike earthly paradises promised (in remarkably similar rhetoric) by the likes of Hitler.
So much for religious tolerance......
Mr Masroor is inexact. The result of "attacking" Islam, even in moderate terms and in print or speech is usually fatal to those who risk it, not Moslems.