Pages

Tuesday, 25 August 2009

Rantings of a schizophrenic? Well, on second thoughts . . .

Perhaps we spoke too soon when we queried “wot, no fatwa?” in our post of yesterday, after the author Sebastian Faulks had said naughty things about the Koran.

We now learn that he’s distanced himself from his own remarks.

He said the Koran had “no ethical dimension” and that the words of Mohammed were the “rantings of a schizophrenic”.

“He said the Islamic holy scripture was a ‘one-dimensional book’ that has little literary value,” wrote Lucy Cockcroft in a story, since pulled, in the UK’s Telegraph, “and added that when compared with the Bible its message seemed ‘barren’.”

Now, the Guardian has a tale saying Faulks has apologised:

“While I believe the voice-hearing of many Old Testament prophets and of John the Baptist in the New might well raise psychiatric eyebrows today, it is absurd to suggest that the Prophet, who achieved so much in military and political – quite apart from religious – terms, can have suffered from any acute illness.

“Only a fully cogent and healthy person could have done what he did,” Faulks told the Guardian today. He went on to offer “a simple but unqualified apology to my Muslim friends and readers for anything that has come out sounding crude or intolerant. Happily, there is more to the book than that.”

Hmm.
__________
NOTE: Faulks has also penned his own piece in the Telegraph, under the headline The book I really can’t put down.

No comments:

Post a Comment

We welcome lively and challenging comments. However, please try to stay on topic, be polite and do not use abusive, racist or sexist language, and do not incite your readers to violence or other antisocial behaviour, or your comment will be deleted. This isn't censorship: it's a case of staying within the bounds of decency and having an eye to the law, although we realise the law will be different in different countries.

We do not bar anonymous comments at the moment, but we would prefer that those commenting play fair and use their name or at least a regular nom de plume. It does show a confidence in your convictions. We know, too, that it's easy to use a false name and be effectively anonymous, but, again, we appeal to your sense of good practice. Even a wacky nom de plume is better, since at least readers will come to know that contributor and maybe remember her or his previous comments.

Blatant commercial advertising will be removed.

Comments should not be construed as necessarily the policy or opinion of the Pink Triangle Trust.

Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.