Monday, August 24, 2009

Excuuuuuse him ...

... Sebastian Faulks apologises if his comments about the Koran have offended Muslims. (Hat tip, Dave Lull.)

Well, as Lord Chesterfield told his son, one should never insult anyone unintentionally. But what to do about people who reflexively see insult where'er they look? For true believers of the Koran, the only thing non-believers can say about their holy book is that it is simply wonderful - or else say nothing at all. And I certainly do not approve of gratuitously insulting anyone else's faith, or lack thereof - though I've had to put up with plenty of cheap shots taken at mine. Well, there. I've just written something about the Koran. I sure hope it doesn't offend anyone.

See also Learning to live with radical Islam.


  1. I read the Faulks story earlier, and I wondered about something, which I might as well mention here: If someone offends Muslims, the prudent course of action is apparently a hasty apology, even if it is a prophylactic apology to prevent what merely might be an offense; consider this the Rushdie lesson. However, if someone offends Christians or Jews, as often happens throughout literary history, no one seems anxious to proffer apologies either before or after the potential offense has been inflicted. So, this raises the question--What is the difference? I have my answers (which might be too cynical) but I wonder about others' answers.

  2. How about an absence of balls?