Quote:
Originally Posted by HarryT
The reason I ask, Richard, is because in the last few years I've noticed that a number of SF books have been published which seem to set out quite deliberately to be "Islamophobic" - a trend which I find disturbing. Baen have published a number of them. I am happy to hear that this book is not among them.
|
I must begin by confessing that I've not read the book.
But I'm voicing a concern similar to Harry's. Like it or not, popular fiction is a GREAT place for warmongers to propagandize. I love Alfred Hitchcock, for example, but he made several films --excellent films-- whose very evident purpose was to get Americans to accept the "necessity" of getting involved in WW2. Take "Casablanca." The Germans are depicted as swaggering overlords of the poor French colonists. No mention at all of the British covert assasination of Admiral Darlan or any of the other British covert ops to destabilise the legitimate government of France which had signed a peace treaty, resulting in thousands of French deaths.
I'm not French, British or German, so I have no axe to grind in that particular phase of history. It is but one example of gradually --almost subliminally-- influencing a population to view war as the answer against a supposed "insidious threat."
Yes, I am totally against censorship. But that means that I am also personally very critical of propaganda imbedded in "fiction."
Again --I'm not judging THIS book, which I've not read. But a couple years ago I read a British murder mystery which was a very entertaining story. But several of the main characters were Muslim Pakistani immigrants, and some of the major character motivations were based on a TOTALLY erroneous understanding of Shari'ah. For example, there was the old uber-bitch of the Muslim family rubbing the nose of another character into the dirt, based on how much money certain girls' families would have to pay in "mahr" to marry her sons.
Except, in the real world, "mahr" is the wealth a prospective husband
has to give to his bride. Man to woman, not the other way around. The Shari'ah purpose is that --ideally-- no woman should ever be without support. Mahr is traditionally a year's worth of support, so that if he divorces her (which Muslim men can do, unilaterally, for any reason) she has a year to get another husband without resorting to a sinful occupation just in order to support herself.
OK.
Not totally applicable to Britain today, since those basic rules were devised in Arabia 14 centuries ago when things were different! But the British crime author
totaly misrepresented the purpose of Shari'ah 180 degrees --as being designed to "sell" women to men, as opposed the the true purpose of
supporting women outside the whims of men.
Personally, I doubt anyone who is not Muslim, or who has not got close Muslim friends --especialy an imam of the local Muslim community-- is qualified to accurately depict the realistic intricacies of Shari'ah.
Maybe I'm wrong in this case.
I'm just concerned about not building up subtle reasons in the public mind to condone the wars that US & UK leaders seem hellbent on promulgating.