(urth) This Week in Google Alerts: Home Fires

[David Stockhoff]

On 4/11/2012 12:15 AM, Matthew Knight wrote:
> 2012/4/10 António Pedro Marques <entonio at gmail.com 
> <mailto:entonio at gmail.com>>
>
>
>     Only someone who thinks sharia has no business in Europe can
>     consider that the mention of sharia in Europe is objectionable
>     politics. Who's the xenophobe then? One might as well ask what
>     effect does a protagonist being black has on a story written by a
>     white author, and leap to the conclusion that the author is a
>     white supremacist who's subtly complaining that blacks may one day
>     be protagonists of something.
>
>
> Sorry, this doesn't ring true.  Sharia isn't just "mentioned" here, 
> but framed in a specific way.  The kind of sharia we are presented 
> with is far from the kind which has gone into effect in parts of the 
> UK.  Rather than that form, restricted to certain issues of family law 
> and civil disputes over things like inheritance, we are presented with 
> sharia-as-bogeyman, where theft results in severed limbs, and 
> (probably) blasphemy of the prophet or adultery lead to death by 
> stoning.  Sharia law is about much more than violent punishment, but 
> it's not usually presented with nuance in the West, including in this 
> book.  At least, the part I've read thus far.

I almost posted the same response. A tiny and backward part of sharia is 
used as a bogeyman, whereas 99% of the time it's as dull as dishwater. 
And amputation is presented not as chance or opinion, but as fact. I 
don't see any purpose for depicting the protagonist as a misinformed 
crank, even if he's as much antihero as hero, so it probably should be 
taken as true and as a plain extension of "today's headlines" into Tomorrow.

The question is, which headlines? Hint: There is no Wolf News channel.