Smart Bitches, Trashy Books

For those wondering what the seven-point action plan was, I got this from http://www.husainiyouths.com:

This group is Shi’a. The author has also written a book on A’isha and ‘Ali. This adds a WHOLE new dimension to the debate in terms of Shi’a theology and political action. I understand the context of the reaction better now that I’ve read the seven points… Fantastic, it adds a whole new dimension. It’s not some fringe Salafi group, that’s a profound relief.

I’m not dismissing the group, but it is important to understand part of this debate in the context of Shi’a Islam.

Can you elaborate on that, Kat?

What is the difference between Shi’a and Salafi?

SWHH said, “I want to read a book about her right now, so that’s a step forward?”

How is that NOT a step forward? IMO, no one is going to read anything that doesn’t appeal and/or interest them. But there are a gazillion things to know about and read about. How does one just decide they might be interested in Aisha? One doesn’t. Something happens that strikes the interest and then one goes out to find stuff to read about it. Maybe you meant something different (read lack of tone), but it sounded to me like you were disparaging everyone’s interest in the book simply because it came out of this bru-ha-ha. You’ve been very informative, patient, and honest, which, as a reader, I have appreciated. That particular post though sounded a bit like, “Well you should have been interested in Aisha before this all hit the fan, and because you weren’t, then your interest now means nothing”. Probably I am wrong but I just wanted to check in with you on that.

I’m glad Anaquana found the seven-point action plan. That didn’t strike me as AT ALL violent. In fact, it didn’t seem much different than our email campaign to Amazon on behalf of Reba. In fact, I would suggest that the campaign against CE was more intensive than this plan. Those students sounded very interested in reading the book and then making a judgement; which is what most people were asking for anyway. Good for them.

One last item (I love how the universe works). An article that I thought everyone might find interesting. If you don’t have a login to Wharton, it’s free. But how timely that this came out this morning…

http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article.cfm?articleid=2027

Anaquana— Thank you for posting the 7-point action plan.  Yea!!!  And how wonderful to see the amount of reading they were willing to do.

Yeah, they were kinda sure the book would offend, but they were going to read it!  As well as read all sorts of history in order to speak with authority.  That’s pretty impressive.

I mean, my parents large church had at least one sermon on the evils of the DaV. Code, and my parents totally believed it and promoted that view.  And no where had anyone actually read it… or been willing to see the movie.  (My point here is strictly about reading something and THEN commenting.  I am not linking or equaling DaV. Code with the book under discussion or comparing faiths.

That was a tome, I’m sorry! I babble.

Ah, but it wasn’t. I asked a question that was so wide open…

The reason I ask is because Christ’s story has been integrated into Western secular literature since the early Middle Ages. And, over the past few centuries, we in the West have become used to that kind of exploration…it may be deplored and it may offend, but it has been in the culture.

If there is little evidence of Arab secular literature before the 20th century that explores the life of Mohammad and his Prophets, I can completely understand how devout Muslims might take offense at such an exploration. It is simply not a part of the culture.

Now, Spellberg’s conduct has left something to be desired. And that’s a shame, especially as good historical fiction has co-existed along side rigorous academic work for centuries. I think that at the best of times, they support each other. And the curious will always want to learn more…

I swore I was going to spend the day on all the chores I neglected yesterday and stay away from teh internet but…..

RE: the Hussaini youth’s site and their suggested course of action?  That was IT? What could be so horrible about THAT?

Let me just check again….

Nope, not seeing anything scary here.  No bombs, no incendiary rhetoric, no weapons…just some students saying—read all you can, educated yourselves, and make sure others understand why this is a problem.  The assumption is, that, if we (the students) make them understand, they will apologize.  So, they’re trying to represent their faith, peacefully, to the best of their ability.

How is this a threat? I don’t get it.  But maybe that’s because my head just exploded.

What is the difference between Shi’a and Salafi?

This is the seriously abbreviated version, so please no one get offended if I leave out every ideological detail here! This normally takes me 2 class periods.

The Shi’a (Iran, Bahrain, parts of Saudi, Afghanistan) are the minority of Muslims and are often in contension with the Sunni majority. There was a split in the Muslim community during the first fitna (civil war) as a result of debate and contesting who would succeed the Prophet Muhammad. The Shi’a believe that ‘Ali, as Muhammad’s nephew should have succeeded him in leadership of the community. However, ‘Ali did not become caliph until the death of the third caliph, ‘Uthman. A’isha however, contested this to some extent and civil war broke-out between the supporters of A’isha and ‘Ali, which ended in the Battle of the Camel where A’isha led her troops into battle and was subsequently kept under house arrest. ‘Ali was subsequently assassinated, and Mu’awiya took over the caliphate. ‘Ali’s sons, Hussein and Hassan then took to avenging their father’s death. Hussein was killed at the Battle of Karbala, and many Shi’a feel physically and spiritually responsible for his death (you see this every Muharram). There has always, also, been a sort of strain between the history and memory of A’isha, although venerated, by Shi’a. Heavier emphasis is placed more on Fatima and Zahra, but A’isha is still, as Umm al-Muminin (Mother of the Believers) a pivotal part of the believe system.

As a result of the Shi’a uprisings, there has been a continuous sort ideological strain between Sunni and Shi’a. The Shi’a place a great emphasis on political struggle and fighting against what they feel is illegitimate rule. However, the Shi’a, as you saw in the 7 point plan, struggle through political and social avenues as opposed to more visible, violent methodologies. Take the Iranian Revolution for a classic example of a modern Shi’a revolt: a white revolution. (Until the Ayatollah started his mass-executions however and things have gotten out-of-control again.)

The Salafis are what most people would see as Wahhabis, Deobandis, the sort of wild orthodoxy of the Taleban and to a certain extent, of Saudi Arabia. Salafism is a modern phenomena of Sunni Islam (the Muslim majority) and that is where you get the Muslim “hardliners.” They are the fundos of the Islamic world and account for about 1% of Muslims, but because they are the most proactive in terms of violence, rhetoric, propaganda, and have the most money to back their endeavors, they are also the most intimidating. They are sort of the orthodoxy on steroids and are completely unbending. 

So in terms of let’s say the worst possible scenario for reactions to this novel, it didn’t happen because it was Shi’a proactive activism, whether you agree with it or not, which I don’t in this case rather than the radical Salafism which is what I believe that Spellberg feared, but she has now essentially guaranteed by bringing it into the very public sphere.

So in terms of let’s say the worst possible scenario for reactions to this novel, it didn’t happen because it was Shi’a proactive activism, whether you agree with it or not, which I don’t in this case rather than the radical Salafism which is what I believe that Spellberg feared, but she has now essentially guaranteed by bringing it into the very public sphere.

That sounds terrible, I do agree with the Shi’a reaction, however I don’t agree with how it has been perpetuated or the results of it in terms of censorship and the self-censorship of a publishing house with encouragement from an academic no less. If it gets published, it just goes into the pile of banned books like Menstruation and The Story of Zahra.

Ugh I need to eat lunch before I dig my hole deeper.

Thank you, Kat. That was actually very insightful and interesting.

So, the Shi’a are what the news outlets call Shi’ites?

This might sound horrible, but in a way I am glad that there was this whole kerfluffle. I never would have become interested in any of this without it.

Hell, on behalf of those of Scottish origin, I am still awaiting an apology for all the bad jokes made at our expense.  I guess we (collective “we”) as an ethnic group/nation have tougher skins.

Hell, try being Polish.
Or blond.
Or Jewish.
Or Southern.
Or . . .

It is utterly incomprehensible to me that a fanatical religious faction—hell, any faction of any stripe—can defecate at will, with impunity, on the United States Constitution.  This can not and should not be tolerated.

Such violators of civil rights should all be told to go perch on that scorpion and spin.

I realise that not everyone in the thread is clued up on Islam.

Deeply not clued up, and appreciating the explanations.

Has Professor Spellberg commented anywhere? I’d be interested to know what she would say she told Random House.

I’d like it if Wyrhag could explain where civil rights have been violated.

Such violators of civil rights should all be told to go perch on that scorpion and spin.

I think in a debate like this, it’s important not to used charged language. My immediate reaction to “sit on a scorpion” is that it would be a reference to a stereotyped middle-eastern image of Islam- which I think shouldn’t come into play here.

And if you look at recent history the average American not living in LA or NY has much more to fear from right wing “Christian” extremists, either of the lone nut variety or militia members, than they do from Islamic terrorists.

Absolutely true!  Bill Moyers (I type with reverence) did an enlightening and frightening series of PBS specials about twenty years ago on the extreme Christian right.  Those shows, and certain televangelists, were what prompted me to write my doomed Samhain novel.  And, yes, the threat definitely still exists.

I actually had Dr. Spellberg for a class at UT.  I thought she was a great professor, and an extremely intelligent woman.  We didn’t agree on everything, but she was extremely fair and open to different perspectives.  The fact that she trashed this book probably indicates that it was just that - trashy.  When you submit your book to someone and ask for criticism, you should expect criticism - especially when you ask a history professor, an expert in the field.  I read historical romance ebooks all the time, but I would never, ever ask one of my history professors for a review of them.  Random House pulling this book has, I believe, less to do with Professor Spellberg’s critique and more to do with fear of a backlash.  As a business, they are well within their rights to do so.  And the fact that this book has generated so much buzz before even becoming available is great for Sherry Jones - someone will snap this book up immediately, and everyone will want a copy.  It’s a win-win.

Hey, I’m truly sorry to hear it. Whoever publishes it, I’ll buy it…and then burn it! :-)) No. Just joking. I’m an atheist…and thank g-d for it. :-))

Randi, I’m not disparaging you for becoming more interested in Aisha because of this brouhah, and if I am, I’m also disparaging myself.

SWHH: Cool. I just wanted to check with you on that. Did you get an opportunity to check out that website I listed? I’d be interested in your opinion of it. ;)

Sara: I know there are hundreds of comments here, so you may not have read Sherry Jones’ comments, but there isn’t any sex in the book.  I appreciate you came to the table with an alternate opinion of Professor Spellberg, but I’m still not sure how she could describe this book as “trashy” without any sex. Anyone? Even if it HAD sex in it, it doesn’t, per se, make a book “trashy”. If it had been badly written, poorly researched, or plot think, then I think Professor Spellberg could have said it was a poorly written book. But that still would not have qualified it as “trashy”.

need18: oh, I had a TON of needs at 18.

Why don’t you go to any Islamic country and ask random strangers on the street their opinions of the average North American/Western European? I’m sure you’ll get a well-balanced, reasonable and well-informed reply every time.

Having spent time in multiple Muslim countries (Turkey, Morocco and Bangladesh) I’ve found that I consistently get told I must not be a “real”, “normal” or “average” American. *shrug* I think this is perfectly normal. Once “the other” becomes “the familiar” it’s hard to demonize it, so you have to shift your thinking and the first step is to say that “the familiar other” must be somehow aberrant/special (enlightened, non-fanatical, etc.). This is the same phenomenon that we’re seeing here in the comments re Ziggy and shewhohashope. It seems to me that people are often able to coexist, it’s collective groupings that have major conflicts (and every culture finds some way of creating an “other” be it based on race, religion, class, ethnic origin, what-have-you).

that should have read…”....plot THIN”. Dammit Bitches, where’s your editing option!

For those wondering what the seven-point action plan was, I got this from http://www.husainiyouths.com:

Thank you very much for this! It’s not so scary, is it?

I’d like it if Wyrhag could explain where civil rights have been violated.

Such violators of civil rights should all be told to go perch on that scorpion and spin.

I think in a debate like this, it’s important not to used charged language. My immediate reaction to “sit on a scorpion” is that it would be a reference to a stereotyped middle-eastern image of Islam- which I think shouldn’t come into play here.

Perhaps I should have said “would-be violators of civil rights”—meaning, people who seek to deprive the general public of freedom of expression and/or freedom of choice. 

As for the “scorpion” reference, I was simply echoing (albeit in a sarcastic context) the sex scene in the book (i.e., “the sting of the scorpion. . .”)  No stereotyping implied; just a tongue-in-cheek reworking of what I took to be a phallic image.

So relax.

It’s a shame that so many people here jumped straight to assuming that these Muslims students and Shaheed Amanullah had some terrorist conspiracy going. Frankly, I’m more upset about that than anything I’ve heard about the book.

I have avoided commenting on this, because I have way way way too much to say about the use of students to promote extreme agendas, but suffice it to say that this is a very disturbing and powerful trend.  Students tend to be passionate and idealistic, and they can be easily brought in as foot soldiers in any number of campaigns, completely believing that they are doing the righteous thing but necessarily not clued in to the entire context and implications of their actions (let alone the fact that they are often promoting an agenda they don’t even know about).  And this sort of thing is not isolated to one agenda, one group, or one ideology. 

It seems to me that Spellberg not only was using the blanket stereotyping of Islam to her own ends, but in some sense wanted to create a self-fulfilling prophecy—that she might have believed that her frantic warnings would lead to some threat of violence (that to all appearance never occurred) that would lend credibility to her wild-ass statements and provide her some amount of deniability to cover her own ass if it came out she was, herself, saying “OMGTERRERIST”.  If some third party actually had threatened Random House because of her prompting, she could say “see, I wasn’t really being a bigoted alarmist.”

This is an issue that does not get enough attention, IMO.  That when you whip up frenzy around the potential for violence, you can actually be creating it.  And let me stir this pot myself for a minute, by reminding folks that one of the most important limits to the First Amendment is the immediate incitement of violence.  One thing I think people really need to think about is where the line is between airing something that will spontaneously ignite violence and stirring people up so much about its airing that violence occurs because of the stirring, not the thing itself so much. 

Moving away from all the particulars in this situation, I hope that people can see the really complex relationships at work here between fostering free expression and suppressing that expression—the way expression sort of arcs out into a place where it can become so loosed of its moorings that it leads to the narrowing, rather than the expansion of speech rights. 

I highly recommend Lee Bollinger and Geoffrey Stone’s book, Eternally Vigilant:  Free Speech in the Modern Era, as well as Stone’s Perilous Times:  Free Speech in Wartime, and Anthony Lewis’s Freedom For the Thought We Hate:  A Biography of the First Amendment, the title of which comes from Supreme Court Justice Holmes’s statement that “If there is any principle of the Constitution that more imperatively calls for attachment than any other, it is the principle of free thought, not free thought for those who agree with us but freedom for the thought that we hate.”  Anyone who believes that our free speech rights are safe and secure should check these books out.

Kristen said

And because this one is written by someone of similar cultural (I won’t say religious, because I think a great deal of North Americans are like me—areligious) background, there is a point of connection between author and reader that doesn’t necessarily make itself felt when reading work by women of other cultures.

To which Shewhohashope replied

And this comment is the one that I responded to and the one that I found galling. It seems like you’re saying that someone within the culture writing about it has less relevance to you than an outsider who shares a cultural background with YOU to translate for you. If it is indeed so difficult to connect to a foreign culture, surely it’s even more important for you to read from people within it? Isn’t there a greater danger of misinformation and misunderstanding if an outsider takes it upon themselves to interprete a culture?

This discussion made me (British) think about the experience of fiction about India.  For decades fiction on India as read in Britain was written by the British (Rudyard Kipling, E M Forster, John Masters, Paul Scott, J G Farrell), but more recently has been written by the Indians (Salman Rushdie, Arundhati Roy, Vikram Seth).  Some of us dive straight into the water at the deep end, others of us wade carefully into the shallow end.  Hopefully we are all on the same journey.

How are any of the parties seeking to deprive the general public of freedom of expression or choice? They’re protesting. They aren’t engaged in terrorist action.

If RH recieved threats, they seem to have not come from the students or from Professor Spellberg. RH have returned the rights. This is not an issue of civil rights, because none are being infringed.

Apologies on the scorpion thing- the actual excerpt was one day and several hundred comments ago, so I blanked the reference.

The fact that she trashed this book probably indicates that it was just that - trashy.  When you submit your book to someone and ask for criticism, you should expect criticism - especially when you ask a history professor, an expert in the field.

Clearly Spellman’s response went beyond “trashy,” but it is still the case that the buck started and stopped with Random House.  For whatever reason—and I sure hope we learn more about what actually went on—Random House took an extreme stance based on Spellman’s comments.  But I also want to know more about what happened between Spellman and the mobilization of graduate students.  It strikes me that there are layers of extreme reaction here, and the result is suppression of a book that may or may not have caused anything but some ugly letters and a bunch of curious sales.

SpellBERG, sorry.  I had already hit submit when I noticed my error.

There is a fine line between fact and fiction. For those who follow a religion, its dictates are fact; using these specific facts for the purpose of cheap romantic fiction is not only difficult for followers to digest but a painful experience as well. We respect Random House’s decision to postpone publication of The Jewel of Medina.  As Americans we respect the right of free speech, but as a community, we need to be sensitive towards each other’s perspectives. We must not forsake our common decency for a literary opportunity. Dr. Denise Spellberg’s ability to forecast the potential for an adverse global response to such a publication should be applauded and honored. She is striving to uphold the integrity of the literary field and all writers should stand behind her. Ms. Asra Nomani’s defense of Ms. Shelly Jones’ book is counterintuitive. Such a publication will not bring Ms. Jones’ any prestige in the literary field, as mockery never does. In many cases we need to look beyond just having the right to speak and more towards using that right responsibly.

but there isn’t any sex in the book.

By our way of defining it, maybe not. But we aren’t talking about us. We’re talking about the sensibilities of a culture where such things are not/may not be looked at in the way we do. A point I tried to make earlier.

This isn’t about us. To us, the quoted material is totally innocent, but to those for whom one of the participants is the founder of their faith? I think not. Nor do I find it productive calling Prof. Spellberg names or suggesting she has a selfish agenda. We don’t and can’t know what prompted her not just to express her distaste and disquiet to Random House but to contact the student group. Perhaps she assumed RH would proceed with publication and wanted the students to be aware the book was imminent for some so-far-undefined reason. After all, she had no way of knowing when she sent it that her warning would have the effect it did. And I’ve not seen one single word from her about her reasoning.

Is it a good book? I don’t know—like Sarah, if someone can lay hands on an ARC and wants to send it to me I can address that issue. The situation, however, isn’t really about the quality of the material but how one person with, one would think, considerable knowledge of the culture affected by responded to it. Which was to say that she firmly believed it would offend at least a portion of that culture and could be used as fuel to incite the less rational segments of that culture to violence.

Which, as we all know, is a very real danger no matter how complacent we’ve become since 9/11. It only takes one fanatic with a belt full of C4 to create a tragedy.

We shouldn’t live in constant fear of another attack. At the same time, we do need to exercise the same common sense that would lead us not to decide to go swimming on the beach when there’s a hurricane off the coast. There’s another old cliche that my right to swing a punch stops at the tip of your nose, and when we are dealing with Islamic culture I think we need to stop trying to lump them all into one category and understand they have as much right to have their laws respected as we do to demand our rights under the Constitution.

It’s called common courtesy.

If RH recieved threats, they seem to have not come from the students or from Professor Spellberg. RH have returned the rights. This is not an issue of civil rights, because none are being infringed.

That Random House may have had a right to pull the book is not the issue, IMO; it’s the general shrinking from controversial speech that has become commonplace in the US over the past, oh, seven years or so.  Random House is not bound by any law (beyond the law of contracts) to publish Jones’s book, but there is IMO clearly a larger issue here (and more specifically in this thread) around the voluntary shutting down of expression based on fear, a climate that is directly related to various campaigns ongoing to limit the rights granted and delineated under the First Amendment.  Beyond that is the way this particular discussion is partly focused on the way the Islam has been tied to “terrorism” and the convergence with what happened in this situation and a general belief that Islam is a religion of violence and should be stopped at any cost.  A belief which has had a very direct and powerful effect on our civil rights—in numerous areas. 

Plus, there’s still the open question of “IF” RH received threats.

Yeah, they were kinda sure the book would offend, but they were going to read it!  As well as read all sorts of history in order to speak with authority.  That’s pretty impressive.

Except they wanted one person to read it and tell everyone else about it. That’s more of the same stuff that has been brought up regarding people picketing stuff they haven’t read or seen for themselves. Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for a protest of something that I think is wrong, but I don’t take anyone else’s word for it.

How are any of the parties seeking to deprive the general public of freedom of expression or choice? They’re protesting. They aren’t engaged in terrorist action.

But when the express purpose of the protest is to ensure that “the writer withdraws this book from stores,” then they ARE seeking to deprive someone of freedom of expression.

Which, as we all know, is a very real danger no matter how complacent we’ve become since 9/11. It only takes one fanatic with a belt full of C4 to create a tragedy.

And it only takes one drunk driver to destroy an entire family, and it only takes one jumbo jet falling from the sky to stir terror in the hearts of travelers everywhere.  If so many Constitutional violations over the past 7 years weren’t predicated on exactly this logic, I probably wouldn’t be as cynically irritated as I am by its perpetuation.  But I think people have handed over way to many civil liberties based on exactly this fear to let it go unchallenged. 

We shouldn’t live in constant fear of another attack. At the same time, we do need to exercise the same common sense that would lead us not to decide to go swimming on the beach when there’s a hurricane off the coast. There’s another old cliche that my right to swing a punch stops at the tip of your nose, and when we are dealing with Islamic culture I think we need to stop trying to lump them all into one category and understand they have as much right to have their laws respected as we do to demand our rights under the Constitution.

Well, anyone living in the US is subject to US Constitutional authority, but I agree with you that people need to be much more cognizant that they share their rights with others, and that rights compete with responsibilities in every sphere.  And yes, courtesy can go a long way to cooling heads and fears. 

The question for me is whether mutual understanding is promoted by suppressing controversial, even offensive material or by allowing people to discuss that material openly.  Obviously I pick the second, and believe that too often people confuse being offended with having their rights infringed.  While I completely understand that different religious groups have different values and tolerances for public representation of things that are sacred to them, we must do everything we can to protect a content-neutral approach to expression within a democratic society.  It’s the same logic behind not allowing the victims of violent crimes to make the law (and all you have to do is look at some of the laws emerging from victim lobbying to see how this can backfire—e.g. three strikes in CA, which now even the original proponent has turned against). 

Respect, absolutely.  I completely agree with you that we need more of it in all directions.  But I think we must be careful not to cut off our own rights—be they formal or informal—when those rights benefit all of us (i.e. the right to protest the book’s publication is uniquely democratic, yes?), even if we don’t see the benefit within the short term sting of feeling offended or even vilified.

I’m an atheist, and I think of all religion as a form of insanity. But for most people, most of the time, it’s a kind of insanity no more harmful than the puzzling belief David Beckham is attractive.

I’m with you on both counts, Ann! And I’m not saying I don’t think Muslims should be upset, just that because I’m unable to feel that way myself about similar issues I have a hard time putting myself in their shoes.

It seems like you’re saying that someone within the culture writing about it has less relevance to you than an outsider who shares a cultural background with YOU to translate for you.

I meant that people in general are more receptive to information when it’s presented in a way they’re familiar with by people they’re familiar with. That’s human nature, and it isn’t always perfect, but from what I’ve seen, it’s the truth. And that novels are by nature more accessible to the average western person than scholarly works, and therefore more likely to be read. Are there any novels or narrative nonfiction on this subject by Muslim authors? If there is, I’d definitely be interested in reading it.

Honestly, no one here knows if this book was in any secular sense of the word “disrespectful”. (I can’t go by the Muslim sense of the word, which seems to see both a thoughtful and slightly embellished account of someone’s life—which I would assume, but do not know, this book to be—and something that puts Islam through the Monty Python treatment, as disrespectful.) Accordng to Amunullah, Spellberg used the words “make fun of Islam”. Is that what this book is really about?

How many people have watched, (why do I keep coming back to the Tudors? *hits head*) The Tudors or have seen 300 or even one of the many novels that are made into a miniseries or even something like Evita, become intrigued about a particular element, character, etc. in the programme and gone off to research it or read about them further. You fall in love with the story and that’s such a wonderful treat!

Totally. And with the 29 page bibliography in The Jewel of Medina, those research materials should be easy to come across.

I’m having a hell of a time finding it, but I was reading something a few days ago about how people writing about subaltern cultures to an outside audience have the choice between not discussing it’s faults (which is untenable) or discussing it’s faults even when that leaves the culture open to ideological and/or literal, military attack.

Well, the only other alternative is for dominant cultures to not discuss subaltern cultures at all. Which would be a sad thing.

But what really kills me is that Spellberg is an expert on Middle Eastern/Islamic studies, and one would assume someone with an appreciation of the religion, and she had no problems at all instigating this hideous mess, knowing it would likely result in a negative portrayal of Muslims to the average North American who reads the headline, listens to the soundbite, and doesn’t tend to delve much deeper than that.

I can admit, I initially jumped the gun a bit, but clarification of that 7-point strategy has reassured me greatly. (Although I still think it’s not nice to bombard a person with emails demanding an apology based on religious beliefs to which she does not subscribe.)

Welcome to the embrace of separation of church and state!  It covers the Islamic religions as well.  Which means no matter if there is a mandate within the religion itself, the US does not have to follow it.

Sucks huh?  Cause I sure as shit would like some of MY religious mandates followed by everyone. 

I sympathize that the Islamic religion has to deal with this.  But in the end you either deal with it or you leave.  Oh, you could fight it and threaten but folks in the US really dislike that for some odd reason.

In terms of authors stabbing other authors in the back this is the exact same as the DVCode.  In terms of getting something printed that people find repugnant it’s the same as numerous books out there.  The Islamic religion does not get a special pass.  It does not get it’s hand held.  It gets ripped up just like every other religion (or non-religion).  That is life.

(This was a general “you” not to specific folk on the board or thread)

I realise that not everyone in the thread is clued up on Islam.

Deeply not clued up, and appreciating the explanations.

Me too. And thanks, Kat, for that bit about th sectarian differences. I’ve always found it a bit galling how the average Mulsim in the Middle East gets crapped on by American foreign policy when Saudi Arabia, arguably the seat of fundamentalism in the region, gets off scott-free.

This is the same phenomenon that we’re seeing here in the comments re Ziggy and shewhohashope. It seems to me that people are often able to coexist, it’s collective groupings that have major conflicts (and every culture finds some way of creating an “other” be it based on race, religion, class, ethnic origin, what-have-you).

Totally, and that has more to do with simple human nature than culture. We all do it, it just galls when you get accused of it by someone who refuses to see that they’re doing it themselves.

The question for me is whether mutual understanding is promoted by suppressing controversial, even offensive material or by allowing people to discuss that material openly.  Obviously I pick the second, and believe that too often people confuse being offended with having their rights infringed.

Robin, will you marry me?

Just a small point.  Many of us are continually writing about cultures that we observe from the outside (e.g., historians, archaeologists, anthropologists).  A British historian writing about medieval Britain is no more part of the culture that she is examining than is a modern American examining the culture of modern (or ancient) Islam,  But as humans, we have the right to study other humans, whether they are of our own, current, culture, our own past, another region’s past, or another region’s present.  To deny that is to deny any freedom of academic research, of the fundamental search for knowledge and enlightement.  The detachment that is a part of observing another culture, based on achieving as much objectivity as possible, in fact results in a more fair and balanced assessment than anyone can possibly achieve when restricted by custom, faith or specific prohibitions current within a culture, religious or otherwise. 

And following on from that:  I fully accept and understand that there may be a veto, with a sound historical pedigree, within the Moslem faith on writing about the Prophet Mohammed and his circle in certain ways.  There are rules about the Buddha as well, and about any and all members of the Hindu pantheon, and those of us who sometimes need to refer to them ask for guidance and advice about what to say and how to say it, so that we do not hurt and offend those whose devotion is focused on these persons.

Those who are outside a faith are not subject to any veto. They are subject only to the universal rules of courtesy and respect towards other human beings.  They may still write, with respect and solemnity about any of the world’s great religions, but they are not constrained by rules that are devised for the faithful to follow within that creed. 

I am sure that many ancient devotees of the great universal mother-goddess Isis would feel uncomfortable about some of the analyses that modern scholars have applied to her cult.  I have personally written a great deal about early (Roman period) Christianity, and I am absolutely certain that I, and others like me, who are historians but not Christians, can often see the wider picture more clearly than those who are restricted by their present-day adherence to the faith whose early evolution they are studying.  Put simply, Christian apologists do not write as well about early Christianity as we unbelievers do, because they are writing from within a biased mind-set.

I have the most profound respect for the religious beliefs of other human beings, past and present, though I share none of them.  But as a human being, I consider that I have the right to subject any and all of them to rational scholarly analysis.

But what really kills me is that Spellberg is an expert on Middle Eastern/Islamic studies, and one would assume someone with an appreciation of the religion, and she had no problems at all instigating this hideous mess, knowing it would likely result in a negative portrayal of Muslims to the average North American who reads the headline, listens to the soundbite, and doesn’t tend to delve much deeper than that.

Academics often have a very low opinion of their influence, so I wouldn’t assume that she thought she’d even be a footnote in this situation.  Did she actually promote the withdrawal of the book, or was she acting out of concern that the Muslim community would react strongly and negatively?  I do know of academics whose personal ideologies eclipse their respect for academic freedom, but it’s not the norm.  Does Spellberg approve of RH’s withdrawal of the book or not?  This is all stuff I want to know.  But we don’t know why she reacted as she did, which is one of the must frustrating things in this situation for me.  Because she’s central to the drama, but it’s not clear exactly what happened between her reading the book and RH withdrawing it. 

One thing I do know (from my own experience) is that anything connected to the Middle East in general tends to create REALLY strong, sometimes irrational, responses, even among perfectly intelligent people.  It’s just that here we need to pinpoint how various reactions moved the situation to its endpoint—was it one or two isolated reactions, or an accumulation of many different things.

AgTigress, very well said!

So, the Shi’a are what the news outlets call Shi’ites?

Hey, Anaquana, that’s right! “Shi’ites” (Shi’a is the singular and the plural) and my personal favourite, “Sunnies.” Like Sunnis are some variety of pancake or something.

I have the most profound respect for the religious beliefs of other human beings, past and present, though I share none of them.  But as a human being, I consider that I have the right to subject any and all of them to rational scholarly analysis.

Cheers to that! I wish had more colleagues like you, AgTigress.

And with the 29 page bibliography in The Jewel of Medina, those research materials should be easy to come across.

That’s a longer bibliography than my friend’s dissertation! Seriously, that is epic but at the same SO important. Sherry Jones could publish the bibliography independently of the text! I’d buy that, too!

IMOThank you Flo [and AgTigress.

Dr. Denise Spellberg’s ability to forecast the potential for an adverse global response to such a publication should be applauded and honored. She is striving to uphold the integrity of the literary field and all writers should stand behind her.

I could buy this, if Spellberg’s “warning” was not preceded by her attempt to publicize the existence of this book.  If she truly feared the reaction this book might engender, it seems counter-intuitive to put out the red alert to the group she’s paranoid about before putting her concerns before the publisher.  And neither the folks at Random House or the people in the Islamic community seem to characterize her “forecasting” as the level-headed concerns of a scholar.  I see this particular course of events, and “integrity” is not the word that comes to mind.  “Disingenuous” is the kindest thing I can come up with.

Uh… that reads and

“concerned” said: There is a fine line between fact and fiction. For those who follow a religion, its dictates are fact; using these specific facts for the purpose of cheap romantic fiction is not only difficult for followers to digest but a painful experience as well. We respect Random House’s decision to postpone publication of The Jewel of Medina.

If you are so concerned, try using a name to identify yourself with. Anyone else smell sacred cow that lives in Austin? Hook ‘em, horns indeed.

Put simply, Christian apologists do not write as well about early Christianity as we unbelievers do, because they are writing from within a biased mind-set

I think that in itself is a biased mindset. If you’re starting from the position of an apologist, sure. But you can be a Christian and still write interesting, unbiased accounts of the growth of Christianity under Roman rule. In fact, I find those things fascinating, because it forces those of us who DO believe to question our beliefs and their foundations.

To me, saying that a person of faith cannot ever approach, say, religious history or religiously-inspired literature with an unbiased viewpoint is essentially to say that a person of faith cannot be a scholar. And that is patently untrue and unfair.

May I just make another couple of points.  Writing from outside a cultural milieu (different place, different period, different religion) is something that historians, archaeologists and anthropologists do all the time, and it is actually by far the best way of attaining an objective, detached viewpoint that frequently perceives wider patterns than can possibly be seen by those constrained by a particular set of cultural rules and mores.

I accept fully that, within Islam, certain rules exist about the ways in which the Prophet Mohammed may be represented and discussed.  I understand and accept the reasons for this, and the history involved – as I said above, some of these rules are not peculiar to Islam anyway.  But the rules do not apply to those of us who are not members of the faith concerned.  I have written a great deal in my time about early (Roman period) Christianity:  I am not a Christian, though I grew up in a society that has been heavily influenced by Christianity for a couple of millennia.  I hope that I have always treated this religious faith, and others, with the respect it deserves, as a belief-system that was of enormous importance to millions of my own ancestors.  But I am also quite certain that I, and people like me, can often perceive broader patterns and connections that deeply committed modern Christians writing about the early centuries of their own faith miss completely.  They are looking out from within a fenced enclosure, and cannot see the wider picture.  Objectivity is virtually impossible when a researcher is a devotee of a specific ideology, religious or political, and long-term societal changes will be seen through a distorting mirror.

I am sure that the ancient worshippers of the great universal mother-goddess Isis would be uneasy about some of the things that modern scholars have written about her cult, but they should not be.  If we always take care to apply the ordinary rules of courtesy and humility, there is no reason why we should not be free to analyse and assess what we will.  There are rules about the ways in which we may or may not speak of the Buddha, of the many members of the Hindu pantheon, of the histories and stories of Native American peoples, as well as the rules that apply within Judaism, Christianity and Islam.  But if I want to write ‘god’ rather than ‘G-d’ when speaking of the deity of Judaism, I am allowed to do so, precisely because I am not a Jew.  It is not possible to blaspheme a religion in which one does not believe;  only a believer can do that.

So, notwithstanding all the sensitivities of observant Moslems - particularly understandable at a time like this -  I consider that the writer of this book was fully entitled to write about her subject.  She was not entitled to tinker with historical facts, if she did so, but that is a separate issue, an academic one rather than a religious one.

Objectivity is virtually impossible when a researcher is a devotee of a specific ideology, religious or political, and long-term societal changes will be seen through a distorting mirror.

So, you yourself believe in nothing, then? You hold no ideologies whatsoever?

True objectivity is impossible. That’s been widely accepted in academia for several decades now. But by owning our biases, we can make our subjective approaches more widely applicable, if not ever truly objective.

There is a HUGE difference between a person committed to an ideology who cannot see beyond that ideology, and a person who is committed, but by acknowledging that committment and testing the boundaries thereof, can recognize and gesture towards his or her own limitations. Making blanket statements about the abilities of researchers who believe in anything—whether that be democracy, feminism, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or little green men—to conduct objective research is not a very carefully-thought-out approach to scholarship.

(spaminator: labor75. Yeah, I’m laboring. On finishing my dissertation even as I type this, so I’m a little prickly about suggestions regarding my abilities as a scholar.)

I am very sorry about what was essentially a double post - it was a computer blip.  No, a brain blip, really.  I thought my earlier post had not appeared, and so I went away and re-wrote and posted the blasted thing again.  Feel free to beat me over the head and shoulders with a big stick.

To me, saying that a person of faith cannot ever approach, say, religious history or religiously-inspired literature with an unbiased viewpoint is essentially to say that a person of faith cannot be a scholar.

Picking up Snarkhunter’s point:  no, I am not suggesting that devout Christians cannot write good, interesting and sound academic work about early Christianity, and I am certainly not saying that they cannot be good scholars.  But I do say that they cannot easily be unbiased.  In this, they are like the rest of us:  we are all biased in some way or another, however hard we try to achieve detachment and objectivity.  Religious belief is a particular kind of bias that is far tougher to break through than biases like sex, generation, nationality, class and all those things, because it has the status of representing Universal Truth to the believer.

If I want to say something about the British Empire, and decide that I must examine what I have said in the light of the fact that, though belonging to a later generation, I am British rather than Indian or an African, I can make a conscious effort to try to rise above or beyond my unconsciously British viewpoint, to try to see the perspective of other nations.  I may not succeed, but the exercise is feasible.  But a devout Christian usually does find it a great deal harder to become detached from his own certainties and to see things from the point of view of a devotee of Bacchus, because he is hampered by the belief that Christianity is true in a way that the worship of Bacchus is not.  Ultimately he does not usually wish to be objective about religion.  I’m not saying it can’t be done, and I am certainly not saying that religious persons cannot be good scholars, but I think that they can have particular hurdles to clear where their own beliefs are concerned.

Overall, I am perfectly happy to read the work of Christian scholars on early Christianity, but I automatically make allowances for the fact that they see certain elements of that story in a different way, a way that I consider deeply subjective.

Writing from outside a cultural milieu (different place, different period, different religion) is something that historians, archaeologists and anthropologists do all the time, and it is actually by far the best way of attaining an objective, detached viewpoint that frequently perceives wider patterns than can possibly be seen by those constrained by a particular set of cultural rules and mores. [...]

Objectivity is virtually impossible when a researcher is a devotee of a specific ideology, religious or political, and long-term societal changes will be seen through a distorting mirror.

I don’t think anyone can be entirely objective, and if one comes to a subject as an outsider it could be quite easy to miss things because of the biases and assumptions that one brings in from one’s own culture. When we now look back at much of the history and anthropology written in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries by Western authors about cultures other than their own, I’m sure we’d find what we’d consider to be biases and prejudices which affected their attitudes to their subjects and prevented them from being objective. But, of course, our attitude to both them and to their subject matter will be shaped by our cultural context.

I also suspect one may be at greater risk of lacking objectivity if one assumes one is objective, because then one is less likely to spend time trying to find the biases in one’s own analysis.

True objectivity is impossible. That’s been widely accepted in academia for several decades now. But by owning our biases, we can make our subjective approaches more widely applicable, if not ever truly objective.

Absolutely.  I agree one hundred percent. 

But the fact that perfection is unattainable does not prevent us from striving towards it.  In my experience (more than 45 years in academia, so I have thought about it quite a lot   ;-) ) religious ideologies tend to present greater problems for those that espouse them than political ideologies. 

There is one other point on this topic, Snarkhunter:  one of the many subtle effects of feminism over the last 40+ years is that it is now normal for academics actually to speak in the first person and thus to admit their potential biases, enabling the reader to take them into account, as you very properly say you do.  When I was first writing for publication, that was not allowed.  Check any of your sources (I don’t know your subject - mine is European and Classical Archaeology)  written before the 2nd World War, and you will see statements like, ‘It is clear that…’;  ‘the evidence indicates that…’, rather than, ‘in my view, the evidence indicates that…’

The reader had to guess the writer’s biases, because the style was always designed to appear totally detached and objective.  Some things have improved.

When I was first writing for publication, that was not allowed.

Oh, yeah. I know that. Even in my field (literary studies) it was common to offer one’s interpretation as if it had been handed down from on high.

As I said above, I’m a wee bit short tempered at the moment, as I have less than four days to finish revising my diss., so I tend to get snippy at the drop of a hat. And one of my own hobby horses is the perception of people of faith as inadequate scholars. I think those biases *can* be difficult to surpass—but no more so than any ingrained cultural bias. And, especially if you came to religion/faith later in life or learned to question things young, then I think it’s no more difficult to overcome such biases than it is to overcome political ones. Here, I’m admittedly extrapolating only from my own experience and those of a handful of others, so maybe I’m wrong. But that’s just been my own experience.

I certainly don’t doubt that Dr Spellberg is a great professor and a good scholar,  however her scholarship has become conflated with her critique of the Jones novel. I also agree with the repeated comments that academics should be kept away from literature because this scenario is playing-out much like the peer review process, which, if you’ve ever been through it, is enough to send anyone to the window ledge as it demonstrates academics’ profound lack of social skills. (No offense to anyone in academia who actually HAS social skills.)

It’s fantastic PR for everyone, although perhaps not the original publisher. If it perpetuates and promotes dialogue, then it is certainly worth publishing.

Oh, yeah. I know that. Even in my field (literary studies) it was common to
offer one’s interpretation as if it had been handed down from on high.

BWAHAHAHAH!!!! That is love.

My undergrad adviser told me once that when he dies I can make supplications at his tomb.

academics should be kept away from literature because this scenario is playing-out much like the peer review process

Just to clarify, do you mean that academics should only be allowed to read fictional works after they’ve been published?  I’d tend to assume you don’t want to ban all academics from ever reading or commenting on literature! ;-)

Just to clarify, do you mean that academics should only be allowed to read fictional works after they’ve been published?  I’d tend to assume you don’t want to ban all academics from ever reading or commenting on literature! ;-)

Oh yes, Laura, that is what I mean! Of course they should read, however academics should be left in their playpens and given literature only AFTER it is distributed en masse at which point, they may go all-out. If someone gave me something to read that was literature, I would probably tear my hair out as well, hopefully I would not run around screaming like a spastic in a burning house, but all the same I like to think I could handle it. Truthfully though, I know I couldn’t because I think too much. I’d complicate everything!

I actually have a friend whose gothic romance is being released this Autumn, and her mentor, a Gothic Literature professor, declined to write a tag/comment/review whatever it’s called, my brain is squashed, because he didn’t feel that it would really contribute anything and he didn’t feel that it was really his sphere as his work and her work are on two separate sides of the genre.

Two points to make.  While IMO it is Denise Spellberg who deserves blame for this, not any Muslim group, I did take a look at the Husaini Youths website which called for the 7 point plan.  Some posters here have correctly noted that it did not call for violence, and did call for a volunteer to read the book and disseminate the information gleaned to everyone else.  It also demanded removal of the book and an apology from the author to all Muslims (before any of them had read it).  Big deal was my first reaction.  All kinds of activist groups (Christian, Jewish, animal rights, etc.) behave the same way.  Then I started skimming the site further and came across a forum about Salman Rushdie.  Because of the parallels I decided to read the posts.  Let me say that I found them disturbing.  I suspect most people here would as well.  Many bemoaned the fact that the fatwa had not been carried out and believed that Muslims showed weakness by not killing Rushdie, resulting in more blasphemous writing.  They believed the fatwa should have been enforced and Rushdie killed.  These are the people that Spellberg attempted to stir up.

One other small aside—another poster referred to the Iranian revolution as

“an example of a modern Shi’a revolt: a white revolution. (Until the Ayatollah started his mass-executions however and things have gotten out-of-control again.)”  - [Sorry for messing up the quote format]

I would just like to point out that the mass executions begin within three weeks of the revolution.  Things got “out-of-control” almost immediately.  Many who participated in the revolution quickly discovered that they had been deceived, as the leftists and intellectuals were very quickly murdered and imprisoned by the Islamists led by Khomeini.

Ahahahahaha. Hook ‘em.

There’s only one response available to me whenever I read “Hook ‘em”: Gig ‘em. ;-) 

Whoo, I made it through all 200+ posts and 2 pages. What a great discussion. Thank you to SB for allowing it to flourish. Also, thank you to SWHH, Popin and the others that I know I’m forgetting for your kindness in explaining the details of Islam.

I do have one question, if it isn’t considered impertinent, how are the (saws), (ra), and (pbuh) pronounced? I enjoy hearing other languages, especially when they appear to be as melodic as those phrases. Lots of vowel sounds. Possible intonation changes, maybe.

I’m a wee bit short tempered at the moment, as I have less than four days to finish revising my diss., so I tend to get snippy at the drop of a hat.

Understood!  Hope it all works out well.  Just remember that however carefully you proofread and revise, some error will be bound to get through - so don’t worry too much about it.  ;-)

Man, I don’t mean to pile up on poor Kristen S. but

What I meant by that statement is that the segment of the Muslim population (or any population) we hear most are those who shout the loudest, namely the reactionaries. The silent majority is named so for a reason, and are sometimes so silent it’s like they’re not even there.

I’ll qualify by saying that I get most of my news on such issues at BBC and NYT (because they feature prominently in my google page RSS feed). My point: 9.9/10 when there’s a reasonably long article on violent protests and terrorism acts there are imams, some rep from a local/national Muslim group and the like who stresses that condemn the acts in clear terms. After 9/11 there was a huuuuuge peace protest put on by Muslims and the same occurred after the bombings in London. There are a jazillion Muslim websites where people make such comments every day. I subscribe to a RSS feed that regularly highlights Muslim-oriented blog posts and articles that span the spectrum.

You have to understand, though, that newspapers want clicks and papers to move. The reasonable folks are not going to be quoted in the headline or placed as a lead. They’re going to be tucked in the middle somewhere and then rarely mentioned again, although it’s not unusual to see their commiserating remarks tie up the article at the very end (if you get that far).

My friends and I make a joke about this kind of comment whenever we see them. Something like how, typically, persons who make these sort of comments won’t be satisfied until a Muslim family comes up to their door step, shakes their hand, and apologise for shit they had nothing to do with.  I don’t think that’s what you personally require but I also don’t think there’s this huge wall blocking you from accessing more reasonable rhetoric in Muslim circles.

I would just like to point out that the mass executions begin within three
weeks of the revolution. Things got “out-of-control” almost immediately.
Many who participated in the revolution quickly discovered that they had
been deceived, as the leftists and intellectuals were very quickly murdered
and imprisoned by the Islamists led by Khomeini.

Yes, of course. Thanks for adding to my little Shi’a blurb! I’m so focused on contemporary Iran right now that the Revolutionary period is way back in my addled brain and in the midst of that are only stats on prostitution. I think I need a holiday.

I do have one question, if it isn’t considered impertinent, how are the (saws), (ra), and (pbuh) pronounced? I enjoy hearing other languages, especially when they appear to be as melodic as those phrases. Lots of vowel sounds. Possible intonation changes, maybe.

I also suspect one may be at greater risk of lacking objectivity if one assumes one is objective, because then one is less likely to spend time trying to find the biases in one’s own analysis.

I agree that that’s a weakness, but I go back to your first point that it’s never possible to be entirely unbiased.  Both strong and weak reactions to issues can reveal blind spots and hot buttons, and sometimes an extensive hunt for bias is more about shoring up an argument than really questioning one’s assumptions.

I don’t believe it’s even possible for us to entirely *know* our biases, and I therefore don’t think one is ever at “greater risk of lacking objectivity”.  We’re *all* at risk of that, all the time, no matter how much attention we give to bias.  Paradoxically, a speaker may be complacent and *not* question her assumptions, but there’s some chance that her view does happen to be the objective truth.

Often we’re taught to critique people’s views in part based on how rigorously they reveal biases, e.g. “I’m (fe)male and young/old, my parents/teachers say (X), and I do(n’t) live in an area of open (Muslim, feminist, whatever) culture, but….”  That approach *is* useful: many online misunderstandings are resolved by backtracking with that type of self-qualification.  However, I think the strength of the caveats is often of tone, not content; I’m not convinced that the attempt at revealing bias validates either the speaker’s scholarship or the actual idea expressed after all those caveats.

Which isn’t to say that examining bias or correcting untruths is useless, but differences around how to judge bias and truth-seeking are important to whether historical fiction is seen as explorative or offensive.

Similarly, I think what some of us react to in Spellberg’s actions is partly a lack of signaling around types of truth-seeking.  Someone here said Spellberg’s scholarship is not as terrible as has been portrayed.  The articles show her as saying that the book is offensive and trash, will cause harm, and by inference that her interpretation is the Truth.  Unfortunately, even if she didn’t put all of it like that (though some of it’s clearly her own words), newspapers rarely print that kind of equivocal signaling: what comes across to discussants as “I’m one of the thoughtful ones; I don’t assume or speak for others” sounds to the newspaper like waffling and kills the story.

Thanks Rfp and snarkhunter for saying what I would have about “objectivity” as an outsider. I came to this conversation late again- damn my dayjob!

Ahoy RANT ahead!

Kat and shewhohashope are too nice to say it. But as someone who is often in a position of trying to educate folks on certain shared histories, viewpoints etc of my racial/cultural group: JUST BECAUSE YOU HAVE NEVER HEARD OF IT DOESNT MEAN IT DOESNT EXIST.

Its really tiresome having to explain things all the livelong day because individuals are convinced that their particular gender/race/ethnic/class/religious/age/sexual orientation viewpoint is the only one.

Take your fucking blinders off.

How about a little intellectual curiosity. If you dont know what something means look it the fuck up. And for the love of God use something the fuck else then wikipedia!!!

I know I am sounding like a bitch but we are on SBTB afterall. But I also teach on the graduate level on multiculturalism, crossculturalism and bias. And it still continually boggles my mind on how rarely people if ever THINK about and try to embody other viewpoints and experiences. Like really try to walk in someone elses shoes. Watch a movie or turn on the TV (AlJazeera anyone?) or read a book from the real vantage point of the group you are trying to understand ( that means seeking out the material produced by the people for the people of that group oftentimes).

Sometimes there is this RAGE that tries to come up at the fact that you ( general you reading this) get to be so clueless in your privilege of whatever stripe and fuck my day up constantly with your ignorance and assumptions and ascribing characteristics to me that have nothing the fuck to do with me. Meanwhile I need to stay calm and answer all your damn questions and I must stay calm (breath deep breaths) lest you call me whiny/angry/terroristic/bitchy/victim/entitled/thin-skinned/uncivilized/threatening. So sometimes I wish if I had super powers I would be the Crosscultural Cluecake Fairy.

Its funny but its not. I laugh, I am angry so…There is the rage and then there is the utter exhaustion of having to stay calm, suck it up and explain. So while its great that you are on fire for learning this time and want to pat yourself on the back. Cause its okay Because you had no idea. Please pick up the slack next time and just try to think outside yourself. Go beyond the anger and ask “Why would they be angry?” or “Why would someone think this way”. Please please go a little deeper, ask questions and be critical and try to do some work. Cause I tell you its exhausting and the load would be so much lighter if others would pick up the slack.

So sometimes I wish if I had super powers I would be the Crosscultural
Cluecake Fairy.

That is an amazing, brilliant rant. I think I love you.

That is an amazing, brilliant rant.

I have complete sympathy with Trumystique’s anger, and I get she’s angry and tired and frustrated.  But people have to start somewhere, and when someone as helpful as shewhohashope offers to explain stuff that some of us have never thought about (like the reason behind the prohibition on portrayals of the Prophet, or lives of his family), of course people eager to learn are going to exploit that. She’s a natural teacher. Doesn’t mean we’re too lazy to look it up. It means we’re alerted to what we didn’t know we didn’t know, and now we know to dig deeper.

Trumystique, there seems to be a very diverse group of people discussing this - some are academics, some have higher education, some do not. Fairly obviously, quite a number of us have never engaged in a discussion about Islam at all before. Even when you’re university trained, as I am, it can be hard to know where to start in trying to understand a subject, and I’m as guilty as any of shying away from the whole Islam thing as being too hard and too fraught with politics to understand. shewhohashope gave me access to the subject in a way I might never have found on her own, and while she was under no obligation to do that, I salute her for being so patient and kind.

I’ll try to do better next time, and I’m sure a lot of others will. I hope you can bear with us.

Gosh, I’m afraid that unlike Ann Somerville, I don’t have complete sympathy with Trumystique’s anger.  Call me obtuse, but what horrible injustice does she suffer that fills her with rage?  I had just read an article about the Sudanese Lost Boy who is now an Olympic athlete and I guess the disparity between his outlook on life and humanity versus Trumystique’s hit me pretty hard.  Life is miraculous and wonderful and terrible.  Everyone feels like they suffer injustice and misunderstanding.  It seems to me that often, those who suffer it the most, are the most compassionate and empathic.

what horrible injustice does she suffer that fills her with rage?

I dunno, maybe Trumystique keeps seeing garbage like the comment by ‘Over it’ and this spewing, and has had a gutful. I’m not even Muslim but I feel sick after reading that.

Try living as an obvious foreigner/outsider just for a week even in America - or Britain or Australia - and get some idea of what it’s like to be looked at funny all the time, to have people ask inane questions about your background, or ‘where do you come from?’ when you were born right here. Now imagine living your entire life like that. Imagine, on top of it all, people assume you’re a criminal/terrorist/supporter of paedophilia, because of your faith, your name or how you dress.

Can’t do it? Can’t imagine it? Then you really don’t understand why people like Trumystique blow their tops from time to time.

Kat and shewhohashope are too nice to say it. But as someone who is often in a position of trying to educate folks on certain shared histories, viewpoints etc of my racial/cultural group: JUST BECAUSE YOU HAVE NEVER HEARD OF IT DOESNT MEAN IT DOESNT EXIST.

I just really liked the “Cluecake Fairy” bit of that rant because it was bloody amazing!

I also just want to applaud Trumystique and live vicariously through her. I got sacked for my “Get a F**king Clue” pedagogy. First strike: taking the kids to the local mosque (read: oh my God you took the impressionable young minds into a terrorist cell); second strike: the series of documentaries in World Religions which forced the kids to not only go outside of their comfort zones spiritually, but also socially and intellectually. My particular favourite is split between “Surprise, guess what Hallowe’en is!” and the crack smoking Amish kids in their backyard. Finally, third strike: sending them out into their communities to visit houses of worship that were completely different from their own. It was like asking them to run naked across the Quad before they could pass my class. I assigned a kid a report on “Satanism” and he acted like I was asking him to convert to it, of course, he also gave me the bird, so he’s not the best example.

The greatest moment however, was hands down when I asked the students, “What do you think of when you think of Islam?” and my one student in hijab asked me, Should I go outside so they can answer? I anticipated it, but I had hopes that it wouldn’t actually have to be asked. Obviously she stayed, but the kids continued to be obstinate. Sometimes I’m not sure if it’s obstinacy or just plain stupidity, sometimes there’s a fine line with the little fundos.

I’m not sure if it’s a self-isolating thing due to a conservative school or if they’re a casualty of the information age and taking-in all of the worst of globalisation. I’m really tired of kicking them out the door and banging my fist on the desk. Sometimes I just want to shake them and ask them, “HOW DO YOU FUNCTION IN THIS WORLD???” READ. A. BOOK. TEAR YOURSELF AWAY FROM YAHOO! NEWS FOR FIVE MINUTES AND GO READ AN ACTUAL BOOK. The most they are capable of is reading a textbook. Any comprehension or intellectual initiative outside of that, unless it relates to them getting a higher grade is a non-event.

Sometimes people accuse me of being an intellectual snob because I get really disgusted with people who just sort of sit around and absorb the b.s. that is filtered to them rather than taking-up the initiative to go find-out about it. Well? If I’m intellectually curious and I take the time to look things up, why don’t you? No, it’s not just my bloody job, it’s my responsibility not to be wandering this earth as anything else. We have libraries, scholars, interfaith dialogues, all sorts of initiatives to facilitate this and make it as easy as humanly possible for people to just wander outside of their comfort zones, not into a tangible space, but perhaps just once in a while, into a new sphere of learning. No one says you have to stay there or adopt the ideology, but just give it a go. The worst that can happen is that you get another wrinkle in your brain and some more useless information for cocktail parties (well, that’s what we used to say about Peninsular Literature, someday I’ll have to discuss El Cid in a cocktail dress and at least I’ll be prepared!)

Anyway, some more intellectual curiosity in this world would certainly be a deterrent when controversies arise, politics snowball out of control, and well, the cyclical nature of world history starts to become more and more evident. Maybe people wouldn’t be QUITE so surprised when fur starts flying or people are offended by certain bodies of literature.

Actually Ann, I have done that.  I now live in the very center of one of the most ethnically and racially diverse cities in the world.  I’ve also lived as a young single woman in the midst of a Muslim neighborhood in London.  I’ve also lived in a coed Ivy league university dorm with Christian evangelical students and Muslim males as my neighbors.  I’m an agnostic Jew myself.  I’ve dealt with sexism, racism, anti-semitism, so yes Ann, I can certainly imagine those things and I think it’s galling and presumptuous of you to assume that I can’t.  I just wonder why you, as a writer of homo-erotic fiction, are so furious at the culture which lets you write it (and good for you for doing so) but so eager to bend over backwards to accommodate a culture which tortures, hangs and beheads people for engaging in the behavior you write about, and would consider it justifiable to stone you to death for even writing about it?

I’m off to bed now. Usually I am patient and I actually teach people and stay calm and explain, explain, explain. I meet people where they are. And I work with them to get to the next level. And I am patient while they do it. And then comes another crop of people/students/people at my workplace and they come with the same questions and I do it all over again.

LAbred, what level of suffering/injustice would be acceptable for me to experience before I can express that sometimes I feel rage? Do I have to be a victim of genocide? Do I have to be a victim of rape? Extreme poverty?Police brutality? People questioning me about the way I dress (headscarf)? People questioning me about whether I deserve my academic position or am where I am because of quota? Or the thousands of little indignities that ( I assume) you never have to think about on a daily basis?

Or would you just prefer that I suffer in silence. Swallow it down, be a martyr, and a wonderful testament to the triumph of the human spirit. Or once in a while am I allowed to get angry, let a little rage out and say under my breath: You know what, fuck you, too.?

so eager to bend over backwards to accommodate a culture

Where have I done that? I’m strongly opposed to the aspects of Islamic/Middle Eastern culture which represses freedom of speech, individual freedom, sexual rights and women. As an atheist, some of the tenets of Islam baffle, and in some cases, actively upset me - and so do those of Judaism, Christianity and just about any religion you care to name. An atheist in a theist society is always walking on eggs. I need to understand what’s going on, however ridiculous I find the beliefs.

But not everything that baffles or even threatens me, is objectively bad. I don’t believe in the prohibition on representing the Prophet, but I now understand it better. I don’t believe it’s wrong to write about Aisha any more than it is about any other historical figure, but now understand why it causes offence. Is it wrong to try and understand, even if you don’t agree?

I’ve dealt with sexism, racism, anti-semitism

Then your comment to Trumystique puzzles me.

it’s galling and presumptuous of you to assume that I can’t.

I never presumed anything.

People questioning me about the way I dress (headscarf)?

Trumystique, you just said in another thread you’re not Muslim. Perhaps you could explain where exactly you are coming from, because I’m confused.

I was asking: what is the key ( what would I have to suffer or have suffered) to legitimately lay claim to justifiable rage?

I wasnt laying claim to any or all of those among the list.( Though I can claim some but not all of that list).  LAbred seemed to imply that the only way I could be justified in my rage were if I were a lost boy of Sudan. Or thats how my tired brain interpreted it.

Can’t do it? Can’t imagine it? Then you really don’t understand why people like Trumystique blow their tops from time to time.

Ann, I took the above comment as a presumption.  If I misinterpreted it, my apologies.  And I applaud you for trying to understand other belief systems.  But with all due respect, in this thread, you seem to me to react far more harshly to comments questioning Islam’s tolerance than to comments complaining about western Islamophobia.  At least that is my impression.  Looking back at your posts, you may disagree. 
As an agnostic, bordering on atheist, I have issues with most religions as well.  But my bottom line is secularism.  Judaism and Christianity have reformed to the degree that they can coexist in a secular world.  Not all adherents of those religions have, but the religions themselves acknowledge the separation of church and state.  So do many Muslims.  But Islam the religion does not.  Tolerance is a two way street.  While I feel badly that shewhohashope suffers prejudice, I also feel it is unfair and futile to expect non-Muslims to ignore Muslim intolerance, threats and violence.  As a Jew by birth, I would not even be allowed to enter Saudi Arabia for instance.  So forgive me if I am not as sympathetic to Trumystique’s complaints as I perhaps should be.  I know many Muslims, heroes, whom I count as my friends.  Some of them have escaped horrific persecution, torture, imprisonment in Iran by the Islamic government for speaking out for tolerance and freedom.  Unfortunately, I have been taught by these friends that radical Islam perceives tolerance and compromise as weakness and reacts accordingly.  That is so hard for outsiders to comprehend or believe.  And it’s even harder on those Muslims who are trying to reform the religion through peaceful means.  I’m afraid sometimes our well-intentioned efforts to “understand” only backfire and strengthen the hardliners and weaken the reformers.
Sorry for rambling, but I felt as misunderstood as I imagine you did.

Looking back at your posts, you may disagree.

I do.

I’m participating in this conversation under a number of disadvantages - my own hefty dose of Islamophobia, my anti-theistic beliefs, my white, dominant cultural privilege and a vast ignorance on the actual subject matter of the book - and am trying to be scrupulously fair to balance them. I regret if I’ve made mistakes in handling that balance. I’m conscious of making many mistakes in discussing race, religion and sexuality in the past, and causing huge offense. I’m trying to avoid that here.

But I did say above not to judge all Muslims by Osama bin Laden, any more than you should judge all Christians by Fred Phelps, and I believe that (any more than I want people to think Richard Dawkins to represent all atheists, horrible little man.) Islam is no more or less exclusionary or intolerant than Judaism and Christianity. Hideous things have been done and are being done in the name of all three religions, and the radical elements of each are pretty damn offensive, dangerous and violent. I have no interest in ‘understanding’ radical Islam, or radical religionists of any stripe - or excusing them. However, just with Judaism and Christianity, Islam is not homogenous. It was explained upthread that for instance, two main branches of Islam have very different approaches to dissent and reform. This is analogous to, say, Episcopalian Christianity and Evangelical Christianity. They don’t agree about much of anything.

What people have consistently forgotten in this discussion is the fact hardline Muslims have nothing to do with Random House’s decision. No one threatened to bomb them or fly a plane into their head office. Now, the book may cause that kind of reaction, and I take on board the experience of those living in the Middle East and their fears. But RH’s decision has been used as an excuse for a massive burst of Muslim bashing, and we can’t sit here as liberal intellectuals, tuttutting about those horrid Iranians etc, if we act as irrationally as any mad mullah. RH’s decision is a fact, the reaction of the Middle East to the book is only speculation. I’ve been trying to stick to what’s actually happened, not what is feared might happen.

I’m afraid, everyone seems to have missed the point completely. I don’t believe anyone would object to a love story with Arab or Muslim protagonists. Unfortunately, the Muslims themselves will object terribly to any mention of their PROPHET in ANY capacity other than his role in the Quran. I’m sure the authoress wants only to humanise the MAN, but apparently, even that is blasphemy and a punishable act. I mean, just because nowadays, we have no respect for our own religious icons, doesn’t mean that we should expect the same of others. We certainly should not expect any such libertarian notions from those who are willing to go to extreme and deadly lengths to declare their devotion to their religion.

I had just read an article about the Sudanese Lost Boy who is now an Olympic athlete and I guess the disparity between his outlook on life and humanity versus Trumystique’s hit me pretty hard.

This? Really?

It’s like pointing at a cancer patient and asking why they can’t be as brave as this other person with a serious disease. Why do you get to be arbitrator of people’s pain? What gives you the right?

How do you know anything about me, or trumystique and what has given us our pov on life?

This is a very public forum, so I’m not going to get into the tragedy of my life (if I have one), but what makes me so angry and frustrated - as Trumystique described so well - is that it’s not just one clueless person I have to be a ‘patient and kind’ in teaching about Islam if I want to be taken at all seriously, it’s one after another, after another. And I can never even display my frustration without carefully filtering it (as here) because immediately I’m an irrational fundamentalist/brainwashed foller/oppressed muslimah who cannot see her chains.

Since I assume most of you are feminists and have had to deal with this in real life and on the internet I will try to describe it in those terms (not a perfect analogy). If I had been angry about the representation of women in fiction, none of you would have raised an eyebrow, but if I did the same thing in a group of men/anti-feminists immediately the reprisals would come out: why am I so angry? Because it’s not even a case of moving forward as far as I can see, it’s a constant battle and the last verse is always the same as the first.

Now I’m going to lie in wait until you express frustration at something and throw Brave Victim Of Genocide at you (and I am being mean here, but not to the Sudanese boy!).

I am coming back into this with some trepidation, in view of the understandably ruffled feathers in many quarters.

On the matter of the unattainable ideal of objectivity, and of trying to understand other cultures, when I said that those with religious convictions usually find it particularly difficult to place themselves in the shoes of others, I did have a reason for that view, a reason that will be readily understood by the other agnostics and atheists here.

If, as a Briton, I try to put myself in the place of an American or a German, I may find it hard to see through their eyes, even though I have spent a good deal of time in both countries, and know, like and respect many citizens of both countries.  I find it easier to ‘think like a German’ than an American, perhaps partly because I lived in Germany for years rather than months.  But however difficult the exercise, my attempt to see things from the angle of another nationality will not be distorted by any feeling that my own cultural background and conditioning is intrinsically superior to theirs: there is no value-judgement involved (or at least, there certainly shouldn’t be).  We are all simply born into a given country and culture, and know that we, personally, would be different in certain ways had we been born at another time and place. 

Religion is something else.  Sincere and devoted adherents of any given religion do not see themselves as simply having been dealt one card in life, while others have been dealt another, of equal value.  They believe, not only that their own beliefs are true, but also that the beliefs of other religions, insofar as they differ from their own,  are therefore less than true – ranging from well-meaning but imperfect, to utterly wrong and perverse.  There is a value-judgement involved, at the most basic level.  An agnostic studying the changing patterns in religion in the late Roman Empire between, say, the reigns of Constantine I and Theodosius I, is able without any great intellectual or emotional difficulty to compare and contrast in a moderately objective way, because he/she looks at all religions in the same manner.  But the person who believes that one of those religions represents ultimate enlightenment and truth, and the others do not, will find that elusive objectivity harder to achieve – if, indeed, he will wish to achieve it at all.

I hope I haven’t made things worse.

however difficult the exercise, my attempt to see things from the angle of another nationality will not be distorted by any feeling that my own cultural background and conditioning is intrinsically superior to theirs

That may well be true in your case, but extremely strong feelings of cultural superiority do exist. There was the idea of the white man’s burden, for example, or the idea that it’s right to go out and impose democracy on others (despite the fact that this seems like a contradiction in terms). Some people really do believe that their country is the greatest country on earth and refuse to be swayed from that opinion. And there are political/economic ideologies to which people can adhere just as strongly as to any religion (though I think you acknowledged the existence of political ideologies somewhere further up this thread).

the person who believes that one of those religions represents ultimate enlightenment and truth, and the others do not, will find that elusive objectivity harder to achieve – if, indeed, he will wish to achieve it at all.

But the agnostic or atheist who believes that all faiths are ridiculous self-delusions isn’t exactly objective either. They may well approach all faiths equally, but they still approach all faiths/religions with a strong bias in place which may well preclude true objectivity. And, on the other hand, there are some people who have religious faith but who try to find common ground between religions.

Oh, I am all too well aware that there were, and still are, people who believe that their own culture is intrinsically superior.  I should have spelt out that I was assuming, here, the person who is at least attempting to be fair and objective, rather than the one who positively revels in his own bigotry and vaingloriousness!  This touches on the ‘patriotism’ discussion we were having elsewhere:  love of family, country, culture is natural, but when it tips over into contempt towards ‘the Other’ it becomes something rather different.

But the agnostic or atheist who believes that all faiths are ridiculous self-delusions isn’t exactly objective either.

Probably not, but being agnostic or even atheist does not necessarily mean that one regards religious faith as ‘ridiculous self-delusion’.  I certainly don’t.  Most human beings, back into the earliest mists of prehistory, have been deliberately conditioned from childhood to believe in the supernatural, and I think humans actually have an innate emotional tendency to believe in unseen divine powers even if they are not formally taught such beliefs.  This is not ridiculous:  it is merely part of the human condition.  It would not occur to me to sneer at it.  I am saying only that a person who accepts that particular human trait as normal but who does not personally subscribe to it is likely to be able to look at the history of religion in a more even-handed way than one who is deeply committed, intellectually and emotionally, to one of the formal religions currently in vogue.

I think that when political ideologies become extremely intense, emotional and hostile towards others that they take on a great many of the characterstics of deeply-felt religious belief, notably the unshakeable conviction that the believer knows The Truth, and that those who do not share his beliefs are deeply in error.

I should have spelt out that I was assuming, here, the person who is at least attempting to be fair and objective

I think some religious people can attempt to be fair and objective to those of other religions, just as, as you say, not all atheists and agnostics “regard[...] religious faith as ‘ridiculous self-delusion’.” It was just that your initial statement seemed to suggest that all atheists and agnostics (regardless of how biased they might be against religion) would automatically be less biased in their assessments than any religious person (regardless of whether any individual religious people attempted to be fair and objective about those of other faiths).

when political ideologies become extremely intense, emotional and hostile towards others that they take on a great many of the characterstics of deeply-felt religious belief, notably the unshakeable conviction that the believer knows The Truth, and that those who do not share his beliefs are deeply in error.

Could one argue the same of systems of ethics? Some people on these threads are very, very strongly convinced that freedom of speech is supremely important. Other people have other secular beliefs which might also shape their outlook very strongly and which they are unshakeable in believing to be “The Truth.”

I suppose what I’m trying to say is that I that (a) I don’t think all believers are so blinkered by their own faith and their own belief that they know The Truth, that they can’t understand others who, in turn, believe that their beliefs are The Truth and (b) I suspect that almost everyone has some belief(s), whether religious, political, patriotic, economic or moral which they believe is/are The Truth. Some people are more able than others to set those aside when studying and trying to understand other societies and belief systems, but I don’t think religious belief should be singled out as the most difficult bias to overcome in order to achieve the highest level of objectivity it’s ever possible for any of us to achieve.

it looks like Ballantine Books has picked it up see this link

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Jewel-Medina-Novel/dp/0345503163

for more on the religion of pieces check out

http://creepingsharia.wordpress.com

authoress

Seriously?

I mean, SERIOUSLY?

(a) I don’t think all believers are so blinkered by their own faith and their own belief that they know The Truth, that they can’t understand others who, in turn, believe that their beliefs are The Truth and (b) I suspect that almost everyone has some belief(s), whether religious, political, patriotic, economic or moral which they believe is/are The Truth.

Exactly. I think it’s unfair to believers to say that none of them can see past their biases, but agnostics and atheists always can.

it looks like Ballantine Books has picked it up see this link

C, Ballantine House is an imprint of Random House and that’s the original cover, so I suspect that the reason you’ve found that link is only because Amazon.co.uk hasn’t yet been notified of Ballantine/Random House’s decision not to publish it.

Sorry, I got a bit tangled up there over Ballantine’s proper name. It’s Ballantine Books, of course, not “Ballantine House.”

Exactly. I think it’s unfair to believers to say that none of them can see past their biases, but agnostics and atheists always can.

  (my emphasis)

That would, indeed, be not only unfair but untrue, but it was not what I said.  :-)

What I did say, which Laura then debated in more detail, was that I believe it to be more difficult for believers in a religious system to accommodate the viewpoints of those who do not share that belief than it is for those who have no religious belief at all.  Naturally, there will be some devout believers who not only try to be objective, but succeed - insofar as any of us can ever succeed in that aim, which, as we have all agreed, is only up to a point.  And there will be some atheists so arrogantly certain about their own convictions that they will fail to treat other points of view with appropriate consideration.  (I omit agnostics here, because by definition, an agnostic does not deny the possibility of divinity in the way that an atheist does).

As I said to Laura, I was making an assumption (perhaps foolishly?) that most people of goodwill do actually make some attempt to understand those whose cultural traditions are different from their own, with widely varying degrees of success, which will be influenced by many different factors, personal and cultural.    It is, for example, easier to understand a culture that is related to one’s own than one which has a very different history:  a Brit does not think quite like a French person, but probably thinks rather more like a French person than he thinks like a Korean, because he has more cultural history in common with the former.

Snarkhunter, I don’t think we are on the opposite sides of any important divide here, and I have now forgotten quite where we were going with this, anyway.

the unshakeable conviction that the believer knows The Truth, and that those who do not share his beliefs are deeply in error.
Could one argue the same of systems of ethics? Some people on these threads are very, very strongly convinced that freedom of speech is supremely important.

I think that is possible, Laura.  Certainly I have met people whose political convictions seem to be held with the kind of evangelising passion that is typical of deep religious faith, and I take your point about the ‘freedom of speech’ principle.  One might say the same about the widespread belief that the only valid and acceptable form of government is ‘democracy’, though not everyone who believes that will even define the concept in the same way.

Yet I still think there is something different about religion.  We are forced to ‘believe’ those things that are part of Nature:  we cannot challenge them:  they are above and beyond us, and I think it is in that segment of ‘belief’ that religion belongs.  But beliefs about the ways in which we should organise our human societies are themselves human constructs.  A person can say that 21st-century Western democracy is right, and that other kinds of rule are wrong, but they must still admit that these different systems are all human creations:  we thought them up ourselves.

A person with a powerful religious belief attributes the rightness of his/her convictions to a power above that of humanity - it is not regarded as a man-made law at all.  To say that something is right ‘because I say so’ is surely different, in the mind of the believer, from saying it is right ‘because god says so’.

That would, indeed, be not only unfair but untrue, but it was not what I said.

You’re right…and I’m sorry. :/

Snarkhunter, I don’t think we are on the opposite sides of any important divide here, and I have now forgotten quite where we were going with this, anyway.

I agree. I think what I am reacting to is what strikes me as a narrow view of religious belief. But then I have to remember that I am unusual in my own beliefs, b/c even though I believe in God, Christ, etc., I also recognize that the trappings of religion, and much of the way we construe the divine, are of human origin. I believe there are many paths to God. Which is NOT a standard Christian belief…so my knee-jerk reaction is largely based on my own generally open-minded stance towards faith, and I forget that others, even liberally open-minded others, many not share it.

What I did say, which Laura then debated in more detail, was that I believe it to be more difficult for believers in a religious system to accommodate the viewpoints of those who do not share that belief than it is for those who have no religious belief at all.

There is a wonderful story that Stephen Greenblatt relates at the beginning of his book Marvelous Possessions about a trip to Bali in which he saw a group of villagers watching a performance of their own village on a communal tv/vcr.  It was a stunning moment for Greenblatt, because it confounded his own expectations and perceptions on multiple levels.  Here, he says, was this great symbol of capitalism and cultural transmission (or imperialism, depending on your pov) that the Balinese were using entirely for their own purpose, a purpose outside Greenblatt’s expectations, and what he thought of as the expectations of the capitalistic economies that produce and reproduce such means of representation. 

I always think of this story during these discussions, because it gets at so many of the nuances we’re struggling with.  What does it mean to be an insider or an outsider?  We focus on the issue of objectivity, but there are so many other aspects of the insider-outsider relationship that are relevant.  The way the insider always has a unique perspective that the outsider can only replicate; the way the insider can reshape the rules that the outsider sees as unshakable; the way the outsider can actually perpetuate inadvertent victimization of the insider, even in the process of so-called progressive (i.e. postcolonial) critique.  My Truth is that it is a collection of voices—insiders and outsiders—that is required for any kind of holistic understanding of, well, anything.  And that still our knowledge will be incomplete and reflective of our own perspectives, values, beliefs, biases, etc.  That doesn’t, IMO, mean we cannot speak our own POV; it just means that our authority is always going to be limited, whether we be inside, outside, or all the way around that of which we are speaking.

Trumystique: I read your rant hours ago and gave myself some time to think about how and what you said. I just came back to it and my reaction is nearly the same. With the exception of this: possible you had a really bad day, or week, or year. Possibly something else prompted your very harsh rant. And I will try to keep that in mind. But, I thought your post was unduly harsh. As I posted upthread, there are a bazillion things to learn about in this world and no one can know everything. Also, religion is a very hot topic for most people and I have almost never found a safe space to have that discussion with anyone. Which is why when SWWH and others offered to discuss their religion with us, many folks started piping up with questions. I applaud and thank them for taking the time to do so. This has been an interesting illuminating thread. I don’t know that I have an actual question for you, only that I thought your rant was unfair to a lot of folks, and based on your stance about ignorance, you would not be someone I would go to for questions on a topic unknown to me. It’s attitudes that like that stop people from asking questions.

Ann Somerville: your response to Trumystique was well said although I refuse to apologize for my lack of knowledge. I have spent many years studying other things. While I am supremely glad this topic was brought up, I’m not going to apologize for not knowing much about it.

changes35: I am 34 and imagine 35 will have big changes for me!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_100
Please check the person who is 1st in this list

Why our writers dont work for peace?
Why they want to provake people and fight?
Why they dont be sad when they see a baby and woman loose their lives ?
Why Sherry doesnt write a book about how to cook?

Hi SBTB bloggers,

I wanted to invite you all to read some of the comments on my blog, http://sherryjones.blogspot.com I’ve .had some very provocative replies, some insulting, most very supportive. And I also want to say that I’m so impressed that you are all still discussing these issues! Freedom of speech and thought and expression is the best thing about being an American. As you have all proven with your smart, thought-provoking dialogue here. I appreciate you all.

Why is The Jewel of Medina Offensive?
In order to be fair – I asked myself 4 questions replacing Mohammed with Jesus so I could attempt to understand.
1.  If a book made an accusation with no basis of fact that Jesus had been a child molester would I be offended?
2.  If this same book described sex scenes between two members in the bible written in such a way to resemble a harlequin novel or soft core porn movie would I become more upset?
3.  If I were a publisher and your primary objective is producing works for the express purpose of making money would you publish something that would most likely not sell too many copies and be offense to many people?
4.  If I was a publisher and I asked a respected colleague who was an expert on the field of history what they thought I they said to drop it, Would I?
I wonder how you answered. I do not wish this book to be banned and it is not banned. It is simply not being promoted or sold by Random House. If Sherry Jones wanted to bring people together then why on earth did she think insulting people was a way to do it?

Stories with predictable endings
Sigh, in recent years we are all a little unsatisfied with the way things are. Seems that the word terrorism can a start a war, tap phones or in this case sell a crappy dime store novel. In the end, Sherry Jones will; make a small fortune because people will by this crappy book just because they have nothing better to do with their money like – donate it to a good cause, or help their neighbors who are losing their homes a mile a minute.
So I am starting a protest of my own and will not support anyone who publishes buys, sells or supports this garbage or any other garbage.

It’s amazing to see how people get so low just to read a fiction. Let alone a fiction based on history. What kind of crap is this? Is the author trying to write the history her own way? Funny, it sound like writing your equations 1+1=6.7 (because its fiction). What a dumb writer, can’t even come up with her own characters?
Don’t the writers feel any guilt in misleading the people? We know for sure that some of the people (fox viewers) would believe that the history is true.
Propaganda, sabotage…come-on don’t get played in their game. Get out and do research and stop living in the fairy land. Lighten up… Watch it on you tube….http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fJuNgBkloFE