D+
Title: The Jewel of Medina
Author: Sherry Jones
Publication Info: Beaufort Books, Inc. October 15, 2008
ISBN: 0825305187
Genre: Historical: Other
Thanks to a very kind person dove into her bookstore’s ARC stash, I had a few days to read The Jewel of Medina. I needed more than a few days, though, because it was hard to get into, and harder to get through, despite my being a rather fast and furious reader. In a nutshell: I was underwhelmed.
First, a note: when I discuss ‘Aisha’ or ‘Mohammed’ in the context of this review, I am fully aware that to those readers who are Muslim, these are real and revered people who ought not ever be fictionalized. Please understand: I am attempting to discuss the characterization in the context of this novel, so if I say “Aisha acted like a complete hosebeast,” I mean the character, not the prophet’s wife. I realize that for anyone who is Muslim, the separation is next to impossible. I humbly ask that you keep in mind that for me, a person who is not Muslim and who knows diddly-poo about Aisha from the get-go, the religious figure and the fictional character as portrayed in his book are two very separate concepts.
I mentioned while I was reading the book earlier this month that Mohammed ruled and Aisha was a bit of an idiot. That opinion did not hold: Aisha remained an idiot, but Mohammed’s character became less heroic as the book continued.
Aisha in this novel is very young, starting from about age 6. For that reason, Aisha has a lot of growing up to do, which was completely understandable, but there were plenty of times I wanted to march into the desert and beat her with the wooden spoon of GetaClue because MY HOLY FREAKING COW could she act like a complete freaking idiot. She makes the same mistakes over and over and over again. Speaking without thought, putting herself first over everyone else, jumping to conclusions: name an immature behavior and it’ll be in there somewhere. I couldn’t figure out if I was holding her to a much higher standard given the life expectancy and relative age of maturity at the time, but she remained stubbornly doltish long after I’d expected her to at least wise up a bit.
The narrative begins with Aisha as a young child playing with friends, including the object of her youthful crush, Safwan, who even then was a completely selfish tool. She finds herself in purdah from age 6 as the intended wife of Mohammed, and is shut in her home from that day until her marriage. Then the story shifts after her marriage to her life as the second wife of Mohammed, as she grows up in his household, living in a very uncertain time as Mohammed’s teachings began to spread, and as his fame and prominence brought more wives to his household. Throughout the first two-thirds of the book, Aisha holds onto a fantasy of personal liberty, riding, fighting, and living the life a man would – without any explanation as to why she felt it could possibly be an option for her.
Aisha also spends much of the novel desperate to catch Mohammed’s attention. Despite a revelation from Allah that he only have four wives, he keeps marrying and demonstrating a marked tendency to let lust cloud his clear judgment, if the narration of Aisha and the comments of his other wives are to be believed. If Aisha’s status as a virgin is revealed within the household, she would lose her status as head wife and would suffer for it, to say nothing of the undermining of Mohammed’s alliance with her family. She loves him but is frustrated that he seems to see her only as a child. She is increasingly resistant to the requirements of Mohammed’s wives, which she views as increasing imprisonment, and thus she fantasizes about running away with Safwan. They’ll run to the Bedouin tribes, and she’ll be free – at least, she will in her imagination. For the life of me I couldn’t figure out why she expected this raging freedom, when certainly as a runaway wife of a religious prophet with a slowly growing collection of followers, she’d be immensely vulnerable to any number of factions. Aisha, in short, spends a great deal of the story acting like a complete freaking bonehead, and her lack of ability to learn from her bad decisions made it increasingly difficult to root for her.
One part I missed and wished had been more thoroughly explicated, as it would have supported the integrity of Mohammed’s character, was the section wherein Mohammed teaches Aisha, starting nearly from the date of their wedding, how to defend herself with a sword. While later in the novel she and the other wives are ordered to be veiled in public and are required to be models of decorum and modesty, the idea of Mohammed teaching Aisha to be a master swordswoman is fascinating, and I wish it hadn’t been skipped in the narrative, particularly as it would have allowed a glimpse into Mohammed’s interaction with Aisha while she was married to him but still a child.
Mohammed’s nobility and honor suffer a good bit in this novel, and in my uneducated opinion, that element might be one point Muslim readers find most offensive. While Mohammed had several revelations from Allah in the course of his life, The Jewel of Medina only shows those which pertained to decisions that affected Aisha and the other wives, such as the requirement that they be veiled, or the establishment of Aisha’s innocence after returning to the caravan with Safwan. His revelations appear at very convenient times, allowing Mohammed to roll on the floor incoherent, then stand up and absolve himself of any responsibility, claiming that his next edict was the will of Allah. The use of revelations to limit the freedom of his wives underscored the degree to which women were subject to men at that time, and made Mohammed seem more of a shyster than a prophet. While in the beginning, his patient love for Aisha was rather wonderful to read about, Mohammed’s behavior reveals a character who could be interpreted as flawed, weak, potentially manipulative, and one whose honor may be suspect—not exactly what one wants in a religious leader. Using Allah’s revelations and his own reputation of faith to justify or strategically avoid consequences for poor choices does not a hero make. And the manner in which Mohammed’s revelations come about leaves a lot of room for doubt and misinterpretation.
The book disappointed me as a reader because it lacked the depth and nuance I expect from historical fiction, particularly historical fiction based on women in religion. The Red Tent is in my opinion a more sophisticated book that parallels current attitudes toward sex and autonomy, even though I know many readers who thought Diamant’s portrayal of Dinah was overwrought and utterly fluffy. The Jewel of Medina reads flatly and suffered from its lack of complexity, particularly as a vehicle for introducing readers to the foundation of Islam. Aisha doesn’t come across as a matriarch or a figure of female leadership – her leadership is barely exhibited. Instead, it’s a tale of a boneheaded girl who selfishly covets an iconoclastic fantasy life, and who wises up at the brink of “almost too late.”
Aisha realizes that by deliberately staying behind the caravan to run off with Safwan, she is setting up her family for ruin, and her husband for failure as a spiritual leader among very devoted followers. Her rashness, which she realizes literally inches from disaster, would cause her entire family to be in disgrace for the rest of their lives, and would mean her parents would have to pretend as if she were dead. Ultimately, it’s the realization that, if she did run away with Safwan and disgrace Muhammad, no one would revere the name “Aisha” after her death. Yet again, Aisha’s ego trumps her reason, even if this time her reasoning is finally, finally, omg FINALLY in the right direction.
The honorable aspects of Aisha’s history as discussed elsewhere in accounts of the founding of Islam reveal her skills as a leader in war, her role as a matriarch and as the most beloved of Mohammad’s wives. (I hesitate to use the word “harem” though the book does so, because I don’t believe it’s entirely correct in this context.) Those moments of leadership are not in this book, save for a very few, and when the narrative ends with Mohammed’s death, Aisha’s story ends as well. From what I’ve learned since the controversy of the book first appeared, Aisha’s status as one of the revered women of Islam is based on her life following the death of the prophet. The limited scope of the novel is therefore a disappointment because the depth of Aisha’s accomplishments are not realized in her role as Mohammed’s wife, but in what she does after Mohammed’s death. The book doesn’t mention any of her scholarship or her collection of the hadith’s of Mohammed, and the story itself lends little to the reader’s understanding of why Aisha is referred to as “the one who affirms the Truth.”
Ultimately, this is a story of a young woman thrust into extraordinary circumstances who gets in her own way as she struggles to grow the hell up already, and that story ends before the reader can truly ascertain that Aisha has indeed grown up. To answer Spellberg’s accusations that this was “soft-core pornography” and “deliberate misinterpretation of history,” I still think she ought to put a sock in it and send herself to the naughty and silent corner. It’s not porny, not by a long shot. It does, however, contain narrative flaws and a lack of depth and development of the characters that would have created a very satisfying read. I kept reading to learn more about the setting, the time period, and the foundation of Islam, but not because the couple who featured so prominently in the narrative held my attention. Curiosity, not compulsion, drove me to finish the book. If the controversy didn’t surround this novel, it would have come and gone like Hoobastank: quiet and forgettable.
Well, that is unfortunate. I was this close to dropping a big wad of cash on an ARC of “Jewel” on Ebay, too. I’ve read too many simplified, anachronistic historical fantasies about important religious figures, and although I had hopes that “Jewel” would be fun and educational, it seems that it is not. I have limited patience with costume dramas featuring TSTL heroines wanting to gad about waving swords, so I don’t think I really dig this. Thanks for the great review, Sarah!
I guess I’ll just reread my copy of “Introducing Muhammad” by Ziauddin Sardar. It’s got lots of good info, and is nicely illustrated as well.
Thanks for the heads up. Your interpretation of a book is usually pretty close to my opinions, so I know I won’t want to read this one!!
That’s quite sad, because I was listening to a radio program about Aisha and other famous Muslim women and they were pretty awesome. It could have been great!
Sarah, as usual your review was well thought out and detailed.
With all the controversy surrounding the book that ended with Random House pulling the contract just weeks before its release date, I have to say I’m surprised it wasn’t more historically rich. They paid big bucks for it originally.
Of course, I’m also still amazed they yanked the contract based on rumors. I know plenty of Catholics who were mad as hell and vocal about DaVinci Code and Golden Compass (books and movies). That just increased its sales. I guess the perceived difference to Random House is that Muslim = Terrorist. Sigh How sad they didn’t let the world decide about this book for themselves.
I think the apology to Muslims was unnecessary. There have been plenty of fictional works (books and film) about Christ’s life, and I don’t remember reviewers profusely apologizing to the readership about their opinion of a work of fiction.
You didn’t write the book. No apology necessary.
The majority of people get that it’s a work of fiction. An author’s opinion or made up story.
Would you have done the same for ‘The Red Tent’? Probably not.
Hi anonymous. I wasn’t apologizing. I was asking for understanding of my position because I wanted to discuss the characters honestly by name, and didn’t want anyone to misinterpret any statements I made about Aisha or Mohammed, especially since I was so disappointed with the portrayal of their characters in this narrative. Since the initial kerfuffle surrounding the book’s cancellation, I’ve come to understand the depths of insult and affront some Muslims find any fictionalization or humanization of Mohammed and his wives, so I wanted to make it clear that when I discussed the characters, I was discussing the individuals in this book.
Huh. Sounds as if some modern Western sensibilities and social mores crept into this. If there was context or explanation (at least one that made sense) that would be one thing, but to allow it to be such a large part of the story framework given the subject matter seems a fatal flaw in establishing the setting in a way that would really allow the reader to feel the tension and high stakes of the story.
This is actually quite interesting to me. I studied Islam a bit, and it was my understanding that the edict that women be veiled is actually more of a cultural thing rather than a religious thing. I believe that even Christianity has the same sort of rules; St. Paul wrote that women must have their hair covered while praying or making prophecies. I was under the impression that the “women must be veiled” thing came about from similar cultures living in the same place in the same period of history. I could be completely wrong—I am not Muslim and I can’t claim to have much of a real understanding of the religion. But it does make me wonder whether the book is very historically accurate.
I agree with Mel-O-Drama that “Muslim = Terrorist” seems to be the order of the day. Ever since 9/11 that’s been the case. It’s like people believe all Muslims to be like the hijackers. I guess if I thought all Christians were like Timothy McVeigh, a self-proclaimed Christian, I’d be pretty damn scared too.
Possibly Random House was thinking of incidences such as the Danish cartoon portraying Mohammed a few years ago, which prompted death threats and could have led to war.
Or maybe they just decided the book was a D- too.
Once again, a thoughtful and insightful review. Thanks for sharing with us.
Kathsan, I’ve only studied a little about Islam, too, but as I understand it, Muhammad did receive revelation/give an edict about his wives being removed from men’s eyes, although it had more to do with them staying behind some kind of room divider rather than wearing a veil.
There’s more information here about the religious/cultural/historical traditions of veiling: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hijab Inter.esting stuff.
And now to the part that always baffles me:
Why do places such as Random House fork over stunning advances for shoddily written books?
I mean, I can understand the insider books by celebrities and what not, those have a following already built in. But for this type of piece?
Hmmm, methinks I know the reason. This book, like others, are sought after for their “shock” value. They know the content will cause an uproar, in fact, they are banking on it. Whether the writing or characterizations are worth the moola dished out makes little matter.
Then, in this instance, Random House chickened out on the deal. Boo to them for not being able to back up their “alligator mouths with their hummingbird asses.”
Thanks for the review.
Lizzie (greeneyedfem), thanks for the information! I’ll check that out.
Anon76, if you ever find the answer, let me know.
It’s a shame Random House had to whine about “ooh, ooh, potential threat, we might get HURT!” when they could have just said, “Sorry, it turns out the book sucks, and she can’t write. We made a mistake, and we’re just going to suck it up.” I could have respected that.
Yeah, tracykitn, that would have been just fine.
Pubs use that clause all the time. I call it their “oops” clause. Dang, we purchased this but it’s not what it was supposed to be when all was said and done.
But, I still can’t forgive that historian asked for a quote for stirring the pot a bit. She pushed the “egads, this will cause a Jihad” button, also.
She could have just said, “In my opinion, this book is poorly researched and the writing is atrocious. Please do not include me as an endorser.”
I just read last night that the veiling of women at Christian church came about in an effort to appease the pagan Romans, who kept their wimmin hidden from the lustful eyes of other men, lest their property value be damaged.
The newly-Christian Roman women would be veiled everywhere outside their husbands’ houses, then go to church and unveil, and shock and offend the Roman men.
Thus, women had to be veiled in church.
Things that make you go, huh.
All that drama for a “D” book?
toruble43 is right!
@Kathsan: Modern scholars are also unsure about when hijab entered the hadith. The oldest manuscripts don’t mention it.
This books seems to be lovely. Historical books which let us get a glimpse of the lives of the women from the East, are great and usually sad.
* book seems to be – sorry!
After reading the introductory chapter that was posted on this site, my first thought was the real issue with this book was that such a poorly characterized novel came really close to being published. I am glad that your review backs up my snap judgement 🙂
It troubles my sensibilities that Random House would pay a huge amount for a D+ manuscript. Did they think they were getting something similar to Rushdie’s Satanic Verses?
As others have noted, many cultures, both European and Middle Eastern, have required respectable adult women to cover their heads in public. This is not peculiar to any religion; the custom has existed in paganism, Judaism, Christianity and Islam (at least). Hairstyles and headdresses have traditionally been one of the aspects of costume used to differentiate between the young girl and the woman.
Even as recently as the 1940s, people of both sexes (in Europe) normally donned a head-covering of some kind before leaving the house: in the case of women, look at any wartime photograph of patient British housewives queuing for their tiny portions of rationed meat or other foods, and you will see that they all wear hats or headscarves. Traces of this custom still survive even today in UK society, where the very formal day-wear considered appropriate for rituals such as weddings, or occasions when Royalty is present (e.g. Royal garden-parties or investitures), still require hats to be worn. And there are still those who wear hats (and gloves) to attend church services – that was universal in the 1950s, but has not totally died out yet.
This is not like the extremes of concealment practised in some Moslem groups today, of course, where the whole face is concealed, with only a slit permitted for the wearer to squint out, but it is a mistake to think of the headscarf concept, in its many varieties, as specific to Islam.
Anon76 and rest—it constantly amazes me the inner workings of the book industry.How DO they decide that writer A is going to be a bestseller versus writer B and then proceeds to pour money into Advanced Reading Copies, author tours, ads in PW or LJ or other reviewing media. Libraries know to buy multiple copies of even bad books with a huge print run and a major advertising budget. Meanwhile excellent books make their way on their own. Too bad that the judgement of publishers has been so bad lately—with all the revelations about author trickery. I say stick with a well written and well plotted novel and forget the hype. I hope with blogs like this one that quality books will find appreciative readers. Maybe I’m being naive but hopeful.
Off topic just a hair.
I say the reason men of all cultures have wanted their women to cover their hair is because…men go bald.
Now, some women have hair problems as they age, but not in proportion to the number of guys that go cue-ball-ish. IMHO, men covet long, thick tresses.
Most guys I know who shave their heads have the receding thing going on, or else have the huge empty patch on the top. The few I know with full heads of hair who shave it down to nothing are just lazy SOBs who don’t want to take care of the stuff.
Joykenn,
I listened to a big time agent at a conference a couple of years ago, and he said flat out that a House could buy and push a book into the stratosphere, whether worthy or not.
A pet project can get the author tons of initial publicity, huge advance, and placement in the primo spots in bookstores. Not including the fallout media hype from all of the above.
Think “The Davinci Code”.
I think stumbling on the next ‘great writer’, the one that wows and awes is a bit of a gambling thing, like spinning a wheel. The editor can see the promise of a win, but it’s not guaranteed until the wheel actually stops.
Maybe the more they spin, the better a chance they’ve got of finding that next big one.
Those who are interested in veiling should check out the Tuareg People of the Sahara. The women don’t veil although they wear head covering. The man dons a veil at age 25 which covers everything but his eyes and is not removed even in family situations—or at least this is the tradition. As a result the eyes assume great importance. I remember a film I saw in 1974 about this people showing male dancers who was quite sexy because of the emphasis on the eyes. I tried to find something on Youtube but the videos I saw there were all shot with hand-helds by amateurs and not very good.
True, but the prime reason for a hat was fashion/social custom; the prime reason for a scarf was to keep your hair from flying all over the place. (I got all this from my older female relatives.)
Women washed their hair only once a week (ew!) or went to the beauty parlor to have it washed and styled, then topped it with a scarf to keep it looking nice. I recall there was a 1960s spray shampoo product you used between washings called Psssst. You sprayed and combed it out so you’d have clean(ish) hair in between your weekly wash. (Ew-ew-ew-ew-EW!)
In my case, a heavy scarf was to keep the wind off my head as my mother was convinced I’d have a sinus attack if I stirred out the door. I got the attacks regardless, but still treasure a lovely soft cotton scarf my sister made me that had a sassy looking pony embroidered in one corner. It was a spiffy thing for a first grader in them thar days!
But that aside, in Western culture hats and gloves had less to do with leftover religious custom than fashion. A pre-1960’s lady would never think of leaving the house without her figure trussed into a stretch girdle, her hat pinned in place, and clean gloves on her hands. The latter were so important that the earliest autos had a special compartment for them!
I’m rather glad we’ve dumped the lot. They look bloody awful combined with my slogan T-shirt, jeans, and sneakers. Short on style, but by heavens, they’re more comfortable.
As a little bit of side note, some time in the 80’s I poked my head into the entry of a famous downtown church and in the middle of one wall was not a big picture of a famous Diety, but a large sign (dating from the 60’s to just by the art style) declaring “No pants in the sanctuary.”
If the art had not shown a lady in a pantsuit, I might have joined that church. The pants-free services promised to be interesting!
Does anyone know of good historical fiction about the Muslim religion? Religion in fiction in general, but I feel like the Muslims get such bad press lately that we could really use some less Western-biased “Muslim=terrorist” portrayals out there.
I agree The Red Tent was great!
The irony in Random House’s decision is that they raised the profile of this book such that the next publisher can push the book based on its taboo status alone (i.e. ‘we have the guts to publish the book RH won’t’), so regardless of whether it’s a good book or not, it will sell to a certain point on the curiosity/scandal factor alone. If RH published it, there might also have been some scandal factor, but the book might also have had a better chance of rising or falling primarily on its literary merits.
I would love to see a variety of scholars of Islam analyze JoM based on Muslim history and principles. This review suggests that there are overlapping issues of writing, religious and historical interpretation, and gender and cultural issues more generally. It would be interesting to see how these issues play out over a cross-section of readers who possess an expertise in Islamic history and principles.
I gotta admit I was sorely disappointed when the Catholic church dropped the veil requirement. All my childhood, I was waiting to be able to wear one of the beautiful mantillas my grandmothers and mother wore. As a kid, we just got what amounted to a doily stuck on our head. You had to be “young woman” to get the lacy veil. Then they did away with them! The nerve.
I wanted to say that I’ve learned tons by hanging around for this particular story (so thanks to all the smart bitches out there). Also, strangely enough, this book and its attendant issues came up in a mock scholarship interview of mine, so thanks also for that assist.
In return, I wanted to share two hugely recommended books that flesh out issues and questions that popped up over the past couple of weeks (especially since it looks like Jewels is not a very good go-to book).
First, I love “Jasmine and Stars: Reading More Than Lolita in Tehran†by Fatemeh Keshavarz. Prof. Keshavarz came and spoke to my campus’s Persian Circle. She was the first person whose spoken Farsi I kind of understood, so naturally I ran out and got her book, too. A fortunate chance, since the book is absolutely fascinating.
Part of the book is Keshavarz’s memories of her childhood growing up in Iran and her adult life spent living and working abroad. These sections are really lovely and contain short portraits of the people in her life who instilled in her from a very early age a love of poetry and literature.
Another focus of the book is cross-cultural (mis)understanding and how easy it is to loose a sense of what other people’s lives may be like. Some of these sections specifically deal with experiences Muslims and Iranians have had living in the west.
The rest of the book is a short but lively examination of Persian female authors (focusing on the rebel poet Forough Farrokhzad and Shahrnush Parsipur, author of ‘Women Without Men’) and a final chapter on what is problematic about the book “Reading Lolita in Tehran.â€
The other uber-recommended book is Michael Sells’s “Approaching the Qur’an: The Early Revelations†(full disclosure: I took two courses with Prof. Sells and loved every second). This book received a lot of public scrutiny when University of North Carolina made its incoming freshmen read it.
Sells sets out to translate the shorter, earlier suras found at the back of the Qur’an. He argues that most people setting out to read the Qur’an in English translation hit an immediate wall- after the short initial sura the text launches into a long legal-historical account of the early faith community. Sells compares this to reading the Bible for the first time and starting with Judges. It just doesn’t work out too well!
Sells delivers excellent translations of the early suras that convey the beauty and power of the text. The feel of these would be more akin to Psalms. These suras are very focused on the intimate relationship between people and God and thus give an excellent sense of what many believers would find most powerfully intimate about their faith. Sells also really delves into all the small and perfectly worked details found in Arabic that are too often obliterated in translation.
I hope someone out there finds one or both of these recs of use!
I can actually agree with this.
In my country , Muslim children learning to read the Quran, actually started with those shorter surah first. They started back to front until they reached the beginning of 30th juz and only once they are proficient with these surahs, only then they started reading the whole thing 🙂
Well, yes. That’s what I said. 😉 A head-covering was, indeed, a matter of social custom, not religious rule. In the early-to-mid 20th century, hats were the more formal head-coverings, and headscarves (for women) less formal. I still wear a headscarf in some circumstances, although I wear my hair too short to worry about it blowing about.
Frequency of hairwashing: in the 1940s and 1950s, liquid shampoos of the now familiar type were not available. During and just after the war (in the UK), there was a chronic dearth of all sorts of goods. You washed your hair with ordinary soap. As anyone who has tried it will know, this does not work at all well; it is harsh on the hair, and very difficult to rinse out, leaving the hair dull, limp and slightly sticky. By the early 1950s, shampoo normally came in the form of a powder, packaged in little paper sachets. This powder was tipped out into a saucer and mixed with water to a suitable consistency and applied to the hair. (This is not hearsay – this is how I washed my own hair as a girl). These shampoos cleaned the hair very well, but were still extremely harsh and drying. Washing the hair more than a couple of times a week would have made it unmanageably dry and brittle.
Sorry, I know all this is a bit off the point, but hey, if I can’t bore people by explaining what things were like 60 years ago, what’s the point of being old?
😀
anon, may I ask what country you are from? I’m always interested in learning about the different ways the Qur’an is studied/learned in different communities.
Thanks!
This review is one person’s opinion. An educated reader, perhaps, but still everyone should make up her own mind. After all The Jewel was read by many people who liked it a great deal. It was sold to Random House in an auction so other editors read it and liked it; it was a Book of the Month Club and Paperback Bookclub selection; and there are quite a few endorsers like Asra Nomani who broke the story in the WSJ and had read the novel. There are quite a few other readers out there including the editors and publishers in a dozen other countries who bought the rights to publish the book even before the controversy broke. I understand it is now a bestseller in Serbia the only place where there were real threats and an online article says over 10,000 copies are now in print and being read by both Christians and Muslims with the publisher going back to press. If they can be brought to discuss anything like this publicly in an area where there has been a long history of hatred and violence over religious differences, that alone is remarkable. I am sure there will be lots of discussions worldwide when the book is in stores in two weeks.
I have to say I read the Red Tent and thought the opening was great but the ending after she went to Egypt sucked because there was no real plot and she became really unsympathetic and there was a great departure from the original story. Still it was worth reading and thinking about because it made us consider about the role of women in history and what their inner lives together might have been like. I found the claims that Muhammad is a pedophile somewhat laughable in light of the fact that Jewish girls of that time were betrothed at 12 and half and married by 13. Mary had Jesus at 14, right? A’isha wasn’t pregnant at so young an age.
Robin had a very good point that there are issues here of writing and free speech involved but also religious issues as well—in part mutual understanding a respect which was apparently Sherry Jones intent—but also how we perceive religious figures. Were Muhammad’s visions convenient ruses or is it that spiritual leaders do have visions at times of crisis and do solve problems by praying and acting on what they believe to be God’s will? Prof. Spellberg commented in an interview that Salman Rushdie was satirizing Muhammad and suggested it didn’t matter whether one believed that he had visions or not. But if one believes it was all a fake and he was not a genuine Prophet then Islam is based on nothing. I don’t see how she can be a Professor of Islamic studies and make that kind of statement! It would be like saying Jesus was just another common criminal executed by crucification as many were at the time by the Romans so his death was no more significant than anyone else’s. Perceiving this book in political terms or spiritual terms (I personally believe he was a Prophet but also a human being who had flaws exactly as he claimed) it is interesting to read about his relationship to the women in his life which is so little known in the west.
Finally, there are two books. Random House and Beaufort Books and Gibson Square press bought The Jewel of Medina and also a sequel that details her life as an adult who preserved the hadith, participated in the battle of the Camel and also caused the split between Shia and Sunni so that she is revered by one and castigated or cursed by the other (according to Publisher’s Marketplace). I know very little about this history and think a novel is a valuable way of gaining and introduction to these events that today affect all of our lives.
We don’t actually know if there were unrevealed threats that lead Random House to believe their employees and the author could be endangered by the publication of this book. If they are right, then we have to admire Sherry Jones commitment to get the book resold and published even if her life (or her family) might genuinely be at risk. It certainly seems that Prof. Spellberg’s comments that this is porn about Muhammad was designed to endanger her particularly since this isn’t remotely true! I admire her courage in taking this risk for a novel she spent five years researching and writing.