In today’s Wall Street Journal, there is a letter to the editor from Denise Spellberg which refutes the idea that her protests and phone calls to Random House effectively squashed The Jewel of Medina. According to the letter,, Spellberg writes:
As a historian invited to “comment” on the book by its Random House editor at the author’s express request, I objected strenuously to the claim that “The Jewel of Medina” was “extensively researched,” as stated on the book jacket. As an expert on Aisha’s life, I felt it was my professional responsibility to counter this novel’s fallacious representation of a very real woman’s life. The author and the press brought me into a process, and I used my scholarly expertise to assess the novel. It was in that same professional capacity that I felt it my duty to warn the press of the novel’s potential to provoke anger among some Muslims.
There is a long history of anti-Islamic polemic that uses sex and violence to attack the Prophet and his faith. This novel follows in that oft-trodden path, one first pioneered in medieval Christian writings. The novel provides no new reading of Aisha’s life, but actually expands upon provocative themes regarding Muhammad’s wives first found in an earlier novel by Salman Rushdie, “The Satanic Verses,” which I teach. I do not espouse censorship of any kind, but I do value my right to critique those who abuse the past without regard for its richness or resonance in the present.
The combination of sex and violence sells novels. When combined with falsification of the Islamic past, it exploits Americans who know nothing about Aisha or her seventh-century world and counts on stirring up controversy to increase sales. If Ms. Nomani and readers of the Journal wish to allow literature to “move civilization forward,” then they should read a novel that gets history right.
It is a shame that no one will be able to read this particular novel, and perhaps then others afterward, in their own quest to learn more about Islam and Aisha’s role within the history of that faith. I’m more than happy to have Spellberg not recommending my reading list, however.
Thank you, JLFerg, for those links. The interview with Nomani was wonderful, IMO.
One of the things that struck me is the way in which Nomani’s concern—that Muslims are being portrayed in a negative way—is very similar to the concerns of Muslims who object to the way Jones portrays Aisha. It’s just that in one case the argument is for publication and discussion (Nomani), and in the other case the argument is for suppression of the book’s publication.
Nomani insists that the book should be published because these discussions need to happen openly, whereas those who advocate suppression seem to have a similar fear as Random House in its decision to stop release. Nomani directly addressed this fear, which I really liked, by saying that the book may incite some isolated backlash but that Muslims should not be defined by the “lowest common denominator” of those who advocate violence, and moreover she believes that the Muslim community needs to opportunity to show that it can deal with highly controversial material.
One thing that was interesting, too, is that she talked a bit about the process Random House went through in its decision-making on Medina. According to Nomani, after Spellberg expressed her concerns, RH sent the book off to three more people who warned Random House that the book could be a security risk. So while Spellberg may have raised the alarm, her opinion was corroborated—according to Nomani—by three more people before RH pulled the plug.
I know this bit of info probably won’t stop the animosity and blame directed at Spellberg, but the more I think about this, the more I come to Nomani’s position: that yes, the book may cause some isolated incidents of backlash but that we must not give in to the fear that Muslims are a bunch of violence-loving fanatics and dare to put these books out into the public where they can be discussed and debated by Muslims and non-Muslims. That only when we see these discussions happening more can we make those crucial distinctions between the true extremists and those who simply have a very strong point of view.
IMO people have become too wary of engaging in controversial discussions, in part because after 9/11 the government tried to scare people into not saying anything “anti-American” or “unpatriotic.” Now I think people feel so overwhelmed that they often hang back and don’t even know where to begin speaking up. But if we don’t speak up, if we don’t all participate to some degree in the discussion of these issues, we’re doing ourselves a great disservice. IMO this discussion is a great illustration of how even publishing decisions about fiction can intersect and be caught up with political and religious conflicts. Sure this may only be about books—now, at least—but these same issues reverberate through every level of our society, from genre fiction to political policy, and if we’re not even comfortable talking about books, how can we tackle the big stuff?
Great post, Robin. Most informative.
…these same issues reverberate through every level of our society, from genre fiction to political policy, and if we’re not even comfortable talking about books, how can we tackle the big stuff?
I am not American, although influenced by America as most of the world is, and there are some issues from which I can glean insight only through discussions such as this.
In reference to Robin’s mention of tackling the big stuff, the use of US government ‘scare’ tactics were not known me until recently. I experienced several incidences of (what I would term) extreme paranoia involving procedures at LA airport. Although I have traveled widely and often, I had only experienced such extremes in countries with facist government prior to this last trip via the US. For further details of my experience:
http://dearauthor.com/wordpress/2008/07/29/en-route-leg-two/
I will not subject myself to such ineffectual, debasing situations ever again. And as I live in country relatively void of bias and prejudice (and completely so in my village), the methods I observed and tolerated were terribly extreme. In view of this, I completely understand the reasoning for a US publisher to avoid potential political and religious fallout.
Sherry Jones has deleted her blog – anyone notice that?
Good on you Professor Spellberg for using your initiative to prevent millions of already ignorant Americans who may have read this believing it to be true history.
In this instance the publishers were clearly wanting to add some credibility to the historical inaccuracies within the poorly researched book in search of the american dollar but got caught out when Prof Spellberg refused.
Whatever next teaching creationism as historical fact in american schools – oops that ship has set sail. Oh well one fight at a time to prevent the sustained barrage of the American far right extremists distorting historical truth. You might say similar to the way Iran wishes people to believe that the Holocaust didnt happen.
Linking the american far right and Iran – now that will cause a true controversy.