Sherry Jones emailed me the prologue of her book The Jewel of Medina to share with you all. I’ve read it, and I sent it to shewhohashope to gain her perspective, as she and I are of different faiths and cultures, and have differing views of the prologue and the book that it introduces. Obviously, sweeping judgments based on the prologue are as frail as sweeping judgments based on not having read the book at all, but hey, what is our site without some randomly sweeping judgments, right?
If you’d like to download the prologue and read it for yourself, a PDF is available here (please right click and download, thanks). All contents of the prologue are copyright Sherry Jones.
My reactions are from the perspective of a reader, and someone who is, due to this controversy, very curious about Islam, Aisha, Mohammed, and this book itself. Shewhohashope, a 22 year-old student of Anthropology living in London, England, is a Sunni Muslim and rabid Heyer fan.
My reaction: would this prologue make me continue reading? Yup. It’s half dishy and half history (which therein lies a problem, yo) and almost reads as a hybrid of YA, historical fiction, and historical romance. Aisha, in the prologue, is 14, and is returning to her caravan after they traveled without her. She arrives in camp with a man named Safwan ibn Al-Muattal, and upon her return is accused of adultery with Safwan. Muhammad later receives a vision or revelation that Aisha was not unfaithful to him, and her accusers were punished.
My initial impressions were that the tone was melodramatic, and that the heroine seemed very, very young, more like a modern 14 year old than what I would presume at 14 year old would be like at that time. Nowadays, a 14 year old is in middle school, and, if it’s a 14 year old girl, likely given to impulsive behavior and, in some instances, a hormonal overdrive that causes them to act like pubescent minions of evil. 14 year old girls can be MEAN like DAMN.
The biggest contention from those who would read this and be upset would be the depiction of Aisha as possibly having been tempted, and certainly having taken deliberate steps to sneak behind Mohammed’s back. Aisha is very, very human and young-acting, since she’s 14 and driven by some impulse in the prologue. A 14 year old then might have more presence of mind to resist impulse than a 14 year old today. I would figure a 14 year old at that time, who was married to a leader, who genuinely cared for him, who had been married for awhile, and who had, in context, a much shorter lifespan than we have now, would be in some ways more mature and less impulsive. But then, this is a supposition that could easily be flawed on my part, or addressed by the rest of the narrative.
However, the prologue sets up the narrative tension very quickly: what is Aisha feeling guilty about? She mentions that she and Safwan crafted a story on the ride to the caravan so that their stories would match, but she also mentions that she remained faithful to Mohammed. She has something about which she is ashamed, and there is a deliberate reason she allowed the caravan to leave her behind, but that tension and guilt betray her to those who accuse her of much, much worse, so she’s defending herself while she feels guilty and ashamed.
As I wrote to shewhohashope, the conflict about this book is as much about faith as it is understanding what someone of another culture and another faith holds sacred and what is, frankly, a “big deal.” It is, I’ve learned, a big deal to humanize and portray as tempted and flawed one of the four matriarchs within Islam. It’s a very big deal to hint at adultery for Aisha. And it’s a huge honking big hopping deal to portray as human the prophet Mohammed.
So that’s why it’s offensive to the part of alarming and upsetting people. I completely understand that. I still want to read the rest of the book.
However, in my mind that does not give any one person the right to make such a big stink that a publisher decides for the rest of us that reading the book is too dangerous for all involved. I’m disappointed that I won’t get the opportunity to read the entire book and decide for myself, and I’m disappointed that more people won’t have the opportunity to read something that’s become salacious and notorious, because if other readers are like me, they’d be curious about Mohammed, his wives, and their role in shaping the future of Islam and do more research (like I did – hello, internet! mwah!) to learn more.
When I asked shewhohashope if she’d be willing to read the prologue and share her reaction, she agreed. She writes:
Just from the prologue, the part I could see becoming contentious is that Jones’ Aisha ran away with another man with the intent to commit adultery, when this is specifically denied in the Qur’an. And the depiction of several of the sahaba in their treatment of Aisha, although that has basis within Islamic historical records (and within the Qur’an).
I don’t know. Considering that this is a fictionalised account of the Prophet’s (saws) [wife’s] life, offence-wise anything else is icing on the cake, so it’s not as important.
But I wouldn’t want to give the impression that there aren’t differences of opinion between Muslims as well, there is definitely a difference between how Aisha is perceived within the Muslim community. She is revered by Sunni Muslims and following the political incidents that caused the split between Sunni and Shia, Aisha is regarded as a much less reliable source within the Shiah tradition of Islamic scholarship.
I am no Islamic scholar (please add this disclaimer to everything I’ve said) but I assume that they would be better than the average woman (say me) and I can’t quite countenance the thought of committing adultery.
It’s mentioned in the Quran right after ‘don’t kill your children’, and right before ‘life is sacred’.
Kill not your children for fear of want: We shall provide sustenance for them as well as for you. Verily the killing of them is a great sin.
Nor come nigh to adultery: for it is a shameful (deed) and an evil, opening the road (to other evils)
Nor take life – which Allah has made sacred – except for just cause. And if anyone is slain wrongfully, we have given his heir authority (to demand qisas or to forgive): but let him not exceed bounds in the matter of taking life; for he is helped (by the Law).
[17:33]
It’s not so much the humanising of the Prophet either. There are plenty of biographies and hadith about the Prophet’s (saws) daily life. It’s the fictionalisation aspect that is worrying, not so much because of this particular book, this is something that has built up from when the hadith themselves were an oral tradition. Consider the danger of having historical fiction someone wrote about Mohamed (saws) floating about when our main sources for what the Prophet’s (saws) life was like are based on what people said about him. And for Sunni’s at least this makes up the second highest religious authority we have.
I’d have to read more to be able to anything substantial about it as a literary work, but it’s more controversial than I though it’d be already. [Aisha] seems younger than I think she’d be for her age, but that’s not an important issue within context. And it’s not even how she was tempted towards adultery as much as it’s that fact that that goes directly against something that is in the Qu’ran. Not to mention that Aisha in Islamic tradition (or sunni tradition) is one of the four perfect women who are held up as what all Muslim women should aim to be as wel as one of the Mothers of the Faith (along with Khadijah, Mary, and Asiya (ra)). Plus, it strikes me personally as a misrepresentation of who she was. Adultery in general is just a huge deal (even more so then, and even more so for a public figure, and even more so for her) it doesn’t strike me as plausible that she’d have a moment of weakness in this manner unless she was having a crisis of faith as well as whatever personal issues she’s supposed to be dealing with, because it is such a huge, huge thing to slip up on.
There are a slew of ways to evaluate the prologue: does it tease you to read more? Does the writing style please your readerly brain? Do the contents shock you? Does the characterization offend you deeply? Does the fiction make the idea of Mohammed and his life more or less accessible to you as a reader? Did you like it? And what about Brett Farve going to the Jets? No, sorry, that’s a different discussion.
I’m curious what you think of the prologue, so please share your thoughts. Thank you to Sherry Jones for sharing her work, and to shewhohashope for sharing her opinion and her time.
Doesn’t make it a desirable approach, does it? I mean, a good many people in the world think homosexuals should be considered second class citizens, or even killed for their sexuality, but that doesn’t make it right either.
I live in the West, and I believe in free speech. I’m not going to privilege someone else’s sensitivities to the point where I go against that fundamental principle. I will respect their right to use the privilege of free speech to argue that free speech should not apply in all cases, and use that same privilege to argue that they’re wrong.
Whoops, I just wanted to clarify that I thought that was worth mentioning because that’s where the book is putatively going to be published (or not.)
Fay, you said so eloquently, evocatively and delicately what I tried to say and did so blunty and crudely. Thanks.
I am not trying to be reactionary and inflammatory. But Rene, symbolically this novel is throwing down the gauntlet. It is literally shitting on the faith of millions of people. It is saying this is what I think of your religion and what you hold sacred.
Do you remember the piss Christ- where the artist tried to recreate an image like the Turin shroud but did it by pissing on it? This is so many orders of magnitude worse. Because it reifies images, depictions of sacred personages that cant but be lies.
Couple this with actual acts of war (Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan) and you have a horrible mix. And here’s the thing. I am not Muslim but I completely get it. There are some things that are sacred and there are some things that are profane. There are some things that I think you shouldnt mess with.
I just don’t see this at all. I see a novel based on a figure of history that someone found interesting. And, honestly, I think that most Muslims are pretty much regular people and most of them can handle it the way adults do – by refusing to purchase or read it. Treating them as if they’re some kind of wild animal that you’re poking with a stick by writing a piece of fiction that they can choose not to read or endorse, is just as insulting as using the Shroud of Turin as a urinal.
Here’s what I said:
So an act of war, or a cultural act of war or fighting words- could be the interpretation depending on how you look at it.
The people who look at it as an act of war will likely have one set of responses ( ie violent reprisal, boycotts, calls for retraction). People who see it as a cultural act of war will have another set ( which may overlap with the first or not). Finally those who see those a fighting words might have an altogether different set or responses (ditto).
But I didnt lay down what the reactions to Jones novel may be—but you did.
There is nothing juvenile about standing up for what you believe in. One persons terrorist is another persons freedom fighter ( dont believe me look up MauMau or any of the liberation struggles in Africa if you dont believe me).
But back to the point. Its about degree and definition. Lets take abortion. For some its murder. For other its the premature ending of life. For others its an unfortunate medical procedure.
For the person who thinks its murder- the right thing to do- may to take up arms to defend innocent life or maybe engage in boycotts and legislative action. For the person who think its the ending of life they may resort to lobbying, fundraising, legislative action. For others it might be a different set of responses. Depending on your viewpoint these might be just, ethical, called for and right action.
snarkhunter said about David Horowitz
Then Trumystique said
Then Rene S said
I agree with everything I’ve just quoted. I prefer the approach “you have the right to believe as you wish, but it can’t stop me saying what I want”, but I acknowledge that this probably comes from my Euro-centric cultural background, and that there is an alternative view which is made most obvious to me by Islam. I can’t see a solution to the difference in views, so we all need to learn to live with it – although how we do that I don’t know.
I’d just like to add one thought. US law applies in the US, and I’m happy to respect that. I just wish the US (and I’m referring here to the Government, not to any individuals posting here, none of whom have made this error) paid a little more respect to the fact that other countries have other laws, and to the international law which tries to make all those different national systems work together.
I live in Pakistan. The Danish cartoons did kill people in Pakistan. Those who killed and those who got killed were Muslims. It was nothing but mob instinct at work, whipped into a frenzy by those with political agendas. In this case using Islam.
As to the cartoons or this new book; I am afraid it shall cause similar distress, while Sherry Jones, can laugh her way to the bank. Is it worth the price? Can you live with yourself, knowing what shall happen, people shall die?
Nato forces attacking villages in Pakistan, Taliban, suicide bombers; I live a life surrounded by them. My children go to school and I pray they come home alive. The War in Afghanistan is extracting its price. Is it my fault that the Pakistani, American and Nato forces have a bungled up operation going on.
Sorry about this diatribe, but most Muslims are peaceful. I shall most likely ignore this book. My problem lies with those, who shall not read it, and go around hitting blindly at what comes in their way. Yes, I am afraid of rabid mullahs, whose loyalty is to money.
There is another angle though that Katherine has articulated well. In this day and age, we need less polarization, not more. My biggest fear at the start of the ‘American Crusades’, as Bush so eloquently said, was that there would be a shift to the right of the moderate Muslims. I have seen it happen.
Now there is a cultural crusade in the name of free speech. Then why ban books and articles related to denying the Holocaust. There are actual laws against it.
Why is this freedom of speech, used so expressively on anything to do with Islam; even at the cost of distorting the religion. If Sherry jones wanted to write about The Prophet’s wife because she found her life interesting, she could have written a true account. Why disfigure it in the name of artistic license.
I am not as worried by the book and its contents, as to what shall happen on the streets of my city. Academic discourse, cultural differences, sanctity of religions, the importance of our written word and opinion are more important right.
I need to figure out a way to save my shop from being burned, when the violence starts.
I apologize if this comes across as an angry letter. But, I am worried.
For my part, I’m inclined to buy the book simply because I don’t like people dictating what I can or cannot read because it offends their personal sensibilities. I live in Canada and I disagree with any kind of book banning, even though my own government has done a fine job with it. Let fools write their tripe; I’ll write something better and get better reviews.
What happens if people manage to keep this book under wraps? What’s going to set these people off next? If some crazies are going to get offended enough to cause violence because of a work of fiction, then they were cracked to begin with and the book is only an excuse.
The Danish cartoon incident was the catalyst for violent demonstrations in a host of countries, resulting in 100 deaths, according to Wikipedia.
Do I think they were wrong to publish the cartoons? Not neccesarily. I’m not sure that I know enough about the context (whether Jyllands-Posten is given to xenophobia, for example), but let’s give them the benefit of the doubt and assume that they genuinely WERE making a sincere point about their own value system, and the importance of free speech. ( Of course, it might have seemed braver if it were taking a swipe at a majority, rather than a small minority of their countrymen, but never mind.)
Once lobbed over the wall, though, the cartoon stopped being a statement about freedom of speech, and turned into something else. It failed to communicate the idea of equality and freedom that it (may have) intended, and instead it communicated pretty straight-forward contempt. Which was indeed incendiary (and the way it was presented to people in the Middle East may have been given conscious spin by some Muslims too – I’ve read various accounts, and I’m not clear on that) and did lead to rioting, picketing, and dozens of deaths.
I see where you’re coming from, and I agree that most Muslims living in the West probably would handle this with dignity, and understand the context in which it was written and received. Whilst I doubt many Muslims would be rushing out to read the book, I don’t think that many of them would build bonfires with it.
But I don’t live in America. I haven’t lived in the West for the past five years, so I’m looking at this as a stone thrown into a pond, and thinking of the ripples it’s going to create. It’s the power of this book as a symbol that I find worrying – its potency as a rallying point, as yet another sign of contempt. Ms Jones may well have written a beautiful, sympathetic and richly-detailed novel; she may have been scrupulous about adhering to her sources and have only the very best of intentions, but what it’s going to boil down to in the retelling is “This American woman says that the Prophet’s wife was a slut.” I mean, we really are talking “Yo’ mama”, almost literally.
In light of that, I can’t fault Random House for crapping themselves, albeit belatedly – I can fault them for not chickening out until the last minute, because they were spectacularly unprofessional in their dealing with poor Ms Jones – but they can pick and choose what they want to publish, and what fights they think are worth starting. It’s a damn shame they didn’t realise this way the hell back when, and Ms Jones certainly has my sympathy – she must be gutted by this whole situation. I hope that she is handsomely reimbursed.
Do I think the book should be banned? No, certainly not – because I agree that this would be the thin end of the wedge. (Ironically enough, only last night I led a play reading of a text that’s banned in this country.)
But I don’t think we should be naive about the potential repercussions of a piece of art like this, or its potency as a symbol. I’m sure it’s an interesting book, and I’d probably enjoy reading it rather a lot – but I’m still wincing at what it is likely to be made to stand for.
UR, I am so sorry that you live surrounded by such violence. I can’t imagine how frightening it is to send your children out into the street not knowing how or if they will come home again.
This:
breaks my heart, and I understand why you’re worried. Living your life under the threat of constant violence can’t be at all easy.
It doesn’t come across as angry, and if it does, I think you have the right, when your family’s at stake.
I sympathize with what you have to go through every day. But I can’t agree with this:
The cartoon did not kill people. Other people killed people. I think it’s disgusting that some with agendas, as you say, will use any excuse to further their own cause with no regard to human life.
I still think that a novel is not an act of war. Nor is a cartoon. The people that use them as an excuse for violence are despicable.
And of course, those that express their disagreement, as so many eloquently have on this thread, are entitled to their disagreement and their viewpoints.
– Teddypig
– Snarkhunter
-Katherine (both previous)
Teddy – right on. The Church had a coronary over Dan Brown’s “The DaVinci Code” *and* put pressure on the publisher, but the book is still a huge hit. And it made Christ out as a normal guy, the Church out as a psycho hit-squad bent on keeping its secrets, and a museum employee into a holy figure, of sorts. Talk about going whacko with the Bible and Doctrine.
I come from a time when book burning and banning was prevalent, so Snarkhunter, I can tell you that “Fahrenheit 451” had a powerful effect on me. It remains to this day my favorite novel. And that is a most telling, and applicable, passage.
To Katherine, the first comment I quote offended me. I’m not exactly certain what you mean by ‘needlessly’, but I surely know that I – as an American – have zero intention of pussyfooting around Muslims. Period. Or any other minority group. When I start censoring myself because I might ‘needlessly’ offend someone else, well, that’ll be the day I croak. There’s a huge difference between ‘tolerance’ and ‘acceptance’. I tolerate Muslims and rejoice with them the right they have, in America, to worship their faith. As I do for everyone in America who enjoys the freedom of religion. That doesn’t, however, mean that I accept their religion as right and the only truth. No more than I accept Christianity, Judaism, or any other organized religion.
And your second suggestion, that ‘in this environment’ we should have a ‘defensible position’, frankly offends me. Exactly what position should that be? I’d really like to know. Because ‘in this environment’ their really doesn’t seem to be a defensible position for Americans, other than total conversion to Islam. Not only am I not going to do that anytime soon, but the idea that the geopolitical environment should have any bearing on the publication of a fictionalized account of one woman in Islamic tradition, is ridiculous. A failure to publish this book is not suddenly going to make Muslim extremists love America – and if this country started trying to do things in order to cater exactly that response – I’d defect to China. At least there, I know I’ve got no rights from the get go. Further more, this is America. Where we do publish everything from racist propaganda to hard core, way-off-the-vanilla-path, skat pornography – this isn’t Saudi Arabia or Iran, where frankly the book would most likely never see the light of day.
I am an old woman. And I refuse, read that again, refuse to be terrorized by anyone: man, woman, child, religion, or government. And I don’t care how anyone reads or interprets that. I have to assume that Ms. Jones understood that she could come under fire from the Muslim community for attempting to publish this book. She doesn’t strike me as stupid. Random House no doubt saw the same possibilities. They showed poor judgment in asking an academic to read the work – perhaps if they’d done better research, it wouldn’t have been an issue. Because if they’d done better research, they’d have known not to ask a Muslim to review a work of fiction based on the life of an important Islamic character. Then maybe they could have asked Dan Brown to blurb the book, in which case, we wouldn’t even be having this conversation. Hopefully.
The only thing that should prevent a book from being published in the United States of America is shitty writing. And from what I read, the prologue, that can’t exactly be said of Ms. Jones.
So what you’re saying is that you’re proud that other nations perceive Americans to be obnoxious, intolerant and ignorant bores, and will do nothing to overturn that stereotype.
I have read some jaw-dropping statements today, but congratulations, madam, you have left me bereft of any sensible response. I have no words.
Because ‘Spellberg’ is a famously Muslim surname.
Ms. Somerville, if American’s spent twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week, three hundred and sixty-five days a year ass kissing the rest of the globe, we’d still never be able to completely dispel this belief. All we can do, as a whole, is try to live the best lives we can, being the best human beings we can be. And maybe elect a less retarded leader, but I digress.
But you know what, you’re perfectly entitled to perceive my comments however you like. I didn’t say anything even remotely similar to what you infer. I said I am not going to pussy foot around anyone, or walk on eggshells if you rather, because someone might be offended. I presume you take that to mean I’m some sort of epithet spewing, racist, bigoted hag. No, thank you, I am not. I was raised with both manners and a healthy respect for mankind as a whole. But I strenuously decline to act as if – simply by virtue of differing religious views, racial background, or class status – I am worth less than anyone else. We are all worth exactly the same, poor or rich, black or white, Jewish, Muslim, or other. And that’s one human life.
If this were the Middle East, it wouldn’t be a discussion because the book would never have been considered for publication. This is not, however, the Middle East.
As to the latter, you must be kidding. You mean to tell me that instead, you think the people at Random House said, “Let’s send this to this lady Spellberg. She can’t be Muslim with that last name, even if she is the leading professor of Islamic studies in the country.” That’s even more unintelligent than what I initially inferred.
You might say so. I can’t possibly comment.
Spellberg is not Muslim, from all I can find on her. You can be a leading figure in an area of study without being a subject of that area of study. Last time I looked, my husband wasn’t a monkey, after all.
How you marry a claim to both manners and respect, with an avowed dismissal of any attempts to avoid needless offence, I have no idea. I was always taught manners were all about avoiding needless offence.
Certainly you can. And she may not be Muslim, but according to all the news coverage I could find about this incident, instead of returning the galley to Random House and saying, “I can’t favorably review this,” she decided she had to ‘warn Muslims’ that the book ‘made fun of Muslims and their history’. And considering all the hard work she’s done on the Prophet and his life, and how often her work is cited for use in Muslim studies or other reasons related to Islam, I’d still say Random House didn’t do their research.
ROFL, you’re really tickling me pink here. Considering that everyone’s sensitivity is different, no I’m not going to spend my time trying to make sure I don’t offend anyone. Someone will always get their toes stepped on. As you obviously have here. Been offended, that is, and taken my comment to a whole new level. Spending all of my time trying not to offend someone else is a waste of time.
What I will do is be the best person I can be. That’s all anyone can do. I don’t treat others as less than myself. I appreciate goodness in every thing and everyone. Even in your insinuations here. We don’t have to agree on the point at all, Ms. Sommerville. And that’s absolutely fine.
However, neither of us is going to ‘call’ the Smart Bitches and demand the others comments be pulled because we were offended by one another. And neither of us is going to call up all of our friends and stir up a hornets nest which could possible cause physical harm to another because we don’t agree with each other’s comments. And we aren’t going to do that because even though we obviously disagree, we can still be respectful of each other and have tolerance of the other point of view. We don’t have to accept what is said as right, but we can tolerate the difference.
You mean, sending the book to an expert in the field the book was set in, was a mistake? Of course! They should have sent it to my husband, who could have brought his boundless views on primate taxonomy upon it and produced a blurb perfect for the back cover. “Jewel of Medina – no one’s idea of monkey business.”
Seriously, write to Random House and tell them off for not doing that.
Glad you find me so amusing. I wish I felt the same about you.
Well, I’m kind of forced to, considering there’s the Pacific Ocean between our two countries. A fact that, in many ways, reassures me greatly.
Freedom of speech is used in tons of ways that have nothing to do with Muslims and still bug the fuck out of me. So I’d have to say Muslims aren’t being singled out any more than anyone else is. It’s just the rest of us have learned to ignore it, because if we don’t, the homophobes and racists and ultra-liberal lefties and uber-conservative right-wingers and sports fans will drive us batty.
And maybe I missed something, but I was under the impression that even if Ms. Jones had been meticulous in her facts and distorted nothing, the book would still offend Muslims.
You don’t come across as angry, just someone who has valid and very everyday concerns that are being lost amid highminded issues. And I’m sorry you have to deal with such things. Truly.
Sigh. Just sigh. If this is where the majority of Muslims are coming from, then I just don’t see any way to bridge the gap that doesn’t involve everyone else just caving in and converting. If Muslims aren’t willing to bend a little when it comes to people who are not of their faith and who are under no obligation to live by its tenets, there’s no basis to build any kinf of dialogue between the two cultures. Us being able to understand what’s important to them doesn’t mean shit if they aren’t prepared to at least try to do likewise.
As for the flower/hand grenade analogy, well, it just reminds me of that scene in Mars Attacks. “Maybe to them, doves mean war.”
Did that earlier today, but thank you for the suggestion 🙂
Me too. Especially considering that, despite your personal blog post to the contrary, the Smart Bitches aren’t on an anti-Islam tear. It seems difficult for you to understand, but most of the commentators here have a hard time comprehending why a publisher would pull a work of fiction just because some people would be offended. They don’t pull racist fiction, they don’t pull Christian fiction, so why would they pull this one book?
What it boils down to is this, Random House canceled the book because it might offend some Muslims and(quote) “… it could incite acts of violence by a small, radical segment.” And this is pretty much intolerable to most of us – that we should censor an author or a book due to threat of physical harm or death or because it might offend some people.
We don’t all have to agree with what the book is about, we don’t have to like it, but Americans seem to prefer to make that decision on sinking or swimming with our wallets or our votes and not because we were bullied or terrorized into the choice.
What I see is someone who feels she has a right to speak her mind. And that’s a right you exercise on a regular basis, Ann, and sometimes with not so much effort to avoid offense. Common courtesy is always a good thing. But I’m no more considerate, courteous, polite or tolerant to a Muslim, Jew, Christian, gay, lesbian, black, white, or asian man, woman, or transgendered person than I am to anyone else. Nor should I have to be. Nor should anyone have to be, thanks.
Constantly worrying about avoiding offense is not the way to have a happy, productive, meaningful life. Do you bend over backwards to avoid “needlessly offending” everyone, Ann? You write gay fiction. Many people are (wrongly in my opinion, but not in theirs) offended by that. If you didn’t write your books, the world wouldn’t end. Your family would still have food to eat. Life would go on. Congrats, Ann, by writing what you choose to write, you have just “needlessly offended” lots of folks, some of whom, I’m willing to bet, are the very ones needlessly offended by the Jewel of Medina.
Um, isn’t that the dreaded cultural appropriation?
Look, I know it’s hard to pay close attention while you’re so busy doing your Ma Kettle imitation, but please note Sarah and Candy are not the same as the people commenting on their blog. I said:
“commentors over at the Smart Bitches blog are on an Anti-Muslim tear”
And that’s true – not for all, certainly, but for many – including you.
It’s intolerable to all right-thinking people, at least in the West. Americans don’t have a monopoly on libertarian thinking. The number of times I’ve read ‘As an American blah blah’ on this post and wanted to punch the screen in frustration, I can’t tell you.
I’m not having any difficulty understanding the issues. I’m having difficulty with the blatant disjunct between those who claim to stand for freedom of speech and personal liberty, but in practice slam those who voice dissent and insult people because of what religion they follow.
That about sums it up. If we spent all our time being offended by everything or hoping we never offended anyone, well we wouldn’t be talking at all. We do our best to ignore the bad and look for the good and hope that we’ve lived lives that spread more positive than negative.
It isn’t just America that needs to gain more knowledge and understanding of the rest of the world. The rest of the world might try to do the same, instead of assuming all the asshats they see on television are somehow the exact embodiment of the whole of the American citizenry.
I did no such thing – anywhere. I don’t care what religion you follow – your religion doesn’t make you a good person or a bad person. And I didn’t slam your voice of dissent either. In fact, I’m pretty sure I said it’s perfectly okay to disagree. That despite not agreeing with you, I could still respect your point of view on the subject.
As to my misquote, I do apologize. I was sure I had ‘commentors’ in the quote. It was my intention to do so. My eyesight isn’t what it was and I missed the slip when I reread the post. No, you didn’t say Smart Bitches were anti-Islam, just the commentors.
Kirsten, I’m bewildered by the pride you and Shirley apparently take in the ability to needlessly offend people. “Needlessly” means pointlessly. Sherry Jones writing a literary novel about Aisha is going to offend, but I would never call it pointless. Conflating all Muslims with the hardliners who bomb innocent civilians and hang homosexuals, and pretending all Muslims are exactly the same, is pointless. Like walking up to an Arab and calling them a towelhead.
I’m objecting to the pointlessness of rudeness and thoughtlessness, and insulting people by lumping them in with others they themselves object to. When did that become admirable behaviour?
Strangely enough, I do. When I offend someone, I’m either doing it accidentally, or I’m doing it to make a point.
I don’t think you understand this concept at all.
Perhaps I don’t, but I’ve heard it used in these discussions to criticize Ms. Jones for having dared to write a book about Muslim religious figures. Yet those same people who object to it seem to have no problem with the fact that Ms. Spellberg has done the same thing.
I agree. But so is according one group more respect and tolerance than any other, based solely on their religion. I wouldn’t serve ham sandwiches at a potluck if there were Jewish or Muslim guests attending. I kneel and cross myself before I seat myself in my grandmother’s Catholic church, and bow my head when she says grace, despite the fact I have no real belief in any god. I do these things to show respect for others.
But I don’t eschew ham sandwiches at home, either, nor do I say grace myself when my grandmother isn’t there. I should not be held to the tenets of a religion that is not mine by choice.
And I refuse to behave as if this:
……is what we’re up against. Because I just can’t accept that there is no compromise here, no common ground as human beings, no bend at all except the one in my back as I go about doing everything I can to avoid needlessly offending anyone. Perhaps, just perhaps, there ought to be some onus on them to not find offense where it is not intended?
Or am I to assume the average Middle Eastern Muslim is so uneducated and incapable of reason that they don’t know any better?
You must have a lot of points to make, then.
You know what this discussion needed? A comparison between Muslims and aliens.
And we have gone an awfully long way down the path of ‘why do they hate our FREDOOM?’ for an incident that has approximately nothing to do with any Muslim. Spellberg raised the alarm to a listerv of Muslim grad students, and I’ve already said exactly how I feel about how people responded to the tangential involvement of the students in the book not being published.
Since consensus is that I’m not one of the Muslim students of the Axis of Evil (I’m ony an undergrad, give me time), I will explain what has been troubling me here.
No, there is too much. Allow me to sum up:
– People talking about ‘universal values’. Which sound oddly, exactly the same as how they describe Western values. No bias here.
– The whole judging the book ‘as a Muslim’ and ‘as a person’ approach. biasbiasbiasbiasbias.
– I don’t want to perpetuate what has gone from a simple academic on novelist/book grudge match to Clash of the Civilisations the smartbitches way, but here goes:
Like I have said many, many times, there is no real equivalence between pop cultural representations of Christianity and Islam. Not that christians don’t have the right to be ofefended by anything, but the subtext is entirely different. How many people honestly think that Christianity is a mysterious sub-culture within society that can never truly be understood due it’s barbaric ways? Not. Many.
And the anthropologist in me (let this joke slide, please) is distraught at all the comments about how different cultures can never be understood, or possibly someone from a different culture is the best person to understand it! Sometimes both of these together, as difficult as it may be to credit. I thought that this went out in the sixties?
There is a long, long history of anthropologists being used by colonial powers to help them in understanding/controlling the natives. Is it any wonder that people often do not respond well to firstly, their culture been taken in and broken down by an outsider from their POV, possibly in ways that are deeply offensive. This is why (as there is no mention of Ms. Jones collabrating with any Muslim/Arab groups) this book does come across as being a little ‘blithe’.
I’ve had to sit through religious education classes where the mosque was described as God’s house and the Prophet (saws) was described as Islam’s example of the religious tradition of having God incarnate on earth (along with Jesus (saws) and Krishna). Guess who had the authoritative knowledge in that room? If you guessed the person/people who lived their entire lives based on the principles being described you guessed wrong. The person who had maybe read a book (or… 29?) would be the right answer.
This is why people who keep saying that they would rather read this book than one written by biased Muslims (unlike the non-biased non-Muslims?) are annoying me. Still, it’s no surprise that a white American can come along and do something (write aqbout Muslim women) and have it proclaimed as mind-blowingly revolutionary, when the people in question have been writing about and for themselves for a long, long time already. If school has taught me nothing, it’s that nothing exists until a white (wo)man has written about it.
I’ll probably think of more when I hit [submit] but that’s enough tl;dr for now.
[Ignore the many, many typos that are probably lurking here]
Did you even read the text you quoted before you said this?
You know, there’s a world of difference between telling dead baby jokes to a bunch of giggling fourteen year old boys, and to a room full of women who’ve lost their children to SIDS. I’m not arguing this book should not be published – I’m arguing the opposite most vehemently – but if the West is going to deal with the cultural important icons and figures of other nations and peoples, then they have to be aware of the effect this will have. There is simply no way Ms Jones or anyone schooled in Islamic studies can be aware of the potential for offense here. The onus really is on the authors and the publishers to handle the issuing of such material in a sensitive manner – this doesn’t mean *not* issuing it, but it might mean consulting with community leaders and so on about how best to handle it, so it doesn’t look like a random slap in the face.
You live in a peaceful democratic country with full rights and privileges. If someone puts out a book attacking Canada, you can brush it off because you know it doesn’t destabilise your life. If, as the poster above, you live in Pakistan and every time America sneezes, your country gets pneumonia, you’re going to be a lot more worried about issues which can rock your world because changes of government in Pakistan usually mean people die. Lots of people die. That lady doesn’t have the luxury of telling the radical Muslims to suck it up and stop being so sensitive. She can’t sit back and fold her arms and expound like you do from the safety of your cosy Canadian life.
A good many people in the Middle East are living in a war zone, and a lot of them feel, with good reason, that America and her allies have got it in for them. Dropping bombs on people isn’t likely to make them give much of a shit how hard it is for poor little Canadian you to watch your Ps and Qs. They’re going to think – with some reason – that publishing blasphemous and pointless books about a very central part of their existence, on top of ripping their lives apart, is really adding insult to injury in the most egregious way.
Sorry to be slow – could you explain what you mean here? I get the rest of what you said, I think.
And sorry to be asking questions again when you must be sick of it.
This!
I have lived in the UK for many years and I have never lived in fear of my life. I was on the underground on the day of the 21/7 almost-attacks in 2005 and I never really felt that my security was threstened. Now when I lived in [country redacted] as a child it was pretty constant. Bombs overhead, gunshots day and night, relatives being injured and killed. You have probably never lived at the whim of another country, because you get to have your soveriegnty respected and not just as long as you play to the tune of more powerful nations.
This book is not being written in a vacuum.
[Repeat disclaimer: Not a terrorist, not in the publishing industry.]
No, I was trying to be clear.
What I meant was when people said things like judged as a Muslim the books were direspectful, but by the rules of human courtesy, they weren’t?
That got to me. We’re people too!
As the duly elected representative of The Rest Of The Globe (okay, maybe not so much with the due elective process – I took a leaf out of George Bush’s book), I’m happy to reassure you that we don’t want our arses kissed. I think mostly it’s more a case of not wanting them kicked, or indeed fucked without lube. Provided that’s not going on, we’re quite content for our arses to modestly go about their arsely business without getting naked and importuning any American mouths.
I’d been assuming she WASN’T Muslim, based on the name – Googling seems to be implying that she’s Jewish, but I’ve not yet found any authoritative-looking source, and she would most likely have retained her name if she’d converted to Islam. Interesting. Anybody got any links to clear this one up?
??? Sorry, I obviously expressed myself badly. (And I should make it clear – I’m not Muslim myself. I’m an Atheist, and British. Presently living in a Buddhist country, but lived in a Muslim country for 3 years previously.) But I’m a bit thrown by your interpretation of my words as implying some kind of Muslim missionary zeal – that because there are profound differences or perspective, it follows that no kind of rapprochement can be reached other than obliteration of one group.
I mean, seriously – how much does Joe Q Public know about Islam? Or Ahmed Q Public know about the West? Not very much, really, other than crap from the movies. What they DO have on their doorstep is Israel, armed to the teeth, heavily financed by the US, occupying holy territory and eager for expansion, and Western armies of occupation in Afghanistan and Iraq (and likely Iran or Syria next).
I mean, seriously – under these circumstances, OF COURSE people don’t see us as the Good Guys. We’re invading their territories because we want their oil. They know it. We know it. This does put a bit of a damper on our relationships.
But even so, I’ve not abandoned hope. I don’t think we have to crush them, or they us.
Traditionally Islam has done a pretty good job of allowing Jews and Christians to live alongside them peacefully – all the Peoples of the Book were respected. Obviously things went pretty downhill when we decided to create the Nation of Israel in the middle of Palestine, and booted the Palestinians out while lots of rich Jewish Westerners moved in, but that’s hardly surprising. Sometimes the things that seem no big deal to one group are actually a very big deal to another group. People who have no particular opinions about how you should live your life one way or the other may still be offended by the idea of this book – much as you’d be offended if someone posted a picture of your grandmother on a porn website, regardless of whether you were opposed to porn websites in principle.
For any group, symbols are very powerful as a simplistic (indeed reductive, and often misleading) shorthand for larger, more complex ideas. I think that this book (which I’m sure WILL be published) may well become another symbol, like ‘The Satanic Verses’ before it. Or not – I really hope not. But heaven knows, it’s easily got the makings of it.
The clash of cultures we’ve got going on at present ISN’T just about religion – it’s largely about money, and colonialism, but that’s entangled with religion and with identity. We’re invading and occupying Arab countries *right now* and imposing our own political systems on them – hell, we’ve been bombing Afghanistan for years, and they never did a damn thing to us in the first place. We’ve decided to throw out the rules of civilized warfare, the Geneva Convention, and resorted to setting up torture camps like Guantanamo Bay. Really – there are LOTS of reasons why we aren’t seen as just a bunch of nice people minding their own business and living our lives as best we can. We AREN’T minding our own business. Our armies are in their back yards.
Plenty of educated Muslims are more than prepared to do likewise. As to our willingness to understand what’s important to them – stripping prisoners naked, photographing them being abused and forcing them to eat bacon kind of implies that we still have a ways to go on that one. And, frankly, we’re the ones with the big guns, whatever anyone might claim about WMD in bunkers. But the nature of 21st Century warfare is such that might isn’t enough any more.
Okay, you made me giggle – but it’s funny ‘cuz it’s true (as Homer Simpson once said). Seriously – we do need to recognize that we’re working from different contexts in order to pinpoint misunderstandings. Which means education on both sides.
I’m really sad that it’s remotely necessary to even say that.
I’ve been a bit boggled by the constant theme of how unreasonable Muslims are, reacting to such material, because what strikes me as an atheist, and particularly moving back from Britain to a much more obviously Church dominated society, is just how fucking touchy Christians are about things that offends them. Bad words, slight nudity, ‘adult’ story lines, gay rights movements – bound to get angry quotes from some church group or other in Australia, and the same in America. In both countries, a fundamentalist Christian leads the government, and they are leading very obviously theistic and not at all church/state separated countries. The assumption in the society is, offending Christians==bad. No one questions it. I don’t even tell people I’m an atheist unless I’m really comfortable with them. I’m readier to tell them I write gay erotica than that 🙂
In America, the biggest terrorist threat, even now, doesn’t come from Islamic fundamentalists, but homegrown nutbags, very often from the Christian right. America might not hang homosexuals, but it executes mentally impaired people, juveniles at the time of the crime, and a disproportionate number of non-whites, and if you’re talking about torture and oppressive regimes – Guantanamo Bay anyone?
In other words, while I absolutely condemn the excesses of Iran and Iraq and other fundamentalist states, and don’t hold them up as models of good governance by any means, America doesn’t stand up to well in comparison either. I know Americans largely don’t see it that way, but from the outside, a lot of us are scratching our heads at George Bush lecturing China about human rights and going, what the fucking fuck?
Sorry, off on a tangent.
Fay, you and I must be sharing a brain 🙂 Only you got the smart half.
(Snarkhunter)
Sorry for not replying – I went to bed.
It would end where society thought it should end. Most rights are qualified to some extent – if a country does have laws against holocaust denial (supressing speech because it’s offensive and wrong) it doesn’t follow that it will suppress other kinds of free speech.
(I keep losing your post when I look for quotes. Numbered posts would be dead useful.)
Yes, I agree that you should ignore the threats. Easy for me to say, no-one’s threatening me.
In general, I just want to say thanks again for these two threads. They’ve been both interesting and informative.
Haven’t reached any conclusion – I don’t know enough to think sensibly about the issues.
Hang on – this isn’t me, is it? Because I did try to point out the dichotomy between a Western perspective and a Muslim perspective, but I certainly didn’t mean to imply that the Western perspective was The One True Way. Because – duh. Not so much. I was just trying to delineate the problem in perspective – I mean, even as a Westerner I found it very difficult to NOT read the prologue in an OMGWTF???!!! mindset. But I know that it will seem perfectly innocuous to most Westerners.
I know that, despite what George Bush seems to think, there’s no such thing as ‘Universal Human Values’. It’s as evocative, punchy and totally bloody meaningless as ‘War on Terror’.
Ha! Atheist? Check! Write gay erotica? Check! Not a big fan of George Bush? Check! I see your point…And you know, nobody has ever seen us a room together at the same time…hmm…clearly we are two halves of the same person!
I wonder which one of us is Clark Kent? (I’m thinking me. Which hopefully means I get to shag Lex in cornfields, rather than have to defend Truth, Justice and The American Way simulltaneously, while wearing lycra and primary colours.)
Actually, I thought that the tag Smart Bitches referred to people who read the blog, not just Sarah and Candy.
You’re welcome to him – my heart belongs to Batman 🙂
Oh no. Many of us are bitches, many of us are smart, but there are only two Smart Bitches. Or at least there are to me.
Kat, I suspect if it had been academic to academic, there might have been more notice, but because it was academic reacting to a commercial fiction author, it’s not likely to raise as many antennae within the academic community. That’s just a guess, but it makes sense in my addled morning brain.
And see, here’s the thing about the notoriety this book is experiencing. IF Spellberg had simply declined to blurb the book and IF she’d not reacted the way she had, setting off a domino effect of events, and IF Random House hadn’t reacted the way they had by canceling the book, in all likelihood, the book would have been quietly published (given that right now, all the publishing news is focused on Breaking Dawn) and the likelihood that all of us who have commented would’ve even known about the book’s existence would’ve been limited to those of us who browse the New Release shelves or have a particular interest in historical fiction.
I subscribe to Publisher’s Weekly and Pub Marketplace/Lunch and regularly check out other publishing sites and I’ve been wracking my brain and can’t recall seeing mention of this book, even though, especially by debut book standards, it got a very good deal.
We might have heard about it after it was published, especially if it started coming up for awards, but the harsh truth of the matter is that commercial fiction publishing these days is a very swimming with the sharks proposition. You’re dropped into the ocean and expected to fight your way to shore.
This book is very important to Sherry Jones, as all our books are to those of us who write them—but in the scheme of the greater publishing world as a whole? It certainly wouldn’t have made this big a splash. Hell, Margaret B. Jones’ “memoir” got more pre-pub press than this book appears to have.
Just trying to bring a different view in here.
Yes, good point. That also never crossed my addled brain. Let someone else clean-up the mess. I’m sure an article on it will come out in on a journal in the next five years.
I think my biggest concern here is—will this set a prescedent for the future… what kind of message is Ramdom House sending when they cave in to this type of pressure. What will happen, when some other group comes in and wants another book “banned.” How does this affect first ammendment rights, and “censorship.” Or will it become a matter of “you have the freedom to write anything you want, but we won’t publish it, because….”
This is what I keep coming back to, no matter where else this conversation goes.
I get that some persons may be offended by the content of the book and Ms. Jones’ authoring of the story. I’ve been there – and it’s not a pleasant place to be, to be hurt, upset, offended, saddened by someone not even getting what it is that they have done. I feel this every blessed time I read a newspaper article covering my own in-the-news-lately religion. So, yep, all the commentors who are just really upset that the book exists at all get both my empathy and my sympathy.
BUT! I honestly don’t think this mess would exist at all without the actions of Professor S. Oh, she’s totally within her rights to contact some folks and give a heads up that there’s a book coming out and yikes is it an eye-roller. But it’s another thing entirely for this woman to go back to persons whom she can reasonably expect NOT to be able to make a discerning judgement about what she’s planning to say and go all “OMG teh violence! it is coming!”
Is anyone who is upset about the book also mad at the professor? *She’s* the one who could be expected to have more knowledge on the history, tenants and current disposition of the Islamic faith than the publisher and SHE’S the one going around claiming that violence is about to ensue. Is no one upset with *her* for fanning the flames of public anxiety and reinforcing stereotypes? I’d think she’d rather NOT have people envisioning Muslims as hair-trigger hysterics, yes? She’s the one who has spent years studying the faith with and around the faithful and SHE’s the one who comes up violence as the top-of-mind image? That’s way more offensive to me than anything I’ve read in or about the book so far.