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.
I told myself I would not return to this thread because I’ve had my say and I really have better things to do than repeat myself. But
OK, so Shewhohashope, Popin and myself amount to a legion? And our legitimate objections to this book amount to PHYSICAL ASSAULTING YOU? Is that what you’re saying? You think freedom of speech doesn’t work both ways? If you don’t like what we’re saying, but you have nothing more constructive to say than compare us to ALIENS, then go away from this thread. You are not contributing to this discussion in a meaningful way.
Something just came to my attention, so I want to clarify, just in case.
I am not the author Shirley Jones. I wouldn’t want anyone to infer she were I and then malign her for any comment I may have made with which they didn’t agree.
And Ziggy, I’m certain I’m coming from this from a different angle, but I inferred Mr. Hubbard was speaking back to the ‘threats’, which got the book pulled, and not by any comment you or another made. But I could be wrong. And I agree his initial comment could have been less spiteful, though the gist of it had some merit – that those leaders were extremely hard on any medium that painted them in a bad light and so actively obliterated the product and the producers. And that in America, we don’t support that kind of action.
Then again, I could be giving Mr. Hubbard much more credit than he deserves. Just trying to keep cool heads all around.
Thanks shirley. Um, I may be mistaken, in which case I totally apologise for losing my temper – but there weren’t ACTUALLY any threats made, am I right? Didn’t RH pull the book because they were Spellberg told them there might be problems, but no one ACTUALLY made any threats? Didn’t the Hussaini (sp?) Youth actually plan nothing more than a campaign against the book?
As someone who has traveled pretty extensively, including to the Middle East, I am continually embarrassed at how little Americans know about other countries and cultures. By contrast, people I meet in other countries, including the Middle East, are incredibly educated about world affairs and about different countries. And we seem to revel in our ignorance, convinced that we are at the center of the universe. Which is why, IMO, America is despised in a number of quarters. Thomas Friedman did a fascinating documentary several years ago in which he interviewed a number of young Muslims from the Middle East. The consistent refrain was that while they admired American democracy,freedom, and different aspects of our culture, they saw us as a nation as imposing in our perceived superiority to other countries and our aggressive insistence that we know what’s good for every other country.
On the more general point of taking and giving offense that is circulating through this thread, I have a bit different take on it, I guess. First let me say that I am a First Amendment disciple; at this point my entire career is focused on it, so I have a deep and abiding faith in the wisdom and importance of the broadest possible free speech protections. I know that the US is increasingly unique in terms of our First Amendment, as numerous countries that people admire for being more socially progressive (e.g. Canada) have more limited speech protections. And I am very, very concerned about the state of the First Amendment in the current political and social climates.
That said, I am glad that people are talking here about the fact that free speech is not always without cost. Because while I believe that even the most stupid and offensive speech MUST be protected in the US, it would be really really great, IMO, if people were more thoughtful about what they say. Because while the First Amendment is a protection *from,* it does not do anything but secure a baseline for a democracy—it does not magically create a viable, functional society. IMO we SHOULD be thinking more carefully about what we say and how we say it, because sure we have the right to say almost anything, but we also, IMO, have the responsibility to do what we can to sustain our democracy. And that is about more than pointing to our rights and reminding everyone that we have them. It’s also about reaching for those political and social ideals embedded in our founding documents—“with liberty and justice for all” —and striving to apply them as equitably and judiciously as possible.
We have all these civic ideals focused on equality and freedom, but those values must be worked for; the Constitution was drafted in anticipation of an engaged citizenry. In the same way that we know how slavery and other forms of discrimination do not serve democracy, we know that only so much social and political divisiveness is possible before a democracy turns in on itself and becomes something *other* than a democracy. Democracy is fragile, it is unstable, it is dynamic in nature. And IMO we are becoming increasingly thoughtless on a national level, increasingly disengaged and increasingly overwhelmed in terms of our day to day challenges. This does not mean we should support or tolerate censorship, even self-censorship; it simply means that we all influence the character of our society, and the way we exercise our choice to be thoughtless or mindful makes a difference.
Does that mean people HAVE to be pay more attention to what they say and do? Obviously not. But sometimes I wonder why the hell people seem so intent on NOT doing so.
Bleh, sorry for all the typos.
Once upon the present, you’ve heard that a chef somewhere has developed a new kind of cinnamon milk chocolate bar based on a recipe that goes back to the dawn of time. This chef isn’t actually a cinnamon milk chocolate chef, but she’s done a lot of cinnamon milk chocolate research and, damn if that recipe doesn’t sound like something you’d like to try.
So you go, “Hell, yeah, I’m so there!” and… the chocolate company has decided not to make and market it because there’s a group of cinnamon milk chocolate chefs who claim the ancient recipe is a holy recipe and are utterly pissed that someone has dared profane their sacred dessert special.
Now the chocolate company is afraid of repercussions by maddened cinnamon milk chocolate chefs, waving butcher knives and hurling fondue pots at innocent sweet shop patrons.
Now, this chef wasn’t claiming that her chocolate was the exact original recipe or that it was intended to replace the ancient recipe. She publicly acknowledged that it was an adaptation (which it obviously was, because the ancient recipe and its devotees were pretty well known), with extra ingredients that she thought tasted good, and she was marketing it to the public, with the hope that they would think that it tasted good. Since the original recipe had no patent in her country, she was legally free to adapt the recipe as she saw fit.
However, some cinnamon milk chocolate chefs started a campaign saying that her cinnamon milk chocolate tasted bad and that no one should eat it. Some people said that people should not make adaptations of that recipe because it was offending cinnamon milk chocolate chefs. Keep in mind that no one was making cinnamon milk chocolate chefs eat or even look at this particular chocolate. The very presence of it was offending them.
You remember when someone marketed a recipe of white chocolate with added almonds and another marketed a new concoction of dark chocolate with peanut butter swirls and there wasn’t this kind of fuss. The volatile nature of some cinnamon milk chocolate chefs was to be feared, apparently – those fondue pots HURT when they’re aimed at your temple.
Interestingly, the focus wasn’t “What are we going to do about people who try to hurt other people”, it was “What are we going to do to avoid offending chefs who might randomly start stabbing us with cake knives if they happen to see this recipe featured at the local chocolate potluck?”
Another point was, “There are some recipes that should just not be made because the combination of certain ingredients really offend a large number of people who believe that their chocolate recipe is the best.” You have personally eaten chocolate-covered blueberries, something that some chefs have assured you will send you to the Big Bread Oven Beneath the Kitchen, but you don’t see what’s so awful about them. In fact, you don’t understand why the hell those chefs don’t simply refuse to eat chocolate-covered blueberries and leave it at that. Maybe in Chocolate Orange Land, things are different, but you live in Fondutopia and you’re allowed to eat whatever chocolate you like here.
Epilogue:
Eventually, you find that a different chocolate company has chosen to market the chocolate bar and sales have soared, partly due to the hype. The chef who created this recipe is now rich and living in Cocoa Butter Estates and the chocolate is now sold in most major stores (and a few minor ones). Eventually, the popularity of the brand got to the point where the chef came out with cinnamon milk chocolate covered blueberries, which ensured her place in the Big Bad Kitchen, but also in the hearts of chocolate lovers everywhere.
The End.
The main part of the controversy that bothers me is the thought of death threats to the author or publishing house. “Nor take life” should apply even when someone writes something that offends us.
I was born and raised Roman Catholic. There are some representations of Jesus and God in books with which I don’t personally agree, but I don’t support book banning lists either.
I will say that I have learned a lot more about Muslim beliefs in the discussions here than I knew. Thank you to all show shared their faith and knowledge.
I can’t actually get a clear answer on the ‘threats’. That’s why I quoted them, you know, like saying possible threats? but not typing it all out. Sorry, a bit of laziness on my end.
I do know that Spellberg was the one that initially suggested threats to life and limb, though. And I’m all for the Husseni(sp) Youth campaigning against the book here in the States. They have every right to. It’s what ticked off Catholics did when ‘The DaVinci Code’ came out.
For what it’s worth, and it may not be clear from my comments in this thread, I completely agree with this. I actually (usually) try very hard to be mindful in what I say and do. I try to educate myself—and others, and not just b/c it’s my profession—but I get very balky when mindfulness is aligned with silencing, which I feel like is being gestured toward on this thread. And not, oddly enough, by any of the people who most strongly object to the book’s content.
Maybe I’m naive or just plain stupid, but I believe it’s possible to write a book like this one, even knowing that it violates one of the most sacred beliefs of Islam, in a thoughtful manner, and in a manner not intended to be a “hand grenade.” Not having read the book, I won’t say if this particular book does so. But I believe in the *possibility*.
Snarkhunter and Robin, I think you have both said it far more eloquently than I every could.
Thank you both.
And that should have been *ever* could, not every could.
Sheesh…
*headdesk*
Neither of us know how to spell Husseini! Hehe! Yes, this is the sum total of what I know, too. Everything I’ve said in both JoM threads, I have based on the assumption that no threats of violence have actually been made towards RH in response to the publishing of this article. Please correct me if this is wrong.
Beautiful. I have tears in my eyes.
I cannot tell you how passionately I agree with this.
ElronHubbard, thanks for revealing so well how true bigotry really works. You already show through those 2 scenarios that to you “guilt, … remorse, … ethical, moral or intellectual obligation to make any attempt to ‘see [things] from [another’s] perspective’ or ‘go half way’” are not things you negotiate with your own code of ethical thought and behavior, but depend solely on how you perceive this “other”: if they’ve gained your magnanimity and approval by behaving just so then you’re sorry to offend them and will condescend to “go half way,” if they haven’t then “screw them” ‘cause you don’t care. And somehow you don’t see that this is exactly the type of attitude that supposedly you have no patience for! Funny, that. It’s a neat trick to make your approach sound rational and fair, but the thing is: it would only be fair if you were infallible. I know, you happen to think you are (“the simple fact is that you/the west/“America”/whoever isn’t ‘other’ to you are right” – right?!) but… you’re not. Your method of judging whether someone deserves “consideration” – as you put it – is faulty. Based on this method, you’ve managed to assign to “case b”, with the hypothetical person assaulting you and “the fatwah givers, the rushdie threateners, the danish embassy attackers” precisely the most calm, rational and respectful people who’ve been commenting here—just so you can still dismiss them as “whiney, YELLING” and spew any amount of hateful stuff at them if you so wish, regardless of what they’ve actually said or not. Congratulations. Way to promote that western righteousness of yours! I call it good old dehumanization of the “other,” but that’s just me…
Once again Robin said it all so much more clearly than I could.
I did try, but I found three potential spellings. I went with what I thought ‘looked’ right, LOL. I’ve really looked into this, from the WSJ op-ed piece, to other blogs and publications, but some say there were actual threats and others only that Spellberg suggested there would be.
and i was referring to this kind of stuff (must say, i don’t understand how anyone would read it and think it’s in any way excusable or just find it… “spiteful”):
i wasnt talking about you or anyone posting to this thread who-whatsoever, silly goose. Im talking about the people who are interested in having books not published and authors killed. including ‘offended people’ (not you, not here) who want to stir all of these people up because of some silly book. i think it was quite clear really.
the aliens and both ‘cases’ were simply ‘what ifs’, thats all – jeez
Wow. After reading that, I was wondering exactly what I misread in Mr. Hubbard’s initial comment. And I figured it out.
Huge error on my part, this quote was what I was referring to in my post about ‘spitefulness’ and it should be attributed to John.
To Mr. Hubbard’s comments, they are absolutely spiteful. And bitter. But they are his opinions, his bitterness, and his problem to deal with. It isn’t, in my opinion, my job to use ugly words to paint him with any more than I should use ugly words to paint anyone.
As someone else said better, many of the commentators here have a hard time understanding all the brouhaha. We understand the insult factor, we don’t deny Muslims the right to be offended if they choose to be, but we simply cannot fathom silencing the book when so many offensive titles have hit the shelves before it, and probably will after it. After all, Mein Kampf is still available from bookstores here, and I personally cannot think of a more vile book. It’s filled with hate and propaganda and I wouldn’t touch it with a ten foot pole. But despite the controversy, in the late sixties it was rereleased – and not for the first time, either – by Houghton and Mifflin.
So you see, if a book of hate like Mein Kampf can be published and republished, which I would imagine might offend a Jew or ten million, why can’t this book about A’isha(paws) *showing due respect*?
Completely unrelated, but the code is ‘use69’. Is that a thoughtful suggestion? I just don’t think I can get into that position comfortably anymore, ROFL!
I should amend that. Mein Kampf offends way the hell more people than those of the Jewish faith. I hope it offends everyone, regardless of what faith they follow or where they are from. To classify human beings as having less worth simply because of the people they come from (a major theme in the book) is repugnant, or should be, to anyone. In my opinion, of course.
Wow. Just because i get a little worked up over an issue dosent mean im bitter, lol. make me sound like an old man. If i said hitler sucked, would that make me bitter.
If anyone can figure out anyplace i said something that was a direct insult to someone here (which you wont find any), then im sorry. Im not one of the people that used curse words (i dont count scr3w) either, so why dont you guys relax a little.
Fine; your right, a little over the top. and thanks for trying to see what i was saying. I just have 0, thats ZEROOOO, tolerance for thought police.
Its interesting that so many people have waxed poetic on how they hate censorship and would decry anyones attempt to control what books they read or have access to. Understand that loud and clear.
Does this passion also carry over to other forms of media. Would you be upset if you couldn’t watch a television network because someone somewhere at the headquarters of a cable provider decided that the network was “anti American” or “propaganda” or a “weapon to incite terrorists”?
Would this http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91692466 or this
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/05/16/technology/jazeera19.php
bother people as much of this Jewel of Medina controversy?
Why or why not?
Silly trumystique. It’s perfectly okay to censor stuff that might offend Americans, didn’t you know that? Otherwise, it’s like walking up to them and kicking them in the face, or dropping a spaceship on their heads. I know every time someone says they believe in God, it’s like someone abducted me and impregnated me with alien sperm.
how can you be so damn confrontational and aggressive, hmmm?
You’ve really been on your “Americans suck” streak for a few days. Is it just our nasty foreign policy, or, to paraphrase Jenny Crusie, did an American recently run over your dog?
Also, last I checked, some of the people offended by JoM WERE American.
Redacted with apologies because I’m being a bitch for no good reason, and need to read for and appreciate sarcasm.
FWIW, Trumystique, I think al-Jazeera *should* be available in the US. It’s important to get different viewpoints. However, television is regulated in entirely different ways from print media. I have never managed to fully unpack how I feel about that, but I do know that I am much, much more passionate about print media, which encourages independent and critical thought—even in its most propagandistic forms—than television does. So while I think television should not be censored, I don’t get as up in arms about the gatekeeping of television content (except patently silly shit like the FCC’s panic over the ‘wardrobe malfunction’) as I do over any attempt to shut down alternate voices in print media.
Hm. I think I need to read more closely for sarcasm. Or just go to bed so that my reading comprehension skills are sharper.
Ann, I’m sorry. I think I’m being bitchy to you for no good reason, and I retract the first half of my comment. I’d edit it out, but that seems really dishonest.
The rest of my comment (re: al-Jazeera and tv) stands.
I know it feels like forever, but I’ve only been in this conversation for two. Two points – (a) some Americans do suck, as witnessed by some of the outrageous crap posted here, and (b) boy, aren’t you touchy about insults to your national pride. Anyone would think you were Muslim or something.
Is pretty much my attitude.
I have dear and beloved American friends, there are many Americans I admire, and aspects of American culture and attitudes which I find quite attractive. But as a society, the inane mouthing of ‘I’m an Ameruhcan and y’all can go fuck yourselves’ type rhetoric, whether it’s from Dubya or Mr Illiterate above, makes well-meaning people want to punch you in the face. I honestly don’t think a lot of your countrymen and women have any idea just how fucking irritating you are when you do that.
ETA: Just saw your second post. Yes, I was being sarcastic. Jeez.
For what it’s worth, *I* want to punch people with that attitude in the face.
A) Yes. Yes, some of us do. Many of us do. Also true of the denizens of every other country out there. Except maybe Iceland. Iceland rocks. B) Sometimes. Especially when tired and frustrated and irritable and really not on my A-game.
I was going to get angry but then you excluded Iceland, so all is well 🙂
Interesting threads, if a little heated. Lots of information, surprisingly civil, given the subject matter.
Feeling a little tossed about. I’m not sure if I’m supposed to recognize the differences in cultures or ignore the differences in cultures and recognize that everyone is human. I have a feeling that either way, someone will be annoyed.
I’m aiming at the second. Forget the whole Muslim angle. Substitute “Group of people for whom the work in question, based on the strictures of a tenet they hold dear, has an extremely high probability of causing offence.” Let’s call this…group A.
I’d like to question the idea that Catholic uproar over Dan Brown’s work cannot be compared to the potential offence caused to group A, because while tolerance for fictional betrayal exists in THIS group (Group B.) some individuals might naturally take greater offence than others.
In fact, piss on Group A and Group B. (No, I don’t mean urinate on Muslims and Catholics. I mean, ignore the presumed and actual value systems of groups of people, and focus on the presumed/actual value systems of individuals.) Let’s get down to Person A and Person B. In a world with a spectrum of value systems, EVERYTHING offends someone, most likely MANY someones. Defining “needless” offence is subjective, and everyone will have a different measure. Many people may have the same measure, but you will likely come up with many groups of many with many different measures.
Politeness is good. Respecting the values of as many people you can in an area is good. The fact that we are global, kiddies, makes a whole lot more of the world accessible, and suddenly makes it impossible not to offend everyone who might access your material, be it art or literature, without ceasing production of all. Even fluffy bunnies in waistcoats might offend someone, and whether or not their offence is the result of long tradition, or their own personal “quirk” should make no difference in whether or not you try to offend that person. (For the record, you shouldn’t TRY to offend someone. See “politeness is good”)
And although I know it doesn’t make my opinion more valid, I would like to eliminate some “can’t possibly understand…” while naturally, confirming others.
I do not identify as religious. I do not identify as an atheist. I AM uncomfortable with aping the motions of worship of othe religions, such as bowing my head in prayer, because it feels like lying to god? so maybe there’s something there.
I AM an “ethnic minority”. I HAVE been insulted through the usage of racial epithets. I HAVE been asked where I’m from, responded with an accurate answer, and been asked…“No, where are you REALLY from…?” I HAVE had assumptions made about my race, culture, ability to speak proper english.
I personally think that neither of these things give more or less value to how I feel on this or any issue, but I think some people do.
Hm. Blah blah blah roundabout censorship is bad…where was I…..
Oh yeah. The original issue about this book wasn’t censorship. It was…
1) Spellberg- Not wrong to dislike/be offended/acknowledge potential offence/reprisals for the book. Could have handled it in a more professional fashion. If reprisals were her real concern, a quiet warning to the publisher would have been appropriate. If she wasn’t into suppressing the publishing of the book and just wanted to organize a protest against it, alerting parties she thought of as interested was appropriate. Both together are icky.
2) Random House- not wrong to cancel the contract, for whatever reason they damned well pleased, provided they did so using clauses existing in the contract. Admirable of them if the original contract allowed them to indefinitely delay publication, and they cut the author loose to look for another publisher anyway. I don’t know a damned thing about writing contracts…any contracts… so…eh. Folding not to threats, but to the suggestion that threats might someday be made, suggests a hair-trigger bladder. That’s cool, but I bet all of Random House’s buddies laugh at him when they hang out and have a couple of drinks together. Folding to the suggestion that the market might be more difficult than originally thought, or that their planned marketing strategy was a bust because it was concieved without knowledge of the culture in question (Did they intend to market TO Muslims?) -smart financial sense.
And..LOL. fiscal19.
Holy crap. That fills my quota for posting anywhere on anything for the next six months.
There is a difference between “I’m an ‘Merican and ya’ll can go fuck yourselves,” and “I’m an American and I don’t believe (myself) in censoring offensive materials.” (Notice I said “I” and “myself” because, as I said before, the actuality of freedom of speech is far from perfect.)
Can we all agree that these are two radically different ideas?
Apparently not everyone here can. And they can’t seem to understand that refusing to give one identifiable group special consideration over everyone else is not the same as being a hate-spewing bigot who makes a habit of purposely offending people.
Oh, and apparently harsh and accusatory language is cool, as long as you’re on the “right” side. If not, you’re a bitter, spiteful troll. Sigh.
Best. Damn. Comment. Ever.
[spam word – ‘color37’ – where’s my bloody ‘u’, hmmm?]
Sorry, I’m coming late to the game, but I had to comment on one aspect of this: the story itself.
I know many readers here can’t see why this is offensive, or even if they can, don’t care. I understand that. If I weren’t Muslim, I’d probably feel the same way. I get it.
I’d ask that you consider some other context, though. In the last twenty years (well, really the last hundred, but I’m talking very modern history) Muslim feminists have made extraordinary strides in part by using the Qur’an and the hadith to answer back to misogynist cultural (i.e. not religious) trends in Muslim countries, particularly the Middle East and Central Asia. When, for example, men argue that women have no right to work or participate in public space, Muslim women have been able to point to the example of Khadija, Muhammad’s first wife, a successful businesswoman who employed him as her assistant. There are many examples of this.
This line of thought, or ‘tactic’ if you will, of using religion to make a *progressive* argument might seem counterintuitive to those raised in countries where religion (Christianity) is generally regarded as more conservative than (secular) culture, but in Middle Eastern countries it is culture, not Islam, that is more conservative and misogynist. Not all feminists who are Muslim would consider themselves “Muslim feminists” and there are certainly secular activists here, too, but really, the women who have been able to convince the clerics to re-read their own holy books have been the ones to make the most strides in fighting FGM and other institutional abuses of women that have no basis in Islam.
With that in mind…
The central point to the story of Aisha’s necklace is the ban on slander, and it’s often raised in context of the discussion around honor killings. No, Mr. Suspicious Husband/Father/Brother, you may not lash out at women based on gossip and hearsay. The Prophet himself, the best of men, was tested in this same manner, and look what choice he made: he defended Aisha against those who gossiped about her, even if it meant the risk of losing face among the powerful members of the community. This is a very important story to those of us committed to fighting abuses of women emanating from suspicion and slander and then ignorantly and retroactively justified as “Islamic.” All you have to do is say “Aisha’s necklace…” and people will know right where you’re going with this.
Yes, Ms. Jones portrays Muhammad as defending his wife (at least from what I’ve read in the prologue), but to cast doubt on Aisha’s actions and/or intentions—and this seems to be central to the plot of her entire book—essentially ruins the story. The point here is that it was Aisha’s (truthful) story against those of men who weren’t there. Not knowing who to believe, Muhammad went to God, and God told him to believe Aisha. The deciding factor was not, as Ms. Jones seems to be saying, his romantic love for Aisha, but rather her right, even as a young girl, to be believed. This wasn’t something she had to earn; it was inherent, literally God-given. Her word trumped their suspicions, even though she had less power than they did. From my own feminist perspective, this is an important distinction.
Do I think Muslim clerics are going to pick up this English romance novel and completely change their minds about Aisha? Obviously, no.
Do I think the book should be banned? No, of course not, and I have a whole separate rant about how Muslims, who were barely even aware of this book’s existence, are being blamed for that. 🙂
But I bring this up because I keep reading versions of “don’t like it? don’t read it!” and I want to say that this isn’t just a matter of being _personally_ offended, a la The DaVinci Code or Temptation. This story isn’t just some random tale out of the Qur’an, on par with something out of 1,001 Nights. Its interpretation has had real world consequences for women.
I would also, for reasons I hope should be obvious if you’ve read this far, take issue with the idea that this author’s interpretation is more feminist than the original. And that’s fine, I defend people’s right to write whatever regardless of where it lands on my feminist meter. But I also feel like there’s a lot of you-go-grrrl, publish away, screw the fundies! in this discussion, positing sex against religion as if that’s the issue, that’s based on an inaccurate understanding of the original story and its place in Islamic tradition. Aisha is not a “forgotten” woman of Islam; she is tremendously important. Every Muslim knows who she is, and knows that she was a strong female. Muhammad joked with his followers that they “should get half of their religion” from her. Jone’s book doesn’t increase Aisha’s feminist appeal—that needs no assistance—and she most certainly didn’t _discover_ it. If anything, she undermines it.
Again, not a reason for censoring the book. But not really a reason for celebrating it, either.
Awesome.
False dichotomy.
It is possible to be respectful of cultural differences/differences in circumstance and not go down the path of thinking of these things making people impossible to understand.
[I’m backing out now. Really.]
THANK YOU. 🙂
Poppin – WAKE-UP – Mohammed was a pedofile who MUST have raped Aisha who COULD NOT consent to that so-called ‘marriage’ – as she was only NINE YEARS OLD!
I get so furious with you lot ‘muslims’ wanting to hide the TRUTH my dear ‘Poppin! WAKE-UP – and stop wrapping-up in ‘Holy and Saw’- which cannot – by decent standards – be called holy – AT ALL!
CHILD-MARRIAGES STILL TAKE PLACE – BECAUSE OF THAT MOHAMMED!
MOHAMMED HAD PEOPLE STONED TO DEATH!
These child-marriages STINK with children being raped also by old men – as old as Mohammed at the time – and it was MOHAMMED ‘who set that good example’.
“It make me shake my head, because in the hadith Aisha mentioned this never happened”
You are naief – as FOR SURE – Aisha wouldn’t DARE to acknowledge her love-affair as she would have been STONED TO DEATH.
It is also written that Aisha had her GOAT (!) eat the – STONING-sura – as she was afraid of Ali who also wanted to be the heir to that so-called ‘holy caliphate’ – and who would gladly have seen Aisha stoned to death.
“In our religion, to even say that is a huge sin, to the point that if you even say they had relations and that Aisha was unfaithful takes you out of the folds of Islam.”
You better get OUT of thos ‘folds’ wherein a ‘prophet’ rapes a child, has too many women in his bed – amongst whom many slaves – and goes on the rampage murdering people!
YOU – ‘doomed to silence’ sure you are but you should know better than to condone Mohammed’s behaviour! OF COURSE – Islam wants to shut you up – it has done so since the beginning of Islam – and still does – massively!
Why do you think EX-MUSLIMS exist – more and more – running screaming away from that ‘Book’ and ‘holy leader’ of yours?
Ex-muslims opened their eyes to the TRUTH – and nothing but the TRUTH!
Sorry – but I have no time – at all – for hypocrisy – nor for naivity in adults.
I see the anti-Muslim Troll Legion has arrived. Lovely. And things were, generally speaking, so civilized up till now.
@ Kufigirl
1) Khadija – was not a muslim = when she had her own business as that was BEFORE Islam – and before she married Mohammed.
= Muslim women cannot claim Khadija as ‘an example of feminisme/independant women in Islam’.
2) ALL of the Qur’an is mysogenist = male-centric Qurán = muslim women hardly count and are – always – SUBORDINATE TO MUSLIM MEN in the Qurán/haditiths/sunna of ‘the prophet’ – and also in the discriminated against in the SHARIA
3) “FGM and other institutional abuses of women that have no basis in Islam.”
There is one hadiths in which ‘the prophet meets a woman on her way to FEMALE CIRCUMCISION and he says to her ‘don’t cut to deep’
why muslims who ‘go back to the fundamentals of Islam ’ do believe in female circumcision to be ‘clean’ for a muslim woman.
4) “The Prophet himself, the best of men”
Oh yeah? Why? Because he raped Aisha, had too many women in his bed – amongst whom slaves – had people stoned to death according to Bukhari, instituted (!) child-marriages?
= please explain to me – thank you.
Aisha was no sweety at all as she tried – to murder-Ali in ‘The Battle of the Camel’ – but she lost.
And why should Aisha not have a love-affair – as after all Mohammed himself had plenty!
Let’s calm down. We have to remember that all religions have at some point been cruel toward women. The Islamic faith is one of the biggest offenders because of the cultures that practice the faith. Every Holy book is open to interpretation.
It is true that by our standards The Prophet looks like a pedophile. It is true that he loved “sporting with virgins” and he married a 6 year old and had sex with her at 9. I could never like the Islamic faith because of that one fact. Still those were different times. I cannot judge it. I also think he had a weird hang up about covering women. Again, those were different times. I see a nijab or whatever they are and I think oppression. That’s not something I can look down at another about. I don’t like teenagers wearing all black either. I don’t fuss at them.
I am a Christian but I am aware of the Salem Witch trials. Let’s not forget in Hebrews where a man was stoned to death for picking up wood on the Sabath. Jesus saved a woman from being stoned to death for fornication.
Religion is too personal. I think this should get back to a topic closer to everyone trying to be PC (politically correct) that nothing gets accomplished. Everyone hates someone for something. We shouldn’t be so PC that things aren’t printed. JMHO.