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.
KufiGirl: Thank you for an extremely thought provoking and IMO important comment. I actually wish that Jones would answer some of these comments beyond simply re-asserting that “it’s fiction”—because, as we all know, fiction has power, too, or NONE of us would be arguing about all of this. I share the questions that some have asked about why certain narrative decisions were made and why certain historical connections changed. I also wish that we could all actually read the book and then have this discussion, because I think it’s a discussion that could actually bring women of all faiths and cultures together around questions of representation, beliefs, values, and sexual politics (within and outside a religious context).
Although we’re discussing informal speech rights in regard to the publication of this book, I just want to point out that if this were a legal analysis of a First Amendment question, one of the most important elements would be that the analysis be *content neutral*—that is, you cannot decide if material is outside or inside the boundaries of legal protection on the basis of content alone. This provision exists, obviously, because we would otherwise get into precisely these kinds of battles, with legitimate accusations that government was legislating ideas via speech protections.
And in this discussion (and I’m not directing my comments at you, Kirsten, just in response to the conversation generally) there is a catch in precisely that place—what kind of consideration do we give to the specific cultural and religious context. Is it worse for Islamic values to be insulted than for Catholic or Jewish values, etc. Within a formal “censorship” analysis, the *content* of the book could not provide the basis for its suppression or publication.
But in these informal discussions we aren’t bound by that stricture. At the same time, though, we’re not going to get anywhere if the discussion degrades to the point of mutual assertions that one ideology is superior to another or more deserving of formal deference.
Ultimately I think it comes down to being cognizant of these different cultural and religious contexts, perhaps even taking special pains to see things from another vantage point, *in order to move beyond them* to that place beyond judgment. What I think sometimes happens in these discussions is that certain folks or certain perspectives feel inherently disrespected or ignored, and any hint of dismissal, even if it’s not intended that way, can generate more anger and opposition where none might otherwise exist. So for me it’s possible that we can all say, yes, I understand where you’re coming from but this is my belief, that we can all acknowledge those points in opposition to our own without ceding our own position, keeping both mutual respect and personal integrity intact.
@ Stephi
You are pointing out some important things – but the – only – way is to keep protesting against the Quran/Muhammed/sharia – because – WE in the West – are the only people who can – not EX-muslims in Islamic countries who are perpetually shut-up in silence – ‘or else….’.
I get so furious as MILLIONS AND MILLIONS ++++ of muslim women – have no rights at all because of that Koran/Muhammed/sharia ….
The problem is exactly that Muhammed (probably not he himself) but Islam Arabs – took it upon themselves to plagiarise = steal – the Holy Books of Christianity and Judaisme – gave these a twist to suit Islam – and then presented the Koran as ‘the only allowed religion’.
For Christians and Jews the Koran = Mein Kampf – and enormously insulting.
That ‘Allah’ and his hatred against Christians and Jews = a jealous power-mongering – out to kill! And the reason why muslims still murder christians and hate Jews.
‘De Koran/Islam is in fact a HERESY of Christendom and Judaisme. ‘Jesus’ in the Koran is the insulted, degraded, made ridiculous Jesus-CHRISTGOD/MESSIAS of Christendom.
(and Mohammed apes a lot of what Jesus-Christ did e.g. ‘entering Jerusalem, being tempted by the devil in the dessert (except that Mohammed gave-in to Satan) ‘Mohammed ascends to heaven on a HORSE’ – but quickly (hah!) came back’ – and this fable one reason why muslims incorporated Jerusalem – by force – for Islam.
The Koran is the GREATEST INSULT possible for Christians.
Not only is the Koran (except from those sura’s) plagerised from the Holy Books from two – existing (!) religions – but guilty of BLASPHEMY of Jesus-Christ.
‘Muslims’who can’t restraint their violence ‘because Mohammed is insulted’- have no problem at all with BLASPHEMY against Jesus-CHRIST – and appear to find it quite normal that ‘Christians and Jews must BURN IN MY OVENS’
Oh dear – I know I LOATH ‘Islam’! – and that not only for personal reasons.
Not only is the Koran a deliberate attempt to do away with Christianity and Judaisme – but despicably – uses ‘Jesus’ (and the Holy Mary) – to convert christians to Islam – that still happens ‘your ‘JESUS’ is also in the Koran – but that is not Jesus-CHRIST of christians.
Compare the Love and Peace of Jesus-Christ – to Muhammed the pedophile, a mass-murderer, and with his ‘sharia’ and then you will understand that ‘Jesus’ CANNOT be ‘part of the Koran’.
‘Jesus’ in the Koran is a grotesque joke FOR Islam:
‘Jesus’ drank wine = ‘haram in Islam’
‘Jesus’ abhorred stoning, violence, war – Mohammed did all three.
‘Jesus said ‘my kingdom is not of this world’- Mohammed LOVED wordly power in his Caliphate – and had too many women in his bed – amongst whom women-slaves – and was a pedofile.
‘The witsches of Salem’- and all the other terrible things done by ‘christians’ is because ‘they don’t know what they do ‘- the famous words by Jesus-Christ for his torturers and executioners.
Bible-bashers make the big mistake as it is not the Old Testament but exactly the New Testament = Christ’ianity.
Unfortunately the Koran is a huge step-backs for mankind to the cruel times of the Old Testament (and not at all ‘an improvement’as muslims claim) wherein stoning also is allowed -but NOT by Jesus-Christ saying: ‘he who is without sin may throw the first stone’ and to the woman ‘go home and sin no more’
Mohammed would have had that same woman stoned to death – and why it still happens.
as said I LOATHE Koran/Muhammed/sharia …
and if ‘muslims’want to stand behind that what cannot be ‘holy’ – they either have been indoctrinated by Islam – or they are bad people believing in Satan – like the Talibans and Islamists, Jihadi’s poisoned by hatred and violence taught in the Koran.
Not true! Prove it to me.
Anne-
I’m not arguing any benefits to Islam. I am very happy to be living in the US and I chose to be a Christian. It wasn’t forced on me by family or country as certain religions are in certain places. I do think it’s hard for people to turn away from something they were taught since they were babies. JMHO.
I just thought the debate should be more about the book in question. No offense intended.
“The Prologue” shows that the author has perfectly done her homework – that is reading all the Islamic sources on this subject available to her- before writing this novel.
Those who think that the author has slandered the Prophet or Aisha, should read “Sura” (chapter) 24 of the Koran to see Allah’s point of view on the conflict.
The Prologue gave me the impression that the book treats the subject matter much better than Salman Rushdie did in his “Satanic Verses” and it will be a pity if it’s never published.
But then, what is religion for?
You shouldn’t be apologizing. Anne comes on here spewing poorly-written, hate-mongering bile, and *you* apologize?
What is tragic is not the publishers refusal to produce the book, but Mrs. Jones lack of awareness, understanding, and sensitivity to the issues and historical figures which she claims to have studied. Apparently “studying” Arabic for some short period of time has now become equivalent to raising Mrs. Jones to an expert in her field. Her scholarship is minimal to none, and frankly and embarrassment. It seems now a days anyone who has read large volumes of books is entitled to produce a “professional work”. If you read the bibliography the cited sources would be comparable to attempting to write a biology textbook with references such as sesame street, and wikipedia (apart from Ibn Kathir, a poor translation in English, there isnt a single text from traditional of Islam, furthermore this is not surprising given the content and pursuit of this book). Whats even more upsetting, is that the general public, even more unaware and less educated on these topics than she is, will actually listen and be convinced they have read something credible or legitimate. The problem today of differences among Muslims and the West, is not tackling “taboo” issues, but number 1, the lack of understanding on the side of the west, which is normally attributed to number 2 the lack of reliable and trustworthy sources which they are exposed to.
Unfortunately, the public will misunderstand this controversy to be an issue of freedom of speech when in reality, it is an issue of credibility and sensitivity, of which the author apparently has none.
First. It’s Popin. One p. Also, Prophet Muhammed (peace be upon him) wasn’t a pedophile. I understand that it may be hard to understand, but as a Muslim we believe the Prophet (SAW) was chosen by God and if God commands something therefore it must be done. The Prophet (SAW) didn’t have a choice in the matter when it came to the marriage of Aisha (and Zeinab bint Jahsh) it was a command from Allah. And because of this, she taught us so much of the deen (religion). If you don’t believe in Allah, you wouldn’t believe this, but at least have the common courtesy to not slander my Prophet. It only makes you look bad when you do that.
Can you name me the number of times this happened? Do you know why there is the punishment of stoning to death? Do you know how he would turn away from people who asked for the punishment because he didn’t want to deal with them. No, so please don’t come here with this kind of nonsense acting like you know the religion and how Muslims are all stupid since they believe in it, when from your commends you do not.
Lack of knowledge once again again. Stoning happens when the person admits to their crime and wants punishment. Or when 4 righteous people, who don’t lie and have good reps, watch the two people have sex from start to finish with no covers. Unless you are an exhibitionist, it’s very hard to condemn someone to adultery.
Also, like I mentioned before. Aisha was cleared by Allah. Aisha, didn’t even know this was happening for a month. She was sick and at home. When she found out she stayed with her parents and made du’a (prayer/supplication) to Allah to help her.
And this nonsense with Ali is wrong. Ali is her son in law and they loved each other. If you knew their history, you wouldn’t be saying this.
Thank you for showing me the truth. You’re so wise with your lack of knowledge of Islam.
Sorry to the Smart Bitches for this.
@ tenzing
Please stop your accusations – and give PROOF that I am wrong.
It is ‘muslims’who refuse to use their Islam-indoctrinated brains – not me!
@ Danny
What nonsense to say ‘the West is ill informed as is Mrs Jones’- sure that is what muslim like to think – to keep their backs and that of Mohammed covered.
It is BUKHARI ‘generally expected in Islam” who reports elaborately (!) on Aisha’ engagement to ‘the prophet’ and their subsequent ‘marriage’.
and this makes me wonder why muslims think they CAN keep being hypocrites who do not want to face TRUTH – at any time at all concerning their ‘beautiful Koran/prophet/Aisha …..
11:- Ibn-e-Maja Translation Waheedi Pt-2 Page-57, Haya-tul-Haywan Pt-1 Page-272. Narrated by Hazrat Ayesha that ayat-e-Rjam and ayat Raza’at were revealed , they were written on some thing I kept them under cart meanwhile the Holy Prophet died and we became busy and one goat came ate those ayyat.
Originally, the surah in question above is said to had 200 verses(Ayesha reported it). Now, in the present Quran it has only 37.
Considering the fact that Aisha committed adultery with a young man by the name Safwan when Muhammad was alive, and Ali and other wives of Muhammad especially Zainab wanted her to be punished according to Quranic law, it is highly probable that Aisha was the one responsible for this missing ayyat in the Quran by feeding it to the goat. In fact, by her own admission, Aisha was responsible for this missing ayyat as it was under her care. There is a motive behind it. Do you know what was her motive?
When Muhammad was alive, some Muslims (including son-in-law Ali) wanted her to be punished for adultery. Then, Muhammad died. Aisha panicked as she was afraid Muslims would use the Sura to stone her. While others were busy quarreling on who would be successor of Muhammad, she must have taken the opportunity to get rid of that ayyat by feeding it to the holy goat.
Because of that incident, Aisha hated Ali deeply and that was one of the main reasons she waged war against Ali in Battle of Camel. When Aisha lost, she was locked in a room. Muhammad also did not allow his wives to remarry after his death because he was so afraid that his beloved Aisha would be fcuked by Safwan after his death.
Did you ever wonder why four witnesses were required to punish Aisha?
Who were punished for spreading “rumours” about Aisha and Safwan?
What is their relation to Zainab?
muhammad’s poet was punished for it.. cos muhammad received revelations aisha is pure.. lol
To save his beloved little girl wife Aisha, Muhammad had to claim that he had received a revelation from “allah” confirming Aisha’s innocence and directing that charges of adultery be supported by four eyewitnesses.
Quote: Quran Al Nur 24:4 :
“And those who launch a charge against chaste women, and produce not FOUR WITNESSES (to support their allegations),- flog them with eighty stripes; and reject their evidence ever after: for such men are wicked transgressors
Why four witnesses? HAHAHAHAHA – to save little Aisha (not so little then anuy more)! Three witnesses are not enough. In the end:
(1) Hassan bin Thabit – the poet,
(2) Mistah bin Uthatha and
(3) Hammanah bint Jahsh
were punished instead of adulteress Aisha.
According to one Hadith, the stoning verse was originally recorded in the Quran during the time of Muhammad; but just after his death, a goat entered Aisha’s house and ate the page on which that verse was inscribed. Thus, the stoning verse has been abrogated physically. This story can be found in Ibn Magah, Nikah, 36/1944 and Ibn Hanbal, 5/131,132,183; 6/269.
a verse of a “perfect” Quran, which was completed during Muhammad’s lifetime, was abrogated – by a goat.
What now “the public doesn’t understand”?
Your lack of knowledge is incredibly surprising. If the missing ayahs were eaten, it wouldn’t matter because everyone memorized the Quran. If they weren’t written, someone would have noticed. I understand you don’t like Islam, but please for the sake of whatever you are trying to do learn more about it before you start typing false things.
I’m going to stop now, because everything you are saying is wrong, wrong, wrong. Nice job spewing hate, you are doing a lovely job.
Note: This thread will be closed soon. The discussion is so long that it’s difficult to read the whole thing and contribute anew, and it’s attracting comments of the caliber which I prefer not to have to monitor. Moreover, this isn’t a discussion about the value or moral worth of Islam. It’s a discussion of what offends and why.
I have been humbly and deeply impressed with the manner in which most of y’all participated in this discussion, and I’ve personally come away with an appreciation for what is offensive on a truly intrinsic level for some, and an understanding of why some content promotes a very emotional response. “It’s just fiction” is not an adequate reason to squelch the opinions of those who have come here to explain why this book is bothersome to them, but neither is Random House’s “OMG Teh Terrorists are Coming!” adequate reasoning for squelching this book.
Thank you very, very much to the people who have come here for the first time to explain your positions.
Three points:
1) In a historical novel, one should accurately convey the most significant elements the history—Aisha arrived back to Madinah riding the camel alone. Check the historical accounts—all of them in English and Arabic. She was left behind in the desert, because after tending to the call of nature, she realized that a borrowed necklace had fallen. She rode the camel, and the tether was held by Sawfan.
2) RE: Koran/Islam/Sharia oppressing women—Remember that Islam was the first religion to (a) give rights of ownership; (b) demand by law that women keep their own names after marriage; (c) right to vote (of sorts) in being recognized as part fo the community and having a voice in questioning the leadership.
3) I’ve been in publicity and PR for 26 years—in Hollywood, Las Vegas, & NYC, so I know a promo campaign when I see it. Good job on creating a stir/ink before distribution. You’ve sold tens of thousands of copies already in the minds of people, even before the books are available. Was the campaign developed in-house or did the agency come up with the idea?
Danny,
What you say is untrue.
Ms. Jones has awareness, understanding and sensitivity.
You don’t have to study Arabic at all to reach the sources Ms. Jones used.
This story about Aisha and the Prophet has been known and written down in histories and even interpretations of Koran since ages.
The orthodox Muslim “scholars” regard is as heresy.
But in all Muslim countries, everybody at some time has heard some versiona of the story concerning Aisha, the lost necklace and the knight called Safwan.
All three monotheistic religions which have emanated from the Middle East have some common characteristics, like hypocrisy and
deceiving the common, uneducated people.
This is a case of “freedom of speech” and the author has both credibility and sensitivity.
I would not have been as tolerant to the Prophet as she has been had I written such a novel.
“Belief” is the mother of all evil.
And people like you spread this evil.