Smart Bitches Trashy Books | All of the romance, none of the bullshit.

I keep hearing in the media that Islam is a religion of peace, love, tolerance and promotion of education.

Yup, sure sounds like it.

action79:  maybe 79 virgins should smack the publisher around the back of the head?

That’s just downright scary. 

I just tried looking for it on Amazon, but it’s like the book does not exist.  It’s still showing up on Bamm, Amazon uk and Amazon ca.  But really… to cancel a book because of fear?!  Plain ridiculous.

Since when has ‘this might offend some people’ become a good enough reason to censor our freedom of expression?  It’s a sad, sad day when fear of terrorism makes us lay down one of our most sacred rights as Americans. *shakes head*

Color me not surprised, if indignant.

Dan Brown can talk about Mary Madgalen and insert all sorts of weird stuff in Christianity’s ‘sacred history’ but dog forbid the same is done with Muslim history.

Huhuh

This disgusts me.

If this book were about any other religion it would have been published no matter what anybody said or threatened to do.

I’d publish it if I had any $$$ to offer but killer royalties.

Which I don’t.  So I can’t.

...y’know, the controversy just makes me want to read the book.  Now I’m off to do some desperate internet hunting to see what I can dig up.

I’m waiting to see how long it is before Dr. Spellberg announces a deal for a historical fiction based on the life of one of the wives of Mohammed?  Or perhaps she’ll just create an alternate prophet, the one no one knew about, and then writes about his wives.

Me?  Cynical?  Whyever would you think that?

Ah, but most nations founded on Judeo-Christian principles don’t own a hell of a lot of the world’s oil reserves.  Can’t upset the Gulf States now, can we?

ball96:  the balls in our court and this shouldn’t be a 96 hour wonder on the internet.

This is ridiculous. How many insane works of fiction have been written about religious figures of other religions? Too many to count.

Also, “(note to authors: Don’t ask her for a cover quote. Ever.)” is the best piece of writing advice I’ve ever heard.

If she can’t find a publisher she should pull a Cory Doctorow and release it into Creative Commons, no money, but the thought police would blow a blood vessel trying to suppress it then.

If a religion can’t maintain its dignity despite naysayers, scrutiny and the odd insult, that really says something.

This reminds me of those protests a couple of years ago when over someone accused Islam of being a violent religion. Muslims took to the streets, chanting, burning effigies and uttering threats. “How dare you say we’re violent!? Say it again, and we’ll kill you!!”

*disclaimer: as always, the feasibility of any religion is largely dependent on the circumspection and behavior of its followers. Just because some Muslims are prone to bad behavior does not mean all of them are, or that their religion is any more flawed than any other. Thank you.

**disclaimer added in a probably fultile attempt to avoid a shitstorm of fervent religious defensiveness.

Are you fucking kidding me? Is Salman Rushdie also having his contracts canceled? Is it “too dangerous” to publish him as well? I mean he had a freaken jihad called down upon him and last time I checked, and he is still in print.

You have got to be fucking kidding me . . . 

This book just got publicity that couldn’t be bought. Dollars to donuts Random House “reconsiders” (assuming this wasn’t some kind of publicity grab in the first place). If they don’t they’re morons.

As a journalist this pokes at a very raw nerve. By condoning censorship under the guise of “protection” it only propagates more of the same f*cked up philosophy. To cave under pressure of terrorist action puts power in the wrong hands. Where does it stop? That’s the scarier question…

I hope the public commentary is hitting particularly hard on Spellman, who acted like a hysterical, hate-mongering zealot. How could the book possibly be worse than what she did to this author? Disgraceful. With people like her around, we don’t need terrorists.

Let’s hope this goes the way of the Rachael Ray scarf nonsense. The sooner the book finds a publisher, the sooner we’ll all be able to actually read it and make up our own minds.

Oh dear, this is very distressing. 

As it happens, I am wholly in agreement with Dr. Spellberg on just one point, namely ‘the deliberate misinterpretation of history’, and this is why I have no time for the many ‘alternative history’ novels that are so popular today. 

But suppressing a work of fiction because it might offend a particular religious or ideological group is wholly unacceptable in our culture.  Freedom of speech - and writing - is something that we should treasure and defend.  I suspect I should dislike the book, but I defend passionately the right of the author and the publishers to publish it.

And that would be Spellberg. Denise Spellberg, not Spellman. Spellberg, the hysterical, hate-mongering zealot. Okay?

The saddest thing is that none of this surprises me.
Except WTF were they thinking in asking a professor (mid East & religious studies ) for a cover quote for a piece of ( I would presume given Spellmen says it’s soft core porn ) romantic historical fiction?

OK apart from anything else here’s a quote from the book quoted by Wall St Journal
” The novel, for example, includes a scene on the night when Muhammad consummated his marriage with Aisha: “the pain of consummation soon melted away. Muhammad was so gentle. I hardly felt the scorpion’s sting. To be in his arms, skin to skin, was the bliss I had longed for all my life.”        “

Can anyone say purple prose in Arabic?

You know, I can see Ms. Spellberg thinking, “wow, someone might not like this and cause a big stink, and given the cartoon mess, and Rushdie, well, I don’t want to have my name on it.  Maybe I should mention this to my publishing colleague, in the way off chance that no one else has thought of this.” (because you know others did).  I can’t really fault her for being hypercautious.  BUT—-then she turned around and ratted this author and her book out to someone she had to know was going to take this or some other negative action.  That, to me, is really kind of wicked and unforgiveable.  And she wants her name out of it?  Her name will be forever associated with it.

Denise Spellberg’s maelstrom of self-righteous quotable quotes isn’t because a woman wrote a book based on the fictionalized life of a woman on the periphery of Islam, is it? I’m sure that’s not why Salman Rushdie never gets an Undo on his books even UNDER THREAT OF A REAL FATWA (and even when some of them are uneven, but that’s a sidebar).

I’m massively ignorant on this topic right now (reading furiously to catch up on trends in romance publishing) but isn’t there already like an entire imprint devoted to American women and Arab men? No?

Anyhow, I love it when romance brings people who are traditionally marginalized in the US to the forefront, and I hate hate hate that this may frighten publishers away from helping in that effort.

If you can’t write soft-core porn about Muhammad’s wives, the terrorists have won.

And it’s Barb for the win! Turns out Dr. Spellberg is the author of a feminist book about Aisha, wife of Mohammed. Jones read Spellberg’s book, liked it, and suggested Spellberg be asked for a quote. Apparently, Spellberg was so shocked and appalled that Jones’s book included sex between Mohammed and his wife that she felt compelled to warn not only Muslims but Jones’s publisher that it would likely cause a jihad if published. Apparently, depicting Mohammed having sex with his wife is “making fun of the prophet” in Spellberg’s opinion.

Alrighty, then.

The author of the novel put the academic on her list of people to query for blurbs because she had read and admired a work of the Dr. Spellberg’s on A’isha.

The more I think on this, the more it infuriates me.  Dr. Spellberg had so many different recourses—as an academic with a specialty in this culture and religion, she had to know what the reaction would be, which in my book, turns it into something very calculated and far more ugly than she purports the book to be. 

And if she thinks that “the pain of consummation soon melted away. Muhammad was so gentle. I hardly felt the scorpion’s sting. To be in his arms, skin to skin, was the bliss I had longed for all my life,” equates to “soft core pornography,” well then, there’s a lot she’s been missing out on.  And as far as it being a deliberate misinterpretation of history… what?  She was there?

Feh.

Abe Books in the UK says they have a copy available…

http://www.abebooks.co.uk/servlet/SearchResults?bt.x=0&bt;.y=0&sortby=3&sts=t&tn=Jewel+of+Medina

No, no, no. Where’s your imagination, Sarah? The bodyguard is there for the Sheik’s Menage a Fatwa.

Yeah, but where’s the romance in fatwa?

I would buy any book with the byline “Puts the F in fatwa!” Anytime, anywhere.

Not to insult the ubiquity and extreme profitability of the romance publishing industry, but, if this professor lady hadn’t made this enormous and unnecessary stink, what are the odds that Osama bin Laden would have gotten his latest shipment from his romance book club and flipped the freak out over this novel? Like, why is this necessary?

The bodyguard is there for the Sheik’s Menage a Fatwa.

That’s the funniest thing I’ve read all day.

Regarding Barb Ferrer’s info…

Well then. I certainly hope that if any violence is committed against Jones because of a novel that may never actually be, you know, read by people who might—if they could read it—feel some offense over it, Dr Spellberg is charged with instigating a hate crime.

Of all the unbelievable criminal stupidity.

I’m sorry to get in the way of the outrage here, but where exactly was there any threat of ‘terrorist action’? If I recall correctly a lot of Christian groups were up in arms (so to speak) about the Da Vinci Code, but no-one equated that with terrorism.

I just get sick of people immediately making that connecton.

To all the people making Rushdie comparisons, there is no longer ‘a fatwa’ on him. The Iranian government backed out of that back in 1998. And while we’re on the topic fatwa =/= death threat. It’s a religious ruling made by a scholar, and in this case Ayatolla Khomeini the spiritual leader of Iran back in 1989..

And Salman Rushdie is a man writing Seriouis Literary Fiction [TM] and a Booker Prize winner. This lady is a) a woman b) I don’t quite recall her name even now and c) is writing genre fiction, and romance at that.

As a Muslim woman myself, I don’t approve of fiction being written about the Prophet (saws) or Aisha (ra). And I don’t see why people shouldn’t be able to protest/express their feelings freely in a non-violent/non-threatening manner.

NB. This is not a statement of intent to participate in terorist activities, dear God.

This has nothing to do with Islam as a religion or Muslims as people.  This is all about jack-assery and hysteria. 

Spellberg, obviously, is the jackass, for fomenting hysteria and then fanning the flames that rose up around her. 

The publishers are jackasses and idiots for giving in to the hysteria, making idiotic decisions based on hysteria, and then using hysteria to justify their own idiocy.

Mainly tho, I think its a sad commentary on the current state of the world, that knee-jerk reactions are taken as appropriate responses to something that could have been settled by saying (and I’m looking at you Ms. Spellberg),

“Sorry, I don’t think this is a good book”

If she can’t find a publisher she should pull a Cory Doctorow and release it into Creative Commons, no money, but the thought police would blow a blood vessel trying to suppress it then.

But it would be so funny to watch!

Also, I agree with Mr. Swann completely. Not just because I’m a fan of Creative Commons publishing (or, you know, Free [Legal] Books on the Internet). Mostly because I’d love to see the head-splodey.

In the interest of fairness, this did not happen “six days before the publication date”; the WSJ article clearly indicates that the decision to “postpone indefinitely” came in May.

I’m sorry to get in the way of the outrage here, but where exactly was there any threat of ‘terrorist action’?

From the Wall Street Journal article
Meanwhile back in New York City, Jane Garrett, an editor at Random House’s Knopf imprint, dispatched an email on May 1 to Knopf executives, telling them she got a phone call the evening before from Ms. Spellberg (who happens to be under contract with Knopf to write “Thomas Jefferson’s Qur’an.”)

“She thinks there is a very real possibility of major danger for the building and staff and widespread violence,” Ms. Garrett wrote. “Denise says it is ‘a declaration of war . . . explosive stuff . . . a national security issue.’ Thinks it will be far more controversial than the satanic verses and the Danish cartoons. Does not know if the author and Ballantine folks are clueless or calculating, but thinks the book should be withdrawn ASAP.”

Perhaps not a terrorist threat, per se, but definitely, the fanning of flames.

I trust the author got to keep the advance.  And maybe a judgement in her favor for pain and suffering? 

Am also goggling at the “soft core porn” summation if the deflowering was as detailed as the book got in that respect.

i totally think this spellberg is a dingleberry.  i read the wsj article and i’m amazed that the people who passed around how horrible the book is without forming their own opinion - they just transmitted dr. spellberg’s opinion that it was offensive. 

when will people learn that they should condem something they haven’t read.  drrr grrr…..

on the other hand, i’m at the office and couldn’t stop laughing at the sheik’s menage a fatwa…. bwahahahaha…..

I’m supposed to worry about the sensibilities of a group of people who murder daughters, sisters, wives and other FEMALE relatives because some asshole prick got his fucking honor bent out of shape? Who torture and mutilate women so they can’t enjoy sex?

I would never have bought this book. But if it gets published, you can be damn certain that I will by as many copies as I can!

Dr. Spellberg, I hope you rot in a slush pile of academic obscurity.

  Yeah, but where’s the romance in fatwa?

I would buy any book with the byline “Puts the F in fatwa!” Anytime, anywhere.

AMEN and HALLELUJAH, Marcella!

The bodyguard is there for the Sheik’s Menage a Fatwa.

*chokes* Oh god, Megalith….I’m writing that down!

shewhohashope, why does it matter that Salman Rushdie is an award winning male who writes serious literature and Sherry Jones is a non-award winning female who writes genre fiction?  Do they not both have an equal right to freedom of expression in the United States? 

Of course, publishers aren’t agents of government and they can make whatever decision they want about publishing or not-publishing a book, but to claim that Rushdie has more of a right to blaspheme in fiction than Jones because he’s a man who has won awards and Jones isn’t is, well, ridiculous.

Perhaps not a terrorist threat, per se, but definitely, the fanning of flames.

Okay, but as much as the book doesn’t warrant what Spellberg said, Spellberg’s statements don’t amount to terrorist threats.

What exactly was being said by the Muslim students protesting this?

And while we’re on the topic fatwa =/= death threat.

You are, of course, correct in general; I know very little about the language. However, Salman Rushdie’s specific fatwa (or at least the one about him) DID call for his execution. It is, I guess, the fact that this is pretty much the only fatwa that the average American has ever heard of that leads us to conflate ALL fatwa(s) with the one that called for Rushdie’s execution.

Not that I even referred to it, but thanks for the moment of education. You got me swarming around Wikipedia about Arabic language issues. :)

However, the fact that you are a Muslim woman and you don’t approve of fiction being written about the Prophet and Aisha —well, I know that there were tons of Christians who got mad about The DaVinci Code, even before it was published, and publishers didn’t take their opinions, either. Even though I don’t necessarily believe that turnabout is fair play, I still see this—as I would have seen a retraction of The DaVinci Code—as an act of censorship of which I do not approve. (Not that my approval means one whit to anyone in the world, either.)

Unbelievable.

“As a Muslim woman myself, I don’t approve of fiction being written about the Prophet (saws) or Aisha (ra). And I don’t see why people shouldn’t be able to protest/express their feelings freely in a non-violent/non-threatening manner.”

No one is debating that, shewhohashope. That this book won’t get published for fear of “major danger for the building and staff and widespread violence,” Ms. Garrett wrote. “Denise says it is ‘a declaration of war . . . explosive stuff . . . a national security issue.’”. Yeah. That is threatening the lives of people over a story. Many religions have sacred history, we also have freedom of press. If this book will upset Muslims, perhaps they shouldn’t read it?

Okay, but as much as the book doesn’t warrant what Spellberg said, Spellberg’s statements don’t amount to terrorist threats.

I dunno, to me, Spellberg’s comments are pretty incendiary.  In any case, Random House Group deputy publisher Tom Perry says that the company received “from credible and unrelated sources, cautionary advice not only that the publication of this book might be offensive to some in the Muslim community, but also that it could incite acts of violence by a small, radical segment.” They postponed publication “for the safety of the author, employees of Random House, booksellers and anyone else who would be involved in distribution and sale of the novel.” Last month a termination agreement was executed so that agent Natasha Kern could shop the book to other publishers.

So, unless he’s lying through his teeth, the “credible and unrelated sources” part of the quote suggests that it wasn’t simply Spellberg who was saying that publishing the book could be potentially dangerous.

As far as what the Muslim students were stating in their seven point plan to make Jones cave, I have no idea.  It showed up on a listserve and then a blogger took it and ran with it.  If I’m reading the WSJ article correctly, it was in one of the blog responses that the plan to ensure “the writer withdraws this book from the stores and apologise all the muslims across the world,” was proposed.

I mean, most writers want to incite strong reactions—but with their actual words, not the promise (or threat) of them.  I just hope to one day get a chance to judge for myself, on strictly literary merits because you know, work of fiction.

Hell, on behalf of those of Scottish origin, I am still awaiting an apology for all the bad jokes made at our expense.  I guess we (collective “we”) as an ethnic group/nation have tougher skins.

all97:  come on spaminator I’m sure there are more than 97 scots reading this.

I wasn’t talking specifically to you about the ‘fatwa’ issue Stephanie (I get the urge to to spell that with too many ‘e’s because of Meyer) it’s just something that annoys me in general.

And I’m not calling for this book to be banned or burned or not to be printed, and I’d be uncomfortable if it was (I assume this book is coming out anyway), I just think you can go further to express your feelings than ‘not reading the book’ and stilll not be a terrorist.

re: Spellberg’s comments, it really dpends on how she said it. There is a line between making a veiled threat and believing that this book would be dangerous and warning the publisher and making it up as a threat to stop the book being published. I can’t really judge based on what little I know of her.

Okay, but as much as the book doesn’t warrant what Spellberg said, Spellberg’s statements don’t amount to terrorist threats.

What exactly was being said by the Muslim students protesting this?

Yes, I’m interested in that, too.  And kind of bewildered.  It sounds as if Spellberg decided (by herself?  because someone else told her?) there was a risk of violence from extremists, and Random House panicked.  Which just sounds kind of…hysterical.  And not necessarily to do with real terrorism at all (surely Spellberg isn’t an official spokesperson for extremists—or even for Muslims in general?), but rather people’s fear of terrorism.

I wasn’t talking specifically to you about the ‘fatwa’ issue Stephanie (I get the urge to to spell that with too many ‘e’s because of Meyer) it’s just something that annoys me in general.

Yeah, I totally got that, but since I didn’t actually know the piece of information, I was thanking you anyway.

(Also, I am going to be seriously pissed if Stephenie Meyer manages to change the standard spelling of ‘Stephanie’ permanently.)

How can you protest a book, other than not buying it, without calling for it not to be printed (or obviously harsher actions)? I guess organizing a boycott. Other suggestions? If you’re writing letters to the publisher, wouldn’t you be calling for it not to be printed?

Darn. I wrote that before I read Barb’s comment. 

But still, unless Spellberg is actually acting as a spokesperson for a terrorist organisation (which I presume she’s not), it’s not a terrorist threat.

Just thought I’d belabor that point a little.  :-)

How about if you don’t approve of it, you don’t read it? When is it suddenly acceptable to have people running around and censoring what others read and write because of what YOU believe? I don’t like it no matter who does it.

I have no issues with people being offended by ideas they don’t like or agree with. But I do have issues when those people use threats to stop OTHERS from being exposed to those ideas.

Certainly radical Islam is not alone in this. Conservative Christians did the same thing when Passion of the Christ came out (and another interesting corrollary is that most of the protesters hadn’t seen or read the material they tried to censor then either). The political spectrum from right to left has done it as well. It’s tiring in all guises.

Your beliefs are just that, YOURS. Do not seek to force them on me.

Spellberg is the problem here and not the book or the genre. She seems to have gotten her panties (probably white cotton granny) in a wad. Perhaps she is one of those who can not make the distinction between fiction and fact. Apparently she thinks fiction means “accurate historical annotations”.

Or, the cynic in me wonders, maybe she has a book of her own on the same subject? (Agreeing with another cynic above me somewhere in the myriad of comments.)

There is all this talk of this being censorship, but is it really censorship if the book can still be published through other sources? It’s not like the government is banning it from print or sale. Now, if she goes to other publishers and they don’t want to touch it with ten foot pole, it’s still not censorship, IMO. That comes closer to the book being blacklisted.

My God, that’s some wonderful publicity.

And Salman Rushdie is a man writing Seriouis Literary Fiction [TM] and a Booker Prize winner. This lady is a) a woman b) I don’t quite recall her name even now and c) is writing genre fiction, and romance at that.

So because she is a woman, and not well-known (*ahem* practically no one outside effete literary circles had heard of Rushdie before the Fatwa Bruhaha), and isn’t writing “big, important, capital “L” Literary books”, her right to free speech and freedom of expression is less than Rushdie’s?

Niiice.

I think Spellberg was doing a humane act, maybe, by telling the publisher about her fears for them and for the author, if the book were published.  However,  she sided WITH the thought police when she contacted Muslim students, obviously, to alert them to this “blasphemy. ” What did she think they were going to do with this information?  Have a polite debate about freedom of speech vs. respect?  The woman should be fired for encouraging those agents who would destroy freedom of speech. 

I wish the Muslim world would devote the same intensity to fighting terrorism that they do to fighting what they perceive as assaults on their religion.  It would go a LONG WAY to reassuring people that Islam IS a religion of peace if there were rallies, worldwide that burned the effigies of TERRORISTS.

(Also, I am going to be seriously pissed if Stephenie Meyer manages to change the standard spelling of ‘Stephanie’ permanently.)

I think you’re in luck. Breaking Dawn apperars to universally reviled, and I’ve decided that I’m going to keep spelling Stephanie this no matter how the person in question’s parents have decided to flout societal convention.

How can you protest a book, other than not buying it, without calling for it not to be printed (or obviously harsher actions)? I guess organizing a boycott. Other suggestions? If you’re writing letters to the publisher, wouldn’t you be calling for it not to be printed?

That’s pretty much it. Mainly just make your objections public.

And I’m not sure if Lauren Dane is referring to me (it seems unlikely) but I’ve already stated my position on this subject.

So because she is a woman, and not well-known (*ahem* practically no one outside effete literary circles had heard of Rushdie before the Fatwa Bruhaha), and isn’t writing “big, important, capital “L” Literary books”, her right to free speech and freedom of expression is less than Rushdie’s?

Niiice.

Now I’m not sure what you guys think of me.

Was it any way not obvious that I was - not being sarcastic, exactly -  stating a truth that I don’t agree with?

I think Spellberg was doing a humane act, maybe, by telling the publisher about her fears for them and for the author, if the book were published.

I’d be a lot more willing to believe this if the timeline of events as spelled out via the WSJ didn’t seem to indicate that she contacted the visiting professor before she contacted the publishing house.

I think Spellberg was doing a humane act, maybe, by telling the publisher about her fears for them and for the author, if the book were published.  However, she sided WITH the thought police when she contacted Muslim students, obviously, to alert them to this “blasphemy. “ What did she think they were going to do with this information?  Have a polite debate about freedom of speech vs. respect?  The woman should be fired for encouraging those agents who would destroy freedom of speech.

STUDENTS. You place the word ‘Muslim’ in front of ‘Students’ and suddenly it’s Al Qaeda?

I wish the Muslim world would devote the same intensity to fighting terrorism that they do to fighting what they perceive as assaults on their religion.  It would go a LONG WAY to reassuring people that Islam IS a religion of peace if there were rallies, worldwide that burned the effigies of TERRORISTS.

Pfft.

(I’ll probably have to clarify what I’m saying here at some point, but it’s going to take a while)

Spellman followed up the conversation with a letter from her attorney stating that Spellman would sue if her name were associated with the novel.

Anyone else being hit with the irony that in all likelihood, her name forevermore will be linked with the novel?

My husband also made the very astute observation of, “You know, if I’m Random House, I consider canceling her contract too because a) perceived conflict of interest and b) why would you want to do business with someone who’s just threatened to sue you?”

I love that man.

Conservative Christians did the same thing when Passion of the Christ came out (and another interesting corollary is that most of the protesters hadn’t seen or read the material they tried to censor then either).

I think you might be referring to The Last Temptation of Christ. Gibson’s Passion was the darling of Christian Conservatives (it was screened in mega churches all over the U.S.).

shewhohashope:
I didn’t take your statement as sarcasm.  I thought you were serious.  It looks like I wasn’t the only one.  That’s one of the major problems with online communication.

I didn’t comment on it, though, because perhaps you are more fundamental (hate that word) in your beliefs, and you believe that a woman’s literary work is not as important as a man’s, or that man in particular.

Seeing as to how you are at this site, though…I’m not sure what I was thinking, because no way could I reconcile beliefs of that nature and surfing the web to smartbitches.com.  :)  Knee-jerk reaction, possibly, since I have met women that believe that way.

spamword: appreared21…noooo…actually, appearing my full 30 today, and hot and tired, to boot.  but thanks for the compliment.

Was it any way not obvious that I was - not being sarcastic, exactly - stating a truth that I don’t agree with?

If you were being obvious, you might have stated, 1) that you thought Rushdie’s publisher ought to have declined to publish his books, the same way Jones’ publisher has, or 2) that despite your objections to the subject matter of Ms. Jones’ book, you supported her right to freedom of expression.  You did neither.

If you weren’t saying she had less rights than an award winning male writer of literary fiction, you should have m ade it clearer.

Certainly radical Islam is not alone in this. Conservative Christians did the same thing when Passion of the Christ came out (and another interesting corrollary is that most of the protesters hadn’t seen or read the material they tried to censor then either). The political spectrum from right to left has done it as well. It’s tiring in all guises.

I’m pretty sure you mean The Last Temptation of Christ, movie and book.

I’m gonna out myself here as a conservative Christian.  TBH, that stuff (Dan Brown and Kazantzakis (sp?) didn’t bother me because, hey, truth is truth, no matter what a person may say, or write, or film, or whatever.  Besides, neither of those works seem all that irreverent to me.  I don’t see the problem with peaceful protests (signs, petitions), and boycotts.  I don’t see the problem with letters to the editor, or TV interviews in which people discuss how horrible the work in question is (so long as they read it).  It’s good to have a discussion of religious beliefs, esp. in our society, which sometimes needs a reminder.  It can be a good thing, really, for a religiously controversial work to come out—it gets everyone talking in my religious community, and generally inspires people to weed out sinful aspects of their lives, and resolve to try and keep themselves and their families more “separate from the world.”  But, speaking only for Christians—if we’re not happy with religious disrespect and immorality, then we need to get busier “working from the inside,” trying to bring others to Christ, rather than ranting and raving about a book or a movie.  Because if enough people commit their lives to God, then a lot of this stuff will disappear without our having to protest it.  IMHO.

And it’s Barb for the win! Turns out Dr. Spellberg is the author of a feminist book about Aisha, wife of Mohammed. Jones read Spellberg’s book, liked it, and suggested Spellberg be asked for a quote.

That, to me, is so telling. 

spam filter: point 86….no, I think I’m done for now

I’m supposed to worry about the sensibilities of a group of people who murder daughters, sisters, wives and other FEMALE relatives because some asshole prick got his fucking honor bent out of shape? Who torture and mutilate women so they can’t enjoy sex?

WHUT.

I don’t know where to begin.

And Salman Rushdie is a man writing Seriouis Literary Fiction [TM] and a Booker Prize winner. This lady is a) a woman b) I don’t quite recall her name even now and c) is writing genre fiction, and romance at that.

As a
(a) woman,
(b) whose name you’ve never heard,  who is
(c) writing ROMANCE-AT-THAT ... 

I gotta say I’m not just delighted with the thought I deserve less free-speech protection than

(a) a male, 
(b) who has a name you are capable of remembering, and
(c) is writing Terribly Important Literary Stuff.

I do not approve of blackmail,
or religions jockeying for special privileges,
or giving power to oafs with rocks.

If we allow thugs to squelch the publication of a
ROMANCE-AT-THAT
their demands will escalate till they reach some sort of writing you feel should not be censored. 
Or possibly not.

Was it any way not obvious that I was - not being sarcastic, exactly - stating a truth that I don’t agree with

Nah, when you put “TM” after Serious Literary Fiction, I got you.  Thought it was funny, actually

Am I the only one who thinks that this only makes her book more likely to sell when it does come out…..and it WILL come out.    You say you’re pulling it because of some vague “threat”  and everyone goes into an uproar and DEMANDS to see it published, etc, and then when it IS finally published it is a bestseller.  And nobody will give a damn whether it is well written or not. 

Nah.  That is too cynical even for me.

This book just got publicity that couldn’t be bought. Dollars to donuts Random House “reconsiders” (assuming this wasn’t some kind of publicity grab in the first place). If they don’t they’re morons

.

Hah—that was my first thought too when I read the article!
Free publicity for both writers—a “you stab my back, I’ll stab yours” kind of situation.  Me, cynical?  Nah.

I didn’t comment on it, though, because perhaps you are more fundamental (hate that word) in your beliefs, and you believe that a woman’s literary work is not as important as a man’s, or that man in particular.

Maybe I should strive to be less ambiguous.

I can see that you don’t mean to be rude, but consider how hurtful it is to constantly have people assume that you are extremely conservative (at best) and a crazy fundamentalist/terrorist (at worst) because of your faith.

(and no-one else is boggling at the statement about muslims being an indistinguishable mass of murderers and crazies. No-one?)

It’s true that there are people from every religion that get very upset when anyone writes about their history.  In terms of turning a sacred history into soft core pornography I thought of The Red Tent, which got a lot of undies in a major bunch.  The difference is, it got published.  I agree 100% with those who say that the solution to being offended by a book is simply not to read it, but I think the difference in reaction here is because people obviously fear angry Muslims in a way that they simply don’t fear angry Christians.  I think that’s unrealistic.

Here in America we’ve never had the sort of violent protests that happened after the flap about the Danish cartoons.  For a whole bunch of reasons I won’t bore you with I don’t think that’s likely to change.  And if you look at recent history the average American not living in LA or NY has much more to fear from right wing “Christian” extremists, either of the lone nut variety or militia members, than they do from Islamic terrorists.  So I agree with the person who said this smacks of hysteria.

I think you might be referring to The Last Temptation of Christ. Gibson’s Passion was the darling of Christian Conservatives (it was screened in mega churches all over the U.S.).

For the most part yes.  But it is also extremely Catholic in imagery and many of the scenes are Catholic in origin.  There were some fundamentalists who disliked the movie because it was made by a Catholic.

I’m Catholic myself.  I read the Da Vinci Code when it first came out, before the big brouhaha began.  It did offend me in some parts.  However, I can appreciate it as a work of fiction, that is meant to entertain.

Jo

I assume you haven’t read my clarification, but why on earth am I reading smart bitches trashy books, unless I am in fact a woman of at least average (I hope) intelligence who loves romance novels?

[And I remember your name perfectly well. It’s evident that false amnesia is not the comedic gold I thought it was. Except for Leah no-one agrees with me.]

This book just got publicity that couldn’t be bought. Dollars to donuts Random House “reconsiders” (assuming this wasn’t some kind of publicity grab in the first place). If they don’t they’re morons

Considering the report stated that she already signed the termination agreement, reconsidering is going to involve a new contract and possibly going to auction against other houses who will no doubt want to grab the publicity for themselves.

Very expensive proposition, that, especially since Jones will have been able to retain any moneys already paid to her as a “kill fee.”

But, speaking only for Christians—if we’re not happy with religious disrespect and immorality, then we need to get busier “working from the inside,” trying to bring others to Christ, rather than ranting and raving about a book or a movie.  Because if enough people commit their lives to God, then a lot of this stuff will disappear without our having to protest it.  IMHO.

I… uhhh… I really don’t know how to describe my reaction to your words without it turning into a diatribe.

I have committed my life to God. However, my commitment is not to the Christian God. The idea that people seek to convert others just so they don’t have to listen to ideas that run counter to their own is extremely distasteful to me. I am secure enough in my religious beliefs that I don’t need to convert others or protest something that may be “blasphemous”.

Hell, fiction writers use Gods that I worship all of the time in their books in ways that make me cringe, but I do not call for a boycott or protest. Heck, there are some books that have Pagan Gods as the villains that I personally enjoy very much because the book was well-written and entertaining.

TBH, that stuff (Dan Brown and Kazantzakis (sp?) didn’t bother me because, hey, truth is truth, no matter what a person may say, or write, or film, or whatever.  Besides, neither of those works seem all that irreverent to me.  I don’t see the problem with peaceful protests (signs, petitions), and boycotts.  I don’t see the problem with letters to the editor, or TV interviews in which people discuss how horrible the work in question is (so long as they read it).  It’s good to have a discussion of religious beliefs, esp. in our society, which sometimes needs a reminder.

Leah, you make me smile.

“I don’t have a problem with historical fiction. I do have a problem with the deliberate misinterpretation of history.

Turns out Dr. Spellberg is the author of a feminist book about Aisha, wife of Mohammed.

One point I find interesting is how she appears to conflate her views about Aisha (and presumably Mohammed) with Truth.  All histories, even autobiographies, are in some sense “historical fiction”. 

For example, you can relate a historical fact, say, “William the Conqueror and his army invaded England in 1066”, but as soon as you attempt to chronical the reasons behind the invasion or what exactly happened once the army landed, you’ve left “factual” behind.  For one thing, no matter how objective you try to be, everyone brings their own personal biases to an issues.  This colors everything from what will or will not be considered as a valid source, but also the interpretation of the information the source provides.  Secondly, even eyewitnesses to an event can be inaccurate, prejudiced, ill-informed, or simply mistaken.  Therefore, all historians must go into a project with the intent of sifting through available material as objectively as possible, while always being aware of their own biases.  However, I would guess that many of you have seen instances where you’ve read something and the author’s preconceived notions are readily apparently to everyone but him/herself.  So while they may present their ideas with authority and with the personal belief that they are as close to the Truth (as they know it) as they can be, the truth is that all history is relative and therefore, in a sense, historical fiction.  It’s just that some histories are more fictional than others.

shewhohashope you raise a good point with this statement:

“(and no-one else is boggling at the statement about muslims being an indistinguishable mass of murderers and crazies. No-one?)”

Yes, I read some of these comments and my mind did ‘boggle’. Sorry I didn’t speak up.

Truth is I fear and speak out against intolerance in any form, and I responded first to what Sarah posted first and then misunderstood your comment.

I do agree with you that publishers will be more apt to protect Very Serious Literary Works from censorship-by-oaf than Just-a-Romances. 

I want to see this protection spread across even minor works.  (Though a $100K advance argues this is NOT a minor work.) 

I think we are in agreement on this ... nu?

And certainly I am equal opportunity in demanding that oafs of all religions and national stripes should be prevented from heaving bricks.

(and no-one else is boggling at the statement about muslims being an indistinguishable mass of murderers and crazies. No-one?)

It isn’t that I don’t find it mind boggling, I just find it too ridiculous to comment on.  Truly.  I have to believe they didn’t really mean that because to think they were serious is too much, even for me.

[/quoteand no-one else is boggling at the statement about muslims being an indistinguishable mass of murderers and crazies. No-one?)

You know that no one thinks that.  We all work with Muslims, have Muslim colleagues, doctors, professors, neighbors, whatever. I have a Muslim ex. We don’t think horrible things about them.  Well, not anymore about the ex, lol!  We have our own nutjobs out there, like Timothy McVeigh, Ted Kascynski (sp), etc.  But we know who they are.  They have names and faces. We can differentiate them from the rest of American society, because we live here and know how it works. When we see mobs protesting violently, and we are the target, or hear about suicide bombings against innocent people—Muslims, Jews, Iraqis, Saudi, whoever—and that’s the majority of what we hear about the Middle East—then it becomes easy to see that region with an unjustifiably negative bias. We don’t see all the positive, regular people there—because they just don’t get the press.  I’m sure we can do better.

foot67…born in 1967.  Put my foot in my mouth pretty much every day

I’m going to make an attempt to stop refreshing this page, because it will obviously lead me to insanity, but I’d like to say that there is a major difference between the subjects of these analogies.

I’m going to leave ‘being Scottish’ out of this because that is some next-level stuff happening right there. But as for ‘being Christian’?

Christianity in Britain, as I here it, is nowhere near as pervasive as Christianity in the US. But even here it is everywhere. Sundays are generally holidays from school and work. I had Religious education lessons that were solely bible reading in primary school. I had to attend carol/hymn singing sessions three times a week. We have Christmas/Easter celebrations every year. The legal system is based on Christian morals. Everything is built on the assumption that people are quietly Christian. I have to turn up to class as usual/ go to my office job if and when I get one as usual. I have to try and work a prayer schedule around classes and on accasion I will still be booked so solid I have take a break while lessons are ongoing to fit it all in. I’m scheduled into classes when it is time to break my fast for Ramadan. I have to ask for time off for Eid, and on occasion can’t get it because of exams. I get complaints about having to take an extra long lunch break to go to the mosque, or get a private room to pray in when I have a summer job. I get told outright that I haven’t gotten jobs because I wear a headscarf. I have had my luggage searched because people thought I looked suspicious. I have been threatened and harassed on the street for being a Muslim.

In this thread I’ve been assumed to be alternately a misogynist and a hater of free speech despite statements to the contrary.

There is no equivalence whatsoever between something being seen as a threat/insult by Christians and by Muslims.

*Face/Desk*

Read a couple of blogs to try to pick up some perspective and it looks like this is being whipped into another liberal (Spellburg received a degree from Columbia therefore must be a liberal), conservative fit instead of addressing the, I think, important issues being raised.

And I even have my concerns about the WSJ’s reporting slant since it was bought by Murdoch.

Yes, Last Temptation of Christ (Passion was the name of the incredible soundtrack Peter Gabriel did for it, sorry I conflated!) - a fabulous book and also I movie I was nearly unable to go to because of picketers shoving at me, screaming in my face, calling me names and making every attempt to stop ME from viewing a movie I have every right to see.

I’m a Christian too so I don’t really like anyone saying they’re “speaking for Christians” because well, there are millions upon millions of Christians and I personally found the Last Temptation of Christ to be a beautiful, faith affirming movie and not offensive in the least. But I believe others have a right to see it differently and to say so as long as they’re not impeding me.

I’ve done my share of picketing over lots of things. But no one tells me what I can see and read but me and your rights end where mine begin. Don’t block my way to “object” to something I know for a fact 98% of those picketers hadn’t even read or seen.

This is not about one religion or one group being worse than others. This is about intolerance in the extreme.

I’ve done my share of picketing over lots of things. But no one tells me what I can see and read but me and your rights end where mine begin. Don’t block my way to “object” to something I know for a fact 98% of those picketers hadn’t even read or seen.

This is not about one religion or one group being worse than others. This is about intolerance in the extreme.

*points up at what Lauren said*

Yep, this.

It isn’t that I don’t find it mind boggling, I just find it too ridiculous to comment on.  Truly.  I have to believe they didn’t really mean that because to think they were serious is too much, even for me.

Well obviously (obviously) you get less anti-Muslim nonsense directed at you than me, so you can be less cynical than I am.

You know that no one thinks that.  We all work with Muslims, have Muslim colleagues, doctors, professors, neighbors, whatever. I have a Muslim ex. We don’t think horrible things about them.  Well, not anymore about the ex, lol!  We have our own nutjobs out there, like Timothy McVeigh, Ted Kascynski (sp), etc.  But we know who they are.  They have names and faces. We can differentiate them from the rest of American society, because we live here and know how it works. When we see mobs protesting violently, and we are the target, or hear about suicide bombings against innocent people—Muslims, Jews, Iraqis, Saudi, whoever—and that’s the majority of what we hear about the Middle East—then it becomes easy to see that region with an unjustifiably negative bias. We don’t see all the positive, regular people there—because they just don’t get the press.  I’m sure we can do better.

So… you’re saying that representation of Arabs/Muslims (often used as synonyms - for the record, I’m not an arab) lead to Americans (who are non Muslim/non Arabs) holding negative views about them.

How does this jive with people not actually believing the negative stereotypes that the woman (or man) who boggled my mind mentioned?

Or do you mean only Middle Eastern Muslims are seen negatively?

I’m supposed to worry about the sensibilities of a group of people who murder daughters, sisters, wives and other FEMALE relatives because some asshole prick got his fucking honor bent out of shape? Who torture and mutilate women so they can’t enjoy sex?

My lady bits are in perfect condition actually, so I’m not sure where you are going with this.

I have committed my life to God. However, my commitment is not to the Christian God. The idea that people seek to convert others just so they don’t have to listen to ideas that run counter to their own is extremely distasteful to me.

Sorry I keep messing up the quotes.  That’s not really what it’s about.  Christians should listen to all sorts of ideas. Religion should not close one’s mind.  .  But both Christianity and Islam are proselytizing religions, and my point was, that if we think we are right, then we should put our basic message out there, rather than spending our time yelling about a movie or something, because if the Bible (or the Qu’ran) has merit, then it should be allowed to speak. Me flapping my jaws about Mel Gibson or something is just a distraction from what I should be doing—that is, serving my fellow man regardless of faith, and teaching the Gospel to those who want to listen.

(and no-one else is boggling at the statement about muslims being an indistinguishable mass of murderers and crazies. No-one?)

Just read this thread- yes, I’m boggling. Boggling severely. What is it with Islam + Protest = Terrorism? Is this an American thing? Because I found some of the reactions much more shocking than the issue itself.

I’m not in favour of censorship, but I think that there is a difference between being controversial and being offensive. And if Random House decided that the book was offensive, then they have an absolute right to take the loss and not publish it.
And if Spellberg, as an expert in her field, was offended by a book given to her to review, she had a right to say so, and even a right to share her negative reaction with a colleague, or marshal protest against publication.

I hope that eventually a Godwin’s Law comes into effect for Islam and terrorism. I think what’s out of whack here is not the action of cancelling publication, but the whole TERRISTS CANT HAV MA FREEDOM OF TEH SPEECH reaction.

I’m pretty sure you mean The Last Temptation of Christ, movie and book.

No, pretty sure she meant Passion of the Christ.  Big scandalous Mel Gibson directed box office flop with James Caviezel as a vaguely homo-erotic Jesus?

Spaminator word: money23…pretty sure Mel made more that $23 on that flick, despite the flop.

I’m supposed to worry about the sensibilities of a group of people who murder daughters, sisters, wives and other FEMALE relatives because some asshole prick got his fucking honor bent out of shape? Who torture and mutilate women so they can’t enjoy sex?

FGM (female genital mutilation) is a cultural, not a religious practice. It’s a subtle but extremely important difference.

and no-one else is boggling at the statement about muslims being an indistinguishable mass of murderers and crazies. No-one?

The 2nd part of my earlier comment was meant in part to point out that I disagree my position on the issue, I was just trying to disagree in a really polite way.  I tend to be rather rant-y by nature and I’m a Master’s candidate in US Foreign Policy/Security Studies so this topic has the potential to invoke a bit of a tirade, which helps no one.  Apparently I over compensated & was too subtle.

For the record, anything that even approaches Muslim = Arab, Muslim = hates women or Muslim = terrorist is inaccurate and really, seriously detrimental, both in terms of how we as individuals view & treat each other and in terms of American policy.

my bad, I see she was mistaken.  *bows out again*

I hope that eventually a Godwin’s Law comes into effect for Islam and terrorism. I think what’s out of whack here is not the action of cancelling publication, but the whole TERRISTS CANT HAV MA FREEDOM OF TEH SPEECH reaction.

NAZI!

Sorry, someone had to say it.

This is a very interesting social experiment in a way. If you read the article

After Ms. Spellberg had a conversation with an editor at Knopf, an imprint of Random House with whom Spellberg has a book contract, alarm was raised within the company that the book, the author, and the employees of the publisher could be the victims of “widespread violence.”

Spellberg is the one who started this fuss. Personally, I’d like to see the

seven-point strategy to ensure ‘the writer withdraws this book from the stores and apologise all the muslims across the world.’”

Does anyone know if this exists? In searching I found http://www.jewishblogging.com/blog.php?bid=153583 which has some interesting quotes including

But Ms. Spellberg wasn’t a fan of Ms. Jones’s book. On April 30, Shahed Amanullah, a guest lecturer in Ms. Spellberg’s classes and the editor of a popular Muslim Web site, got a frantic call from her. “She was upset,” Mr. Amanullah recalls. He says Ms. Spellberg told him the novel “made fun of Muslims and their history,” and asked him to warn Muslims.

Spam word? soviet96 which really is funny considering Godwin’s Law etc.

The folks at Random House should have stood by their author.

We live in an age of fear and repression. Learning that the world’s largest publishing conglomerate was scared away from publshing this book disappoints me.

Shewhohashope, I recognized your sarcasm, but it was subtle, and subtlety can be a tough thing to pick up in the message board environment, especially when people are reading quickly and responding even more quickly.

And if Random House decided that the book was offensive, then they have an absolute right to take the loss and not publish it.

RH didn’t make the decision to pull the book based on the fact that it was potentially offensive—puh-leez, as if that would be the sole basis for pulling a book from a pub schedule.  Nope, they pulled it based on the fact that they felt they had received threats to the safety of their company and employees based on what Spellberg told them and what she had told her colleague who then spread the word among the academic and student community.

I kind of find it difficult to believe that even some idle “We think this book sux and you shouldn’t publish it,” protesting from student groups would be enough, unless accompanied by some sort of substantial threat.  I’m not saying violence, but certainly, it had to be something fairly big to get Random House—big, big corporation with lots of money, to pull back and cut their losses.

“I don’t have a problem with historical fiction. I do have a problem with the deliberate misinterpretation of history. You can’t play with a sacred history and turn it into soft core pornography.”

I wonder what this crazy biatch would think about Michael Schiefelbein’s VAMPIRE series, in which a gay male vampire is in love with Jesus.

Or all the PNR and UF these days starring angels and demons.

Gawd.  Two of the things I hate the most in today’s world: fundamentalism and political correctness at the same fucking time.  I didn’t even think those two were possible together.  I think the lady at least deserves props for combining two conflicting philosophies so effectively.

I hope that eventually a Godwin’s Law comes into effect for Islam and terrorism. I think what’s out of whack here is not the action of cancelling publication, but the whole TERRISTS CANT HAV MA FREEDOM OF TEH SPEECH reaction.

Screw the Iranian government. Let’s get married!

It scares me for the future of our society when we start pre-banning books based on what they *might* cause people to think. Once it starts, where does it stop?

and no-one else is boggling at the statement about muslims being an indistinguishable mass of murderers and crazies. No-one?

I am.  And…ugh…what to say.  I’m up for an addendum to Godwin’s Law.

And I’ll stick with what I said (much) higher up.  I don’t think this issue is to do with either ‘political correctness’ or terrorist threat.  I think it’s to do with the hysteria people experience when they hear the words ‘Muslim’ and ‘protest’.

So… you’re saying that representation of Arabs/Muslims (often used as synonyms - for the record, I’m not an arab) lead to

Americans (who are non Muslim/non Arabs) holding negative views about them.

How does this jive with people not actually believing the negative stereotypes that the woman (or man) who boggled my mind mentioned?

Or do you mean only Middle Eastern Muslims are seen negatively?

I dont’ mean to offend anyone on here, Muslim, pagan, Christian, Jew, or otherwise.

I mean simply that people only can go by the information they have.  It’s a human thing, not an American, or British, or Muslim or Norwegian or whatever.  I remember when I was dating Nadir, he had some Arabic publications that said some truly bizarre things about Israel.  At least they seemed bizarre to me.  To him, not so much.  Even if he didn’t believe them entirely, they did have emotional resonance for him that they did not for me.  But it made me realize that people in other nations can have skewed views of the US, too, if all the information they get is inaccurate.  We should all be more skeptical, and rise above whatever paranoia is out there.  None of us are immune to it.  And it needs to be challenged when it does appear, no matter who is involved.
I’m sorry, btw, about the prejudices you have encountered.  I thought really, that the UK was far more secular than we are. But it’s not a national thing, is it?  We all need to be more tolerant of each other. 

I hope this makes sense.  If it doesn’t blame the 3 little kids who are hanging on me screaming for supper.  Who do they think I am?  Their mother?  lol!

It scares me for the future of our society when we start pre-banning books based on what they *might* cause people to think. Once it starts, where does it stop?

Two fun stories on this subject:

Fahrenheit 451 by Ray Bradbury

Minority Report by Philip K. Dick

I don’t think this issue is to do with either ‘political correctness’ or terrorist threat.  I think it’s to do with the hysteria people experience when they hear the words ‘Muslim’ and ‘protest’.

Ah, but Imogen, the key here is that that particular flavor of hysteria was not only fanned, but downright blown into a giant-ass bonfire by an expert in the religion, history, and culture.  I agree with those who’ve said that Random House’s reaction was wrong, that they should have stood by their author, but it was another one of their authors feeding them the information in such a way that it incited the hysteria and gross overreaction.

You’d think Spellberg would’ve known better.  Or, perhaps she did?  Who knows.

I’m stupid (yeah, I know).  What is Godwin’s law?

Not stupid at all. Probably just been able to avoid the many flame wars of “teh interwebz.”

Godwin’s Law (also known as Godwin’s Rule of Nazi Analogies)[1] is an adage formulated by Mike Godwin in 1990. The law states:[2][3]

“As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.”

Godwin’s Law is often cited in online discussions as a caution against the use of inflammatory rhetoric or exaggerated comparisons, and is often conflated with fallacious arguments of the reductio ad Hitlerum form.

The rule does not make any statement whether any particular reference or comparison to Hitler or the Nazis might be appropriate, but only asserts that one arising is increasingly probable. It is precisely because such a comparison or reference may sometimes be appropriate, Godwin has argued[4] that overuse of Nazi and Hitler comparisons should be avoided, because it robs the valid comparisons of their impact. Although in one of its early forms Godwin’s Law referred specifically to Usenet newsgroup discussions,[5] the law is now applied to any threaded online discussion: electronic mailing lists, message boards, chat rooms, and more recently blog comment threads and wiki talk pages.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin’s_law

You’d think Spellberg would’ve known better.  Or, perhaps she did?  Who knows.

I’m kind of assuming she’s the hysterical one, actually!

Oh and Godwin’s Law states that the first person to reference Hitler or Nazis in an argument automatically loses.  (As in, “What, you advocate age-banding for books?  That’s censorship.  That’s like book-burning.  That’s what Hitler did!  You’re a Nazi!”)  Even if the rest of their argument made sense.  :-)

Once it starts, where does it stop?

I hate the slippery slope argument more than anything else except Fox News and the fact that Sean Bean will never love me.

This may have been Random House cowering in fear before the mighty wrath of radical Islam, albeit in the unlikely guise of a feminist Middle Eastern studies professor and a listserv group. Or it may have been Random House deciding that publishing a book that a large section of the population might find pointlessly offensive wasn’t where it wanted to go with its public image.

Either way, this is not a lead-in to Orwellian dystopia. Random House declined to publish the book, and returned the rights. The author is free to market it elsewhere. If RH had shown the manuscript to an expert before accepting it, and declined it for the exact same reason, this would be an non-issue.
This is not censorship. This book has not been banned, burnt, or supressed. A publishing house has decided not to publish it.

On a side note, I feel that all forms of medical surgery should be banned. If we let surgeons cut people up, where will it end? Before you know it, they’ll be waylaying us in alleys and performing unneccesary appendectomies on anyone who can’t get away. Don’t say I didn’t warn you.

I think I know why this is getting out of hand.  I know the Muslims here feel as if general society picks on them.  We develop stereotypes based on things we see, read, and hear.  We read the story about the Australian Muslim leader that compared uncovered women to meat being left out.  We see the video of the Muslim girl stoned to death for caring for a boy that wasn’t of her religion.  We see the girls covered from head to toe in scorching heat while the boys don’t have to wear nearly as much crap. (That is in the US) We see things that we would never understand or tolerate in our households.  We see the Muslims screaming that they are a religion of peace while sects bomb places. If RH has overreacted, then there are reasons for it.  We hear stories about The Prophen taking a bride at 6 and taking her taking her at 9.  Let’s not forget the cartoon episode.  These are the versions we are inundated with.  We need more positives.

I have friends that are Muslims.  They are good people.  I don’t associate them with the negatives but that is because they are an Americanized version.  They don’t look down on me for being me and I don’t look down on them for being them. When we have a pot luck, I don’t fix pork.  That’s about it.

I asked a male friend why didn’t the head of the religious communities stand up and say something about the bad.  I know Muslims aren’t evil but others need to.  He says it wouldn’t get as much press.  I don’t know if that’s true.  I know it would help.  We need more Muslims to stand up and say when things aren’t right.  I don’t think we would worry as much when a fury grew over cartoons or fiction.  I also think as women, no matter the religion, we should defend each other.  I don’t believe freaking out over a book was called for.  A polite letter would’ve been more effective and less worrisome.  JMHO.

Oh, okay, I’m wrong.  I checked Wikipedia.  Apparently what I know as Godwin’s Law is just a corollary to the original Law that TarotbyArwen references. 

new82 82 new laws made from the original…

Note to self: Write Prophet Muhammad Porn for instant notoriety.

Step 2: Send Prophet Muhammad Porn to UT Professor Denise Spellberg in care of “Warn all Muslims”

The Wall Street Journal Op-ed writer said in her piece, “This saga upsets me as a Muslim—and as a writer who believes that fiction can bring Islamic history to life in a uniquely captivating and humanizing way.”

That’s what I find most sad about this episode.

Jewish and Christian figures have been explored in fiction, and especially in the past five years, heavily in women’s fiction. Having a book on an historical Muslim woman could help many of us who are not very familiar with Islam come into it in a non-threatening way. I’m not saying that we should learn our history from fiction; rather, that as a reader, I have often learned about a historical event or person through fiction and then gone on to more authoritative sources to learn the real facts and scholarly interpretations of those events and people.

Shame on Professor Spellberg for silencing a fellow author. If she truly finds this novel offensive, she could have discredited it by writing a thougtful article refuting it and allowed us (the readers) to judge for ourselves the worthiness of this particular fictional work.

So that takes care of the Muhammed porn…Schiefelbein wrote the Jesus porn…The L Word showed a Mary Magdalene porno…Meljean Brook did the angels and demons…who does that leave out?  Gandhi?  Buddha?

Abraham would be a good one.  You could piss off the Christians, the Muslims, and the Jews all in one book.

From the WSJ article

Thomas Perry, deputy publisher at Random House Publishing Group, said that it “disturbs us that we feel we cannot publish it right now.” He said that after sending out advance copies of the novel, the company received “from credible and unrelated sources, cautionary advice not only that the publication of this book might be offensive to some in the Muslim community, but also that it could incite acts of violence by a small, radical segment.”

After consulting security experts and Islam scholars, Mr. Perry said the company decided “to postpone publication for the safety of the author, employees of Random House, booksellers and anyone else who would be involved in distribution and sale of the novel.”

They did not cancel the book because they found it offensive. They canceled the book because they were afraid for people’s safety due to possible “acts of violence”.

who does that leave out?  Gandhi?  Buddha?

I just had the most interesting visual of Ben Kingsley…...

voice41… I should be writing and working on my voice instead of leaving 41 comments? Dang psychic spaminator

They did not cancel the book because they found it offensive. They canceled the book because they were afraid for people’s safety due to possible “acts of violence”.

Honestly, it is more worrisome to me that they canceled out of some unfounded fear. This, to me, smacks more of ethnic hatred than finding the book offensive.

Are we Americans truly that scared of the more violent sects of the Muslim faith? I have Muslim friends who tell me I should be, but should I?

Course64. Of course?

Step 2: Send Prophet Muhammad Porn to UT Professor Denise Spellberg in care of “Warn all Muslims”

I’m only an hour from UT.  I could deliver it for you.  Maybe with a box of Lisabea’s S&M;gingerbread men.

We develop stereotypes based on things we see, read, and hear.

A huge part of the problem is that we so rarely ask enough questions about why we’re being presented with a particular set of images unless those images strike us as being an inaccurate representation of ourselves or our loved ones.  As Leah said, we all need to challenge those images much more often.

Abraham porn has already been written: “Sarah: A Novel (Canaan Trilogy)” by Marek Halter

Abraham porn has already been written: “Sarah: A Novel (Canaan Trilogy)” by Marek Halter

Crap.  I guess I’ll scrap my rough draft then.

captcha: zebra69…heh

Wow, I don’t know whether to find this funny or offensive. Funny because - “oh no, we’ve offended the Muslims! we’d better take steps right away, you know what they’re like. Bomb you soon as look at you”. And offensive because I’m a Muslim, and I hate the idea of this book. But that’s okay. It’s just me. I’m not saying I’m going to BOMB anyone to express my outrage. I think, though, that we should be allowed to express our anger. Freedom of speech and all that. Bibi Aisha (r) and the Prophet (pbuh) are real people to me and to many, many people; and you don’t want to read light historical fiction about real people, people who are important to you. You don’t want to see them misrepresented. The genre - serious literature or light romance - doesn’t matter. It is disrespectful, the same way that The Da Vinci Code is disrespectful. (The DVC is also terrible crap.)

I’m rambling here, sorry. I’m just trying to explain why the idea of a book like this is so hurtful. So, I don’t want it to be published. That doesn’t mean I think it shouldn’t be. Everything should be. Bad, hurtful, offensive books have been published before this.

Hmmm…my post?  Where did it go?
My husband just came in and I told him about all this.  He wondered if, when you send out your book to be blurbbed, there is a confidentiality agreement involved?  And if this author cannot sell her book elsewhere (can’t envision that, but still), can she sue Spellburg for hurting her career?  Of course, she can sue for anything, but would it have merit in court?

Oh, and thanks for the info on Godwin’s law.  So hilarious—and so true!

This is really a fascinating topic!  Like the rest of you, I think Spellberg’s behavior is deplorable, and I am extremely interested in reading “Jewel of Medina” now.  It’s true, you really can’t buy publicity like this.  I hope Jones finds a new publisher ASAP and she makes lots of money; I will make sure to show up at her book signing and buy a signed copy. 

By the way, you guys should check out Sherry Jones’ own blog, and drop her a suppportive note.

Leah, I’ve worked in book publishing for more than a dozen years and never sent a confidentiality agreement to someone from whom I’m requesting a blurb. To my knowledge, it’s not common, if ever done. What publishers do say is that the material itself is not for (re)sale (that’s usually printed on the ARC or the ms front page) and that it shouldn’t be quoted without verfiying final text with the publisher as it may receive further edits between the ARC and the final book. If you’re sending a book to be vetted by an expert for one reason or another (check for historical accuracy, potential legal issues, etc.), there’s an agreement that usually signed—for the work being done—but I’ve never seen one with a confidentiality clause.

We need more Muslims to stand up and say when things aren’t right.  I don’t think we would worry as much when a fury grew over cartoons or fiction. 

Speaking of the Last Temptation of Christ, IIRC, there were a buttload of moderate people of Christian background who spoke up in favor of people’s right to see that movie.

I don’t think Muslims who stand up and speak out against the extremists in their religion won’t get any press. I think perhaps they’re afraid they will. All it takes is one lunatic with an ounce of power (political, physical, whatever) to mess things up for everyone, because the lunatics are prepared to do anything, including die, for their cause, and the rest of us moderates just want to duck and cover until the shooting stops.

We all need to just stop ducking and covering, even if it puts us at risk.

Honestly, it is more worrisome to me that they canceled out of some unfounded fear.

How do you know the fear is unfounded? Perhaps they received a credible threat from an extremist organization. All they said was “credible and unrelated sources”. That would imply more people contacted them regarding this than Ms. Spellberg.

you don’t want to read light historical fiction about real people, people who are important to you.

Correction. You may not want to, but I certainly do. One of my favorite books is The Moon Beneath Her Feet by Claudia Kinstler which is about a priestess of Ishtar, Mary aka the whore Mary Magdalene, and a priest of Judaism, Yeshua aka Jesus. It is a fascinating look at what might have happened and how those two characters might have interacted.

life45 Apparently I’m gonna do 45- Life for this.

Claudia Kinstler

should be Clysta Kinstler. I knew I should have looked that up first.

remember22… now this thing is just mocking me!

Like the rest of you, I think Spellberg’s behavior is deplorable

Maybe like “most of the rest of you”. I hope the book comes out, too, but mainly because I’d like to see a wider dialogue on whether the book is truly ugly or stupid.

But I don’t see anything deplorable in Spellberg’s behaviour. She had concerns and she shared them. She’s allowed to. I didn’t get the impression that she was fomenting racial hatred or supporting terrorism or condoning violence.

What’s deplorable about her conduct?

you don’t want to read light historical fiction about real people, people who are important to you.

I love to read historical fiction about any and every culture or religion. Even those that I hold in higher personal regard than others.

The whole taking offense at every little thing, from cartoons to historical romance novels (a novel, not a purported biography, ffs) makes me wonder how weak a person’s faith must be that any and every opposing POV is seen as offensive or blasphemy.

How do you know the fear is unfounded? Perhaps they received a credible threat from an extremist organization. All they said was “credible and unrelated sources”. That would imply more people contacted them regarding this than Ms. Spellberg.

My extrapolation is that they reacted to threats. I have a typically “American” reaction in that I do not think you should react to being bullied (although it’s a whole ‘nother discussion about America’s own bullying tactics). Therefore, to me, I believe the fear to be unfounded because of the “other people said so too” factor in this. I have been reading other sources for this story as much as I can find as well.

What’s deplorable about her conduct?

As an “expert” on Middle Eastern studies, one would hope she could predict the results of her going to a colleague who was a) a Muslim, and b) editor of a religious/political website with her concerns. If she was not interested in stirring up a shitstorm, she would have quietly gone to the publisher and expressed her concerns to them.

What’s deplorable about her conduct?

I think many are tired of people like Spellberg creating mass hysteria over things that would probably amount to non-issues if left alone.

Who decided that the American people aren’t strong enough to handle “offensive” issues as rational adults?  Since when did everything have to be monitored by sociologists and special interest groups?

[quote=Susan]The Wall Street Journal Op-ed writer said in her piece, “This saga upsets me as a Muslim—and as a writer who believes that fiction can bring Islamic history to life in a uniquely captivating and humanizing way.”

That’s what I find most sad about this episode.

Jewish and Christian figures have been explored in fiction, and especially in the past five years, heavily in women’s fiction. Having a book on an historical Muslim woman could help many of us who are not very familiar with Islam come into it in a non-threatening way. I’m not saying that we should learn our history from fiction; rather, that as a reader, I have often learned about a historical event or person through fiction and then gone on to more authoritative sources to learn the real facts and scholarly interpretations of those events and people.

Thank you!  That’s a very good point. 

My panties aren’t twisting as a result of whether the threat Random House perceived is real, imagined, paranoid, or whatever.  To me, it’s more the idea that a handful of people can point a finger and completely shut-down a piece of fiction that is well within its rights to be published, distributed and read. 

I just hate the whole idea of that sort of censorship.  Though, I’m not directly worried in this case.  Even if RH doesn’t reconsider, she’ll surely find someone with the guts to take the story on.

What’s deplorable about her conduct?

Hmm…  there’s the part where she not only told a colleague how horrible the book was:

On April 30, Shahed Amanullah, a guest lecturer in Ms. Spellberg’s classes and the editor of a popular Muslim Web site, got a frantic call from her. “She was upset,” Mr. Amanullah recalls. He says Ms. Spellberg told him the novel “made fun of Muslims and their history,” and asked him to warn Muslims.

I like the frantic call and warning parts, especially.  This does not smack of a person who’s simply saying, “Wow, this book was bad AND historically inaccurate.”

Then there was this bit:

Meanwhile back in New York City, Jane Garrett, an editor at Random House’s Knopf imprint, dispatched an email on May 1 to Knopf executives, telling them she got a phone call the evening before from Ms. Spellberg (who happens to be under contract with Knopf to write “Thomas Jefferson’s Qur’an.”)

“She thinks there is a very real possibility of major danger for the building and staff and widespread violence,” Ms. Garrett wrote. “Denise says it is ‘a declaration of war . . . explosive stuff . . . a national security issue.’ Thinks it will be far more controversial than the satanic verses and the Danish cartoons. Does not know if the author and Ballantine folks are clueless or calculating, but thinks the book should be withdrawn ASAP.”

Dr. Spellberg was mighty busy on the evening of April 30th, no?  And one might question that there’s a bit of conflict of interest going on.

And added to that, the threat of the lawsuit against her own publisher.

She did not, in my personal opinion, behave in the way an academic who’s a purported expert in her field, should behave.  She did not behave in a manner that’s becoming to an author.  There’s just so much wrong about how she behaved that it leaves me quite boggled.  But that’s just me.

Sherry Jones could’ve been writing a comprehensive sexual saga based on Ralph the Head of Sea Cabbage’s history and if someone had behaved in the manner that Denise Spellberg had in trying to keep it from being published, I’d be this annoyed.

Here is a link gfor all the people who think that Muslims aren’t condemning terrorism.

And really who do you think gets more press? The crazy guy with the hook, or the reasonable people who take a stand to say that killing people is not nice?

It’s sort of a man bites dog scenario.

a comprehensive sexual saga based on Ralph the Head of Sea Cabbage’s history

On behalf of sea cabbages everywhere, I’m offended. I will be alerting Sal ad Spin Er to let his list know of your flagrant attack on all cabbages everywhere.

BTW? You stink and your dress was ugly.

:D

game38… now I KNOW this thing is mocking me.

I’m a Muslim, and I hate the idea of this book. But that’s okay. It’s just me. I’m not saying I’m going to BOMB anyone to express my outrage. I think, though, that we should be allowed to express our anger. Freedom of speech and all that. Bibi Aisha (r) and the Prophet (pbuh) are real people to me and to many, many people; and you don’t want to read light historical fiction about real people, people who are important to you.

But by this standard all historical fiction is pretty much verboten, since somewhere, someone is likely to feel this way about the characters you’ve chosen to write about (god knows as a Native American I find those Sweet Savage Love books by Cassie Edwards and her ilk offensive, but I vote with my wallet by avoiding them like the plague). Same goes for settings or plots. If no one could write (or would publish) anything that might upset anyone, anywhere, that would leave us with zero fiction (cause something about every work of fiction offends some group; take a peek at a list of banned/challenged books if you don’t believe me).

Jewish and Christian figures have been explored in fiction, and especially in the past five years, heavily in women’s fiction. Having a book on an historical Muslim woman could help many of us who are not very familiar with Islam come into it in a non-threatening way. I’m not saying that we should learn our history from fiction; rather, that as a reader, I have often learned about a historical event or person through fiction and then gone on to more authoritative sources to learn the real facts and scholarly interpretations of those events and people.

There are Muslim fiction out there, but when it comes to the lives Prophet Muhammed (peace be upon him) and any other Prophet for that matter, it’s something you don’t touch into. If it’s a sin to have pictures of Prophets, then it would be a bigger sin making a historical fiction about their lives, or the lives of their wives.

On behalf of sea cabbages everywhere, I’m offended. I will be alerting Sal ad Spin Er to let his list know of your flagrant attack on all cabbages everywhere.

Don’t forget to threaten to sue… somebody.  Dunno who, but someone.

BTW? You stink and your dress was ugly.

BWAH!!!  Love you too sweetie.

Not that I have anything against romance novels, but Ms. Spellberg and some here have completely mis-characterized my book! It is not a romance novel. It ‘s historical fiction with a 29-page bibliography (check it out on my blog, http://sherryjones/blogspot.com). Some publishers rejected it last year because it was “too literary.” And then, some turned it down because it was “too commercial.” All the talk of “bodice-ripping,” etc., has me flabbergasted.

I, for one, am feeling very impressed with my mastery of the English language, having apparently written a pornographic novel that contains no actual sex scenes. ;-)

But by this standard all historical fiction is pretty much verboten, since somewhere, someone is likely to feel this way about the characters you’ve chosen to write about (god knows as a Native American I find those Sweet Savage Love books by Cassie Edwards and her ilk offensive, but I vote with my wallet by avoiding them like the plague).

Well put - and this is the extent of any action that I would be willing to take about the Sherry Jones book. It’s ironic for me to be trashing this book, because historical fiction is my favourite genre - everyone should read Red Earth and Pouring Rain by Vikram Chandra. It’s a brilliant, amazing book. Some of the characters are Hindu gods - which, theoretically, could offend a Hindu reader. But people have a right to be offended - that’s all I’m saying, and said in my original post, earlier on. Of course that shouldn’t stop books from being published!

I don’t see anything deplorable in Spellberg’s behaviour. She had concerns and she shared them. She’s allowed to. I didn’t get the impression that she was fomenting racial hatred or supporting terrorism or condoning violence.

We don’t really know what Spellberg did, but fomenting violence is not the only way to be deplorable.  My own distaste has little to do with the religious/cultural aspects of the situation.  (Well, that’s not true: I’d be interested in reading fiction about Mohammed’s life, so as a reader I’m more disappointed than I would have been if Da Vinci Code had died on the vine.)

It’s sad to hear that an *academic*, of all people, is afraid of storytelling, opinion, and debate.  As described by the articles, Spellberg appears to:
- Be “frantic” over a work of fiction (strange, given her own research appears to draw on both modern culture and historically contemporaneous fiction)
- Think writing historical fiction is “mocking” (versus her own verified-by-time-machine history?)
- Think mocking is bad (does she object to Shakespeare and Austen?  For that matter, was Rushdie really mocking?  I would say not entirely.)
- Exaggerate minor points to support an argument based on freak-out, e.g. describing mild references to sex as “soft core pornography” (Jones says there aren’t actual sex scenes in the book)
- Feel the need to “warn” a community about a work of fiction (just sad and condescending)

I hope some of how she’s being portrayed is inaccurate; it doesn’t paint a great picture of her scholarship or her confidence in others’ reading and thinking skills.

I think many are tired of people like Spellberg creating mass hysteria over things that would probably amount to non-issues if left alone.

But raising concern over the issue may well have been her goal. It’s not an issue I feel strongly about, but clearly others do. Why is it acceptable to protest and raise awareness over some issues, but hysteria in this case?

The threat of violence clearly did not originate with Spellberg. I find it sad that it is assumed that a middle-eastern professer “must have known” that violence was an inevitable corollary to Islamic protest.
I have no idea whether Spellberg is herself Muslim, or whether her concern arises from respect and familiarity with Islam.
Either way, dismissing her as raising unnecessary hysteria diminishes the fact that personification and fictionalisation of Muhammed is offensive to Islam. Whether or not you agree with that belief, whether or not you think that belief is worthy of respect, whether or not you place a belief in free speech over that belief doesn’t matter. There are people with clearly thought out, rational views on both sides of the issue. Dismissing outcry as hysterical smacks of privilege/

There are Muslim fiction out there, but when it comes to the lives Prophet Muhammed (peace be upon him) and any other Prophet for that matter, it’s something you don’t touch into. If it’s a sin to have pictures of Prophets, then it would be a bigger sin making a historical fiction about their lives, or the lives of their wives.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree.  We tend to question our religions, explore them, and debate them.  We have a sense of humor about it.  We have to.  As a Christian, I’m aware of our bloody history.  Fiction and imagination are just other ways to explore what was.

I have to say that the nagatives especially concerning women in many religions bothers me.  Of course, I don’t have to live every day as a Muslim.  Maybe I would understand the differences then.  I don’t like books being pulled for offending though.  Even the dictionary offends some people.

Oh—and I was only ever told of one warning of possible terrorism, and that was from Spellberg. I am the one who found the Husaini Youths post and discussion, and told Random House about it the next day as evidence that Ms. Spellberg was being disingenuous when she claimed, as I’d been told, that she feared for her own safety and that of her family. That claim came AFTER she’d called Shahed Amanullah and asked him to “alert” the Muslims.

I’m not trying to influence the discussion here. Just wanting to set the record straight. Those Husaini Youths did not advocate violence, although I’m not clear on what their call for “pressuring” me to remove the books from the stores and apologize to Muslims really means.

Mr. Amanullah has written to me and assured me he never meant this to happen. I believe him.

Why is it acceptable to protest and raise awareness over some issues, but hysteria in this case?
...
Dismissing outcry as hysterical smacks of privilege

Words like “frantic”, “warn”, “victims”, and “widespread violence” are what often escalate a simple outcry to hysteria.

Simple rhetoric.

A public outcry says “This book is hurtful to such-and-such group of people.  Let’s discuss the issues at hand.”

Hysteria says “These people must be stopped!  Someone will be offended!  People will get hurt!”

Sherry, your link isn’t working.  And thanks for visiting and giving us your own take.

We tend to question our religions, explore them, and debate them.  We have a sense of humor about it.  We have to.

Amen. I and many Muslims I know do this all the time. I wouldn’t want you to think that this is something Muslims don’t do! But we’re still allowed to get offended by what we perceive as disrespect towards our religion, the religion that we love very enough, enough to explore and question and debate. We have the right to voice our feelings, and you have the right to tell us that you think we’re wrong.

For all the people who say that they want to know more about Muslim women—what exactly is getting in the way of that? Its not like leftist, moderate, and conservative Muslim women haven’t been writing, speaking, and getting published speaking on their own lives for years.

Where exactly are you looking? 

Shewhohashope, I am amazed at your stamina.

Excuse me—I made a mistake. It’s http://sherryjones.blogspot.com. Try it!

My father, a long-time veteran of academia, calls this a “classic academic kill job.”

He loves the title of this Web log, too.

I looked up the AbeBooks version of the book and saw that it is only available via German bookseller. I’d love to purchase the book, but I won’t if it is in German…what do you all think, will it be in English or German?

R

I guess that the thing is to be aware of the difference between (please note I’m paraphrasing not quoting any one commenter):

I don’t want to read light (historical) fiction about people who are important to me

vs

Light historical fiction about people who are important to me shouldn’t be written—let alone published.

I believe every individual is within her rights to proclaim the first as loudly and often as she feels the need to. The sedond? Not so much, because that’s when the rights of the people who would like to write that, or publish it, or dog-forbid! read it, would be infringed upon.

My father, a long-time veteran of academia, calls this a “classic academic kill job.”

He loves this Web log, too.

I looked up the AbeBooks version of the book and saw that it is only available via German bookseller. I’d love to purchase the book, but I won’t if it is in German…what do you all think, will it be in English or German?

R

It hasn’t been translated into German. I’m sure it’s in English.

http://sherryjones.blogspot.com/

Quick, someone ask Sherry for a juicy excerpt so we can all have a taste of the blasphemy!

Sherry: I’m ordering it.
R

My father, a long-time veteran of academia, calls this a “classic academic kill job.”

Frankly, that’s what it sounded like to me, too.  Looks like it may backfire badly.

I’m enjoying imagining what will happen when someone writes a novel about Mary, Mother of Jesus, with hot sex, naked bodies, and panting. I’m sure there will be no controversy or threats of violence at all. No, no.

(and no-one else is boggling at the statement about muslims being an indistinguishable mass of murderers and crazies. No-one?)

If it’s any consolation (and I know I’m coming to the bonfire a bit late,) I’m totally on your side here.

I’ve worked in retail for over a dozen years, so I *know* that being a massive asshole has nothing to do with religion, race or creed. Pretty much anyone can do it, and then they use their religion, race or creed to excuse themselves for it.

I also knew you were joking about the Salman Rushdie crack. Since you didn’t call him a buttmonkey though, most people didn’t get it. :-)

Sarah?

I can’t take any more banging my head on my desk. Please cease and desist with the posting of things that make my blood boil.

kthanks.

I find it sad that it is assumed that a middle-eastern professer “must have known” that violence was an inevitable corollary to Islamic protest.

You’re joking, right? I’m not saying all (or even many) Muslims are prone to violent protest, but yeah, after the Danish cartoon fiasco and the Rushdie thing, I think it would be disingenuous of her to claim she had no idea violent protest was likely. In fact, she even stated as much to the publisher.

You know, I’m reading this and half crying, half laughing.  I don’t care if the novel makes fun of every religion in the world.  If you don’t like it, don’t read it!  I personally hate a lot of the literature out there.  So what?  I’ve been majorly offended by some as well.  Grow up, put on adult panties, and deal with it.  No publishing house should ever back down from publishing a book because ‘It may offend people’

Sorry, Ms. Spellberg sounds an awful lot like those authors who tried to keep the movie “The DaVinci Code” from being released because it supposedly borrowed from their book (and I believe their publisher was the same one as Dan Brown’s). It just smacks too much of conflict of interest. I bet she hopes that this book gets published and that people buy her book to make comparisons.

I’m sorry, that was unclear of me. I was intending to say that I thought it was troubling that the progression between islamic protest and violence was so strongly linked in some of the commenters minds that they seemed to be indivisible. I phrased it badly.

I just saw this:

I’m supposed to worry about the sensibilities of a group of people who murder daughters, sisters, wives and other FEMALE relatives because some asshole prick got his fucking honor bent out of shape? Who torture and mutilate women so they can’t enjoy sex?

Where do I fucking begin? Girlparts intact. None of my male relatives would ever lay a finger on me. What’s your point exactly? Atrocities are committed EVERYWHERE, by people of ALL religions and creeds.

I’m enjoying imagining what will happen when someone writes a novel about Mary, Mother of Jesus, with hot sex, naked bodies, and panting. I’m sure there will be no controversy or threats of violence at all. No, no.

Again, works like this have already been published.  People got offended and upset and in some cases made threats, but the works were still published.

For all the people who say that they want to know more about Muslim women—what exactly is getting in the way of that? Its not like leftist, moderate, and conservative Muslim women haven’t been writing, speaking, and getting published speaking on their own lives for years.

Where exactly are you looking?

Clearly it is necessary for a white lady to bring the lives of Muslim women to their attention.

Shewhohashope, I am amazed at your stamina.

I just lost it? I promised I wouldn’t make any ad hominen attacks or strike out irrationally or say anything inflammatory even if I was feeling like I was being attacked. Whops.

At the risk of being melodramatic, I don’t comment anywhere near as much as I read but this was like my happy place. Somewhere to read about ‘trashy’ books written for and by women with insightful feminist commentary! It’s always a shame when somewhere that feels like a safe space for me as a woman makes me unhappy as a Muslim or vice versa. I don’t know. Maybe my expectations are too high.

I’m supposed to worry about the sensibilities of a group of people who murder daughters, sisters, wives and other FEMALE relatives because some asshole prick got his fucking honor bent out of shape? Who torture and mutilate women so they can’t enjoy sex?

I see people getting upset over this quote and would like to offer a different viewpoint.

I wonder if they poster meant this to refer to the people that threaten violence over literature or comics, not Muslims in general. I certainly read it that way.

I could be wrong, of course.

Where do I fucking begin? Girlparts intact. None of my male relatives would ever lay a finger on me. What’s your point exactly? Atrocities are committed EVERYWHERE, by people of ALL religions and creeds.

Yeah, that one kinda got to me, too, but you know, I think the commentor was referring to that small violent, reactionary, extremist segment of Muslims that seems to take offense at everything that doesn’t mesh with their interpretation of Islam. She wasn’t talking about moderate Muslims. If all Muslims were as enlightened and reasonable and forward-thinking as Ziggy and shewhohashope, there would be no cause for debate here at all.

Well, on the bright side this author can probably count on a lot more readers than she would have had otherwise, providing someone will publish it!  The book doesn’t sound like my cup of tea based on the description, but you can bet I want to read it now!

Clearly it is necessary for a white lady to bring the lives of Muslim women to their attention.

Wait—are we discussing religion or color? ;)

I think it has more to do with the fact that this is a novel. Women who like to read novels do not necessarily enjoy reading scholarly or autobiographical works. 

And because this one is written by someone of similar cultural (I won’t say religious, because I think a great deal of North Americans are like me—areligious) background, there is a point of connection between author and reader that doesn’t necessarily make itself felt when reading work by women of other cultures.

If all Muslims were as enlightened and reasonable and forward-thinking as Ziggy and shewhohashope, there would be no cause for debate here at all.

You know, I’m sure this is meant as a compliment, there’s a lot of people out there saying the same thing about Americans…

I apologize for my kneejerk (heavy on the jerk) first comment in this thread. As Ziggy said,

Atrocities are committed EVERYWHERE, by people of ALL religions and creeds.

You know, I’m sure this is meant as a compliment, there’s a lot of people out there saying the same thing about Americans…

Totally agree, soon as I hit submit, I realized I should have added “or people in general” after “all Muslims”. It does sound a bit condescending. Sorry.

Does it help that I’m Canadian? ;)

Okay, I’m going to bed because it’s hitting midnight here. But thank you to all the posters because I think this is an interesting debate.
I’m a long-term lurker come out of lurkerdom because I was slightly horrified at the Islam/protest/terrorism comparisons that were happening.
The main thing I keep noticing is the “if you don’t like it, don’t read it” or “no-one’s forcing you to buy it” argument.
I can see that this feels like the rational response, but I think it’s important to realise that just as it seems reasonable from one world view to publish everything and let the reader sort it out, it seems equally as reasonable from another world view to respect the most personal and sacred aspects of one’s religion over that.

I also think that Spellberg’s motivation is unknown, and it may be a bit much to accuse her of the many things she has been accused of. Until further evidence comes to light, I would respectfully suggest that the machiavellian plot aspect of things be downplayed.

I think the book will be published eventually, and I’ll be interested to see what the reaction is. Good luck to Sherri Jones. And now, to bed.
Sleep well, all. Or continue the posting…..

Atrocities are committed EVERYWHERE, by people of ALL religions and creeds.

And it’s very easy for them to justify what they’ve done (and encourage others to do the same) by saying it was “God’s will”. Which is why I haven’t got the stomach for any religion.

Ya know,  I am offended by things in movies and books constantly.  I am offended as a Southerner when we are all called racist, ignorant rednecks.  I am offended as an American when I am called stupid and ignorant.  I am offended as a Catholic when I am told I am not a Christian by other supposed Christians.  I have read all of these things on books or in blogs or simply been told them.  That doesn’t, however, mean that the person saying them doesn’t have a right to.  I may hate what you say, or write, but I will defend your right to do so.  I also find it ridiculous to stop publication of a book on “supposed” threats.  It is either racist or fearful.  It is racist to assume that Muslim protest will be violent.  It is cowering to terrorists to refuse to publish something that terrorists find offensive.

Wait—are we discussing religion or color? ;)

I think it has more to do with the fact that this is a novel. Women who like to read novels do not necessarily enjoy reading scholarly or autobiographical works.

And because this one is written by someone of similar cultural (I won’t say religious, because I think a great deal of North Americans are like me—areligious) background, there is a point of connection between author and reader that doesn’t necessarily make itself felt when reading work by women of other cultures.

Do you think it’s possible to talk about one without the other in this case?

And I suppose that really depends on whether you want to identify with the author, or you want the author to identify with the subject.

I’m going to sleep on that now because it is also midnight here.

I think the commentor was referring to that small violent, reactionary, extremist segment of Muslims that seems to take offense at everything that doesn’t mesh with their interpretation of Islam. She wasn’t talking about moderate Muslims.

Fair enough. But I still feel that, in a thread where emotions were almost inevitably going to run high, the commenter could have phrased herself a bit more discreetly OR made it clear to whom she was referring.

Bedtime now but thanks to everyone for a very interesting discussion. Hooray for reasoned debate!

And because this one is written by someone of similar cultural (I won’t say religious, because I think a great deal of North Americans are like me—areligious) background, there is a point of connection between author and reader that doesn’t necessarily make itself felt when reading work by women of other cultures.

Thsio sentence comes off to me as if white women other white women to translate the experience of Muslim women in order to read and enjoy their stories.  Is that what you meant?

Yea, Sherry!  Thanks for visiting and braving The-Speaking-Up.

It must be heartbreaking to be in this position as a writer, where you don’t get the biggest payoff of all—being published… and then read.

I hope there is a HEA for you.

I think it’s important to realise that just as it seems reasonable from one world view to publish everything and let the reader sort it out, it seems equally as reasonable from another world view to respect the most personal and sacred aspects of one’s religion over that.

But see, it ain’t my religion. I don’t have to respect it further than to allow others freedom to practice it if they choose. And no religion has the right to tell me what I can and can’t read, thanks, not even my own, if I had one.

wow.  um, just read all of that and HOT DAMN was it ...enlightening.  i fall on the side of publish, and i’ll vote with my wallet, but i have to laugh about the porn thing because when i first read the ‘sex’ scene i thought, ‘is she quoting psalms or something like omar khayyam?’

and i’m not trying to piss off the muslim faith, honest, i just think it’s interesting that christians have watched, with varying degrees of distaste, a hella lot of-oh, interpretations of someone we regard as god, while mohammad was (not merely, considering how kickass he was in his lifetime, but still kinda a half-step down) a prophet, and IS NOT allowed to be messed with.

i’m sure that says something about the faiths, but i’m waaaay too braindead to make the attempt.

shewhohashope, i can only say thanks for holding it down.  you held your ground, you explained, and i hope this didn’t ruin your happy place.

I think it has more to do with the fact that this is a novel. Women who like to read novels do not necessarily enjoy reading scholarly or autobiographical works.

Wow, that’s news to me.  Do I have to turn in my ovaries somewhere then?

Yes, I’m being incredibly sarcastic.  But sweeping generalizations make me a little nuts.

And I suppose that really depends on whether you want to identify with the author, or you want the author to identify with the subject.

I think when it comes to drastically different cultures, it helps sometimes to have an intermediary, an interpreter, if you will, to help one side unerstand the other.

Join me in being dismayed by this statement as well.  I read many, many academic works in addition to novels.  I read for my profession and my own edification.  I also like my novels to be well researched if they are historical in nature.  I wasn’t aware that scholarly works and novels were mutually exclusive.

I think when it comes to drastically different cultures, it helps sometimes to have an intermediary, an interpreter, if you will, to help one side unerstand the other.

Really?

Who are these ‘interpreters’? How do they get chosen? What makes them valid?

What makes them necessary?

I think it has more to do with the fact that this is a novel. Women who like to read novels do not necessarily enjoy reading scholarly or autobiographical works.

Wow, that’s news to me.  Do I have to turn in my ovaries in somewhere then?

Yes, I’m being incredibly sarcastic.  But sweeping generalizations make me a little nuts.

I don’t think it was a sweeping generalization. The same could be said of men who read Sci-fi not necessarily being interested in reading non-fiction. People who enjoy novels don’t always read or enjoy non-fiction. Guess I just shouldn’t have used the word “women”, except I was replying to a comment that referred to “women”.

No one has to turn in their ovaries. I, however, shouldn’t try to take part in debates when I’m distracted by work.

We develop stereotypes based on things we see, read, and hear.  We read the story about the Australian Muslim leader that compared uncovered women to meat being left out.  We see the video of the Muslim girl stoned to death for caring for a boy that wasn’t of her religion.

As a sidenote: if you’re referring to the death of Dua Khalil Aswad in Iraq - she wasn’t Muslim, she was Yazidi, which is a different faith altogether. Her relatives stoned her to death in an ‘honour killing’ because her loved one was a Muslim.

It’s not the positive you ask for, but it still kind of proves your point. In this case the stereotype was already there, and many media largely glossed over the fact that this gruesome story didn’t exactly fit it - or worse, they made it fit.

I’m boggling at Denise Spellberg’s actions. Why warn possible protesters and then warn about possible protesters? Is there any proof beyond what Spellberg alleged might become ‘a national security issue’ beyond, you know, her alleging? As Barb Ferrer said, yeah, smacks of conflict of interest, and more.

Denise Spellman is the sort of “living authority” on the historical A’isha which is why and how she is able to raise the sort of opposition that she can and did to this novel. There is a sentiment amongst women working Middle East Women’s Studies and Islamic Gender Studies, of which I am a part, of a constant fear of neo-Orientalism, neo-Colonialism, and the perpetuation either through scholarship, art, or in this case fiction, of the “exotic Eastern other.”

That said, one point I do agree with Spellman on is that that the work that is being done to reclaim historical Muslim women for the purpose of activism and reinforcement of women’s rights in Islam, is quite fragile, and the idea, however absurd or fictional, that that could be threatened by a novel, is theoretically possible. In fact, she has proven this fact by rallying who she has rallied and during the summer no less when trying to find any academic is next to impossible.

That said however, the mind boggles that we can have The Red Tent, with the Jewish matriarchs, a fictional biography of Mary Magdalene, and as someone mentioned above Dan Brown’s treatment of Mary Magdalene as the wife of Christ, but we cannot publish a book on the favourite wife of the Prophet Muhammad without having another Danish Cartoon Fiasco. More than anything, it frightens me that academics are now reaching outside of their own spheres and instigating the censorship that we work so hard to tear down.

I’ve been following this closely all day.  On a writers’ forum I frequent, we’ve been discussing this (at times quite heatedly) and were prompted by SBTB’s original post.  (Thanks, ladies—you rule!)

As an author, I’m sickened that such a thing could happen.  What is this now?  Censorship by contract?  The thought that an author asked to review an ARC could create controversy deliberately to affect another writer’s book negatively?  Disgusting.  You’d think that writers would be above such things.  I don’t even want to discuss the publisher’s decision—it doesn’t make any sense to me.

Prominent Muslim figures have appeared in literature for a long time without this kind of controversy. Religious figures abound in fiction, and not just in Dan Brown’s work. But, to condemn a work and protest it without even reading it goes beyond the pale. How can you get angry over a book you’ve never read?  Reminds me of the alarmist book suppressions that led to works like Huckleberry Finn or The Catcher in the Rye being pulled from library shelves, or the protests against Harry Potter because they ‘promote witchcraft.’  Ridiculous!

Thanks, Ms. Jones, for adding your input to this discussion and the very best of luck to you.  I can think of hundreds of people on my writers’ forum who are now intent upon buying your novel when it comes out.  Everyone who loves literature, whether writers or readers, should be disgusted at this type of behavior.  We are free to write or read what we please, and I for one don’t intend to be dictated to by anyone—be it publisher or embittered professor—as to what books reside upon my shelves.

Denise Spellberg’s one claim to fame is her book on A’isha, which incidentally, I used for a paper on menstruation in Islam, but I digress. It’s very heavily padded because there is virtually nothing, except for snippets and hadiths about A’isha, so in a sense, her work is largely a body of historical fiction as well.  The actual hadiths about A’isha are much more profane than anything that any romance writer could devise, covering topics from sexual intercourse to menstruation.

I haven’t seen ANYONE on any listserver mention a word about it. You could take anyone’s name and throw it into this book whether it be Shajaraat al-Dhurr or Hurrem Sultan. It’s a book about a harem, it might not be great, but it’s not meant to be a scholastic text.

Give us the bloody book!

I think it’s important to realise that just as it seems reasonable from one world view to publish everything and let the reader sort it out, it seems equally as reasonable from another world view to respect the most personal and sacred aspects of one’s religion over that.

Just like it is equally reasonable that 6 out of the 7 countries in the world that have the death penalty for being homosexual are Muslim? The Iranian government alone has executed more than 4,000 people charged with homosexual acts

Sorry, that just hangs there in the back of my mind like a boulder crushing those thoughts of mutual respect and understanding into dust. My being an uppity fag and all, you understand.

Here’s a romance reader who happens to adore autobiographical. As well as sci fi and pulp spy novels ala Remo of the “freakishly thick wrists”. Not much on uber scholarly, but I’ll take that over sweeping generalizations any day.  I don’t think you can apply that to males or females or even those of more fluid gender persuasions.

Denise Spellberg’s one claim to fame is her book on A’isha, which incidentally, I used for a paper on menstruation in Islam, but I digress. It’s very heavily padded because there is virtually nothing, except for snippets and hadiths about A’isha, so in a sense, her work is largely a body of historical fiction as well.  The actual hadiths about A’isha are much more profane than anything that any romance writer could devise, covering topics from sexual intercourse to menstruation.

If both authors have written fictional works on important figures in Islam, is it possible that Ms. Spellberg’s motivation had more to do with competition than actual alarm over possible offense?

That’s even more offensive to me than trashing a religious icon in fictional literature.  In that case, not only are the Muslims [allegedly] being wronged by the author of the now-unpublished book, but they’re also [allegedly] being used as an excuse for a snarky bitch academic to shut out her competition.

Okay, let’s just remove the word ‘Muslim’ from this for a moment.  Jones read Spellberg’s book, liked it, and said to her publisher, “Hey here is an author I really respect who has written on the same subject (in a very different way) maybe you could ask her for a quote?”

And then Spellberg told Random House not even, “I do not want to provide a quote or have my name associated with this book” (in fact she utterly, epically fails at not having her name associated with this book), not even, “I don’t like this book, I think it sucks, and you can quote me on that,” no, she told them the book was probably going to lead to terrorist attacks, and that she had in fact alerted some people who had an action plan to make the book disappear and make the author apologize to like 1/6 of the world’s population for mortally offending them.

That’s just fucking classy, man.

Note to self: do not buy Spellberg’s book.  Further note to self: buy Jones’s.

Wasn’t there a huge slew of romance-flavoured historical fiction novels a few years back based on the women of the Bible (Sarai, Rahab, to name a few)?

I don’t really see how it’s any more or less offensive to write about the wife of one religious figure (Abram) than another (Muhammad).

It’s not so much fiction as it is attempting to construct an academic body of work on a woman for whom there are only really oral testimonies and histories available. It’s like writing a biography on Mary Magdalene or Leah, it’s impossible to construct a reliable source when you’re dealing with a largely nomadic, oral culture. Of course you have to pad it with this, that and the next thing. The same is true of Nabia Abbott’s book on A’isha, which I have to say, although I am admittedly biased because I am an alumnae of SOAS where Dr Abbott taught, is a far superior body of work on A’isha.

Anyway… I would just chalk it up to an academic snitfit. Had it been any other woman in Islamic history, this would be an entirely different discourse. Someone like Hurrem Sultan for instance who supposedly seduced her way out of the Imperial Harem and into co-rulership with Sulaiman, no one would bat an eyelash. Spellberg has done Jones an ENORMOUS favour by pitching her little fit publically and certainly has drawn an eye back to HER work on A’isha. If she had never made such a massive issue about it, it would’ve sailed right under the radar with the rest of the novels on the harem, harem life, belly dancers, the Persian Empire, and whatever else the “West” can come-up with on the way.

There’s actually a new article on Spellberg on Wikipedia that is already being disputed. It’s free publicity for EVERYONE, least of which is A’isha herself!

Really?

Who are these ‘interpreters’? How do they get chosen? What makes them valid?

What makes them necessary?

What makes anyone valid to write anything (other than the # of books in their bibliography, perhaps)? Are you saying only Muslims should write books about Muslims? Only Catholics write books on Catholicism? Wouldn’t that quash debate and differing viewpoints, rather than encourage them?

Listen, I’m not trying to get under anyone’s skin here, but fiction is arguably more accessible to the average reader, and I think it’s more of a “sweeping generalization” to imply that the only western women who should be allowed an understanding of Muslim women are those who choose to read non-fiction.

In fact, she has proven this fact by rallying who she has rallied and during the summer no less when trying to find any academic is next to impossible.

Kat, your information is fascinating, especially your putting Spellberg’s place in academia within context.  However, she didn’t manage to rally people during the summer—according the timeline in the WSJ article, it appears that a lot of this happened in late April/early May.  Small detail, but I think it knocks her level of influence back down a bit.

she didn’t manage to rally people during the summer—according the timeline in the WSJ article, it appears that a lot of this happened in late April/early May.  Small detail, but I think it knocks her level of influence back down a bit.

I missed that bit. I was feeling quite surprised that I never saw a word about it from anyone in the community nor did I hear it from any of my Muslim colleague/activist friends! If it’s been going on for nearly five months now, that’s quite incredible…

The plot thickens! I am now going to have to put my feelers out and investigate. :o)

You know what?  This is publicity gold for that author.  SOMEONE is going to pay her a metric fuck ton of cash for this book.

Frankly, if one’s faith is so tenuous that it can be rent asunder by a novel, perhaps one should be taking a closer look at the belief system. Not scapegoating an author.

Argh.

My father, a long-time veteran of academia, calls this a “classic academic kill job.”

The more I have read here, the more I think he’s right.  Academia can be its own cutthroat little world sometimes.  Feminist issues aside, perhaps, in some way, Spellberg (man?) thought she owned Aisha?  I can see feeling so involved with my subject, particularly if it’s a person, that I could blow a gasket if someone had a different take on this individual than mine.  I feel bad for the gentleman she contacted.  This can’t be fun for him.  And as for his students—college students do have a tendency to get very caught up in something and shoot off their mouths—sometimes for good, sometimes not.  I could see someone using this to plot their next novel, though.

And shewhohashope, I second the poster who hoped this could still be your happy place. I felt so sad when I read that. It’s been a bit of a stressful discussion, sure, but for an unmoderated one, it’s been very civil, and I think people are trying to understand each other.  Maybe we need some good cover snark after this.

What is a typical “academic kill job”?

Kat wrote:

That said, one point I do agree with Spellman on is that that the work that is being done to reclaim historical Muslim women for the purpose of activism and reinforcement of women’s rights in Islam, is quite fragile, and the idea, however absurd or fictional, that that could be threatened by a novel, is theoretically possible. In fact, she has proven this fact by rallying who she has rallied and during the summer no less when trying to find any academic is next to impossible.

Can you expand on your last sentence?  I’m not quite following the point you are trying to make, but find it a very interesting one and would like to learn more.

I also have to admit I’ve never heard of A’isha (or don’t remember her), and I’ve taken a few course in middle east history, read more history on Muslims, etc - so I guess I’m proof of the free publicity for A’isha.

I agree with Leah, some cover snark of Harlequin Sheik-Virgin-Baby books, would be a propos right now…or Viking-Slave-Baby books…or Vampire-Reluctant Lover-Baby books…just thinkin’ :)

Kat: Thanks for the perspective of someone in that particular academic specialty. It’s valuable to know where Spellberg is (probably) coming from…btw, aside from Spellberg, what other Arabists might have been useful for a second or third or fourth opinion?

The Wall Street Journal Op-ed writer said in her piece, “This saga upsets me as a Muslim—and as a writer who believes that fiction can bring Islamic history to life in a uniquely captivating and humanizing way.”

That’s what I find most sad about this episode.

Okay, me too. And that’s where my comment (which was, I think, wildly misinterpreted, the fact of which is annoying me more and more) about novels vs. non-fiction came from. I know not all people who enjoy fiction read lots of non-fic. I know this because only a few of the people I personally know who read genre fiction can be bothered with non-fic unless it’s forced on them. The entire experience of a novel is more accessible to the average person, I think, and it provides an author with a unique opportunity to reach an audience that would not otherwise be exposed to such obscure things as the details of the life of A’isha (or of any Muslim woman of her time).

How many people watch The Tudors? How many of those people would bother to watch a documentary on the life and wives of Henry VIII? Me, sure (in fact, I’d rather watch th documentary), and probably lots of people here, but I’m willing to bet not everyone, or even most of them.

I did not in any way say that no one who reads novels reads or is capable of reading non-fiction—just that not all of them choose to read it.

Can you expand on your last sentence?  I’m not quite following the point you are trying to make, but find it a very interesting one and would like to learn more.

Yeah sure, that’s sort of a train of thought that derailed. There’s a ton of literature coming-out right in the last twenty years on historical Muslim women in an effort to sort-of overturn the Orientalist vision of Muslim women, as well as to prop up and restore the position of women in the Islamic World. So much of Islam has been lost to indigenous practices, Salafism, Deobandism, Taleban, blahblahblah this ridiculous MINORITY who are hellbent on reinterpreting women’s rights in a selective, imaginary context, that when a book like this appears it can undo everything that has been done. It sounds ridiculous, I know, but it happens because what happens is that it becomes fodder for the decadent ‘West,’ the kufir (unbelievers), and can be construed as a slight and snowballs into propaganda. Right now the literature on Muslim women is what a professor once called “a straw horse.” So fragile, and just gaining legitimacy.

Okay so the summer comment… well, that’s basically to say that finding anyone during the summer academically is like hunting the bogeyman. It’s impossible. However, I’ve been told that this whole thing started in the late Spring according to the WSJ and it has snowballed, although this is the first I’ve ever heard of it!

A’isha was, to put it in the most colloquial terms possible, a real firecracker. She was revolutionary for the 7th century, she remains revolutionary in the 21st century, so I think that is yet another reason why her mythology is so protected.

How many people watch The Tudors? How many of those people would bother to watch a documentary on the life and wives of Henry VIII? Me, sure (in fact,
I’d rather watch th documentary), and probably lots of people here, but
I’m willing to bet not everyone, or even most of them.

This is brilliant! Seriously this is exactly the right context to read this book in. Think of it as reading yet another racey, fluffy, borderline idiotic, book about Anne Boleyn.

aside from Spellberg, what other Arabists might have been useful for a second or third or fourth opinion?

Rebecca, the first woman to write anything on A’isha was Nabia Abbott. Her work is really the authoritative text, although written in the ‘40s, it is still the source that I would go to before Spellberg. Annemarie Schimmel and John Esposito have also discussed A’isha. Other than that, you’d have to look at historians, hadith collections (check the isnad), and other texts on Islam for various snippets.

This is brilliant! Seriously this is exactly the right context to read this book in. Think of it as reading yet another racey, fluffy, borderline idiotic, book about Anne Boleyn.

All’s I’m saying is a well-researched novel partly based on the life of a historical figure is more likely to be picked up by the average reader (who reads for entertainment), than a thick, scholarly tome. And that novels can be a wonderful opportunity to take dry historical facts and put them in a human and emotional context.

(And there are plenty of historical novels out there that are not fluffly, racey, or borderline idiotic. I think a book with no sex scene and a 29 page bibliography might just fit the bill. In any case, how can we know unless we read it? I’m not prepared to judge it based on the opinion of a woman whose actions have shown her to be a buffoon of the first order.)

I’ve read the DaVinci Code. As a Christian, I am utterly mystified by the idea that it is “disrespectful.” Badly written, yes. Trite, yes. Disrespectful? Because it proposed that a man might have married and had sex within that marriage? Isn’t the whole point of Christ that he came to earth and became a man? And if sex within marriage is no sin, then how could it be wrong if he did marry?

Similarly, I really don’t understand why a novel about Muhammed and one of his wives is offensive. Even I have heard of A’isha and am aware of her importance. I understand that you absolutely don’t want a novel to be a representative religious text, but why, why in God’s name, is it bad to humanize our prophets and saviors? I just don’t get it.

In trying to fathom why this book would be offensive to those of the Islamic faith, I found an interesting article. (I google; therefore I am?)

One of my friends who has some training in Islamic culture told me that he felt the book would be offensive because it portrays the Prophet Mohammed which could translate into being an image of the Prophet.

I snipped one thing out of the article I found (and included source for you generic to read if you generic like.) It made sense to me about why Islamics would be so deadset against a picture. I am still unclear on the book.

shewho, if you would, could you expound on why the book would be deemed offensive? If you don’t mind? Feel free to email me if it is easier. Or Ziggy or any of the other Islamic faith folk here. I am truly curious and want to learn.

Islamic scholars have explained that the main reason for the ban on depicting Muhammad is the fear that the images of Muhammad might be worshipped. Political scientist As’ad AbuKhalil, visiting professor at the University of California at Berkeley, explained:

  “In the Holy Koran of Islam, the one sin unforgivable is that of polytheism. The prohibition is intended to protect the faithful from that sin. The fear was that intense reverence for the prophet might if unrestrained cross over into worship. In the 8th and the 9th centuries a general consensus banning such depictions arose among the clerics, but not all Muslims knew of it, paid attention, or obeyed.” {3}
http://www.religionfacts.com/islam/things/depictions-of-muhammad-in-islamic-art.htm

Islamic scholars have explained that the main reason for the ban on depicting Muhammad is the fear that the images of Muhammad might be worshipped.

Huh. One would think that by humanizing Muhammad in literature, the faithful would be less likely to worship him. The very rigidness of the ban seems to elevate the prophet when the intent is the opposite.

Interesting comments here, to be sure, but I have to say that I am saddened that some of you are saddened by “shewhohashope”‘s whine about losing her “safe place.”  Quite honestly, remove Islam from this story and it is a disgusting tale of attempted censorship by a vicious person (Spellberg).  “Shewhohashope”‘s attempts to play victim because of one comment about atrocities committed by religious fanatics, and other commenters attempts to bend over backwards to apologize to her only add to the PR problem that Muslims are encountering in the western world.  If one spends life looking for slurs and insults, that is exactly what one will find.  It’s more than sad and by trying to assuage her ruffled feelings, we are actually enablers, not helping her at all.

if you would, could you expound on why the book would be deemed offensive? 

I’ll try, but I think Ziggy or shewhohashope would answer this better. As you pretty much guessed, it’s mandatory to believe in Prophet Muhammed (peace be upon him) and the other Prophets. The wives come into this as well. We are meant to believe their stories as truths and that’s it. [Sorry if this sounds preachy, but it will make sense in a little bit.]

Because we believe that what was revealed to us about their lives is the truth, to then write fiction about it is a sin. It’s a huge sin to rewrite their stories, to the point that if you do that or make up some stuff it actually takes you out of the religion. It’s a big deal. Since it’s offensive for us to do that, for someone to then write a novel about Aisha [We call her one of the Mother of Believers] is incredibly offensive. As a writer, especially for historical fiction, you sometimes have to create some situations and/or create dialogue that may or may not have happened in order to progress the story. You are recreating things and making Aisha say things that she may or may not have said. Same with Prophet Muhammed (peace be upon him). That is why it’s offensive for us.

Am I going to stop her from writing the novel, no. If it gets published I won’t read it. I didn’t read the Da Vinci Code because of what it said about Prophet Jesus. Am I going to hunt down the author and send her treats, no. I have better things to do with my time. At least this will bring awareness to the lovely wife of the Prophet (peace be upon him). Hopefully, more people will read up about her because she is very fascinating and a key person for the Islamic faith.

Hopefully that made sense. It’s almost midnight here so I’m a tad sleepy.

Meanwhile back in New York City, Jane Garrett, an editor at Random House’s Knopf imprint, dispatched an email on May 1 to Knopf executives, telling them she got a phone call the evening before from Ms. Spellberg (who happens to be under contract with Knopf to write “Thomas Jefferson’s Qur’an.”)

Ms. Spellberg is one busy broad, burning up the phone lines! Quick! Notify all disciples of Thomas Jefferson, Spellburg is writing a book that attributes a Qur’an to him - widespread boredom expected!!! This woman will do anything for notoriety and the sale of HER book! Despicable.

“She thinks there is a very real possibility of major danger for the building and staff and widespread violence,” Ms. Garrett wrote. “Denise says it is ‘a declaration of war . . . explosive stuff . . . a national security issue.’

A declaration of war… national security issue? This woman is a hysteric - she gives Chicken Little a run for his money! Makes you wonder if this woman’s family lays any claim to her? My prediction, this woman will end up riding the #22 bus up and down Clark Street in Chicago, proselytizing the end of the world at the top of her lungs. (which upsets me because I had my seat all picked out)

Thinks it will be far more controversial than the satanic verses and the Danish cartoons.

Screw the satanic verses, where the hell are these Danish cartoons and how can I get a copy?!!

action79:  maybe 79 virgins should smack the publisher around the back of the head?

If it would only work! All it took for these cowards to cave is a phone call from a hysteric, a couple of hours of feeding frenzy by fanatics on the internet, and the lack of a spine.

At least this will bring awareness to the lovely wife of the Prophet (peace be upon him). Hopefully, more people will read up about her because she is very fascinating and a key person for the Islamic faith.

Again, that’s the sad thing—that an avenue for many people who are not of Islamic faith to become interested in Aisha and Muhammad and the origins of Islam is lost. Already I know more about Islam than I did before this discussion. Humanizing history is often one of the best ways to teach it.

Islamic scholars have explained that the main reason for the ban on depicting Muhammad is the fear that the images of Muhammad might be worshipped.

This is really interesting, I actually “get” this idea. Physical images of the Prophet Muhammad do not exist except really in Shi’a Islam and even then his face is either obscured by a veil or a ball of flames. I should also note that the other Prophets and in some instances the wives of the Prophet, also have their faces obscured in such a manner. We know what the Prophet Muhammad looked like, because there are first-person accounts of elements of his physical presence, however Islam rules vehemently against the recreation of natural objects under the pretense that God has made everything perfect, thus realistic interpretations are forbidden.

Muhammad exists in religious texts as a man, whether it be in the Qur’an or in the hadith and biographies of Muhammad abound, especially medieval ones. However when it enters the artistic sphere, things become sticky and you can break it down along sectarian lines and rigid interpretations of what constitutes iconography, idol worship, the list goes on and on. However, these are all a sort of official, patriarchal (unless you count A’isha’s hadith related to the Prophet Muhammad) biographies and not historical fiction.

I this context, it makes sense however thin the thread may be, it is a completely legitimate concern.

Am I going to hunt down the author and send her treats, no. I have better things to do with my time.

Ok, I’m quoting this because the typo you made caused me to laugh loud enough to scare my cats literally. I know you meant “threats” and not “treats” but you have to admit, that reads pretty amusing!

And thank you very much for your explanation. I happen to live in an apartment complex where it is probably easily 20-30% Islamic. I have tried to chat with my neighbors but I am limited to (phonetic spelling) Keef Hahlek and Ah lek (which makes them laugh and say “How are you” back to me and “hello”.)

I wish I could have conversations with them. I am fascinated by other religions (I’m Wiccan). Sadly I fear the language barrier prevents that.

I do get what you are saying from your religion’s POV. From my own, I disagree with it. However, if it demeaned your religious leaders/fathers, then I’d probably have an issue with it. I actually wrote a letter of protest to HBO about “Big Love.” I felt it demeaned Mormons. But that’s me. I fight strange battles.  I also am annoyed by women who play the didgeridoo (lol).

Again, thank you very much for your explanation. It helped me learn something and that is always a good thing.

Thank you Popin for your insight. As someone who has never had an interest in Islam or Muslim culture before, this incident has certainly sparked an interest.

Do you have any recommendations for books that a non-Muslim should read to become better acquainted with the beliefs and customs?

I just have to ask, what is the significance of saying “peace be upon him” every time you mention Muhammed?

Humanizing history is often one of the best ways to teach it.

I so agree with this statement. Many moons ago, I wanted to teach history because of an amazing prof who told stories instead of lectured. The “300” battle began “So this guy, Alcibedes, let’s call him Big Al” and I will never forget it. I can still see Dr Hancock bounding across the front of the class room as he demonstrated how the attack went.

moment75.. actually it was more like 79, but you were close, oh psychic Spaminator word generator.

Meanwhile back in New York City, Jane Garrett, an editor at
Random House’s Knopf imprint, dispatched an email on May 1 to Knopf
executives, telling them she got a phone call the evening before from Ms.
Spellberg (who happens to be under contract with Knopf to write “Thomas
Jefferson’s Qur’an.”)

Wait what is she writing on? The fact that Thomas Jefferson had a copy of the Qur’an in his library at Monticello? (Which is incidentally surprising, but the man was quite cosmopolitan. Can we make a book out of it? Of course we can. We can make a book out of nothing in the academy.)

Brilliant, this should be an amazing. If I didn’t work with these people, I wouldn’t believe it could actually happen.

I’ve read the DaVinci Code. As a Christian, I am utterly mystified by the idea that it is “disrespectful.” Badly written, yes. Trite, yes. Disrespectful? Because it proposed that a man might have married and had sex within that marriage? Isn’t the whole point of Christ that he came to earth and became a man? And if sex within marriage is no sin, then how could it be wrong if he did marry?

I know.  I didn’t get that, either.  After all, there is this huge gap in what we are told about Jesus’ life, particularly before he was baptized by John the Baptist when he was about 30.  It seems to me that, since He had a mission which require him to die an early death, He may have thought it unfair to subject a family to this kind of hardship.  And leaving progeny would probably encourage His followers to try to establish an earthly kingdom, and even worship those children, which would run counter to His purpose.  But marriage and children—not bad things, and would not render Him less divine.  As far as The Last Temptation goes, I saw it abt 15 yrs ago, and I can’t remember anything awful about it.  I do remember thinking that, as Jesus suffered on the cross, it would be only natural for Him to think of the human pleasures—marriage, family, that He could have had.  Because the last temptation really would have been to not allow Himself to be crucified at all.  But then, I am not Catholic, and I think there are teachings there that I am not familiar with.

[Wait what is she writing on? The fact that Thomas Jefferson had a copy of the Qur’an in his library at Monticello/quote]

Jefferson made his own Bible, in which he cut out passages from the Bible that interested and appealed to him and pasted them in a copybook.  The other stuff, he presumably dismissed.  I’m wondering if he did the same to his copy of the Qu’ran—if so, then this might bother some people, too.  But you could make an academic study of how he read and understood the Qu’ran, and then examine how 18th cy intellectuals thought of Islam.  If he did do a cut and paste job, you could print his text and annotate it.

Jefferson made his own Bible, in which he cut out passages from the Bible that interested and appealed to him and pasted them in a copybook.  The other stuff, he presumably dismissed.  I’m wondering if he did the same to his copy of the Qu’ran—if so, then this might bother some people, too.  But you could make an academic study of how he read and understood the Qu’ran, and then examine how 18th cy intellectuals thought of Islam.  If he did do a cut and paste job, you could print his text and annotate it.

Good God. I did not know that, that is quite interesting if that is what it is that she is doing, I wish I knew. I have a lot of digging to do! My adviser in college rearranged the Qur’an according to how he as a historian felt the revelations occurred, but he sort of left it as an on-going project. Sort of like scrabble for historians or something…

Thanks for the info!!! That is really brilliant! :o)

Many moons ago, I wanted to teach history because of an amazing prof who told stories instead of lectured.

And I remember thinking during dull, dry classes on the French Revolution how cool and interesting the whole thing would have been if only someone had made it a novel—even a *gasp* historically correct and educational one.

I think the argument against incorporating Muhammad into fiction is a bit weird, actually. If you don’t make images of him because you don’t want him to be worshiped, then why argue that any non-factual accounts of his possible words or deeds are a no-no? He’s either a historical figure or a potential object of worship. Which is it? If it’s the former, he should be fair game. If he’s the latter, anything that removes the veneer of idol-ness from him would make him less likely to be worshiped. Heck, even I don’t know what I’m saying. It makes sense when I think it, but when I write it down, not so much.

I think the argument against incorporating Muhammad into fiction is a bit
weird, actually. If you don’t make images of him because you don’t want
him to be worshiped, then why argue that any non-factual accounts of his
possible words or deeds are a no-no? He’s either a historical figure or a
potential object of worship. Which is it? If it’s the former, he should be
fair game. If he’s the latter, anything that removes the veneer of
idol-ness from him would make him less likely to be worshiped. Heck, even I
don’t know what I’m saying. It makes sense when I think it, but when I
write it down, not so much.

You make sense! Some of the issues are that Muhammad is a fairly “modern” religious figure, so because he falls into the sort of beginning of modernity or recent human consciousness (granted yes, he’s only 600 years after Christ), he becomes more of a historical entity, rather than a mythological one. Then you get into sectarian issues, issues of interpretation, the power of the orthodoxy, and all of the sorts of indigenous quirks in the interpretation of Islam and what is considered to be the orthodoxy. It’s wheels within wheels… if you think too hard about it, you really will just go in circles.

If you don’t make images of him because you don’t want him to be worshiped, then why argue that any non-factual accounts of his possible words or deeds are a no-no?

I think (and I’m trying to stand on the other side of this) that you can’t dictate how a religion sets up its boundaries. For me, I think it’s kind of silly to hang images of a guy dying on a cross but I would not tell my Catholic family that (unless they read this blog :| in which case I just did.) There are many many many things in various religions (my own included) that are there for reasons I don’t fathom. Some of it i just accept on faith. Others I accept on the idea of being tolerant. That’s my approach. YMMV of course.

So I can see where putting words in the mouth of a figure who is one of the most sacred of your religious founders would be consider sacreligious.

Of course, I thought “Dogma” was one of the most brilliant movies ever and it was REALLY offensive to many in the Christian faith.

Steph said:

We see the Muslims screaming that they are a religion of peace while sects bomb places…Let’s not forget the cartoon episode.  These are the versions we are inundated with…I know Muslims aren’t evil but others need to

Kristin Saell said:

If all Muslims were as enlightened and reasonable and forward-thinking as Ziggy and shewhohashope, there would be no cause for debate here at all.

I came late here to this discussion. But doesnt anyone see anything wrong with these statements?

Its suddenly acceptable to make excuses for ignorance? Sterotyping all Muslims as reactionary, unenlightened violent fundamentalists is okay? Because Billy thinks all Arabs are terrorists and all Muslims are Arab we are going to make excuse for the fact that Billy says we should bomb them because they “are threatening our way of life”.

Excusing Billy’s ignorance because all he sees on Fox News is Muslims burning stuff and blowing up people is lazy. This sort of illogical thinking makes me ill. Well he didnt mean it and he doesnt know better . Apologists for stereotyping make me even more upset.

I would argue that the majority of Muslims are in fact enlightened, reasonable and forward thinking as shewhohashope and Ziggy. The fact that you (general you who might be reading this) dont know that says more about you then about any imagined duty of Muslims to educate Western audience about their lives . Your lack of knowledge and inability to see another viewpoint says more about you and your blinders than it does about Muslims. It says heaps about you and how you make folks Other and label them as some imagined quality ( like different, primitive, reactionary) in your head, newspapers, books and images.

Trumystiq, that particular stick shakes both ways. Neither side is clean on the ethnic stereotyping.

And that goes double to Other It with your victim mumbo jumbo. You would feel differently if your background was being attacked roundly.

So I can see where putting words in the mouth of a figure who is one of the most sacred of your religious founders would be consider sacreligious.

But the whole idea (and I could be wrong, but oh well) is supposed to be that Muhammad isn’t supposed to be considered sacred—just his teachings. So as long as an author didn’t put words in his mouth that conflicted with his teachings, shouldn’t it be okay? To exempt him from being treated like any other historical figure only serves to elevate him to a level of religious reverence he should not occupy.

I have my own feelings about the apparent hypocrisy of the crucifix in a religion where object-worship is forbidden. But yeah, I’m not about to tell Catholics how to worship. I’m not about to tell Muslims how to practice their religion, either, but I do draw the line at letting them (or a tiny minority of them) bully the rest of us into falling in step with their views.

Tarot, I am pretty sure I roundly and uniformly condemn people who try to make themselves believe that their stereotypes are true. What saddens me is that too many people (many SBs included) let the stereotypes go unchallenged.

Kristin, I really do see what you are saying. I don’t know enough about the teachings of Islam to be able to say definitively that Mohammed himself is not sacred. I think that as the speaker of the words that are sacred he should be sacred. Of course I am bringing my very pagan view to that with the idea that when the priestess speaks for the Lady, the priestess is sacred because the Lady is within her. It’s all very convoluted (grin) but that is where I am coming from on that. Not at all the “correct” Islamic pov, I’m sure.

This does spark me to do some more studying though on this faith. And I so agree with you on not being bullied. I’m just trying not to have my normal kneejerk reaction. This can appear to be me trying to placate all sides (I’m a Pisces—I’m frequently wishy-washy as all get out.)

Dear Gods! Kirsten not Kristin. I am very sorry! This is my signal to shut up and go to sleep!

Its suddenly acceptable to make excuses for ignorance? Sterotyping all Muslims as reactionary, unenlightened violent fundamentalists is okay?

I do not stereotype all Muslims as reactionaries. But it’s stupid to pretend that there aren’t reactionaries among them (or among any religious or ideological group). If there weren’t, the book would have been published on schedule, people would have been free to read it and make up their own minds, and none of us would be talking about this. 

Trumystiq, that particular stick shakes both ways. Neither side is clean on the ethnic stereotyping.

Damn straight.

And that goes double to Other It with your victim mumbo jumbo. You would feel differently if your background was being attacked roundly.

Why don’t you go to any Islamic country and ask random strangers on the street their opinions of the average North American/Western European? I’m sure you’ll get a well-balanced, reasonable and well-informed reply every time.

Dear Gods! Kirsten not Kristin. I am very sorry! This is my signal to shut up and go to sleep!

Don’t sweat it, happens all the time. :)

But it’s stupid to pretend that there aren’t reactionaries among them (or among any religious or ideological group). If there weren’t, the book would have been published on schedule, people would have been free to read it and make up their own minds, and none of us would be talking about this.

The book isnt being published because Random House is full of pussies. Reactonaries will do what they will. People with backbone and principle have and will stand up to reactionaries. But your statement implied that you were painting all Muslims with a fundamentalist/reactionary brush.

Why don’t you go to any Islamic country and ask random strangers on the street their opinions of the average North American/Western European? I’m sure you’ll get a well-balanced, reasonable and well-informed reply every time.

I am pretty sure that your everyday person in an Islamic country has a better understanding of the average American than your average American has an understanding of their counterpart in an Islamic country. Most Americans on the street cant even tell you where Iraq is let alone differentiate Islam/Muslim as religious designation as opposed to an ethnic one.

But your statement implied that you were painting all Muslims with a fundamentalist/reactionary brush.

What I meant by that statement is that the segment of the Muslim population (or any population) we hear most are those who shout the loudest, namely the reactionaries. The silent majority is named so for a reason, and are sometimes so silent it’s like they’re not even there.

I can see how someone who feels under constant attack, as a Muslim might feel in the U.S. (or a white Christian might feel in a Muslim country, for that matter) might have read meaning into it that wasn’t intended.

I am pretty sure that your everyday person in an Islamic country has a better understanding of the average American than your average American has an understanding of their counterpart in an Islamic country.

I’m not sure I agree with that, but being Canadian, I am aware that my own views will differ from those of Americans in subtle and not-so-subtle ways. I will say that if Iranians or Palistinians believe Americans are evil (or vice versa) it is because they are fed information with the intent to make them feel that way. And that it is human nature to believe what we are told by people we admire, like religious leaders, community leaders, celebrities, our parents, etc.

The book isnt being published because Random House is full of pussies. Reactonaries will do what they will. People with backbone and principle have and will stand up to reactionaries.

I wholeheartedly agree with you there.

I will say that if Iranians or Palistinians believe Americans are evil (or vice versa) it is because they are fed information with the intent to make them feel that way.

Actually you dont have to be fed information to think Americans are evil. Here’s the math that would lead someone even a rational someone to say Americans are evil. American foreign policy=evil. American foreign policy = Americans. So Americans=evil. Even if you add the step that Americans elect a government that creates foreign policy alot of people outside this country might rationally come to the conclusion that Americans are evil. No dastardly mind control is needed to make that jump.

Though there are plenty of people who make the distinction that Americans arent directly responsible for their foreign policy. So you will hear some people say “I hate the American government and their foreign policy. But I like Americans”. You rarely get a “I hate Iran’s government. But I really like those Iranians” where I am.

I am pretty sure that your everyday person in an Islamic country has a better understanding of the average American than your average American has an understanding of their counterpart in an Islamic country. Most Americans on the street cant even tell you where Iraq is let alone differentiate Islam/Muslim as religious designation as opposed to an ethnic one.

Trumystique, please take a look at your earlier words to TarotbyArwen:

Tarot, I am pretty sure I roundly and uniformly condemn people who try to make themselves believe that their stereotypes are true. What saddens me is that too many people (many SBs included) let the stereotypes go unchallenged.

As an American, I can confidently say that there is no such thing as an “average” American. We are just too diverse a country for there to be an “average”. I would like to know what you consider an “average” American to be? A hippie? A redneck? A white-collar worker? A rich snob? A Christian? A Jew? A poor ignorant Mexican immigrant? (no I am NOT saying that all Mexicans are poor and ignorant. Don’t anyone even put those words in my mouth please) An illiterate Irish drunk? (nor am I saying that all people of Irish descent are illiterate drunks)

I can walk down any street in my area and come up with a dozen different people who have almost nothing in common with each other.

American foreign policy=evil. American foreign policy = Americans. So Americans=evil…. Though there are plenty of people who make the distinction that Americans arent directly responsible for their foreign policy.

Many well-publicized Muslim figures (bin Laden, the Taliban, the 9/11 hijackers)=evil. By being Muslim, Muslims choose to be associated with those figures (and don’t anyone say that religion is not a choice, at least in America!), therefore Muslims=evil. Though there are plenty of people who make the distinction that to believe in Allah and the teachings of Muhammad does not necessarily mean you agree with the Taliban or bin Laden, or think all infidels should die. So, yeah, you will hear many people say they hate fundamentalist doctrine, or hate terrorists, or hate Muslim extremists, but think the average Muslim is pretty much like any other regular human being—concerned with family, friends, work, saving for retirement and a multitude of everyday things.

That said however, the mind boggles that we can have The Red Tent, with the Jewish matriarchs, a fictional biography of Mary Magdalene, and as someone mentioned above Dan Brown’s treatment of Mary Magdalene as the wife of Christ, but we cannot publish a book on the favourite wife of the Prophet Muhammad without having another Danish Cartoon Fiasco. More than anything, it frightens me that academics are now reaching outside of their own spheres and instigating the censorship that we work so hard to tear down.

That’s sure what it looks like.  And I am REALLY concerned that Random House reacted the way it did.  It appears that most, if not all, of the action here emanates from Spellberg.  I don’t know what her motives were, whether she really believed what she said or whether there was some other purpose(s) to her actions and statements.  But what I do know is that hysteria can rise very quickly in these situations, and people can overreact because they are not particularly educated about the issues and communities involved, and/or because they have preconceived ideas about those communities that are fomented when something arises that taps into those ideas.  So violence can, indeed, occur—but in this case it appears to be violence to the principles of artistic (and IMO academic) freedom.

And there are still so many questions about what happened here.  For example, I want to know:
a) what did Random House do to investigate any of this beyond react to Spellberg’s “warnings”?  Did they do due diligence in trying to figure out if she was correct, if she was stirring things up herself, if she had a conflict of interest at stake, etc.? 
b) has anyone else inquired as to Spellberg’s assertions—have any other academics or members of the publishing community stepped up and weighed in?
c) did Random House consult with Muslim leaders about this?  If there was a concern, could some mediation help? 

Purely on the surface, this does not look like Random House responding to any real danger of Muslim violence; it looks like Random House responding to Spellberg.  I will continue to study this issue to see if my opinion is revised as (hopefully) more is revealed.  It is very difficult right now because there is still so much we don’t know.

But as this situation continues to spin out, I hope that more moderate voices speak out.  One thing I have learned is that extremists of any religious or political stripe make their widest inroads when moderates are tuned out or turned off to the situation.  It’s only when moderates challenge the extremism that the balance shifts.  Whether Spellberg is the extremist here or whether there is some validity to her concerns, if Random House folded back without doing any real investigation or attempted mediation in the situation, they have set a very disturbing precedent, IMO.  Censorship empowers misunderstanding, intolerance, hatred, and ultimately violence.  I think that now, more than ever, we must all be very, very cautious about supporting any form of suppression.  As someone above said, we desperately need *more*, not less, open discussion about different religious values.

Argh, Robin, stop being so reasonable! You’re spoiling the mood! ;)

you have the right to be offended

I’m a lawyer, so I went and looked up the rights [some] of us have.  The Universal Declaration on Human Rights says

Article 18.
Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

Article 19.
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

The European Convention on Human Rights says

Article 9 – Freedom of thought, conscience and religion

Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance.
Freedom to manifest one’s religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

I think the European version sets out the connection between freedom of religion and freedom of expression more clearly.  It essentially says 1) You are free to have any religious beliefs but 2) You cannot manifest those beliefs in a way which interferes with the rights of others.  In contrast, the alternative approach is 1) You are free to have any religious beliefs and 2) You can manifest those beliefs through a religious, social, political and legal system which applies to a whole community.

I’m a European with a European cultural heritage and I prefer the first approach.  I recognise that there are others, European and non-European, with a European or non-European cultural heritage, who think otherwise.  I can’t see any way of reconciling the two different approaches. Which brings me back to “the right to be offended”.  I and many others (although not everyone everywhere) do have that right , but manifesting that offence in negative ways which impact on others is something I think is profoundly damaging to the chances we have of living with our differences.

Apologies for the length of this post.

Which brings me back to “the right to be offended”.  I and many others (although not everyone everywhere) do have that right , but manifesting that offence in negative ways which impact on others is something I think is profoundly damaging to the chances we have of living with our differences. 

Totally. You can think or feel whatever you want, no one’s stopping you. Just don’t expect me to conform to your beliefs.

Just like it is equally reasonable that 6 out of the 7 countries in the world that have the death penalty for being homosexual are Muslim? The Iranian government alone has executed more than 4,000 people charged with homosexual acts

Teddypig: I almost missed your comment. I have to say, it wasn’t that long ago that homosexuality was a criminal (even a hanging) offense in many western countries. But most of those countries have taken Judeo-Christian law, kept the parts that mesh with their cultural morality, and discarded those bits seen as draconian or pointless. I can only imagine Muslim countries will eventually do the same. Some will see it as progress, and others as a cowardly concession to secular morality, but I do believe it will happen.

‘Over it’, you suck. Seriously. That’s just vile garbage. Maybe you should spend less time ‘enabling’ your bigotry and more time, oh, I don’t know, playing tag on the freeway, if you think that kind of comment is remotely acceptable.

If all Muslims were as enlightened and reasonable and forward-thinking as Ziggy and shewhohashope, there would be no cause for debate here at all.

I can’t believe you said this. I just can’t, Kirsten. Listen to yourself. ‘Well, I can talk to you, you’re not like those other Jews/Blacks/gays/feminists.’ What an insult to an entire group of very diverse people.

The extremists of any religious group are inevitably the minority. Judging all Muslims by Osama bin Laden is like judging all Christians by Fred Phelps. It’s nonsense.

But before we even go there, let’s examine the fact there is no direct evidence whatsoever that any ‘extremists’ of any kind are involved in this. RH have bowed to the possibility of a possible threat. Stirred up by an academic with an axe the size of Florida to grind.

Muslim ‘extremists’ didn’t do this. Idiocy and veniality did this, helped along with a large portion of bigoted ignorance.

The book probably would have offended a good many Muslim readers, which is not a reason not to publish it in itself, because literature often offends, often egregiously. But once published, the offence caused should not be dismissed as the rantings of fundamentalists, but discussed and hopefully learned from. Those who would and those who would not read it, should equally be respected.

spamword: progress41. Ironic, innit.

It’s only a “deliberate misinterpretation of history” if it’s presented as historical fact. I can definitely understand why Muslims might be pissed though, I can think of a few fundamentalist Christians that would be equally outraged if someone wrote a similar novel about Christ. So let them be pissed, it’s their right. Canceling the book though is ridiculous.  It brings to mind the South Park episode where everyone stuck their heads in the sand over a Family Guy spoof on Mohammad. I don’t think Spellberg had the right to discus a copyrighted piece of literature before it’s release date when she was given the draft in confidence, especially since she did it with the intention of getting the book canceled. She should be blacklisted for that, in my opinion. No publish company should deal with her, ever.

The extremists of any religious group are inevitably the minority. Judging all Muslims by Osama bin Laden is like judging all Christians by Fred Phelps. It’s nonsense.

Well, duh, that’s what I was saying—or trying to say. You might notice I added a bit in a later comment, and admitted that it came across as condescending. When you’re waiting tables during a dinner rush while trying to carry on an online conversation, sometimes you hit submit before it’s wise to do so. But yeah, what I was trying to say is that reasonable and intelligent debate is the way to deal with these things, and that if everyone behaved in a civil, rational manner, we wouldn’t be having this particulardebate. Because the book would have been published.

But before judgments are unilaterally made regarding what factors influenced RH’s decision, I’d be interested in seeing what’s in the “seven-point strategy to ensure ‘the writer withdraws this book from the stores and apologise all the muslims across the world.’” Because I’m not at all ready to assume it was all meaningful and intelligent discourse.

What an insult to an entire group of very diverse people.

Again, that diversity includes a few total asshats, and unfortunately they’re the ones who scream loudest and are heard most. And they frequently get their way because of it. The fact that I would rather talk to people like Shewhohashope or Ziggy than someone who refuses to consider opposing viewpoints shouldn’t come as a surprise.

Jews/Blacks/gays/feminists.’

Um, where is that coming from, exactly?

Um, where is that coming from, exactly?

It’s an argument used a lot in discussions with or about groups of that kind. It’s a another way of telling angry people that their tone is more important than their message or the offence being caused, and it gets right up their noses. I’ve been guilty of it myself, unfortunately. Learn not to do it, or you’ll offend. A lot.

When you’re waiting tables during a dinner rush while trying to carry on an online conversation, sometimes you hit submit before it’s wise to do so.

Take some advice from someone who’s fucked up this kind of thing in the same way - this is not the kind of conversation to be having with people when you don’t have your full attention on it. Or when you’re tired.

Because I’m not at all ready to assume it was all meaningful and intelligent discourse.

Irrelevant. The decision wasn’t made as a result of it, but of nebulous threats to make threats. People getting their panties in a wad over something that may or may not be a mortal insult to their religion, is not the same thing as gunning down a publisher. I think we can assume that intemperate things were said in the online discussion, just as nasty stuff’s been said here. Unless RH gives clear details of what exactly was threatened and by whom, I’m going to assume that they assumed Angry Muslims==Terrorist Muslims, without any actual evidence.

It’s a another way of telling angry people that their tone is more important than their message or the offence being caused, and it gets right up their noses.

Tone is important, if you want people to listen to you. I think we just proved that with how many people reacted badly to my smug tone in that earlier comment…

Take some advice from someone who’s fucked up this kind of thing in the same way - this is not the kind of conversation to be having with people when you don’t have your full attention on it. Or when you’re tired.

Yeah, you’re right.

People getting their panties in a wad over something that may or may not be a mortal insult to their religion, is not the same thing as gunning down a publisher.

No it isn’t. But after that Danish cartoon thing, I’m willing to bet some would choose to err on the side of caution when it comes to mortal insults and religion. And I’m betting Spellberg was counting on getting just the reaction she did from both RH and the online Muslim student community. Her panicked call to RH reporting “major danger” would hardly have held water if those students on Hussaini Youth hadn’t played right into her hands.

The whole situation sucks. I sincerely hope another publisher releases the book and Ms. Jones makes a mint on it. And Spellberg ought to be persona non grata, as far as I’m concerned.

er panicked call to RH reporting “major danger” would hardly have held water if those students on Hussaini Youth hadn’t played right into her hands.

Can we just stop with the blame on Muslims, students or otherwise? Angry people are not killers, terrorists etc. The blame here lies with Random House for acting precipitously, and Spellberg for fomenting fears of a Salman Rushdie-like situation.

When I see some evidence that any Muslim actually made a credible threat against the publisher or author, then there might be cause to lay blame. From what I’ve read, all we’ve got is someone very effectively exploiting bigoted preconceptions about a particular group.

Tone is important, if you want people to listen to you.

Yes - but when someone steps on your foot or breaks your nose, or strip searches you at an airport because you look kinda funny, the hurt feelings of those who stepped on your foot or broke your nose or invaded your civil rights, aren’t exactly top of the list of things to give a flying fuck about. Kirsten, you and I have got into it before over things, and you know angry people don’t always talk nice - that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t step back and consider why they’re angry. In this case, considering how real and dangerous and oppressive Islamophobia is to perfectly ordinary, harmless people, worrying about how nicely they tell you that stuff sucks, shouldn’t be the first thing you talk about. Please, learn from my own mistakes on this?

Shewhohashope conducted herself with extreme politeness, still didn’t manage to get her point across to too many people here, and was subjected to vile abuse from someone who didn’t think she was right to speak up at all. If I were her, I wouldn’t have restrained myself as well at all. If she’d reacted more vehemently and angrily than she did, she’d have had cause - but people would have turned around and told her she wasn’t being polite enough. I swear, people are more tolerant of precious authors throwing shitfits over negative reviews, than they are of righteous anger over true injustice.

Shewhohashope conducted herself with extreme politeness, still didn’t manage to get her point across to too many people here, and was subjected to vile abuse from someone who didn’t think she was right to speak up at all.

I agree completely. I misunderstood the tone of one of her initial comments and she was very polite when she called me on that. I’m quite surprised, actually, with how calm and civil this discussion has been, with only a few instances of real vitriol.

I should probably stay out of these discussions altogether, though. I’m the kind of person who can believe in a principle or a moral/ethical code, but not because some god tells me I should. Never understood religion, or quite got why people let themselves be led by it. Probably never will.

Now, if Sherry Jones’ book contained plagiarized passages regarding black-footed ferrets, well, then I’d be screaming for blood…

I’m the kind of person who can believe in a principle or a moral/ethical code, but not because some god tells me I should. Never understood religion, or quite got why people let themselves be led by it.

I don’t think it’s necessary to be so dismissive of people of faith, or the issues here. Nothing about this situation is rocket science, actually. People find different things important, and other people treat that belief with different degrees of respect, causing reactions of all kinds. Religion isn’t the core of this matter at all.

I’m an atheist, and I think of all religion as a form of insanity. But for most people, most of the time, it’s a kind of insanity no more harmful than the puzzling belief David Beckham is attractive. I don’t subscribe to it but if it helps people get through their lives, fine. If they decide to kill Victoria to prove their adoration, I’d be worried, but how many people are that crazy, really? We would never characterize all Beckham fans as stalkers because of them. Maybe we should apply a little of that logic to Muslims, or whoever the current global bogeyman is of the day.

I’d do the wise thing and keep my mouth shut/fingers off the keyboard (because this thread has potential for combustion and I’m not too happy about the way I come across when trying to express myself on important issues - I tend to leave out major points, come across too opinionated and blunder my way through things I should explain carefully) but my gut has been churning all day in response to this thread and no one -that I’ve seen- has asked the question that’s been bothering me.
So here’s what I’m wondering:

Spellberg had an ARC of The Jewel of Medina. Why didn’t she let the gentleman (Amunullah) read it before throwing her hissy fit? That way he could have expressed a knowledgeable opinion about the contents. Or would that have been too rational?

What I’m thinking is that she couldn’t let him read it because:
a) She’d run it through the shredder - it was more interesting than her own book.
b) She didn’t want a knowledgeable opinion because
c) The hissy fit was the whole point and she didn’t want anyone to tone it down (the “classic academic kill job”)

(And if she thinks that was soft porn then she really needs to get a life!)

Now, (please God!) let Spellberg be the only one I have offended!

Really interesting discussion. I’ve got away and wiki-ed Aniconism and Aisha and hadith, and I’m still struggling to understand how offensive the book might be to Muslims. (I know that’s ‘how long is a piece of a string…’ because how offensive was Monty Python’s Life of Brian to Christians?)
I’m, I think like many Christians, fine with religious figures being portrayed in pictures or film or books - that is, I could imagine a particular representation being offensive, but I can’t quite connect with the idea beyond that.
Basically, the comparisons to the Da Vinci Code didn’t help me understand, because I don’t feel that way about religious figures in books. Then I started to imagine what I’d feel if religious imagery was appropriated for commercial purposes: if I suddenly saw a billboard displaying a poster of Jesus drinking coke.
Not illegal, not - in many ways - even offensive, but I’d have a reaction against it - I suppose in old-fashioned language it’d be making something sacred profane.

Is that analogy (how-long-is-a-piece-of-string) along the right lines? Or is it something else entirely?

(That’s - obviously - a personal analogy: I’m not suggesting that no-one was offended by the Da Vinci Code, or that everyone would be offended by other.)

This is brilliant! Seriously this is exactly the right context to read this book in. Think of it as reading yet another racey, fluffy, borderline idiotic, book about Anne Boleyn.

So you’ve read this book, Kat?

PREPARE FOR SOME TL;DR. I’M SORRY IN ADVANCE.

This thread has veered slightly off-topic, yes?

I don’t think anyone here is arguing for the book to be destroyed or not published.

I know that what annoyed me (enough to comment a gazillion times) is the immediate reaction to this article was ‘EVIL MUSLIMS/TERRORISTS TAKING AWAY OUR RIGHT TO READ THIS BOOK WE NEVER HEARD OF BEFORE’.

I don’t know what Spellman/berg/ner/son’s reasons were for the actions she took. I am loath to assign any particular motivation to her because I don’t know enough about what happened.

I don’t think this is at all equivalent to the Danish cartoon controversy, because in that case it seemed pretty clear that the newspaper was courting the drama (they asked a cartoonist to draw a representation of the Prophet (saws), he refused because he knew that this was incredibly offensive to Muslims. The newspaper then had a competition and invited cartoonists to send in cartoons satirising the Prophet (saws) and printed them. You can find all of these through a quick google search. Of course this was played up by some governments of Muslim countries (I’m looking at you, Iran) who also seem to enjoy drama) whereas I don’t believe that Sherry Jones is in any way seeking to cause offense.

Kirsten, I didn’t take umbrage with your comment about women who read novels not necessarily finding historical texts as accesible because I assume that you aren’t at smartbitches because you think romance is stupid and therefore romance readers are dumb. That is what I mean by ‘safe space’ I’m free to make that assumption.

What I clearly can’t assume is that I won’t get comments equating Islam with terrorism, or saying that Muslims don’t do enough to condemn terrorism, or saying that those Muslim men are so oppressive. Unlike American/Western/Christian/Atheist men, who never kill women over their ‘honour’. What do you call it when a man can’t stand his wife cheating on him, or leaving him, or his daughter sees boys that he doesn’t approve of or not doing exactly what he says when he says it because he’s the man of the house, dammit? Wait, that’s domestic violence. The enlightened (western) way to be a misogynist!

And I may have a victim complex or whatever, but I think it would be nice if I didn’t have to compromise my right (yeah, I said it) NOT to constantly have to deal with this bullshit and these misconceptions. It can get tiring to constantly have educate people over basic stuff like this, and not be allowed to be (justifiably) angry. No-one is pobably going to change their minds about how those scary brown Muslim men oppress their women (worse than white all-American christians) because I spent a few hours of my life trying to explain how annoying and wrong-headed it is to fall into this trap. I’m used to it, and I have come to expect it from sexist men who want women to accept sexism here (I’m in the UK, but this applies to the rest of Europe/N. America/Australia/N. Zealand) because aren’t you grateful that it’s not as bad as what those foreigners do?

And I have been very careful about my tone the whole way through this discussion because past experience tells me that a single slip up is all people need to dismiss you and your feelings as irrelevant when they don’t want to hear what you are saying. As feminists (I assume) you have probably all dealt with this. When the one hundredth man innocently asks why women don’t do more to protect themselves from being raped or whatever, it’s difficult not to bite his head off, am I right?

And because this one is written by someone of similar cultural (I won’t say religious, because I think a great deal of North Americans are like me—areligious) background, there is a point of connection between author and reader that doesn’t necessarily make itself felt when reading work by women of other cultures.

And this comment is the one that I responded to and the one that I found galling. It seems like you’re saying that someone within the culture writing about it has less relevance to you than an outsider who shares a cultural background with YOU to translate for you. If it is indeed so difficult to connect to a foreign culture, surely it’s even more important for you to read from people within it? Isn’t there a greater danger of misinformation and misunderstanding if an outsider takes it upon themselves to interprete a culture?

I guess we will have to agree to disagree.  We tend to question our religions, explore them, and debate them.  We have a sense of humor about it.  We have to.  As a Christian, I’m aware of our bloody history.  Fiction and imagination are just other ways to explore what was.

AND this.

WE have a sense of humour? Sweeping generalisations. And since you’re not reading books about Muslims exploring, questioning AND debating their religion, it does not exist. You see how you have completely dismissed the entire body of Islamic scholarship by Muslims?

Oh—and I was only ever told of one warning of possible terrorism, and that was from Spellberg. I am the one who found the Husaini Youths post and discussion, and told Random House about it the next day as evidence that Ms. Spellberg was being disingenuous when she claimed, as I’d been told, that she feared for her own safety and that of her family. That claim came AFTER she’d called Shahed Amanullah and asked him to “alert” the Muslims.

I’m not trying to influence the discussion here. Just wanting to set the record straight. Those Husaini Youths did not advocate violence, although I’m not clear on what their call for “pressuring” me to remove the books from the stores and apologize to Muslims really means.

Mr. Amanullah has written to me and assured me he never meant this to happen. I believe him.

I’d like to thank Sherry for setting the record straight here. It’s a shame that so many people here jumped straight to assuming that these Muslims students and Shaheed Amanullah had some terrorist conspiracy going. Frankly, I’m more upset about that than anything I’ve heard about the book.

I’m not going to respond to comments that are just uncalled for attacks on me as a person.

That was even longer than I thought it was. Yikes.

Well, if you’ve read the 200 comments proceeding it, you may find it interesting?

Can we just stop with the blame on Muslims, students or otherwise? Angry people are not killers, terrorists etc. The blame here lies with Random House for acting precipitously, and Spellberg for fomenting fears of a Salman Rushdie-like situation.

When I see some evidence that any Muslim actually made a credible threat against the publisher or author, then there might be cause to lay blame. From what I’ve read, all we’ve got is someone very effectively exploiting bigoted preconceptions about a particular group.

and

Shewhohashope conducted herself with extreme politeness, still didn’t manage to get her point across to too many people here, and was subjected to vile abuse from someone who didn’t think she was right to speak up at all. If I were her, I wouldn’t have restrained myself as well at all. If she’d reacted more vehemently and angrily than she did, she’d have had cause - but people would have turned around and told her she wasn’t being polite enough. I swear, people are more tolerant of precious authors throwing shitfits over negative reviews, than they are of righteous anger over true injustice.

are EXACTLY what I wish I would have said.  Thanks for saying it better, Ann.

And that would be ‘PRECEDING’.

Don’t judge for my typos. This thing has no spell-check.

(merely 51? that misses by about three decades)

aren’t you grateful that it’s not as bad as what those foreigners do?

Just having moved back to Australia after many years in Britain, and reacquainting myself with the positively medieval attitude of men out here, I find it boggling that anyone thinks Muslims have a monopoly on crappy behaviour towards women. Someone upthread point out that at least one abhorrent practice commonly believed to be synonymous with Islam is in fact culturally specific, not religious - and that’s true, I believe with many manifestations of ‘Islamic’ culture. We don’t have any difficulty understanding that Italian Catholics and Greek Orthodox and the Amish are bringing national cultural habits to bear on the pratice of their religion, but we insist on considering all Muslims as belonging to a homogenous entity. Barking.

I couldn’t understand why Sherry Jones’ very clear statement that Muslim activism had nothing whatsoever to do with the decision to pull the book, had been so thoroughly overlooked in this discussion. I guess it’s more fun to bang on about terrorism and not giving into them, than the real issue.

shewhohashope, would you mind satisfying a bit of curiosity? After you write the word ‘Prophet’ you write (saws) - is that similar to what other posters have done by following his name with ‘Peace be upon him’? Sorry to ask you to educate me, but I’ve never seen that usage before.

The thing about Spellberg’s name was a joke!

I think that’s enough by way of pre-emptive explanations.

From what I’ve read, all we’ve got is someone very effectively exploiting bigoted preconceptions about a particular group.

This IS a good point. It appears to me that Spellberg, a professor of Islamic History, is not just exploiting the preconceptions, but actively propagating them.

“She thinks there is a very real possibility of major danger for the building and staff and widespread violence,” Ms. Garrett wrote. “Denise says it is ‘a declaration of war . . . explosive stuff . . . a national security issue.’ Thinks it will be far more controversial than the satanic verses and the Danish cartoons. Does not know if the author and Ballantine folks are clueless or calculating, but thinks the book should be withdrawn ASAP.”

 
What a way to give ammunition to those who think that Muslim=terrorist.

(saws) just means ‘ṣallā llahu ʿalayhi wa sallam’ Arabic for ‘May God’s peace and blessings be upon him.

and (ra) means ‘radhiallahu ‘anha’ which means ‘May God be pleased with her’. Obvs. varies according to gender/pluralisation.

The former is used for Prophets the latter for companions of the Prophet/other righteous people.

(saws) just means ‘ṣallā llahu ʿalayhi wa sallam’ Arabic for ‘May God’s peace and blessings be upon him.

Thank you.

I hope another publisher brings the book out, and soon, because one hissyfit and the threat of terrorist action should not block anything, let alone a historical fiction novel.

Ditto

spam filter: friend43 (hmmm…. interesting)

‘attacks on you as a person?’

Well specifically, that courageous anonymous person who told me I needed to stop being so whiny.

There is a line between not feeding the troll and seeming to tacitly support the crazy statements being made. Obviously that line is different for different people but when I had several replies to my jokey statement about manly men’s intellectual Literature vs. girly women’s historicals (not romance, evidently) and no-one had felt a similar need to clear up what the commenter who doesn’t want to pander to crazy women-hating Muslims was saying, I did feel alone.

There have been comments since then that have both alleviated and reinforced this impression, but I do agree that it has been impressive for an unmoderated thread in that there were hardly any obvious Islamaphobic statments so much as the accumulative effect of much cluelessness.

I have been an angry and emotional person on the internet before. It just leads to people being afraid of me (like I will reach through the screen and throttle them?) and refusing to engage with what I’m saying.

And thank you for commenting. I was afraid Smart Bitches was going to go the way of so many other places that seemed like an enlightened and (fun!) place to discuss something I’m interested in turning ugly and then making no amends for being prejudiced.

This is probably why that attack got to me, but I feel like I am being whiny and haven’t got a leg to stand on when there is no support for my feelings (this is probably a good thing? I don’t want to be one of those ‘the world is wrong and only I am right’ crazies). At risk of being whiny, then:

I’m pretty sure I’m not the only person concerned by the implication that Shaheed Amunallah or Hussaini Youth are in some linked with threats to terroist action, and not everyone reads the comments (or all 200+ of these comments) so would it be possible for you to clarify the Smart Bitches position publically in some way (like you just did for me)?

See? Now I feel like a whiner, but I don’t think I’m just speaking for myself or a ‘specal interest group’ (the most interesting description of Islam I’ve ever heard, btw).

I have not read every comment carefully, but I want to pick up on the interesting issue of not ‘representing’ the Prophet Mohammed lest an image of him should attract idolatrous worship.

This thinking pervaded the major monotheistic religions of Judaism, Christianity and Islam in antiquity, for reasons that are less obvious to us now than they would have been then.  In the normal pagan religions of European and Near Eastern prehistory and Classical antiquity, man-made objects, including a great deal of sculpture representing the gods and goddesses as essentially human figures, were widely worshipped as embodying the actual powers of the deities they represented.  Amulets and talismans carried by worshippers were also regarded as focusing divine powers in themselves.

It is not difficult to see why the devotees of religions that had very consciously rejected polytheism felt very threatened by the danger of actually worshipping an inanimate object that represented their one god or a central, but not divine, figure within their religion.  Many Early Christians avoided human representations in their art, following the Jewish, rather than the Classical norm.  I think the fears are well-founded in the sense that there can be little doubt that many Christians in the Middle Ages probably slipped over from using an image of a saint or of Christ as a focus or conduit for prayer, to actually worshipping the figure.  It depends how you define ‘worship’, which I suspect is a highly technical matter.

Anyway, my point is that the Moslem (forgive my old-fashioned spelling) feelings about representing the Prophet Mohammed is not unique, but is part of a wider tradition that once affected two other important world faiths.

All of this is linked up with perceptions of history as ‘fact’.  I forget who posted an excellent piece way back in this thread pointing out that all written history, however carefully checked and researched, is a personal and partial (in both senses of the word) view.  This is undoubtedly true.  Interpretations of our own society at this moment vary enormously; truth is always incomplete, and it can look very different when viewed from different angles.  And yet I, like many other historians, find myself acutely uncomfortable in the presence of the cheerfully invented ‘histories’ that are enjoyed as fiction today, above all, so-called ‘alternate’ history (that is, alternative).  The line between reality and invention may sometimes be hazy and difficult to pin down, but it is definitely there, and in writing about any historical person, I believe it should be carefully observed.  Anyone who has taught, at any level, knows with what unerring aim some learners will seize on the ‘harmless’ little invented detail that one popped in to make a narrative more interesting (‘no doubt Caratacus had a dreadful hangover that morning…’), while totally ignoring a major factual element.

When studying history purely as an academic exercise, this may be, at worst, damaging to the student’s knowledge and understanding he/she may forget a well-known fact while remembering an unimportant surmise.  But where religious faith is involved,  I have no doubt that the devout consider it a very serious matter.

So you’ve read this book, Kat?

No, I haven’t read it yet. Perhaps when I said “idiotic” I was a little harsh, but I was referring to the slew of historical novels about Anne Boleyn, some of which have occasion to make my brain bleed, within the little thread where The Tudors was referenced and how these sorts of novels are historical, yes, they’re also a bit of fluff, yes, but sometimes they re-construct profoundly important women in history that perpetuates the myths surrounding them as opposed to enabling their sort of revolutionary status. It was meant to comment on how to read the book for what it is, not academic, but part of the mythology.

That said, from what I understand of The Jewel of Medina a great deal of effort was made to re-construct A’isha in the flesh and there was heavy reliance on what information there is available to Sherry Jones. I definitely sympathise with her as well, as I’ve had my fair share of being railed against. It’s what happens when you go out on a limb intellectually and creatively and in academia, you might as well go headfirst into a snakepit sometimes. I’ve been fired for it so I definitely want to get my hands on a copy of this book, if nothing else to contest these hissyfits by academics and support Jones’s risk-taking and from what I understand, real interest and devotion to A’isha. That makes me smile.

I am not able to edit on this computer, so please excuse typos above.

Just came back after work to read up on TEH CONTRAVERZY- shewhohashope, trumystique, Ann Somerville- thankyou for saying what I would have said if I was good at saying the things.

Judging all Muslims by Osama bin Laden is like judging all Christians by Fred Phelps.

*cheers*

Thank you, Ann!!

AgTigress pretty much has it.

And I’m beating myself over the head right now, because another dimension of this that has been completely overlooked is that of the cultural appropriation inherent in this project.

You have Aisha (ra) who is one of the most revered women/people in Muslim history, and she is being represented by a non-Muslim, white,  American woman. Who will likely get more exposure for her (by her own admission fictionalised) account of Aisha’s life than any number of Muslimah scholars. When one culture is clearly more powerful than another than surely we should be concerned over who becomes the authoritative voice on the subaltern culture?

How many people here have sworn to buy and read this book? How many people here have read anything on Aisha (ra) before this? How many were even aware of who she was?

It’s like Arthur Golden becoming the most well-known authority on Geisha (and don’t get me started on that awful film!).

I’m not blaming Sherry Jones or accusing her of some conspiracy, that’s just the way things work.

Some learnings about Aisha (ra):

Aisha (ra) is not just known and respected as one of the Prophet’s (saws) sahaba and his wife, she is one of the most important (debatably the most important) Islamic scholars. There’s the controversy about her age, which is fairly well known [the accusations of paedophilia are a little odd as none of of Mohamed’s (saws) other wives were younger than their mid-twenties (his first was 15-25 years older than him), and in fact were all widows,  which is hardly what you’d expect of someone primarily attracted to pre-pubescent children. And she was certainly pubescent.] She was married to the Prophet (saws) at the end of his life, she had a prodigious memory and she is in fact the source of much of what we know of his sunnah. She went to be one of the foremost early Islamic scholars. People would travel from around the Islamic world to learn from her. She’s a role model and inspiration for hundreds of millions of Muslim women.

[Guys: I can now see I’m going to have to clarify my position on child-brides. I completely disapprove, but I do think that there is a difference between children today and children in the past/other cultures. I would have been horrified if my parent’s had asked me to get married even at 15/6, but there are plenty of places where 12/13/14 or even younger is the norm.]

Let’s pretend none of us see those glaring typos.

shewhohashope…I haven’t known what to say in this thread. Partly because I’m a little overwhelmed in my own world at the moment, and partly b/c I didn’t want my support of you to come off sounding like I was pandering or condescending. So I said nothing, which might ultimately be worse.

When I saw this post and the 200-odd comments attached to it last night, I felt a decided sense of dread. And despite a few really shitty, clearly off-the-cuff/thoughtless comments, I’ve been pleasantly surprised. Your input, in particular, has given all of us something to think about. (And that goes for ziggy and Popin and everyone else who took on the unfair burden of educating the unwashed masses yet again.) Thanks.

[Guys: I can now see I’m going to have to clarify my position on
child-brides. I completely disapprove, but I do think that there is a
difference between children today and children in the past/other cultures.
I would have been horrified if my parent’s had asked me to get
married even at 15/6, but there are plenty of places where 12/13/14 or even
younger is the norm.]

I was wondering when this was going to come along. She was betrothed to the Prophet Muhammad at the age of 9. The marriage was not consummated however until she was a teenager. Queen Mary (Bloody Mary) was betrothed to a man nearly twenty years her senior at the age of about five, so it’s not like it’s some “Muslim idiosyncrasy” when the European aristocracy was doing it 900 years later. But I digress…

There are ahadith about the Prophet playing dolls with A’isha and her living in his household until she came to an appropriate age where marriage would be both lawful and healthy. You also have to put it into the context of the average lifespan/life cycle, people didn’t have the greatest life-expectancy and jobs, university, etc. were not part of the grand life scheme. Well, jobs, yes, but obviously not 9-5 at the office. She wasn’t just handed-over as a child to Muhammad to become his wife before puberty.

In terms of questions about the modern age of marriage, many Muslim countries have adjusted the legal age of marriage to 17-18 which incidentally is higher than in some places in the “West.” A woman must give permission to be married, she cannot be given away as chattel, unfortunately in some very rural areas, child brides are still a phenomena, there’s an upswing in them in Afghanistan especially, an 8 year-old just sued for divorce in Yemen, and I have found that they were mostly contracts made out of desperate circumstances or ignorance of the Shari’a. It has mostly been decided that 9 is legal for an engagement, but the dynamic of the world right now is such that later marriages are preferred and often necessary, especially in countries like Egypt and Jordan where a significant amount of cash has to be raised before a marriage can even take place.

Sorry just spiraled into the abyss! Forgive me! :o)

When one culture is clearly more powerful than another than surely we should be concerned over who becomes the authoritative voice on the subaltern culture

I agree with you entirely. However—and I know this isn’t necessarily what you just said, but to extrapolate—I am reluctant to say that a book shouldn’t be published or written because of its author’s cultural background. At the same time, a work of fiction should not be taken as historical fact (though I disagree entirely with AgTigress on the uses of historical fiction, and that’s fine).

What really needs to happen is that work on Aisha by Muslimah scholars needs to be promoted—and it’s possible that a book like Jewel of Medina could bring those works into the public eye. Whenever a book on a given subject is particularly successful, more serious and scholarly works on the same subject are given much more attention. So while it is troublesome to position a person from the dominant culture as an authoritative voice on the subaltern, it can lead to greater access for subaltern voices. (Still problematic, if only b/c it creates issues of being “allowed” to speak or having the subaltern’s voice “authorized” by dominant culture, of course.)

Sorry just spiraled into the abyss! Forgive me! :o)

No, I agree with you. I just thought I should mention it since someone upthread mentioned that they’d heard that the Prophet (saws) was a paedophile. I just wanted to clear that up.

snarkhunter, I wasn’t advocating only writing about one’s own cultural background, just bringing up another bone of centention.

Cultural appropriation is a difficult subject, and I’ve never come closer to a solution than ‘let’s all talk about it more’.

I want to read a book about her right now, so that’s a step forward?

What really needs to happen is that work on Aisha by Muslimah scholars needs to be promoted—and it’s possible that a book like Jewel of Medina could bring those works into the public eye. Whenever a book on a given subject is particularly successful, more serious and scholarly works on the same subject are given much more attention.

Brilliant! Yes, this is exactly what this book has the potential to do. How many people have watched, (why do I keep coming back to the Tudors? *hits head*) The Tudors or have seen 300 or even one of the many novels that are made into a miniseries or even something like Evita, become intrigued about a particular element, character, etc. in the programme and gone off to research it or read about them further. You fall in love with the story and that’s such a wonderful treat! It’s actually doing a service to history and scholars because it promotes the person and the various bodies of literature on them across genres and finally, you end-up, in the end, with a really deep, vibrant picture of the historical person in all of their manifestations and across a great spectrum.

You have, in sum, the myth and the reality, and in the end, isn’t that really what makes-up history anyway?

I just thought I should mention it since someone upthread mentioned that they’d heard that the Prophet (saws) was a paedophile. I just wanted to clear that up.

Aarrrgh, I wish that myth would die!!! I’m so tired of hearing people tell me that/ask me about that, however I understand where it comes from and how people fixate on that, especially in this age where paedophilia is apparently rampant.

I’m glad you cleared it up! :o)

I wasn’t advocating only writing about one’s own cultural background, just bringing up another bone of centention.

I know, and I was trying not to imply that’s what you said. But that is one school of thought, which obviously none of us here agree with. :)

How many people here have sworn to buy and read this book? How
many people here have read anything on Aisha (ra) before this? How many were
even aware of who she was?

Me! Me! Also: me! And I think that’s a good thing. I’m not saying that
Ms. Jones is now The Authority on all things Aisha. I have the prologue to
the book, and I’m plan to post it here later, but since I read it I’ve
gone online to read more about her because fictional narrative is no
replacement for my own research. I’m saying it’s a very, very good thing
that readers like me can find out more about this amazing person in Muslim
history, because the reason it’s so easy to scare people with the idea of
Islam is because people know so little about it.

This is SO refreshing! Can I just say how excited and happy everyone on this board makes me? I love that the intellectual curiosity is just overwhelming and coming-off a semester of teaching college kids who haven’t yet deduced that you can’t “dress-up like jihad” and that Jews don’t worship Jesus, it is really refreshing. It gives me hope for a better, more proactive understanding of Islam in this world!

I hope that this book, too, will lead to more exploration of women in historical romances and women in Islamic history, the snippets we have of other women’s biographies read just like historical novels… pirates, queens, poetesses (See Fatima Mernissi’s The Forgotten Queens of Islam for starters), there’s a lot to identify with and embrace that transcends time and religion.

I do get the positives. I just thought we should discuss the possible negative outcomes of people from outside a culture (particularly one that is maligned and misunderstood) representing it to the rest of the world. Particularly when that representation troubles/outright offends people within the culture.

This is why for me, there is no equivalence between this and The Da Vinci Code/The Last Temptation/Passion of Christ.

But like I said, I have no answers (aside from the obvious: show respect, do your research) on an indivdual level. It is a societal problem that the voices that are heard on minority cultures/ethnicities are often not from those cultures.

But then I’m the person who had a rant about Persepolis (which I liked for the most part) and Reading Lolita in Teheran (which I didn’t) being examples of even when it’s not someone from outside the culture creating the mainstream representation, it is always those with particular religious and political biases (neither Satrapi nor Nafiz are Muslim women). And I don’t feel like I need to even clarify my feelings about a lot of what the Iranian government does.

I’m having a hell of a time finding it, but I was reading something a few days ago about how people writing about subaltern cultures to an outside audience have the choice between not discussing it’s faults (which is untenable) or discussing it’s faults even when that leaves the culture open to ideological and/or literal, military attack. I’m not sure where I’m going with this, except that it is difficult to discuss real problems when there is already so much (mainly unfounded) negativity out there.

I look forward to seeing the prologue, anyway.

[I can’t stop commenting! Oh my God. I am the embodiment of someone is WRONG on the internet!]

I’m enjoying imagining what will happen when someone writes a novel about Mary, Mother of Jesus, with hot sex, naked bodies, and panting. I’m sure there will be no controversy or threats of violence at all. No, no.

It didn’t have hot sex, but Jewish novelist Sholem Aleichem’s book Mary includes a scene in which the son and heir of Herod “comes in unto her” and conceives the child who is Jesus.

Rule One: never ask academics to provide cover blurbs for fiction.

Rule Two: Be very careful about extrapolating one’s own cultural attitudes onto a totally different culture.

The reverence in which traditional Muslims hold the Prophet (pbuh) has no cultural equivalent in any Western society. For them, he is simply not a subject for fiction. Period. For these people, the scene quoted would, in fact, be only adding insult to injury.

And given the current situation, and the fact that Ms. Spellberg took it upon herself to not just fan the flames but to ignite the bonfire (UT alums will understand the irony inherent in that), there may, indeed, have been potential danger in publishing this book—for the author, if no one else.

Yes, there are free speech issues involved, and given James Frey’s new book is out I have no doubt someone will step up to the plate and publish Ms. Jones’s novel. As well they should. But making light of the effect it will have on the more intolerant portions of the Muslim world is stupid, especially now that it’s become news fodder. To say that those preaching violence will be able to use it now as a way of convincing yet more disenfranchised young men that the West is an empire of evil too degraded to be permitted to exist is an understatement, and like it or not we do have to think in these days of violence in terms of whether grasping to the letter of free speech is justified, or will instead be the equivalent of yelling “Fire!” in a crowded theater.

I agree with the above posts..

I’ve read Ann Burton’s “women of the bible”
Anita Diamante’s “The Red Tent”
Anne Rice’s “Christ the Lord”
Some historical color, a fictional story based on biblical characters..it didn’t make me think at any time that it was insulting to Jews or Christians . In fact these books inspired me to read Josephus and to do more research into the origins of both religions. Just like books like Kenyon’s Dark Hunters inspired me to read the Iliad and Odyssey.

And it occurs to me that the last fictionalised historical novel based on Muslims that I read was Samarkand, by Aamin Maalouf, almost TWO YEARS ago.

(It’s based on Omar Khayyam of Rubaiyyat fame. It has a few romances in it actually, but is considered Serious Manly Literature, I believe)

There is a new book coming out by a very talented illustrator. “Doomed Queens”, by Kris Waldeherr looks promising to me. I have not read it but it is on my list.

http://www.kriswaldherr.com/books/dq/main/index5.html if you are interested.

I thought this might hit some folks who are into history.

For my part, I have come away from this discussion with an overwhelming and hopefully not overweening curiousity about the Prophet Mohamed and his wives.

And given the current situation, and the fact that Ms. Spellberg took it upon herself to not just fan the flames but to ignite the bonfire (UT alums will understand the irony inherent in that), there may, indeed, have been potential danger in publishing this book—for the author, if no one else.

Ahahahahaha. Hook ‘em.

Strangely enough, when I first started pondering this subject, the fact that the starting point of this shitstorm was a professor at UT had me stop with a “Wait, what? she teaches at UT? Hmm, surprising. Wait, no, not surprising.”  I went back and forth between being surprised that someone at UT is demanding censorship and not being surprised that someone at UT is demanding censorship given the subject matter.

In fact, when I saw “UT” professor, I had to doublecheck to see if she by chance was a Vol.

that19 - yes, I did enjoy being 19 at UT. This spamblocker scares me.

Argh! My head is desking right now. I realise that not everyone in the thread is clued up on Islam. I thought it had been made clear in other posts but maybe not.

Fictionalisation of Jesus’s life or the lives of important figures in the Christian or Judaic traditions *is not* comparable to fictionalisation of the prophet Muhammed’s life or figures associated with him.

Both may be offensive to practitioners simply because they seem inaccurate or blasphemous, which is what I think some commenters are focussing on.

But there is no internal mandate against images, fictionalisation or representation of Jesus from within the Christian tradition. In Islam, there is a strong prohibition.

I’m not saying that trumps Sherry Jones’ right to write whatever she wants, or anyone’s right to publish it. I’m just saying that “The DV Code got published” is not a comparable situation.

And as far as the cultural appropriation issue- I think it’s a thorny issue, but

I know, and I was trying not to imply that’s what you said. But that is one school of thought, which obviously none of us here agree with. :)

it’s a school of thought which I have a great deal of sympathy for. Being a member of a different culture to the mainstream is difficult, especially when there’s a history of distancing or suffering. Often it feels like cultural appropriation is just another way for the holders of privilege to deny our legitimacy and identity.

I’m not saying that this is what Sherry Jones is doing, or that cultural appropriation is wrong. But the general theme to the other side of this debate seems to be that the muslim students and scholars had no cause for anger, and I think that’s a biased view.

It strikes me that Denise Spellberg is a terribly cynical person who attempted to not only kill a book she didn’t happen to like (for whatever reason) by doing her level best to panic her own editor using vague threats of Islamic violence while at the same time doing her best to inflame the Islamic community with a “frantic” call that to all appearance seriously misrepresented the book in question.  It looks like that attempt did nothing more than (according to gallycat) prompt some grad students to plan a e-mail campaign to vent their displeasure at the book.

It seems to me that Spellberg not only was using the blanket stereotyping of Islam to her own ends, but in some sense wanted to create a self-fulfilling prophecy—that she might have believed that her frantic warnings would lead to some threat of violence (that to all appearance never occurred) that would lend credibility to her wild-ass statements and provide her some amount of deniability to cover her own ass if it came out she was, herself, saying “OMGTERRERIST”.  If some third party actually had threatened Random House because of her prompting, she could say “see, I wasn’t really being a bigoted alarmist.”

Kat:

Is there a survey out there on the history of Arab secular literature on Mohammad? Some kind of introduction to the literature? Is there any pre-20th century Arab secular literature on Mohammad and his Prophets?

I think I might have to take your class….:)

For those wondering what the seven-point action plan was, I got this from http://www.husainiyouths.com:
1) To send Blast Mails: We need one volunteer to draft a mail and send to people including us - so that all of us can fwd that mail to as many muslims as possible and bring awareness of another effort to slander our Prophet, Religion and Holy People.

2) Other approach being a firm stand that the writer withdraws this book from the stores and apologise all the muslims across the world.

And, funny enough, my spamword is students13. Yes, they are students and there might have been 13 of them.

I’ve been reading about The Jewel of Medina here and a couple of other websites and what really appalls me is Denise Spellberg’s actions in this situation. She could have simply said"Thanks,but no thanks” when asked for a blurb and if her concerns about the effect that this novel might have on others were sincere,they could have been expressed in a calm and reasonable manner.

Instead,Spellberg went out of her way to shut this book down and to encourage others to campaign against it(in a non violent but still destructive way,IMO)and for a college professor to do such a thing is utterly disgraceful. Freedom of speech is a privilege that needs to be used carefully and respectfully,not as the famous example of shouting “Fire” in a crowded theater.

Kat:

Is there a survey out there on the history of Arab secular literature on Mohammad? Some kind of introduction to the literature? Is there any pre-20th century Arab secular literature on Mohammad and his Prophets?

I think I might have to take your class….:)

Aww, feel free to register any time! :o)

As for any pre-20th century secular literature on Muhammad and his Prophets, that is totally outside of my area of expertise. I’m contemporary Arab and Islamic women’s literature almost exclusively, so I’m a crap person to ask about that. Anything before the 20th century is probably mostly by missionaries, travel literature, or early Orientalist scholars. Anything after the turn-of-the-century is Islamic revivalism and new editions of medieval biographies.

The best idea is to start small with Muhammad, biographies by Karen Armstrong (I always forget her, because I’m daft) and John Esposito (both secular), even Montgomery Watt (although he was a Muslim convert from a Presbyterian minister I believe), oh and Marilyn Booth has a book on biographies, a sort of survey I believe and I love her because she is also a very fair, even-handed scholar, and branch-out from there. You sort of have to make piles and create your own isnad (chain of transmission).

I think the notion of a “secular” biography of Muhammad is a very new phenomena as religious studies sort of opens up more and more to discussion and debate.

That was a tome, I’m sorry! I babble.