Prophet Muhammad novel scrapped

[[R_H]]

BBC

Plans to release a novel about Prophet Muhammad's child bride A'isha have been scrapped by US publishers Random House over fears it could spark violence.

The Jewel of Medina, the debut novel by journalist Sherry Jones, was due to hit shelves on 12 August.

Random House said it had been advised the book "might be offensive" to some Muslims, and "could incite acts of violence by a small, radical segment."

"We decided, after much deliberation, to postpone publication," it added.

The decision was taken "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," said the company's deputy publisher Thomas Perry in a statement.

The novel traces the life of A'isha, who is often referred to as Muhammad's favourite wife, from her engagement at the age of six, until the prophet's death.

Jones said that she was shocked to learn in May, that publication would be postponed indefinitely.

'Pornography'

Random House's decision only came to light this week after The Wall Street Journal published a column by Muslim writer and scholar Asra Nomani, saying she was "saddened" by the turn of events.

Nomani argued that the publisher was afraid reaction to the novel could equal the furore caused by Sir Salman Rushdie's Satanic Verses.

Published in 1988, the book was condemned by the Islamic world because of its perceived blasphemous depiction of the Prophet Muhammad.

Sir Salman was forced to live in hiding for the next decade after Iran's then-spiritual leader, Ayatollah Khomeini, issued a fatwa ordering his execution.

In her article, Nomani said university professor Denise Spellberg, who had been sent a review copy of Jewel of Medina, had been instrumental in stirring up opposition to the novel.

Professor Spellberg, from the University of Texas in Austin, was quoted saying the book was "ugly", "stupid" and "soft core pornography".

Three days later, Professor Spellberg argued in the same newspaper that she could not have "single-handedly stopped the book's publication".

But she conceded: "I felt it was my duty to warn the press of the novel's potential to provoke anger among some Muslims."

Jones has never visited the Middle East, but spent several years studying Arab history and said the novel was a synthesis of all she had learned.

"They did have a great love story," Jones said of Muhammad and A'isha.

The author, who has just completed a sequel examining her heroine's later life, is free to sell her book to other publishers, Random House said.

[Melchior]

That assesment about the literary value of the book is probably accurate, but appeasing the violent fanatica does not seem to resolve anything and even (sort of) legitimizes them.

[hongi]

What violent fanatics was there to please? AFAIK, there had been no complaints among Muslims until this professor made it known to the Muslim community by calling it soft-core pornography. She effectively sparked the flames of outrage among people who'd otherwise might have read the book and made a decision for themselves.

[Stargate Nerd]

So wait this was a POSITIVE book about Aisha? Imagine that.

[Darth Wong]

That assesment about the literary value of the book is probably accurate, but appeasing the violent fanatica does not seem to resolve anything and even (sort of) legitimizes them.

The only person who demanded "appeasing" in this case was a Texan professor with a Jewish name. Do you really think she's a radical Muslim?

[Glocksman]

That assesment about the literary value of the book is probably accurate, but appeasing the violent fanatica does not seem to resolve anything and even (sort of) legitimizes them.

The only person who demanded "appeasing" in this case was a Texan professor with a Jewish name. Do you really think she's a radical Muslim?

Mike, the professor could just as easily be christian or atheist, as not all people whose names end in 'berg' are Jewish.
It's like the old joke about the Titanic.

Jewish guy: Don't you Chinese feel guilty about Pearl Harbor?
Chinese guy: What do you mean? Pearl Harbor was bombed by the Japanese.
Jewish guy: Japanese, Chinese, all the same to me.

Chinese guy: Well, in that case don't you Jews feel guilty about the Titanic?
Jewish guy: What are you talking about? The Titanic was sunk by an iceberg.
Chinese guy: Iceberg, Goldberg, all the same to me.

That said, she does raise good points in her rebuttal.

Linky

I Didn't Kill 'The Jewel of Medina'
August 9, 2008; Page A10

Asra Q. Nomani's "You Still Can't Write About Muhammad" (op-ed, Aug. 6) falsely asserts that I am the "instigator" of the Random House Press decision not to publish a novel about the Prophet's wife titled, "The Jewel of Medina." I never had this power, nor did I single-handedly stop the book's publication. Random House made its final decision based on the advice of other scholars, conveniently not named in the article, and based ultimately on its determination of corporate interests.

As a historian invited to "comment" on the book by its Random House editor at the author's express request, I objected strenuously to the claim that "The Jewel of Medina" was "extensively researched," as stated on the book jacket. As an expert on Aisha's life, I felt it was my professional responsibility to counter this novel's fallacious representation of a very real woman's life. The author and the press brought me into a process, and I used my scholarly expertise to assess the novel. It was in that same professional capacity that I felt it my duty to warn the press of the novel's potential to provoke anger among some Muslims.

There is a long history of anti-Islamic polemic that uses sex and violence to attack the Prophet and his faith. This novel follows in that oft-trodden path, one first pioneered in medieval Christian writings. The novel provides no new reading of Aisha's life, but actually expands upon provocative themes regarding Muhammad's wives first found in an earlier novel by Salman Rushdie, "The Satanic Verses," which I teach. I do not espouse censorship of any kind, but I do value my right to critique those who abuse the past without regard for its richness or resonance in the present.

The combination of sex and violence sells novels. When combined with falsification of the Islamic past, it exploits Americans who know nothing about Aisha or her seventh-century world and counts on stirring up controversy to increase sales. If Ms. Nomani and readers of the Journal wish to allow literature to "move civilization forward," then they should read a novel that gets history right.

Denise A. Spellberg
Assoc. Professor of History and Middle Eastern Studies
University of Texas at Austin

I'm not an expert on Middle Eastern studies, but I'm willing to defer to someone who is, and I'll grant Professor Spellberg the benefit of the doubt on the issue.

[That NOS Guy]

I'm not an expert on Middle Eastern studies, but I'm willing to defer to someone who is, and I'll grant Professor Spellberg the benefit of the doubt on the issue.

On the other hand, I'd rather she lay out specific claims rather then being vague about what's historically questionable.

[Viridian]

I'm not an expert on Middle Eastern studies, but I'm willing to defer to someone who is, and I'll grant Professor Spellberg the benefit of the doubt on the issue.

On the other hand, I'd rather she lay out specific claims rather then being vague about what's historically questionable.

True, being an expert doesn't mean you don't have an agenda.

[Darth Wong]

The only person who demanded "appeasing" in this case was a Texan professor with a Jewish name. Do you really think she's a radical Muslim?

Mike, the professor could just as easily be christian or atheist, as not all people whose names end in 'berg' are Jewish.

How does "could be christian or atheist" mean "radical Muslim"?

I'm not an expert on Middle Eastern studies, but I'm willing to defer to someone who is, and I'll grant Professor Spellberg the benefit of the doubt on the issue.

Why? She called for the non-publication of a novel; that puts the spotlight squarely on her, because that's a highly unusual position for an academic to take.

[Glocksman]

I'm not an expert on Middle Eastern studies, but I'm willing to defer to someone who is, and I'll grant Professor Spellberg the benefit of the doubt on the issue.

On the other hand, I'd rather she lay out specific claims rather then being vague about what's historically questionable.

True.
But OTOH, she was probably space limited in what the WSJ would print.
But read on.

True, being an expert doesn't mean you don't have an agenda.

True as well, and I'll have to keep that in mind.

Why? She called for the non-publication of a novel; that puts the spotlight squarely on her, because that's a highly unusual position for an academic to take.

Probably because I default to a 'defer to the experts' position on something I know absolutely nothing about, but you're right in that an academic calling for a novel to not be published is unusual.

[CaptainChewbacca]

It read to me like the woman was using the Islamic community as her own weapon against a book which espouses views she disagrees with. Its no different (to me) than a professor trying to get a disputing paper censured in peer review.

She's just a bit more dishonest about it.

[hongi]

The big issue that's being lightly stepped around of course is the threat that Muslims could riot again. If it was any other group, I think Random House probably would have published the book over the professor's objections.

[Melchior]

That assesment about the literary value of the book is probably accurate, but appeasing the violent fanatica does not seem to resolve anything and even (sort of) legitimizes them.

The only person who demanded "appeasing" in this case was a Texan professor with a Jewish name. Do you really think she's a radical Muslim?

It's improbable, but I don't see how it's relevant. The cited reason for avoiding the publication is fear of motivating violence, isn'it? And someone in the publishing industry must have agreed, after all.

[General Zod]

It's improbable, but I don't see how it's relevant. The cited reason for avoiding the publication is fear of motivating violence, isn'it? And someone in the publishing industry must have agreed, after all.

A fear of motivating violence based on . . .what? If she has no ties to the Muslim community all she's doing is giving into anti-Muslim fear mongering. Pulling a book over some vague fears of violence is a horrible reason.

[Melchior]

A fear of motivating violence based on . . .what? If she has no ties to the Muslim community all she's doing is giving into anti-Muslim fear mongering. Pulling a book over some vague fears of violence is a horrible reason.

Exactly. Where did I say that I found it to be a good idea? I was saying that pre-emptive censorship was deprecable.

[Kanastrous]

The furor over The Satanic Verses probably multiplied sales exponentially. I'm surprised that Random House wants to turn down that kind of money...

[Androsphinx]

The furor over The Satanic Verses probably multiplied sales exponentially. I'm surprised that Random House wants to turn down that kind of money...

Somewhere near a hundred people were killed by mobs, bombings and arson over that book - including assassination attempts on about half a dozen publishers and translators. People are a little more cautious these days.

[Kanastrous]

IIRC the deaths were either entirely or almost-entirely among people who were doing the protesting. Assuming the I'm remembering that rightly...fuck 'em. If you're out in the street to scream and chant and burn shit in an effort to suppress a book, I'm watching and hoping you get killed, in the process.

[CaptainChewbacca]

IIRC the deaths were either entirely or almost-entirely among people who were doing the protesting. Assuming the I'm remembering that rightly...fuck 'em. If you're out in the street to scream and chant and burn shit in an effort to suppress a book, I'm watching and hoping you get killed, in the process.

For Satanic verses, actually two of the foreign-language translators of the book were stabbed to death, and a third narrowly avoided assasination.

[Androsphinx]

IIRC the deaths were either entirely or almost-entirely among people who were doing the protesting. Assuming the I'm remembering that rightly...fuck 'em. If you're out in the street to scream and chant and burn shit in an effort to suppress a book, I'm watching and hoping you get killed, in the process.

37 people were burned to death at a literary festival in Turkey by a mob after the Turkish translator (who escaped). Half a dozen bookshops were (fire) bombed in the US and UK, and as mentioned above, foreign-language publishers and translators were targeted. This is not the sort of controversy publishers encourage to boost book sales.

[Kanastrous]

Okay, I stand heavily corrected.