And to that quote in the headline I say, So what? It's a novel. As Diana West has pointed out, this is a dreadful book, but aside from the threats of violence, which should not have made Random House cave in, the idea that this book will give people a warped view of Islam and therefore should not be published is even worse -- giving people a warped view of Christianity never stopped Dan Brown or the publishers of The Da Vinci Code. But Islam, of course, receives special consideration that other traditions do not receive.
More on this story. "Professor's warning deters plans to publish Islam book," by Mohini Madgavkar for The Daily Texan, August 11 (thanks to the Constantinopolitan Irredentist):
Former journalist Sherry Jones wrote "The Jewel of Medina" to try to combat stereotypes about Islam."What I really strove to do with this book is to get women's voices into Islamic history," Jones said.
The novel, a work of historical fiction from the point of view of one of the Prophet Muhammad's wives, would have been published today by Random House. But scholars, including UT history associate professor Denise Spellberg, warned the publisher that the book might be offensive to the Muslim community.
The novel focuses on the early years of A'isha bint Abi Bakr's life and marriage to Muhammad as well as her role in the development of early Islam.
According to a Wall Street Jounal editorial by former reporter Asra Q. Nomani, Spellberg said the novel was poorly researched, "ugly" and "stupid." Some of its scenes, she claimed, were "soft-core pornography."
Spellberg, who wrote a scholarly work on A'isha's life, warned Random House that the novel might incite threats of violence. The publishing company decided in July not to publish the book and released its rights....
Jones has been critical of Spellberg's role in inciting the controversy.
"She's got the world debating a book no one has even read." Jones said. "If I do have threats of violence, she's done it by alerting the Muslims, by calling it soft-core porn, by saying it made fun of Islam."
Faegheh Shirazi, an associate professor in UT's Department of Middle Eastern Studies, said she understands Random House's decision not to publish the novel.
"We understand the book is not historical documentation, but it still uses the real characters of A'isha and Muhammad." Shirazi said. "It would be very tough to convince religious people that [the novel] isn't pretending to be the correct history."
Shirazi also noted that the fiction in this novel had the potential to warp attitudes about Islam for those less-informed about Islamic history.
Spellberg expressed similar concern in a recent letter to the editor of the Wall Street Journal.
"The combination of sex and violence sells novels," Spellberg said. "When combined with falsification of the Islamic past, it exploits Americans who know nothing about A'isha or her seventh-century world and counts on stirring up controversy to increase sales."...
During this whole controvery, I've wondered if this can possibly be the same Random House who published Atlas Shrugged.
'Then Donald Klopfer (Cerf’s partner) asked: “But if this is an uncompromising defense of capitalism, wouldn’t you have to clash with the Judeo-Christian tradition of ethics?” That, said Ayn Rand, “was the second touch that got them the book. . . . I had never heard anyone else, in person or in print, ever observe this. That he was that philosophical pleased me enormously. So I enthusiastically told him yes, of course it would, and that is one of the main points I’m presenting, a new morality, a moral defense of capitalism without which it can’t be defended because it does clash with the Judeo- Christian tradition. Well, that didn’t frighten him at all. It seemed to make him more interested.”'
http://www.atlasshrugged.com/book/history.html
Obviously not.
What happened to the 1st Amendment? Has anyone actually threatened to commit violence if this book is published? Have we abdicated our right to free speech because someone MIGHT commit violence if this book is published? In Stalin's Soviet Union the state would commit extreme violence if one exercised freedom of conscience by expressing it in art, music, literature, or otherwise. Is that a reason not to express it? We are doomed. Soon there will be war in the streets of Mayberry. Johnny get your gun.
Muslims don't seem to mind this book: (which does the exact same thing, albeit this one is actually offensive)
"Muslim scholar's novel angers Coptic Church"
http://www.gulfnews.com/region/Egypt/10236019.html
My contempt for the PC Dhimmi Academic Imbecile called "Denise Spellberg" knows no bounds. I mean it is way past Neptune into galaxies a hundred million light years away. And it doesn't stop there.
More evidence at how the education crowd isn't educating, they are indoctrinating. Any rational, free-thinking individual would be able to distinguish just how much drivel this book would have been. Any free-thinking individual would be able to see just how smutty islam truly is. But the left doesn't want free-thinking individuals. After all, how many truly intelligent, free-thinking people actually believe the "The Da Vinci Code"? It's like reading the book "The Right Stuff." You have to know how to separate the facts from the fiction. And unless you know how to think critically, you are easily confused. The inability to accept the facts as facts and instead replacing it with, "your truth", is where we are now. God help those of us who refuse to buy into this "intellectual" drivel in our fight for survival. Both intellectually and culturally.
As for Random House, how could this book even get past the outline stage. I mean come on, a book about the rape of a 9 year old girl, the only true aspect of the whole book(of course now we'll never truly know) and the reason for not publishing is because of the threat of violence. Puhleeez. This book should never have seen the light of day because it's a crappy story, and besides, one only need to read the Koran and it's attendant texts for the story of Aisha and women in islam.
"After all, how many truly intelligent, free-thinking people actually believe the "The Da Vinci Code" --Kevin
As Coleridge put it, that's called the reader's "willing suspension of disbelief," in exchange for entertainment.
I don't think Mohammedans or, apparently, their Apologists, accept that aesthetic theory when it comes to Islam. Everything is literal to them, as the Koran is the literal word of "God." And Allah Forbid there should be "entertainment" in regard to Islam!
No imagination whatsoever, it appears, in Mohammedanism.
Darcy,
You hit the nail right on the head. One of the many problems they have when apologists try to use the Bible against the West. They just can't seem to understand the whole concept of "Free." Such as free-thinking, free will, or a free meal of equal or lesser value of purchased meal. Sorry, couldn't resist that last one. What a pathetic way to live.
"After all, how many truly intelligent, free-thinking people actually believe the "The Da Vinci Code" --Kevin
I hate to tell you this (not a figure of speech--I truly hate what I'm about to tell you!), but a colleague at a community college where I have taught previously has the "Da Vinci Code" as a required text in her NON-fiction and critical thinking class. And no, she does not use the novel as an example of a text that does not apply critical thinking standards--just the opposite.
Sorry to get off-topic, but Dan Brown also plagiarized much of the "Code" from some French writers. There was a very enlightening article on this in Vanity Fair a couple of years ago. One of the judges in a lawsuit against Brown said it was the most egregious instance of plagiarism he'd ever seen (yet Brown still managed to win the case, amazingly--I forget all the details).
So, neither blatant academic dishonesty (plagiarism) nor a complete dearth of historical evidence have prevented this text being taught in a college-level literature course. I'm sure if this idiot author's book on Aisha were published, it would rapidly become a required text in Islamic Studies and in Women's Studies classes, regardless of what dross it is.
Maybe Random House realized that publishing a book that amounted to child porn isn't a very good idea.
Heck it could get anyone who buys it arrested by the police on the charge of buying child porn.
Remember the subject is Aisha.
In this article, Spellberg warns the publisher that the book might incite threats of violence.
Faegheh Shirazi also notes that the fiction in this novel had the potential to warp attitudes about Islam for those less-informed about Islamic history.
Warp the attitudes of Islam? How can you warp something further than portraying Islam, a religion where perceived non-physical offences are responded to by threats of and actual acts of violence, as a religion of peace?
That's warp factor 10 already, in my estimation.
Spellberg responds:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121824366910026293.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
"... 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."
Spellberg conveniently fails to name the other scholares here also, and since when did threats of violence be considered a determination of corporate interests?
As for Dan Brown giving people a warped view of Christianity thats a laugh.
If you want to get a warped view of Christianity just turn on the tv on sunday morning and watch the parade of brill creme dandies yelping about "jeebus" and guilting people into making these dandies rich.
These freaks and criminals have done more to give Christianity a bad name than anything Dawkins and militant secularists could ever do.
And the Da Vinci code, well it just tapped into a people's notion there was lot to more to Christianity that the official version promoted by various churches and their so-called scholars(read enforcers/propagandists).
kaffirchick,
I am not surprised. I saw the downward slop while in college in the early 90's. 89-92 to be exact. Yeah, I knew about his borrowing from other tomes, all of which are short on fact and long on supposition. Funny how all those authors have conveniently ignored the truth about the "Secret Documents."(I'll save everyone the trouble of spell checking the French translation.lol) So many holes, so little time to debunk them all. Anyhow, thank you for your truthful, yet painful, admission about what is going on in academia.
WaltC,
With the Supreme Court ruling that fictional child rape is okay, I think it safe to say this book could have met those legal terms set forth. While it did happen in reality, by stating it is a work of fiction, they may have met those standards. It would have been interesting to see exactly how the apologists would explain this away. Alas, we won't see it.
Before hailing Asma Q. Numani as what she so obviously thinks of herself as being, a great truth-teller, a "reformer" trying to get Muslims to "have a conversation" within Islam and "not to be afraid of debate" and so on -- the theme of her Wall Street Journal article about Sherry Jones's cancelled book, and also the theme of her appearance on NPR this afternoon -- look at how she describes, and how she is careful not to describe, Aisha. She describes her as a "young woman" in her WStJ piece, and repeats that description on NPR. Not a hint, not a syllable of a glimmer of a hint, that Aisha was not always a "young woman" but a six year old girl, playing with her toys, the daugher of one of Muhammad's closest collaborators (or "Companions") when he first espied her and decided they would make a fine match. And she was nine when, still playing with her toys and still swinging on swings, Muhammad, having demurely waited a full three years, decided to "wed" her and to have sexual intercourse with her. Asma Q. Numani does not mention this, not anywhere. Nor does she mention that Muslims are taught -- the Qur'an tells them so -- to regard Muhammad as the Model of Conduct (uswa hasana) and the Perfect Man (al-insan al-kamil). And that means that if Muhammad did it, it is right for all times and places.
And Asma Q. Numani, just a bit of a fake -- accept no substitutes once you have seen Wafa Sultan and Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Ibn Warraq and Ali Sinaand all the rest of them -- fails to connect the age of little Aisha when first she had sexual intercourse with Muhammad, with the fact of Muhammad as the Perfect Man and Model, to the first act, or virtually the first act, that Khomeini instituted when he came to power: lowering the marriageable age of girls to nine, because that was the age of little Aisha.
So she doesn't tell very much, despite all the prating about "empowsering women" in Islam, and helping them "find their voices" (she sounds like Speaker Pelosi, or a cross between a Ms. Magazine editorial meeting and a meeting of some "teachers of creative writing" smarmily discussing how to help their charges "to find their own voices," carol-gilligan style.
Don't let Numani, Asma Q., get away with it quite so fast.
Both intellectually and financially speaking, a "community" college and a regular private College are as different as night and day.
"Both intellectually and financially speaking, a "community" college and a regular private College are as different as night and day."
Darcy, I agree with you in the instance of the community college where I have previously taught. However, some community colleges are actually quite good, even here in California, where in general the standard of academic preparedness of students entering community colleges is abysmal. That doesn't mean none of the community colleges have good standards of teaching, though.
More to the point, even at the one where I used to work (and where the colleague I mentioned teaches "Code" as non-fiction), not a few of our students end up transferring to perfectly good four-year-colleges--including many to Berkeley and even a few to Stanford, Santa Clara University, and other private schools. So, the education students receive at community colleges will in many instances, I am sure, have an influence on the four-year-institutions where they transfer.
Finally, if Dan Brown's books are not being taught as serious literature at a university somewhere, much more dangerous trash certainly is--Karen Armstrong comes to mind. I was quite serious when I said that if the novel about Aisha were to be published, it would probably find its way onto the syllabi of many Islamic and Women's Studies courses--and not only at the community college level.
Well traitoress Spellberg, now that you've assigned yourself the post of editor in chief for the world, you might want to know that nobody normal gives a damn for your opinion.
Neither are you the minister of information.
Take your sniffy attitude and your treasonous rabble-rousing and stick it.
I don't care if the novel sucks. If it gets printed I'll buy 5 copies and hand them out just to spite your kind, nazi bitch.
When combined with falsification of the Islamic past"
-- from Spellberg's reported remarks
What is the "falsification"? Does it have to do with the age of little Aisha (six) when Muhammad first lays eyes on her? With her age (nine)whem Muhammad marries her and consummates the marriage?
Does it have to do with Muhammad as the Model of Conduct, uswa hasana, and Perfect Man, al-insan al-kamil, whose example, with Aisha, led the Ayatollah Khomeini in 1979 or 1980 to push through legislation reducing the marriageable age of girls to nine because of that same example?
Spellberg should tell us what, in Jones' book, is true, and what is "falsification" of the actual texts, rather than merely the "falsification" to be found, to some degree, in any work of historical fiction. We have all kinds of such works about Napoleon, Jefferson, Nicholas and Alexandra, Alexander the Great, the Roman emperors -- Caeser, Augustus, Nero, Claudius -- and others who have caught the popular imagination. Some are good, some bad, some hew closely to the truth, some are fish-wrapping material. Jesus has been a subject, and Moses, and Buddha. Why, unless we Infidels wish to impose on ourselves the rules Muslims would wish to impose on us, if they only could, should we deny someone the right to offer a book, however trashy, about Muhammad? Such things should not only be free from special fear-induced censorship, but become so ho-hum and routine that they will not be bought because of the brouhah (their authors don't deserve it), and will go as rapidly from print run to poubelle as do copies of other, similar trash.
Let the populus, that keeps confusing literal literacy with the real thing, be fed its wonted, and wanted, pabulum.
That pabulum is to be deplored, but for reasons quite other than those proffered by Associate Professor Spellberg.
Faegheh Shirazi, an associate professor in UT's Department of Middle Eastern Studies, said she understands Random House's decision not to publish the novel.
"We understand the book is not historical documentation, but it still uses the real characters of A'isha and Muhammad." Shirazi said. "It would be very tough to convince religious people that [the novel] isn't pretending to be the correct history."
..................................
Um--so? I just finished reading a novelization of the 19th century Franklin Expedition search for the Northwest Passage. All the characters were historical figures. For the most part, it was quite a gripping read, and quite historically accurate in parts, but then it veered into conjecture and fantasy.
I'm sure there are a few people who have taken the book quite literally, but that is not the fault of an author or publisher, as long as it is made clear that it is a work of fiction.
Random House also published "The Da Vinci Code", which was historically inacurate and quite offensive to Christians, especially Catholics. The publishing house was fine with this, and made a bundle from it. Certainly, a lot of idiots have taken this very seriously--after it was published, there were, for a time, at least--more visitors to the Louvre asking about the "Da Vinci Code" than about great art.
Now, "The Jewel of Medina" does sound pretty cheesy, but many romance novels are. Random House--a major publisher--has set a dangerous precedent here.
Viking showed more spine in publishing Rushdie's "Satanic Verses". I hope Random House does not exemplify the new attitude to publishing anything that Muslims might find controversial--immediate craven dhimmitude.
I have a much better idea for a cheesy romance that plays somewhat fast and loose with history.
There is a legend - only a legend, alas - that the famous Thomas A Becket, Archbishop of Canterbury (d. 1170) saint and martyr, was the son of - wait for it - a Saracen woman who had fallen in love with his crusading father and, forsaking all for love, followed her handsome Crusader all the way to his home in England.
It is, of course, a complete fiction. But, suitably embroidered, it would make a fun novel and a thumping good film - and although Thomas a Becket was certainly not the son of a Saracen woman converted to Christianity for love, at least one chronicler of the Latin Crusader kingdoms did note that the knights had married not only local Christian women, but also "Saracens who have received the grace of baptism", so it appears that the legend of St Thomas's mother may have been inspired by stories of REAL Levantine Muslimahs who had 'voted with their feet' - first into the font, then into the marriage bed.
One could use this background information, and the legend, to drive home quite a few facts that are still pertinent today: the differences between Christianity and Islam, even in the 11th and 12th centuries, especially as regards marriage and treatment of women; the reality of the Crusades - Christendom's defensive action in response to centuries of Jihad offensive; and what sharia says about a. apostasy and b. Muslim women marrying non-Muslim men.