Sep 03, 2008
A romance novel by Sherry Jones called "The Jewel of Medina" has incited controversy since publisher Random House canceled its run. The publisher decided the novel was possibly “offensive to the Muslim community,” and could create threats of “violence by a small, radical segment.”
The book details the life of Muhammad’s wife Aisha, and depicts the prophet as a man with the accompanying spectrum of human emotions such as wrath, doubt and lust.
The novel even includes a sexual account of their wedding night: “The pain of consummation soon melted away,” reads an excerpt. “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.”
How can leisure reading be targeted as tasteless and inappropriate? Such accusations are usually reserved for racist hate speeches and inflammatory statements made by political pundits.
The first argument to pull this book because it might, or even is, offensive is a moot one because Free Speech, by definition, is exempt from external controls and sensibilities. The only real control an individual has over someone else's voice is the ability to roll their eyes and walk away. That's one of the founding principles of this country. One person's inviolable theological line is another's hopscotch court, this is not offense, this is the Freedom of Speech and Religion.
The point is, no one person's or group's rights are so absolute that they can trample on the rights of another, even if the something communicated was really, really mean. We humans are social beings after all, that have to deal with one another no matter the expressed ideology, as hard as it is sometimes. Anyone who has ever overheard a stranger's cell phone conversation can attest to this that behind the Freedom of Speech follows the Obligation to Annoy.
So if the sensitive Muslims can't handle a somewhat sensationalized work of fiction about the Prophet, I suggest they take an afternoon off, go to the movie theater and watch Hamlet 2, with special attention paid to the "Rock Me, Sexy Jesus" portion of the film, and learn how to roll their eyes.
The idea that “you can’t play with sacred history and turn it into soft core pornography,” as critic Denise Spellberg put it as she described the novel, is ludicrous.
Of course you can.
The only real control an individual has over someone else’s voice is the ability to roll their eyes and walk away.
Creative license is not an offense, it is a right – at least here in the United States.
The publishing world, not new to controversy and violence within the Muslim world, experienced a similar furor in 1988 when The Satanic Verses by Salman Rushdie was published.
The book, which recounted a part of Muhammad’s life, was seen as blasphemy, and a death sentence was imposed on the author by an Islamic spiritual leader.
We live in a serious world. While most of us boggle our collective minds wondering why some sects of the Muslim community can’t seem to get past these Danish cartoons, fictional-histories or any works of comedy that seem demonic in nature, the other parts of fundamentalist Islam which we question see these transgressions as unforgivable and thus warrant “acts of violence.”
There seems to be only two solutions for the modern world to a person who interprets their faith as belligerent and who believes it is against their religion to not chop your head off: either acquiesce to the fanatic’s way, making it illegal to write about or print pictures of Muhammad, even if you’re not Muslim – or become a better decapitator.
Random House, by giving in to the first option, is thus to blame in this treason against freedom of speech, whether or not it was technically an act of “censorship.”
Random House established a dangerous precedent for the rest of us by giving in to force and losing a portion of not only our freedom of speech but of religion as well.
Something smaller, but maybe more significant, was lost here though.
Books like these should be endorsed to no end by Muslims. Personalizing Muhammad, with all of his humanity, should be considered missionary work.
Christians know this; that to understand a saint, you must first hear the Devil's Advocate. Hopefully, the Islamic community will see this and acknowledge The Jewel of Medina not as something that separates us, but as a bridge to bring us together.
Comments (5)
-
hep_in
Freedom/freedom of speech are all bookish terms. No one enjoys them completely in the contemporary world. The mere fact that my comment could be edited/deleted/modified on this website is a very good example of the semi-freedom that people enjoy.
Writings/plays/books.. media on religious sensitivities are a hot commodity today, no matter what the religion is. Exploiting them at the expense of hurting emotions and feelings of the followers have become an effective money making process. For instance if the writer of " The Jewel of Medina" chose not to use islamic characters or locations, his work would have got very less attention or publicity that it is getting. Things get worse when the writings are based on improper religious, historical references and facts without considering the context associated with the incident/story. Random house took a sensible decision not to publish "The Jewel of Medina" as it contained certain unverified and controversial segments. (ref:http://www.randomhouse.com/rhpg/medinaletter.html). Its childish to expect no violent reaction from the radical elements of the islamic society after inciting them with unverified and inappropriate so called historical facts. I feel the real culprits for creating such kind of menace in the society are those people who in spite of having the knowledge of repercussions go head and endorse these kind of publications.
-
Accounting Student in FIU
In this day and age, we find that the best way to be rich and famous is to have any book that puts Islam and Muslims in a bad way or having something that offends Muslims. Personally, I really do not care of books of fiction. I find that these books are nothing but nonsense and that people waste their time reading made-up stories or details that are not true. But what bothers me most is how these books of fiction are taken LITERALLY. That is my main concern. This concern is also that of this book. I am glad that Random House has chosen to no longer publish the book.
Now, whether or not the person has the freedom to say what they like is okay but it comes with responsibility. You cannot just go out there and make improper and unverified statements and pass them as historical fact. If such was allowed with the freedom of speech, then we would living in a place where truth and historical fact does not exist and we base our reasoning on made up stories or facts. An example is that of the consummation. If this book was published, that would be in the minds of the general public as fact when in reality it is not rather it is in the imagination of the author.
Another thing is that of sensationalism. The fact that in order to get people to listen to you, you have to "spice up" the information that is given. I find this, if not, the worst practice that has ever existed. The fact that you gain attention and give information that is not the truth and that people read and take that understanding as fact is degrading. In the history of the United States since 1900, sensationalism and "yellow" journalism has prevailed and took place of actual truthful reporting. It not only went from reporting news but now into books, magazines, etc for the masses to also remind them of this, what I call, garbage.
I applaud Mrs. Denise Spellberg for taking up against this book because of her HISTORICAL and FACTUAL references on A'isha and her life. She did not let another book with improper historical references go into the public.
Also, you said for Muslims to go watch Hamlet 2, especially "Rock Me, Sexy Jesus," and learn how to roll our eyes. I am sure that you know that Jesus Christ is a mighty prophet in Islam and that it is an article of faith in Islam to believe in Jesus Christ. Although there are differences with the Christians, we nevertheless adore and respect Jesus Christ. If you never heard a Muslim say this then I will be the first, anything that ridicules Jesus Christ or Moses is TAKEN PERSONALLY by not only Christians and Jews but also MUSLIMS. We, as Muslims, will not only standby against the ridicule of our Prophet, by calling him wrathful, lustful, and doubtful, but also the ridicule of Jesus Christ and Moses.
-
Accounting Student in FIU
Sorry about that. I don't know why it did that.
-
Accounting Student in FIU
Nevermind to the above post.
-
Accounting Student in FIU
I have a correction to make. To adore is to revere and worship. We do not worship Jesus, Moses, or Muhammad. Sorry about that mistake.
You must be logged in to post a comment!