Add Random House Publishing House to the list of cowardly Westerners who are submitting to the threat of Islamic anger. Now the esteemed publisher has announced that they are suspending publication of a controversial novel by Sherry Jones entitled; The Jewel of Medina-a fictional account of the marriage of the Prophet Mohammed with an 11-year-old bride, Aisha. The author's Serbian publisher has also pulled the book. In the case of Random House, the decision was made upon the protest of a non-Muslim US professor. The Serbian publisher made the decision in response to the protest of a local Muslim group.
After Random House sent out advance copies of the book, they received a protest from University of Texas Professor (of Middle Eastern and Womens'Studies)Denise Spellberg, who derided the book (which I repeat, is a novel) as historically inaccurate and warned the publisher that it would incite violent reactions from Muslims. (Why is it always the professors?)
In the Serbian case, when the publisher announced that the book was being pulled, an organization called the Islamic Community of Serbia accepted the "apology" and announced that planned protests would be called off.
In her defense, Ms Jones denies any intent to portray Islam or the Prophet Mohammed in a bad light, and expressed disappointment with the decisions to pull the book.
What is disappointing is to witness another case of non-Muslims caving in to the threat of Islamic reaction, real or imagined. Random House states that they have received no protests from Muslims regarding the book. Apparently, Professor Spellberg speaks for them.
I can't speak for Serbia, but US publishers like Random House would do well to contemplate the whole issue of censorship-and self-censorship. When it comes to the history of Islam, given the present-day situation in the world with Islamic terrorism, which, many would argue, is rooted in Islamic writings, we all have an intense interest in the true nature of this religion and its implications for the rest of us in the world. If, in fact, Mohammed took an 11-year-old wife, that is a legitimate issue for our consideration. If it is historical fact, then how can we suppress it?
If Mohammed took an 11-year-old wife, are we not entitled to know of it?
10 comments:
Applying our 21st century standards to the ancient past is rather silly. Most girls back then were married off around the time they reached puberty. It is not uncommon for an 11-year-old girl to start puberty at that age. Of course this would be disgusting in our own society, but things need to be viewed in their proper historical and cultural context.
I've read that Mary was probably about 14 when she was to be married to Joseph and became pregnant with Jesus. Does this somehow invalidate or reflect poorly upon Christianity? No.
Also, here's a response from the professor:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121824366910026293.html
Apparently the book wasn't historically accurate.
A friend of mine just blogged about this as well. It's outrageous to let terrorists dictate what gets published and what doesn't. That's a very real threat to freedom.
Bryan,
Perhaps...perhaps.
But my point here is why a book on this subject must be suppressed.
That is the question.
Lance,
Spot on. Well, never mind Random House. I am writing about it.
What you need to remember is that Random House is above all else a business. They're not under any sort of legal or moral obligation to publish any book. They apparently decided that it would not be good for business to publish this book. Someone else will publish it, I'm sure.
Bryan,
Regarding the response from Spellberg, I was unable to pull it up, but I have read her comments to the Wall Street Journal.
Let us remember that the book is a novel (historical novel). So if it is not historically perfect in accuracy, that is to be expected. For example, it talks about Aisha's feeling of bliss after the initial pain on her wedding night. Who knows if that is historically accurate?
It appears that Spellberg's objections are that it is "offensive to Muslims". She then tells the WSJ that she is not engaging in censorship, but she advises that a novel should be suppressed. Why? Because it will cause a violent Muslim reaction-or because it (a novel) is historically inaccurate? If it is the latter, do we censor Newt Gingrich's historical novel on Pearl Harbor because it is historically inaccurate?
Or is it all based on Ms Spellberg's political agenda?
Bryan,
Of course Random House has the right to turn a book down-even after they reportedly paid a $100,000 advance to the author. My point is that they are acting in a cowardly manner because of the reasons they are backing out on the deal.
I have written three books. I know all about publishers rejecting books. This is a different story, however. RH buckled under to the implied threat from a non-Muslim professor of Islamic violent reaction.
Political correctness
Censorship
Fear of Islamic violence
Take your pick.
Random House should have published the book. With the Muslim backlash in countries like Pakistan and Somalia the publicity would have been priceless and sales would have gone through the roof.
This was a bad business move on their part.
Post a Comment