Here’s an interesting—and disturbing—piece from The Wall St. Journal. It’s a commentary, by a Muslim, incidentally, about how the publication of a novel about Aisha, wife of the Prophet, was suppressed by the publisher because of its stated fears of violence against it. Most of the disturbance seems to have come from people who haven’t read the book, even in galley form, but who fear the worst. Definitely worth reading.
You Still Can’t Write About Muhammad
ASRA Q. NOMANIStarting in 2002, Spokane, Wash., journalist Sherry Jones toiled weekends on a racy historical novel about Aisha, the young wife of the prophet Muhammad. Ms. Jones learned Arabic, studied scholarly works about Aisha’s life, and came to admire her protagonist as a woman of courage. When Random House bought her novel last year in a $100,000, two-book deal, she was ecstatic. This past spring, she began plans for an eight-city book tour after the Aug. 12 publication date of “The Jewel of Medina” — a tale of lust, love and intrigue in the prophet’s harem.
It’s not going to happen: In May, Random House abruptly called off publication of the book. The series of events that torpedoed this novel are a window into how quickly fear stunts intelligent discourse about the Muslim world.
Random House feared the book would become a new “Satanic Verses,” the Salman Rushdie novel of 1988 that led to death threats, riots and the murder of the book’s Japanese translator, among other horrors. In an interview about Ms. Jones’s novel, 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.”
…
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
August:06:2008 - 10:02
Literature moves civilizations forward, and Islam is no exception.
No terror campaign has been more effective than that of Islamic militants targeting publishers. There doesn’t seem to be any push among Muslims to change that.
August:06:2008 - 10:02
Fear of being called a ‘bad Muslim’ will do it every time.
August:06:2008 - 10:02
Sounds like the radicals have a resounding victory here. I hope Random House reconsiders this decision, it just sends the wrong message. I think we are halfway through dealing with this problem. In my opinion we need more publishers to accept the challenge of publishing these books and this situation will be a thing of the past in a couple of years. The radicals will only get worse if they see results.
August:06:2008 - 10:02
I liked ms Nomani’s report very much.
I think it’s stupid and cowardly not to publish the book. Apparently on the daft exagarrated sensitivity of one person.
On the other hand, muslim nutters being what they are at the moment, widespread death, destruction and mayhem would likely be the result of publishing it.
August:06:2008 - 10:02
I agree that we may see some more riots. In my opinion so what. Countries that have violent protectors just need to deal with it that is what riot police is for. It will eventually pass and we move on. However, the impact of self censorship will be with us the long term. The radicals will eventually learn that their violence only hurts them.
I really think we will not see as sharp of a protest as we saw with the cartoons and with each publication the severity of the riots will get less and less.
August:06:2008 - 10:02
I am not a fan of Nomani. It is clear that she has a personal agenda and doesnt really have any practical knowledge about the religion of Islam or it’s history.
Either way, I support anyone’s right to say whatever they want. Islam can stand just fine on it’s own feet. People who support the ban on critical works on Islam are those who secretly think Islam cannot stand the attacks.
August:06:2008 - 10:02
I agree: publish and to hell with the consequenses!
August:06:2008 - 10:02
Another perspective:
http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/2225
August:06:2008 - 10:02
[...] Washington Post has a good article on the brouhaha surrounding the publishing (or not) of a novel about the Prophet Mohammed and his young wife Aisha. [...]
August:06:2008 - 10:02
I find the comments interesting, since they seem to ask the superficial questions and not the fundamental.
Where is ‘freedom of speech’ when it comes to calls to ban the Quran, like in Europe? Where is ‘freedom of speech’ when it comes to glorification (not material action, No, glorification)a political driven agenda? Where is ‘freedom of speech’ when it comes to insulting others? All of these either carried support amongst political circles or there is legislation which punishes people for their views. A Muslim women in UK was arrested for writing a poem, where is ‘freedom of speech’?
Muslims at large are not adverse to discussions on controversial topics in Islam, however every people hold certain matters dear to their hearts i.e. Diana died, the nation came to a halt, people die in car crashes everyday, why Diana, because people held her close to their hearts. In America it is not permitted in some states to wear boxer shorts with the US flag, why? because people hold it close to their hearts.
In the same way Muslims hold Islam close to their hearts, what civilized society can argue that insulting people is progress through an Idea ‘freedom of speech’ that is legislated against in one area and branded about in another.
Is insulting one’s mother, daughter, sister, father, brother etc acceptable? If yes, is that civilized? If no, then ask the fundamental question, is it not a superficial criteria to brand about ‘freedom of speech’, when in reality it is freedom to insult?
Finally, if someone wants to start a healthy discourse, it should begin with respect and questions to understand, not insult someone and then brand about a superficial ideal to justify it.
Why are comments calling the publishing which refused to publish the article? what about their freedom to choose not to and others respecting their views instead making negative comments against them in the name of ‘freedom of speech’, don’t know if the contradiction has hit home?
August:06:2008 - 10:02
Jamil: Thanks for your comment.
I’ll start by correcting something your said. It is not against the law–though it is considered disrespectful–to wear an American flag as boxer shorts. There may well be laws on the books in various states about how the flag is to be treated, but those laws have been overruled by decisions by the US Supreme Court, over decades, that protect disrespecting the flag as an act of free speech.
Disagreeable, even offensive speech is largely protected. What is not protected is libeling or slandering an individual with false speech, and even there, it depends on whether the person being slandered is a public figure. There are also laws that prohibit the incitement to violence. The incitement has to be direct, however. Also prohibited and punishable are what are considered ‘fighting words’, i.e., directly issuing a grave insult to a person’s face.
No law–correctly, in my view–prohibits defaming any religion, any culture.
Insults, as you point out, are not a smart way to start a meaningful discussion. That is non-utilitarian, but not illegal. There is no recognized right of ‘not being insulted’. Instead, we try to grow thicker skins and to argue in the contrary. As US courts have noted, the answer to bad speech is more speech, not less.
The sword cuts both ways, though. Americans, among many Westerners, consider it a grave insult when someone or some group tries to make illegal that which their constitutions permit. Even more offensive is the use of violence to try to get someone to stop saying something offensive.
Things like the Danish cartoons were certainly offensive. According to the paper that first published them, the point of publication was not to be offensive, but to point out that democratic values of free speech were being voluntarily deprecated due to threats of violence. That, in and of itself, was anti-democratic.
August:06:2008 - 10:02
Also prohibited and punishable are what are considered ‘fighting words’, i.e., directly issuing a grave insult to a person’s face.
“Tellingly, despite continued reaffirmation of the fighting-words doctrine, the Supreme Court has declined to uphold any convictions for fighting words since Chaplinsky.[1942]” - Actually the Supremes have mostly changed their minds to decide that “fighting words” are of value, as the linked article describes.
August:06:2008 - 10:02
Agreed. Even the ‘fighting words exception’ to freedom of speech is extremely limited, narrow, and not favored contemporarily.
August:06:2008 - 10:02
“It takes confidence as well as a sense of humor to give and take unlimited abuse…a gang of drunken farmers had come to town and sang rude songs outside their enemies’ windows. The Athenians laughed so much that they asked them to come again next year - so comedy was born.”
- W. G. Forest, Professor of Ancient History, Oxford.