More censorship over religion
The Guardian has this poorly written story today:
A romantic novel about Aisha, the child bride of the prophet Muhammad, has been withdrawn because its publisher feared possible terrorist acts by Muslim extremists.
The Jewel of the Medina, a first book by Sherry Jones, 46, was to have been released on August 12 by Ballantine Books, a division of Random House. But the publishers apparently panicked after Islamic scholars objected to the work.
I call it a poorly written story because Suzanne Goldenberg doesn’t seem to have bothered to present a balanced case here, it’ll typically become a Muslim censorship story. Shahed Amanullah, who is quoted in the story, explained this side of the story in this blog post:
I believe in free speech, which means that people have the right to publish whatever they want about Islam and Muslims without fear of censorship and/or violence, but also that Muslims have the right (and responsibility) to comment vigorously on any writings about them or Islam, so long as they do not resort to the aforementioned censorship and/or violence.
It was in that spirit that I forwarded an inquiry regarding the book “Jewel of Medina” on a private email list. Unfortunately, nothing is private these days, and the mail got circulated around various lists until it reached the publisher, who promptly pulled the book. You can read all about it here at the Wall Street Journal. As was the case with “The Satanic Verses” and the Danish cartoons, the best Muslim response is civil speech in return, and that should have been the case for this book.
I’m a bit perplexed why Suzanne contacted the author of the book but couldn’t be bothered to ask Shahed his views on the subject? Hmmm.
Meanwhile, it seems its not just Muslims getting angry about religious offence: Cartoonist gets death threats over Sarkozy ‘Jew’ quip
Elsewhere, people are getting upset over who joined what Facebook group.
| Post to del.icio.us |
Filed in: Civil liberties, Current affairs, Media, Religion
Back to the old Sunny. Respect
The publisher pulled the book for fear of violence, which Islamic scholars warned them was an inevitability. Of course Muslims have as much a right to protest the publication of the book as Random House has a right to publish it, but insinuating there will be violence if the book is published for the purpose of preventing publication is utterly unacceptable. But we probably don’t disagree about that.
This article is relevant,
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121797979078815073.html
Too late to comment, but vey annoyed.
Elsewhere, people are getting upset over who joined what Facebook group.
hahahahhahahahahahahhahahaha
ha
Very funny and amusing.
The publisher pulled the book for fear of violence, which Islamic scholars warned them was an inevitability.
where?
good article. this justifiably earns the wrath of Don.
“Inevitable violence” – sounds like a warcry to me. The author must have had some inkling that what she was writing would become a passionate subject for debate, so why not engage directly with key decision makers in the Muslim community rather than run at the sight of the first set of emails? According to Amanullah’s version there doesn’t appear to be any violence threatened. Call me cynical, but at first glance it appears like a PR and marketing campaign for a book that otherwise would have probably gone unnoticed (we’re all here debating it for starters…)
And for any who reading this, no, i don’t condone violence or banning on publications. Go ahead and publish. People write, people complain. People get het up.
Shelina Zahra:
Funny that, only it really does sound like you’re insinuating an inevitably violent reaction to this book’s publication albeit in a thinly veiled (read cowardly) fashion: “Go ahead and publish it and see what happens…”
er, i’m suggesting people should write, complain and that people being people, they will probably get het up. The clue is in the words “People write, people complain. People get het up.”
I’d rather people didn’t get violent because (a) it’s wrong (b) it creates a headache for bloggers and writers who then have to deal with nonsense like yours.
[Ends]
Funny that, only it really does sound like you’re insinuating an inevitably violent reaction to this book’s publication albeit in a thinly veiled (read cowardly) fashion
A cowardly fashion? That suggests to me you think all women and Muslims must be cowards. That surely suggest you’re the son of Daniel Pipes and Robert Spencer and the devil’s spawn.
Shelina:
Why is one getting so emotional? I inferred something from your ramblings and all you had to do, if you wanted to deny it, was refute my perception and state what you were really insinuating.
Relax.
Sunny:
Who brought women into this?
Is someone adding 2 and 2 and making 5?
Nav’s right. Here’s the violent bit:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2521794/Publisher-Random-House-has-pulled-a-novel-about-Islam-over-protest-fears.html
Nav:
You can thank New Labour’s destruction of the education system for that.
Rumbold:
I don’t think that’s ample excuse for Mr Hundal’s putting words into my mouth nor do I think him young enough to have been educated under a Labour government having read some of his “work”.
Nav:
I think that there was a degree of sarcasm in Mr. Hundal’s comment at #10.
Rumbold:
I beg to differ.
In any case it would have been apt: after all, they do say that sarcasm is wit of the lowest denominator and thoroughly indicative of those who choose to use it.
“Is someone adding 2 and 2 and making 5?”
Rumbold, how dare you use outdated terms such as New Labour. Don’t you know its ZaNuLabour?
Nav – am only giving you a taste of your own medicine.
Sunny:
So you think, Sir.
Erm, ok….
And every time someone attacks freedom of speech, all Western governments remain completely silent.
http://lettersfromatory.wordpress.com
It may well be true. But if one takes cue on the Danish cartoons, it is all too easy to build up violence and incite hate and passion even if the book doesn’t warrant that wrath. All idiot villagers who will make noise, death and violence threats will not read the book – as they lack basic literary skills, but will believe anything that their unscrupulous leaders tell them to do.
Don’t forget that the whole Danish cartoons fiasco only erupted when a few Danish imans added two extra cartoons – one in which Mo. was wearing a pig’s costume, and another in which a dog was being amorous with him… the original cartoons themselves were published in Egypt a good few months before, and nobody cared about it.
“…the original cartoons themselves were published in Egypt a good few months before, and nobody cared about it.”
and that proves anything in particular?
fugstar,
yes it proves that it was not the cartoons themselves that offended, but the fact that they were published by infidels (ie a Western white group in Denmark)
Rather it indicates that there was not so much spontaneous outrage as an orchestrated use of violence to suit various agenda.
In the case of this book, the issue of violence/censorship seems to have originated with Prof. Spellberg who, having being asked to read a galley, responded by deciding it was her duty to ‘warn’ the islamic world of this threat, then inform the publisher that the book was ‘a declaration of war . . . explosive stuff . . . a national security issue.’
Mr. Amanullah, who Prof. Spellberg initially contacted (frantically sounding the alarm) seems to have taken a more sober and academically responsible approach. Alas, too late.
Given that Sherry Jones could hardly have controled these events, and that Prof. Spellberg is publishing a book of her own on Aisha, if there is an element of PR about this it might just as easily be aimed at benefitting the Spellberg book.
Actually, it is the other way around: it is considered blasphemy (e.g. depicting Mo.) if it comes from a Muslim.
It proves the thesis that all it takes for creating controversy is for a few elders and governments to make a case of it – governments are notorious for exploiting these stupid cases to divert from their failures. On its own, most of the people “affected” would not have read the book, nor would they understand why is it blasphemy.
It is amazing how Murdoch didn’t publish Patton’s book to avoid offending China and the right wing didn’t say a word. Anyone else does it and people bring up free speech?
How come the man who always harps on about free speech didn’t when it came to business and noone complained.
Whose to know that the book wasn’t crap and rather than waste money publishing it the publisher didn’t just shelve it. Or possibly they are creating a controversy to make the book sell because it is so poor.
Thus now they can say that they will publish to uphold free speech and also makes loads of money. Bonus is that they and others can blame the Muslims for not allowing free speech!
Maybe it is a business strategy to sell a book that may not be so good.
Everyone wants to talk about orchestration, but no one seems to recall the link between Daniel Pipes and the cultural editor of that Danish newspaper.
But in the end its too late to really matter.
We have a cold war looming in Eastern Europe, and we have occupation of the middle east.
One positive aspect might be that muslims are unlikely to volunteer for this chapter of the grand plan, or ever again.
A lesson learned I hope.
Am playing Islamocatchup – what with spending most of my summer in the company of cassocks and mitres – and am slightly baffled by the FB story. Radical Middle Way endorse HT but denounce Quilliam and there’s a FB row over this?? I got a notification asking me to join a group about having the Radical Middle Way Facebook account reinstated. Oy vey. As for the Jewel of Medina story, I scratch my head here. I think the Guardian printed an excerpt from the book, regarding the, ahem, consummation between Aisha and Mohammed. A nominee for the bad [literary] sex award if ever there was one.
@Sunny – we must have samosas. I am around this week and next week
@Marvin – Back to the Old Sunny. Did I miss something?
Just to clarify, I’m the first Nav who posted, but not the others.
I actually don’t think we disagree at all Sunny. I just read your article on this.