shahed
-
12:22:45 pm on August 6, 2008 | # | |
No good deed goes unpunished. 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.
-
Tag this post
Comments
Join the Discussion
Muse 1:16 pm on August 6, 2008 | #
I agree that the book should have been published, so we could ridicule it for the absolute trash that it is. But from the quality of the writing (based on the quoted passage), it looks like it would have been published solely for the subject and not because its “literature” as Nomani laughably calls it.
I just read the Last Temptation of Christ and throughout it was wondering whether a comparable book of true literature (which displays the same reverence, respect, panache) has been written about the Prophet (pbuh). This thing doesnt even come close.
aziz 1:57 pm on August 6, 2008 | #
I agree, Muse. Free speech issues aside, the only reason the book was going to be published at all was for the frisson of sensationalist historical porn.
Still, the story doesnt make sense. Was the reason the book was pulled? Certainly not because of the internet forum postings, which are mentioned in the WSJ story but not linked to other events. Was it because of Spellberg’s phone call threatening litigation? Why did Spellberg raise the specter of violence when there was a much more solid argument about the novel being a pile of garbage?
I am inclined to think that Random House was looking at a PR nightmare, and decided ot invoke violent threat as an excuse to dump the book. Publishing it would certainly have raised protest by muslims, but unlike the Danish cartoons we American musliMy suspicion is that Random House saw the writing on teh wall, and decided to use “rioting muzzie fanatics” as their bogeyman to avoid any legal issues with the author or her contract.
Sunny 5:24 pm on August 6, 2008 | #
If you haven’t read it, how can you say with confidence its trash?
But you’re assuming that was the main thrust of the book, without actually knowing what was in it… going by what professor said annoyed her about about the book. How do you know its soft porn?
I’m just saying you guys are rushing to conclusions as quickly as the mullahs, except they are unlikly to take such liberal stances. What would you do then?
aziz 5:46 pm on August 6, 2008 | #
We haven’t read the book, but we have read the excerpt, and that was probably illustrative. There’s also the description of the book by the author which is pretty suggestive.
Yes it’s true that its possible that the book is not well represented by that single passage, but its unlikely.
Willow 6:33 pm on August 6, 2008 | #
Oh come on, Sunny. “I didn’t even feel the scorpion’s sting”? Unless you consider Dungeons and Dragons great literature, I don’t think ‘trashy’ is a stretch. What gets me about these Tits and Sand books is that they probably would never be published by reputable houses unless they had a racy religious hook. Would we be having this conversation if ‘Muhammad’ was replaced by ‘Second Rotund Pasha from the Left’? I think not. It’d be a Harlequin novel with a bodice-ripping scene on the cover, and no one would ever hear about it.
Willow 6:34 pm on August 6, 2008 | #
And as a side note, Shahed, I think you should write a rebuttal and send it to the WSJ. Your reputation has been drawn into this and if your actions are misconstrued it could mean a bad scene.
Willow 6:42 pm on August 6, 2008 | #
PPS–And should I ever call you in hysterics raving about a book that spells The End of Islam, you have my permission to ignore me for the health of the community.
ReignForrest 6:49 pm on August 11, 2008 | #
It is rumored that few people who invoked fatwa against Rushdie had actually read ‘Verses. Condemnation of The Jewel of Medina’s literary merit based on a solitary sentence about the scorpian’s sting seems similar to me. I for one would beg/plead/grovel for a few more words before being asked to judge an entire novel.
Unless, of course, I was in awe of its principal subject and couldn’t stand any mention of it except in predefined terms.
Willow 8:43 pm on August 11, 2008 | #
We’re commenting on sloppy language, not reverence. If you picked up a book and the first sentence you read was “My throat emitted a yell” you probably wouldn’t need to read the rest to know it was stylistically poor. And that’s exactly the problem–I for one would beg/plead/grovel to be allowed an opinion, even though I am an intellectually pathetic Muslim. Unless, of course, I was so in awe of anything controversial that I felt compelled to call it good even if it sucked.
Again, if you read that sentence and it was *not* about Muhammad, would you have been compelled to comment here? (Or is it your regular practice to run around the web defending poorly executed erotica?) For once I wish the hall monitors would examine their own motives before they rushed to call ours into question.
No one here has suggested this book should be censored, btw, or its author threatened. On the contrary, we’re all rooting for it to be published so it can be critiqued like any other book.
aziz 6:20 am on August 12, 2008 | #
ReignForrest, It’s disturbing to me that death fatwas against Rushdie seem “similar” to you as people assessing a book on the basis of its actual content. One sentence is not the sum total of our judgement; it’s also the nonsensical puffery spouted by the book’s author, and also factoring the expert opinion of actual scholars like Spellberg into account.
Jeff 9:03 am on August 12, 2008 | #
I wonder if the readers saw Mick Hume’s piece in The Times dated 12 August.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/mick_hume/article4509698.ece?Submitted=true
Note how Hume choses to be economic when it comes to
why Professor Spellberg was approached by the publisher and why she thought the book will not serve
a good purpose.
On Sherry Ms. Jones request Random House sent the book to Denise Spellberg, an associate professor of Islamic history at the University of Texas in Austin. Jones knew of Dr. Spellberg’s book, “Politics, Gender, and the Islamic Past: The Legacy of ‘A’isha Bint Abi Bakr.”
But Dr. Spellberg thinks the novel “made fun of Muslims and their history.” In an interview, Ms. Spellberg told me the novel is a “very ugly, stupid piece of work.” The novel, for example, includes a scene on the night when Muhammad consummated his marriage with Aisha: “the pain of consummation soon melted away. 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.” Says Dr. Spellberg: “I walked through a metal detector to see ‘Last Temptation of Christ,’” the controversial 1980s film adaptation of a novel that depicted a relationship between Jesus and Mary Magdalene. “I don’t have a problem with historical fiction. I do have a problem with the deliberate misinterpretation of history. You can’t play with a sacred history and turn it into soft core pornography.”
Willow 11:13 am on August 12, 2008 | #
I think he was pretty much on target. To that I would add that self-censorship and manufactured controversy add to a facet of western culture we don’t like to talk about–the cult of the living martyr. Rushdie is a prime example of this, although he has my sympathy for having been put through that terrible ordeal. As soon as you write something that is decried by a religious order, you can do no wrong. You are elevated to sainthood. No one can criticize your books. You get awards just for being yourself. You can produce crap of no literary merit whatsoever and get gold stars and adoration from everyone.
We worship the controversial with at least as much fervor as we worship the sacred. With an equal amount of inanity and thought-policing. When this book is published–which it will be–it will become a bestseller. It will be lauded and praised. Unless someone has the guts to stand up and point out that the emperor has no clothes.
aziz 1:08 pm on August 12, 2008 | #
spot on, Willow. well said. Zealots of religion insist that the sacred is sacred; zealots of secularism insist that the profane is sacred. Normal people of faith and defenders of free speech alike (and theres non-negligible overlap) are left in the cold wondering why the only choices appear to be insult or riot.
ReignForrest 1:39 pm on August 12, 2008 | #
Willow, you say, “…we’re all rooting for it to be published so it can be critiqued like any other book.”
I’m relieved; I’m not asking for much more.
And you say, “…if you read that sentence and it was *not* about Muhammad, would you have been compelled to comment here?”
My answer is “Probably not.” But this is only because I chafe at conservative reactions to portrayals of their religious icons in unreligious terms — human, vengeful, proud, lustful, even pornographic, if you will. That applies not just to Muhammad, but to Christ, Buddha, Zarathustra, Krishna, &c.
I don’t need my historical novel to be factual — I want it to take me on flights of imagination based on a core thread of history. This is why The Enchantress of Venice works for me. Is the Enchantress an attack on Akbar’s reputation? Or are such flights deplorable only when religious icons are their target?
If you think Rushdie’s writing is admired largely because it was “decried by a religious order”, then that would reinforce my prejudice that reverence clouds secular thought — including judgment about literary merit.
Willow 2:25 pm on August 12, 2008 | #
I read Satanic Verses about a year before I converted, when I would have loved a reason not to become a Muslim. (Because really, I can think of better things to do with my day than defend my humanity to armchair crusaders.) I was totally prepared to let Rushdie convince me that Islam was a waste of time. This was for a Qur’an in Literature class, population 16 white non-Muslim Americans and two or three Pakistanis. We were all, to a (wo)man, shocked by how mediocre it was. After all the hype the book got, I think everyone was expecting to read a life-changing piece of literature. I know I was. When Rushdie sticks to what he knows best–the tense and often humiliating way wires get crossed in the transit between east and west–his work is amazing. The bits of Verses about racism, immigration and culture shock are, I think, far better observed and more valuable than the bits about Islam, which are dense, condescending, and trite.
Hanif Kureishi, on the other hand, writes novels that *really* stick it to Muslims, and I love his stuff. It’s funny and bitter and human. He’s not a snob. He never talks down to the reader. The Black Album is far more cynical about Islam than the Verses, and it’s one of my favorite books.
Really, seriously, there is more to this conversation than you assume. You seem to be looking for reasons to reinforce your admitted prejudices. I’m afraid you probably won’t find those here, however.
Can I ask you a question? What is it you find edifying about Rushdie? Why do you enjoy his work?
muhammad mushtaq 4:06 pm on August 12, 2008 | #
i read enchantress of florence.
it sucks. dont read it.
ReignForrest 6:29 pm on August 12, 2008 | #
Willow, we’re likely to walk away from this encounter strengthened in our prejudices, but here’s my final salvo nonetheless.
I’m ill-equipped to adequately answer your “Why do you like Rushdie?” other than to say my reasons aren’t any different from those of his more eloquent fans — and to point to his intellectual energy, imagination and style.
And my self-image does NOT include “looking for reasons to reinforce my prejudices”. But if I find evidence of a held position (which I described self-deprecatorily as a prejuduce) I won’t overlook it in the name of PC-ness either. But neither does my ego prevent me from accepting evidence contrary to my working hypothesis.
I do see oh so many instances of people with Muslim names (from which I presume they’re Muslim) summarily dissing books of un- or anti-Islamic people like Rushdie that, as I say, it fortifies my belief that their religion blinds them. And I’m not talking of only Verses, but all the others, too. Muhammad Mushtaq’s reaction, above, is typical (”It sucks; don’t read it.”). Just as strongly as you feel Rushdie is idolized out of sympathy, or “for standing up to Islamic fundamentalism”, or some such, I feel just as strongly that if you’re a devout Muslim, you’re unable to evaluate Rushdie as a writer. (If you’re a devout Christian, you’re unable to evaluate anything Dawkins or Hitchens may write — even if it’s not about religion.)
I’m a devout atheist; so don’t trust my critique of the Quran. Or the Bible. Or the Geeta.
Oops; sorry — we’re not supposed to critique those books!
thabet 10:16 pm on August 12, 2008 | #
Rushdie is a sell out.
He has stopped talking about racism, global inequality, etc.
aziz 6:18 am on August 13, 2008 | #
RF, your stated goal - of challenging your own preconceptions - is admirable. However, one of those preconceptions is that people of faith are unable to make that challenge, because of their faith. Its easy - and lazy - for you to simply dismiss a critique of Rshdie’s work by muslims who have read him, on the basis of the supposed biases. You’d do well to take your own advice.
MM, cool down, and keep the profanity and personal insults out.
aziz 6:22 am on August 13, 2008 | #
RF, MM’s comment to the effect of “it sucks, don’t read it” is an editorial comment no different from Siskel and Ebert’s Thumbs up/down or anything in the NYTRB. Binded by your condescension towards MM because of his faith, you simply assume that the reason MM thouhgt it sucked was because it was offensive to him on a religious basis somehow. Or, that MM is offended by Rushhdie himself and that offense carries over to Rushdie’s other works. Surely you see the flaw here in your thinking - you’ve reduced MM to precisely the caricature that you accuse him of reducing Rushdie to!
Sy 10:06 am on August 13, 2008 | #
A Qur’an in Lit class? Sounds pretty interesting, what school was that offered at?
And RF, the last part of your last comment is bogus and poorly conceived: we could be making all manner of stupid presumptions (atheists are unable to critique Hirsi Ali/Harris properly, liberals unable to critique Franken, or even the absurd one you point to: atheists unable to critique the Qur’an).
Willow 10:18 am on August 13, 2008 | #
It was interesting, although I was disappointed it didn’t push the envelope more. (I thought it was going to be the Qur’an AS Literature, which would have been really interesting.) This was at Boston University. However, the Professor who originally taught the course, Shakir Mustafa, is now at another school, so I’m not sure it’s still offered.
VICTORIA 10:56 am on August 13, 2008 | #
I read Midnight’s Children it must be 20 years ago- then Satanic Verses, The Jaguar’s Smile and then Ground Beneath her Feet-
The first 3 were engaging enough to keep me reading, but not interesting enough for me to remember- but to me the death knell of any work is boredom, derivative content and predictability.
Rushdie is no Nikos Kazantzakis (author of The Last Temptation of Christ among many others and the Poet Laureate of Greece) and Nikos explored christian spirituality from many different levels- his work can stand alone and in time, his characters deepen and learn and evolve from their experiences- (his portrayal of St. Francis is my favorite one, and many have tried).
In any work, literature, music, movies- I need to have some degree of empathy for the characters- some trait to insert myself into the story- whne characters have a rich inner dialogue and show some movement in their development- even if it is negative movement- I am compelled to fidn out why and finsih the story,the more selfish and shallow the motives of the characters- the less I find to hold my interest. And when I recognize plotlines and stories built from other sources- I can’t take it anymore.
But my compulsive nature compels me to finish every book I start- so that I can know WHY it bores me.
I found Rushdie stayed locked in his own ego which prevents him form fleshing out fully formed protaganists that don’t resemble him in some way.
By the time i got to Gorund Beneath her Feet- it was a real struggle to finish, and the ending was so predictable and rushed to an inexorable conclusion- that I was speedreading to get to it’s numbing end.
The funny thing about that character was her overwhelming need to be the center of attention and her extreme drive for fame and adulation.
Again the author injected his own drives and motives into the heroine, and frankly, I’m kind of repulsed by the shallowness and childishness of it.
Ostensibly, it was an Orpheus knockoff- but the most important part of the Orpheus myth, the redemptive power of strong love- was completely missing.
I need more than just a description of a series of events- to feel involved and entertained.
A good writer gets more interesting, not less- as in the case of Kazantzakis, and takes us on his or her journey- in Rushdie’s case I wanted to get out of the car at the next rest stop.
Willow 11:02 am on August 13, 2008 | #
I really must read Kazantzakis. I’ve never gotten around to his books, although both Temptation and Zorba the Greek came highly recommended to me…
VICTORIA 11:30 am on August 13, 2008 | #
I forgot about Zorba- by the way- I found this site on altmuslim where your comment is pointed out Wilow- also I stole your bodice-ripper comment and posted it here-
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/islamsadvance/2008/08/censoring_islam.html
(I forgot to put my name in and it showed up as anonymous- but I corrected that in the following post)
I’d LOVE to see your comments there Willow!
Willow 11:57 am on August 13, 2008 | #
God, I’m not sure I have the guts to wade into that kind of throw-down. So many commenters on the mainstream news blogs have made up their minds about Everything and just want to scream at people. Good for you for getting into it, though.
Where’s the AltMuslim reference? I looked at Shahed’s article on the subject but didn’t see one.
VICTORIA 12:02 pm on August 13, 2008 | #
On the righthand side, there are 4 boxes- yellow, green, pink then black- in the lower right hand corner 3rd up (which may change)from the bottom under ISLAM NEWS via TALK ISLAM
aziz 12:49 pm on August 13, 2008 | #
yeah - Shahed has kindly embedded the Talk Islam main feed at altmuslim. It replaces the Carnival of Brass feed that used to be there, which I am in the process of phasing out (and will have more details about in due course, ince certain administrative matters regarding my blog are sorted out…)
ReignForrest 7:05 pm on August 13, 2008 | #
Here’s Asra Nomani’s interview with Neal Conan on National Public Radio which strikes me to be precisely how I feel about the story. I’d be interested to know what the denizens of this blog make of it.
Muhammad Mushtaq, I want to sincerely thank you for adding to my language. “Sucking crow cock” was new to me – and inventive! Actually, so was “sucking ass”. “Suck” in “He sucks”, despite the apparent intransitivity of the construction, implies an appendage in the FRONT. You’ve kind of taken it in the BACK in “sucking ass”. Perhaps a preoccupation?
My thanks are genuine, but the slight attempt at sarcasm is for the purpose of eliciting a few more energetic expressions. Go ahead; there’s no censorship here and anonymity is guaranteed, so your nastiness won’t shame you as in a face-to-face conversation.
Sy 10:56 pm on August 13, 2008 | #
Admittedly, I am going off her WashPo OF and WSJ opeds and not her interview, but I am going to assume they are more or less the same, which is to say not really at odds with anything the vast majority of the frequenters of this board have been saying. I don’t really see where Nomani makes any statement as to any potential literary merit to the book, she only makes statements to the effect of the necessity of its being published, which at least willow, aziz, and shahed (and I) agree is?/was the right thing to have done. Where I/we may disagree with her and each other is potential ability to “enrich” or “advance” Islam as she claims this work might do; not that other works could not.
VICTORIA 12:29 am on August 14, 2008 | #
All that I know of this writer or her book is the short paragraph circulating-
I wasn’t born around or trained with a love for the Prophet(pbuh). It was a thing that grew and was cultivated by becoming familar with his story, and actions related through ahadeeth and some Qur’an- and people too, but mostly reading.
His life and responses answered so many questions and experiences about injustice for me- the differences between men and women- we really do think differently in many ways- protecting the weak, which I have certainly been and took pacifism to an extreme in my life- small aspects of social interaction which translate into larger interactions- from individuals to societies- finding a balance between the needs of the individual against the needs of the holistic society-
So- to see our Rasul portrayed in yet another indelicate and maybe degrading light- seems to perpetuate the “your prophet is a pedophile womanizer driven mad by lust” propganda which so permeates America- a sentiment driven by the basest and ugliest of motives- pure prejudice and fear-
I don’t know what this woman’s book contained- but I do know that when I research historical figures- especially religious ones with whom so many have an emotional attachment to- I take extra care to be sensitive to those who love said figure-
I realize that my reaction may be motivated by some emotions too- but they are good emotions, valuable and loving ones- with a desire to see justice and truth- just as I would feel for myself or a family memeber or loved one-
And it would hurt some to see a loved one maligned-
Just because a reaction has some emotional attachment behind it doesn’t mean it is not worthy of consideration.
And just as I would speak for any person I felt unfairly represented- even a stranger- how much more should I speak for and supporting of one whose legacy deserves better treatment.
Personally- let the lady write her book- and I will be better equipped to support, or critique it, as it deserves.
VICTORIA 12:38 am on August 14, 2008 | #
If the book is, as Ms. Nomani contends- an account that tells the story of Aisha in an empowering and positive way- that is wonderful. But Aisha loved Muhammad(pbuh), was an adult when she married- and it is unlikely that Aisha herself would be pleased with such a characterization.
historylover 2:56 am on August 14, 2008 | #
Well said Victoria !!!
I too admit I find it extremely difficult to maintain a non emotional ‘rational’ stand on the Prophet (SAW).
aziz 5:21 am on August 14, 2008 | #
yes. surprising that in all of this, the basic flawed assertion goes unchallenged. I shoud do a post on this…
VICTORIA 1:10 pm on August 14, 2008 | #
That would be nice.