Sherry Jones Has The Right To Offend Me

By now those of you with your ears to the ground will have heard the following: publication of The Jewel of Medina, a historical novel by Sherry Jones, has been indefinitely postponed by its publisher, Random House. The reason? The novel, which chronicles the life of Aisha, a wife of the Prophet Muhammad, could provoke violent backlash from conservative Muslims. One excerpt, in which Aisha recalls her first sexual encounter with Muhammad, has been making its way around the internet, and has become the subject of much debate.

There is a fundamental misunderstanding between secular people and people of faith about religious figures. It boils down to this: to a person of faith, reading about the private lives of religious figures is like reading about the private lives of your parents. Even if there’s only one sex scene, done in the most tasteful manner imaginable, it’s still a sex scene about your parents. No one in their right mind wants to see that. True to form, I read the excerpt and wanted to call my therapist. Faith is irrational. That is part of its beauty, but also part of what makes it dangerous.

Yes, I was offended. By a single paragraph of an unpublished book. Even though it was clear the author did not intend to be offensive, and had in fact attempted to handle the subject in a delicate manner. (Albeit with some rather purple language.) But that doesn’t matter. Sherry Jones has the right to speak her mind whether I am offended or not. She has the right to be published whether I am offended or not. The true measure of our moral courage is whether we defend the art we can’t stand with the same vigor with which we defend the art we love. So I am willing to go to bat for this.

There is another reason I feel this particular book is worth fighting for: The Jewel might be purple, but it is not hate speech. That much is also immediately clear. During the Danish cartoon fiasco I said I refused to defend hate speech as free speech, even though I realize the two cannot be uncoupled. I said I wished someone would write a provocative but genuinely exploratory book about the life of the Prophet Muhammad, so we could at least have a conversation about real ideas. Well, here we are.

The refusal to publish The Jewel of Medina cedes valuable ground to the fundamentalists. Is there a danger of violence if it is published? Yes, I’m afraid there probably is. But Sherry Jones wants her rights back, and I want my religion back. We’ve all got skin in the game now. At some point, we’re going to have to act like it.

I don’t really know much about this book. I’ve read some articles criticizing it as being historically innacurate and exploitative, but I can’t say anything for sure as I haven’t read it myself.

I think, though, regardless of how offensive a book such as this might be, there is a greater issue at stake here: will Muslims ever be able to respond rationally to offensive material published against Islam? Yes, I know many Muslims can do this, but in my view perhaps not enough. As much as the Danish cartoons were offensive, I think the violent reactions of many Muslims were a greater offense to the Prophet than the cartoons themselves. Some cartoons depicted him as a terrorist, and some Muslims tried to defend his reputation by attacking embassies? WOW! Yes, THAT will convince the West Islam is peaceful. Although the violent ones were a minority, I think the issue brough far too much irrational anger out of everyone, especially as Muslims are facing issues far graver than cartoons.
Now, as I said, attacks against Islam do offend me, but I believe strongly that ultimately it is better for Islam when Muslims respond with calm and well-reasoned arguments to attacks against the faith, rather than with anger and violence, or calls for censoring.  This will truly indicate that we are secure in our faith, and present us as an example to follow.

I agree.

I agree Willow.  But I gotta say, from the snippets I read the writing looked awful.  I think they made a mistake accepting the book in the first place.  And that makes me wonder if the publisher wasn’t hoping to capitalize on the very offensiveness that has now got people ruffled.

Several people have raised that possibility with me...it’s interesting to consider, certainly.

Thanks for stopping by, btw. You do know I went to high school with your sister? Or did you get here via the religiosphere? If so, hi, I went to high school with your sister.

It is true.  I attended a very, very liberal college.  The kind with tacky Marx quotes on the walls from first year Philosophy students trying their hand at “anarchism.” At any rate, it was a tiny school and at one point someone had left some hateful messages about Muslim women in the mail center.  People who I had seen raise the flag of openess for years suddenly turned blood red and craved that someones head be brought to their steps NOW.  I, however, defended the messenger.  If we are going to be open, we cannot stop at ideas that alot, me included, concede as barbarous.  We can embrace them, hopefully begin a dialogue and understand where the other is coming from.  Granted, I am sure it is from a scared, fearful place.  But, nonetheless, they have just as much right to claim these outlandish ideas as I do my own ideas. After all, this is not about freedom of speech as it is actually about dogmatism and fundamentalism - whatever the religion.  By the way, I despise that the word “fundamental” has taken on such a lurid, derisive character.  Ah well.  So goes another word.

Hmm, I don’t know. I don’t like hate speech, especially hate speech delivered in such a threatening way (in a mail room, where presumably lots of people come and go...what’s next, a mail bomb? The implication is there.)

This book is not critical of Muslims or Islam. That’s part of my point...there must be a distinction made between it and racist, violence-promoting tripe like the Danish cartoons. They are different in spirit and different in intent.

I see your point.  I guess I should have made my point more salient.  What I was getting at is the declaration of what is, or is not, hate speech is a fine line.  Perhaps this person saw it as some joke, although one in poor taste.  They could have seen it as just a funny epithet.  My point is: Why?  Why would they write it and why should we be offended?  If I really enjoy lima beans should I be angry if a person goes on a really long tirade about how they hate lima beans?  Now, if they want to kill all people that eat them, sure we have an issue, but otherwise...I just dont see the offense.  But then again, perhaps that is my own ignorance and naivete.  I dont know.

PS:  Air #1 was a great read.  I tracked your website down because of your essay in the back about writing.  It made me smile

Thanks, Kevin--very glad you liked AIR #1. We’re just getting started. : )

I am just writing to let you know that according to the Christian Bible Book of Revelation’s prophecy, there will appear two false prophets called the “First Beast” and the “Second Beast” respectively who were going to deceive the whole world and mark the people with their 666 mark. Now the said mark is the “NAME” of the Beast or the number of their names (i.e., =666). Now try to count the number of the name of MUHAMMAD and JESUS using the following formula: A=9, B=18, C=27, D=36, E=45, F=54, G=63, ... and so on and so forth up to Z=234 (multiple of 9) and you will realize that it was MUHAMMAD and Jesus who were having this 666 number which represents the BEAST or the False Prophet!

Pls. pass this letter of warning to your family and to all the people.

With all due respect…

Concern Human

I got here originally via Rickshaw Diaries I think, and immediately knew who you were—the Willow I have heard of for twenty years or so.  Funny, I don’t think we ever met. 

best,
Priscilla

the da vinci code???????
rings a bell?