Blogs

Neill Denny

Neill Denny is editor-in-chief of The Bookseller. He will be blogging on the book business and on how the print magazine is produced each week.

The Jewel of Medina hangs in the balance

02.10.08

As we write this, Martin Rynja is pondering a crucial and highly-charged decision: whether to go ahead and  publish The Jewel of Medina or not.

He has a reputation for publishing books of which others are wary: House of Bush, House of Saud and Blowing up Russia spring to mind. The Jewel of Medina was dropped by Random House in the US in May after it was described as “soft pornography” by Denise Spellberg, professor of Islamic Studies at the University of Texas. The attempted petrol-bombing of the Gibson Square offices has no doubt underlined to Rynja that this book is the most controversial of the lot.

The trade reaction so far has been broadly supportive of Gibson Square, in terms of both expressing shock and outrage over the attack and at backing publication of the book itself. Both the Publishers Association and English PEN have come out firmly behind Rynja, identifying it as a line-in-the-sand free speech issue. Amazon and Borders are committed to selling the book, while Waterstone’s has said it is its intention to stock, but has deferred a final decision until, or if, it is published. Independent booksellers must make the decision for themselves.

A vigorous debate on Medina is under way on The Bookseller website. The obvious point has been made by many that if booksellers refuse to stock books that offend minorities then gaps will soon open up on the shelves, from vegetarians complaining about meat cookery books to Christians seeking to ban books on witchcraft. Another point has been made that although free speech is a right there are also times when it must be used without undue provocation.

The parallels with The Satanic Verses controversy are immediate but not entirely accurate. For one thing, Rushdie was an established name; for another, the publisher was a major house (Penguin); and for a third the book was a known quantity. Part of the problem with this situation is that almost everyone jumping to conclusions, for or against publication, is doing so before they have read the book or seen proofs. Those that have seen the book seem split pretty evenly. Of three Muslim scholars sent the manuscript by Random, two reportedly objected, one didn’t; equally, the book was withdrawn from sale in Serbia after imams raised objections—but now it has apparently been reinstated. But in the age of the internet and p.o.d., no petrol bomb can suppress any book, however offensive.

Add comment

By posting on this website you agree to the Bookseller Comments Policy. Comments go direct to live, please be relevant, brief and definitely not abusive. Report any "unsuitable" comments by clicking the links.

Name

Comment

Email

Comments on this article

By kashif iqbal

The controversial book “The Jewel of Medina” is an attempt by author Sherry Jones to further make a mockery out of Muslims by portraying it as “soft pornography” It shows how far standards have slipped in western writers mind’s and to what shallow depths of darkness they are willing to go to in order to become famous, make money and insult others religions, namely Islam all in the name of “freedom of speech.” If one wrote a book on the sexual life of Sherry Jones mother I wonder how the media would react. I wonder how Sherry would act! It could be said in light of the published material that freedom of speech only applies when you want to insult religious views and make a mockery of Muslims. It’s a shame we try to defend the so called freedom of speech but why is it that in “civilised Europe” Holocaust deniers get jail?

04 Oct 08 13:27

Unsuitable?

By jo

kashif iqba, you call its soft pornography. Have you read the book then?

05 Oct 08 08:58

Unsuitable?

By jo

BTW, authors are allowed to write fiction about the holocaust, and even create characters that deny it. A more relevant example, don't you think?

05 Oct 08 08:59

Unsuitable?

By kashif iqbal

One does not have to have read the entire book to know the contents. Knowing the fact the book was sent to Denise Spellberg anticipating a "positive" comment who is a non muslim by the way and who found the book completely offensive, after having read it of course, how do you think Muslims would feel! You should read extracts from the book that are available it is completely offensive. Funny you can write fiction about the holocaust but you cant deny it. Wonder why that gentleman is detained at Heathrow then!!

06 Oct 08 11:40

Unsuitable?

By Jo

kashif, You describe it as soft porn. The author did not write it as such, and most people who HAVE read it have not described it in those terms. You've not read it, so I ask again, how can you write with any degree of authority what you wrote in your first comment? I am not defending the notion of holocaust denial as a crime, neither am I supporting the mockery of muslims, but I do defend the right of a writer to at least have her book read before it is criticised.

06 Oct 08 14:12

Unsuitable?

By common sense

My, how you must enjoy feeling indignant! Just don't forget that it's your choice. The book itself is probably not very good but you must realise that every furious, futile blog comment, every firebomb is only going to make the book more visible in the media, more popular. If you think about that, maybe you feel a bit childish?

07 Oct 08 11:20

Unsuitable?

By Kashif Iqbal

Actions speak louder than words. Deeds depend upon intentions. About this deed and its intentions there is no question! I write with the same authority voicing my views just as you write with the authority mentioning “the author did not write as such” She must have personally told you what she meant by writing it? On holocaust denial not being a crime I agree with you unanimously. On the writer having her book read before being criticised, if it hasn’t already been made clear I would like to point out it has already been read and criticised, and before you jump the gun again, it should be highlighted it was read by non Muslims also who called it a “national security risk.” After having received such criticism one asks whether it was common sense to publish the book at all or like Beaufort rush to publish it!

07 Oct 08 12:06

Unsuitable?

By jonathan.ruppin@btinternet.com

Kashif Iqbal's responses only emphasise how important it is that we should not allow fundamentalists to influence freedom of expression. His points are a jumble of contradictions. He says that non-Muslims who have read it call it a "national security risk"; it is a risk not because of the contents of the book, but because there are those who seek to impose their beliefs on others and threaten retribution in an attempt to silence dissenters. Artistic merits are not the issue and I very much doubt any Muslim objecting to the book is simply horrified by the standard of the prose. Kashif Iqbal, most people do not even believe in the existence of your prophet, let alone in a duty to keep him sacred. Any non-religious point of view must earn respect through the validity of its evidence-based assertions; why should religion be entitled to eliminate opposition on the grounds of 'feeling offended' alone? Such utter intolerance of dissent is mediaeval in its outlook and is in itself a demonstration of a lack of respect. The issue of holocaust denial, incidentally, is a red herring and entirely irrelevant.Those who deny the holocaust are like those who refuse to accept the facts of evolution: they make their claims in the face of a mountain of convincing evidence which categorically disproves alternatives. We prosecute in order that the full horror of the Nazi regime's barbarism should never be forgotten. That is history; Islam, when judged by the same exacting standards, is, no matter how passionate its adherents, simply storytelling and not entitled to the same protection.

07 Oct 08 13:16

Unsuitable?

By kashif iqbal

Jonathan you sound passionate but for all the wrong reason my friend. Muslims just like non Muslims have a right to defend their honour and dignity but of course laughingly on terms that you deem are fit. They only want to spread the word and their way of life just as the west tries to force brutally, conquer and invade its way through the world enforcing its so called” freedom”……….. As we currently see it working in Iraq! You say Islam is simply storytelling. Little it is your mind can fathom. Islam is a complete way of life unlike Christianity which has divorced the state from the church and elevates paedophiles to the elite brass! Muslims deserves the same protection that the Jews or Christians deserve. It has so become that Funny how the Jews merit protection of their lives and history and yet you assert that Muslims do not! We carry the same British passports don’t we? Muslim blood has become cheaper than water to find. But there’s always a price to pay! Why is it in Iraq when hundreds of thousand of innocents die we call it collateral damage yet when that happens nearer to home we never sanction it in the same words? But anyhow that’s a different story altogether? The issue is not about whether people believe in the Prophet Muhammad or not it’s about respecting those who believe in him and not intimidating those that want to believe in him, and the light that he bought which illumined the hearts when the western world was in the depth of darkness. It is no wonder that in the current climate and given the fact that the United Snakes and its maggots all they ever think about is attacking and killing people around the world Muslims and non-Muslims alike,, its population is reverting to Islam to find inner peace which materialism alone cannot give. Lastly let me correct you that evolution is not a fact! Just like your email. Evolution is a made up myth by Darwinism to distract the people from the oneness of God and Monotheism. Your knowledge isn’t very sound because till this day in school they teach the “theory of evolution” as opposed to the fact of evolution. For further information check out this “scientific” website www.harunyahya.com (and no it’s not written by a fundamentalist) if you read with an open mind hopefully the truth shall stand out from falsehood. My ancestors certainly did not originate from apes or monkeys. I don’t know about yours!

09 Oct 08 08:51

Unsuitable?

By Atif Iqbal

I Agree with Kashif Iqbal as being my borther the book is completely offensive to muslim, brothers, and sisters. But look who started the Iraq war? us Muslims no they are being beaten to death don't have simply rights get tourted. Sherry Jones should have some dislipline and respect!!!. Aplogise for the offensive comments to athe whole of the muslim coummunity to try and undermine us and the muslims!!!.

10 Oct 08 08:33

Unsuitable?

By Atif Iqbal

The western media are brainwashed they don't even at time's stick up for the Muslims. They live in the worst condiitons look at baby's been born, cause of all the bombing they have deformities why don't they talk about it in the news?

10 Oct 08 08:36

Unsuitable?

By Atif

Hi Jo i don't think reading the book will make a difference as we understand the current suitution that's going on.

10 Oct 08 08:51

Unsuitable?

By Jo

I think there is a clear difference here: between those who are prepared to have a free discussion about the merits/offensiveness of Sherry Jones' book, and those who would ban it and outlaw such discussion. The fact that the Iqbals make use of this discussion site, only to try and limit that discussion suggests to me that, whatever their religion dictates, they are on the wrong side of this argument. By all means live in a closed community surrounded by a self-serving belief system, but do not expect the rest of us to conform.

10 Oct 08 12:37

Unsuitable?

By Atif

Hi No No No No we are not on thw wrong side of the argument in fact we are on the right argument don't live in a closed community but the western media and americans do.

10 Oct 08 17:17

Unsuitable?

By A

We are not making use of the site we are only trying to get people's attention to understand the seriousness of this book if this does not convince Jo what we are trying to do then you should try to make the people explain and see how diffcult it is Jo!!!!

10 Oct 08 17:26

Unsuitable?

By Jo

A, I fully respect your view about the seriousness of the book, but I would respect it far more had you read it, and were you to support the reading of it by others in the community for the purpose of the wider understanding of why you feel why you do. Perhaps once you do that, you'll find people more receptive to your explanations.

10 Oct 08 21:05

Unsuitable?

By kashif

Jo you clearly don’t understand the seriousness of the book from the other side of the fence, neither do you comprehend what A is trying to highlight to you. You are solely hell-bent on Muslims reading the book to find out for themselves how degrading and mockery making it really is, when we already know that!! A parable can be like a fire. Once is scared and doesn’t like to be burnt or injured by a mere spark but the foolish are adamant that you engulf yourself in flames to know what it is really like being burnt! What do low life’s get from making mockery of other peoples religious views? Again I say………. so much for freedom of expression. It goes to show freedom of expression is limited to taking the fun out of religious and sacred history.

11 Oct 08 11:16

Unsuitable?

By Shaf

Originally when I heard about the book I was outraged as a Muslim however I felt that maybe I should first read what the book say’s in order to know exactly why I disagree with book and whether or not I actually did disagree with it. I read a fraction of the book by the author herself she said she spoke in respect of the prophet: ‘Jones alludes to the idea that the prophet might have been marginally corrupted by power and was sex obsessed’. How is this showing respect to the beloved prophet? If she researched for the book extensively like she has claimed then she should have realised that the prophet NEVER married another woman when he was married to his first wife Khadija both of who remained married for a period of 25 years. His other marriages had been for political and social reasons and not for personal sexual desire as she falsely claims. Secondly she portrayed the wife of the prophet Aisha as an impulsive, petty, flighty, irrational, irresponsible, vindictive liar. Again how has she shown respect and from what angle has she extensively researched the book. Her representation of Aisha is nothing but false which contradicts her claim of extensive research. Jonathan you say that the book should be published as it challenges those fundamentalists who speak against the freedom of speech, if anyone out there was to deny the prophecy of Muhammaed (peace be upon him) then I would agree this can be classified as a notion of freedom of speech but when freedom extends to abuse it becomes a offense and not freedom. Aisha is the mother of all Muslims I ask you how you would react to this inaccurate portrayal of your mother. How would you feel is she was portrayed as negatively as the author of this hideous book has done in the portrayal of my mother Aisha. Muslims are not stopping anyone from speaking out against the religion, I have heard people say women are oppressed, I hear people say Islam preaches hate, I hear people say the religion is intolerant and I further hear that many do not accept the prophecy of prophet Muhammad (pbuh) which are all accepted notions of freedom of speech. What is not accepted is the abuse that is caused to Muslims by the words used to describe Aisha and the prophet in the book. Further lets explore the notion of freedom of speech that the British country takes pride in aspiring to, where was the stand of the British country in support of the notion freedom of speech when Mickey Rourke used only a four letter word (fuck) for Mrs. Thatcher's POLICIES? We saw how Britain was incensed by it and alternatively Rourke had been banned for twenty years. Why was this incident not considered as a concept of freedom of speech? This proves not every concept of freedom of speech is welcomed this incident proves nothing but the double standards of the Great British society.

04 Nov 08 02:34

Unsuitable?

By Shaf

Originally when I heard about the book I was outraged as a Muslim however I felt that maybe I should first read what the book say’s in order to know exactly why I disagree with book and whether or not I actually did disagree with it. I read a fraction of the book by the author herself she said she spoke in respect of the prophet: ‘Jones alludes to the idea that the prophet might have been marginally corrupted by power and was sex obsessed’. How is this showing respect to the beloved prophet? If she researched for the book extensively like she has claimed then she should have realised that the prophet NEVER married another woman when he was married to his first wife Khadija both of who remained married for a period of 25 years. His other marriages had been for political and social reasons and not for personal sexual desire as she falsely claims. Secondly she portrayed the wife of the prophet Aisha as an impulsive, petty, flighty, irrational, irresponsible, vindictive liar. Again how has she shown respect and from what angle has she extensively researched the book. Her representation of Aisha is nothing but false which contradicts her claim of extensive research. Jonathan you say that the book should be published as it challenges those fundamentalists who speak against the freedom of speech, if anyone out there was to deny the prophecy of Muhammaed (peace be upon him) then I would agree this can be classified as a notion of freedom of speech but when freedom extends to abuse it becomes a offense and not freedom. Aisha is the mother of all Muslims I ask you how you would react to this inaccurate portrayal of your mother. How would you feel is she was portrayed as negatively as the author of this hideous book has done in the portrayal of my mother Aisha. Muslims are not stopping anyone from speaking out against the religion, I have heard people say women are oppressed, I hear people say Islam preaches hate, I hear people say the religion is intolerant and I further hear that many do not accept the prophecy of prophet Muhammad (pbuh) which are all accepted notions of freedom of speech. What is not accepted is the abuse that is caused to Muslims by the words used to describe Aisha and the prophet in the book. Further lets explore the notion of freedom of speech that the British country takes pride in aspiring to, where was the stand of the British country in support of the notion freedom of speech when Mickey Rourke used only a four letter word (fuck) for Mrs. Thatcher's POLICIES? We saw how Britain was incensed by it and alternatively Rourke had been banned for twenty years. Why was this incident not considered as a concept of freedom of speech? This proves not every concept of freedom of speech is welcomed this incident proves nothing but the double standards of the Great British society.

04 Nov 08 02:47

Unsuitable?

See Also