Here we go again…
Some of you may have been following the development of Sherry Jone’s book The Jewel of Medina. Here’s a quotation from the book’s official website:
A’isha bint Abi Bakr is the daughter of a rich merchant from Mecca in the harsh, exotic world of seventh-century Arabia at the time of the foundation of Islam. When she is married to the Prophet Muhammad at the age of nine, she must rely on her wits, her courage, and even her sword in a struggle to control her own destiny and carve out a place for herself in the community, fighting religious persecution, jealous sister-wives, political rivals, and her own temptations. As she grows to love her kind, generous husband, her ingenuity and devotion make her an indispensable advisor to Muhammad. Ultimately, she becomes one of the most important women in Islam, and a fierce protector of her husband’s words and legacy.
Not exactly one I’m quivering to buy. But, as I highlighted in another article, I don’t have to like Mickey Mouse to defend him from a mullah’s fatwa.
Jones studied Arabic, Islamic history from early sources and was inspired to write on Aisha. This is a wonderful reason to write and she received a contract from none other than Random House. In an effort at obtaining endorsements, Random House sent out pre-pub copies to a number of scholars. One of these was Denise Spellberg, a respected scholar and whose book Politics, Gender, and the Islamic Past: The Legacy of ‘A’isha Bint Abi Bakr, Jones read. Because of Jones’ liking for Spellberg’s book, she put the scholar on the list for Random House.
However, as the Wall Street Journal reported:
Spellberg wasn’t a fan of Ms. Jones’s book. On April 30, Shahed Amanullah, a guest lecturer in Ms. Spellberg’s classes and the editor of a popular Muslim Web site, got a frantic call from her. “She was upset,” Mr. Amanullah recalls. He says Ms. Spellberg told him the novel “made fun of Muslims and their history,” and asked him to warn Muslims.
Excuse me? “Warn Muslims”? There is a reason why this article in the WSJ is entitled “You Still Can’t Write About Muhamma”. Spellberg is again adopting the position of the parent preventing the younger, “not as intelligent” or “not old enough” child from experiencing a book. Are Muslims not adults? Can they not judge for themselves?
In fact, this same Shahed Amanullah – the editor-in-chief for altmuslim.com – wrote an article entitled “Muslims have nothing to fear from this book” in The Guardian. This can be seen as a dismissal of Spellberg’s “warning” to Muslims. In this article, he highlights what occurred behind the scenes.
As you may have figured, Random House “decided to pull The Jewel of Medina”. The reasons?
[D]eputy publisher Thomas Perry said the company was advised that the publication might be offensive to Muslims, and that it could incite acts of violence by a small, radical segment.
And thanks to Amanullah’s article, we have a further understanding of it. The flames are doused, wood is thrown and the fires of intolerance are pointed to. Yet the firestarters themselves are to blame, not Sherry Jones. And the fear of Random House is legion. Salman Rushdie wrote a scathing attack against Random House’s decision especially when their reasoning was: “We don’t want another Satanic Verses“.
Naturally, Jones was devastated by Random House’s decision. Says Jones:
[A]fter being told that her book would not be published, [she said]: “I wanted to honour Aisha and all the wives of Muhammad by giving voice to them, remarkable women whose crucial roles in the shaping of Islam have so often been ignored — silenced — by historians.”
Naturally many Muslims are against “Western” writers, or people using “Western techniques” to analyse their history. Accordingly, this “sacred history” is impenetrable to normal sceptical, scientific scrutiny. Reza Aslan in No God but God writes very beautifully about this elastic, vaporous faith that has little hold in the real world. But why? Shouldn’t we be viewing Muslims and their history in the grown-up, real-world context just as we view other “grown-up” things, like politics, philosophy, history and science? I believe this is less patronising to Muslims then constantly attempting to shield them from things that might hurt their feelings. Why treat them like children? I treat them like adults, and so should we all. They are not better or worse, but my equal and I will treat their ideas as such. I will not attempt to demean, mock or dismiss them – but I will certainly not hold the same respect for their ideas.
My friend, Maryam Namazie and the great Paul Kurtz, constantly remind us that: Rights and respect belong to people not ideas! It is in this spirit we progress, not by shielded ignorance and forced dismissal.
Yet, what are we to make of this? Amanullah writes in that same article:
In this case, however, that pattern has been broken. There have been no actual threats of violence from Muslims to date, nor has there been any organised effort by Muslims to stop the publication of the book. The author herself – unlike others who have sought to intentionally provoke and insult – has insisted that her book was written with a profound respect and admiration of the central characters. And the Muslims she has engaged with so far (in three sites online) have treated her respectfully, allowing her to clarify her intentions without censorship.
This was written on the September 9 2008. But consider the events of just 20 days later.
Three men have been charged after the office of the British publisher of the controversial novel The Jewel of Medina was firebombed Saturday.
Luckily no one was injured. We are uncertain about the reasons behind it or whether the men were acting out of Islamic duty*. Yet I have trouble seeing other reasons for the firebombing of a not-particularly famous publishing house – maybe it was jealous lovers of an employee, maybe it was the wrong address. Sure, we can’t dismiss other reasoning but how likely is that? If evidence were to surface, I would immediately retract this statement and apologise. But as yet, I can think of no reason for doing so.
To add blood to the wound, my own country is not allowing the distribution of the book. The article, on a popular Muslims radio-station’s website, states:
A controversial book by American journalist turned novelist, Sherry Jones entitled Jewel of Medina, has been banned from being distributed in South Africa. This comes as the Johannesburg High Court ruled on Wednesday that the contents were found to be blasphemous.
I have emailed the popular radio-station which deals with Muslim-views, but I highly doubt I will receive a reply. “Blasphemous”? I am particularly averse to this claim. Some people’s feelings will be hurt because of a fictional book. Have we not been through this before. Can anyone say: Satanic Verses?
But it is easy to mock the High Court ruling and the banning of this book. I do not doubt the intelligence of these people, but the problem is this: They are catering for those violent, dangerous men by banning it. They are catering for it in two polarised ways.
1. As Indicative of Violence
By banning it, these extremists have something to be angry about. Anyone who has been to Mosques and heard sermons by mullahs and imams, will know how easy it is to gain coherence through anger. Consider how many books are out there that offend to the greatest degree the Islamic or any faith: The God Delusion, God is Not Great, Why I am Not a Muslim, Why I am Not a Christian, even the novels of Salman Rushdie and Tariq Ali. Some of these books are written with the deliberate intent of mocking and blaspheming against the core tenets of religious belief. Yet they remain on the shelves. So far, no one I know has been hurt because they bought any of these books.
But a novel – a piece of art – a fictional story based on historic events, set to glorify Muhammad and especially his wives – is dubbed blasphemous. No doubt the reasoning would be easy to disclose: It attacks ideas that would hurt the feelings of grown-up Muslims (talk about treating them like children, how patronising). But if they are going to ban a fictional book, written with the intention of respecting the ideas of Islam (mostly), then they must ban the non-fiction, intentionally insulting books of Hitchens, Ibn Warraq and Russell. Otherwise, as is the case at the moment, it is a double-standard.
(JM Coetzee remarks that the truly nauseating aspect on book-banning is the licence to say “art is offensive”. Who is judging art this way?)
2. Protecting the Innocent
And here’s where I struggle. Somehow, I do not see it completely in the light of Orwellian paranoia. I can’t bring myself to be too angry at the fact that someone else is deciding what I can and can not read. Yes, I am upset. Yet, I can not help wonder if they are simply trying to do the right thing. We’ve seen that these extremists will kill and destroy, if they feel someone is upsetting their ideas. We’ve seen that the reason patronising ghouls like Denise Spellberg will “warn” adult Muslims that their feelings will be hurt by a fictional novel – is nothing but a pandering to how extremists want to be treated. Extremist Muslims have shown, in their child-like but horrible responses, how they take fictional books talking about their faith: death, violence, carnage. Extremist Muslims have told us with gunshots as fullstops and death as exclamation marks, how we must treat them.
It is strange that it must be the critics of religion who say “Let us treat them like adults”. I have little respect for the so-called moderate voices in Islam. But the case-in-point remains: Is the High Court ruling attempting to actually protect its citizens from the religious bullies of Islam?
In this case, I think yes. They are doing what they can, but in so doing, are unconsciously pandering to the spoilt brat crying in the corner, that has become extremist Islam. And they keep using it! They will keep on using it if books get banned, if cartoons are not shown, if we are afraid of them.
I believe the solution is to begin treating them as adults and ignore the brats. Sure, we can not engage in discussions when the dialogue uses bullets instead of words, but a way can be reached. How we find that balance I am making my life’s work. And I hope that it will be part of your lives too.
Lets find the human behind the human-bomb, and ignore the child screaming for attention.
* – if anyone has further info, regarding these men’s reasoning please email me.
Why I am an Ex-Muslim, Part #2
Sunday, November 2nd, 2008My idea was to have an account of my status as an ex-Muslim, in two parts. However, due to space, I am going to conclude in a final third (or even fourth) part. In this part, I want to discuss what impact Salman Rushdie had on my faith when I was a Muslim. In the next part, I am going to finally critique moderate Muslims and the dangers behind their inaction; especially considering their implications on fundamentalist Islamic states, peoples and organisations.
The Devilishly Brilliant Sir Salman Rushdie
Between the dusty covers of a conventional book, its jacket long discarded, wisdom arose like fingers pointing to the sun. The light seemed so blindingly obvious; Here were words spoken that were heartfelt, true, and beautiful. It recalls the longing of lands that many writers have focused their brilliance on: Consider the exiled words, longing and writings of Milan Kundera or James Joyce. Salman Rushdie writes, in The Satanic Verses:
I fell in love with these words, with the writer, instantly. The entire book is a great piece of literature, as are all of Rushdie’s works. But captured here is the essence of being secure – what do I call my home? Where do I find stability and peace? It is one of our eternal questions as individuals we have to face. One of the ways many have answered this question is by identifying with religious faith.
One might call faith a moving island, its inhabitants gesturing toward others to join them upon their tiny piece of stability. Faith here is beyond all truth-claims and philosophy: It is a place for one to feel safe and belong. I have perhaps answered my first question in matters of treating faith like a race: In a sense, yes, it is. People feel perhaps more strongly about their moving island of stability, their faith, – foggy, distant and inherently personal as it is amidst the moving sea of objectivity – than about their “race”. I understand this, as I was part of something close, personal and welcoming. Like a cog in a growing, organic machine, I slotted in amidst the grinding wheels of progress.
Salman Rushdie was the spanner.
Grinding to a halt, my moving island and its inhabitants jerked with a profound startlement. Our eyes widened and accepted something had changed. The sea around us was whipped into a fury; fists were raised, glaring at the spanner. Who does he think he is to comment on the leader, the creator of this great island: Muhammad? Who was this Rushdie-Spanner to claim Muhammad was human, all too human, able to make mistakes?
Yes: Our eyes widened and with that came clarity. Our choices opened up in a two-fold path: Those whose tongues licked the flame of hatred, and those who brushed themselves off from the security, the belonging and the safety of religious faith. The machine called Islam continues to grind, puff and drive through the waters of our lives, turning tumultuous waves of horror and destruction where it goes. White foam is turned blood red as it weaves it course through our lives. This island is now a machine – as has become of many religious faiths. Floating amidst the privacy of personal lives no ripple would quiver out, but this is not the goal of faith.
If religious faith, specifically Islam began as an island, it is an island seeking to become the whole world. Outside its domain, nothing but Infidels, Apostates, Nonbelievers exist. It is known as dar al-harb, or the territory of war: The bifurcated world as a Muslim ought to see it. The territory to be conquered (dar al-harb) and the territory already conquered, erroneously known as lands of peace (dar al-islam).
The distinction between the two is more complicated than first appears and one would be better off learning more than what is spoken of here.
Implications of The Satanic Verses, or, In Mammalian Light
I am often asked “What was the big deal with the book?”
I will speak briefly about the wider, political implications but focus more on their impact in reducing Muhammad to the mammal he was. There are many places to read about the horrible time (from 1989 to the late 90’s) that unveiled itself, revealing the wider implications for intolerant, religious bullying from behind the waggling finger of pretentious, sexually repressed old men.
There are actually two issues engaged here: the issue of the “Satanic Verses” within Islam and the book by Rushdie under the same name. Correctly brought to wider realisation, Rushdie did not simply create this story of the Prophet “out of thin air” (as the Shakespearean sayings goes). The incident itself is central to the history of Islam and is spoken of by people such as al-Tabari and Ibn Ishaq. These are scholars Muslims regard as authoritative in all other aspects of Islam – there is no reason why, simply because Muhammad is placed in a mammalian light, Muslims can or should deny this incident.
It occurred during the time that Muhammad was attempting to penetrate Mecca (or Makkah as Muslims call it). Many of his followers had retreated to Abyssinia. According to the histories, Muhammad was told by Jibreel (Gabriel) to allow the importance of the three popular deities to rest alongside that of Muhammad’s god. It was because of these deities (Lat, Mannat and Uzza, then dominating the minds of the Meccans) that Muhammad was having little success in swaying more people into his brand of worship.
Muhammad then recited specific verses that praised or confessed the importance of the three other deities. Of course, Muhammad later realised his mistake after careful pains were taken in the realisation of the “Oneness” of Allah. It is for this same reason that Muslims reject or don’t identify with the Doctrine of the Trinity (to be fair, the Doctrine was formulated by Gregory of Nazianzus and others. People, in other words, that Muslim scholars would not take seriously beyond the bounds of eliminating the singularity of their god). Muhammad claimed that the verses he spoke were deceptively endowed by the lying lips of Shai’tan (Satan). Hence, those verses and the incident itself became known as the Satanic Verses.
“So what?” one might fairly ask.
One website, particularly scathing of the “blasphemer” Salman Rushdie states:
Like “The Problem of Evil” in Christianity, or the revelations of science over doctrines in all Abrahamic faiths, this is yet another problem as a nonbeliever I do not have to face. No mental contortions to fit beliefs into the tiny box of faith. No breaking of truth to funnel into gooey lumps of religious obscurantism. I don’t have to do this anymore. But here, we see the problem for Muslims.
Their beloved Prophet could not distinguish between the word of their god and Satan. How far are they willing to trust him? Looking at it very basically, one can see something more important than the tug of war between god and Satan: The unmasking of a mammal to reveal his humanity and therefore fallibility. The most devastating realisation hits the hearts and minds of those islanders, as their eyes widen to the roaring sea:
The Island is Shaken
Rushdie simply alerted me to this fact, in his beautiful prose. He goes further by creating a character who was the Prophet’s scribe. It was this character’s actions which shifted the ground beneath my feet. Muhammad is widely known for being illiterate (an unprovable claim and rather dubious considering his abilities as a businessman); he had scribes that wrote down his words (which supposedly came from the angel Jibreel). Rushdie has a character who decides to start changing words, here and there, after the Prophet recites (hence, this became the Quran* which means “recitation”). He then reads these passages back to the Prophet, who approves. The Prophet (the character in Rushdie’s book) does not notice the differences. Eventually, this clever scribe changes the meanings of whole sentences and still the Prophet (called Mahound in The Satanic Verses) does not notice!
The scribe loses his faith in Muhammad, as being anything beyond a mortal man. When the scribe’s writing fell into the dust at his feet, my faith went with him. It lies there now, forever, gathering the dust of knowledge, buried beneath the sands of what I hope is progress. Is it still an island, a place to belong? If I dig myself down, remove all that I’ve learnt, all that I know, all that I believe in now, that Island would forever have the scars and pockmarks of truth that destabilised it in the first place. It would be like a place recently devastated by war. Even if I chose to return, not for the metaphysical claims, not for the rewards in heaven, but simply for solace and belonging – I would find nothing but the roar of the outside world, as the Island slowly begins to sink beneath the sea.
____
ENDNOTE
* – the Qu’ran is neither perfect, infallible or beyond criticism; it is perhaps less violent than the Old Testament, but nonetheless constantly calls for death to nonbelievers; it is not a work of science and it has not remain unchanged as it is. There were many parts tossed out, never spoken of and forgotten – ie. many Qu’rans. Its arrangement follows the pattern of longest to shortest verse, excluding the central Surah Al’Fatiga at the beginning. I suggest reading or owning a copy of this very important book, but to realise that is not the work of god but the work of fallible, ignorant men.
Tags: god, islam, khomeini, muslim, salman rushdie, satanic verses
Posted in Commentary | No Comments »