- MUST READS
- PRODUCTS
- RESOURCES
- MULTIMEDIA
- ENFACTLOPEDIA
- FSM AUTHORS
- ABOUT US
- CONTACT US
- FSM BLOG
- DONATE
- PRESS COVERAGE
SEARCH FSM
- IN THIS SECTION
December 31, 2008
‘The Jewel of Medina’: The Censorship ‘Justification’
In what can only be described as a perplexing review Lorraine Adams, New York Times Book Review 12/14/08, examines The Jewel of Medina, the Sherry Jones novel about the Prophet Mohammed and his marriage to the nine year old A’isha. Employing a sneering tone, Ms. Adams skewers the book as historical romance, a swipe recognizable to the cognoscenti.
What makes the review notable is that Random House, the original publisher, refused to issue the book on the grounds it would offend the Muslim community and might result in a violent reaction. As a consequence, this decision planted the novel squarely in a free speech controversy.
Ms. Adams seems to suggest that since the novel doesn’t have literary merit, the Random House decision was appropriate, notwithstanding the fact officials at the publishing house did not use merit or lack thereof as a reason to suspend publication.
Ms. Adams employs a form of moral equivalence in her review suggesting that both Satanic Verses and Martin Scorsese’s film Last Temptation of Christ resulted in violent reaction from Muslim and Christian communities. Presumably, when religious groups are offended by an unflattering presentation of doctrine or prophets, violence results.
However, this judgment is skewed in an unrecognizable direction. While there was an incident that resulted from the showing of the Last Temptation of Christ, it is difficult, alas implausible, to contend that Christians engage in violent behavior when Jesus is besmirched or Church doctrine is violated. In fact, Dan Brown’s DaVinci Code also promoted the blasphemous idea that Jesus married Mary Magdalene, but I could not find any evidence of violence against the book or the film. Criticism, yes; violence, no.
Contrast that stand, with the consistent pattern of violence when Muslims are offended. In fact, to suggest that the two religious responses to offense are comparable enters the realm of the absurd. Quoting a professor of Islamic history at the University of Texas, Ms. Adams notes, “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.”
Well, yes, you can, as Dan Brown demonstrated. Moreover, even well meaning professors of Islamic studies do not know the full story of the Prophet Mohammed and A’isha. Why isn’t Ms. Jones entitled to poetic license in a novel?
Since Lorraine Adams cannot defend Random House’s imposition on free speech, she contends Jones’ “prose is lamentable.” And “An inexperienced, untalented author has naively stepped into an intense and deeply sensitive intellectual argument.” But when did it become unacceptable for an author to step into a sensitive intellectual argument?
One doesn’t have to applaud Ms. Jones’ effort to approve of the publication of her book. Nor does one have to regard it as art in order to countenance publication. I am often astonished at the trash that makes the New York Times best seller list.
As a final fillip, Ms. Adams notes that “It is telling that PEN, the international association of writers that works to advance literature and defend free expression has remained silent on the subject of the novel.” Could it be that PEN is also intimidated by the prospect of violence? Or might PEN be so inured to political correctness, it only defends free expression when it happens to be consonant with prevailing sentiments at this august body?
Ms. Adams has delivered another in a long line of patronizing reviews in the Book Review section. But this one, in my opinion, crosses the line of fair play. Whether Jones has written a masterpiece or an historical romance is of little consequence. After all, historical romances do get published. What is noteworthy is that a writer at the Times has attempted to justify censorship using a qualitative standard of her preferences and relegating violence to an incidental concern of the Random House officials. No wonder many of us think free speech is imperiled.
FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributor Herbert London is president of Hudson Institute and professor emeritus of New York University. He is the author of Decade of Denial (Lanham, Maryland: Lexington Books, 2001) and America's Secular Challenge (Encounter Books).
Reader Comments: Submit Your Comment (0)
| Print This E-mail This |
|
