Jewel of Medina

Emdad Rahman

Forget Ocean’s 12/13, pyramid scams and selling home made fizzy pop from the boot of your Fiat Punto.

The latest get rich scheme involves much less hard work, one that is likely to incur the wrath of a quarter of the world’s population and the numero uno religion in the world. *

If the scam works then the green dollar Benjamins will roll in. It’ll be a life of sand, sea, champagne and caviar – all safely a million miles away from the hurt feelings and remonstrations of over a billion hurt fellow humans.

I refer to the latest garbage that is served up as a historical novel, an excuse of a work of fiction titled the Jewel of Medina – a farcical attempt to “bring the love story of Aisha and Muhammad to the West.” Astonishingly, the writer Sherry Jones had never visited the Middle East and had based the novel on her readings and study of the Middle East. The BBC said that the book was a “synthesis of all” she had learned. Upon learning this one wonders whether the Author’s “study” focussed on the Arabian Knights & One Thousand and One Nights? Inaccuracies within the novel included the use of the non Arabic terms “Hatun”, used to describe the wives of the Prophet Peace Be Upon Him and “Purdah”.

Texas University Professor Denise Spellberg told the NY Times that she “felt it was my duty to warn the press of the novel's potential to provoke anger among some Muslims."

It is said that Random House, the biggest publisher in the USA wouldn’t touch it with a bargepole because of the perceived response from the Muslim world. I happen to think that the truth in fact was that the eggheads within the marketing section actually concluded that Sherry Jones’ version of Mills & Boon meets Lady Chatterley’s lover was actually a major flop in terms of literary content.

I'd like to take this opportunity to ask whether it is necessary to reform the rules of the game in relation to “freedom of speech.” Just how far reaching are the tentacles and how far can you actually push the boundaries? A dramatic scenario may involve a poison pen campaign launched against an individual or group. There is no guarantee that what is written is factually correct – but in many such cases people don’t care. (Remember the Paediatrician in south Wales hospital that was forced out of her home by moronic vandals who thought she was a "paedophile".) The response is often ill judged, ill fated and the effects of such a campaign often end up in catastrophe or tragedy.

In such a case, can we writers still scream freedom of speech? Do writers, commentators and authors not need to be aware of their greater social responsibility. More so, do writers not need to be trained in the finer aspects of freedom of speech? because as it stands it’s a complete interpretation free for all.

They say that the pen is mightier than the sword, so can freedom of speech be used to insult and bully individuals or groups? It seems nowadays a very convenient weapon that can be used to attack and incite detestation, loathing and repugnance amongst communities. Can this extremely warped notion of freedom of speech be a good thing if it promotes enmity, hatred, division and disorder?

Does the notion of “freedom of speech” allow one party to criticise, bully, insult an individual or group yet throw scorn on the second party to also “express” their displeasure through reactions that could manifest themselves through debate, dialogue, picketing, counter abuse and in extreme cases, threats and violence. If I reported such an attack against on my self, would the perpetrator be able to cite freedom of expression, saying they were responding to my bear baiting and had no intention whatsoever to become physical? Can I as a novice scribe still complain, when using my freedom to express, I insult a group of people, then cower and complain when the very same people take advantage of the same freedom to hit back?

I think it is for these very reasons that eminent and farsighted academics like Dr Spellberg have criticised the book and made their recommendations and concerns public. Professor Spellberg saw an edition and said it "made fun of Muslims and their history" describing the book as a "very ugly, stupid piece of work" and saying “You can't play with a sacred history and turn it into soft core pornography."

Who was Ayesha – fondly referred to as Mother of the believers? A brilliant mind, and immensely charismatic figure. A scholar of great repute, and an advisor of the highest order. As one of the greatest Jurists of Islam Ayesha taught some of the greatest Scholars of Islam. Her knowledge was so vast that she was able to reject narrations of the Hadith from many prominent companions of the Prophet Peace Be Upon Him.

It was the lesson of the whole Salman Rushdie and the Satanic Verses that taught Muslims a very important lesson. Whilst burning the book and passionate speeches may have looked good on camera – the publisher giggled all the way to the bank with primetime publicity they could never have dreamt of expending their budget on. And before the frothy mouthed banshees had even gotten to wipe their beards the author had become a multi millionaire, albeit one in hiding, and before long a Knight of the realm. Members of the fastest growing religion on earth had just been mugged off, very much a clear case of daylight robbery.

For the Neanderthals’ that just scream and shout I humbly request that if you can’t respond with reasoned debate and dialogue then save your diesel and stay out of it. Islam, the Prophet Peace be Upon Him and Aisha do not need half witted fools masquerading as their defenders.

Responding to such deliberate provocation with threats of violent action simply plays into a trap set by the publishers - who no doubt hope to make millions from the controversy attracted by a 3rd rate book.

Me, I’m certainly not going to buy a copy as I settle down to some serious reading. Pass me the Beano someone!

* Islam overtakes Catholicism as world's largest religion – Times Online: March 31, 2008