Via a couple of different blogs today, I found out about this Wall Street Journal article. Apparently a woman named Sherry Jones wrote a book called "The Jewel of Medina", which told the relationship between the Prophet Muhammad and his wife Aisha as a typical romance novel of "lust, love, and intrigue". Aisha is a bit of a touchy subject for the residents of the House of Islam, since she was apparently six or seven when she wed the Seal of the Prophets, who then consummated the marriage when she was nine.
But back to Ms. Jones. Her publisher Random House sent out review copies, one of which wound up in the hands of Denise Spellberg, a professor of Islamic history. After reading the book, Prof. Spellberg freaked, one thing lead to another, and Ms. Jones's contract got yanked. Random House feared causing offense to the Muslim community, some of whose more truculent members might kill people and blow stuff up.
Prof. Spellberg offered the following reasoning:
"…very ugly, stupid piece of work…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."
Of course! You can't play with sacred history. I mean, it's not as if a book that included deliberate historical falsehoods about sacred history could go on to make a ton of money, or have a poorly-reviewed film adaption starring Tom Hanks with a really bad haircut? It's just not done!
Prof. Spellberg also solemnly informs us that she "walked through a metal detector to see the ‘Last Temptation of Christ'". A film which, as I recall, featured a sex scene between Jesus and Mary Magdalene. But clearly that's not the deliberate misinterpretation of history, nor soft-core pornography. Thank you, Professor, for your principled clarity.
What conclusions can we draw from this?
It is interesting to see how something like "The Da Vinci Code" or "The Last Temptation of Christ" are hailed as bold and radical and cutting-edge, even heroic, while "The Jewel of Medina" or the Muhammad cartoons get yanked for fear of "causing offense". When I read people who think that the US is in danger of becoming some sort of Margaret Atwood-esque Christian theocracy, I have to wonder to what planet they have relocated. We're more in danger of falling under the sway of the Omnipotent Progressive Busybodies like Prof. Spellberg, who will restrict what we can eat, say, buy, and do for our own good, who will ceaselessly monitor every spoken and written word for fear that someone, somewhere, might be offended.
So, here's hoping that Ms. Jones finds a new publisher, and that her book sells a gazillion copies, if only to annoy Professor Spellberg and our other would-be Omnipotent Progressive Busybodies.
-JM
PS: Though Prof. Spellberg may have a point that the book isn't very good:
"The pain of consummation soon melted away. Muhammad was so gentle. I hardly felt the scorpion's sting. To be in his arms, skin to skin, was the bliss I had longed for all my life."
Yeah. Scorpion's sting? TMI, Ms. Jones. TMI.