The Jewel of Medina, a historical novel on Islam by author Sherry Jones, is based on the seventh-century marriage of the Prophet Muhammad to A’lisha, [his] nine year-old child bride. Originally scheduled to be released last August by The Random House Publishing Group, who advanced Ms. Jones $100,000.00 for publishing rights, suddenly excused themselves from the project. The reason for the hasty retreat by the publisher was explained by Random House deputy publisher, Thomas Perry, in a statement which read, “…the publication of this book might be offensive to some in the Muslim community, and could incite acts of violence by a small, radical segment.”
The controversy began when Mr. Perry stuck his toe in Muslim waters for a temperature reading. By seeking the sage advice of Islam scholars in the American academe, he was advised by a non-Muslim American academic, Ms. Denise Spellberg, that the manuscript was tantamount to, “soft-core pornography.” Call me naïve, but I presumed Muhammad was seeing intellectual stimulus from the nine year-old! Ms. Spellberg also informed Mr. Perry that she had taken the liberty of contacting a Muslim lecturer and asked him to warn Muslims, throughout the world, of the pending publication. Holy Fatwa!!!
The Random house Publishing Group, feeling no obligation to the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, chose “The Elite Publisher’s Doctrine of Fear and Intimidation,” i.e., his big brother is bigger than my big brother.”
Can you imagine Random House backing away from a novel about the Apostle Paul? Wait! You do not have to imagine it. Author, Sherry Jones, informed the press yesterday, that an editor at Random House told her, “If she had written a book offending Christians, there would not be a problem.”
Apparently, Thomas Perry is unaware that our God is bigger than their [Random House's] big brother.
2 comments:
Hello, I'm the author of "The Jewel of Medina" and I would like to clarify my comment to FOX News. I haven't seen the newscast, but I hope the reporter included my contextual information: The Random House associate publisher's statement was made in response to my question about "The Da Vinci Code." According to my notes, what she actually said was, "We aren't afraid of Catholics." My point was that the publishing house was not avoiding controversy in its decision to "indefinitely postpone" publication of my novel, but was acting out of fear. Although I believe this sort of self-censorship is a threat to free speech, I also understand the company's decision and its fear. They are in New York City, where the World Trade Center attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 are still very vividly recalled. And in the United States, at least, Christians are not bombing anyone right now.
As I also told the reporter, Dan Springer, this is not a Random House issue so much as a cultural issue. It's an invitation for us all to look at the culture of fear that has pervaded our country for seven years now, and to examine our own prejudices. Because of Random House's decision, another issue has arisen: free speech and its future. If the publisher declined ALL controversial books, we would have even more reason to worry.
Sherry Jones
Hello, Ms. Jones:
It is a pleasure to meet you. Congratulations on your novel, The Jewel of Medina! Thank you for your comments to my posting. I agree that Christians are not bombing anyone in the U.S. right now – or anywhere else for that matter. Terrorism is not a tenet of Christianity.
I quoted Dan Springer verbatim. Your recollection of what you told him essentially makes the same point.
Your concern for the survival of free speech is certainly valid. Individuals or entities may choose not to exercise their right to it. My interest and disquietude pertains to the “Why” that option would be chosen. I was not suggesting that Random House, or any publisher, elect not to publish derogatory Christian fiction or perspectives on any basis. Sadly, however, fear and intimidation drove Random House’s decision in your case. Where I disagree with you is when selective free speech occurs. It seems to me that you are suggesting that those who are passive may be acceptable targets of ridicule or condemnation, while those exhibiting aggressive behavior deserve some sort of pass and further introspection on the part of others.
I wish you the best with your novel.
May God Bless you!
Dr. Laurence H. Harper
Post a Comment