Friday, August 15, 2008 | Reason : In the News | print version

Print | Comments |

Rushdie condemns cancellation of Muhammad novel

by Yahoo News

Thanks to Amy Karls for the link.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080814/ap_en_ot/rushdie_canceled_book_1

Rushdie condemns cancellation of Muhammad novel

NEW YORK - Salman Rushdie strongly criticized his publisher for pulling a historical novel about the prophet Muhammad and his child bride over concerns about angering Muslims.

Rushdie, whose "The Satanic Verses" led to a death decree in 1989 from Iran's Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini and forced the author for years to live under police protection, said the Random House Publishing Group had allowed itself to be intimidated.

"I am very disappointed to hear that my publishers, Random House, have canceled another author's novel, apparently because of their concerns about possible Islamic reprisals," Rushdie said Thursday in an e-mail to The Associated Press. "This is censorship by fear, and it sets a very bad precedent indeed."

Random House has acknowledged pulling Sherry Jones' debut novel, "The Jewel of Medina," about Muhammad and his child bride, Aisha. The publisher, which had planned to release the book this month, said in a recent statement that "credible and unrelated sources" had warned that the book "could incite acts of violence by a small, radical segment."

On Thursday, Random House spokeswoman Carol Schneider said, "We certainly respect Mr. Rushdie's opinion, but we stand by our decision, which we made with considerable deliberation and regret."

Rushdie's last several books, including "Fury" and "Shalimar the Clown," have been released by Random House. He was published by Viking Penguin at the time "Satanic Verses" came out, in 1988.

"The Satanic Verses" referred to a legend — about Muhammad being tricked by agents of the devil — that enraged some Muslims. The book was banned in India, and burned by demonstrators in England. The novel's Japanese translator was murdered, the Italian translator stabbed.

Viking Penguin, which received numerous bomb threats, continued to publish the hardcover but hesitated to release the paperback, eventually put out by a coalition of writers, publishers and human right organizations.

Posted: Friday, August 15, 2008 | Permalink

Comments 1 - 50 of 52 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #230614 by esuther on August 15, 2008 at 1:02 am

>>>>put out by a coalition of writers, publishers and human right organizations.<<<

I'm not sure what this means in terms of being a viable entity for publication of other risky publications. But I think it might be the way to go, to continue publishing items that otherwise might endanger a single publisher.

I certainly can understand the timidity of the publishing house, if someone threatens to harm your business or your staff, but it is nonetheless critical to find a way to stand up to the threats and the fanaticism, and such dispersal of publication might be the way.

Suggestions?

Other Comments by esuther

2. Comment #230617 by esuther on August 15, 2008 at 1:07 am

You have to wonder how these bomb-threateners decide who to threaten, and for what. Surely anyone who wants to silence a novelist for a sweet little novel about Aisha would be even more incensed by the writings of Richard Dawkins who brazenly attacks their entire religion as nonsense. And yet Dawkins' publisher goes on merrily publishing one 'blasphemy' after another, without blinking an eye.

Go figure.

Other Comments by esuther

3. Comment #230619 by PJG on August 15, 2008 at 1:12 am

Suggestions?

Try to order the book from Amazon.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Jewel-Medina-Sherry-Jones/dp/0345503163

If enough people make enquiries, Random House, or some other publisher, may well find that greed overcomes fear... as it so often does!!!

Other Comments by PJG

4. Comment #230622 by ColdFusionLazarus on August 15, 2008 at 1:14 am

Before this, from Rushdie, I had allowed myself to think, "Maybe the book is crap and serves little purpose anyway. What's the point in speculating what Ayesha may or may not have thought as her body was violated at such a young age?" But if Rushdie and others are so dismayed by a publishers right not to publish (and it seems that they are not publishing due to oppressive fear) then I'll think again.

What I liked about the Satanic Verses was that it was trying to ease open the debate about the "infallible" man and the "infallible" book. It "almost" worked as a force to allow moderate muslims to feel more confident.

Other Comments by ColdFusionLazarus

5. Comment #230623 by PJG on August 15, 2008 at 1:18 am

Would it be a good idea to leave comments on Amazon - readers reviews section - for this book, pointing out that it appears to have been withdrawn from publication and why?

This is "censorship by fear" and, regardless of the quality of the writing or the speculation involved in this NOVEL, it is a violation of what we believe in.

Other Comments by PJG

6. Comment #230625 by irate_atheist on August 15, 2008 at 1:31 am

1. Comment #230614 by esuther -

Suggestions?

A shotgun licence?

Other Comments by irate_atheist

7. Comment #230626 by ColdFusionLazarus on August 15, 2008 at 1:33 am

Isn't it a bit harsh to mention outright "Censorship"? Doesn't the author still have a right to take the book elsewhere to be published? Or are contracts such that the publisher owns it and it would take a lot of effort to allow another publisher to take the work off them?

Other Comments by ColdFusionLazarus

8. Comment #230631 by esuther on August 15, 2008 at 1:46 am

Isn't it a bit harsh to mention outright "Censorship"? Doesn't the author still have a right to take the book elsewhere to be published? Or are contracts such that the publisher owns it and it would take a lot of effort to allow another publisher to take the work off them?

That would depend on the terms of the contract the author signed. I write atheist/anti-religious fiction myself, but for a tiny press that no one has noticed. My contract stipulates that the book WILL be published by a certain date and if it is not, then I regain rights. If the publisher in the case of the Aisha novel has paid an advance, and does not specify a "to be published by" date, then the author is paralyzed. She has effectively sold the rights to the novel and cannot take it elsewhere unless the publisher dissolves the contract or violated one of its terms.

Other Comments by esuther

9. Comment #230633 by HourglassMemory on August 15, 2008 at 1:54 am

We cancel critiques and novels and articles and films as if we had a gun pointed to our heads.
This indirect control those societies have on the rest of the world... It just makes me think of an elephant who's afraid of a mouse.
Talk about control.
It's like the medieval church, threatening hellfire and keeping everyone in a peverted sense of "peace".
Today's threats can indeed be very real but it's still sad...that we cringe at their blabber, that we shrug as if an explosion has taken place behind us and we just nod, like an obedient maid.

Everybody's afraid because they think some crazy muslim will come out from the shadows and stab the writer or the publisher or anyone involved with the publication of the book.

Some say Islam is a religion that condemns violence, in the name of faith.
I just have to wonder how deeply the believers believe in those statements, and will wrongly feel threatened, and become violent themselves, to protect those very same ideas.
Moderate, educated doctors can be pushed to a murdurous limit, as has been seen.

The thing I hate about religious beliefs is that they make you more prone to needless insanities and stupid actions.

Other Comments by HourglassMemory

10. Comment #230639 by HunterZolomon on August 15, 2008 at 2:14 am

I can't help but suspect that this book might have gone unnoticed if it weren't for that Professor Spellberg getting her panties in a twist over it. There were no protests, as far as I understand, from the muslim community itself. No, this is the work of a politically correct alarmist, who probably feels real good right now having prevented feelings from getting hurt.

What she has essentially achieved is supplying the muslim loons with a bit more ammo for their victimization rallies.

Other Comments by HunterZolomon

11. Comment #230654 by theantitheist on August 15, 2008 at 2:54 am

As with books written under a pseudodanismgooglebollockscantspellthebastard, because the writer want's to remain anonymous or there ar multiple writers in a type (thinking Mills&boon but not even sure if that was multiple writers as i know nothing about them, honest governer)

Why can't the writer and publishing houses do this with secret funding and no published details (though to be honest this all sounds like it belongs in science fiction underground resistance novel).
In fact forget what i just said, publish it and grow some balls.

Other Comments by theantitheist

12. Comment #230659 by JemyM on August 15, 2008 at 3:03 am

I cannot blame them for being scared into silence. We are dealing with an organization that works like the mafia after all. Not everyone wants to die for the values of their culture.

Other Comments by JemyM

13. Comment #230668 by apostrophe on August 15, 2008 at 3:17 am

The sword is mightier than the pen.

Other Comments by apostrophe

14. Comment #230674 by Ygern on August 15, 2008 at 3:34 am

I googled the book title, and noticed that the author Sherry Jones had a blog on this, but it has subsequently disappeared.

I tried the cached page and found this:

Don't Believe Everything You Read

First thing in the a.m. after publication of Asra Q. Nomani's editorial about "The Jewel of Medina," misinformation abounds. But I can't talk about the publisher's decision not to publish -- not until Random House/Ballantine says so, for reasons I can't disclose ;-(. But I can correct at least one inaccuracy: My book is not a "bodice-ripper," as one blogger (who obviously hadn't read the book) called it. Nor, in my opinion, is it particularly "racy," as Ms. Nomani, who HAS read the book, described it. Denise Spellberg, the UT professor who started all this, called it "soft porn" -- which makes me feel like a literary master, able to write a pornographic novel without sex scenes!

Bloggers are going wild, reading all kinds of things into Ms. Nomani's excellent opinion piece. Some believe the Random House assertion that several people warned of potential terrorist attack. If so, that's news to me. The only one I was told about was Ms. Spellberg.

Ironically, I've been castigated in some of these blogs by writers who haven't read the book and who mis-read the editorial piece. Being called an "Islamopanderer" is the most ironic. All I did was try to portray A'isha, Muhammad's child bride (believed by most historians to have married Muhammad at age nine and consummated the marriage at age 11) in the context of her times. If I'd pandered, wouldn't my book now be coming out? I guess I'm damned if I do, damned if I don't..

Other Comments by Ygern

15. Comment #230683 by Old Sarum on August 15, 2008 at 3:45 am

Lawyer Geoffrey Robertson says Random House should pay author Sherry Jones "substantial compensation" for shelving her novel "The Jewel of Medinia" over fears of a violent Muslim response:

http://muslimsagainstsharia.blogspot.com/2008/08/call-for-compensation-after-shelving-of.html

Other Comments by Old Sarum

16. Comment #230690 by Ygern on August 15, 2008 at 3:49 am

Comment #230683 by Old Sarum

That's just a mealy-mouthed, cowardly way of throwing money at a problem to make it look as if it has gone away.

It is about more than an author's potential loss of earnings (a valid concern), but also
and far more importantly about censorship of ideas, of bowing in fear to the tyranny of fundamentalist bullies.

Other Comments by Ygern

17. Comment #230704 by Old Sarum on August 15, 2008 at 4:03 am

That's just a mealy-mouthed, cowardly way of throwing money at a problem to make it look as if it has gone away.

The argument is that if Random House have to cough up big $ for reneging on their agreement, this will discourage similar acts of self-censorship.

Other Comments by Old Sarum

18. Comment #230712 by Ygern on August 15, 2008 at 4:10 am

Well, possibly.

I don't think that it works like that. If people are afraid of consequences of free speech, they will pay up rather than take the risk.

And, if there is a further threat of punitive fines attached to it, you could very well see publishing houses refusing to even contemplate publishing authors writing on any subject related to Islam in the future.

Other Comments by Ygern

19. Comment #230750 by padster1976 on August 15, 2008 at 5:10 am

'that enraged some Muslims. The book was banned in India, and burned by demonstrators in England. The novel's Japanese translator was murdered, the Italian translator stabbed. '

Ah, that peaceful religion at work!

Other Comments by padster1976

20. Comment #230755 by bucketchemist on August 15, 2008 at 5:15 am

http://www.lulu.com

Other Comments by bucketchemist

21. Comment #230762 by Ishruul on August 15, 2008 at 5:29 am

Does that mean I can get away with terrorism now?

Seem like a lot of people do nowaday.

'Ishruul make some chicken-bomb while whistling the Love Boat's theme'

Other Comments by Ishruul

22. Comment #230771 by 35bluejacket on August 15, 2008 at 5:52 am

The whole argument of both sides sounds to me absurd. "If" the Prophet was wise and all knowing, then he would have seen the coming outrage over his actions and did not seem to be concerned. If on the other hand he was an evil lecherous old man, then he and his religion deserve the flack.

Other Comments by 35bluejacket

23. Comment #230792 by Ian Bamlett on August 15, 2008 at 6:28 am

The manuscript exists, can't it be published online?

Other Comments by Ian Bamlett

24. Comment #230816 by Luthien on August 15, 2008 at 7:33 am

Excellent idea, bucketchemist, she should do that!

I have bought a few books from lulu.com myself (Sci-Fi), and they were all excellent! I would definitely recommend them.

The other idea from esuther about setting up a coalition to deal with these situations, I agree! How do we do this, and how can I help? I am quite sure that this would easily pay for itself in sales, after all, you still have to buy a book if you want to burn it ;)

Other Comments by Luthien

25. Comment #230817 by Severus Snape on August 15, 2008 at 7:34 am

Maybe this is just a publicity stunt, and Random House will release the novel in a few weeks. Maybe not...

Other Comments by Severus Snape

26. Comment #230820 by Ian Bamlett on August 15, 2008 at 7:47 am

Maybe this is just a publicity stunt, and Random House will release the novel in a few weeks. Maybe not...

Hmm... didn't think of that, how silly of me. It's quite possible, but then again, I can see the meeting where they are all sat around the table saying, 'do we really want to be at the wrong end of death threats over this?'

So on balance no, I think this is real.

Other Comments by Ian Bamlett

27. Comment #230821 by irate_atheist on August 15, 2008 at 7:48 am

26. Comment #230817 by Severus Snape -

If it is a stunt, it is a cupid stunt.

Other Comments by irate_atheist

28. Comment #230823 by OhioLen on August 15, 2008 at 7:52 am

As I understand it, RH had to pay a cancellation fee of $100K and the author retains all rights to the book. I read it from one of the links in another thread on the topic here, but don't remember which.

Other Comments by OhioLen

29. Comment #230826 by Bonzai on August 15, 2008 at 8:23 am

PJG

Suggestions?

Try to order the book from Amazon.

Don't think so.

The issue is not that the book doesn't get published, but the reason why it was canceled. It is a travesty that the publishing industry is allowed to be taken hostage by radical Muslims like that.

Random House has already given out the message of capitulation by making the initial decision to cancel the book deal and explicitly citing fear of Muslim reprisals as the reason. The damage has already been irreversibly done.

On the other hand, by all accounts the book is actually crap. It romanticizes child rape and whitewashes Muhammad. This is particularly vile because the practice of raping children in the name of following Muhammad's example is still alive and well in some Muslim countries.

http://richarddawkins.net/article,2983,The-rebellion-of-the-child-brides,Johann-Hari---Independent

It is a supreme irony that what seems to be an apologist for Muhammad ends up being censored for fear that the apology may actually provoke the crazies who are either 1) illiterate or 2) would not read pass the fact that the book describes sex scenes between Muhammad and his rape victim.

I wouldn't spend a dollar on this trashy book. I would rather have a donut,--and normally I don't eat donuts.

EDIT: We should defend freedom of speech as a principle, but it doesn't follow that we should show support for the particular speech in question (by ordering it on Amazon) Even if you think the KKK has a right to free speech on principle, you don't have to show up for a few cross burning rallies to make the point.

Other Comments by Bonzai

30. Comment #230827 by mordacious1 on August 15, 2008 at 8:24 am

mmmmm doughnuts

I'm off to the bakery, thanks Bonzai.

Other Comments by mordacious1

31. Comment #230829 by Luthien on August 15, 2008 at 8:26 am

On the brighter side, I just saw the following...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7554892.stm

Egypt's Jane Austin perhaps? Certainly interesting to see this type of thing catch on :)

Other Comments by Luthien

32. Comment #230834 by Lucas on August 15, 2008 at 9:03 am

If anyone cares enough to share their thoughts with Prof. Spellberg about the detrimental effects of her cowardly advice to Random House, please do contact her at the University of Texas Austin.

Phone:512-475-7202
dams@mail.utexas.edu

EDIT: And here is her publishing history, to give due credit. It does seem she at least sort of knows what she's talking about as far as Aisha is concerned, though I have a profound distaste for 'gender studies' and distrust anyone who has made a career out of it.

Politics, Gender, and the Islamic Past: The Legacy of `A'isha bint Abi Bakr (Columbia University Press, 1994); "Writing the Unwritten Life of the Islamic Eve: Menstruation and the Demonization of Motherhood," International Journal of Middle East Studies 28 (1996): 305-324; "Inventing Matamoras: Gender and the Forgotten Islamic Past in the United States of America," Frontiers: A Journal of Women Studies 25 (2004): 148-164; "Could a Muslim Be President? An Eighteenth-Century Constitutional Debate," Eighteenth-Century Studies 39 (2006): 485-506.

Other Comments by Lucas

33. Comment #230838 by bluebird on August 15, 2008 at 9:45 am

... off to the bakery...

*When the schnecken beckons!*

Luthien, thanks for that link.

Other Comments by bluebird

34. Comment #230839 by rthille on August 15, 2008 at 9:47 am

Well, which is it, a religion of peace, or insane fanatics who will try to kill people for writing books about the history of their beliefs? I guess it's both, since "Islam" is made up of so many people we're bound to have a lot of variation. But why does Islam have so many who will kill in its name? Is it the religion itself or the culture?

Certainly free societies need to stand up against the violence and censorship, regardless of its cause, if we are to survive and remain free.

Other Comments by rthille

35. Comment #230855 by Lucas on August 15, 2008 at 10:52 am

I have emailed Prof. Spellberg a very polite inquiry, offering her the chance to make her case for suggesting the novel should not be published. If she responds, I will post both my initial letter and her response, in full, here.

Other Comments by Lucas

36. Comment #230863 by popecorkyxxiv on August 15, 2008 at 11:10 am

How am I not surprised, "Say that Islam is anything less that completely peaceful and I'll kill you, because I'm such a peaceful person..." If they keep this crap up a war of Theocide may be on the horizon.

Other Comments by popecorkyxxiv

37. Comment #230889 by Ivan The Not So Bad on August 15, 2008 at 11:49 am

I would have thought the answer would be for the author to take the copyright back from the publishers (they would appear to be in breach of contract anyway) and then make the manuscript available for download from her website for free or in return for whatever people want to pay.

This worked very well for Radiohead with their last CD. Not only did they reach a much wider audience but, although some people did download for free, the average donation was a fiver - not the 12 quid they would have charged for a conventional release but, bearing in mind the money went straight to them without the usual cut by the record company/distributor/retailer, not a bad deal.

Worth copying. And, of course, the publicity from such a move is it's own below-the-line marketing strategy.

Other Comments by Ivan The Not So Bad

38. Comment #230963 by Apathy personified on August 15, 2008 at 1:18 pm

If Random House don't want to publish it, that's there decision, even if it seems to have been motivated out of fear - but that being the case, they should be decent enough to allow the auther to look elsewhere for another publisher.
Not publishing, but holding onto the rights would be just petty.

Glad to see Sir Salmon Rushdie alive, well and still speaking out.

Other Comments by Apathy personified

39. Comment #231104 by eclampusvitus on August 15, 2008 at 7:22 pm

Perhaps the Richard Dawkins Foundation could publish this book.

I'll buy a copy.

ECV

Other Comments by eclampusvitus

40. Comment #231126 by steveroot on August 15, 2008 at 8:58 pm

28. Comment #230821 by irate_atheist on August 15, 2008 at 7:48 am

If it is a stunt, it is a cupid stunt.

Quite so, Reverend Spooner!
Ste5e

Other Comments by steveroot

41. Comment #231142 by PJG on August 15, 2008 at 9:51 pm

Bonzai

Yes, you are right - it was only a thought.

Other Comments by PJG

42. Comment #231167 by DalaiDrivel on August 15, 2008 at 10:41 pm

This is really disappointing.

Muslims practising child rape (and any web-accessing, truth-facing moderate can confirm their existence) surely would not object to publicity?

Or do they implicitly understand their grotesquerie?

Hmmm, on second thought, I think they love the publicity, but loathe the disagreement.

"Damnit, people, we know it's grotesque, but it is blasphemy to us for you to think of it as anything but normal!

Praise Allah!"

Islam (like Mormonism and other fundamentalist denominations) is just another sad case of violation (of children, of civil peace and justice) being inviolable.

The rest of us remain spellbound. We doublethink. We live in totalitarian fear we refuse to acknowledge, due to a self-imposed, self-preserving illusion of "normalcy."

We know, by examining the psychology of children and the detrimental effects of subjecting them to this, that marrying children is, or ought to be considered grossly abnormal.

Reason would suggest that the faculties of people who condone child marriage are abnormal, or compromised.

We should commence treating them as such- Treating them, as others here have suggested already, as criminals- warranting psychiatric evaluation, I might add.

We cannot do this, under the spell.

It goes without saying- rejoicing over the abuse of children is perversion, and as Sam Harris surely would agree, substantiates his charge that religion is, or at least can be, or reflect, or imitate perhaps, a neurological disorder.

Other Comments by DalaiDrivel

43. Comment #231362 by thrutraffic on August 16, 2008 at 7:17 am

Just click the Add to Wish List button on Amazon.

$s overcome all fears.

Other Comments by thrutraffic

44. Comment #231693 by Roy_H on August 16, 2008 at 10:26 pm

"28. Comment #230821 by irate_atheist on August 15, 2008 at 7:48 am

If it is a stunt, it is a cupid stunt."

But it's all done in the best possible taste!

Other Comments by Roy_H

45. Comment #231713 by lastgreekstanding on August 16, 2008 at 11:12 pm

Scruffy said,

I am very disappointed to hear that my publishers, Random House, have canceled another author's novel, apparently because of their concerns about possible Islamic reprisals . . . This is censorship by fear, and it sets a very bad precedent indeed.

Someone please lock this "mean, nasty, tight-fisted, arrogant and extremely unpleasant" hypocrite in a cupboard.

Other Comments by lastgreekstanding

46. Comment #231741 by spoo on August 17, 2008 at 1:25 am

"The novel's Japanese translator was murdered, the Italian translator stabbed."

They missed out on the Norwegian publisher almost being killed by a gunman:

From elsewhere:

The Norwegian publisher of Salman Rushdie's "The Satanic Verses" was shot and wounded outside his home near Oslo today, marking the third attack on professionals who have had a hand in publishing the book. William Nygaard, 50, was in serious but stable condition after being shot three times from behind as he left his home in an Oslo suburb. Nygaard heads the publishing firm Aschehoug Forlag, which brought out the controversial book in Norway.

Other Comments by spoo

47. Comment #231747 by Fanusi Khiyal on August 17, 2008 at 1:48 am

To everyone,

If this continual capitulation and crawling before Islam continues, where, in hell's name, is it going to stop? Does anyone see anything good in the future if this trend is not reversed?

Other Comments by Fanusi Khiyal

48. Comment #231770 by irate_atheist on August 17, 2008 at 3:41 am

48. Comment #231747 -

No, I do not see it ending well. Wilfull self-delusion and inability to face reality rarely end in success. I am, of course, speaking of both sides in this conflict.

Other Comments by irate_atheist

49. Comment #231773 by devolve on August 17, 2008 at 3:57 am

I'd just like to point out that if I could attract the sort of women Salman Rushdie does (Padma Lakshmi, Riya Sen, etc), I would be far too BUSY to care about anything that happens in the book industry.

Other Comments by devolve

50. Comment #231791 by Bonzai on August 17, 2008 at 5:05 am

lastgreekstanding