Prophet bride book appears in US

[Fop 1]

Prophet bride book appears in US

Sherry Jones does not know if the UK will see publication

 

A novel about the Prophet Muhammad's child bride has been published in the US ahead of schedule after the office of the British publisher was attacked.

 

Beaufort Books is publishing The Jewel of Medina by Sherry Jones in the US after Random House dropped it amid fears it could incite violence.

 

Three men were charged in the UK over a fire at offices of British publisher Gibson Square Books last month.

 

The novel follows the life of A'isha from six until the Prophet's death.

 

Remanded

 

Beaufort Books said it was publishing the novel ahead of schedule so it could be assessed on its merits as literature rather than the potential offence it could cause to Muslims.

 

Beaufort's president, Eric Kampmann, said: "We felt that... it was better for everybody... to let the conversation switch from a conversation about terrorists and fearful publishers to a conversation about the merits of the book itself."

 

Random House said it had been given advice that the book might be offensive to some in the Muslim community.

 

Riots erupted in many Muslim countries in 2006 over cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad in a Danish newspaper.

 

Ms Jones said she did not know whether Gibson Square would proceed with publication in the UK.

 

Ali Beheshti, 40, Abrar Mirza, 22, and Abbas Taj, 30, have been remanded in custody until 17 October over the attack.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7656084.stm

 

 

 

It'll be a shame if this doesn't get published in the UK because of the violent acts small-minded bigots and racists.

 

 

 

Most amusing was listening to a Mr. Chaudhry (self-appointed head of Muslim Outrage UK - A new outrage everyday! ) telling everyone that all muslims are offended by this, despite having never read it himself or in fact knowing no one else (muslim or otherwise) that had read it either.

 

When pressed on why it was offensive (it's actually supposedly written in a very pro-islamic way [which should go down well] and pro-feminist way [which maybe wouldn't go down well], and is hardly "lol child molester!") he just kept repeating that it must be offensive and coming as close to encouraging more people to commit violence as it's possible to come without being criminally charged for it (he was in fact blatantly inciting violence over it, but just putting a "not that I am saying people should do this, just that they will" after it).

 

I can just never get around the hypocrisy of fella's like that pushing Freedom of Speech to the very limits, yet utterly refusing to accept Freedom of Speech in any way they happen to disagree with/don't fit their political agenda.

 

It'll be another nail in the coffin of British liberty if this isn't published here.

Edited October 7, 2008 by Fop

[Guest alex]

Bit like the Satanic Verses and even those cartoons in that they've offended people without them having read or seen them. Should be published and anyone even threatening to do anything should be prosecuted with the full power of the law. I suspect it won't happen though.

[Fop 1]

Bit like the Satanic Verses and even those cartoons in that they've offended people without them having read or seen them. Should be published and anyone even threatening to do anything should be prosecuted with the full power of the law. I suspect it won't happen though.

 

 

That's the unfortunate thing the guy that was fire-bombed was a publisher that picked it up after a main stream publisher dropped it due to fear (rightly it seems).

 

At least with the Satanic Verses was published.

 

Little battles like this being lost are adding up to a very large erosion.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Although like I said almost no one "offended" by these things can coherently explain what "offends" them or why it "offends" them..... and yet this is almost accepted as both ok and even quite reasonable.

[Guest alex]

If Christians, for example, in this country (which after all does have a pretty strong Christian tradition) were up in arms about it they'd be (quite rightly) told to fuck off. Unfortunately though, the threat of violence trumps freedom of speech. And I don't know a lot about the book but from what you say it doesn't seem that offensive. I'd take a different view towards something that was going out of its way to offend. I don't think something that does that even should be banned per se but it's asking for trouble which is completely different to something like this. Religions so often feed off ignorance though so it's no surprise the bloke attacking the book didn't even read it or could just justify what caused him so much offence.

[NJS 4014]

From what I've read about the case, the book does appear to be a bit exploitative which I can see causing offence (which doesn't excuse violence) but I'm happy for more exposure about the fact that people whose prophet consumated a marriage with a 9 year old, have absolutely no right to lecture anybody on morality.

 

I know they were different times with political marriages etc but that's no excuse - I was reading a couple of weeks ago that Mary Queen of Scots was betrothed to the Dauphin as a toddler but the marriage/consumation didn't take place until she was 18 or so.

[Guest alex]

I think child brides were pretty much the norm then though weren't they? I.e. Arabia in the time of Mohammed. You can't really judge past events with today's morality.

[NJS 4014]

I think child brides were pretty much the norm then though weren't they? I.e. Arabia in the time of Mohammed. You can't really judge past events with today's morality.

 

 

I would imagine throughout history that women have been married at younger than 16 which is sort of "acceptable" allowing for the times but I think 6/9 is beyond the pale.

 

Even if the general "rule" was that puberty = womenhood, not many girls hit puberty at 9.

[Guest alex]

I think child brides were pretty much the norm then though weren't they? I.e. Arabia in the time of Mohammed. You can't really judge past events with today's morality.

 

 

I would imagine throughout history that women have been married at younger than 16 which is sort of "acceptable" allowing for the times but I think 6/9 is beyond the pale.

 

Even if the general "rule" was that puberty = womenhood, not many girls hit puberty at 9.

I agree it seems horrible in today's times. I was only defending it so far as in historical concept. I know she was very young even when the marriage was consumated but I assume that was commonplace too. Getting away from the point anyway.

[acrossthepond 711]

I'll bite.

 

What bothers me most about this and other books of its nature is that it's meant to be a fictionalized account of events and people that over a billion people hold to be sacred and inviolate. If the author had done research into the historical truths and was coming out with a new account based on what she had researched in an attempt to shed new light on the facts, that would be one thing. But that's not the case here. This is a work of fiction. It will portray central figures in the world's fastest growing religion in a different light, and that'd be fine if it were only supported by the facts.

 

I do think this author's intentions are better than those of someone else mentioned in this thread. I read the Satanic Verses and to be frank I will tell you that it's a load of self-satisfied, inflammatory shite with no basis in fact that was only designed to enrage people and prove how clever Rushdie was. Obviously people print crap every day and that's no reason to threaten their lives or even stop their books from seeing print, but Rushdie knew exactly what he was doing and he can't be surprised at the results. But I don't think this Aisha book is the same and I'll read it when it comes out.

[Guest Stevie]

I'll bite.

 

What bothers me most about this and other books of its nature is that it's meant to be a fictionalized account of events and people that over a billion people hold to be sacred and inviolate. If the author had done research into the historical truths and was coming out with a new account based on what she had researched in an attempt to shed new light on the facts, that would be one thing. But that's not the case here. This is a work of fiction. It will portray central figures in the world's fastest growing religion in a different light, and that'd be fine if it were only supported by the facts.

It didn't stop yanks and other people saying we were cunts when Braveheart came out.

[Park Life 71]

I think child brides were pretty much the norm then though weren't they? I.e. Arabia in the time of Mohammed. You can't really judge past events with today's morality.

 

This.

 

 

Polanski????

[NJS 4014]

I think you can take into account changes in morality but saying you can't judge altogether is wrong. I don't see anything wrong with saying that cannibalism, slavery, religious persecution and genocide were still wrong even if they were the norm for the period or the culture.

 

I don't get this thing where people say that we can't use modern western cultural morality to judge things like FGM as different cultures are "none of our business" - I'm not a moral absolutist based on any religious dogma but I'm still "proud" of that modern western morality and I don't care when or where things I consider immoral take place. Having sex with 9 year olds falls into that category.

[Park Life 71]

I think you can take into account changes in morality but saying you can't judge altogether is wrong. I don't see anything wrong with saying that cannibalism, slavery, religious persecution and genocide were still wrong even if they were the norm for the period or the culture.

 

I don't get this thing where people say that we can't use modern western cultural morality to judge things like FGM as different cultures are "none of our business" - I'm not a moral absolutist based on any religious dogma but I'm still "proud" of that modern western morality and I don't care when or where things I consider immoral take place. Having sex with 9 year olds falls into that category.

 

Modern western cultural morality??

Edited October 7, 2008 by Park Life

[NJS 4014]

Modern western cultural morality??

 

You know damn well what I meant - the good stuff not how it depressingly really works

[Park Life 71]

Modern western cultural morality??

 

You know damn well what I meant - the good stuff not how it depressingly really works

[Kevin Carr's Gloves 3284]

The mother of Henry VII was 12 when she fell pregnant with him.

[NJS 4014]

The mother of Henry VII was 12 when she fell pregnant with him.

 

 

Wouldn't she have been Welsh though - what's that in sheep years?

 

 

(As I said at a push puberty is "acceptable" - certainly more so than 9).

[Guest alex]

I think you can take into account changes in morality but saying you can't judge altogether is wrong. I don't see anything wrong with saying that cannibalism, slavery, religious persecution and genocide were still wrong even if they were the norm for the period or the culture.

 

I don't get this thing where people say that we can't use modern western cultural morality to judge things like FGM as different cultures are "none of our business" - I'm not a moral absolutist based on any religious dogma but I'm still "proud" of that modern western morality and I don't care when or where things I consider immoral take place. Having sex with 9 year olds falls into that category.

All I meant was, if everyone's doing it, it isn't 'wrong' at the time (even if it is really abhorrent by modern standards), it's unfair to make judgements imo because you can't honestly say you wouldn't do the same thing because you're applying a morality that barely existed (if at all) at the time. You talk about 'modern western morality' and I would agree it is in many ways something to be proud of in terms of the way people can live their lives in western society. There are also huge elements of hypocrisy in terms of what western society allows big business to do in the developing world etc. (that's getting away from the point a bit though). You could also say that many elements of 'modern western morality' were firmly in place in, for example, Victorian Britain. Or they were at least taking root then. Even so, you had things like slavery and it was fairly commonplace I seem to remember reading (although swept under the carpet) for London 'gentlemen' to visit child prostitutes. I don't think that was acceptable but it sort of demonstrates how times change and how taking one thing out of context can be a bit unfair and how a single act shouldn't mean every other moral judgement from an era or movement is irrelevent and hypocritical, even if it would be deemed that today.

Edited October 8, 2008 by alex

[Meenzer 14136]

Inconceivable.

[Guest alex]

Inconceivable.

Tres bon

[Fop 1]

I'll bite.

 

What bothers me most about this and other books of its nature is that it's meant to be a fictionalized account of events and people that over a billion people hold to be sacred and inviolate. If the author had done research into the historical truths and was coming out with a new account based on what she had researched in an attempt to shed new light on the facts, that would be one thing. But that's not the case here. This is a work of fiction. It will portray central figures in the world's fastest growing religion in a different light, and that'd be fine if it were only supported by the facts.

 

I do think this author's intentions are better than those of someone else mentioned in this thread. I read the Satanic Verses and to be frank I will tell you that it's a load of self-satisfied, inflammatory shite with no basis in fact that was only designed to enrage people and prove how clever Rushdie was. Obviously people print crap every day and that's no reason to threaten their lives or even stop their books from seeing print, but Rushdie knew exactly what he was doing and he can't be surprised at the results. But I don't think this Aisha book is the same and I'll read it when it comes out.

 

 

I'm not quite clear.

 

Do you think it is wrong or right for someone to firebomb a publishers house because they are "offended" by a fictional book they've never read?

 

And do you believe in freedom of speech? Or just freedom of your own speech but not anyone's you don't agree with?

[acrossthepond 711]

I'll bite.

 

What bothers me most about this and other books of its nature is that it's meant to be a fictionalized account of events and people that over a billion people hold to be sacred and inviolate. If the author had done research into the historical truths and was coming out with a new account based on what she had researched in an attempt to shed new light on the facts, that would be one thing. But that's not the case here. This is a work of fiction. It will portray central figures in the world's fastest growing religion in a different light, and that'd be fine if it were only supported by the facts.

 

I do think this author's intentions are better than those of someone else mentioned in this thread. I read the Satanic Verses and to be frank I will tell you that it's a load of self-satisfied, inflammatory shite with no basis in fact that was only designed to enrage people and prove how clever Rushdie was. Obviously people print crap every day and that's no reason to threaten their lives or even stop their books from seeing print, but Rushdie knew exactly what he was doing and he can't be surprised at the results. But I don't think this Aisha book is the same and I'll read it when it comes out.

 

 

I'm not quite clear.

 

Do you think it is wrong or right for someone to firebomb a publishers house because they are "offended" by a fictional book they've never read?

 

And do you believe in freedom of speech? Or just freedom of your own speech but not anyone's you don't agree with?

 

Fairly tame by your standards. The tone of your questions suggests you've already made up your mind about my views, so I'll just have to try to prove you wrong.

 

There's no reason to use violence. See the bolded bit above where I said that. The book isn't fictional, though, but rather it is a work of fiction.

Do I believe that so-called "freedom of speech" is some shining and immutable rule that should be guaranteed to everyone? Not at all. I have a much better golden rule, one that you probably learned from your mam: if you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all.

 

Here's some people who don't deserve this vaunted freedom of speech:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westboro_Baptist_Church (You probably know who these people are by now but I gave you a link anyway. Anyone who doesn't know about them should click and read. There you will learn who really doesn't deserve free speech.)

KKK

Enoch Powell

Louis Farrakhan

and other nutters of this type who incite people to violence and hatred through this "free speech."

[Guest alex]

There are laws in the UK which cover people who preach racial hatred and incite violence and so on. These people can, quite rightly, be prosecuted if they fall into that category, which is more or less where the limits of freedom of speech extend to (in one sense at least). That isn't what the 'debate' about book is about though.

[acrossthepond 711]

There are laws in the UK which cover people who preach racial hatred and incite violence and so on. These people can, quite rightly, be prosecuted if they fall into that category, which is more or less where the limits of freedom of speech extend to (in one sense at least). That isn't what the 'debate' about book is about though.

 

Too right. But that's what Fopinho asked me about. Can't disappoint.

[Guest alex]

There are laws in the UK which cover people who preach racial hatred and incite violence and so on. These people can, quite rightly, be prosecuted if they fall into that category, which is more or less where the limits of freedom of speech extend to (in one sense at least). That isn't what the 'debate' about book is about though.

 

Too right. But that's what Fopinho asked me about. Can't disappoint.

By the way, it wasn't a dig at the debate on here. It was a dig at the people up in arms about something they haven't even considered reading.