Scripture turned into soft-core porn?

THIS month a novel titled The Jewel of Medina by Sherry Jones was due for release by the US publishing giant Random House. The publisher decided not to release the novel on August 12 because they were afraid it "could incite acts of violence by a small, radical segment".

Random House describes the 432-page work of fiction as "a fascinating portrait of A'isha, child bride of the Prophet Muhammad, who overcame great obstacles to reach her full potential as a woman and a leader". The decision to postpone the publication of the novel indefinitely came after "credible and unrelated sources" advised them that the book may be offensive to Muslims.

The woman accused of initiating the controversy and influencing Random House's decision is Denise Spellberg, a US historian who teaches at the University of Texas. Spellberg objected to the claim that the novel was "extensively researched" and she felt obliged to "counter this novel's fallacious representation of a very real woman's life".

The wife of the Prophet, according to Spellberg, is characterised as a "sexualised being, swinging a sword around and who taught others to use a weapon". Jones acknowledges that, in this instance, she has altered and embellished history for the sake of her fiction.

What are the alleged soft-porn and sexualised parts of the novel? Consider this description by Jones of A'isha's fictional encounter with Safwan ibn Al-Mu'attal: "With our bodies, we brushed each other lightly — my breasts to his chest. An aroma like musk rose from his body. My moan of pleasure surprised me, luxuriant as the purr of a cat stretching in the sunlight."

It is significant to note that A'isha (Allah be well-pleased with her) was falsely accused by some people of adultery and that the Prophet (upon him blessings and peace) subsequently received revelation declaring her to be innocent. Jones' rendition of this history portrays the wife of the Prophet, at best, as a woman flirting with a strange man.

With reference to the consummation of her marriage to the Prophet, Jones writes: "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."

Another example of artistic licence applied to historical fact by Jones is a passage in which the military jihad is both conflated and confused with the spiritual jihad. A'isha is reportedly saying in the last page of the novel: "My sword will serve you well in the jihad to come. Now I knew what Muhammad meant by 'an inner struggle'. On the very day of his death, jihad had already begun."

Spellberg points out that given the stereotype of Muslims as violent and intolerant of criticism this type of distortion can only further inflame tensions between Muslims and non-Muslims. She further notes that The Jewel of Medina is typical of medieval Christian writings, and that it "provides no new reading of Aisha's life, but actually expands upon provocative themes regarding the wives of Muhammad first found in The Satanic Verses".

"I do not espouse censorship of any kind, but I do value my right to critique those who abuse the past without regard for its richness or resonance in the present," she said.

Clearly, the distortion of sacred history in order to produce fiction, is not acceptable to Muslims, even if, as Jones asserts, her intention was to honour all the wives of Prophet Muhammad who have been ignored-and silenced-by historians. Salman Rushdie, in a more blatant abuse of artistic licence has gone further and perverted the sacred history of Muslims with a clear disregard for the offence it may cause.

The important question that arises is not: Is it right for writers like Rushdie and Jones to do what they are doing? Instead, the important question is: Do they have a right to do so? No doubt, in their own law and culture they do have that right. In Islamic law and culture there is no such right. Does it mean then, that Muslims are simply locked into a clash with western law and culture? In the grand scheme of things, do Muslims ultimately buy into this notion of a clash of civilisations, the same notion that provides the US the pretext to invade and bomb those who resist their imperial agenda?

No, we don't. I say we resist the invaders and oppressors on the battlefield. That is the proper territory for such a confrontation, whether it be in Iraq, Palestine or elsewhere. Violent resistance against those who occupy your lands and drive you from your homes is perfectly legitimate. That is eminently the Prophetic and the reasonable thing to do. And this principle is consistent with international law.

But when it comes to intellectual discourse and conflict in art and culture, the territory is different. I cannot support murder and violent attacks by a minority of extremists when dealing with writers and artists who insult Muslims, the Holy Prophet and our sacred symbols. These are neither Prophetic nor reasonable means of resistance. Instead, they feed into the stereotype of Muslims as irrational and violent fanatics incapable of fighting ideas with ideas.

So, if not with violence and unreason, how do we deal with a law and a culture that seem to deliberately offend and insult that which is sacred to us as Muslims? There are several ways. We can fight ideas with ideas. We can protest peacefully, create platforms for debate and challenge the Islamophobes. We can use the media and make noises, intelligent noises that show the beauty and superiority of Islamic art and culture. It is a shame that we still boast of a proud but lost intellectual and cultural heritage in Spain, and have little to show of it today. Too often is our voice silenced by the violent discourse of a few extremists.

We can apply political pressure through peaceful civil action, even if most of the Muslim world leaders are weak and puppets of the empires. We can apply economic pressure with our buying power and use the weapon of the consumer boycott. We can challenge them by their law and in their courts. Western democracy and the culture of free speech provides us an opportunity, albeit, at times an unequal one, to express our viewpoint and pursue justice.

If the Jordanian legal challenge succeeds against the Islamophobe Geert Wilders who explicitly insulted the Prophet and blasphemed against Islam, this will be a major victory and legal precedent not only for Muslims, but for all religious people around the world. If Jones' book is found to be lacking in research and scholarship, but claims to be extensively researched, then that may be a basis for a legal challenge.

Random House certainly did not do Muslims a favour by opting not to publish the book. Instead, they are also feeding into the stereotype that Muslims are violent, irrational fanatics and that they achieve their objectives through violence or threats of violence. It would have been preferable that they did so because the book was found lacking in thorough research and scholarship as is claimed on its cover endorsements. That would be a true victory for Muslims. Not the silencing of a writer and a publisher with fear of violence.

The big intellectual challenge here is opening the discourse on the convergence of law and freedom of expression in art, notably in fiction. We need to argue that artistic licence in producing works of fiction like historic novels should be subject to standards that uphold the norms of accuracy and consistency with the historical record. We need to argue that artistic licence precludes the right of offend and insult a people's religious sensibilities. Muslims need to pioneer a set of norms that protects the sacred symbols of all faiths.

It may be very difficult to achieve any kind of sustained success in this struggle, but it is a necessary struggle. We cannot abdicate the responsibility of meeting the enemies of Islam on the intellectual and cultural arena while we support only the military jihad against the invaders of our lands. We have to place the debate of legitimate civil resistance against disrespect for sacred symbols on the agenda of political leaders, law makers, entertainers, artists and writers. Our voices can help set the agenda and raising civilised public awareness, even if the struggle does not produce major successes. Otherwise we will remain aliens to mature and balanced critical discourse. We will cede a legitimate struggle to a minority of extremists who are hell-bent on the violence-only option at all costs. These extremists contribute little in terms of civilised debate, but offer maximum damage to the image of Islam and Muslims.

We also risk the hijacking of the debate by Islamophobes like Daniel Pipes who eagerly await another instance of Muslim fanaticism in order to peddle their trade of misinformation.

Neither censorship nor banning can bring Muslims the victory that civilised debate can. Compulsion cannot win the hearts and minds of reasonable citizens in western democracies. Of course, civil debate cannot win the hearts and minds of hardcore Islamophobes, but we need not waste too much time with them.

The best strategy is the Qur'anic one: "Invite (all) to the Way of your Lord with wisdom and beautiful preaching; and argue with them in ways that are best and most gracious: for your Lord knows best, who have strayed from His Path, and who receive guidance" (16:125).

The writer is a Cape Town media activist.The Brunei Times