Is this <i>The Satanic Verses</i> all over again?
By bluegal Tuesday Aug 26, 2008 5:00pmThe Jewel of Medina is an as yet unpublished book about The Prophet Mohammed and his child bride, Aisha. Several commenters and reviewers have indicated its quality as a novel might not be very good. But Random House paid a $100,000 advance for the book, had arranged for foreign publication, Book of the Month Club selection, and Quality Paperback Book Club selection. It's not like Random House deals exclusively in high fiction; they publish Danielle Steele romance novels, for crying out loud.
Random House pulled out of publishing the book last minute, when they somehow got the idea that bad Islamic terrorists might retaliate against the publisher for the book's content. In the meantime, at least one book prize committee has announced that they will not consider any Random House submissions until this book is published, due to the cowardice exhibited in pulling the title:
...we can not pretend that this type of cowardice will disappear without serious remonstrance. Until The Jewel of Medina is actually published, The Langum Charitable Trust will not consider submissions of any books, for any of our prizes, from Random House or any of its affiliates. We do this reluctantly, since our most recent prize in American historical fiction went to a Random House title.
Salman Rushdie, the most famous author to deal with threats and censorship due to his book's content vis-a-vis Islam, is supporting publication of the book on free-speech, rather than literary, grounds.
The Atlantic says they haven't seen "evidence that he read The Jewel of Medina or liked the excerpts." But Rushdie is currently in the Random House stable of authors (although they didn't publish Satanic Verses):
<!--#include file="m63-article-related-attachements.html"--><!-- BEGIN: Module - M63 - Article Related Attachements --><!-- BEGIN: Comment Teaser Module --><!-- END: Module - M63 - Article Related Attachements -->
“I am very disappointed to hear that my publishers, Random House, have cancelled another author's novel, apparently because of their concerns about possible Islamic reprisals,” Rushdie said. “This is censorship by fear and it sets a very bad precedent indeed.”
Login or Register to post comments.
Caving in to such insanity is enough for me to take any Random House products off my list forever.
But but I thought Muslims were the good guys.
the worst part of giving in to fear tactics is that it validates the use of fear as a tactic in general. you should be ashamed of yourself Random House.
as much fun as it is to throw in the occasional vis-a-vis into your blog, It is hardly appropriate in this case. "Vis-a-vis Islam" indicates that his work is dedicated to the entirety of Islam and that the entirety of Islam is offering threats to him. This is simply not the case. Islam is a religion that encompasses many different souls.
More likely RH is afraid of the reprisals a la Malatov Cocktail Party. What crap. Censorship veiled as fear of terrorism.
Funny...I tried to use that same tact to get them to stop publishing Danielle Steele books and it didn't work.
brakshow @ 2:
"Muslims"? That's a rather broad statement considering there is 1.3 billion of them.
Random House could be brave and publish, then they get the intense attention of the Islamic extremists and the people who want to join bandwagons.
It all depends on how much RH can afford to lose in markets that touch the Muslim world, do they want the bad publicity or worse.
The author could do the vanity publishing thing or just dump the novel onto a website in pdf format.
If an author did a similar novel about Hagee or Buchanan, theres a good chance their extreme supporters would get ansy.
As planned the publishing company gets publicity, which prob was the original plan, no matter what happens to the book.
brakshow @ 2:
What a lovely black and white world you live in.
there are a lot of neocon types trying to push these things. It is easier to bomb them after demonizing. Last year American Enterprise Institute funded by Exxon was hosting an African lady from Holland to do exactly that.
jay @ 10:
African lady from Holland... LOL
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayaan_Hirsi_Ali
pinkobait @ 7:
ah yes, i see all the 1.3 billion muslims railing against the small minority that cause all the trouble. oh, is marching too hard? well perhaps speaking out in the mosques. oh, is that too hard? well, perhaps writing op-eds or blogs...oo...not too many of those either. so much for "the religion of peace".
they deny their holiest sites from unclean "infidels". demand that local cultures conform to their strictures wheever *they* move to. and will even kill anyone who leaves their religion.
what's not to love abuot this bunch?
when i see them speaking out enmass against wahabbist and al qaeda style extremism then i'll start beliving "the religion of peace" line.
I think this is more about getting more anti-Muslim votes than religion. The Iranian mullas who issued the death fatwa against Rushdie hate the lady Aisha deeply and print many nasty books about her themselves and have many websites dedicated to spreading their hate of her.
There are 100s of books about her (pro and con), child genuies, tomboy, photographic memory, poetry criteque, historian - most of her mental skills were language based. The Sunni sects all love her as a mother but are very used to the Iranian mullas spreading their hate of her.
She is central in Frank Herbert's Dune - no Muslim I know complained, and Dune was based on some of the most negative history about her to, didn't make the movie or books less readable.
Satanic verses - "Ayat alShaytan" is a play on words, "ayatola" the word before Iran's "holy" people like Khomayne, means sign from God, so Salam Rushdie actually called the Iranian mullas satan worshipers. The death fatwa was becuase of some of his eariler books, but even those were just as badly written as "Satanic Verses" - his later works are better written, but I do not read religious books.
I think these little incidents will increase - the anti-Muslim vote is very important and Obama is not likely to get them, so the more anti-Islamic things get the more votes for McCain, all he has to do is say "Islamofacists", "Islamic radicals" and "Muslim terrorists" and he's in. The Jewel of Medina - no way it has anything as bad as the Shia books and sites currently say about her - their hate of her goes back over 1,000 years, and anyone publishing Islamic themed books would know this for sure. I think it's more of a politcal ploy to get more votes for McCain.
brakshow @ 2:
No. Muslims are the bad guys. Christians and Jews are the good guys, hence the trumpeting of the Judeo-Christian values by not just the MSM, but politicians as well. {Snarkoff }
Some asshole makes a threat to the publishers and suddenly this whole thing is turns into "Damn those Muslims".
Say, why did the publisher of OJ Simpson's "If I did it" drop his book at the last minute? Was it because it was in poor taste. Funny how people talk about freedom of speech when it suits them.
I don't know what the book is about or what the content is like, but if it's yet another book that paints Muslims in general as rapists, thugs and barbarians then perhaps it shouldn't be published.
Oftentimes, people forget to take into account the political context of publishing such work. Do you know how many thousands of Muslims, Arabs and Middle Eastern people have lost jobs, been physically attacked, had their business burnt to the ground in retaliation after 9/11. These were law abiding U.S. citizens who did nothing to warrant such reprisals. The problem is that all this so-called literature, cartoons and comics that put Muslims and Islam in a negative light ends up supporting the rationale that Muslims and brown-looking people need to be "contained" lest they "take over our country".
Do you understand now? This goes beyond freedom of speech. I'm surprised this blog posted this article considering they themselves, as democrats/liberals, come under attack often by the likes of Limbagh, Bill'O and others.
So, does Rush have a right to continue saying the things he says about "Libruls"? Does Rush's speech lead to incidents like the shooting in Arkansas that claimed the life of the Democratic chairman there? Perhaps. Perhaps it doesn't. I don't know. But, the fact remains, C&L is bothered by it and they stalk him on their blog.
Now, I'm all for publishing facts that are true and accurate, but when it comes to propaganda and racist venom it makes you wonder why so many people claim that in the name of Freedom of Speech it must be published.
First of all, re: sassafra and brakshow, Do Not Feed the Trolls
Second of all, what a shame, even if the book isnt any good, which is not the reason its getting shelved.
And third, Salaman Rushdie can't be talked up enough. One of the living greats, who walks the walk and talks the talk. Read "Shame" for a great fictional account of Pakistan.
Calling a revered figure of a major religion a pervert: Freedom of Speech
Questioning the Holocaust: Punishable by 5 years in prison.
teacher joshua @ 15:
so i'm a troll am i?
that's why van gogh is dead. priceless ancient buddahs are blown to bits by the taliban, honor killings are spreading across europe and are starting to appear in the u.s. .
but somehow i'm a troll because i want the muslim community *at large* to denounce these acts. yhey don't they never have. i'm waiting. it's a civil request.
sassafra @ 12:
You guys can't speak against islamists in your country, and you want Muslims to speak out loudly? but there are a lot of people you don't see them, because you can't read their language. there are a lot of people against extreme version of Islam, there are also a lot of people are too ignorant but they are not terrorists like your religious right, there are people just living taking no side. you should understand human nature, as they are like you humans, beside AQ is not supported in any Islamic country, the most support they found in local areas in Pakistan, Afghanistan ..etc, There are several sects and most sects hate each other, so don't worry about them speaking out against Wahhabis. Wahhabism was almost banned in Iraq Saddam, and today too, most of Iraqis against them, that's ordinary Iraqis even those who are anti-America
Islamists like the American religious right but violent with more extreme views, but like in states they control the narrative, they too there control the narrative. decades ago, Islamists were the weakest political movement in most Arab countries, things changed in the recent years, and will change back anytime in the future when more people realize the violent nature of those Islamists.
/talk from experience.
sassafra @ 12:
The basis for your entire claim is unfounded, not to mention the duplicity of your argument and the hypocrisy of it all. When thousands of protesters against the Iraq war went marching in DC a few months ago, how many TV stations covered it? I seem to recall a 10 second blip somewhere on CNN. That was it. So, as far as I'm concerned, if I were a sheltered person I could come out with a broad statement saying that "Americans are blood thirsty, just look at how they all support their president's actions in Iraq".
Do you constantly follow every Middle Eastern TV and radio station for said demonstrations and protests? Do you monitor all publications coming out of every Middle Eastern or Muslim country? Do you read foreign newspapers?
Can you read Arabic, Urdu or Farsi?
What do you know about the people you're so quick to judge and condemn enmass? Isn't your entire perspective shaped by what YOUR government wants you to think, by the media, the news stations that you watch?
Until you do all the above, do yourself a favor and stop posting such ignorant statements.
The fact is, countless people in the Middle East, North Africa and Asia condemn Al-Qaeda and their ilk. Did it ever occur to you that the country you live in has a vested interested in painting the entire "Muzlim" world as dangerous and barbaric? Or do those thoughts never cross your mind?
As for the rest of your unfounded accusations about other cultures conforming to "their" values wherever they move to, and the ignorant "infidels" statement, well, they're not even worth a response.
Why don't you see the hypocrisy of your statement?? "Islamists" is a made up slur against Muslims who you call extremists. I bet you've never even met one, but you're fast to judge everyone one of them.
For some reason the crap you spew is protected freedom of speech, and the people you judge don't have the right to "control the narrative".
Holy crap, get out and travel the world.
my friend @ 18:
i'm not worried about Wahhabism in iraq! that's not where it's a problem. the saudi royals years ago made their deal with the Wahhabi devil to secure their political hold over the disparate kingdoms to form saudi arabia. they're now both locked in a death grip for power which we help finance.
yay us for being stupid.
sassafra @ 17:
I've just finished typing a long post, but the blog fairy ate it, it seems.
Anyway, long story short, your perception is shaped by what your country wants you to think, by your media and the limited numbers of languages that you speak.
Do you constantly monitor Middle Eastern, North African and Asian radio stations? How about TV stations? What about publications, newspapers and blogs?
Do you speak Farsi, Arabic or Urdu?
No?
Well then how do purport to KNOW who's denouncing who and to what extent they are denouncing so-called radicals? Did that ever cross your mind? Did it also occur to you that your own government might have a vested interest in portraying the "Muszlim" world as such?
Do yourself a favor. Don't come lecturing people about the dangers of "Islam" in "your own country" as if it's some plague. The Nazis did that to the Jews and looked how that turned out. But, some people just don't see the big picture sometimes. They're too ethnocentric and hypocritical.
The reason that many Islamists don't want the book published is the fact that Aiesha was 6 years old when Mohammed married her (he forced her father into the marriage) and 9 years old when he took to his bed and knew her (in the Biblical way.) If you don't believe me, read the Hadiths.
In Aiesha's own words, she was still playing with her dolls when Mohammed first had sex with her.
Since Mohammed is considered the prefect man, then anything he did was right. That is the reason that many Muslim countries have the age of 6 for a girl to get married and some have the age of 9 for her husband to claim her in the bed.
And for anyone saying that they married young in those days and had sex young in those days , yes, they did but not at 9 year old girl with a 50+ year old man. Most societies in those "days" waited until the girl was older than 14 or 15.
cheezebox @ 20:
I think your reading comprehension skills are rather poor. The post you quote may not be the most lucidly written, but I think you are on the same side of the argument.
Barbara @ 23:
(rolling eyes). Yes, oh expert of Islam, enlighten us with Hadiths. Don't just give weak or made Hadiths, specify the chain of narration and the strength of each link.
Sources, or it didn't happen..."Barbara".
Why an entire post about a book without a single mention of the author?
You mentioned another author.
"censorship by fear"- isn't that the new title of the US Constitution?
McDuff @ 19:
i watch al jazaeera regularly also i read englsh translations of 2 arabic 1 turkish, 1 kurdish(monthly) , and 1 farsi periodical
i'm quite well versed on what the muslim "street" thinks about in each country it isn't what the west generally would call "pretty" at the moment. a lot of it due to bush i'm afraid.
cheezebox @ 20:
haha, Islamists is a word used even in Arabic to mean fundamentalist, easy, I never met one? my family all are Muslims. I was one too.
sassafra @ 28:
The Muslims "street"? So if I walked down a "Christian" street or a "Jewish" street I'd see a uniformity of opinions?
You're keeping a finger on the "pulse" of the Muslim "world"? Is that it? lol
cheezebox @ 25:
Aisha was six or seven years old when betrothed to Muhammad. She stayed in her parents' home until the age of nine, when the marriage was consummated [1][3][4][5] The marriage was delayed until after the Hijra, or migration to Medina, in 622. Aisha and her older sister Asma bint Abi Bakr only moved to Medina after Muhammad had already migrated there. Abu Bakr gave Muhammad the money to build a house for himself. After this, the wedding was celebrated very simply. The sources do not offer much more information about Aisha's childhood years, but mention that after the wedding, she continued to play with her toys, and Muhammad entered into the spirit of these games.[6]
She is quoted as source for many hadith, sacred traditions about the prophet Muhammad's life, with Muhammad's personal life being the topic of most narrations. She has narrated 2210 Hadiths out of which 316 hadiths are mentioned in both Sahih al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim
Sources are early Islamic writings, including the Hadiths and the following sources
Watt, "Aisha", Encyclopedia of Islam Online
Amira Sonbol, Rise of Islam: 6th to 9th century, Encyclopedia of Women and Islamic Cultures
Barlas (2002), p.125-126
Sahih Bukhari 5:58:234, 5:58:236, 7:62:64, 7:62:65, 7:62:88, Sahih Muslim 8:3309, 8:3310, 8:3311, Sunnan Abu Dawud 41:4915, 41:4917
Tabari, Volume 9, Page 131; Tabari, Volume 7, Page 7
Watt, Muhammad: Prophet and Statesman, Oxford University Press 1961, page 102
Tabari is one of the most respected of the early Islamic writers.
sassafra @ 28:
Which Arab newspapers you read, which Kurdish and which Farsi. as I may know those papers, just curious.
Beside I tell you it is not enough to know well, imagine if an Arab just watching a Fox news and then tell Arabs about how American street thinks. which by the way happens a lot. there are people who do just like that , cherry pick from western media and use it to spread anti-west ideologies.
Barbara @ 31:
I don't know where you've managed to glean that stuff.
Various Muslim and Arabic history books, including universities that teach theology in the Middle East say Mohammad was the young one of the two (20s). His wife, was in her 40s. Some Muslims would say that he married her for her wealth. But, that's besides the point here. His wife, wasn't 6. Where in the world do you get your so-called facts?
Whoever wrote that thing you cite sounds like a paid shill. There are enough of them these days, Walid Shoebat comes to mind.
Now, I'd like to ask you, let's assume for a moment that what you're saying were true. Why are you so concerned?
Are you afraid that the Muslims will "get you", the ol' boogie man? Or perhaps you're just concerned for the well being of 6 year old girls at the hands of those "rapist Arabs"?
Either way, I don't see how your point has anything to do with radical groups like Al-Qaeda, for example.
So the Langum Charitable Trust is going to protest censorship by practicing it? Are they actually saying that if Random House published a book that was as good or better than, say, To Kill a Mockingbird, they would refuse to recognize its literary merit on political grounds.
This is not a literary award one ever need really consider as a marker of quality writing.
That said, Random House should be ashamed of themselves, too.
McDuff @ 30:
*laughs * among other things. i like geopolitics i read a lot. “street” is a common term utilized in that part of the world. i said what i meant and meant what i said.
Okay,
So Ayaan Hirsi Ali gets published, "Now They Call Me Infidel" gets published, countless other screeds get published that tarnish the name of Islam, and yet we are to believe that an obscure, unpublished novel by a no-name author is causing jihadists to grab their bombs and head to Random House's corporate offices. I find this dubious at best.
Now, think about it this way - an obscure, unpublished novel by a no-name author is being considered by Random House, but (predictably) it is likely to flop, and be remaindered within a year. How do you get this book to be a money-maker, a best-seller? Well, it's about Aisha and Muhammad - and puts the latter in a poor light. If you leak that you may be dropping this book due to the possibility of a jihadist threat, there are more than enough islamophobic voices with large audiences to get people to come out demanding that the book be published. Now you've got a big news story about a wavering publisher, the vox populi demanding the book be released, and when it is released every newspaper, magazine, talk radio host, cable news talking head, whatever, that demanded the release of the book will feature the book prominently, and urge everyone to go out and buy a copy today!
Seriously - don't be taken in by these sorts of PR scams...
McDuff @ 33:
Khadijah bint Khuwaylid or Khadijah al-Kubra[1] (555 AD – 623 AD) was the first wife of Mohammad.She was 15 years older than him. She was also quite wealthy.
It was only after Khadijah bint Khuwaylid or Khadijah al-Kubra[1] (555 AD – 623 AD) died that Mohammed started marrying multiple wives. Again, the sources are Islamic. He had about 20 wives, of which Aiesha was the last.
The book is about Aiesha, his last wife.
Before you accuse someone of making up facts, why don't you read what the topic is about - a book about Aiesha, not Khadijah.
Most people who read a book about a man who is about 50 years old and has sex with a 9 year old would be rather upset.
And that is why many imans and others don't want the book published because some in the Western World (and other parts of the world) might just think - hmmm, child abuser, which might just put him in a bad light.
And after seeing what happened in the world when certain people drew cartoons, the publishing house folds and doesn't publish the book.
It has nothing to do with Al-Q or any radical groups. It is history and if history shows someone in a bad light, then, forebear at once - we must not look at history.
Oh, and you don't seem too upset about a 50+ year old man having sex with a 9 year old girl.
May I suggest you look up the Fistula Foundation and see what happens to girls in Africa who are married at too young an age.
As a woman, I found it horrible.
You might not - your choice.
my friend @ 32:
tehran times, iran daily, turkish daily news, khatuzeen center( for women's issues kurdish)
Now, think about it this way - an obscure, unpublished novel by a no-name author is being considered by Random House, but (predictably) it is likely to flop, and be remaindered within a year. How do you get this book to be a money-maker, a best-seller?
I have to agree. If you read the response of the Texas academic who was sent a copy of the ms by Random House, she pointed out that the book, contrary to claims was not well-researched, and with the liberties it took, might incite muslim anger.
but nobody even knew about the book. i doubt U.S.'s 3 million muslims would have heard of it, leave alone the 1 billion elsewhere unless it was made into an issue like this.
Random House should clearly say why they pulled it, instead of leaving people to speculate or assume that it was because of a supposed threat.
and here is a review from someone who actually read the manuscript.
Barbara @ 37:
same thing about ritual female genital mutilation.
pinkobait @ 7:
You mean there are good ones and bad ones?
I do not understand.
I thought that all Muslims were good and all Christofacists were bad.
Here are two good articles about Mohammed and his relationship with the child Aisha. Any remotely objective study of this topic forces one to conclude that Mohammed did in fact have sex with a nine year old girl. That is vile pedophilia now and would have been vile pedophilia back then. Oh Cheezebox, deal with the arguments, do not be intellectually lazy and say " oh Christians wrote the articles". Show why they are factually wrong.
http://www.answering-islam.org/Silas/childbrides.htm
and
http://www.answeringinfidels.com/answering-infidels/answering-muslims/wa...
I can paint most of the people in the world with one broad stroke.
Abrahamic Monotheist.
The inherent anti-social flaw within monotheism is that monotheists believe in one true path with one true G/god and all others are at the very least, wrong, and at the most, evil, by default. Then, to make matters worse, a great percentage of these people are encouraged to embrace personal relationships with their G/god - effectively making billions of custom made G/gods in each individual monotheist's image. Naturally within this customized G/god's eyes the primary individual who dreamt it up is the closest person to that G/God and is, therefore, holier than all other monotheists dreaming up similar G/gods.
Meanwhile, in reality, the conjecture of "G/god exists" holds as much scientific credibility as the existence of any 5-yr old's imaginary friend.
And this is the philosophy that drives the social, political and economic applications of most of the people on this planet. Pretty pathetic, isn't it?
Zenrage @ 43:
You ignore the Universalists.
uh oh media matters must have missed Dr Savage the other day(monday?) when he did a lengthy interview with a spokeswoman for the author.
very informative, much more so than the name calling in these comments
he presented the story in his interview method where the person being interviewed speaks without any interuption
not only did he let her get the random house story out, true to his message he agreed with her that censureship is not a good thing
so it sounds like there may be some cases where some here might agree with the good Dr?
Barbara @ 37:
I can't speak for everyone else, but, as a catholic priest myself I can tell you that I find it enjoyable to have sex with kids. {/snark}.
You're still harping about 600AD when this decade alone has pedophiles roaming free all under the protection of The Church.
As for genitalia mutilation, it is terrible. I deplore it. It's mostly practiced in Africa. So what's your point? Do you want to see more Muslims condemning such actions? I'll get right to it as soon as righteous people like you start condeming Israel's genocide against the Palestinians. I mean, since we're throwing all kinds of crap at the wall in this thread in hopes that something will stick, why not bring in my own conditions to the table, right?
The fact that you view 1.3 BILLION people as one mass speaks volumes about your reasoning abilities. What's the point of talking to someone like you anyway, your mind is set, Barbara.
By the way, I'm an atheist, my parents are Jewish & Muslim, but I don't believe in the existence of some mythical being up in the sky.
Bennett Cerf must be turning in his grave. What has the publishing house he founded devolved into?
What exactly was bluegal and Crooks and Liars hoping to accomplish by reporting this story? Are they bothered by the censorship aspect?
The biggest joke is on Crooks and Liars that becomes crap the minute John Amato is away in Denver.
Why is it that despite the United States' entanglement with Israel and the major role Israel plays in our policy that Crooks and Liars only has 13 entries under "Israel"? Talk about bias.
Forget that. How is this blog any different that David Horowitz's "Islamofascim Awareness Week"?
When Munich and Passion of the Christ were a week away from theaters, the entire Jewish community was up in arms denouncing the producers and calling their works antiSemitic, boycotts and threats followed.
Here's a big FUCK YOU to blugal and Crooks and Liars for becoming the Fox News of blogs. This place has turned to crap.
I am really sad that one of my favorite blogs (crooksandliars) bought this PR stunt.
Now you can go shake hands with Savage (Wiener) and other islamophobes.
Publishers give in to threats regarding 'controversial' topics all the time.
Have you guys any idea how many books, investigative reports and TV shows the "Church" of Scientology have gotten pulled?
If someone's looking for an example of free speech clashing with religion, you can start by asking Lewis Black why the "Root of all Evil" episode they were doing on Scientology got pulled. (Or talk to the South Park guys.. or ask Youtube about that Tom Cruise video.. etc, etc)
If the people who are all upset about this want to convince me it's genuinely the Freedom of Speech issue that upsets them - I'd like to know why they're not making the same amount of noise about the pandering to our own, home-grown, religious nutjobs.
(And Scientology is a helluva lot crazier and more dangerous than Islam.. check out xenu.net!)
ah yes, i see all the 1.3 billion muslims railing against the small minority that cause all the trouble. oh, is marching too hard? well perhaps speaking out in the mosques. oh, is that too hard? well, perhaps writing op-eds or blogs…oo…not too many of those either. so much for “the religion of peace”.
they deny their holiest sites from unclean “infidels”. demand that local cultures conform to their strictures wheever *they* move to. and will even kill anyone who leaves their religion.
what’s not to love abuot this bunch?
when i see them speaking out enmass against wahabbist and al qaeda style extremism then i’ll start beliving “the religion of peace” line.
wow! mr trigger-happy man...unbelievable...
i'm a muslim fr a small country in asia. for the past one month i tried (still trying) my best to surf the net for information about american politics. i couldnt help but to pay attention to your perception on muslims and islam in general. not 1 or 2 hrs everyday..try at least 10 hrs everyday surfing n reading about it.(btw, i'm on leave)
what i could see in common is your religious zealots is no diff fr our zealots.. most of them despise america(not american) for what happen in mid east.. we DONT kill anyone who leaves our religion. not here anyway, though i have to sadly admit its wrong to force ppl for what they believe in. you call it islamophobia, but i never heard any of my muslims fellows mention christianophobic. its american policy that they afraid of.. the same feeling we have for al-qaeda killing innocent ppl..
i was in the subway few yrs back and i saw this mormon guy(american) promoting mormon with flyers. nobody beat him up, nobody said bad words to him. and its a muslim country. i rented a room in a christian house with crosses all over the house. they know i'm a muslim and they respect that..(btw, they talked bad about catholics because they r born again christians..anybody know why?)
i personally thought salman rushdie Midnight's Children was good, but satanic verses was too much. what if the book about jesus? how would you feel.. come on.. i'm happy that we dont hv fox channel over here, or else most of these muslims zealots perceptions will be diff and screaming for a war.
So tell me, how is Sheikh Wiki doing these days?
To McDuff
I can't speak for everyone else, but, as a catholic priest myself I can tell you that I find it enjoyable to have sex with kids. {/snark}.
KK That you would even joke about something like that speaks volumes about your intelligence.
You're still harping about 600AD when this decade alone has pedophiles roaming free all under the protection of The Church.
KK Let's try this again. This blog is about a book that is being suppressed. The book in question deals with events occuring in approximately 600AD. The reason for this book being suppressed is almost certainly that it deals with Mohammad having sex with a nine year old child in the 7th century. That is why we are discussing events of the 7th century. We are not discussing the Catholic church etc because they have nothing to do with either this book, or its suppression. Does this make sense to you now?
As for genitalia mutilation, it is terrible. I deplore it. It's mostly practiced in Africa. So what's your point?
KK Actually Barbara mentioned fistula in relation to Mohammed. She did not mention genitalia mutilation. Can you not read basic English??
Do you want to see more Muslims condemning such actions?
KK It would be nice.... I notice your not too upset over the raping of a nine year old girl
I'll get right to it as soon as righteous people like you start condeming Israel's genocide against the Palestinians. I mean, since we're throwing all kinds of crap at the wall in this thread in hopes that something will stick, why not bring in my own conditions to the table, right?
KK This confirms it, you are a fool. Pay attention. This blog is discussing a book and why it is being suppressed. That is why Barbara mentioned Aisha. This book to the best of my knowledge has absolutely nothing to do with Israel, Palestine, Evolution, flat earth theories etc. That is why Barbara has not responded to them or even mentioned them. Of course you feel that one has to deal with your choosen evil before you can condemn other evils, that speaks volumes about your morality.
The fact that you view 1.3 BILLION people as one mass speaks volumes about your reasoning abilities. What's the point of talking to someone like you anyway, your mind is set, Barbara.
KK You must be a college freshman or sophomore to be making this many logical fallacies. She said nothing about 1.3 billion Muslims. ( and when did it become 1.3 billion Muslims anyways?) She said nothing about 1.3 billion Muslims thinking the same way. When asked for evidence from another reader she produced it. Have you or any other reader given any reasons why her evidence is flawed? If you haven't then why should she change her mind?
By the way, I'm an atheist, my parents are Jewish & Muslim, but I don't believe in the existence of some mythical being up in the sky.
KK Well if you're an atheist I fear for the future of Atheism. The absolute last thing we need is an irrational atheist who cannot understand elementary logic. Anyways, what in blazes does your atheism have to do with this discussion or the price of tea in China. STAY ON SUBJECT!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JMeWAtNIPxc
McDuff probably thinks McDuff is Homer Simpson's favorite beer.
kornholio @ 51:
Welcome to C&L, kornholio.
Let me give you the introduction. Anti-islamic racism is at an all-time high in the USA. And that's what it's about, racism. This 'Freedom of Speech' thing is just a convenient weapon the racists have found to use. Because noone wants to be against free speech. It becomes obvious when you do what I did in my comment above, which is compare the reactions to this with the reactions to similar complaints from other religions (and in the case of Scientology.. a very small cult which is inordinately good at harassing critics).
You could say that there are two "schools" of racist thought going on. One group, who claims the problem is that most Islamic states haven't had the Enlightenment (Democracy, Freedom of Speech/Religion, Separation of church & state, etc.), and which uses this as an argument against Islam. (Which a more liberal, intelligent, person would realize has to do with politics and not with the religion. Christianity is not intrinsically more liberal than Islam)
The second group are the religous conservatives, who seem to think the problem isn't that they didn't have an Enlightenment - it's that we did.
In a way, you're better off. You only have the latter group to fight against.
Maybe if the west did not declare war with Islam under George Bush, we could tolerate such blaitent provocations with literature by the west against Muslims. Bravo Random House for boycotting this latest attack on Islam by the hate monger Rushdie,
-and this is an atheist writing this reply people!
Alexdem
What exactly is Anti-islamic racism?
You see Islam is not a race, last time I looked. If I do recall correctly, it is a religion, a religion which a person from any of the various ethnic groups around the world are free to join. Would you kindly inform me what magical process transforms all of these distinct ethnic groups and makes then a new race. So Alexdem am I correct to state that the known races of man are now African. Asian, Caucasian and Islam?
Of course the above is all nonsense. Islam is not a race so it is IMPOSSIBLE to be racist against it. Next your going to tell me I am perhaps racist against Wiccans. Geez.
Islam is a religion and ideological movement which makes very specific claims about the nature of the universe and how mankind should live. It is demonstratively violent and oppressive. Therefore I and others are certainly right to use our Western notion of Freedom of Speech to tell our views on this subject.
I want to make this crystal clear. The government in the US has to take a neutral stance in regard to religion. I as a citizen do not. I can be completely against a religion and it's members to the full extent allowed by the law ( I cannot deny them equal opportunity for jobs, housing, attack or harass them). So I will happily oppose Islam within those limits regardless of the color of the member of this new Islamic race....
What did I miss? I just thought this was a story about Random House pulling a book because of some threats. What am I missing here?
I think Gabriel @ 36 is right on the money.
keep it real @ 48:
Steven Spielberg's Munich was considered antisemitic? How so?
61 Rusty “One House” Shackleford
If I remember correctly, Munich was controversial because it showed Israeli commandoes having some doubts about their mission, although they pull it off.
It probably helped clinch Daniel Craig getting the James Bond part.
se7en8six @ 52:
Sheikh Wiki is just doing nicely.
But Sahih Bukhari (810 AD- 870 AD) is sadly on longer with us
(From Bukhari vol. 7, #65:)
"Narrated Aisha that the prophet wrote the marriage contract with her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old. Hisham said: "I have been informed that Aisha remained with the prophet for nine years (i.e. till his death).""
and the wonderful Tabari (838 AD - 870AD) is also gone. But he left his 39 volume history of Islam and Mohammed and his scholarship on the Hadiths has never been equaled.
From Tabari, volume 9, page 131
"Then the men and women got up and left. The Messenger of God consummated his marriage with me in my house when I was nine years old. Neither a camel nor a sheep was slaughtered on behalf of me"......(The Prophet) married her three years before the Emigration, when she was seven years old and consummated the marriage when she was nine years old, after he had emigrated to Medina in Shawwal. She was eighteen years old when he died.
Wiki is a nice starting point for research, but I prefer others.
Don't worry, everyone. Gawd has the most important aspect of this situation well under control.
ysbaddaden @ 62:
Thanks ysb.
If I was the author of this book, I would post the first chapter or two online. If she gets a lot of demand for the rest of the book, she might have a good case for printing the entire book to make to the publishers. Even if they don't print it I hope she post it online. Muslim sensitivity be damned. Heck I want to offend Muslim sensitivity. I have no respect for people who do not respect us
Rusty "One House" Shackleford @ 65:
Yeah, but I wanted this guy:
http://www.mymovies.it/cinemanews/2007/2073/clive1.jpg
Kris @ 58:
Yadda, yadda yadda. Call it 'bigotry' then. I don't seem to recall anyone having a problem with it being applied to Judaism.
To Alexdem
Because Semitic is understood to refer in this case to Judaism. You are anti Semitic if you hate Jews regardless of their actual ethnic origins. Islam is not a race and never will be one.
However telling the truth about Islam is not bigotry and I challenge you to explain how it is. Would you consider it bigotry to say that Nazis are violent? If not, why not? Do you think the truth about Islam should be suppressed in order not to offend?
Well Kris arabs are semitic too, and when you take into account that majority of them are muslim I think we could say that you are a xenophobic bigot.
You are telling the "truth" about islam as much as Glenn Beck and other ranting idiots.
Wow, no comments? Is everyone afraid that the people who murdered Theo Van Gogh and rioted about some cartoons is going to track down blog commenters too?
72 comments is not exactly silence. We are discussing it.
Nicole: The comments are disappearing and reappearing. Please be patient with us.
DudefromPrague @ 70:
Some people think it's cool that they can twist language so that it means one thing and then when it suits their purposes somthing different.
WBirdie @ 71:
Some are.
I'm not one of them.
Oh joy DudefromPrague has ided me as a bigot. I suppose he would consider people critical of Nazism in the 1930s to be bigots also. Of course his definition of a bigot is one who offends his preconceived notions of the world.
I do not know how to explain this if you don't know it but anti Semitic is only referring to Jews. Check a dictionary or 100 years worth of people using the words. I will challenge the procurement of any serious writing that has anti Semitic used in any other way.
Of course he cannot identify the flaws with mine or others who are critical of Islam, but he will happily call us idiots. Truly speaks volumes about his intellect.
Kris @ 75:
Actually, you are incorrect. Semite refers to the entire area. Being an anti-Semite is to be bigoted against all Middle Easterners, not just jews.
You might want to be a little more educated before denigrating people who know more than you.
Nicole. I have seen dictionaries that say the opposite. Please find me a single example of use in newspapers, contemporary literature etc that ever use anti Semitic to mean anything other then Jews.
Kris @ 77:
From Meriam-Webster
From Oxford
From Wordsmyth
From the Online Etymology Dictionary
DudefromPrague @ 70:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1oCMRr3JTSc
Actually I'm a xenaphile
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9nzokKVqUh4&feature=related
Actually I understand one of the biggest concentration of Islamic people is in Singapore.
Africa has large percentages of Islamic too.
Andy K Jong Il @ 78:
*cough*
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anti-semitism
Wow - some people really took the bait on this one. Rather than talking about censorship, PR, freedom of speech, some posters have managed to force the discussion onto the topic of whether hating Muslims qualifies one as racist, whether it is in fact a good thing to hate Muslims, and whether Islam is inherently violent and full of rapists. This comment thread reminds me of the post just before (or after) this one, wherein C&L complains that right-wing commentators on the Democratic Convention spout BS and no substantive discussion takes place because the liberals have to spend all their time rebutting the right wingers.
How about this - the moderator should be exercising more discretion on what gets to stay up. People who say that to be anti-semitic is to be racist, but those who hate Islam are bravely standing up for truth, dignity and the American Way should have their comments deleted, not rebutted.
So Gabriel you want views that disagree with yours to be censored. Obviously I do not agree with people on this forum but I would be the first to object to censoring them
I just got a post removed simply because it showed that dictionaries show that antisemitism refers to Jews, not all Semites. So this is my last post, if you doubt me about antisemitism simply go to Andy's dictionary links and look up the definition of antisemitism.
To the bastard who censored me. I wish all of life's misfortunes on you. That is how much I loath censoring such as you.
It's odd how atheists love to slam Christianity yet bring up Islam and they ideologically drop their pants and bend over.
Login or Register to post comments.