That is a beautifully-written, well-argued, and memorable post. 

A jewel in its own right. Brava!

I think this very strong and powerful commentary on todays climate concerning writers and free speech. It does what many people cannot do and that is look at things from a very adult, intelligent, and mature perspective. This type of examination allows for exploration, and analysis of those people and ideas we hold as sacred in way to that challenges us not to walk around with our emotion held lightly in our hands while afraid someone will knock them out onto the floor thus breaking them. Thank you G Willow Wilson... I hope others read and listen...

Since Willow posted this, The Jewel of Medina was picked up by Beaufort Books, Inc., and Sherry Jones has joined the list of Red Room authors. You can read a long excerpt (the whole prologue, in fact) here. We welcome Sherry, and look forward to much constructive debate about her book and about the issues surrounding it in the weeks and months to come.

Huntington Sharp, Red Room

Hi,

 Excellent entry, but I wonder how much effort is being made to inform Muslims that, whether or not they can handle it, an issue is being circumvented because the publisher thinks we will react badly? I've just forwarded this page to as many people as I could think of over here in the Muslim world, trying to guage what their reaction to the book would be.

 What is also interesting to me is that cartoons that depict the prophet badly, and books that directly attack Islam are published, and the publishers relish telling us that they are protected by free speech; but a book that simply humanizes the prophet and his family, and might even depict them in a good light, is being turned down or outright blocked because "it might be too controversial?" Is this the feared "conspiracy theory" gene I must have inherited from my Arab side acting up, or is this a legitimate assessment of what is going on? I simply want to know.

 Once again, well done, Ms. Wilson, and I hope more people hear about this.

 Cheers,

 Mehdi Rifai 

Some say she has the right, the freedom to speak, but not necessarily the right to be published. 

This is a circular logic, because she WAS scheduled to be published, she EARNED the right to be published, and then it was withdrawn, not out of sensitivity to "the other", but under an implicit and demonstrable threat of violence.

Taboo, by definition, suppresses discussion, inquiry, parody, or simply mentioning a possibility. This is my fundamental problem with religious authority. There is no other kind of narrative, after the Bible or Koran, that is not worthy of a kind of criticism that elevates the standards for human interaction and understanding. I have nothing to fear from your criticism of any of my beliefs, because perhaps your discussion, inquiry, or parody will prove the limits of my frame of mind.

So to dispel with the bracketing of this issue under "freedom of speech" I will put it under the heading of an opening or a closing. Fundamentalism, in its need to create taboos, exhibits a psychological fear of openness. If you are so sure of the truth, why fear (or even care) about supposed insults to your G-D?

I've read the excerpt, and I'm still not quite certain what the basis is for the "fear of violent backlash". 

If it is a fact that the Prophet took (extremely) young wives, then Believers would be aware of that.  If it is a fact that some of the people then (according to history), believed that A'isha committed adultery and showered scorn upon her, then current believers would also be aware of that. The piece depicts the Prophet in a favourable light (to my way of thinking), unless his followers then and today thought and would think him 'soft' for giving A'isha the benefit of the doubt (backlash, anyone?)

I think the publisher IS within his rights to refuse to publish anything he thinks might have a negative effect on his business, and if this is the reason he puts forward, then it IS his opinion, how ever formed against whatever background.

Additionally, I do believe that unless Ms. Jones has a binding contract with this publisher which does not allow her to be published by anyone else, she should go ahead and use some other house - to not publish this book would be to deny someone, somewhere, the opportunity to decide for themselves the merit of the controversy that has been started on the grounds that the book would start a controversy!

By the way, I read "The Da Vinci Code" three times.  Among other things, Dan Brown's book brought renewed attention to claims that Jesus was married and had kids.  I'm a Christian.

The false dichotomy of "secular people" and "people of faith" is a modal weapon-of-choice for the suppression of freedom of expression, no matter how exquisitely flavored with the sanitized-liberal-posturing-of-the-moment by photogenic people with radical-chic resumes.

It isn't enough that our alpha-male schizophrenics or prophets "channel" a reputedly "divine" (and male) message which regulates the reproductive rights and freedoms of women, and brutalizes them :

Even considering their sanity, as evinced by their often rapacious behavior, is off-limits : it leads to thoughts about one's own parents having sex ! Oh, blush, to think of that strange pre-condition for my being here writing this.

Strange : I didn't have thoughts about my parents having sex (or anybody else's) while reading the blood-lust pseudo-Catholic-vampire-religious fantasies of Anne Rice before she converted herself back into a Catholic.

Obviously, most people should not have the freedom to read such material, or to draw their own conclusions regarding the author's motivations and talents (in this case I suspect the author of the book in question is just following the time-honored method of making money by getting into controversy, but I will suspend judgement until I've read the book).

Literature is a tiny candle on a small raft on the great roiling river of blood of man's inhumanity to man in the name of God(s), but a most vital one. Thank (your choice of) Gods for Hugo, Rabelais, Chaucer, Voltaire, Conrad, Saramago, Kundera, Kosinski, Ondaatje, and many others.

 Q.

Interesting issue...thanks for giving us all food for thought.

 www.marshallbooks.net

Dear Willow:

We do appreciate your sharing, with us all in the Red Room, this thought-provoking and meaningful post on Sherry Jones' The Jewel of Medina. Indeed, it is an objective, caring and powerful call for all of us to rise up to the humane reality of defending creativity in all of its abiding art forms and literary paradigms.

Especially, you bravely and clearly hit the nail on its head with the followings words:

"... Sherry Jones has the right to speak her mind whether I am offended or not. She has the right to be published whether I am offended or not. The true measure of our moral courage is whether we defend the art we can’t stand with the same vigor with which we defend the art we love. So I am willing to go to bat for this..."

It's been worthwhile to read your post, Willow. Thanks again for sharing your valuable thoughts on this crucial matter of the indefinite suspension of the publication of The Jewel of Medina.

Bearing in mind the reality of the ever urgent need to keep courageously upholding freedom of speech and the right to publish - around the world, this kind of shaky trend It is quite scary for all of us writers plus all humankind.

On the other hand, let me also objectively and heartily add that one has the freedom and right to choose what one reads. Those who feel offended by Sherry Jones are also, if they will, able to choose not to read the so called provocative scenes she's written. Let us be tolerant and humane towards one another on this trying and complicated journey called life. 

With very good wishes:

Ugonna
http://uwachuku.googlepages.com
+
http://www.redroom.com/member/ugonna  

I'm not going to engage in the discussion of this actual book because I think all sides of the argument are well-addressed in the posts of others.  I am going to put in a note about freedom of speech though, because it is so often misunderstood.

 You can't support freedom of speech "to a point."  You do, or you don't.  The former is supporting an ideal, the latter is supporting an ideal insofar as it meets your own personal standard, which is setting yourself above others to make their choices for them.

My first published novel was titled "This is My Blood."  I studied most of my late teen years for the ministry.  As I grew older, my thoughts on faith, and in particular my thoughts on organized religion, changed.  When I wrote "This is My Blood," I knew many would see it as blasphemous.  I also knew that I had a message to get through.

I chose to tell the story of the gospel through the eyes of someone who did not require faith, but knew for a fact that the story was utterly true.  I wrote it through the eyes of Mary Magdalene, who I characterized as a fallen angel, raised to temp Jesus.  Instead - she fell at his feet and wanted to return to Heaven.

None of this is important, except to say that this book was published.  More than once, and recently it was published in Italy, right down the street from Vatican City.  I am glad to have my freedom of speech, because a fundamentalist Christian control over that freedom would no doubt have silenced the work.   

Did I handle it well?  Some think so - the reviews would indicate I did - but that is not the point. The point is, I have the right to say what I want to say, and if I can find a publisher, to publish those words.  No group, no religion, political party, fraternity, or slice of society has the right to deny me that freedom.

The cost of that freedom is reciprocation.  When I see hate-filled men and women screaming about race and religion, I turn away. I address things in my own way, but I do not call out to the government, or the church, for someone to silence them.  Their right to freedom of speech is also MY right to freedom of speech, and the moment somone begins picking and choosing where that right exists, and where it does not, is the moment it is no longer a right at all.

So...flawed, correct, appropriate, or not, I am very disappointed in the publisher's decision - not because I disagree with their right not to publish a work submitted to them, but because they allowed someone's voice to be (albeit temporarily) muted by the very sort of tactics those who deal in fear employ every day.

It wasn't pulled from the publication schedule out of respect for someone's religious beliefs, but out of fear of violence.  It is fine to be outraged over someone else's work, but it is not fine to impose your own standard as law over them, threaten them, or bully them into silence.

Freedom of speech is a right we have to guard selfishly, and often in areas and ways we find distasteful, or it will be gone.

So many of us would be silent then you'de hear pins dropping all over.

-DNW