Censored
Random House has pulled the plug on a novel that talks about the Prophet Mohammed's child bride for fear of a violent backlash from militant Islamists.
The book, The Jewel of Medina, was scheduled to be published later this month.
The book's author viewed the work as one that would build bridges between western society and Islam. But Random House, fearing that it would be viewed as offensive to some in the Muslim community, and concerned about potential violence, decided to not publish the work.
I haven't read the book and I don't know if it's "offensive." But since when is that a determining factor over whether work should be published?
I've read books that are offensive to the police. To gays. To blacks. To whites. To Jews. To Christians.
Some of the greatest literary works in the world are offensive to someone.
Ever read Mark Twain?
If concerns that a book, or a work of art, might be offensive to "some" within a community stopped the distribution of the work, we'd have empty libraries and museums (some people find Michelangelo, for exampled, to be offensive).
Worse, fear of violence should not be a factor in muzzling art or public discourse. Societies cannot properly survive if they kowtow to bullies.
Random House should be ashamed of itself for its decision. Hopefully writer Sherry Jones will find another publisher for her work.
12 comments:
Well I would Suggest to Sherry Jones that She should sell the book through Online Publishers like Lulu dot com . It will reach a wider audience and give her the freedom to sell the book as She sees fit.
In terms of the freedom of speech issue, If we start muzzling ourselves for fear of violence, this country is going down a very dangerous path.
Any one remember the term "Dixie Chicked"?
Look at the reaction to Salman Rushdie's The Satanic Verses. Look at how they responded to a cartoon. Random House is falling into a pattern of Dhimmitude (appeasing Muslims for fear of retribution). But is peace at any price worth the cost when freedom of speech is involved?
There have been several books published by Random House over the years which could be considered "offensive" to Christians. Apparently the fact that these books could be offensive didn't seem to bother RH.
Or maybe it's because we Christians respond in a civilized manner?
Here's what I find offensive:
1) People expecting their CHOICE of religious dress to be a RIGHT who create frivilous lawsuits re: the recent lawsuit against McDonalds for insisting that Muslim women wear the McDonalds uniform should they be hired.
2) People who think that they can act in a suspicious manner when getting on an airplane and that everyone HAS to tolerate it. Re: the six flying imams.
3) People who insist that their feet washing religious rite deserves its own space in public buildings such as airports, college campuses, etc. By the way, as a Baptist, can I have a baptistry in an airport? You never know... someone may want a pre-flight dunking!
I am more offended by the dhimmi attitude of companies who try to avoid controversy and in so doing, make freedom of speech passe'.
I suggest we all write to Random House and tell them WE WANT THE BOOK! I for one, am going to.
psychiereport aka Leah
As a Jew, I was offended by Mel Gibson's Passion of the Christ. But that didn't stop Newmarket Films from releasing the movie. Nor did Jews threaten violence because it came out.
The bully analogy is spot on. If you succumb to bullies then they get stronger and push you around even more the next time. I learned that back in elementary school. Apparently the executives at Random House missed that lesson in life.
Funny how you Christians and Jews speak for us Muslims. Typical!
How would you like it if books blasphimized the Prophets Jesus or Moses?
Islam is a religion of peace. We recognize Jesus and Moses as prophets that predate the Prophet Mohammed peace be upon him.
Show some respect for my religion as I show for yours!
If a book blasphemed one of the leading figures in Christianity or Judaism we would just not read the book, or we would refute its content. Simple. We would not be so afraid that we had to feign some self righteous indignation. Have you ever heard the saying "methinks he doth protest too much"? That's what the previous post reminds me of, someone who is so insecure in his religion that he has to make a lot of noise....... but then again, isn't that what Islam does anyway?
We have seen protests over so many things that Islam finds offensive - the most obvious one has to be the cartoons that were published. We saw protests and a court case about the Dispatches programme on Channel 4 that the Police were forced into bringing by an Islamic group because it showed what was happening in the Mosques in the UK, we saw protests at the publication of the book 'Brick Lane' and the horror expressed by the Muslim community when it was made into a film.
If we live in fear of intimidation we may as well give up now. I am not suggesting we should set out to be deliberately confrontational to any religion or group, but we do need to maintain the freedoms that we in the West have fought for.
Interesting comment from our Muslim friend.
Defending threats as a tactic to get a book he's never read cancelled because it "might" be offensive to "some" Muslims. And at the same time protesting that his is a religion of peace.
I just read about another incident of muzzling free speech:
Not long ago, a book titled “Alms for Jihad” was ridiculously voluntary destroyed, “pulped” being the term, by its own publisher. This unusual action was taken because one activist Muslim took the bookseller to libel court and won saying that he was somehow maligned by allegations in the book. The ridiculous part is that the book was published by Cambridge University Press (Cambridge, Mass. USA) but was sued by Sheikh Khalid Bin Mahfouz in a British court. Neither the court nor the complaintent were American. Yet, this foolish American publisher voluntarily destroyed its entire run and went to the effort to send a letter to libraries to tell them to remove the book from shelves over the verdict of this foreign court.
Alarmingly, Sheikh Khalid Bin Mahfouz has been successful in at least 4 such libel cases against book publishers throughout the world in these compliant, malleable British courts.
A professor at Emory University, who won a libel suit in Britain brought against her and Penguin, Deborah Lipstadt, likewise told The New York Sun that this action by Cambridge University Press was a “frightening development.” She said that it seemed to her that the Saudis were “systematically, case by case, book by book” challenging anything critical of them or anything that linked them to terrorism. She said that she could not think of any publisher that would now accept a manuscript critical of the Saudis. “This affects not only authors but readers,” she said, adding that “ideas are being chased out of the marketplace.”
Fortunately, some authors are trying to fight back to some extent.
The director of the New York-based American Center for Democracy, Rachel Ehrenfeld, said that Cambridge University Press “capitulated” and “didn’t even try to fight.” Sheikh Mahfouz sued her for her 2003 book “Funding Evil: How Terrorism is Financed — and How to Stop It.” Rather than contesting the case in Britain, Ms. Ehrenfeld has taken to the American courts. In June, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled unanimously in her favor, finding that if an American writer is sued for libel in a foreign court, that person can appeal to an American court to request that a British decision not be enforceable here.
Well, My muslim friend here is the problem, In THIS country we have something called freedom of speech, which means that we as americans have the right to say what we want regardless of who is going to be offended. Everyone takes their turn over the figurative Barrel in terms of who can be offended.
However I would like to point out that the Christians are not much better, with their habit of burning books and trying to censor which books may be in the PUBLIC libraries. Any time a book or a Movie is released that IS offensive to christians, the fundamentalists get up in arms and whine about it, and books start going into the kindling along with other forms of expression that they don't like.
We pagans (for the most part) have had to deal with remarks like Cathy Lee Gifford's "Those Evil Nasty Pagans" or Jerry Falwell blaming us for the events of 9/11. And other remarks which are a lot less civilized, Like the young girl India Tracy who was told to "Change your religion or we will change if for you" by Bible believing Christians.
Religion of peace?? Lecturing US on respect for religion???? I can stand it no more! In the Muslim world, it's all well and fine to portray Jews as Blood-drinking ghouls DURING RAMADAN while all the kids are home watching TV. Yes, my friends, the Muslims don't tell you this, but this is shown regularly during the "holy" Ramadan month. Can you imagine a bigger hyprocrisy than THIS? The Muslim up there wants us to respect HIS prophet while he is chortling over some cartoon portraying Jews as pigs. Tell it to someone who cares about this hogwash of "respecting the prophet". Respect others, respect their religions, and respect the western governments which treat you FAR better than where you came from in the middle east... THEN we will consider showing you some well-earned respect. Respect is not a birthright. Respect is earned. I'm hoping the west will grow some balls, stand up to all of this and republish the cartoons over and over in every major newspaper till this stupidity about hurt feelings and political correctness is forever forgotten.
Oh I see what's happening here now.
Instead of just being insensitive to those who might be offended by a book that attacks the Prophet Mohammed, people are going further, using this forum as an excuse to attack Islam.
And you wonder why the Muslims hate us.
The point here isn't whether Islam is a good or bad religion. It's not whether those Random House fears might backlash violently even represent the religion properly.
The real point is that a publishing house self censors one of its own authors because of these fears, founded or unfounded.
Whatever happened to standing up for freedom of speech? Where happened to integrity at Random House?
Anonymous said...
"Funny how you Christians and Jews speak for us Muslims. Typical!
How would you like it if books blasphimized the Prophets Jesus or Moses?"
Sir, as a Christian I find it offensive that you call Jesus merely a prophet. But I didn't demand that Gary not publish comments like yours.
For the record, there are many offensive things in the Q'ran. Things that offend MY faith. For example, the Q'ran doesn't have him dieing and resurrecting. Instead, it depicts him as a coward who was so unwilling to do his mission that God had to replace him with someone else.
Your Q'ran slams the trinity (do not say God is three) and also slams the incarnation of God in Christ (it's even etched in the Dome of the Rock!)
So may I demand that the Q'ran be banned please? After all, you wouldn't want to offend someone else's religious faith, right?
Post a Comment