Aisha, the Jewel of Medina (Or, Yet Another Free Speech Controversy)
October 21st, 2008The Jewel of Medina is a novel by journalist Sherry Jones, where the age-old controversy over Aisha’s age joins that other controversy so popular these days, the one usually expressed tersely in variations of the phrase “Islam is killing our freedom of speech! or “This is the end of Western civilization as we know it!” And then scorn and scathing is cast on the reluctance of newspapers, the cowardice of publishing houses, and the whole dithering wide world which won’t step up to confront the freedom-threatening hordes.
Whenever another of these free speech controversies crop up, I hear a horrified voice quoting Hanif Kureishi’s Black Album. That part where Jump says:
You have joined the militant Mohammedans …you will slit the throats of us infidels as we sleep. Or convert us. Soon books and…and…and bacon will be banned!
Ironic, what with Black Album being in part one of the many Rushdie supportive responses following the Satanic Verses controversy.
What really makes me smile about this particular controversy however, is the way Sherry Jones bravely takes on the free-speech threatening hordes, promising the world at large that she will not be cowed, she will not be threatened, and she will not allow anyone to hold her back from writing flowery, purple passages.
Her Aisha poetically muses: From my camel’s hump I could feel the leaf-kissed air moving like a cool, moist cloth across my brow as I inhaled the fresh clean scents of petal and blade and springs gilding the morning… She can also utilise parallelism to great effect: “In her world, women weren’t supposed to fight, only to submit…They weren’t supposed to live, only to serve.” I wonder why that sounds familiar? Hmm. Perhaps its because I’ve heard it and read it and seen it and various variations of it around a hundred times before?
The prologue was an interesting read though. Hardly a sentence without a little elaborate discriptive flourish. Similies crowding against metaphors. Accusations whip like wind, Umar rolls in like a tank, faces swirl like a mosaic, silver rings flash like sword’s blades….
It’s practically a Neo-Orientalism for Dummies guide. Somehow, I don’t think The Jewel of Medina is another Satanic Verses.
But, as a bonus, there are sprinklings of amusingly slighlty mistranslated Arabic, umma, ansari, fahisha, with the requisite English translation tagged on at the end, exclamation mark inclusive, as though the characters had suddenly recalled that the langauge they were speaking in would necessitate readers reaching for dictionaries. A well-tried and tested method of lending neo-Orientalist writing an authentic air. Always makes me think of badly dubbed films.
So, the whole controversy, summed up in a sentence, is the hesitation about publication. As a result, Asra Nomani is “upset as a Muslim” that “you still can’t write about Mohammad.” Reading Nomani’s article made me think of self-fulfilling prophecies: Author reads a book on Aisha, author writes a book on Aisha, author of first book on Aisha doesn’t much like second book on Aisha, and frantic calls, emails and posts follow. It’s like the whole book is geared to receive and exploit this exact kind of attention and it’s insufferably silly.
But, while I wouldn’t exactly call this pulp romance novel humanizing, or captivating either, I have to agree with the main sentiment in Nomani’s article. Jones should absolutely be free to write bad “historical” romance if that’s what she wants to do.
Loading ...
Loading...
Tasnim,
Thank you for highlighting this important issue.
I personally believe that controversial works of fiction, such as the one written by Jones, receive publicity through the disproportionate reaction of readers and protesting non-readers alike. The author could very well capitalise on this exposure she has received due to the unwillingness of many publishing houses to take on her project. Many people will soon be converted into potential readers, thanks to this marketing strategy.
So what if her work gets published? There are too many books out there as it is, and they are far less accurate (she says it’s fiction, so what are we upset about again?), more controversial and extremely offensive. Why focus on this one? The book is not marketed as a newly-discovered, well-researched version of what the author claims to have really happened. It’s fiction, so all its inaccuracies and false details can be forgiven, if not completely dismissed. That’s what Book Review columns are for!
Thank you for the comment.
When controversy generates readership, it is, I suppose, a sound strategy to generate controversy. Only it seems to me that playing intrepid Rushdie heir doesn’t require much actual reader reaction, now freedom of speech controversies are, to steal another’s words, “inscribed in advance in the decoding and orchestration rituals of the media.”
Personally, I’d call it a self-fulfilling prophecy. Not that I’m in any way begrudging Sherry Jones her claim to fame. Nor am I particularly upset about it.
Thanks for the very interesting take. I think the subject is pretty rich (both Aisha and JEWEL as a publication), although my personal thought is that since so few Americans have any idea who Aisha was anyway even a “neo-Orientalist” take would be better than nothing at all. But anyway.
Sherry Jones is going to be visiting for a day on my blog on November 1, and there’s an open forum (I’ve officially invited people who’ve read the book AND people who haven’t but are interested in the controversy). If you’re interested, please stop by–I think your view would be interesting to have there.
Moonrat