Any doubts about the spread of the Islamic fear and mayhem machine to the United States should be resolved by this story about a new historical novel — dealing with Muhammad’s marriage to a nine-year-old — spiked by Random House out of pure fear:
NEW YORK — A racy, historical novel based on the Prophet Muhammad’s child bride A’isha was supposed to hit book stores in the U.S. Tuesday.
But in a rare case of self-censorship to preempt possible violent reaction by Muslims, one of the world’s largest publishing houses pulled the plug on the book just before its release date.
Sherry Jones, author of The Jewel of Medina, said she received word from Random House Inc. that the book’s release would be “postponed indefinitely.” The decision came after copies of her book were sent to stores, her book tour was scheduled and her work of fiction was accepted by the Book of the Month Club . . .
At issue is Jones’ portrayal of the prophet’s wife A’isha, whom Muhammad is said to have married when she was 9 years old. In her novel Jones describes the consummation of their marriage when A’isha was 14.
Maybe Barack Obama, with all of his ties to Muslim leaders in the U.S. and Kenya, could persuade these crazies to get the hell out of Dodge or mind their own damned business.
Meanwhile, every publisher on the map is rushing to publish far more salacious material about the FLDS. If I were FLDS, I might be wondering why I should work within the system when Islam works so effectively against it.
More at Foxnews.
{ 38 comments… read them below or add one }
marttie 08.19.08 at 4:50 pm
Tell her to change Muslim to Flds, Muhammad to Warren and she will have no problem selling it as gospel truth.
I think the publishers were wrong to pull the book but Publishers have the right to print what they want that doesn’t limit anyones freedom of speech. It limits their freedom to give in to fear.
FLDS believe in peace and persuasion through love.
Articles of Faith # 11 We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to our own conscience and allow all men the same privelage,let them worship how where or what thy may. #12 We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring and sustaining the law. -Joseph Smith Jr.
For FLDS to turn from the right knowingly would take away the only assurance they have. That God will protect them.
Fe y Caridad 08.19.08 at 5:03 pm
Kurt,
As you well know, many Americans have been dulled to common sense in large part by the inundation of immoral/violent/grotesque media portayals of EVERYTHING that can be presented that way. Hollywood would still be a hicktown without their multibillion dollar industry pouring the sewer into people’s homes. “But the people demand it,” we hear when a few concerned folks (no matter who) try to curb the salacious tides of garbage. Thanks to you and others here and elsewhere who just don’t buy the media spin and the politically correct hate-group-think, real facts can see the light of day. It certainly is no help to the FLDS that two fantastic novels from dissenters have so recently been released to further abuse the public mind, but thinking Americans (I hope there are many) will see that there are huge differences between the portrayal and the ones portrayed. Your site is home to much more reason than many discussion sites are. Keep it up, sir!
R 08.19.08 at 5:53 pm
I wonder what these “security concerns” are. A couple years ago, an opera house in Austria canceled a production on the grounds that they feared it would be “offensive to Muslims”; but, as it turned out, no real protests had been made.
Joey 08.19.08 at 6:50 pm
Actually it’s well known that Muhammad married Aisha at 6, and consummated said marriage when she was 9. Muhammad was 52.
Releasing the book may actually have been welcomed by the Muslims since it (albeit fictionally) puts the age of consummation at 14 rather than 9, which is far less controversial.
April 38 08.19.08 at 6:59 pm
Meanwhile, a Saudi father has just cut out his daughter’s tongue, having a one-way conversation with her following that delicate operation — then burned her alive. Why? Because she became a Christian.
Let THAT be a lesson to you, and you and you. And Condi calls this a religion of peace and love?
It is right in Texans’ backyards. Two Muslim sisters were murdered in Dallas by their father because they dared to dress as westerners. He fled the country, so he is paying little or nothing for his crime.
How can anyone “fear” the FLDS and then ignore this obscene brutality?
Johannes Steiner 08.19.08 at 7:16 pm
If Random House wants to not publish the book, that’s their prerogative, but what’s to be said of a religion so dedicated to hiding the truth about itself?
R 08.19.08 at 8:17 pm
Meanwhile, a Saudi father has just cut out his daughter’s tongue
Two Muslim sisters were murdered in Dallas by their father because they dared to dress as westerners.
Um, what do these cases have to do with this?
Gravitas 08.19.08 at 8:35 pm
Anyone who wants to learn more about Muslim “security concerns” would do well to read Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s book, “Infidel.” She is one amazing woman, a Somali who escaped an intended forced marriage (intended by her family, not by Ayaan), she became a member of the Dutch parliament. She is also on a film clip on fora.tv; also excellent.
April 38 08.20.08 at 12:30 am
What do “honor” killings in Dallas have to do with Random House cancelling a book? Hmm. Maybe you can call it Muslim intimidation — of their own families, of the Austrian opera house, of Random House, a cartoonist in Denmark, parishioners in London and members of the Dutch parliament. Death threats against Ayaan Hirsi Ali, and film maker Theo Van Gogh stabbed and shot dead in Amsterdam (2004). Then there was September 11th, 2001. There’s a pattern; the killings in Dallas are part of that pattern. The pattern goes back to the 7th Century when Muslim armies overwhelmed nearby Christian and Jewish populations centers and gave survivors the choice of conversion, the sword and/or the subservience of dhimmitude.
The world walks on eggs, in fear of Muslim knives. That fear was once limited to the Near and Middle East. Now it is everywhere.
R 08.20.08 at 4:55 am
Can you point to the Muslim intimdation that occurred in this case? The Muslim world is over a billion strong and ideologically diverse. Guilt by association doesn’t cut it.
R 08.20.08 at 5:43 am
A blog post on the subject.
One comment:
This reminds me of the cancellation of a performance of the Mozart opera Idomeneo in Berlin in 2006, because the opera house feared attacks by enraged Muslims. The Berlin performance ended with Buddha, Jesus, Muhammed and Neptune having their heads cut off, which was deemed to be offensive to Muslims (but apparently not Christians or Buddhists). It was definitely offensive to Mozart, whose opera Idomeneo is set in classical Greece and does not even feature either Buddha or Jesus or Muhammed and does not include any beheadings at all.
What is more, there was no hint of any actual Muslim protest and the performance had been playing for three years without incident. In fact, I suspect that the opera house management loudly announced the cancellation and then cancelled the cancellation, because one must not surrender to terrorists, even non-existent terrorists, in order to bolster the flagging performance. And it worked out, because all of a sudden a performance that no one had been talking about was all over the news and politicians flocked to the opera house to show their support.
The Jewel of Medina uproar strikes me as a similar case. Publishers are quick to assume Muslims will be offended and are as quick to equate offense with violent reactions, even though there is no sign of any actual danger.
Kurt Schulzke 08.20.08 at 6:30 am
R — First, it’s not necessary to point to public evidence of intimidation to allege that intimidation occurred. Is it possible that Random House has just pulled a publicity stunt? Yes. But it so, it’s an awfully sick stunt. But one doesn’t need a degree in psych or comparative religion to note that Islam is the only religion on the planet that produces honor killings and jihadi beheadings. At the moment, we have to take Random House at their word that they pulled the book because they feared reprisals by Muslim extremists.
R 08.20.08 at 7:56 am
We do? We can’t wonder what “security concerns” were? I don’t buy that.
Even if they really did “fear reprisals”, one can ask how grounded those fears were.
R 08.20.08 at 9:18 am
Yes. But it so, it’s an awfully sick stunt. But one doesn’t need a degree in psych or comparative religion to note that Islam is the only religion on the planet that produces honor killings and jihadi beheadings.
Beheading isn’t the only way to kill people. And I’m fairly sure there have been Christian “honor killings”, although I’d have to look it up.
In any case, I’m not sure what “honor killings” have to do with this affair.
Kurt Schulzke 08.20.08 at 9:29 am
R -
Yeah, right. Go ahead a look it up. You’ll be looking a long time. If you can’t figure out how Islamic “honor killings” might create an atmosphere of fear and intimidation, you’re awfully short on wattage. Better get an upgrade.
K
R 08.20.08 at 9:35 am
As I suspected: there is no Muslim threat in this case.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121797979078815073.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries
R 08.20.08 at 9:38 am
(Unless, of course, you equate boycotting with “Islamic knives”)
April 38 08.20.08 at 7:10 pm
I’ll indulge R with one last answer: If you cannot see Muslim intimidation or security threats, even behind a boycott, what do you REALLY think all this security garbage at the airports is about, or the railroad bombing in Spain, or the death of Theo Van Gogh in Amsterdam, or thousands of other deaths across the world in the last twenty-some years? Find me a Christian “honor” killing in all that time, assuming you know what an honor killing is, and I will eat my hat. ANY Muslim who leaves the faith, becoming a Christian, Jew, atheist, infidel or anything else is automatically under a death sentence, not just the daughter of the Saudi I mentioned above.
Ask Hammasa Kohistani, the first Muslim Miss England, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Mark Steyn or Salman Rushdie, about Islamic threats. Or the publishers of the Danish cartoons.
Read “Because They Hate,” by Brigitte Gabriel, a Lebanese Christian exile whose home and village were destroyed by Muslim bombs when she was ten and who lived in a bomb shelter under nearly constant bombardment for seven years. Never heard of that? Not surprised.
If you can’t be serious about your comments, informed or at least witty, you may want to find another blog to bother.
able eddy 08.20.08 at 7:24 pm
If anyone wants to know what it is like on the receiving end of an honor killing, at least the lead-up to it, here is one young British former Muslim who escaped in time. This happens all the time, wherever there are large numbers of Muslims. Check it out here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1571970/Muslim-apostates-threatened-over-Christianity.html.
Or if you are still curious, read about forced or faked suicides among young Muslim women:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1554764/Revealed-rising-toll-of-deaths-before-dishonour.html
This is NOT a peaceful religion. There are those who are peaceful members of a violent religion, but they are strangely silent these days.
Edgar 08.20.08 at 7:35 pm
About Muslim intimidation: It isn’t just at opera houses and publishing houses.
You may be interested in the blogs dedicated to dealing with the plague of Muslim violence against women. There are a number of sites. In England, “In Southampton last week, police chiefs revealed that they are re-examining 2,000 deaths and-murders between 1996 and 2006 to establish whether they involve honour killings.” Murders and forced suicides, or faked suicides. That’s in England, June 2007.
R 08.20.08 at 7:57 pm
April, I’m most certainly serious. If a boycott (and there is nothing more - no “Islamic knives”, or guns, or grenades, or anything else), is intolerable, I really don’t know what to say.
I’ve not read that one. I have read books by authors including Bat Ye’or and Ibn Warraq. Doesn’t change the fact that not a single act of violence has been committed or even threatened here.
April 38 08.21.08 at 12:09 am
I’m glad to hear you are serious. That helps.
With Muslims, please understand that violence is implicit. It doesn’t have to be overtly “threatened” because it always lurks in the background. Or shortly erupts in the foreground. Or both. If it were not so, why is everyone around the globe doing a delicate ballet to keep from offending them? Cancelling books, canceling performances, and avoiding drawing obvious conclusions — as I believe you are. Please connect the dots.
A friend of mine knew two young Persian (Iranian) Muslims, a brother and sister, who became Christians in Vienna twenty years ago. They told him they could never go home again, because they would be killed. That is just how it is. They knew it. We should recognize the truth of what they said, and the reality of what Brigitte Gabriel and scores of others report.
R 08.21.08 at 5:31 am
Tell you what: when Random House, or whatever publisher eventually picks her book up, starts getting credible death threats, I’ll concede the point.
April 38 08.21.08 at 6:10 am
According to Robert Spencer, the very credible director of Jihad Watch and author of The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (which I also recommend), Random House capitulated to warnings of potential violence, or as he puts it, the specter of violence. The source of the warnings was an associate professor of History and Middle Eastern Studies at the Univ. of Texas, Denise Spellberg. who contacted Shahed Amanullah, editor of altmuslim.com, because the book “made fun of Muslims and their history.” Not allowed — unless you are FLDS.
We don’t learn whether Amanullah directed or confirmed (or enlarged) the complaint to Random House. In any case, it is the same phenom as I have discussed above. Details in his 8/18 column in Human Events, p. 18 (try HumanEvents.com).
He notes, “It is becoming increasingly common for Americans to bow to pressure from Muslims to accommodate Islamic practices, and for the specter of violence to inhibit discussion of the elements of Islam that jihadists use to justify terrorism. This accommodation will not end until America is a Sharia state, unless enough Americans begin to resist. How much of our freedoms and rights will we allow to be eroded away before we stand up and call a halt to this?”
R 08.21.08 at 6:27 am
Not allowed — unless you are FLDS.
Making fun of or insulting Muslims isn’t allowed? I could dig out lots of examples to the contrary, including Adam Sandler and Ann Coulter.
The source of the warnings was an associate professor of History and Middle Eastern Studies at the Univ. of Texas, Denise Spellberg.
That’s no further information than is available in the Wall Street Journal op-ed I already linked to.
or as he puts it, the specter of violence.
Me, I prefer the term “boogeyman.”
R 08.21.08 at 7:42 am
Having read Spencer’s column, I see nothing to disprove my point.
This craven capitulation to violent intimidation came without any actual violent intimidation at all.
Kurt Schulzke 08.21.08 at 10:55 am
R –
You wrote:
“Doesn’t change the fact that not a single act of [Muslim] violence has been committed or even threatened here.”
Where is “here”?
Not counting 9-11 (which some of us consider an “act of violence”), one recent honor-killing on U.S. soil took place in Atlanta in July. It was discussed on this blog on July 24:
http://iperceive.net/harry-reid-calls-for-federal-task-force-on-islamic-honor-killings/
There have likely been many more such killings “here” that have been misclassified as mere murders or suicides.
R 08.21.08 at 11:04 am
“Here” was a sloppy use, and I apologize.
“Doesn’t change the fact that not a single act of violence has been committed or even threatened in this situation.”
Kurt Schulzke 08.21.08 at 11:08 am
Unless you’re an insider, you don’t have information sufficient to say whether violence has been threatened or committed. Just because it hasn’t been publicly reported doesn’t mean it hasn’t happened.
R 08.21.08 at 11:11 am
It’s theoretically possible they have legitimate concerns. But I doubt it. All the publically available evidence indicates that’s not the case.
April 38 08.21.08 at 2:20 pm
If you read Spencer’s column and see nothing to disprove your point, I see no point in discussing it with you further.
Johannes Steiner 08.21.08 at 2:48 pm
Allow me to quote from the Koran. Ironically, this is the Random House Publishing English Edition I’m reading from.
“Sura XLVII
Muhammad
Whoso believe not, and prevent others from the way of God-their works will He cause to miscarry; ….
This because the infidel followed vanity, while those who believe ,followed the truth from their Lord. Thus to men doth God set forth their likeness.
When ye encounter the infidels, strike off their heads till ye have made a great slaughter among them, and of the rest make fast the fetters.”
If I’m over their at Random House, considering publishing a book that casts Muhhamad in an unfavorable light, and I’m reading this, I might think twice before I release it. The book in question could be construed as “Prevent[ing] others from the way of God.”, and could justify the a holy war on Random House. Wouldn’t that just be weird?
Johannes Steiner 08.21.08 at 2:51 pm
Ron-
That passage I just cited takes this beyond guilt by association. This is a level up: Fear based on confirmed religious beliefs.
R 08.21.08 at 2:55 pm
Go read the book of Leviticus.
Johannes Steiner 08.21.08 at 3:03 pm
I have read the Book of Leviticus, many times actually. That isn’t relevant. We aren’t trying to have a fight about one religion vs. another. We’re talking about the effect of the Islamic doctrine of shutting their opponents mouths with force. If you want to discuss the book of Leviticus, we can do that in a more relevant, and therefore appropriate setting.
able eddy 08.21.08 at 5:46 pm
Leviticus was about pre-Christian Israel. Few Jews live by that today.
But the Islamic world lives by the Koran — especially by the Medina Suras. The earlier, milder 87 Meccan Suras (books or sections) of the Koran, where Mohammed followed many of the precepts of Christ, have less authority than the later, violent Medina passages.
So Christians are reluctant to use violence, but Muslims aren’t — which is consistent with the most revered teachings of their Prophet. As in Johannes’ quote above.
mourad 09.03.08 at 6:27 am
hi, i am jounalist; so i try to stimulate your mind ia aim to loking for the absolutely truth.
friends, we have to check over and confirme and check up about all data or information in such fields ; specially in religion , and very specially when it concerned prophets ’s life. because they are all humain beings and messengers from the same source which is “God”, each one had his special task via his people,. but all of them led away us to straight way and learn us how to be happy , how to feel safety with ourselves, how to worship god; loving him, and loving other humains , animals, ..etc. peace of god be upon of them. we have to like them and logically follow one of them.
we are not obligesed from any one to hit and dislike to be good , contrary it’s forbiden from god to do it.
your dear friend mourad.
good day.
Pliggy 09.03.08 at 7:31 am
“how to feel safety with ourselves”
Exactly, the gospel of peace is a gospel that allows others to worship OTHER gospels of peace.