91Èȱ¬

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Oh for goodness sake!

DD

Maybe your post was referred because the 91Èȱ¬ feared it might incite terrorist attacks.

Possibly could Peter! might even call down a Jihad on poor old me :-(


Oh well!

Aisha's betrothal at 9 to the Prophet is based on Hadith, and not Quranic texts. The isnad (chain of tradition) that makes this claim is considered unreliable by Muslim authorities. Secular historians are not bowled over by Isnad at all.
It is likely that the tale was developed by members of Aisha's clan to bolster their status in the struggles that followed the death of the Caliphs.
However, I do expect the media to debate her age. After all, they can claim Jesus for Gnosticism, and marry him to Mary Magdelene. And Muslim bashing is the one prejudice that the media really can feel good about.

Graham Veale

DD
Good to hear from you again Harvey. I think you are safe from Holy War.
GV

Just to mention, there have been a couple of threads about this on:



If anyone wants to read the prologue, the author allowed it to be posted and discussed in the more recent thread. (She posts herself in the comments on the first thread.)

Both threads are on the second page of the site - they're extremely long, but interesting.

(And it is a site primarily about romance books, and does, at times, use strong language - so if either of those things aren't your cup of tea, consider yourself warned.)

Well hopefully this book may be released on the internet if nobody is brave enough to publish it; the internet has become the last custodian of freedom in many cases. This reminds me of the time when EMI pulled out of Monty Python's Life of Brian at the last minute when an executive read the script and panicked. As many times as someone will pander to the potential backlash of a project like this, someone else will understand the importance of freedom of speech and expression enough to do something about it.

To put the publisher's decision into some sort of context, it should be kept in mind that the evangelical Jerry Vines used the story of Aisha's prepubescent marriage to the Prophet to label Mohammed a demon possessed paedophile. I can only imagine what Nick Griffin would do with the story.
In the "Danish cartoon" controversy, the images that circulated through the Middle East were not the images published. The Arab world was led to believe that the Prophet drawn as a demon inspired pig.
And even Private Eye dodged publishing the cartoons.

That said, if the novel makes no reference to sex, then I cannot agree with the publisher's decision. We are in effect censoring the liberal Muslim world on behalf of militant Islam.

Graham Veale

If I understood the discussion correctly, the muslim posters on Smart Bitches weren't objecting specifically to the sex - it's that any fictionalised account of the prophet's life is unacceptable. Anything that contradicts the truth of the hadith is unacceptable.

If you read the comment trails you'll see that there was - as far as I read anyway - a complete agreement from all the muslim posters that it was very offensive. This wasn't militant Islam talking.

John, again, there was a lot of interesting discussion on Smart Bitches about this, none of which I'm intelligent enough to replicate. Seemed to be a question of competing cultural values - one culture may claim that the sanctity of freedom of speech should always win out, but do they have the right to enforce that belief system on another culture that rejects it?

The Danish cartoons, you could argue, had a political point. If this book is meant to entertain, is it - morally - okay to take the most holy material from another culture, present it in a way that that culture finds profoundly offensive - and justify that by saying we have given ourselves the legal right to do so? In the name of a couple of hours light reading?

After reading all the discussions, I'm still not sure.

Worth adding that, from what was said, no-one actually had threatened Random House when they pulled the book.

JE

Interesting post. I do not share your doubts, however. It is the things that one holds sacred that most need to be challenged - both for the health of the individual or community holding those views and for the health of society at large.

Everyone has the right to hold whatever views they like and the right to consider those views sacred but equally everyone has the right to consider those selfsame views ridiculous or offensive and the right to give expression to that opinion in any way which does not incite physical violence.

If it was right to make the 'Life of Brian' (and it was) then it is right to write and publish this book. It is fear of violence alone which grants Muslim sensibilities greater consideration than those of other faiths and this is most unhealthy for society and detrimental to the development of spiritual maturity in modern Islam. I do not therefore think that it was worth adding that no actual threat to Random House had been made to date: such has been the history of militant reaction that none is necessary.

Gays should have the right to consider Christ (who may be seen as the embodiment of all humanity in communion with God) as homosexual and to embrace him as a member of their community; they have the right to reclaim the abusive term 'fag' and proclaim 'Jesus is a fag'. Conservative Christians have the right to find this offensive and to protest peacefully. I would actually believe that both communities (and society as a whole) gained from the interaction - only a little admittedly but, as the Tesco plagiarism has it, every little helps.

Apologies for another off topic post, but... can't resist.

Portwyne mentioned Tesco. Has anyone ever noticed that if the first 'e' and the last 's' is removed from their slogan it becomes completely different?

Im confused - tesco has only one e and one s. what's this business about removing the first e ad last s?

On the issue of offence, I really don't know why people are getting upset about a poster that said Jesus was gay. Its no offence to Jesus when gay people say he's gay. It's like black people saying he's black. People are claiming Jesus to identify with him. Jesus always identified with the poor and the marginalised. In our society, gay people are attacked and beaten. I don't think Jesus would mind it if some gay people sought to identify themselves with him.

Jen Erik- I'd echo a lot of what Portwyne said. If freedom of speech is not defended in cases where speech offends greatly, then it isn't being defended at all. You ask:

"...one culture may claim that the sanctity of freedom of speech should always win out, but do they have the right to enforce that belief system on another culture that rejects it?"

Well the only enforcing being done is by those who'd like to either: (a) force someone to read a book like this against their will, or (b) prevent a book like this being published. In the case of allowing the book to be published and the only readings of it being voluntary, no force is being used whatsoever. You're right to say that force is the issue here: it always is. If there is no force, there is no victim.

As for rejecting the idea of freedom of speech, that's the only universally offensive idea, an idea that benefits nobody. Ever notice how Muslims are the first to complain when they feel they aren't being allowed the freedom to express their religion? We need to honour liberty for all to express their freedom of speech and expression equally. But that ENTAILS people being allowed to publish opposing opinions. The exact same freedom permitting them the ability to practice their religion ALSO permits the author of this book to write it and a brave publisher the ability to publish it.

That's the very definition of freedom.

Gus
I think Peter was referring to the "Every Little Helps" slogan.

Everyone is agreed that Jesus was a First Century Galilean Rabbi/Holy Man. I think it's safe to assume that he would not be overjoyed with the designation "fag".

I think we are on historically sound grounds if we say that Jesus would have "ate and drank" with homosexuals. In other words, he would have had what the Scholars call "table fellowship." The call to repentance did not imply socially persecuting or ostracising anyone.

If we throw history out the window, Jesus becomes our imaginary friend.

Graham Veale

Would anyone consider it acceptable to publish a book in which an attractive blonde is tricked into marrying a Jewish Rabbi as part of a Jewish plot to influence international politics, only to be saved by a dashing Aryan hero?

GV

Portwyne, I'm not sure what I think, so I'm arguing more to see what shape the argument takes than from any real conviction that you're wrong.

In the example you give there is a purpose to suggesting Jesus was gay.

Try this. Jordan - the glamour model, has a disabled son. Heat magazine distributed a sticker saying something like 'Harvey wants to eat me'.

I find that offensive. Is it - morally - the right thing to do to publish such a sticker?

John, drowning a bit here. I know I attended a lecture at QUB where the speaker argued that the only natural right was the freedom not to be killed, which gives me room to query the 'universally offensive'. There's one bloke somewhere who disagrees.

If I don't accept freedom of speech as a fundamental right, I suspect your argument falls apart.
As I said to Portwyne - I'm not convinced of anything, I'm just sounding out what way the argument would go.
(Slowly. I think at three-legged tortoise speed.)

JE

I'm afraid I had to do a little research to follow your reference - having done so I would say the publication was distasteful in the extreme and I would not hesitate to call it immoral.

I would , however, defend the magazine's right to be immoral. A free society should thrive on those subversives who question and undermine all norms, who satirise the powerful and mock the famous. Their reach should know no bounds and no target should be immune from attack.

The sacred and the profane are both fair game so Mohammed, Jordan, the disabled, and LGBT people are all equally valid as objects of ridicule. I would also defend the right of people to take themselves seriously and to be offended when subject to scorn or misrepresentation. These rights are complimentary not contradictory.

Jen Erik- Understood.

"...gives me room to query the 'universally offensive'. There's one bloke somewhere who disagrees. If I don't accept freedom of speech as a fundamental right, I suspect your argument falls apart. "

But one is USING the right to freedom of speech to disagree. So it's self-defeating! What this boils down to is the fact that taking advantage of freedom to practice a religion ENTAILS allowing freedom to others who wish to dissent. It's one and the same thing, stemming from one and the same principle. The only alternative is establishing a body ('government') to decide FOR US ALL what we may and may not say, what religions we may and may not practice. I suspect nobody wants that (and if they do, they should be opposed mightily by the rest of us who believe we possess rationality and the ability to decide for ourselves). So we must allow freedom to both the practitioner and the dissenter, the religious and the anti-religious, the orthodox and the heretic, an establishment and its critics.

Jen/John Wright/Portwyne

I think the problem lies in the fact that we can't use legislation to make people virtuous. And Free-Speech may only be able to survive in a society were we learn to express our opinions with restraint. But we have to do this voluntarily.
Maybe a homosexual does truly believe that Jesus would identify with him. Or maybe he believes that Jesus can be whatever you believe. But is a "Jesus was a fag" poster the best way to express this belief?
Or perhaps a conservative Christian believes that Homosexuality is morally wrong. Should they use terms like "sodomite" or "abomination", given the offence they cause?
PB responded to me on this once before, claiming that "sodomy" was a biblically warranted way to describe homosexuality. Let's assume he was right. Does he need to use the term in public discussion? Are there other ways to express conservative Christian views?

Or to put this another way, if free public discourse is to thrive, perhaps we all need to learn a little manners.

Graham Veale

Just to make my point for me, sailing through the net I came across this story about PZ Myers

"Dr. Myers finished.. His long-promised desecration of a consecrated communion wafer, considered by Roman Catholics to be literally the body of Christ. "I pierced it with a rusty nail (I hope Jesus' tetanus shots are up to date)," the University of Minnesota-Morris biologist wrote. "And then I simply threw it in the trash."

The militant atheist photographed his sacrilege, which also included his tearing a page from the Quran and soiling it with banana peels and coffee grounds." Rod Dreher, The Dallas Morning News

To be fair, he also desecrated a few pages of "The God Delusion". But I cannot see any way Myer's actions contribute to public debate. It was a desecration of his right to free speech and expression.

Graham Veale

I also feel compelled to add that it was perhaps the most evil act a person could commit within the law.

G Veale

GV- No sensible person would dispute that what you're saying is right: manners help. But surely you aren't suggesting that there is no right to free speech of any kind, only a "right to free speech with manners"?

John
From a brief glance at his blog, I would say that Myers thinks that manners are not helpful.
But as I said, the difficulty is that legislation cannot produce courtesy. We cannot produce a law that only enforces "a "right to free speech with manners""
But yet the future of free speech may depend on our civility.

Graham Veale

Portwyne
How can society thrive on subversives who mock the standards of others, yet refuse to propose standards of their own?
Cynicism is entirely parasitic on those who try to promote goods.

Graham Veale

GV- "the future of free speech may depend on our civility."

I don't know what you mean by this sentence. Do you mean that the government will infringe on our rights to free speech if we're not civil? Or something else? I think the future of free speech is not contingent upon anything: it is humanity's default position to say what it thinks and it'll happen, civil or not.

GV - "How can society thrive on subversives who mock the standards of others, yet refuse to propose standards of their own?"

PZ Meyers did propose his own standard: "it's just a cracker!" ;)

Seriously though, having followed the progress of "crackergate" since coming across Myers' initial post about the hysterical reaction to a student taking a communion wafer out of mass (accusations of having committed a hate crime, comparisons with kidnapping, death threats) which lead to his own request for crackers and, subsequently, thousands of equally hysterical comments posted to his blog and email address, along the odd death threat and attempts to have him sacked from his job, isn't his own standard included along with the final, anticlimactic reveal, linked to below?



"By the way, I didn't want to single out just the cracker, so I nailed it to a few ripped-out pages from the Qur'an and The God Delusion. They are just paper. *Nothing must be held sacred*. Question everything. God is not great, Jesus is not your lord, you are not disciples of any charismatic prophet. You are all human beings who must make your way through your life by thinking and learning, and you have the job of advancing humanity's knowledge by winnowing out the errors of past generations and finding deeper understanding of reality. You will not find wisdom in rituals and sacraments and dogma, which build only self-satisfied ignorance, but you can find truth by looking at your world with fresh eyes and a questioning mind."

John
I should have expressed myslef with more clarity, but the library was closing.

I think free speech (or at the very least the free discussion of ideas) is a basic right for human beings.
However, as a practical matter, we have to get our governments to agree to this principle.
We live in an age of mass immigration and cultural pluralism. If we exercise our free speech in a way that causes civil unrest, we may find ourselves facing political movements that want to do away with free speech.
Of course, they would be morally wrong. But I can't rewrite human nature. And we need to listen to the lessons of history.

Graham Veale

J Buchanan

What exactly is Myer's proposing?
Perhaps Myers' really is proposing the principle "question everything." Two seconds reflection should show you that he has proposed a self defeating principle. He can't even endorse skepticism!
Maybe he is suggesting that the Scientific Method is the sole arbitrer of truth. So how does he establish that? By the Scientific Method? Or by another means of finding truth?

Religious movements are always trying to make progress and weed out errors. Hence Buddhism, hence Islam. So he must have a particular method for advancing knowledge that rules out religious knowledge. Now what method can he have in mind that could not also be applied to moral and philosphical knowledge? And how does an act of blasphemy advance his case?

Furthermore, why can someone not hold a rational, self-critical belief in the Eucharist? Maybe some accept the belief on blind faith or habit. But does EVERY Catholic fit that mould? Doesn't Myer's place all Catholic's into the one category by his actions?

Did Myer's ask any of these questions before he nailed the Host to the Quran, and place the Quran on the same level as the "God Delusion"? Why did he add the crack about Jesus needing Tetanus shots, if he merely wanted to establish that the wafer was just a wafer?

Or did he use his right of free speech to gain notoriety? There was no wit, no grace, and no rationality to his actions.

Graham Veale

Sometimes true freedom is the freedom to saying nothing.

I think I'm instinctively on Graham's side: I'd rally behind the flag of Free Speech, but Mind Your Manners.

The other options just seem dismaying - either I'm fighting for an oppressive society, or I'm manning the barricades in defense of the morons at Heat magazine.

Graham and Jen-

"Mind your manners" or else what?

John,
It's not what I would do, or what I think the Government should do.
It's how society might react to increasing tension. It's how right-wing parties might solve cultural conflict - by repressing free speech.
If we abuse our right to free speech, or any of our individual freedoms, to the extent that they become harmful to society as a whole, we risk a backlash.
I cannot see how mass immigration and multi-culturalism can be reversed (and in any case, I don't want to). And human nature will stay fairly constant. If we continue to push free speech to the limits, as Myers' and Heat magazine did, we may push the tolerance of others over the limit.
But to be clear, I don't see legislation as the solution. I see legislation as the beginning of a new set of problems.


Graham Veale

Graham- Your language - "if we abuse our right to free speech" - is indicative of the fact that you believe there's a universally 'right' or 'wrong' way to use it. I understand your context for this: an 'abuse' of free speech is a manner of using it which incites the hatred of others. But in my opinion what stretches and builds tolerance is precisely that which you're calling "abuse": people speaking their mind.

On legislation, I understand what you're saying and agree with you that it isn't any solution.

Pornography without sex? Where's the fun in that?

John
You do not need to accept universal moral standards to concur that with my conclusion. A person need only look at the pragmatics of the situation. If you are making life more difficult for others around you, and in the long run yourself, then you are using a moral right in a foolish manner.
Of course some messages will offend others - that the Bible is repressive, or that God is not Great. The aim is not to offend others needlessly, and not to cause greater offence than necessary.
I believe that free speech can be abused - it does not seem to be an end in itself, but rather a means to several ends. These would be critical reflection, respect for others, and a check on government. To use free-speech only for profit, or to cause offence, or to gain fame, is to abuse it. Of course this is assuming that the speaker has no other motivation.
Of course, it is impossible to draw up a list of rules or guidelines, and each case must be judged on it's own merits. We need publishers and broadcasters who are motivated primarily by the common good.
We also need a cure for the common cold and an end to war. I'm not holding my breath.

GV

This may be way off-topic, but the dirtiest song I've ever heard has no direct references to sex whatsoever. It's "I Got it from Agnes" by Tom Lehrer.

Back on topic, the publishers don't have to abide by First Amendment Rights (or similar UK concepts), but publishers shouldn't just not publish a book because it may be controversial. And, if the author wants it published, just take it to another publisher...