Sherry Jones's Aisha novel, The Jewel of Medina, has been withdrawn from bookshops in Serbia, lest it upset the religious sensitivities of religiously oversensitive Muslims. Indeed, there have been complaints from a "leader" there.
The meticulously researched book concerns the life of the girl whom that beardy guy Mohammed married when she was six and screwed when she was nine, according to the stories. But, from all accounts, it's not knocking copy, but tries to bring to life this central figure in the history of Islam.
Not good enough for Muslims, though, it seems. Random House consulted security experts and what Islam calls scholars (they can recite the Koran, and even do it backwards – oh, but that might be deemed Satanic), and pulled and pulped the book, trembling before possible reprisals, demonstrating that we have now reached the stage where Islam need not even shake its fist, point its finger or even say tut-tut, let alone wield its sword, before we in the West tug our forelocks, say sorry and shuffle off into the gloom of fear and self-censorship. (This act, incidentally, also led the barrister who represented Satanic Verses author Salman Rushdie to call for compensation for Sherry Jones.)
However, the book got its world debut, published by Beobuk, in Serbia a few weeks ago. But it's been deemed offensive. Now there's a surprise!
This Muslim "leader" chappie in Serbia, Muarem Zukorlic, says the book is offensive, and he's demanded all of the published copies be handed in. It is considered by all Muslims as untouchable, apparently – haram. Which, as pointed out by MediaWatchWatch, where I nicked this story from, "doesn’t mean everyone else has to keep schtum".
Quite.
No comments:
Post a Comment
We welcome lively and challenging comments. However, please try to stay on topic, be polite and do not use abusive, racist or sexist language, and do not incite your readers to violence or other antisocial behaviour, or your comment will be deleted. This isn't censorship: it's a case of staying within the bounds of decency and having an eye to the law, although we realise the law will be different in different countries.
We do not bar anonymous comments at the moment, but we would prefer that those commenting play fair and use their name or at least a regular nom de plume. It does show a confidence in your convictions. We know, too, that it's easy to use a false name and be effectively anonymous, but, again, we appeal to your sense of good practice. Even a wacky nom de plume is better, since at least readers will come to know that contributor and maybe remember her or his previous comments.
Blatant commercial advertising will be removed.
Comments should not be construed as necessarily the policy or opinion of the Pink Triangle Trust.
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.