National Council of Churches, Interfaith Relations Commission Speaks out against the Obsession DVD.

In recent weeks many Americans have found in their mailboxes and morning papers a DVD called ‘Obsession: Radical Islam’s War Against the West.’ As the Interfaith Relations Commission of the National Council of Churches, we are alarmed by the massive distribution of some 28 million copies of this DVD through paid advertisement by the Clarion Fund in more than seventy newspapers. While this film purports to educate and offers, at the outset, a disclaimer that it is not about the majority of peaceful Muslims, we see its content as serving only the aims of distorting truth and misleading viewers, fanning the sparks of mistrust, bigotry, and hatred that undermine the very foundations of a multi-religious democracy.

The National Council of the Churches of Christ in the U.S.A., bringing together thirty-five national Protestant and Orthodox churches, is concerned not only with relations among Christian churches, but also with our relations with neighbors of other faiths. Toward that end, we participate in a national dialogue between Christians and Muslims. We believe that deep relationship as neighbors calls us to common moral engagement and leadership in a world plagued by violence, poverty, atrocities, and environmental degradation.

We are deeply troubled by the apparent intent of a film that presents a barrage of violent images, pieced together with the voices of commentators who move from speaking of ‘radical Islam’ to impugning Islam and Muslims more generally and presenting fear-mongering parallels between today’s extremist terrorists and the Nazis. The National Council of Churches and its member churches consistently and adamantly denounce anti-Semitism in all its forms and condemn all forms of ethnic, racial, and religious hatred, including the Islamophobia typified in this film.

The stated aim of this film is to alert and educate the public about the dangers of terrorism perpetrated in the name of Islam. We recognize that in all our traditions, extremists and radicals have forged the weaponry of violence. The National Council of Churches condemns extremism, terrorism, and religiously motivated violence, as do our Muslim dialogue partners here in the United States and globally. We stand firmly against terrorism in all its manifestations. However, the content of this film has no useful analysis of terrorism beyond a shallow, monolithic, clash-of-civilizations theme that suggests that the only two responses to ‘radical Islam’ are war or appeasement. Such a false choice serves only to incite the fear of Islam and aggression against Muslims.

As an alternative to the message of this DVD, we lift up the current and unprecedented worldwide exchange between Christians and Muslims. The Muslim initiative, ‘A Common Word Between Us and You,’ has gained wide response from the churches and has generated an ongoing process of dialogue. Building constructively on the foundations that unite us in fractured world provides a far more hopeful way ahead for Muslims, Christians, and Jews alike.

In the National Council of Churches, we stand with our Muslim colleagues and fellow citizens who have experienced the de-humanizing effects of stereotyping and bigotry. As Christians, we are mandated to uphold the values of the Gospel. As Americans, we stand with all who are determined to create just and fair democracy.

It’s Our Choice: Standing up to Extremisms of all Shades

Reprinted with the kind permission of the author as part of a new feature here at The Agonist sponsored by FSB Associates which will run on Mondays: The FSB Book Club. Full disclosure: absolutely no money is changing hands here. FSB has generously agreed, at my request, to provide us with book excerpts and from time to time interactions and chats with the authors themselves.

by Sumbul Ali-Karamali
In Ohio, early voting began yesterday. In a seemingly unrelated event, four days ago in Ohio two men sprayed a noxious chemical into the babysitting room at a mosque in Dayton, causing babies and children to suffer burning eyes and throats, and forcing panicked evacuation of the mosque. Two apparently disparate events, perhaps, but they’re unexpectedly connected.
The incident at the mosque occurred at the end of the same week that an anti-Muslim propaganda dvd was distributed by mail in Ohio. Twenty-eight million copies of this same dvd had previously distributed as a paid advertisement in major newspapers in swing states, of which Ohio is one.
Called “Obsession: Radical Islam’s War on the West,” this film has been described as perpetuating anti-Muslim hate speech, characterizing Muslims as followers of a violent religion, and equating Muslims with Nazis (though Muslims are a faith group and Nazis were members of a European state with a standing military). The movie features Islamophobic pundits speaking on behalf of all Muslims.
Several organizations, including the “Hate Hurts America” coalition (www.obsessionwithhate.com) – a nonpartisan diverse community coalition that brings together Americans of various faiths, races and backgrounds in a unified stance against intolerance – have already thoroughly debunked much of what the dvd claims as truth. In fact, Dr. Khaleel Mohammed, the only Islamic Studies professor featured in the film, issued a statement communicating distress “that [the filmmakers’] alarmist drivel should be mixed with [his] whittled down interview” and that it “proves that the intent of the film is not to educate, but to mislead.”
At least two lawsuits have been filed because a nonprofit, which the distributor of the film purportedly is, cannot participate in political activities. Although the filmmakers claim that they simply wish to inform both parties about the “threat of radical Islam,” the film, three years old now, was distributed in battleground states just weeks before the upcoming election. Moreover, one of the talking heads in the film has insisted elsewhere that Obama, whatever he says, is still a “political Muslim” (whatever that is). And the Republicans are clearly reputed to be the party “tough on terror,” with McCain repeatedly using the threat of “Islamofascism” (whatever that is) to garner support for his campaign.
But here’s the obvious point that so many are missing: the so-called “war” this film talks about and allegedly inevitable “clash of civilizations” isn’t about incompatibility between Muslims and the Jewish-Christian world. Or even between Islam and the West. It’s a war of ideology between the dogmatic, rigid, exclusivist people on both sides.
A friend of mine recently mentioned in an email that he’s come to realize that the world is divided into two religious groups. “Nope,” he wrote, “it’s not Jewish-Christian and Muslim. It’s thoughtful and dogmatic.” And it’s the dogmatic fear-mongers in this film, the very parallels of the dogmatic fear-mongers in the Islamic world, which are precipating a war here.
The message of the Obsession dvd is to convince Americans that Muslims are on a violent mission to further their goal of global domination. In other words, they say that Muslims despise the West and are out to convert or destroy it. The filmmakers are recruiting Americans to their side with this argument and attempting to affect the election to stop this claimed calamity.
Well, guess what? Muslim extremist groups do exactly the same thing.
Al-Qaeda and similar groups of Muslim extremists busily translate American anti-Islam hate literature into Arabic so that they can convince Muslim populations that the West abominates Islam and means to crush it. They had the Crusades as proof, after all, and now they have Iraq and Afghanistan, as well. Samuel Huntington’s clash of civilizations mindset simply plays into their hands and proves their own correctness: the West despises Islam and means to destroy it.
So the real war is between hate-mongering, fear-mongering extremists on both sides who recruit followers to perpetuate an eternal war against “the other side.”
Airing bin Laden’s videos and declaring him an enemy legitimizes him and perpetuates hate speech. Would we interview prominent members of the Ku Klux Klan on national television? Would we distribute a KKK dvd on racist philosophy? No, because it would be tantamount to hate speech. Distributing the Obsession dvd is the same thing; it’s distributing hate speech.
And, as the children at the Dayton, Ohio mosque can attest, perhaps it’s already resulted in at least one hate crime committed by Americans.
Thank goodness, though, that at least one newspaper in this country understands that freedom of speech comes with the responsibility to use it wisely. The Greensboro News and Record in North Carolina refused to distribute the Obsession dvd and declined the money that came with it. The publisher stated that the dvd was divisive and it played on people’s fears. Editor John Robinson said that “just because you can publish doesn’t mean you should.”
Today is Eid ul-Fitr, the Festival of the Fast-Breaking, the holiday that comes immediately after the fasting month of Ramadan. Muslims all over the country, and indeed the world, are celebrating Eid. And despite the dvd, despite all the flourishing hatred the 9/11 attacks unleashed, a wonderful thing happened today: The Empire State Building in New York, the self-same city that suffered those attacks, lit its world-famous tower lights in green today Eid, in the same tradition of its yearly lightings for Christmas and Hanukah.
It’s there, I think with pride in America, my country, it’s that way that peace lies.

©2008 Sumbul Ali-Karamali

Sumbul Ali-Karamali grew up in California frequently answering difficult questions about Islam and its practices posed by friends, colleagues, and neighbors. (”What do you mean you can’t go to the prom because of your religion?”) She holds a B.A. from Stanford University and a J.D from the University of California at Davis and earned a graduate degree in Islamic law from the University of London’s School of Oriental and African Studies. She has served as a teaching assistant in Islamic Law at SOAS and a research associate at the Centre of Islamic and Middle Eastern Law in London. Her book, The Muslim Next Door, is available from White Cloud Press. www.muslimnextdoor.com

People of the Book: Can We Talk?

The Politics of Culture By Mehnaz Afridi

A city with history…
[Al-Quds/Jerusalem] – Perched on a bar stool in Jerusalem, I looked around at the many Israeli men in the room, relaxing, drinking beer and playing pool. I felt serene, but the tired faces of the soldiers told a different story. For them, this was an escape from their enemies who lay intimately bound to them beyond the hills of the city.

I caught the deep blue eyes of a young man standing beside me with a gun slung upon his shoulder and proceeded to order a beer. We exchanged smiles, and he decided to sit next to me.

He began to ask me personal questions. I told him I was from New York and was studying archaeology and the Bible. He asked me why I had chosen such an esoteric topic, and I reminded him that in Jerusalem it was a common topic; everyone came here to seek and understand the roots of the land.

His eyes widened as he gulped his beer, “But surely you know as a Jew that this is our ancestral homeland?”

I realized then, to my amusement, that he had assumed that I was an American Jew visiting my “home.”

“Well, no…. First, I am not Jewish, and second, I am not quite sure whose land this is…” I replied calmly.

“If you’re not Jewish, then you’re Catholic, right?” he asked, downing his drink.

I took a long breath and responded, “No, I’m a Muslim from Pakistan.”

He smiled, hoping that I was joking with him, “Come on…No Muslim comes here to a bar, or for that matter, to Israel…Especially not a woman!”

To prove it to him, I untied the pocket of my backpack and produced my flashy green passport that read, in Urdu and English gold lettering, “Islamic Republic of Pakistan.” He took one look at the passport and shouted something in Hebrew to the others in the bar. Incredible as it sounds, in a flash, everyone but the bartender disappeared. I sat frozen on my stool, both confused and saddened by the disappearance of my former conversationalist.

Jerusalem: One City, Three Faiths: Karen Armstrong’s classic account

Sacred Landscape: The Buried History of the Holy Land Since 1948: your purchase helps support LCC programming
Eighteen years have passed, and I have since made it my life’s goal to foster mutual understanding between Jews and Muslims, so that both sides might overcome this fear of the “other.” Today, working with Jews and sharing their hopes for peace has been an illuminating experience.

I have visited Munich and the Dachau concentration camp in Germany, worked with non-profits, such as the Arava Institute and Muslims for Progressive Values, that show mutual respect for Jews and Muslims, and was invited by Levantine Cultural Center to speak with Muslims who are embittered by the Israeli Defence Forces’ policies towards Palestinians, and with Jews who mistrust Muslims because of the violent actions of Muslim extremists.

Along the way, I have found that Jewish-Muslim coexistence and trust has to be rooted in a basic mutual respect for one another’s faith. Common ground exists. In both Islam and Judaism, the community looks to respected religious leaders for spiritual direction. And while there are differences in form, the two also share the central practices of prayer, fasting, almsgiving, dietary laws and ritual purity. These similarities are most evident when comparing Islam to Orthodox Judaism.

As Muslims, we are well-served by learning from Jewish history, especially how Jews survived during their tribulations, before and after the Holocaust.

Jews can help Muslims navigate in the post-9/11 world by sharing the difficulties they too faced in Europe and the United States and their attempts to overcome them. At the same time, Muslims can make a better effort to include Jews in their own communities, helping to deconstruct the negative stereotype of Jews as working against them.

If the Jewish soldier I met 18 years ago would have taken the time to understand that I was in Jerusalem to sort out my feelings—not only about Israel but also about Palestine—we could have seen the shared commonalities in our faiths, our national loyalties, and our love for home…and perhaps even established a friendship.

I dream of a day when Muslims and Jews are closer to trusting one another as human beings, thus enabling us to continue the conversation.

Mehnaz M. Afridi teaches Judaism and Islam at various Southern California universities. This article was written for the Common Ground News Service (CGNews), and is part of a series on Jewish-Muslim relations.

Joe Hussein the Plumber

A friend of a friend – a physician – declared categorically almost 18 months ago that she could never vote for anyone whose middle name was “Hussein.” In stark contrast, a Jewish friend of mine recently joined a Facebook group of over a thousand participants who have all adopted the middle name, “Hussein.” The purpose of this group, of course, is to protest against the unflagging use of Obama’s middle name as a negative propaganda tool, not to mention as an occasional near-expletive. But I like to think that the Jews and Christians and Muslims and others who are adopting Hussein as a middle name are doing so not only in solidarity with Obama, but with the hundreds of thousands of people worldwide named Hussein, which is, after all, just as common a name as “Joe.”

In his manifesto advocating the middle-name movement, Jeff Hussein Strabone wrote, in February of 2008, “We are all Hussein.” And he’s right. But, loosely speaking, the converse is true, too.

Because plenty of Husseins are American. In fact, plenty of Muslims are Joe-Hussein-the-Plumber average Americans who are being vilified by the very politicians who claim to care so much about average Americans. Those who elevate Joe the Plumber as the symbol of America while simultaneously denigrating Obama for being Hussein miss the point: Obama, along with his American Joe-Hussein-the-Plumber namesakes, are symbols of the greatness of America, too.

Even more troubling, though, is that never have religious prejudices, xenophobia, and racism been so widely exported to the rest of the world. The prejudice that we export rebounds back upon us. Our images are no longer limited to American media, but are spread far and wide by global media.

These attitudes are exported because Muslims – not just Arabs, who constitute only one-fifth of Muslims worldwide – watch television. They watch Hollywood movies, too, in which the vast majority of Arab characters that are depicted are racist caricatures. And they read the hate literature that abounds in the United States concerning Muslims.

These images are so potent that Muslims abroad have wondered, since long before 9/11, why Americans hate Islam and Muslims. Just as Osama bin Laden’s or Ahmadinejad’s statements are broadcast all over the American media, American anti-Islam and anti-Muslim statements are broadcast all over media in Muslim-majority countries.

Take a recent example of what Muslims abroad might see. We Americans pride ourselves on our separation of religion and state, and many Americans erroneously assume Islam requires a unity of religion and state (it doesn’t). Yet, last week CNN covered a McCain rally in Iowa, at which Reverend Arnold Conrad delivered the invocation, including this passage: “there are millions of people around this world praying to their God – whether it’s Hindu, Buddha, Allah – that [McCain's] opponent wins… and Lord I pray that you would guard your own reputation, because they’re going to think that their god is bigger than you, if that happens.

Add this incident to negative campaigning, the racist movie caricatures, and the hate literature, and what’s the result? Extremists can say with impunity to Muslim populations: “Look; the West despises Islam and means to destroy us.” Just as extremists in the West use translated hateful statements by Muslims to say: “Look; Muslims despise the West and mean to destroy us.” The net result is that we have shown each other the very worst of ourselves.

Just this weekend, former Secretary of State General Colin Powell spoke on how damaging negative campaigning can be, specifically referring to “who’s a Muslim, who’s not a Muslim.” In his interview, General Powell insisted, “Those kinds of images going out on al-Jazeera are killing us around the world….we have got to say to the world, it doesn’t matter who you are – if you’re American, you’re an American . . . We have got to stop this nonsense, pull ourselves together, and remember that our great strength is in our unity, in our diversity.”

This week has seen prominent Americans of both political parties urging the negative campaigning to stop, because finally media and political personalities are beginning to understand that hate hurts America. It divides and conquers us.

We can continue to highlight the worst of both sides and render the “clash of civilizations” a self-fulfilling prophecy. Or we can use our freedom of speech with responsibility, not with insulting carelessness; we can use our freedom of religion with pluralistic understanding, not with dogmatism. We can stand up and adopt “Hussein” as a middle name in celebration of our common humanity. It’s our choice.

Sumbul (Hussein) Ali-Karamali, author of The Muslim Next Door: the Qur’an, the Media, and that Veil Thing.

Obama Is Not A Muslim — (But Would it Be So Terrible if He Were?)

I was recently conversing with a local schoolteacher, a thoughtful woman I admire, when she exclaimed, “I would love to talk to you more when we have time! I mean, I’d love to know what you think about Obama, since he’s black and, oh, well, Muslim.”

I’m afraid my face must have communicated the sudden blankness of my thoughts. Obama may be black, but he’s not Muslim. I am Muslim, but I’m not black. My momentary lack of response reflected the disconnect in the logic of her statement.

I do understand, as a troubling number of Americans do not, that Barack Obama has never been Muslim. Merely living in Indonesia does not cause metamorphosis Islamica, some (imaginary) loathsome disease to be contracted from environmental contact. Wearing Somali dress in a laudable attempt to show multicultural respect is not proof of religious convictions. Attending a madrasa as a child does not a Muslim make, since madrasa is simply the Arabic word for school and, as such, can be applied to Harvard Law School with as much accuracy as it can be applied to a Taliban religious school.

I understand all these points. That is why I admit to difficulty understanding why the hazy suspicions surrounding Obama’s connection to Muslims have not dissipated. To be a Muslim, it is absolutely necessary to believe in this declaration of faith: “There is no god but God and Muhammad is the messenger of God.” The first phrase signifies belief in one God, the God, as opposed to many gods. The second phrase indicates belief that Muhammad, the prophet of Islam who died in 632, was the messenger of God who brought God’s word to his fellow humankind.

Obama has unequivocally stated that he is not a Muslim. If he does not believe in the declaration of faith, then he cannot be Muslim.

Amongst the many flying rumors is one that goes like this: because Obama’s father was Muslim, Obama is Muslim, too — no matter what he personally believes. But this is not true. In Islam, there is a presumption of faith based on parentage. In pre-modern societies of all faiths, religion was one of many factors that contributed to identity and citizenship. Therefore, there were rules regarding religious adherence. But it is only a presumption. It is rebuttable by faith itself. The definition of a Muslim is not “someone whose father was a Muslim.” Rather, the definition of a Muslim is someone who believes that there is only one God and that Muhammad was the messenger of God. Obama does not fit this definition.

What I find most troublesome about this entire subject is the xenophobia involved. After all, even if Obama were a Muslim — which he has repeatedly denied — why would that be so catastrophic?

As an Indian-American, Muslim, female, corporate lawyer and author, I typify American Muslim women far more accurately than the do the images of the black-clad, oppressed Muslim women featured in the media. I am just as American as my Irish-Catholic best friend. I speak English with a standard West Coast American accent. I have no first-hand memories of the country from which my parents emigrated. Yet, I was recently asked by a new acquaintance whether I would “go back” to the Middle East, since I was Muslim.

Well, I am not from the Middle East. I’m from Southern California.

This attitude does enable me to empathize with the probable feelings of Victorian English Catholics. In 19th century England, English Catholics paid an extra tax for the privilege of remaining Catholic and not belonging to the Anglican Church. They were often viewed as treasonous because of suspicions that their allegiance would belong to Catholic France or Catholic Spain rather than to England, the country in which they were born and raised.

American Muslims are already integrated into American society. We don’t get much of a voice in the media, but we are, as a group, middle class and mainstream. Only about 15-20 percent of us attend the mosques in the U.S. — not because we’re unobservant, necessarily, but (in many cases) because mosques since the early 1980s have come under the influence of Saudi-type Islam, which is just not what most American Muslims are about. The Pew Research Center notes that we are “decidedly American in [our] outlook, values, and attitudes.”1 Moreover, our allegiance is not to the country our parents or grandparents emigrated from, but to the United States — our own country.

During World War II, Japanese Americans were sent to internment camps because they were presumed to be loyal to Japan (no matter how many generations their families had lived in America). The destruction of the World Trade Towers was a type of Pearl Harbor, casting suspicion on American Muslims this time instead of Japanese Americans. But al-Qaeda is no more representative of Islam than the Ku Klux Klan is representative of Christianity.

So even if Obama were a Muslim, he wouldn’t be any less American or any less intelligent or any less competent. The unabating furor reminds me of how John F. Kennedy’s Catholic faith was considered a factor in his presidential campaign.

Obama’s childhood years in Indonesia are a factor in his campaign, too. But why a negative factor? Should we not wish for a president with global understanding? The President of the United States interacts not only with Americans, but also North Koreans, Russians, Iranians, and people of all faiths and nationalities. Should we not aspire to bridge cultural gaps and elect a president who views the world through a big-picture, worldwide, multicultural lens rather than through a narrow one limited to his own faith and background?

Several of my acquaintances have tried to convince me over the years that I should send my children to Catholic schools. “No,” I say, “we have good public schools; I’d rather just send them there.” Someone actually said to me in response, “Well, going to mass and taking religion classes won’t force your children to be Christian or anything!”

Yet the thought of Obama attending both Islamic and Catholic schools in Indonesia strikes fear into some hearts. Instead, it should give us hope that finally we might just have a president who would know how to communicate with the leaders of both Muslim and Christian countries. It is not civilizations that are antithetical and which must clash – it is the misunderstandings of those civilizations that cause clashes. Perhaps, in Obama, we might have a president who would know better than to characterize post-9/11 military actions as a “crusade.”

The tendency to disbelieve Obama’s unequivocal statements that he’s a Christian reminds me of what Norman Daniel writes in his history of Western perceptions of Islam: “It was with very great reluctance that what Muslims said Muslims believed was accepted as what they did believe.”2

Of course, Obama isn’t Muslim, so I guess that analogy doesn’t apply.

The American Crescent: Islam in America

In a special two-part documentary Rageh Omaar journeys across the United States exploring the story of Islam in the country.

He attempts to discover if – far from being fundamentally incompatible – Islamic America holds the seeds of a lasting solution to global discord between east and west.

Watch Online

Commanding to Good

Only when the underlying philosophy of a nation is fairness and justice can such a report as the FAIR Report be published. American Muslims, disheartened by the presence of Islamphobia in the media, can now hold onto a tangible sense of hope that someone has heard their prayers.

FAIR, a national media watchdog group, has been offering well-documented criticisms of media bias and censorship since 1986. They describe themselves as follows: “We work to invigorate the First Amendment by advocating for greater diversity in the press and by scrutinizing media practices that marginalize public interest, minority and dissenting viewpoints. As an anti-censorship organization, we expose neglected news stories and defend working journalists when they are muzzled.” 

Unlike the innumerable reports watchdog groups issue, the FAIR Report (see link below) actually provides the names of journalists – the “dirty dozen” – as well as case studies of how these journalists have manipulated the media to promote their own point of view and to discredit Muslims in America. The Report’s authors provide a critical behind-the-scenes account, detailing the specific strategies and tactics of this highly-effective smearcasting.

One of the co-authors, Isabel Macdonald, describes how some right-wing pundits use mainstream media to smear American Muslims. She says:

Islamophobia has emerged in the 2008 presidential election, from nefarious whisper campaigns directed at Sen. Barack Obama to the recent distribution of the anti-Muslim propaganda DVD “Obsession” to 28 million newspaper subscribers in swing states. 

She quotes a co-author of the FAIR “Smearcasting” Report, Steve Randall:

These Muslim-bashing attacks have a real impact, not only on Muslims in America but on our civil discourse We’re in the middle of a historic election in which Islamophobia has already played a role, and I don’t think we’ve seen the last of the dirty tricks and the smearcasting. Media need to step up and do their job of separating fact from innuendo, and they should distinguish the impartial experts from the smearcasters.

Whereas the Qur’an asks humanity to “command to the good and prohibit evil,” which the FAIR Report does, we find a group of people commanding evil and hatred. This commanding evil and hatred is the same tactic used by Muslim extremists, to instill hatred against anyone who disagrees with them. Both groups are what scripture describes as hypocrites. Though they outwardly claim to “try to make things right,” their real intention is to pit human beings against each other, to separate and divide between them. They use misinformation and innuendo against entire ethnic and religious groups. 

This is exactly why many Americans – or their ancestors – immigrated to our great country: to avoid hate and persecution and to enjoy the fruits of tolerance and freedom. Yet, with the rise of Islamophobia, American Muslims have had this hope in the American dream tarnished by certain journalists and media personalities. They attempt to distract our country from its historical position as “the world’s developed conscience,” just as Muslim extremists move our religion away from its historical position of “a faith based in conscience” and back to the Age of Ignorance and tribalism. 

What the “dirty dozen” and Muslim extremists have forgotten is that humanity is one. Our goal must be to teach and practice love and respect for one’s fellow human being. While the ugly face of hatred has indeed reared its head in the America that we love, the FAIR Report represents an important step in the right direction. 

 

Laleh Bakhtiar, Ph. D.

 

The below link features the interview with FAIR senior analyst Steve Rendall:

http://www.onthemedia.org/transcripts/2008/10/10/07

 

For those of you who have yet to see the report you can find it at: www.smearcasting.com

Media, God talk, and The Jewel of Medina: The Latest Example of Cultural Incompetency in Pop Culture

If proponents of history and religion stand on the fence when it comes to pop culture, it is because of the tension between religious and/or historical narratives and the liberties taken by the media giants in their manipulation of such narratives. The Jewel of Medina, albeit in its own modest way, is but the latest example of the cultural and historical incompetency of pop culture and its inability to bring us together.

About three months ago, Random House abandoned publication of Sherry Jones’ novel The Jewel of Medina fearing that it might incite a violent reaction in the Muslim world in the manner of Rushdie’s Satanic Verses and the Danish Cartoons Controversy. Thomas Perry, deputy publisher at Random House Publishing Group, said in an interview about the novel that they had received “from credible and unrelated sources, cautionary advice not only that the publication of this book might be offensive to some in the Muslim community, but also that it could incite acts of violence by a small, radical segment.” In the last few weeks, the book and the story of its rejection by prominent publications has increasingly gained press. This piece is an attempt to raise some important concerns about the book and to change the dynamics of the debate surrounding it. I want to start by talking about the book and where it just does history wrong.

Jones’ novel claims to be a work of historical fiction. It tells the story of Aisha the daughter of Abu Bakr and the beloved wife of the Prophet Muhammad beginning with her marriage to him at the age of 9 until the Prophet’s death when she is 18. But what’s historical and what is invented by Jones can only be discerned by one literate in the religious and historical traditions. Whereas historical fiction makes an honest attempt to capture events, characters, and the social context in which the figure(s) lived, Jones relies on her imagination when the chronicles are silent; and in the process, she makes bold and irresponsible revisions to the historical narrative(s). Aisha is refashioned into a modern-day Western feminist, who challenges the norms of Arabian society. She denounces the “purdah,” the practice of polygamy, and traditional views of women as disempowered with all the flare and savviness of a twenty-first-century “feminist.”

Up until her consummation with the Prophet, which Jones says occurred at the age of 14, Aisha is seen as an oversexed, jealous, and fiery young girl. Perhaps to match that temperament, Jones describes her with a marvelous crown of red hair and sultry green eyes. But that’s not all. To entice the reader further, Jones goes on to invent an ongoing love affair (never consummated) between Aisha and Safwan the son of al-Muattal. Taking the controversial story of “The Story of the Slander” (hadith al-ifk) as a point of departure, the novel opens up with an embellished retelling of the story with all the intrigue, sex, lust, and deceit that Jones can muster up. In historical accounts of the incident, Aisha accompanies Muhammad after a victorious battle and leaves camp to relieve herself. She returns only to discover that her necklace has fallen. When she sets out to find it, the caravan leaves and she is left behind. Safwan, who is following the caravan, finds her alone. He has her mount his camel and leads her back to Medina On their return, rumors abound, and some of the locals accuse them of adultery. Aisha’s reputation is ultimately cleared by an act of God, i.e. revelation.

The story, incredibly controversial even in the Muslim tradition, becomes a site for massive editing by Jones. Although little more is known about Safwan in historical accounts, Jones manufactures a complex and stormy love affair between the two beginning with the steamy prologue to the novel and its very first chapter. Safwan and Aisha in Jones’ view apparently have a long history together. As children, they are the best of playmates and childhood sweethearts. Love-struck, Aisha wants to marry Safwan rather than Muhammad, deeming the latter an old man. Even after Aisha’s marriage to Muhammad, Safwan continually appears in the novel, urging Aisha to run off with him, cast aside her sexual inhibitions, and fulfill her fantasies of becoming a Bedouin and/or a woman warrior fighting on behalf of the greater community (umma). The moments Safwan appears are key moments in Aisha’s life, when she is beset by disappointed hopes, a burgeoning sexual drive, and feelings of inadequacy. On the whole, hadith al-ifk is transformed from an empowering story of a woman’s trust and faith in being vindicated by God for her innocence into a conflicted and tumultuous love scene where Aisha, disturbed by the Prophet’s refusal to consummate their marriage (thinking her too young), finds herself alone in the arms of Safwan, a man who clearly desires her and proves to be a willing partner. Consummation is stalled however when young Aisha announces to Safwan that she is still a virgin. The shocking news halts Safwan in his tracks. Afraid that deflowering Aisha will emasculate Muhammad, Safwan withdraws, and the affair is averted.

In Jones’ version, the consummation of Aisha and Muhammad’s marriage eventually ensues but it remains a site for gross misunderstanding between the couple as does her early marriage to him. Aisha’s complaints of being a young girl forced into a marriage against her will with someone she sees as a father figure and her squashed dreams of roaming the desert veil-less eventually receive the audience of the Prophet, only to be followed by the Prophet’s silence, Aisha’s overflowing tears ducts and a shocking fall that leads to a miscarriage. Aisha’s mysterious pregnancy, never mentioned in the history books, is yet another one of Jones’ embellishments to excite reader imagination.

If Oriental harems have been the topic of interest to Western writers and artists for centuries, Jones is no exception. Muhammad’s harem however must fit Jones’ overall vision of Aisha. Jones quickly dismisses the stereotype of the subjugated, silenced woman. If anything, every single one of Muhammad’s wives is characterized as a powerful woman who wields power in her own right. At the same time, competition for the favors and attentions of the Prophet, jealousy, and sexual politics are all important themes of Jones’ harem. And yet, the novel, as the author has maintained, has not one a single, full-blown sex scene. Why all the enticement? A closer look reveals Jones’ agenda. Aisha’s coming of age story is a story about becoming a certain type of woman. It is meant to be provocative and tantalizing insofar as Aisha is a figure who pushes against all sorts of Arabian norms as she tries to climb to the top. Alienated by her sister-wives for her fiery temper, impulsive indiscretions, thoughtless candor, and favored position with the Prophet, Aisha eventually earns the position of “hatun,” or head of the harem. But only when she casts aside her own jealousy and thinks of the desires and aspirations of her sister-wives. Sisterhood and solidarity apparently have the same salience in seventh-century Arabia as they do in the twenty-first-century, and Aisha proves to be a leader in all the ways that would matter to a modern-day Western “feminist.”

Angry, bored, and impoverished, Muhammad’s wives are disenchanted with life with the most powerful man of the Hijaz. Aisha however proves indispensible in injecting vibrancy, femininity, and empowerment into the harem. She concocts an entrepreneurial scheme to put the wives to work, empower them with wealth, and offer an important service to the community as coiffeurs, henna-artists, wedding dress designers, and make-up artists, each sister-wife taking up a specific role. But before money can pour into the harem, Umar, the famous Companion of the Prophet and the second caliph of the Muslim Empire, hears of their enterprise, steps in, and squashes their efforts.

Known for his severity in religious affairs and in gender relations, Jones’ Umar is an uncompromising sexist who beats up women. He is a brute who at one point in the novel raises his hand to Aisha; not to be intimidated by any man, Aisha faces him defiantly. The scene is further dramatized by the entrance of the Prophet who knows nothing of his wives’ activities and sees the whole scheme as a blow to his reputation. Not having been consulted, he is upset, and his wives proceed to complain of their lack of suitable clothes and their impoverished states. Aisha ends the scene by telling Muhammad he has transformed from a “liberator of women into an oppressor of them.” On the whole, this is the worst Muhammad fares. Overall, Jones depicts him generally as a gentle man and a shrewd politician, who has albeit a tough time pleasing his wives.

But if Umar and occasionally Muhammad are disparaged, then no less than Ali, the cousin and son-in-law of the Prophet and the fourth caliph of the Muslim Empire. Seen as Aisha’s nemesis from the onset, Ali is portrayed as insanely jealous of Aisha; moreover, his harsh and severe exchanges with her and his schemes to be the next caliph results in a gross caricature of a complex historical figure and an injustice to a rich historical narrative. But Jones’ desire for a sequel is not to be underestimated. One of the last few scenes of the book foreshadows the Sunni-Shi’a split as al-Abbas, the Prophet’s uncle (implicating the Abbasids) and Ali (implicating the Shi’a) secretly bury the Prophet so that Abu Bakr cannot lead his funeral prayer and wield the authority associated with that position. Jones’ reading back of history through the Sunni-Shi’a split is yet another instance of her blatant anachronism and incompetency. Moreover, the novel is deeply problematic because where it is history, it is completely selective and subjective, leaning towards one version of history.

But why all the clamor you ask? I mean bad literature is just bad literature isn’t it? It shouldn’t sell. Well, the sad fact is in a post 9/11 world where Islam is a burgeoning market and bad books on Islam abound, bad literature does sell, and it educates people in all the wrong ways. If it didn’t, why would the Obama Nation be the number one book on the New York Times Bestseller List? As Americans, we are living in a time where cultural competency and self-definition must go hand-in-hand. As a nation, we boast of freedoms that our human brethren simply do not share. Our freedom of speech is one of our most important freedoms and this piece is not intended to say that it is not or that it should be dismissed. Instead like all freedoms, it should be exercised responsibly. We often forget that in the age of the internet, the world is small and growing smaller, and this book for all its value-laden judgments and gross inaccuracies may have far-ranging effects amongst an international readership who (1) is simply illiterate in this literature and in the throes of religious and ethnic conflicts where such texts fuel the fire rather than build bridges and (2) ascribe to the Muslim faith and would find Jones’ revisions insulting, inflammatory, and a gross misrepresentation of their traditions.

This novel is just another instance of cultural incompetency, where popular culture is trying to tap into the new market of Islam. If at least 40 percent of Americans claim they read the Bible at least once a day — then no doubt, religion sells. Why should you care as a reader? Well, if more and more people are relying on popular culture as a source for religious literacy, then it matters. Similarly, if in the post-9/11 world, Islam sells, and more and more people are relying on pop culture as a source for Islamic literary, then it matters. Sherry Jones is just the latest example of someone trying to jump on the bandwagon and sell a fantastic story. Let’s not get distracted and reduce this move by Random House into censorship, terrorism, and fear. Our administration does that enough. The fact is Jones got the narrative all wrong. Should it be published? No, it’s going to anger people and for all the right reasons.

Publishers if you take on Jones’ book, then a lot of challenges lie ahead, the worst of which one cannot know. This is about incompetence and accuracy in a time when America needs to re-engage the hearts and minds of a global world and emerge as a pioneer and leader. Some Americans may see this as another opportunity to defend our freedom of the speech absolutely, without even reading the book. There are people on stand-by to do so. But people in other parts of the world will see this as just another example of Americans misinterpreting their traditions for an exploitative purpose. It will cause anger and further aggravate and alienate people against America. And then we’ll ask the question: Why do they hate us and our freedom? What happens next is an old cycle that we have already lived through. This novel, for all its literary worth or lack thereof, will be defended and paraded around as representative of America’s Freedom of Speech. It may even win the Nobel Prize for Literature. And for the unfortunate amongst us, we will once again be pulled into another debate ad nauseum to defend a book that just doesn’t make the cut. It’s time to sing a different tune and to reconsider our freedoms more responsibly in a world where information and access to information is instantaneous. In a world where people in Jakarta, Madrid, Stockholm, Medina, New York City, Costa Rica, Damascus, and Delhi all drive down the same information highway (accessing websites, blogs, podcasts, youtube videos, et al.), where anyone can publish anything, we need to be cultural ambassadors and make more culturally competent and historically sound arguments, especially when writing about other peoples’ history. It is also best to be mindful that American values are hardly homogenous much less representative of the values of other cultures and histories. We live in such times when popular culture should bring us together by producing culturally literate peoples not burn more bridges.

As an American, a historian, and a person of color, this novel is offensive to me because of what it does to our notions of accurate representations of history. And in this, I side with the likes of Denise Spellberg, a learned historian who has already spoken out on the historical inaccuracy and the inflammatory content of the novel. In a time when we are literally rewriting our classroom textbooks so that they represent not just the plights of African Americans, the atrocity of the slave trade, and the Holocaust in an even-handed way, but also the rich cultures and histories of the rest of the world, it shocks me to see a novel like this try to pass itself off as historical fiction. And it further disappoints me that we as Americans are not informing the ongoing debate about freedom of speech with attention to competency, accuracy, and a global audience, an audience that does not necessarily espouse our homegrown values.

As a feminist and a Muslim, I am shocked by Jones seamless and monolithic narrative of what empowers women. Her rejection of aspects of my faith with the stroke of her pen makes me shudder. That she set out to write this novel as part of the feminist project and vindicate the Prophet Muhammad as a feminist alarms me deeply and speaks to the widening disconnect between our attempts to build bridges and deepen solidarity across all lines and reality. Have we learned nothing from the waves of feminism that beset this country in the last two centuries? Did we not realize that the feminist project had to be as inclusive and as diverse as possible such that it could speak to the deepest desires and aspirations of all women, irrespective of color, race, religious affiliation, and sexual orientation?

As a Sunni, I am utterly offended by the narratives that Jones has adopted and her racy and scheming depictions of historical figures, her invention of inflammatory scenes, particularly those related to Ali and Umar, both venerated figures to me and my religious tradition.

As a woman who has completed higher education in American, British, and Arabic literature and boasts of a great love for literature, I chime in with Asra Nomani that literature moves civilizations forward and that Muslims have a rich and sophisticated literary heritage. But I have yet to see how Jones’ The Jewel of Medina brings “Islamic history to life in a uniquely captivating and humanizing way.” I wonder if Jones’ characterization of Aisha is merely intended to make her more palatable to a Western audience. If so, then even on that front, I have no doubt that Sherry Jones has failed the feminist project.

WISE Update: September 2008; Issue 5

Read the WISE Newsletter for September 2008; Issue 5

Muslim Women’s Newsletter – Vol. 2 No.21, December, 2008

/Users/laleh/Desktop/Muslim Women News Letter December 08.doc

Next Page »