The story
From 'You Still Can't Write About Muhammad' by Asra Nomani in The Wall Street Journal.
A journalist named Sherry Jones wrote a historical novel about Aisha, who was married to Mohammed when she was 6, though he waited until she was 9 before having sex with her. The novel was due to be published this August; last April Random House sent it to several people for comment, including Denise Spellberg, an associate professor of Islamic history at the University of Texas in Austin. Jones has put Spellberg on the list because she had read Spellberg's book, Politics, Gender, and the Islamic Past: The Legacy of 'A'isha Bint Abi Bakr. Spellberg thought the book was terrible; on April 30 she called Shahed Amanullah, a guest lecturer in her classes and the editor of a popular Muslim Web site. Amanullah says she was upset and that she told him the novel 'made fun of Muslims and their history'; she asked him to 'warn Muslims.'
Jane Garrett, an editor at Random House's Knopf imprint, dispatched an email on May 1 to executives, telling them she got a phone call the evening before from Spellberg (who is under contract with Knopf to write Thomas Jefferson's Qur'an).
"She thinks there is a very real possibility of major danger for the building and staff and widespread violence," Ms. Garrett wrote. "Denise says it is 'a declaration of war...explosive stuff...a national security issue.' Thinks it will be far more controversial than the satanic verses and the Danish cartoons. Does not know if the author and Ballantine folks are clueless or calculating, but thinks the book should be withdrawn ASAP."
Random House also received a letter from Spellberg and her attorney, saying she would sue the publisher if her name were associated with the novel.
Spellberg told the WSJ reporter, '"I walked through a metal detector to see 'Last Temptation of Christ,'" the controversial 1980s film adaptation of a novel that depicted a relationship between Jesus and Mary Magdalene. "I don't have a problem with historical fiction. I do have a problem with the deliberate misinterpretation of history. You can't play with a sacred history and turn it into soft core pornography."
OB
The question
B&W is asking academics, journalists, free speech advocates and the like the following question:
Given the Wall Street Journal's account, what do you think of Spellberg's actions?
My answer:The qualification, “Given the Wall Street’s account” is important. It’s difficult to be sure, on the basis of a newspaper article containing second-hand quotes, precisely what Spellberg said and did. She may have been subtly or not so subtly misunderstood. I would be wary of launching any sort of attack on Spellberg on the basis of just this evidence.
If Spellberg did not like the book, then of course she should be free to say so. She should also be free to warn the publisher that, in her opinion, its publication is likely to result in violence. Certainly, that information shouldn’t be denied the publisher, should it? If Spellberg knew the book would probably provoke violence, it would be irresponsible of her to keep that information from the publisher, particularly as that seems to be have been one of the publishers' concerns.
Again, if Spellberg is being asked her opinion on whether it is wise to publish, given this threat, and her view is that it’s not, she should be free to say so. We don’t want to curtail Spellberg’s freedom of speech in order to defend freedom of speech, do we? I wouldn't want to censor Spellberg's views; nor would I encourage her to censor herself.
However, if the news report is accurate, it seems that Spellberg went further. The phone call to Amanullah asking him to “warn Muslims” is peculiar. Why would she do that? Deliberately drawing widespread Muslim attention to the book – indeed “warning” them via a Muslim website - is obviously likely to provoke exactly the violent response she wants to avoid. My guess is that Spellberg was, at this point, panicking about her own safety, and doing whatever she could publicly to dissociate herself from the book lest violent Muslims later pronounce her guilty by association. If so, that doesn’t reflect quite so well on her.
As for Spellberg’s views – well, mine differ. I don’t think we should allow ourselves to be silenced by violent religious zealots. The more of us are prepared to stand together and say, “No – we will say what we want”, rather than just pathetically cave in to the nutters, the better.
But that’s a criticism of Spellberg’s views, not her actions, which is what the above question specifically addresses. Actually, most of what Spellberg did, I have no problem with. True, the alleged contacting of Amanullah to “warn Muslims” doesn’t reflect well on Spellberg. But of course, we can’t be 100% sure that this even happened as described (perhaps Amanullah’s account of what Spellberg said is not entirely accurate). At this point, I’d give Spellberg the benefit of the doubt.
Comments
Is this deliberately ambiguous journalism.
Warned not to read it. Or warned to have opinions ready. Or warned to be ready to take up arms? The last gives that little frisson which sells papers.
This a basic issue for democracy.
Personally, I think Ms Spellberg is a wimp.
I don't want to crucify her though!
I can't really make much sense of what she thought she was doing, to be honest, so I was going with the most charitable interpretation. I don't feel I have enough info. to feel confident about accusing her of more, at this point. But you may be right, I don't deny that. Indeed, for all I know, she merits us getting the four-by-two and the nails out.
One of the problems about supporting free speech is that you find yourself defending all sorts of products, and artists, who you find really rather distasteful. From the description of it, this book seems to be in that category.
As a great champion of free speech [alas, now dead] once said: "A piece of low-grade rubbish must be as important to us as 'Ulysses', even though that principle may lose us both sympathy and battles".
Of course the too-numerous Muslims who are prepared to resort to violence and even murder to silence their critics have made the whole topic much more fraught than it used to be. But it is all the more a vital pivot of a free society.
Free speech is what keeps democracy and capitalism in check. As long as we have the ability to speak freely, government, political and religious groups, will never be able to attain enough power to control absolutely. Conflicting ideas is what makes democratic nations move forward progressively and more intelligently in their goals.
Spellberg's position of an academic writing of things Islamic should have meant that she was (a) less likely to panic (b) capable of condemning the book within her presumed remit as a reviewer as inaccurate, badly, written etc. or whatever her professional opinion was, directly to the publisher.
The timeline looks damning. Why did Spellberg not contact them first rather than stirring things up? If she was worried about safety it would have been better to get the thing quietly dropped or expurgated rather than let the world know that they were supposed to be offended by this book. Now the author of the unpublished work is at risk - after all how any of Salman Rushdies stalkers had actually read the book?
(the real anonymous)
Just for elucidation I'll explain how I've been assuming her actions made sense to her - which is that a combination of her discipline (medieval Islamic history) and her politics motivated her to want to be (as it were) sensitive to 'offense' as it pertains to Islam, and that she therefore reacted the way she thought a 'sensitive' Muslim or friend of Islam would react. In other words she was sent a book that she thought would be 'offensive' to Muslims in the same way that The Satanic Verses and the Danish cartoons and the novels of Taslima Nasreen are (putatively) 'offensive'; she had this privileged information, since Random House had sent her the advance proof to read, so she had a duty to 'warn' Muslims of this possible (in her view probable) 'offense' and at the same time to warn Random House of the danger. What she said to Asra Nomani seems to support that view - she was indignant about making fiction out of what she called 'sacred history.'
In an open society, all of us have to put up with being offended from time to time. It is part and parcel of living in a democracy, where dissent and debate are the warp and woof of intellectual life. This is not so in Islam - the meaning of which in Arabic is "submission".
Non-Muslims like Spellberg who collaborate with their project are known by Muslims as "dhimmis". In Cold War days they would have been called Fellow Travellers.
I prefer to view Ms Spellberg’s activities through the perspective of the TA Victim-Persecutor-Rescuer Drama Triangle. She sees herself as a Rescuer of Muslim sensibilities, so Persecutes Random House and the author, and ends up as a Victim of upholders of free speech. The name of her game is something like “I Was Only Trying to be Helpful.”
I guess my view is that there are various plausible psychological accounts of why Spellberg did what she did (including anticant's and Ophelia's) that fit the data fairly well. We have here a classic case of "underdetermination of theory by data".
So be warned, all you word-spinning philosophers: I am transactionally analysing your every move!
Seriously, it's a nice site.
Spellbergs actions aside - what are the publishers playing at?
Cant find text yet on BBC site - suspect it may be art of audio stream but see others
Here
and here
However I am a bit puzzeled by the suggestion that Dr Spellberg somehow should fear for HER OWN safety when "blowing the wistle"!?
After all she was merely a reviewer of the book.
I would expect the usual tantrums (which of course could be violent) to be directed towards the author and in worst case, the publisher. (cfr Nygaard on the "Satanic Verses").
Cassanders
In Cod we trust
"I don't have a problem with historical fiction. I do have a problem with the deliberate misinterpretation of history. You can't play with a sacred history and turn it into soft core pornography."
She is the author of a book on Aisha. I am curious to know what she considers the appropriate treatment of sex between a nine year old girl and a grown man. I infer she has not condemned the sex as this would cause her more problems with Muslims than an association with the novel. Does anyone have any hard facts on this question?
I'm curious to know what sort of an apologia she makes for Mo's sexual life, but doubt whether I can be bothered to obtain and read it.
Life [mine, anyway] is too short!
I note that the Spellman book has at least an excerpt available via Amazon.
Getting the name wrong was my fault. Apologies..