The “Flawed” Jewel of Medina October 7, 2008
Posted by Ethar in Books/Magazines, Politics.Tags: Denise Spellberg, Sherry Jones, The Jewel of Medina
trackback
The Jewel of Medina goes on sale in the United States today. *queue scary music.*
Two weeks ago, I got a copy of the novel from Beaufort Books, the U.S. publisher, to review for the magazine I work at. I read the book, interviewed Denise Spellberg—the associate professor of history and Middle Eastern studies at the University of Texas who advised Random House not to publish Jewel—and also managed to wrangle a one hour-interview with author Sherry Jones.
My article can be read here and here. It’s shameless self-promotion, but I promise you it’s a fascinating read. :)
If you’re interested, you can also listen to the interview here:
(If the player takes too long to load, you can listen to or download the interview here and here. And if you don’t have an hour to spare, you can download the transcript here).
And now for my op-ed:
I initially began reviewing this novel by deciding to list all the inaccuracies and false facts I found in it. But once I realized I’d already filled four pages of text and I was only 40 pages into the book, I stopped.
Purple prose aside (and there’s a lot of that), my biggest beef with The Jewel of Medina is the author’s insistence that the book is “extensively researched” and based as close as possible to historical facts when the reality is that Jones has taken liberties with history that would make historians gnash their teeth. If she’d only just added the disclaimer “this book is loosely based on real facts,” it would have been so much easier to stomach.
In my interview with her, she admitted that
“A novel has a protagonist, […] a narrative, thriving action, tension, climax, [and] resolution, and […] I didn’t find that the lives of the characters conformed to that structure. So I had to introduce elements and make some changes for the sake of putting together a novel.”
In other words, she had to distort history and sensationalize it in order to get people to read it. Sex and violence sells. And what better way to draw in readers than with a racy, completely fictionalized and very controversial version of hadith al-ifk? (the accusation of adultery made against ‘Aisha). Which, by the way, was made available online months ago. A teaser, if you like.
In other words, it’s libel. If Lady ‘Aisha was alive today, she could sue.
But is it not libel because Jones has said her novel is fiction? I remember the fuss that people kicked up when the book Confidential by Allison Jackson was published. Basically, Jackson found look-alikes of celebrities and photographed them in compromising situations (the back cover of the book is the Queen of England sitting on a toilet reading a magazine with her granny underwear around her ankles. Other photos include “George Bush and Tony Blair chatting in the sauna, Osama Bin Laden playing backgammon, and Monica Lewinsky lighting Bill Clinton’s cigar”). Fauxtography at its best. But, and here’s the rub, she didn’t get into any trouble because she stated that the photos were of look-alikes.
It’s understandable why the celebrities would be annoyed with Jackson. But at least with her book, the reader knows that everything is false. But with Jones’ book, how will the inaccuracies be discernible by non-Muslim readers? Advising them to read the novel with a healthy grain of salt will not help them differentiate between what is fact and fiction. Consequently, the fiction will end up circulating in mainstream literature and Muslims will have to work hard to counteract the ideas put forth by Jones’ book.
And it’s not just the obvious boo-boos (hadith al-ifk interpretation, the hatun [great lady of the house], purdah [seclusion, a sub-continental custom that did not apply to the Islamic age], Lady ‘Aisha being a warrior, etc), but little things mentioned oh-so-subtly: you’ll get your hand cut off for stealing even when you’re starving, you’ll get stoned if you’re seen speaking to a man, and other random things like the Prophet’s favorite meal and decorating camels with kohl (eyeliner) and flowers before slaughtering them (huh?).
One more thing: why is it al-Lah and not Allah?!
To be fair to the author, she does represent certain situations, events and personas in a good light. But the novel includes many glaring inconsistencies; I’d be reading, and suddenly something so blatantly wrong reared its head and jarred my concentration. What we call in Arabic el sem fel ‘asal (poison in honey). It’s especially galling when you realize that many strands of the truth are taken to weave a tale that is not quite true—though a lot more sensational.
The Prophet, for example, appears as a just and fair leader, although Jones alludes to the idea that he might have been marginally corrupted by power. His kind treatment of women shines through and even though it’s not a glowing portrayal, neither is it at all fair to liken Jones’ representation of him to the Danish cartoons.
But the poison here is Jones portraying him as a man who, to put it bluntly, was sex-obsessed, looking at women as if they were “a bowl of honey” with “nostrils flared,” and “no duty in his lust filled gaze.” He marries complete babes because he desires them—and oh, they also happen to be political alliances. Not the other way around. The Egyptian women arrive in belly-dancing suits, and with their eunuchs. Oh, and did I mention the catfights? And that One Thousand and One Arabian Nights is one of Jones’ sources? ‘Nuf said.
(Though again, to be fair, there are no sex scenes. With all the fuss, I was expecting pages and pages of heaving bosoms. Elhamdulelah there wasn’t).
Pages: 1 2
I totally agree with you; she has good intentions, but she just doesn’t get it. This seems pretty evident in your interview with her.
And I cannot believe that 1,001 Arabian Nights is one of her sources! My head feels like it’s going to explode! How can she say she’s “thoroughly researched” the book when she uses Orientalist western texts?!
Great review!
Though (again) to be fair, she does use a lot of credible sources (Karen Armstrong, ibn Kathir etc). I think Arabian Nights and books like “Harem: The World behind the Veil” (which is another one of her sources) just gave her novel ‘flavor.’
Ethar, those details such as Muhammad’s favorite meal (tharid) and adorning the camels with flowers and kohl came from credible scholarly sources. As did so many of the other details. And my book does include a Q&A at the end in which I explain what liberties I took with the historical record, so readers can know. And besides, as Professor Spellberg points out in her book about A’isha, nothing was written down about her until 150 years after her death. We don’t know everything about her — Prof. Spellberg says all histories of A’isha are interpretation! Yes, my book is loosely based on historical “fact,” such as it is, but that doesn’t mean it’s not extensively researched. Thank you for your insightful comments.
I can imagine how difficult it must have been to read that book! I pray Allah clears all that junk out of your system!!!
@ Muna:
I don’t think Ethar ever referred to the book as “junk.”
For me, the point is that - it’s a novel. Many authors take liberties with history and reading this book (including the Q&A) is the only way to decide what you really think/believe about it.
Admittedly, I am enjoying the discussions and lively debates that have been borne of Jones’ work. The firebombing in North London is something else, but as I have posted elsewhere, it seems to be quite a small group of very radical Muslims who would condone such things.
But still I do not understand Ethar, did she distort the story itself (I mean she showed Lady Aisha had done something or said something that she did not do in reality), or did she only fail to portray the characters properly (for example what you say at the end of your review about the Prophet)?
I can see that both are distortion of history, but if she did the other one, she may be caught in the Orientalist, Western depection of the Arab World and Middle East history - which is not an excuse, of course, but could be understandable and less attackable, if you may say, than if she was attacking Lady Aisha and saying that for example Hadithat al-Ifk actually took place and that our Lady was guilty, do you see what I mean?
Now I feel like writing a book to show how Lady Aisha (r) really was. I mean, sure nothing was written down about her 150 years after her death, but we certainly know what did NOT happen and thats the difference. Leave room to the imagination, but dont distort history to the point where a reader can’t tell whats true and whats not. It should be interesting to see what the world thinks. Loved your Egypt Today article though. I think its your best yet. mmwahs!
@ Sherry: Thanks for stopping by! The details I mentioned are contested. I was just using them to illustrate that picking up what’s right or wrong if you have no idea about Islam, let alone the nitty-gritty details, is impossible.
And I know you say you took liberties with the historical record, but again, the non-Muslim reader will not know what exactly they are unless they go research on their own. Perhaps someone will come up with a list of all the liberties and contrast them with the real facts, and perhaps distribute it?
@ Muna: This book is definitely no scholarly text, but it’s not junk. Junk is what the Danish cartoons were. And although I will not promote the novel, I will definitely defend Jones against those who say she meant to attack Islam through her writing.
@ Diana: I agree, but sacred history is not exactly on the same level as history. And not just any sacred history, but the most sacred of all.
@ Hagar: I really wish you would please read my other review:
http://www.egypttoday.com/article.aspx?ArticleID=8171
http://etharelkatatney.blogspot.com/2008/10/flawed-jewel.html
I didn’t go into much detail here because I assumed most readers of this entry would visit either link, but to summarize:
Jones has made up some things in their entirety. The biggest distortion is her recounting of hadith al-ifk: (excerpt from my article)
“According to historic account, Aisha accidentally leaves her necklace behind as the Prophet’s caravan gets ready to move. She goes back to fetch it, returning only to find that the caravan had left without her, not realizing she wasn’t in her litter because she was so light. Safwan ibn Al-Mu’attal, a man she had hardly ever spoken to, found her and took her home. Aisha was accused of adultery, and was eventually vindicated by God by means of a series of Qur’anic verses revealed to the Prophet (PBUH).
In The Jewel of Medina, Jones spins this into a tale of star-crossed lovers: Aisha had been engaged to Al-Mu’attal as a child and was deeply in love with him. She made up the story about forgetting her necklace, because she had conspired with Al-Mu’attal to remain behind and run away with him. She eventually realizes how wrong she was and returned to Medina “clutching Safwan’s waist,” “loose hair lashing [her] face,” and “resting [her] cheek against [his] shoulder.”
Scenes throughout the book involve Safwan flirting with Aisha, hugging her, and kissing her.”
Other made up things include Lady ‘Aisha being a warrior, fighting with her sword, and the prophet’s wives fighting for the position of hatun, which is a Turkish concept of the number one wife who gets to order the rest around.
If you’d like to know more, please visit my other review. I interviewed Jones in it so she also gets a chance to explain her motivations.
@ Iqra: Please do! And I’ll be the first to review it :) I think that’s the best response—if you don’t like it, change it. Let’s not just complain. And I’m very glad you enjoyed the article :)
[...] week on MMW, we discuss the polarizing politics of Muslims who speak against Islamism, provide a kick-ass review of The Jewel of Medina (it’s especially kick-ass because we have an audio clip of Ethar’s [...]
Ms. Jones has, again, exploited a legitimate work of history, based on the earliest Arabic sources to forward her lies about Aisha. Dr. Spellberg’s book does not suggest that “all histories are interpretation,” but rather argues that devout Muslims interpreted the events about the lie made against Aisha within certain critical parameters. All Sunni scholars agree that she had no dalliance of any kind in the desert. There is only consensus on that within the Sunni community. On whose word do they rely? Aisha’s. Her account is called the “longest hadith,” it’s in the first person, and it appears in the most authentic written religious sources, including the Sira, the Prophet’s biography.
Oral tradition, by the way, was considered a more reliable way to preserve the truth than paper because, as Jones has proved, falsification of the past is as easy by the pen as the tongue.Most of what we know about the Islamic record was written down after the fact. Muslims created their own “fact-checking” system to make sure they got the best accounts on paper.
Jones’ account contradicts the most sacred Sunni history and condemns Aisha to the status of an almost-whore, when the point of the story is her truthfulness, chastity, and innocence. If she groped and was groped by Safwan, her young rescuer, in the desert, (see the “Jewel,” which does have sex scenes) then she was, an adulteress in her heart. Jones details Safwan squeezing of her breasts, the rubbing of genitals, which means that she lied to the Prophet about what she had done in the desert, even if there was no actual intercourse. This makes her a liar and the Qur’an a false vindication. If Aisha lied, God lied!
For interpretation, check out tafsir, qur’anic commentary, on the Qur’an 24:11-20, where all Sunni sources believe it refers consistently to Aisha’s innocence and vindication. Why call her al-siddiqa, the truthful woman, otherwise?
[This comment has been edited to fit within comment moderation guidelines.]
have been inundated with emails about the recent release of the polemical, not to say highly distasteful, Jewel of Medina. My main concern relating to this issue is that someone out there is going to do something crazy. We know that four people have already been arrested in London over an alleged attack on the publisher – I am praying there will be not further incidents.
Why do Muslims fall for it every time? Why do we always get duped by “let’s see what we can do to wind up Muslims and get a story from a random hot-head?” …..
read the rest on :
http://adamdeen.blogspot.com/2008/10/jewel-of-madina-here-we-go-again.html
Ethar firsts of all I would like to show my gratitude for a very comprehensive and informative review about Sherry Jones piece of work. I remember when some one told me there is a new book about Hazrat Aisha , I was so excited but what I found was false , inaccurate words put together by Sherry Jones. I don’t have a problem with historical fiction but I do have a problem with the deliberate misinterpretation of history.Sherry Jones has produced a piece of her so-called research which is full of inaccuracies and false facts, I would not even cluster it is as a novel. Although she has claimed that she has conducted EXTENSIVE RESEARCH, well I think forget about research here if she even knew a little a very little about Hazrat Ayesha , the content of this novel would have been very different, informative and great edition in history.
Its not the question of good or bad intension its about what a writer can depicts, influence and add to the literacy , it involves respect ,devotion, extensive careful research and a great deal of accuracy to write about history , I highly acknowledge the decision by Random house and completely agree with Dr Spellberg’s opinion, that sherry Jones has “made fun of Muslims and their history.
[This comment has been edited to fit within moderation guidelines.]
I remind all Muslims to keep cool headed, as this allegation has already been proved untrue by Allah (SWT) in the Holy Quran. However, this is a test for the Muslim community from Allah (SWT) on how they re-act - mainly the Muslim Leaders!
How about turning off the oil taps in Saudi and let’s see if Ms Jones has time and senses left to imagine such filth - too much greed and time is Satan’s handy work.
Moreover, being a women I request Ms Jones to reflect inside herself and position herself in Ashia (RA) position - would she want to be labeled as such as the accounts presented of Ashia (RA) never took place. I strongly believe she has earned the wrath of Allah (SWT) for petty gains and not to bridge the divide between Muslims and non-Muslims as she claims!
People now a days would go out to sell their mothers to gain few cheap pounds/dollars by writing such filth. I regards this not as freedom of speech but freedom of insult of other fellow human beings, especially of those who died in the struggle to up hold Allah (SWT) religion for us to remain on path to eternal bliss and not eternal blaze!
[This comment has been edited to fit within moderation guidelines.]
yay ethar!