The Jewel of Medina - Sherry Jones meets Bridget Jones
The following review that I have written of the book has just been published by the BBC
A romantic telling of the life of one of the wives of Islam's prophet has caused controversy among some Muslims - and its publication has been indefinitely postponed in the UK amid fears of a violent reaction. But is The Jewel of Medina actually any good? Blogger Shelina Zahra Janmohamed is one of the few people in Britain to have read it.
The Jewel of Medina is a chest-heaving, brassiere-busting book of outrageously tacky historical romantic fiction.
Some parts of the media are suggesting that this book is at the forefront of defending free speech. The author wants it to reach out to solve our global problems of intercultural dialogue. Between them they had me rolling around on the floor laughing.
The book claims to tell the story of Aisha, the wife of the Prophet Muhammad, through her own eyes, from the age of six, through adolescence and into adulthood. But although she lives through one of the most dramatic periods of history, the narrative conveys little of the enormity of the changes of the era, and of which Aisha was a huge part.
Sherry Jones, the author, says she wanted her book to be "at once a love story, a history lesson and a coming-of-age tale".
In order to do so, she fabricates a storyline about a lover, Safwan, whom Aisha runs away with - but then decides to leave and return to Muhammad.
But this invented plot dominates, leaving barely any room for the real history and importance of her story.
Whether you believe her to be fact, fiction or fantasy, and Muslims believe her to be very real, Aisha is of great significance in global history. The one fifth of the world population who are Muslim regards her as the wife of the Prophet Muhammad and a "mother of the believers".
She is said to have been a leading scholar and teacher and recounted many of the traditions about the personality of Muhammad.
Muslims hold Muhammad, Aisha and other religious figures very close to their hearts, dearer to them than their own parents, and just as much to be respected, protected and defended.
Muslims believe they went through enormous hardship in order to keep the spiritual message of faith intact, and in return wish to honour their contribution. This is to be carried out in a measured and peaceful manner, in keeping with the spirit of Islam that advises returning harsh words with good ones, and malice with mercy.
With this in mind, I would have ignored this book and let it fade into obscurity. Allowing the book to be remembered only for the lack of interest it generated would have been the ultimate poetic justice. The original publisher pulled out - and those parts of the media who wanted to stir things up said Muslims wanted it banned.
So, in order to find out what the (manufactured) fuss was about, I found myself spending 12 dreary hours reading this cringe-worthy melodramatic prose. Even if you feel that it is your duty to read it in the defence of freedom of speech, don't do it, I beg you. Go out and enjoy the last sunny days of autumn, play with your children, watch paint dry. You'll thank me for it.
Bodice-ripper
So let's deal with its literary merits. If you're a man, you'll probably hate this bodice-ripper. If you like well-written prose, then you should steer clear too. What it does have going for it is pace and saucy pre-TV-watershed romance.
Open it randomly and you read churning phrases such as: "His eyes like honey flowed sweet glances over my face and body," or "Is your young bride ripe at last?" Grab a crumbling Flake and a pot of ice-cream.
The author claims she wants to humanise Aisha, to reach out to the Muslim world and to create debate. I found the opposite of this spirit in the book. Muslims will not recognise the characters and stories here because they vary so wildly with recorded history. As the copyright note makes clear, this is a work of fiction.
Take, for example, the night of "Hijrah". This was the moment when the first band of Muslims left the hostile city of Mecca to move to Medina where Islam flourished - a turning point in Islamic history. But the book changes events to place Aisha at the house of Muhammad.
Jones changes the very essence of these individuals, so their characters are at odds with historical traditions. Ali, the cousin and son-in-law of the Prophet, as well as one of the great leaders of early Islam, is portrayed as conniving, hot-tempered and lascivious. The Islamic texts document him as a consistently staunch defender of truth and justice, an upstanding character.
So, if you drive a wedge between Muslims and others by fictionalising core characters, how can the book be a platform for debate?
Jones admits that she has introduced concepts that were absent from the period and place to help to create her story. For example, Aisha is put into purdah, seclusion, as a child, but this is an Indian sub-continental idea then unknown to Arabia.
A huge focus of Aisha's energies is to become the hatun, the lead wife, and make all the other wives bow to her. But hatun is a Turkish concept - and bowing is contrary to all Islamic teachings.
What we end up with is an outdated Orientalist reading of an exoticised woman.
Aisha's angst is the angst of 19th Century western writers who couldn't understand the culture they were observing. And when they couldn't understand, they maligned the ideas they found unfamiliar, such as veiling of women like Aisha.
The result is an awkward unconvincing story, created to fit a pre-existing pre-determined idea of what life for Muslim women ought to be like. The cover art is The Queen of the Harem, a 19th Century Orientalist painting of a European-looking woman.
Sex, sex and more sex
The most irritating thing is its constant obsession with sex. The author sees it everywhere and in everything, and makes Aisha do the same. Her life is reduced to a parody of a smutty Bridget Jones diary.
I lost count of the references to "child bride". Even till relatively modern times, marriage for women in their early teens was completely natural and common in parts of the world, including Europe.
Many Muslims will indeed be offended by this book, and they should make clear why they feel hurt. If our society upholds the right to offend, then the right to be offended goes with it. But it is respect and empathy for their feelings that Muslims want, not fear.
What we need for debate and discussion are accessible histories of all the key figures in Islamic history. As Muslims, instead of honouring these individuals blindly, we will accord them much more respect by opening our eyes to their achievements through critical re-examination of their lives. This cannot be done in an atmosphere of fear and intimidation.
Some Muslims oppose a style of writing and analysis that offers insights into the very human lives these individuals led.
I believe this opposition is misplaced, because that is what we already do with the words and deeds of the Prophet, known as the hadith: we read, empathise and re-apply the essence of those day-to-day experiences.
The crucial issue in creating positive understanding and dialogue through such writings is that they must be historically sound, and see the world through the experiences, morality and realities of the protagonists themselves.
A romantic telling of the life of one of the wives of Islam's prophet has caused controversy among some Muslims - and its publication has been indefinitely postponed in the UK amid fears of a violent reaction. But is The Jewel of Medina actually any good? Blogger Shelina Zahra Janmohamed is one of the few people in Britain to have read it.
The Jewel of Medina is a chest-heaving, brassiere-busting book of outrageously tacky historical romantic fiction.
Some parts of the media are suggesting that this book is at the forefront of defending free speech. The author wants it to reach out to solve our global problems of intercultural dialogue. Between them they had me rolling around on the floor laughing.
The book claims to tell the story of Aisha, the wife of the Prophet Muhammad, through her own eyes, from the age of six, through adolescence and into adulthood. But although she lives through one of the most dramatic periods of history, the narrative conveys little of the enormity of the changes of the era, and of which Aisha was a huge part.
Sherry Jones, the author, says she wanted her book to be "at once a love story, a history lesson and a coming-of-age tale".
In order to do so, she fabricates a storyline about a lover, Safwan, whom Aisha runs away with - but then decides to leave and return to Muhammad.
But this invented plot dominates, leaving barely any room for the real history and importance of her story.
Whether you believe her to be fact, fiction or fantasy, and Muslims believe her to be very real, Aisha is of great significance in global history. The one fifth of the world population who are Muslim regards her as the wife of the Prophet Muhammad and a "mother of the believers".
She is said to have been a leading scholar and teacher and recounted many of the traditions about the personality of Muhammad.
Muslims hold Muhammad, Aisha and other religious figures very close to their hearts, dearer to them than their own parents, and just as much to be respected, protected and defended.
Muslims believe they went through enormous hardship in order to keep the spiritual message of faith intact, and in return wish to honour their contribution. This is to be carried out in a measured and peaceful manner, in keeping with the spirit of Islam that advises returning harsh words with good ones, and malice with mercy.
With this in mind, I would have ignored this book and let it fade into obscurity. Allowing the book to be remembered only for the lack of interest it generated would have been the ultimate poetic justice. The original publisher pulled out - and those parts of the media who wanted to stir things up said Muslims wanted it banned.
So, in order to find out what the (manufactured) fuss was about, I found myself spending 12 dreary hours reading this cringe-worthy melodramatic prose. Even if you feel that it is your duty to read it in the defence of freedom of speech, don't do it, I beg you. Go out and enjoy the last sunny days of autumn, play with your children, watch paint dry. You'll thank me for it.
Bodice-ripper
So let's deal with its literary merits. If you're a man, you'll probably hate this bodice-ripper. If you like well-written prose, then you should steer clear too. What it does have going for it is pace and saucy pre-TV-watershed romance.
Open it randomly and you read churning phrases such as: "His eyes like honey flowed sweet glances over my face and body," or "Is your young bride ripe at last?" Grab a crumbling Flake and a pot of ice-cream.
The author claims she wants to humanise Aisha, to reach out to the Muslim world and to create debate. I found the opposite of this spirit in the book. Muslims will not recognise the characters and stories here because they vary so wildly with recorded history. As the copyright note makes clear, this is a work of fiction.
Take, for example, the night of "Hijrah". This was the moment when the first band of Muslims left the hostile city of Mecca to move to Medina where Islam flourished - a turning point in Islamic history. But the book changes events to place Aisha at the house of Muhammad.
Jones changes the very essence of these individuals, so their characters are at odds with historical traditions. Ali, the cousin and son-in-law of the Prophet, as well as one of the great leaders of early Islam, is portrayed as conniving, hot-tempered and lascivious. The Islamic texts document him as a consistently staunch defender of truth and justice, an upstanding character.
So, if you drive a wedge between Muslims and others by fictionalising core characters, how can the book be a platform for debate?
Jones admits that she has introduced concepts that were absent from the period and place to help to create her story. For example, Aisha is put into purdah, seclusion, as a child, but this is an Indian sub-continental idea then unknown to Arabia.
A huge focus of Aisha's energies is to become the hatun, the lead wife, and make all the other wives bow to her. But hatun is a Turkish concept - and bowing is contrary to all Islamic teachings.
What we end up with is an outdated Orientalist reading of an exoticised woman.
Aisha's angst is the angst of 19th Century western writers who couldn't understand the culture they were observing. And when they couldn't understand, they maligned the ideas they found unfamiliar, such as veiling of women like Aisha.
The result is an awkward unconvincing story, created to fit a pre-existing pre-determined idea of what life for Muslim women ought to be like. The cover art is The Queen of the Harem, a 19th Century Orientalist painting of a European-looking woman.
Sex, sex and more sex
The most irritating thing is its constant obsession with sex. The author sees it everywhere and in everything, and makes Aisha do the same. Her life is reduced to a parody of a smutty Bridget Jones diary.
I lost count of the references to "child bride". Even till relatively modern times, marriage for women in their early teens was completely natural and common in parts of the world, including Europe.
Many Muslims will indeed be offended by this book, and they should make clear why they feel hurt. If our society upholds the right to offend, then the right to be offended goes with it. But it is respect and empathy for their feelings that Muslims want, not fear.
What we need for debate and discussion are accessible histories of all the key figures in Islamic history. As Muslims, instead of honouring these individuals blindly, we will accord them much more respect by opening our eyes to their achievements through critical re-examination of their lives. This cannot be done in an atmosphere of fear and intimidation.
Some Muslims oppose a style of writing and analysis that offers insights into the very human lives these individuals led.
I believe this opposition is misplaced, because that is what we already do with the words and deeds of the Prophet, known as the hadith: we read, empathise and re-apply the essence of those day-to-day experiences.
The crucial issue in creating positive understanding and dialogue through such writings is that they must be historically sound, and see the world through the experiences, morality and realities of the protagonists themselves.
Labels: blog, books, culture, Muslim Veil, Muslim women, Muslims, News, prophet muhammed, religion, spirit21, women
posted by Shelina Zahra Janmohamed at 13:44
16 Comments:
Your reaction to this 'Jewel of Medina' book is completely disingenuous and intellectually dishonest, but then you're a Muslim; what should I expect? Should I expect you to read Mohammed al-Tabari's, or Sahih -al-Bukhari's hadith volumes about Aisha with a critical eye? Should I expect you to read 'Sirat Rasul Allah' your "prophet's" biography, regarding Aisha with concern? No. To do so, would cast doubt in your heart as to the nature of this man. But then as a Muslim, you're not meant to ask questions(Qur'an 33:36, Qur'an 33:57, Bukhari:V9B88N174); Satan told you Muhammad was a "paradigm"(Qur'an 33:21) therefore he can do no wrong. Never mind the fact he had sexual fantasies about Aisha; never mind the fact he had sex with her by the age of 9 (how considerate of him to wait). Even Muhammad's own followers had problems accepting his disgusting relationship to this girl. When they asked him, could such a small child give consent, Muhammad replied "By her silence". Do you know almost every paedophile and child molester uses that defence?
Sources: al-Tabari; Ibn Ishaq 's 'Sirat Rasul Allah'; al-Bukhari
(Qur'an 2:4 states Muslims must believe in the Sunnah too, so it's simple dishonesty for any Muslim to dismiss these texts. Not only that, but verses in the hadith frequently appear in the Qur'an and vice versa; if the Qur'an is to stand alone, why duplicate so much? The answer is easy: the Sunnah provides context, chronology and commentary on the Qur'an, without which it would be gibberish...and even with it, it's still gibberish).
Tabari VII:7 "The Prophet married Aisha in Mecca three years before the Hijrah, after the death of Khadija. At the time she was six."
Ishaq:281 "When the Apostle came to Medina he was fifty-three."
Tabari VII:6 "In May, 623 A.D./A.H. 1, Allah's Messenger consummated his marriage to Aisha."
Tabari IX:128 "When the Prophet married Aisha, she was very young and not yet ready for consummation."
Tabari IX:131 (Narrated Aisha)"My mother came to me while I was being swung on a swing between two branches and got me down. My nurse took over and wiped my face with some water and started leading me. When I was at the door she stopped so I could catch my breath. I was brought in while Muhammad was sitting on a bed in our house. My mother made me sit on his lap. The other men and women got up and left. The Prophet consummated his marriage with me in my house when I was nine years old."
Bukhari:V9B86N98 (in the context of the Aisha relationship, who was then a small child) "The Prophet said, 'A virgin should not be married till she is asked for her consent.' 'O Apostle! How will the virgin express her consent.' He said, 'By remaining silent.'"
Bukhari:V9B87N139-40 "Allah's Apostle told Aisha, 'You were shown to me twice in my dreams. I beheld a man or angel carrying you in a silken cloth. He said to me, "She is yours, so uncover her." And behold, it was you. I would then say to myself, "If this is from Allah, then it must happen."'"
You must be so proud! Since when was sexual deviancy and sexual predation righteous? And don't get me started on your 56th surah of your so-called holy book. It's pornography straight out of Stringfellows, only at least he's honest about it. Islam passes off lust as being somehow righteous:
Qur'an 33:30 "O Consorts of the Prophet! If...any of you are devout, obedient, and submissive in the service to Allah and His Messenger, and does good, to her shall We grant her reward twice. We have prepared for her a generously rich provision."
Qur'an 33:59 "Prophet! Tell your wives and daughters and all Muslim women to draw cloaks and veils all over their bodies (screening themselves completely except for one or two eyes to see the way). That will be better."
Women's lib, Islam style! You still believe the veil and any other silly piece of clothing is merely cultural and NOT religious, ie obligatory? Pull the other one, it has bells on.
I doubt you'll post this. But then, Muslims are pretty predictable. After seeing a Christian aidworker shot dead for simply being Christian and doing good in Afghanistan (helping handicapped children as opposed to making children handicapped by blowing them up in the name of Allah), we can all see the true nature of Islam. And no amount of apologies and sanctimonious waffling by "offended" Muslims is going to silence the voice of truth.
PS: here is how fake your prophet is, in his own words:
Ishaq:235 "In the year of the Prophet's arrival, Abu Umamah died from a rattling in the throat. The Messenger said, 'His death is an evil thing for the Jews and the Arab Hypocrites for they are sure to say, "If Muhammad were really a prophet his companion would not have died." But truly, I have no power with Allah either for myself or for my companions.'"
No doubt you will attack me (assuming you reply) but then this isn't my message, it's Islam's. Duh.
Tim
(lunkwillATbtinternet.com)
Well done Shelina, an excellently written review.
I totally agree with you, we need to rediscover the humane personalties of great individuals such as Muhammad (SAW) and Aisha (RA). Of course no Muslim is afraid of debate, infact we definately need to recognise its importance, but the debate needs to be based on facts.
I personally think a detailed biography of Aisha (RA) is desperately needed, only this would restore her much maligned honour. I also think it would perhaps save those seeking facts about Aisha's (RA) life and towering personality from falling prey to the pathetic cut'n paste squad.
Keep up the good work.
AA
i'm astonished by his comment, it's good that you allow him to post his, now i can see from the other side's perspective, in it's negative frames, most people see things only on the surface, i'm a muslim but not a fanatical one, in albaqarah 1:4(5) allah swt instructed us to have faith (read) the other books, i can point out from the bible that islam is here by Allah's will, as a safeguard for nabi isa al masih a.s. last duty, that is submission to allah swt...
I enjoyed reading your review and thought it was an intelligent critique and a balanced look at the issues.
I would however disagree with your comment about the right to be offended. If you think about it, no-one needs a "right" in order to be offended. I would suggest we need people to take responsibility to allow and encourage free speech (and freedom of artistic expression) without instilling fear and hatred. That then implies a degree of active self control - again on both sides - and a better chance of debate, mediation and understanding when one side pushes the other to exasperation!
Hmm.. I'm not entirely sure I get the point of the review here. You have come to the book with a clearly mandated view about the subject matter already. So it is difficult for me to see that you would have praised this book, even if it was an excellent literary standard, but with similar subject matter.
But maybe I'm doing you a disservice. My point is merely that a book review does rather require coming to it with an open mind. If I were to review a book in the style of, say, Jane Austen, it would be very unlikely to be meaningful because that is not the kind of book I enjoy.
Likewise, if I were to ask you to review the books I'm currently reading [Affluenza by Oliver James and '6 Days' by Jeremy Bowen ] you might not have any interest in the types of book they are.
So if you don't enjoy this book because it is a 'Bridget Jones' type of 'chick-lit' that is fair enough. But it is rather like being a gourmet restaurant critic and being very snooty about a trip to McDonalds. Entirely within your right, but somehow missing the point.
And this is the point with books - there are millions out there, and there are 'horses for courses' and 'Different strokes for different folks'. No one book is going to appeal to everyone. There are some books which on reading give a strong impression that they would only appeal to one person in the whole wide world !
But I guess that's the point - just because you don't like a book does not, in my view, justify saying to others 'Do anything other than read this book'. Your opinion might be that it is a waste of time - but that is all it is. An opinion.
I hope to read that despite you not liking this book you will be welcoming it to our shores when it is published so that I, and many like me, can make up our own mind.
I am unable to comment on the literary merits of this books, not having read it.
But I would like to comment on the fact that Muslims could be offended. This seems to crop up from time to time with different books, as well as other items.
Lets get the infamous cartoons out of the way first. The implication of those cartoons was that Muhammad taught a religion based on violence and terrorism. Perhaps quite rightly Muslims would be offended at that, but then Muslims made the argument for the critics by holding a demonstration waving placards saying "death to..." and cheering those in their number dressed as suicide bombers. If this is what Muslims glorify then this is what they must believe Muhammad taught, which by implication would prove the cartoonists right.
Then look at Iraq, not the invasion, but the frequent destruction of mosques and holy sites by opposing groups of Muslims. Following these events there must be many copies of the Koran and other holy writings and symbols lying in the filth and destruction, what kind of Islam is that?
Now the key point is, there was no demonstration in London about the insult to Islam by any of these bombings. Why? Is it because Muslims don't actually care that much about what actually insults Islam, but love to have a go at Western owned publishers by virtue of them being western owned. Or is it because there are too many who approve of killing their fellow Muslims, so that too few can be found for a demonstration?
Does the Islamic version of 'freedom of speech' involve banning a book, but blowing up a mosque if you don't like the group that the mosque belongs to.
I am not a Muslim. But I am inspired by the teachings of The Prophet Muhammad and you will find nothing but respect for Islam from me. I have never approved of misusing literature to offend or insult, but I really think that the Muslim peoples of the world in general need to start by having a little more respect for their own scriptures, holy places and fellow Muslims before turning their attention to a few dodgy books.
I haven't read the book and I was very impressed by your style of writing till I read Tim's comments. I would really like to read teh Quran now and know Islam for myself now. I think it is important that we all educate ourselves with other religions so we gain a better understanding of it.
Can you pls post a reply to Tim's remarks?
I would very much love to read a good debate cos his arguments albeit biased, make sense as they are based on facts. Pls do let us know your thoughts.
Hi!
You have tried to make an informed critique of the book but there are factual mistakes in it that makes it less credible.
You point out how the author tried to put a different chronology of the events and put characters in out of context situations. That's a valid point indeed.
However, you also have got your facts wrong in a number of places; your attribution of origin of Purdah to Indian subcontinent is just one of them. Purdah originated in Iran and was taken to Arabia by the Muslim crusadors after they conquered Iran in 7th century AD. Purdah came to Indian subcontinent in 8AD with military commander, Al Muhallab ibn Abi Suffrah, and was accepted by new Muslim converts as well as upper class Hindu women.
Frankly speakly, I don't think much about the book. It is a desperate attempt by its author to gain some recognition by writing about a controversial topic and her lack of any serious research work in it shows that clearly.
What we expected out of your critique was an informed, analytical review, well researched and objectively assessing the flaws of the book. Alas, what we get is an emotional outburst that has trampled on your objectivity and redeemed the book a benefit of doubt on its readability, which I don't think it deserves.
Hopefully, you will be able to rein on your emotions and be more objective about the issues you write about next time.
best wishes
I won't read the book as it sounds awful but please drop the Orientalist critique! Edward Said and his orientalist theory have been effcetively trashed by numerous writers. Effectively, its now used as a way of dismissing non-arabs/non-muslims from debate about arab/muslim affairs, which I suspect was its original intention.
There are some interesting sentiments expressed here - should Muslims allow themselves to be offended if they want to be citizens of the west? Should Muslims cloud their review of a book if they don't like because they are Muslims? Did the Prophet really consummate a marriage with a 9-yr old? Let me take them in turn.
No-one should accept being offended as par for the course - and if freedom is of expression is a guarantee, there is a limit for sure. Any decent human being appreciates the nature of the limits of the other. Shelina clearly has certain views about the Prophet and Aisha - do they cloud her judgement - no! She has little time for the book and discourages others to do better things with her time. Find ten different people, Muslim and non-Muslim, they will say ten different things about it. Did the Prophet consummate marriage with a tender minor. Probably not. It goes against reason and against the grain of his character, of which we scholars and historians know a great deal. He was unwaveringly monogamous to his first wife for 25 years, and who was 15 years his senior. Why is it that this depiction of Aisha presented in this way? The same reason as that fact the key texts in Christianity have distorted the realities, i.e. why is Mary Magdalene virtually written out of all four texts of the New Testament? Male historians, clerics, theologians and writers simply write women out or, here, totally infantilise them, and literally.
While Shelina has been sweating over this book over the last few days, I'd like to her views on the Friday prayers held at Oxford last week, led by a woman. This first time this has happened in Britain in the 1,500 year history of Islam on these Islands. Now that's an interesting story unlike this book it seems.
Cameron - Why didn't Christians in the US or Nigeria demonstrate against catholic-protestant fighting in Northern Ireland? Does this mean that they thought blowing up your neighbours was Christian behaviour? Of course not. Muslims are horrified by the collapse mof society in Iraq. So are all the Iraqis I've met.
Tim makes too many points for me to address. He needs a full post in response. Perhaps Shelina will have time. I'd just point out that his aggressive and biased attitude is apparent from the outset when he says Shelina's review is intellectually dishonest (I don't agree) because she's a Muslim - "what do you expect."
And Quran 2.4 does not "state that Muslims must believe in the Sunnah too". It says: ".. and who believe in that which has been bestowed from on high upon thee, (O Prophet), as well as in that which was bestowed before thy time: for it is they who in their innermost are certain of the life to come!"
So the verse doesn't mention the Sunnah, but describes the importance of the Christian and Jewish scriptures (that which was bestowed before thy time). It's rich that Tim so misrepresents this verse when he accuses others of intellectual dishonesty.
Tim's unusual mixture of knowledge and ignorance, and his nasty attitude, suggest that he is a professional Islamophobe, motivated either by an unpleasant strain of American-Christian evangelism or by Zionism.
There's nothing wrong with discussing disquiet over the Prophet's marriage to a young girl. There is actually a debate about the hadeeth literature, with some Muslims believing that Aisha was in her mid teens when the marriage was consummated. And then there are issues of cultural relativism which Shelina hints at -before the concepts of childhood and sexuality had their present form, and when people died much earlier, there were 'child brides' in all cultures. Perhaps the Prophet should have behaved in a timelessly moral way? I think the whole point of the Prophet was that he applied God's word within a context of a specific time and specific community. But the other opinion is worth talking about. Another area of contention: the Shia think a lot less of Aisha than the Sunni do, because Aisha and Ali were on opposite ends of several political wrangles. It's all worthy of debate, but people like Tim only seem interested in smearing Islam in general.
if you want to know where in the bible that islam is here by Allah's will, peace...er...piece of cake, easy.., read genesis 16:11, that's one clue, read matius (mat-who) 10:41, that's another clue, read the whole of your bible yorself if yo'r not satisfied and want another clues.., but with a pure heart and clear mind, otherwise yo'll only be disillusioned or worst hallucinated...
...and about nabi isa al-masih a.s. submission to Allah swt as his last act, read 1 korintus 15:27...
note : the postah (that's me) cannot and would not be held liable whatsoevah for any stew-pit action any of you likely to commit, if you have any questions throw it at my lawyah (unfortunately i dunno his name nor his address)...
It was an interesting review Shehlina, I think you did a good job of giving a reasoned response to the controversy that has been stirred up. The only thing that made me go "hmmm.." slightly was your writing "Whether you believe her to be fact, fiction or fantasy." since the historical fact of Aisha(ra) is not something to hold a belief about, she existed and even non-Muslims don't deny that, though facts about her life may be disputed.
Qunfuz - Your reply to my comment is perfectly valid, but I think you missed the point, it had nothing to do with the collapse of society in Iraq, the invasion or anything similar.
Just as the failure of Nigerians to demonstrate does not indicate approval of the events in NI, so too the failure to demonstrate over the destruction of Muslim holy places does not of course indicate approval, but the fact that demonstration occur so easily over books and cartoons indicates either the wrong priorities or the fact that it is an excuse to demonstrate against anything that happens in the west.
The demonstrations I was refering to were specifically regarding the insult to a religion - Islam. Across the Muslim world these demonstrations took place over events that had nothing to do with their own country. That includes the UK, Muslims demonstrated over cartoons that (at the time) had not been published in the UK, but did not demonstrate over the far greater insult of Muslims blowing up Muslim holy sites.
As regards Northern Ireland, Christians around the world are generally aware that it is not a Catholic - Protestant problem, as is evidenced by the fact that English Protestants can visit Catholic Ireland without problems and vice versa. It is a problem over who rules NI, with the two religions being caught up because the populations of the two sides happen to have those religions.
Hello. I just wanted to note a possible mistake in the article. The article implied that the copyright note means that a book is a work of fiction. I agree that this particular book is fictional, but non-fiction works are also copyrightable. For example, textbooks, biographies and books about historical events are all copyrightable. However, perhaps there was a notice in the copyright note that the book was a work of fiction, and that was what was meant in the article.
I personally can't wait to read Shelina's Love in a Headscarf ...!
Post a Comment
<< Home