Image via Beaufort Books.
Lady ‘Aisha is the heroine of the novel. However, she is portrayed as an impulsive, petty, solipsistic, flighty, irrational, irresponsible, vindictive liar who breaks her promises and only wants the glory of the battlefield. And those were only some adjectives I jotted down while reading.
The author is a 21st century western woman, and it filters through. Lady ‘Aisha enjoys her “last day of freedom” before her arranged marriage, “a fate chosen by others, as though I were a sheep or a goat fatted for this day,” and hates the “ridiculous inventions such as purdah and hatun and durra [second wife] and their traditions of male superiority that made chattel of women.”
When she hears the verse about hijab, or veiling, “words I could have lived the rest of my life without hearing,” she says the prophet might as well have “buried [us] alive” or “put blinders on us.” Seclusion to her, which Jones has her endure since the age of six, was living within the “dark, cold walls of a tomb.”
It seems as though Jones cannot quite manage to divorce herself from western mentality and put herself in the shoes of a woman who lived in a very different time and place. She almost forces Lady ‘Aisha into being a feminist, with the criteria being (of course) that she believes veiling is oppressive, women are treated badly, she doesn’t need or want male protection, etc., etc.
“If I were a man, I’d be riding through the desert now. No one would lock me away or call me “parrot” or judge my worth by the number of children I had. I’d be in charge of my life as only men could be, with their swords and their horses, their courage and their wits.”
Okayyy. But c’mon, a six-year-old dreaming of the freedom to choose her own destiny? And wanting a sword in her hand? Wanting to “charge through the desert, wild and free?” Really?
In the end, the book is not really worth all the hype. What is though, is what comes next.
There’s no denying that many Muslims will be offended by the depiction of their sacred figures. I consider myself pretty open minded and tolerant, and yet my gut clenched more than once while reading this book. It’s just very very hard for those who aren’t Muslim to wrap their heads around the respect Muslims give to their prophet, his companions, and the mothers of the believers.
I interviewed the author and I genuinely believe she had good intentions, and just didn’t-quite-get-it. It’s a shame Muslims didn’t pay more attention to her book before it was published. When I interviewed her, she told me that had she known bowing was not a part of Islamic culture (when Lady ‘Aisha becomes the hatun, the prophet and his wives bow to her), she would not have included it. She says no Muslim organization would give her the time of day to review her book.
The question is, have Muslims developed thicker skins? Regardless if you believe Jones was well intentioned and just didn’t get it or cashing in on the Islamophobic wagon, the truth is she’s being given a platform to speak on and has said, more than once, that her intentions were to honor Islam and that she will continue to defend Islam in her public speaking.
So, yeah, I’m sure bombing the home and office of the book’s publisher is the way to go about proving to her and the world that Islam is a great and tolerant religion.
The novel will be published and there is nothing Muslims can do to control that. What they can control are their reactions. Random House deciding to self-censor themselves shows that they already believe the worst about Muslims. I’m not suggesting we put up and shut up, but that we answer free speech with free speech.
Muslims, if they get it right, can use the publication of this book as a platform to educate people about the characters who are so much a part of their lives and as a starting point to really teach non-Muslims about the life of ‘Aisha, who was a woman far more fascinating that Jones was able to portray.
The book, warts and all, does have potential. Jones will have piqued the readers’ interests, and instead of letting the wrong facts in the book stand, Muslims can seize the opportunity to teach many who might never have heard about ‘Aisha and her life about her.
And if they get it wrong, Muslims will end up muddying the image of Islam even more. Is that what Lady ‘Aisha would have wanted?
Pages: 1 2
Tweet
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!
I read only a couple of chapters in this book and thought wow, what a friendly and great way to start a new kind of propaganda against Islam and muslims. The author has the courage to write about something which occured about 1400 years ago and yet she doesn’t even try to leave her typical western mind-set which is dominated by lustful thinking.
@Jan:
Not sure what you mean by
“typical western mind-set which is dominated by lustful thinking.”
I’m Western and my mind-set is not lustful. Please explain as this is offensive.
“Though again, to be fair, there are no sex scenes. With all the fuss, I was expecting pages and pages of heaving bosoms.”
I don’t belive a nine year old has heaving bossoms so why would you expect that?