Usama says:
“Muhammad married and supported marriage and outlawed relations outside of marriage.”
Muhammad advocated the so-called “pleasure marriage” by means of which a man can sleep with a woman for a night or up to a month simply by paying her an agreed amount of compensation. How is that different than the red district prostitution? Please explain it to me.
Omar, the secong Caliph, advised Ali the prophet's son in law to remarry after the death of his wife Fatima. Ali informed Omar that he had been sleeping with Hafsa, the prophet's widow and daughter of Omar through a consensual pleasure arrangement i.e.pleasure marriage.

"Also, it is very important to defend the beautiful face of Islam from the false claims..."

When do we see this face mightypen?

This is a great article on the how the main stream media and writers feed on sensationalism. Everyone knows that it is easy to draw crowds to a controversial topic. Stirring up a controversy is so easy against Islam and Muslims. Muslims are partly to blame for this as the article shows. They have lost the sense of purpose in Islam. Islam is without a doubt greater than the false claims of writers.

Also, it is very important to defend the beautiful face of Islam from the false claims and propaganda by the main stream media. The defense should be using the might of the Pen. Just as the Holy Prophet (Peace and Blessings be upon him) said ' The ink of a scholar is holier than the blood of a martyr'.

To TedBaines: The American rock star Jerry Lee Lewis married his 13 year old cousin in 1957. For a man from his time and place (the American south), marrying at thirteen and marrying one's third cousin (twice removed) were both fairly commonplace occurrances. This was legal under American law. According to your way of thinking, the US government was/is guilty of condoning child molestation. Of course Mohammad lived many centuries ago when much of the world (not only Muslims) had different moral standards. Centuries ago in Vietnam men had several wives, as some people in Utah, USA do today.

The author utterly fails to understand the transcendent value of free spech. For instance,

"It is equally repugnant that the pope would make such a miscalculated remark, knowing perfectly well how much disgust it would cause in Muslim communities around the world. It is equally startling how people like Sherry Jones would wish to add insult to injury, and bad feelings, with her book on Aisha."

A comment or idea must be judged on its own merits, regardless of the reaction of the audience (short of direct incitement). Throughout history, many traditionalists have reacted with "disgust" to demands for self-governance or claims of racial/gender equality. Their self-preserving and sometimes violent reactions do not undermine the fundamental truth of those speech claims.

Sami further suggests that "to make things easier for everybody - especially the oversensitive millions in all faiths - it is safe to say that critical issues such as the Holocaust and Islam become red lines that should not be crossed."

Absolutely not! Ideas should never be silenced because they may offend beliefs that have no basis in reason. Our unwillingness to do this is why millions of American citizens still refuse to accept well-established scientific principles like evolution (or a smaller number deny historical facts like the Holocaust). Nor should the millions who are not oversensitive be denied access to certain ideas in order to protect the sensitivities of believers.

Need to read comments

comments

Sami

That Muhammad molested children is beyond the shadow of any doubt. Aisha was not the only victim. Rayahana, Maria, Saffiya were all teenagers, around 15, when Muhammad abused them. The child Maria even bore Muhammad a son out of wedlock. Rayahan and Safiiya were widowed by Muhammad and Muhammad took them to bed the same night.

But that was then. We do not care about what Muhammad did.

It is 2008. We look forward to Muslims admitting to the crimes that Muhammad committed and then passing laws to prevent Muslims or any any other people from abusing children, which by our standards is adult males not having sexual intercourse with children younger than 18.

Only then you will get our respect.

I agree wholeheartedly with your idea on sorting out priorities. However, I do think the Aisha novel raises an interesting point because the author herself states she is trying to promote an image of Islam that reflects its humane and progressive history and tradition (See Asra Nomani's account of it: http://www.altmuslim.com/a/a/m/2787/). That is one of the problems of outright censorship and/or pressure against writing on topics considered taboo in Islam. You throw the potential good out with the bad. No one has even read the book for God's sake and Muslims (including yourself) are already labeling it as offensive. I had read somewhere that the Irish playwright George Bernard Shaw, who had expressed great admiration for the Prophet, had set out to write a play on (part of) Mohammed's life, but never got around to it. While most Muslims would frown on physical depictions of the Prophet, if, as you say, we can at the very least tolerate things we do not agree with, wouldn't it make sense to at least promote non-Muslims to view works reflecting our own admiration of Islam and/or Mohammed? Shouldn't that be the case with novels such as Sherry Jones' (allegedly) humane portrayal of Aisha?

Random House responded according to the true goal of "freedom of speech".

The 'freedom of speech' is intended for unencumbered 'speech' for marketting, advertising, propagating enterprise. And this has since turned into a major global media industry designed for commerce first and foremost. But there is no inherit MORAL standard found in 'freedom of speech'.

Thus it renders morality as equal or relative to amorality and immorality. Those men who HAVE a moral standard have to stand up for it, otherwise those who stand for immorality and those amoral men will naturally advance their cause.

Its contrary to reasoning for Americans to denounce Muslims for standing up for Muslim moral standards. Muhammad married and supported marriage and outlawed relations outside of marriage.

Mr. Mubayyed says:
"it is safe to say that critical issues such as the Holocaust and Islam become red lines that should not be crossed."

Why not? The Muslims never shy away from lambasting anyone who is different than them. Their senior clerics such as Tantawi, Sha’rawi , Qaradawi, etc. openly denigrate the Christian and Jewish faiths in all forms of media. Why neither you nor any of your ilk objected? In the majority Muslim countries they have no freedoms except to denigrate the other faiths. Now they are asking the non-Muslim world to abstain from criticizing their religion i.e. limit the world's freedoms.

Please read the book in question before you lump it in with the Pope's comments. Relying on the opinion of one person who read it strikes me as quite lazy. I haven't read the book, so your assertion may very well be valid (who knows, no one on this board seems to have read the whole thing either), but shouldn't the author at least be given the benefit of you actually reading the entire work before you praise or criticize it?

If you don't care to read it, fine. Just don't attempt to say it is respectful, smut, boring, or anything else. This is as bad as the folks who try to quote one or two lines out of a sacred text and say, "Aha, (insert faith here) is violent, degrading to women, and outdated!"

Isn't it remarkably and thankfully true that there is no one that considers freedom of speech sacred such that its denial or limiting a cause for violence?

Sami, I agree with the main points of your article, but please, what does this mean?

"It is safe to say that critical issues such as the Holocaust and Islam become red lines that should not be crossed."

What aspect of Islam do you equate with the Holocaust as a red line that should not be crossed? All of it? I think that is an untenable position for a rational person to take.

Again, like Eboo Patel yesterday, this is a typical Muslim argument: other religions have extremists and terrorists too, so don't be surprised if Islam does too. What a shallow argument for an educated Muslim to make!

Can this writer tell me why are there 57 intolerant Islamic nations on earth including Syria? Don't you think it insults the non-Muslim residents? What if America called itself the Christian Republic?

It is not just bin laden who engages in violence to spread Islam but Muslims all over the world are doing it: thru sheer terror and intolerance.

Apartheid israel supporters are trying to create a "clash of civilizations" between the west and muslims. I am talking about mindless zionists, examples are dutch movie or the prophet mohamad carttons. The best response to them is no response at all.

Spellberg says;
"When combined with falsification of the Islamic past, it exploits Americans who know nothing about Aisha or her seventh-century world and counts on stirring up controversy to increase sales."

This was a 9 years old child that was violated by a 53 years old man. What falsification can outdo this simple fact?
The issue here is that many Muslims, especially among those living in the West, are ashamed of this fact and wish it will go away.

I have read the prologue. It was nothing more than a third rate romantic novel using Holy names of Muslims. It is not worth the attention it is being given. The intellectual reviews so far that I have read give the actual idea of how inartistic the content is. Moreover it is just a mockery of history with out even knowing it, just to catch attention which Jones succeeded in getting.

Sami Moubayed wrote:

"Offending others for the sake of free speech should not be tolerated."

Actually this shows the typical mindset of a Muslim: backward and violent.

That's exactly what Voltaire argued against. He had made it a point to compulsively offend the Church. He wrote the play: MAHOMET THE PROPHET OR FANATICISM.

Free Speech indeed includes offensive speech. Where does one draw the line ? Today my negative opinion about Islam may offend you, and I will shut up because of threats. Tomorrow it maybe the type of shirt I am wearing that you may dislike. The next day, I may sit across a table and eat pork chops while you (Muslim) may not like and be offended because your religion (Islam) hates pork. By stating the April 1928 incident, (of Nazira) where the lady decreed that veil was un-Islamic, has nothing to do with free speech.

Finally there is a difference between free speech and slander/intentionally misleading statements. I can say/write things that are factually correct and my conclusions based on them could be totally different and offensive. So what ? But, if I fabricate/cook up facts and make grossly misleading claims with the intent to offend, then in a court of law I am guilty.

Regarding Holocaust the argument holds: it is indeed offensive to deny the holocaust. It happened at the lives of the 6 million Jewish people who had posed no threat to Adolf Hitler and his murderous henchmen. Thus, saying that holocaust did not happen, is a fabrication and any conclusion based on such falsehood is likely to be a lawsuit.

It is like saying that Bosnian Muslims did not face the ethnic cleansing by Serbs, or for that matter the Kashmiri Hindu Pandits were never brutalized and murdered by the Pakistan-based Islamic jihadists. Both are factually false and hence one must be responsible to make conclusions based on such falsification of facts.

who cares what fanatics think
creative writing is more important than religion

I don't understand why you assume that Sherry Jones has some negative attitude or intent toward Muslims or Muhammad. She has denied this repeatedly in many interviews. She has stated that she admired A'isha and wanted to write a respectful book about the early days of Islam. Don't you think you should read the actual book before you conclude it is offensive? Or even that the one person who had these objections, Denise Spellberg, was right? I knew virtually nothing about Islam before I read it and I have to tell you it softened my heart and made me feel like listening to the Muslim point of view more carefully and respectfully. I could understand what the Prophet had accomplished in telling the desert tribes about worshipping one God. On the other hand the individuals who bombed the UK publisher having not read the book themselves but acting on blind assumptions of perported criticims hardly make one more sympathetic to Muslims. The book wasn't 'moved to the UK" It was published here in the U.S. today and will be published in many countries worldwide by editors and publishers who have read it and believed it was not offensive but enlightening. Rather than being pulled in Serbia it is now the #1 Bestseller there and both Muslims and Christians are reading it and discussing it-- so it is conceivable that could happen elsewhere. Let's at least try to adhere to and respond to the facts rather than rumors or an imagined rancor that doesn't exist.

Tatika

Hi Sami,

i really like what you wrote and think you got the point. it's true that what should matter is understanding Islam and teaching its concept correctly. it's all part of a perfect plan. those who are writings bad things about islam and the prophet know very well what they're doing and why. the unfortunate is that they got what they want. it's the muslim community that needs education and understanding by not falling in the trap of things like we have experienced lately. thanks again and keep the good work,I believe it's the right way. fi amani allah

"Satanic Verses" was a decent book, but you could just see tweedie Rushdie up there in some Oxford smoking room negotiating with the MI: "Okay , I'll have it finished by next month, but I want FULL INTERNATIONAL PROTECTION PASSPORT WITH BODYGUARDS ..an' a lifetime supply of your best scotch...guaranteed...This provocateuring business can be quite trying on one's nervous system and, uh, soul.."

Good luck Sami! Before Moslems can start on the path you point to, there is a house cleaning effort that needs to be done. To separate fact from fiction, religion from superstition and fate from dogma, every word written should be evaluated and re evaluated without considering the barriers of sainthood or blasphemy. The most sacred fundamentals of the fate should be openly discussed and critiqued without fear. The mental censorship that makes many Moslems shiver when they hear anything contrary to their core believes, the blind fear of hell fire should be overcome. Then and only then a new interpretation of religion can be reached that is beneficial to 21st century living.

It is a long road ahead. If you are ready to walk it, don’t be shy to invite others to join too.

David Irving is not still languishing in jail in Austria, he was released long ago.

Sami, you put exactly your finger on the the wound: instead of going after this and that, we have to launch PR campaigns to acquaint people about Islam.

I myself do not really give that importance to any religion, but I do respect and read a lot about each one of them.

Aisha was indeed a great lady in her time.

God bless you Sami,

George Y. Krikorian
GAME Developer / Consultant
Orlando, FL
www.TimeShex.com