This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

← Novel on prophet's wife pulled for fear of backlash

Novel on prophet's wife pulled for fear of backlash - Comments

Nathanial_BB's Avatar Comment 1 by Nathanial_BB

Free speech submits to tyranny once again...

Great publicity though - should it ever appear ;)

Sat, 09 Aug 2008 12:09:00 UTC | #215226

phil rimmer's Avatar Comment 2 by phil rimmer

Of course this book should be banned.

At one point the novel imagines the consummation of the marriage between Muhammad and [9 year old] Aisha: "The pain of consummation soon melted away. Muhammad was so gentle. I hardly felt the scorpion's sting. To be in his arms, skin to skin, was the bliss I had longed for all my life.

It is we who should be objecting to the romantic and approving portrayal of behaviour we now understand to be criminal.

Why, people might start to copy the "prophet", thinking his views were morally acceptable....

EDIT after Bonzai #8

Sat, 09 Aug 2008 12:39:00 UTC | #215239

agn's Avatar Comment 3 by agn

Well, well.
An arch dhimmi who thought she could romanticize Mohammad's child-f*ckery (Aisha was not yet 9 at the time) is censored by other dhimmis out of fear of Muslim outrage of her pathetic attempt at appeasement.

What an irony..

Sat, 09 Aug 2008 13:21:00 UTC | #215251

thewhitepearl's Avatar Comment 4 by thewhitepearl

They should be able to publish it without fear although I don't know who would really want to buy it. It's not the authors fault the guy was a pedophile.

Sat, 09 Aug 2008 13:33:00 UTC | #215261

Sally Luxmoore's Avatar Comment 5 by Sally Luxmoore

This sounds like a completely crap novel, which covers a subject repulsive to most people.
Nonetheless, it should be published.
Threats should not result in censorship.

Sat, 09 Aug 2008 13:39:00 UTC | #215264

Sargeist's Avatar Comment 6 by Sargeist

"Excuse me, are you the Prophet Muhammad?"
"Fuck off! I'm Muhammad the Prophet!"

Sat, 09 Aug 2008 13:48:00 UTC | #215269

agn's Avatar Comment 7 by agn

"This sounds like a completely crap novel, which covers a subject repulsive to most people.
Nonetheless, it should be published.
Threats should not result in censorship.

I would say, sally, that what is wrong here is the reason for its withdrawal, not that everyone has some sort of right to get his or her scribblings published, and that that putative right has here been violated.

Neither you nor I or anyone else have such a right to begin with, unless we have the money or publishing house behind us to back our project.

Sat, 09 Aug 2008 13:49:00 UTC | #215270

Sally Luxmoore's Avatar Comment 8 by Sally Luxmoore

I agree with you that it's the reason for the withdrawal that's wrong.
On the other point, I don't believe in a 'right' to publish, but on the other hand there is the right to free speech.
Maybe she should put it onto the internet. She won't get any money, but she will frustrate the will of those who want her silenced.

Sat, 09 Aug 2008 13:53:00 UTC | #215272

Sally Luxmoore's Avatar Comment 9 by Sally Luxmoore

Maybe this isn't as straightforward as the Mohammed 'cartoons' fiasco.
Maybe some Muslims have the sensitivity to be embarrassed about the proclivities of their prophet and want this hushed up?

Sat, 09 Aug 2008 14:03:00 UTC | #215279

Apathy personified's Avatar Comment 10 by Apathy personified

Regardless of the quality or historical accuracy of this book - fear of violence is not an acceptable reason for not publishing it. There have been countless crap books about the christian icons, all published, all lacking any shred of truth - but they were still published.

Nobody wants to be bullied into self censureship by the islamic fundies, but no one wants to stand up against it and be counted.

Ah well, in the interest of fairness - any future books that shed what is considered an unfavourable light on all other religions will have to be declined for publication, no more da vinci codes then......

Sat, 09 Aug 2008 14:06:00 UTC | #215282

agn's Avatar Comment 11 by agn

1. Mark Till:
I haven't said that I think imaginative renderings of kiddie sex should banned on basis of the content's moral turpitude. That's a different matter altogether.

2. Bonzai:
It is not child porn of the class that IS illegal, namely depictions of real children who have been subjected to real child abuse as a matter of the material's production.

For a work of fiction, no such actual abuse lies behind its production, merely the author's own (depraved?) fantasy.
That puts such works in a wholly different legal class than real child porn.

As to whether wholly fictional works celebrating kiddie sex is to be allowable or not, as I said above, that is another discussion.

Sat, 09 Aug 2008 14:09:00 UTC | #215284

42nd's Avatar Comment 12 by 42nd

"it could incide acts of violence by a small radical segment"

If it's just a "small radical segment", then why are they worried? No one is worried about neo nazis complaining about portrayal of Hitler

Think about that. Just four years after Perl Harbor two mushroom clouds emerged over Japan and fascism was history. Roman salute is still, to this day illegal in Germany. It's been seven years since 9/11 and what do we have? Cartoon riots, murder of Theo Van Gogh and now this . We aren't even correctly identifying the problem.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think that wast Islamic revolution is possible, but things are likely to get very very nasty if we continue pretending that problem doesn't exist.

Sat, 09 Aug 2008 14:50:00 UTC | #215298

Vanitas's Avatar Comment 13 by Vanitas

Whoa. How did the issue of free speech get dragged into this? The government is not involved.
She wants to write a novel romanticising pedophilia, that's her right (by the way, I don't know much about the law, but I would think it's only considered child pornography when there are actual, real children involved, but I may be wrong.) The publishers don't want to publish it, that's their right. It's their money, and Random House isn't the only publisher on the street.

Now if there are violent protests in response to the novel, that's when the government should step in--and no, not against the novel or the publishers.

Sat, 09 Aug 2008 15:24:00 UTC | #215309

ukvillafan's Avatar Comment 14 by ukvillafan

Given the rather poor writing as evidenced by the snippet referred to in the article, I am more surprised that it ever looked like it would be published.

And if this is seen by anyone as child porn then I suggest you have no understanding of what pornography is. One other thing, there is no reference in the article to when this particular author considers the consummation to have taken place. So it is in your own mind that the idea that this particular author is peddling child porn occurs. We on here might consider that the evidence suggests she was between nine and twelve - this author may not. Evidence before conclusions please.

And it was not that long ago that many so-called civilised countries permitted marriage of 12 year-old girls!!

Sat, 09 Aug 2008 15:27:00 UTC | #215311

J Mac's Avatar Comment 15 by J Mac

i thought americans didn't negotiate with terrorists!

NEVER, we will NEVER negotiate with terrorists.

But it is amazing how fast we will capitulate.

Sat, 09 Aug 2008 16:39:00 UTC | #215344

8teist's Avatar Comment 16 by 8teist

"NEVER, we will NEVER negotiate with terrorists."

To be fair they are not negotiating ,they are just giving in without a whisper.

Sat, 09 Aug 2008 16:53:00 UTC | #215350

Laurie Fraser's Avatar Comment 17 by Laurie Fraser

This entire story has the mark of idiocy all over it. Without reading it, the book sounds pathetic, as is the publisher's craven capitulation. Publish the damned thing, I say, and let people who read such bodice rippers have a quiet think about the ethics of Islam's prophet engaged in the rape of a child.

Sat, 09 Aug 2008 17:02:00 UTC | #215357

phil rimmer's Avatar Comment 18 by phil rimmer


as long as no harm is caused to real children

But we are reliably informed Aisha and her abuser are real. A real act of abuse is portrayed with the fantasy reaction of the abused being one of approval.

Comment #227257 by Mark Till

Do those protesting about the content of this novel object to 'Lolita'? Just wondering.

Not in the least. Just look at the difference in tone and purpose.

Sat, 09 Aug 2008 17:34:00 UTC | #215372

SimplyIrresponsible's Avatar Comment 19 by SimplyIrresponsible

A romantic novel about Aisha, the child bride of the prophet Muhammad, has been withdrawn because its publisher feared possible terrorist acts by Muslim extremists.

What part of child rape and molestation is romantic? Did I miss a class on morality somewhere? My head hurts. I need a beer.

Sat, 09 Aug 2008 17:56:00 UTC | #215375

Godfree Gordon's Avatar Comment 20 by Godfree Gordon


When referring to the believers of the Koran - KORANIACS

WHen referring to their prophet Muhammad - THE PAEDOPHILE MUHAMMAD

Sat, 09 Aug 2008 18:28:00 UTC | #215379

Christopher Davis's Avatar Comment 21 by Christopher Davis

"They should be able to publish it without fear although I don't know who would really want to buy it. It's not the authors fault the guy was a pedophile."---twp

I suspect this would be quite a popular read for the literate inmates on the prison yard I work at.

Also, thewhitepearl is correct that it is not the author's fault thar Mohammed was (at least by today's civilized standards) a pedophile.

Shitty writing or not, Random House has done a 180 on publishing this novel simply because they fear Muslim outrage. I don't expect Random House to martyr itself, but this is a clear example of how far our society is willing to bend over and take it up the ass to appease the delusions of a bunch of violent barbarians.

Mohammed fucked a kid. If Muslims don't like that then let them find another epileptic opportunist to deify.

Sat, 09 Aug 2008 18:43:00 UTC | #215385

mikecbraun's Avatar Comment 22 by mikecbraun

Cinemax has been showing "soft core pornography" for eons, and they have not been bombed. No worries. Nobody pays attention to soft stuff. The only people who will be interested are pedophiles and enraged Muslims (those groups may have a bit of overlap, as well).

Sat, 09 Aug 2008 19:14:00 UTC | #215391

Butler's Avatar Comment 23 by Butler

Another victory for terrorism.

If only the people of the world would devote as much energy to defending human rights and protecting freedom of speech as they do to molly-coddling irrational opinions.

Sat, 09 Aug 2008 19:39:00 UTC | #215395

Eshto's Avatar Comment 24 by Eshto

"Scorpion's sting"?



Sat, 09 Aug 2008 20:34:00 UTC | #215405

phil rimmer's Avatar Comment 25 by phil rimmer

My proposal is that we TRY and find common cause with moderate Muslims (Ha!). We make a lot of stink about a woman author trying to personally enrich herself by proposing that a Real child rape is a positive act, committed by a person whose every thought and action is deemed worthy of copying. The risk being that real acts of abuse are endorsed as being moral.

Either the story of the "prophet's" behaviour is a lie, or its true and the abuser is unworthy of respect, OR he was just following cultural norms at the time which have now changed, hence some aspects of the moral teachings of his book may need to be be taken with a pinch of salt.....(win, win, win and win)

This behaviour of the "prophet" represents a fault line running through the religion that is visible to ALL. It may even be a leverage point needed by moderates to crack the thing open and actively begin a reform process.

Politically, it is an impregnable position for us to drive the jemmy in, by complaining about the morality of a non Muslim.

EDIT Tweaked.

Sun, 10 Aug 2008 00:16:00 UTC | #215433

phil rimmer's Avatar Comment 26 by phil rimmer


Moderates don't have to exist for this to be politically useful. We just have to claim to make common cause with them.


Its a scab we can turn into a festering ulcer if we picket.

Sun, 10 Aug 2008 00:40:00 UTC | #215434

Steve Zara's Avatar Comment 27 by Steve Zara

Comment #227469 by Fanusi Khiyal

*dryly* I had a word with both of 'em this morning. Don't worry, they're on board.

*wittly, but also a bit sadly* I saw Germaine Jackson on "Never Mind the Buzzcocks" yesterday. He is muslim. He seemed OK, most of the time, and not particularly Nazi. He did at one point mime strangling Simon Amstell, but that is pretty reasonable in my view.

Of all the mendacious myths peddled by the polticos and the media, the myth of the 'moderate Muslim' is one of the worst.

The worst myth is that you can get rid of cellulite.

Sun, 10 Aug 2008 00:45:00 UTC | #215435

Steve Zara's Avatar Comment 28 by Steve Zara

Comment #227468 by phil rimmer


Sun, 10 Aug 2008 00:46:00 UTC | #215436

phil rimmer's Avatar Comment 29 by phil rimmer


I've known a couple of moderate Muslim's. One was a very good friend indeed until he stole my (gorgeous but mad) girlfriend of the time. I came to forgive him, though, when I saw what it did to him. He was a nice guy. He didn't deserve what he got.

(Dammit, there are times when a good sock puppet would be really useful....)


There are clearly some moderates. Most will be utterly afraid to show themselves for obvious reasons. A campaign to preserve the moral image of Islam is one of the few they may feel on safe enough ground to engage with.

Sun, 10 Aug 2008 01:06:00 UTC | #215439

Fanusi Khiyal's Avatar Comment 30 by Fanusi Khiyal

Steve the reason I'm against 'reaching out' to moderate Muslims is that it leads to the kind of craven apologia we see all the time.

And there's no way to reach out to people while simulataneously understanding that it's their damn religion that's the problem in the first place. It just doesn't work.

There are, however, cases where an outreach could work. For example, the Ahmadiya are considered heretical by other Muslims for rejecting Jihad and the horrors that go with it. Or the Bahai.

Above all, the people we should target are those non-Arab Muslims who have suffered so terribly at the hands of the Arab supremacism that is part and parcel of Islam (and why hasn't this been brought up more?). For example, the Kurds of Iraq. I remember watchin a video of the anti-Janjaweed rebels on al-Jazeera who have had it with the Arabs so much that they were dropping their Arab names and taking english ones like 'Colin Powell' and 'George Bush' (no, i'm not kidding).

Of course, that would have been a great alliance if the damn UN-fetishists hadn't been listened to, as a result of which all those potential allies have been brutally murdered.

Another source for allies is the Persian nationalist movement in Iran, always a strong source of resistance to Islam. There are plenty of Persians who have had it with the arab cult that has destroyed their ancient civilization. That's a rich source of allies, if you care to look.

Basically, anything that breaks up and weakens the dar al-Islam internally is a Good Thing.

Sun, 10 Aug 2008 01:21:00 UTC | #215442