Sherry Jones misses an opportunity to both entertain and inform her readers about a historic period that is essential information for any modern reader intent on coming to some understanding of the Muslim religion.

For a story in which the protagonist begins her tale as a pre-pubescent female forced into marriage with a much older man, the book develops little empathy for or understanding of A'isha's plight. She starts out as a plucky, but spoiled, little girl with a pretend sword in her hand and ends, disappointingly for the reader, with the realization that she has developed little more than that same quality decades later. No authentic inner struggle or transformation occurs.

Similarly, any reader expecting to discover some insight into Islam or its self-proclaimed prophet, will come away dissatisfied. While some effort at basic research by the author is evident, very little of the story echos with verisimilitude, an essential component of any quasi-historical work.

Before beginning to scribble her manuscript notes Jones would have been better served by taking a few months hiatus, traveling to a Muslim country, and becoming somewhat infused with the essence of such a society.

As an attempt at a feminist adaptation of the bodice-ripper genre, Jewel of Medina never develops the basic points of a political tract. Despite attempting to bring a new perspective to the problems of women living under the strictures of sharia law, Sherry Jones leaves the reader wondering at the paper-cut-out creations of her historical cast, her travel guide descriptions of the settings and a visceral lack of enthusiasm for her protagonist or her problems. The subject and scope of the story demand a better effort.

For a story in which the protagonist begins her tale as a pre-pubescent female forced into marriage with a much older man, the book develops little empathy for, or understanding of, A'isha's plight. She starts out as a plucky but spoiled little girl clutching a pretend sword and ends with little more than those same qualities and a real sword decades later. No authentic inner struggle or transformation occurs. Similarly, any potential reader expecting to gain insight into Islam or its self-proclaimed prophet will come away disappointed. While some effort at basic research is evident, very little of the story echos with verisimilitude, an essential component of any quasi-historical work. Before beginning to scribble her manuscript notes the author would have been better served by taking a few months hiatus, traveling to a Muslim country and becoming somewhat infused with the essence of such a society. As a feminist adaptation of the bodice-ripper genre, Jewel of Medina never develops the basic points of a political tract. Dispite attempting to bring a new perspective to the problems of women living under the stricture of sharia law, Sherry Jones leaves her reader wondering at the paper-cut-out caricatures of her historical cast, her travel guide descriptions of the settings and a lack of enthusiasm for her protagonist or her problems.

The story of the life of Muhammad and the early history of Islam is a fascinating one of which the majority of westerners know little. There is an urgent need for understanding between world cultures; popular literature can potentially well serve this need. Unfortunately Sherry Jones' book does not.

The fundamental problem is that the author has tackled an enormously sensitive subject, and one can only praise her for her courage in doing so, but has tackled it in a wholly inappropriate style, rendering the first years of Muslim history as chick lit. Her protagonist, Aisha, is, with the exception of Ali, the most controversial and divisive figure in Islam, complicit in the early fracture between Sunni and Shia belief and worthy of a serious study. In this book she is portrayed as a whining adolescent.

Whilst in no way supporting the strident calls for the book to be banned I can to some extent understand the criticism - a subject as serious as the book's requires a more serious treatment. (This, of course, did not help Salman Rushdie whose Satanic Verses was erudite, layered and provocative in its treatment of another controversial event in Muslim history.)

Read the book - but follow it up by then reading some of Jones' reference material. This is a great story that deserves to be told - unfortunately Sherry Jones isn't the author to tell it.

Even before its publication, The Jewel of Medina angered some people, made some very nervous, and rallied others who resent being told what they may or may not read. The book's first publisher bailed out on it's deal to publish the novel and its British publisher, after being firebombed, is yet to publish the book. Thankfully, the publication and marketing of this Sherry Jones debut novel in the United States has been accomplished without violence and with little, if any, real protest from those who would like to see Jones silenced.
The Jewel of Medina is not a great novel. But, of course, it is not that simple.

Any fictional account written today about the relationship between the Prophet Muhammad and his nine wives and four concubines, even as sympathetic an account as this one, will be controversial. But, more particularly, The Jewel of Medina is especially prone to controversy since it is told from the point-of-view of Muhammad's "child bride," A'isha bint Abi Bakr, who was betrothed to Muhammad when she was six years old and he was fifty.

A'isha, as portrayed by Jones, is an independent and willful little girl, a free spirit who sees herself as the equal of any male she encounters. She is especially close to one of the little boys, Safwan, she plays with every day and his continuing presence in her life will at times tempt her to break her marriage vows to Muhammad.

A'isha's world changes forever on the day that her mother calls her away from her friends to tell her that she is to immediately begin purdah, confinement to her home, where she will remain until her husband comes to claim her on her wedding day. That is shock enough for a little girl like A'isha, but the even bigger shock is that the future husband to whom she was betrothed at birth, Safwan, is out of the picture. Instead, her husband-to-be is a man even older than her father, the Prohphet Muhammad.

Rebellious, though she might be, A'isha remains confined to the home of her parents for the next three years and, by the time she is nine years old and Muhammad comes for her, she is desperate for a change of scenery despite her fears about what marriage will be like. Much to her relief, the marriage between A'isha and her new husband is not actually consummated until several more years pass and she has matured into womanhood.

Ironically, as imagined by Jones, A'isha eventually becomes much more anxious to consummate the marriage than Muhammad is because of the competition she faces within Muhammad's harem for its leadership role. She realizes that her image as "child bride" is not one to convey the status and respect required for her to assume the role of "Great Lady of the harem." The A'isha of The Jewel of Medina, much like the historical A'isha, grows into a strong woman, very much a Joan of Arc of her times, a woman who becomes a trusted advisor to Muhammad and who leads troops into battle against the enemies of Islam. In fact, although it is not covered in the book, the historical A'isha played a key role in the initial Islamic civil war that produced the split between the Sunni and Shi'ite factions that is still causing problems for the religion today.

The Jewel of Medina is historical fiction, "fiction," being the key word. It is not anti-Islam and, to the contrary, it reads as a very pro-Islam look at the religion and its founder, the Prophet Muhammad. It places the religion's origins into the context of its times, a time when war among different tribes and alliances was more the norm than the exception, when leaders had to literally fight for the survival of their own, a time when polygamous marriages were often entered into as a means of building political alliances.

More importantly, it is a reminder that Muhammad was a human being, something of which he himself often took great pains to remind his followers.

I said earlier that The Jewel of Medina is not a great novel. It's style is a little stilted, especially the dialogue, and that makes it easier to take in doses of a chapter or two at a time rather than in longer stretches. But even though it focuses largely on the relationships between, and internal struggles for dominance, among Muhammad's wives, there is much to learn from the novel. Most readers, in fact, will come away from the book with a better understanding of, and more compassion for, the religion of Islam than with which they began the book.

I, for one, am thankful that the author and publisher had the courage to get this one into my hands. It was not a wasted effort on any of our parts.

Truly an interesting journey. Aisha is an inspiration for all women who want to find freedom within the confines of being born female.

Good piece of fiction. Bad attempt to put historical fact in a disrespectful manner. This book may hurt sentiments of many muslims as the auther manipulated some historical facts in order to create (to an extent) a sexually explicit novel. Could have been written in a decent way.

According to some Muslim theologians in Turkey, the discrepancy between fact and fiction is beyond toleration. Lady Aisha got married to the prophet when she was 17-18 years old. This information is based on a rather recent research by Omer Rýza Doðrul(d.1952)- son in law of Mehmet Akif Ersoy, the writer of the Turkish national anthem. The claim that Lady Aisha got married at 9 depends on, they say, western orientalists' understanding of the religion through Emevi sources and is not correct. Personally I believe that the book may be quite hurting for the muslim and the limits of freedom of speech need to be discussed.

A delightful, well-researched work of historical fiction about Muhammad's wives. Jones puts the reader right smack in the middle of 7th century Arabia, and tells the story through the eyes of Muhammad's favorite wife, Aishah. For great fiction in a realistic historical setting, I'd give it five stars.

I subtracted one star only because Jones bends over backwards to exaggerate and sensationalize the history to be kinder to Muhammad than the "sahih" (authentic) Muslim historians ever were. Maybe she was worried about getting a fatwa on her head. She shouldn't.

For example, Jones portrays Muslims in Mecca regularly being dragged out of their homes in the middle of the night and having their throats slit. What do Muslim historians say? One Muslim historian mentions one woman who was killed. One man put a big rock on his slave's chest and told him to praise the goddesses and give up Islam and he'd let him up. There was a boycott, whereby no one could buy or sell with Muhammad's clan, nor marry into it. Muhammad was insulted -- dirt was thrown in his face; a sheep's uterus was tossed into his yard, stinky stuff was poured into his cooking pot, ruining his dinner. These were serious threats in 7th century Arabia; if such insults were allowed to go unpunished, they would escalate. But they were not midnight raids and throat slittings.

The entire justification for Muhammad's livelihood in Medina -- raiding Mecca's trade caravans -- is distorted by Jones' sensationalized account of the opposition he and his followers faced in Mecca. Just how bad was it? There was persecution, no doubt. But recall that as Muhammad and Abu Bakr fled for Medina, they ran into Talhah, a believer, as he was leading his own caravan back to Mecca from Syria, loaded with goods. They asked him to join them and go to Medina instead, but he responded that he'd be along in good time; first he had to sell his property in Mecca. He came 7 months later.

As for the boycott, it ended long before Muhammad migrated to Medina. As for the assassination plot, Jones has Ali run in and announce to Muhammad that the clans of Mecca are planning to kill him that very night, and that he has to flee to Medina right away. According to Muslim historians, it was the Angel Gabriel who appeared to Muhammad to tell him of the assassination plot.

On the night Muhammad left for Medina, he asked Ali to give back all the stuff that non-believing people of Mecca had left with him for safe keeping. Muslim historians preserved this to illustrate Muhammad's reputation for impeccable honesty. What it also shows, however, is what kind of relationship he enjoyed with many of the non-believers in Mecca up until the day of his departure. It is also quite a contrast to his practice of raiding every one of Mecca's trade caravans he could get his hands on, not long after arriving in Medina. Yet Jones has Aishah justify Muhammad's lifestyle as a raider by saying the Quraysh of Mecca drove the Muslims out and denied them their property. To Jones' credit, she also has Aishah ask, "But how will we survive without the goods from Mecca's caravans?" when Muhammad signs a peace treaty with Mecca. I had to laugh.

At the battle of Badr, Jones says an army marched up from Mecca to attack Medina. The Muslim historians say Abu Sufyan (of Mecca) was leading a huge trade caravan back from Syria, laden with goods, and Muhammad assembled his men and rode out to attack the caravan. Abu Sufyan sent a messenger to Mecca to come and defend the caravan, in which every clan in Mecca had a stake. So yes, there was an army from Mecca, and Muhammad and his men defeated it (the caravan got away). But Jones' account simply has an army marching on Medina to attack poor Muhammad, who only wants to be left in peace to practice his own religion.

Jones' treatment of the Jews of Medina was equally distorted. She has them marching into battle beside the Quraysh of Mecca, coming to attack Muhammad in the Battle of the Trench. This is another fabrication to justify Muhammad's decision to slay all the men and take all the women and children as slaves. Muslim historians do say one Jewish man, Huyayy, was involved. Huyayy was the chief of another Jewish clan that Muhammad had exiled from Medina earlier. He urged Ka'ab, the chief of the Jewish clan still living in Medina, to fight on the side of Mecca. Ka'ab refused. So Huyayy asked him simply to open up his fortress and allow the attacking army to enter the town. Ka'ab thought about it, but he didn't do it. Ultimately the Meccan army was unable to enter the city. They gave up and went home. Because Muhammad had heard that Ka'ab had wavered, Muhammad sealed the doom of the clan. One account has Muhammad's men checking adolescent boys for pubic hair to determine whether to enslave them with the women and children or behead them with the men.

Oh, and why were Huyayy and his clan exiled earlier? Jones states that he tried to drop a rock on Muhammad's head. The Muslim historians say Gabriel told Muhammad that Huyayy was planning to drop a rock on his head. This distinction might not be so important to believing Muslims, but was perhaps very important to Huyayy, who remained an "unbeliever" as he led his entire clan out of Medina in punishment for his alleged divinely-exposed plot.

When you read the eye-rolling bits about what's going on outside the harem, you have to remind yourself that, after all, you did get this book from the fiction section. If it's a history book you want, look for Muhammad: His Life Based on the Earliest Sources by Martin Lings or translations of Ibn Ishaq. Google "sahih hadith" or comb through the "Sayings of the Prophet."

But make no mistake -- Jones does a spectacular job of portraying Muhammad's wives, each of whom is portrayed as accurately as the history allows. In that respect, she really did her homework. And that's what the book is all about: life in Muhammad's harem. It's a fabulous work. I couldn't put it down. I can't wait for the sequel.

A delightful, well-researched work of historical fiction about Muhammad's wives. Jones puts the reader right smack in the middle of 7th century Arabia, and tells the story through the eyes of Muhammad's favorite wife, Aishah. For great fiction in a realistic historical setting, I'd give it five stars.

I subtracted one star only because Jones bends over backwards to exaggerate and sensationalize the history to be kinder to Muhammad than the "sahih" (authentic) Muslim historians ever were. Maybe she was worried about getting a fatwa on her head. She shouldn't.

For example, Jones portrays Muslims in Mecca regularly being dragged out of their homes in the middle of the night and having their throats slit. What do Muslim historians say? One Muslim historian mentions one woman who was killed. One man put a big rock on his slave's chest and told him to praise the goddesses and give up Islam and he'd let him up. There was a boycott, whereby no one could buy or sell with Muhammad's clan, nor marry into it. Muhammad was insulted -- dirt was thrown in his face; a sheep's uterus was tossed into his yard, stinky stuff was poured into his cooking pot, ruining his dinner. These were serious threats in 7th century Arabia -- if such insults were allowed to go unpunished, they would escalate. But they were not midnight raids and throat slittings. As for the boycott, it ended long before Muhammad migrated to Medina.

The entire justification for Muhammad's livelihood in Medina -- raiding Mecca's caravans -- is distorted by Jones' sensationalized account of the opposition he and his followers faced in Mecca. Just how bad was it? There was persecution, no doubt. But recall that as Muhammad and Abu Bakr fled for Medina, they ran into Talhah, a believer, as he was leading his own caravan back to Mecca from Syria, loaded with goods. They asked him to join them and go to Medina instead, but he responded that he'd be along in good time; first he had to sell his property in Mecca. He came 7 months later.

On the night Muhammad left for Medina, he asked Ali to give back all the stuff that non-believing people of Mecca had left with him for safe keeping. Muslim historians preserved this to illustrate Muhammad's reputation for impeccable honesty. What it also shows, however, is what kind of relationship he enjoyed with many of the non-believers in Mecca up until the day of his departure. It is also quite a contrast to his practice of raiding every one of Mecca's caravans he could get his hands on, not long after arriving in Medina. Yet Jones has Aishah justify Muhammad's lifestyle as a raider by saying the Quraysh of Mecca drove the Muslims out and denied them their property. To her credit, she also has Aishah ask, "But how will we survive without the goods from Mecca's caravans?" when Muhammad signs a peace treaty with Mecca. I had to laugh.

At the battle of Badr, Jones says an army marched up from Mecca to attack Medina. The Muslim historians say Abu Sufyan (of Mecca) was leading a huge caravan back from Syria, laden with goods, and Muhammad assembled his men and rode out to attack the caravan. Abu Sufyan sent a messenger to Mecca to come and defend the caravan, in which every clan in Mecca had a stake. So yes, there was an army from Mecca, and Muhammad and his men defeated it (the caravan got away). But Jones' account simply has an army marching on Medina to attack poor Muhammad, who only wants to be left in peace to practice his own religion.

Jones' treatment of the Jews of Medina was equally distorted. She has them marching into battle beside the Quraysh of Mecca, coming to attack Muhammad in the Battle of the Trench. This is another fabrication to justify Muhammad's decision to slay all the men and take all the women and children as slaves. Muslim historians do say one Jewish man, Huyayy, was involved. Huyayy was the chief of another Jewish clan that Muhammad had exiled from Medina earlier. He urged Ka'ab, the chief of the Jewish clan still living in Medina, to fight on the side of Mecca. Ka'ab refused. So Huyayy asked him simply to open up his fortress and allow the attacking army to enter the town. Ka'ab thought about it, but he didn't do it. Ultimately the Meccan army was unable to enter the city. They gave up and went home. Because Muhammad had heard that Ka'ab had wavered, Muhammad sealed the doom of the clan. One account has Muhammad's men checking adolescent boys for pubic hair to determine whether he is a child, and therefore to be made a slave with the women & children, or a man, and therefore to be beheaded.

Oh, and why was Huyayy and his clan exiled earlier? Jones states that he tried to drop a rock on Muhammad's head. The Muslim historians say Gabriel told Muhammad that Huyayy was planning to drop a rock on his head. Another distinction perhaps not so important to believing Muslims, but perhaps very important to Huyayy, who remained an "unbeliever" as he led his entire clan out of Medina in punishment for his alleged divinely-revealed plan.

When you read the eye-rolling bits about what's going on outside the harem, you have to remind yourself that, after all, you did get this book from the fiction section. If it's a history book you want, look for author Martin Lings or translations of Ibn Ishaq. Google "sahih hadith" or comb through the "Sayings of the Prophet."

But make no mistake -- Jones does a spectacular job of portraying Muhammad's wives, each of whom is portrayed as accurately as the history allows. In that respect, she really did her homework. And that's what the book is all about: life in Muhammad's harem. It's a fabulous work. I couldn't put it down. I can't wait for the sequel.

Most of the muslim reviewers understandably have no comprehension whatsoever of the ways that non-muslim Americans think, or of the value of this book in providing them with an actual ~ as contrasted with the usual utterly falsified ~ history of the establishment of Islam in Arabia during the Medina period. That the fictionalization of the characters into modern American stereotypes is offensive does not change the result that American readers will be able to identify with the factual experiences of the period and assimilate for the first time some semblance of understanding of the birth of the faith that is their true heritage in Abraham. Such hostile and angry reviews are a good illustration of why muslims who are not Americans who have emerged from the American jahiliyyah should not be trying to "explain Islam" to Americans, a task best left to indigenous American muslims. The book is fiction that makes history available to Americans who would otherwise not be remotely interested. However offensive or disappointing the mischaracterization of 'A'isha, 'Umar, 'Ali, and others might be to muslims, any debunking of the falsification of Islam that permeates America's information media is a good thing, and Jones does this in a way that can reach American readers.

As a moderate Muslim, I was eager to read the Jewel of Medina, hoping it would provide me with insight into the Prophet's domestic life. I was disappointed to see that not only was the story replete with distortion and factual inaccuracies, it seemed like Jones' research, while thorough, was incomplete. That doesn't say much for her credibility as a journalist.

All writers of historical fiction have the privilege of artistic license to enhance their plot, but Jones should have been careful when dealing with the founder and leader of Islam, a religion already under scrutiny around the world. For example, the Prophet received his revelation allowing men to marry a maximum of four times after he had married all his wives, in the fifth year after his migration to Medina. By omitting the timing of this revelation, Jones made our Prophet seem like a man with double standards, a man who didn't practice what he preached. If I didn't know about the revelation, what would I think of the Prophet? Reading this, how will non-Muslims judge him?

Ayesha is one of the three most respected women in Islam. Jones rendered her as a self absorbed, attention seeking and impulsive girl, who's best ideas (the trench around Medina, the attempt to save the Prophet's life etc) were driven only by self-interest and self-promotion, not by the desire to serve Islam.

While I don't doubt Jones' intentions--she portrays the Prophet as a patient, compassionate, wise and peaceful man, most of his wives as wise and patient, and leads readers through Ayesha's journey towards self-discovery--she's given ample fodder to people with Islamophobia.

Read it for its intrigue and sensationalism, not for its reliable depiction of Islam's early years.

As in previous encounters between Muslims and the depiction of their sacred symbols in the public space, there are lessons for both Muslims and non-Muslims in the publication of this novel.

The wife of the Prophet, according to Spellberg, is characterised as a "sexualized being, swinging a sword around and who taught others to use a weapon." Jones acknowledges that, in this instance, she has altered and embellished history for the sake of her fiction.

What are the alleged soft-porn and sexualized parts of the novel? Consider this description by Jones of A'isha's fictional encounter with Safwan ibn Al-Mu'attal: "With our bodies, we brushed each other lightly--my breasts to his chest. An aroma like musk rose from his body. My moan of pleasure surprised me, luxuriant as the purr of a cat stretching in the sunlight."

It is significant to note that A'isha was falsely accused by some companions of adultery and that her she was found to be innocent when the Prophet received revelation confirming this. Jones's rendition of this history portrays the wife of the Prophet, at best, as a woman flirting with a strange man.

With reference to the consummation of her marriage to the Prophet Jones writes: "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."

Another example of artistic licence applied to historical fact by Jones is a passage in which the greater jihad is both conflated and confused with the lesser jihad. A'isha is reportedly saying in the last page of the novel: "My sword will serve you well in the jihad to come. Now I knew what Muhammad meant by `an inner struggle.' On the very day of his death, jihad had already begun."

Spellberg points out that given the stereotype of Muslims as violent and intolerant of criticism this type of distortion can only further inflame tensions between Muslims and non-Muslims. She further notes that the Jewel of Medina is typical of medieval Christian writings, and that it "provides no new reading of Aisha's life, but actually expands upon provocative themes regarding Muhammad's wives first found in...The Satanic Verses."

"I do not espouse censorship of any kind, but I do value my right to critique those who abuse the past without regard for its richness or resonance in the present," she said.

Clearly, the distortion of sacred history in order to produce fiction, is not acceptable to Muslims, even if, as Jones asserts, her intention was to honour all the wives of Muhammad who have been ignored--and silenced--by historians. Salman Rushdie, in a more blatant abuse of artistic licence has gone further and perverted the sacred history of Muslims with a clear disregard for the offence it may cause.

The important question that arises is not: Is it right for writers like Rushdie and Jones to do what they are doing? Instead, the important question is: Do they have a right to do so? No doubt, in western law and culture they do have that right. In Islamic law and culture there is no such right. Does it mean then, that Muslims are simply locked into a clash with western law and culture? In the grand scheme of things, do Muslims ultimately buy into this notion of a clash of civilisations, the same notion that provides the US the pretext to invade and bomb those who resist their imperial agenda?

No. Occupiers and invaders should be fought on the battlefield. That is the proper territory for such a confrontation, whether it be in Iraq, Palestine or elsewhere. Violent resistance against those who occupy your lands and drive you from your homes is perfectly legitimate. That is eminently the Prophetic and the reasonable thing to do. And this principle is consistent with international law.

But when it comes to intellectual discourse and conflict in art and culture, the territory is different. I cannot support murder and violent attacks by a minority of extremists when dealing with writers and artists who insult Muslims, the Prophet and our sacred symbols. These are neither Prophetic nor reasonable means of resistance. Instead, they feed into the stereotype of Muslims as irrational and violent fanatics incapable of fighting ideas with ideas.

So, if not with violence and unreason, how do we deal with a law and a culture that seem to deliberately offend and insult that which is sacred to us as Muslims? There are several ways. We can fight ideas with ideas. We can protest peacefully, create platforms for debate and challenge the Islamophobes. We can use the media and make noises, intelligent noises that show the beauty and superiority of Islamic art and culture. It is a shame that we still boast of a proud but lost intellectual and cultural heritage in Spain, and have little to show of it today. Too often is our voice silenced by the violent discourse of a few extremists.

We can apply political pressure through peaceful civil action, even if most of the Muslim world leaders are weak and puppets of the empires. We can apply economic pressure with our buying power and use the weapon of the consumer boycott. We can challenge them by their law and in their courts. Western democracy and the culture of free speech provides us an opportunity, albeit, at times an unequal one, to express our viewpoint and pursue justice.

If the Jordanian legal challenge succeeds against the Islamophobe Geert Wilders who explicitly insulted the Prophet and blasphemed against Islam, this will be a major victory and legal precedent not only for Muslims, but for all religious people around the world. If Jones's book is found to be lacking in research and scholarship, but claims to be extensively researched, then that may be a basis for a legal challenge.

Random House certainly did not do Muslims a favour by opting not to publish the book. Instead, they are also feeding into the stereotype that Muslims are violent, irrational fanatics and that they achieve their objectives through violence or threats of violence. It would have been preferable that they did so because the book was found lacking in thorough research and scholarship as is claimed on its cover endorsements. That would be a true victory for Muslims. Not the silencing of a writer and a publisher with fear of violence.

The big intellectual challenge here is opening the discourse on the convergence of law and freedom of expression in art, notably in fiction. We need to argue that artistic licence in producing works of fiction like historic novels should be subject to standards that uphold the norms of accuracy and consistency with the historical record. We need to argue that artistic licence precludes the right of offend and insult a people's religious sensibilities. Muslims need to pioneer a set of norms that protects the sacred symbols of all faiths.

It may be very difficult to achieve any kind of sustained success in this struggle, but it is a necessary struggle. We cannot abdicate the responsibility of meeting the enemies of Islam on the intellectual and cultural arena while we support only the lesser jihad against the invaders of our lands. We have to place the debate of legitimate civil resistance against disrespect for sacred symbols on the agenda of political leaders, law makers, entertainers, artists and writers. Our voices can help set the agenda and raising civilised public awareness, even if the struggle does not produce major successes.

If the voices of ijtihad do not speak louder than voices of the lesser jihad, then we have a great deal to lose. We will remain aliens to mature and balanced critical discourse. We will cede a legitimate struggle to a minority of extremists who are hell-bent on the violence-only option at all costs. These extremists contribute little in terms of civilised debate, but offer maximum damage to the image of Islam and Muslims.

We also risk the hijacking of the debate by Islamophobes like Daniel Pipes who eagerly await another instance of Muslim fanaticism in order to peddle their trade of misinformation in Islam.

Neither censorship nor banning can bring Muslims the victory that civilised debate can. Compulsion cannot win the hearts and minds of reasonable citizens in western democracies. Of course, civil debate cannot win the hearts and minds of hardcore Islamophobes, but we need not waste too much time with them.

The best strategy is the Qur'anic one: Invite (all) to the Way of thy Lord with wisdom and beautiful preaching; and argue with them in ways that are best and most gracious: for thy Lord knoweth best, who have strayed from His Path, and who receive guidance. (16:125)

I'm reviewing this novel strictly on its merits as a work of historical fiction. I'm not reviewing the author's intentions, or her courage, or Random House's lack of grace under pressure, or anything other than the book. Which is why I give it three stars: it's really no more than a midlist novel, which without a raging controversy to fuel sales would not have made much of a ripple. I had looked forward to reading this novel and really hoped for and expected far more from it. THE JEWEL OF MEDINA is cliché-ridden and formless, and the main character is not only a cliché (Red-haired heroine? Check. Girl who fights with a sword? Check. Spitfire with the value system of a 21st century feminist? Check. Important man madly in love with her for no apparent reason? Check.) but such a PITA that by the end of the book I was rooting for Muhammad to slap her into next Tuesday. A'isha has no control over her insanely bad temper, and the entire book seems to go "I lost my temper and insulted everyone. Then I was really sorry and swore I'd do better and begged Muhammad to forgive me." Why Muhammad loves this brat passeth understanding. The A'isha portrayed here is neither an average girl who discovers God has great plans for her nor a brilliant woman of her own time. She learns nothing from the beginning of the book to the end. As to the historical part of this "historical novel" - it's full of things from about a thousand years on either side of the date and about a thousand miles around the location of the story. (And the author's constant use of the word "wrapper" to describe a veil drove me nuts. Oh, yes, and I wish she'd never learned the word "consummated".) I also grew extremely tired of the author's mind-boggling overuse of similes. Sometimes, you know, a date palm is just a date palm, and that's all it's like. Let me just sum up by saying that by the time, on page 197, A'isha decides to become Muhammad's political advisor: "to help the umma, fulfilling my promise to al-Lah with my intelligence instead of my sword" all I could think was "Well, then I give Islam and the umma about two weeks tops!"

The Jewel of Medina is a beautiful story portraying the life, struggles and love of Aisha, the second and youngest wife of Muhammed. I found it enjoyable to read (I had a hard time putting it down!) as well as allowing a glimpse into early Islam. Sherry Jones treats the love story between Muhammed and Aisha tenderly: even though Aisha is a child when they marry, you feel that Muhammed loved her dearly and treated her with the utmost of respect. As she grows up her love for Muhammed matures and her desire to be a strong and courageous helpmeet to him emerges. The insight into being a "sister-wife" was facinating and I liked how Sherry Jones depicted the day to day toil - including the jealousy, rivalry, support and love between them. Years ago I read The Story Bible, by Pearl S. Buck, and it made Biblical times so vivid to me! I feel The Jewel of Medina opens up an understanding of early Islam in the same, beautiful way!

I found this novel extremely boring. While struggling to get through the colorless characters, aimless storyline and dull dialogue, I tried to figure out what the fuss is all about. The book seems to be quite respectful of Muhammad. It doesn't even criticize some of his violent actions, such as the mass beheading of all post puberty men of the Jewish tribe of Banu Qoraise, in the market of Medina in May 627. I've read far better accounts of the birth of Islam.

This book held my attention from beginning to end. Reading this book does not mean you hate anyone, unlike those who try to stop you from reading about Aisha, or anything else.

Having received a copy of the book from one of the Schools I do work with, I read it in two sittings last weekend. The book is a blatant hagiography of the Muslim religion's founder. This story paints the Muslim's prophet as a compassionate man driven by the needs of the times. It also portrays his child bride as a loyal and loving wife. It romanticizes child rape and turns the victim into a martyr for a 'cause'. It also suggests the child bride was having affairs! I have ordered a copy for our local library, just as a protest against censorship, but I do not feel this book is worth the pulp. A better book on Mohammed and his brides is Spencer's "truth about Muhammed", or go to the source: The Muslim Quran.

I just finished "Jewel of Medina" and found it a quick-paced and captivating read. It's a wonderful window into the history and life of Aisha. I think it the uproar over this novel is uncalled for and unfortunate. "Jewel" will only encourage readers to learn more about muslim history and culture. And for the American public, that can only be a good thing.

Thanks Sherry, and thanks to all the readers and publishers out there who support free speech.

The Jewel of Medina is just another attempt by a sordid minded individual to Dishonor a Woman admired by Billions and Billions of Muslims world wide. But despite all the fiction that is presented in this book that can only be compared with an attempt to spit at the moon, Allah will keep Ayesha's honor alive in the hearts and minds of her true admirers that is the muslims till the end of time.

To learn about the true Ayesha Siddiqah who is not just a Jewel of Medina but a Jewel of the Universe, I encourage the readers to explore authentic sites and books instead of this read.

Here are somethings about her real self.

'Ayesha - The Mother of The Faithful, by A Shafaat

June 6, 2008 was the 1370th anniversary of Umm al-Mu'minin 'Ayesha Siddiqah (with whom Allah is well-pleased).

'Ayesha was not only the wife of the greatest man in human history, the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him and his family), and the daughter of one the greatest Muslims of all times, the First Caliph Abu Bakr, but also a towering Islamic personality in her own right.

The Great Teacher
Ayesha appears in Islamic history as a great teacher and respected leader. She was an important and sometimes indispensable source of knowledge about the life and teachings of the Prophet. Even senior disciples of the Prophet such as 'Umar frequently asked her about matters of faith in which they were doubtful and often found answers from her. Among the successors of the disciples (tabi`in) great scholars of Prophetic Traditions (Hadith) and Islamic Jurisprudence (fiqh) learned the teachings of Islam from her and then spread them in the rapidly expanding lands of Islam. A part of what they learned from 'Ayesha has come down to us in the form of numerous traditions that are narrated on her authority.

The position that 'Ayesha came to occupy as a teacher in early Islam was in no small measure due to her intellectual abilities. Even as a child, 'Ayesha showed exceptional intelligence, which was one of the things, in addition to her beauty, that attracted the Prophet to her. She was about six years of age when the Prophet saw her in her father's house playing with some toys, including a toy-horse with wings. The Prophet asked her, 'Ayesha! Do horses ever have wings? Instead of feeling shy in the presence of this great man, 'Ayesha confidently replied, yes, King Solomon's horse did.

'Ayesha also had a very strong memory. It is reported that she could recite poems of up to 100 verses at a stretch.

The teachings of Islam that 'Ayesha learnt from the Prophet with her strong memory and keen intelligence were delivered to her students with great eloquence. Tirmidhi reports Musa ibn talha as saying that he did not find anyone more eloquent than 'Ayesha.

Her Saintly Character
Like other great Muslims of the time, 'Ayesha did not simply teach and preach Islam but lived it. She led a truly Muslim life of prayer, charity and struggle for truth and justice. The Prophet once gave her the following advice:

"'Ayesha, if you want to meet me (again, in the life to come), then treat this world like a traveler's meal and do not attend the gatherings of the rich and the powerful and do not consider clothes old as long as they can be mended." (Ibn Sa`ad)

'Ayesha always acted according to this saintly advice of her loving and noble husband. She kept wealth away from her like one would keep dust from one's person. When in the Caliphate of 'Umar ibn al-khattab and afterwards, wealth began to pour into the hands of the Muslims, a due share of it inevitably came to 'Ayesha but she gave away almost all she received. Once `Abd Allah bin Zubayr sent her 100,000 dirhams (This translates to approx 10 Million Dollars of our time), but by the end of the same day she had given it all away to the people. Ibn Sa`ad reports `Urwa as saying that on one occasion he "saw 'Ayesha distribute 70,000 dirhams among the people and then get up shaking the front of her dress as if she were clearing it of dust." 'Ayesha also often kept nafl (supererogatory) fast.

THE BATTLE OF THE CAMEL
Saintliness of the great Muslims of early time was not of a reclusive type, Rather speaking or acting against falsehood and injustice was an integral part of their saintliness and 'Ayesha was no exception.

In the 35th year of Hijrah, the Third Caliph `Uthman ibn `Affan was murdered by a group of his opponents. 'Ayesha despite being critical of `Uthman's policies, was of the opinion that his murderers should be brought to justice. With her eloquent speeches 'Ayesha organized a campaign against `Uthman's murderers and their political backers who were considerably strong. 'Ayesha's campaign for justice led to two battles at Basra, one against the Governor of Basra and the second (known as the Battle of the Camel) against the new caliph, Hadrat `Ali. She won the first battle but lost the second. `Ali treated the defeated 'Ayesha with the respect due to an umm al-mu'minin (mother of the believers). 'Ayesha accepted `Ali as the lawful caliph and gave him the respect due to a legitimate leader of the Muslims.

Events that led to the Battle of the Camel (so-called because Ali's forces directed their attack against the camel 'Ayesha was riding without hurting the rider) have been hotly debated in Islamic history and will probably continue to be debated until the day of judgment. I will not here enter into this debate. I will say only that these events raised complex questions of law and order justice which despite their complexity could not be ignored. 'Ayesha faced these questions, reached an answer, and then did what she felt she had to do. And this is all that history should expect from great men and women who are not prophets.

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: [...]

If you're interested, you can also listen to the interview here: [...]

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).

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?

(Review for Muslimah Media Watch.org)

The Jewel of Medina brings the reader into a relatively unknown world of 7th Century Saudi Arabia and brings to life the events surrounding the beginning of Islam. The novel seems very respectful of Muhammad to me while at the same time focusing on the lives of his wives, especially A'isha. It seems shocking to us today to realize that she married him when she was only nine as we forget that in the past commonly betrothals took place at birth and marriages even among nobility were made in childhood or early teens. Jewish girls in the time of Jesus were betrothed by 12 and married at 13. I liked the inside peek at lives of these secluded women in the same way that The Red Tent gave us a glimpse of the private lives of Jewish women. I am sure the book will provoke thoughtful discussion and some disagreement about what it might really have been like to live in the past. I do think those of the west and Middle East, Christians and Muslims can come to understand and respect one another more from such interactions as we learn about differing points of view. Each of the wives is brought to life and the penury and hardship of a life amidst great turmoil as the idea of one God is taught to the Arab tribesmen. I hope there comes a time when A'isha's name no longer is a curse to anyone.

This book is an exciting page turner that tells a wonderful and compelling story about the beginning and maturation of the relationship between the Prophet Muhammad and his favorite wife A'isha. Through that story we get not only to see A'isha's character grow and mature, but we also learn something of the struggle of Muhammad and his followers to practice their faith, and worship their God as they wished. In the hands of author Sherry Jones, A'isha is shown as a remarkable and irresistible character. How A'isha learns to deal with these obstacles, how she learns to live as one of several wives of the prophet, and how the experiences contribute to her growth and strength as a woman constitutes the central conflict in the story, and its resolution is truly beautiful. The Jewel of Medina is historical fiction in the best sense of the genre. Jones' writing style is a pleasure, always inviting us deeper into the story, often soaring, and is always a veritable feast of metaphors! It is, of course, written with modern sensibilities, and the author takes full advantage of artistic license to create vibrant and living characters from historic personages about whom little in the way of everyday detail is known. If "text book" history is sometimes modified to suit the dramatic requirements of giving us a forceful narrative, the story is accurately anchored in history at all the key points, and thus gives us non Muslims a glimpse into the very human side of Islam and its founding prophet, and and particularly of his plucky and adventurous favorite "jewel" of a wife A'isha.

I have just read the Jewel of Medina and it is an inspiring, well written adventure that brings the early days of the Muslim religion to life. This is my first exposure to the Muslim culture and it is a very positive experience. Muhammad, A'isha and Ali become real people expressing honest human emotions and a genuine desire for creating a religion of peace, understanding and equality. This is such a relief from their minimalist image portrayed by today's Muslim extremists. The Jewel of Medina held my attention from the opening prologue and never faltered. It is fast paced, complex, emotional and even lighthearted as Muhammad, A'isha and Ali each evolve into powerful leaders for their faith. Read the Jewel of Medina for entertainment, understanding and compassion.Jewel of Medina

An interesting historical novel about the relationship between Muhammad and his real-life child bride A'isha, told from her perspective. There is genuine affection between the two, and Muhammad appears to regard her with special affection and respect despite the many demands made upon him as a leader. A'isha is shown to be an unusual young woman: wanting to prove her loyalty to Muhammad by actually scheming to participate as a combatant in the many battles that Mulhammed and his followers must win to survive.