Sherry Jones demands apology

The author of The Jewel of Medina has called on the professor who arguably started all the controversy to “take back her words”.

Random House had sent a review copy of the book to Professor Denise Spellberg, hoping for a quote to put in the blurb. Instead, the witless academic branded it “softcore pornography” that constituted a “declaration of war” and sent a hysterical note to her Muslim colleague.

The author Sherry Jones now says,

She used the most inflammatory language she could possibly have used. If you want to incite heated emotions from any religious group you just use the word ‘pornography’ in the same sentence as their revered figures.

She ought to take back her words because it is in no way an accurate description of my book. There are no sex scenes in it.

I have not dishonoured the Prophet. I wrote it with the intention of honouring him.

Meanwhile, swivel-eyed Muslim fanatic Anjem “How dare you?” Choudary said on the Jeremy Vine show that the book was on insult to the “prophet’s” honour, and therefore merits the death penalty.

Fortunately, the recent attempted fire-bombing has not affected the publication date, according to Jones’ agent Natasha Kern.

14 Responses to “Sherry Jones demands apology”

  1. jr says:

    Does anyone know if Mr Choudary managed to read the book before pronouncing sentence? Or is he eagerly awaiting publication like the rest of us?

  2. arabella mayer says:

    “Or is he eagerly awaiting publication like the rest of us?”

    er yes cos we’re all sheep-like people aren’t we, all waiting for the latest book
    on them pesky Muslims..

  3. jr says:

    Is that what this book is about, Arabella?

  4. Neil Hoskins says:

    If some tosser on public radio said that, isn’t it incitement?

  5. Elliott says:

    Permit me to put a somewhat outre idea before you. I have read some of the prologue to this book.
    It was posted to a web page, so long ago that I can no longer cite a URL. To put my opinion in
    publishable language, I was not impressed.

    My radical idea is this: the vocal (not to say active) opponents of publication are not
    islamofascists. They are mercenaries, hired to provoke a liberal response that this book must
    be supported. For my part, I have read as much of the book as I care to. I will not be
    buying it.

  6. Melancholic Jakes says:

    The fictional depiction provided by Sherry Jones of the ‘consumation’ of the marriage between Mohammed aged 54 and his child bride, Ayesha, aged nine:
    “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.”

    Hardly pornographic ?

    The simple fact is that, irrespective of the contents of the novel, the muslim fundamentalists were always going to make this an issue precisely because of their sensitivities about Mo’s squalid sexual peccadillos.

  7. As a mature Christian, I can safely say that were the pages of this book large enough, I would still not purchase it as toilet paper.

    According to record Mohammed was arranged for marriage to a nine year old girl, a custom common in that era, however the marriage was not consummated until later time. This woman’s “imagined sex act” part of the book may draw interest of some people, the only PR read supposed from this author was that she (paraphrased) said Mohammed was a peaceful man, reacting only to aggression, this is proved out in historical record.

    My hope is not much attention is given this foolishness, the weak minded seem drawn to such situations.

  8. Melancholic Jakes says:

    Mr ‘mature Christian’ I suggest that you provide evidence that marriage at the age of six was a’custom common in that era’and that Ayesha was obliged to have sex at an age later than nine.

    Both propositions are falsehoods as well you know.

    Muslim fundamentalists will go to any lengths to deflect attention away from the paedophile activities of Mohammed including posing as a ‘mature Christian’ to pedal their propaganda.

  9. Husayn As-Satter says:

    If you remove the Islamic Charecters and had written this about someone else’s life it would have not generated any interest at all, in fact it may not have even been published – because everyone in the world hates muslims (like the Americans, Israelis, British etc) then by slapping the characters from Islamic History into this woefully boring novel you can generate enough contorversy to makes sales…which is the bottom line isn’t it?

    There were obvious errors in the book from the pointless use of Arabic transliteration which she managed to get wrong – Why would Mohammed use the masculine form of the word ‘beloved’ to refer to ‘Aisha, who is female? – or the insinuations made by the companions about Mohammed’s wife in fornt of him and he didn’t do anything about it (to insults someones wife in front of you is an insult to you ) also with regards to what Ali had to say he told the prophet that he could divorce any of his wives if he wished, as he had done before, it wasn’t any kind of shame to be divorced (it is a unfortunate thing that is present in today’s muslim society that divorce is a mark of shame) and Muhammed divorced many of his wives and he continued to have cordial relationships with them and thier extended families. The figure of Umar is completely wrong because he had infact defended ‘Aisha.

    In summation it is tripe that had to use sensationalism to sell it, and to hurt other peoples sensibilities to market it.

  10. Melancholic Jakes says:


    You are wrong to assert that everyone in the world hates muslims.

    The ‘sensationalism’ has been created because certain elements of your co-religionists will not tolerate any depiction of Mohammed or comment upon him that does not fully accord with dogma.

    If a novel or cartoon is deemed to be ‘hurtful’ or offensive that does not accord a right to any religious grouping to use violence, engage in book burning or to firebomb in the name of preserving their sensibilities.

    The British newspapers shamefully failed to publish the Danish cartoons in solidarity with other European press for no reason other than their editors “did not wish to be skewered to the pavement”.(Boris Johnson)Random House appears to have abandoned the publication of the novel for the exact same reason.

    You may find the aforesaid acceptable. Many of us do not.

  11. none says:

    Every one involved in writing or publishing this book in any way shape or form, will have there faces turned in to a pigs face when they die. And may they be bombarded with heavy criticism and trouble. May every breath of there remaining life be filled with anxiety, hardship and trouble.

  12. Melancholic Jakes says:

    “Every one involved in writing or publishing this book in any way shape or form, will have there faces turned in to a pigs face when they die.” lol

    …and you will spend eternity in hell as a nine year old girl with your beloved Mohammed pleasuring himself at your expense.

  13. abbs says:

    “Melancholic Jakes ” you are a fool that’s for sure!! Think stupid and write stupid. Certainly the intelligence of a monkey!!!.I fact, I would go in far in saying you have no intelligence

  14. none says:

    I totally agree with abbs, even a pig and the stupidest creature has more brains and intellekt than Melancholic Jakes.

    And why shouldn’t we defend our PROPHET, he was the best of creation and the bst of mankind. If you actually went and read up on Islam then you would realise that,like professor denise spellberg has. And don’t worry you would be one of them whose faces turns into a pigs, actually i pray that it turns into one now, or that the person who you love the mosts does. Ameen

    we are not like you who allow the ones who you believe in to be critised and insulted. i mean just look at the ways christians and jes accept moses and jesus to be insulted.