In September, Gibson Square, a British publishing company, announced that they would publish The Jewel of Medina. Shortly thereafter, the publisher's home was the target of an attempted arson. Three men have been arrested and charged, with a hearing scheduled for later this month. I especially liked this statement from Martin Rynja, Gibson Square's owner, who's shown no indications of backing down:

“In an open society there has to be open access to literary works, regardless of fear,” he said. “As an independent publishing company, we feel strongly that we should not be afraid of the consequences of debate.”

Bravo, sir! I, for one, hope this book is published as widely and successfully as possible. The only way to defeat fanatics like the alleged arsonists is to show them that their actions only lead to greater publicity for the message they hope to stifle through violence.

I've already written to her telling her I would invest serious (to me at least) money in having the book published. Given the controversy over the book, I think even a small business could make a great deal of money by publishing it.

If she doesn't want to publish it, for whatever reason or no reason at all, that's her choice.

The topic I was refering to was not merely gun control (although that's one component), but rather a complete shift in our culture's mentality regarding security - a shift in thought that I believe would render fanatics such as those mentioned in your original post completely powerless to blackmail anyone into submission again. As things are now, our social order provides havens for these bastards and this paradigm shift would eliminate most (if not all) of those havens.

Until we overcome the weaknesses our culture inherited from a 100+ year history of relative isolation from the dangers brewing outside our borders this will continue to be a problem - a problem I believe the aforementioned cultural paradigm shift would fix.

I realize that it's narrow-minded to criticize from an armchair with nothing to lose, but I still am disappointed in Random House's deference from defending free speech. But as long as this book gets published one way or another, I'll be happy.

Frankly, I'm not even sure what Professor Spellberg finds offensive here. The Hadith baldly state that the Prophet Formerly Known as Mahomet married people who we now consider small children. Are Spellberg et al objecting to depicting him in a fictional work, or to the language used, or to historical inaccuracies in other topics, or to what?

Ebonmuse:

In my understanding, the novel has explicit sex scenes between Mohammed and his wives.

Well, perhaps the objection is to the talk of sex in direct terms. But more likely the underlying reason, the reaction, is to the idea that someone actually used the Hadith as a literary source; that is, reading them rather than just venerating them. Any other motivation may arise from that initial reaction.

It doesn't really sound like my kind of book... but I'd be tempted to buy just as a reaction to the Islamist reaction.

Wait- so it is okay for them to free ride?

I bet many of us wouldn't be cops due to the risks to life and limb, yet we all enjoy a (more-or-less safe) society. Does that mean we're getting a free ride? We all enjoy protections that we don't personally have to risk injury/death for. What's your point?

Never mind car bombs, personal weapons are no defence against the culture of intimidation created by those who try to silence critics of religion. To suggest that a firearm somehow grants immunity to the single individual possessing it seems hopelessly naieve.

Instead, the antidote to the oppressive "electric wire fence of respect" is, as Adam suggested, collective action: as a society we must use and preserve the right to speak freely about and criticize any system of beliefs.