Dhimmitude at Yale University Press: No Muhammad cartoons!

[Saoirse]

Whats the point of even publishing this book if there aren't any pictures to look at? If it was a controversial book about any other prophet or religion, there would be no problem. What a bunch of dhimmis!

Dhimmitude at Yale University Press: Muhammad cartoons self-censored from book about Muhammad cartoons
August 12, 2009

How to strike fear into the heart of Yale University Press

The absurdity of cringing dhimmitude and Fear of Offending Muslims reaches its apotheosis.

"Yale Press Bans Images of Muhammad in New Book," by Patricia Cohen for the New York Times, August 12 (thanks to Benedict):

It’s not all that surprising that Yale University Press would be wary of reprinting notoriously controversial cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad in a forthcoming book. After all, when the 12 caricatures were first published by a Danish newspaper a few years ago and reprinted by other European publications, Muslims all over the world angrily protested, calling the images — which included one in which Muhammad wore a turban in the shape of a bomb — blasphemous. In the Middle East and Africa some rioted, burning and vandalizing embassies; others demanded a boycott of Danish goods; a few nations recalled their ambassadors from Denmark. In the end at least 200 people were killed.
So Yale University and Yale University Press consulted two dozen authorities, including diplomats and experts on Islam and counterterrorism, and the recommendation was unanimous: The book, “The Cartoons That Shook the World,” should not include the 12 Danish drawings that originally appeared in September 2005. What’s more, they suggested that the Yale press also refrain from publishing any other illustrations of the prophet that were to be included, specifically, a drawing for a children’s book; an Ottoman print; and a sketch by the 19th-century artist Gustave Doré of Muhammad being tormented in Hell, an episode from Dante’s “Inferno” that has been depicted by Botticelli, Blake, Rodin and Dalí.

The book’s author, Jytte Klausen, a Danish-born professor of politics at Brandeis University, in Waltham, Mass., reluctantly accepted Yale University Press’s decision not to publish the cartoons. But she was disturbed by the withdrawal of the other representations of Muhammad. All of those images are widely available, Ms. Klausen said by telephone, adding that “Muslim friends, leaders and activists thought that the incident was misunderstood, so the cartoons needed to be reprinted so we could have a discussion about it.” The book is due out in November.

John Donatich, the director of Yale University Press, said by telephone that the decision was difficult, but the recommendation to withdraw the images, including the historical ones of Muhammad, was “overwhelming and unanimous.” The cartoons are freely available on the Internet and can be accurately described in words, Mr. Donatich said, so reprinting them could be interpreted easily as gratuitous.

He noted that he had been involved in publishing other controversial books — like “The King Never Smiles” by Paul M. Handley, a recent unauthorized biography of Thailand’s current monarch — and “I’ve never blinked.” But, he said, “when it came between that and blood on my hands, there was no question.”

The blood wouldn't be on your hands, Mr. Donatich. The blood would be on the hands of the murderous fanatical Muslims who might kill because of these cartoons. That would be on their heads, not yours. This is one of our biggest problems: we are letting irrational, bloodthirsty people dictate terms for us, and allowing them to displace their responsibility for their irrational, murderous actions onto us.

Reza Aslan, a religion scholar and the author of “No god but God: The Origins, Evolution, and Future of Islam,” is a fan of the book but decided to withdraw his supportive blurb that was to appear in the book after Yale University Press dropped the pictures. The book is “a definitive account of the entire controversy,” he said, “but to not include the actual cartoons is to me, frankly, idiotic.”...First time I've ever agreed with Reza Aslan, and probably the last.

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/027202.php

Those shamefully blasphemous cartoons that are worth pillaging, burning and killing over: http://www.comicsreporter.com/index....mmentary/4166/

[Richard]

MOO - on the one hand the editor is correct in his assertions - but on the other I personally think he's just being a typically PC academic weenie - fearful of controversy and a spineless wuß.

From everything I've read - there isn’t a single verse in the Koran that explicitly prohibits images of Muhammad—or of Allah, or God, for that matter - and the Prophet Muhammad has been frequently depicted in Islamic art without reprisals. There are also many visual images of Muhammad in European history - all without Muslims rioting and threatening to destroy civil liberties.

The prohibition on idolatry isn’t original to the Koran so much as a restatement of Old and New Testament teachings. But prohibition on idolatry isn’t an outright prohibition on images, whether of God, Muhammad or others. It merely opens the door to interpretation as prohibition.

That’s the door Islamic tradition took by way of the Hadith—the reports of the sayings and deeds of Muhammad and other early Muslims. The Hadith don’t explicitly prohibit images of the Prophet anymore than the Koran does, but the Hadith do forbid the depiction of any living beings, human or animal. The prohibition is related to idolatry and the images of living things would tempt idolatry - which would be blasphemous. The pragmatic - if drastic - short-cut to purity is an outright ban on all such depictions - so the Hadith have almost as much doctrinal authority as do verses of the Koran - and the implicit edict against depictions of the Prophet Muhammad has, in Islamic dogma, become final.

Ironically, it is through the Hadith and the Sunnah (the exemplary habits and ways of the Prophet that are often synonymous with Hadith) that verbal images of Muhammad have been passed down through the ages.

For example, according to Karen Armstrong in Muhammad: A Biography of the Prophet, by age 25 he “had grown up to be good-looking, with a compact, solid body of average height. His hair and beard were thick and curly and he had a luminous expression which was particularly striking and is mentioned in all the sources. He had a decisive and wholehearted character, which made him give his full attention to whatever he was doing, and this was also expressed in his physical bearing.”

I would have hoped the author would have taken her book to another publishing house and gotten it published with the illustrations included - that she didn't is as telling as the actions of the Yale University Press editor.

A picture is proverbially worth a thousand words - a spineless weenie of an editor is worthless.

Richard's $.02

[Team Sergeant]

Originally Posted by Saoirse

Whats the point of even publishing this book if there aren't any pictures to look at? If it was a controversial book about any other prophet or religion, there would be no problem. What a bunch of dhimmis!

Cowards is the correct term.

Now where are those pesky muhammad pictures we are discussing? Oh here they are....

[nmap]

Here is the full series of 12...

[echoes]

Originally Posted by Saoirse

Those shamefully blasphemous cartoons that are worth pillaging, burning and killing over: http://www.comicsreporter.com/index....mmentary/4166/

Saoirse,

Great post!

Agree with TS! Cowards!!!

Am outraqged by the outrage of these people! For one, hope they do not think they can come here and tell me what I can or cannot do to express my Freedom, even though the folks at the Yale press think otherwise.

If I want to paint the prophets picture on my garage in orange and red paint, well, "This is America Jack!" Deal with it, or get the f**k out, IMHO.

Holly

[Warrior-Mentor]

Originally Posted by Richard

MOO - on the one hand the editor is correct in his assertions - but on the other I personally think he's just being a typically PC academic weenie - fearful of controversy and a spineless wuß.

Josef Pieper's essay "Abuse of Language - Abuse of Power" highlights the importance of true academia being free from any bias - to include the political correctness you describe.

Bottomline, a TRUE academic is NOT PC.

He cites Plato when describing the problems with sophists - and the deception of sophistication.

Wish I had it with me...there's a couple quotes I'd love to throw in here - but it's at the house.


Get your own copy here:
http://www.amazon.com/Abuse-Language.../dp/089870362X

Warning: This is a great read, but it will challenge. Reminded me of some of my philosophy texts in college. I had to re-read several of the paragraphs to get the full extend of what he's saying.

[Richard]

...the importance of true academia being free from any bias - to include the political correctness you describe...

Wholeheartedly concur - but it just ain't so - or much less than it should be, anyway. The university PC nomenklatura have been around for a couple of decades now and continue to have an impact far greater than they should.

VD Hanson and Mike Adams have written some good pieces on them and their antics - and David Horowitz's The Professors: The 101 Most Dangerous Academics in America is a worthwhile read as is the sordid tale of Ward Churchill and the University of Colorado.

Richard's $.02

[Sigaba]

A handful of quick points.

1. This story is about Yale University Press, not Yale University. The former is strongly committed to supporting the mission of the latter while, at the same time, preserving its autonomy (source is here.)
2. Given the state of the publishing industry in general and academic presses in particular, is it unreasonable that YUP would make a business decision to limit its risk and to maximize profit?
3. Notwithstanding all of her grousing, Jytte Klausen agreed to having the work published with the illustrations in question removed.
4. Yale University Press has a London office. It is located here. Perhaps when Mr. Donatich spoke of "blood on my hands" he was not being hyperbolic <<LINK>> and <<LINK2>>.

[Richard]

This story is about Yale University Press, not Yale University. The former is strongly committed to supporting the mission of the latter while, at the same time, preserving its autonomy.

Jain, I'd say - and so it goes...

http://yalepress.yale.edu/yupbooks/home.asp

Richard's $.02

[Team Sergeant]

Originally Posted by Sigaba

A handful of quick points.

1. This story is about Yale University Press, not Yale University. The former is strongly committed to supporting the mission of the latter while, at the same time, preserving its autonomy (source is here.)
2. Given the state of the publishing industry in general and academic presses in particular, is it unreasonable that YUP would make a business decision to limit its risk and to maximize profit?
3. Notwithstanding all of her grousing, Jytte Klausen agreed to having the work published with the illustrations in question removed.
4. Yale University Press has a London office. It is located here. Perhaps when Mr. Donatich spoke of "blood on my hands" he was not being hyperbolic <<LINK>> and <<LINK2>>.

Who said it was about Yale University and not Yale University Press?

[Sigaba]

Originally Posted by Team Sergeant

Who said it was about Yale University and not Yale University Press?

My mistake. I conflated what I read on this thread with the original New York Times article here.

In the article, Professor Klausen presents a debatable relationship between Yale University and Yale University Press.

Ms. Klausen said, “I can understand that a university is risk averse, and they will make that choice” not to publish the cartoons, but Yale University Press, she added, went too far in taking out the other images of Muhammad.

I am of the conclusion that Mr. Donatich's decision to pull the controversial images was made in-house (at YUP) after weighing the "pros" and "cons." Yes, the decision was informed by a consultant's report commissioned by Yale University as well as other input that was "overwhelming and unanimous." However, MOO is that the decision was the publisher's, not the school's.

[echoes]

Originally Posted by Sigaba

However, MOO is that the decision was the publisher's, not the school's.

IMVHO,

It was a STUPID decision, and advances the idea that Americans will cower and bow to outside interests, over thier Constitutional Right of Free Speech, in the name of PC!

Am not an Acedemic, but this seems crystal clear to me.

Holly

[Sigaba]

Originally Posted by echoes

IMVHO,

It was a STUPID decision, and advances the idea that Americans will cower and bow to outside interests, over thier Constitutional Right of Free Speech, in the name of PC!

Am not an Acedemic, but this seems crystal clear to me.

Holly

Then you'll be pleased to learn that Mr. Donatich suffers from a horrible affliction. His wife blogs...badly <<LINK>>.

[Richard]

It was a STUPID decision, and advances the idea that Americans will cower and bow to outside interests, over thier Constitutional Right of Free Speech, in the name of PC!

Not necessarily so - but perhaps more so to those whose perceptions of Americans are as flawed as the perceptions of many Americans seem to be towards a number of other cultures...however YMMV.

And so it goes...

Richard's $.02

[SF-TX]

Yale's Surrender

The Times said that YUP and Yale University "consulted two dozen authorities, including diplomats and experts on Islam and counterterrorism, and the recommendation was unanimous" that no illustrations should appear. It quotes John Donatich, YUP's director, as saying the experts recommendation to withdraw all images of Muhammad was "overwhelming and unanimous."

http://www.frontpagemag.com/readArti...px?ARTID=35944