NP Rank:
Yale criticized for nixing Prophet's cartoons in book
Yale university took action in time and removed cartoons of Prophet Muhammad, and avoided the big controversy. But another group of free speechers is criticizing the Yale for its restrained approach. Idolatry is prohibited in Islam and any depiction of Prophet would have started a chain reaction.
Yale University has removed cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad from an upcoming book about how they caused outrage across the Muslim world, drawing criticism from prominent alumni and a national group of university professors.
Yale cited fears of violence.
Yale University Press, which the university owns, removed the 12 caricatures from the book "The Cartoons That Shook the World" by Brandeis University professor Jytte Klausen. The book is scheduled to be released next week.
A Danish newspaper originally published the cartoons — including one depicting Muhammad wearing a bomb-shaped turban — in 2005. Other Western publications reprinted them.
The following year, the cartoons triggered massive protests from Morocco to Indonesia. Rioters torched Danish and other Western diplomatic missions. Some Muslim countries boycotted Danish products.
Islamic law generally opposes any depiction of the prophet, even favorable, for fear it could lead to idolatry.
"I think it's horrifying that the campus of Nathan Hale has become the first place where America surrenders to this kind of fear because of what extremists might possibly do," said Michael Steinberg, an attorney and Yale graduate.
Steinberg was among 25 alumni who signed a protest letter sent Friday to Yale Alumni Magazine that urged the university to restore the drawings to the book. Other signers included John Bolton, a former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations under President George W. Bush, former Bush administration speechwriter David Frum and Seth Corey, a liberal doctor.
"I think it's intellectual cowardice," Bolton said Thursday. "I think it's very self defeating on Yale's part. To me it's just inexplicable."
Cary Nelson, president of the American Association of University Professors, wrote in a recent letter that Yale's decision effectively means: "We do not negotiate with terrorists. We just accede to their anticipated demands."
Most Recommended Comment
Recommendations (10)
-
a211423
Clearlake, California, United States -
Roy C
Vancouver, Washington, United States -
Colonel Boyle
Leeds, United Kingdom -
israeli.agent
India -
Sputnic
London, United Kingdom



Most RecentMost Recommended Comments (8)
at 02:54 on September 8th, 2009
It is obviously not a question of refusing to publish these cartoons "pandering to terrorists". On the other hand the only reason to publish them would be to cause trouble. What other purpose could there be ?
at 03:41 on September 8th, 2009
Instant publicity, what else.It is common to use religion to make the so called art work popular. Just few year back, imminent painter of India painted Hindu Godess nude, and the result was value of his painting went in millions. Salman Rusdie did it in satanic verse, and he is an acclaimed writer these days. Taslima Nasrin of bangladesh did the same and her works sell like hot cake.
So it is more like one weapon of marketing these days.
at 04:15 on September 8th, 2009
"What other purpose could there be ?"
True. If doing something creates problem for everyone , better not to do that. It was wise of Yale to remove the cartoons.
.Agent.
at 04:26 on September 8th, 2009
Specially it is related to religion.
at 09:14 on September 8th, 2009
This poses the question of censorship particularly in the U.S. where it has caused tempers to flare in the past. Political cartooning has a long history here and around the world. I find most cartooning to be personally distasteful because ridicule of any kind is not constructive criticism. However, if this book is serving as a historical chronicle and not intended to demean a religious figure, then I would not be against the cartoons being included.
I don't know how the cartoons are being presented, but if they are depicted as an example of the levels to which people will go to debase, the purpose might be construed as constructive. Additionally, it could initiate the conversation of what constitutes good or bad taste and should there be limits or standards in cartooning.
at 10:15 on September 8th, 2009
Although the book could simply mention the "cartoons" as an unfortunate footnote in history. No need to reproduce them.
at 11:04 on September 8th, 2009
http://www.askstudent.com/politics/new-yorker-publishes-controversial-obama-cartoon/
Here is the cover of the New Yorker with the controversial picture of Obama in Muslim dress.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/18/new-york-post-chimp-carto_n_167841.html
Here is the cartoon published that can be interpreted many ways, but was mostly thought of as demeaning to the president.
Revered individuals whether they are religious or political are selected to further the values and beliefs of the opposition, and unfortunately many times it is with the use of cartoons. Similar attacks take place all the time through the written word, but cartoons seem to strike a particular ill-favored note for some of us. However, I view written attacks just as sinister and in some cases worse.
at 21:25 on September 8th, 2009
President of US and Prophet cannot be in same league. President is peoples representative and prophet......So called almighty.