Politic?: Lest We Re-Offend

Yale University Press, a distinguished publishing house out of a distinguished academic institution, has taken the option of presenting itself as dedicated to scholarship, yet quite as clearly dedicated to a kind of craven victimhood, fearful of being accused by Muslims of re-awakening still-seeping cultural-religious wounds.

A Danish-born professor of politics at Brandeis University has written an academic's perspective of the shocking response within the Muslim world to the publication of a number of cartoons published in Denmark by Jyllands-Posten, slyly and amusingly critical of the hypocrisy of Islam, and slighting the feelings of Muslims the world over by depictions of the Prophet Mohammed.

Jytte Klausen, informed by Yale University Press that their publication of her book would be free of any illustrations, inclusive of world-famous sketches already well known in the annals of caricature by artists such as Botticelli, Blake, Rodin and Dali - including even an Ottoman Turkish print - all rejected as too provocative - was understandably bemused and disturbed.

Pointing out rationally that all the excluded images are already in the public domain, all widely available, and 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", was to no avail.

Yale University, that great bastion of academic freedom and its press claimed the withdrawal of the images was given "unanimous" consent from among the authorities consulted. Bizarre and absurd actually, to publish a scholarly dissection and dissertation on the event revolving around the violent reaction from the Muslim world, and choosing to exclude the very cartoons that had been the subject of that reaction.

So much for perpetuating myths and shibboleths, and for drawing the curtain of intellectual discussion close, shutting out the light of reason and co-operation. But no, reprinting the cartoons was morally repugnant; avoidance of violent reaction paramount. The press's director spoke of the potential of "when it came between that and blood on my hands, there was no question."

So The Cartoons that Shook the World will take a critical and informed look at the events in question, but the very images that caused the reaction that 'shook the world' will be absent, even though any half-interested Internet cruiser can pick them up readily at any number of sites. A credentialed and respected Muslim religious scholar withdrew his supporting blurb of the book as a result of this decision.

Claiming that the book represents "a definitive account of the entire controversy, but to not include the actual cartoons is to me, frankly, idiotic". "The controversy has died out now. Anyone who wants to see them can see them. There were people who were annoyed, and what kind of publishing house doesn't publish something that annoys some people?"

Reza Aslan, the religious scholar, went on to say: "This is an academic book for an academic audience by an academic press. It's not just academic cowardice, it is just silly and unnecessary", he said, condemning the august university and press.

An adversarial opinion was given by Ibrahim Gambari, former foreign minister of Nigeria: "You can count on violence if any illustration of the prophet is published. It will cause riots, I predict, from Indonesia to Nigeria." And this is what won the day.