THIS November, Yale University Press will launch Jytte Klausen’s The Cartoons That Shook the World.
But, astoundingly, drawings that shook the world like no others in the history of contemporary cartoonery – the Motoons published in 2005 by Jyllands-Posten – won’t be featured because YUP believes that, if it were to republish them, more deadly juvenile tantrums might be sparked in the Muslim world, and more lives lost.
The original publication in 2005 of the cartoons depicting Big Mo led to a series of violent incidents, and repeated violent acts have followed republication as recently as June 2008, when a car bomb exploded outside the Danish embassy in Islamabad, Pakistan, killing eight people and injuring at least thirty. The next day Al-Qaeda claimed responsibility for the bombing, calling it revenge for the “insulting drawings”.
The best-known of the Motoons
According to this report, the University spoke to both domestic and international experts on behalf of the YUP. Among those consulted were counterterrorism officials in the United States and in the United Kingdom, US diplomats who had served as ambassadors in the Middle East, foreign ambassadors from Muslim countries, the top Muslim official at the United Nations, and senior scholars in Islamic studies.
The experts with the most insight about the threats of violence repeatedly expressed serious concerns about violence occurring following publication of either the cartoons or other images of the Prophet Muhammad in a book about the cartoons.
Ibrahim Gambari, under-secretary-general of the United Nations and senior adviser to the secretary-general, the highest ranking Muslim at the United Nations, stated:
You can count on violence if any illustration of the Prophet is published. It will cause riots I predict from Indonesia to Nigeria.
Ambassador Joseph Verner Reed, dean of the Under-Secretaries-general, under-secretary-general of the United Nations, and special adviser to the secretary-general, said:
These images of Mohammed could and would be used as a convenient excuse for inciting violent anti-American actions.
And Marcia Inhorn, professor of anthropology and international affairs and chair of the Council on Middle East Studies at Yale, said:
I agree completely with the other expert opinions Yale has received. If Yale publishes this book with any of the proposed illustrations, it is likely to provoke a violent outcry.
YUP said in a statement:
Given the quantity and quality of the expert advice Yale received, the author consented, with reluctance, to publish the book without any of these visual images.
Also removed from the book are historical depictions of Mohammed, like a 19th-century print by Gustave Doré.
The American Association of University Professors was quick to condemn the decision. Said Cary Nelson, AAUP President:
‘We do not negotiate with terrorists. We just accede to their anticipated demands’. That is effectively the new policy position at Yale University Press.
The Freethinker was founded in 1881 by GW Foote, an outspoken critic of religion. After the publication of 
August 21st, 2009 at 8:58 am
Why not a blank page with the text 'We would have shown you the Danish cartoon, if it weren't for a host of religious nuts who would take offence and go on a rampage.'?
August 21st, 2009 at 8:59 am
This is beyond ridiculous. I completely agree with the AAUP president’s opinion that we pre-emptively pander to these violent maniacs.
Irony of ironies of course, that images depicting Mohammed as a bomber resulted in a violent islamic response involving bombs.
August 21st, 2009 at 9:23 am
Absolutely f*cking stupid
Governments should ensure that EVERY paper in EVERY country prints these cartoons on the front pages…why should we pander and have our rights to free speech eroded just because a bunch of rug-butter threaten violence ?? If it's fine for them to do anti-jewish cartoons and say the Holocaust never happened then it's fine for us to print cartoons showing Big Mo for what he was…a dirty desert dwelling child molester.
August 21st, 2009 at 9:26 am
Is it too much to hope that they will be printing the book with blank pages in place of the "offending" material, alongside the reasons why this action has been felt necessary?
August 21st, 2009 at 10:08 am
Thanks, Barry, for continuing to republish these cartoons from time to time (other bloggers do it, and so do I). I think it's spinless of a publisher to devote an entire tome to the cartoons that shook the world and not show them. It's like having a National Geographic publication that's words only, no pictures; David Attenborough talking about the wondrous fauna that inhabit the Earth, but have the programme go out in sound only. It defies common sense. How can readers make up their minds? The visual image says something a thousand words can't say, no matter how skilled the writer in describing each cartoon (if she does). Each reader's view will be different, based, for instance, on the expression on the face of the subject, the comic juxtaposition on images within the image, any number of things.
August 21st, 2009 at 10:52 am
How long before we see th cartoon defense in a murder trial? Yes yOur honor, I killed the victim, but THE CARTOONS MADE ME DO IT."
August 21st, 2009 at 11:29 am
Sorry, Har Davids, but when I posted my comment (below) there was nothing on here (again!), so I have been made to look stupid again!!
August 21st, 2009 at 11:29 am
Sorry, Har Davids, but when I posted my comment (below) there was nothing on here (again!), so I have been made to look stupid – again!!
August 21st, 2009 at 11:32 am
Well – they are already claiming that comic books like the Koran are inspiring terrorism and violence, Uzza!
August 21st, 2009 at 11:43 am
They should rename the book "Cartoons which upset anyone except Muslims" Then it would be ok.
August 21st, 2009 at 11:53 am
It's the funniest thing Yale have done in years, and possibly the only 'publication' of theirs which the general public understands, 'cos we don't even need to read it, just laugh.
Actually, it sort of puts 'high culture' into perspective. A pulp fiction/cartoon publisher would have put out copies by the million without a second thought. A 'serious' 'academic' one witters about 'bad taste'. instead of calling some poxy, out of touch with ordinary Muslim 'expert's' bluff. Look closely – it wasn't 'bomb threats' from actual, ordinary Muslims that stopped it, but a warning of bomb threats from some lonely tosser who's never talked to an ordinary member of the public in years.
Compare Satanic Verses to any number of ultra-violent cartoon novels that went out at the same time without a murmur, and are now collectors items.
August 21st, 2009 at 12:10 pm
Why is that so few will stand up to these childish – religious but dangerous – maniacs? Appeasement does not work and shows our weakness.
As the Duke of Wellington once said: "Publish and be damned!"
August 21st, 2009 at 1:30 pm
I just can't get over the fact that, in a country where freedom of speech and of expression is guaranteed by the Consitution, they show such a cowardly surrender to a facist religion. Every time it is done, yet again they win.
Christopher Hitchens has also written about this in his latest contribution to Slate: http://www.slate.com/id/2225504
August 21st, 2009 at 1:30 pm
The Religion of Peace, eh.
No matter how many times I hear that phrase I always manage a chuckle!
August 21st, 2009 at 4:18 pm
I thought I was the only one. My chuckle usually is followed by a face palm.
August 21st, 2009 at 5:00 pm
man why can't the author simply pull the book from Yale? Something we all should think about in future book contracts – ability to pull from publisher for censorship disguised as editing.
August 21st, 2009 at 5:09 pm
Maybe the problem is that if they included all the material which has upset the Muzzies the book would run to as many volumes as the Encyclopaedia Britannica!
August 21st, 2009 at 5:10 pm
Islam is a religion of peace, and if you dare say otherwise we will kill you. We will put a fatwa on writers who portray Mohammed unflatteringly. We will blow up your embassies. We will fly jetliners into your skyscrapers. We will behead anyone who refuses to aim his rectum at the sky five times a day so that Allah can tup him at will. And when we overthrow Pakistan's non-sharia goverment and seize its atom bombs, we will turn the Americas, Australia, southern Africa and eastern Asia into nuclear wastelands.
There is no peacemonger but Mohammed, and Osama bin Laden is his apostle.
August 21st, 2009 at 5:10 pm
Maybe a time-difference? I don't know where you are, but I'm in Western Europe. I have this problem with mails from the US.
August 21st, 2009 at 5:24 pm
Why is Yale University Press publishing cartoons that are disrespectful to that nice Mr Hitler? Haven't they learned that appeasement is the best policy? Ask Neville Chamberlain.
August 21st, 2009 at 5:45 pm
The sad thing is that when others scream "They wouldn't offend the Muslims like this!" they are absolutely correct!!
August 21st, 2009 at 5:46 pm
Somebody's "hiding behind a pseudonym" here: now, I wonder who that would be?
August 21st, 2009 at 7:15 pm
@Allahphuqt I’m guessing u are being sarcastic. If not, you should know that fatwas don’t apply to people outside of Islam.
August 21st, 2009 at 7:38 pm
Yes, but the likes of Birdshit only say this in lieu of having any other sound argument and it doesn't make them sound as anti-free speech as just whining about blasphemy does.
August 21st, 2009 at 7:42 pm
I think I do detect one or two little hints in Mr Allahphuqt's comment that might suggest that he is not being entirely serious, DL (including his choice of name!). Of course, I may be quite wrong there – these Muslims do say some strange things at times!!
August 21st, 2009 at 8:17 pm
By being so spineless these people give the Muslim world a genuine reason to despise them.
August 21st, 2009 at 8:32 pm
barriejohn. If I may say so, you are too hard on yourself. We all feel "stupid" from time to time: me more than most, I guess. I enjoy your contributions and if you are a bit off track from time to time then join the club.
Regards,
Broga
August 21st, 2009 at 9:16 pm
Chuckle!
August 21st, 2009 at 10:11 pm
Oh, I don't mind being accused of being off-topic sometimes, (isn't that what makes blogging so enjoyable at times?), or even plain wrong-headed, but I would never consciously parrott the remarks of another poster, and thus give the impression that what I was writing was so much superior to what he had said on the subject, for whatever reason!!
August 21st, 2009 at 11:49 pm
So Muslims can only put a fatwa on other Muslims. For non-Muslims they have to be content with putting a hit. Interesting distinction.
According to Wikipedia (admittedly a less-than-reliable source) a fatwa is a decree concerning some point of sharia law issued by an accepted authority. When Khomeini issued a fatwa against Salman Rushdie, it was a decree that he had committed apostasy, one of Mohammad's myriad of capital crimes., and therefore all Muslims were under the prophet's own orders to murder him on sight. In other words, it was not the hit that constituted the fatwa, but the reasoning behind the hit. Again, an interesting distinction.
August 21st, 2009 at 11:57 pm
Re: Hitchens' Slate article. (linked by David Lawson). I quote the worst outrage:
"…His reply took the form of the official statement from the press's public affairs department. This informed me that Yale had consulted a range of experts before making its decision and that '[a]ll confirmed that the republication of the cartoons by the Yale University Press ran a serious risk of instigating violence.' "
If the view is accepted that such publication is "instigation", freedom of speech is dead. Someone, somewhere, can take any inportant speech and decide to harm himself or others. If YUP had said that they pulled the material because of fear for their lives, I wouldn't have objected. But it's gross to blame a publisher for the deaths that the Islamists themselves actually instigate. To lose a right, just take the blame for anything someone else does if we exercise a right. (In my view, speech is instigation if it's part of an intended act of violence or the threat of violence.)
The cartoons should be published, and I think a good approach is the "I am Spartacus" tactic.
I sent an email to YUP at: customer.care@triliteral.org
August 22nd, 2009 at 1:57 am
Exactly! The innocent publisher gets the blame for what the Islamists instigate. A moral inversion thought up by the innocent: incredible.
August 22nd, 2009 at 2:20 am
"Inspire" and "instigate" are not the same. All kinds of views "inspire"–which is a form of thought; instigation, I believe, must be part of an act of violence. You may recall the murder of the abortion doctor Tiller in the U.S. a few months ago. In news story comments by readers, there were people who wrote that Tiller got what he deserved. One was even more explicit saying that such doctors should be shot. These are thoughts and opinions but are not instigations even though inspiring to some nutters. I think the last would have to be said as part of an act of violence or threat of violence directed at a doctor before it should be considered instigation. I'm coming from the view that thoughts don't violate rights–only acts can violate rights.
August 22nd, 2009 at 2:33 am
Good for the Duke! I don't expect a U.S. leader to say such a thing; Bush didn't say it and I don't think Obama would either. After a little whine about freedom of speech, Bush sided with Islam!
August 31st, 2009 at 2:55 pm
In Persian, it reads, “Ba Khuda Diwana Baso Ba Muhammad Hoshiyar”.
It means, you can take liberty with Allah, not Prophet.
Remember this, before publishing any thing which muslims may perceive as offensive to their dearest Prophet. Don’t blame others if you lose your life (or limbs) for not following it.