Is it the cartoons, or the censorship?
We’ve been following with interest the different reactions to the decision of the Yale University Press, now preparing a scholarly work on the Danish cartoon depictions of Muhammad that inspired riots in 2005 and 2006, not to include the pictures themselves in the book. Yale reportedly consulted two dozen experts on the likelihood that their publication would lead to further violence before opting against it.
The decision has aroused concerns – which we share – about the power that it awards to the violent few to deny the free flow of information among the many. But one of the more interesting takes we’ve seen on it approaches the issue from a different angle: What it says about attitudes towards Muslims.
Entitled "Satanic or Silly: Does Yale Press Censorship of Cartoons Insult Muslims?" the piece by Daniel Martin Varisco over at Religion Dispatches reads in part:
The cautious reaction by Yale University Press is understandable, but I find the rationale troubling, as it assumes that Muslims extremists await any new pretext to spur violence and that “moderate” Muslims are at their mercy. Given the ongoing United States military presence in both Iraq and Afghanistan, drone bombings in Pakistan and the humanitarian crisis in Gaza, there are far more relevant pretexts available than an Ivy League book that may not even warrant review in major newspapers. The peddlers of Islamophobia in the media, popular trade books, and blogs would have us believe that radical extremists are lurking everywhere just waiting for an excuse to promote violence. To suggest that deadly protest over these images can be rekindled by a book that attempts to explain the whole affair in academic prose is an insult to the vast majority of Muslims, especially those in the United States.
Reaction by Muslims to visual images of the prophet Muhammad is not uniform, nor has it ever been. Predicting how Muslims will respond to images already widely distributed and discussed is not very helpful. Intolerant extremists like the Afghan Taliban banned much more than images of Muhammad, but many earlier Muslims depicted their prophet in drawings out of reverence; Islamic manuscripts before the 17th century did, in fact, portray Muhammad; at times in full and otherwise with his face whited out or veiled. Most Muslim scholars today condemn the illustrating of the physical features of Muhammad, but mainstream interpreters do not call for death threats against those who make such images. Muslims, like members of other faiths, express their displeasure in a number of ways over those who belittle their prophet. In 2008, for example, a petition was circulated online to remove a 17th-century Ottoman manuscript image of Muhammad from the Wikipedia article on the prophet. Despite accumulating over 455,000 signatures and the Wikipedia community’s refusal to remove the illustration, still no violent acts have resulted.
Comments
It must be said, however, that Wikipedia has received veiled threats of violence for days and days, with messages along the lines of "If you do not remove these pictures, you'll experience the wrath of 1 billion Muslims."
Posted by: ToggleBox | September 22, 2009 2:24 AM
Twelve academic, civil liberties, journalism and free speech organizations recently sent a letter to Yale criticizing its actions on various grounds, one of which is the attitude towards Muslims it reflects and perpetuates. The announcement of the group's letter says "Some Mideast scholars consider Yale’s response an offensive form of stereotyping, because of its implicit assumption that followers of Islam are unpredictable and may resort to violence at the least provocation." http://ncac.org/Free-Speech-and-Academic-Groups-Blast-Yale. Thanks to Daniel Martin Varisco and Matthew Hay Brown for giving this issue, which has largely been ignored in press reports, the attention it deserves.
Posted by: Joan Bertin | September 22, 2009 11:25 AM
Correction: that link is http://ncac.org/Free-Speech-and-Academic-Groups-Blast-Yale
Posted by: Joan Bertin | September 22, 2009 5:25 PM
This Daniel Martin Varisco is unreal--reaction to depictions of the Prophet Mohammed have not been uniform--true, but it takes only one Muslim nut case to shake up Yale--one suicide bomber, one man with an AK 47, one fatwa from a fruitcake in Iran, or one Taliban who is looking for another Bamian Buddha to destroy.
First of all the Muslims could be annoyed or outright infuriated if the Prophet Mohammed is perceived as vilified in any way. Then the Muslims could be annoyed or outright infuriated if they perceive that people lump them all together as uniformly the same in the matter of reactions about the Prophet.
Therefore we have to bend from the waist to the Muslims across the globe; we should make sure the Prophet is always depicted with deference to all Muslims, which by the way is impossible because all Muslims never think the same about this or any other subject--pure gibberish this.
The Muslims are the worst prima donnas of this world--if you say "A" they'll say "Z" and if you say B they'll say "Y" and about the prophet they are very touchy.
Never publish a book that depicts the Prophet offensively at the same time as an Israeli attack on Hamas or as a drone attack on the North Western frontier of Pakistan, never time the release of such a book to when India is blasting away in Kashmir or when Maliki is frying some Sunnis for lunch in Iraq or for that matter when the students in Iran are on a rampage against the sweet mullahs there--never publish the book then--in other words if you do it anytime the Muslim morale is down anywhere in the world--which by the way leaves no window of opportunity whatsoever because a more wounded group of martyrs there doesn't exist in the world than the Muslims--then you will hear from at least one ANGRY Muslim--a shout will reach your ear and split your ear drum if you dare to assume that this whole cartoon business has been already hashed out, if you think to yourself this Varisco guy may be right, the Muslims are a diverse group and for the most part most of them are OK and upon that unshakable good faith you step forward to publish this book cartoons and all--the loony tunes will reach your ears for sure from somewhere--Yale University will be a sitting duck for an outburst it can ill afford.
The Muslims are masters at establishing a censorship regime by their natural propensity for wearing their religious hearts on their sleeves and their predilection for sporting wounded pride as a badge of honor. When all Muslims subscribe to the belief they are not a persecuted group anymore the world will come to an end and the curtains will fall on humanity.
Posted by: Anonymous | September 22, 2009 11:08 PM
Artist makes cartoon calling Islam violent, Muslims respond by rioting and death threats. If the shoe fits folks, then let them wear it!
Posted by: anon | October 12, 2009 12:06 PM
When you are a Christian and someone depicts Christ in a negative way, cartoon or not, you dont have to worry about anything because Christ will judge every one of us in the end at final judgement. Of course no Muslim will, so maybe they feel the need to raise more concern here on earth. The last thing Christ would want us to do is to be violent about it. Thanks.
Posted by: Clay | October 14, 2009 9:48 AM
Ah, Clay, you are still in existence. For a while there I thought perhaps H1N1 got you but the Lord has protected you so you can sing a song of sixpence and disperse your pocket full of lies. You say the lord will return and you don't need to fight against his desecration. I am glad your lord has made it so easy for you. Apparently Allah is more exacting and his soldiers want no desecration of his sacred name or that of His prophet. But your inanity is as good as theirs, whether Jesus is coming back or not, whether there are 72 virgins in heaven or not, this whole religious rivalry followed by establishment of the who's superior to whom clause is madness. All of the religious of this world should be put in stocks and never be released. We don't need saviors or Gods, we need stocks!
Ravensfan's anon
Posted by: Anonymous | October 14, 2009 11:19 PM