Good news from Yahoo! God is Love after all.
:)
(That was a sly reference to Henry Miller, cuz, last night, someone asked me, in a comments thread, who my favorite authors were.)
Yale criticized for nixing Muslim cartoons in book
By JOHN CHRISTOFFERSEN, Associated Press Writer John Christoffersen, Associated Press Writer 2 hrs 6 mins ago NEW HAVEN, Conn. – 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 includedJohn 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."
In a statement explaining the decision, Yale University Press said it decided to exclude a Danish newspaper page of the cartoons and other depictions of Muhammad after asking the university for help on the issue. It said the university consulted counterterrorism officials, diplomats and the top Muslim official at the United Nations.
"The decision rested solely on the experts' assessment that there existed a substantial likelihood of violence that might take the lives of innocent victims," the statement said.
Republication of the cartoons has repeatedly resulted in violence around the world, leading to more than 200 deaths and hundreds of injuries, the statement said. It also noted that major newspapers in the United states and Britain have declined to print the cartoons.
"Yale and Yale University Press are deeply committed to freedom of speech and expression, so the issues raised here were difficult," the statement said. "The press would never have reached the decision it did on the grounds that some might be offended by portrayals of the Prophet Muhammad."
John Donatich, director of Yale University Press, said the critics are "grandstanding." He said it was not a case of censorship because the university did not suppress original content that was not available in other places.
"I would never have agreed to censor original content," Donatich said.
Klausen was surprised by the decision when she learned of it last week. She said scholarly reviewers and Yale's publication committee comprised of faculty recommended the cartoons be included.
"I'm extremely upset about that," Klausen said.
The experts Yale consulted did not read the manuscript, Klausen said. She said she consulted Muslim leaders and did not believe including the cartoons in a scholarly debate would spark violence.
Klausen said she reluctantly agreed to have the book published without the images because she did not believe any other university press would publish them, and she hopes Yale will include them in later editions. She argues in the book that there is a misperception that Muslims spontaneously arose in anger over the cartoons when they really were symbols manipulated by those already involved in violence.
Donatich said there wasn't time for the experts to read the book, but they were told of the context. He said reviewers and the publications committee did not object, but were not asked about the security risk.
Many Muslim nations want to restrict speech to prevent insults to Islam they claim have proliferated since the terrorist attacks in the United States on Sept. 11, 2001.
Fareed Zakaria, editor of Newsweek International, a world affairs columnist and CNN host who serves on Yale's governing board, said he told Yale that he believed publishing the images would have provoked violence.
"As a journalist and public commentator, I believe deeply in the First Amendment and academic freedom," Zakaria said. "But in this instance Yale Press was confronted with a clear threat of violence and loss of life."
17 comments:
Fareed Zakaria: the Sultan of Taqqiya.
Yale teaches cowardice to cowards.
Pastorius,
I'm glad to hear that Yale has been criticized for not having the courage to print the cartoons, in a book about the cartoons.
Total,
You wrote,
------------------------------------------------------
Fareed Zakaria: the Sultan of Taqqiya.
------------------------------------------------------
Can you explain,
The article stated,
------------------------------------------------------
Fareed Zakaria, editor of Newsweek International, a world affairs columnist and CNN host who serves on Yale's governing board, said he told Yale that he believed publishing the images would have provoked violence.
"As a journalist and public commentator, I believe deeply in the First Amendment and academic freedom," Zakaria said. "But in this instance Yale Press was confronted with a clear threat of violence and loss of life."
------------------------------------------------------
I don't support their decision not to print the cartoons, but it is true that there has been violence every time those cartoons have been printed. I wish they would print the cartoons, despite the danger, because liberty is at state. We need to send the Jihadists a clear cut message that they cannot win.
Do you think that Fareed Zakaria does not really believe in the first amendment? Do you think he is really part of the Stealth Jihad? They were confronted with a clear case, where there probably would be loss of life if the printed the cartoons. That does not mean that they shouldn't have printed them. We need to stand up for our freedom, we cannot let them win.
Damien,
You asked: Do you think that Fareed Zakaria does not really believe in the first amendment? Do you think he is really part of the Stealth Jihad?
I reply:
http://www.amazon.com/Post-American-World-Fareed-Zakaria/dp/039306235X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1252445397&sr=1-1
Pastorius,
Well, that is interesting. I haven't read the book, so I can't say much about it. I don't have any idea what his conclusion is. However, it may just be that he's a naive Multiculturalist and not a Jihadists at all.
Yes, he is definitely apart of the stealth Jihad. I base my opinion on his past writings (which often blame "radical Islam" on ridiculous factors such as poverty), but I think Pastorius' example undoubtedly takes the cake.
Frankly, I have no idea whether he is a stealth Jihadist, or a multiculturalist.
I do know this, Obama was photographed carrying Fareed Zakaria's book during his campaign.
http://forthardknox.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/barackbook.jpg
By spreading taqqiya, he is a stealth Jihadist in my opinion. I don't think he seeks the destruction of the United States or the rise of Islam worldwide, but I think he transgresses with his misinformation. He gives the public the false impression that Islamic anger towards the West is misunderstood, is not innate, and is a result of Western foreign policy (and poverty, of course!).
Total,
You comment caused me to think. I assumed, for some reason, that Fareed Zakaria was not a Muslim.
But, Wikipedia says he was born into a Muslim family.
From Wiki:
Zakaria was born in Mumbai, Maharashtra, India to a Muslim family. His father, Rafiq Zakaria, was a politician associated with the Indian National Congress and an Islamic scholar. His mother, Fatima Zakaria, was for a time the editor of the Sunday Times of India.
Zakaria attended The Cathedral and John Connon School in Mumbai. He received a B.A. from Yale University where he was President of the Yale Political Union and a Ph.D. in Political Science from Harvard University in 1993,[2] where he studied under Samuel P. Huntington and Stanley Hoffmann.
Zakaria has been described variously as a political liberal,[4][5] a conservative,[6] or a moderate.[7] This is because he supported President Ronald Reagan in the 1980s, but moved left during the 1990s. He currently self-identifies as a "centrist".[8] George Stephanopoulos said of him in 2003, "He’s so well versed in politics, and he can’t be pigeonholed. I can’t be sure whenever I turn to him where he’s going to be coming from or what he’s going to say."[9] Zakaria wrote in Feb. 2008 that "Conservatism grew powerful in the 1970s and 1980s because it proposed solutions appropriate to the problems of the age", while- in contrast- "a new world requires new thinking".[10] He supported Barack Obama early during the primary campaign and then for president over John McCain. In January 2009 Forbes referred to Zakaria as one of the 25 most influential liberals in the American media.[4] Zakaria has stated that he tries not to be devoted to any type of ideology, saying "I feel that's part of my job... which is not to pick sides but to explain what I think is happening on the ground. I can't say, 'This is my team and I'm going to root for them no matter what they do.'"[8]
More:
In his book, The Future of Freedom, Zakaria argues that democracy works best in societies where it is preceded by "constitutional liberalism." He has explicitly echoed Tocqueville in writing that liberty has historically preceded democracy, that countries which simply hold elections without broad-based modernization—including economic liberalization and the rule of law—end up becoming "illiberal democracies". Consequently, he has been critical of the George W. Bush administration's emphasis on holding elections in the Middle-East without equal regard to building institutions of law, governance, and liberty.
After the 9/11 attacks, in a famous Newsweek cover essay, "Why They Hate Us," Zakaria argued that Islamic extremism had its roots in the stagnation and dysfunctions of the Arab world. Decades of failure under tyrannical regimes, all claiming to be Western-style secular modernizers, had produced an opposition that was religious, violent, and increasingly globalized. Since the mosque was a place where people could gather and Islam an institution that was outside the reach of censorship, they both provided a context for the growth of the political opposition. Zakaria argued for an inter-generational effort to create more open and dynamic societies in Arab countries, and thereby helping Islam enter the modern world.[11]
Zakaria initially supported the 2003 invasion of Iraq.[6] He said at the time, “The place is so dysfunctional... any stirring of the pot is good. America’s involvement in the region is for the good."[6]
He doesn't sound like a Taqiyya-master to me. Nor does he sound like your typical hardened Postmodernist Liberal.
He just sounds like a guy who is all over the place on the political map, for whatever reason.
I know his political views are more in the center and that he supported the Iraq war; it was one of his articles on Islam that really annoyed me. The article, entitled "Learning to Live with Radical Islam", which I have posted below, does indeed make some very good points. He just seems to note that most "radical Islamists" are convertable and encourages to accept a more moderate Islam. The problem is that this more moderate version of Islam still seeks or supports hatred against non-believers and demands respect without giving any in return.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/187093
Your point is well-taken.
However, you are calling him a Taqiyya-master, and we have no idea if he is even nominally a Muslim.
He may be an Apostate.
We don't know.
I think you're a great commenter, but, if I were you, I would be cautious about calling someone a Taqiyya-master when we don't even know if he is a believer in Islam.
However, if he is a believer in Islam, then I am with you, and I think the label is entirely appropriate.
Zakaria self-identifies as a Muslim but has stated "I occasionally find myself reluctant to be pulled into a world that's not mine, in the sense that I'm not a religious guy."[2] and it is known that Zakaria enjoys wine."
http://www.conservapedia.com/Fareed_Zakaria
You're right and I was wrong to label him on some of his views that I disagree with. I gave him a misnomer based on my past and seemingly ignorant perceptions of him and I apologize to Mr. Zakaria for that. Thanks to Damian for questioning my reasoning.
Total,
You're welcome. I don't think that Conservapedia is the most trust worthy source. But, we really shouldn't label someone a Jihadist without reason to do so. I see no convincing evidence that he is one, therefor I won't call him one.
Post a Comment