The Met Bans Mohammed

Back in August of last year, Diana West wrote about the dhimmitude of Yale University Press, whose (now ironic) motto, Lux et Veritas now ought to read Darkness and Lies. Or perhaps Fear and Cowering. Whatever they call themselves, we judged them by their deeds. In that case, it was their craven decision to remove all illustrations of Mohammed from a book under their imprint, The Cartoons that Shook the World by Jytte Klausen.

Yale University Press claimed the authority of an craven anonymous two dozen poo-bahs who, Yale said, had advised them not to include the illustrations in a book about pictures of Mohammed.

There were to be no pictures. None. Nada. Not just the cartoons, but engravings from the Dutch, medieval Persian and French illustrations, even a laudatory Indian Mughal carpet from the 17th century.

How about the frieze of Mohammed in the Supreme Court? Banned with the rest.

And why? Because they were afraid of any scimitar-happy Jihadists who might use them as examples. It all boiled down to fear, though they sugar-coated their cowardice with concern for others. Uh huh. Sure.

Fortunately, Dr. Hull at Voltaire Press was not so easily dissuaded. In fact, Yale University Press’ decision was the catalyst for his own book, a slim volume of the banned images. I bought a copy of Dr. Hull’s book through Amazon. I was surprised at the games Amazon played with this initially; they must have been intimidated by someone because they took three weeks to get the book to me. And on their site, they claimed there would be a delay, though when I emailed Dr. Hull he said he had thousands of volumes. What, Amazon thought maybe we would go away if they took too long?

Now it turns out that The Metropolitan Museum of Art is just as dhimmified as Yale because it has pulled all its Mohammed art also. This is obviously an infectious disease of some sort and the vector is Islam, at least in its latest, most virulent form.

The New York Post wonders if the Met is afraid:
- - - - - - - - -

The Metropolitan Museum of Art quietly pulled images of the Prophet Mohammed from its Islamic collection and may not include them in a renovated exhibition area slated to open in 2011, The Post has learned.

The museum said the controversial images -- objected to by conservative Muslims who say their religion forbids images of their holy founder -- were “under review.”

Critics say the Met has a history of dodging criticism and likely wants to escape the kind of outcry that Danish cartoons of Mohammed caused in 2006.

“This is typical of the Met -- trying to avoid any controversy,” said a source with inside knowledge of the museum.

The Met currently has about 60 items from its 60,000-piece Islamic collection on temporary display in a corner of its vast second-floor Great Hall while larger galleries are renovated. But its three ancient renderings of Mohammed are not among them.

“We have a very small space at the moment in which to display the whole sweep of Islamic art,” said spokeswoman Egle Zygas. “They didn’t fit the theme of the current installation.”

Does she sound nervous or what? Since when did curators become interior decorators? “They didn’t fit the theme of the current installation.” [“And not only that, but we like breathing in and out”, she didn’t say].

This isn’t their first p.c. move:

Three years ago, the Met changed its “Primitive Art Galleries” to the “Arts of Africa, Oceania and the Americas” for the sake of political correctness, said author Michael Gross, author of “Rogues’ Gallery,” a book about the Met.

Political correctness is ubiquitous. I tried to get a synonym for “savage” from the Thesaurus in Word. Guess what. The words “savage” and “savagery” are not there. Too primitive for Microsoft or what?? I was looking for an alternative to “savage criticism” but came up with nothing. I haven’t tried “terrorist” but that’s probably in the process of being stuffed down the memory hole even as you read this.

If people are becoming more paranoid, it’s no wonder when our leading institutions are so pusillanimous…oh, I just checked: “pusillanimous” is evidently a safe word so I am permitted to choose “lily-livered”, “spineless”, and “cowardly”. That’s y’all, Yale and the Met. Choose your adjective and wear it proudly but don’t think they’ll spare your infidel necks just because you submitted. Good heavens, people, they kill one another. Why would they save you?

Here’s a gauge to indicate how safe we are: when they send workers up the side of the Supreme Court Building to chip away Mohammed’s image, you’ll know we’re dead meat.

And if you want some gallows humor, click on to the Post article and read the advice from the Yale advisor to the Met. Sheesh.


Hat tip: Diana West