A professor fired to have showed images of Mohammed to a warned public....

[The Brain]

"We were being asked to accept, without questioning, that what our colleague did — teaching an Islamic art masterpiece in a class on art history after having given multiple warnings — was somehow equivalent to mosque vandalism and violence against Muslims and hate speech," Dr. Berkson said. "That is what I could not stand."

Maybe academia isn't the place for you then.

[OttoVonBismarck]

A particularly egregious thing about the story Sheilbh posted is the CAIR representative literally equates Muslims who don't buy into the iconoclastic view of depictions of the prophet as basically being extremists on the level of Hitler. Which is really crazy--while a majority of Muslims do not believe you should create depictions of the prophet, there is a significant minority who take no issue with it. Additionally, within the majority who hold the iconoclastic view there are extremists who think it is deeply offensive for anyone to display such an image anywhere for any reason (and even more extreme types who believe you can justify violence towards people who do this), but there are plenty who simply hold that they shouldn't make such images, but it isn't really a huge problem for people to analyze historical Islamic art or for non-Muslims to (respectfully) have portrayals of the prophet. CAIR is basically saying anything other than extreme opposition to all depictions = Hitler...which is pretty fucked.

[OttoVonBismarck]

I'll note CAIR has pulled this before--they have offices near Capitol Hill and present themselves as just a broad Muslim civil rights group, but they do not represent Muslim civil rights broadly. They represent as unambiguous religious "truths" a number of positions associated with Saudi-influenced conservative types of Islam. For example they have said in the past that it is an Islamic law all women must veil, which is not at all a view held by a majority of the world's Muslims, particularly ones outside the Middle East.

It's a weird gray area because CAIR has meaningfully stood up in the past against (genuinely bad) instances of anti-Muslim bigotry, but CAIR itself is not a neutral representative of Islam, but a sectarian representative of a very specific school of Islamic thought. They then use their relative acceptability to promote their sectarian views as universal Muslim truths, which is pretty pernicious.

[Richard Hakluyt]

Kenan Malik had a good piece on this in the Guardian :

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/jan/08/an-art-treasure-long-cherished-by-muslims-is-deemed-offensive-but-to-whom

[Barrister]

Aram Wedatalla, a Hamline senior and the president of Muslim Student Association (MSA), was in the class at the time the photos were shared.

"I'm like, 'this can't be real,'" Wedatalla told the Oracle. "As a Muslim, and a Black person, I don't feel like I belong, and I don't think I'll ever belong in a community where they don't value me as a member, and they don't show the same respect that I show them."

Deangela Huddleston, a Hamline senior and MSA member, also shared her thoughts with the Oracle.

"Hamline teaches us it doesn't matter the intent, the impact is what matters," Huddleston said.

OF COURSE intent matters.  It always matters.  I mean this is my bias showing, but legally speaking the same physical act could be either a pure accident, a tort of negligence, or a criminal charge, based only on intent.

This story is 100% about the actions of the school.  The Muslim student group, or CAIR, can say whatever they want to say, but taking actions against this adjunct professor in this circumstance is ridiculous.

I wasn't really a big fan of the Danish Mohammed cartoons from 15 years ago because a significant part of the intent was to deliberately upset certain muslims, but the circumstances here are quite different.

[Oexmelin]

For what it's worth, here's the statement by the Muslim Public Affairs Council:

https://www.mpac.org/statement/statement-of-support-for-art-professor-fired-from-hamline-university/

[The Brain]

The painting was not Islamophobic. In fact, it was commissioned by a fourteenth-century Muslim king in order to honor the Prophet, depicting the first Quranic revelation from the angel Gabriel.

My reading is that Hamline described the incident (showing the image in class) as undeniably Islamophobic. Not the image itself.

[The Minsky Moment]

"Undeniably"

I do not think that word means what they think it means.

[Darth Wagtaros]

The painting was not Islamophobic. In fact, it was commissioned by a fourteenth-century Muslim king in order to honor the Prophet, depicting the first Quranic revelation from the angel Gabriel.

My reading is that Hamline described the incident (showing the image in class) as undeniably Islamophobic. Not the image itself.

Which is ridiculous. 

[Valmy]

For what it's worth, here's the statement by the Muslim Public Affairs Council:

https://www.mpac.org/statement/statement-of-support-for-art-professor-fired-from-hamline-university/

Well suddenly not so undeniably Islamophobic.

[Valmy]

And?

Does that mean you agree this is something the prof really had to apologise for?

No but I'm also not sure we need a new thread for us to talk about Islamic iconoclasm. Haven't we done that to death?

I don't really understand it to be honest. The intent explained to me was to get the followers of Mohammed to understand he was just a man, and now he was dead and should not be worshipped. So yeah ok I understand how iconoclasm works. But why non-Muslims cannot have images supposed to be representing Mohammed for non-religious purposes (or even Muslims for non-religious purposes) or that having them would be hateful to Muslims or blasphemous in some way is beyond me. I mean if the focus is supposed to be on Allah and the message and Mohammed has long since been wormfood then surely having an image representing Mohammed should be no more blasphemous than an image of any other person, unless it is being used in a religious context. I just don't get it.

I mean in itself, obviously you can create an image of Mohammed for the purposes of attacking Muslims.

[The Brain]

The painting was not Islamophobic. In fact, it was commissioned by a fourteenth-century Muslim king in order to honor the Prophet, depicting the first Quranic revelation from the angel Gabriel.

My reading is that Hamline described the incident (showing the image in class) as undeniably Islamophobic. Not the image itself.

Which is ridiculous. 

I get the impression that the university is a very dysfunctional organization.

[Darth Wagtaros]

The painting was not Islamophobic. In fact, it was commissioned by a fourteenth-century Muslim king in order to honor the Prophet, depicting the first Quranic revelation from the angel Gabriel.

My reading is that Hamline described the incident (showing the image in class) as undeniably Islamophobic. Not the image itself.

Which is ridiculous. 

I get the impression that the university is a very dysfunctional organization.

Certainly extremely reactive instead of deliberative.

[Admiral Yi]

I don't really understand it to be honest. The intent explained to me was to get the followers of Mohammed to understand he was just a man, and now he was dead and should not be worshipped. So yeah ok I understand how iconoclasm works. But why non-Muslims cannot have images supposed to be representing Mohammed for non-religious purposes (or even Muslims for non-religious purposes) or that having them would be hateful to Muslims or blasphemous in some way is beyond me. I mean if the focus is supposed to be on Allah and the message and Mohammed has long since been wormfood then surely having an image representing Mohammed should be no more blasphemous than an image of any other person, unless it is being used in a religious context. I just don't get it.

I mean in itself, obviously you can create an image of Mohammed for the purposes of attacking Muslims.

That's how taboos work.  Start with some reasonable purpose, like avoiding disease from eating pigs in hot climates, or inbreeding from fucking your family, then it gets all amped and scarified and becomes evil.

[Barrister]

And it's not like Christianity has gone through waves of iconoclasm as well.