Picture of Mohammed

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Apparently this is terribly offensive. Why is that? The oldest pictures are Muslim?

Its taboo because traditionally Muslims believe it leads to idolatry and iconography. Also drawn pictures of any living thing is discouraged which is why there is a lot of calligraphy and geometric shapes in Islamic design.
And how can we tell more Americans so they don't accidentally upset people?

Jews have exactly the same prohibition against "graven images" and you don't see them going around canceling their art history professors and getting them fired!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I feel like everyone tempted to show a picture of Mohammad knows they're being inflammatory. For them, this is a bug rather than a feature. I don't believe there is an ignorance crisis.

The crisis is one of jerkiness. Whether or not you agree it should be offensive, understand that it is. Only jerks deliberately offend in this way.

Is violent retaliation appropriate? I think not, but we all need to understand that the action can be understood as deeply offensive and just not do it in the first place.

Signed, traditional Jew who thinks a lot of ultra-secular and progressive faith Americans and Europeans have a bizarre blind spot when it comes to respecting the traditions of groups that have traditions.

So, should the cafeteria at a secular college that your kids might attend stop serving cheeseburgers?

You're confusing a lot of things, and your example is a poor one. There's nothing offensive to a Jewish person about not-Jewish people eating cheeseburgers. No conflict.

There would be a really big problem, on the other hand, if the people at this secular college gathered Torah scrolls and urinated on them. That would be incredibly offensive. But people who aren't jerks wouldn't do that, you see.

I don't think dogmatically secular people should have so much trouble imagining that something a different community has TOLD them it considers incredibly offensive is going to offend them a whole lot. There are a lot of things you probably understand as complete jerk actions. Wearing blackface comes to mind. Add depicting Mohammed to the list. Just don't do it. Because only jerks and bullies offend intentionally.

Are there any branches of Judaism that engage in urinating on Torah scrolls? Because apparently there are many Muslims who don't consider the islamic art in question offensive. My SIL certainly does not.

On the other hand, there are branches of Judaism that consider women walking around in sleeveless tops or shorts incredibly offensive. Are you willing to outlaw that on campus should one Satmar student enroll just for kicks?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I feel like everyone tempted to show a picture of Mohammad knows they're being inflammatory. For them, this is a bug rather than a feature. I don't believe there is an ignorance crisis.

The crisis is one of jerkiness. Whether or not you agree it should be offensive, understand that it is. Only jerks deliberately offend in this way.

Is violent retaliation appropriate? I think not, but we all need to understand that the action can be understood as deeply offensive and just not do it in the first place.

Signed, traditional Jew who thinks a lot of ultra-secular and progressive faith Americans and Europeans have a bizarre blind spot when it comes to respecting the traditions of groups that have traditions.

So, should the cafeteria at a secular college that your kids might attend stop serving cheeseburgers?

You're confusing a lot of things, and your example is a poor one. There's nothing offensive to a Jewish person about not-Jewish people eating cheeseburgers. No conflict.

There would be a really big problem, on the other hand, if the people at this secular college gathered Torah scrolls and urinated on them. That would be incredibly offensive. But people who aren't jerks wouldn't do that, you see.

I don't think dogmatically secular people should have so much trouble imagining that something a different community has TOLD them it considers incredibly offensive is going to offend them a whole lot. There are a lot of things you probably understand as complete jerk actions. Wearing blackface comes to mind. Add depicting Mohammed to the list. Just don't do it. Because only jerks and bullies offend intentionally.

You don’t think that is a false equivalence between showing an image of the prophet during art class and urinating on the Torah?

Also when traditions and democratic freedoms collide, secular protections of civil rights should prevail.

Many Islamic states hold homosexuality to be evil and pronounce the death penalty or life imprisonment for people found guilty of engaging in homosexual activity. That does not mean Western universities should fire gay professors to avoid offending traditional Muslim sensibilities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This was a 14th century image that was shown in an art history class. The instructor did not depict the prophet.

The image, however, did, e which is why the professor was fired

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think many non Muslim Americans are randomly creating pictures of Mohammed.

Until I read this news story, I would have had no idea that this was offensive at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I feel like everyone tempted to show a picture of Mohammad knows they're being inflammatory. For them, this is a bug rather than a feature. I don't believe there is an ignorance crisis.

The crisis is one of jerkiness. Whether or not you agree it should be offensive, understand that it is. Only jerks deliberately offend in this way.

Is violent retaliation appropriate? I think not, but we all need to understand that the action can be understood as deeply offensive and just not do it in the first place.

Signed, traditional Jew who thinks a lot of ultra-secular and progressive faith Americans and Europeans have a bizarre blind spot when it comes to respecting the traditions of groups that have traditions.

So, should the cafeteria at a secular college that your kids might attend stop serving cheeseburgers?

You're confusing a lot of things, and your example is a poor one. There's nothing offensive to a Jewish person about not-Jewish people eating cheeseburgers. No conflict.

There would be a really big problem, on the other hand, if the people at this secular college gathered Torah scrolls and urinated on them. That would be incredibly offensive. But people who aren't jerks wouldn't do that, you see.

I don't think dogmatically secular people should have so much trouble imagining that something a different community has TOLD them it considers incredibly offensive is going to offend them a whole lot. There are a lot of things you probably understand as complete jerk actions. Wearing blackface comes to mind. Add depicting Mohammed to the list. Just don't do it. Because only jerks and bullies offend intentionally.

You don’t think that is a false equivalence between showing an image of the prophet during art class and urinating on the Torah?

Also when traditions and democratic freedoms collide, secular protections of civil rights should prevail.

Many Islamic states hold homosexuality to be evil and pronounce the death penalty or life imprisonment for people found guilty of engaging in homosexual activity. That does not mean Western universities should fire gay professors to avoid offending traditional Muslim sensibilities.

Signed religious person who respects separation of church and state plus hard earned democratic freedoms

[Anonymous]

South Park explains this

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/08/us/hamline-university-islam-prophet-muhammad.html

Another article. Her firing seems ridiculous to me.

Agree…

In the syllabus, the professor warned that images of holy figures, including the Prophet Muhammad and the Buddha, would be shown in the course. She asked students to contact her with any concerns, and she said no one did. … (So apparently the student who complained and demanded action against the professor did not even read the syllabus so she did not show respect for the professor as she claimed …)

In a December interview with the school newspaper, the student who complained to the administration, Aram Wedatalla, described being blindsided by the image. “I’m like, ‘This can’t be real,’” said Ms. Wedatalla, who in a public forum described herself as Sudanese. “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.”

Oh puhleeze - the student is projecting way too much on to this poor professor ….

In class, the professor had prepped students, telling them that in a few minutes, the painting would be displayed, in case anyone wanted to leave.
Then Dr. López Prater showed the image — and lost her teaching gig.

Officials at Hamline, a small, private university in St. Paul, Minn., with about 1,800 undergraduates, had tried to douse what they feared would become a runaway fire. Instead they ended up with what they had tried to avoid: a national controversy, which pitted advocates of academic liberty and free speech against Muslims who believe that showing the image of Prophet Muhammad is always sacrilegious.

(The professor herself is very badly paid and treated as an adjunct …)

Dr. López Prater’s situation was especially precarious. She is an adjunct, one of higher education’s underclass of teachers, working for little pay and receiving few of the workplace protections enjoyed by tenured faculty members.

I hope civil right smashers take up the professors case pro bono as she won’t be able to afford legal fees as an adjunct.

Better still, I hope a better university snaps up this obviously dedicated and caring professional.

The student needs to learn to read syllabus papers in advance and listen to warnings from professors about material that may trigger them. And get therapy rather than lash out at others …

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/08/us/hamline-university-islam-prophet-muhammad.html

Another article. Her firing seems ridiculous to me.

Agree…

In the syllabus, the professor warned that images of holy figures, including the Prophet Muhammad and the Buddha, would be shown in the course. She asked students to contact her with any concerns, and she said no one did. … (So apparently the student who complained and demanded action against the professor did not even read the syllabus so she did not show respect for the professor as she claimed …)

In a December interview with the school newspaper, the student who complained to the administration, Aram Wedatalla, described being blindsided by the image. “I’m like, ‘This can’t be real,’” said Ms. Wedatalla, who in a public forum described herself as Sudanese. “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.”

Oh puhleeze - the student is projecting way too much on to this poor professor ….

In class, the professor had prepped students, telling them that in a few minutes, the painting would be displayed, in case anyone wanted to leave.
Then Dr. López Prater showed the image — and lost her teaching gig.

Officials at Hamline, a small, private university in St. Paul, Minn., with about 1,800 undergraduates, had tried to douse what they feared would become a runaway fire. Instead they ended up with what they had tried to avoid: a national controversy, which pitted advocates of academic liberty and free speech against Muslims who believe that showing the image of Prophet Muhammad is always sacrilegious.

(The professor herself is very badly paid and treated as an adjunct …)

Dr. López Prater’s situation was especially precarious. She is an adjunct, one of higher education’s underclass of teachers, working for little pay and receiving few of the workplace protections enjoyed by tenured faculty members.

I hope civil right smashers take up the professors case pro bono as she won’t be able to afford legal fees as an adjunct.

Better still, I hope a better university snaps up this obviously dedicated and caring professional.

The student needs to learn to read syllabus papers in advance and listen to warnings from professors about material that may trigger them. And get therapy rather than lash out at others …

. Thanks for posting

[Anonymous]

The organization FIRE has filed a complaint against the university's accreditor, and has taken other actions:

https://www.thefire.org/news/fire-files-accreditor-complaint-over-minnesota-art-history-professor-fired-showing-muhammad

I like this quote from the university president:

Students do not relinquish their faith in the classroom. To look upon an image of the prophet Muhammad, for many Muslims, is against their faith,

I think the president is wrong here. This was in a historic context, and the image was painted by a Muslim and was totally normal back when it was produced. It's an art history class, so no surprise they viewed historical art.


https://alphanews.org/hamline-stands-by-removal-of-art-instructor/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I feel like everyone tempted to show a picture of Mohammad knows they're being inflammatory. For them, this is a bug rather than a feature. I don't believe there is an ignorance crisis.

The crisis is one of jerkiness. Whether or not you agree it should be offensive, understand that it is. Only jerks deliberately offend in this way.

Is violent retaliation appropriate? I think not, but we all need to understand that the action can be understood as deeply offensive and just not do it in the first place.

Signed, traditional Jew who thinks a lot of ultra-secular and progressive faith Americans and Europeans have a bizarre blind spot when it comes to respecting the traditions of groups that have traditions.

So, should the cafeteria at a secular college that your kids might attend stop serving cheeseburgers?

You're confusing a lot of things, and your example is a poor one. There's nothing offensive to a Jewish person about not-Jewish people eating cheeseburgers. No conflict.

There would be a really big problem, on the other hand, if the people at this secular college gathered Torah scrolls and urinated on them. That would be incredibly offensive. But people who aren't jerks wouldn't do that, you see.

I don't think dogmatically secular people should have so much trouble imagining that something a different community has TOLD them it considers incredibly offensive is going to offend them a whole lot. There are a lot of things you probably understand as complete jerk actions. Wearing blackface comes to mind. Add depicting Mohammed to the list. Just don't do it. Because only jerks and bullies offend intentionally.

Are there any branches of Judaism that engage in urinating on Torah scrolls? Because apparently there are many Muslims who don't consider the islamic art in question offensive. My SIL certainly does not.

On the other hand, there are branches of Judaism that consider women walking around in sleeveless tops or shorts incredibly offensive. Are you willing to outlaw that on campus should one Satmar student enroll just for kicks?

Don't be stupid. Jews only apply their beliefs to themselves and to other Jews. They don't force it on anyone else.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This was a 14th century image that was shown in an art history class. The instructor did not depict the prophet.

The image, however, did, e which is why the professor was fired

If the is such problem for Muslims they can solve it for themselves by not signing up for the class. Not by depriving everyone else of an art history instructor and forcing myriads of others of different faiths or no faith to conform to their religious beliefs.

[Anonymous]

I hope she gets her job back and or sues the pants off the University.

[Anonymous]

I’m old enough to remember liberals becoming aroused by piss Jesus despite the Islamic prohibition on depicting prophets

[Anonymous]

The biggest irony is the image was from the Persian emipire