telling Islamic students this is going to happen and making them decide whether or not to be part of the class is forcing them to choose between their faith and their education which is unfairly singling them out
I don't see how leaving the class for a few minutes is the same as missing out on education generally. It is a choice they have to make, but the stakes don't seem anywhere near how you're putting it.
How would presenting art of Muhammad be done respectfully without presenting a choice like that? You call it singling them out unfairly, but no choice would obviously be bad.
If your answer is to never show it in the course under any circumstance, I think that is taking something out of the education, as the professor envisions it, and out of the history of art. Muhammad is unquestionably part of the history of art, despite some Muslims being opposed to his depiction. There are depictions of Muhammad by Muslims, such as by Iranian Shia. I don't know for certain, but I wouldn't be surprised if one of those illustrations is exactly what they were displaying. The Quran never even prohibits depictions of Muhammad, it comes from hadith that are not universaly accepted. Because of that, there are depictions of the prophet by Muslims, going back centuries.
I don't think it's reasonable that an art history course should never be allowed to display paintings that are religiously controversial. Discussing iconoclasm versus iconography in Islamic art could be an important part of the course.
telling Islamic students this is going to happen and making them decide whether or not to be part of the class is forcing them to choose between their faith and their education which is unfairly singling them out
I don't see how leaving the class for a few minutes is the same as missing out on education generally. It is a choice they have to make, but the stakes don't seem anywhere near how you're putting it.
How would presenting art of Muhammad be done respectfully without presenting a choice like that? You call it singling them out unfairly, but no choice would obviously be bad.
If your answer is to never show it in the course under any circumstance, I think that is taking something out of the education, as the professor envisions it, and out of the history of art. Muhammad is unquestionably part of the history of art, despite some Muslims being opposed to his depiction. There are depictions of Muhammad by Muslims, such as by Iranian Shia. I don't know for certain, but I wouldn't be surprised if one of those illustrations is exactly what they were displaying. The Quran never even prohibits depictions of Muhammad, it comes from hadith that are not universaly accepted. Because of that, there are depictions of the prophet by Muslims, going back centuries.
I don't think it's reasonable that an art history course should never be allowed to display paintings that are religiously controversial. Discussing iconoclasm versus iconography in Islamic art could be an important part of the course.
Yes it’s a Persian miniature from the 1300s
So you're admitting that the painting has educational value?