It was a class on comparing religious imagery I believe. As far as I can tell she showed various images of Muhammed going by different Islamic cultural norms (one openly shown, one veiled, etc.) as well as images of figures from other religions like Buddha and Christ. Showing a famous historical painting of Muhammed seems perfectly relevant to the class, and it was done so respectfully.
So instead of showing the countless examples of Arabic calligraphy of the shahada or mosque interiors or Quran design, she decided to choose a form of Islamic art that’s, shall we say, heavily controversial within the Islamic world with Islamophobic implications in the place where she’s teaching?
I'm pretty sure you're not a fictional character lmao
Hey man, plenty of people who suddenly get canned out of thin air have a long history when you dig deep enough. And I wouldn't trust everything from that NYT article. Like the article pinned everything on some Black woman for being too loud lmao
Please learn to read racial subtext instead of taking everything at face value
What's the subtext of Islamic groups condemning the firing?
"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.
Even if it is the case that many Muslims feel uncomfortable with such depictions, Dr. Prater was trying to emphasize a key principle of religious literacy: religions are not monolithic in nature, but rather, internally diverse. This principle should be appreciated in order to combat Islamophobia, which is often premised on flattening out Islam and viewing the Islamic tradition in an essentialist and reductionist manner. The professor should be thanked for her role in educating students, Muslim and non-Muslim alike, and for doing so in a critically empathetic manner."
Art is constantly recontexualized and part of that recontexualization comes from when it gets (re)displayed. This is nothing new. It matters little that a Muslim king was cool with it in the 14th century because we don't live in the 14th century anymore.
And as for that org, their Twitter page is just them towing the US state department line (Iran bad, Afghanistan bad). Consider this article on their site. I don't care what you think about the article, but I think it's telling that they would pen an "Iran bad for having morality police" article, never mind that Iran already got rid of their morality police back in December 2022. I guess since the Islamic Republic of Iran had the foresight to scrap their morality police a month before this random org would write that article, everything is all good now. Whether through incompetence (them not keeping up with developments in Iran) or malice (them purposefully suggesting that Iran still has the morality police), I don't think they can be trusted.
It's pretty obvious that this org is an assimilationist org. I'm not passing judgment because when you live in a violent Islamophobic country like the US, you do what you have to do to not get your mosques firebombed, even if it means being the org that goes, "us Muslims are not all uptight losers like those people."
It’s pretty obvious that this org is an assimilationist org. I’m not passing judgment because when you live in a violent Islamophobic country like the US, you do what you have to do to not get your mosques firebombed, even if it means being the org that goes, “us Muslims are not all uptight losers like those people.”
This is so deranged lol. I'm not denying they're assimilationist, but all they're saying is that Muslims aren't monolithic. Some people have opinions about their religions without the influence of Americans, you know.
Art is constantly recontexualized and part of that recontexualization comes from when it gets (re)displayed. This is nothing new. It matters little that a Muslim king was cool with it in the 14th century because we don’t live in the 14th century anymore.
Exactly. And so why is it wrong for "offensive" art to be recontextualized in an academic setting?
I mean, they're also pro-palestine. Like i said in another comment, they mostly just seem like libs. Christianity had its reformation and eventual 'softening' under liberal tolerance, it shouldn't be surprising that Islam does too.
Gonna admit my biases here though - I think religion is a largely reactionary institution and the world would be a lot better with less of it.
That being said,
That's not going to happen overnight and I fully support creating effective spaces for inter-cultural dialogue and learning that are respectful. That kind of seems like the best possible thing we could hope for, and an effective way to combat reactionary dogma of all colors and creeds, both islamaphobes and religious adherents. This Art History course and the context within which it was presented are as close to that as one can reasonably ask for. That seems like a good thing, actually.
What better way to change the context in which something is (re)displayed than to... You know... Put it in a better and respectful context? I'm not out here denying that images of Mohamed have been used as a cudgel in the culture wars, but this ain't that.
deleted by creator
I'm pretty sure you're not a fictional character lmao
deleted by creator
Hey man, plenty of people who suddenly get canned out of thin air have a long history when you dig deep enough. And I wouldn't trust everything from that NYT article. Like the article pinned everything on some Black woman for being too loud lmao
Please learn to read racial subtext instead of taking everything at face value
https://www.mpac.org/statement/statement-of-support-for-art-professor-fired-from-hamline-university/
What's the subtext of Islamic groups condemning the firing?
Art is constantly recontexualized and part of that recontexualization comes from when it gets (re)displayed. This is nothing new. It matters little that a Muslim king was cool with it in the 14th century because we don't live in the 14th century anymore.
And as for that org, their Twitter page is just them towing the US state department line (Iran bad, Afghanistan bad). Consider this article on their site. I don't care what you think about the article, but I think it's telling that they would pen an "Iran bad for having morality police" article, never mind that Iran already got rid of their morality police back in December 2022. I guess since the Islamic Republic of Iran had the foresight to scrap their morality police a month before this random org would write that article, everything is all good now. Whether through incompetence (them not keeping up with developments in Iran) or malice (them purposefully suggesting that Iran still has the morality police), I don't think they can be trusted.
It's pretty obvious that this org is an assimilationist org. I'm not passing judgment because when you live in a violent Islamophobic country like the US, you do what you have to do to not get your mosques firebombed, even if it means being the org that goes, "us Muslims are not all uptight losers like those people."
This is so deranged lol. I'm not denying they're assimilationist, but all they're saying is that Muslims aren't monolithic. Some people have opinions about their religions without the influence of Americans, you know.
Exactly. And so why is it wrong for "offensive" art to be recontextualized in an academic setting?
I mean, they're also pro-palestine. Like i said in another comment, they mostly just seem like libs. Christianity had its reformation and eventual 'softening' under liberal tolerance, it shouldn't be surprising that Islam does too.
Gonna admit my biases here though - I think religion is a largely reactionary institution and the world would be a lot better with less of it.
That being said,
That's not going to happen overnight and I fully support creating effective spaces for inter-cultural dialogue and learning that are respectful. That kind of seems like the best possible thing we could hope for, and an effective way to combat reactionary dogma of all colors and creeds, both islamaphobes and religious adherents. This Art History course and the context within which it was presented are as close to that as one can reasonably ask for. That seems like a good thing, actually.
What better way to change the context in which something is (re)displayed than to... You know... Put it in a better and respectful context? I'm not out here denying that images of Mohamed have been used as a cudgel in the culture wars, but this ain't that.