The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Prof. Amna Khalid (Carleton) on the Hamline Muhammad Painting Controversy
"On Hamline University's shocking imposition of narrow religious orthodoxy in the classroom."
Read it in her Banished substack newsletter; here's an excerpt, though the whole thing is much worth reading:
In choosing to label this image of Muhammad as Islamophobic, in endorsing the view that figurative representations of the Prophet are prohibited in Islam, Hamline has privileged a most extreme and conservative Muslim point of view. The administrators have flattened the rich history and diversity of Islamic thought. Their insistence that figurative representations of Muhammad are "forbidden for Muslims to look upon" runs counter to historical and contemporary evidence. As Christiane Gruber, a professor of Islamic art at the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor, reminds us, Muslim artists since the 14th century have depicted Muhammad visually — images that were painted "by Muslim artists for Muslim patrons in respect for, and in exaltation of, Muhammad and the Quran." Such images were, "by definition, Islamophilic from their inception to their reception." Far from being forbidden, many Muslims, even today, appreciate such figurative representations. While more common among Shia Muslims, even Sunnis are known to have made such images. (In fact, the painting the professor showed was commissioned by a Sunni king in the 14th century.)
In dismissing the instructor for alleged "Islamophobia," Hamline has revealed its reductive and simplistic view of Islam, Islamic societies, and Islamic art. In an age when administrators are eager for faculty members to decolonize their syllabi, Hamline's position is a kind of arch-imperialism, reinforcing a monolithic image of Muslims propounded by the cult of authentic Islam. What administrators at Hamline fail to realize is that in privileging this particular version of Islam, which looks to theology for sanction, they have reinforced the very version that is the product of colonial codification.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
But to be fair, the Muslims who object to such depictions are over-represented among terrorists, which means that what the other Muslims might think about the matter doesn't count. This isn't a generalized concern with offending people. It's a focused concern with offending people who have a tendency to get homicidally violent when offended.
American Muslims do not tune their beliefs based in fear of terrorists, you bigoted ass.
S_0,
You seemed to have disregarded the actual content in Brett's post , just to insult him.
That's SOP for him. Normally he reads just enough to assign a particular stereotype to you, and then filters everything you say through that stereotype. This can be hilarious at times; On occasion he's actually attacked me for agreeing with him, just because the cardboard cutout he was arguing with would have disagreed.
It is, of course, perfectly natural to pay more attention to the beliefs of people who might attack you if offended, than to people who are unlikely to resort to violence. It's nothing but self-preservation.
The only problem here is that they pretend they're accommodating "Muslims", when they're actually accommodating a particularly violent subset of Muslims. And they pretend they're concerned about hurt feelings, when they're actually concerned about bombings.
This sort of fearful projection of the triggers of Islamic terrorists on Muslims in general is endemic in the West, particularly among people who are ideologically barred from admitting that Islamic terrorism is a genuine problem.
No, that was the entire content of Brett's post.
Brett can never ever ever ever (I got tired of typing, or I'd add twenty more) accept that people do things for the obvious and overt reasons that they say they're doing things. I guarantee that Hamline was not worried about terrorism when it made this decision.
Theres no specific prohibition showing Muhammad in the Koran or authoritative hadiths. Although there might be prohibitions against showing living beings in general. So logically Muslims should be as offended by an image of Jesus or a cat. Singling out Muhammad kind of implies that you worship him. Or at least he's some exclusive figure that belongs to Muslims alone which seems sort of contrary to the evangelism of the religion not to mention the standard society sets for Christianity.
Islamic evangelism is an oxymoron.
The choices offered are bad and worse.
There are three choices.
Convert
Die
Pay a tax (high enough to be sure you cannot be effective in opposition)
People who read holy books like statutes are idiots.
A faith has a lot more to it than it’s text.
"People who read holy books like statutes are idiots."
Who are you to make such a definitive statement? And what does it contribute to the discussion except that your preference is to write off the opinions of large groups of people based on your own prejudices?
I don't think it's a really out there statement that people who say they know Islam better than Muslims are just looking for reasons to dislike Islam. Or, at best, weaving an ignorant narrative.
Religions are social constructs, and looking at only one element is reductive. Yes, that is independent of the religion.
The ban on images of people is from hadith, not really a text. They have been collected into texts but were originally an oral tradition. They are the "a lot more to it than its text" traditions for Muslims.
Islam has Imams as well. The Muslims I know have a faith that is both personal and group-mediated, with the text not being the be-all end-all.
"So logically Muslims should be as offended by an image of Jesus or a cat."
There are certainly Muslims who believe that an image of any specific and real human is bad. They usually care less about animals but some types of Islamic art are very abstract for a reason.
Infidels can't make graven images of our Prophet! Only Moose-lums can make graven images of our Prophet! Would have loved to see a 3 Stooges Short giving the "You Nazty Spy" treatment to Iss-Lam,
Frank
Hamline has privileged a most extreme and conservative Muslim point of view.
I don't think Hamline is taking a position per se as to what is proper in Islam. More like, it bends to those who complain the loudest. That is the essence of the heckler's veto. Which tends to privilege the more extreme viewpoints.
Just to quibble over the term: a phobia is an unreasonable fear of (whatever).
It is not unreasonable to fear the followers of a religion that is willing to kill you.
Is the Volokh Conspiracy genuinely this interested in the Hamline student newspaper, or is it once again tossing diversionary chaff, hoping no one will notice this partisan blog's refusal to discuss prominent and current right-wing censors?
The Volokh Conspiracy is fortunate no professors have decided to devote this level of scrutiny to the Volokh Conspiracy's record of repeated, hypocritical, partisan, low-grade, viewpoint-driven censorship.
The post addresses the professor’s firing, not the student paper’s removal of the article defending the prof. Attacks on academic freedom are a consistent area of interest for this blog and what the administration did looks pretty bad, so I don’t see anything wrong with covering this.
I am willing to be persuaded that Eugene may have a bias towards covering attacks on academic freedom that come from the left and ignoring those that come from the right. The latter certainly exist but I don’t recall them getting much play around here.
Actually it’s debatable whether the attack on academic freedom is from the ‘left’ here. The initial objections to the professor’s conduct were clearly religious, albeit dressed up as complaints about cultural sensitivity. Then the DEI folks ran with them on that basis.
Prof. Khalid's comments are totally irrelevant. Free speech means freedom to transgress (in expressive activity) even universally accepted Muslim norms. Or Christian norms, for that matter, though I don't recall a professor being disciplined in living memory for anti-Christian expression.
I just read the series of Prof. Volokh’s posts on this controversy. I wonder: is this just a passing fad, or will illiberalism increasingly become the new norm? Hamline is a private college, but similar things happen in public colleges where first amendment protections apply. Can the US Supreme Court be expected to continue to uphold robust free speech rights? Or will those be curtailed too?
" figurative representations of Muhammad are "forbidden for Muslims to look upon"
So they don't have to -- much like a Jewish student doesn't have to eat pork, or Catholics eat meat on Fridays during Lent.
Unless the university (which is private) has jumped through all the hoops to establish itself as a Muslim institution, why isn't a violation of other students' rights?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Supreme_Court_Building#Sculptural_program
(start quote)
Courtroom friezes
The South Wall Frieze includes figures of lawgivers from the ancient world and includes Menes, Hammurabi, Moses, Solomon, Lycurgus, Solon, Draco, Confucius, and Augustus. The North Wall Frieze shows lawgivers from the Middle Ages on and includes representations of Justinian, Muhammad, Charlemagne, John, King of England, Louis IX of France, Hugo Grotius, Sir William Blackstone, John Marshall, and Napoleon. The Moses frieze depicts him holding the Ten Commandments…
In 1997, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) asked for the image of Muhammad to be removed from the marble frieze of the façade. … CAIR noted that Islam discourages depictions of Muhammad in any artistic representation. CAIR also objected that Muhammad was shown with a sword, which they claimed reinforced stereotypes of Muslims as intolerant conquerors. Chief Justice William Rehnquist rejected the request to sandblast Muhammad, saying the artwork “was intended only to recognize him, among many other lawgivers, as an important figure in the history of law; it is not intended as a form of idol worship”.
(end quote)
Good for him! (and for us)
Would Chief Justice Roberts have reacted the same way? Hmmm…