![Abdulrahman Bindamnan: “From an Islamic perspective, [Hamline professor Erika Lopez Prater’s] behavior should be judged according to her educational intention.”](https://i0.wp.com/www.minnpost.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/AbdulrahmanBindamnan940.jpg?fit=940%2C626&ssl=1)
Hamline University dismissed an art historian adjunct for showing a caricature of Prophet Mohammed receiving Islamic instructions from the angel Gabriel. The dismissal was a response to Muslim students who were offended by the image, proclaiming that the professor committed the unforgivable sin of Islamophobia. The story garnered attention and spurred a debate on the conundrum between academic freedom and religious rights.
But as a Muslim who studied Islam traditionally in Yemen and Saudi Arabia and academically at the University of Miami and University of Pennsylvania, I’m not offended by caricatures of Prophet Mohammed or any holy figure for that matter.
The prophet of Islam said that “deeds are judged by their intention,” a classical principle in the reasoning of Islamic law. Professor Erika Lopez Prater, who showed the image to her class, took precautionary measures to ensure that her intention was educational and not comical. For example, in the course’s syllabus, she warned students that prophetic images will be displayed in class, and no student raised any objections. From an Islamic perspective, her behavior should be judged according to her educational intention.
There is a debate within the Islamic tradition itself about whether prophetic images are permitted or prohibited. Regardless of the debate, however, classroom discussions should not be regulated according to a particular strand in the religion because it behooves students to have a full discussion of Islam in the classroom. In many topics in Islamic law, Muslim scholars have argued for competing positions, ranging from liberal to the conservative, the beautiful to the ugly, the tolerant to the intolerant.
For example, Omid Safi, an Islamic studies professor at Duke University, takes no objections in showing images of the prophet Mohammed. He regularly shows such images in his classes at Duke, even without taking the precautionary measures that Dr. Prater took. However, other scholars and leaders may inherently oppose prophetic drawings, regardless of the intention.
Dr. Safi fled Iran to the United States when he was 14 and such a personal history perhaps impacts how students interpret whether his behavior is Islamophobic or not. However, Dr. Prater has a different background that perhaps led students to interpret her behavior within a hostile framework. In other words, scholars who hail from Islamic cultures are less likely to suffer from accusations of Islamophobia; therefore, a white Christian scholar from Boston or Minnesota is more likely to suffer the charge than for a Muslim scholar teaching in Cairo or Morocco. This is confusing at best.
U.S. colleges and universities treat foreign and local students differently. In particular, there is a difference between foreign and American Muslims. Foreign Muslims tend to have a different engagement with Islam, viewing the religion from a theological perspective. But American Muslims may view Islam from an identity perspective, primarily concerning themselves with the politics of representation. Unfortunately, many U.S. colleges and universities lump those two groups together and often ignore the voices of foreign Muslims.
Many Americans don’t know much about religions in general and Islam in particular. Shunning a professor who showed an image about Prophet Mohammed will even discourage Americans from learning the tradition of Islam, as they will be afraid to expose themselves to unwarranted controversy. Yet as a Muslim, I would like more people to explore the history of Islam. So a better way of handling the controversy at Hamline is to arrange a discussion on the question of prophetic caricatures. That will have been a better learning experience for students.
When I fled to the United States from Yemen, I sought a liberal education in which to reconsider the retrograde views that I learned as a child. I came here to learn how to become a scholar who independently investigates subjects fraught with moral ambiguity – and to learn how to become an effective human being in the modern world, a scholar whose sensibilities can’t be provoked by a mere caricature. In other words, I was ready to receive an education – not an indoctrination. Alas, the recent trend in U.S. higher education seems to emphasize political correctness over critical inquiry. It seems to silence intellectual curiosity as we enter the age when religious conformity trumps academic freedom.
Abdulrahman Bindamnan is an author at Psychology Today, with degrees from the University of Miami and the University of Pennsylvania. He is a PhD student and a scholar Fellow at the University of Minnesota.
Very well stated, although I think this is not a matter of “political correctness” run amok as it is a matter of the commodification of higher education. Students are increasingly regarded as consumers of education, and colleges and universities have turned themselves into retail outlets for degrees, rather than places of education. The retail ethos of “the customer is always right” now takes precedence over any encouragement of inquiry.
The student at Hamline was unhappy with what happened in her course, and she complained to the manager. The manager – in the interest of mollifying the consumer – gave in without a second thought. That’s the kind of thing one would expect at Costco, not a respected university.
I also can’t help but wonder if the student knows much about the role Islamic cultures played in preserving and advancing learning, not to mention the practice of religious tolerance in the old caliphates?
I would agree that the consumerism of schools is part of this – after all, look at all the marketing that schools do these days. They see potential students as money bags.
But that is not what this author is showing. It is the knee-jerk reaction of someone seeing and hearing something they don’t like so they call it racism to gain traction to their their perceived plight and be the victim. This author is very good at showing that our society has become hell bent on these reactions without any knowledge, even though they feel as if they are experts.
There are people in our country making such a mockery of what racism is and making everyone think that because they feel even just a little slighted, that everyone else MUST correct their self-victimization, no matter what.
What happened here is a perfect example. Instructor shows something a student doesn’t like. They complain and feel it is a bridge too far and the instructor has to go. The school blindly follows suit to save face because they don’t want to perceived as racist so they foolishly and impulsively act quickly, facts be damned. Then more facts come up and the school looks even more foolish but still doesn’t budge. That leaves the true victim no other recourse but to sue. If the school just slowed down from the beginning they wouldn’t be in this position.
Actually, this appalling controversy is about religion, not race. But it is notable for raising one of the very rare instances where it appears most on the political left and right mostly agree!
“There are people in our country making such a mockery of what racism is and making everyone think that because they feel even just a little slighted, that everyone else MUST correct their self-victimization, no matter what.”
Congratulations. You have just summed up MAGA thinking.
The university’s president and board chair has since said in a joint statement: “In the interest of hearing from and supporting our Muslim students, language was used that does not reflect our sentiments on academic freedom. Based on all that we have learned, we have determined that our usage of the term ‘Islamophobic’ was therefore flawed. We strongly support academic freedom for all members of the Hamline community. We also believe that academic freedom and support for students can and should co-exist.”
In other words, “We didn’t mean what we said in no uncertain terms before. We did not realize that our words would generate negative publicity that besmirches the reputation of the university and that, not coincidentally, would likely interfere with our efforts to provide instruction largely through underpaid, non-tenure track, adjunct faculty members.”
I won’t even call that a “nice try” on their part.
Not to mention the lawsuit that just happened to get filed right before Hamline issued their “walk-back” statement.
Sheer coincidence, I’m sure.
They owe her a ton of $ because they effectively destroyed her career. Her attorney hit the nail on the head about future employers searching Google. The school can apologize all they want, but her being fired will always be the top results.
Another example how universities take advantage of adjunct teachers to save $
I am not comfortable with the use of the word “caricature” in the description of the image of Muhammed at the center of this controversy. In no other media report that I have seen has the image been described that way.
I realize this is an opinion piece, and opinion pieces are given a little bit of leeway in terms of fact checking not accorded to non opinion pieces. Still, I believe what I read in opinion piece should have some relation to the truth, however tenuous. May I suggest that the author of this piece be given the chance to revise his usage of the word “caricature” to perhaps clarify his meaning? Is this dispute really about something Steve Sack might have provided for the Strib editorial page which he could have gotten a Pulitzer Prize for?
This same author had an op-ed in the Star Tribune saying essentially the same things about the Hamline controversy, and in which he also used the term caricature. The fact that the Star Trib editors also did not change the word makes me wonder if it is a particular use of the term, as if any rendering of the Prophet is inherently considered a caricature. But that would seem (to me) to require an editor’s note to explain that since, as you say, it is not the commonly understood meaning of the term.
I have, however, seen the word “caricature” used in other discussions about representations of the Prophet Mohammed in other news stories I’ve encountered over the years – just not this one.
I wonder if the selection of that particular word is unique to discussions of representations of the Prophet Mohammed for some reason?
I haven’t seen the image that is the subject of the discussion. Publishing it is something the news media is careful about. For all I know, it is a caricature. I would just like to know one way or another. It feels as if the news media is withholding information with me, something which I don’t think is their job.
The picture in question is “The Prophet Muhammad receiving his first revelation from the archangel Gabriel” by Rashīd al-Dīn. It’s online in several places.
It is not a caricature in any mainstream sense. It’s a 14th century painting, so not photo realistic, of course not.
Another knee jerk example. Performance theatre.
I agree with Hiram, ‘caricature’ does not well describe the piece of medieval art at the center of this controversy. Gabriel’s wings aren’t even oversized.
A picture, description, or imitation of a person in which certain striking characteristics are exaggerated in order to create a comic or grotesque effect.
Otherwise, I largely agree with the author, and appreciate the article.