January 13, 2023

"Hamline administrators have labeled this corpus of Islamic depictions of Muhammad, along with their teaching, as hateful, intolerant and Islamophobic."

"And yet the visual evidence proves contrary: The images were made, almost without exception, by Muslim artists for Muslim patrons in respect for, and in exaltation of, Muhammad and the Quran. They are, by definition, Islamophilic from their inception to their reception. How did Hamline arrive at such a flawed conclusion, what are its implications, and where do we go from here?... ... Islam has been largely defined, in contrast with Christianity, as a religious tradition that is largely aniconic, or lacking in figural images. The administrators at Hamline reiterated this inaccuracy with zeal, believing that such historical Islamic images were equivalent to offensive Euro-American cartoons and hence caused 'harm' to the Muslims in their midst. Through conflation or confusion, Hamline has privileged an ultraconservative Muslim view on the subject that happens to coincide with the age-old Western cliche that Muslims are banned from viewing images of the prophet. This Muslim traditionalist and American Orientalist 'echo chamber; is not just simplistic and counterfactual; it also muzzles all other voices while potentially endangering rare and precious works of Islamic art."

Writes Christiane Gruber, a professor of Islamic art in the History of Art Department at the University of Michigan, in "An Academic Is Fired Over a Medieval Painting of the Prophet Muhammad/The dismissal of an instructor at Hamline University on baseless charges of 'Islamophobia' raises concerns about freedom on campus" (New Lines Magazine)(via Arts & Letters Daily).

Professor Gruber doesn't seem to notice the problem of viewpoint discrimination. She seems to want historical, high-art images treated differently from modern-day satirical cartoons. That too is "privileging" — privileging elite art. Indeed, she goes on to support present-day high art: 

One particularly dazzling example is the 2016 permanent site-specific mosaic of Muhammad’s celestial ascension (“miraj”) made by Shahzia Sikander for Princeton University. Titled “Ecstasy as Sublime, Heart as Vector,” this monumental artwork measures 66 feet in height and depicts Muhammad riding his flying steed al-Buraq, both contoured in a sterling radiance.
When asked about her choice to show Muhammad in this manner, Sikander responded: “By rendering a canonical painterly motif as a silhouette of reflective white gold, the miraj image seems to come to life, literally popping out of the composition as it reflects the light in the space throughout the day and at night.”...
Hamline could learn much from this case of granting choice — or license — when it comes to Islamic images of Muhammad, in which a collaborative undertaking in creative celebration of Islam will surely better withstand the test of time. 

I'm afraid the solution is worse than the problem. Gruber wants the authorities to grant a license to artists and to grant it based on point of view. Hamline was already following a rule that wasn't viewpoint neutral: No depictions of Muhammad. But it's even less neutral to change the rule to: No depictions of Muhammad that are not "in creative celebration of Islam."

Of course, a school cannot be neutral when it chooses what mosaics to embed permanently in its walls. Obviously, it's going to lean toward high art and an uplifting point of view. You can see a photograph of
"Ecstasy as Sublime, Heart as Vector," installed in a glamorous stairwell, in "The Mi‘raj Mosaic at Princeton University Shahzia Sikander in Conversation with Christiane Gruber."

Excerpt:  

CG: This series of images reasserts your artistic process as it intersects with contemporary portraiture, notions of the feminine, and the motif of the heavenly journey. I am especially interested to hear more about the depiction of Muhammad’s mi‘raj, since this topic is central to my own scholarly research. How did you come to this theme, what is its meaning to you, and what were your iconographic inspirations?

SS: My interest in the mi‘raj stems from childhood familial and cultural exposure, an interest in the trope of revelation and spirituality, and investigating motifs that resonate with Islamic identity. The Timurid illustrated Mi‘rajnama (Book of Ascension) of ca. 1436, as published by Marie-Rose Séguy, has been a bedside companion since I was a teenager! The years 2014 to 2016 were a difficult period for me personally. They also were marked by particularly detailed and repetitive dreams. One dream included Sultan Muhammad’s painting of the mi‘raj as included in a Safavid illustrated manuscript of Nizami’s Khamsa (Quintet; fig. 6). Around the same time, I reached out to Ayad Akhtar, an American-born author and playwright with Pakistani heritage, to explore the challenging perception of what constitutes an “American Muslim.” In 2015 his Pulitzer-winning play Disgraced was the most-produced play in America. Our conversations led to the topic of the mi‘raj, in particular the role of the Prophet in Muslim traditions and the complexities inherent in his imagination and depiction, both in Islamic lands and in the West....

47 comments:

Mike Sylwester said...

In the good old days, college administrations included a so-called Dean of Students.

If a student was troublesome, then the Dean of Students would summon the student for a discussion and perhaps also for the imposition of disciplinary measures.

For example, if a student were making a silly fuss about an art teacher showing Mohammed pictures, then the Dean of Students would suggest that the student drop out of that non-requirement class.

If the student persisted, then the Dean of Students might, say, suspend the trouble-maker from the college for a semester.

======

Now, however, the inmates run the asylum.

rehajm said...

Obviously, it's going to lean toward high art and an uplifting point of view

…but nowadays you can’t be so sure, can you?

rehajm said...

Intervention from the campus thought police is evil but expected. Personally I would not have poked this bear, especially if I lived and worked in a place where the justice system favors preferred woke groups over justice. Let’s hope she has someone watching her six…

Oso Negro said...

Universities appear to have assumed a missionary role in contemporary culture. They preach diversity, equity, and inclusion, but they only want it if it aligns with their beliefs. As a consequence, they can cheerfully despoil other cultures while smug in their correctness.

Mike Sylwester said...

In 2010, the cartoon series South Park broadcast an episode that depicted the so-called Prophet Muhammed. In response some threats (I forget the details) were made against the cartoonists

In response to those threats, someone organized an Everybody Draw Muhammad Day on Facebook. On May 20, 2010, more than 4,000 images depicting Muhammad were uploaded onto Facebook, attracting views from 80,000 Facebook members.

That was a glorious day on Facebook.

I myself drew a stick-man and labeled it "Muhammad". Some Moslem women wrote a critical comment to my picture. I responded that Muhammad was not some God, and so a picture of him is not blasphemy.

Mike Sylwester said...

Professor Gruber doesn't seem to notice the problem of viewpoint discrimination. She seems to want historical, high-art images treated differently from modern-day satirical cartoons. That too is "privileging" — privileging elite art.

As I understand the situation, the class was not about all pictures of Mohammed. In particular, the class was not about "modern-day satirical cartoons".

Rather, the class was about Medieval pictures of Mohammed.

Ann Althouse said...

I was critical of "Everybody Draw Muhammad Day," blogged here.

There's a big difference between defending free speech, even when it's offensive, and choosing to speak offensively, and you certainly don't need to do the later to do the former.

Back in the days when the ACLU defended Nazi demonstrators, the distinction was a very well understood part of America culture, at least among the educated. But then we actively destroyed that understanding. I say we, but I personally have always fought to preserve it.

rhhardin said...

it also muzzles all other voices while potentially endangering rare and precious works of Islamic art.

Muzzies muzzle.

rhhardin said...

Muslims advertise that they can't be Americans. We have a book of rules, the Constitution. If you don't agree with it, you can't be an American. If you agree with it, you're an American no matter what else you are.

You choose to speak offensively not to be offensive but to establish that the rules in America still apply. "This new rule of yours doesn't fit in America, sorry."

Mark said...

I keep thinking about the response to Piss Christ and how many of those are decrying Hamline today sure had their undies in a bundle when it was their prophet.

But partisan hypocrisy is the name of the game here, along with personal insults.

Dear corrupt left, go F yourselves said...

The left: Do no question the big pharma jab.
Do not talk of eating and enjoying Mexican food or liking chihuahuas.
You racists.

rwnutjob said...

"raises concerns about freedom on campus"
Hahahahahahahahaha

tommyesq said...

I keep thinking about the response to Piss Christ and how many of those are decrying Hamline today sure had their undies in a bundle when it was their prophet.

My recollection is that people condemned Piss Christ as shoddy art, but no one suggested it should be banned. Instead, the argument was that we the taxpayers should not, via the NEA, be actively paying for the production of such crap.

Jamie said...

how many of those are decrying Hamline today sure had their undies in a bundle when it was their prophet.

But the artist who made Piss Christ wasn't threatened with beheading. And, he certainly was out to offend - at least, my recollection is that he came right out and said he was trying to challenge Christian orthodoxy by putting a "sacred" Christian symbol into a very profane situation. You know, words to that effect.

I don't think the standard we're asking for here is "if you say something that offends a religious person, good on you! They're the best people to offend! And by the way, the religious person has no right to slap back at you about it, so have at it!"

I think what we're getting at is more like, "you say (or portray) what you want, I'll say (or portray) what I want in response, but in this society we all agree that physical harm is not an allowable response even to offensive speech, and that speech does not constitute harm."

How "fighting words" fit into this framework, I leave to the judges, who I hope will exercise excellent judgement about them.

Old and slow said...

Blogger Mark said...
I keep thinking about the response to Piss Christ and how many of those are decrying Hamline today sure had their undies in a bundle when it was their prophet.

As I recall the Piss Christ controversy, the main complaint was that US tax money was indirectly funding the art. This seems to be a distinction.

Owen said...

My beef with “Piss Christ” was that taxpayers were being asked —excuse me, forced— to pay for it. Have a good time on your dime; and leave me and my art alone.

All this uproar is due to the old confusion. Tolerance is a shield, not a sword.

jaydub said...

"I keep thinking about the response to Piss Christ and how many of those are decrying Hamline today sure had their undies in a bundle when it was their prophet."

It is not difficult for rational people of good will to sort this out. One, "Piss Christ," an intentionally provocative and blasphemous stunt to denigrate the man Christians believe to be the Son of God, and the other an innocent, centuries old work of art whose original intent was to praise the Profit Mohammad. Your inability to appreciate the difference between the two is not surprising, you being a shit-stirrer and provocateur yourself.

Temujin said...

Aniconic. Good word.

Bruce Hayden said...

Muzzies, most named Mohammed, stole 4 planes and flew them into three buildings, in the name of their Prophet, killing thousands of Americans, and now it is our fault that so many Americans are Muzziphobic.

Let me suggest that one reason for this, is that for so many on the left, the goal is to destroy the US as we know it. We were a Christian country from the beginning. Originally, primarily Protestant, with a string fundamentalist strain. We let in a bunch of Catholics over the next several centuries, but by now, everything is switched up, with those Calvinist and Puritan founded churches some of the most liberal now. What the left wants is to destroy the modern West, and Islam has been trying to do it, by the sword for most of the last 1300 years.

Another part of this is that the left is antisemitic. Sometimes rabidly antisemitic. Muzzies, partly because of Israel, are too. They want to destroy Israel for a number of reasons. It is a black eye for them, because it shows how incompetent much of Islam is. Israel has caused the desert to blossom, right in the center of the Muslim empire, and when they turned over a blossoming Gaza to the Palestinians, they managed to turn it back into a wasteland in just a few years. The left makes common cause with militant Muslims to destroy Judaism in this country and around the world. Holocaust II, with Jews going meekly along with it.

Amadeus 48 said...

Once you start throwing out the Enlightenment, where do you stop?

I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that.

Owen said...

“Aniconic.” What Temujin said: a Word Power bonus for today.

One problem with fancy (unusual, very specific) words like this, is that they can stall a conversation as the bewildered listener rummages internally: “…I guess I’m supposed to know that word? Can I guess it from context? ‘Aniconic’? Sounds like…? Ummmm, nope…”

Mike (MJB Wolf) said...

I for one encourage the Western tradition of holding art in high esteem and distinguishing between it and contemporary popular culture, which has not stood the test of time. Historical art should be revered, should not be subject to the whims and shifting norms of modern Karens and religious fundamentalists. To pretend that there’s no difference between Playboy and Romance paintings is to deny history and context altogether. If you are old enough and qualified to be in college you should be able to distinguish between historical works in context and purposeful provocations that chafe your political sensitivities. For damned sure the admins and faculty ought to be able to model adult behavior like this.

Fucking grow up.

Lurker21 said...

There is always a "license" to be granted or withheld. Showing scurrilous cartoons depicting some ethnic group would get you trouble at any university. Ugly caricatures of Blacks or Jews or Asians -- or Muslims -- could get you disciplined or even fired. Artistic or neutral images don't.

P.S. Aren't there multiple reasons why the expression "panties in a bunch" should have been cancelled by now?

Fredrick said...

So the University has finally found a central authority in Islam to determine what may or may not be said, written, or painted about? To think all those Islamic scholars elsewhere were so wrong for so many centuries.

Drago said...

Notice how much more clearly the non-lefties recall the facts around the p-C controversy compared with Dumb Lefty Mark.

The question must be asked: Does Mark recall those salient facts around the controversy and he just chose to ignore them in order to score a political point, or is he simply as ignorant of the facts of that case as he is with so many others?

Not that it matters of course.

Ann Althouse said...

"Muslims advertise that they can't be Americans. We have a book of rules, the Constitution. If you don't agree with it, you can't be an American. If you agree with it, you're an American no matter what else you are."

So when the Constitution preserved slavery, everyone who objected wasn't an American. Utterly stupid proposition noted.

Ann Althouse said...

Reminds me of the old argument that we couldn't have a Catholic president. He'd be under the authority of the Pope.

The Constitution protects religious freedom precisely in order to accommodate the people who'd be left out if they could only be in if they accepted everything in it.

Josephbleau said...

To me, the Constitution creates a form of government. The laws therefrom are created by the people. So slavery was enforced by law, not the constitution. Certain things are specifically enforced by amendments, like the anti slavery ones, but they don’t need to be if an appropriate law is passed. This is done when people don’t trust the people. So the first Congress had the power to eliminate slavery, they just did not do it, that is not the constitution’s fault.

Tom T. said...

Hamline, like any university, gets much of its funding from federal student aid. Taxpayers were paying for at least part of this professor's class, just as they were with Piss Christ.

Achilles said...

Mark said...
I keep thinking about the response to Piss Christ and how many of those are decrying Hamline today sure had their undies in a bundle when it was their prophet.

But partisan hypocrisy is the name of the game here, along with personal insults.



The problem with piss christ was the federal funding.

But we wouldn't ask a leftist to be honest. Bad faith is all you have right now.

The left cannot honestly or accurately compare and contrast Christianity and Islam.

They cannot honestly discuss how societies based on Islam are different from Protestant Christianity.

So they have to bring up Piss Christ. Nothing gets more mileage on the left than the "outrage" over Piss Christ.

It wasn't even art.

You people are pathetic.

Achilles said...

Ann Althouse said...
"Muslims advertise that they can't be Americans. We have a book of rules, the Constitution. If you don't agree with it, you can't be an American. If you agree with it, you're an American no matter what else you are."

So when the Constitution preserved slavery, everyone who objected wasn't an American. Utterly stupid proposition noted.

The constitution "preserved" slavery because a bunch of progressives decided they wanted to change the meaning of words.

Kinda like you all did when you made Abortion a "right" preserved by the constitution.

Historical context is important. When the Constitution was written every country in the world "preserved" slavery. One of the most common acts in human history was the taking of slaves.

The Constitution was one of the fundamental pillars in the effort to eliminate slavery in our country and has started a movement reducing the practice all over the world. The only event that would be considered as important in the fight against slavery would be the Civil War itself and the actions of the abolitionists in Britain.

Be careful when labeling propositions utterly stupid. You might have to look at your own.

The religion of Islam and the Constitution are utterly incompatible at this point until Islam goes through a reformation similar to what Christianity did.

gahrie said...

I keep thinking about the response to Piss Christ and how many of those are decrying Hamline today sure had their undies in a bundle when it was their prophet.

The difference being that Piss Christ was a piece of modern art subsidized by government intended to offend and enflame. The Hamline images were historical works created by Muslims intended to honor Mohammad. No Christain has ever tried to outlaw all images of Christ.

gahrie said...

The religion of Islam and the Constitution are utterly incompatible at this point until Islam goes through a reformation similar to what Christianity did.

It can't. If an Islamic Martin Luther ever showed up, he'd be beheaded within months.

gahrie said...

So when the Constitution preserved slavery

How did the Constitution preserve slavery? Please provide citations.

gahrie said...

Reminds me of the old argument that we couldn't have a Catholic president. He'd be under the authority of the Pope.

The Constitution protects religious freedom precisely in order to accommodate the people who'd be left out if they could only be in if they accepted everything in it.


The difference being, Christians are told to "render unto Caesar..." while Muslims are commanded to impose and enforce Sharia law. There is no separation of Church and State in Islam.

ccscientist said...

There was a time when one could get in trouble for offensive Christian art. Do we bring that back? Oh, hahahaha just kidding. That gets you an oscar. Funny how blasphemy only cuts one way.

ccscientist said...

And since when are we all required to honor other people's religions in the US?

Robert Cook said...

"The difference being that Piss Christ was a piece of modern art subsidized by government intended to offend and enflame."

What knowledge do you have of the artist to declare PISS CHRIST was "intended to offend and inflame?" Serranos is a Catholic and has never expressed any antipathy to his religion. Moreover, Serranos had a series of "Body Fluid" photograph in which he made photos using his own and others' bodily fluids--blood, urine, semen, breast milk.

He also had the IMMERSIONS series, in which many objects--some religious, (including PISS CHRIST) some not--are immersed in bodily fluids.

To me, all of the pictures in these two series are objectively beautiful, just as visual images. If I were a Christian and I wanted to hang an image of the crucifixion on my wall, PISS CHRIST would be the image I would pick, as it is the most mysterious and beautiful rendering of the crucifixion I have seen. The other images in his IMMERSIONS series are all equally as mysterious and beautiful images.

The "offense" or "blasphemous intent" you see (or that others may see) is in your (and their) own minds, based on your uninformed assumptions. If he had not been frank about how the picture was made, all those who persist in howling their outrage would probably hail it as a powerful depiction of Christ's death on the cross.

Robert Cook said...

"And since when are we all required to honor other people's religions in the US?"

Um...First Amendment. (That's if you mean by "honor" simply to allow or tolerate. There's no obligation for anyone to speak or think well of any religion, though in certain situations to do so would just be pointlessly rude and disrespectful.)

Robert Cook said...

"The Constitution was one of the fundamental pillars in the effort to eliminate slavery in our country...."

Where, in the original Constitution and first ten amendments, is there anything that suggests or supports the elimination of slavery?

Robert Cook said...

"We were a Christian country from the beginning."

We are and never have been a "Christian country," as such, other than that the majority of Americans holding religious beliefs have been Christians. But that does not make us a "Christian nation."

gahrie said...

Where, in the original Constitution and first ten amendments, is there anything that suggests or supports the elimination of slavery?

The three-fifths compromise which limited the political power of the slave states.

Robert Cook said...

"The three-fifths compromise which limited the political power of the slave states."

That was 3/5ths compromise enhanced the political power of the slave states, it did not limit it. The northern states contended logically that the slaves were property, not citizens, and thus not entitled to representation. The 3/5ths compromise made the slaves partial citizens for the purposes of giving those states greater population counts for the states than they otherwise would have had. The slaves were non-citizen citizens and could not vote, so they had no actual representation.

Quite a neat and nasty trick.

Eva Chavez said...

Tujuan utama kita sebagai agen pokerasia88 online terpercaya yakni membawa dampak seluruh member merasa nyaman saat memainkan permainan judi poker online yang tersedia, tentunya dengan service terbaik dan profesional membawa dampak bermacam macam kemudahan akan senantiasa kita bagikan. Sewaktu kamu melakukan daftar dewapoker harus menggunakan data-data yang benar valid dan lengkap sehingga sewaktu melakukan deposit dan penarikan uang transaksi mampu berlangsung lancar.

Mr. T. said...

Of course the AAUP, which always has plenty of time to defend antisemitism, 911 conspiracy theorists, faculty violence, faculty sexual assault perpetrators, and every other good member of the campus left appararat, is nowhere to be found on this issue...

Gahrie said...

That was 3/5ths compromise enhanced the political power of the slave states, it did not limit it. The northern states contended logically that the slaves were property, not citizens, and thus not entitled to representation. The 3/5ths compromise made the slaves partial citizens for the purposes of giving those states greater population counts for the states than they otherwise would have had. The slaves were non-citizen citizens and could not vote, so they had no actual representation.

I'm sure it's just an accident that you neglected to mention that the slave states wanted slaves to count for a whole person for purposes of representation, and were refusing to ratify the new Constitution unless they did. You also failed to mention that the free states wanted slaves to count as a whole person for purposes of taxation, and the slave states wanted slaves to count as zero for taxation purposes. So the eventual compromise that allowed the Constitution to be ratified was to count slaves as 3/5s of a person for both taxation and representation. Thus the three fifths limited the power of the slave states and increased the amount of taxes they had to pay.

Stop hating on America Comrade Marvin.



Robert Cook said...

"I'm sure it's just an accident that you neglected to mention that the slave states wanted slaves to count for a whole person for purposes of representation, and were refusing to ratify the new Constitution unless they did. You also failed to mention that the free states wanted slaves to count as a whole person for purposes of taxation, and the slave states wanted slaves to count as zero for taxation purposes."

How does this change my statement? It underscores my point. The slave states wanted slaves to count as whole persons so they could get more political representation in Congress. The free states didn't want them to count at all, as they were property. The compromise gave the slave states MORE political representation in Congress than they would have if they were not counting the slaves as citizens at all. Given that slaves had no voting power or legal rights, they were not being represented in Congress at all. Thus, the slave states were granted greater political representation and power than they would or should have had. It didn't "limit" their political power, because it was not political power they already had. Existing political power was not taken from them; more power was given to them. It was a shell game, a legal fiction, and the slave states benefited greatly from it.