37 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

I would disagree. The way the Professor was swiftly labelled Islamaphobic and then effectively "cancelled" due to a complaint by an ethnic minority Muslim student has all the hallmarks of extreme left wing ideology/cancel culture in the University's administration.

It has all the hall marks of a private business trying to rid itself of a perceived problem.

 

There are no indications that the actions of the university were motivated by any political ideology, left or right.

44 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

Perhaps.  But chances are the teacher who showed the picture wouldn't have to worry about being decapitated. 

 

Nor would any college/university take their complaint as seriously as the one in this discussion.

Agreed, why is it there is only one religion that we have this problem?

1 hour ago, Chomper Higgot said:

And yet you just labelled him a liberal.

 

Perhaps returning to the topic of discussion rather than trying to wedge off topic subjects into the discussion might help you avoid such confusion.

 

Liberals in this thread have made clear statements that they support the dismissed Professor.

 

The Professor’s dismissal is not a product of any ‘left wing bias’.

 

 

I meant a real liberal, not one of your intolerant lefty Guardian readers who identify as one ????

12 minutes ago, Smokey and the Bandit said:

Agreed, why is it there is only one religion that we have this problem?

As the OP makes clear, many Muslims do not have a problem with the type of depiction at the centre of this dispute. 
 

“Sunni Muslims tend to be more strict in their interpretation of a ban than Shia Muslims. For instance, images of the Prophet are more common in Shia-majority Iran. “

1 hour ago, mikeymike100 said:

Not arguing, but if they saw a picture or painting of Jesus Christ in a lecture would they complain?????

Different religions have different taboos and prohibitions, or are more sensitive to some issues than others. I am a confirmed secularist and opposed to the influence of religion outside the private sphere, whatever the religion involved. And I think this influence is too significant in the U.S., including elected politicians swearing on the bible or the Quran. 

 

This Muslim who complained was dumb, but many American Christians are just as dumb (and It's not restricted to Christians, of course), That's my point.

8 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

As the OP makes clear, many Muslims do not have a problem with the type of depiction at the centre of this dispute. 
 

“Sunni Muslims tend to be more strict in their interpretation of a ban than Shia Muslims. For instance, images of the Prophet are more common in Shia-majority Iran. “

Agreed! Even within the two branches there are sects?

For example, in Saudi Arabia, Sunni Wahhabism is a prevalent and puritanical faction. Similarly, in Shiitism, the Druze are a somewhat eclectic sect residing in Lebanon, Syria, and Israel.

2 minutes ago, Smokey and the Bandit said:

Agreed! Even within the two branches there are sects?

For example, in Saudi Arabia, Sunni Wahhabism is a prevalent and puritanical faction. Similarly, in Shiitism, the Druze are a somewhat eclectic sect residing in Lebanon, Syria, and Israel.

Not sects.

 

Different branches of the faith. 

 

No different to Christianity in this respect. 

An offensive troll post and several replies have been removed.

1 hour ago, Chomper Higgot said:

It has all the hall marks of a private business trying to rid itself of a perceived problem.

And why is it a perceived problem? Because the divisive Woke ideology has infiltrated places of learning. There is nothing wrong with an image of Mohammed in an educational context.

 

1 hour ago, Chomper Higgot said:

 

There are no indications that the actions of the university were motivated by any political ideology, left or right.

Nonsense. Cancelling respected individuals because of one single perceived slight against a minority group is pretty much the definition of left wing intolerance, virtue signalling and ideology. 

 

3 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Linked to the fired Professor showing a class artwork depicting the Prophet Mohammed how?

Anyone in any country showing pictures of the prophet endangers themselves. I guess the University teachers in this case reached their conclusion faster than those reading this article. 

1 minute ago, Purdey said:

Anyone in any country showing pictures of the prophet endangers themselves. I guess the University teachers in this case reached their conclusion faster than those reading this article. 

Rubbish.

1 hour ago, Purdey said:

Anyone in any country showing pictures of the prophet endangers themselves. I guess the University teachers in this case reached their conclusion faster than those reading this article. 

Not so.
 

The op makes clear that within branches of Islam in different parts of the world pictures of the prophet are acceptable.
 

Iran being such a country. 

3 hours ago, proton said:

I meant a real liberal, not one of your intolerant lefty Guardian readers who identify as one ????

Once again dreaming up your own definition of a liberal.

2 hours ago, JonnyF said:

And why is it a perceived problem? Because the divisive Woke ideology has infiltrated places of learning. There is nothing wrong with an image of Mohammed in an educational context.

 

Nonsense. Cancelling respected individuals because of one single perceived slight against a minority group is pretty much the definition of left wing intolerance, virtue signalling and ideology. 

 

And yet myself and other Liberals responding in this thread have stated our support for the Professor and against the University Administration.

 

So in this thread we have black and white evidence of Liberals objecting to the treatment of this professor, which you choose to ignore, and we have your references to some imaginary Liberals who you imagine might hold different views than the Liberals participating in this thread.

 

 

 

 

2 hours ago, Purdey said:

Anyone in any country showing pictures of the prophet endangers themselves. I guess the University teachers in this case reached their conclusion faster than those reading this article. 

Or so you assert.