This also isn't a Charlie Hebdo situation, where a publication is intentionally trying to be provocative to raise the eire of religious people, or someone like Bill Maher trying to provoke the conservative religious sensibilities of a wider audience.
If a student's own religious beliefs meant that they're disallowed from seeing a representation of Muhammed, then they should either not participate in that portion of class or not take that course, just as a devoutly Catholic student might be have an ethical dilemma participating in a science lab that uses fetal stem cells from those cell recoveries from the 1970s.
Always funny to watch ultra-progressives try to make both-sides comparisons. A group of extremist religious zealots murder over the most inoffensive religious cartoon on earth? That's in the same vein as Bill Maher making fun of Christians!
A Muslim student that can't be in a classroom depicting a religious figure? That's like a Catholic student participating in a science lab with human embryonic stem cell tissue. You know, that little chestnut scenario where a Catholic student goes into med school forgetting that he'd need to work with stem cells and then contacts all the news publications to get the faculty fired for Christianaphobia and inherent disregarding.
Nobody on that forum wants to admit how patronizing, cruel, and frankly, disgusting it is to hold this group of people to a much lower standard than everyone else - and all the innocent people in these civilizations , especially women, are suffering by these woke cracker distinguished mentally-challenged fellows trying to take the pressure off of this heinously stupid religion.
Are you going to save all the Muslims? Sounds like you've got a savior complex. Are you going to bomb them? Patronizing of a different leaf, I suppose.
This was started by one stupid and selfish person. The painting itself was made by a Muslim. But I guess they're all monkeys lol. Nice edit.
I edited it out on the suspicion anyone would be cynical enough to conflate it with anything more than monkey attributes - barbarism, incivility, violence, inability to talk through problems, creating friction through tribalism etc. i didn't want to leave room for that, but there you go. Save them? I want people to stop putting pampers on them. It really is too much to ask, in the modern era, for everyone to be held to a common standard -- and the standard here is low. Religious lunatics deciding that women can't go to school should be the stopping point - but it isn't. Apparently you're a white savior if you don't want that kind of interference in civilization. Every religion sucks and obfuscates some basic pro-social behavior in some way (and mitigates anti-social behaviors, too), but it is unequivocally clear at this point, that modern civilizations should only let religion play an extremely peripheral role in the private life of citizens and no public role in the government. That's what we want for ourselves and that's what we have decided is productive for our own societies - but , for some reason, it's preposterous to think that other people in foreign lands may want the same thing. In fact, racist.
Muslims existed in Afghanistan before the Taliban takeover and girls and women were allowed to go school. Taliban, an extremist terrorist faction, banned women and girls from attending school, in one single country or a religion with over a billion followers, not Islam. The fact you're attributing such an extreme act done by terrorists and likening it to the whole religion while talking about "low standards" shows that you are blinded. This is a you problem.
Go poll the average Muslim on blasphemy laws, women and gay rights, and apostacy. Do the vast majority of Muslims still support the death penalty for leaving the religion? It was like that in every Muslim-majority nation on earth in the mid 2010s. I haven't kept up with the research. The religion needs to take a complete backseat in government because it's inherently intolerant and aggressive.
Many things you attribute to "the religion" are actually not inherent to the religion at all. Much of it is:
A. Culture.
And
B. Wahhabism/Salafism.
Wahhabism in itself is a response to colonization and is the main Islamic philosophy purported by the Saudi Arabian government. That government exports this backwards philosophy to multiple nations and also does so in the form of money and investment.
Wahhabism and Salafism are literal minded interpretations of the religion that go against the classical interpretation of it.
You mentioned death penalty for apoatacy. Look for yourself. The answers are vast and diverse yet you paint Islam with one brush.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostasy_in_Islam_by_countryHere's Algeria:
Freedom of religion in Algeria is regulated by the Algerian Constitution, which declares Sunni Islam to be the state religion[14] (Article 2) but also declares that "freedom of creed and opinion is inviolable" (Article 36);[citation needed] it prohibits discrimination, Article 29 states "All citizens are equal before the law. No discrimination shall prevail because of birth, race, sex, opinion or any other personal or social condition or circumstance".[citation needed]
Freedom of religion in a Muslim country but the way you paint it such a thing wouldn't exist.
You think your problem is Islam and Muslims but really your main problem is Salafism and culture, with your main problem is Arab culture, which is backwards. Even Muslims dislike Arab culture.
Granted, things are perfect but there's plenty mostly secular Muslim nations like Morocco, Malaysia, Indonesia, Turkiye;etc. That painting the entire religion with a broad brush makes you look pretty ridiculous. Especially since in all of this you solely blame Islam when countries like America have guided many Muslim nations towards the very extremism they cry about.
See here:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_propagation_of_Salafism_and_WahhabismMore reading.
Read this Quora thread and the diverse answers:
https://www.quora.com/What-s-one-reason-as-a-Muslim-you-don-t-like-Saudi-Arabia/answer/Ahmed-Abdelhaq-Zaydan?ch=15&oid=158097408&share=574ecdd4&srid=uJK6j2&target_type=answerSo even your "we need to save the Muslim women!" thing is patently ridiculous. It's like calling all of Christians are fundamentalists by equating them all as Evangelicals. It's too wide sweeping. Does Islam have problems with radicalism? Absolutely to act like it's embedded is ignorant. Saudi Arabia for reference is like a 100 year old country. You brought up the Taliban women's education ban because you equate all Muslims to terrorists. It's hard to take you seriously on the topic.
