I have to agree that it’s unnecessary and insensitive to the majority south Asian students who are Muslim.
However, and we had a discussion about the Prophet Muhammed’s (pbuh) picture before, and there isn’t anything in the Holy Quran which explicitly bans images of the prophet. And seeing as that is the sole authority in Islam, above any Hadith or akida then really no one has a right to use Islam to be offended. That is a proper Muslim who follows the Quran and goes of what the Quran says can’t then use Islam as reason as to why the pictures offend them, they can be offended because they love the prophet and may feel it is demeaning, but they wouldn’t be able to use the religion of Islam as why. In fact inappropriately using the Quran is Haraam, which it states several times in the Quran, and there is even verses in the Quran where people deny or even “mock” the prophet (pbuh) and in return there is never any violence. So there wouldn’t even be a real religious precedent to be violent towards someone who showed a portrait.
Unfortunately over the generations Islam has been hijacked by a caste of people who seem to introduce more and more extremist ideas and laws, based of things that aren’t even in the Quran.
It’s there and easily searched, as are many other caricatures.
It’s also important to point out that it isn’t illegal to show a caricature of the prophet in democratic and secularised countries. It’s not a child porn image. People may not like it being shown, it may not be appropriate etc but it’s still not an illegal act.
It was a class on blasphemy and the photo was used solely to make that point. The same class and photo had been used by another teacher the prior year. Unless you’re a teacher I’m unsure how you can state it’s ‘contary to the national curriculum’.
Let’s be clear this goes beyond peaceful protests. They stopped the school from opening and demanded the sacking of a teacher. Imagine how the other parents must feel not being able to take their children to school
Incorrect. Specific materials are already designated for this very type of lesson, I can 100% guarantee you they do not include caricatures or cartoons depicting the Prophet.
There’s a reason why this type of incident doesn’t arise very year nationwide.
The Hadith don’t even say anything about dipictions of Muhammed either. Muhammed in certain hadith states that any picture of any living thing is a sin for Muslims to possess. This is because of associations with idiolotary, ie someone might worship the dipiction instead of worshiping God. However many muslims, especially of Shia background drew and have drawn dipictions of Muhammed because they reject many of these Hadith.
We know for a fact the early Muslim leaders of their early empire did draw the prophet Muhammed. Because Abd al-Malik, someone who was an associate of Muhammed depicted him as an image in the coins of his empire 60 years after Muhammed’s death. In much the same way we have the queen on our bank notes today they did the same with Muhammed, albeit with cruder technology. This predates the Hadith by about 140 years. The hadith were written 200 years after Muhammed died. So the earliest Muslims nearest to Muhammed’s time and nearest to his person did draw him en masse on their coins and maybe likely in documents that never survived
But let’s say we believe all of the Hadith (nearly all Muslims do not). It’s for those ‘who believe’ in order for them not to put an image as an idol in place of a single god. It’s not a ruleset for people who do not believe. For Muslims they don’t draw Muhammed because they do not want other Muslims to start worshiping the idol or dipiction.
Unrelated but if we go by Moorish architecture, Human depiction of any form is frowned upon.
Every decoration includes flowers or patterns, not even animals.
That’s not how teaching works in British schools. Teachers find their own materials, plan and design their own lessons. They sometimes share lessons other teachers have planned and designed. This lesson was taught by another teacher in another year at the same school.
RS guidelines are closely regulated due to the subject matter, a teacher can’t use just anything they find. I have never seen a RS lesson plan that incorporates Charlie Hebdo caricatures into the materials, this is an extremely sensitive area for obvious reasons. If you don’t see how that’s inappropriate then we’re going to have to agree to disagree
Yeah that probably originated from one of the 4 schools either Hanbali or Maliki. But regardless there isn’t any real religious grounds for the for it. Going by the Quran which is the word of god, you wouldn’t be a bad Muslim for not being offended. In fact there would be no basis at all for any kind of reaction.
There are so many things in Islam which have been warped and changed that some practices are contradictory to the Quran itself. Unfortunately inside the Majority of Islamic states you could be killed for highlighting any of these things. It’s ironic because this wasn’t the case at all after the prophet (pbuh) died. Up to the 18th century Islamic tradition was very moderate, head scarfs and fully body coverings weren’t common or mandatory, you had winery’s, breweries and places were alcohol was created and consumed all over the Islamic world. Music and art were promoted universally peoples of all different races and religions living and mixing together. It’s not comparable to our modern standards by any means but for its time it was very open and free. It’s not until the rise of wahabism do we start to see states and religious bodies start to exert more and more control over peoples lives, to the point where you end up with some the wackos we have today and a country like Saudi Arabia and groups like ISIS. It’s gone the opposite way.
This is the problem with most religions.
People use it as a tool to control what others do and think.
How we still have to listen to these fraudsters telling us what to do and what to think, in the twenty first century, is astonishing.
Even more amazing is that there are millions around the world who believe and follow their orders in the name of an invisible friend.
When I was taught about World War 2 and the Holocaust and then the Civil Rights Movement, we were shown examples of the kind of horrifically racist and offensive material propagated by people in those periods. We could have been taught about the period without direct reference to that material, but our education wouldn’t have been richer for it.
If it’s a citizenship class that covers issues like free speech, or a religious lesson, or something along the lines of a PSHRE class I see no issue in showing these depictions and cartoons like the one ran by Charlie Hebdo, because its being done so within an appropriate context and with the aim of teaching children to think critically about these issues. It’s not an endorsement of the material nor is it saying that it’s a good thing to intentionally offend some Muslims by depicting Mohammed. If its done outside of that specific context, when there’s no educational benefit to the children , then I too would ask questions of the teachers decision to show the material, and thus would question their suitability for the role.
Thinly veiled threats demanding a change in educational/public policy on the grounds of blasphemy aren’t acceptable in a secular society imo. Peaceful protesting is fine, those people can crack on, I just hope people don’t listen to them.
We were shown caricatures of ‘the Jew’ based on German propaganda. Exaggerated images based on their phenotype.
I can only think the teacher showed this image to inspire conversation, to encourage debate among a group of young adults. If they’re not taught how to argue properly at a young age, then radicalism wins.
The way I see it, the teacher’s apologised, he shouldn’t lose his job. We’ve had a Cambridge professor keep her job after saying abolish whites FFS. This seems like double standards.
Exactly.
Any society that tolerates this sort of behaviour will be seen as weak and an easy touch for any other religious zealots.
Blasphemy is a tool to shut down criticism of their archaic beliefs and rules.
It might have worked a few centuries ago but people have seen through the lies, hypocrisy and lack of tolerance that religions have.
Imagine if the boot was on the other foot and religious people were told what they could and could not say by other people.
There would be uproar.
Just to level up the stupidity they’ll be millions of people avoiding a ginsters pasty or a meat and potato pie tomorrow to prove some sort of obscure point and plenty of them will judge others if they do. Fucking bollocks the lot of it.
For something so simple to be able to manipulate millions of people with threats and false promises, they aren’t going anywhere.
Religion was invented to control anyone who follows it and that in turn also means power and profit.
I’m amazed at something that claims to be for the good of people is so intolerant, hateful and hypocritical.
This is not true. Broadly whoever is the RE lead will direct what content is taught, but even then enormous freedom is probably given to the class teacher to interpret. In most cases in Primary schools there is no one at all telling you what you can or cannot talk about providing that you could explain to Senior Leadership what you are doing and why if called upon to do so.
RE will be determined by the local authority and they will set a curriculum, at least that’s how it is in my school and it won’t tell you to explicitly teach or prohibit anything. But yes if I was going to depict Mohammed I would certainly have sought out guidance first so you could rightly say it was stupid and inappropriate as I’d be in no doubt what the head teacher would say. Don’t be a twat and don’t show the cartoon would be the answer.
Theoretically yes. I’d never want to insult my parents the way he did, but technically given that there is no blasphemy law he really shouldn’t be in hiding for his life. It should be a suspension and wait and see the verdict. I think what he did was unprofessional in a school setting. I mean it was primary school not university.
The reason that the right are able to use this for their own ends is because there is some truth in what they say. Islamists do, obviously, use force and the threat of force to get compliance. That does need calling out. It matters not one jot if the teacher here was a massive bellend for what he did. His life should not be at risk and we all know that if he was walking down the street he might end up with a lopped off head. It’s also important to call it out because it’s only a small minority of Mulsims who behave like this. I reckon most of my Muslim parents, though not pleased, would either say nothing or just complain. They aren’t going to hurt anyone. By not calling it out it makes all Muslims look guilty by association imo.
Totally agree, exactly what I meant with my post.