> So last semester for a global art history class, she took many precautions before showing a 14th-century painting of Islam’s founder. In the syllabus, she warned that images of holy figures, including the Prophet Muhammad and the Buddha, would be shown in the course. She asked students to contact her with any concerns, and she said no one did. In class, she prepped students, telling them that in a few minutes, the painting would be displayed, in case anyone wanted to leave.

> After Dr. López Prater showed the image, a senior in the class complained to the administration. Other Muslim students, not in the course, supported the student, saying the class was an attack on their religion. They demanded that officials take action.

Why is she complaining if she chose to stay in the class despite all the warnings?

Islam doesn't allow much nudity either:

---

[0]Tell the believing men to reduce [some] of their vision and guard their private parts. That is purer for them. Indeed, Allah is Acquainted with what they do.

[1]And tell the believing women to lower their gaze and guard their chastity, and not to reveal their adornments1 except what normally appears.2 Let them draw their veils over their chests, and not reveal their ˹hidden˺ adornments3 except to their husbands, their fathers, their fathers-in-law, their sons, their stepsons, their brothers, their brothers’ sons or sisters’ sons, their fellow women, those ˹bondwomen˺ in their possession, male attendants with no desire, or children who are still unaware of women’s nakedness.

---

I'm pretty sure art history is full of pictures of men and women in various state of nudity - should all that also be purged from the classroom? What is the standard to decide whether a painting can be shown? Or should the universities start allowing random art students from various religions to make decisions on whether The Dancing Girl[2] or Michelangelo's David[3] is fit to be displayed in the class?

Observing Hindus worship cow but beef is routinely consumed in Europe/America. So in accordance with their beliefs, they don't consume beef. Strict observers do not even go to places that serve beef (as is their right). What they don't do is complain to McDonald's that they are offended by other people consuming beef (and even if they did, I'm pretty sure the answer won't be to ban beef in McDonald's).

> At the Dec. 8 forum, which was attended by several dozen students, faculty and administrators, Ms. Wedatalla described, often through tears, how she felt seeing the image.“Who do I call at 8 a.m.,” she asked, when “you see someone disrespecting and offending your religion?”

What you do is, you question whether what happened was non-malicious, whether there was legitimate reason behind it and whether the offended person had the chance to avoid the experience altogether. In this scenario the answer to all those questions is, yes.

> The lecture was so disturbing, she said, that she could no longer see herself in that course.

Absolutely correct thinking and beneficial to all parties because clearly she doesn't have the mindset necessary for an art history class.

[0]: https://quran.com/24?startingVerse=30

[1]: https://quran.com/24?startingVerse=31

[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dancing_Girl_(sculpture)

[3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_(Michelangelo)