“An email about the decision from the museum’s Melissa Strauss to Ms Miah also said the work might hinder the institution’s attempts to increase its audiences. “The Art and Islam programme is about showcasing artists whose work is inspired by Muslim cultures in some way, but we are also aiming to reach new audiences through the programme,” she wrote. “This complaint has come from our target audience, and also a member of one of our main stakeholder groups.”

http://www.iwrnews.org/tasneem/archives/who-is-censoring-on-behalf-of-islam

I can’t wait for you to write a post on this blog condemning the censorship other than the Asians.

Bilal – I mentioned this article not because I wanted to say “Oh my good, look they’re censoring us because of Muslims again”. My point was to highlight another examples where so-called liberals (and I agree with Nosemonkey in that this person cannot really be a liberal) is censoring a Muslim person’s art because they think other Muslims are overly sensitive.

It’s a patronising attitude similar to when judges let off sex-offenders easy because of “they don’t know our culture” arguments. See here for example:
http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/703

Tanvir – in typically defensive mode, thinks I’m having a go at Muslims. Or he thinks this is a form of ultra-secularism. Which is even more bizarre.

I think Tanvir is making the point that it’s suddenly become a big issue because of the ‘ultra secularists’.

I’m just mindful of keeping a sense of perspective here. If the painting is so important, I don’t think there would be any objection if it was held in an exhibition without the links to religion. The title itself will lend to a certain degree of limitation, as I said above.

Utbah – Let’s humour you. Yes I do have problems with other examples of censorship. Why not give me specific examples than screaming Zionist this and Zionist that?

Pray, tell us how does one become more Muslim than the other or how one competes to be non-Muslim? I mean it’s not like you’re passing judgement on others Tanvir…. because we both know only Allah can do that. But of course, you’re too intelligent to do that. So presumably you have a list somewhere so that tells you when people who get annoyed at censorship of their pictures are automatically being less Muslim than others. Since you are the judge in these things of course.

Nice sob story Tanvir, but you’re missing the point. There are millions of pictures taken of people from South Asia, whether destitute or not. You have a problem with these pictures…. then presumably you have problems with pictures taken when people died in Lebanon too following the Israeli attacks? Or is it that you’re fine with those pictures (specially since Muslim sites use them all the time to drive home their point)…. but have a problem with “fu**ing secularists” get agitated over censorship.

Or maybe, just to be consistent, you do email other Muslim websites when the put up pictures of crying mothers or kids, and tell them off for putting up pictures of people in pain without their permission.

But I suspect you don’t because all you want is an excuse to have a go at someone. Oh life is hard….

Utbah, this blog is actually funded by zionists and mossad. Sunny continues his vehement zionist support because the secret world order bugged his thai hotel room, and well ill leave it to your imagination but the words ‘tranny’ ‘midget’ ‘bondage’ and ‘bukkake’ are helpful indicators of what happened.

I wonder those of us who object to this might protest and walk around naked in public, and force our mothers and daughters to do the same. I think that we would be arrested for indecency. See – we do have taboos after all, just like those nasty religious folks we accuse of censorship all the time.

Oh id agree that laws on public decency are utterly idiotic and should be scrapped. A fairly large part of the population walks the street in far more overtly sexual clothing every weekend whilst clubbing than some poor man/woman who gets prosecuted for practising naturism. Highlighting the idiocy of one law to support the low brow actions of a ‘provincial art gallery’ is hardly a strong argument. Id readily see both the naked people and the artist do what ever they wanted.

Fu**ing secularists

Im confused what secularism has to do with the situation.

First of all, isnt Tasneem they guy who posed semi naked on his blog with his girlfriend, well his girlfriend flashed one tit, did but he didnt have the balls to flash anything himself.

Anyway, maybe I should put this into perspective to show how tragically wrong the whole story is in its foundations. I have myself witnessed nudity such as mentioned by the photographer or ‘artist’; usually pretty old, and visibly the poorest, most destitute women on the streets. They no longer have the blouse part to wear under their saree, they have whatever ragged shreds of their saree to cover themselves up, and are in such a state of despair that they longer are conscious of not fully covering their private parts.

If it were a younger woman, one capable of work, or having clothes, members of the public would tell them to cover up, or the cops would. But women so poor and desperate, dont get bugged in this manner, people just lower their gaze, and maybe give them money.

This is a sign of compassion by the public, where the obvious state of the persons well-being overrides the fact she is showing something she shouldn’t – not some massive statement of acceptability of public displays of nudity. Its is brought out of a combination of general common sense, and also teachings of compassion and mercy – and I find it insulting if anyone says we need to prove these traits to the world, as if it is generally assumed we lack them.

But this artist has mis-concluded that public displays of nudity is all good with some muslims (tip: get in touch with tasneem and his girfriend you might be in luck) and out of all places she has gone to Bangladesh to find her evidence!! I think she should be censored for being bloody stupid.

Now some of you are asking about where ones mums or sisters fall into this…. it is generaly thought that when trying to congure up an analogy in order to respect women, think of them all as someones mum or sister and try and respect them like you would your own. Now for lets say one of your mums got schizophrenia, which was okay-ish controlled, but got worse and worse, and sometimes got better, but on a trip to India really got the better of her. She disappears. No sign of her. 10 years later, in an Art exhibition in Birmingham, you go with all your mates, and there you see a knackered old hag, with all her bits hanging out, sitting in a bus shelter… the thought crosses your mind, but not really. But the next day the Guardian prints one of the pieces of art up for a big prize, more so because the piece of art got hit by a bus so there’s a really big story to tell behind it. Get it?

I wonder if the piece of art was asked for her permission? I wonder what her friends, relatives (if they know where she is) or even the members of the public who see her everyday would think about her in the nude being a piece of art?

Fu**ing secularists.

I don’t object one way or another about this particular painting. If it has any standing, then it should stand for itself in another exhibition without reference to religion. Ultimately, someone’s going to make a decision about a piece of art that may not meet a category (art and religion) that’s been defined for it by the gallery, the artist, or the Muslim Artists group in this case. The causal relationship is clearly one way here – the art links to religion, and not the other way round.

If we’re talking about Islamic Art, as opposed to ‘Art and Islam’ then there are rules about what may or may not be portrayed. I daresay some of those rules were employed here, and a decision made. Probably the same level of sensitivity would have been shown in the past. I fail to see what’s so different about it now.

But it’s all too familiar to me.

And Don makes neat bullet points too.

No, but it is impolite to accuse people of hypocrisy when you don’t know them.

‘What is hysterical is the reaction this single subject has generated.’

Would you really characterise the responses so far as hysterical? You should visit other blogs.

‘Also, if you find the idea of people walking around naked hysterical, then it shows you have a strong reaction to something that isn’t actually controversial at all. ‘

Who found the idea of naked people hysterical? Actually, naked people just walking around in public is a bit controversial you must admit. In context, could be fun; but as a general rule I’d rather not. But scarcely the same thing as the depiction of the semi or unclothed form in a gallery.

‘Therefore you can be accused of having the same hysterical reaction to those religious folk who are determined to censor everything, or so we are led to believe.’

Not ‘these religious folks’. Stick around, you’ll find we tend to be a bit more nuanced here. I think we have been fairly clear who is in the frame for this nonsense.

‘Everyone has their red lines and their morals. Religion is about morals and red lines too you know.’

And if an artist crosses a religious red line? Artists are not well known for their morals.

‘If you are linking art to religion, then be prepared to introduce limits, unless what you really want to do is to deliberately provoke.’

If religion links itself to art, then it must be prepared to have it’s limits crossed, unless what you really want is to deliberately oppress.

Therefore you can be accused of having the same hysterical reaction to those religious folk who are determined to censor everything, or so we are led to believe. Everyone has their red lines and their morals. Religion is about morals and red lines too you know. If you are linking art to religion, then be prepared to introduce limits, unless what you really want to do is to deliberately provoke.

You have the knife sharpened and gleaming from long practice, I expect.

I wonder those of us who object to this might protest and walk around naked in public, and force our mothers and daughters to do the same. I think that we would be arrested for indecency. See – we do have taboos after all, just like those nasty religious folks we accuse of censorship all the time.

There is no objection surely to having the offending picture as part of a general art exhibition. But once you link that exhibition to something religious, then surely one will get a reaction. I’m not for or against any censorship in this case – I simply don’t care. It’s the reaction that I’m more concerned about.

http://www.intelligencesummit.org/images/Israel.gif