An Artist in Exile Tests India’s Democratic Ideals

[Flintlock]

Yes...as a matter of fact its a very moderate and secular society. Still islamic laws are respected strictly by the Shiah majority in this country, which brings ne back to my remark about the scholars.

Here's the fatwah by an Iranian Scholar:

A fatwa given by Ali al-Sistani, the Shi'a marja of Iraq, states that it is permissible to depict Muhammad, even in television or movies, if done with respect.

 

[Goodperson]

Only if a muslim starts to paint them or draw sketches.

No problem painting these people don't you see them on media ?

 

[DarkStar]

What is Muslim about any of these arts.

Calligraphy has been practiced since at least 600 BC. Poetry should be even older. Surely Kalidasa was born long before the prophet.

The arts have no religion. The religious fundoo types Muslims would have opposed them in any case.

by calligraphy, i meant Qur'anic and arabic calligraphy. There have been hindu calligraphers, hindu artisans have been used in the construction of mosques, and many of the old tazias still used in moharram processions were crafted by hindu craftsmen, and one ancient tazia in lahore was taken out by hindus too.

It is a fact, that sculpture and picture painting has been anathema to muslim culture and arts, with only a few exceptions in history.

 

[daredevil]

Will you be banning the baths at sangam, at the kumbh mela too? and let's ban all the naked gurus, rishis, sanyaasis, sufis, jain monks too.

Well the guy I was talking about is not a Rishi or some guru. He is a well educated guy. So we are talking two different things here. You are taking things out of context.

I'm sure, Gurus wouldn't mind a thing if some body photographed them. Indeed there are many that you can find on google. And the guy who wrote that blog would sure mind his naked pic on web.

 

[Goodperson]

Here's the fatwah by an Iranian Scholar:

A fatwa given by Ali al-Sistani, the Shi'a marja of Iraq, states that it is permissible to depict Muhammad, even in television or movies, if done with respect.

hmmm... Difficult to digest isn't it ?

 

[Neo]

The same reason why Taslima nasreen is in India but fortunately Hussain has support of Govt and Courts and other liberal people. No one from her country considers plight of Nasreen.

Taslima can not be compared with Hussein, unlike the populist former the latter is an artist with no political agenda.

Compare Taslima with Salman Rushdie, not with Hussein.

Isn't it ironic that India functions perfactly as a safe heaven for a muslim critic but fails to persuade Hussein to continue his work in India?

 

[daredevil]

hmmm... Difficult to digest isn't it ?

Goodperson you are being bad or what?. Just Kidding!!!.

 

[Neo]

Here's the fatwah by an Iranian Scholar:

A fatwa given by Ali al-Sistani, the Shi'a marja of Iraq, states that it is permissible to depict Muhammad, even in television or movies, if done with respect.

When I said that Iran is a moderate and secular society, I was referring to the comon man. Clerics are the opposite. I expected a condemnation.

 

[Neo]

No problem painting these people don't you see them on media ?

Ask those who oppose Hussein's paintings.

 

[Flintlock]

None of these are facts. In fact, most people who are not of the shiite muslim persuasion would be shocked and offended at depictions of the prophet.

They are all facts. I can provide the relevant sources if necessary.

I agree that most non-shiite muslims (perhaps most muslims) would be shocked and offended by depictions of the prophet, just as most hindus would be shocked and offended by depictions of naked Hindu gods.

However, the point that I am trying to make (and that nobody seems to want to understand) is that cultural mores and ideas of morality differ from place to place and period to period. What is considered offensive today may not have been so yesterday, or may not be so tomorrow. What is considered offensive in Iran may not be considered so in Saudi, and vice versa.

Also, understanding and appreciating the moral rules of a different religion and society requires a certain openness of mind and acceptance of the fact that nothing is hewn in stone, not even God. I am not sure there are many members here who have that kind of mindset.

 

[daredevil]

Taslima can not be compared with Hussein, unlike the populist former the latter is an artist with no political agenda.

Compare Taslima with Salman Rushdie, not with Hussein.

Isn't it ironic that India functions perfactly as a safe heaven for a muslim critic but fails to persuade Hussein to continue his work in India?

For Hussein it is still a safe haven, provided he comes back. Govt. has never targeted him. If he has problems from others, he should request security from govt., Just like Rushdie.

I read some where MF Hussein still misses walking on the Mumbai beach.

 

[DarkStar]

Here's the fatwah by an Iranian Scholar:

A fatwa given by Ali al-Sistani, the Shi'a marja of Iraq, states that it is permissible to depict Muhammad, even in television or movies, if done with respect.

It has already been mentioend, that there is a section of the shia muslim minority which approves of such images. Which is why in Iran, you would find such images. However, other shias, and the vast majority of muslims condemn it, and would find it physically, mentally, emotionally repulsive to see a likeness of the prophet muhammad (whom we dont worship), even if it were an exact likeness.

If muslims were to peddle pictures of muhammad on street corners, sell statues and idols, making millions by exporting them to the west, then you could demand that we accept others making images and cartoons.

You commercialised your icons, along with teh christians. You sold them for profit, you commissioned artists to paint them. We did not initiate this.

 

[daredevil]

They are all facts. I can provide the relevant sources if necessary.

I agree that most non-shiite muslims (perhaps most muslims) would be shocked and offended by depictions of the prophet, just as most hindus would be shocked and offended by depictions of naked Hindu gods.

However, the point that I am trying to make (and that nobody seems to want to understand) is that cultural mores and ideas of morality differ from place to place and period to period. What is considered offensive today may not have been so yesterday, or may not be so tomorrow. What is considered offensive in Iran may not be considered so in Saudi, and vice versa.

Also, understanding and appreciating the moral rules of a different religion and society requires a certain openness of mind and acceptance of the fact that nothing is hewn in stone, not even God. I am not sure there are many members here who have that kind of mindset.

Well said buddy and you summed up very well.

 

[Flintlock]

Taslima can not be compared with Hussein, unlike the populist former the latter is an artist with no political agenda.

Compare Taslima with Salman Rushdie, not with Hussein.

Isn't it ironic that India functions perfactly as a safe heaven for a muslim critic but fails to persuade Hussein to continue his work in India?

Nobody in the Indian government attempted to persuade either of them to stay in India. Both chose to either stay or leave of their own accord.

Taslima suffered far more than Hussain. However, Hussain chose to stay outside, that's entirely his decision.

Infact, Taslima said several times in interviews, if I remember correctly, that she wants to stay in India inspite of the death-threats against her.

 

[DarkStar]

Well, Tasleema Nasreen and Rushdie gained a lot from the sorts of reactions that came from muslims. Maybe if the condemnations hadn't been so forthright, no one would have known who these two hithertoo obscure and not very good writers were.