coffee_rules Posted February 25, 2010 Share Posted February 25, 2010 good riddance to this filth. Let him paint a burqa-clad women doing it with mullahs over at Doha. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ram Posted February 25, 2010 Share Posted February 25, 2010 Dont know much about him, except for the fact that he has always been a controversial figure. But it does seem a weird that he gets citizenship (not just residency) in an Islamic Emirate, esp. after all the controversies related to him painting Hindu Goddesses naked. Its not often that these super-conservative Gulf states give citizenship to outsiders. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cowboysfan Posted February 25, 2010 Share Posted February 25, 2010 I cannot believe the vitriol against a painter!!.so what if he paints some deities nude?.are you offended to see nude paintings and sculptures in a hindu temples? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seedhi Posted February 25, 2010 Share Posted February 25, 2010 I think he already has answered that question many a times. Unlike other religions, Hinduism is the only one that is so heavily lenient towards arts and has absolutely no compulsions against nudity. Some of the greatest work of Hindu arts are from Khajuraho and Konark. In most temples you would find naked statutes. This is no big deal at all(and every Shiva/Shankar bhakta should tell you that anyway). The funny thing is right wing loony brigade suggests on one hand how Muslim invaders brought abt purdah/ghunghat system and essentially killed the sheer exuberance of Hindu culture, then go about kicking a Muslim artists who paints in the nude! Then there is a case of celebration of Hindu godesses as work of art. Which religion, apart from Buddhism to an extent, celebrates so many gods and godesses? Every Hindu student, atleast those in North India, worships Saraswati. Almost every artists, Hindu or Muslim, typically does the same. Is that something you expect in Christianty?? Of course not. Lastly, why did he not paint Gods of his own religion? Well Islam is monolithic and does not beleive in idol worship. Forget painting Allah, even Mohammed, Ali etc is not suggested/recommended. So why would any Muslim do that? On the other hand any Hindu, or even a non-Hindu, can paint images. Dont see anything wrong with it. With regards to him leaving for Qatar, well it is ironical since this board is overrun by people who have settled abroad, or are in the process of doing so. Hussain has lived abroad for a long time so why can this not be a case similar to many others? Simply because his painting are different?? lol xxxThat coward MF Hussain RAN away from India when court cases were filed against him. None of the Indians living abroad on this board have fled from cases in India. If that COWARD had any courage he would have faced the pending cases in person and cleared his name using the same arguments that you are making on his behalf. By the way I have never seen Goddesses having sex with animals on any temple in India. Or Goddesses sitting nude on top of Ganesha. And did you not see his justification for painting Hitler nude - he wanted to humiliate Hitler. Then why did he paint Hindu deities, men and women nude? Lastly, I did not see such an outcry when Salman Rushdie was forced to leave India and live in hiding under a death threat for a long time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coffee_rules Posted February 25, 2010 Share Posted February 25, 2010 I cannot believe the vitriol against a painter!!.so what if he paints some deities nude?.are you offended to see nude paintings and sculptures in a hindu temples? In all the temples, I have never seen Goddess having sex and animals. That is perversion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cowboysfan Posted February 25, 2010 Share Posted February 25, 2010 my view is that he can paint whatever he wants.we are not the taliban. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punjabi_khota Posted February 25, 2010 Share Posted February 25, 2010 Lol if he actually painted goddess having sex with animals, then every kind of outrage is as much justified as painting Mohammad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamy Posted February 25, 2010 Share Posted February 25, 2010 Bestiality is discussed in Kama Sutra :aha: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clarke Posted February 25, 2010 Share Posted February 25, 2010 my view is that he can paint whatever he wants.we are not the taliban. There's a huge gap between taliban and modern day Denmark, we are somewhere in that gap. For instance, sex without marriage amounts to rape as per the Delhi High Court i.e. 8 yrs imprisonment :secret: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cowboysfan Posted February 25, 2010 Share Posted February 25, 2010 well you can have outrage against him but yuo cannot ban him,we are a secular country yet resort to banning texts ,novels and paintings not to offend a particular religion.this is a slippery slope of censorship . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Three'sACrowd Posted February 25, 2010 Share Posted February 25, 2010 I think he already has answered that question many a times. Unlike other religions, Hinduism is the only one that is so heavily lenient towards arts and has absolutely no compulsions against nudity. Some of the greatest work of Hindu arts are from Khajuraho and Konark. In most temples you would find naked statutes. This is no big deal at all(and every Shiva/Shankar bhakta should tell you that anyway). The funny thing is right wing loony brigade suggests on one hand how Muslim invaders brought abt purdah/ghunghat system and essentially killed the sheer exuberance of Hindu culture, then go about kicking a Muslim artists who paints in the nude! Then there is a case of celebration of Hindu godesses as work of art. Which religion, apart from Buddhism to an extent, celebrates so many gods and godesses? Every Hindu student, atleast those in North India, worships Saraswati. Almost every artists, Hindu or Muslim, typically does the same. Is that something you expect in Christianty?? Of course not. Lastly, why did he not paint Gods of his own religion? Well Islam is monolithic and does not beleive in idol worship. Forget painting Allah, even Mohammed, Ali etc is not suggested/recommended. So why would any Muslim do that? On the other hand any Hindu, or even a non-Hindu, can paint images. Dont see anything wrong with it. With regards to him leaving for Qatar, well it is ironical since this board is overrun by people who have settled abroad, or are in the process of doing so. Hussain has lived abroad for a long time so why can this not be a case similar to many others? Simply because his painting are different?? lol xxx Pretty much. :nice: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Outsider Posted February 25, 2010 Share Posted February 25, 2010 Oh Hai Berkeley man. :hysterical::hysterical: So you think Qatar is an ideal place to run away from Right wing loonies ? :lmao: Is Qatar some new beacon of liberty and freedom we don't know about ? The kind of right wing loonies threatening him are not in Qatar and has been living there for years in exile anyways. He is 95 years old - what do you expect him to do? Move around from one country to another every few years till he finds the beacon of liberty and freedom? Fact is, loonies from one side drove him out as loonies from the other side of the spectrum reacted to Rushdie, which is nothing to be proud of as an Indian. Regrading his paintings and all, can't be bothered discussing them again after some longish discussions on them here a long while back except to agree broadly with what Lurker has written above and to add that he is a painter and an artist and should have the freedom to express his art in the manner he wants to without being bound by religion. Art is not bound by some government quota policy where if he has painted Saraswati nude, he must do the same for Aisha to please or hurt religious sentiments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lurker Posted February 25, 2010 Share Posted February 25, 2010 That coward MF Hussain RAN away from India when court cases were filed against him. None of the Indians living abroad on this board have fled from cases in India. If that COWARD had any courage he would have faced the pending cases in person and cleared his name using the same arguments that you are making on his behalf. You are overly simplifying this. Hussein was seeing threats against him ever since rise of Hindu nationalism in late 80s. Many of his paintings that became controversial were actually thought\mused\created ealier. Thanks to Mandal-Kamandal and rise of loony brigade India essentially became a less tolerant nation. Hussein faced backlash from Bajrang Dal and SS so no real surprise that he left India. It is not exactly that he behaved like a Nadeem (of Nadeem Shravan fame) and went missing after a High court warrant. There is lot more to it. Lastly, I did not see such an outcry when Salman Rushdie was forced to leave India and live in hiding under a death threat for a long time. Which is why India has suffered so immensly over the years. I think we can all agree that after Shah Bano case as also Rushdie's, Indian moderate Muslims took a big hit and radical elements started to surface more. This also fueled radicals on Hindu side, both feeding off each other. Rushdie's exile was wrong, so was Hussein's. Period. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Outsider Posted February 25, 2010 Share Posted February 25, 2010 Lastly, I did not see such an outcry when Salman Rushdie was forced to leave India and live in hiding under a death threat for a long time. Which is why India has suffered so immensly over the years. I think we can all agree that after Shah Bano case as also Rushdie's, Indian moderate Muslims took a big hit and radical elements started to surface more. This also fueled radicals on Hindu side, both feeding off each other. Rushdie's exile was wrong, so was Hussein's. Period. This is such a retarded and commonly used line of argument - the only one coming across hypocritical in this is you by condemning what happened to Rushdie and supporting what's happening to Hussain. Not on the basis of any principle or logic, but because some loonies supported the treatment meted out to Rushdie, you are compelled to join the loony brigade on the other side of the spectrum to "weigh" things out rather than think things through in a logical manner. How about condemning both, like I am doing, or at least supporting both? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seedhi Posted February 25, 2010 Share Posted February 25, 2010 You are overly simplifying this. Hussein was seeing threats against him ever since rise of Hindu nationalism in late 80s. Many of his paintings that became controversial were actually thoughtmusedcreated ealier. Thanks to Mandal-Kamandal and rise of loony brigade India essentially became a less tolerant nation. Hussein faced backlash from Bajrang Dal and SS so no real surprise that he left India. It is not exactly that he behaved like a Nadeem (of Nadeem Shravan fame) and went missing after a High court warrant. There is lot more to it. Which is why India has suffered so immensly over the years. I think we can all agree that after Shah Bano case as also Rushdie's, Indian moderate Muslims took a big hit and radical elements started to surface more. This also fueled radicals on Hindu side, both feeding off each other. Rushdie's exile was wrong, so was Hussein's. Period.Now come on. Taslima Nasreen has been physically assaulted by Muslim radicals in India, she has got constant threats as well, but she is still courageous enough to stay here, which ironically the govt discourages. Dilip Kumar, Shabana Azmi etc have been protested against by Shiv Sena, Bajrang Dal etc and are staying in India as well. MF Hussain ran away precisely because he did not want to face the court cases. Today there is a Congress govt both in Maharashtra and Center, and has guaranteed security to him. But still he refuses to come back and face the charges against him. Anyway it is a good riddance for India. And his hypocrisy can be seen from the fact that he bowed down to Muslims who protested that they were hurt by some lines in his film Meenaxi. Here is the article. Husain pulls Meenaxi out of theatres Painter Maqbool Fida Husain has pulled out his movie, Meenaxi — A Tale of Three Cities, out of movie theatres a day after some Muslim organisations here raised objections to one of the songs in it. “I have told my sole distributor Yash Chopra to withdraw the film from public shows with immediate effect,†Husain said in a statement today. Husain who was visibily upset, however, refused to provide any reasons for his action to reporters. “I have not made the film to make money, nor have I sold it to anyone. Therefore, I need not give any reason for the withdrawal of the screening of the film to public,†Husain said. Yesterday, the All-India Ulema Council kicked up a row by terming the qawwali number in the film, ‘Noor-un-Ala-Noor’ as blasphemous. The council claimed that the song featuring the film’s main protagonist, Tabu, contained words directly lifted from the Quran. The council’s statement was supported by Muslim organisations like the Milli Council, All-India Muslim Council, Raza Academy, Jamiat-ul-Ulema-e-Hind and Jamat-e-Islami. The organisations had demanded that Husain change the words of the song. The organisations had even filed a complaint with the Mumbai Police Commissioner A.N. Roy. “For us, the term Noor-un-Ala-Noor is very sacred. It shouldn’t be used to describe the physical beauty of a heroine,†Maulana Abdul Quddus Kashmiri, general secretary of the All-India Ulema Council said in his statement. Maulana Kashmiri, however, admitted that he did not see the movie. Responding to the allegations, Husain’s son and associate producer of the movie, Owais, had said there was no intention to create a controversy. He added that the words Noor-un-Ala-Noor was meant to describe the divine beauty. Meenaxi — A Tale of Three Cities, featuring Tabu in three roles has been critically acclaimed but opened to poor response in theatres across the country. However, Husain had claimed that he had not made the movie to earn money. http://www.tribuneindia.com/2004/20040417/nation.htm#8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sachinism Posted February 25, 2010 Share Posted February 25, 2010 Bestiality is discussed in Kama Sutra :aha: I bet you regularly practice it :cantstop: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seedhi Posted February 25, 2010 Share Posted February 25, 2010 This is such a retarded and commonly used line of argument - the only one coming across hypocritical in this is you by condemning what happened to Rushdie and supporting what's happening to Hussain. Not on the basis of any principle or logic' date=' but because some loonies supported the treatment meted out to Rushdie, you are compelled to join the loony brigade on the other side of the spectrum to "weigh" things out rather than think things through in a logical manner. How about condemning both, like I am doing, or at least supporting both?[/quote']What happened to Hussain - some cases were filed against him. He should have stayed behind and fought those cases and cleared his name. He can do so even now. Today the govt of India has guaranteed security to him to come back but he refuses to do so. I personally am against any physical violence against him but it is perfectly fine to file cases against offensive paintings. There was one instance when some Shiv Sainiks entered his home when he was not present - and I condemn it. But I am against his paintings - they are offensive and coupled with the fact that he is unashamedly proud of them I am glad that he is out of the country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamy Posted February 25, 2010 Share Posted February 25, 2010 I bet you regularly practice it :cantstop: everyday in the shower Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Outsider Posted February 25, 2010 Share Posted February 25, 2010 But I am against his paintings - they are offensive and coupled with the fact that he is unashamedly proud of them I am glad that he is out of the country. What is your take on the Satanic Verses - is it offensive and is Rushdie proud of it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beetle Posted February 25, 2010 Share Posted February 25, 2010 Good riddance! He is an overrated artist who created unnecessary controversy and discord .A top hypocrite! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts