Gay Mohammad art censored

Gay Mohammad images on video and in photos were censored recently from a Dutch art exhibit. The artist was forced into hiding by death threats from Muslim extremists.

Iranian-born artist Sooreh Hera says that her images are an artistic expose of Islamic hypocrisy on homosexuality.

She photographed gay men in masks of Mohammad and his son-in-law Ali. Her video mixes photos of gay men and Muslim clerics, Islamic chants and the hard rock of “Gay Bar” by Electric Six. 

The municipal museum in the Hague backed out of its plan to exhibit the photos from Hera’s “Adam and Ewald” series and a related video, according to recent news reports. Wim van Krimpen, director of the Gemeentemuseum, announced that the images were removed because “certain people in our society might perceive it as offensive.”

Hera, 34, accused the museum of caving in to pressure from Islamists, who also sent her death threats. Hera withdrew the rest of her photos from the show in protest, and another Dutch museum in Gouda has agreed to exhibit them in the future.

Her video “Allah ho Gaybar” was on YouTube for a few hours before it was removed for its provocative content. It is now available at a Dutch site.

A gallery of gay Mohammad photos can be viewed on Hera’s website. “Religion always wants to control human sexuality, most prominently with a compelling taboo on homosexuality,” she says in a statement on her site. “I have tried to show a recognisable beauty of homosexuals, but also an alienating beauty that to many may be unimagined, or dishonorable.”

In media interviews, Hera repeatedly criticizes countries such as Iran for imposing the death penalty for homosexual conduct.

The gay Mohammad controversy is especially interesting to me as a lesbian Christian art historian. I get many negative comments from Christian conservatives who are offended by the gay Jesus images in my websites and book Art That Dares. They often say that nobody would dare make a picture of a gay Mohammad because Islamic fundamentalists fight blasphemy with violence. Sometimes the Christian right sounds almost envious, as if they wished they could use violence instead of Christ’s command to “love your enemy.”

Well, the Christian right was wrong. Artists ARE making gay Mohammad images. As long as there is religious hypocrisy over homosexuality, artists will be making queer religious images that expose the truth. Society is enriched by the brave, powerful artistry of truth tellers like Sooreh Hera.

News reports about Hera and other artists addressing religion and homosexuality are included in the monthly Jesus in Love Newsletter on queer spirituality and the arts. I edit the newsletter and blog at the Jesus in Love Blog. Visit JesusInLove.org for more progressive spiritual resources.

(Photo above is from Adam and Ewald by Sooreh Hera)

Comments

[ned]

On a related note: there is also a book out called "The Adventures of Amir Hamza", a translation of Persian literature. Hamza was Prophet Muhammad's uncle; this collection of stories about him includes a number of homosexual adventures. Whether they are true or not is besides the point; the point is that historical evidence shows that the persecution of homosexuals appears to be a relatively modern phenomenon, mostly related to, as Foucault pointed out, the labeling and classifying of sexuality by science.

[ned]

I've been thinking about this and on reflection (and I ought to mention I grew up in the Islamic religion in Pakistan), I think that the artist should have been more sensitive to what's going on in the Islamic world at present. Personally I would not make artwork like this. There is a lot of Islamophobia in Europe as it is, and this sort of thing would only fuel that. Now I have no sympathy for religious fundamentalism, but I do realize that the transition going in the Islamic world right now is extremely painful for the people involved (which, by the way, includes myself, and my own family).

I would recommend more subtlety.

[ned]

Also, I really really disliked the "Allah ho Gaybar" video. I mean seriously, what in the heck is that? "Allah ho Akbar" is a beautiful phrase that the Sufis translate as meaning: "God is greater than all (human) conceptions". (I would assume that includes "gay" and "straight". ;-) ) I personally take offense (as a gay person) at this silly and immature play on such a profound statement.

This is where I run into disagreements with a lot of queer people because I really don't like sexualizing spirituality -- I think what's needed is the opposite -- spiritualizing sexuality. I am no prude or puritan -- by no means -- but there's no need to put sexual innuendo into everything.

[Kittredge Cherry]

I really appreciate hearing the perspective of someone with an Islamic Middle Eastern background, and the explanations about Amir Hamza and Allah ho Akbar.

My understanding is that the artist was trying to draw attention to what she says is common in countries like Iran: Married men having relationships with other men, while publicly condemning homosexuality. I don’t know the extent of such hypocrisy in Islamic countries, but I do know that this has been a big problem in the church, with priests and other church leaders actively condemning gay people while leading secret gay lives.

Perhaps we need to spiritualize sexuality and also to sexualize spirituality somewhat, so that at some point a happy medium is reached. One purpose of art is to inspire thought and discussion, and at least these works succeed on that level.

[ned]

Hi Kittredge,

Yeah, I see what you're saying about the hypocrisy -- obviously I'm making no apologies for that, it's ridiculous. Also, a lot of the homosexual behavior in the Islamic world is due to the extreme gender apartheid (i.e. it is "socially constructed" in a very tangible sense).

There's much more to say on the subject of homosexuality in the Islamic world. Joseph Massad, author of “Desiring Arabs”, argues that international LGBT rights organizations are actually “creating homosexuals” in the Islamic world where none exist — i.e. the behavior exists, often due to the extreme gender apartheid, but the imposition of the identity on people engaging in that behavior is potentially imperialistic and creates disorder in many Islamic societies. I think it’s difficult to fault Massad’s overall thesis, though I can’t agree with his extreme cultural relativism of course. So it's a complicated issue.

Btw, I'm Pakistani -- which is in South Asia (next to India, plus we are one of the main allies of the US in the "war on terror" ;-) ) -- but I've travelled to Middle Eastern countries like Saudi Arabia and Egypt.

[Riverwolf]

Thanks for posting this, Kitt. I think what alarms me the most is not the death threats the artist received but rather the lack of courage of the museums. I understand that museums and galleries have to take into consideration certain standards, but to me it is reprehensible and tragic for a museum to turn away an exhibit because of a threat of violence. What this means is you no longer have a free society, when one group can intimidate others because their faith might be offended.

Regarding a few other comments posted here: Art can be subtle but it also needs the freedom to be provocative. Again, do we have a free society in the West or not? And as far as sexualizing spirituality or spiritualizing sexuality---why do we need either? We are spiritual beings and we are also sexual beings--one and the same. But the problem is that we compartmentalize rather than integrate.

[ned]

My understanding is that inner growth transforms sexuality (among other aspects of human nature). Instead of physical sexuality which is concentrated at the genitalia, the entire body is transformed such that it is constantly in a state of ecstasy no matter which point it is situated in space and time. This spiritual ecstasy is more intense and more permanent than the human sexual orgasm. Also, whereas human sexuality has its preferences, spiritual eros and bliss has no preferences -- it treats all beings and all phenomena equally. Now, human sexuality might even be used as a vehicle to this higher state (as in Tantra) but it is ultimately no more than a vehicle.

It is not that sexuality is rejected -- it is broadened, and broadened infinitely. The same for all other aspects of human nature.

I don't say this type of alchemical transformation can be done in a day or even in one lifetime but I don't know of any mystical tradition that doesn't posit these higher states as the ideal.

[ned]

I ought to mention that everything I say is really based on Sri Aurobindo's dictum that man is a "transitional animal." For him, the human species is just a transitional species that is being used in a cosmic teleological process as a means whereby the universe becomes self-aware. Ultimately man must transcend himself and his limitations.

[Big Jake]

Wow this is so lame...why would they have to sensor this? It is art!

[Abu Aarif]

You should take this information out if you don't want to hurt religious feelings. Respect those who believe in something. Being Christian I wouldn't like an image of Jesus that way. You can believe in whatever you want, but show also respect and take out those pics and the disgusting info. Thanks.

[Kittredge Cherry]

Abu, thanks for commenting, but -- what about respecting my religious belief that being gay is a good and beautiful part of God’s creation?

[andy]

Please check again... God did not made man that way, on every bible there is no such things that made gay is good and beautiful..

except that u made your own bible? or religion?? or maybe change the originality of your bible?? so then what is your religion and where do you belief is good based on?? i guest it's just your instinct right...

i don't see or even hear a religion that state that gay is good... Buddha? hindu? Christian? Islam?

[Mohammed abubakr]

i think she is too stupid to do what she did our prophet not like u thinking he marry his girl to ali and this what the histor write so respect ur self and respect what the others beleive allh create men 4r women not men 4r men or women 4r women so this life that will end think what u writing b4 u write becouse u will ask one day why u did and by

[Kittredge Cherry]

It's interesting to me that out of everything I've ever posted, this post is the one that continues to attract the largest number of hostile comments.

[pennyjane]

well, as a christian i would never presume to speak for the koran or the torah, or any religious or spiritual texts that i am not very, very familiar with. the bible.....i can get in that conversation.

the whole point of our bible is love. explicitly unconditional love. all other concepts are subordinate to that one idea. all sex is treated pretty equally in the bible. st paul teaches us that it most certainly is preferable that one remain celibant, however; "it is better to marry then to burn with passion," he tells us. why would it be less important for a homosexual person to not "burn with passion" then it would be for a hetersexual person...isn't passion...passion?

life ain't black and white and neither is religious doctrine. our bible compels us to use our common sense when interpreting scripture and to acknowledge that most of our texts were written way back in our evolution and we serve a living God: a God who is continually renewing us in order to bring us to a fuller understanding of Himself. we can't sit still and hope to move closer to God. we have to change and to grow...or we are dead.

God bless with much love and hope, pj

[Kittredge Cherry]

Thank you, PennyJane. That was well said. Bravo and amen!

[KSA]

we will kill you of end of live

[ned]

For once I find myself agreeing with religious conservatives: I'll have to reiterate my position on the "Gay Muhammad" art. It's offensive, pointless, divisive, reactionary, and it doesn't contribute to spiritual growth.

In fact that is the only way to assess art: to see whether it contributes to man's ascent toward the Divine or not. This art does nothing of the sort. It merely reinforces certain emotional narcissisms that the LGBT community likes to indulge in.

And yes, I myself am queer too.

[pennyjane]

"the ONLY way to assess art?" who died and made you the sole authority on how others may assess art? do you own art? are you God? what about "provocative?" shouldn't that come up in the assessment critera somewhere? how about, "pretty?" does that amount to anything? my goodness, art is nothing if not subjective.

personally i think it sux, but.....that's just me.

much love and hope, pj

[ned]

"the ONLY way to assess art?"

From a spiritual point of view, yes -- if one's goal in life is union with the Divine, the Divine is the only true objectivity. And this is not my personal opinion only, but the experientially tested opinion of mystics and sages through the ages.

Modern art is very often a hedonistic, self-indulgent sham compared to the sacred art of traditional societies.

[pennyjane]

ok....that's a little clearer, but still...what's the term? self-indulgent?

what you are saying is that from YOUR perspective, and from some other people who share your pespective it's the only way. but when you say THE ONLY, you are taking responsibility for the perspective of others. please, i'll take responsibility for my own perspective...which may not be all that different from yours when it comes to art itself. but, i allow that other people may have other perspectives and choose not to discount them all out of hand. THE ONLY just absolutely reeks of arrogance, narcissism and self-indulgence. what you might say that would add credibility to your argument could be something like..."this the the way I assess art."...because....you just don't get to speak for everybody.

much love and hope. pj

[Kittredge Cherry]

Ned, Surely you don’t agree with death threats as a response to art, no matter how “offensive” it seems?!

Your comments are always so thoughtful that I was really surprised to find you seconding a death threat. Killing is not the answer. I believe that art can help people communicate and reach mutual understanding for peaceful coexistence, even if it is just agreeing to disagree.

PennyJane, Thanks for an eloquent statement supporting freedom of speech.

[Ahmad.IRAQ]

remove these pictures you mother fucker, fuck you and fuck your fuckin Jesus, you piece of shit!

you and the fuckin dutch are a bunch of ass holes, you JACKASS
Mohammad is the BEST, Don't Like? GO FUCK YOUR SELF! ;)

[pennyjane]

wow! what sort of prophet would be proud of being defended with such filth and vulgarity? i am not muslim but i'm embarrassed for mohammad on behalf of all humanity. you represent yourself very poorly and i'm sure you do not speak in the name of islam one little bit.

filth is to be treated with cleanliness, not more filth...please pray and see if you can learn cleanliness yourself before you try to teach it to others.

clayton, if you decide to remove that vulgar, filthy post...please remove this one as well. thank you.

much love and hope. pj

[akmal]

please dont be a muslim if you wanna be a gay