New Galleries Won't Bring Mohammed To The Met

After eight years of work costing more than $50 million dollars, The Metropolitan Museum is set to relaunch its Islamic Galleries in the Fall of 2011, but when the new rooms open, don't expect to see any paintings of the Prophet Mohammed.

The Muslim religion forbids the display of images of the Prophet, and adherents have been known to get a little upset when Westerners violate the ban. So while the museum does have three works depicting Mohammed that are currently in storage, they probably won't be coming out once the new rooms are opened. Not everyone agrees with that strategy- particularly scholars who say that illustrations of the prophet were once an accepted part of Islamic art:

Islamic art expert Kishwar Rizvi said the Met -- which has one of the world's best Islamic collections -- has nothing to fear from Mohammed.
"Museums shouldn't shy away from showing this in a historical context," said Rizvi, historian of Islamic Art at Yale University.

To further allay any risk of controversy, the museum has also changed the name of the collection to "Galleries for the Arts of the Arab Lands, Turkey, Iran, Central Asia, and Later South Asia"— doesn't that just roll off your tongue?

If you want to see what all the fuss is about, you can take a sneak-peek at 63 pieces from the collection at the Met's website.

Contact the author of this article or email tips@gothamist.com with further questions, comments or tips.

By Jake Dobkin in Arts and Events on January 10, 2010 10:39 AM

Comments [rss]

Maurizio Maranghi

This sounds counter-intuitive to me. All this does is strengthen the fear that Muslim extremists want to instill in the minds of Americans and strengthen the mindset that muslims are terrorists in Americans. The Met Art Museum should act as an example rather than hide their tails between their legs and contribute to the problem. Lastly, wouldn't muslims be destroying like... 60k pieces of their own religious art if they do bomb the Met?

-Maurizio Maranghi

Mordicai

I'm down with the name change, since it much more accurately reflects the reality of the collection. As to displays of Mohammad; that is a trickier one. I am firmly on the side that says display historical context accurately. I wouldn't side with a dude protesting Piss Christ or dinosaur skeletons, you know?

S.K.

If "Islamic Art" is changed to "North Africa, Middle East, and Central Asian Art," will it give enough room to Coptic, Zoroastrian, and other non-Muslim native artists?

starrygordon

Some are afraid to offend the Muslims, and others are afraid not to offend the Muslims.

But that's all right; I'm not prejudiced. I hate everybody.

etypical

I can't wait til Free_Palestine comments and ties yet another instance of Muslim insanity to Israel. Cmon Sweetie, don't let me down, I love your inane ramblings so.

Voltaire Press

B. Denton: Thanks for the plug.

This is just as cowardly as Yale University Press issuing a bowdlerized version of the book "The Cartoons That Shook The World."

For more such outrages, see the document "Murder & Mayhem" at www.muhammadimages.com

Billiamsburg

my painting of Mohammad fellating Bin Ladin painted in pigs blood cant be displayed? It's the most accurate summation of their religion to date!

NannyState

Don't worry, copies will always be under their beds.

Snoopy

Be patient,I believe they will be using your painting as the cover art for the catalog.

lugarshz

While indeed most branches of Islam prohibit Mohammad's depiction you should recognize that there are a few Sufi sects (such as the Bektashi) from the Balkans\Turkey that have a rich tradition of art in which he is indeed depicted. The exhibit should take a neutral stance and also represent these traditions in contrast to the dominant ones.

NannyState

I see a trend here: the tough stuff will be available online only. Vitual galleries, virtual discussions, and virtual virtue.

marcasm

What's the point of a Museum not showing what's in it's collection ? If they keep these works from the public, they are just another private collector.

SonnyBobiche

Oh, wow! Now they'll bomb you for using the word "Allah"

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/11/world/asia/11malaysia.html

TimSPC

The Tughra of Sultan Sulaiman the Magnificent is beautiful.

Powerhugs

Maybe this is about showing some respect to those who follow Islam (I'm not talking about extremists)..and just maybe the Museum doesn't want a repeat performance of the Brooklyn Museum debacle when cow dung was placed on the Jesus image passing off as art...Maybe the Museum just decided they want to stay clear of controversy and sit back and collect their membership dues and not invite press and picket lines...Some ACLU members on here just love promoting trouble..

verbal

This is just the reason there should be protests and picket lines. The same crowd that has been bellyaching about 'the patriot act the patriot act' should be first in line if they truly value their rights.

Clarice City

Let's not piss off the muslims. They might blow up our museum.

SonnyBobiche

This is the REAL ISLAMOPHOBIA.

South Park got censored by Comedy Central. 2012 showed the destruction of Christian and Buddhist structures but the director refused to show the destruction of Islamic ones. A cartoonist in Denmark needs a safe room because of a drawing. And so on.

The lunatics are running the asylum.

jchez

The prohibition against Muslims having images of Mohhamad was to avoid them worshiping him instead of God and, of course, did not apply to Non-Muslims. Ironically the prohibition is essentially a form of worship and now has become a way for Muslims to force others to follow their dictates.

Interesting how the Piss-Christ shows the cowardice of so many free-speech advocates. All that talk about how Serrano could do what he wanted because we live in a free land goes out the wayside when it comes to Muslims because of the lessons Muslims learned back in the Carter era.

When the movie, "Muhammad, Messenger of God" came out (it didn't even show him) some violent Black Muslims took over a city office in Washington DC and threatened to behead the hostages if the movie wasn't withdrawn. It appears that other Muslims soon learned that violence could get you results in the West but that complaining with placards like Christians would get you bupkus, while threatening to behead people would get you your way.

I'm surprised that we can still read Dante's Inferno, with so many versions having that illustration of Muhhammad in hell. If you want the best collection of Muhammad images, checkout the following link it's better than just doing a google image search. It has old ones, modern ones, pleasant ones and some hateful ones, just like you could find of Christ.

http://zombietime.com/mohammed_image_archive/

FelixtheCat & Christine Quinn'

great information, thanks for sharing this.

Brian Denton

It does not matter that Islam arguably prohibits the representation of Muhammad because the United States of America does not.

Do your part to support free speech and show all who would do violence to suppress it by ordering your copy of Muhammad: The Banned Images from Voltaire Press. I already ordered my copy.

http://www.amazon.com/Muhammad-22Banned-22-Images-Gary-Hull/dp/0615324215/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1263139132&sr=8-1

Snoopy

I guess the artwork showing the image of Mohammed in a jar of urine wont be displayed after all.

Maybe next the Met will have to delete the word "Art" from its title so it doesn't get into trouble with the politically correct crowd.