Khaberni - The well-known Sudanese artist Jamal Mustafa Hassan "Furfor" made fiery statements that turned the art scene upside down in the country, where a major controversy ignited across social media platforms shortly after his televised remarks.
"Hurtful words"
Furfor described his colleagues with words critics saw as "hurtful," and the Sudanese Music Professionals Union intervened, announcing the cancellation of his membership.
The statement pointed out that Furfor's remarks included phrases described as offensive and demeaning to the history of singing and music in Sudan, which are integral parts of the country's cultural, social, and political life.
It stated: "The union expresses its regret for what was issued by the artist Jamal Furfor, who did not spare anyone in his speech, and left no room for justification about the reasons that led him to utter those disgraceful expressions."
However, this decision did not go quietly, as the artistic community was divided between those who saw it as a step to "protect the dignity of art," and those who accused the union of "killing the freedom of criticism."
Sudanese social media sites were filled with comments, some sharp and some sympathetic.
In turn, the musician Yousif Al-Mosuli, one of the icons of Sudanese music, wrote on his Facebook page: "An artist must realize that his awareness is his real shield against attempts to slide into spaces of offending or sterile debate. The conscious artist is not concerned about a dramatic fall on social media, but is concerned about the wounded nation caught in the clutches of arms dealers."
Meanwhile, one of the followers wrote: "We need criticism that builds, not destroys, and media that knows the weight of the word."
In a related context, the artist Mayada Qamar El-Din expressed her solidarity with her colleague Furfor, urging the union to review its decision.
She wrote on her Facebook page: "Full solidarity with the artist Jamal Furfor... I urge the union to review the decision."
Supporters and opponents
Amidst this heated debate, some tried to return to legal texts, where the art journalist Siraj El Din Mustafa wrote that the union's decision is more symbolic than legal, explaining that the only body authorized to ban any artist from performing is the Council of Musical and Dramatic Professions.
He continued that the decision is confined inside the union's walls only, where the union possesses the authority to ban.
Meanwhile, the journalist and art critic Haitham Ahmed El Tayeb considered what is happening as a display of a deeper crisis of awareness, and said that art is not a luxury of beauty nor a means for noise, but a cognitive addition that builds awareness and opens up prospects for life.
He noted that what surfaces does not relate to art, but is an ejection of previous regimes that drained art of its essence, making words and melodies hostages to severe decline.
El Tayeb observed that the ongoing war has exacerbated this collapse, as it opened the door to manufactured conflicts resembling intelligence operations aimed at distracting people from the essence of art.
He concluded that real art does not chase trends but resists ugliness and sides with life. Its absence today reflects the loss of society's aesthetic and moral compass.
It is worth mentioning that commentators said that the Furfor case confirms that the battle is not between an artist and a union, but between the voice of art and the noise of chaos, amid questions about the rights to protect public taste amidst declining values, and ensuring freedom of expression without it turning into offense.
