Christ Art Work Destroyed by Protesting Christians

wa alaykum us-Salaam
*wonders if loon watch is a site to take information from*

The story is also in the Guardian, but of course the guardian is putting the emphasis on another issue.

But on Palm Sunday morning, four people in sunglasses aged between 18 and 25 entered the exhibition just after it opened at 11am. One took a hammer out of his sock and threatened the guards with it. A guard grabbed another man around the waist but within seconds the group managed to take a hammer to the plexiglass screen and slash the photograph with another sharp object, thought to be a screwdriver or ice-pick. They also smashed another work, which showed the hands of a meditating nun.

The gallery director, Eric Mézil, said it would reopen with the destroyed works on show "so people can see what barbarians can do". He said there had been a kind of "inquisition" against the art work.

In a statement, he said the movement against Piss Christ had started at the time of President Nicolas Sarkozy's ruling UMP party's controversial debate on religion and secularism in France. At a record low in the polls before next year's presidential election, Sarkozy has been accused of using anti-Muslim and extreme-right rhetoric to appeal to voters and counter the rise of the Front National.

Asked by the daily Libération why the Piss Christ protest had happened now, Mézil pointed to Sarkozy's speech in March lauding "the Christian heritage of France" at Puy-en-Velay, where the first Crusades were preached.

He said: "Clearly we saw in Saturday's demonstration that a Catholic fringe wanted to take the president at his word, with extremely violent appeals." He said there was a climate of tension, with protesters insulting museum staff of north African origin. One guard said he heard: "I'm going to pour donkey piss on the Qur'an." An email to the museum talked about "plunging the diary of Anne Frank in urine".

The French culture minister, Frédéric Mitterrand, condemned the vandalism as an attack on the fundamental freedoms of creation and expression, but recognised that the art work could shock audiences.

The secretary general of Civitas, Alan Escada, told Le Dauphiné Libéré paper: "I don't support or condemn what happened," adding that the attack on the picture "reflects an understandable exasperation" with the museum.

A police complaint has been filed by the gallery and the guards.

• This article was amended on 19 April 2011. The original referred to the Senator Jesse Helms as Jesse James. This has been corrected.

SOURCE

It is sad there were North African Guards, it is even sadder that the Guardian is hinting that Muslims were protecting the horrid painting that demeans a Prophet(PBUH) who is much loved by Muslims. Leave it to the Guardian, to somehow involve Muslims.

not to divert this thread, but woodrow, one must wonder where the muslim protesters were? if jesus was actually a muslim, then muslims are closer to christ then christians and yet i have failed to see the muslim world generate any care on the matter. the depiction of muhammad in a bear suit caused such tension, the naming of a teddy bear with the same name as muhammad caused such tension, the drawing of muhammad with a bomb on his head caused such tension, yet the portrayal of christ in a vat of urine goes by without any tension on the part of muslims at large. the question should not be "what if they were muslims" but rather, "why weren't they muslims?" and where is the anger and outrage in the muslim world? incidents such as this really calls into question the claim that christ is loved and revered by muslims. actions certainly speak louder than words.

format_quote Originally Posted by Sol Invictus

not to divert this thread, but woodrow, one must wonder where the muslim protesters were? if jesus was actually a muslim, then muslims are closer to christ then christians and yet i have failed to see the muslim world generate any care on the matter. the depiction of muhammad in a bear suit caused such tension, the naming of a teddy bear with the same name as muhammad caused such tension, the drawing of muhammad with a bomb on his head caused such tension, yet the portrayal of christ in a vat of urine goes by without any tension on the part of muslims at large. the question should not be "what if they were muslims" but rather, "why weren't they muslims?" and where is the anger and outrage in the muslim world? incidents such as this really calls into question the claim that christ is loved and revered by muslims. actions certainly speak louder than words.

I'm sure muslims are much disgusted by this exhibition, if not more.
Even depictions of Jesus (pbuh) by christians in their churches, homes, buildings, etc, and paintings of a half naked blond man on a cross which is claimed as Jesus (pbuh) already disgust muslims. How ironic that christians are not disgusted by those.
Also, last time I checked, France is still a majority christian country, so you need to ask those christians how they are okay with the trashing of their own god?

Fact#1: Muslims do not create images and likeness of Jesus (pbuh) and Mary (pbuh) let alone trash them. In fact, millions of muslims every day send du'a (supplications) for them every time they read qur'an verses that contain the stories and prayers of Jesus (pbuh) and Mary (pbuh).

Fact#2: Millions of christians over centuries have trashed Jesus (pbuh) who they claim as god.

Actions do indeed speak louder than words.

This is yet another failed attempt by you to turn something that vindicates the treachery of christians (against their own mangod?) into a muslim issue.

salaam

Naidamar has a point - christians do many things with christ that Muslims dont agree with - making images of him and his God fearing mother is not realy a pro muslim idea - Its also wrong most of the time because we dont realy know how Jesus pbuh looked like.

crucifying christ is also heavily disrespectful to muslims which is hung in most churches.

Maybe sol vintcus should go to the muslim world and tell them about this. So far it seems like an isloated incident.

peace

format_quote Originally Posted by Woodrow

The story is also in the Guardian, but of course the guardian is putting the emphasis on another issue.



SOURCE

It is sad there were North African Guards, it is even sadder that the Guardian is hinting that Muslims were protecting the horrid painting that demeans a Prophet(PBUH) who is much loved by Muslims. Leave it to the Guardian, to somehow involve Muslims.

Erm, are we reading the same article? I expect that sort of paranoia from naidamar, but not from you. It doesn't 'hint' anything. It says that staff of North African origin (who may or may have been muslim) received abuse - presumably because the protesters made the same assumption as you, and that one overheard that threat from one of the 'protestors' regarding the Qur'an. Assuming some staff were muslim they might have been 'protecting that horrid' painting, or guarding something else in the gallery, or selling sandwiches or postcards. They may even have had families they need to house and feed, and considered that quitting their job over the (temporary) presence of a painting that, however distateful they may personally find it, might be just a little irresponsible - exactly the same is true of any Christian guards. All this story shows is that Christian extremists are can behave as idiotically as muslim extremists or indeed any other sort of extremists;Hindus and Buddhists aren't immune either. So what's new?

What do you have against the Guardian by the way? With the Independent it's one of the two most liberal of the British 'quality' papers, it's audience tends towards the moderate left, and as has no 'anti-Islamic' agenda I've ever noticed.

format_quote Originally Posted by Sol Invictus

naidamar, once again you simply refuse to actually deal with my post. the point isn't whether muslims rejoice about what christians (and which christians are we in fact talking about?

I thought I didn't have to point out the obvious and the essence was clear from my previous posts:

1. For muslims, even depiction of Jesus (pbuh) already constituted the act of blasphemy. Hence, the acts of billions of christians who keep creating statues and images and called them as Jesus (pbuh) is already a slur against Jesus (pbuh). Are we outraged? yes. Do we then go and tell christians to stop doing it? yes some of us do, at least here in islamicboard we keep telling our christian brothers and sisters to stop making slurs against jesus (pbuh) by worshiping him as god. Do we go to your churches and try to destroy them all? we don't, but prophet Abraham (as) might have, seeing how he destroyed all idols in the house of worships.

2. Just because you don't hear it, does not mean muslims are not outraged by slurs against Jesus (pbuh) or any other prophets. However, I'm sure you might have noted, christians and jews themselves degrade and made slurs against their own prophets (or their mangod) day in day out, and it is hard for muslims to have to keep protesting every day. This does not mean we are not outraged. Just ask any muslims on the street what they think of the slurs against any prophets (as).

The real question:

Why are there not enough christians who should be outraged at the blasphemy of their own mangod?
especially when it clearly breaks one of the God's most important commandments:

You shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and the fourth generation of those who reject me.(Exodus 20:4-5)

Salaam

format_quote Originally Posted by Trumble

What do you have against the Guardian by the way? With the Independent it's one of the two most liberal of the British 'quality' papers, it's audience tends towards the moderate left, and as has no 'anti-Islamic' agenda I've ever noticed.

That’s naive. . . .

Guardian is very unfriendly towards Islam to put it mildly, but being a 'liberal' paper its much more subtle than the more honest and direct Daily Telegraph and Daily Mail.

The paper is very anti-faith in general, and to be fair to Christians they regularly get in the neck, but again that’s hardly surprising. It’s run by secularists and atheists and they have their agenda.

Just one random example, remember the Popes visit to the UK? The Guardian and Independent really went off the deep end, predicting the visit would be a disaster, low attendance, Church abuse scandal and just general 'No Popery' in general. As the visit became a success with large turnouts, the Guardian did a reverse ferret (commercial reasons?) though the Independent heroically continued the denunciation of the visit. Though after the visit it did offer a belated apology of sorts after the dust had settled.

With regards to the Guardian have you ever read the comments particularly in the belief sections? I wouldn’t advise anybody to go there, its dire.

To illustrate, the specturm of debate is limited to:

At one side you have the Atheists (mainly of the Dawkinite variety) who view religion as a ‘virus’ or ‘contagion’ of the mind and consider raising a child in a religious household as a form of ‘child abuse’. Since Religion is an ‘evil’ there can be no accommodation and it must be eradicated to ‘save’ mankind. They not only want to banish religion from the public space but would like to banish it from the private sphere as well.

At the more tolerant end there are secularists who are willing to accept the second best solution of confining religion to the private sphere as a matter of individual choice, a kind of pointless hobby. So they’d rather use ‘soft’ methods to secularise the Muslim population (thus undermining Islam) by showing them how they ‘should’ behave.

The Guardian and the Independent are not friends of Muslims (or others faiths for that matter) in any way shape or form.

On the actual question, I don’t think much of the exhibition and one should protest but you can’t really stop artwork like this appearing

format_quote Originally Posted by Sol Invictus

naidamar, once again you simply refuse to actually deal with my post. the point isn't whether muslims rejoice about what christians (and which christians are we in fact talking about? simply because one is a westener does not make one a christian) do but rather what the very muslim ideology should lead a muslim to do. if muslims claim to revere christ as they revere all the prophets then why is there such silence in the muslim world whenever christ is ridiculed? we know that muslims are aware of these incidents because they seemingly keep up with every real or perceived slight towards muhammad and as such this is not a case of them simply being unaware. furthermore, you once again bring up the issue of christians but the point is that if islam is true then muslims should be thinking of christ as their prophet and as such could not leave the defense of christ to christians as you and i both know is actually the case. it is quite clear that the only thing that actually arouses muslims to protest is criticism of muhammad and not moses, david, and certainly not christ nor any of the other supposedly muslim prophets. i would even go so far as to say that not even ridicule of allah arouses much interest (for god as well is made fun of often in west and i have yet to see muslims protest because southpark/the simpsons/cartoonists have ridiculed god in their depiction). from muslim action, or rather lack of action, it would seem that muhammad is the only person of importance.

as i said before why dont you ring the muslims up and call up a strike bring your christian friends down as well. I dont think the muslims in saudi arabia, afghanistan, Eygypt have actually heard about this incident or watch simpsons and south park. If you realy want muslims to do something you'll have to tell them for one and orgainse the demo somewhere.

format_quote Originally Posted by Ummu Sufyaan

wa alaykum us-Salaam
*wonders if loon watch is a site to take information from*

It is good website. The website does present sources for its articles.

format_quote Originally Posted by Sol Invictus

not to divert this thread, but woodrow, one must wonder where the muslim protesters were?

Most Muslims did not even know this article. It was not directed towards Islam, which is why there was no worldwide protest. Then again, Muslims do respect Prophet Jesus (P.B.U.H) and would be disgusted to see hear about this work.

format_quote Originally Posted by Guestfellow

It is good website. The website does present sources for its articles.



Most Muslims did not even know this article. It was not directed towards Islam, which is why there was no worldwide protest. Then again, Muslims do respect Prophet Jesus (P.B.U.H) and would be disgusted to see hear about this work.

The story does not seem to have had much publicity outside of France. I doubt if many Muslims, even those in France were aware of what was taking place.

I do wish at least some of our Brothers in France had staged some peaceful demonstrations against the despicable painting. Then again I wonder if any peaceful demonstration would have received any media attention? Perhaps there were some that did not receive any publicity. Islamic demonstrations against violence and/or terrorism seem to go unnoticed. Perhaps all peaceful protests by Muslims go unnoticed. Perhaps all peaceful protests by anybody go unnoticed. The media seems to prefer stories that involve at least a hint of violence.

format_quote Originally Posted by Woodrow

I do wish at least some of our Brothers in France had staged some peaceful demonstrations against the despicable painting. Then again I wonder if any peaceful demonstration would have received any media attention? Perhaps there were some that did not receive any publicity. Islamic demonstrations against violence and/or terrorism seem to go unnoticed. Perhaps all peaceful protests by Muslims go unnoticed. Perhaps all peaceful protests by anybody go unnoticed. The media seems to prefer stories that involve at least a hint of violence.

I think sometimes Muslims should not protest at all against the arts and pictures which are sickening and offensive. Sometimes, by protesting, we may give the artist too much publicity, which does more harm than good.

The BBC did report about a peaceful Muslim protest:

Thousands join pro-Islam protest <--- No arrests as well.

I agree that most of the mainstream media would not usually report something positive about Muslims. Most of the time, its negative because is attracts more publicity.

format_quote Originally Posted by Sol Invictus

not to divert this thread, but woodrow, one must wonder where the muslim protesters were? if jesus was actually a muslim, then muslims are closer to christ then christians and yet i have failed to see the muslim world generate any care on the matter. the depiction of muhammad in a bear suit caused such tension, the naming of a teddy bear with the same name as muhammad caused such tension, the drawing of muhammad with a bomb on his head caused such tension, yet the portrayal of christ in a vat of urine goes by without any tension on the part of muslims at large. the question should not be "what if they were muslims" but rather, "why weren't they muslims?" and where is the anger and outrage in the muslim world? incidents such as this really calls into question the claim that christ is loved and revered by muslims. actions certainly speak louder than words.

....

Someone who is not Muslim is angry that Muslims are not moved to raging lunacy by some supposed work of 'art'?

Well, there's something you don't see every day.