No, he didn't actually mention Serrano or his notorious P*** Christ, but when he says that someone who harms "the prophets of other monotheistic religions" ought to be beheaded along with the Motoon cartoonists, shouldn't Serrano look into hiring bodyguards?
A We're-All-In-This-Together Alert from the most influential center of Sunni Islam: "Al-Azhar Sheikh: A Muslim Who Harms Books Holy To Non-Muslims Must Be Beheaded," from MEMRI (thanks to Sr. Soph):
In response to the Muhammad cartoons published by Danish papers and to the recently released film by Dutch MP Geert Wilders, Al-Azhar Sheikh Muhammad Sayyed Tantawi said: "Any reasonable person must speak out vehemently against harming the Koran and insulting the Prophet, and must use an iron hand against those who do so."He said that if a Muslim harmed books holy to non-Muslims, or harmed the prophets of other monotheistic religions, "we would demand that he be punished as a lesson to all, and that he must be beheaded."
Source: Al-Khaleej, UAE, March 5, 2008
Rumor has it that a senior advisor to the Tantawi campaigned later phoned the Dutch MP and stated that he didn't really mean it and that the statements made were just political Islamic posturing, ["Yeah, Issa is a well-respected prophet and all that jazz"].
Oh wait, that was Obama's man to the CTY after the NAFTA fiasco, not related to the Grand Sheikh's comments.
Nevermind.
Why should,nt Serrano take some heat. In fact I may even support the moslems if they would make protests
about him. As he has grossly abused the right to free speech
Sorry folks I find this man highly offensive, even though I am an atheist
Now for some art, Enjoy
http://illustratedpig.blogspot.com/2007/10/art-in-face-of-terror.html
What about Mohammed. He smashed all the idol in mecca
Me thinks Al-Azhar Sheikh is talking poppycock
when he says that someone who harms "the prophets of other monotheistic religions" ought to be beheaded along with the Motoon cartoonists, shouldn't Serrano look into hiring bodyguards?
------------------------------------------
Robert, don't muslims consider Christianity a "polytheistic" religion because of the doctrine of the Trinity?
Chthulu-worship is monotheism.
Don't mess with Lovecraft, imam!
Sounds like bloody boasting and empty threats, and he's supposed to be a holy man. If this is what passes for holy men, then Islam really is a religion of bloody pieces.
So, this seems to mean that this Sheikh Tantawi not only wants to kill over the Qur'an, but would like to throw the Bible into this pool of blood, as well.
Is that right? Is that what, in essence he is saying, along with the implication that Christians and other Westerners should model our behaviour on that of rioting, vicious, destructive "protesters"?
I'm having a hard time wrapping my tiny brain around this notion. To begin with, why should this Muslim care about anyone else's holy books? Isn't the Bible an evil book, full of perversities and deliberate mistranslations? Wasn't it corrupted by Christians?
Try to understand this, Mr. Tantawi: One may destroy a Bible. There are many Bibles in the world. I'm not a hardcore Christian, but even I have four or five, scattered around.
One may, in fact, destroy truckloads of Bibles. But no one will ever destroy THE Bible, any more that anybody could destroy the Mahabharata, the Talmud, the 'Gita, the Kabbalah etc.. As long as there remains one soul who remembers one verse of any of these works, the works are not destroyed or lost.
Desecration? No, that can't be done, either. Truly holy books and symbols can't be desecrated. That's what "holy" means, ye Muslim dullards.
So, Ishmaelites--go right ahead and destroy as many Bibles as you wish, as long as they aren't the property of another person (you may get into legalities, if you ignore this advice).
While you're at it, burn as many American flags and facsimiles thereof as you like. You'll destroy the ones in your own possession, but your silly childish act won't destroy them all.
For my part, I'll pass on the invitation to become enraged by such antics, thank you. Please, don't behead anyone in my name, over a book.
profitsbeard wrote:
Chthulu-worship is monotheism.
Don't mess with Lovecraft, imam!
Put on your squid hats folks and lets do the Chthulu jiggle!!
But the tolerance we in the west have show no talent clowns like Serrano to display his so-called art and films like Dogma, The Davinci Code and Stigmata. Illustrates the fundamental difference between the west and Islam which cannot tolerate even the slightest criticism of itself by anyone.
Like Wilder's film it shows that Islam in its current form is incompatible with the west and should not be allowed to spread either.
He said that if a Muslim harmed books holy to non-Muslims, or harmed the prophets of other monotheistic religions, "we would demand that he be punished as a lesson to all, and that he must be beheaded."
Great ! He can start with the Taliban who blew up the statues of the Buddha in Afghanistan.
Al-Azhar Sheikh Muhammad Sayyed Tantawi said: "Any reasonable person must speak out vehemently against harming the Koran and insulting the Prophet, and must use an iron hand against those who do so."
................................................
An "iron hand"?
Guess he'd better add Chris Ofili also, who's ugly and inept Virgin Mary painted in elephant dung raised eyebrows a few years ago.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/pictures/image/0,8543,-10704194503,00.html
Everyone knows, after all, how much Muslims revere Maryam and her son, Issa, as prophets--right?
The whole point about monotheism is a canard, because many Muslims do not regard Jews and Christians as true monotheists--only Muslims.
This is ludicrous. Basides, how many Jews and Christians, no matter how disgusted by a lot of what passes for "art" these days, would really relish the spectacle of Andres Serrano, or Chris Ofili, or Dan Brown, or Martin Scorsese turning up headless in a landfill somewhere?
Most decent "monotheists" would be horrified by such a thing. Yet, to people like Sheikh Muhammad Sayyed Tantawi, it would probably just prove that they are unwilling to properly "defend" their prophets.