• Why Jihad Watch?
  • About Robert Spencer and Staff Writers
  • FAQ
  • Books
  • Muhammad
  • Islam 101
  • Privacy

Jihad Watch

Exposing the role that Islamic jihad theology and ideology play in the modern global conflicts

Saatchi Gallery covers up to avoid upsetting Muslims

May 7, 2019 8:30 am By marc

So an American didn’t complain at their flag being disrespected, and a feminist didn’t complain about the nude, but of course muslims complained about the muslim prayer being combined with the other 2 images.

The gallery rejected demands to remove the paintings entirely, arguing that visitors should be able to see the works and draw their own conclusions. The artist instead requested they were covered.

While Saatchi claim to have stood their ground, and it was the artist SKU who offered the compromise to the demands of muslim gallery visitors, I notice Saatchi have also removed the image from their store.

Quilliam, said the works were ”really dangerous”, adding: “It’s The Satanic Verses all over again.”

So it’s right to back down then, because when you back down, they don’t come back and demand more.

More here at The Independent

Share this:

  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window)
  • Click to print (Opens in new window)
  • Click to email this to a friend (Opens in new window)
  • More
  • Click to share on Skype (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Telegram (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window)

Follow me on Facebook

Filed Under: Featured, Sharia, United Kingdom


Learn more about RevenueStripe...

Comments

  1. AnneM04031959 says

    May 7, 2019 at 8:33 am

    I see the Jewish Stars of David. Would Jewish folks get offended?

    • mortimer says

      May 7, 2019 at 8:59 am

      “Quilliam, said the works were ”really dangerous”.

      So, what is ‘dangerous’ about a drawing or painting that hangs on a wall?

      No piece of art or literature is ‘dangerous’ until a MUSLIM sees it and complains. Then, when someone ‘mentions something impermissible about Islam’ … only then, is there ‘danger’. The danger is from MUSLIMS and from their ‘protective anger’ (gheira) and from Sharia law itself.

      Without Sharia law, there would be no danger whatsoever.

      Islam is incompatible with the graphic arts, incompatible with the literary arts (The Satanic Verses) and incompatible with the musical arts.

      Islam is incompatible with Western culture and is opposed to all our cultural activities.

      Islam is an extinguisher of the fires of art and learning.

      • Kay says

        May 7, 2019 at 9:31 am

        +1
        Incompatible with truth and goodness.

      • Michael Copeland says

        May 7, 2019 at 9:39 am

        “incompatible with the fundamental principles of democracy”
        European Court,
        Welfare Party case 2003

      • FYI says

        May 7, 2019 at 12:11 pm

        A devout muslim in an art gallery might indeed be “really dangerous”.

        Anything could happen:They might start shouting “allahu akbar”,soil themselves with all the over-excitement of being in an infidel space or explode in flames..

        Drinking camel pee is OK{the “prophet” recommended it Sahih Bukhari 8:82:794}is acceptable yet Art is unacceptable to the muslim?Strange cult,islam.

        And we know how “really dangerous” islamic “prayers” to their pagan Arab God {Al} iLah the “BEST of deceivers” k3:54 are,as we see what happens every Friday with the predictable riots,women groping etc when the Holy Yusufs “prayer” time is over…

      • Rufolino says

        May 8, 2019 at 3:52 am

        “Islam is an extinguisher of the fires of art and learning”.

        Thanks Mortimer, a powerful phrase. “Fires” they must be permitted to be. They are already being extinguished by sharia in Europe.

    • marc says

      May 7, 2019 at 9:04 am

      I just don’t see there was any intent to offend anyone, me as a red sea pedestrian (with faith issues) sure isn’t offended, obviously Saatchi (also Jewish) wasn’t. There is a lot of art that is intended to offend, this just isn’t it. I think for muslims, if you use their symbols, it must be in 100% submission. Petulant children.

      • Keys says

        May 7, 2019 at 12:20 pm

        100 % submission. No freedom.

        Seems most muslims are offended by anything that is not of Islam !

        Bells, pork, statuary, … ad infinitum … to being offended by non-muslims living, even if they pay the jizya.

        Being offended is part of the victim card. As mortimer insists: non-muslims must become knowledgeable about al-walaa wal-baraa-ology.

        I am offended by al walaa wal baraa.

      • CRUSADER says

        May 8, 2019 at 4:22 am

        Quillium / Maajid Nawaz attempting to remain relevant?

    • Meturaf says

      May 8, 2019 at 5:44 am

      Most of us would probably not get offended considering the context. Many of us got more upset when that sick bastard maplethorpe put a cross in a jar of urine. Where was the concern then?

  2. Sayford Ford (@ElmBryan) says

    May 7, 2019 at 8:56 am

    I am posting today or tomorrow a drawing covered by duck tape to protest this vile censorship by saatchi on their online store, meanwhile please visit my anti-islam art site: http://www.specialartservice.blogspot.com about a group of art school commandos fighting islam

  3. Anjuli Pandavar says

    May 7, 2019 at 10:19 am

    Muslims? In a gallery? Give me a break! Next thing they’re going to claim that the rabid mobs who burnt the Satanic Verses and demanded the author’s blood were novel readers and literary critics. Has Quilliam finally given up its “counter-extremist” pretence?

  4. Mark Spahn (West Seneca, NY) says

    May 7, 2019 at 10:45 am

    Here is another Islamic art-related topic…

    ATTENTION, LYRICISTS!

    The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) is sponsoring (or should) a song-writing contest. By special divine arrangement since before the Universe was created, in 2019 the month of Ramadan coincides with the Gregorian-calendar month of May. Fame and fortune await the poet who can write an ode to Ramadan set to the music of the song “The Lusty Month of May” (from the Broadway musical “Camelot”). The lyrics of the Ramadan version practically write themselves: “Tra-la, it’s May / the lusty month of May” becomes “Quree, Quran / the month of Ramadan”. And for greater rhyming freedom, the last syllable of “Ramadan” can be sung as either “Dan” or “Don”. Here’s the tune:

    • Anjuli Pandavar says

      May 7, 2019 at 5:04 pm

      Brunei, Brunei, in Ramadan so gay
      The Sultan is enamoured with the lusty month of May
      Brunei, they say, is fabulously gay
      It never crossed the Sultan’s mind to pray the gay away

      It never crossed the Sultan’s mind to pray the gay away

      In Ra madan, they go without all day
      The Sultan knows not where to turn for crotches on display
      Tra-la, hooray, in closets they must stay
      As gentlemen all hunger for the lusts of May

      As gentlemen all hunger for the lusts of May

      We must, prevent, societal decay
      Immoral and unethical and criminal affray
      So stone, to death, the lot of them I say
      For Ramadan must not become the month of May

      For Ramadan must not become the month of May

      • CRUSADER says

        May 7, 2019 at 8:33 pm

        Clever lyricist!

        By the way, I always found this movie version of “Camelot” more compellingly sexy….

      • Mark Spahn (West Seneca, NY) says

        May 8, 2019 at 1:17 am

        Huzzah, Anjuli! Thou art a splendid poetaster!

  5. Benedict says

    May 7, 2019 at 11:00 am

    Heckler’s veto is very effective. And here we see genuine islamophobia. It is not the critics of Islam or those who warn against Islam who suffer from islamophobia, it’s the appeasers.

  6. michael casmer says

    May 7, 2019 at 11:37 am

    Okay, let me get this straight. The gallery covered up paintings that would be offensive to Muslims. But its okay to have a painting of the Virgin Mary covered with elephant dung, or a crucifix dipped in human pee. Okay, got it

    • Donovan Nuera says

      May 7, 2019 at 7:09 pm

      What people always leave out about the elephant dung Madonna is that painting is also covered with clipped out pieces of beeevor shots from porno magazines. That is even worse! That is why the MSM avoid mentioning that.

    • gravenimage says

      May 7, 2019 at 8:55 pm

      The buyer of Chris Ofili’s disgusting “The Holy Virgin Mary” was–quite seriously–Charles Saatchi.

      • CRUSADER says

        May 8, 2019 at 4:26 am

        Seemed like a distorted version of the virgin in a Klimt portrait of
        a really bad golden shower dream of Lady Adele Bloch-Bauer !!!

        • gravenimage says

          May 8, 2019 at 10:28 pm

          Not the biggest Klimt fan, but he had a lot more talent.

  7. Walter Sieruk says

    May 7, 2019 at 12:09 pm

    Anything can upset of offend Muslims. This can become so extreme that is some Islamic countries ,such as Pakistan, a Muslim can become offend and upset to the point of violence just because he met other man who is not a Muslim..

    Therefore since anyone or anything can upset of offend a Muslim ,why bother to even try ,or go out of your way no to offend them . For example just speaking only for myself as of today ,5/7/19,in keyboarding this message I’m a tee shirt with a cartoon of a bomb on it with the words printed in the shirt “Islam is a religion of pieces” With this “In their face ” Tte-shirt i will go out to the store of any other place wearing it..

    If a Muslim objects to me about it I will explain to him that my shirt only reflects reality as a mirror does.,and if jihad-minded Muslim stop violence then I will stop wearing my shirt. So far no one has yet said or done anything about it. That is “So far…”

  8. Walter Sieruk says

    May 7, 2019 at 12:16 pm

    What art gallery is doing having a policy of “appeasement to Muslims.” This policy will not make the Muslim like them or respect them. Muslims will only view this appeasement as weakness. Weakness of the art gallery staff and even weakness of the West. So this will only make their arrogance and contempt for non-Muslims and the West grow.

  9. KRJ says

    May 7, 2019 at 3:44 pm

    BOYCOTT ALL SAATCHI GALLERIES – DON’T BUY ANYTHING FROM THEM – they’re just another nail in our coffin helping islam take over

    • Flavius Claudius Iulianus says

      May 7, 2019 at 4:15 pm

      The whole Saatchi, New Brits thing was a scam from the get-go. The moment the advertising brothers got the idea to market shock art, anybody in an art school in London could have become a millionaire. The trash is still being peddled by some of the most talentless people ever to grace this planet.

      • gravenimage says

        May 7, 2019 at 9:01 pm

        I’m often embarrassed to say I am an artist these days–given the rich history of art, this is just sad. But yes–a lot of what is produced these days is just awful crap.

        While I vigorously defend the rights of the artist above, this piece is nothing better than vaguely competent photoshop work at best.

  10. CRUSADER says

    May 7, 2019 at 8:44 pm

    Cultural Jihad raising its ugly head.

  11. gravenimage says

    May 7, 2019 at 8:49 pm

    Saatchi Gallery covers up to avoid upsetting Muslims
    …………………

    Disgusting that Saatchi caved.

    And while I don’t know the artist who is responsible for that pastiche above, the original source material is Jean Auguste Dominique Ingres’ 1814 “Grand Odalisque”. This is a portrait of a sex slave in the Muslim world–likely a kidnapped European woman.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grande_Odalisque#/media/File:Jean_Auguste_Dominique_Ingres_-_The_Grand_Odalisque_-_WGA11841.jpg

  12. CRUSADER says

    May 7, 2019 at 9:58 pm

    Philip Haney: Sharia Law Would Supersede U.S. Constitution

    (Article VI)

    A matter of prohibiting Sharia….

  13. gravenimage says

    May 8, 2019 at 1:04 am

    This, from the linked article:

    The head of Islamic studies at the think tank Quilliam, Usama Hasan, said the works were ”really dangerous”, adding: “It’s The Satanic Verses all over again.”
    ……….

    How appalling. All self-respecting Westerners should hear this and want to protect freedom of expression in the face of Muslim threats, not cave to them.

  14. CRUSADER says

    May 8, 2019 at 2:56 am

    A religious liberty advocacy group is threatening to slap a Seattle-area school district with a lawsuit claiming the district has urged teachers to bless Muslim students in Arabic during the holy month of Ramadan and give them preferential treatment, including skipping tests.

    https://www.foxnews.com/faith-values/washington-school-district-wants-teachers-to-bless-muslim-students-in-arabic-during-ramadan

  15. iananthonyharris says

    May 8, 2019 at 11:03 am

    It’s all been said above. Ridiculous how the objections of a few religious fanatics are allowed to impose on the rest of us. No pet dogs either!

  16. UNCLE VLADDI says

    May 9, 2019 at 1:29 am

    Re: “Usama Hasan, head of Islamic studies at the think tank Quilliam, said: “It’s The Satanic Verses all over again.” ”

    No. Really, it’s “Muh Hurt Feewings!” all over again!

FacebookYoutubeTwitterLog in

Subscribe to the Jihad Watch Daily Digest

You will receive a daily mailing containing links to the stories posted at Jihad Watch in the last 24 hours.
Enter your email address to subscribe.

Please wait...

Thank you for signing up!
If you are forwarding to a friend, please remove the unsubscribe buttons first, as they my accidentally click it.

Subscribe to all Jihad Watch posts

You will receive immediate notification.
Enter your email address to subscribe.
Note: This may be up to 15 emails a day.

Donate to JihadWatch
FrontPage Mag

Search Site

Translate

The Team

Robert Spencer in FrontPageMag
Robert Spencer in PJ Media

Articles at Jihad Watch by
Robert Spencer
Hugh Fitzgerald
Christine Douglass-Williams
Andrew Harrod
Jamie Glazov
Daniel Greenfield

Contact Us

Terror Attacks Since 9/11

Archives

  • 2020
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2019
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2018
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2017
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2016
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2015
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2014
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2013
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2012
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2011
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2010
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2009
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2008
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2007
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2006
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2005
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2004
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2003
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • March

All Categories

You Might Like

Learn more about RevenueStripe...

Recent Comments

  • Crusades Were Right on Muslim cleric: ‘We welcomed the takeover of ISIS because they wanted to implement the Sharia’
  • William Garrison on The Fantasy Islam of Rice University’s Craig Considine (Part 3)
  • Vladimir on Islamic Republic of Iran: Turkey’s Erdogan champions Islam only as a tool to further his own interests
  • John on Muslim cleric: ‘We welcomed the takeover of ISIS because they wanted to implement the Sharia’
  • Vladimir on Muslim cleric: ‘We welcomed the takeover of ISIS because they wanted to implement the Sharia’

Popular Categories

dhimmitude Sharia Jihad in the U.S ISIS / Islamic State / ISIL Iran Free Speech

Robert Spencer FaceBook Page

Robert Spencer Twitter

Robert Spencer twitter

Robert Spencer YouTube Channel

Books by Robert Spencer

Jihad Watch® is a registered trademark of Robert Spencer in the United States and/or other countries - Site Developed and Managed by Free Speech Defense

Content copyright Jihad Watch, Jihad Watch claims no credit for any images posted on this site unless otherwise noted. Images on this blog are copyright to their respective owners. If there is an image appearing on this blog that belongs to you and you do not wish for it appear on this site, please E-mail with a link to said image and it will be promptly removed.

Our mailing address is: David Horowitz Freedom Center, P.O. Box 55089, Sherman Oaks, CA 91499-1964

loading Cancel
Post was not sent - check your email addresses!
Email check failed, please try again
Sorry, your blog cannot share posts by email.