THE Religion of Perpetual Outrage has found something new to offend it: a picture of a Muslim woman cradling a pig.
Mokhtar Badri, the vice-president of the Muslim Association of Britain, tells the Telegraph’s Mandrake that his organisation plans to visit the SaLon Gallery, in Notting Hill, west London, to demand that it remove Sarah Maple’s painting when it exhibits it next week.
Said Badri:
Although we condemn violence Muslims have a right to express their disgust at this work. An artist has the right to free speech and to express him or herself, but people also have the right to protest. She clearly wants to provoke a strong reaction from Muslims and that is what she will get.
Maple, 23, who was brought up as a Muslim, has already evoked Islamic wrath. Her exhibition at Rolling Stone Wood’s gallery earlier this year depicted Muslim women in provocative poses, including one suggestively sucking on a banana.
Badri explained the upset that would be caused by the image.
Muslims believe that all of God’s creatures should be treated with respect, but we are taught to keep our distance from pigs because they are unclean. That is why this picture is so offensive to us.
A spokesman for the gallery explained:
She doesn’t intend to offend anyone but simply wants to pose questions about Muslim culture and identity.
Talking about matters Islamic, we have just learned that a petition asking that the Prophet Mohammed’s birthday be made a British bank holiday signally failed to garner any significant support. A mere 407 people signed the Downing Street petition, but 1,530 people signed a counter-petition started by Roger over at Roger’s Realm.
Said Roger:
Thanks to everyone who signed the petition and everyone (especially the Freethinker) who supported and publicised it!
The Freethinker was founded in 1881 by GW Foote, an outspoken critic of religion. After the publication of 
October 16th, 2008 at 6:50 pm
first of all I of no religion but shall, cannot be classed an Atheist.
The question this artist poses might be genuine, however was there need for such art? I think not. Why is there such a need to offend when asking a certain question?
I sincerely hope this picture will not go on display anywhere in the world.
Argue you might on how she has the freedom of speech, however if you got offended on personal grounds, will you allow it?
And when it comes to religions alltogether, can anyone prove that their beliefs are the right to follow? Has an Atheist ever been able to prove God does not exist? Has a Christian ever been able to prove he doesn’t? Facts might prove the bible and the koran are nothing more than prologue to the Harry Potter books, it never rules out more than that.
October 16th, 2008 at 11:22 pm
Pork is haraam – so is, among others, the meat of falcons, donkeys, and elephants! So why do Muslims allow themselves to be provoked into these episodes of muddleheaded fuss? – they are not being forced to eat any of them.
___
October 17th, 2008 at 1:02 am
@ Kalamas Illuminatus
I think that you miss the point when it comes to free speech. Yes, these pictures will undoubtedly be offensive, regardless of whether or not the artist is asking a valid question through her work. However, it must not be up to those who are ‘offended’ to decide what may or may not be put on public display. The whole point of a public display, when coupled with freedom of expression is that it must be the public who decide what they want to see. If you do not like the art, do not go to see it, and let others who are interested go and see it. If you do not like the televsion you are watching, then change the channel, no-one is forcing you to watch it.
Everyone’s tastes are different, but what is ok to publish, and what is not, should not be decided by special interest groups, or by those who are caused offence, but by the public as a whole. If people are not interested in the artwork, they will not go to see it, but if it is something they want to see, then no-one else has the right to prevent them from doing so. The free-market of foot-fall must decide the issue, for the preservation of freedom of expression, and fairness.
October 17th, 2008 at 1:27 am
So does that mean the film “Babe” should not be show on tv, as someone would be offended by an intelligent talking pig. If fear becomes the only reason not to show art, well then you are kissing freedom away. I am so tired of hearing about this racist idology being offended and then trying to impose their views onto everyone else, because in their eyes we are nothing but infedels to be conqured and controlled.
October 17th, 2008 at 2:32 am
Someone, somewhere around the world, an opinion is being expressed that is counter to someone elses belief.
You can either, look around with paranoid eyes at everyone and wonder if it’s he or she that expresses such a view, or you can go on with your own life, minding your own business and not care what other people think about you.
I think the muslims that go out of their way to make a scene about this need a lesson in humility, or did the koran toss that to the side along with womans rights?
October 17th, 2008 at 2:50 am
Kalamas Illuminatus
I am going to write in a different style than I usually do. This is because I want everyone to understand.
One, I completely agree with Ed Haz.
Two, as an schooled and thinking person, I decide for myself. I can look, study and think hard about god. I can decide that there is no clear evidence of a god. And then I can decide for myself that there is no god.
Three, people fight because they believe in their god or gods. And a thinking man may get angry at first when they see paintings like this. But a truly honest person will ask himself, why is this offensive? Why am I mad over something as silly as this? It’s just a picture of a woman holding an animal. Why is this wrong? Who is being hurt?
That truly honest person will give up their anger and maybe even realize that not everything they have been told or read is true. That person is the person this picture is for.
Some honest, peaceful people may not think about it and may be very offended. What should they do? They should walk away and refuse to look at it or talk about it. Time itself destroys all things. If it is truly bad and if enough people forget it, it will go away.
Yes, some people who stay angry may hurt themselves or others over this. That is bad, but what can you do about someone who always wants to fight? They will always find something to fight over. If not this, they will hate and fight over something else. Don’t hate. Hate destroys, first everything around it and later the person who has it inside them.
October 17th, 2008 at 9:12 am
Of course Muslims do have the right to protest about this picture, they live in a free Western society and can do so with impunity. They should be thankful they do not live in a ‘Muslim land’ where such demonstrations would be unthinkable and probably punishable with barbaric violence against them.
But of course the artist too has a right to freedom of speech and her views are especially pertinent because of her experience of Islam.
What gives Muslims the moral authority to demand the removal of this picture, thus stifling the freedom of speech of an opposing view?
October 18th, 2008 at 12:54 am
This story and the resulting argument on the forum illustrates how the religious are sadly all too prone to going around in circles when it comes to the issue of freedom of speech. It just doesn’t add up to stress that you believe in it at exactly the same time that you are trying to ban something.
What Badri and others actually mean is ‘We grudgingly except that the artist has the right to offend us… which should be forfeited if we make enough of a high-pressure fuss’.
November 26th, 2008 at 3:36 pm
I can’t see my comment while I’ve been heavily criticized!
Mokhtar Badri
November 26th, 2008 at 5:09 pm
Dear David, thank you for your quich reply to my request. Following is my comment:
As the row has now calmed down, I hope that I can express my opinion and expect to be understood away from any kind of tension.
The young artist Sarah Maple has chosen a controversial topic for her exhibition. She has the full right to portray herself in whatever appearance she likes. She has the right to express her opinion free of any kind of coercion or intimidation. We have no authority or intention to police artists’ works and we have never done that. However, we believe that we’ve all legitimate right to comment on her work once displayed in the public domain.
I still think Sarah was not considerate enough to use Islamic imagery mixed with signs that contradict Islamic values. When asked by the Telegraph to comment on her work I insisted that nobody has the right to limit her freedom but warned that her work was provocative.
the paper went on quoting that “MAB plans to visit the SaLon Gallery to demand that it remove Sarah Maple’s painting” and “She clearly wants to provoke a strong reaction from Muslims and that is what she will get”. These were misquotations by Mandrake. We wrote to the Telegraph asking them to correct the statement “in order to avoid misleading your readers” but they did not publish it. Other media outlets such us the BBC reported exactly what we did say.
I wish that your readers and bloggers will take this into consideration.
Mokhtar Badri, Muslim Association of Britain