Sick Muslim Artist Unveils Picture Portraying 7/7 Bombers as Angels
Sickening and cynical: Mark Sincklers work appears to glorify the four Muslim fanatics who between them killed 52 people in London as angels
Very nicely timed to coincide with the 7/7 atrocity Coroner’s Inquest for maximum publicity, too
(h/t to Undhimmi reader Ian)::A Muslim artist has sparked outrage with his depiction of the ripped-apart bus destroyed in the 7/7 terror attacks.
The artwork shows four angels flying above the bombed number 30 bus – the same number of Al Qaeda terrorists who took part in the atrocity which left 52 commuters dead and maimed hundreds more on London’s transport network.
Also seen are scores of ghostly souls shooting from the bus, which was travelling through Tavistock Square when it was devastated by suicide bomber Hasib Hussain.
The artwork shows four angels flying above the bombed number 30 bus – the same number of Al Qaeda terrorists who took part in the atrocity.
The artist has also used photo trickery to write the message ‘Outright terror… bold and brilliant’ on the side of the bus [No he didn't - the Mail got that wrong. In a cruel twist of fate, that was the actual film poster that was affixed to the Tavistock Square bus on the day the attack - a fact pointed out by Un:dhimmi reader 'Tom' - Ed.].
Sickeningly, the £3,500 artwork, called Age of Shiva, is on display just one mile from where the 13 innocent commuters were killed as they travelled on the bus through central London.
The blast happened just after 9.45am on July 7, 2005 at the junction of Woburn Square and Tavistock Place. The explosion ripped the roof off the top deck of the vehicle and completely wrecked the back of the bus. Witnesses reported seeing ‘half a bus flying through the air’.
The artist behind the controversial image: Mark Sinckler
The artist behind the 7/7 picture, Mark Sinckler (above), has claimed his intention was to ‘shock’ but John Falding, whose partner Anat Rosenberg (right) died in the Tavistock Square attack, said the artwork was ‘unnecessary’ and ‘upsetting’.
The first of the four bomb attacks that day started was around 8.50am on a Circle Line train travelling between Liverpool Street and Aldgate, the second explosion was on another Circle Line train which had just left Edgware Road on the way to Paddington and the third of the Tube attacks happened on a Piccadilly Line train travelling between King’s Cross St. Pancras and Russell Square.
As well as the 52 deaths from the bombings, more than 700 people were injured in the attacks, which were carried out by Hassib, Mohammed Sidique Khan, Shehzad Tanweer and Jermain Lindsay.
The artist behind the offensive black and white print, ex-Tube graffitist Mark Sinckler, 40, has said: ‘I want to shock.’
What really happened: 18-year-old Muslim terrorist Hasib Hussain blew himself up on a double-decker bus in Tavistock Square, Central London on 7th July 2007. The explosion killed 13 commuters, plus Hussain.
John Falding, whose partner Anat Rosenberg died in the Tavistock Square attack, said the artwork was ‘unnecessary’ and ‘upsetting’ to see.
The bombed number 30 double-decker bus in Tavistock Square, which was destroyed by a terrorist, killing 13 people on board The timing couldn’t be worse for the artwork, which has gone on show during the long-awaited inquests into the attacks. Since October 11, the Royal Courts of Justice have heard harrowing evidence from survivors and victims’ families.
The picture is part of an exhibition organised by Pictures on Walls, who market the work of Bristol-based graffiti artist Banksy.
Although we believe in free speech here at Un:dhimmi (and that includes the freedom to offend) we couldn’t help but wonder whether this cynical cash-in merchant might have shown some respect and released his crappy montage after the Coroner’s Enquiry?
The victims’ families are currently having their tortured memories of the day that their loved ones were ripped from them replayed in the High Court in London, as the inquest sifts through every gory detail and particle of evidence in the course of its unenviable work.
Did it not enter his stupid head (or those of his ‘representatives’), to show a little class – and wait a while?
Of course it did. And they chose to go ahead anyway, because publicity=cash – and, let’s face it, he’s not going to be selling much on the basis of his talent if this tawdry photoshop paste job is anything to go by.
The work is being displayed ar the 'Marks & Stencils' Gallery in Soho, London - less than a mile from where the terrorist atrocity was committed
Finally, If you’d like to let the artist and his representatives know your views on this work, here are their contact details:
Gallery:
Marks & Stencils
1 Berwick Street
London W1F 0DR
Organisers:
Website
Email: info@picturesonwalls.com
[Sources: Daily Mail, Sky News and our own research]
Please consider supporting Un:dhimmi by making a small donation to the site, in order to show your support and help us with our work.
Get Your Copy of The Documentary the Iranian Régime Doesn’t Want You to See
Posted in Britain, Enablers, Jihad, Libtards, Terrorism, Useful Idiots | 
Tags: Jihadi Porn, Moral Clarity, Taqiyya
I thought portraying human likeness was considered Haram (unclean) for Muslims.
Though this is intended to glorify the bombers, Sinckler has made some mistakes (Islamically speaking).
The victims, the vast majority of whom were non-Muslims, are portrayed as ascending from the bus. The Eschatological message is that they are saved souls ascending to heaven.
BUT the Koran condemns all non-Muslims to hell (OOPS #1).
These souls are (obviously) martyrs – but in the Christian sense of “one who is killed”, rather than the Islamic sense of “one who kills” (OOPS #2).
The foreground “angels” seem to be Cherubim. Cherubim are purely Biblical creatures (both OT and NT) and are nowhere referred to in Islam. Therefore these are a primarily Christian symbol (OOPS #3).
If these Cherubs represent two of the four bombers, then implicitly the “artist” is declaring the bombers apostates (OOPS #4).
Finally, one of the two background Angels is clearly pointing “the way to heaven”, thus demonstrating that God is accepting these souls as having been martyed by the bomber, which is implicit criticism of the bombers’ ideology and actions (OOPS #5).
Where it not for the photo-shopped writing on the side of the bus, I’d interpret this piece as being highly critical of the Bombers and their ideology.
If you remove the five words on the side panel and you have a highly Christian representation of the martyrdom of the 7/7 victims at the hands of the Islamists.
Is Sinckler more uncomfortable with 7/7 than even he is aware?
Very interesting perspective Jon. thank you.
Although not in perhaps as erudite a manner as yourself, the commenters at the Sky story are making similar observations, but using them largely to jump to Sincklers’s defence. It will be interesting to see how/if it plays out further.
It’d also be good to find out a little more about just what kind of a ‘Muslim’ he is – he doesn’t appear to have spoken about the montage in a religious context as yet.
I’ll keep digging.
[...] Undhimmi Very nicely timed to coincide with the 7/7 atrocity Coroner’s Inquest for maximum publicity, tooA [...]
Yes Biodegradable, portraying human likeness is forbidden for muslims, but even worse than that portraying the naked female form is considered obscene by them, and there is a fully nude front drawing of a very shapely young female on the side of the picture about half way down. I hope no muslim fundamentalists see his drawing or they might take great offence at it.
My first emotion when I first saw the picture was anger followed by confusion. The non – muslim victims ascending to heaven are inconsistent (as pointed out by others) with Islamic beliefs.
I agree that Jon offers a very interesting perspective. Jon added.
“Where it not for the photo-shopped writing on the side of the bus, I’d interpret this piece as being highly critical of the Bombers and their ideology.”
Yes, in this perspective the words “Outright terror… bold and brilliant” appear to a sharp contrast to the rest of Jon’s perspective.
I looked up irony in Wikipedia, and this is what I found.
‘Irony’ (from the Ancient Greek εἰρωνεία eirōneía, meaning dissimulation or feigned ignorance)[1] is a rhetorical device, literary technique, or situation in which there is a sharp incongruity or discordance that goes beyond the simple and evident intention of words or actions.
So is this a bit of irony?
The artist stated that his intention is to shock. The obvious questions for him include: Who do you intend to shock? Does your work support the bombers or is it opposed to them? Please explain how your work supports your position? Does your work offer a religious perspective? If so which religion and how does it offer the stated perspective?
It is sickening to call it the Age of Shiva – typical Muslim way of denigrating other religions.
There are two types of Muslims – observant and non-observant. If he really is a Muslim he has to support the bombings. The so-called Overwhelming Majority™’ of peaceful Muslims, are merely those that fall into the latter category.
Therefore the question about the artist’s support (or otherwise) of the bombers through this image hinges on the question of his observance (or otherwise) of Islam.
Or perhaps he’s just thick.
How Islam basks in all its sham modesty in the Freedom of the West. It is with a chill and a thrill that I wonder where the next Charles Martel will come from, and when, oh, and when: the new ‘Hammer of the West’ who will rise out of all this obsequiousness and drive the abhorrence out, out, out; drive it out, and all of its ghouls, back into pit, and the memory of its prophet and his vile book expunged forever from living memory!
And now for a glass of whisky and some Mozart. What could be nicer?
Disgusting, I don’t even call that Art. I thank you for giving the address where to write to complain. It makes me sick to see how cruel and heartless some people are and they are on top of that speaking in the name of “God”. Pathetic!
“I thought portraying human likeness was considered Haram (unclean) for Muslims.”
But technically the Muslims don’t view filthy unbelievers as human and their heroes are portrayed as devine Djinns. It’s halal.
Portraying human figures is ‘haram’, but lying to the Infidel (taqiyyah) is not only ‘halal’, but is the sacred duty of every Muslim.
Tick a porkchop to each corner of that piece of trash
And let the dogs have at it.
Un:dhimmi made these points.
“There are two types of Muslims – observant and non-observant. If he really is a Muslim he has to support the bombings. The so-called Overwhelming Majority™’ of peaceful Muslims, are merely those that fall into the latter category.
Therefore the question about the artist’s support (or otherwise) of the bombers through this image hinges on the question of his observance (or otherwise) of Islam.”
I agree with this analysis. But I would like to see the outcome of the artist being confronted with the questions. Will he be prepared to provide direct answers, or sidestep the questions, if he is even willing to face the questioning? Whatever the reaction is from the artist should give us some insight into what drives him.
If the artist has no ill intent it would give him the opportunity to make this known. I’m suggesting that the ball should be placed firmly in his court.
If you’d like to get answers from the artist, you can forward them using the contact details I provided with the article. I not sure you’ll get a response, but if you do, don’t forget to share.
The problem I think, is that it’s a bit like the controversy with the Ground Zero Mosque. Was it done as a means of creating controversy? Of course; that’s one of the things good (as well as bad) art does. Has it been done in such a way that the impact of it is hightened as much as possible, even to the point of being grossly insensitive? I think so. Does any of this mean it should be illegal to have made it or display it? No.
Freedom of speech is extremely important, even for things which are in bad taste. I support the right of the artist to produce art that I find deplorable, just as much as I support the right of people to show their disgust via protest. I will never, however, support any sort of means of making it illegal, as there is nothing in either case that is technically illegal, nor should there be in the interest of free speech.