[UPDATE: July 24: The Evening Standard have since covered this story and they have a video of Shafiur being pelted with an egg as he’s being interviewed by a London Live reporter. All here].
I wrote this today for the Express website. It’s one of those stories that journalists file under ‘you couldn’t make it up’ for its weirdness: a filmmaker commissions some street art in the middle of Whitechapel’s Chicksand estate; the artists come up with a scheme that’s meant to depict humanity and diversity (and add a bit of colour to the area); and then some idiots say, ‘Actually that’s not humanity, that’s the Anti-Christ.’
They then start pelting the art (on a shop’s security shutters) with spit and eggs. But because that’s not frightening enough, they chuck the eggs at the staff inside the office, then threaten them this violence will continue until the art is removed.
And all this has happened for the best part of a month under the gaze of a Tower Hamlets council CCTV camera…with, as yet, no action (I asked the council for a comment, but they didn’t reply; Mayor Lutfur Rahman lives just around the corner, by the way, and I’m sure he’d be appalled). The police are also involved.
Now, is this just some brainless youths who’ve read somewhere about “bulging eyes” representing the Devil (in an obscure interpretation of Islam), and then acted like little ganglords of their estate for a bit of schools-out fun?
Or is there something more disturbing at play? Is someone whipping these youths up into a frenzy? Is there really a hardline Islamic fervour out there?
Shafiur Rahman, the filmmaker whose office has been targeted, believes the latter.
He went to the Brick Lane Mosque for help. He asked them to condemn the violence. They apparently told him the youths were wrong to use violence and they should have raised their concerns through other channels. Shafiur said an imam told him the painting is unacceptable in Islam because it depicts a face.
“Mosques and madrassas should be careful what they teach young kids,” Shafiur said today.
If anyone knows more about the people behind this, do please get in touch. Anonymity guaranteed.
Here’s the Express piece in full (there’s a video of me talking on the Express site).
MUSLIM youths have vandalised the offices of a Bengali filmmaker in east London because they claim street art on his security shutters depicts the “anti-Christ”.
The gang has even threatened further violence against Shafiur Rahman’s property unless the images, two eyes, a nose and a mouth, are removed.
Graffiti artists Josh Jeavons and Edwinonwalls painted the images on three shutters of Mr Rahman’s Six Oranges film company, which is based in a building known as Zara’s Corner in Spelman Street, just off Brick Lane in Tower Hamlets.
Viewed from across the road the painting is actually a face, with a nose on the central shutter, two single eyes on the two either side, and a mouth running across all three.
The artists wanted it to represent humanity and diversity.
They even wrote and crossed out the words, “colour” and “shape” and circled the word “space” to reinforce a message that what matters is not someone’s background or appearance but the community in which you live.
However, youths from the nearby Chicksand housing estate had a different interpretation.
They told Mr Rahman the painting in fact represented “dajjal”, an Islamic term in Arabic for the “anti-Christ”, or the devil, or the “false Messiah”.
Mr Rahman, who had given permission for the artwork, explained: “According to certain Islamic beliefs, Dajjal is the false prophet or anti-Christ who will come before Judgment Day, and will be known by his single bulging eye.”
Over the past month, his office has been attacked repeatedly.
Before
After
The shutters have been splashed with spit and eggs, while the vandals have also hurled eggs into the office itself.
An entire tin of white paint was then hurled on the shutters.
Staff have been intimidated and the damage to walls and computer equipment is estimated to be hundreds of pounds.
Mr Rahman, a filmmaker who is currently working on a documentary about Syrian refugees, said the youths have demanded the art is removed.
“When we have been locking up at night, they have told us to throw away the key and not to come back,” he said.
He has sought help from the local Brick Lane Mosque and asked their imams to explain the innocuous nature of the painting.
However, he said while the mosque condemned the violence itself, an imam told him the painting would not be accepted in Islam because it depicted a face.
Mr Rahman said: “This is completely ridiculous. This is not a painting of dajjal. This is an abstract figurative piece of work.
“Mosques and madrassas should be careful what they teach young kids.
“Vandalism or hate crime, as far as I know, is not condoned by Islam.”
The vandalism has been reported to the police who are treating it as a hate crime, Mr Rahman said.
His office is also directly beside a council CCTV camera but it is not clear if the incidents have been caught on film.
Marco Marasca, an editor at Six Oranges, said: “After these repeated incidents, we are worried about our personal safety.
“We have just finished editing a film on oppressed Bihari Muslims.
“We are writing a proposal about Syrian migrants and the hardships they suffer. “Why would we paint anything offensive towards Muslims?”
The office is in one of London’s trendiest areas and is home to internationally famous artists such as Tracey Emin and Gilbert and George.
Harjinder Bahra, the managing director of Six Oranges said: “Brick Lane is known the world over for its street art.
“It has brought countless tourists, and the Bangladeshi restaurants actively welcome the vibe that street art has created.
“To see this exciting art as somehow connected to the anti-Christ is bizarre.”
Josh Jeavons, one of the street artists behind the work, said: “It wasn’t our intention to depict the devil.
“Maybe there was a bit of ignorance on our part on not understanding what the eye represents.
“But our intention was to create a full face to show humanity in its most basic form to represent community, diversity and multiculturalism.
“It doesn’t matter what shape you are, or what colour, it’s about your community, the space where you live and what you make of it.”
Anti-extremism campaigners are puzzled by the incidents.
They wonder whether ordinary youths from the Chicksand estate would even be aware of theological terms such as “dajjal”.
They believe the youths are being encouraged by hardline Islamists.
The borough of Tower Hamlets has seen various activities from both far right fascists and Muslim extremists.
The small but threatening Muslim Patrols, a group backed by extremist preacher Anjem Choudary, physically attacked non-Muslims for drinking in Whitechapel last year.
Additionally, last December, Mr Choudary led a small march in Brick Lane calling for the many Bengali curry restaurants to stop serving alcohol.
Far right groups the English Defence League and Britain First have also tried to incite hatred in the borough.
No one from Brick Lane Mosque was available to comment this afternoon.
Trial by Jeory 
This is not Hate Crime. Everyone knows that Hate Crime is only Hate Crime when it’s committed by people with white faces. Groups of bengali youths running amock and causing people to cower in fear is not to be discouraged as it’s not pee cee to do so. The fact that there is a ‘religious’ angle to this (calling it ‘Djall’) further inoculates it from criticism. This is exactly the same thinking that allows The Despicable Rahman to cry ‘racism’ when he is very clearly the most racist bigot in Tower Hamlets.
I’m very sorry to hear this has happened to Shafiur Rahman; he has done a lot of good work and should be encouraged.
Tim.
Surprised to read, ‘all this has happened for the best part of a month under the gaze of a Tower Hamlets council CCTV camera…with, as yet, no action (I asked the council for a comment, but they didn’t reply’.
Can I humbly suggest both the local Councillor’s for Spitalfields and Banglatown are asked to comment on this vandalism, and to explain to their community what action they have taken.
One would have thought, unless there is a serious failure by the MET, they ought to have identified those responsible by now – on the face of it, there seems to have been sufficient leads, and time to do so. Let’s Tweet to ask…
I also suggest the local community that supports Shafiur Rahman’s enterprise and our freedom of expression, help remove the vandalism and restore the Street Art to its original state. This will be an important show of solidarity and that the community will not be intimidated by extremists.
Yes, I know I’ve lent heavily on ‘community’, and for a purpose in a case like this..
Let’s not restore the street art to its original state because:
1) It’s very bad art and
2) If it is genuinely taken to be offensive given its location it also displays very bad judgement.
Let’s ensure the building is restored to looking the way it did before somebody had the so-called “bright idea” of commissioning the wrong artist to produce the wrong sort of image.
>You couldn’t make it up!
Utter puritanical nonsense. What is good or bad art, lies in the eye of the beholder. It isn’t for you, and certainly not the yobs of Brick Land, to oppose its restoration.
I imagine if this were an Art Dealer, and they hung Leonardo de Vinci’s ‘The Last Supper’ or Albrecht Dürer’s ‘Knight, Death, and the Devil’, you’d say that was offensive in light of its location – Yikes!
I’m objecting to the sort of puerile ghoulish nonsense of the type teenagers come up with.
If the vandalism was done by then surely PC Plod and his community partner the London Borough of Tower Hamlets, should have viewed the CCTV and commenced investigations ?
How many reports (URNs) have been made to the police ?
What is/are the Crime Reference Number(s) ?
Anyone got a comment from the police’s press office ?
Tower Hamlets is getting worse perhaps because those in authority are too lazy to get involved. Doing nothing encourages further deterioration.
Curious Cat
This is not street art. The explanation of how it is supposed to represent community, diversity and multiculturalism is extraordinarily lame. To me it looks like some sort of attempt at a gothic horror comic image. It’s completely inappropriate.
I in no way condone violence or intimidation as an appropriate response – quite the contrary – it’s an outrageous way to behave.
It’s also outrageous to develop a mural which is intended to provide a message to the local community – having done no research as to the type of images which people respond well to in relation to the messages it was supposed to convey. That’s just pure laziness of the part of those commissioning the work and providing the brief and/or the artist who created it.
The choice of artist also appears to be most unfortunate judging by other examples of his art
http://joshjeavons.co.uk/
http://plannedviolence.org/josh-jeavons/
No way do the images produced by this artist suggest that he is somebody suitable to convey community, diversity and multiculturalism. Quite the reverse. So was this a publicity stunt?
There are also other ways of expressing strong feelings about artwork which leads to its removal. After all isn’t that the very nature of street art? If it’s deemed to be no good isn’t it often the case that it gets covered up by another image?
While I find the original image quite revolting, what I do find really horrifying is that there are gangs who feel they can terrorise people and who get away with it.
Now that’s really scary.
That’s also something the Mayor should very definitely be doing something about.
I don’t quite understand your position here. You say you “don’t condone violence and intimidation”, but then go on to imply that you think whoever did this had some justification to carry out these attacks. So which is it?
I’m also puzzled as to why you think the images fail as street art because they don’t “convey community, diversity and multiculturalism”, and then go on to say that the artist should have created something he knew in advance would be exactly what the people living in the area would want to see. Brick Lane must be one of the least diverse streets in London – it isn’t “multicultural”, it’s a virtual Bengali/Sunni Muslim monoculture. Almost everyone else has left, not least because of hostility from an increasingly insular and ghettoized Bengali populace. Even the victim in this case is himself Bengali.
If many local people really did have a significant problem with this art, there are surely channels through which they could register objections, as the mosque spokesman apparently says. Whatever you think of the images, they are in no way obscene and cannot be considered “blasphemous” except perhaps under the most extreme Salafist/Wahhabist interpretations of Islam that abominate figurative images generally – and which most Brick Laners clearly do not adhere to anyway. In any case, the law in Saudi Arabia is not the law in the UK.
This isn’t an instance of valid art criticism or protest, it’s vandalism, criminal damage and intimidation. Whether these attacks were carried out by religious vigilantes whipped up by some intolerant local imam or just local kids being unpleasant for the sake of being unpleasant, they’re morally indefensible, unambiguously illegal and I hope the police are (finally) taking an interest now that the case has gained some publicity outside Tower Hamlets.
If you are reading “imply” into this then that’s your mind not mine.
Maybe you can try dealing with two points at the same time
1) Violence can never be condoned
2) An image might be offensive to some people.
I made a big point of putting “don’t condone violence and intimidation” precisely to avoid any possible suggestion that I thought what they did was OK in terms of violence. I was however observing that it is common practice amongst those indulging in street art to paint over images which are considered to be less than wonderful – or on the ‘wrong patch’. It happens all the time.
There was absolutely no need for any violence. Is that clear enough for you?
Also try reading Ted’s post which I am commenting of. The artist who is defending the image suggested it was supposed to “convey community, diversity and multiculturalism”. It just sounded very much like tinpot retrospective rationalisation to me.
Most communities which commission artwork which is supposed to provide a message for the community also involve the community in the commissioning of the artwork. Clearly this did not happen in this instance.
In summary, I’m just saying you don’t have to be Islamic to find this image offensive. it’s bad art, ghoulish and totally inappropriate for an area where young children move about as part of the local community. Or perhaps you’ve never dealt with children who get seriously spooked by ghoulish images at bedtime?
It also strikes me you’re buying into some sort of myth about what Brick Lane is supposed to be like. It’s exactly the same as it always has been which is to say it has one dominant culture of recent immigrants (who started off as Huguenots then became East European Jews for a very long time and for the last 50 years or so have increasingly been of Bangladeshi origin) plus an awful lot of people who like the area. I haven’t noticed Tracy Emin or Dan Cruickshank leaving…….
The only change I’ve noticed in the last c.40 years is the remnants of the Jewish trades associated with the garment and food industries moving out as their owners have died or become too old to continue. Plus some of the street artist types who have moved or use the area to practice their ‘art’ rate their ability as artists rather higher than those who live there.
Bottom line – would you like that image painted on your street door?
The problem is two fold. The spirit of the age in that part of London rather proclaims the supremacy of sharia.
Secondly, the authorities, both local and national, proclaim, at the very least, the equality of sharia law with other systems.
Given this, we can hardly be shocked when some youths decide to implement their interpretation if it…………
I just wonder if this vandalism might be being funded by a business competitor.
Nuevo Espanol. Quienes?
I love a good conspiracy theory.
Brainwashing much?
Oh, my mistake, I meant ‘religion’
Soon we will have signposts for visitors to Brick Lane “You are entering a dangerous area”. Fantastic, more mud slung at us!
No dajjal. A group of rival artists just did their own version of street art.
These youths are idiots, why waste energy pelting eggs. That’s just so last year. Get yourself some spray cans and create your own street art over these images. An image conveying the message “Free Palestine” would be totally ‘in’ now.
The art is not very good. The vandalism is worse. Both the artist and the vandals need to up their game.
I am joking of course before anyone gets too upset.
My goodness – I agree with something MOTCO said!
The attempt at levity is appreciated 🙂
I can not agree with your comment the Mayor will be appalled by this.For the last few years he, the council and police have given these morons immunity to spread their scrawls or tags all over the borough, i am not referring to genuine street art.Despite millions paid out for CCTV cameras,grossly overmanned like all council depts, it seems no one has been apprehended,cautioned charged etc!Every main road ,Bethnal Green Road in particular has been damaged by these thugs,every wall, shutter and doorway and yet the police and the numerous THEOs have failed to act.Every one has seen the council caretakers and THEOs standing there lauhging while there acts are carried outr.
Many residents have asked the council and police for offical stats on how many people have been charged or cautioned for graffiti.All have ignored the request, because they know the figures are embarrassing.Maybe their is someone out there with more influence who could get a official reply from these bodies?
The majority of the graffiti is done by minors,everyone knows the shops in the Bethnal Green area who is supplying the paint to these cretins, so why does the council or police not put some pressure like the sale of fireworks?
I know businesses and home owners in the area by Bethnal Green Road and Shoreditch Station are sick of the damage that is being done to their premises daily.
So Mr Rahman expect the usual cliched response from the Mayor and police
“My number one priority as Mayor is ” then insert one of the following at your leisure crime, housing, education, unemployment.The man is certainly consistant.
As for the local police,every change of commander we get the usual bullshit of how he will clear up the borough and anti social behaviour , yet it seems even stopping the illegal DVDsellers in the market evey Sunday is beyond thier deduction powers
As someone who travels all over London weekly i can say with some authority Tower Hamlets is easily the dirtiest borough in the capitol.
Also did any one see the Mayors embarrassing performance on the London news this week.Thinking it would be good PR, he came across as total shifty.
Thank you. Can you email me the names of some shops affected and those selling the paint?
Tam – you might be interested to know that in New York they had a radical impact on crime and gang behaviour when they adopted a “no tolerance” policy with respect to graffiti in the mid 90s.
What happened is all the gang tagging marks disappeared and what has managed to survive is some seriously good street art.
This blog post provides an overview http://globetrottergirls.com/2013/07/street-art-new-york-city/
The point is seriously good street art is wonderful. It’s not unusual for owners of buildings to commission good street art. Remember the outrage when Lutfur’s election banner covered up the sacred crane of Brick Lane https://trialbyjeory.wordpress.com/2012/05/18/lutfur-the-barbarian-covers-up-the-sacred-crane-of-brick-lane/
However that doesn’t mean the community should have to put up with examples of seriously bad street art or the type of tagging that so many gangs indulge in.
On a theological sidebar isn’t it rather odd to be calling an Islamic conception of a demonic apocalyptic figure, the antichrist or the false messiah? There’s an obvious parallel with the similar conception in Christian texts but all the same.
Ted, may I have your permission to defend the EDL, as we never get the chance to prove that we are not what the MSM portray us as.
No. Use someone else’s blog please.
OK, cheers.
I do not understand the need to write MUSLIM youths in your headline. You live to label people don’t you? To avoid hysteria and offense it would be better to simply write youth instead or something else which isn’t based on religion. I do no respect most of your views as I feel you are subtly prejudiced towards certain groups. Some of the material you provide are actually okay but most are not. So please think intelligently about what you say. It will make you a better person.
Thanks Sam, but precisely because of those concerns I and many other journalists think carefully about using such adjectives.
In this case the story is about supposed religious/Islamic beliefs. The story can’t be told without defining which religion these youths follow.
Read it again.
Why get upset about something that is factually correct? How is it labeling people when the term is intrinsic to the story?