And interestingly, no one had to hide for his life because of that.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Why has there never been a documentary on Mohammad
- Thread starter Cooky
- Start date
How so?
And had to compromise that accuracy in order to make Muhammad appear less of a human being.
Is there even a point to that?
Really, that hurts the very credibility of your faiths.
Come to think of it, I wonder if there is any way of gauging whether younger Muslims (and Babs and Bahais) truly care about such non-issues? Maybe instead they just care about the reaction of their own peers?
There are very consistent indications that, for Muslims at least, that may well be the case. It is one of several signs that Islaam probably does not qualify as a religion at all.
Last edited:
I am a bit surprised you asked the question. One aspect is that No Messenger came to line the pockets of any person, or for any material gain.
Another aspect is over a Billion people would see you insulting Muhammad, thus why would one even consider doing that? That action in itself would also be against any basic virtue, to insult intentionally.
Thus we get back to the 1976 movie that did consult and got approval to film. If you watch it, I saw a fair vision of the Message.
Regards Tony
Simply, they care. None of these are non issues, faith is from the heart and Love knows no boundaries. One would choose death over neglecting any aspect of that Love.
At the same time, there is no compulsion in religion, so one would not stop a person who would think they know better and make a movie with an actor playing Muhammad.
Regards Tony
And refusing to show a human face representing some of them would achieve that? I don't think so.
Maybe I would agree with you on that at one time.
I no longer do.
Muslims ought to behave like adults, if they want to be perceived as deserving of respect.
I just might decide to watch it.
You are selling a cheap image of your own bothers (or perhaps sons and nephews) of faith.
It seems to me that this thread alone has already catapulted that overextended citation from Qur'an verse 2:256 well into irrelevance several times over.
Nice a saying as it is, Islaam does not promote it. We all should accept that already.
Faithofchristian
Well-Known Member
Have you any idea what your asking for,
it's obviously not.
To do such a thing, do you know that every Muslim around the world would come all Unhinged, completely psychopathic to kill.
Maybe you should rethink that.
Ask any Muslim what they would think, but if I was you, I'd put some distance between you them when asking
Epic Beard Man
Bearded Philosopher
I never really cared for your attention to begin with. Let's get something straight, we've been at these crossroads before. I'm all for academic debate, constructive criticism, and philosophical discussion if you, on your end can present verifiable literature that is on an academic level that provides a logical critique of religion. In the past you haven't and with the so-called rebuttals you present are often dialectical statements that often contain category fallacies. You're very biased and although claiming to have knowledge of Islam in the past has not been demonstrated not in the least bit. My tone towards you would've change if you could pull some hadith out and discuss them (since hadith contains more controversy than Qur'an but very often western society often conflates both hadith and Qur'an).
With that being said, I'm not interested in grabbing your attention, just checking you on facts nothing more.
Hmm well given these fine examples of non-muslims passion regarding the depiction of Muhammad I would say over the years western depictions of Muhammad have all the more been insensitive with the negative portrayal of him as a warlord:
Dante's Inferno
March 4, 1300 (or as some put it on April 7th)
Early Renaissance fresco which was an illustration in Dante's inferno which was a depiction of Muhammad in being dragged down to hell by a demon.
In the 1508 engraving by Dutch artist Lucas van Leyden illustrates a legend about Mohammed that circulated in Europe during the medieval era, in which it was said that according to a 1908 New York Times article which reprinted this image, is an illustration of the story of the Prophet Mohammed and the Monk Sergius. Mohammed, when in company with his friend Sergius, drank too much wine and fell asleep. Before he awakened a soldier killed Sergius and placed the sword in Mohammed's hand. When the prophet wakened the soldier and his companions told him that while drunk he had slain the monk. Therefore Mohammed forbade the drinking of wine by his followers.
We can also look at the illustration from "La vie de Mahomet," by M. Prideaux, published in 1699. Showing Muhammad holding a sword and a crescent while trampling on a globe, a cross, and the Ten Commandments.
William Blake an English poet and painter in 1827 depiction of Muhammad based on the illustration of Dante's inferno, showing Muhammad pulling his chest open.
In 1861 Gustav Dore created a similar painting based on the illustration from Dante's inferno.
September 30, 2005
Series of cartoons, some depicting the Prophet Mohammed as a terrorist with a bomb, published by Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten.
July 2007 The Lars Vilks Muhammad controversy which Swedish artist made a series of drawings that depicted Muhammad as a roundabout dog.
November 2, 2010
Charlie Hebdo, which would illustrate him as a "chief editor."
April 20, 2010
"Everybody draw Muhammad day" which was a protest against those who threatened violence against artists who drew representations of Muhammad. Now, I am against violence against people on this level but this is really putting gasoline over fire.
September 2012
The same French newspaper published a series of satirical cartoons of Muhammad, some of which feature nude caricatures of him. Even in 2013 the year following Hebdo wanted to make a cartoon on the life of Muhammad.
With the exception of a few drawings that were mere depictions of Muhammad reading the Qur'an and the sculpting of Muhammad on the supreme courthouse (which depicted Muhammad as the lawgiver) which also contain other law givers like Moses and Hammurabi, depictions of Muhammad from non-Muslims for the most part have been negative. Europeans historically have always had negative depictions of Muhammad and the fact that non-Muslims want to depict him in cartoons only to antagonize the population demonstrates that true artistry of this kind is not about talent or skill, its about some internal hate propagated by these non-Muslims. So as you can see historically non-Muslims of this caliber do not have a track record of tolerance so that is why I make these judgments.
I believe they do, just as I believe Jews have a legitimate gripe if someone made a painting of Moses in the likeness of Shylock, or a painting of Obama with a bone through his nose. Free speech is one thing, but its another to antagonizes people with so-called artwork when the work itself is set to demonize a culture and a beloved figure.
No, actually Christians whine much much more. Actually here in the U.S. there is another war Christians are fighting and it's against Satanists:
"The organisation, which doubles as a non theistic religion and political activist group, has repeatedly condemned a decision to unveil a Ten Commandments monument outside of the Arkansas state capitol building last year.
Its most shocking demonstration arrived this week in the form of a monument of its own: Satanists carried an over eight-foot tall bronze statue depicting Baphomet — a goat-headed devil figure — to the state capitol building on Thursday, drawing Christian counter-protestors and backlash from Republican officials."
Source: Why are Satanic worshippers using a creature called Baphomet against conservative Arkansas Christians?
That is just one case regarding Christians complaining and moving goal posts. Everyday Christians whine. If it isn't about public schools taking prayer out, it's about abortion, if its not about abortion its about government officials not saying "merry Christmas."
What do Muslims complain about?
At least for those I can speak of in the states, no physical depictions of their prophets both Jewish and Christian. Being treated fairly. Wanting the same rights as other Americans. In comparison to Christians, Muslims do not whine over arbitrary things like Baphomet statues being placed on government grounds or not saying Happy Ramadan. Christians complain waaaay more here in the states.
Again, you not ready for this conversation sir because I present facts which you never have any.
Epic Beard Man
Bearded Philosopher
Ok.
Because it's all legendary.
There is apparently one, perhaps two, contemporary mentions which might refer to an historical Muhammad. Each consists of a single mention of the name. That puts Muhammad way ahead of Jesus, but it tells you very little historical about him.
That's about it. The Qur'an was put together a couple of centuries later, but there's no reason to think anything in it was said by Muhammad.
I glimpsed this.
Waste of time. But I was forewarned.
Here is hoping that you learn better. It would be nice to have the time spent listening to you be at least roughly worth it.
Last edited:
Shad
Veteran Member
For the latter I guess it comes down to who/what is making the movie/film and who is playing the role.
Shad
Veteran Member
Scene in question. There was movement along with some basic Christian concepts involved in the movement. Toss in the whole Roman Centurion bit as foreshadowing to the Biblical reference
Epic Beard Man
Bearded Philosopher
Because of inaccurate portrayals like I said.
Because history tells us Jesus did not look like this
Nor did Moses historically didn't look like this
Really? This was a horrible response to that comment.
Well, you don't have to but when it comes to the "almighty dollar" best believe my presumption of your disrespect of my faith will be met with your exhibitions being protested against and if money involved, and if I have enough of it and with pull you will not make money. Just as Exodus: Gods and Kings the movie received global backlash not just from Muslims but also by some Jews and Christians, so would your project. You forget money is power and if I have enough of it I could ruin your career so you should care.
I just told you. Perhaps I need to use a better example for you to understand. Ever heard of a minstrel show? You know the infamous entertainment skits where Caucasian characters where "black face?" You know sing and dance and talk in a particular way which depicts African-Americans as slow, dumb and without agency? So, its kinda like that. the reason why I want to see a more "ethnic Jesus" than a Jim Cavizel because historically that is what matters to me as a moviegoer. the accuracy of the story, the accuracy of the characters. Like minstrel shows the people who create these shows are trying to entertain a particular audience with a particular narrative.
Similarly with depictions of religious figures Hollywood has made it clear that what brings people to the seats are those actors that are relatable to the majority. It is a well known fact in the movie industry that persons of color especially when they seek out for parts to portray religious characters are not desirable. Simple put just as we need to get away from inaccurate depictions of persons of color from different regions of the world, we need to shy away from inaccurate depictions of historical religious figures. The fact that we maintain inaccurate depictions to make people feel welcome and to draw in more people says a lot about the state of mind that exists in U.S. film culture.
I have no doubt that people in the Muslim world would have an issue of someone physically depicting Muhammad so yes, in light of that partially instability and violence would ensue in those regions unfortunately. But I think by and large producers don't want to touch those taboos not just for security reasons and because out of respect considering that Muslims take this very seriously.
Epic Beard Man
Bearded Philosopher
Forewarned because of facts? Okay.
Augustus
…
Going back 2000 years, the term "Middle Eastern" made no sense. Calling them both ME religions is basically colonialist as it erases the cultural diversity of the region's history.
Nor did Moses historically didn't look like this
Actually, that might not be too inaccurate. A best guess based on modern genetic research would be similar to a Southern European/Anatolian/Levantine ("Caucasian").
Why would Jewish figures be 'people of colour'? That's just appropriating them for modern political objectives same as you are criticising. Are Greeks and Italians 'people of colour' too?
This is a common Western Eurasian (Caucasian in the geographic sense) haplogroup. If we think about history, there was a Mediterranean civilisation.
This was distinct from Northern European and Arab alike as the map shows. As the concept of Europe evolved, the European Med and its cultural history was appropriated by Northern Europeans, and the "Middle Eastern" Med became part of the "Arab World".
Thinking of a historical entity called the Middle East, erases the history of an entire people, and also shows the idiocy of modern concepts of 'white' or 'person of colour'. Take 2 people who are genetically the same, put one in Greece and the other in Syria, and one magically becomes a 'white' European and the other a 'brown' Arab.
So when people say 'Jesus/Moses/etc was a brown Middle Easterner', this is an unconscious racism that buys into an Arab imperialistic narrative combined with a Northern European myth of being part of the same historic civilisation as the Greeks and Romans.
What is one of the several signs that Islam probably does not qualify as a religion?
Hi, @The_Fisher_King . Thanks for asking.
Yes, I should have been clearer about that. Sorry.
In that post, what I was mentioning was the strongly hinted situation of people in Muslim societies acting mostly out of social expectations and peer pressure.
That is by far the most likely explanation for the insistence of Muslim communities in being so traditionalistic and having so little interest in actual religion as I understand that idea.
Isn't that a big factor for most people in most societies most of the time?