Matrix producer plans Muhammad biopic

Rrose Selavy · 2nd November 2009, 07:08 AM

When I first saw the headline I read it as another bio of Muhammad Ali though maybe there will be a big fight anyway....

Quote:

Barrie Osborne, part of the Oscar-winning team behind the Lord of the Rings films, says the new production 'will educate people about the true meaning of Islam'

Budgeted at around $150m (£91.5m), the film will chart Muhammad's life and examine his teachings. Osborne told Reuters that he envisages it as "an international epic production aimed at bridging cultures. The film will educate people about the true meaning of Islam".
Osborne's production will reportedly feature English-speaking Muslim actors. It is backed by the Qatar-based production company Alnoor Holdings, who have installed the Muslim scholar Sheikh Yusuf Al-Qaradawi to oversee all aspects of the shoot. In accordance with Islamic law, the prophet will not actually be depicted on screen.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2009/...uhammad-biopic

EvilSmurf · 2nd November 2009, 07:16 AM

Originally Posted by Rrose Selavy

When I first saw the headline I read it as another bio of Muhammad Ali though maybe there will be a big fight anyway....

http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2009/...uhammad-biopic

He ought to be worried:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Message_(1976_film)

icerat · 2nd November 2009, 07:17 AM

that's going to require some interesting techniques, a movie about someone's life without ever showing them in the movie ....

ETA: from the (broken) wikipedia link above (correct here) about th 1976 film -

Quote:

In accordance with Muslim beliefs regarding depictions of Muhammad, he could not be depicted on-screen nor his voice be heard. This rule extends to his wives, his daughters and his sons-in-law. This leaves Muhammad's uncle Hamza (Anthony Quinn) and his adopted son Zayd (Damien Thomas) as the central characters. During the battles of Badr and Uhud depicted in the movie, Hamza is in nominal command even though the actual fighting was led by Muhammad.

Whenever Muhammad is present or very close by, his presence is indicated by light organ music. His words, as he speaks them, are repeated by someone else such as Hamza, Zayd and Bilal. When a scene calls for him to be present, the action is filmed from his point of view. Others in the scene nod to the unheard dialogue.

The closest the film comes to a depiction of Muhammad or his immediate family is the view of Ali's sword Zulfiqar during the battle scenes, as well as Muhammad's she-camel and staff in the scenes at the Kaaba or in Medina.

GreNME · 2nd November 2009, 07:47 AM

It's really a pity that the over-reactive and most fundamentalist are the only ones that get recognition when the issue of Muhammad's depiction comes up. The Hadith in question from which so many base the rule on is very specifically stipulating against making religious or worshipful depictions of Muhammad. It's not like Islam has completely forbade depictions of their Prophet throughout their history, since the Ottomans and Persians (among others) created plenty of depictions of him. The current view by the fundamentalists is based on two things: 1) the long-standing Western misconception that Islam involved the worship of Muhammad-- for quite some time, Muslims were called "Mohammadans" in Europe-- and 2) the advent of photos and motion picture created a ridiculous backlash reaction in the Muslim world, mostly by the prominent (and loud) fundamentalists of the time. That defensive attitude has remained constant regarding any depiction of Muhammad as a result, though the views are gradually changing among the more moderate (and numerous) Muslims. Even Ayatollah Ali al Sistani has stated publicly that depictions of Muhammad aren't necessarily forbidden as long as it's done respectfully, and considering that al Sistani wouldn't necessarily be considered a "liberal" voice in the Muslim world that's a very stark contrast to the common misconception that all Muslims consider the issue absolute and closed.

geni · 2nd November 2009, 08:07 AM

Originally Posted by icerat

that's going to require some interesting techniques, a movie about someone's life without ever showing them in the movie ....

Nothing new though. Fair number of the early films depicting Jesus took that aproach. If the film maker knows what it is doing it can work well enough.

Tormac · 2nd November 2009, 08:31 AM

I’ve seen “The Message” and thought that the way that the movie portrayed the prophet Mohamed worked with the story telling. It was very clever, with scenes shot from Mohamed’s point of view to get around the restriction of not showing him.

But then I loved Anthony Quinn’s work as Hamza, I hope this works out well, as a work of fiction the story is a great one.

The only story of a major political leader that I can think of that has more natural drama and sounds like a made for Hollywood tale is Genghis Khan’s.

Hopefully no is “fatwaed” over this movie.

Arcade22 · 2nd November 2009, 08:55 AM

Who will play Aisha? Will she even be in the movie, or will she be edited out so they can put the pedophile in better light?

TimCallahan · 2nd November 2009, 10:26 AM

"In accordance with Islamic law, the prophet will not actually be depicted on screen."

Interesting: a biography about someone who isn't there. This should be particularly interesting when it comes to Mohammad's initial revelation in a cave on a mountain, where only he and the angel Gabriel are present. Is it acceptable to visually represent an angel? If not, then maybe they'll have to do the whole thing with shadow puppets.

Rrose Selavy · 2nd November 2009, 11:02 AM

He'll be a cloud like Galactus in the FF movie with a Mark Hamill voiceover.

geni · 2nd November 2009, 11:17 AM

Originally Posted by TimCallahan

"In accordance with Islamic law, the prophet will not actually be depicted on screen."

Interesting: a biography about someone who isn't there. This should be particularly interesting when it comes to Mohammad's initial revelation in a cave on a mountain, where only he and the angel Gabriel are present. Is it acceptable to visually represent an angel? If not, then maybe they'll have to do the whole thing with shadow puppets.

I think it would depend on which bit of islam. But in any case external shot of the Cave of Hira (either model or digitaly edited to remove the more recent paint) with voices and lights.

Third Eye Open · 2nd November 2009, 11:34 AM

Quote:

"In accordance with Islamic law, the prophet will not actually be depicted on screen."

Pussies.

Hux · 2nd November 2009, 11:45 AM

Anthony Quinn played his usual role as Zorba the Muslim. Never renowned for his broad depiction of characters.

geni · 2nd November 2009, 01:01 PM

Originally Posted by Third Eye Open

Pussies.

Or maybe they want to make a film and not a media bunfight.

Third Eye Open · 2nd November 2009, 01:20 PM

Originally Posted by geni

Or maybe they want to make a film and not a media bunfight.

If they wanted to make a film I'm sure it could be a much better and more interesting film if they didn't force themselves to go through the trouble of trying to appease a small group of lunatics who aren't even going to watch the thing.

GreyICE · 2nd November 2009, 01:25 PM

Originally Posted by Third Eye Open

If they wanted to make a film I'm sure it could be a much better and more interesting film if they didn't force themselves to go through the trouble of trying to appease a small group of lunatics who aren't even going to watch the thing.

But will happily kill them.

Rrose Selavy · 2nd November 2009, 02:47 PM

Quote:

Alnoor Holdings, a media company that has created a $200million film production fund to invest in Hollywood and international projects, has hired the cleric Sheikh Yousef al-Qaradawi as their lead theological consultant for the film.
Sheikh al-Qaradawi is one of the Sunni Islam’s most high-profile theologians thanks to his popular slot hosting a television show on al-Jazeera. He is admired by many moderate Muslims and was recently described by the government’s senior counter-terrorism official as “one of the most articulate critics of al-Qaeda in the Islamic world”.
He is also a highly controversial figure who was refused entry to Britain last year because of his views. He has reportedly condoned the Holocaust, supported the stoning of homosexuals and praised suicide bombers in Iraq, not to mention telling an interviewer that he considered Shia Islam a heretical branch of the faith.
According to the Gulf Times newspaper he told journalists in Doha that the film was a response to “the crusader-styled distortion of Islam [that] continues to influence [the] world population today.”
“I will say we Muslims have not exerted sufficient efforts to correct the fake tales as Christians have used [in] the media. The life of the Prophet Muhammad is richly documented from the cattle he raised to the weapons he used to his private life.”

http://entertainment.timesonline.co....cle6900021.ece

geni · 2nd November 2009, 05:08 PM

Originally Posted by Third Eye Open

If they wanted to make a film I'm sure it could be a much better and more interesting film if they didn't force themselves to go through the trouble of trying to appease a small group of lunatics who aren't even going to watch the thing.

Why? Film makeing techniques for shooting films about people without showing them exist. They haven't been much used for the last few decades so it will be interesting to see how they do it in the 21st century.

hamelekim · 3rd November 2009, 02:07 AM

The Islamists are going to flip out and kill anyone involved in this movie, if it happens.

It's rather disgusting to see Islam on the rise. Even if you are an Atheist, at least Christianity is far more accepting of critics. When do you see Christians calling for holy war and making death threats against people who make fun of Christianity? Besides one or two crazy people that is.

BobHaulk · 3rd November 2009, 02:43 AM

i wondered if it was possible to make a duller film than lord of the rings.

geni · 3rd November 2009, 01:27 PM

Originally Posted by hamelekim

The Islamists are going to flip out and kill anyone involved in this movie, if it happens.

Err Ninja would generaly be budddist or shinto.

Quote:

It's rather disgusting to see Islam on the rise. Even if you are an Atheist, at least Christianity is far more accepting of critics. When do you see Christians calling for holy war and making death threats against people who make fun of Christianity? Besides one or two crazy people that is.

What does that have to do with the movie?

TimCallahan · 3rd November 2009, 02:10 PM

Originally Posted by hamelekim

The Islamists are going to flip out and kill anyone involved in this movie, if it happens.

It's rather disgusting to see Islam on the rise. Even if you are an Atheist, at least Christianity is far more accepting of critics. When do you see Christians calling for holy war and making death threats against people who make fun of Christianity? Besides one or two crazy people that is.

Dr. Robert Ellwood wrote a book a number of years ago titled The Future of Faith.In it, he noted that religions seem to go through a series of predictable cycles. Islam right now, according to Ellwood, is where Chritianity was in the 1600s, the period of religious wars, culminating in the Thirty Years War, when Protestants and Catholics readily murdered and massacered each other.

hgc · 3rd November 2009, 02:37 PM

Originally Posted by GreNME

It's really a pity that the over-reactive and most fundamentalist are the only ones that get recognition when the issue of Muhammad's depiction comes up. The Hadith in question from which so many base the rule on is very specifically stipulating against making religious or worshipful depictions of Muhammad. It's not like Islam has completely forbade depictions of their Prophet throughout their history, since the Ottomans and Persians (among others) created plenty of depictions of him. The current view by the fundamentalists is based on two things: 1) the long-standing Western misconception that Islam involved the worship of Muhammad-- for quite some time, Muslims were called "Mohammadans" in Europe-- and 2) the advent of photos and motion picture created a ridiculous backlash reaction in the Muslim world, mostly by the prominent (and loud) fundamentalists of the time. That defensive attitude has remained constant regarding any depiction of Muhammad as a result, though the views are gradually changing among the more moderate (and numerous) Muslims. Even Ayatollah Ali al Sistani has stated publicly that depictions of Muhammad aren't necessarily forbidden as long as it's done respectfully, and considering that al Sistani wouldn't necessarily be considered a "liberal" voice in the Muslim world that's a very stark contrast to the common misconception that all Muslims consider the issue absolute and closed.

A couple points:

1) The western misconception that Muslims worship Mohammed is the cause for the ban on images of images of him (even if not the source). That sounds extremely unlikely. I'd like to see some more about how this is known.

2) Muslims do worship Mohammed. They may not call it worship, but that's sure what it looks like to me. It's kind of like the way Catholics worship the virgin, but even more so.

Hux · 4th November 2009, 05:00 AM

Number 2 is correct. He is their icon since they have none for Allah. They read the Haddith avidly which is all about the prophet and nothing to do with his messages. They even want to shoot, shave and sh*t like him; all are prescribed. Which is why, in the modern world, an awful lot dress in his ways and look as if their heads are on upside down, having adopted the prophets tonsure. Quite a few of them wouldn't know if it were raining unless the prophet said so.

INRM · 4th November 2009, 12:13 PM

I just hope this won't cause muslims in the United States to do anything violent. It could be considered a terrorist attack and a justification of Martial Law.

Obama seems to defend a number of Bush's policies and I wouldn't be surprised if a terrorist attack happens he would react similar to Bush.

Darth Rotor · 5th November 2009, 09:37 AM

Originally Posted by BobHaulk

i wondered if it was possible to make a duller film than lord of the rings.

Cardinal Fang, read the charges ...

Darth Rotor · 5th November 2009, 09:39 AM

Originally Posted by hgc

2) Muslims do worship Mohammed. They may not call it worship, but that's sure what it looks like to me. It's kind of like the way Catholics worship the virgin, but even more so.

I had to look this up a few years ago, to answer my daughter's question for CCD.

The term used is Venerate, not worship.

Don't blame me, blame the RCC. I think the Muslims feel about the same way regarding The Prophet, and a few other key figures early in the faith: he is venerated, since there is no god but Allah, and all the rest.

DR

TimCallahan · 7th November 2009, 04:13 PM

I'm thinking that one way around not showing Mohammad would be for an actor, whose head and shoulders would be cropped out, could have his hand made up like a face, sort of like the character "Johnney" that the Spanish ventriloquist, Senor Wences used to create by pinting his hand, when he appeared on the Ed Sullivan Show. Then the nhand would move like "Johnney" and an off stage actor could recite Mohammad's lines.

Of course, for really strict followers of the Hadith, maybe even depicting the prophet's voice would be taboo. In that case, his bio would portray him as a totally off-stage character, like Godot in "Waiting for Godot."

hgc · 7th November 2009, 11:23 PM

Originally Posted by TimCallahan

I'm thinking that one way around not showing Mohammad would be for an actor, whose head and shoulders would be cropped out, could have his hand made up like a face, sort of like the character "Johnney" that the Spanish ventriloquist, Senor Wences used to create by pinting his hand, when he appeared on the Ed Sullivan Show. Then the nhand would move like "Johnney" and an off stage actor could recite Mohammad's lines.

Of course, for really strict followers of the Hadith, maybe even depicting the prophet's voice would be taboo. In that case, his bio would portray him as a totally off-stage character, like Godot in "Waiting for Godot."

Ha! They should do it the neighbor Wilson on Home Improvement. Hilarious tricks to obscure his face.

Hux · 8th November 2009, 03:43 AM

One way to solve the problem would be to not waste time making a biopic about some nasty little Turd that isn't allowed to be shown. Are they expecting to make box office with this crap?

TimCallahan · 8th November 2009, 11:31 AM

If they ever give up this silly idea of not showing the Prophet they could go to http://www.turntoislam.com/forum/showthread.php?t=15806.

2nd November 2009, 07:08 AM	#1
Rrose Selavy Graduate Poster Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: UK Posts: 1,156	Matrix producer plans Muhammad biopic When I first saw the headline I read it as another bio of Muhammad Ali though maybe there will be a big fight anyway.... Quote: Barrie Osborne, part of the Oscar-winning team behind the Lord of the Rings films, says the new production 'will educate people about the true meaning of Islam' Budgeted at around $150m (£91.5m), the film will chart Muhammad's life and examine his teachings. Osborne told Reuters that he envisages it as "an international epic production aimed at bridging cultures. The film will educate people about the true meaning of Islam". Osborne's production will reportedly feature English-speaking Muslim actors. It is backed by the Qatar-based production company Alnoor Holdings, who have installed the Muslim scholar Sheikh Yusuf Al-Qaradawi to oversee all aspects of the shoot. In accordance with Islamic law, the prophet will not actually be depicted on screen. http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2009/...uhammad-biopic

2nd November 2009, 07:16 AM	#2
EvilSmurf Muse Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: The USA Posts: 872	Originally Posted by Rrose Selavy When I first saw the headline I read it as another bio of Muhammad Ali though maybe there will be a big fight anyway.... http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2009/...uhammad-biopic He ought to be worried: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Message_(1976_film)
	__________________ "I have noticed even people who claim everything is predestined, and that we can do nothing to change it, look before they cross the road." - Stephen Hawking Last edited by EvilSmurf; 2nd November 2009 at 07:20 AM. Reason: Link fixed

2nd November 2009, 07:17 AM	#3
icerat Graduate Poster Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: stockholm, sweden Posts: 1,050	that's going to require some interesting techniques, a movie about someone's life without ever showing them in the movie .... ETA: from the (broken) wikipedia link above (correct here) about th 1976 film - Quote: In accordance with Muslim beliefs regarding depictions of Muhammad, he could not be depicted on-screen nor his voice be heard. This rule extends to his wives, his daughters and his sons-in-law. This leaves Muhammad's uncle Hamza (Anthony Quinn) and his adopted son Zayd (Damien Thomas) as the central characters. During the battles of Badr and Uhud depicted in the movie, Hamza is in nominal command even though the actual fighting was led by Muhammad. Whenever Muhammad is present or very close by, his presence is indicated by light organ music. His words, as he speaks them, are repeated by someone else such as Hamza, Zayd and Bilal. When a scene calls for him to be present, the action is filmed from his point of view. Others in the scene nod to the unheard dialogue. The closest the film comes to a depiction of Muhammad or his immediate family is the view of Ali's sword Zulfiqar during the battle scenes, as well as Muhammad's she-camel and staff in the scenes at the Kaaba or in Medina.
	Last edited by icerat; 2nd November 2009 at 07:20 AM.

2nd November 2009, 07:47 AM	#4
GreNME Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Folsom Prison Posts: 6,412	It's really a pity that the over-reactive and most fundamentalist are the only ones that get recognition when the issue of Muhammad's depiction comes up. The Hadith in question from which so many base the rule on is very specifically stipulating against making religious or worshipful depictions of Muhammad. It's not like Islam has completely forbade depictions of their Prophet throughout their history, since the Ottomans and Persians (among others) created plenty of depictions of him. The current view by the fundamentalists is based on two things: 1) the long-standing Western misconception that Islam involved the worship of Muhammad-- for quite some time, Muslims were called "Mohammadans" in Europe-- and 2) the advent of photos and motion picture created a ridiculous backlash reaction in the Muslim world, mostly by the prominent (and loud) fundamentalists of the time. That defensive attitude has remained constant regarding any depiction of Muhammad as a result, though the views are gradually changing among the more moderate (and numerous) Muslims. Even Ayatollah Ali al Sistani has stated publicly that depictions of Muhammad aren't necessarily forbidden as long as it's done respectfully, and considering that al Sistani wouldn't necessarily be considered a "liberal" voice in the Muslim world that's a very stark contrast to the common misconception that all Muslims consider the issue absolute and closed.
	__________________ _{Like love, criminals will always find a way. -- foxholeatheist The kind of pacifism I endorse is brought about by eliminating one enemy combatant at a time.-- JoeyDonuts}

2nd November 2009, 08:31 AM	#6
Tormac Critical Thinker Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 317	I’ve seen “The Message” and thought that the way that the movie portrayed the prophet Mohamed worked with the story telling. It was very clever, with scenes shot from Mohamed’s point of view to get around the restriction of not showing him. But then I loved Anthony Quinn’s work as Hamza, I hope this works out well, as a work of fiction the story is a great one. The only story of a major political leader that I can think of that has more natural drama and sounds like a made for Hollywood tale is Genghis Khan’s. Hopefully no is “fatwaed” over this movie.
Tormac Critical Thinker Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 317	__________________ "I have been called bad before. Many have said I do things that are not correct to do. I don't believe in talk such as this. I am nice man, with happy feelings. All of the time." Words to live by, from Master Pain, err Betty

2nd November 2009, 08:07 AM	#5
geni Anti-homeopathy illuminati member Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: UK Posts: 20,278	Originally Posted by icerat that's going to require some interesting techniques, a movie about someone's life without ever showing them in the movie .... Nothing new though. Fair number of the early films depicting Jesus took that aproach. If the film maker knows what it is doing it can work well enough.

2nd November 2009, 08:55 AM	#7
Arcade22 Muse Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Västerbotten, Sweden Posts: 542	Who will play Aisha? Will she even be in the movie, or will she be edited out so they can put the pedophile in better light?
	__________________ Pro gloria et patria Ten subway stops from downtown Stockholm is "little Mogadishu" a drab suburb of the Swedish capital where radical Islamists are said to be recruiting the sons of Somali immigrants for jihad in the Horn of Africa.

2nd November 2009, 10:26 AM	#8
TimCallahan Graduate Poster Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 1,000	"In accordance with Islamic law, the prophet will not actually be depicted on screen." Interesting: a biography about someone who isn't there. This should be particularly interesting when it comes to Mohammad's initial revelation in a cave on a mountain, where only he and the angel Gabriel are present. Is it acceptable to visually represent an angel? If not, then maybe they'll have to do the whole thing with shadow puppets.

2nd November 2009, 11:02 AM	#9
Rrose Selavy Graduate Poster Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: UK Posts: 1,156	He'll be a cloud like Galactus in the FF movie with a Mark Hamill voiceover.

2nd November 2009, 11:17 AM	#10
geni Anti-homeopathy illuminati member Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: UK Posts: 20,278	Originally Posted by TimCallahan "In accordance with Islamic law, the prophet will not actually be depicted on screen." Interesting: a biography about someone who isn't there. This should be particularly interesting when it comes to Mohammad's initial revelation in a cave on a mountain, where only he and the angel Gabriel are present. Is it acceptable to visually represent an angel? If not, then maybe they'll have to do the whole thing with shadow puppets. I think it would depend on which bit of islam. But in any case external shot of the Cave of Hira (either model or digitaly edited to remove the more recent paint) with voices and lights.

2nd November 2009, 11:34 AM	#11
Third Eye Open Graduate Poster Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Washington state, USA Posts: 1,028	Quote: "In accordance with Islamic law, the prophet will not actually be depicted on screen." Pussies.
	__________________ "Against stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain."- Friedrich von Schiller "I do not find in orthodox Christianity one redeeming feature." - Thomas Jefferson "As an Atheist, having a christian threaten me with hell is like having a hippy threaten to punch me in my aura." - Josh Thomas

2nd November 2009, 11:45 AM	#12
Hux Graduate Poster Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 1,064	Anthony Quinn played his usual role as Zorba the Muslim. Never renowned for his broad depiction of characters.
Hux Graduate Poster Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 1,064

2nd November 2009, 01:01 PM	#13
geni Anti-homeopathy illuminati member Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: UK Posts: 20,278	Originally Posted by Third Eye Open Pussies. Or maybe they want to make a film and not a media bunfight.

2nd November 2009, 01:20 PM	#14
Third Eye Open Graduate Poster Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Washington state, USA Posts: 1,028	Originally Posted by geni Or maybe they want to make a film and not a media bunfight. If they wanted to make a film I'm sure it could be a much better and more interesting film if they didn't force themselves to go through the trouble of trying to appease a small group of lunatics who aren't even going to watch the thing.
	__________________ "Against stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain."- Friedrich von Schiller "I do not find in orthodox Christianity one redeeming feature." - Thomas Jefferson "As an Atheist, having a christian threaten me with hell is like having a hippy threaten to punch me in my aura." - Josh Thomas

2nd November 2009, 01:25 PM	#15
GreyICE Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 6,541	Originally Posted by Third Eye Open If they wanted to make a film I'm sure it could be a much better and more interesting film if they didn't force themselves to go through the trouble of trying to appease a small group of lunatics who aren't even going to watch the thing. But will happily kill them.
GreyICE Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 6,541	__________________ I love these forums If Hitler was a bloodthirsty psychopath don't you think at least someone would have noticed? - MagZ

2nd November 2009, 02:47 PM	#16
Rrose Selavy Graduate Poster Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: UK Posts: 1,156	Quote: Alnoor Holdings, a media company that has created a $200million film production fund to invest in Hollywood and international projects, has hired the cleric Sheikh Yousef al-Qaradawi as their lead theological consultant for the film. Sheikh al-Qaradawi is one of the Sunni Islam’s most high-profile theologians thanks to his popular slot hosting a television show on al-Jazeera. He is admired by many moderate Muslims and was recently described by the government’s senior counter-terrorism official as “one of the most articulate critics of al-Qaeda in the Islamic world”. He is also a highly controversial figure who was refused entry to Britain last year because of his views. He has reportedly condoned the Holocaust, supported the stoning of homosexuals and praised suicide bombers in Iraq, not to mention telling an interviewer that he considered Shia Islam a heretical branch of the faith. According to the Gulf Times newspaper he told journalists in Doha that the film was a response to “the crusader-styled distortion of Islam [that] continues to influence [the] world population today.” “I will say we Muslims have not exerted sufficient efforts to correct the fake tales as Christians have used [in] the media. The life of the Prophet Muhammad is richly documented from the cattle he raised to the weapons he used to his private life.” http://entertainment.timesonline.co....cle6900021.ece

2nd November 2009, 05:08 PM	#17
geni Anti-homeopathy illuminati member Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: UK Posts: 20,278	Originally Posted by Third Eye Open If they wanted to make a film I'm sure it could be a much better and more interesting film if they didn't force themselves to go through the trouble of trying to appease a small group of lunatics who aren't even going to watch the thing. Why? Film makeing techniques for shooting films about people without showing them exist. They haven't been much used for the last few decades so it will be interesting to see how they do it in the 21st century.

3rd November 2009, 02:07 AM	#18
hamelekim Graduate Poster Join Date: May 2007 Posts: 1,134	The Islamists are going to flip out and kill anyone involved in this movie, if it happens. It's rather disgusting to see Islam on the rise. Even if you are an Atheist, at least Christianity is far more accepting of critics. When do you see Christians calling for holy war and making death threats against people who make fun of Christianity? Besides one or two crazy people that is.

3rd November 2009, 02:43 AM	#19
BobHaulk Scholar Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 73	i wondered if it was possible to make a duller film than lord of the rings.
BobHaulk Scholar Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 73

3rd November 2009, 01:27 PM	#20
geni Anti-homeopathy illuminati member Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: UK Posts: 20,278	Originally Posted by hamelekim The Islamists are going to flip out and kill anyone involved in this movie, if it happens. Err Ninja would generaly be budddist or shinto. Quote: It's rather disgusting to see Islam on the rise. Even if you are an Atheist, at least Christianity is far more accepting of critics. When do you see Christians calling for holy war and making death threats against people who make fun of Christianity? Besides one or two crazy people that is. What does that have to do with the movie?

3rd November 2009, 02:10 PM	#21
TimCallahan Graduate Poster Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 1,000	Originally Posted by hamelekim The Islamists are going to flip out and kill anyone involved in this movie, if it happens. It's rather disgusting to see Islam on the rise. Even if you are an Atheist, at least Christianity is far more accepting of critics. When do you see Christians calling for holy war and making death threats against people who make fun of Christianity? Besides one or two crazy people that is. Dr. Robert Ellwood wrote a book a number of years ago titled The Future of Faith.In it, he noted that religions seem to go through a series of predictable cycles. Islam right now, according to Ellwood, is where Chritianity was in the 1600s, the period of religious wars, culminating in the Thirty Years War, when Protestants and Catholics readily murdered and massacered each other.

3rd November 2009, 02:37 PM	#22
hgc Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2002 Posts: 9,013	Originally Posted by GreNME It's really a pity that the over-reactive and most fundamentalist are the only ones that get recognition when the issue of Muhammad's depiction comes up. The Hadith in question from which so many base the rule on is very specifically stipulating against making religious or worshipful depictions of Muhammad. It's not like Islam has completely forbade depictions of their Prophet throughout their history, since the Ottomans and Persians (among others) created plenty of depictions of him. The current view by the fundamentalists is based on two things: 1) the long-standing Western misconception that Islam involved the worship of Muhammad-- for quite some time, Muslims were called "Mohammadans" in Europe-- and 2) the advent of photos and motion picture created a ridiculous backlash reaction in the Muslim world, mostly by the prominent (and loud) fundamentalists of the time. That defensive attitude has remained constant regarding any depiction of Muhammad as a result, though the views are gradually changing among the more moderate (and numerous) Muslims. Even Ayatollah Ali al Sistani has stated publicly that depictions of Muhammad aren't necessarily forbidden as long as it's done respectfully, and considering that al Sistani wouldn't necessarily be considered a "liberal" voice in the Muslim world that's a very stark contrast to the common misconception that all Muslims consider the issue absolute and closed. A couple points: 1) The western misconception that Muslims worship Mohammed is the cause for the ban on images of images of him (even if not the source). That sounds extremely unlikely. I'd like to see some more about how this is known. 2) Muslims do worship Mohammed. They may not call it worship, but that's sure what it looks like to me. It's kind of like the way Catholics worship the virgin, but even more so.
hgc Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2002 Posts: 9,013	__________________ "Swine breath is an atmosphere stabilizer." - PA, The Village

4th November 2009, 05:00 AM	#23
Hux Graduate Poster Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 1,064	Number 2 is correct. He is their icon since they have none for Allah. They read the Haddith avidly which is all about the prophet and nothing to do with his messages. They even want to shoot, shave and sh*t like him; all are prescribed. Which is why, in the modern world, an awful lot dress in his ways and look as if their heads are on upside down, having adopted the prophets tonsure. Quite a few of them wouldn't know if it were raining unless the prophet said so.
Hux Graduate Poster Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 1,064

4th November 2009, 12:13 PM	#24
INRM Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 3,571	I just hope this won't cause muslims in the United States to do anything violent. It could be considered a terrorist attack and a justification of Martial Law. Obama seems to defend a number of Bush's policies and I wouldn't be surprised if a terrorist attack happens he would react similar to Bush.
INRM Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 3,571

5th November 2009, 09:37 AM	#25
Darth Rotor Salted Sith Cynic Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Rat cheer Posts: 26,802	Originally Posted by BobHaulk i wondered if it was possible to make a duller film than lord of the rings. Cardinal Fang, read the charges ...
	__________________ Helicopters don't so much fly as beat the air into submission. "Jesus wept, but did He laugh?"--F.H. Buckley____"There is some one thing that was too great for God to show us when He walked upon our earth ... His mirth." --Chesterton____"Atheism is no safeguard against stupidity."--The Atheist____If the barbarian in us is excised, so is our humanity."--D'rok____ "Your onus is aimed in the wrong direction." -- Cleon

5th November 2009, 09:39 AM	#26
Darth Rotor Salted Sith Cynic Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Rat cheer Posts: 26,802	Originally Posted by hgc 2) Muslims do worship Mohammed. They may not call it worship, but that's sure what it looks like to me. It's kind of like the way Catholics worship the virgin, but even more so. I had to look this up a few years ago, to answer my daughter's question for CCD. The term used is Venerate, not worship. Don't blame me, blame the RCC. I think the Muslims feel about the same way regarding The Prophet, and a few other key figures early in the faith: he is venerated, since there is no god but Allah, and all the rest. DR
	__________________ Helicopters don't so much fly as beat the air into submission. "Jesus wept, but did He laugh?"--F.H. Buckley____"There is some one thing that was too great for God to show us when He walked upon our earth ... His mirth." --Chesterton____"Atheism is no safeguard against stupidity."--The Atheist____If the barbarian in us is excised, so is our humanity."--D'rok____ "Your onus is aimed in the wrong direction." -- Cleon

7th November 2009, 04:13 PM	#27
TimCallahan Graduate Poster Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 1,000	I'm thinking that one way around not showing Mohammad would be for an actor, whose head and shoulders would be cropped out, could have his hand made up like a face, sort of like the character "Johnney" that the Spanish ventriloquist, Senor Wences used to create by pinting his hand, when he appeared on the Ed Sullivan Show. Then the nhand would move like "Johnney" and an off stage actor could recite Mohammad's lines. Of course, for really strict followers of the Hadith, maybe even depicting the prophet's voice would be taboo. In that case, his bio would portray him as a totally off-stage character, like Godot in "Waiting for Godot."

7th November 2009, 11:23 PM	#28
hgc Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2002 Posts: 9,013	Originally Posted by TimCallahan I'm thinking that one way around not showing Mohammad would be for an actor, whose head and shoulders would be cropped out, could have his hand made up like a face, sort of like the character "Johnney" that the Spanish ventriloquist, Senor Wences used to create by pinting his hand, when he appeared on the Ed Sullivan Show. Then the nhand would move like "Johnney" and an off stage actor could recite Mohammad's lines. Of course, for really strict followers of the Hadith, maybe even depicting the prophet's voice would be taboo. In that case, his bio would portray him as a totally off-stage character, like Godot in "Waiting for Godot." Ha! They should do it the neighbor Wilson on Home Improvement. Hilarious tricks to obscure his face.
hgc Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2002 Posts: 9,013	__________________ "Swine breath is an atmosphere stabilizer." - PA, The Village

8th November 2009, 03:43 AM	#29
Hux Graduate Poster Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 1,064	One way to solve the problem would be to not waste time making a biopic about some nasty little Turd that isn't allowed to be shown. Are they expecting to make box office with this crap?
Hux Graduate Poster Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 1,064

8th November 2009, 11:31 AM	#30
TimCallahan Graduate Poster Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 1,000	If they ever give up this silly idea of not showing the Prophet they could go to http://www.turntoislam.com/forum/showthread.php?t=15806.
	Last edited by TimCallahan; 8th November 2009 at 11:32 AM.