MUHAMMAD biopic not going to feature MUHAMMAD LAWL MUSLIMS

[Tieno]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2009/nov/02/matrix-producer-plans-muhammad-biopic

Producer Barrie Osborne cast Keanu Reeves as the messiah in The Matrix and helped defeat the dark lord Sauron in his record-breaking Lord of the Rings trilogy. Now the Oscar-winning American film-maker is set to embark on his most perilous quest to date: making a big-screen biopic of the prophet Muhammad.

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.

"The film will shed light on the Prophet's life since before his birth to his death," Ahmed Abdullah Al-Mustafa, Alnoor's chairman, told al-Jazeera. "It will highlight the humanity of Prophet Muhammad."

The as-yet-untitled picture is due to go before the cameras in 2011. It remains to be seen, however, whether it will be beaten to cinemas by another Muhammad-themed drama. Late last year, producer Oscar Zoghbi announced plans to remake The Message, his controversial 1976 drama that sparked a fatal siege by protesters in Washington DC. The new version, entitled The Messenger of Peace, is currently still in development.

[The Fake Shemp]

I say different actors should play him throughout, with different avatars!

[Tieno]

He's so awesome that no living human being can play his role.

Then they should use CG!

[Phoenix Dark]

At first I thought it was saying Keanu would be playing Mohamed

$150mil? This will bomb hard

[Crushed]

$150mil? This will bomb hard

Yeah, no way it'll show a prophet.

[fistfulofmetal]

I say different actors should play him throughout, with different avatars!

you think cate blanchett is available?

[Brehvolution]

I was hoping for something more like Muhamed Superstar.

[Akala]

$150mil? This will bomb hard

Yeah, no way it'll show a prophet.

[Dickie Dee]

$150mil? This will bomb hard

Yeah, no way it'll show a prophet.

[muckhole]

$150mil? This will bomb hard

Yeah, no way it'll show a prophet.

  Win.

[brawndolicious]

muslims don't show religious figures in pictures or sculptures because it is believed that it leads to idolatry.  I'm guessing they're probably going to put an explanation about that in the beginning.

[The Fake Shemp]

muslims don't show religious figures in pictures or sculptures because it is believed that it leads to idolatry.

Man, that's really worked for them.

[recursivelyenumerable]

So could you like make a Muhammad film that was in first-person perspective?

[brawndolicious]

muslims don't show religious figures in pictures or sculptures because it is believed that it leads to idolatry.

Man, that's really worked for them.

huh?

[The Fake Shemp]

Regardless of whether or not the concept was meant to insulate the religion from idolatry, it has directly led to that result. Idolatry can be defined as worship of image or idea, and the fact that people attempted to murder other people over the Jyllands-Posten controversy indicates that religious followers have taken that decree past simple religious dogma.

The insistence that Muhammad cannot be depicted by any visual medium, going as far to strong arm that belief on other cultures through acts of violence, is sort of a form of idolatry in of itself.

The end result is that Muhammad is seen less by outside cultures as a prophet (similar to Moses), but more of a divine being on par with Jesus.

[Veidt]

Day ONE.

[Phoenix Dark]

Regardless of whether or not the concept was meant to insulate the religion from idolatry, it has directly led to that result. Idolatry can be defined as worship of image or idea, and the fact that people attempted to murder other people over the Jyllands-Posten controversy indicates that religious followers have taken that decree past simple religious dogma.

The insistence that Muhammad cannot be depicted by any visual medium, going as far to strong arm that belief on other cultures through acts of violence, is sort of a form of idolatry in of itself.

The end result is that Muhammad is seen less by outside cultures as a prophet (similar to Moses), but more of a divine being on par with Jesus.

.

Those folks don't represent a majority of Muslims, but the fact that they're killing people makes them a very, very loud minority to say the least

[The Fake Shemp]

The people themselves don't care about how other cultures view them, especially in how they choose to practice their religion. So as long as they abide by what they've been told (i.e. don't depict Mohammad) they're in the clear.

You can't really tell me, "Islam's religious followers don't really care about how other cultures view them, as long as they do what we believe."

All prophets, angels, and God himself cannot be depicted by any visual medium in the Islamic faith. If it was up to them they'd strong are that rule over Christians and Jewish people too, but obviously they, so they're left with Mohammad who's only relevant to Muslims.

This doesn't make any sense, though. If that's the case, then we should have had a similar uproar for Heston in The Ten Commandments or that damned Mel Gibson movie! I'm not getting what you're trying to say.

And I'll agree that violent Muslims are in the minority, but the furor over the Danish cartoons was not limited to a small part of the religious community.

[Tauntaun]

All prophets, angels, and God himself cannot be depicted by any visual medium in the Islamic faith. If it was up to them they'd strong are that rule over Christians and Jewish people too, but obviously they, so they're left with Mohammad who's only relevant to Muslims.

Someone pulled a FM. 

[The Fake Shemp]

He's just typing passionately.

[Bocsius]

   O
  /|\
   /\
  | | Stickman Muhammad

[The Fake Shemp]

There are clear passages in the Quran that states "Christians and Jews will try to veer you off the right road", so insisting that Muslims should tolerate the depiction is widely considered one of those instances. Basically, when you're asking them something that would directly contradict, it's obvious how they would react.

There's so many things wrong with that statement, I don't really know where to begin, Jinfash. I'm not going to argue the validity of religious dogma, but no religion can dictate outside of its followers how folks should view it. Bottom line.

Because Jesus and Moses are religiously significant and relevant to other faiths, they can't cause the same amount of uproar, but when it comes to Mohammad who's exclusive to Muslims, it's another story and is viewed as a hostile move against the faith.

See, this is just hypocritical. The hard line stance, by your own admission, is pretty much ignored when it comes to historical figures of other faiths - despite the fact that the same dogma exists for them too - but upheld when Muslims believe it is an affront against Islam.

... Do you see how that doesn't work out? And regardless of whether or not Islam denounces the depiction of Muhammad as a way to curb idolatry, the irrational, hypocritical and defensive nature of the religion has pretty much put him on a pedestal.

You're basically saying Muhammad is more important than Jesus or Moses. And if that's not idolatry, then I don't know what is.

[Tieno]

There are clear passages in the Quran that states "Christians and Jews will try to veer you off the right road", so insisting that Muslims should tolerate the depiction is widely considered one of those instances. Basically, when you're asking them something that would directly contradict, it's obvious how they would react.

There's so many things wrong with that statement, I don't really know where to begin, Jinfash. I'm not going to argue the validity of religious dogma, but no religion can dictate outside of its followers how folks should view it. Bottom line.

Because Jesus and Moses are religiously significant and relevant to other faiths, they can't cause the same amount of uproar, but when it comes to Mohammad who's exclusive to Muslims, it's another story and is viewed as a hostile move against the faith.

See, this is just hypocritical. The hard line stance, by your own admission, is pretty much ignored when it comes to historical figures of other faiths - despite the fact that the same dogma exists for them too - but upheld when Muslims believe it is an affront against Islam.

... Do you see how that doesn't work out? And regardless of whether or not Islam denounces the depiction of Muhammad as a way to curb idolatry, the irrational, hypocritical and defensive nature of the religion has pretty much put him on a pedestal.

You're basically saying Muhammad is more important than Jesus or Moses. And if that's not idolatry, then I don't know what is.

Willco, each religion says that they're the only truth, combined with some other teachings this leads to enforcing their own irrational shit on nonbelievers and intolerance of criticism and ridicule. It's inherent to thinking you're right on no evidence what so ever except for a dusty book.

I think Jinfash is just relaying specific islamic points, not his own views.

[The Fake Shemp]

Nobody is arguing the worth of other religions over one another.

My initial point is that the decree to ban depictions of the prophet as a way to curb idolatry has failed, because the degree of which that belief is upheld is idolatry in its own right. Not to mention, it has indirectly led to Muhammad as being view as divine, or at least greater than his religious contemporaries.

[FlameOfCallandor]

[The Fake Shemp]

And then Flame comes in and shits on the whole discussion with a dumb political cartoon.

I recognize your arguing from the religious viewpoint, but the gap between religious beliefs and reality is a wide one, regardless of what Muslims choose to believe. I'm fine with any organized religion abiding in whatever dogma it dictates - and it can feel free to ostracize its own members for failing to do so - but that has no bearing on me.

[Bacchus7]

So could you like make a Muhammad film that was in first-person perspective?

Doom 2?

spoiler (click to show/hide)

Dune 2?

[close]

[BlueTsunami]

I'm reminded of that Keanu Reeves Buddha movie

[brawndolicious]

I think the real cause behind it is from christianity where through some jumps of logic, they worship a trinity human/god/spirit thing and so muslims decided they don't want nun of that shit.

Just fyi, in the movie they can have an actor wearing his clothes and everything, but this face will always be covered up with either a turban thing or it will be out of camera view or something.  I highly doubt that he will have any actual lines though..

[recursivelyenumerable]

can't they just mosaic him?  or do muslims get upset when the mosaic effect is inappropriately applied to anyone other than its originally intended object and namesake, Moses?

[Himu]

$150mil? This will bomb hard

Yeah, no way it'll show a prophet.

[jiji]

Sorry in advance.

[Mandark]

A Daniel Davies post comparing the Muslim taboo towards depicting Mohammed with the western taboo against disrespecting corpses.

Also, I'd point out that at least a couple native American tribes have very similar rules about depictions and photographs, and take much less shit for their beliefs.

[The Fake Shemp]

A Daniel Davies post comparing the Muslim taboo towards depicting Mohammed with the western taboo against disrespecting corpses.

That's a pretty poor comparison.

It would make more sense to compare the visual depiction of corpses to that of the prophet Muhammad, and in that case, it's not nearly as socially unacceptable. I mean, we have entire websites dedicated to such grotesques corpses and death, and nobody is running for their life. There are countless films about corpses, numerous paintings, etc.

Also, I'd point out that at least a couple native American tribes have very similar rules about depictions and photographs, and take much less shit for their beliefs.

I can't really recall when Native Americans tried to strong arm their beliefs on others - if anything, we've done a rather nasty number on them. Everyone is entitled to their beliefs, the question is to what extent can you impose those on others.

[The Fake Shemp]

Except when Christians find something depicting Jesus in poor taste, they just boycott the whole thing - at worst they protest. But that's it. And people are entitled to do that.

[AdmiralViscen]

I'm just relieved that Muslims acknowledge the dibs that Jews and Christians have on Moses and Jesus. In a world with so much disagreement, they can set aside their moral horror and agree that dibs reign supreme over all things.

It's weird though, that they wouldn't let the Jews call shotgun on Jerusalem.

[Diunx]

What went wrong with muslims? I'm really starting to wonder.

Is it because once their civilization was on par with the west but it fell behind so much? Is it because they failed to have a secular society?

This.

[The Fake Shemp]

Even the non-violent protests were filled with plenty of violent rhetoric. And as per the case when it comes to most Muslim fundamentalists, mainstream Muslims have a tendency to distance themselves from extremists, but always lean towards sympathy.

"Yeah, the guys trying to kill the cartoonists are wrong, but..."

The cartoons were definitely meant to incite emotion, and I think that everyone is entitled to have their opinion, but need to realize that people are within their rights to offend. It's life, y'know?

[Mandark]

That's a pretty poor comparison.

Why is it a poor comparison, other than an ingrained belief that of course the cultural significance of a corpse should be different from the cultural significance of a picture?

Neither has any physical impact on a real, living person.  What's the substantive difference?

Except when Christians find something depicting Jesus in poor taste, they just boycott the whole thing - at worst they protest. But that's it. And people are entitled to do that.

First, when you say "Christians" I assume you mean the ones in the US and western Europe, rather than the ones fighting civil wars in the Sudan.  Even in that case, it's not totally true.  We've got a long history of blue laws and restrictions on obscenity, as well as current attempts to regulate symbolic behavior.

You're right that Christian activists here generally use peaceful organizing more than Muslim activists in the ME.  The reason's pretty simple.

When people live in stable, wealthy, democratic societies in which they have access to an open legal-political system, they'll take advantage of that system.  When they don't, they are much more likely to use the threat of violence to get what they want, or to be riled up into pointless, chaotic behavior.

[The Fake Shemp]

Why is it a poor comparison, other than an ingrained belief that of course the cultural significance of a corpse should be different from the cultural significance of a picture?

Neither has any physical impact on a real, living person.  What's the substantive difference?

I don't even really know where to begin, so pardon me if I start to ramble. If we're talking about the depiction or viewing of a corpse, it's somewhat socially unacceptable, but not really. I mean, ever hear of Body Worlds? Sure, it's sparked its fair share of controversy, but nothing approaching violent and people are still able to see the exhibit. It's quite popular.

The cinematic landscape is littered with films about corpses, necrophilia, etc. Open casket funerals are not unheard of. To equate the social reaction to the artistic depiction of corpses to the furor over the depiction of Muhammad in cartoons is reaching - at best.

Now if your argument is that it is comparable to the reaction of desecrating the dead or loved ones, that's an even weaker argument, since that is pretty much universally taboo.

First, when you say "Christians" I assume you mean the ones in the US and western Europe, rather than the ones fighting civil wars in the Sudan.

What does Sudanese civil war have to do with the depiction of Jesus Christ? I never said Christians were incapable of violence - and I think you know me well enough that I would never say otherwise. But for the most part, people can go about mocking Jesus and not have to worry about any repercussions or violent rhetoric.

We do it all the time - here and overseas.

Even in that case, it's not totally true.  We've got a long history of blue laws and restrictions on obscenity, as well as current attempts to regulate symbolic behavior.

History is just that - history. We're not talking history, we're talking currently. And while I'm well aware we live in a country where the lines between theocracy and democracy blur in some states, you are talking isolated cases that are usually scrutinized in a country that pretty much lets us do whatever we want.

When people live in stable, wealthy, democratic societies in which they have access to an open legal-political system, they'll take advantage of that system.  When they don't, they are much more likely to use the threat of violence to get what they want, or to be riled up into pointless, chaotic behavior.

I don't see how this really is relevant to the discussion. My point was that the attempt to ban any depiction of Muhammad to curb idolatry has indirectly led to a form of idolatry in of itself. And according to Jinfash's own admission, is a tad bit hypocritical.

My personal argument is that no culture, religion or country should dictate the behaviors of others (ours is included, and even we do a poor job at times) and their socioeconomic condition is not really a justification for that.

[Olivia Wilde Homo]

What went wrong with muslims? I'm really starting to wonder.

Is it because once their civilization was on par with the west but it fell behind so much? Is it because they failed to have a secular society?

The Mongols sacking Baghdad I think was pretty key to its downfall.  It certainly never recovered past that, 'cept maybe the Ottomans.

[brawndolicious]

So willco, you don't think the actual rule against sculptures/pictures was a bad idea back when it was made 1,400 years ago was a bad idea, right?

You just think that the way it is enforced is unbalanced and too extreme today?

Wel you have to consider that the funding for this movie is coming from a Qatar media company that is probably muslim owned.  If you believe that they are "forcing their values on you" in this specific case, then wouldn't you also be offended if you see a halo around religious figures painted on a cathedral's stained glass?

[Madrun Badrun]

He's just typing passionately.

my nmotto ew.

[Phoenix Dark]

So willco, you don't think the actual rule against sculptures/pictures was a bad idea back when it was made 1,400 years ago was a bad idea, right?

You just think that the way it is enforced is unbalanced and too extreme today?

Wel you have to consider that the funding for this movie is coming from a Qatar media company that is probably muslim owned.  If you believe that they are "forcing their values on you" in this specific case, then wouldn't you also be offended if you see a halo around religious figures painted on a cathedral's stained glass?

What is this, the thread of bad analogies?

[Madrun Badrun]

He's like a shark; he just has to keep making analogies. 

[Boogie]

He's like a shark; he just has to keep making analogies. 

 

[Mandark]

I mean, ever hear of Body Worlds?

What, the Body Worlds that was referenced in the piece I initially linked to which you apparently didn't read?

Yes, I do believe I have!

[Madrun Badrun]

I mean, ever hear of Body Worlds?

What, the Body Worlds that was referenced in the piece I initially linked to which you apparently didn't read?

Yes, I do believe I have!

 

[Phoenix Dark]

He's like a shark; he just has to keep making analogies. 

[brawndolicious]

What is this, the thread of bad analogies?

they're each rules catering to each religion's stance on divinity and it affects the way holy figures can be represented in artwork.  I can't tell if you are being sarcastic.

[The Fake Shemp]

What, the Body Worlds that was referenced in the piece I initially linked to which you apparently didn't read?

Hey, I skimmed it. It's not my fault that the guy took forever to make a point, one that's not even really comparable.

[Phoenix Dark]

What is this, the thread of bad analogies?

they're each rules catering to each religion's stance on divinity and it affects the way holy figures can be represented in artwork.  I can't tell if you are being sarcastic.

But it's a bad analogy with respect to forcing one's beliefs on non-believers, which is one of the biggest points here

[brawndolicious]

What is this, the thread of bad analogies?

they're each rules catering to each religion's stance on divinity and it affects the way holy figures can be represented in artwork.  I can't tell if you are being sarcastic.

But it's a bad analogy with respect to forcing one's beliefs on non-believers, which is one of the biggest points here

well what does that have to do with this movie?

[Phoenix Dark]

...what?

Nevermind, I remember why I don't respond to your posts.

[Mandark]

What, the Body Worlds that was referenced in the piece I initially linked to which you apparently didn't read?

Hey, I skimmed it. It's not my fault that the guy took forever to make a point, one that's not even really comparable.

You should really go back and actually read it.

Cause you keep talking about pictures of bodies, which isn't what Davies was talking about at all.  He's talking about the corpse as an image in and of itself, and he's right that when cadavers are publicly shown outside certain specific contexts, it's considered a very, very bad transgression and is in fact illegal.

The point being that most westerners hear about the controversy and immediately think "Psh, get over it" cause we have no completely parallel taboos (like how you keep bringing up pictures of Jesus).  However, we do have other taboos that 1) are based on the public display of objects, and 2) evoke viscerally emotional reactions when they're transgressed.




My point about violence for political goals was this:  Completely apart from what they believe or what they're trying to accomplish, and no matter where you'd personally place it on the Silly/Serious continuum, people in poor, undemocratic countries are just more likely to get rough.  They don't have the option of lobbying their Senator to cosponsor a flag-burning amendment.

[The Fake Shemp]

Except it's not illegal everywhere, as evident by the fact that we do have public displays of cadavers. And as a society, it hasn't caused nearly the furor that images of Muhammad. Like I said earlier, I present to you the fact that there numerous outlets to view corpses and some other grueling imagery of death, none of which is banned or illegal or prompting folks participating in it to fear for their lives.

[brawndolicious]

yeah I don't think the creators of the movie have a a violent agenda against any swedish cartoonists.  nor do most of the people who would watch this movie, most probably.

I'm sure a lot of muslims are going to be pissed off by this movie but it's going to be a sunni or shia thing, depending on how they show the story.

[Mandark]

Willco:  I understand that, but it's besides the point I'm trying to get across here.

To repeat:

However, we do have other taboos that 1) are based on the public display of objects, and 2) evoke viscerally emotional reactions when they're transgressed.

That the taboo is "display of bodies except in certain contexts" rather than "any displays of bodies anywhere" doesn't change those two aspects of it.

After all, if those people had rioted over the cartoons but still allowed images of Mohammed in certain other circumstances, I don't think that would change your criticisms of them 1) foisting their own culture's rules on others, and 2) violently overreacting.

[Agent Whiskers]

hey guys what's goin on in dis thread

[Himu]

How can any muslim be mad about this movie?