A movie about Muhammad

[MugenOne]

And all of his sex escapade and murderous deeds like this story:

A group of eight men from the tribe of 'Ukil came to the Prophet and then they found the climate of Medina unsuitable for them. So, they said, “O Allah’s Apostle! Provide us with some milk.” Allah’s Apostle said, “I recommend that you should join the herd of camels.” So they went and drank the urine and the milk of the camels (as a medicine) till they became healthy and fat. Then they killed the shepherd and drove away the camels, and they became unbelievers after they were Muslims. When the Prophet was informed by a shouter for help, he sent some men in their pursuit, and before the sun rose high, they were brought, and he had their hands and feet cut off. Then he ordered for nails which were heated and passed over their eyes, and they were left in the Harra (i.e. rocky land in Medina). They asked for water, and nobody provided them with water till they died (Abu Qilaba, a sub-narrator said, “They committed murder and theft and fought against Allah and His Apostle, and spread evil in the land.”) (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 52, Number 261)

 

[Sam_777]

If you were to create a movie regarding the Islamic Messenger of Allah, Muhammad,

:tsktsk:
You can’t make a movie about Muhammed showing him in front of the camera, its prohibited in the Islamic countries to produce such a movie, let someone in the west produce such a movie and see how many “Death Fatwas” will be issued against him/her.

 

[R_not]

:tsktsk:
You can’t make a movie about Muhammed showing him in front of the camera, its prohibited in the Islamic countries to produce such a movie, let someone in the west produce such a movie and see how many “Death Fatwas” will be issued against him/her.

We are seeing how poorly muslims behave when it is done - look at how much destruction and deaths have occurred over Geert Wilder’s film. Or the murder of Theo Van Gogh and the death threats against Hirsi Ali, and against other cartoonists. The muslims here are worrying about their image - muslims around the world destroy and kill over cartoons and movies.

And the irony is that the cartoons that muslims have of the Jews, and Westerners, is just as bad. No deaths, no chaos and destruction, over them. Can you imagine the cries of victimhood if we did to muslims what muslims do to others?!

So, who are the intolerant ones?

Geert Wilders is a hero for speaking out in spite of the bullying tactics of islam to censor his freedom of speech.

 

[Charlie_Zeaiter]

:tsktsk:
You can’t make a movie about Muhammed showing him in front of the camera, its prohibited in the Islamic countries to produce such a movie, let someone in the west produce such a movie and see how many “Death Fatwas” will be issued against him/her.

Oh well, that’s a shame; So no movies about Muhammad.

Would we be allowed to write a book about Muhammad? What kind of stories would you put in there?

(I’m starting to wonder if we’re allowed to submit posts regarding Muhammad, because we don’t seem to talk about him enough. We’ve been told that we should love him, but I still don’t know why. )

 

[Sam_777]

Would we be allowed to write a book about Muhammad? What kind of stories would you put in there?

faithfreedom.org/book.htm

 

[Sister_Amy]

You read too much into what I said. Show Muhammed exactly as he was, or at least have it spoken or what ever. I know about the image thing. You can have people talking about him or show his shadow. Whatever to make it cool to Muslims. Personally, I am sick of stories of riots by Muslims over some junk like that.

Honestly, the “image” thing isn’t as bad as people make it out to be. In the airport in Tehran there are all kinds of images, including if I’m correct, images of Muhammad. Nobody riots about them. I’m not at all in favor of riots by the way, it doesn’t do any good to anybody. On the other hand, what upset the Muslims about the Danish cartoons was less the fact that images were made of Muhammad, and more the fact that they were blatantly offensive images. I saw them, and I was offended by what they represented, not by the fact that they happened to be images of Muhammad. I might say it is a similar feeling of disgust I felt when hearing about a crucifix being dumped in urine–and I think you might agree.

But I think that if you read about Muhammad you’ll learn about him, there’s a good book by Martin Lings constantly recommended–and there’s not such an evil man as you might have been led to believe.

 

[Sister_Amy]

Oh well, that’s a shame; So no movies about Muhammad.

Would we be allowed to write a book about Muhammad? What kind of stories would you put in there?

(I’m starting to wonder if we’re allowed to submit posts regarding Muhammad, because we don’t seem to talk about him enough. We’ve been told that we should love him, but I still don’t know why. )

I think Sam is just trying to scare you away, or make Muslims out to be overly paranoid. People HAVE made movies about Muhammad, and I mentioned two of them. There was also a documentary done by PBS, called Muhammad: Legacy of a Prophet. So people have made movies about him.

And people have also written books about him. And some people even lied in the books they wrote and stories they told, unfortunately, leaving people today with some inauthentic questionable stories in biographies (like ibn Ishaaq, which Spencer and his ilk like to cite in order to defame the Prophet.)

But there are a number of biographies about Muhammad, I can recommend some if you’re interested. (Many are recent, in the last couple decades. No death threats… lol)

 

[Sister_Amy]

Actually, that’s a pretty story. (Is it a legend or a hadith?)

And how did she know it was Muhammad?

Good question, as to whether it is a “legend” or a hadith. Very astute, actually, because while there are many stories appearing in biographies, a lot of them have not been authenticated. A hadith on the other hand, has been examined critically as regarding its narrators, to ensure accuracy and authenticity. It’s likely that many of the non-authenticated stories are just as valid, but it’s also possible they were fabricated.

So which is this? I really don’t know. Sorry! It’s a popular story that comes up which is why I’m familiar with it, but I’m not aware of it in any book of hadith. (It might be in a book of hadith I’m not familiar with though, which is pretty much most books.)

But how did she know it was Muhammad? She asked him his name at the end, and he told her.

 

[ralphinal]

Honestly, the “image” thing isn’t as bad as people make it out to be. In the airport in Tehran there are all kinds of images, including if I’m correct, images of Muhammad. Nobody riots about them. I’m not at all in favor of riots by the way, it doesn’t do any good to anybody. On the other hand, what upset the Muslims about the Danish cartoons was less the fact that images were made of Muhammad, and more the fact that they were blatantly offensive images. I saw them, and I was offended by what they represented, not by the fact that they happened to be images of Muhammad. I might say it is a similar feeling of disgust I felt when hearing about a crucifix being dumped in urine–and I think you might agree.

But I think that if you read about Muhammad you’ll learn about him, there’s a good book by Martin Lings constantly recommended–and there’s not such an evil man as you might have been led to believe.

Hisotrically, the image issue in Islam has come and gone and come again. At times, the art in the Hagia Sophia (forgive me, I cannot recall the Muslim name) has been restored and publicly viewed. It all depends on the era.

I do not think that Muhammed is as evil as some do. I do think that he was a flawed human who committed many sins in his life, not unlike a majority of people in power. There is no other way to say it than that.

 

[Sister_Amy]

Hisotrically, the image issue in Islam has come and gone and come again. At times, the art in the Hagia Sophia (forgive me, I cannot recall the Muslim name) has been restored and publicly viewed. It all depends on the era.

I do not think that Muhammed is as evil as some do. I do think that he was a flawed human who committed many sins in his life, not unlike a majority of people in power. There is no other way to say it than that.

Out of curiosity, do you think that people who are not in power are less likely to commit sins? Therefore is being in power inherently evil?

 

[ralphinal]

Out of curiosity, do you think that people who are not in power are less likely to commit sins? Therefore is being in power inherently evil?

Power can be evil in that the sins that they commit can have farther implicaitons and injure more people. Hitler and Stalin and the like are good examples.

No, they are not really more or less likely to sin, just some sin on a grand scale. Power is power. It is evil to those who make it so, not evil to those who use it for good.

 

[Sister_Amy]

One thing I find fascinating about Islam is that Muslims have in Muhammad the example of a just ruler. And yes I do think he was a just ruler.

The position of the ruler is one to be respected in Islam–the people are supposed to obey him and not insult him. But here’s an interesting hadith which came to my mind–I found so many more looking for just this one, but I want to post this one:

There are three (types of) people to whom Allah will not speak on the Day of Resurrection, nor will He purify them, nor look at them, and they will have a painful punishment. These are: An aged man who commits Zina (illicit sexual act), a ruler who lies, and a proud poor person.

On the other hand, a just ruler is among 7 people who Allah will grant shade on that day, when the only shade available is the shade of Allah… subhaanahu wa ta’ala.

 

[Verisimilitude]

Out of curiosity, do you think that people who are not in power are less likely to commit sins? Therefore is being in power inherently evil?

I think the very powerfull as well as the very weak commit the same kinds and frequency of sin, but to different degrees. Those in power are held to a higher standard because they influence others to do the same and their sin is greater if they approve or make sin acceptable.

I think the prohibition regarding depictions of Mohammed stems from two ideas. The first is that Mohammed was a vain man sensitive to scorn and riddicule. He clearly did not like the Jews and poets making fun of him because he did not know the Torah or Gospels, getting many of the stories wrong so that they made fun of him.

Second is I think I remeber ahadith that syas Mohammed lost a few teeth in a battle or something and as he got older his self image obviously changed from healthy young man to battle scarred old man with the scars to prove it.

Mohammed took the prohibition of any image depicting an animal or man as a diety in the form of a picture or statue. I think it fair to assume that since he did not believe the divinity of Jesus but making the claim of equality with Jesus as prophet and of personal character, he thought people would do the same to him as Christians do with Christ.

On a personal level I think he saw images of Christ on the Cross and didn’t want something similar to represnet him. Instead of a martyr on a cross he would be a toothless warrior or something to that effect so he was against depictions of himself and it was incorporated into Islams popular culture.

 

[ralphinal]

One thing I find fascinating about Islam is that Muslims have in Muhammad the example of a just ruler. And yes I do think he was a just ruler.

The position of the ruler is one to be respected in Islam–the people are supposed to obey him and not insult him. But here’s an interesting hadith which came to my mind–I found so many more looking for just this one, but I want to post this one:

There are three (types of) people to whom Allah will not speak on the Day of Resurrection, nor will He purify them, nor look at them, and they will have a painful punishment. These are: An aged man who commits Zina (illicit sexual act), a ruler who lies, and a proud poor person.

On the other hand, a just ruler is among 7 people who Allah will grant shade on that day, when the only shade available is the shade of Allah… subhaanahu wa ta’ala.

Please correct me if this next point is wrong.

After Muhammed defeeated the armies of Mecca, by and large everyone was forgiven. A handfull of people were executed however. These were not those who lead the army but those who had made fun of Muhammed before. In other words, if you make fun of me, you die.

 

[Verisimilitude]

After Muhammed defeeated the armies of Mecca, by and large everyone was forgiven.

I think his ‘forgivness’ was conditional. As long as the other tribes accepted Islam were they forgiven with the few exceptions of Jews and Christians who were permitted to retain their faith but also with conditions.

Didn’t he say in his farewll address that all of Arabia was now Muslim or under Islam? This is why I think any talk of charity and good will in the Koran and hadith is directed only to Muslims.

 

[Sister_Amy]

Please correct me if this next point is wrong.

After Muhammed defeeated the armies of Mecca, by and large everyone was forgiven. A handfull of people were executed however. These were not those who lead the army but those who had made fun of Muhammed before. In other words, if you make fun of me, you die.

I’m not aware of ANY of that happening after the conquest of Mecca. I’m not aware of Muhammad ordering the assassination of people for making fun of him either (though I know some people on this forum like to make that argument.) If he ordered someone to be killed, just like the Pentagon or CIA has people killed, I’m sure it was because the person was actually a threat to the state. If it was only against Muhammad, then I think Muhammad would have forgiven them. If it was against the state, then he was in charge of protecting the people.

 

[ralphinal]

The information was from the wikipedia site.

He declared an amnesty for past offences, except for ten men and women who had mocked and made fun of him in songs and verses.

Now, this is up and is not listed as under dispute.

There is also a story of the assasination of pagans in Medina who did the same. It is not stated that he had anything to do with it, but he did nothing to prevent it nor punish anyone for it.

In particular Asma bint Marwan and Abu 'Afak had composed verses taunting and insulting some of the Muslims. These two were assassinated and Muhammad did not disapprove of it. No one dared to take vengeance on them, and some of the members of the clan of Asma bint Marwan who had previously converted to Islam in secret, now professed Islam openly. This marked an end to the overt opposition to Muhammad among the pagans in Medina.[80]

 

[Sister_Amy]

The information was from the wikipedia site.

Now, this is up and is not listed as under dispute.

Does it provide any kind of reference? Just because something is not ‘under dispute’ on wikipedia doesn’t make it a historical fact.

There is also a story of the assasination of pagans in Medina who did the same. It is not stated that he had anything to do with it, but he did nothing to prevent it nor punish anyone for it.

I’ll reiterate what I said before, mainly that Muhammad was in charge of protecting the state. In the USA, treason was a capital offense because the danger of it was so immense–the entire country or society could be put in jeopardy because of it. When you look at Muhammad’s position in Medina it is not just a spiritual leader but a leader of the society as well, and he was responsible for protecting his people. Please keep that in mind.

 

[Verisimilitude]

Does it provide any kind of reference? Just because something is not ‘under dispute’ on wikipedia doesn’t make it a historical fact.

The ‘university of wikipedia’ I think does more harm than good in many cases, but then again a reputable source is subjective. Islam claims hadith are reliable based upon names of people that have no meaning today. I believe you have hadith supporting what ralphinal is stating however.

I’ll reiterate what I said before, mainly that Muhammad was in charge of protecting the state. In the USA, treason was a capital offense because the danger of it was so immense–the entire country or society could be put in jeopardy because of it. When you look at Muhammad’s position in Medina it is not just a spiritual leader but a leader of the society as well, and he was responsible for protecting his people. Please keep that in mind.

I ask who was keeping the non-Mulsim safe from Mohammed? He assumed the title of ‘protector of the faith’ and Arabia or the state. I disagree that Mohammed felt such a danger from within or out of Arabia after taking Mecca.

 

[ralphinal]

As a rule, I do not like citing wikipedia. The quotes that I put up are cited.

The first one is by Rodinson. He seems to be a fair enough writer.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxime_Rodinson