New Movie about Islam

[famdigy]

Hello friends,

There’s a new movie in post-production right now about Islam. The movie tells the story of Islam from the point of view of Muhammad’s (sawa) daughter, Lady Fatima (as) and will address the roots of Terrorism in Islam.

It’s anticipated this film will be highly controversial and heavily boycotted from the greater Muslim Community as some of the people implicated as founders of Islamic Terrorism are the most revered personalities after Prophet Muhammad (sawa) in the Muslim world.

The plot doesn’t fit neither the mainstream narrative from Muslims in general nor the anti-Islamic / anti-muhammad (sawa) narrative, and presents a completely different take on the issue altogether.

I’m just curious what sort of appeal this may have from people who follow other religions especially the christian faith.

— EDIT —
I forgot to add one more thing, a big part of the cast are black and one thought I had in the back of my mind is that black africans played a big role in the development of Islam for better or for worse. For the black christians on here especially african americans, I wonder if this will change your perceptions of islam from “a foreign religion of the arabs” to “a religion of your ancestors” compared to Christianity which may be perceived as an adopted religion of the white ango-saxon slave master.

Please forgive me I’m not trying to be unkind to anyone or to christianity, just wanted to share some of my thoughts

 

[Duke12VonFalkenburg]

Ham [Africans] begat all those who are black and curly-haired, while Japheth [Turks] begat all those who are full-faced with small eyes, and Shem [Arabs] begat everyone who is handsome of face with beautiful hair. Noah prayed that the hair of Ham’s descendants would not grow beyond their ears, and that whenever his descendants met Shem’s, the latter would enslave them.

Al-Tabari, Vol. 2, p. 21, p. 21

It is your folly to fight the Apostle, for Allah’s army is bound to disgrace you. We brought them to the pit. Hell was their meeting place. We collected them there, black slaves, men of no descent.

Ishaq:450

Ahmad ibn Abi Sulayman, the companion of Sahnun said, “Anyone who says that the Prophet was black should be killed.

Ibn Musa al-Yahsubi, Qadi ‘Iyad, p.375

Islamic Writers and Scholars on Black People​

Ibn Khaldun (1332–1406) was, among other things, an Islamic jurist, Islamic lawyer, Islamic scholar, Islamic theologian, and hafiz

“Therefore, the Negro nation are, as a rule, submissive to slavery, because [Negroes] have little [that is essentially] human and have attributes that are quite similar to those of dumb animals, as we have stated.”[4]

Ibn Khaldun, Muqaddimah, 14th century

“beyond [known peoples of black West Africa] to the south there is no civilization in the proper sense. There are only humans who are closer to dumb animals than to rational beings. They live in thickets and caves, and eat herbs and unprepared grain. They frequently eat each other. They cannot be considered human beings.”[4]

Ibn Khaldun, Muqaddimah

Ibn Sina or Avicenna (980-1037), was, among other things, a Hafiz, Islamic psychologist, Islamic scholar, and Islamic theologian

[Blacks are] people who are by their very nature slaves.[5]

Quoted in “Blasphemy Before God: The Darkness of Racism In Muslim Culture” by Adam Misbah aI-Haqq

 

[famdigy]

No offence taken and I appreciate your replies but given that history is written by the victor, the mainstream historical record of Muhammad’s (sawa) personality, actions, and words are disputed and acknowledged only as forgery to give legitimacy to the companions who orchestrated the coup against Islam and forged their own copy of Islam which we all know and recognize today.

All of the authors and historians mentioned are from the side of the victors who collected and reported the narrations of forgers who were employed by the ruling class who happen to be African themselves.

That’s not to say Africans are bad because there were some good Africans who were on the opposite side / losing side if you will.

The entire premise of the film centres around the only surviving daughter of Muhammad (saws) and how she was the first victim of terrorism of this imposter copy of Islam.

Anyway I will share more when the movie is out and would love to have a discussion around this narrative again once we all get a chance to see it.

 

[Neithan]

compared to Christianity which may be perceived as an adopted religion of the white ango-saxon slave master.

Christianity was entirely foreign to the “white” Angles and Saxons, whereas Jesus actually lived his early childhood in Africa (Egypt).

 

[Duke12VonFalkenburg]

compared to Christianity which may be perceived as an adopted religion of the white ango-saxon slave master.

Seriously? Go and tell that to the Egyptian Coptic Christians or the Ethiopians. I think you need to read up on early Christian history. Before saying things like this.

 

[Duke12VonFalkenburg]

the mainstream historical record of Muhammad’s (sawa) personality, actions, and words are disputed and acknowledged only as forgery to give legitimacy to the companions who orchestrated the coup against Islam and forged their own copy of Islam which we all know and recognize today.

Are you a muslim? Because I have never heard of any muslim claiming this. Are you saying that you think that the Hadiths which are considered “Sahih” (Authoritative/Reliable) are forgeries? Or is it just the ones you find troubling or disagreeable?

 

[famdigy]

Seriously? Go and tell that to the Egyptian Coptic Christians or the Ethiopians. I think you need to read up on early Christian history. Before saying things like this

Friend, you are selectively cherry picking my comment and assigning meanings I hadn’t intended. That comment was directed at African Americans and as far as I know, they were not enslaved from Egypt or Ethiopia or any Christian country. Correct me if I’m wrong.

 

[famdigy]

Are you a muslim? Because I have never heard of any muslim claiming this. Are you saying that you think that the Hadiths which are considered “Sahih” (Authoritative/Reliable) are forgeries? Or is it just the ones you find troubling or disagreeable?

Yes I’m Muslim and yes I’m saying the Hadiths which are considered authoritative or reliable are mostly forgeries. Not entirely but mostly. Not because I find them troubling but because most of the Hadiths which they consider reliable are narrated from the very same people who corrupted Islam from within.

Secondly, the methodology used to authenticate Hadiths is fundamentally flawed. This is because the practice of validating a narrator’s trustworthiness doesn’t extend to the companions of the Prophet who many of them are implicated in the corruption. If the Scholars of Hadith scrutinized the companions to the same degree as other non-companion narrators, we wouldn’t have any authentic / authoritative Hadith to speak of.

And so they created a rule which basically says all companions are just and therefore we don’t need to scrutinize their character or deed or look into their affairs, and to simply accept them and move on.

 

[Duke12VonFalkenburg]

because most of the Hadiths which they consider reliable are narrated from the very same people who corrupted Islam from within.

Islam was corrupted you say? That’t the first time I ever heard any muslim say that. So, I think it is safe to assume that you are not a sunni then. If you were you would have to respect the hadiths. But think about this. If islam has been corrupted then surely it is not from God. if it could be corrupted by the companions.

 

[Duke12VonFalkenburg]

his is because the practice of validating a narrator’s trustworthiness doesn’t extend to the companions of the Prophet who many of them are implicated in the corruption.

Since this is the first time I have ever heard of such an idea from a muslim I am curious which of the companions do you say are implicated in corruption?

If the Scholars of Hadith scrutinized the companions to the same degree as other non-companion narrators, we wouldn’t have any authentic / authoritative Hadith to speak of.

Right… and without the hadiths the quran itself must be called into question. the hadiths are unreliable and or corrupted then they cannot be used to make sense of the quran.

Thoughts on Bukhari?
Sahih Bukhari (in Arabic صحيح البخاري, Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī) is a collection of hadiths (narrations) by a central Asian, al-Bukhari, who was born in Bukhara in what is modern-day Uzbekistan around 200 years after the accepted death the prophet Muhammad. He collected narrations which were transmitted only orally for generations and collated them into a book of sayings, stories, and traditions about the Prophet Muhammad and his companions. The collection is called “authentic” ( sahih ) and is considered second only to the Quran in terms of authenticity and authority amongst most Sunni Muslims. The “authenticness” of a narration are judged by for authenticity according to whether the people in the chain of narrators were good, truthful Muslims in the traditional Sunni reckoning. The most common narrators in Sahih Bukhari from Muhammad’s generation are Abu Huraira and Aisha. For each Hadith there is always a long list of narrators, listed as “so and so told so and so” etc. It is also part of “the six books” (الكتب الستة, *Al-Kutub) the most trusted hadith collections in Sunni Islam. There are over 7000 narrations in the collection, but there are often different versions of the same story, so the actual number of narrations is less than 3000.

 

[Duke12VonFalkenburg]

Well said! Couldn’t agree more.

 

[famdigy]

But think about this. If islam has been corrupted then surely it is not from God.

I would argue by that standard no religion is from God. Since God allowed this corruption to take place from the very beginning.

Adam was a prophet of God and yet his own son killed his brother and started the practice of fire worship after his father Adam passed away. God allowed this corruption to take place and by the argument above, Adam’s religion is not from God.

Noah was saved with his followers from the flood which was a result of them worshiping idols, yet the same people Noah saved went back to dig up the 5 idols and worship them again. God allowed this corruption to take place and by the argument above, Noah’s religion is not from God.

King Solomon exiled his enemy Jereboam and yet after he died, the people went to Jerboam and made him king who instituted the practice of idol worship. God allowed this corruption to take place and by the argument above, Solomon’s religion is not from God

Moses saved his people from Pharoe and drowned the Pharoe during exodus yet his very people who witnessed the sea split and the many miracles of Moses began worshiping the golden calf. God allowed this corruption to take place and by the argument above, Moses religion is not from God.

Jesus preached <… censored by admin … >

Muhammad continued the same message but after he died, his own companions corrupted the religion, God allowed this corruption to take place and by the argument above, Muhammad religion is not from God.

The conclusion that God allowed corruption in his religion to take place, therefore the religion is not from God is flawed because this corruption has has been taking place from the beginning of our time on earth, since Adam.

The missing consideration in this argument is that God gave us free will to determine our own fate. Man’s corruption of God’s religion is not God’s fault, rather it is the destiny we have paved for ourselves through our own actions.

the other consideration is that people who have corrupted God’s religion were always from the inside, i.e. it was not an outsider who corrupted the religion, rather it was someone from the inside, e.g Adam’s son, Noah’s followers, Solomon’s enemy, Moses’ people, Jesus <… censored by admin …> Muhammad’s companions.

There is a continuity from the very beginning of time.

 

[Fauken]

given that history is written by the victor

No. No it’s not.

 

[Duke12VonFalkenburg]

In regards to Adam and Noah, they are not prophets. Nor are they founders of a religion.

King Solomon exiled his enemy Jereboam and yet after he died, the people went to Jerboam and made him king who instituted the practice of idol worship. God allowed this corruption to take place and by the argument above, Solomon’s religion is not from God

What do you mean by “Solomon’s Religion”? Do you mean to say that Solomon founded a religion or do you mean Solomon’s religious beliefs?

Let me clarify something here. The fact that some people went from worshiping God to worshiping idols doesn’t disprove Judaism. Individual people have free will. If you were to suddenly start worshiping an idol at this very moment would it make sense for anyone to declare “LOOK! Islam has been corrupted this muslim is worshiping an idol! OMG”?Nonsense!

Moses saved his people from Pharoe and drowned the Pharoe during exodus yet his very people who witnessed the sea split and the many miracles of Moses began worshiping the golden calf. God allowed this corruption to take place and by the argument above, Moses religion is not from God.

Again, the actions of the golden calf worshipers didn’t result in corruption of Judaism. What would result in corruption is if everyone in the group became golden calf worshipers and that is what they taught and believed from that point onwards. But that is NOT what happened. I’m sure you know that the golden calf worshipers were eliminated and Moses continued to lead the Jews towards the promised land.

Jesus preached <… censored by admin … >

Muhammad continued the same message but after he died, his own companions corrupted the religion, God allowed this corruption to take place and by the argument above, Muhammad religion is not from God.

Now this is interesting… I have heard this claim before. But, lets focus on the issue of corruption. If mohammad’s companions managed to corrupt islam so completely that it is unrecognizable in its teachings, traditions, and theology then yes it was indeed corrupted. But, this is not the case with Christianity. If you look at the history of the first Christians their traditions, teachings, and theology have been preserved through the Roman Catholic Church. I see you sent me a private message. I will respond to that but I will open a new thread and i hope to see you there.
-God Bless!

By the way I am still curious as to what exactly is it that you believe regarding islam. I mean dont think that you identify as a Sunni due to your rejection of the hadiths. Could you be Shiah? Dont know enough about them to be sure. If you could clarify your belief system I think it would lead to a better conversation.

 

[Duke12VonFalkenburg]

Thanks! I did not know that.

 

[BornInMarch]

I’m just curious what sort of appeal this may have from people who follow other religions especially the christian faith.

This film would be interesting from an anthropological perspective, to see how different people think of the founder of Islam.

I wonder if this will change your perceptions of islam from “a foreign religion of the arabs” to “a religion of your ancestors” compared to Christianity which may be perceived as an adopted religion of the white ango-saxon slave master.

Neither of those perceptions are historically accurate. While sub-Saharan Africans learned about Christianity from Europeans, some of the earliest Christians were actually Africans - Ethiopia embraced Christ centuries before Britannia did. And while western slave-masters were mostly Christian (at least nominally), so were a lot of abolitionists and resisters to slavery.

As for Islam, it really was founded by Arabs. Muhammad, Khadija, Abu Bakr, Abu Sufyan - they were Arabs. Islam’s spread into Africa wouldn’t really begin until after Muhammad died.