Support NeoGAF

[Furcas]

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.

If this is the guy, this should be good.

From wikipedia:

In a sermon, which aired on Al-Jazeera TV on January 9, 2009 (as translated by the Middle East Media Research Institute), Al-Qaradhawi stated:

"Oh Allah, take your enemies, the enemies of Islam. Oh Allah, take the Jews, the treacherous aggressors. Oh Allah, take this profligate, cunning, arrogant band of people. Oh Allah, they have spread much tyranny and corruption in the land. Pour Your wrath upon them, oh our God. Lie in wait for them. Oh Allah, You annihilated the people of Thamoud at the hand of a tyrant, and You annihilated the people of 'Aad with a fierce, icy gale. Oh Allah, You annihilated the people Thamoud at the hand of a tyrant, You annihilated the people of 'Aad with a fierce, icy gale, and You destroyed the Pharaoh and his soldiers — oh Allah, take this oppressive, tyrannical band of people. Oh Allah, take this oppressive, Jewish, Zionist band of people. Oh Allah, do not spare a single one of them. Oh Allah, count their numbers, and kill them, down to the very last one."[26]

In a statement on Al-Jazeera on January 30, 2009, al-Qaradawi said (as translated by the Middle East Media Research Institute):

"Throughout history, Allah has imposed upon the [Jews] people who would punish them for their corruption. The last punishment was carried out by Hitler. By means of all the things he did to them – even though they exaggerated this issue – he managed to put them in their place. This was divine punishment for them. Allah willing, the next time will be at the hand of the believers".[30]

Qaradawi strongly supports Palestinian attacks on Israeli targets. Qaradawi claims that hundreds of other Islamic scholars are of the same opinion.

Defending bombings against off duty soldiers Qaradawi told BBC Newsnight that:

* "An Israeli woman is not like women in our societies, because she is a soldier."
* "I consider this type of martyrdom operation as an evidence of God's justice."
* "Allah Almighty is just; through his infinite wisdom he has given the weak a weapon the strong do not have and that is their ability to turn their bodies into bombs as Palestinians do".[36]

Qaradawi has at times spoken in favor of democracy in the Muslim world,[46] speaking of a need for reform of political climates in the Middle East specifically.[47]

However, his true preferences on democracy, and for the government of the state and the public area are not always as clear, as following quote illustrates: "the Shari`ah cannot be amended to conform to changing human values and standards, rather, it is the absolute norm to which all human values and conduct must conform ...". However in a democracy a majority vote might differ from the commandments in the Qur'an and Sunnah, so this quote can be taken to mean that Qaradawi would not allow Muslims to vote against the word of Allah.

The same goes for his views on the religious liberties. Those effectively include the right for anyone to change religion, in casu, for a Muslim to become a non-Muslim.

However, Al-Qaradawi appears to see this differently, hiding between the assumed consensus in Islamic world: "All Muslim jurists agree that the apostate is to be punished. However, they differ regarding the punishment itself. The majority of them go for killing; meaning that an apostate is to be sentenced to death."

Note that when Al-Qaradawi speaks about 'Muslim jurists', that does not refer to Muslims trained in the secular law, as what the term 'German jurist' or 'Christian jurist' means ('Christian jurist' as opposed to 'canon law specialist'). In non-Muslim countries, one distinguishes 'religious law' from 'secular law'. For Al-Qaradawi, the only kind of jurists he mentions when the rules of the state are discussed, are the specialists of religious laws.

 

[Lion Heart]

I still haven't seen "The Message". I'll get around to it before this movie comes out, should be pretty cool.

Thats awesome

 

[bengraven]

Barry Osborne was found dead this morning from...

Nah, kidding.

 

[Veidt]

If this is the guy, this should be good.

From wikipedia:

Doesn't mean it could be the same guy.

Also, regardless of his perception on current world politics, he cannot fabricate things that did have not been recorded. The biography of Muhammad, is the most detailed of a figure of his position in the history of history. From the smallest details, to the biggest.

 

[PantherLotus]

Doesn't mean it could be the same guy.

Also, regardless of his perception on current world politics, he cannot fabricate things that did have not been recorded. The biography of Muhammad, is the most detailed of a figure of his position in the history of history. From the smallest details, to the biggest.

What are you saying?

 

[Canova]

knowing how the Muslims would react, why he even bothered

 

[Stitch]

I wonder who gets the part of his wife?

Dakotta Fanning

 

[Veidt]

What are you saying?

His incorrect views on the current political environment, can't change the facts that have been recorded in the history books.

Still, I hope they don't include this man in any sort of consultation.

 

[Choke on the Magic]

Dakotta Fanning

:lol 1st, 2nd, or 3rd?

 

[besiktas1]

Newspaper cartoon = fires uproar explosions madness.

Movie = ???

Ugh I HATE this thought, it wasn't the fact a cartoon was drawn that enraged people it was what it represented. It showed him as a Slimey looking man who hid bombs in his turban. It made the prophet look like a sneak, deceitful ect..... but still the uproar was stupid.

 

[kinoki]

While I do believe that the story itself lends itself very well to movies. Religion being fiction and all. Atleast with Muhammad being a real historical figure you can really spread some light on the historical and political backgrounds. Too bad "religious" people don't want him shown on screen because it'd make one hell of a good movie. Hinting at the religious aspects in the way Wolfgang Petersen tried, and failed, to do with Troy. Would be awesome with Keanu portraying Muhammad.

 

[Furcas]

Doesn't mean it could be the same guy.

Of course it could be the same guy. As far as Google knows, it's the only high-profile Islamic scholar with this name, so either it's him or they picked a low-profile Islamic scholar who happens to have the same name.

Also, regardless of his perception on current world politics, he cannot fabricate things that did have not been recorded. The biography of Muhammad, is the most detailed of a figure of his position in the history of history. From the smallest details, to the biggest.

And yet moderate and/or deceptive Muslims still manage to write and say that Muhammad wasn't a child molesting, manipulative warlord who ordered the assassination of his political enemies.

He won't have to fabricate anything. He'll simply omit the parts that could have a negative effect on the image of Islam in the West, and twist every fact to portray Mohammad in a better light. I'm sure Osborne will bend over backwards to accommodate him; he's already submitted to Shariah law by agreeing to make a biopic without ever showing the person the biopic is about, after all.

 

[Igo]

Lie in wait for them. Oh Allah, You annihilated the people of Thamoud at the hand of a tyrant, and You annihilated the people of 'Aad with a fierce, icy gale. Oh Allah, You annihilated the people Thamoud at the hand of a tyrant, You annihilated the people of 'Aad with a fierce, icy gale, and You destroyed the Pharaoh and his soldiers — oh Allah, take this oppressive, tyrannical band of people. Oh Allah, take this oppressive, Jewish, Zionist band of people.

Harsh. Sounds like you would do well not to get on the wrong side of this Allah.

 

[Angry Grimace]

uh? that doesn't even make sense to me. Slippery slope always meant "you got one chance, get it wrong and you're dead" to me, just like it happens when you slip down a slippery slope and smash your cranium on a rock

No. That's never what it meant:

"In debate or rhetoric, a slippery slope (also the thin end of the wedge, sometimes misstated as thin edge of the wedge, or the camel's nose) is a classical informal fallacy. A slippery slope argument states that a relatively small first step inevitably leads to a chain of related events culminating in some significant impact, much like an object given a small push over the edge of a slope sliding all the way to the bottom."

An example being when people say, "if you allow gays to marry, who knows when people will be marrying their sheep."

Edit:

A 'slippery slope' is logical fallacy that occurs when one is arguing that one small event in the present or near future is likely to cause some unlikely event in the future.

Although it's wrong for more than one reason, a common slippery slope in American Politics is about gay marriage. "If we let gay people marry, how far off is people marrying their goats?"

Holy Shit. Like psychic shit right there. You even thought up the SAME example I did.

 

[Choke on the Magic]

Harsh. Sounds like you would do well not to get on the wrong side of this Allah.

Lie in wait for them? Makes it sound like Allah's hiding behind a bush to ambush you. :lol

 

[PhoenixDark]

Regardless of who is involved, it will bomb and cause some Muslims to protest. Even if they don't show his face it'll still be spun as the spawn of American Jew smears, by some (not all) loud groups of Muslims

 

[Veidt]

Of course it could be the same guy. As far as Google knows, it's the only high-profile Islamic scholar with this name, so either it's him or they picked a low-profile Islamic scholar who happens to have the same name.



And yet moderate and/or deceptive Muslims still manage to write and say that Muhammad wasn't a child molesting, manipulative warlord who ordered the assassination of his political enemies.

He won't have to fabricate anything. He'll simply omit the parts that could have a negative effect on the image of Islam in the West, and twist every fact to portray Mohammad in a better light. I'm sure Osborne will bend over backwards to accommodate him; he's already submitted to Shariah law by agreeing to make a biopic without ever showing the person the biopic is about, after all.

Yeah, I'm not gonna bother with this.

 

[Calcaneus]

The dude is walking a tightrope right now, if he pulls it off, it could be legendary.

 

[Choke on the Magic]

The dude is walking a tightrope right now, if he pulls it off, it could be legendary.

They should make it a double feature by playing it with The Passion.

 

[Fio]

So, the goal of this movie is to educate westerners about Islam? I don't know, unless Islam preaches that religious dictatorships are good, women shouldn't be treated as human beings and homosexuals should be stoned to death, I believe it is not the West that needs lectures about Islam.

 

[Raydeen]

Mohammed to dodge Christian swords and axes in bullet-time?

 

[Treo360]

Dakotta Fanning

too old no?

Yeah, I'm not gonna bother with this.

why not?


Where's Nizar in all of this?

 

[Veidt]

Mohammed to dodge Christian swords and axes in bullet-time?

lol

Muhammad never fought Christians. He fought the Pagans of Mecca.



Think :

 

[Raydeen]

lol

Muhammad never fought Christians. He fought the Pagans of Mecca.

dude...this is Hollywood! He'll probably be packing a minigun!

 

[SmokyDave]

If this is the guy, this should be good.

From wikipedia:

Yeah, I caught that too. Can't find confirmation it's definitely him but my goodness, doesn't he hold some heinous views!

 

[Veidt]

dude...this is Hollywood! He'll probably be packing a minigun!

I agree. Also, bullet time is obligatory!

Yeah, I caught that too. Can't find confirmation it's definitely him but my goodness, doesn't he hold some heinous views!

Yeah, some truly scary shit.

 

[Fjolle]

Ugh I HATE this thought, it wasn't the fact a cartoon was drawn that enraged people it was what it represented. It showed him as a Slimey looking man who hid bombs in his turban. It made the prophet look like a sneak, deceitful ect..... but still the uproar was stupid.

No.
The cartoonist that made this one recieved death threats too:

 

[Count Dookkake]

Anyone remember what happened to the last guy to produce a big-budget movie about Mohammed?

Google Mustapha Akkad...

Isn't ironic, dontcha think?

 

[Veidt]

Anyone remember what happened to the last guy to produce a big-budget movie about Mohammed?

Google Mustapha Akkad...

Isn't ironic, dontcha think?

Yeah, tragic as hell.

 

[SmokyDave]

Anyone remember what happened to the last guy to produce a big-budget movie about Mohammed?

Google Mustapha Akkad...

Isn't ironic, dontcha think?

Don't remind me of that, he produced Halloween

Spoiler

And not the shit one, the proper one

 

[SUPREME1]

So if he's not going to be shown on-screen.... Will we at least get to see his child bride
on-screen?

 

[Druz]

dude...this is Hollywood! He'll probably be packing a minigun!

Hollywoods work is done

 

[shinshero]

So he wont appear on screen but they will document his life? Sounds weird.

Honest question, was he seen as a prophet from birth, or after death only?

During his lifetime. But not at birth. (Basically at the age of 40 he received his prophethood/revelation).

 

[The Take Out Bandit]

Michael Mann did it first.

this is also a great application for Japanese porn censorship techniques. Just mosaic Woll Smoth's face as Muhammad.

 

[Mr. Sam]

The main character never appears? Could be great, could be terrible.

 

[Nerevar]

Doesn't mean it could be the same guy.

Also, regardless of his perception on current world politics, he cannot fabricate things that did have not been recorded. The biography of Muhammad, is the most detailed of a figure of his position in the history of history. From the smallest details, to the biggest.

I have to disagree here. The biography of Mohammed is about as well-known as the life of Jesus. In other words, it's impossible to separate myth from fact, there are contradictory historical and ecclesiastical accounts, and it's virtually impossible to reconstruct the small details of his life (especially his early life). There is even debate amongst Islamic scholars about various details of his life (i.e. the story underpinning the Satanic verses).

 

[SCULLIBUNDO]

I'm confused. Wasn't the producer of The Matrix Joel Silver?

 

[speculawyer]

Back then: We have seen many former prophets of God be depicted as a god themselves, therefore we will ban images of Muhammad so that people will not be confused about the true object of worship as Allah.

Today: You may never depict the prophet! That is the ultimate taboo! He is uniquely special in that no image may ever be created of him (which IMO is the kind of reverence cultures often have for... a God. Like how ancient Hebrews could never utter the name Yahweh).

Yep. I mean was it really a worry that people would start worshiping the Dutch cartoons of Muhammad instead of Allah? No. But that was the original purpose of the rule but it has now been twisted by over-zealous people.

 

[BocoDragon]

I have to disagree here. The biography of Mohammed is about as well-known as the life of Jesus. In other words, it's impossible to separate myth from fact, there are contradictory historical and ecclesiastical accounts, and it's virtually impossible to reconstruct the small details of his life (especially his early life). There is even debate amongst Islamic scholars about various details of his life (i.e. the story underpinning the Satanic verses).

I disagree. Muhammad's life was attested through a variety of sources.. Not to mention the political, military and religious upheaval that followed from his actions. He's a grounded historical figure.

Compare this to people like Buddha and Jesus, who, while probably real people, exist only through religious myths and quite possibly may have never existed at all.

Obviously most contemporary observers were followers, but that has never stopped critics from rearranging the events of his actions into a secular or even negative portrayal before..

I'm sure this movie will be reverent, but due to the more solid historical foundation it can't possibly be as self-serving religious invention as something like The Passion of The Christ.

 

[Rocket Punch]

First Person Prophet

 

[Veidt]

I have to disagree here. The biography of Mohammed is about as well-known as the life of Jesus. In other words, it's impossible to separate myth from fact, there are contradictory historical and ecclesiastical accounts, and it's virtually impossible to reconstruct the small details of his life (especially his early life). There is even debate amongst Islamic scholars about various details of his life (i.e. the story underpinning the Satanic verses).

The biography of Mohammed is about as well-known as the life of Jesus.

No. The very existence of Jesus is a debate. Compared to Muhammad, of whom even the smallest belongings, treaties,contracts,and letters are still present.

In other words, it's impossible to separate myth from fact, there are contradictory historical and ecclesiastical accounts, and it's virtually impossible to reconstruct the small details of his life (especially his early life).

While it is true, that his earlier life is less detailed than the latter part. It is however, STILL more detailed and factually traceable than any historical figure of his frame, proven by the very fact that, his enemies who would confess and relate his earlier life on many occasions.

There is even debate amongst Islamic scholars about various details of his life (i.e. the story underpinning the Satanic verses).

No. There is not a single debate among Islamic scholars on this issue. Satanic verses was a piece of work with no coherent methodological assessment to it in it's tracing back to sources and has been debunked very often. It is Da vinci code, but easier to disprove since there's so much valid information on the character of Muhammad. Only reason it is so well known, is because of the whole fatwa thing made by the Shi'a ayatollah.

 

[Combichristoffersen]

i thought you're not suppose to depict any image the Muhammed..?!

Doesn't that only apply to some specific branches of Islam though? IIRC there are a few branches that allow portrayals of Muhammad.

 

[BocoDragon]

Yep. I mean was it really a worry that people would start worshiping the Dutch cartoons of Muhammad instead of Allah? No. But that was the original purpose of the rule but it has now been twisted by over-zealous people.

Sure I agree. And really, the prohibition of Muhhamad's image should have been a religious rule for those in the Islanic community.. Not for outsiders. A Muslim should protest others depicting Muhammad about as much as they should protest others eating pork.

 

[Napoleonthechimp]

I disagree. Muhammad's life was attested through a variety of sources.. Not to mention the political, military and religious upheaval that followed from his actions. He's a grounded historical figure.

Compare this to people like Buddha and Jesus, who, while probably real people, exist only through religious myths and quite possibly may have never existed at all.

Obviously most contemporary observers were followers, but that has never stopped critics from rearranging the events of his actions into a secular or even negative portrayal before..

I'm sure this movie will be reverent, but due to the more solid historical foundation it can't possibly be as self-serving religious invention as something like The Passion of The Christ.

Which probably had something to do with the fact he enforced his religion with a sword.

This film is already curtailing to Islamic rules and so no doubt will be crap.

 

[PantherLotus]

They should make it a double feature by playing it with The Passion.

And after that, a Mel Gibson reading of Mein Kompf.

 

[zsidane]

A film about a popular religious leader who never actually appears in any tangible, physical form. Sounds more like atheist propaganda :lol

Or you can watch "The Message" and see for yourself how a movie about a popular religious leader that never appear in any tangible, physical form can turn out.

 

[MetatronM]

This film is already curtailing to Islamic rules and so no doubt will be crap.

Huh? So showing the most basic level of respect to one of the simplest rules of the religion you're depicting on film is a bad thing?

 

[dmshaposv]

They should get Ghassan Massoud for some important role (Ali, Abu Bakr, Umar, e.t.c.). He was great as Salah-udin in Kingdom of Heaven.

 

[Azih]

Doesn't that only apply to some specific branches of Islam though? IIRC there are a few branches that allow portrayals of Muhammad.

Yup, Depictions of Muhammud in Islamic art were brought up quite a lot during the Dutch cartoon fallout but zealots a) don't really respond well to logic, and b) find it very easy to resort to accusing those people of being "not really Muslim" and probably in the pay of the Jews to destroy Islam from within etc.

Mohammed carved out his kingdom by force

Well, he only fought one war against one city. Muslims got really expansion happy later.

Some of the comments in this thread are really kinda nuts.

 

[Veidt]

They should get Ghassan Massoud for some important role (Ali, Abu Bakr, Umar, e.t.c.). He was great as Salah-udin in Kingdom of Heaven.

Oh God, I agree so much. Give me Umar, Abu Bakr and Ali. please.