Historical accuracy isn’t really a requirement for a historical movie. See: Braveheart
Cineworld cancels film about the daughter of the Prophet Muhammad
- Thread starter Devil_forever
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik and Imran are here to talk about a frustrating 2 points dropped at Crystal Palace. They then discuss the regeneration of Old Trafford. Finally, Nik is joined by special guest Michael Statham from the Football Oranje podcast - who gives us a more in depth look at our EL opposition FC Twente, and then runs through the (many) Dutch connections currently at United.
There's been so many movies that have been made with historical inaccuracies already. It seems you can ridicule and make fun of every other religion apart from this one. The sooner all religions disappear the better. Its 2022 now not the 16th century.
Last edited:
Yep. It’s embarrassing that this shit still continues.
As the discussed above, the bigger issue here is the sectarian approach taken to the story. That’s why the dominant critique issued by various representative Islamic organizations and states seems to be that the film intends to sow “division”.
Fair enough, still doesn’t detract from the idiocy of taking things to this extreme. It’s simply embarrassing.
I'm not sure this is a fair dipiction of the film. I haven't watched it but from my understanding from the trailor is that the film dipicts the Islamic history that proceeded the death of Muhammed, which includes civil war and the assaination of the Prophet's cousin and his grandchildren. So my understanding is that the outrage about this is the discussion of the history of people they consider companion's of Muhammed. Essentially Sunnis consider these companaions to be good people who never argued (despite the civil war) where as Shia consider them to be traitors who screwed Muhammed's cousin out of power after Muhammed said he should be the next leader and then themselves or their descendants proceeded to kill Muhammed's descendants.
I agree. Apart from the issue of whether threats were made or not, the idiots chanting “Shi’a kafir!” are as big a problem as the writer himself.
That’s not a nice pairing of words, is it?
Absolutely not.
Particularly if the point against the movie is division.
I heard about these chants but couldn't find any footage to verify.
It would seem to undermine the claims that the protests were intended to head off potential sectarian tension if attendees were in fact shouting sectarian slurs.
Here’s one of several videos in that feed:
I’ve no idea how prevalent this was at the protests.
Is it equally as bad if it was said against Sunni Muslims by Shia?
Yes. It’s calling them an unbeliever.
(Although the vague impression I have is that the minority of Shi’i groups who engage in these kinds of sectarian polemics tend to use other terms they consider derogatory, such as Wahhabi or, in Yasser al-Habib’s case, “Bakri” i.e. follower of Abu Bakr. But I could be wrong on that.)
Cheers bud.
It certainly muddies the waters as to the intent/sentiment of at least some of the protesters.
There are no limits on freedom of your hate speech? I also wonder if you'd have the same attitude if a bunch of white super rich republicans screened an "all lives matter" themed movie in a predominately black lower income ghetto
Wahhabis are a religious sect though aren't they? So I'm not sure that's offensive.
I imagine calling someone a 'Bakri' would mean they're referring to the sect following Abu Bakr's recording of history versus Muhammed's families recording of history.
The amount of bad history from priests and participants of all religions is massive, all of those protesting are hypocrites.
As long as there are no depictions of Muhammad there, then why not tell a historically based screenwriter's fantasy? It's been done since the beginning of film.
Unless the depictions of anyone are "idolising", which would mean no pictures, TV or the Internet for any true believer, which I can't imagine many would do. Islamic medieval geometric art is beautiful, but do people want to go back to that being the only art?
A story is a story, no matter what parts of it are true. It can be an utterly true depiction of history, a fully fantastical depiction of history, or somewhere in the middle, the story is in the storytelling. Its why we have distinctions between myth, legend and history.
I don't think it is possible to make a truly historic movie, 3 hours isn't enough, so this art can't be "historically factual", so it's myth or legend, both of which allow a bit of artistic licence.
I understand why Muslims are affronted by any depictions of Muhammad, but anything that happened afterwards is human, not divine.
As long as there are no depictions of Muhammad there, then why not tell a historically based screenwriter's fantasy? It's been done since the beginning of film.
Unless the depictions of anyone are "idolising", which would mean no pictures, TV or the Internet for any true believer, which I can't imagine many would do. Islamic medieval geometric art is beautiful, but do people want to go back to that being the only art?
A story is a story, no matter what parts of it are true. It can be an utterly true depiction of history, a fully fantastical depiction of history, or somewhere in the middle, the story is in the storytelling. Its why we have distinctions between myth, legend and history.
I don't think it is possible to make a truly historic movie, 3 hours isn't enough, so this art can't be "historically factual", so it's myth or legend, both of which allow a bit of artistic licence.
I understand why Muslims are affronted by any depictions of Muhammad, but anything that happened afterwards is human, not divine.
Nor is this movie: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Birth_of_a_Nation
I guess it should play in my local cinema right
In what way is this film hate speed?
This analogy is way off base too. You're comparing racially motivated murders being minimised to someone telling their version of history.
Also there's plenty all lives matter media content on youtube etc.
I mean, it was shown in cinemas. So was Django Unchained.
Divinity does not decide what a society or group of people are sensitive to.
Could someone make a parody movie about 9/11 depicting the flight 93 inhabitants as cowards and so on? What's the limit? Imagine someone from Saudia Arabia launching a movie like that. It's all free speech?
They literally have made stupid movies / “documentaries” and put them into cinemas. See: Dinesh D’Souza… I didn’t go about saying I’d give up my life to defend my prophet about it, I just didn’t watch it.
Yes…
You're trying to defend freedom of speech are you not. I find it hard to believe you'd be defending Dinesh D'Souza's freedom of speech (which btw isn't the scenario I talked about)
You're being disingenuous. While you may not care, Americans in general most certainly would.
Nope, you're deflecting. I asked a simple question. Should The Clansman be played in my local cinema and you mention Django Unchained (which is completely unrelated. In fact the total opposite)
He has the right to make his movies. I have the right to not watch them. It isn’t a difficult concept.
You asked if they could. The answer is obviously yes. Sure, people wouldn’t like it, but they can absolutely make the film.
What does that version show again? A lot of the arguments here are on the surface "It's just a movie" without going deep into it. The N word is also just derived from the word black and should be no biggie by that logic
Simply not true. It would have a far worse reaction here than this movie and you know that.
I know Django is the opposite. That’s my point. Django is radically the opposite… it glorified killing slave owners. Birth of a Nation glorified the Klan. They were both showed in cinemas and were both blockbusters. I don’t care if Birth of a Nation is shown in a cinema today. The movie is preserved in the Library of Congress and is in the top 50 of AFI’s “100 years, 100 films” rankings… it probably is still screened every now and then.
You think that someone can be forced to not make a movie? Okay. Whatever you say.
The FCC says…
“The FCC is barred by law from trying to prevent the broadcast of any point of view. The Communications Act prohibits the FCC from censoring broadcast material, in most cases, and from making any regulation that would interfere with freedom of speech. Expressions of views that do not involve a "clear and present danger of serious, substantive evil" come under the protection of the Constitution, which guarantees freedom of speech and freedom of the press and prevents suppression of these expressions by the FCC. According to an FCC opinion on this subject, "the public interest is best served by permitting free expression of views." This principle ensures that the most diverse and opposing opinions will be expressed, even though some may be highly offensive.”
This pretty much shows this individual like pretty much all of them do not know what they are protesting about. He thinks the Prophet Muhammed is being insulted. He is not.
I asked some elder Muslims about 25 years ago what the Satanic Verses said that they disagreed with. They told me it kept calling their Prophet a bastard and all kind of names. It does not do this at all. From my understanding Rushdie brings up the embarassing hadith of the satanic versus where Muhammed believes in multiple Gods for 6 months or so. He also then claims one of the companions of Muhammed altered the Quran.
Those we typically refer to as Wahhabis don't refer to themselves as such (and in any case, Shi'a do consider it a derogatory term), and for the most part Muslims reject identificatory terms which imply they are followers of any individual human (hence their rejection of "Muhammadan" for example). Applying such a term can be considered insulting depending on context.
Yasser al-Habib uses "Bakri" to insult Sunnis as they accept the legitimacy of Abu Bakr's assumption of authority following Muhammad's death, which the Shi'a reject. But Sunnis would never identify themselves as "followers of Abu Bakr" (although there is a Sunni sectarian militant group in Pakistan which used to be called Sipah-e-Sahaba, "protectors of the companions [of Muhammad]"). To add the context, traditional Shi'i ritual practices have included ritual cursing of Abu Bakr and his two immediate successors. While this has I believe been largely discarded in modern times, it is part of a tradition that Yasser al-Habib seems to hold on to (hence my description of his sectarianism as "medieval"), and his use of "Bakri" to refer to Sunnis should be understood in that context.
i like how this sounds as if Muhammad is exclusively the prophet of Birmingham. Pretty shit draw as prophet gigs go.