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.
Pretty shit draw of a follower too.
People outraged about their religious beliefs
People outraged about people being outraged
People in the west forget they have a completely different moral compass to most people, precisely because they've been afforded such a life of luxury that they've forgotten just how stupid and primal our world is.
People outraged about people being outraged
People in the west forget they have a completely different moral compass to most people, precisely because they've been afforded such a life of luxury that they've forgotten just how stupid and primal our world is.
Very rich religious people become outraged as well.
The events in Islamic history that proceeded the death of Muhammed, which includes civil war and the assaination of the Prophet's cousin and his grandchildren. All Muslims agree there was civil war in a fight for power following Muhammed's death and that all. They all agree Muhammed's cousin and his grandchildren were assainated. Shia consider some of the companion's of Muhammed to have commited these actions. 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.
Another bad analogy btw. Let's say the Shia version of events are actually true. You're not allowing them to re-tell a massacre of their people. Not only that you're not allowing them to have a voice about the murder of their prophets family. Should we not be able to re-tell different genocides incase it offends a certain group of people too?
I don't have time for a long reply right now but I might edit this later or reply again, but to give you some clarity this is not a Shia version of events thing. AFAIK even Iran has spoken against this movie, the center of Shiism.
I love that Iran banned the film from being shown in the country, as it would cause division… yet they’ve hosted multiple Holocaust cartoon contests.
Right and my company fired some folks who typed "ALL LIVES MATTER" in a conference call. So tell me, was that a violation of "no discrimination at the work place" ? (Black live matters was posted as well. None of them were fired. So It's not political)
Right, but last I check no one is fighting the "mah freedum" war on Iran's behalf.
Bud, independent film makers: Exist
In general there is nothing divisive about Iran really.
Uh, what?
Wait, what. You just quoted a "law" to show how something wont ever happen and I showed you a case where by "law" the company had no grounds on firing employees for claiming All lives Matter. So I do not understand where Independent film makers came into this.
Yes those folks can independently scream all live matter in front of their bathroom mirror now just as this dude can launch this film in his independent Cinemas but I'm showing you that society is not a free for all I say and do what I want anywhere.
I have not seen anyone here argue on Iran's behalf for the shit they do and say. Only some, including yourself, are protecting "free speech" whenever these incidents pop up in the west.
Aren't they specifically thinking about division between muslims? I could be wrong but I don't think Iran is claiming to be unbiased and trying to avoid all sorts of divisions.
You asked “could someone make a film about….” to which I responded “Yes”.
Just to clarify, your post covers two separate issues:
1. the disagreement over who should succeed Muhammad.
2. the murder of Ali and the killing of Husayn at Karbala.
It is the first that defines the initial break in the Muslim community and has driven the negative views of the first three caliphs and their supporters (including Muhammad’s wife Aisha) held by what became the Shi’a. That appears to be the relevant issue in terms of this movie controversy.
The two killings occurred after the death of the first three caliphs, Ali dying at the hands of a Khariji opponent (who had previously been a supporter), and Husayn at the hands of the Caliph Yazid of the Umayyad dynasty. It is the latter episode at Karbala which has had probably the greatest impact in terms of the forging of a distinct Shi’i identity, but Sunnis today don’t really disagree with the basic historical outline of what happened at Karbala, and many hold ambivalent or even negative feelings about the Umayyads.
Okay, so they'd call themselves Salafi but historically wasn't Wahhab the initial father of this movement? And Shia won't be the only people with issues with Salafis, plenty of Sunnis like Barelvi and Deobandis see Salafis/Wahhabis as abhorent because of their history of sectorian massacres
With the 'Bakri' thing I think it boils down to Sunnis believing in Abu Bakr's version of events and Shia's believing in Muhammed's surving families version of events. I think it seems reasonable simply on defining historical takes type of thing.
Having said that all of these supposed historical events were recorded in 9th century Central Asia, nowhere near the Arab people or their tongue. The historical accuracy for everyone in these stories including Muhammed is very low.
Can you recommend a book on this that doesn't require a massive background in religion/islam? If that's possible.
Because someone being religious doesn’t vacate the existence of other people’s freedoms of speech, religion, and expression.
To put it into “western” terms… Christians can’t ban South Park because it depicts Jesus watching porn with a cocaine snorting Buddha.
You keep saying this but there is no such thing.
There's a very good video done by Yasir Qadhi on the events (just put Yasir Qadhi and Karbala in the search) , although from Sunni perspective I found it pretty balanced.
Not sure if you're trying to troll me but the implication was obvious. I didn't mean "can someone physically do it" but in the broader context: without any fuss or reactions.
I'm not sure that's the most "accurate". At least Shia's would not agree.
Of course they wouldn't. But when looking at it objectively their version is based on one questionable historian while the Sunni version is based on multiple historians /sources. Just because someone has a view it doesn't make it right, if you want to know the truth you really have to look deeper.
The reason why I recommend the YQ one is that he's very thorough and academic.
Video is even better, I'll have a look, thanks
You're not gonna get an accurate response because there is no accurate response. A lot of it is post islamic history and the side you are on relies a lot on faith (and what you accept as the truth).
Even trying to summarize it cannot be done fairly without some bias.
What do you recommend?
Looking deeper does not mean you look at a prominent Sunni scholar and label it as "the most accurate". The historians Sunni's base their accounts on also have a lot of inaccuracies and contradictions. I wont get into this debate here but I've looked into this topic a lot and in my opinion its impossible to get an accurate account of what happened ~1400 years ago
I'm a terrible trickster
This isn't true, there are plenty of sources out there which can paint an almost accurate picture of what happened.
Honestly, you can start with that and then see opposing side of the view as well and then make up your own mind. If it's worth your time that is. For any such conflict I always like to hear both sides and make my mind up and eventually you figure out what is probably and what isn't.
If you believe that you might aswell throw the whole religion in the bin.
You say "almost accurate" yourself and its the details that matter.
Also, most modern Shia vs Sunni tussles are related to modern day politics and not the events that took place years ago.
curious to see how free speech absolutism overlaps with "omg Russian disinformation, ban it" from other conversations. would be funny to map it.
Certian minor aspects could be debated but the main events are pretty clear cut hence the almost accurate label.
Religion is a matter of faith not historical accuracy in the scientific sense. Also, I don't think many muslims claim they had an accurate account of everything that happened ~1400 years ago.
Here's a controversy not all muslims can agree on: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aisha#Age_at_marriage
If you're using "Wahhabi" to describe the movement of Abd al-Wahhab, then it must be limited to the Salafis of the Arabian peninsula who accepted his teachings at that time. But "Salafism" is a much broader term, and most of those movements who identify with it have their origins outside the Arabian Peninsula. For example, in India the Salafi movement commonly referred to as "Wahhabi" by their opponents refer to themselves as the Ahl-i Hadis, and their origins are in northern India.
More broadly speaking, "Wahhabi" has also become a term of abuse. For example, Ahmed Raza Khan Barelvi routinely referred to his Deobandi opponents as "Wahhabis", and he himself was also accused of being a Wahhabi. Even on the Cafe I have seen Erdogan called a Wahhabi.
I really don't understand what you mean by "version of events" in this context.