Pretty hypocritical isn't it. Unless of course this isn't about free speech but something else and I wish people were just honest about that
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 hypocritical isn't it. Unless of course this isn't about free speech but something else and I wish people were just honest about that
So you're a quaranist/'spiritual muslim' ?
I have the time, but I can't go on a youtube binge because I've no way to know who is serious and who is a propagandist.
I'll have a look for an accessible article for you. If there's any particular issues or questions you have, I can do my best to answer.
Thanks I appreciate it.
Which is pretty amusing, considering the brew up about this film.
i don't know. i'm genuinely curious though. man has the right to make the film, obviously, but Cineworld and any other chain/distributor has right to refuse, or option just to pass. surprised they opted for it as it was obvious it would create a stir. the argument then becomes less about free speech absolutism and more about platforms within society where certain things are appropriate. the political sphere really should be much freer than the commercial sphere as politics of the state affects everyones' life but films might be entirely inconsequential. i wouldn't show the film if I were in a position to based on what I've read about it.
@maniak this I think does a decent job providing a broad, non-controversial outline - https://www.britannica.com/topic/Islamic-world/Conversion-and-crystallization-634-870
I welcome you to go to the Israel-Palestine thread where you can see my disgust for how the rights of (predominantly Muslim) Palestinians are trampled on by Israel.
They absolutely do.
They just shouldn’t have to do it because their staff feared for their safety.
Yes fair enough, I've remembered and conflated a few points inaccurately there. Unintential on my part. Although the overall dispute over early Islamic history stands
agreed. i just don't think they should have put their staff in that position to begin with. a blind man could foresee the problems that would come with this as it isn't even a nuanced film but very partisan and sectarian from what i've read. not a justification for threats which came after just bemusement at their initial decision.
So why do Shia believe Ali was wrong done to?
Fair enough on the first point and I wasn't aware of this context. Still though Abd Al-Wahhab significantly pre-dates Ahl i Hadis from my understanding
On the second point, I simply mean about the Shia's view of the events in the succession to Muhammed. From their POV anyone supporting Abu Bakr's claims is following his version of history
It's very easy to do. Just gotta act dumb and keep hitting @2cents with questions.
That’s the part I’m torn about. In the 21st century, it shouldn’t be a concern. I don’t know… it’s hard to put into words, other than to say it just isn’t right that that concern exists.
What I am is irrelevant. From an academic point of view you can't just share a link to a prominent sunni scholar and claim its the most accurate depiction of what took place. Might as well just say "read the sunni tradition its more accurate" but it's deceptive to others to present is as unbiased.
So you and I will tell them what they should and shouldn't be offended towards?
I don't doubt that. I wasn't insinuating Islamophobic views, but anti religious.
Maybe I shouldn't doubt that you would feel the same way about other issues when it comes to freedom of speech but I do. A lot of people that bring up the points you do see religion as a simple choice completely ignoring how the religion you're born in will shape your views and identity for life even if you are not practicing. Cultural muslims for instance do not believe in Islam but most would be pretty offended if you served them pork.
If you think like that you're gonna look at it as "just don't be offended with these fake stories!" which is not constructive imo.
But it is so what can we do about it is the question. Fingers in our ears yelling "idc you're stupid to be offended" is not going to achieve anything. Nor is "I'm going to offend you because I can until you submit".
Just don’t watch the movie - problem solved.
@maniak if you can find a pdf of this book online, p.51-83 gives an excellent account of the opposing historical narratives concerning the early decades of Islam that produced the Sunnis and Shi’a as distinct groups (the author is I believe a Pakistani-American Shi’i who specializes in the early history of the Zaydi Shi’i community).
Yeah just not between 9-10pm please, Love Island is on.
You realize that I was raised in a very religious family in a very religious part of a very religious country, right?
They can be offended about all kinds of things. What they can’t do is force others to abide by their personal beliefs.
Case in point, this is the religion driven lunacy my country is currently dealing with:
Gurandamntee you he’d want a film about a gay couple being good parents banned.
Married life has destroyed your taste in entertainment.
yeah i don't know. it isn't an easy topic.
as an interesting thought-experiment, would a really intolerant/illiberal film released in the West be a kind of counterpoint? kind of like doing "black face" along the lines of Birth of a Nation in that films like that attack the core part of what it is to Black in America in maybe a similar way that films like this attack a core part of Islamic people's "self".
you'd definitely see a similar reaction, and you couldn't claim it wasn't justified as it would be an attack on the essence of an entire people. not exactly the same but how i am thinking about it anyway.
Robert Downey Jr. kinda did it in Tropic Thunder. Well, a satire of it, I would guess is what you’d call it.
true, but there was a black character to act as stand-in for the bemused or outraged black perspective. if you had an Islamic cleric, or two, with one from each tradition, in this film you might have a better equivalence. tropic thunder would also be unacceptable today, i think.
But you still live in that western country, so you don't realize the religious, Abrahamic and Christian values that have seeped into your idea of what is moral and isn't, what is something that is offensive or not. You grow up a certain way, you take some of that with you as your identity.
Now compound that with a hypothetical scenario of being from a rural/poor background (as most European muslims immigrants initially were opposed to North American muslim immigrants) in a society where a lot of what you do is vilified anyway and add to that the different cultural norms of a society.
What you are offended at or what you consider sacred is not always religious. You can't ignore the part ethnicity and upbringing plays in it. Again, you have to zone out the loud screeching protestors whose clips are being shared I'm not talking about these fools but the majority of silent immigrants who just feel they aren't valued in western society.
Has anyone posted the BBFC's rationale for approving the film and their Classification Guidelines?
This is why you read the sources (which it seems you don't trust, so there's little point discussing it further). And it does matter what your views/beliefs are as we can save a lot of time going back and forth if we know the starting point.
They banned the Russia today news channel in the UK. Wasn’t that much outcry for freedom of speech on the news then
I do read the sources but there are sources Shia's disagree upon and there are sources Sunni's disagree upon. Which is why telling someone to just watch a sunni source video and that's balanced is not fair imo. That's all.
Not to go off topic, but the whole point of the Tropic Thunder gag was how Hollywood treats black actors and characters terribly… Everything about it was deliberately flagged as being mad and terrible in-film. Always Sunny did a similar bit even more recently. It’s not really the most equatable example.
Its still debatable whether it’d fly now, but the intention behind it was at least nominally kosher.
Its still debatable whether it’d fly now, but the intention behind it was at least nominally kosher.
Last edited:
It would seem so, as it does seem to matter what I am.
You seem to keep missing the fact that I never said someone doesn’t have the right to be offended. Actually, I said the exact opposite. I simply said they don’t have the right to impose on others because of their personal feelings.
Also, I’m not talking about the reactions (non-reactions) of those who aren’t out there causing theater workers to fear for their safety… I’m talking about the screechers.
As to the part about being not valued… that could easily be turned on its head by the other side of that coin and the argument made that the viewpoint you just presented doesn’t value “westerners” and “our beliefs”.
That was a state sponsored 'news service', providing an official mouthpiece of a state that has interfered in numerous elections, and has conducted assassinations of UK citizens on UK soil. That state had also threatened the UK with the use of nuclear weapons and had just started the biggest war on the European continent since WW2.
Which is not the same as a film released by an independent director.
Might need to. He’s good.
And that's why I said earlier you need to delve deeper into the sources and figure out the ones that are more reputable and from the research I've done the extreme Shia versions are not credible at all. I pointed towards the YQ one as a starting point as he's academic and mostly balanced accross all issues. Obviously I would recommend also checking trusted sources on both sides.
To be fair, I added in that Downey’s character is satire.