Current Events > Soooo...a cinema chain in the UK pulled a film after protests by upset Muslims

(+) Yeah! (+)

PatrickMahomes posted...

Mans really got to call the prophet mohammad a "fairy tale character" and get off with an NKL.

Insane.

Since when is blasphemy against the TOS?

Yeah I think it would be more like if Passion of the Christ had overt racism (I didn't watch it so no idea if it did) and also offended Christians and portrayed Jesus using CGI?

It sounds like a bit of a trainwreck lol

CrimsonAngel posted...

Wouldn't that make it pro-Islam?

It is pro Islam. It's targeted seemingly to offend Sunni Muslims.

Questionmarktarius posted...

Since when is blasphemy against the TOS?

It falls under the same category as a religious person telling an atheist they are going to hell for not believing in God.

PatrickMahomes posted...

We really gonna let a man call an entire religion's god a "fairy tale" and not bat an eye?

Whats the difference between any modern concept of a god, including the Abrahamic one, and those ancient gods that we now consider myths?

I mean I really dont know how anyone would prove one is more real than the other.

Bio1590 posted...

Apparently there's a bunch of brown face in this movie too, almost as if they knew when making it they wouldn't be able to get many people of Arabic descent to act in it lmao

I've heard this and it tries to connect Sunni Muslims to ISIS. So overall just a piece of shit.

But yeah it's "art" and protesting it is horrible to some people in this topic.

AdrianBeterson posted...

It is widely known that depictions of the prophet is highly offensive for Muslims worldwide. Knowing this information and still publishing it is mocking them and enticing them.

It is widely known that depictions of same sex relations is highly offensive to religions worldwide. Knowing this information and still making a movie featuring same sex relationships is mocking and enticing them...
Seriously shut the fuck up

A lot of the Western world will now constantly censor anything that seems like a slight against Muhammad because of the fear of violence.

There was a recent story about how some Indian politician said something offensive against Muhammad. Basically all news article didn't mention what the politician said. Turns out the politician said something along the lines that Muhammad married a child. Really shows how scared the Western media is if they can't even mention what a politician said to get full context of a story.

Considering theres now quite a history of terrorist attacks as reprisals for depicting Mohammed, they did the right thing to protect their staff and the public.

All religions deserve to be mocked and scorned, including Islam; this does nothing but reinforce my view. The Islamic terrorists have won. "Historical accuracy" is irrelevant, the movie industry has rarely, if ever, been historically accurate. And religions are made up bullshit anyway with about as much historical accuracy as the movie industry.

Punished_Blinx posted...

Yeah I think it would be more like if Passion of the Christ had overt racism (I didn't watch it so no idea if it did) and also offended Christians and portrayed Jesus using CGI?

It sounds like a bit of a trainwreck lol

The popular interpretation was that it was heavily anti-Semitic.

Dat_Cracka_Jax posted...

It is widely known that depictions of same sex relations is highly offensive to religions worldwide. Knowing this information and still making a movie featuring same sex relationships is mocking and enticing them...

That analogy does not work the way you think it does. Then again, I wouldn't expect an intelligent response from someone with a name like yours.

AdrianBeterson posted...

That analogy does not work the way you think it does. Then again, I wouldn't expect an intelligent response from someone with a name like yours.

It does, though; it draws the same ire from the west as this does with Sunnis.

Shishiwakamaru posted...

It falls under the same category as a religious person telling an atheist they are going to hell for not believing in God.

I'm pretty sure you can say that as long as it isn't telling a user to go there.

xGhostchantx posted...

It does, though; it draws the same ire from the west as this does with Sunnis.

Comparing depictions of same-sex marriage to depictions of the Prophet in this context is not remotely the same thing and highlights both of your severe ignorance with this topic.

AdrianBeterson posted...

Comparing depictions of same-sex marriage to depictions of the Prophet in this context is not remotely the same thing and highlights both of your severe ignorance with this topic.

Both are pretty severe sins in Islam, no?

AdrianBeterson posted...

Comparing depictions of same-sex marriage to depictions of the Prophet in this context is not remotely the same thing and highlights both of your severe ignorance with this topic.

u mad?

AdrianBeterson posted...

Comparing depictions of same-sex marriage to depictions of the Prophet in this context is not remotely the same thing and highlights both of your severe ignorance with this topic.

>some of these countries murder gay people

silence

>actively delete scenes with them in cinema

silence

They omit these things because it offends them, which offends us, and we do not make a peep, but we're expected to capitulate to them (worse still, for money)? Why? They extend no olive branch to us, why should we extend one to them?

If they're so fucking upset about a damn movie, I have the perfect solution for the big babies: Don't watch it. There, that simple

hockeybub89 posted...

Both are pretty severe sins in Islam, no?

Making a depiction of the Prophet is the cardinal sin in Islam comparable really only to the burning of the Quran. There's a reason why there is a severe outrage every time the Prophet is depicted in media.

xGhostchantx posted...

>some of these countries murder gay people

silence

>actively delete scenes with them in cinema

silence

They omit these things because it offends them, which offends us, and we do not make a peep, but we're expected to capitulate to them? Why? They extend no olive branch to us, why should we extend one to them?

Are you really sure it offends us? Last I checked, half of the United States does not care about the LGBTQ community and is actively trying to strip their rights away. Once again, your attempt at spinning this topic is not working.

AdrianBeterson posted...

Making a depiction of the Prophet is the cardinal sin in Islam comparable really only to the burning of the Quran. There's a reason why there is a severe outrage every time the Prophet is depicted in media.

Sounds like a bunch of toddlers with their panties in a bunch

AdrianBeterson posted...

Are you really sure it offends us? Last I checked, half of the United States does not care

There is more to the world than America. Probably won't come as a surprise, but most of us think very little of you. This is one of the reasons why. Ironically, you probably agree with all the other reasons.

AdrianBeterson posted...

Making a depiction of the Prophet is the cardinal sin in Islam comparable really only to the burning of the Quran. There's a reason why there is a severe outrage every time the Prophet is depicted in media.

Out of curiosity, has it always been so, or is it a recent development?

xGhostchantx posted...

There is more to the world than America. Probably won't come as a surprise, but most of us think very little of you. This is one of the reasons why. Ironically, you probably agree with all the other reasons.

Same sex marriage is only legal in 13/27 EU countries. And out of the countries where it is legal, there are at least 7/13 countries where a significant population (ie: >30%) does not support same-sex marriage. Once again, your analogy does not make sense, and shows both your Western bias and your ignorance about this topic.

The_Creep_2020 posted...

Out of curiosity, has it always been so, or is it a recent development?

Always, since the inception of Islam.

Makes sense.

As a non-sequitur, do you eat beef?

No it's not a strict law. It's a belief. This law is literally not mentioned in the Quran. He is taking a belief that while very powerful and widely respected is still up for debate within the Islamic community itself today and saying it's is a legit law within the Islamic faith. It's not. In the holiest of Islamic text, the Quran, this law is literally not mentioned at all.

If you are going to talk about this belief of the Islamic people do so with full context. Not just the part that supports your narrative in this topic.

I can understand the upset. Muslims don't like Mohammad being portrayed, we've seen it time and time again. Fatimah? Doesn't seem like the same restrictions apply. There must have been a way to depict the story of Fatimah while respecting the wishes of the Muslim community in depicting the prophet Mohammad.

According to the plot synopsis, the story of Fatimah is found by a young boy facing oppression, and he takes heart in the story to build himself up. On its own, it's a story about faith. The one sticking point is Mohammad being portrayed. It doesn't sound like he has much to do with the plot outside of being Fatimah's father.

There's also a schism between the Shia interpretation of the scripture and of historical events and the Sunni perspective, so no matter how you spin it, this was going to be a controversial movie. The idea that this is "dumm consurvative muzlimz censorship!!" seems reductive, and a bunch of dumbfuck anti-muslim yahoos are gonna use this as an excuse to talk about how Islam is "incompatible with western values" and "inherently oppressive" without understanding the whole story

If you wanna go and watch this movie, go and find a way to watch it. It hasn't been scrubbed from the annals of history. Other chains are showing it, and it will come out on home media in one way or another.

PatrickMahomes posted...

Let's just say I prefer not to answer.

Continue.

So you prefer to be disingenuous and post incorrect opinions as fact. Discussion over.

Kloe_Rinz posted...

So you prefer to be disingenuous and post incorrect opinions as fact. Discussion over.

Understood - next time I want to have a genuine discussion on gamefaqs, I'll be sure to share my mother's maiden name, birthday, and social security number. You see, it's required for important context.

Truly embarrassing. Can't have a conversation without knowing my religion. Not everything has to be an argument. You could've been completely forthright about your point but instead wanted to pry into my personal life for what I can only surmise would be a "competitive advantage" of sorts, when in reality, we're just talking.

So if you want to try again, you're more than welcome. But I will not be sharing my personal information and I wouldn't expect you to share yours either.

EDIT: I'm not even sure what "incorrect opinion" of mine you're referring to here. What exactly is it you're trying to prove?

Correction, you didnt try to have a genuine discussion. You came in here to troll about religion and how some religion is correct. And you wanted a gotcha moment by trying to hide your religion.

Kloe_Rinz posted...

You came in here to troll about religion

How is pointing out another user referring to a religion's deity as a "fairy tale" trolling?

Kloe_Rinz posted...

how some religion is correct

I have zero interest in debating over which religion is correct. The entire point of my message is that you don't have to agree with everyone else's religious beliefs if they don't match your own, but you should be respectful of them. The post I'm calling out was not respectful so I posted about it.

That's literally it. I don't know what you think I said that led you to think my goal was to prove how "some religion is correct." Please do elaborate on what gave you that impression because I promise it wasn't intentional.

Kloe_Rinz posted...

And you wanted a gotcha moment by trying to hide your religion.

Literally what possible gotcha moment could result from me saying or not saying my religion? Like what if you asked my religion and I said I was Catholic? Jewish? Lutheran? Mormon? Does your imaginary wheel of "gotchas" change for each one?

I'm genuinely wondering because I honestly can't fabricate a gotcha moment, nor did I have any interest in making one.

I hate how Muhammad always gets to be protected from being making fun off*** that noise.

We should make fun of it and satirize it the same way we do with every other religion

Holy shit Rika shut the fuck up for once

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

The fact that you think Im deflecting, when theyre the ones who are bringing gay marriage into a topic about the depiction of the prophet in an attempt to spin the narrative to Muslims bad is alarming. Also, you dont know shit about me, so kindly fuck off. Thanks.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

I have already explained multiple times in this topic why that analogy does not make sense, and I am not going to do it again. I also dont have any interest in talking to you after your initial hostile response, so have a good one.

AdrianBeterson posted...

I have already explained multiple times in this topic why that analogy does not make sense, and I am not going to do it again. I also dont have any interest in talking to you after your initial hostile response, so have a good one.

But, do you eat beef?

MrMallard posted...

I can understand the upset. Muslims don't like Mohammad being portrayed, we've seen it time and time again. Fatimah? Doesn't seem like the same restrictions apply.

Not exactly. The same restrictions do apply but you have to understand what the restriction actually is.

Under the most strict interpretation possible, only God can create life forms and humans are forbidden from attempting to copy it. This would include art. It is not limited merely to Muhammad, but anyone and any thing, even animals.

That restriction is compounded with another restriction that prohibits encouraging idolatry, which is why folks are more sensitive to pictures of Muhammad than Fatimah as the former is more likely to draw away worship of God into worshipping a picture of a mortal.

Because of this, if you look up 7th century Islamic art, you will find only abstract art.

Now people are unsurprisingly people and different people practice different parts of their religions. The same way christians everywhere might ignore the part about not lying you'll find less of them are okay with ignoring the part about not worshipping other gods. The same applies to Muslims. Many probably don't care at all if you depict the profit, some will care and some will go further and demand no depictions of Fatimah or any other living thing.

There's no easy solution.

This is actually a very interesting read, Ive learned something today.

To many Muslims, any image of the prophet Muhammad is sacrilegious, but the ban has not always been absolute and there is a small but rich tradition of devotional Islamic art going back more than seven centuries that does depict Gods messenger.
It began with exquisite miniatures from the 13th century, scholars say. Commissioned from Muslim artists by the rich and powerful of their day, they show almost every episode of Muhammads life as recounted in the Quran and other texts, from birth to death and ascension into heaven.

Warning: contains historically made depictions of the prophet Muhammad, so Im sticking the link in spoiler tags.

https://www.sanskritimagazine.com/history/islams-hidden-history-muhammads-images-paintings/

AdrianBeterson posted...

Making a depiction of the Prophet is the cardinal sin in Islam comparable really only to the burning of the Quran. There's a reason why there is a severe outrage every time the Prophet is depicted in media.

I assume that this is you attempt to explain why the homophobic issue in other religions is not a like example here.

There is one problem.

Depicting Muhammed is not a cardinal sin. Stop reading a wiki and coming here. Actually do research into what you are saying. There are literal Islamic families that have depictions of the prophet in their homes.

You need to really stop talking about the Islamic religion.

Tyranthraxus posted...

Not exactly. The same restrictions do apply but you have to understand what the restriction actually is.

Under the most strict interpretation possible, only God can create life forms and humans are forbidden from attempting to copy it. This would include art. It is not limited merely to Muhammad, but anyone and any thing, even animals.

That restriction is compounded with another restriction that prohibits encouraging idolatry, which is why folks are more sensitive to pictures of Muhammad than Fatimah as the former is more likely to draw away worship of God into worshipping a picture of a mortal.

Because of this, if you look up 7th century Islamic art, you will find only abstract art.

Now people are unsurprisingly people and different people practice different parts of their religions. The same way christians everywhere might ignore the part about not lying you'll find less of them are okay with ignoring the part about not worshipping other gods. The same applies to Muslims. Many probably don't care at all if you depict the profit, some will care and some will go further and demand no depictions of Fatimah or any other living thing.

There's no easy solution.

You copied and pasted the summary literally from the wikipedia article. In practice, the depiction of the prophets (all of the prophets), their companions, and their wives is prohibited in muslim countries. There is no ban of photography or other animals otherwise all devices with cameras would be banned in muslim countries. Some villages with fundamentalists might practice the extreme "no photos of anything", but in actuality even that is not the case.

blazer4lyfe posted...

I assume that this is you attempt to explain why the homophobic issue in other religions is not a like example here.

There is one problem.

Depicting Muhammed is not a cardinal sin. Stop reading a wiki and coming here. Actually do research into what you are saying. There are literal Islamic families that have depictions of the prophet in their homes.

You need to really stop talking about the Islamic religion.

"Sin" was the wrong word I used. "Offense" was what I meant to say.

AdrianBeterson posted...

You copied and pasted the summary literally from the wikipedia article. In practice, the depiction of the prophets (all of the prophets), their companions, and their wives is prohibited in muslim countries. There is no ban of photography or other animals otherwise all devices with cameras would be banned in muslim countries. Some villages with fundamentalists might practice the extreme "no photos of anything", but in actuality even that is not the case.

I don't get my information from Wikipedia.

Tyranthraxus posted...

I don't get my information from Wikipedia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aniconism_in_Islam#:~: text=Islamic%20aniconism%20stems%20in%20part,as%20an%20epithet%20of%20God.

You literally wrote a summary of the first 2 paragraphs here.

I've literally never been to that website and I have no intention of visiting it now to verify your claims.

https://ajamarabi.medium.com/aniconism-why-images-are-forbidden-in-islam-c9e2a683d7b7

But congrats on outing yourself and confirming blazer's suspicion.

Tyranthraxus posted...

Not exactly. The same restrictions do apply but you have to understand what the restriction actually is.

Under the most strict interpretation possible, only God can create life forms and humans are forbidden from attempting to copy it. This would include art. It is not limited merely to Muhammad, but anyone and any thing, even animals.

That restriction is compounded with another restriction that prohibits encouraging idolatry, which is why folks are more sensitive to pictures of Muhammad than Fatimah as the former is more likely to draw away worship of God into worshipping a picture of a mortal.

Because of this, if you look up 7th century Islamic art, you will find only abstract art.

Now people are unsurprisingly people and different people practice different parts of their religions. The same way christians everywhere might ignore the part about not lying you'll find less of them are okay with ignoring the part about not worshipping other gods. The same applies to Muslims. Many probably don't care at all if you depict the profit, some will care and some will go further and demand no depictions of Fatimah or any other living thing.

There's no easy solution.

Huh, okay. TIL - thanks for the elaboration.