Dutch ex-Muslim producing The Life of Muhammad

  • Thread starter Thread starter Uthman
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies Replies 47
  • Views Views 7K
Status
Not open for further replies.
Uthman

Uthman

LI News Service
Messages
5,513
Reaction score
1,216
Gender
Male
Religion
Islam
Former Dutch Labour Party politician Ehsan Jami, the founder of the Committee of ex-Muslims, has announced that he is producing an anti-Islamic cartoon called The Life of Muhammad which will be released on the 20th of April. The film will show a sexually aroused Prophet Muhammad with his nine-year-old wife Aisha.

Members of the Muslims and government contact organisation, CMO, who have viewed a section of the film, say they will go to court in an attempt to have The Life of Muhammad banned. The organisation has described the The Life of Muhammad as totally unacceptable and extremely offensive.

Mr Jami announced last year that he was planning to make a movie. He said the film would be shocking and even more controversial than the Danish Muhammad cartoons.

Source
 
:sl:
This is disgusting and should be banned as hate speech. It serves no other purpose than to offend. The line must be drawn here. Now that the Wilders film is out, every anti-Islamic crackpot in the far-right's fascist pocket is out to see what piece of the action they can get!

If this film was produced about Jesus (peace be upon him) it would be banned (remember 'Life of Brian', which wasn't even that bad?). If this film was produced about Jews, it would be banned (or at least completely reviled and thrown away like the Protocols were). Now, I hope that the governement follows suite with this as well, or I will completely change my opinion on boycotts.

Free speech has limits. This vile publication completely and utterly crosses them.
:w:
 
As Salaam Alaykum Wa Rahmatullahi Wa Barakatuh

The film will show a sexually aroused Prophet Muhammad with his nine-year-old wife Aisha.
Click to expand...

Oh not again! Soooo sickening! ASTAGFIRULLAH! :raging:
 
Looks like every fricken half brain moron who wants a little fame and money comes to attack islam.

May Allah destroy them all with severest punishment and set an example to other nazi hate mongers.
 
islamirama said:
Looks like every fricken half brain moron who wants a little fame and money comes to attack islam.

May Allah destroy them all with severest punishment and set an example to other nazi hate mongers.
Click to expand...

Ameen on that!!!!
 
Islam sadly seems to be the only target currently. - Pray to Allah.
 
As Salaam Alaykum Wa Rahmatullahi Wa Barakatuhu

"O Allah send upon them that which descends from the skies, And that which exudes from the lands, O Allah disintegrate their country"
 
:sl:

If this film goes ahead, all hell will break loose

the dutch better be advised to draw the line here, enough is enough
 
He is now saying the cartoon will not be broadcasted as he can't pay 4 his security.
 
What do you find offensive? That it's a cartoon of Muhammed? That it shoes him with Aisha? Or is it that he's aroused?
 
Greetings Izyan,

Izyan said:
What do you find offensive? That it's a cartoon of Muhammed? That it shoes him with Aisha? Or is it that he's aroused?
Click to expand...

I find offensive that:

a) He is depicted in the first place. There is evidence in the form of hadith to suggest that depictions of Muhammad are not allowed.

b) That it depicts him in a sexually aroused state which I deem to be disrespectful to him.
 
:salamext:

He said the film would be shocking and even more controversial than the Danish Muhammad cartoons.
Click to expand...

Oh this should be good. *sarcasm*

EDIT:
sarcasm.gif
 
Last edited:
Osman said:
Greetings Izyan,



I find offensive that:

a) He is depicted in the first place. There is evidence in the form of hadith to suggest that depictions of Muhammad are not allowed.

b) That it depicts him in a sexually aroused state which I deem to be disrespectful to him.
Click to expand...

Isn't Muhammed depicted in ancient Persian art? I would show you but I'm positive that isn't allowed. Muhammed was still just a man, he was not Allah.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Izyan said:
Isn't Muhammed depicted in ancient Persian art? I would show you but I'm positive that isn't allowed. Muhammed was still just a man, he was not Allah. I'm pretty sure he was aroused around all of his wives.
Click to expand...
:sl:
The Prophet (peace be upon him) was not 'just a man', he was a Prophet, a very special man! Making images of the Prophets is certainly not right! In fact many Muslims believe (to varying extents) that making images of any being with a soul is forbidden.

As for being aroused with his wives, isn't what people do alone with their wives a private thing? It is very rude to go around making films about people (I mean real people, not fictional ones like characters in comedies) being aroused, or even spreading rumours about these things by talking. If society hasn't taught you this then I am very worried about you...
And as the Prophet (peace be upon him) is a holy man that makes it even worse.
:w:
 
Greetings Izyan,

Thank you for your post. :)

Izyan said:
Isn't Muhammed depicted in ancient Persian art?
Click to expand...

Yes, it probably is. There is a difference of opinion between the scholars on the issue. Notably though, other forms of Islamic art depict him with his face veiled or some represent him symbolically.

Izyan said:
Muhammed was still just a man, he was not Allah.
Click to expand...

Sure, he is not Allah, although I would argue that he is more than 'just a man'. It is still arguable that depictions of Muhammad are not allowed as there is a chance of it potentially encouraging idolatry. Of course, depictions of Muhammad are more likely to encourage idolatry than depictions of other people, however slight the chance is. This goes to show what a grave sin Shirk is in Islam, as there is only a very small chance of idolatry occuring as a result.

I must make it clear that I am no expert on this issue, so I don't know what the correct ruling is. I do believe that it is at least discouraged by the majority of scholars though.

Izyan said:
I'm pretty sure he was aroused around all of his wives.
Click to expand...

Perhaps, but I still deem it disrespectful to depict him in this state in a cartoon, regardless.

Regards
 
Last edited:
Fishman said:
:sl:
The Prophet (peace be upon him) was not 'just a man', he was a Prophet, a very special man! Making images of the Prophets is certainly not right! In fact many Muslims believe (to varying extents) that making images of any being with a soul is forbidden.

As for being aroused with his wives, isn't what people do alone with their wives a private thing? It is very rude to go around making films about people (I mean real people, not fictional ones like characters in comedies) being aroused, or even spreading rumours about these things by talking. If society hasn't taught you this then I am very worried about you...
And as the Prophet (peace be upon him) is a holy man that makes it even worse.
:w:
Click to expand...
Muhammed was born in this world and he died in this world. He bled, he cried, he felt. He was just a man. He might have been special but in the end he was still just a man same as all the prophets. Aren't we all children of Allah? Do you think Allah would show more favor over a prophet than he would you? His walk with Allah might have been magnificent but that doesn't make him any better than you. We are all created in Allahs image. As the bible says "All men have fallen short of the glory of God". All men, ALL.
 
Osman said:
Greetings Izyan,

Thank you for your post. :)



Yes, it probably is. There is a difference of opinion between the scholars on the issue. Notably though, other forms of Islamic art depict him with his face veiled or some represent him symbolically.



Sure, he is not Allah, although I would argue that he is more than 'just a man'. It is still arguable that depictions of Muhammad are not allowed as there is a chance of it potentially encouraging idolatry. Of course, depictions of Muhammad are more likely to encourage idolatry than depictions of other people, however slight the chance is. This goes to show what a grave sin Shirk is in Islam, as there is only a very small chance of idolatry occuring as a result.

I must make it clear that I am no expert on this issue, so I don't know what the correct ruling is. I do believe that it is at least discouraged by the majority of scholars though.



Perhaps, but I still deem it disrespectful to depict him in this state in a cartoon, regardless.

Regards
Click to expand...
Thank You for your reply Osman and I agree with all of your points.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar Threads

Back
Top