Ummmh... hardly new. Guess a remake of Anthony Quinns "Message".
Posted on 11/02/2009 11:56:57 AM PST by Psion
Edited on 11/02/2009 11:15:16 PM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
Prophet Mohammad the new Darth Vader?
An epic film about Islam's Prophet Mohammad backed by the producer of "The Lord of the Rings" and "The Matrix" is being planned with the aim of "bridging cultures."
Filming of the $150-million English-language movie is set to start in 2011 with American Barrie Osborne as its producer, Qatari media company Alnoor Holdings said on Sunday.
(Excerpt) Read more at thelastcrusade.org ...
I learned all I needed to know about “islam” on 11 Sept 2001. No thank you!
I wonder if the Muhammed-inspired conquests of his neighbors will come in for the kind of self-criticism usually reserved for western imperialists? Hey, I can dream can’t I?
If we are going to “bridge” the cultures, then those living under theocratic Islamic rule should be more OPEN to seeing other religious perspectives.
My country has a legal system that doesn’t consider followers of one theology to be better than another, tax those who are not of the “correct” faith, and do not seek harsher penalties against those who do not subscribe to “the” faith of state.
Out of the world’s 1 billion muslims, how many of them even had a choice?
Ummmh... hardly new. Guess a remake of Anthony Quinns "Message".
Guess they’ll edit out the fact that he was a child molester. This stinks so bad..
they expect people to pay 10 bucks a ticket for “educational” material? seriously,how much of the funding is coming from the stimulus package?
What sort of rating can a movie with a man marrying and bedding a child get?
Lastly,no matter how you film it,you’re going to piss off a whole bunch of muslims.
LLS
I can see this will be a real balanced view of the religion-o-peace
“Waiting for Mohammed” by Samuel Beckett
OMG!
Part of the problem with the “child molester” angle is that back in those days, in that place, this was probably normal behavior. It has been pretty common in many times and places. It was definitely so in India, for instance, not long ago.
We can use modern standards to complain about the morals of historical figures, but thats pretty pointless. For the most part they behaved, personally, as their contemporaries expected them to.
The real issue here isn’t what Mohammed himself did. The real problem is the Muslim doctrine of the Sunnah, which is the perfection of the customs and social mores of Arabian society of the 7th century AD. That has been pernicious, destructive to Islamic societies, and probably has been the root of most of the modern worlds problems with Islam.
good luck selling tickets to that one.
But i do have a prediction: that this movie will be up for Oscar and Golden Globe awards.
“Pedophile Prophet”
Just a guess this won’t be included.
LOL!
Roman Polanski just got a refund on his ticket.
There are Koran’s from the Middle Ages that have visual depictions of that child molester Mohammad - so what’s the change now? Will his 9yo child bride be depicted?
Old Mo’ got it on with dead women and men also.
I guess that won’t be in the Director’s Cut?
I love and adore Barry and he is the world’s greatest line producer, but he’s making a huge mistake thinking this will bridge anything. I know he won’t be putting any of his own money into it.
Prophet won’t be in it...
How will they mislead people on Jesus the Christ?
I have no idea. They'll probably treat all non-Muslim's as if they were simply 'pagans' -- which some undoubtedly were.
But what about using modern standards to complain about the morals of current cultural practices? 
Had not heard that, here is my source of his molesting and marrying a nine year old that eventually poisoned him.
http://www.sacred-texts.com/eso/sta/sta47.htm
He was thrown out of towns for being crazy and preaching hate.
Can you link your references?
I am pretty sure that sex with 5,6,7 year old children was a no no in Western Civilization going all the way back to 1500 B.C. Greece. And since I consider acient Eygpt "Western Civilization", I'll throw in 3,000 B.C. Eygpt. Please provide documentation if you choose to disagree.
I watched the video, these animals(Apology to most animals every where) should be jailed or shot on site,. this is just sick..
It sure is.
An epic film about Islam's Prophet Mohammad backed by the producer of "The Lord of the Rings" and "The Matrix" is being planned with the aim of "bridging cultures."
So, let me see if I understand this. A film about the prophet mohammad will be made, but it will not depict the prophet mohammad per islamic rules? Yeah, uh, no thank you. I know all I need to know about this cult of piece.
“Western Civilization” is the key phrase here.
We are not really discussing western civilization. We are discussing semi-barbaric Arabian tribes c.a. 600 AD, whose connection to western civilization was tenuous.
There certainly was “western”, or rather Middle-Eastern (”the cradle of civilization”, including the Hellenistic and Byzantine cultures) influence in Arabia, the large Jewish communities are testament to that, as is the rather rudimentary knowledge of Christianity on the part of Mohammed, etc. But these people had their own gods and customs that were obviously not “western” at all.
For all we know in that time and place Mohammeds personal behavior could have been considered impeccable.
Uuugh...infuriating! They are animals.
Well, yes, thats the point.
Its not Mohammed, its Arabian culture, and its sacred role in Islam.
The sad part, as V.S. Naipaul has so very effectively pointed out, that this well preserved primitive relic of a culture has stamped out rich and humane traditions around the world.
not sure how they intend to get around this whole “death for showing his image” issue. I suspect death and bomb threats will shut-down this production long before any film goes in the can.
"The Prophet" is not shown in "The Message". Wonder if he will be in the new one.
Nope. The producer already stressed that Mohammed won’t be shown.
A boring remake of a boring flick. BTW I’ll laugh my rear off if it get’s an Oscar for “Best lead role”. LOL!
A bridge to the 11th century, or earlier.
Where is the funding coming from?
Who will have a fatwa before it’s over?
Who will be burned in effigy?
Who will be killed as an apostate?
How many cars will be burned in France?
How many muslims will be shot trying to
burn cars in America?
So the producer has already caved. Figures.
In India, even when girls - and boys - were “married” at a young age, they never lived together, or practically even saw each other, until puberty. Not saying that 14 year olds should marry - but young girls were not traditionally married to grown men; children were officially “married” but then lived at home with parents until of age. Gandhi and his wife were married when they were both 16, don’t know if they had some sort of familial ceremony when younger.
Please do not compare Islamic practices with Hindu practices.
I hope this movie bombs pathetically. I mean, no one wants to see it!
A film all about the pedophile, rapists, torturer, demon possesed person, and he won’t be in it? Sounds like liberal logic to me.
Oh, I think it is an issue. Marriage and sex with children may have been a cultural norm in certain times and places but murder is murder and theft is theft where ever and whenever you go. When the founder of a religion uses murder and theft to spread his "message" no written doctrine can supersede that.
A Christian sect could go astray and twist the written doctrine but they can't point to Jesus and say "look, He killed non-believers and looted their cities. How can it be wrong?" Buddhists can't point to the Buddha's actions to justify murder and theft.
But no matter what any Imam says about Islam being peaceful any Muslim can shoot his argument down with ease by saying "the prophet Mohamed killed non-believers and stole their treasure in the name of Allah." How can any Muslim credibly argue with another Muslim that the founder, the holy prophet, was in error, was a sinner, in the way he spread Islam?
Mohamed's actions are THE issue and set the course for 1,700 years of barbarism that continues to this day.
Murder and theft in themselves have not been universally bad in the view of all cultures at all times. These often were (or are) evils only if inflicted on outsiders to the group, there being no conception of universal ethics.
Sometimes its not easy for we modern western-influenced people to understand the moral atmosphere even in the “west”, prior to Christianity. In many ways the old pagan world is, to us, inscrutably alien.
Its just taken for granted now. Christianity made a profound difference, even to the irreligious.
If you want to make a try at grasping the nature of pre-Christian morality, have a good look at Homer. His heroes are in fact murderers and thieves, and so are his gods. Homer does not disparage anyone for immorality, but for foolishness and weakness.
Islam overlaid Mohammeds teachings over a pagan culture, that was just as unethical (or subjectively ethical) as any pagans anywhere. In ancient Arabia, raiding warfare, blood feuds and banditry were honorable, as honorable as ancient Rome’s annual organized harassment of its neighbors every summer.
There was much less of an ethical shift than there was when Christianity took over from classical civilization.
And Mohamed, by his own actions, did nothing to change that paradigm of barbarism. He set the example that can’t be replaced or surpassed.
Mohammed did make a change. He organized and controlled the barbarism, while preserving it.
He made all this ancient Arabian barbarism into a rigid system, and added the constraints of law. This is why Islam as interpreted in the strictest manner is legalistic and compassionless. Its also why its so hard to transcend the barbarism.
Unlike Christ, he did not create an Ethics.
Or you could look at the Code of Hammurabi, Buddhism, Taoism, Hinduism, Confucianism and a host of other codes, religions and philosophies that go back as far or pre-date Homer that quite clearly lay out a strict moral and ethical code of conduct. Or you could simply look to the Jewish canon which pre-dates Christ by a year or two at least.
I understand, from my readings in Indian history, that laws had to be passed by the Raj (and forced on some of the Princely States), concerning the age of marriage and the age of consent. This seems to have been a particular issue with respect to Royal or Princely marriages.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.