Mohammed...?

[Borboski]

http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/riazat_butt/2008/04/muhammad_the_miniseries.html

Interesting article on Mohammed... 'tis true that in recent years I can think of some high profile TV productions; obviously the Gibson film which seemed to have a lot of shouting in it, but also the Manchester Passion thing with that guy from James and a BBC production on the passion.  That article talks about whether it would be controversial or not - I tend to think it wouldn't be, it's far too easy to present Muslims as frothing bonkers people; and the minority that are, well, b0ll0cks to them.

I'd probaby be more likely to watch something about Mohammed than Jesus, I just don't know much about it, plus it sounds like there'd be some maraudin', warfarin' action.  I don't know how you could present some of the material, especially that of Aisha, whom wiki tells me was six years old when betrothed, and nine when the marriage was consummated.  Crikey...

[Santa's Boyfriend]

Well, it was a nice world while it lasted.

[Blumf]

I'd be interested to see how TV producers in muslim countries have delt with this. There must be some examples, doc or drama, that could show the way. Maybe a straight, sub-titled, import like we had with the Mahabharat series is a quick option.

[Famous Mortimer]

I agree that it'd be an interesting thing to watch.

But...as far as I'm aware, Islam says you're not allowed to represent the Prophet in any way. I personally don't care about this, having been an atheist since I was about 11, but if British TV were to do a film about Mohammed they'd be breaking a fairly important rule of a major world religion. If there were other examples of breaking equally important rules of other major world religions to make TV shows, I'd be behind it 100%, but a quick mental check reveals I can't think of any. I may be wrong.

[George Oscar Bluth II]

They could film it Peep Show style, always from the perspective of Muhammed himself to avoid getting their heads cut off.

[Borboski]

They could film it Peep Show style, always from the perspective of Muhammed himself to avoid getting their heads cut off.

Indeed I think this is how TV portrayals have got round this in the Middle East.

Whether it has Mohammed sniggering to himself "haha, twat thinks that potato counts as one of your five a day, well god tells me they DON'T, no 72 raisins for YOU" I don't know...

[Pylon Man]

It would have one (or both) of two outcomes:

1) Islamist nutters would get very pissed off
2) Daily Mail readers would whine about Muslims getting their own series and thus proving that they have "preferential treatment"

[Suttonpubcrawl]

plus it sounds like there'd be some maraudin', warfarin' action

I wasn't aware that anticoagulants had been developed back in those days.

[Ginyard]

A shame really as it probably would be pretty educational. I enjoyed The Passion so I'd probably enjoy this.

[lactating man nips]

I hope they do do a Mohammed film and its really successful then we might get the film everyone REALLY wants, Jesus Vs Mohammed.

[Ginyard]

Jesus vs Mohammad top trumps.

Jesus

Height:  183cm
Annual mileage: 2500km
abilities: 10 walking on water, curing lepers, overturning tables
super magic powers: 10 resurrection ability!

Mohammad

Height: 178cm
Annual mileage: 1,000,000 km
abilities: 10 Arabian God slayer
super magic powers: 10  travels back and forth between our world and heaven and hell talking to ghosts!

[Howj Begg]

I agree that it'd be an interesting thing to watch.

But...as far as I'm aware, Islam says you're not allowed to represent the Prophet in any way. I personally don't care about this, having been an atheist since I was about 11, but if British TV were to do a film about Mohammed they'd be breaking a fairly important rule of a major world religion. If there were other examples of breaking equally important rules of other major world religions to make TV shows, I'd be behind it 100%, but a quick mental check reveals I can't think of any. I may be wrong.

Horizon, Queer as Folk, The Word, TOTP, any number of dramas break a few of the Catholic Church's major rules, past and present.

[Howj Begg]

[Famous Mortimer]

I tend to think it wouldn't be, it's far too easy to present Muslims as frothing bonkers people; and the minority that are, well, b0ll0cks to them.

Well done!

[Howj Begg]

Edit: Are you insinuating that pic shows muslims as frothing and bonkers?

[Brigadier Pompous]

He was a real historical figure, so a perfectly valid subject of a film/TV program, just because one bunch of god-botherers might object is no reason not to make it.

Not that I'd want my name on the credits though!

[George Oscar Bluth II]

Edit: Are you insinuating that pic shows muslims as frothing and bonkers?

It kind of does, doesn't it? They were protesting outside the embassy of Denmark about cartoons printed in a completely independent Danish newspaper of the prophet mohammed, which they would never, ever have seen had some nut cleric from Denmark not decided to hawk the cartoons, and a couple of others that they added themselves, around the middle east in a grand tour of affected outrage, whipping the more excitable, moronic elements of the muslim world into a frenzy of idiocy.

No British newspaper ever printed them for Christs sake.

And of course there's the additional irony of a man protesting against the right to free expression.

Frothing and bonkers? I think so.

[Howj Begg]

It kind of does, doesn't it? They were protesting outside the embassy of Denmark about cartoons printed in a completely independent Danish newspaper of the prophet mohammed, which they would never, ever have seen had some nut cleric from Denmark not decided to hawk the cartoons, and a couple of others that they added themselves, around the middle east in a grand tour of affected outrage, whipping the more excitable, moronic elements of the muslim world into a frenzy of idiocy.

No British newspaper ever printed them for Christs sake.

And of course there's the additional irony of a man protesting against the right to free expression.

Frothing and bonkers? I think so.

Well perhaps, but that is of course an epithet, or at the very least a judgemental statement.
What it shows without question is, as you indicate, astonishingly brazen hypocisy and unselfawareness. Now that was a contrast to my previous post where i was indicating that as a nation, indeed, Europe, broke the power of the Church (es) and now broadcasts what it likes based on different moral, social and ethical principles. Christians and church-members may not like it and protest all they want, but they can do no more, partly because we don't let them.
I'm not advocating one route or another re a mohammed  drama, just reacting to FM's 'rules' post. We shouldn't give a fuck about religious rules unless we (secular society) subscribe to them ourselves, or it is expedient to do so. And in this case expediency follows from the threat of violence, unfortunately.

[Dragon]

It will start out as a heartwarming documentary that everyone will love. Then, towards the end of the series, it will say something like "it's very sad that people try to smear the image of Mohammed with pictures like these" and it will show the infamous bomb drawing.

Then all the muslims will ignore the rest of the series and the well-meaning message and kill everyone who owns a TV license.

[Milo]

They could film it Peep Show style, always from the perspective of Muhammed himself to avoid getting their heads cut off.

Or indirectly represent him as a sort of glow, just off-camera, that's visible on everyone else's face.

[Borboski]

http://rand.org/commentary/2008/03/21/UPI.html

Not to suggest that this is a pet interest of mine....!

Anyway, this is an article published on the RAND site, previously in United Press International on March 21, 2008.  These are respected sources, and the writer is stated as being a international policy analyst at the RAND Corp. Sounds impressive, eh?  And she's not daft, having looked at some of her other essays.

But check this out from the piece written about three weeks ago:

In a post-Sept.11 environment... the Danish editors might have known that reprinting the cartoons would provoke destructive behavior rather than encourage peaceful dialogue.

The editors might have shown restraint, knowing that any supercilious remark or one-time ribaldry against the Prophet and the traditions of Islam could unsettle Muslims worldwide.

But the editors did not. And now we have seemingly taken another backward step in trans-religious relations. The best would have been for the editors to think twice and refrain from fanning fires. The least they could do now is offer an apology.

The editors did not seem to have any trouble, however, printing three new drawings of Islam's Prophet, one of which shows him with the face of a pig, an animal Muslims believe is unclean, neither to be touched nor eaten.

Now, you only require to have the slightest knowledge of the debacle to know that the picture she mentions was not published in the initial paper, but was inserted at a later date by the travelling inams (a bit like the travelling wilburys).  

This is the picture:


It's of a French man at pig squealing contest.  The dishonesty involved in placing that in the dossier is staggering, especially given people died in the outrage that was stirred up by these chaps.  Who knows, perhaps it was an accident?

Anyway, my point is that despite extensive coverage, complete debunking you find that that aspect of the cartoons debacle is rarely covered.   The BBC will happily state that the "cartoons caused outrage in the Muslim world", leaving out a hugely important part of the story.  

Ali obviously does know that the three additional pics appeared at a later time; it amazes me that she could either not know that the picture has nothing to do with Islam given even Wikipedia has this; or that she is being dishonest in order to argue that non-Muslims should be sensitive and not offend Muslims.  How on earth this is achieved, when certain hardline Muslims will invent instances of offence is going to be very tricky...

It's a really interesting article, her language is so strong on none offence.  She says that the editors should "know" that "any... one time ribaldry" would unsettle Muslims worldwide and provoke destructive behaviour!

It's interesting because in the same report she makes the point which is, I think, closer to the solution:

In this case, while Muslims regard the cartoons as an attack on their faith, the use of dialogue and vocal protests in various media outlets would have shown the West that Muslims are capable of conflict management in times of crisis.

[George Oscar Bluth II]

How on earth this is achieved, when certain hardline Muslims will invent instances of offence is going to be very tricky...

Indeed. This is the aspect of the whole thing I find most troubling, the way people seem to want to be offended by things, I imagine the guys on the London protests were only too pleased to find out that this is the kind of provocation that the kuffar engages in. It helps them feel under threat, it helps feed their idea that the west is persecuting them.

[Famous Mortimer]

Indeed. This is the aspect of the whole thing I find most troubling, the way people seem to want to be offended by things, I imagine the guys on the London protests were only too pleased to find out that this is the kind of provocation that the kuffar engages in. It helps them feel under threat, it helps feed their idea that the west is persecuting them.

And, sorry to drag this off into deeper political waters (but it's the only way to properly understand it) the increase in them taking offence at stuff seems to tie pretty well in to the Gulf War of the early 90s, and onwards. Maybe if we weren't so busy blowing them up they'd be less busy taking offence at dumb shit like cartoons. Doesn't justify their actions, but it helps to explain them.

I seem to recall reading at the time that the Danish newspaper in question had a history of reasonably far-right political sentiment stretching way back beyond the offending cartoons. I may be remembering badly, but it's certainly worth mentioning.

[George Oscar Bluth II]

The Kuwaiti's were muslims too y'know. Pretty odd war on Islam, that one.

Equally, the other week Kosovans were waving the stars and stripes as their independence was declared. America simply follows it's national interest, it's not some vendetta against Islam. That should be fairly obvious.

[Famous Mortimer]

The Kuwaiti's were muslims too y'know. Pretty odd war on Islam, that one.

Because the only thing we were interested in during that war was Kuwait. Never mind that their rulers ignore human rights (still) on a scale comparable to that of Iraq. It was never about defending Kuwait.

Equally, the other week Kosovans were waving the stars and stripes as their independence was declared. America simply follows it's national interest, it's not some vendetta against Islam. That should be fairly obvious.

I didn't say it was a vendetta against Islam. But they've been on the receiving end of a lot of American ordnance in recent years, and it's completely unsurprising that it might be fertile ground for nutters to stir up more widespread hatred towards "the West".

[Hank_Kingsley]

When are Cradle of Filth going to come out with a 'Mohammed p.b.u.h was a cunt' t-shirt? If you're going to be needlessly offensive you should be fair about these things.

There are many stories in the Qu'ran which they could adapt, without having to having have Omid Djalili in a comedy Arab role as the Prophet (he's Bahai so he can get away with it...)

[steve98]

That website in the original post reckons mohammed is the role Tom Cruise was born to play, and I agree.
Or perhaps Salman Rushdie as he's under a death sentance anyway.

[Ignatius_S]

And, sorry to drag this off into deeper political waters (but it's the only way to properly understand it) the increase in them taking offence at stuff seems to tie pretty well in to the Gulf War of the early 90s, and onwards. Maybe if we weren't so busy blowing them up they'd be less busy taking offence at dumb shit like cartoons. Doesn't justify their actions, but it helps to explain them.

I seem to recall reading at the time that the Danish newspaper in question had a history of reasonably far-right political sentiment stretching way back beyond the offending cartoons. I may be remembering badly, but it's certainly worth mentioning.

In the case of Danish protests, according to Private Eye, Channel Four and a few others, it was implied that there was a political dimension to it.... here's some of  PE reporting:

How did the publication of 12 cartoons in Denmark's Jyllands Posten, a newspaper with a circulation of less than 150,000 (a considerably smaller minority than the country's 270,000 Muslim population), lead to a dozen deaths in Afghanistan, the suspension of aid work in Chechnya, the torching of an embassy in Lebanon and threats of beheading on the streets of London more than four months later?

Much of the credit must go to Danish Imam Ahmad Abu Laban. Last December - two months after the cartoons were published and weeks after six worshippers at his Copenhagen mosque were arrested on suspicion of planning terrorist activities - Abu Laben and colleagues from the Islamic Society of Denmark embarked on a trip to Egypt, Syria and Lebanon for meetings with imams and ministers in the Arab League, carrying with him a 43-page dossier in which were reproduced all 12 of the Jyllands Posten cartoons. Helpfully, Abu Laban and his companions also included three other images - one of the prophet with the face of a pig, one of a praying Muslim being sodomised by a dog and one of a devilish figure captioned "the paedophile prophet Mohammed", all of which were considerably more offensive than anything the paper had published. Ahmed Akkari, spokesmen for the tour, claimed they had merely been included for context, to "give an insight into how hateful the atmosphere in Denmark is towards Muslims."...

The cartoons were something of a mixed bag, I'm hardly best placed to talk about them, but the one of Mohammed leading a donkey, was very similar to images used in children's books in the Middle East, it's been claimed (if memory serves me right, PE showed an example of the latter).

[BigYeti]

These articles are well worth a read to see a more intelligent Muslim opinion instead of the ridiculous ones we're normally subjected to:

Blasphemy and the press:
http://www.altmuslim.com/a/a/a/2683/

Dialogue of the deaf:
http://www.altmuslim.com/a/a/a/2698/

There are some good articles on this site, well worth a read once in a while to get a more informed view of the Muslim perspective without having to watch burning effigies.

[Garfield And Friends]

"Mo: The Movie"?

Simply get Karen Armstrong to do the first hour and Daniel Pipes to do the second hour. Balanced bias. Two thumbs up!