Hey! I've got a book you can use as the basis for a script!
And here is a choice portion from another book, Richard Grenier's brilliant The Marrakesh One-Two, a fictionalized but quite informed account of someone who tried to do just this movie:
We're making the life of Mohammed, right? It's going to be like The Mohammed Story, or The Second Greatest Story Ever Told, like Mohammed Superstar. But Islam, a little detail, had this ferocious hostility to the graven image, rather well known in historical circles, and they don't like tri-acetate images either. There is no show business in Saudi Arabia, you can believe me. The Egyptians are backsliders to the point of having a film industry of sorts, but never deal with sacred subjects. There are places where they'd kill you in a spirit of devoted piety for daring to represent the image of the Prophet. They take these things seriously. No one had ever thought of doing the life of Mohammed until Omar except for Moustafa Akkad, and you know what happened to him. So Omar had to go about it very cautiously so that we didn't get ourselves assassinated by some fanatic. After conferring with the doctors of Al Azzar in Cairo he tells me we've got to cut out Mohammed. We're doing The Mohammed Story, you understand, but Mohammed's got to go. Too holy to be portrayed. We've got to "shoot around" Mohammed. But also all his immediate family has to go: This wealthy widow he married who gave him his start in life. All his ten or so other wives. His children, all the daughters. His famous sons-in-law. Ali goes. Omar goes. The four first caliphs go. Mohammed's mother and father go. The ten Companions of Mohammed go. That's the ten apostles right there. Talk of Hamlet without the prince. This was Hamlet without the prince, king, queen, Ophelia, Polonius, Horatio, Laertes, Rosencrantz, and Guildenstern. It was going to be Hamlet with the gravediggers and Fortinbras. The only thing they would give me was that I could have P.V. Mohammed. That is I could script shots from Mohammed's Point of View, subjective camera. I could have faces reacting and people talking to Mohammed. But Mohammed couldn't answer them because his voice would be too holy. I got to work it all in by hearsay. And Mohammed couldn't cast a shadow. He was too holy to cast a shadow. That would be sacrilege too. Mohammed seems to have been about five foot four but when people speak to him in our movie they look up to him as if he's the size of Bill Walton. But it is still the Mohammed story, you understand, and the working title is Mohammed, Man of Mecca, because confusingly enough the Moslems are quite proud of the fact that Mohammed isn't set up to be any kind of a supernatural being but just a man like you or me, give or take a little. I mean there's no abracadabra about Son of God, on the third day ascended into heaven where he sitteth on the right hand of God the Father from whence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead sort of stuff. Just an ordinary mortal prophet. The Koran only is a miracle, which Mohammed dictated by bits and pieces here and there when he was in his states, and which I will leave you to read for yourself and you can come to your own conclusion. -- Richard Grenier, The Marrakesh One-Two, 1983
"Matrix producer plans Muhammad biopic," from The Guardian, November 2 (thanks to all who sent this in):
Producer Barrie Osborne cast Keanu Reeves as the messiah in The Matrix and helped defeat the dark lord Sauron in his record-breaking Lord of the Rings trilogy. Now the Oscar-winning American film-maker is set to embark on his most perilous quest to date: making a big-screen biopic of the prophet Muhammad.Budgeted at around $150m (£91.5m), the film will chart Muhammad's life and examine his teachings. Osborne told Reuters that he envisages it as "an international epic production aimed at bridging cultures. The film will educate people about the true meaning of Islam".
Thus it is likely not to mention his consummating a marriage with a nine-year-old when he was in his fifties; or his ordering the murder of a Jewish poet and allowing the murderer to lie to the victim in order to trick him and lead him to his death; or calling upon Allah to curse the Jews and the Christians; or telling his followers to offer the unbelievers conversion, subjugation or death; or any number of other embarrassing elements of Muhammad's life as it is relayed in authoritative Islamic sources.
Osborne's production will reportedly feature English-speaking Muslim actors. It is backed by the Qatar-based production company Alnoor Holdings, who have installed the Muslim scholar Sheikh Yusuf Al-Qaradawi to oversee all aspects of the shoot. In accordance with Islamic law, the prophet will not actually be depicted on screen."The film will shed light on the Prophet's life since before his birth to his death," Ahmed Abdullah Al-Mustafa, Alnoor's chairman, told al-Jazeera. "It will highlight the humanity of Prophet Muhammad."
The as-yet-untitled picture is due to go before the cameras in 2011. It remains to be seen, however, whether it will be beaten to cinemas by another Muhammad-themed drama. Late last year, producer Oscar Zoghbi announced plans to remake The Message, his controversial 1976 drama that sparked a fatal siege by protesters in Washington DC. The new version, entitled The Messenger of Peace, is currently still in development.
"The film will educate people about the true meaning of Islam".
Yeah, two hours of black screen?
"The as-yet-untitled picture..."
I have the perfect title for it.
"The Stupidest Movie Ever Made, About the Worst Story Ever Told".
"The Messenger of Peace"..."will highlight the humanity of Prophet Muhammad". It's going to be a satirical comedy with an explosive end. On a side note, are there going to be any characters in this movie or just a narrator speaking to a blank screen?
What a colossal waste of time, and an insult to anyone with a brain and a conscience.
Does Barrie Osborne have any idea what he’s getting into?
Muslims will take offense at any portrayal of Mohammed.
It’s going to be very difficult to make a film where the main character never appears…. though that approach was taken, apparently, in the 1976 movie “The Message” starring Anthony Quinn.
Even Obama might be surprised at the backlash to this film.
Or they could name it this:
"Something Evil Happenned on the Way to the Monolith."
Sean Penn would play Mohammed well even if only his voice was heard: He wouldn't have to work that hard to convey hatred for Christians. Penn might even get another oscar. Woundn't that be swell?
....
Apparently, Mohammed will never appear but the film will be overseen by Sheikh Yusuf Al-Qaradawi.
According to Robert Spencer, this was the Sheikh who called for apostates from Islam to be killed.
Words fail me.
Richard Grenier's "The Marrakesh One-Two" is a fictional work about the making of a movie about Muhammad. When it was written, no one in the Western world seemed to know, or care, about the Return of Islam and the venomous beliefs of Muslims. But Grenier, who for years was also a movie reviewer for "Commentary" (his critical review -- and how -- of "Gandhi" will repay finding; you will be reduced quickly not to tears, but to full-blown furious gales, of laughter) had Islam's number, and that of Muslims too.
You will find two or three dozen brilliant passages about Islam. Find that book. Read it.
If I can find my copy, which still bristles, I suspect, with old-growth Post-It Notes, I will put up a dozen of those comments right here.
I was just a teen in the 70s when 'Roots' was aired, but I distinctly remember talking to black co-workers who were incredulous that long-time white friends were suddenly apologizing for the sins of their ancestors. So it is, reading about slavery in texts just wasn't the same as watching a docu-drama.
Imagine the reaction to a production of Muhammad's life that is absolutely faithful to the Ahadith and/or the Sirat Rasul. Muslim and non-Muslim alike would be mortified...(for entirely different reasons).
But of course it will never be made, not with Hollywood a bastion of craven dhimmitude.
I'll bet the Little Sisters of the Poor are plotting furiously to bomb the theaters even now....
Hugh,
I take it the Richard Grenier's review of Gandhi you are referring to is here?
http://history.eserver.org/ghandi-nobody-knows.txt
I predict it will flop. Without all the killing, looting, raping and harem intrigue, it's just not very exciting. Or entertaining. Or enlightening.
Is it amazing that Mohammed is not a god, and yet he is treated like a god in that his image cannot appear anywhere in physical form. This seems to be a rather strange contradiction. Are we on to a little secret here?
Yes, that's the one. Not sidesplitting, as I had remembered, but very funny in particular passages. And still solid, and solidly damning.
They could use Father Zakaria Botros's The Perverse Sexual Habits of Mahound as reference material... But that would make shooting a new movie almost unnecessary, right? They could re-dub Caligula and call the emperor "Mahound." Or would Caligula not be enough of a twisted and sick pervert to be referred to as the messenger of allah, mahound's imaginary alter-ego?
Salam,
How can you even think about screening the greatest teacher ever.
We muslims live with humility and love for our teacher, such that we recognise that it is impossible to portray such a man on celluloid.
Kuffar think that they are better than they actually are...and get themselves into trouble by pushing boundaries that are not possible to push.
Leave well alone is my message.
Peace and Love
Yom
The best part about all this? No one will go to see the movie.
It's certain that moslems won't because they shouldn't, right? I certainly won't as I have plenty of reading material about the 'Perfect Man', mohammed (Pedophile, misogynist, murderer, liar, maniac, thief, parasite etc and I have no need for an outright PR job.
It'll be a nothing movie with a few moslem deaths at select theaters thrown it to highlight how crazy islam is.
I am not getting this. How can you have a film without any of the major players being depicted in any form ? Existentialism is one thing however nonexistentence is another. Perhaps they could get Osama to do the voice-overs and Obama to do a walk on role - after all he is not devine - yet. Perhaps Robert could do the narrative bit as well after all he is well qualified. I don't udderstand ????
the muslim will have another reason to rage, rape,protest and kill because of the upcoming movie. l wonder how english speaing muslims will be when working on this film when their pious muslim brothers will chanting for their heads to roll. LOL
Qaradawi is overseeing the project? Well, why didn't you say so...
Seriously though, why not throw this back in the face of Muslims who conveniently use the exuse that things like honor-killings aren't found in the Qur'an. If I recall correctly, neither is the prohibition of depicting Muhammad visually, either.
Anyway, it sounds like a yawner to me.
I just put this together about this MOvie, 'Director's Cut Cut Cut Cut Cut Cut....
I said this already on another thread when the subject first came up - what we really need is for the 'south park' team to screw up their courage, do their homework (Mr Spencer's 'Truth About Muhammad', plus a good fossick around in the Hadith and the Sira and al-Tabari, plus the 'Muhammad's Believe It or Else' over at Ali Sina's, and Ali Sina's psychobiography of Muhammad, perhaps '23 Years', and a nice leisurely viewing - as someone else has suggested - of Fr Botros' lift-the-lid programs on the Weird and the Awful) and THEN do, in their inimitable scatalogical style, slightly orientalised - 'Ha-Meshugga, The Mad One'. They wouldn't even need to actually satirise anything: for western audiences it satirises itself.
Let's just allow ourselves to contemplate a South Park-type take on the whole unsavoury business of Aisha, from Muhammad's fantasising through to the 'marriage' with the six-year-old, the thighing, the consummation, and then all the *other* stuff, including Aisha being accused of adultery. Have a voiceover with this sweet chirping little-girl voice narrating ..
Trouble is, if they told it 'straight', sticking to the sources, they'd end up with an MA+ or an R rating.
Imagine the 'dog massacre' episode: a puppy makes a mess under Mo's bed, 'Gibreel' tells Mo he couldn't visit because of the dog; then Mo gives the order to kill all the dogs.
Or the camel urine episode.
Or the solemn explanations of toileting procedure...how to avoid the jinn that lurk in the latrine. Can you *imagine* what South Park, if sufficiently courageous, could do with *that*?
They should dump Qaradawi and hire Mel Brooks...
DDA, that would be simply awesome... And, if there is anyone who can do it, and do it well, it's the South Park folks.
Perhaps we should rename Islam. Maybe "Mohammed", since it appears to be all about the prophet (BBOH). Then it's followers would be - "Mohammedans".
It would certainly eliminated that pesky "Allah" concept.
Perhaps we should rename Islam. Maybe "Mohammed", since it appears to be all about the prophet (BBOH). Then it's followers would be - "Mohammedans".
It would certainly eliminated that pesky "Allah" concept.
"That is I could script shots from Mohammed's Point of View, subjective camera. I could have faces reacting and people talking to Mohammed."
It would make a great horror-slasher film. People screaming, running, splashed with their own blood, heads rolling all over the desert etc.etc.
I'll make two predictions about this movie. One, that is will be a complete whitewash of the biography of Muhammad of the sort that would make even the old Soviet propagandists blush. All the extensive violent content found in the authoritative Muslim biographies will be excised, ignored, or explained away. This will be the flowery, peace-and-love Muhammad invented by the likes of Karen Armstrong and Carl Ernst. (It would be like making a movie about Jack the Ripper that never mentions his serial killings and only shows how nice he was to children). The second thing is that all of this will not be enough for the Muslim street and they will still accuse the film makers of "mocking" Muhammad and will violently riot anyways.
This is hilarious. Not too far into the piece one finds:
"AS IT happens, the government of India openly admits to having provided one-third of the financing of 'Gandhi' out of state funds, straight out of the national treasury--and after close study of the finished product I would not be a bit surprised to hear that it was 100 percent. ... The screenplay was checked and rechecked by Indian officials at every stage, often by the Prime Minister herself, with close consultations on plot and even casting. If the movie contains a particularly poisonous portrait of Mohammed Ali Jinnah, the founder of Pakistan, the Indian reply, I suppose, would be that if the Pakistanis want an attractive portrayal of Jinnah let them pay for their own movie. A friend of mine, highly sophisticated in political matters but innocent about film-making, declared that 'Gandhi' should be preceded by the legend: *The following film is a paid political advertisement by the government of India.*"
Same for the rest of the piece. This was written in 1982? Amazing how, with a few word substitutions, it could apply to the making of any movie about Mohammad.
Darn you Sounder! Guess I'll wait until it comes out on TV so at least the Color Stripes are available to see.
"impossible to portray such a man on celluloid."
nah - just sell it as pornography
Super idea, DDA! (And I'm happy to learn you get South Park in Australia. Would be interested to know how.)
Yom,
So "live with humility and love for [your] teacher". Just because YOU think it's impossible to portray a man on celluloid doesn't give you veto power over everyone else. You have your koran. Enjoy it.
Last I looked, Mohammed was still a member of the human race. He's still a part of history. No one gave Muslims sole and exclusive rights to his story or editorial rights over how others portray him or his deeds.
A good Idea.
Jesus was south-parked. It is unfair and discriminatory not to do mad mohammed.
OMG He killed Kenny....
What are you afraid of, Yom? The truth?
South Park Mohammed.....
OMG he killed Kenny!
And of course the Jewish kid Kyle and his family.
"Kuffar think that they are better than they actually are..."
And what are we pray tell???
There actually was a Southpark episode dealing with the Profit Muhammad (Pig Bollocks Upon Him.) It occurred not to long after the Danish cartoon affair, and most of the episode focused negatively on the fact that the Comedy Central censors wouldn't allow them to portray an image of Muhammad. I'd like to see them do an entire movie length episode devoted to old Mo and release it on the internet if movie studios and comedy central refused to show it.
Exclusive!
TOP SEVEN POTENTIAL TITLES FOR NEW MOHAMMED MOVIE
Number 7!!!!
It's so terrible it's funny!
Yom al Juma wrote:
Kuffar think that they are better than they actually are...and get themselves into trouble by pushing boundaries that are not possible to push.
Leave well alone is my message.
..............................
Translation: "Silence! I keeel you!"
Even though Moustapha Akkad shot his "Muhammad, Messenger of God" (also known as "The Message") around ol' Mo, there were nonetheless riots on its release. I imagine it would be much worse now than it was back in 1977. That Akkad made the film as an act of Da'wa didn't help him.
Akkad did survive the making of the movie, but Islam killed the poor man in the end nevertheless.
Akkad, and his 34-year-old daughter Rima Akkad Monla, were killed in the 2005 Amman bombings. They were both in the lobby at the Grand Hyatt when a suicide bomber sent by Al-Qaeda detonated his device. His daughter died instantly, and Akkad died of his injuries two days later in the hospital.
Akkad is best known for producing horror movies, including the "Halloween" series, which is perhaps fitting.
I suggest John Malkovich to play the part of "Allah."
Steve Buscemi for Muhammad, if they were to depict him onscreen. Maybe he can do a voiceover.
Rosie O'Donnell as Khadija.
Ah yes, Cornelius, imagine the reactions. Lethal Kodak moments everywhere. Hysteria throughout the Muslim world. Groveling apologies by Western dhimmis. What a delightful prospect.
Were an accurate film actually made about Mohammed, it would go a long way in destroying his reputation and thus it would arguably be the single most important step that could be taken in the discrediting of all of Islam. The key to showing Islam for what it is is to show Mohammed for what he was.
Danny Devito as Mo
It's obvious we need Monty Python and the Gang to do a biopic of mohammad a la "Life of Brian." Perhaps "Life of ahmed" with all the appropriate realities of mo ascribed to ahmed.
Monumentally disgusting of these producers & directors who know that there's big bucks in PC crap blissfully ignorant people want to believe. The PC industry is a lucrative one - esp using flashy movies which don't exercise the brain. This will be worst than the PC production of the historical awful "The Kingdom of Heaven". Their obnoxious pretense that they want to tell the "truth" is especially stomach turning.
I think Dante rightly places such betrayers of trust in the 8th or 9th circle of hell.
Odyessus: Thanks for the link. The whole thing is worth reading; a wonderful indictment of that creepy Ghandi.
As for the film, why is Osbourne doing this? It is bad enough to tolerate Islamic lies but to help promote them is grossly immoral. How could he sink so low?
Let me pitch another idea!
OK, you see a movie set somewhere in the desert. There are men (no woman) in costume of Arab dress. You see the behind the scene crew with camera, lights and all. Suddenly an explosion goes off right at the camera. It kills everyone within 20ft.
This is just the opening with credits. I have to flesh out (pardon the pun) the lies, distortions and half truths that follow. It will be an action packed thriller that will keep everyone in the dark as to who the true enemy is. Some will blame the Christians, other will think they are just criminals. A very very small number will figure it out early on. Oh!, and lost of 3D CGI effects but that will be when Mo is having one of his encounters with (you know who). Wish I could figure out a way to get smell-o-vision into the theaters.
I'm all for it but it's easy to mock Christianity (Judaism too) because Christians aren't loons and are actually and overwhemlingly amazingly tolerant people. Mocking Islam will take guts and the Monty Python types out there don't seem to have any. I mean just take a look at the modern British and American film industries. Both are ready, at the drop of a hat, to focus on faults of Christians and blow such faults all out of proportion via massive ridicule. But they won't do it with Muslim errors, which dwarf those of Christians. Pretty gutless. Stupid too since Christianity doesn't threaten liberty virtually at all. Islam, by contrast, is a mortal threat to liberty. Just like the modern entertainment industry to be smug, condescending, politically correct and clueless all at the same time.
As the USS New York docks in NYC today, it is ironic that this moving picture announcement be made. A floating reminder, soon to be ready as a warship who’s hull is partly made of the spoils of the greatest ilsamic jihadist inspired attack in Dar al-Harb, still the message that islam is at war with our western way of life is stifled by relegating such violence to extremists. Within the past 24 hours, another suicide bomb in the name of the ROP occurred in Pakistan, and within the heart of the EU, more stealth jihad:
The Jihadists are at it in an even bolder way in Sweden. An anti-Semitic party is being started up by poet and journalist who supports the islamist movements Hamas and Hezbollah and sees the late Iranian leader Ruhollah Khomeini as a role model, “Mohamed Omar intends to fight what he calls the “danger of Zionism” that poses a threat to the world.”:
http://www.sr.se/cgi-bin/international/nyhetssidor/artikel.asp?nyheter=1&programid=2054&Artikel=3207764
and
http://www.stockholmnews.com/more.aspx?NID=4242
I hope that an end-game review comes about putting islam next to other belief systems on the planet today to parade the real truths. Failing that, there’s always the small stage, or even street brusquers who can re-enact all the great peaceful beheadings and rapes by Moe which are re-enacted today by those who so admire him.
DDA, absolutely. I don’t care if they “Blame Canada” in this one either! As long as the public gets to know what it’s all a-boot!
Marisol,
I have a better allah in mind, played by Christopher Walken. At least he won’t put the audience asleep.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xy5JwYOlgvY&feature=player_embedded
I just hope if South Park does it they pull out another pineapple (or shove it in). :)
Our 'alternative' national broadcasting TV channel, SBS, showed it for years and acquired a devoted following thereby. (Though right at the moment they've pulled it and are showing something else).
In any case, these days...Internet.
I'm actually not a fan, it's not really my kind of thing; but I've heard enough about it off and on through the years, and seen bits and pieces, to know that its style and approach would be a *perfect* match for the sheer bizarrerie of Mohammed, Islam, and sharia. Especially after I read the transcripts of a few episodes of Fr Botros' show...
They wouldn't have to change anything. They wouldn't have to make *anything* up!
Just imagine this passage [Bukhari vol. 5, #234 says: "Narrated Aisha]
being narrated in a cute little-girl voice, accompanied by suitable animated images in the South Park style:
"The prophet engaged me when I was a girl of six.
"We went to Medina and stayed at the home of Harith Kharzraj.
"Then I got ill and my hair fell down.
"Later on my hair grew (again) and my mother, Um Ruman, came to me while I was playing in a swing with some of my girl friends.
"She called me, and I went to her, not knowing what she wanted to do to me.
"She caught me by the hand and made me stand at the door of the house.
"I was breathless then, and when my breathing became all right, she took some water and rubbed my face and head with it.
"Then she took me into the house.
"There in the house I saw some Ansari women who said, "Best wishes and Allah's blessing and a good luck."
"Then she entrusted me to them and they prepared me (for the marriage).
"Unexpectedly Allah's messenger came to me in the forenoon and my mother handed me over to him,
"and at that time I was a girl of nine years of age."
And this passage:
From Abu Dawud, Vol. 2, #2116: "Aisha said, "The Apostle of Allah married me when I was seven years old." (The narrator Sulaiman said: "Or six years.").
"He had intercourse with me when I was 9 years old."
I am so looking forward to this 2 hour orgy involving the perfect man!
Here, Margaret Coker covering the planning of this movie for the Wall Street Journal practices taqiyya by stating “Author Salman Rushdie, for example, was for many years the target of a fatwa, or Islamic religious ruling, calling for his death for his depictions of the Prophet Muhammad in his book "The Satanic Verses."” Did I miss something, not that I follow the evils perpetrated in the name of the moon god or anthing as fanatic as that, but when was the fatwa against Rushdie called off?
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703294004574511342984370638.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_sections_business
Danny Devito as Mo
LOL!
I actually thought of Herve Villechaize ---
"the three-foot, nine-inch Paris-born actor best known for his TV role as Ricardo Montalban's sidekick Tattoo ("Boss, de plane, de plane!") on the popular ABC anthology, "Fantasy Island""...(from www.movies.yahoo.com)
I vote for Charlie Manson as Mo.
Roman Polanski can do the casting call for Aisha. (Sorry, couldn't resist).
Moustapha Akkad (Mohammad, Messenger of God producer on a movie about the crusades he wanted to make) - ...Saladin exactly portrays Islam. Right now, Islam is portrayed as a terrorist religion. Because a few terrorists are Muslims, the whole religion has that image. If there ever was a religious war full of terror, it was the Crusades. But you can't blame Christianity because a few adventurers did this. That's my message.
Akkad, and his 34-year-old daughter Rima Akkad Monla, were killed in the 2005 Amman bombings. They were both in the lobby at the Grand Hyatt when a suicide bomber sent by Al-Qaeda detonated his device. His daughter died instantly, and Akkad died of his injuries two days later in a hospital.
Islam, it seems, if full of little ironies.
Thanks for mentioning Akkad's planned movie about Saladin, Pete.
Despite the fact that Akkad spent much of his life producing apologia for Islam—when he wasn't producing lucrative junk for the Kaffir, that is—Islam showed him and his family its true nature, regardless.
Islam is indeed full of irony—usually of a very nasty sort.
Was Mohammed a man or a god? You seem to treat him as a god, rather than as a mortal man.
In 1976 or 1977, a group of Muslims took three buildings hostage in Washington, D.C., mostly over their outrage at the release of a movie about Mohammed. I'm not sure if any hostages were injured or killed. I'm also not sure if it involved this Grenier film, or some other film.
I have been trying to get a hold of the Washington Post archives for March 10 and 11, I believe, of 1977 -- plus of course subsequent dates, as the trial went on for months.
Apparently, some of the same group that took those buildings hostage became victims to a slaughter by Nation of Islam Muslims not too long after.
This Islamic shit has been going on for a long time in the U.S., a lot longer than 9/11, or 1993. And, of course, it is only escalating now.
What is the point of this post? To inform the readers of an upcoming movie about Mohammad? To let us know there was another attempt at such a movie which ended with protests, before most of the readers were born?
How does this piece of useless information and misplaced sarcasm shed light on the evils of jihad and islam in general?
Posts like this can only undermine and ridicule anti-jihad sentiment. Stick to the facts, stop writing and quoting fantasy and stop posting allegations. Reasonable and thinking public of the free world will dismiss such baseless assertions, unless you can support them with cold hard FACTS.
This goes for all your posts, many of which are based on speculations and allegations.
All the above IMHO, of course...
Kooz: Hi! Perhaps you're new here. This site is for watching aspects of the Jihad in all forms, as well as dhimitude servant hood by non-muslims (the latter part used to be on a separate blog, called dhimiwatch but it has since been merged.)
This story fits in both categories well because of the violence that will ensue from outraged Muslims and the sheer dishonesty of the film it will portray Mohammad in.
"This goes for all your posts, many of which are based on speculations and allegations."
This is a very broad, sweeping generalization. Could you please name specifics?
It is also an accusation made by Muslim apologists, so perhaps you will understand if I won't trust you right away.
What's that you said? The movie has to be about Mohammed? Then how about simply anonymous voice-overs - someone create the many dialogs about him, and the various voice-actors do their part anonymously, so that they never get targetted? So when, say Asma bint Marwan is being murdered, just have a shot outside one of those older houses in rural Arabia, and for the audio, provide the screaming that must go on.
Sounds like a piece of cake that anyone can do!!!
Thanks for the info about South Park in Australia. I haven't visited your lovely country recently, but in previous visits (mostly to Northwest Cape - great diving in the Ningaloo Reef! - but passing through Sydney and Perth on my way there) was always amazed at the variety of programming. (I especially like watching Australian style football, but must confess I still haven't yet got the hang of cricket.)
I agree. A South Park treatment of Fr Butros would be hilarious!
Hesperado, check out the following, which appears to refer to the incident in New York you mentioned:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1977_Hanafi_Siege
Foolster41: First and foremost, thanks for introducing the newbies by pointing out their newbiness. No need for perhaps, as I am truly new here as far as comments are concerned...
What I was trying to say is that, speculations of future events, such as "the violence that will ensue", do not add any validity to existence of a problem, but rather subtracts from it, and make it questionable...
As far as pointing out particular posts "many of which are based on speculations and allegations.", I'm very willing to compile a list, if that has any bearing on our gracious host's opinion, otherwise it'll be a waste of my time.
I won't even comment on the apologist part, which I find ridiculous...
"Kuffar think that they are better than they actually are...and get themselves into trouble by pushing boundaries that are not possible to push."
We Kuffar as you call us, are superior in everyway to you bunch of brainwashed moon-worshipping, nihilistic savages. Even the lowliest of us !
End Of
What I was trying to say is that, speculations of future events, such as "the violence that will ensue", do not add any validity to existence of a problem, but rather subtracts from it, and make it questionable...
I think we've seen enough of how the muslim world generally reacts to kuffairs that dare to portray (or even speak) about the "perfect man" or his religion to reasonably speculate about a violent reaction (even if muhammad and islam end up being whitewashed in this production). In my opinion it all depends on whether imams decide they like this or not - if not I would, based on past muslim behavior (facts), expect to see violence and death fatwas.
Someone, an authority like Robert Spencer, should write a book entitled something like
"Why Muhammad Was A Fraud"
It should not be hard to write and it may well be a best seller. This 7th century flimflam for conquest booty and power over women called Islam stands or falls on the reputation of this megalomaniac. He's an easy target by his own nonsense & actions and I strongly suspect subconsciously most Muslims feel this - which is why they go berserk at motoons or novels like the Satanic Verses.
You just made me throw up.
Your Arab oil money at work :) Watch for the new U.S. TV series "I Married a Muslim, and Another, and Another" :)
Do you want to learn the real history of Islam fast free and accurate online to arm yourself with facts? The best place is the Historyscoper at http://go.to/islamhistory
Eastview, Thanks for the link. While the Wikipedia article itself is dubious (no surprise there), one of its footnotes had a nice article from the Washington Post 20 years after the event, recounting some aspects of it:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/11/AR2007031101562_2.html
From there, I tracked down that the slaughter that occurred of Muslims had occurred before that siege, in 1973, and was one reason for that siege. It was perpetrated by "Black Muslims" (not sure if Nation of Islam, or some other splinter group) against their splinter group apparently, these "Hanafis" who later took the buildings hostage.
"In 1973 the Black Muslim-Hanafi dispute boiled over into an appallingly grisly deed. Seven killers who were Black Muslims broke into the Washington home of Hanafi Leader Khalifa Hamaas Abdul Khaalis. They brutally murdered five of Khaalis' children, his nine-day-old grandson and a devoted follower."
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,946751,00.html
BTW: One famous black convert to the Hanafi splinter group was Kareem Abdul Jabaar, in whose house apparently this slaughter happened!
Since we are putting out names to play ol' Mo, how about Gary Busey? If he isn't available, Nick Nolte. Either one should be able to capture the nut that was ol' Mo.
Lozlodoev:
My mentioning your being new here wasn't meant in a way to ridacule you, but in responce to what I saw as not knowing about the rest of the site, and thus how this article fits in. Everyone's new at some time.
kozlodoev said: "As far as pointing out particular posts "many of which are based on speculations and allegations.", I'm very willing to compile a list, if that has any bearing on our gracious host's opinion, otherwise it'll be a waste of my time."
I can't speak for Mr. Spencer's reactions, but I would like to see it. It's never a waste of time to back up what you say with facts.
kozlodoev said: "I won't even comment on the apologist part, which I find ridiculous..."
No it's not reiculous to think someone might agree with a group who uses the same kinds of arguments. I don't know you, and you use the same kinds of arguments that Islamic apollogists here.It's not wrong to be suspicious of people at first.
Kozlodoev:
My mentioning your being new here wasn't meant in a way to ridicule you, but in response to what I saw as not knowing about the rest of the site, and thus how this article fits in. Everyone's new at some time.
kozlodoev said: "As far as pointing out particular posts "many of which are based on speculations and allegations.", I'm very willing to compile a list, if that has any bearing on our gracious host's opinion, otherwise it'll be a waste of my time."
I can't speak for Mr. Spencers reactions, but he appears pretty open-minded to me about evidence. At any rate, I would like to see it. It's never a waste of time to back up what you say with facts.
kozlodoev said: "I won't even comment on the apologist part, which I find ridiculous..."
No it's not ridiculous to think someone might agree with a group who uses the same kinds of arguments. I don't know you, and you use the same kinds of arguments that Islamic apologists here. It's not wrong to be suspicious of people at first.
Kozlodoev:
My mentioning your being new here wasn't meant in a way to ridicule you, but in response to what I saw as not knowing about the rest of the site, and thus how this article fits in. Everyone's new at some time.
kozlodoev said: "As far as pointing out particular posts "many of which are based on speculations and allegations.", I'm very willing to compile a list, if that has any bearing on our gracious host's opinion, otherwise it'll be a waste of my time."
I can't speak for Mr. Spencers reactions, but he appears pretty open-minded to me about evidence. At any rate, I would like to see it. It's never a waste of time to back up what you say with facts.
kozlodoev said: "I won't even comment on the apologist part, which I find ridiculous..."
No it's not ridiculous to think someone might agree with a group who uses the same kinds of arguments. I don't know you, and you use the same kinds of arguments that Islamic apologists here. It's not wrong to be suspicious of people at first.
(Bah, darn gateway errors)