MovieChat Forums > The Message (1977) Discussion > Warm and fuzzy kind of Islam

Warm and fuzzy kind of Islam


Certianly doesn't seem like the type of Islam we see today. The way Islam was portrayed in this film made it seem like Arabic version of Christianity.
Women are equals????

reply

Islam was initially like that, but like all religions was corrupted over time. It was revolutionary in the fact that women did actually have rights whereas when the Arabs were pagans they had none. I am no Muslim myself, but have read other books about it besides something like "Billy Bob Rednecks guide to Islam"

reply

Actually, it's the people who are corrupted, not Islam itself.

Islam is the same religion as it was then. If someone followed Islam to a tee, they are living peacefully and going about their daily business.

It's the corrupt people who disorientate their own religion and use it as an excuse to cause mayhem.

reply

I think the problem is people interpret the same words differently. Also, it's the corrupt power hungry people who come up with these silly religions in the first place!

reply

"If someone followed Islam to a tee, they are living peacefully and going about their daily business."

Riiiiiight. Must be a new version of Islam. Does it have a name?

💀 "That fückin' Flowers." - Lucas Davenport

reply

Yeah it has a name. Islam.

reply

Islam has been and is still a peaceful religion to this day, it's the few "Muslims" who make it look bad, and the huge media attention they receive doesn't help either...

reply

Well, to be honest they suger coated it (islam), and take that from me an ex muslim!! I can make a movie about hitler or mussolini or saddam and can make them angels!!

reply

"Well, to be honest they sugar coated it (islam), and take that from me an ex muslim!!"

Exactly. All Muslims will tell you there's no violence in the Qur'an. Except when there is. Sura 2 191-193 is a peach.

💀 "That fückin' Flowers." - Lucas Davenport

reply

The verse in question is one which commands the Muslims to "Kill the infidels wherever they can find them." Just viewed by itself, it seems like an utterly unacceptable invitation to murder the opposition.

However, when viewed in context with the verse before and after this verse- you will grasp the whole picture immediately. When viewed in context to when this verse was revealed you will grasp an even better picture.

The verse in question is one that was revealed during a war scenario. There was a pact that the Muslims had made with the non-Muslims at that time and that pact was violated. This had led to war. Like you know, during those days- war tended to be more honorable and was fought in battlefields, not cities and towns where women and children lived. This verse is akin to an army general commanding his soldiers to "Kill the Enemy" or "Fire on sight". It is a battle cry, not a general direction to kill any non-Muslim or person who disagrees with you at anytime. It is war specific.

Do you think America or Britain would go into battle with an enemy and the head of the army would say "Okay men, when you see the enemy, shake their hand and kindly ask them to stop"?

reply

If American army had an attitude to kill them all, I don't think any of those Islamic countries would have survived!

reply

Nice try. The "you're taking it out of context" chant is nonsense. All scripture is cherry-picked to a greater extent than not. The sura in question is, unlike many others, unambiguous and crystal clear. Where scripture in the Bible and Torah are told in the story format, leaving it up to the reader to take whatever meaning they want, the Qur'an directly commands its adherents to kill. And it's not in self defense as Muslim Apologists would have you believe. (Full explanation below.) But if you're gonna play those games, we could begin to discuss why the Qur'an says Earth is flat. Or why Islam supports slavery...is chronically misogynistic...teaches the best way to commit spousal abuse, etc.

"It's gross, It's racist!" Permanent victim status.

This explains it rather nicely: "The verse prior to this (190) refers to "fighting for the cause of Allah those who fight you" leading some to believe that the entire passage refers to a defensive war in which Muslims are defending their homes and families. The historical context of this passage is not defensive warfare, however, since Muhammad and his Muslims had just relocated to Medina and were not under attack by their Meccan adversaries. In fact, the verses urge offensive warfare, in that Muslims are to drive Meccans out of their own city (which they later did). Verse 190 thus means to fight those who offer resistance to Allah's rule (ie. Muslim conquest). The use of the word "persecution" by some Muslim translators is disingenuous (the actual Arabic words for persecution - "idtihad" - and oppression - a variation of "z-l-m" - do not appear in the verse). The word used instead, "fitna", can mean disbelief, or the disorder that results from unbelief or temptation. This is certainly what is meant in this context since the violence is explicitly commissioned "until religion is for Allah" - ie. unbelievers desist in their unbelief."

💀 "That fückin' Flowers." - Lucas Davenport

reply

It is a great movie, with its music, cast and all. But in fact, this movie did a very bad job depicting the founding of Islam. Why is that? Let me explain.

Any bits of knowledge humanity knows about Muhammad's life, comes from the biography written by Ibn Ishaq, an Arab historian that has lived in around 750 AD. He gathered the oral tales about a man called Muhammad, because there were no written sources about his life. Ishaq's written material was also lost ages ago. What we really have is an edited copy by Ibn Hisham who lived in around 820 AD. So it's like 200 years between the actual event and the first written material about it. We even don't know level of credibility of the oral sources, it was simply 200 years of people telling a tale to each other. How much fantasy was involved, how much exaggeration, or outright lie, we will never know. But that's another story.

The fact is, this movie based its script solely on Ibn Hisham's writings. All of the events that takes place in the movie were told by Hisham. It is the main source. But the source material by Hisham was much more objective than this movie. The movie depicted all the muslims as perfect chivalrous beings that have the same code of justice and same world view. It was quite the contrary according to Hisham. So many early muslims had conflicts among themselves, even the very close friends and some women that Muhammad wanted to marry left him and left Islam and reverted back to paganism. Some muslim women resisted against wearing headscarf, and fought against confiscation of their properties by men. We don't see such cases in this movie. Muslims' lust for loot in the wars? Not included. Desecration of Meccan casualties (throwing their bodies into wells etc.) by the Muslims after battle of Badr? Not included. Assassinations of notable Meccan or pagan individuals, ordered by Muhammad? Not in the movie. Marriages of Muhammad? Of course no. But they are there in the works of Ibn Hisham. The movie simply ignored such details to make a portrayal of good vs evil, white vs black. Even the dressing of muslims were all white in the movie, while meccan pagans were dressing black and blood-red. This is a typical approach for propaganda films.

reply

The Qur'an is absolutly same as it was revealed to prophet Muhammad saws 1400 years ago. Not a single word was changed. Islam is not as you read about it on anti-islamic websites, Islam is beautiful, peaceful religion calling for mutual religious respect. As Allah says in Qur'an; "To you your religion and to me mine."
109:6
Allah says in Qur'an; “Let there be no compulsion in religion.” Surah Al-Baqarah [2:256]

Get informed from right sources! www.quran.com


Peace.

reply

yeah, it's a progressive fantasy.

reply