Lady of Heaven

Blue Mist said:
I remember walking past the pickets on Deansgate. All the gid bothered with placards. As if they were going to stop a.
17yr old.
This is different though cos I have no idea what the thread is about.
Click to expand...
hqdefault.jpg

Fek, arse, beaten to the punch by half a day, one day I will read a full thread before posting (i won't, obviously)
 
Last edited:
Apparently this movie is meant to be 'blasphemous', presumably because - as someone has already pointed out - it is freighted with a Shia perspective on the relevant Islamic history. I have also read that some are concerned about the physical representations of major figures in early Islamic history, due to the fact that they believe that such figurative portrayals are Quranically proscribed (which is actually contentious anyway).

One reviewer commented on this as follows:

'What is known is that the production got around Islamic edicts about “idolatry” or literal depictions of Muhammed, his family and chosen successor through digital trickery and simple camera angles. A Jim Henson’s Creature Shop veteran was brought in to consult on that. Figures such as The Prophet and Fatima are seen in shadows, from behind, totally-covered in a burqa and gloves, or played by soft-focus digitally-altered actors.'

So it's probably conservative Sunnis who are still getting their knickers in a twist about this.

In his book, Reading the Qur'an, The Contemporary Relevance of the Sacred Text of Islam, Ziauddin Sardar has this to say in a chapter on freedom of expression and blasphemy:

'Freedom of expression begins with total freedom of belief and conviction. We have already discussed the categorical injunction that 'there is no compulsion in religion (2:256). Men and women, of their own free will, decide to believe or not to believe in the 'unseen'. As a corollary, both those who choose to believe and those who choose not to believe are equally free to criticise and challenge each other's positions, air their disputes, and speak and listen freely and without impunity...As such, freedom of expression is, I would argue, as sacred as the mosque.'

And a bit further on:

'Classical juristic opinion is at odds, as it frequently seems to be, with the spirit and teachings of the Qur'an. I find the whole idea of blasphemy irrelevant to Islam. Either you are free to believe and not believe or you are not. If there is no compulsion in religion then all opinions can be expressed freely, including those which cause offence to religious people. The believers will show respect and use respectful language towards God and His Prophet simply because they are believers. Non-believers, by definition, take a rejectionist attitude to both. we should not be too surprised if non-believers resort to the use of what the believers would regard as unbecoming language towards sacred religious notions. The Qur'an expects this, and this is how the real world behaves.

God, 'the Self-Sufficient One', in His Majesty, is hardly going to be bothered if a few insults are hurled at him. He can certainly look after himself.'

Sardar goes on to state that, 'punishment or reward for those who abuse God lies with God; we have nothing to do with it and are required simply to stay away from such matters. As for the Prophet himself, he was constantly abused and blasphemed, in everyday words, as well as poetry, during the period of his prophethood, particularly during his time in Mecca. He took no action against those who ridiculed him. If the Prophet did not penalise those who uttered profanities against him, who are we to act on his behalf?'

Just thought that the above was worth posting so that people get to know what a liberal Sunni perspective looks like.

Thanks to the long shadows cast by Salafism, Deobandism, the Taliban, the Iranian theocracy and other uber-puritanical forces, Sardar's perspective is in danger of getting lost in the mix.

But it hasn't always been like this. For example, in the Eighth Century Baghdad of Caliph Harun, Jews, Christians, Muslims, and irreligious philosophers were all engaged in active, free flowing debate, both in court and private salons around the city.

As the British scholar, Edward Granville Brown put it, ‘The pious Muslims of Mecca and Medina who came thither were scandalized to find unbelievers invested with the highest offices at court, and learned men of every religion holding friendly debate as to high questions of ontology and philosophy, in which, by common consent, all appeal to revealed scripture was forbidden.’

I doubt that there was much curtailing of free speech and accusations of blasphemy being exchanged in those salons.

Incidentally, Sardar isn’t the only prominent Muslim who has set out a case for free speech in Islamic terms. The somewhat better known Ed Husain advances a similar argument in his book The House of Islam, which can be probably be found on the shelves of any decent sized branch of Waterstones. In particular, he wants to see the blasphemy laws repealed in countries where they still exist.

Interestingly, our own common law offence of blasphemy was only abolished in 2008. According to Nigel Warburton's excellent Free Speech: A Very Short Introduction, the last successful prosecution for blasphemy was in 1977 and was instigated by Mary Whitehouse against Denis Lemon, who was then the editor of Gay News, for publishing a poem, 'The Love that Dares to Speak its Name' by James Kirkup.

In the poem, a Roman centurion fellates the recently crucified Jesus Christ, ejaculates into his wounds, and is finally penetrated by the risen Christ. The persona of the Centurion also suggests that Christ had previously had sex with all twelve of the apostles.

Lemon was given a nine months' suspended sentence and a £500 fine, and Gay News's publisher was fined a further £1,000, a judgement that was upheld on appeal in the House of Lords.

Despite the ruling, a defiant open public reading of the poem was given in 2002 in London by humanists, including George Melly and Peter Tatchell. No-one ended up getting prosecuted on that occasion.

Of course, one can easily imagine what might happen if someone were to write a similar kind of poem about Muhammad. The author would have to go into hiding and would require police protection.

The point here is this: as the novelist Philip Hensher has stated, free speech should include the freedom to satirize and mock religion. He points out that, 'The progress of free speech has been advanced over the centuries, not just by calm, rational argument, but by excess and irresponsibility. Oliver Kamm has also argued that free speech entails the causing of hurt - though he sees that there is nothing wrong in this as long as those on the receiving end are not put at physical risk.

I am with Sardar, Husain, Hensher and Kamm on this issue.
 
Last edited:
ZenHalfTimeCrock said:
Apparently this movie is meant to be 'blasphemous', presumably because - as someone has already pointed out - it is freighted with a Shia perspective on the relevant Islamic history. I have also read that some are concerned about the physical representations of major figures in early Islamic history, due to the fact that they believe that such figurative portrayals are Quranically proscribed (which is actually contentious anyway).

One reviewer commented on this as follows:

'What is known is that the production got around Islamic edicts about “idolatry” or literal depictions of Muhammed, his family and chosen successor through digital trickery and simple camera angles. A Jim Henson’s Creature Shop veteran was brought in to consult on that. Figures such as The Prophet and Fatima are seen in shadows, from behind, totally-covered in a burqa and gloves, or played by soft-focus digitally-altered actors.'

So it's probably conservative Sunnis who are still getting their knickers in a twist about this.

In his book, Reading the Qur'an, The Contemporary Relevance of the Sacred Text of Islam, Ziauddin Sardar has this to say in a chapter on freedom of expression and blasphemy:

'Freedom of expression begins with total freedom of belief and conviction. We have already discussed the categorical injunction that 'there is no compulsion in religion (2:256). Men and women, of their own free will, decide to believe or not to believe in the 'unseen'. As a corollary, both those who choose to believe and those who choose not to believe are equally free to criticise and challenge each other's positions, air their disputes, and speak and listen freely and without impunity...As such, freedom of expression is, I would argue, as sacred as the mosque.'

And a bit further on:

'Classical juristic opinion is at odds, as it frequently seems to be, with the spirit and teachings of the Qur'an. I find the whole idea of blasphemy irrelevant to Islam. Either you are free to believe and not believe or you are not. If there is no compulsion in religion then all opinions can be expressed freely, including those which cause offence to religious people. The believers will show respect and use respectful language towards God and His Prophet simply because they are believers. Non-believers, by definition, take a rejectionist attitude to both. we should not be too surprised if non-believers resort to the use of what the believers would regard as unbecoming language towards sacred religious notions. The Qur'an expects this, and this is how the real world behaves.

God, 'the Self-Sufficient One', in His Majesty, is hardly going to be bothered if a few insults are hurled at him. He can certainly look after himself.'

Sardar goes on to state that, 'punishment or reward for those who abuse God lies with God; we have nothing to do with it and are required simply to stay away from such matters. As for the Prophet himself, he was constantly abused and blasphemed, in everyday words, as well as poetry, during the period of his prophethood, particularly during his time in Mecca. He took no action against those who ridiculed him. If the Prophet did not penalise those who uttered profanities against him, who are we to act on his behalf?'

Just thought that the above was worth posting so that people get to know what a liberal Sunni perspective looks like.

Thanks to the long shadows cast by Salafism, Deobandism, the Taliban, the Iranian theocracy and other uber-puritanical forces, Sardar's perspective is in danger of getting lost in the mix.

But it hasn't always been like this. For example, in the Eighth Century Baghdad of Caliph Harun, Jews, Christians, Muslims, and irreligious philosophers were all engaged in active, free flowing debate, both in court and private salons around the city.

As the British scholar, Edward Granville Brown put it, ‘The pious Muslims of Mecca and Medina who came thither were scandalized to find unbelievers invested with the highest offices at court, and learned men of every religion holding friendly debate as to high questions of ontology and philosophy, in which, by common consent, all appeal to revealed scripture was forbidden.’

I doubt that there was much curtailing of free speech and accusations of blasphemy being exchanged in those salons.

Incidentally, Sardar isn’t the only prominent Muslim who has set out a case for free speech in Islamic terms. The somewhat better known Ed Husain advances a similar argument in his book The House of Islam, which can be probably be found on the shelves of any decent sized branch of Waterstones. In particular, he wants to see the blasphemy laws repealed in countries where they still exist.

Interestingly, our own common law offence of blasphemy was only abolished in 2008. According to Nigel Warburton's excellent Free Speech: A Very Short Introduction, the last successful prosecution for blasphemy was in 1977 and was instigated by Mary Whitehouse against Denis Lemon, who was then the editor of Gay News, for publishing a poem, 'The Love that Dares to Speak its Name' by James Kirkup.

In the poem, a Roman centurion fellates the recently crucified Jesus Christ, ejaculates into his wounds, and is finally penetrated by the risen Christ. The persona of the Centurion also suggests that Christ had previously had sex with all twelve of the apostles.

Lemon was given a nine months' suspended sentence and a £500 fine, and Gay News's publisher was fined a further £1,000, a judgement that was upheld on appeal in the House of Lords.

Despite the ruling, a defiant open public reading of the poem was given in 2002 in London by humanists, including George Melly and Peter Tatchell. No-one ended up getting prosecuted on that occasion.

Of course, one can easily imagine what might happen if someone were to write a similar kind of poem about Muhammad. The author would have to go into hiding and would require police protection.

The point here is this: as the novelist Philip Hensher has stated, free speech should include the freedom to satirize and mock religion. He points out that, 'The progress of free speech has been advanced over the centuries, not just by calm, rational argument, but by excess and irresponsibility. Oliver Kamm has also argued that free speech entails the causing of hurt - though he sees that there is nothing wrong in this as long as those on the receiving end are not put at physical risk.

I am with Sardar, Husain, Hensher and Kamm on this issue.
Click to expand...
Would East is East be protested about if it were released today?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.