How to sell your soul and your country and get nothing in return

[fpb]

There used to be a nasty little joke going around about the more prejudiced sections of the English public: "Heard the last about (whatever war was going on at the time)? Italy has surrendered just in case." I do not seem to hear it any more; probably because people have learned better than to say it in my presence

Comments

[kikei]

That is true. however, it features the Prophet who founded the Islamic religion and hence, even if it is to make non-muslims understand more about the life of the Prophet Mohammed, it needs to take into account tenets of the religion itself. And as for the churches... well, I was in a catholic school for a significant portion of my life. I have been surrounded by images of the prophets, and every classroom had an icon. Reason I don't ask for the churches to be pulled down... well, I don't agree with the likenesses being there because that is what I've been taught and I understand why... from the aspect of my religion. But I understand that the icons, the images, the statues... these are aspects of another religion, not my own. Yes, we have the same Prophets but this is how others portray them, and I'm fine, I guess, as long as I'm not asked to follow that example and if I'm allowed to believe in what I choose to believe.

It's like, I may not agree with something in another religion... but I understand that everyone has their own traditions, and the right to believe. as such, I wouldn't call for images to be wiped from the churches, even though it goes against what I believe, because that is an area that is yours, and falls within your centre of religion. But Mohammed is our Prophet, and as such, a similar centre of our religion and the situation of creating a likeness needs to be dealt with delicately.

I still say, even though the book is written by and for non-muslims, there would be no harm in not creating the likeness of the Prophet's face... the story would come across just as well. We do plays and in those plays we cannot cast people to play the holy personalities because of this whole issue of likenesses... so we cover the actors' faces. Last year we recieved a great deal of opposition because of the issue of people being cast as certain personalities, but because we dealt with it in this way, it was approved. and not only that, those who came to watch who had basic or no knowledge about the event at hand learnt as well. we did not need the actors' expressions, even in something as dependent on facial expressions to convey thought and feeling as a play. the same goes for religious films. I watched a beautiful one last year on Mary and Jesus. The actors who played Zacharias and young Jesus had their faces edited out and replaced with a glowing light. and this movie was produced in Lebanon, so it needed to cater to both Muslims and Christians... and it did. in all cases, the story spoke for itself.

Because of the numerous times this issue has been encountered and tackled, I'm rather curious now that the writer, in his research, did not come across this method and utilise it. He could have requested an illustrator to draw the images but not the face of the Prophet. Or was he threatened by those so conservative that they would not even hear of a single illustration, faceless or otherwise? I don't know... I'd like to read more of that story if you have any links.

-Kiks

[fpb]

The harm would be that, by making the prophet's face into a ball of light, the artist would implicitly accept YOUR view of the historical Muhammed. I should imagine this was fairly obvious. Such a representation as good as calls for worship; it imposes on the viewer the idea that the man in question is a supernatural being, or a supernaturally visited one. In other words, you force us to lose any debate as to the truth of Muhammed's supposed reveleation, even before it started. And that is not good argument, nor good sense.

[kikei]

and does the book propose this view? if not that Mohammed was indeed the last Prophet (as we believe), then that he was blessed with revelations? the view is just as dependent on the content of the book as it is on the illustrations. If the book presents us with a 'supposed' view, that is, if it fosters debate over the truth/accuracy of Mohammed's status, then I see your point. However, if the book is written as if declaring that it is absolute truth that Mohammed was appointed by Allah as the last Prophet, then the illustrations showing his face as light would be completely in order. There is a combination of elements here... and until we have more information, the debate will go on and on and on.

(of course, healthy debate is always a good thing)

-Kiks

[fpb]

My dear Kiks, how in the world could the book possibly propose the view that Muhammad really was the last prophet if it was not by and for Muslims? And how, conversely, can you expect anyone who is not a Muslim to accept that view? It would be as insane as to say "I believe that Jesus Christ was God Incarnate, died for our sins, and rose from the dead, but I am not a Christian." To anyone who is not a Muslim, Muhammad is an important historical figure, and that is how he is naturally treated.