I look forward to watch that film. It will perhaps be the best film of the year.

Sounds like a great movie, not.

It does that.

Yep sounds great, wonder how many people will die because of this film once the Muslims find out about it.

the reviews are horrible. just another homemade iranian bomb

I disagree. It seem to be receiving positive reviews.

I imagine it will be difficult to enjoy since they're going to have to blur him out for the duration of the film.

Muhammad will be physically depicted, however no facial depictions (other than his eyes and upper face).

Did fantastic four's failure deter them from depicting the prophet with a flaming head?

>>9
That was admittedly amusing.

>>8

however no facial depictions (other than his eyes and upper face).

So, no facial depictions other than half his face?

Yes.

The film - rather surprisingly - has a real director, of proven competence in other films; but the constraint of not being allowed to depict the central character, in a pictorial medium, is so utterly moronic I can't respect a director who agrees to abide by it.

I suppose there's one way it could be done - by having it all in first-person point of view, Lady of the Lake style.

Muhammad is depicted in the film and also has speaking roles. I suppose that filming a child from the behind with a Steadicam remind me of Kubrick, hence I trust the seemingly competent director of this film.

Let's be honest: competent director or not, do you honestly think that the decision not to ever show the lead character's face has an aesthetic motivation - that there's the slightest chance anyone making a film about any other historical figure, Chaplin or Tchaikovsky or Lady Godiva or Hitler, would possibly have subject themselves to?

Of course not. This decision will be an immense handicap to the quality of the film, and it's been forced on the director for utterly idiotic religious reasons - you know it, I know it, we both know that the other knows it.

There's the additional point: if the director is having to bow on this point, how can we trust him to be unconstrained on any other? I expect that we'll get the free-ranging artistic integrity you'd expect of a biopic of Kim Jong-un made in North Korea.

competent director or not, do you honestly think that the decision not to ever show the lead character's face has an aesthetic motivation

Yes. Iranians seemingly do not have problems with the depiction of Muhammad. The director seem to choose himself not to show the face of Muhammad, but there are several scenes where the eyes of Muhammad are depicted, so the director is obviously not restricted from depicting the facial features of Muhammad, hence it is likely part of his aesthetics and creative liberties.

There's the additional point: if the director is having to bow on this point, how can we trust him to be unconstrained on any other? I expect that we'll get the free-ranging artistic integrity you'd expect of a biopic of Kim Jong-un made in North Korea.

The film is an epic, not an absolute biopic. There will be romanticized and dramatized scenes in the film.

So let me get this straight. Suppose it weren't a tenet of Islam that "the prophet" not be depicted; suppose no Muslim cleric ever had a problem with this kind of thing, any more than Buddhist monks have a problem with depictions of Buddha. Would Majidi in that case have made exactly the same decision - make a film whose central character never shows his face?

You can't really think this. You know, however much you might pretend you don't know, that he is bowing to the pressure or religion, either external (fear of getting killed) or internal (he might be a true believer himself, in which case it's the fear of roasting in Hell).

And either way, I predict this will be a biopic - or romanticised epic, or whatever you want to call it - as stilted and forced as any such film made about Stalin or Kim Jong-un. It might still be worth watching, although the straightjacket from inside of which the director has made it - whether internally or externally imposed - is not a good sign.

There are things that are good signs, though, like the score being by A.R. Rahman. Then again, the previous Mohammad epic turkey had a score by Maurice Jarre.

This is a moot thing to argue. It's obvious the presentation is such because the film springs from inside the tradition in which that is the accepted tenet. Jesus is shown in such and such a light (ascetic, fair, beautiful, and not say, as ugly hunchback) because that is the customary understanding. In this case, not showing his face is part of the exact same, no reason to concern ourselves with anything more.

It might give way to a stilted, unlifelike feel, but that should be no more so than any number of unlifelike choices made in films of all kinds. A valid criticism to level at the film for us maybe, just as we would in any other, still moot where it concerns the intended audience.

You're associating this in your mind as just more evidence of a repressive religion, but there's no need. The religion is not repressive because of tenets like that after all, but because of the way people choose to interpret and enforce those tenets, in a repressive way. In other words, Sunni notions e.g. of denouncing the worship at the tombs of saints is meant to safeguard against materialist superstition; but bulldozing said tombs and stoning people for praying there is a ludicrous way to uphold the tenet.

This is a moot thing to argue. It's obvious the presentation is such because the film springs from inside the tradition in which that is the accepted tenet. Jesus is shown in such and such a light (ascetic, fair, beautiful, and not say, as ugly hunchback) because that is the customary understanding. In this case, not showing his face is part of the exact same, no reason to concern ourselves with anything more.

You made an excellent point. I fully agree.

Jesus is shown in such and such a light (ascetic, fair, beautiful, and not say, as ugly hunchback) because that is the customary understanding.

Yes; but that has an independent aesthetic justification. The causal arrow is entirely the other way here: it's the "customary understanding" that Jesus was fair to behold because narratives with attractive people work better than narratives with unattractive ones; whereas, when it was customary not to show his face, this was in spite of the demands of good storytelling, not because of them.

It might give way to a stilted, unlifelike feel, but that should be no more so than any number of unlifelike choices made in films of all kinds.

Rubbish. Just because two options are equally unlifelike doesn't mean they'll come across as equally stilted; and not all conventions that are equally stilted are equally justifiable.

Film is a medium in which the face of the protagonist is of especial importance in telling the story and helping us understand him or her (while, say, the bowel movements of the protagonist are not - so however unnatural it may be that characters on film never defecate, it's not an omission that matters).

The one counterexample that sort of comes off, Lady in the Lake, still feels like a stunt, but sort of works because the main character is not really a protagonist at all - he's an investigator of other peoples' stories. And even Lady in the Lake wouldn't have worked if the protagonist had been in frame, but carefully chosen camera angles had just so happened to obscure 80% of his face in every single shot time and time again. Show us his damned face, we'd be thinking in irritation.

A valid criticism to level at the film for us maybe, just as we would in any other, still moot where it concerns the intended audience.

Who is the intended audience? I was under the impression this film was going to be released internationally.

And even if the intended audience consists entirely of Iranians, Iranians are not a separate species. On Iranians no less than anyone else, a film about a central character works better when they can see that central character.

And if they have sticks up their bottoms that prevent them from looking at a picture of Mohammad without having a strop, it's high time they were made to get over it. (They probably need to see honest depictions of Mohammad more than we do.)

The religion is not repressive because of tenets like that after all, but because of the way people choose to interpret and enforce those tenets, in a repressive way.

This is pure baloney. For a start, the tenets of a religion just are what people who hold that religion hold those tenets to be. If all Hindis interpret their religion as saying that cows are sacred then it is a tenet of their religion that cows are sacred; just as if all French speakers think chien means dog, then that's what it means; or if everyone at a petrol station interprets the signs and machines as saying that petrol is $1.25 per litre, then petrol there is indeed $1.25 per litre.

And if you're making the not-ridiculous but largely irrelevant point that the words of the Koran and the popular interpretation of the Koran are two different things, you're right - but the former still influences, and places constraints on, the latter. It's no accident that people who take the Koran seriously just so happen to have repressive attitudes - just as it's no accident that ot's depictions of Mohammad that are taboo, as opposed to depictions of cows, or Ernest Borgnine.

Learn to free your mind from attachment to views you have no use for and only lead you to idle speculation. There's no need for paragraphs of verbiage on what is not a single bit more our concern than any other choice made in film, stilted or not.

The film is obviously made for an international audience of Muslims first, casual viewers who might want to see a movie on Muhammad's childhood second. It's customary (or nearly so) in the tradition from which it springs to present him in that light. Within this tradition the choice will seem proper, respectful and I assume attractive, as much so as showing Jesus as a blue-eyed Nordic.

Now in your Western-centric mental rut you might also think dissonant Buddhist music in a Buddhist film to be unattractive and would rather hear Bach, or something equally silly that implies universal standards of aesthetics, or even that all a film has to be is aesthetically pleasing, I assume based on rules you will lay down for cultures across the world. But none of that is anyone's business, starting with the maker and his audience.

About tenets of religion, you seem to have vague views about the subject. The religion was more or less formalized in a book and a collection of sayings. Different tenets of Islam derive different applications of it in life based on the different facets they uphold in different ways. What people choose as their constraints is up to them. In short Sufis, Rumi in Iran and Wahabi hooligans worship the same god, but the first two devote marvelous poetry in his name, the latter throw gay people from roofs.

In short Sufis, Rumi in Iran and Wahabi hooligans worship the same god...

Maybe this is a side note, but what makes that the case? Two people chatting at a party can discover that they both had the same high school history teacher - because in that case the teacher actually exists. But when two people are each worshipping someone imaginary, what makes it the case that they're worshipping the same imaginary person? (Does that even make sense?)

I suppose the relevance of your remark might be this: Sufis and Wahabis are so different from one another that it doesn't make sense to lump them together as "the same" religion. Sure, fine. Although this goes against the other thing you say: whatever is prompting you to say the worshop "the same god" must also be prompting you to think they have something important in common, after all. What is that "something important"? Islam.

About tenets of religion, you seem to have vague views about the subject. The religion was more or less formalized in a book and a collection of sayings. Different tenets of Islam derive different applications of it in life based on the different facets they uphold in different ways.

Well, yes, of course.

This means that there are two ways of determining what counts as a the "real" content of Islam. One is what the books actually say; the other is what the books are usually taken as saying by the people who take them seriously. These two things might pull in different directions - although in practice they tend to be highly correlated.

Now in your Western-centric mental rut you might also think dissonant Buddhist music in a Buddhist film to be unattractive and would rather hear Bach, or something equally silly that implies universal standards of aesthetics…

Music, I suppose, isn't that bad an analogy. It varies across cultures, but not indefinitely, and not arbitrarily. The standards of different music listeners tend to conform much more than they differ.

The difference with music is that maybe I simply don't understand what's going on with a "dissonant" Buddhist score - maybe it's not really dissonant; maybe I simply misunderstand it. Perfectly possible.

Is this at all possible in the case of hiding Mohammad? Not at all. We're talking about cinema, for one thing; it's not as though anyone has an ancient tradtion in film-making that's been unconnected from the West for centuries. And secondly, I know exactly what's going on with the hiding of Mohammad, and why. I know the reason is not aesthetic, but religious. One way I know this is that the country that produced this film has also produced other films, which I've seen: and sure enough, they never keep anyone's face hidden without a narrative reason, either. So clearly the Iranians are subscribing to the same basic storytelling values I do, and any member of Homo sapiens would.

The evidence is really clear-cut. If there were a good reason, a genuinely good reason, to hide Mohammad's face, we would expect to see this technique used more often in other kinds of films: biopics of Brian Wilson, Lawrence of Arabia, the Apu trilogy, The White Balloon. But we don't see this. It's only Mohammad (or, in our own less enlightened past, Jesus) whose face is always somehow out of shot, like Austin Powers's naughty bits. So there's a basic storytelling principle that is being sacrificed for religious principles.

It makes sense, yes, but you need to have made the leap from thinking of god as some imaginary person in the sky (Wahabis might, Sufis I'm not sure). But if you're saying the god Wahabis think are pleasing by stoning people can't be the same others devote lovely music, poetry and calligraphy to, that's also true. That speaks to what I've been saying. They do share in common to one extent or other, a body of tradition, ritual and notions. But the god (meant broadly) they push up from that common tradition isn't the same.

The real point of course was that a choice like a veiled protagonist may stem from either and no reason at all to insist which, that it's all fear of the ayatollahs and not at all devotion. I'm not saying it's either, that's simply not worth having an opinion about.

It _is_ a religious choice and not aesthetic in the sense you mean aesthetics. There doesn't have to be a genuinely good reason approved by us arbiters of storytelling principles. In fact, I would love nothing more than to see different cultures derive their own modes from deep within their cultural soul, instead of emulating the shorthands of the West. The Japanese have, deriving emptiness and asymmetry from Zen and Shinto, to astonishing results. Now you might see a Noh play and bemoan the stillness and no one talking, that's fine. It wasn't made to your specifications.

The choice of veil may seem tacky by comparison, but it also happens to be something deeply ingrained in them (and veiled seems to be pushing it for many). I don't praise it any more than I castigate it. I'm not going to see the film anyway.

It would likewise be worth pointing out that in the light of such traditions, Middle Eastern artforms and aesthetics have in response adapted and evolved through their own path. The choice of not depicting Muhammad's face is therefore likely driven by the aesthetic traditions of the Middle East - who's to say they are any more or less valid than the ones in the Western cultures?

Exactly! anon seems to be oblivious to the fact that this is an Iranian film and not a generic American one that he is used to see with its traits, tropes and cliches.

If you're going to dishonestly malign me, at least do so to my face.

It's true that of the thousands of films I've seen, some 52% have been American. On the other hand, this means that some 48% haven't been.

Anyway, are you suggesting that there is an Iranian film tradition of "keeping the protagonist's face hidden from the viewer"? Strange, then, that nobody has been able to name a single film which illustrates this tradition (apart from this one about Mohammad). You yourself described it as an unprecedented innovation - when you thought it served your purposes to do so.

You talk about the Iranians here as though they are a bunch of children in a special school - as though there is a big fence around the country with a sign at the gate saying, "Aesthetic standards no longer apply beyond this point."

You're wrong. Iranian directors are part of the same enterprise all other directors are part of; they can make great films like anyone else, but they, too, can make bone-headed decisions, just as American or French or Japanese or Indian directors can.

This will be my last word on the subject until I've seen the film. Let's make a pact, you and I. If Majidi's hide-the-Mohammad-visage technique turns out, improbably, to work in the the film's favour, I will dutifully report as much to this board. If, on the other hand, it turns out to work against the film, then you will dutifully report as much. How about it?

Heard about Salman Rushdie's sequels to "Satanic Verses"?

1) Buddha, you Fat Fucking Bastard,
2) Jesus was a Lousy Carpenter.

Only just noticed this point of yours. I'm bound to point out it's a poor one.

For a start, if Middle Eastern film aesthetics have adapted and evolved along their own path, it can only have been since 1910 or so. They didn't have a film tradition before then, and nor did anyone else.

What's more, 100 years of separation is the maximum possible amount of separation between film traditions - but no actual separation is that long. Film cultures the world over have cross-fertilised each other many times over in that time. Iran has not been making films in a vacuum, however quaintly pleasant it might be for armchair anthropologists to think that they have.

And in any case, there simply is no Middle-Eastern tradition of hiding the protagonist's face; you and other people are making this possibility up. Watch any film from Iran, or Egypt, or the one Saudi Arabian film that's been released in the West: we see the protagonist's face exactly as we would in a Western film. The aesthetic default for them in this respect is exactly the same as the aesthetic default for us. It's only religion that distorts it, and then only on the unusual occasion of the film being about Mohammad.

And suppose they did have such a tradition. Who's to say it's any more or less valid than ones in Western cultures, you ask? Me, for one - and anyone with a grain of sense, or the slightest bit of understanding how fiction works, or how films achieve their effect on the human nervous system. Not every tradition is "equally valid", and it's certainly true that not every possible tradition is equally valid. Some traditions are moronic - and this tradition, if it existed, which it doesn't, would be one of them.

Suppose it weren't a tenet of Islam that "the prophet" not be depicted; suppose no Muslim cleric ever had a problem with this kind of thing, any more than Buddhist monks have a problem with depictions of Buddha.

It is actually illegal to depict Buddha offensively in Burma. Recently, three people were sentenced to prison for depicting Buddha with a psychedelic art style.

Would Majidi in that case have made exactly the same decision - make a film whose central character never shows his face?

You seem to not realize that there are facial depictions of Muhammad in the film; his eyes and upper part of his nose are shown. There are no issues regarding the depiction of Muhammad in Iran or its denomination of the religion altogether. The least we can say is that Majidi chose to not fully depict him out of respect, but obviously was not limited to it. We will even hear the voice of Muhammad. It feels obviously more liberated than the film with Anthony Quinn, where there was a clear restriction.

The choice to not show the face of the protagonist is an artistic license for aesthetics of the director.

You know, however much you might pretend you don't know, that he is bowing to the pressure or religion, either external (fear of getting killed) or internal (he might be a true believer himself, in which case it's the fear of roasting in Hell).

What about educating yourself instead of accusing me of pretending to be ignorant? Firstly, Muhammad is already physically depicted in the film, which is enough for him to be given a death sentence in Saudi Arabia. Secondly, he is a Shi'ite Muslim from Iran; you should learn a little bit about the religion and the denominations within it and their contrary views. There are literally no religious prohibitions for him to depict his prophet nor are there in his particular denomination (it is mainly a prohibition of the Sunni sect).

And either way, I predict this will be a biopic - or romanticised epic, or whatever you want to call it - as stilted and forced as any such film made about Stalin or Kim Jong-un.

Your hope of the film seem to be predetermined that it will fail, perhaps due to bias and conjectured ignorance.

It might still be worth watching, although the straightjacket from inside of which the director has made it - whether internally or externally imposed - is not a good sign.

Well then, go and watch your favorite film, "Zero Dark Thirty."

On the contrary, I am optimistic of the film and sufficiently believes it will be a faithful adaptation of the childhood of Muhammad with perhaps some dramatized scenes (such as the fact in the film, Muhammad's mother is a monotheist unlike in real life where she was a pagan).

There are things that are good signs, though, like the score being by A.R. Rahman. Then again, the previous Mohammad epic turkey had a score by Maurice Jarre.

The two films are not comparable, though. There are essential differences such as who is the protagonist in the films (in the other film, Hamza was the protagonist. Here it is Muhammad himself) and that this will not be as much of a religious film as a romanticized historical depiction of the childhood of the prophet of Islam before he declared himself as a prophet.

And I predict a lot of backlash against it and cries of blasphemy from Wahabi loonies, for reasons you mentioned.

I predict that as well. Its worldwide release already seem to be limited to non-Islamic and liberal countries.

It is actually illegal to depict Buddha offensively in Burma. Recently, three people were sentenced to prison for depicting Buddha with a psychedelic art style.

That's ridiculous, too - but there's still a difference between not wanting the key protagonist in your story to be depicted offensively, and not wanting him to be depicted at all. Buddhists don't mind their hero being depicted, and they certainly don't reach the heights of absurdity of insisting he can't be shown, then proceeding to make a movie in which he is the lead character.

You seem to not realize that there are facial depictions of Muhammad in the film; his eyes and upper part of his nose are shown.

Oh, that makes it all right then.

Yes, I understand that there is some small concession to common sense here. But rather than use a complicated phrase every time I describe the situation, when I say "Mohammad's face is not shown" please interpret it in the spirit intended. Everything I might say about the absurdity of hiding all of his face also applies, if not quite so strongly, to the absurdity of hiding most of his face.

There are no issues regarding the depiction of Muhammad in Iran or its denomination of the religion altogether.

No issues? None whatever? Don't be silly. There are merely fewer issues. (I'm not sure if you know this, but blasphemy is illegal - actually illegal - in Iran.)

The least we can say is that Majidi chose to not fully depict him out of respect, but obviously was not limited to it.

"Out of respect"? That's some respect. I mean, I'm sure the director of recent film Love and Mercy wanted to be respectful to Brian Wilson, but I'll also bet that the idea of not showing his face was not something that even occurred to him.

Clearly there's something else going on here. Do you honestly think that the decision Majidi made was one that he could equally well have made if he were an atheist - or if nobody in the world cared one way or the other if Mohammad was depicted on screen or not, so there was absolutely no risk in showing Mohammad's face? I don't think you're that naïve. However much Majidi may dress this up and lie to himself and others with some fairytale about "respect", his decision was surely made out of fear; he could not possibly have felt completely free to do otherwise.

The choice to not show the face of the protagonist is an artistic license for aesthetics of the director.

Absolutely. He should be free to give anything a bash. And if someone wants to make a movie about a faceless Brian Wilson, they should be free to do that too. And then I'm free to say that it sounds like a dumb idea, and that the film will probably suffer from this idiotic self-indulgence. But I'm keeping an open mind; who knows, I may see the film and find I was wrong. (Are you able to say something similar about yourself?)

Well then, go and watch your favorite film, "Zero Dark Thirty.

" I can scarcely believe that you've resorted to the cheapest shot in the book - a variant of the "Why don't you go and watch Transformers" ploy. Evidently you must know you have a weak case.

Your hope of the film seem to be predetermined that it will fail, perhaps due to bias and conjectured ignorance.

Hang on - you haven't seen it either, and yet you're making predictions about how good you think it's likely to be. Why is it okay for you to do this, but not for me?

On the contrary, I am optimistic of the film and sufficiently believes it will be a faithful adaptation of the childhood of Muhammad…

That's hardly likely, since nobody has the faintest idea what the childhood of Mohammad was like. In saying this, though, I'm not criticising the film. Obviously, Majidi will have to fictionalise or resort to popular legends, and I'm perfectly okay with that.

What about educating yourself instead of accusing me of pretending to be ignorant? Firstly, Muhammad is already physically depicted in the film, which is enough for him to be given a death sentence in Saudi Arabia. Secondly, he is a Shi'ite Muslim from Iran; you should learn a little bit about the religion and the denominations within it and their contrary views. There are literally no religious prohibitions for him to depict his prophet nor are there in his particular denomination (it is mainly a prohibition of the Sunni sect).

I'm not claiming to know what in particular Majidi is frightened of - divine or terrestrial retribution, or both - I'm only saying I'll bet he's frightened of something.

I know he's walking a dicey line depicting Mohammad in any way at all - or even in not depicting him, merely referring to him. But it's a risk that can be minimised or maximised. Hiding Mohammad saves him from some of the criticism he would otherwise garner, from the international Islamic community who are among the film's intended audience. And maybe he feels that he's placating his god by his approach. But is it an honest decision, that could just as easily have been made if there was no religious pressure, from any quarter?

I've asked this question a few times now, and I'd like to see you stop dodging and answer it.

That's ridiculous, too - but there's still a difference between not wanting the key protagonist in your story to be depicted offensively, and not wanting him to be depicted at all.

Educate yourself. You seem to be completely oblivious to the fact that Muhammad is in fact depicted and if you research ancient Persian miniatures, you would realize Muhammad is often fully depicted with a fire circle around his head.

and they certainly don't reach the heights of absurdity of insisting he can't be shown, then proceeding to make a movie in which he is the lead character.

You are obviously ignorant of the denominations within Islam and, as the ignoramus you are, generalize it to be the average of the entire religion. You should research Shia Islam, Iran's national religion, and the smaller differences between Shia and Sunni Islam (or Islam altogether, there are no fundamental prohibition in Islam regarding depiction of their prophets. These differences stem from the denominations and local opinions).

Oh, that makes it all right then.

Yes. As you said about the Biblical films yourself: " but that has an independent aesthetic justification." By now, I am aware of the fact that I am talking to a biased, hypocritical person.

Yes, I understand that there is some small concession to common sense here. But rather than use a complicated phrase every time I describe the situation, when I say "Mohammad's face is not shown" please interpret it in the spirit intended. Everything I might say about the absurdity of hiding all of his face also applies, if not quite so strongly, to the absurdity of hiding most of his face.

You continue to move the goal posts. Firstly, you believe that physical depiction is the problem until you realize he is physically depiction and then move it to facial depiction, even though he is partially facially depicted and now you are complaining not his entire face is depicted. You should stop backpedaling and take a stance.

No issues? None whatever? Don't be silly. There are merely fewer issues. (I'm not sure if you know this, but blasphemy is illegal - actually illegal - in Iran.)

"There are no issues regarding the depiction of Muhammad in Iran or its denomination of the religion altogether." If you disagree, educate yourself. Also, there are no blasphemy in the film either because the creator made it faithfully and out of respect.

"Out of respect"? That's some respect. I mean, I'm sure the director of recent film Love and Mercy wanted to be respectful to Brian Wilson, but I'll also bet that the idea of not showing his face was not something that even occurred to him.

You are getting beyond stupid listening to. The respect here was not to depict Muhammad to not be insensitive toward Sunni Muslims regarding their prophet.

Clearly there's something else going on here. Do you honestly think that the decision Majidi made was one that he could equally well have made if he were an atheist - or if nobody in the world cared one way or the other if Mohammad was depicted on screen or not, so there was absolutely no risk in showing Mohammad's face?

Why do I have to repeat myself? I continuously countered that flawed argument in the earlier posts of mine.

However much Majidi may dress this up and lie to himself and others with some fairytale about "respect", his decision was surely made out of fear; he could not possibly have felt completely free to do otherwise.

If you want to present yourself like a stupid idiot without respect of knowledge, then fine by me. I do not want to argue with a bigot, though. I would have said that you are a troll, but there is a growing mainstream ignorance around the religion, so I think your stupidity and bigotry is genuine.

And then I'm free to say that it sounds like a dumb idea, and that the film will probably suffer from this idiotic self-indulgence.

Did I ever say that you were not inclined to your opinion? I argue with you on a discussion board against your arguments.

I can scarcely believe that you've resorted to the cheapest shot in the book - a variant of the "Why don't you go and watch Transformers" ploy. Evidently you must know you have a weak case.

It was an ironic non sequitur. However, I can factually say that you have no case. Its basis is ignorance about Islam.

Hang on - you haven't seen it either, and yet you're making predictions about how good you think it's likely to be. Why is it okay for you to do this, but not for me?

If you read a bit further, you will have realized I said that I was optimistic about it. I believe it is always important to be optimistic about upcoming films. However, that is another debate.

Also, I never said you can not be pessimistic about it, you obviously are right to have that opinion, but that does not make your arguments right. I can still point them out for how stupid that they are.

That's hardly likely, since nobody has the faintest idea what the childhood of Mohammad was like.

His entire life was documented in Hadeeth, which are considered legitimate by the majority of historians of this field.

I'm not claiming to know what in particular Majidi is frightened of

Why do you have to believe that he is frightened of anything in the first place?

But is it an honest decision, that could just as easily have been made if there was no religious pressure, from any quarter?

I've asked this question a few times now, and I'd like to see you stop dodging and answer it.

I have addressed this question yet again in my earlier posts. Here it is answered:

Muhammad is depicted in the film and also has speaking roles.You seem to not realize that there are facial depictions of Muhammad in the film; What about educating yourself instead of accusing me of pretending to be ignorant? Firstly, Muhammad is already physically depicted in the film, which is enough for him to be given a death sentence in Saudi Arabia. Secondly, he is a Shi'ite Muslim from Iran; you should learn a little bit about the religion and the denominations within it and their contrary views. There are literally no religious prohibitions for him to depict his prophet nor are there in his particular denomination (it is mainly a prohibition of the Sunni sect).

Educate yourself.

Now there's a phrase you'll never see used by an educated person.

You seem to be completely oblivious to the fact that Muhammad is in fact depicted and if you research ancient Persian miniatures, you would realize Muhammad is often fully depicted with a fire circle around his head.

I'm aware of this, just as I'm aware of an (old) split within Christianity, between those who think that it is acceptible to depict Jesus and those who think it's unacceptable.

Some Muslims do, and long have, thought that depicting Muhammad is acceptible. By contrast, some think it isn't. The latter fact is all that's relevant here.

You should research Shia Islam, Iran's national religion…

Blah, blah, not all Muslims think X…

I've already acknowledged this. The doctrinal differences don't matter here: the point is that many Muslims do have an irrational objection to depicting Mohammad; the fact that some others don't is of course good news, but not to the point here.

Yes. As you said about the Biblical films yourself: " but that has an independent aesthetic justification."

I never said that. You must be confusing me with that imaginary straw man living in your brain.

Firstly, you believe that physical depiction is the problem until you realize he is physically depiction and then move it to facial depiction, even though he is partially facially depicted and now you are complaining not his entire face is depicted. You should stop backpedaling and take a stance.

I read your post and the linked articles before responding, and was aware that his face was merely mostly, effectively obscured - not completely absent. But having a film in which the lead character's face is 80% hidden (without narrative reason - like, say, he's the Elephant Man) is almost as ridiculous as one in which it is completely hidden. Around 80% as ridiculous, in fact. You would admit this if you weren't too truculent for common sense, and so intent on scoring cheap debating points.

Me:Do you honestly think that the decision Majidi made was one that he could equally well have made if he were an atheist - or if nobody in the world cared one way or the other if Mohammad was depicted on screen or not, so there was absolutely no risk in showing Mohammad's face?
You: Why do I have to repeat myself? I continuously countered that flawed argument in the earlier posts of mine.

You needn't repeat yourself. Just answer the question, once. I don’t know what "flawed argument" you think you've countered, but in the above paragraph, I'm asking a question, to which acceptible answers include "yes" and "no".

His entire life was documented in Hadeeth, which are considered legitimate by the majority of historians of this field.

You blew any credibility you may have had with that howler. The hadith are essentially urban legends, transmitted orally for a century - a century! - or so after Mohammad's death, and continually manufactured long after that. If some are authentic, there's no way of telling them apart from those that aren't; and since "authentic" essentially means "based on actual things Mohammad said late in his life", even the authentic ones, if indeed there are any, are unreliable as guides to his own childhood. (Would you trust a cult leader or politician making claims about events from his childhood in an era when nobody could check on their accuracy?)

What "historian", who wasn't an utter fool, would possibly trust an uncorroborated urban legend unrecorded until one or more hundred years after the events it claims to describe?

Mohammad's childhood is lost to history, as I said, so I don't mind Majidi using the legends or making up his own.

Me: But is [the decision not to show Mohammad's face] an honest decision, that could just as easily have been made if there was no religious pressure, from any quarter?
You:I have addressed this question yet again in my earlier posts. Here it is answered:

…and thence follows a block quote that clearly fails to answer the question. Here's a hint: your answer, whatever other words it contains, must also contain a "yes" or a "no".

I believe the correct answer is "no". Here's why: this kind of coy avoidance of depicting the central character is simply not done in any movies - including Iranian movies - unless the central character is one who would activate religious taboos. I can think of no such secular coyness (even in Lady in the Lake, we see the main character's face at one point, in a mirror), in any film anywhere; but I know of several instances of religious coyness. Therefore I conclude, quite reasonably, that without religious pressure, Majidi would not make this particular decision in this particular film. Now tell me why I'm wrong. NB: I'm asking you to tell me why I'm wrong - try it; you might find the novelty refreshing - not merely to tell me that I'm wrong.

Why do you have to believe that he is frightened of anything in the first place?

Two simple reasons. One: the more he depicts Mohammad, and the more honestly he does so, the more he is at risk of being killed by some lunatic, or punished (remember, where he lives, blasphemy is a serious crime), or forced to live in hiding. Two: he may himself be religious, in which case he risks (by his own beliefs) being punished in the afterlife if he strays into blasphemy. The first reason would make anyone nervous; the second does in fact make many people nervous.

Now there's a phrase you'll never see used by an educated person.

Actually, it is a phrase constantly used by intellectuals to encourage members of the hoi polloi (such as yourself) to attend education schools.

Some Muslims do, and long have, thought that depicting Muhammad is acceptible. By contrast, some think it isn't. The latter fact is all that's relevant here.

No. It is not. We are not discussing general Islam and its stance on the depiction of Muhammad, which is of pure irrelevance here since those that are against it are those of the Sunni sect, while this film is produced in Iran to a Shi'ite audience. We are discussing the Iranian (a nation whose religious stance fall to the former fact of your point) film about the childhood of Muhammad. What you want to discuss belong to an entire different (religious) debate and as of now, this fall as an off-topic argument of yours.

The doctrinal differences don't matter here: the point is that many Muslims do have an irrational objection to depicting Mohammad; the fact that some others don't is of course good news, but not to the point here.

This will simply be a repetition of my former point. It is of pure irrelevance to our discussion, we are discussing the Iranian (Shi'ite nation) film about Muhammad. It has different views on the matter in comparison to the Sunni Muslims. If you want to discuss this matter, then it should not be here since this is about the film. You want to discuss a religious topic to a Sunni and not with me about the film. Why is that so hard for you to understand?

I never said that. You must be confusing me with that imaginary straw man living in your brain.

Can you not even recognize your own comments?

chaos-rampant: Jesus is shown in such and such a light (ascetic, fair, beautiful, and not say, as ugly hunchback) because that is the customary understanding.

You: Yes; but that has an independent aesthetic justification.
I read your post and the linked articles before responding,

What are you talking about? Seemingly, you did not read my posts since I never linked to any articles for you to respond to.

But having a film in which the lead character's face is 80% hidden (without narrative reason - like, say, he's the Elephant Man) is almost as ridiculous as one in which it is completely hidden. Around 80% as ridiculous, in fact.

I skimmed through your ratings, and it is evident that you favor generic-directed films with no aesthetic appeal or sense of cinematography at all. Obviously, you would consider it ridiculous due to your incapability to appreciate the artistic decisions of such directing. I do not care what you think, what matters is your fallacies and arguments.

You needn't repeat yourself. Just answer the question, once. I don’t know what "flawed argument" you think you've countered, but in the above paragraph, I'm asking a question, to which acceptible answers include "yes" and "no".

Simply because you can not apprehend the answer does it not make it any less of an answer. If you are too facile to understand something so fairly obvious, then I will, simply for your sake, make it more clear for you that it is a "yes."

You blew any credibility you may have had with that howler. The hadith are essentially urban legends, transmitted orally for a century - a century! - or so after Mohammad's death, and continually manufactured long after that. If some are authentic, there's no way of telling them apart from those that aren't; and since "authentic" essentially means "based on actual things Mohammad said late in his life", even the authentic ones, if indeed there are any, are unreliable as guides to his own childhood.

I am returning the sentiment without all the words! This comment of yours further proves your ignorance regarding the history of Muhammad and Islam. While it is true that there are illegitimate documents, there are also fairly many historically legitimate ones that we can differentiate.

There are Hadith reported by close relatives and companions of Muhammad through an authentic and little chain of narration. In fact, to dismiss those Hadith are similar to dismiss biographies of Hitler by Albert Speer or Martin Bormann as "historically untrustworthy."

These documents were then collected a century after by a historian of the time, but still existed prior to that in some written form. Also, a century might sound much, but it is not more than three generations. In fact, those that were last in the chain of transmission of such narrations had the best preserved documents that are accepted by the historians as valid and legitimate.

Also, does it matter whether he said it late in life? He died as 62 and there does not seem to be reports of a faded memory if that is what you are implying.

Also, Muhammad was not exactly a politician, several of his stories were told personally and not as parables for campaigns (even though those exist as well; currently preserved in what is known as the Quran) such as those of Trump in his recent appearance. Hence it would be an ignorant assessment to call them "urban legends."

What "historian", who wasn't an utter fool, would possibly trust an uncorroborated urban legend unrecorded until one or more hundred years after the events it claims to describe?

As I said, "which are considered legitimate by the majority of historians of this field." You must consider yourself more knowledgeable than them, even though in several instances we found you to be an ignoramus.

this kind of coy avoidance of depicting the central character is simply not done in any movies

"This kind of appealing aesthetic of depicting the central character from behind is simply not performed in any of the generic films of the hoi polloi that I watch."

You need to remember that this is an Iranian film for their nation's intended audience and their own aesthetic cinematography that is used, that differs from the generic American films that you like to watch.

Lo, "The Shining's" arguably most memorable scene is a little boy filmed from behind (with little glimpses of his face) with a Steadicam; the exact same way that this film will be directed.

Regardless of whether you know it or not, full frontal point of views are the most facile point of views of films. Cinematography is to have the audience engage in the event, which are usually performed through filming a character from behind performing his actions.

Otherwise, (assuming the particular said scene is a fighting sequence) it will be a tedious film of someone fighting people as if one were watching a boxing show without suspense.

Two simple reasons. One: the more he depicts Mohammad, and the more honestly he does so, the more he is at risk of being killed by some lunatic, or punished (remember, where he lives, blasphemy is a serious crime), or forced to live in hiding. Two: he may himself be religious, in which case he risks (by his own beliefs) being punished in the afterlife if he strays into blasphemy. The first reason would make anyone nervous; the second does in fact make many people nervous.

1. He lives (quite safely) in Iran and would be protected by the government, if ever one dares to invade their country to commit such a terror act. I assume he lives as a normal celebrity, with bodyguards if ever needed. A.R. Rahman has a bigger chance of risk to be killed than Majidi, if anything. 2. Ignorant conjecture. He is, for the last time, a Shi'ite whom are not against depictions of their prophets, hence it is not "by his own beliefs" as you ignorantly assess in parentheses. So, you tell me, how is it blasphemy for him to have made this film as honest as he would as the faithful believer that he is? I seem to have an assumption, but that would leave you as an utter fool and I like to believe that you are more educated than that.

If my assumption is true, then I am baffled by your bigoted ignorance that, in your perspective, a "honest" depiction is one of blasphemy (in reality, simply an ignorant, bigoted, propagandist depiction), which is quite obviously what you are implicating like an ignoramus. You are obviously too biased to bother with (if that is the case).

Iran did had massive anti depiction of Mohammed in Charlie Hebdo manifestation, their is still over 6 million Sunni living in Iran no ?

It could be true that never making a full depiction of someone face in a movie could be seen as a nice cinematographic challenge (like making one long shot in Birdman was) thought, and not made out of fear. But fear of having some trouble for your lead actor and you could obviously also have a role.

Why do you think southpark did not show Mohammed in their episode 200-201, it was not out of respect (even thought their depiction of him was very respectful and took great care of saying nothing insulting about him), it was in respond of multiple death threats.

I have little to disagree with your post. However, six million compared to 73 million Shitite Muslims is not a very valid point, especially since the former are heavily suppressed in their social world.

Why do you think southpark did not show Mohammed in their episode 200-201, it was not out of respect (even thought their depiction of him was very respectful and took great care of saying nothing insulting about him), it was in respond of multiple death threat.

He was actually depicted, but the network censored it.

but the network censored it.

Yes that was my statement (that they did censor it)

I see. I misread your comment.

Okay - you have finally said that you think that Mohammad would be portrayed in much the same way, even if there were no religious pressure to contend with.

But then you have to deal with the fact that no secular figure is ever portrayed that way - ever, in any movie made in any culture (including in Iran). Surely this counts as evidence against your counterfactual claim? It's like saying "Fred would have received the endorsement contract even if he'd been black" - in a world in which no black people have ever received an endorsement contract.

The best near-counterexample you can come up with is an over-the-shoulder sequence in The Shining, but that's obviously not what I mean. What would count as a relevant example would be a film in which the main character's face is never presented to the audience (not just absent some of the time), when there is no narrative reason for it to be hidden (so The Elephant Man doesn't count).

Claiming that something would have happened anyway without religious pressure, when in fact it never does happen without religious pressure, is not rational. And that's really all that needs to be said here.

But moving on to another issue of your poor processing of evidence, which came up more or less by accident:

As I said, "which are considered legitimate by the majority of historians of this field." You must consider yourself more knowledgeable than them, even though in several instances we found you to be an ignoramus.

I have no idea whether your claim here is in any sense correct, partly because I don't know what you mean by "in this field".

The majority of historians in secular fields would not consider a source reliable that first appeared in the historical record a century and a half after the events it described, after being orally transmitted. If the majority of historians in this field are willing to lower their standards so drastically, then it can only be because the majority of historians in this field are religious apologists.

To use your Speer example: if Speer's claims about Hitler had been based entirely not on his own eyewitness, but about what Hitler claimed about himself, and our only record of what Speer said had been Speer's granddaughter's report of what Speer's daughter had said that Speer said, which first emerged on the public record in the year 2050, then nobody would take Speer's granddaughter very seriously as a source. That's because the chain of transmission is this:

* Event happens
1. Hitler remembers it 20 or more years later
2. Hitler recounts it, with no supporting evidence
3. Speer remembers Hitler recounting it a couple or decades more after that
4. Speer relates his memory to his daughter
5. Speer's daughter remembers Speer recounting it, a couple of decades later again
6. Speer's daughter relates it to her daughter
7. Speer's granddaughter remembers this another couple of decades later as she tells someone who is collecting anecdotes about Hitler
8. Speer's granddaughter relates the story to him

There are eight potentially unreliable links in this chain. Some are more unreliable than others - in this case, the first two are the least reliable - but the chance any anecdote is transmitted with even recognisable accuracy across all eight links is certainly less than half.

Now let's look at it from the other end of the telescope: it's 2050, and there are thousands of Hitler anecdotes circulating, and we know that many of them have simply been made up in the years since he died - a problem we have in addition to the fact that those which haven't been made up may have been misremembered, mistransmitted, or initially made up by Hitler himself - either in deliberate deception or innocent, unintented confabulation of his own memory.

This would be exactly like reading through all the claims on Snopes, without having any of the supporting information Snope lists to check any of them, and trying to work out purely by purported chains of transmission which stories are accurate and which aren't. Could you do it? I doubt it. Islamic historians from the seventh century on have claimed to be able to do it, but why should we take these claims seriously?

The case of Mohammad is much worse than that of Hitler in ways I haven't mentioned - for instance, while Hitler can now already be coolly discussed by dispassionate historians, Mohammad-studies was a political minefield in the seventh century, and has been so ever since. The first historian to have made an effort to sort wheat from the chaff was rewarded for his efforts by assassination, something that I'm sure spurred all his successors on to being more honest and fearless in their own writing. (PS: That was sarcasm.)

And as it happens, historians are sceptical about Speer's claims when they're not corroborated (which is not to say they assume he's lying all the time; they're merely properly sceptical), and even though Speer knew Hitler more intimately than anyone, nobody would dream of offering Speer's unsupported word as strong evidence of anything that happened in Hitler's childhood (when Speer didn't know Hitler).

When it comes to Mohammad, are the majority of historians "in this field" too clueless, or too gullible, to have proper standards of scepticism? Maybe. If you say so (although, what's your source for that claim?). But what I said is still true: we have no reliable way of knowing anything about Mohammad's childhood.

***

A few general points I wearily feel I have to make here - mainly to dismiss your false claims about me. Although you've said I've shown myself to be an ignoramus, you haven't been able to come up with anything I've actually said that's false. I am not a bigot - you're basing that claim on nothing at all. The quotation of mine you selected out of context in another thread is not making the point you're pretending its making - you quoted me as saying that hiding Jesus's face has aesthetic justification, and I'm not saying that. And you're constantly writing as though this film is made solely for and will only ever be seen by Shitites in Iran, who will also be the only Muslims in the world who are even aware that the film was made. (I presume that's the point you're making in telling me again and again that Iran is a Shitite-majority country.)

But then you have to deal with the fact that no secular figure is ever portrayed that way - ever, in any movie made in any culture (including in Iran). Surely this counts as evidence against your counterfactual claim?

No. It is simply the innovation of the director. We have never seen a film similar to this one that he will direct, not even the 1977 version is comparable. Your argument is still weak.

What would count as a relevant example would be a film in which the main character's face is never presented to the audience (not just absent some of the time), when there is no narrative reason for it to be hidden (so The Elephant Man doesn't count).

"The Women" (1939) is a valid example of male characters (whether or not that they are crucial to the plot) are never seen without a narrative reason other than its aesthetic effect.

This film simply extend to, which is undeniably something creative and original, the protagonist. You only seem to be afraid of the unknown, hence your pessimism. I do not blame you, your entire ratings consist of generic films that are fed to you by your local theater.

Claiming that something would have happened anyway without religious pressure, when in fact it never does happen without religious pressure, is not rational.

You should not use the word "never" since you have only watched mainstream films and know not of the variety of cinema. I would recommend you to seek such films if you want to find them.

The majority of historians in secular fields would not consider a source reliable that first appeared in the historical record a century and a half after the events it described, after being orally transmitted.

Yet again, you ignore the facts. Marshall Hodgson being a perfect example as to why your argument is debunked. Harald Motzki, Wilfred Madelung, Montgomery Watt are a few prime examples of the majority of people accepting the authentic records of Muhammad. The examples that you provide are from a skeptic minority full of contradictory views with arguments easily debunked by the other secular historians that seem to agree that there are sufficient proof of the validity of Hadeeth as historical documentation.

If the majority of historians in this field are willing to lower their standards so drastically, then it can only be because the majority of historians in this field are religious apologists.

To use your Speer example:

It is not an example, but an apologist rhetoric that has been dismissed and debated throughout time (with little people on your side to provide arguments of any substance).

And as it happens, historians are sceptical about Speer's claims when they're not corroborated (which is not to say they assume he's lying all the time; they're merely properly sceptical), and even though Speer knew Hitler more intimately than anyone, nobody would dream of offering Speer's unsupported word as strong evidence of anything that happened in Hitler's childhood (when Speer didn't know Hitler).

This is a misconstruction of what I said. A definitive straw man argument.

At this point, your entire comment revolve around this (yet again, of pure irrelevance since we are talking about the film and not the religion itself), I will not bite the bait on this though, since I maintain faithful to my stance that we are to debate what is of relevance: the film. However, you are welcome to read a book or two on the subject by credible, secular historians revolving this controversial topic, such as those by Wilfred Madelung or Marshall Hodgson. However, there has been a recent trend to make the Hadeeth seem tantamount to the gospels, which simply is not true and a matter of how much of an ignoramus the claimant is.

When it comes to Mohammad, are the majority of historians "in this field" too clueless, or too gullible, to have proper standards of scepticism? Maybe

I see. You are a narrow-minded, biased bigot. The case is closed.

But what I said is still true:

What you have is a polemical opinion that has been challenged throughout time by credible historians "in the field" of Islamic history, that is. I would like to discuss this (actually, I hate debates that are not film-related, I would rather advise to argue with someone else), however it is blatantly another debate that is of pure irrelevance here, whether you like to acknowledge it or not.

A few general points I wearily feel I have to make here - mainly to dismiss your false claims about me. Although you've said I've shown myself to be an ignoramus, you haven't been able to come up with anything I've actually said that's false.

I have. Your self-esteem probably chose to ignore it to save your face.

I am not a bigot

The overwhelming evidence shows a different perspective on this, however - that is a fact.

The quotation of mine you selected out of context in another thread is not making the point you're pretending its making - you quoted me as saying that hiding Jesus's face has aesthetic justification, and I'm not saying that.

Well then, you should elaborate on that then because anyone who read that comment, it would be blatant that you are making the exact argument that I said that you made.

And you're constantly writing as though this film is made solely for and will only ever be seen by Shitites in Iran, who will also be the only Muslims in the world who are even aware that the film was made. (I presume that's the point you're making in telling me again and again that Iran is a Shitite-majority country.)

What a wild guess of yours. I kept telling you Iran is a Shi'ite-majority nation because of your backpedaling stances regarding the depiction of Muhammad (it is quite obvious in context, yet you chose to take it out of context). Also, considering how this film is already banned from several Middle Eastern countries, it would predominantly be the case, however by no means did I say it will only be an intended audience for them alone.

We have never seen a film similar to this one that he will direct, not even the 1977 version is comparable.

It's highly comparable. We have two films in all of history with a lead, title-character protagonist who has his face hidden (yes, yes; to different degrees) for the entire running time, for no narrative reason - and in both cases, the character is Mohammad.

But on your view, this is pure coincidence, and has nothing at all to do with religious pressure.

I simply can't take that seriously. But if you're determined to dig your heels in and stubbonly make such a ridiculous assertion, I suppose we can go no further.

"The Women" (1939) is a valid example of male characters (whether or not that they are crucial to the plot) are never seen without a narrative reason other than its aesthetic effect.

The "whether or not they are crucial to the plot" clause gives away your dishonesty here. If we allowed that as an out, then there are of course thousands of examples, in everything from The Empire Strikes Back to Tom and Jerry cartoons.

You should not use the word "never" since you have only watched mainstream films and know not of the variety of cinema. I would recommend you to seek such films if you want to find them.

I know you will happily make false claims about everything under the sun, but please refrain from making them about me. It's simply not true that I "have only watched mainstream films".

Of course, you're right that I might simply have missed a counterexample to my "never" claim, in which case you're free to tell me what it is.

Marshall Hodgson being a perfect example as to why your argument is debunked. Harald Motzki, Wilfred Madelung, Montgomery Watt are a few prime examples of the majority of people accepting the authentic records of Muhammad.

Okay, if you say so. But they're wrong to do this, for the reasons that I give. In fields of history where there is not such a strong political reason to be gullible, historians aren't so gullible.

…If, indeed, these historians are indeed saying what you think they're saying (as your cluelessness in understanding the relevance of the Speer example makes me doubt). It simply doesn't make sense to ask "Are the hadith reliable evidence?" in the abstract. They can only ever be taken as reliable or unreliable evidence of something. I'm saying that they're unreliable evidence of what happened in Mohammad's childhood and adolescence, when not confirmed by independent sources, which on this topic, so far as I know, they're not. Are you saying there is independent confirmation?

The examples that you provide are from a skeptic minority full of contradictory views…

What examples? Examples of what? What the hell are you talking about here?

...however it is blatantly another debate that is of pure irrelevance here, whether you like to acknowledge it or not.

I agree that the debate over the reliability of the hadith is irrelevant to this thread, since I said I don't care if the director is forced to rely on legends, fleshed out with imagination, to support Mohammad's childhood. I merely don't like falsehood being asserted as fact.

I kept telling you Iran is a Shi'ite-majority nation because of your backpedaling stances regarding the depiction of Muhammad…

I wasn't backpedalling; I was clairfying, which I know must be a horror to someone who hates clarity as much as you do.

But here's something else you might ask yourself: how many films made in America, or Europe, or Japan, or India, are willing to depict Mohammad - at all, let alone disrespectfully? Do you think this has anything to do with a desire to avoid giving offense to Muslims? (You could dig your heels in and say "no", of course; but as with your analogous pig-headed assertion about this film, no one will believe you.) Yet in these places, Muslims as a whole - let alone any particular sect of them - are a minority. Of course film-makers worry about a minority - not just a majority - taking offense, particularly when some members of that minority might actually have you killed.

And as you point out, even with its tiptoeing around depicting of Mohammad, the film has been banned in some Muslim countries - showing there was a serious risk of having even more Muslims chuck a strop, a risk the director would have to have been aware of as you are.

I see. You are a narrow-minded, biased bigot. The case is closed.

Saying it twenty times doesn't make it any truer. You are basing your claim of my "bigotry" on my suspicion of the reliability of fourth-hand testimony - and I'm calling people "gullible" if they are not suspicious. How is this bigotry? If you hear someone say: "Of course, it would be gullible of me to believe there are thylacines in these woods when I only have fourth-hand testimony and no other evidence" is your immediate reaction: "Wow, what a bigot!"

Of course not. You're simply smearing with the same utter lack of honesty you displayed when you blatantly quoted me out of context.

Yes lets go see movie that will piss off a religion. A religion that has normal people in it but also has the decapitating fetish. We already have people throwing up acid and shooting people in theaters.

It's highly comparable.

I already dismissed your claim. You can go back to that argument and counter it, or else this is rendered into a pointless discussion.

I simply can't take that seriously.

You do not have to. You simply have to suffice your arguments.

The "whether or not they are crucial to the plot" clause gives away your dishonesty here.

That was in parentheses, to signify its more or less immaterial value. Whether or not you knew it, this is also an example of your dishonesty to revolve the entire argument on that point. It has to be taken in context with the rest of the comment.

Tom and Jerry cartoons.

Now that you mention it, what is the narrative reason for such decision in the cartoons?

I know you will happily make false claims about everything under the sun, but please refrain from making them about me.

It is not a false claim. It is a fact. A simple analysis of your ratings shall suffice this fact.

But they're wrong to do this, for the reasons that I give.

The only thing that is wrong here is your apologist polemics and opinions that you consider to be of any value in the academy, it would do you justice to inform yourself through the words of experts instead of ridiculing your mind into living a biased, restrictive propaganda that you have constructed for yourself. Either way, we are dwelling into another topic here.

(as your cluelessness in understanding the relevance of the Speer example makes me doubt)

It was not clueless as your self-esteem seem to have decided to be the case, it is the decision to not learn from narrow-minded minds of the hoi polloi full of propagandist mindsets (such as that of your own).

I'm saying that they're unreliable evidence of what happened in Mohammad's childhood and adolescence,

Which is conjecture, and the evidence you made up is consistent of polemics that have been dismissed throughout time by the educated scholars and academics.

What examples?

Examples of what? Your view are far from innovative and were assessed (and dismissed) earlier by such scholars. The "examples" referred to them, in this case.

What examples? Examples of what? What the hell are you talking about here?

According to sources about this film, the film is reliant on historical documents. You, in a minority, consider them to be questionable altogether (which is a fallacy, what you should is question those with a limited chain of transmission), this can be countered if you dwell into another debate with someone else more willing to debate this with you; perhaps there are good debating websites out there or places where you can tell your doubts to experts found in websites such as Quora (the best recommendation). End of argument.

I wasn't backpedalling; I was clairfying, which I know must be a horror to someone who hates clarity as much as you do.

Your self-esteem still try to save your face by ignoring the facts. If you read back, it is clear that I am not wrong here at all.

But here's something else you might ask yourself: how many films made in America, or Europe, or Japan, or India, are willing to depicty Mohammad - at all, let alone disrespectfully?

You seem not know the comics in France that dedicate to this alone, or perhaps the "South Park's" creators who drew Muhammad in two ways; a respectful and a somewhat provocative method. The fact is the one that they drew him respectfully drew no controversies at all (as you seem to believe otherwise, in general).

Of course film-makers worry about a minority - not just a majority - taking offense, particularly when some members of that minority might actually have you killed.

You made no sense here whatsoever.

And as you point out, even with its tiptoeing around depicting of Mohammad, the film has been banned in some Muslim countries - showing there was a serious risk of having even more Muslims chuck a strop, a risk the director would have to have been aware of as you are.

Such an assumption is what makes you a bigot. It was clearly banned due to the contrary views of Wahhabis that considered them to be blasphemy, yet you have to believe that they are terrorists willing to combat at any minute. It is justifiable to call you an ignoramus with this idiotic mindset of yours.

Saying it twenty times doesn't make it any truer.

No. It only requires to say it once with substantial reasons, which I obviously have regardless of what your self-esteem says. The rest are further propaganda that you make about yourself to show yourself in a better image, a false one, that is.

I fixed this for both of you.

You made no sense here whatsoever.

Of course film-makers worry about religion - not just Christianity - taking offense, particularly when some members of one minority like Islam might actually have you killed.

As I said, if you're prepared to simply dig your heels in and insist, in defiance of all reason and evidence, that religion has nothing to do with the decision to keep Mohammad's face obscured, there's no more progress to be made in dialogue on that front.

I'd like to close by clarifying one small point about the reliability of the hadith, in the hopes that something, one small thing at least, might make it through your firewall of self-righteous bluster.

I said that the hadith are unreliable as evidence Mohammad's childhood, and you replied that this was conjecture. On the contrary, it's description. When I say that my horoscope is an unreliable guide to my future I don't mean that any particular sentence in it is false. I merely mean that the horoscope gives me no reason to believe that it's true.

Similarly with the legends of Mohammad's younger years. Who knows, any one of them might be correct; probabilistically, some of the more mundane claims are bound to be. It's just that - as I said originally - we have no way of knowing. This is not "conjecture". Conjecture is what people do when they say: "I reckon that this thing probably happened." I'm making no claims at all about what happened or did not happen in Mohammad's early years; I'm merely commenting on the poor state of the evidence available to us.

As I said, if you're prepared to simply dig your heels in and insist, in defiance of all reason and evidence, that religion has nothing to do with the decision to keep Mohammad's face obscured, there's no more progress to be made in dialogue on that front.

The sentiment is returned to you as well. If you do not bother being rational and continue with your narrow-minded, ignorant bias, then we should probably stop discussing altogether.

I'd like to close by clarifying one small point about the reliability of the hadith, in the hopes that something, one small thing at least, might make it through your firewall of self-righteous bluster.

These comments of yours scream of hypocrisy and irony; an absolute desperate attempt projected from your self-esteem to save your face instead of admitting that you are, pure & simple, wrong.

I said that the hadith are unreliable as evidence Mohammad's childhood, and you replied that this was conjecture. On the contrary, it's description.

No. It is, by definition, conjecture: an opinion or conclusion formed on the basis of incomplete or no information. Description: I do not even bother, since no words of this kind favor your argument here. You can deny this all you want, but it does not change the fact that you are wrong and even more of a pompous ignoramus not admitting it; you are really not doing any advantages for yourself to lie to yourself here (unless you genuinely is this much of a fool).

When I say that my horoscope is an unreliable guide to my future I don't mean that any particular sentence in it is false. I merely mean that the horoscope gives me no reason to believe that it's true.

Your parable is much incomparable to the source material (of what we are discussing) that one should consider it almost a fallacy, if I should be honest with you here.

It's just that - as I said originally - we have no way of knowing.

Open your eyes, read a book, and then you will know. Your ignorance now is so frustratingly evolving into stupidity and furthermore suffices my argument that you are so pompous that you do not even bother admitting that you fail in knowledge compared to the experts in this field, that obviously have dismissed your fallacies and countered them with arguments that you do not bother to notice due to your low self-esteem.

I'm making no claims at all about what happened or did not happen in Mohammad's early years; I'm merely commenting on the poor state of the evidence available to us.

That is a claim, or more-or-less an (ignorant) opinion; and a wrong/debunked one at that.

At this point, I pity your unwillingness to learn and educate yourself. I truly pity you.

As I said, if you're prepared to simply dig your heels in and insist, in defiance of all reason and evidence, that religion has nothing to do with the decision to keep Mohammad's face obscured, there's no more progress to be made in dialogue on that front.

I don't think he is saying that (that would make no sense), more in line that : It is out of respect of religious belief and not from fear of having some Fatwa declared against him.

A bit like the people making the Chris Kyle movie not showing stuff out of respect of offending is widow and child, without having any fear for their live about it.

I don't think he is saying that (that would make no sense), more in line that: It is out of respect of religious belief and not from fear of having some Fatwa declared against him.

Well, maybe that's what he's saying.

It's still a spineless decision, though. In the case of Chris Kyle, his widow and child are still alive. Mohammad and anyone who knew him is long, long dead. Anyone pussyfooting around now, out of "respect", has a determination to avoid controversy hard to differentiate from fear. Maybe not fear of his life, although it would be hard for that not to play a part; maybe it's just fear of having to deal with the interminable headaches of having several thousand angry Muslims on his case - it's fear of being shouted at day and night, which can be just as effective a motivator as fear of death.

You seem not know the comics in France that dedicate to this alone, or perhaps the "South Park's" creators who drew Muhammad in two ways; a respectful and a somewhat provocative method. The fact is the one that they drew him respectfully drew no controversies at all (as you seem to believe otherwise, in general).

We did know what happened to comics in France not dedicated to this.

For south park it is not the way they drew him that changed (we never saw that and the death threat happened before the episode aired) it is time and Internet.

People all over the world did not knew about south park episodes in the 90's and certainly not their content before they air like they did around episode 200. Also it seem that some radicalization happened in some place during that time.

I disagree about "South Park" was not popular when the first episode depicting Muhammad debuted. "Super Best Friends" was aired in 2001. "South Park" at the time already had a film that earned more than 83 million. The series was quite popular at the time this episode aired, far more popular than when "201" aired (an episode mainly made for attention; it aired 5 years too late). However, the episode aired before both 9/11 and the 2005 cartoon controversies, so I would agree it was a time where people considered Islam to be a harmless religion no more different than others, hence its non-provocative depiction. The point was, is that there will not be guaranteed terrorists running to kill you for depicting Muhammad (as Spleen make it seem), and that episode was a prime example since it went unnoticeable due to its harmlessness and what the creators themselves considered to be a respectful depiction.

I disagree about "South Park" was not popular when the first episode depicting Muhammad debuted

It was popular (toward is own audience) but did it reach people not fans of the show all over the world about the contain of the episode (with people angry with it before the show aired because of it's content) ? it was before social media.

. The point was, is that there will not be guaranteed terrorists running to kill you for depicting Muhammad (as anon make it seem), and that episode was a prime example since it went unnoticeable due to its harmlessness

Yes that before 9/11, in america it was possible to depict Muhammad in a comedy central late night show.

Is it still possible today ? It seem not, they received death threat before the episode even aired.

I see what you mean in your first point. Thanks for clarifying yourself.

Also, I simply think it is due to political correctness. If you did not notice, the government of Sri Lanka banned the series due to their negative depiction of Buddha. Both episodes featured Buddha and were banned for same reasons. There has neither been an episode of Buddha in the series ever since then, as far as I remember. That is not to downplay any other perspectives, but there were quite a few more than one depiction that sparked controversy in those two episodes.

I would think it is a bit fuelled by social media.

If you did not notice, the government of Sri Lanka banned the series due to their negative depiction of Buddha.

If I did I noticed at the time I forgot since them.

but there were quite a few more than one depiction that sparked controversy in those two episodes.

Certainly Buddha and Jesus were doing coke and masturbating watching porn on the Internet and stuff like that, I think that was the main point of that episode, to show how much you can portray those religious icon without much issue, while you can have some with Muhammad if he not even show and does nothing controversial.

While googling it it seam Sri Lanka banned the show all together after Buddha doing cocaine episode and not just those 2.

the main point of that episode, to show how much you can portray those religious icon without much issue, while you can have some with Muhammad if he not even show and does nothing controversial.

Yes; I know. The point I made is their intention backfired, not just Muhammad, but Buddha, too.

While googling it it seam Sri Lanka banned the show all together after Buddha doing cocaine episode and not just those 2.

Yes, but it was motivated due to what they considered offensive depictions of Buddha in that particular episode. That was my point.

Yes; I know. The point I made is their intention backfired, not just Muhammad, but Buddha, too.

I'm not sure of that (at least not completely), did they received death threat for Buddha ? The ability for their episode to play or not in Sri Lanka was probably not what they had in mind or care about.

Yes, but it was motivated due to what they considered offensive depictions of Buddha in that particular episode. That was my point.

I'm not sure what you mean ? Yes Buddha doing coke was considered offensive. A country deciding to not show something on is territory is not really a problem for people outside of it that concern us too much.

You do not understand; I made no argument about death threats, but general controversies.

Your second paragraph completely misinterpreted what I said that I am hesitant to explain it for you since you are that far from understanding, that it ultimately renders it immaterial and irrelevant.

Your entire posts are irrelevant, we are not discussing "South Park" here, but the titular film.

Your entire posts are irrelevant, we are not discussing "South Park" here, but the titular film.

It is relevant because you made the statement that the Sunni are a minority in Iran and that the fact that Sunni could become violent if Mohammed is portrayed is irrelevant to the fact that Mohammed had is face partially hidden for the complete movie.

Well their is way less Sunni in the US (and near) than in Iran and it stopped a south park episode to be shown on the United state ground. (Charlie Hebdo cartoonist were shot in France where their is less Sunni around than in Iran, some writers killed in Belgium and so on).

Making the fact that he could not have acted out of fear in is portrayal of Muhammed because he live in Iran a bit dubious.

That was in Iran:
http://keyhani.blog.lemonde.fr/2015/01/19/iran-manifestation-contre-charlie-hebdo-devant-lambassade-de-france-a-teheran/

They seem to take it a bit seriously.

I made no argument about death threats, but general controversies.

I admit I'm loss here, I thought the debate was about if the fear of some fatwa was part of the motivation why the filmmaker decided to never completely show Muhammad in is movie or not.

and that the fact that Sunni could become violent if Mohammed is portrayed

I never made that argument.

Well their is way less Sunni in the US (and near) than in Iran and it stopped a south park episode to be shown on the United state ground.

U.S is politically correct, Iran is not. There is a difference here which you can not compare.

That was in Iran:

A demonstration allowed by the government. Nothing more.

They seem to take it a bit seriously.

No. They just allowed a demonstration.

I admit I'm loss here, I thought the debate was about if the fear of some fatwa was part of the motivation why the filmmaker decided to never completely show Muhammad in is movie or not.

I never made that argument.

No. They just allowed a demonstration.

Oh I was not at all talking about the government and never expected a second that filmmaker to fear from the government (that could explain some misunderstanding).

All that time I was talking about general people, the fear of getting kill by some random person, not legal consequence from the state of Iran.

U.S is politically correct

Yes they are, but not south park, it was stop because of the many serious death threats some included the personal address of the 2 show creators. The authorities had nothing to do with the decision.

I never made that argument.

I'm loss again, I thought this was the complete argument you had, that fear from the possible consequence of portraying Muhammad had nothing to do with the decision to hide part of is visage the complete movie.

All that time I was talking about general people, the fear of getting kill by some random person, not legal consequence from the state of Iran.

I suppose the director has bodyguards and protection.

Yes they are, but not south park,

Your argument is moot. It does not change what I just said.

I'm loss again, I thought this was the complete argument you had, that fear from the possible consequence of portraying Muhammad had nothing to do with the decision to hide part of is visage the complete movie.

Yes. That is the argument, but you dwell into something else or I misunderstood your confusing comments.

I suppose the director has security service

To live a couple of year with that is still a big and costly inconvenient, I guess he could have also limit is public appearance and travel destination sure. Charlie Hebdo had security service on place too.

Your argument is moot. It does not change what I just said

You argument was they made that decision out of political correctness, I don't agree with that (because that show is very not PC he did show Jesus masturbating on internet porn and Buddah do coke the week before and many think after), they did censure that episode (In my opinion) out of fear of death threats and not by a political correctness reflex.

Yes. That is the argument

I guess I was not clear then, sorry, English is a second language. I dwell into something else yes and no, I'm giving example of people that did not portray Muhammed 100% because of fear of the consequence, to show that it could part of the reasoning why someone making a movie about him could have decided to never show him completely, to make it clear that he did effort to not offend people too much.

From what I understand of the subject, no one made a full normal Biopic with decent production (that fully show him normally) and he is arguably in the top 10 human that most shaped what today world is (maybe top 1), with some cinetatographic moment, the fact that he would be dangerous for the people involved (starting by financing, people watching, making it, acting the part, etc..) as certainly a role to play in that.

No. It is a second film which focuses on the childhood of Muhammad; it focuses from his birth until he is at the age of 12. It is the first film of a presumed trilogy and will be released in worldwide theaters soon.

Yes lets go see movie that will piss off a religion. A religion that has normal people in it but also has the decapitating fetish. We already have people throwing acid and shooting people in theaters.

Have fun. What will your epitaph read as?

The Ninth Gate is a film I been thinking about recently.. regarding the Whore of Babylon etc.. who's supposed to be revealed with the Antichrist or something..

If Allah/Isa opposes the Antichrist in Islam.. then who is Allah?

Will it show him for the pedophilic warlord that he was?

>>66
You are ignored, stupid troll.

The Historical Aiesha was 16 years old..

That's how it caught on.. 99% of all countries including Islamic have marriage ages at 16-18.

Before then we used to fuck 12 year olds..

Delaware used to screw 7 year olds only 100 years ago etc.

I guess it depends, it could have caught on from:

http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/religious-texts/hadith/bukhari/062-sbt.php#007.062.064

that the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old, and then she remained with him for nine years (i.e., till his death).

14 year old and older was very common about anywhere not so long ago it is true, but 9-10 was a bit young I think generally.

Muhammad invented women's rights..

http://www.inspiredbymuhammad.com

The Islamic crusades outside of Arabia (which happened after he died) ended stoning by the pagans.