A film about the daughter of the prophet Mohammad has been withdrawn due to protests from Muslims .This is a disgrace so much for freedom of expression in the U.K. .
Nice trailer but not sure I want any more of that.
Just looked up on IMDb and a quote about why some Muslims are getting upset
Because this film shows exactly the sensitive and controversial point between the two branches, Shia and Sunni. Sunni’s don’t believe in this film, because Omar, Abu Bakr and Aisha, who are all three respected figures of the Sunnis (Omar and Abu Bakr as the second and first caliphs of Rashidun and Aisha as Umm Al-Mu’minin) are completely hated and enemy of prophet in this film. The reason why some Shiites do not accept the film is that they believe that the film causes differences between the Shiite and Sunni branches and basically, such films should not be made that destroy the holy figures of the other branch of Islam.
These people need to loosen up.
3 Likes
It’s a film … it’s for entertainment, it’s artistic expression … it’s freedom of expression.
3 Likes
How divided is our country that a small minority can make this happen .
Cine world was afraid for the safety of their staff had they showed it.
Funny thought it would be a hit in those northern Islamic regions .
Makes Me Cross.
Bet France would show it.
Well worth reading the whole article.
Vue is showing it in London and the South.
We’ll see…
Just started to down load it and watched the first 10 mins and so far its about the barbarity of ISIS in North Iraq after they took hold.
Can understand how some Muslims want it band as it shows some Muslims behaving like animals in the name of God.
Will finish watching it tomorrow.
I suppose, the film makers were insured for their losses?
Can you insure against this happening ?
Personally even thought the film may be rubbish it’s an infringement of freedom of expression .
1 Like
I’m afraid that a certain element (quite a large element) of our society doesn’t believe in freedom of expression. What’s more, many of our own people (lawyers and the wokists) don’t either, so that’s how it is these days.
1 Like
Hello third word Britain .
1 Like
This is good to read, strong and to the point.
And the comments are good !
I like the fact that Gove sacked the minister who supported the protesters.
```Islamic fundamentalists are using woke tactics to crush free speech
The recent ‘Lady of Heaven’ protests show how extremists can tap into progressive fixations like victimhood and fragility
INAYA FOLARIN IMAN
"Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words can never hurt me”. Generations of children have been taught this mantra, to remind them that even potentially hurtful or offensive views are just words and do not cause physical harm.
Of course, words and ideas are not always “just words”, they can carry great cultural and political weight. But nowadays this argument goes too far. Rather than trying to instil in young people a robust sense of personhood, giving them the tools to engage with other views, society increasingly encourages offence-taking, feelings of “trauma” and “vulnerability”.
In this context, it is hardly surprising that some Islamic fundamentalists have begun borrowing the language of victimhood and sensitivity to demand the censorship of ideas they view as “blasphemous”. Yet rather than challenge such dogmatic impositions, our institutions are giving them legitimacy by promoting fragility and identity politics.
Intense debates resurfaced this week about freedom of speech, blasphemy and Islamism, after a group of hard-line Sunni Muslims protested Lady of Heaven, a new film about the life of Mohammed’s daughter Fatima. The objectors accuse the filmmakers of blasphemy and sectarianism for depicting Mohammed (in CGI form), an act which some, though not all, Islamic traditions consider unacceptable.
The protestors also object to the film’s reading of Islamic history, a historic narrative promoted by the radical Twelver Shia Muslim cleric Yasser Al-Habib. This links the violent Jihadism of today and the split that divided Islam soon after the prophet’s death more than a thousand years ago.
The protests have partly succeeded; Cineworld cancelled all its showings of the film across the country (though levelling-up secretary Michael Gove responded by sacking a Government adviser who supported the protesters).
But while the cinema chain’s capitulation is unsurprising, the activists’ justifications are astonishing. An online petition accused the film of being “deeply racist”. In one video, a protestor asserts “We have the right not to be offended”.
These statements sound more typical of a left-wing campus protest, than of a mob of middle-aged religious men. But, like self-righteous students, the objectors know that citing victimhood and mental fragility is an increasingly successful strategy in a society where simply accusing someone of racism is often enough to get them fired or cancelled. Of course, the true racism here lies in the notion that religious or ethnic minorities are less robust and cannot be held to the same standards as everyone else.
This also reveals another alarming cultural trend. In everything from “black identity” to Islam, the most hard-line interpretations of these identity groups are increasingly being presented as their most “authentic” representations. But this isn’t true.
Islamic thought contains a variety of views on the depiction of the prophet. Many traditions, including in Iran, India and Turkey, have been open to depicting Muhammad. Both the film’s writer and executive producer are Muslim and take a different view from the protesters. In conceding the argument to those who shout or threaten loudest, we effectively hand a monopoly on the representation of Muslims in public life to a sub-section of religious zealots.
This homogenises Muslims, disempowering those who promote pluralism and civil disagreement within Islam. It deprives us all of an artistically free and critical society.
The narratives about British society that have acquired so much cultural cachet portray liberal values as merely a product of Western domination, while their adherents insist that so-called freedom of speech excludes the right to offend. In this intellectual climate, therefore, what is so wrong about the Islamist protesters’ beliefs? Surely they are only showing compassion towards an oppressed minority by enabling them to impose de-facto blasphemy laws?
In a society where the supposed defenders of liberal values cower at even the mildest whiff of a potentially offensive view, fundamentalists, armed with moral certainty and righteous indignation, are hardly likely to consider their opponents’ views worth a second thought.
The best response to these protests is to support their right to assemble yet emphasise that we live in a democratic society where no group should receive special privileges or protections. That we should debate all religious, cultural and political ideas freely and openly and that no organisation should give in to demands for censorship. This is the true meaning of equality; actually treating people as equals.
Our political and cultural elite seem to think that this problem will go away on its own. Yet the slaughter at the Charlie Hebdo offices, the murder of Samuel Paty and the hounding of the Batley Grammar School teacher - all for engaging in questions about Islam and free speech - exemplify the violent, sometimes murderous consequences of allowing this censorious logic to go unchallenged.
“Woke” cannot be compared to Islamism in its origins, adherents and consequences, yet its narratives are increasingly providing Islamists with moral justification. Too many in our political class see these issues as a petty inconvenience rather than an existential debate on the meaning of freedom, democracy and equality.
Today, liberalism faces a profound dilemma. In a society that places great value on pluralism and diversity, do you lump people together and manage them according to their group identity or do you insist that everyone must be treated as individuals and abide by the laws of the land? For most people, I suspect the answer is the latter, but this requires moral clarity and leadership from above across all levels of society. Currently, those virtues are in painfully short supply."
2 Likes
Islam is incompatible with our evolved societies and world. Worse yet it can NEVER change.
1 Like
I have just been listening to GB News on the telly, where they had invited a muslim leader to speak about these protests. I can’t remember his political position or title, but he agreed that the country should not be held to ransom by a ‘mob’ of muslim protesters. He agreed that it is perfectly acceptable for them to be offended, but totally unacceptable that they should have the right to overcome our rights of freedom and free speech.
I found it somewhat strange, but very welcome, to hear this man speak as he did.
At the same time, it was mentioned that many of our own politicians have been keeping quiet for fear of upsetting the muslims!
1 Like
I was hugely heartened to read that Gove had sacked the minister for supporting the protesters.
I’m not saying they shouldn’t have protested but our Government should stand up and support our values, maybe Gove is the man for the job after all, if Boris is too weak.
That article really hits home 
3 Likes
Spot on Morticia and Muddy.
It is getting out of hand imo.
If you do not want to watch it,do not go,but do not spoil it for those who do not take offence.
A bit like Ricky Gervais,if you take offence at his views/jokes,keep away or turn off.
What are the first two words?