“Matrix” Producer Plans Cowardly, Servile Flick About Mohammed
Tags: Islam.
Click here to get Caucus of Corruption: The Truth About The New Democratic Majority by Matt Margolis and Mark Noonan.
Cultural spinelessness advances:
Producer Barrie Osborne cast Keanu Reeves as the messiah in The Matrix and helped defeat the dark lord Sauron in his record-breaking Lord of the Rings trilogy. Now the Oscar-winning American film-maker is set to embark on his most perilous quest to date: making a big-screen biopic of the prophet Muhammad.
Budgeted at around $150m (£91.5m), the film will chart Muhammad’s life and examine his teachings. Osborne told Reuters that he envisages it as “an international epic production aimed at bridging cultures. The film will educate people about the true meaning of Islam”…
…In accordance with Islamic law, the prophet will not actually be depicted on screen…
Which, actually, tells us a lot about Islam – after all, put Mohammed on screen and people (including the producer) might get killed. And imagine what would happen if the film went in to Mohammed’s rather interesting married life!
Look, movies aren’t supposed to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth – they can’t. But there should be at least an approximation of it…and to bend the knee to Islam’s idiotic ban on the depiction of Mohammed is just craven. Moslems are free to not depict Mohammed till the cows come home – but non-Moslems are not bound by such strictures…and I doubt there’s a Hollywood producer out there who would be so sensitive to Christian or Jewish religious sensibilities.
Thank you for visiting Blogs For Victory. If you enjoy our content, please consider making a donation to help us cover the costs of our servers.Mark Noonan is co-author (with Matt Margolis) of Caucus of Corruption: The Truth About The New Democratic Majority. He also blogs at Nevada News and Views. Follow Mark on Twitter.
18 Responses to ““Matrix” Producer Plans Cowardly, Servile Flick About Mohammed”
Caucus of Corruption
My question is: Why do you care? I doubt you would want to watch the film regardless. If Osborne wants to spend $150m on the film, that’s his risk.
Good news for Osborne, he won’t have to spend big bucks to pay the lead actor.
Casper,
I can’t stand such cowardice.
And had the producer had more courage, I might actually consider going. I don’t believe that Muslems should have the right to dictate how non-Muslems make movies,even about Mohammed.
You’re upset because a film “aimed at bridging cultures” is refraining from insulting one of those cultures?
Also, nice bit of creative editing there. By leaving out
you were able to say
and people who didn’t click on your link would be none the wiser. Of course, this raises some moral issues, but I’ll let you worry about those.
and I doubt there’s a Hollywood producer out there who would be so sensitive to Christian or Jewish religious sensibilities.
OH NO a picture of MADhammad with a bomb turban on his gord caused riots around the world.
Yet they can place a cross with Jesus in urine for crying out loud and call it art.
They make movies of Jesus and show him to be a homosexual pervert…..OOH it is “art”
yet it comes to islam…oh no MADhammad was soooo good ann islam is a “religion of piece………PATHETIC absolutely PATHETIC!!
Im with you mark COWARDICE is a good term.
KJS
look at their culture, and the countries where they are growing in population…..THEY DICTATE EVERYTHING!!
Sergei,
The Moslems backing the film wanted a western face on it…so that they can steal a large deal of Islamist propaganda in to it…but it is the Matrix producer who is being cowardly and servile. He’s been bought.
Sergei,
…and it doesn’t “bridge cultures” unless we get a reasonable approximation of the whole story of Mohammed…not just the version the Islamists would like us to see. I’m “terribly sorry” that there is no stain upon the story of Christ, Himself, so that anyone attempting to insult Our Lord has to make stuff up – it can’t be helped that Mohammed was a run-of-the-mill trader, married for money, looted his enemies, attacked the Jews and decided, from time to time, that God told him to marry additional women. To edit all this out or soft peddle it (which I’m sure is what is going to happen) is to essentially present a lie.
I wonder if the movie will depict Mohammed as the pedophile he was?
Should have had Bill Maher as producer. He would tell it as it is. He is no coward. He is scornful of all religions.
I was refering to Bill Maher’s movie ‘Religulous’ as the example of his fearlessness.
canuck,
Some one who has scorn for Islam would be worse than someone truckling to Islam.
The truth is good enough.
“Some one who has scorn for Islam would be worse than someone truckling to Islam” – Mark N.
I don’t see your point Mark. However perhaps scorn is a bad choice for a description. He ridicules the irrational beliefs of religion and he does not spare Islam. I am just saying he is not some spinless lefty when it comes to the followers of fundamentalist radical Islam.
I realize Bill is not your favourite person in the media.
canuk
he is a total A.H.
The problem with this is that this isn’t propaganda for radical Islam, it’s propaganda for moderate Islam. Remember the movie Fitna, by that Dutch dude? Here’s what he said in response to being asked whether it was offensive:
What you guys fail to realize in your efforts to paint Islam as a terrorist religion is that, by doing so, you are (unintentionally) trying to convince Muslims to be terrorists.
If that had been the case, Muhammad would have taken another wife before Khadijah died. He did not.
Assuming you’re talking about the Banu Qurayza, they had just committed high treason against the city-state of Medina, so it wasn’t exactly unprovoked. And there is no way for the biopic to avoid mentioning it; it was this event that finally ended opposition to Muhammad in Medina. It will be interesting to see how they handle it.
Muhammad was attracted to older women. ‘A’esha was a strategic marriage that was suggested to Him by someone else, and they waited until she was at what the society considered an acceptable age before consummating. There are plenty of things you can criticize Muhammad for, but this isn’t one of them; not even Islam’s fiercest historical critics (the Crusaders, etc.) saw anything objectionable about it.
That’s his shtick.
SA
What you guys fail to realize in your efforts to paint Islam as a terrorist religion is that, by doing so, you are (unintentionally) trying to convince Muslims to be terrorists.
REALLY??????
Soooo if someone accuses you of being…..GAY
you will perform sodomy on some man tonight?
really serg that is a pathetic analogy.
well most of your’s are.
You’re right, it is a pathetic analogy. Notice, however, that you are the one who made it. My post did not contain any analogies. Neither did yours; what you posted is a metaphor. Note that I didn’t post any of those either.
SA
@What you guys fail to realize in your efforts to paint Islam as a terrorist religion is that, by doing so, you are (unintentionally) trying to convince Muslims to be terrorists
Uh HUH !!
I wasn’t speaking metaphorically. That is the end result of your efforts.