the Movie "The Message"

[GenN]

Assalamu alaykum,

This has probably already being dicussed by many but i do not know much about the issue so I was wondering what peoples views were on watching the Movie "the Message".

Is it a good idea to watch it, does it accuratly portray the seerah, is their any haraam in watching it as it is out of order, any other dislikes about watching it, or is it ok to watch it? What are scholars views on watching it? Would it be a good idea for youngsters to watch it as an intro to seerah?

[auron]

i thought historically it was correct and showed my children it.rather that than hollywood trash.

[Abu Usama]

Salam,

on the whole its a good film nd definately worth watching (if you already watch tv and films that is). Some narrations in it are a bit dodgy though, like for example it says that the ink of the scholar is more weightier than the blood of the martyr,

there's also another film called "Lion of the desert" which is okay, but not as good (t is based on the jihad of omar mukthar).

Personally, anyway, I found that the Last Samurai was reaaly the best in terms of historicalish films.

[Mossy]

Personally, anyway, I found that the Last Samurai was reaaly the best in terms of historicalish films.

You're kidding.. Right?

[Abu Usama]

maybe not historically speaking - but it was still a great film though, one of the best

[faqir]

Personally, I watched the Message when I was a child and I loved it then and I still love it. It was approved by al-Azhar (for whatever thats worth)

[Mossy]

maybe not historically speaking - but it was still a great film though, one of the best

There were plenty of inaccuracies..

/otaku

And Tom Cruise should really have died - come on, having him as the literal last samurai? Pssh.

Sorry for spoiling the ending peeps.

The reason that movie resonates with muslims is interesting - it's essentially because we see echos of our own way of life in the focus and dedicated submission of these individuals to a higher ideal. Harmony. Of course, samurai weren't quite like that, but it's nice to think they were.. Better than "chivalrous" knights anyway.

[Aqdas]

Assalamu 'Alaikum!
The ink of the scholar is more holy than the blood of a martyr...is this not a hadith?
Wassalam

[Mossy]

Assalamu 'Alaikum!
The ink of the scholar is more holy than the blood of a martyr...is this not a hadith?
Wassalam

Sh Google says:


Mentioned by al-Manjaniqi in his collection of ahadith of older narrators reporting from younger ones, on the authority of al-Hasan al-Basri. Al-Khatib al-Baghdadi said that it is Maudu` as a narration from the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace), but that it is a statement of al-Hasan al-Basri

[Yusuf]

Sh Google says:

Who or what in the world is Sh Google?

[Mossy]

Shaykh Google - the search engine that knows all.

It's a joke :D

[auron]

pseudo shaykh :cheesygri

[Yusuf]

lol, ok. :D

[Muawiyah]

I know Ulama who would probably say that watching this film is like making istihzaa of the deen.

[al-Shami]

How about this

Prophet Muhammad Movie to Premier in N.America
http://islamonline.net/English/News/2004-10/16/article02.shtml



Muhammad: The Last Prophet," will premiere in theaters in 37 US and Canadian cities for one week, reported Agence France-Presse (AFP).

The 90-minute film that chronicles the early life and teachings of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) was produced for Badr International by RichCrest Animation Studios, the creators of animated classics such as "The King and I" and "The Fox and the Hound."

Film director Richard Rich is a well-known American director who worked for Disney.

No images of Prophet Muhammad appear in the film, given that Islam prohibits the visual representation of the prophets.

[Iqbal Muhammad Raakin]

For all of the salafis out there I know "pbuu" is a "Bida'!". Lol. Anyway, I really don't undertand why people are talking about kaafiri films on an Islamic website :confused: but I'll look for an excuse for you and think that you...sorry, unsuccessful in finding any reasons. :( Anyway about the movie; the message I think that it may be watched to get a rough idea to understand how te ociety was back then but in order to use that as a form of study and to derive big lessons from it may be harmful. If one does want to watch it I think that someone should study the Seerah from pure Islamic sources first and then watch it. However, I would certainly not recommend it for children, as it may confuse them :|. And Allah knows best.
Assalamu 'Alaikum wa Rahamatullah.

[Abu Usama]

Anyway, I really don't undertand why people are talking about kaafiri films on an Islamic website but I'll look for an excuse for you and think that you...sorry, unsuccessful in finding any reasons.

Salam,

i listen to a lot of shaykh hamza talks, and he mentions quite a lot the works of the non-muslims and some hikmahs from them.

[Yusuf]

When Bilal(ra) is mentioned i automatically picture that black actor from the message, and his not a muslim right?..its filthy in that sense.

[GenN]

I know Ulama who would probably say that watching this film is like making istihzaa of the deen.


what does istihzaa mean?

[auron]

what does istihzaa mean?i was wondering the same thing .and the brothers criticizing us must not watch tv at all mashaallah.i dont have tv only this pc.

[Mossy]

It means making a mockery of the deen. Eh, they're entitled to their views, even if I don't agree.

:goes to watch news:

[Iqbal Muhammad Raakin]

Salam,

i listen to a lot of shaykh hamza talks, and he mentions quite a lot the works of the non-muslims and some hikmahs from them.

Jazakallahu khair for finding a reason for me.

[SeekerOfKnowledge]

I saw the film and i personally think people shouldn't watch it. After watching the movie whenever the Seerah of Nabi (SAW) is mentioned, this film comes in mind. And in our minds we think that this is how is really was. But allah only knows best what really happened and how did it happen. So instead of fixing this pic in our minds it's better we just leave it up to our imaginations.

[ahsanirfan]

Salam o alaikum

Its not just the ulama in Pakistan and India that prohibit TV and the movies. I also once heard Shaykh Nuh Keller say that TV can be extremely harmful. Sheikh Hamza also remarked once that TV and movies provide and easy way for people to visualize things. This removes their ability to comprehend things on their own. He gave the example of how in earlier times, little children were told stories. That was the age when mother spent time with them. Nowadays the mothers couldn't care less and put their children in front of the television. This renders their intellectual capabilities numb. People become a puppet of someone who controls them through the television. The same would go for the movie. It provides us with an image of what the director thinks of the Prophet's life, not what the Prophet went through himself. We are not able to think for ourselves about the Prophet, rather we are stuck with the interpretation of someone who is most likely following Western ideals. We should relive our tradition by oral recitation of accounts, which is in my opinion the best way to do it.

Ma'as Salam

[auron]

and what about reading about different interpretations,opinions,schools of thought,on this forum?by people we cant see who could be anyone.

[ahsanirfan]

Interesting point. The way I have thought this through is this. Gaining knowledge can be classified into four basic levels.

1) Visualization
2) Reading
3) Listening
4) Experiencing

I will leave No. 4 because it is too difficult for me too express. However, numbers one to three are easy to comment on. I have no formal knowledge of psychology, and therefore I am relying on personal experience regarding this.

1) Vizualization is the easiest way to learn something. The phrase "seeing is believing" is appropriate here. For example, when CNN shows videos of the Taliban hitting women with sticks, and blowing one's brains out with a gun, one gets a powerful message. Couple that with the commentary by CNN and voila, you have a distorted image of the Taliban. One the basis of this alone I have seen people criticise the Taliban. My own mother calls them Jahil. I too had become victim of such. However when I did my own research, the truth was far from what was being shown on TV. Even though the status of the Taliban still remains shrouded in mystery, the way CNN portrayed them was completely unwarranted for. This is how visualization actually helps understand someone else's viewpoint. Being an engineering student, vizualisation is an important tool for me. We use it to 'transmit' knowledge, not to critically analyze it. The basis for engineering vizualisation is the transmission of a viewpoint. One can only see the object one way, the way the drafter of the image wants you to see it. Looking at it another way will give you a completely different outlook on the object. Similarly, television and movies do the same thing. You begin to picture the events as they have been portrayed, not as they have happened.

2) As far as reading goes, one with a sound mind can criticize a written piece. Many have done that, and have been successful at that. However there is another side to the story. Again, I will cite an example from engineering. In engineering something is written primarily either to inform someone of something, or to influence someone rearding something. Stress is often applied on the style of the writing more than the content. Therefore, a better styled proposal may help one get the contract even if the idea behind it is a big no no. Believe it or not, that does happen. And I think I can generalize here, and say, that that is the purpose of all writing. The main tool used in writing is evidence. The primary way to provide evidence is to provide a reference. Generally when one provides a reference, the reader assumes that the reference provided is correct. I have observed this phenomenon (and unfortunately have been duped) with the Salafis. Also the Qadiyanis employ this method. By providing a reference they make it look as though what they are saying is correct. A friend of mine, who studied psychology said that, generally, if a reference is provided, the reader will assume it to be correct. They do not bother checking it. This however does not happen, when one is extremely critical. Having said that a layman will readily accept that which is written, if he is not well-trained in the art of reading between the lines. This is a skill that one can only acquire after much practice. However, the point has been made.

3) Listening however is remarkably different. In my experience I have been able to offer healthy criticism to anyone who has spoken with me. Whenever I go to the khutba on fridays, and the speaker happens to be a salafi, I immediately recognize him, by the style he employs in his speaking. There is a remarkable difference in the way a traditional scholar speaks and the way a salafi speaks. One is deep, really deep, the other is way too shallow and dry. I am able to construct a criticism based on what he has said, rather than the evidence of that which he has provided. I tend to concentrate more on the message being implied, than on the evidence being verbally offered. Listening frees my mind to think about what I hear. I spend time in listening to something, rather than reading or watching about it.

Watching something, or reading something generally happens when one has no time, or one wants to spend less time on it. The way this can be shown is that it hardly takes 30 minutes to watch the news. If I only heard the news, things would have been much better. However, with verbal commentary, you have supposedly hard evidence of that which is being said, and the story becomes hard to refute, because you 'view it with your own eyes'. Listening to the radio however, is easier. Without the visual evidence bombarding your brain, you are free to offer criticism of that which you hear.

Ma'as Salam

[auron]

jazakallah for the reply i have studied psychology and sociology and also dont have tv in our house.4 children play and communicate better also.most if not all media is social engineering designed to instil in one views which are controlled by a few people to the masses most who become"sheeple" zombies ,manipulated good citizens.and free thinkers and freedom seekers are rebels,insurgents.