Islamic icon omitted from '2012'

[Al-Indunisiy]

The upcoming disaster movie "2012" lays waste to many political, cultural and religious buildings and landmarks. But one Islamic icon was too sensitive to touch: the Kaaba, the cube-shaped building in the heart of Mecca, one of the holiest sites in Islam.

Director Roland Emmerich told SCI FI Wire that he wanted to include the religious site in the film, but was talked out of it. "My co-writer Harald [Kloser] said I will not have a fatwa on my head because of a movie. And he was right," he explained.
A fatwa in the Islamic faith is a religious opinion by scholar on a legal, civil, or religious matter. The term gained meaning in the Western world in 1989 when Iran's Ayatollah Khomeini issued a fatwa calling for the death of author Salman Rushdie, whom he accused of blasphemy.
Another well-known and deadly fatwa was issued by Osama bin Laden in 1998 and called for Muslims to execute Americans and their allies, according to the Columbia Encyclopedia .

Emmerich went on to say, "We have to all in the Western world think about this. You can actually let Christian symbols fall apart, but if you would do this with [an] Arab symbol, you would have a fatwa, and that sounds a little bit like what the state of this world is.

"So it's just something which I kind of didn't [think] was [an] important element, anyway, in the film, so I kind of left it out."

Emmerich has made other popular disaster movies, including "Independence Day" (1996), "Godzilla" (1998) and "The Day After Tomorrow" (2004). These films were also filled with familiar landmarks being destroyed.

----- SPOILER ALERT -----

In "2012" the destruction includes the White House being overwhelmed by a huge tidal wave carrying an aircraft carrier; the Sistine Chapel in the Vatican splitting between Adam and God touching fingers; St. Peter's Basilica in the Vatican falling on worshipper's heads; and the Christ the Redeemer statue in Rio de Janeiro toppling off its peak.

A Himalayan Buddhist temple is also destroyed.

In a recent interview, Yahoo! Movies asked the director, "Why do you like killing the world?" Emmerich responded, "It makes for a good story."

The movie blog Cinematical asked readers if they thought it was "hypocritical of Emmerich to stomp all over other religions, but give Islam a pass?" The comments were mostly on his side, noting that it was not worth the risk to offend Islam. "Man's just afraid he'd be painting a bullseye on his forehead and he's probably right. Remember what happened in Denmark over some stupid cartoons."
In 2006 a Pakistani cleric announced a $1 million bounty for killing a cartoonist who drew the Prophet Muhammad caricatures in a Danish newspaper.

[Al-Indunisiy]

I know it's somewhat insignificant but......................oh well.

[Fטлку]

^ lol
I'm glad I have popcorn around.. the vatican part sounds dramatic :p :popcorn:

[Ummu Sufyaan]

The upcoming disaster movie "2012" lays waste to many political, cultural and religious buildings and landmarks. But one Islamic icon was too sensitive to touch: the Kaaba, the cube-shaped building in the heart of Mecca, one of the holiest sites in Islam.

what a load of non sense aimed to defame Muslims and Islam. typical rubbish from an islamaphobic airhead. i bet he is Israeli/Jewish/Zionist. though, for an air head, i'll give him credit of having the intelligence to know his limits which is quite rare for people like that. they should have used their common sense and done some research before launching such attacks. the maker of "the message" asked for the ka3bah to be included in the movie, but respectfully accepted when they were refused to. how is it Islams fault that people lack respect? weird.
and yep, we sure issue fatwas against people who defame our Prophet. maybe it's because they don't hold their leaders/beliefs in high respects which is why they find it so strange that we do. :shade:

Islamic icon omitted from '2012'

thank god for that. Islam doesn't deserve to be associated with utter bs.

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

[titus]

i bet he is Israeli/Jewish/Zionist.

Very insightful commentary. Those Jews are just evil, and even if he is not a Jew himself he is most assuredly being controlled by them.

I do know he is German, and homosexual. That is almost as bad as being a Jew.

and yep, we sure issue fatwas against people who defame our Prophet. maybe it's because they don't hold their leaders/beliefs in high respects which is why they find it so strange that we do

Yes, and the best way to show proper respect is to threaten anyone that says anything you consider offensive. That's the way to take the moral high ground! That'll show them who they are messing with!

[aamirsaab]

:sl:
Unfortunately, some muslims, with very short fuses [no pun intended] are a little crazy right now, so it's a good call to not put the Kabah in that movie. I myself wouldn't be offended if it was given that it's a disaster movie showing disasters (!), but some would definitely completely miss the point and go absolutely nuts over it.

So, yeah good call (even though I do think it's unfortunate)

[Fishman]

I don't really know how the Kaaba could collapse/be destroyed in a symbolic/dramatic way anyway. I mean, it's just a cube, what could go wrong?

[Nσσя'υℓ Jαииαн]

Yes, and the best way to show proper respect is to threaten anyone that says anything you consider offensive. That's the way to take the moral high ground! That'll show them who they are messing with!

^o):rollseyes

*cough*

I think I need a glass of water..

[Fishman]

:sl:

Yes, and the best way to show proper respect is to threaten anyone that says anything you consider offensive. That's the way to take the moral high ground! That'll show them who they are messing with!

I agree with you. I find these types of remarks very disgusting and offensive. Saying ''like us or we'll kill you'' is pretty darn close to pure evil, I would say.

^o):rolleyes:

*cough*

I think I need a glass of water..

[جوري]

I think his comment about the 'fatwa on his head' is nothing more to gain popularity to his movie..
if you want vast appeal, all but you are to do is whisper Islam and Muslims in a negative light and the sheep come flocking..

The movie doesn't seem particularly interesting anyway.. there are a few out already of this genre (end of world/apocalyptic) sort.. it gets tired after a while..

[Nσσя'υℓ Jαииαн]

:sl:

Looks refreshing lol.

[Ummu Sufyaan]

Yes, and the best way to show proper respect is to threaten anyone that says anything you consider offensive.

misunderstood. and you bet! as i said, maybe its becuase they dont hold their leaders/beliefs in high respects that they find it odd that we take action when we do.

That's the way to take the moral high ground! That'll show them who they are messing with!

since you are supposedly on morally high ground, please tell me why and at who that Iraqi show thrower got put in prison and tortured. please tell me why, when a police officer/person in authority, etc gets murdered/assaulted, etc it is considered more of a severe crime, then when an ordinary citizen does?

Very insightful commentary.

thanks.

Those Jews are just evil, and even if he is not a Jew himself he is most assuredly being controlled by them.

@ the bolded part: in all honesty, im just used to seeing such comments from Jews who want Palestine and therefore have this drive to insult anyone or anything who opposes-Muslims/Islam. i take my comments back and apologize if it isnt the case.

I do know he is German, and homosexual. That is almost as bad as being a Jew.

i didnt say that.

I agree with you. I find these types of remarks very disgusting and offensive. Saying ''like us or we'll kill you'' is pretty darn close to pure evil, I would say.

insulting Islam is series crime. even if a Muslim was to, he'd be considered as an apostate.
its a bit deeper than ''like us or we'll kill you'' those comments that were made were nothing short of a defamation of Islam.




btw, my previous comments were aimed at the content of the article in the first post, not the movie itself. though if the movie did contain Islamic symbols being destroyed with the intent of defaming it, then my comments still apply.

[titus]

since you are supposedly on morally high ground, please tell me why and at who that Iraqi show thrower got put in prison and tortured. please tell me why, when a police officer/person in authority, etc gets murdered/assaulted, etc it is considered more of a severe crime, then when an ordinary citizen does?

Trust me, I abhor the fact that the man was tortured. I don't believe in torture, especially in a case where the man was simply attempting to insult someone, not to actually cause great physical harm. If justice was to be served then the men who beat him would be spending time behind bars themselves.

As for the reason that the sentence was greater because it was the leader of another nation, then all I can say is that it is because the harm can be great to the relations of two countries. At that point it is no longer a simple matter between two people, but begins to involve politics and diplomacy. The harm could go far beyond a simple shoe toss, therefore there are harsher punishments for such instances.

as i said, maybe its becuase they dont hold their leaders/beliefs in high respects that they find it odd that we take action when we do.

You have to realize, though, that when you make those threats then you are representing Islam (whether accurately or not). Are you really showing respect to your Prophet or to Allah by threatening people with violence for such things? Do you think Christians don't respect Jesus simply because they don't issue rulings calling for the death of people that insult him? They most certainly do respect and honor him, but it is out of respect for him that they don't resort to violence.

To non-Muslims the image of Islam will be whatever image Muslims portray. By threatening people who insult your beliefs you portray Islam as a violent religion, especially if you put those threats in a religious decree.

[Ummu Sufyaan]

As for the reason that the sentence was greater because it was the leader of another nation, then all I can say is that it is because the harm can be great to the relations of two countries. At that point it is no longer a simple matter between two people, but begins to involve politics and diplomacy. The harm could go far beyond a simple shoe toss, therefore there are harsher punishments for such instances.

what if it isnt a leader of a another nation? and why is there harsher punishments for such instances? you seemed to have missed my point. what im getting at, is that when people are in a higher postion/authority (such as a police man) that a more stricter punsiment is served to the perpetrator who murdered/assaulted, then if that perpetrator had murdered an ordinary citizen. why? becuase he is in a position of authority which calls for a higher respect hence a severe punishment.

what would happen if a well respected and revered person in society (leader, police man, perhaps even a celebrity) did get murdered/assaulted, etc.
wouldn't the general public abhor that person more, and wouldn't be there a more outrage towards the death of this respected person, if say an ordinary citizen was murdered?

people who say that Muslims are violent and are intolerable, need to only look in their own societies becuase quite frankly, what they accuse us of, is rampant in their own.

You have to realize, though, that when you make those threats then you are representing Islam (whether accurately or not).
Are you really showing respect to your Prophet or to Allah by threatening people with violence for such things?

with due respect, your question is slightly misplaced. you have isolated the argument here and dressed in such a way wherein which one is expected to say only one thing, without properly analyzing the reasoning behind it.

1) it depends on your definition of violence? why do people go straight for the jugular and say we are violent, etc whilst completely ignoring what it is that may drive us towards what we may do?
also, the question goes begging: why is it of anyone concern to insult our prophet/beliefs? why do it? what is their agenda towards us that they need to stir our anger up? why cant they just bugger off and leave us alone? seriously, we are quite calm, cool and collected people. we just get annoyed when people annoy us.


2) Can you expect people to NOT to get angry over something they hold dear, in this case, their faith? would any normal person NOT get angry when their, (for eg) say their parents, families, ways of life, etc being insulted. same sort of concept applies here. why do you think the "coalition of the willing" are in Iraq, etc right now? because so called terrorists (i believe its an inside job, hence "so-called") were apparently against Western civilization and therefore felt the need to do what they did on 9/11
why then, is the as a result of 9/11 (Iraq, Afghanistan, etc) called heroism, and us getting angry over our religion being insulted called violence?
the smell of double standards is rather revolting +o( :exhausted

Do you think Christians don't respect Jesus simply because they don't issue rulings calling for the death of people that insult him?

you shouldn't compare Christians/people of other faiths with Muslims/Islam. they aren't any more better then us if they choose not to say anything. if Christians dont want to say anything, that's their own problem. that's their own standards. dont paint people with the same brush.its not fair to imply "oh look at you violent Muslims you. when Christians have their faith insulted, do you see them causing an uproar. geez haven't you considered that maybe your a little extreme." give us some credit will you.

To non-Muslims the image of Islam will be whatever image Muslims portray. By threatening people who insult your beliefs you portray Islam as a violent religion, especially if you put those threats in a religious decree

that's sometimes the problem. alot non-Muslims dont care for what Muslims have to say for themselves or what we are really like and hence they let them selves be brainwashed by the media. perhaps a comment far-fetched, but i do wonder what the opinions of these non-Muslims would have of Muslims if the meida worded their reports a little differently and not isolated the situation and make it look one-sided...the media can be quite vicious and see anything associated with Islam and Muslims as "hot topic"
so my point is, sometimes it depends on the individual themselves as well...

[titus]

what im getting at, is that when people are in a higher postion/authority (such as a police man) that a more stricter punsiment is served to the perpetrator who murdered/assaulted, then if that perpetrator had murdered an ordinary citizen.

why do you think the "coalition of the willing" are in Iraq, etc right now? because so called terrorists (i believe its an inside job, hence "so-called") were apparently against Western civilization and therefore felt the need to do what they did on 9/11
why then, is the as a result of 9/11 (Iraq, Afghanistan, etc) called heroism, and us getting angry over our religion being insulted called violence?

In both the instances you mention they are examples of physical actions being punished with physical action. What you are implying, though, is that a verbal or visual insult should be met with physical action, so I fail to see a double standard.

you shouldn't compare Christians/people of other faiths with Muslims/Islam.

Why not? Should there be a different set of standards for Muslims than there are for other faiths? How can I not look at the way that different people of different faiths react to situations and not make a judgment based on it?

I don't see how you can say that the followers of the different faiths cannot be compared when you had earlier stated that the reason that other groups do not react violently is because they don't hold their beliefs in high respect. You invited the comparison.

that's sometimes the problem. alot non-Muslims dont care for what Muslims have to say for themselves or what we are really like and hence they let them selves be brainwashed by the media.

But what about when the media accurately portrays Muslim reactions? Especially when the Muslim actions only further harm their cause?

Take for instance the whole cartoon issue of the recent past. If no Muslims has said voiced their disapproval of the cartoons then hardly anyone would have ever seen the cartoons, much less remembered them to this day. The silence of Muslims on this issue would have made the issue disappear. Instead, by their vocal and violent reaction, some Muslims advertised these insults to the whole world. I know that I would never have seen them if it hadn't of been for the uproar.

And the image of Islam and Muslims that came out of that incident? We got to see dozens of Muslims die in riots. We saw Muslim leaders calling for the death of those who printed the cartoons. We saw buildings burned and people who had nothing to do with the cartoons threatened. These actions did not earn respect for Muslims or Islam, they did exactly the opposite. These actions played right into the hands of the people that want to portray Muslims and Islam as inherently violent. After seeing Muslims rioting and destroying property and calling for peoples death it was hard to argue with them.

So, again, I wonder at people who call for physical retaliation for insults. Why the retaliation when silence would anger the insulters more than anything else. Do you think the reaction to the Danish cartoons has reduced the number of people insulting Islam or your Prophet? No, in fact it probably did quite the opposite as other groups jumped on the bandwagon after that incident and published their own versions of such insults.

I ask you, what is the purpose of calling for violent action against those that insult your beliefs? Do you believe that it is showing respect for Islam by doing so? Or do you believe that you are somehow defending Islam?

[Supreme]

It's a rubbish movie anyway, although seeing they they didn't destroy the holiest site in Christianity, that being the Church of the Holy Sepulchre (second holiest is Church of Nativity), I don't see what the big deal is amongst Christians. It's a fictuous effort, and a rather rubbish one at that.

[Fishman]

insulting Islam is series crime. even if a Muslim was to, he'd be considered as an apostate.

Is it a crime worth death threats and violence? Actions speak louder than words, and turning the other cheek when somebody tries to hurt you is one of the loudest actions there is. If you don't want people to 'defame Islam', don't give them a reason!

its a bit deeper than ''like us or we'll kill you''

I don't see how.

[OurIslamic]

Awesome, I'm glad that we didn't have to see the Kabah being destroyed (even if it is fake).

[Woodrow]

I guess each generation gets it's share of "Disaster" films. Some old ones I remember. "When world's Collide" "Earthquake" "Twister" "Towering Inferno"

Also remember an old joke from the 1980s I believe:

"There is going to be a remake of "Earthquake" and "Towering Inferno" but this time they are going to combine them into one long movie and call it "Shake & Bake"

[Ummu Sufyaan]

In both the instances you mention they are examples of physical actions being punished with physical action. What you are implying, though, is that a verbal or visual insult should be met with physical action, so I fail to see a double standard.

you have failed to see the double standards because you missed my point again. in both instances i mentioned that our ways of life/beliefs were at threat hence the drive for both of us to react the way we did/do, and yet amazingly we (Muslims) are seen as violent and they are seen as hero's when, what both parties are doing, is the same thing in essence.

Why not? Should there be a different set of standards for Muslims than there are for other faiths? How can I not look at the way that different people of different faiths react to situations and not make a judgment based on it?

read the whole paragraph that you based your reply on, dont just isolate statements.

I don't see how you can say that the followers of the different faiths cannot be compared when you had earlier stated that the reason that other groups do not react violently is because they don't hold their beliefs in high respect.

i didn't mention it was "the reason." i do recall though inserting the word "maybe" i.e that it is a possibility, not that it is. close, but no cigar. sorry.

You invited the comparison.

and you're the one twisting my words. whats your point?

But what about when the media accurately portrays Muslim reactions? Especially when the Muslim actions only further harm their cause?

what wasn't my question.

Take for instance the whole cartoon issue of the recent past. If no Muslims has said voiced their disapproval of the cartoons then hardly anyone would have ever seen the cartoons, much less remembered them to this day. The silence of Muslims on this issue would have made the issue disappear.

the question still goes begging: what is their agenda with us that they have the need to stir our anger? it says more about them then it does about us.
why aren't such issues addressed first?

even under secular laws, correct me if im wrong, it is illegal to defame anyone's religion anyway so im not too sure why we are getting the full blame here.

These actions played right into the hands of the people that want to portray Muslims and Islam as inherently violent. After seeing Muslims rioting and destroying property and calling for peoples death it was hard to argue with them. So, again, I wonder at people who call for physical retaliation for insults. Why the retaliation when silence would anger the insulters more than anything else. Do you think the reaction to the Danish cartoons has reduced the number of people insulting Islam or your Prophet? No, in fact it probably did quite the opposite as other groups jumped on the bandwagon after that incident and published their own versions of such insults.
I ask you, what is the purpose of calling for violent action against those that insult your beliefs? Do you believe that it is showing respect for Islam by doing so? Or do you believe that you are somehow defending Islam?

*sighs*seems like you didn't read my previous post. did you?

Is it a crime worth death threats and violence?
Actions speak louder than words, and turning the other cheek when somebody tries to hurt you is one of the loudest actions there is.

akhee i understand that but 1)sometimes that doesn't really help because you know, you can go to extents if you really wanted to grind against someones nerves. 2)what about the businesses that lost profit when we decided to boycott them? so acting does sometimes help and 3) is this really about us? what i mean is that direct comments, (i,e ones intended to insult Islam, not ones that are intended to insult Muslims) are made etc hence, is it really our honor for us to ignore.

If you don't want people to 'defame Islam', don't give them a reason!

when someone gets slapped in the face, is the blame fairly and squarely theirs for reacting?

I don't see how.

because we have accepted people being different and diverse over the last 1400 yrs, without the need to threaten/kill them?

[titus]

you have failed to see the double standards because you missed my point again. in both instances i mentioned that our ways of life/beliefs were at threat hence the drive for both of us to react the way we did/do,

Ah, maybe this is the crux of the problem. You believe that when people insult your beliefs that your beliefs are threatened. I don't see that.

You believe in Islam. How does someone insulting your belief threaten it? Does it change the way you feel about Islam? Does it make Islam any less true to you? Is Islam in any way, shape or form actually harmed by these insults?

I don't believe that insulting a belief harms that belief.

even under secular laws, correct me if im wrong, it is illegal to defame anyone's religion anyway so im not too sure why we are getting the full blame here.

In some countries it is illegal. In others it is not. In the United States, for example, I am not aware of any such laws. Freedom of speech here is a basic part of our law that is in our Constitution. One of the few limits is on speech that incites violence.

I am not sure what you mean, exactly, when you say "the full blame". While I believe that much of the insults hurled at Muslims and Islam are uncalled for, I also believe that the overreaction of some Muslims is uncalled for also.

the question still goes begging: what is their agenda with us that they have the need to stir our anger? it says more about them then it does about us.

It says a lot about both sides.

2)what about the businesses that lost profit when we decided to boycott them? so acting does sometimes help

You bet it does, and such non-violent reactions are the ones that make the biggest impact. The violent ones are the ones that actually end up hurting Muslims more than the intended target. Look at the riots that ensued. How many Muslims lost their lives and how many Danes? Who actually lost the most in this battle?

3) is this really about us? what i mean is that direct comments, (i,e ones intended to insult Islam, not ones that are intended to insult Muslims) are made etc hence, is it really our honor for us to ignore.

The intent is often to rile Muslims. Surely many of those that reprinted the cartoons had that intention. Then when the Muslims called for violent measures the insulters pointed their fingers and said "look, that is what Islam is all about". So who hurt the image of Islam the most, the publishers and the bloggers, or the Muslims that rioted and the leaders that called for peoples death?

And again, did any of their pictures or words truly hurt Islam? Does God really need people to defend him with violence?

*sighs*seems like you didn't read my previous post. did you?

Yes, I did. That is why I have all these questions for you. I honestly want to know your answer to them. I truly want to understand the reasoning behind endorsing violence against someone for an insult. I want to understand how someone can believe they are defending their beliefs, or honoring their Prophet, by calling for people to be killed or beaten over an insult.

[unitedmuslim73]

some hadeeth say that the nearrest sign for the coming of Imam Mahdi is a cometh witha luminous tail which will muslims and non muslims around the world..

Is the event 2012 linked with hadeeth of the coming of Imam Mahdi?

[titus]

The 2012 is Mayan, not Muslim. The Mayans were not aware of Muhammad or Islam at all. 2012 is not even the end of the Mayan calendar. The whole premise is based on a misunderstanding of a Mayan text, therefore I would completely safe saying that 2012 has absolutely zero to do with any Islamic beliefs about the end of the world.

[Rafeeq]

Adding what titus says, this is 5th calander era is going to finish as per Mayan calander. Thier calander is distributed in 7 different calanders. One important thing in Mayan beleifs is that they did not believe in end of time. According to them the world's distruction and re-construction will remain going on so with the end of one era and starting with another.

[Muezzin]

The upcoming disaster movie "2012" lays waste to many political, cultural and religious buildings and landmarks. But one Islamic icon was too sensitive to touch: the Kaaba, the cube-shaped building in the heart of Mecca, one of the holiest sites in Islam.

Director Roland Emmerich told SCI FI Wire that he wanted to include the religious site in the film, but was talked out of it. "My co-writer Harald [Kloser] said I will not have a fatwa on my head because of a movie. And he was right," he explained.
A fatwa in the Islamic faith is a religious opinion by scholar on a legal, civil, or religious matter. The term gained meaning in the Western world in 1989 when Iran's Ayatollah Khomeini issued a fatwa calling for the death of author Salman Rushdie, whom he accused of blasphemy.
Another well-known and deadly fatwa was issued by Osama bin Laden in 1998 and called for Muslims to execute Americans and their allies, according to the Columbia Encyclopedia .

Emmerich went on to say, "We have to all in the Western world think about this. You can actually let Christian symbols fall apart, but if you would do this with [an] Arab symbol, you would have a fatwa, and that sounds a little bit like what the state of this world is.

"So it's just something which I kind of didn't [think] was [an] important element, anyway, in the film, so I kind of left it out."

If Emmerich was only saying this because he was specifically asked this question by a journalist, then it's the journalist stirring up trouble.

If Emmerich said this unbidden, then he is (perhaps unwittingly) stirring up trouble that will gain his film publicity.

Either way, if the requisite visual effects were completed, the scene will probably end up on the DVD as a deleted scene. I personally wouldn't find such a scene offensive as such - the movie is about The End of the World (TM), after all, with every manmade structure in existence collapsing under the stress of misbehaving computer-generated tectonic plates. Boneheaded spectacle ('Oh my God, all the buildings are ASLPODING!') rather than propaganda.

As for his movies - they're all pretty cheesy, but Independence Day was fun. The new trailers for 2012, to me, have looked utterly boring. That's not some petty swipe at the guy as a result of this article - I felt that way before I'd even seen this thread. Empty spectacle doesn't really do it for me anymore.

[Güven]

The movie was not that good anyway, I thought they would show the end of the world with everybody going to die and all but noooo for some strange reason the ''hero's'' tried to manage to escape vulcano's, falling buildings, earthquakes, Tsunami's etc..

And they did show the Ka'aba for a second but not getting destroyed infact in my opinion it was the most peaceful place/scene in the whole movie. Everyone was in chaos, everything getting destroyed but only the Ka'aba looked secure....even though it was only for a second.

[Supreme]

The movie was not that good anyway, I thought they would show the end of the world with everybody going to die and all but noooo for some strange reason the ''hero's'' tried to manage to escape vulcano's, falling buildings, earthquakes, Tsunami's etc..

And they did show the Ka'aba for a second but not getting destroyed infact in my opinion it was the most peaceful place/scene in the whole movie. Everyone was in chaos, everything getting destroyed but only the Ka'aba looked secure....even though it was only for a second.

The only redeeming feature of the movie in my opinion is the special effects. Otherwise, it's your typical film written by a chimp with a keyboard trying to make and average story into a fantastic movie, and in the process making the movie worse.

[Güven]

The only redeeming feature of the movie in my opinion is the special effects. Otherwise, it's your typical film written by a chimp with a keyboard trying to make and average story into a fantastic movie, and in the process making the movie worse.

Same thoughts, the special effects were the only thing that kept me from falling asleep.

The story was really bad, the ending was ridiculous/no-sense.

[Nσσя'υℓ Jαииαн]

I have to agree. The effects were good, otherwise, not quite what I expected!

[aadil77]

that movie was so crap, I would have probly got offended if they used islam any more to support the crap story of that film.

If it was any good then it might have been alright

[Ummu Sufyaan]

Ah, maybe this is the crux of the problem. You believe that when people insult your beliefs that your beliefs are threatened.
I don't see that. You believe in Islam. How does someone insulting your belief threaten it? Does it change the way you feel about Islam? Does it make Islam any less true to you? Is Islam in any way, shape or form actually harmed by these insults?
I don't believe that insulting a belief harms that belief.

maybe threat was a bad word to choose. try insulted, ridiculed, mock, scorn, etc.

The intent is often to rile Muslims. Surely many of those that reprinted the cartoons had that intention. Then when the Muslims called for violent measures the insulters pointed their fingers and said "look, that is what Islam is all about". So who hurt the image of Islam the most, the publishers and the bloggers, or the Muslims that rioted and the leaders that called for peoples death?

isn't it my fault that my house gets robbed if i choose not to lock the doors and windows at night? Who is blame? The thief or me?
i wouldn't blame say a Christian/non-Muslim if they got all passionate if they had their beliefs insulted. i really wouldn't. heck, i'd be pretty peeved off at a Muslim if they choose to insult other peoples beliefs as well.

And again, did any of their pictures or words truly hurt Islam?

definatley not. but should one shut up when they get slapped in the face? I think not!

Does God really need people to defend him with violence?

doing what we do, doesn't mean we are defending God. Indeed God doesn't need anyone to defend him, and certainly not with violence.

Yes, I did. That is why I have all these questions for you. I honestly want to know your answer to them. I truly want to understand the reasoning behind endorsing violence against someone for an insult. I want to understand how someone can believe they are defending their beliefs, or honoring their Prophet, by calling for people to be killed or beaten over an insult.

1) You see it as merely insult, as freedom of speech (don’t do that). we see it as something else. That is the problem; we are on completely 2 different wave lengths. the Iraqi throw thrower got tortured and put in prison cos he threw his show at Bush. Who was Bush at that time? and why was the shoe thrower put in prison? Was it because he expressed his opinion (not likely), or because he threw his show at the President? Same type of principle applies.

2) Islamically speaking, insulting Allah, Muhammad, the Quran, etc is a major sin that calls for a severe penalty (death) under an Islamic state/ruler <---that is the severity of it. In the same way justice is to be handed down to the adulterer by getting the stone And in the same way a Muslim may get put in prison for *supposedly* having links to al-qaeda (under secular laws), then again, the same concept applies. Even if a Muslim was to insult Islam, etc the law still holds. In fact the sin is greater.
im not actually sure if such penalties are still carried out withOUT the Islamic state in place, hence im not sure if these riots, etc are actually Islamically acceptable to even begin with so you can’t shout out "violence violence violence" and point the finger when it hasn’t been clarified from an Islamic perspective.
The whole point of my debate here is that all im trying to say is insulting and defaming islam isnt acceptable to begin with and Muslims shoulnt have the blame put fairly and squrely on them. So as i implied previously, it is essential to look at things in perspective.

“Violence” you keep bring this word up negligently and don’t seem to be fully grasping my explanations? either that or you are ignoring them? So, in light of the above, how is handing down justice considered as violent. if it were, then cops would get it badly, for simply dealing harshly and sternly with those who they hand cuff.

i dont know if it is intended, but you word your sentences in such as a way, that it is only possible to say one thing. dont hold your breath, im not going to say Islam is violent. it's not happening.

if you want to understand us and why we feel so moved when our beliefs are ridiculed, you should consider reading/researching about our beliefs and about Our Prophet and how much we are to hold them dear. Perhaps you should self reflect for a min, as well. Titus, do you hold someone/something is high respect? Do you look up to someone? not necessarily a person, maybe a belief. is this someone/something, one that you emulate and has been an example to you and is a foundation is your everyday life? What about if your language and/or race was insulted. What would you do?

3) you need to get to the root of the problem. And yet again i’ll ask. What is their agenda with us that they need to stir our anger?

[Beardo]

Just on the matter, all I'm going to say is...

I was so pleased to hear that there is a good amount of Islamic awareness out there. I heard churches, synagogues, temples, and all were being destroyed but the only object that will stand will be none other than the Holy and Sacred Ka'bah! Takbeer!

[Abdul Qadir]

I don't really know how the Kaaba could collapse/be destroyed in a symbolic/dramatic way anyway. I mean, it's just a cube, what could go wrong?

The kaaba will be destroyed by a thin black man from ethopia...am not being a racist here...

[titus]

definatley not. but should one shut up when they get slapped in the face? I think not!

Bad analogy. You are equating a physical act with an insult. If you are slapped then you are being threatened physically. Nobody is being threatened physically by printing cartoons or having the Kaaba destroyed in a film.

“Violence” you keep bring this word up negligently and don’t seem to be fully grasping my explanations? either that or you are ignoring them? So, in light of the above, how is handing down justice considered as violent.

Because I don't consider killing someone over an insult justice. I see it as vengeance. I see it as a disproportionate response. But justice? No way.

im not actually sure if such penalties are still carried out withOUT the Islamic state in place, hence im not sure if these riots, etc are actually Islamically acceptable to even begin with so you can’t shout out "violence violence violence" and point the finger when it hasn’t been clarified from an Islamic perspective.

I am much more concerned about how most Muslims feel about it, not the theological aspect of it. What concerns me is that you, from what I gather from your posts, support fatwahs that call for violence against people over an insult. And yes, violence is the correct wording for fatwahs that call for peoples death. In fact that word may be too tame.

Do not get me wrong. My issue is not with Islam. It is with those that issue fatwahs and those that support such fatwahs.

i dont know if it is intended, but you word your sentences in such as a way, that it is only possible to say one thing. dont hold your breath, im not going to say Islam is violent. it's not happening.

I can promise you that that is not my intention. Again, my issue is not with Islam, but those Muslims that call for the death of those that insult their beliefs.

Perhaps you should self reflect for a min, as well. Titus, do you hold someone/something is high respect? Do you look up to someone? not necessarily a person, maybe a belief. is this someone/something, one that you emulate and has been an example to you and is a foundation is your everyday life? What about if your language and/or race was insulted. What would you do?

I can tell you that I would not call for the death of the person that did it. I am extremely secure in my beliefs, so no insult would bother me to that extent because I would realize that person doing the insult was either ignorant or trying to get me to react. If they are ignorant then I ease my mind with that knowledge and let it go. If they are trying to get me to react then why should I make them happy by giving them what they want?

If you are secure in your beliefs then the insults wouldn't bother you.

Look at it this way. Say I had an attractive wife (which I do) and someone came up to me and insulted her by saying she was ugly and her face looked like a Halloween mask. Now, I know that my wife is beautiful, so why would the insult bother me? I know the man is full of crap. I would have to laugh at the mans stupidity and move on.

The same should go with Islam or Muhammad or whatever else it is that sets you off. If someone wants to destroy a picture of the Kabaa or paint your Prophet as a terrorist then why be bothered by it if you know that it is not the truth?

you need to get to the root of the problem. And yet again i’ll ask. What is their agenda with us that they need to stir our anger?

The same reasons you see people burning American flags. Some people do it because they feel impotent against a superpower so they take their frustrations out on something that cannot hurt them. Others doing it trying to provoke a reaction.

Do you think it would be appropriate for the US government to issue edicts every time someone burns one of their flags in protest calling for the death of that person?

Do you think Jews should be able to put out death warrants on anyone that insults their religion?

If you do believe that they should then I shudder to think what type of world that would be. If you don't believe that then why should Muslims be the exception to the rule and be allowed to condemn to death people that insult their beliefs?

[Ummu Sufyaan]

im just going to put it this way: we have our way of doing things, you have yours. in fact both our ways are rather similar, only we manifest them in different forms. but most of the time, i think our concepts and ideas are the same thing in essence. really, i do.

in all honesty, i dont know what else to say and/or how to explain it more then i already have.

Because I don't consider killing someone over an insult justice. I see it as vengeance. I see it as a disproportionate response. But justice? No way.

it isnt the insult that is the problem, it is who you are insulting that is. as i said: the Iraqi throw thrower got tortured and put in prison cos he threw his show at Bush. Who was Bush at that time? and why was the shoe thrower put in prison? Was it because he expressed his opinion (not likely), or because he threw his show at the President? Same type of principle applies.

if it was simply putting to death over an insult, then a Muslim would be put to death for insulting another Muslim/non-Muslim.

1. maybe Americans dont dont act when their flags are burnt, becuase they know that they are in the wrong. 2. i think real hard core patriotic Americans would find it offensive threat their flag was getting burnt.

Do you think Jews should be able to put out death warrants on anyone that insults their religion?

i dont care, they can do what they want. i take it you are referring to my previous comment? if yes, saying Jews are :raging: is different from saying Judaism is :raging: i would never insult anyone's beliefs. i would disagree with them, but insult? no.

[titus]

i dont care, they can do what they want. i take it you are referring to my previous comment?

No, sorry, I was not referring to your previous comment. I was just giving another example of a religious group being given "permission" to kill people that believes insult its beliefs.

it isnt the insult that is the problem, it is who you are insulting that is.

Then what would be the problem with the Kabaa being destroyed in a movie?

1. maybe Americans dont dont act when their flags are burnt, becuase they know that they are in the wrong. 2. i think real hard core patriotic Americans would find it offensive threat their flag was getting burnt.

1. No. Not in the least.
2. Does that give them the right to kill the people that did it?

in fact both our ways are rather similar, only we manifest them in different forms. but most of the time, i think our concepts and ideas are the same thing in essence. really, i do.

I agree completely. I know it may seem like I don't because I tend to concentrate on the differences and not the similarities, but I do. I guess I am looking for some kind of understanding here and I just can't seem to find it. I cannot wrap my head around supporting killing people for nothing more than an insult.

[Iris]

I really don't get what all this hype is about the year 2012??

[Eliphaz]

It's just a movie people. Even if it depicted the Ka'aba being destroyed, what difference does that make to the reality of things? How does that insult Islam or Muslims? It is just a fictional borrowing of an iconic image to create a sense of reality in an otherwise far-fetched typically overblown Hollywood movie.

Let's face it, if Emmerich put the Ka'aba in the movie getting destroyed, there would have been chaos, and regardless of the media trumpeting it (what do you expect them to do?) that is really the fact of the matter.

Muslims are, in their own minds, defending Islam when they take to the streets after a forwarded email reports some new pseudo-blasphemy against Islam, but they are really themselves painting the worst kind of advert for Islam when they act the way many do. This is not how the Prophet would have behaved, in such a knee-jerk fight-every-small-battle kind of way, so why should we?