Islam’s have the right to be angry about the movie “Innocence of Muslims” because it depicted Muhammad, a religious figure, who is not to be shown in any form. However the controversy created over this movie was not intended by the director. The bounty for the filmmaker of this movie by Pakistan’s Railway Minister Ghulam Ahmad Bilou is uncalled for and outrageous. Mr. Bilou announced that he would pay 100,000 USD for the murder of the maker of the movie “Innocence of Muslims”. He has stated that this appeal reflects his personal views and not the ideals of his party. Yet, in my personal opinion that is not what I took from the articles that I read. By all means Islamic have the right to be upset. But, addressing the public that one would want to murder some one else for depicting a religion in a false manner is uncalled. Not only that, but instigating fear in the public by addressing the Taliban and al Qaeda to carry out the assassination undermines the political party’s desire to get anti-blasphemy law passed by the Unitied Nation. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/pakistan/9563183/Pakistan-minister-refuses-to-step-down-over-bounty.html This outrage clearly demonstrates the extremists’ views that exist within the Pakistan government and how they can undermine the party’s mandate. Another point to bring up is that there have been many cases over the ages where other religions have been “deemed” to be persecuted in the media, yet no deadly threats are reported. An example that demonstrates this is Mel Gibson’s movie “Passion of Christ” which was deemed to be anti-Semitic however no actions were taken that would possibly in danger the actor’s life. In the end, in my own opinion, Islamic have the right to be upset, but evidence serves that through out history other religions have been prosecuted in the media and no bounty’s have been issued for ones life. Therefore, what makes the depiction on Muhammad so different that one feels the need to kill another?
I agree with what was said above, that Islam's do have the right to be angry, with the movie 'Innocence of Muslims' because it does depict Muhammad which is very disrespectful to the Islam religion. I also do agree which is stated above, that the director did not mean to cause the controversy by making the movie. But I do think the director should of known or at least thought about how unstable the Middle East is and how the militia were just looking for any reason to cause destruction, which is what they did when they attacked the US consulate in Libya. They just used the movie as an excuse to in their minds 'justify' the attack. However that is not what this article is about, it is about the 100,000 dollar reward offered to anyone who would kill the director of the movie, Nakoula Basseley Nakoula. I think that although railway Minister Ghulam Ahmad Bilour stated to CNN that he was 'speaking only for himself and not as a government representative' that it still reflects poorly on Muslims in general who are trying to get away from the stereotype that they are a violent religion. I think by Bilour being in a position of power and authority and then addressing the Taliban and Al Qaeda directly and asking for their help, when those are the very groups that are wreaking havoc on the countries, quiet frankly I find that disgusting and is just completely reversing all the work that the world is trying to do to disband those extremist groups. I understand that other prominent religious figures have been depicted in the media (Jesus, Buddha, any Hindu Gods or Goddess) but it is not against their religion to depict them, unlike Islam. During an episode of South Park the creators showed Jesus and Muhammad in a bear suit, nothing was said about the Jesus character, however the website Revolutionmuslim (since taken down) had threatened to kill the writers of South Park. Depicting Muhammad is against Islamic religion and although I do not necessarily agree with it or understand why that is, I think as a global community we need to be more sensitive to their beliefs whether we agree with them or not. I do not believe putting a bounty on the directors head is in anyway correct nor do I think that the director needs to be sentenced to death or even jail time (which he could be as he has been imprisoned for parole violations and could face up to three years in prison.) Like said above what makes the depiction of Muhammad so prevalent that one feels the need to kill another over it?
Islam’s have the right to be angry about the movie “Innocence of Muslims” because it depicted Muhammad, a religious figure, who is not to be shown in any form. However the controversy created over this movie was not intended by the director. The bounty for the filmmaker of this movie by Pakistan’s Railway Minister Ghulam Ahmad Bilou is uncalled for and outrageous. Mr. Bilou announced that he would pay 100,000 USD for the murder of the maker of the movie “Innocence of Muslims”. He has stated that this appeal reflects his personal views and not the ideals of his party. Yet, in my personal opinion that is not what I took from the articles that I read. By all means Islamic have the right to be upset. But, addressing the public that one would want to murder some one else for depicting a religion in a false manner is uncalled. Not only that, but instigating fear in the public by addressing the Taliban and al Qaeda to carry out the assassination undermines the political party’s desire to get anti-blasphemy law passed by the Unitied Nation. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/pakistan/9563183/Pakistan-minister-refuses-to-step-down-over-bounty.html This outrage clearly demonstrates the extremists’ views that exist within the Pakistan government and how they can undermine the party’s mandate. Another point to bring up is that there have been many cases over the ages where other religions have been “deemed” to be persecuted in the media, yet no deadly threats are reported. An example that demonstrates this is Mel Gibson’s movie “Passion of Christ” which was deemed to be anti-Semitic however no actions were taken that would possibly in danger the actor’s life. In the end, in my own opinion, Islamic have the right to be upset, but evidence serves that through out history other religions have been prosecuted in the media and no bounty’s have been issued for ones life. Therefore, what makes the depiction on Muhammad so different that one feels the need to kill another?
ReplyDeleteI agree with what was said above, that Islam's do have the right to be angry, with the movie 'Innocence of Muslims' because it does depict Muhammad which is very disrespectful to the Islam religion. I also do agree which is stated above, that the director did not mean to cause the controversy by making the movie. But I do think the director should of known or at least thought about how unstable the Middle East is and how the militia were just looking for any reason to cause destruction, which is what they did when they attacked the US consulate in Libya. They just used the movie as an excuse to in their minds 'justify' the attack. However that is not what this article is about, it is about the 100,000 dollar reward offered to anyone who would kill the director of the movie, Nakoula Basseley Nakoula. I think that although railway Minister Ghulam Ahmad Bilour stated to CNN that he was 'speaking only for himself and not as a government representative' that it still reflects poorly on Muslims in general who are trying to get away from the stereotype that they are a violent religion. I think by Bilour being in a position of power and authority and then addressing the Taliban and Al Qaeda directly and asking for their help, when those are the very groups that are wreaking havoc on the countries, quiet frankly I find that disgusting and is just completely reversing all the work that the world is trying to do to disband those extremist groups.
ReplyDeleteI understand that other prominent religious figures have been depicted in the media (Jesus, Buddha, any Hindu Gods or Goddess) but it is not against their religion to depict them, unlike Islam. During an episode of South Park the creators showed Jesus and Muhammad in a bear suit, nothing was said about the Jesus character, however the website Revolutionmuslim (since taken down) had threatened to kill the writers of South Park. Depicting Muhammad is against Islamic religion and although I do not necessarily agree with it or understand why that is, I think as a global community we need to be more sensitive to their beliefs whether we agree with them or not.
I do not believe putting a bounty on the directors head is in anyway correct nor do I think that the director needs to be sentenced to death or even jail time (which he could be as he has been imprisoned for parole violations and could face up to three years in prison.) Like said above what makes the depiction of Muhammad so prevalent that one feels the need to kill another over it?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2207254/Pakistani-Minister-Ghulam-Ahmad-Bilour-places-100-000-bounty-head-Innocence-Muslims-filmmaker.html
http://gawker.com/5947469/innocence-of-mulsims-director-jailed-world-may-never-hear-what-hes-got-to-say-for-himself
http://edition.cnn.com/2012/09/23/world/meast/pakistan-film-bounty/