Mecca

Prophet Muhammad movie in Indian homes is an edgy affair

(This is a reprint from NewsBred).

Nobody knows how the debut of movie “Muhammad, Messenger of God” in Indian homes next week would be reacted to by millions of Indian Muslims.

A new player in the Over The Top (OTT) streaming platforms, Don Cinema, run by an Indian Mehmood Ali, would release the movie on its App on July 21–a month which closes with Bakra Eid, or the Festival of the Sacrifice, considered holier than Eid al-Fitr, the two Islamic holidays celebrated world over.

The film’s score has been composed by that Mozart of Madras, A.R. Rahman, who had a fatwa issued against him on this movie itself six years ago, as it was on its Iranian film-maker Majid Majidi by a little-known Indian Islamic organisation, Raza Academy. Rahman was asked to read Kalima (The Word) again and re-solemnize his marriage.

The same organisation has issued a bugle again for this “intolerable” act by Don Cinema, wondering why Muslims are always the “target” even when it’s known that a “Muslim will die in honour than to see or hear even the slightest insult on his Holy Prophet.” The Academy has ended its appeal with the unveiled threat that it would cause “unrest” and “law and order” problem.

This movie on the Prophet of Islam was state-sponsored by Iran and released world over in 2015 but Saudi Arabia has banned it and so have a score of other Islamic countries who profess faith in Sunni Islam. As is known, Iran is the centre of Shia faith and Saudi Arabia of Sunni and the two have been violently divided over many a century over its purity.

The film took seven years in the making and has been hailed as a masterpiece by moviegoers yet the depiction of Prophet Muhammad, or anybody embodying him in art, cartoon or movies, is a taboo disapproved by Islamic theologians. Very few have crossed the redline and not paid the price.

In 2005, cartoons on the Islamic Prophet published by a Danish newspaper led to violent protests, attack on embassies and consumer boycotts and left scores of people dead.

In 2015, Islamic militants smoked out 12 lives at the offices of French magazine Charlie Hebdo for depicting the Prophet in cartoons which were termed blasphemous.

Salman Rushdie’s is an episode known world over as his 1988 book “The Satanic Verses” fell into crosshairs with Islam’s adherents and Iran’s late supreme leader Ayatollah Khomeini issued a fatwa, calling on Muslims world over to kill the author.

Closer home, Kamlesh Tiwari, a Hindu nationalist politician, had his throat slit inside his home by two Islamic fundamentalists for calling the Prophet Muhammad as the first homosexual last year.

The movie which depicts the early life of Prophet Muhammad, claims to show Islam in good light and spread its message of peace and brotherhood which has been tarred by jihadis and terrorists in recent decades. It’s been mainly shot in Iran but when elephants were required for the movie, India refused permission to filmmakers who later opted for South Africa.

As it shaped up the storyline went thus:

An attack on Mecca is ordered to destroy the Kaaba by the order of Abraha, King of Habasha. One of his commanders lead a force of thousands of soldiers, horses and elephants. As the army reaches the gate of Mecca, the elephants halt and refuse to move on the divine order. Next, small birds in millions release a hail of stones onto the invaders and the army is wiped out. A month later, the Prophet Muhammad is born. This pre-Islamic Arabia is seen through the eyes of the Prophet Muhammad from birth to the age of 13.

The movie at no point shows the face of the Prophet. Only his hand and feet in the cradle as a baby, and a child from the back is shown. The identity of the boy who played the Prophet Muhammad has not been revealed so far.

The apprehension on reception of this movie in India is valid. The first attempt to depict the Prophet Muhammad in a movie called “The Message” happened 43 years ago. In 1976, Anthony Quinn played the Prophet’s uncle Hamza. The film didn’t depict the Prophet Muhammad’s face on screen but Muslims were offended nevertheless. The movie’s director, Syrian Moustapha Al-Akkad was killed in a 2005 suicide bombing in Amman. It’s not confirmed though whether the attack was related to the movie.

In 1977, gun-terrorists sieged the B’nai B’rith building in Washington DC and demanded the movie’s release in the United States to be cancelled or they would blow up the building. A policeman and a journalist died in the standoff.

Interestingly, this movie was released in 2018 in Saudi Arabia after a 42-year ban. It became the first Arabic title to get a theatrical release in Saudi Arabia. Since it was approved by the Middle East censors, many other Islamic countries such as Egypt, Morocco, Iraq, Lebanon, Ethiopia etc also released the movie. This is only one of the two movies ever made on The Prophet, the other being the present one by the Iranian director.

It’s not clear how the release of this Iranian movie would play out in India. It’s unlikely the radical Islamic elements in India would look the other way. Even though the Shias in India might keep their peace since the movie has the blessing of Islamic Republic of Iran, the Sunnis would take the leaf out of Saudi Arabia’s book and all hell could break loose. For all we know, Don Cinema could itself develop cold feet. One surely can’t take one’s eyes off the movie even before one has seen it.

 

 

Paatal Lok: How abusing Hindu gods passed your muster, Ms Anushka

(This is a reprint from NewsBred).

 

I cringed watching Paatal Lok.  Kutiya (bitch) is a word used in everyday life for a women of no-character. A bed-hopping adulteress. In the serial, a kutiya is named “Savitri.” The name which has a pious association for all Hindus since it tells about “Sati Savitri” who made Yamraj (God of death) return Satyavaan for her exemplary devotion to her husband. Many metaphors with Savitri are routinely used, e.g “Badi Sati Savitri bani phirti hai. (Don’t act as you are a Sati Savitri).”

Indifferent, that most Hindus are, would give a benefit of doubt. Maybe, the producer, Anushka Sharma, knows many bitches who are named “Savitri.” Maybe, the creator, Sudip Sharma, remembered a cousin who was Savitri and was called “kutiya” at home. Maybe the platform, Amazon Prime Video, is obliged to some Jihadi or missionary sponsor.

Then you have a scene which would bear a recall to the unfortunate Junaid incident when a young Muslim boy lost his life on a suburban train. The Left-Liberal media made sure that Junaid became a posthumous symbol of Hindu’s intolerance on beef. Only, the Court later ruled that the clash had occurred over occupation of seats and not beef. This truth remains uncorrected in Lutyens Media. Paatal Lok turns it into a legend. The scene has no relevance to the script. Its dispensable to narrative. Yet it’s forced in.

Chitrakoot is sacred for Hindus like few holy sites are. Rama and Sita and Laxman spent 11 years and six months of their 14 years of banishment here. As per Hindu legends, Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva made a pilgrimage here. Great sages like Sati Anusuya and Valmiki meditated. It remains a place where renowned seers, devotees and thinkers visit for Nirvaana. In Paatal Lok, it’s shown as a hotbed of criminals and murderers. A dark world. A habitat of monsters.

Here we have Hindu priests who make the most profane abuses in temples and distribute beef. We have an upper-caste Hindu confidante of a corrupt Hindu leader who does extra-marital sex with his janeu (sacred thread) visible on his torso. The corrupt Brahmin leader himself eats with Dalits but carries mineral water in his jeep. We have CBI cook up the Islamic State terrorists theory when none exists.

Most of this is intended to show Hindus in poor light. To make them doubt their gods, to lose faith in a culture and heritage which is unbroken for last 5000 years, without an equivalence in the world. So that young Hindus see no reason to develop faith. It dies out without followers in due course.

If this is artistic licence, just imagine: A Muslim is doing sex with his faith’s holy images on the wall; a bitch is named Ayesha or Mary; Mecca and Medina are Jihadis hideouts; pork is being served in Mosque. Or if the Prophet is picked like Krishna is occasionally done for gopikas. Does this make you angry, our Muslim and Christian brethren? Sure it does and it must.  But don’t worry, these transgressions only happen for Hindus for they won’t burn producers’ homes or cars like it could happen if you dare draw an image of a certain Prophet. None have done so and not paid the price.

This is the boundary which is never crossed in the name of creative licence and artistic freedom. Hindus apparently are the only suckers in this world.

Paatal Lok’s creator Sudip Sharma has now given an interview to a Leftist website where he claims “all art is inspired by reality…we need to trust our faith and I believe our faith is strong enough to take any criticism.” He says bitch was named Savitri as like the holy goddess, she also saves her husband.

If we may ask you Sudip, do Dolly and Sanjeev Mehra remind you of Savitri and Satyavaan? The husband routinely does sex outside marriage with a colleague; the wife picks a boy with the same on her mind. Would your reality extend to temples (Chandni Chowk) which are broken by Muslims; or where people are peeing on Lord Shiva’s bust. Would this reality encompass men like Tahir Hussain who had allegedly stocked petrol bombs and threw them through his men from his terrace? Or when Hindu kaanwarias are attacked while passing a Muslim locality? Is the reality that beef-mafia is run by Muslims and between Akhlaq and Junaid, dozens of Hindus were killed by this mafia for their cows, could be your reality-check? How about a Madarsa teacher who raped a minor 100 times? Is Islamic State a myth by Indian state agencies which must be mocked by you?

As of now, the BJP government has no plan to censor Over The Top (OTT) platforms like Netflix and Amazon Prime Video for derogatory content. We the viewers though could boycott Paatal Lok. They most probably did so to invite a Hindu outcry which in turn would bring more viewers in front of their TV sets. They also know it would ensure a favourable review. Hindus have an obligation to switch off.

Do it.

 

Pavan Varma shows his real self on Gandhi, Nehru & Hindutva

Pavan K. Varma, member of JD (U), usually hedges his bets quite nicely but his edit piece in Times of India on Saturday (December 9, 2017) deserves a considered rebuttal.

Basically, Varma praises Jawaharlal Nehru (“Scientific Humanist”) and Mahatma Gandhi (“Catholic spirit”) for the India that should be; and slams the “deliberate communalization by the “Hindutva” brigade.

Varma pompously terms it a “malevolent design.” He writes that such forces “know very little about what Hinduism is.” Therefore, “Hinduism needs to be reclaimed…from rampant bigotry.”

Since Varma knows so much about “Being Indian”, having written a book by this title, he needs be told what Nehru thought of Indians while seeking permission from his father to shift from Cambridge to Oxford in England: “Cambridge is becoming too full of Indians.” [i]

As for his praise of Gandhi for the “Catholic spirit”, Varma needs be asked if it’s the same “Catholic spirit” which makes a Pope condemn the attempts of US-based protestant missions in Latin America but show his double standards by keeping silent on Catholic missions in India?

Is it the same “Catholic Spirit” he has in his mind when he surveys Church buildings standing on the debris of Hindu Temples in South India? [ii] Hasn’t Varma read the Niyogi Committee Report on Christian conversions? Isn’t he aware that Catholic church by itself could be the biggest owner or real estate in India? On a historical scale, does Varma has any recollection of Church condemning colonialism? Would he deliberate the Holocaust could be the result of centuries of Christian anti-Jewish stance? Does he remember Christianity’s oppression of Pagans?

Indeed, European landscape is studded with churches containing false relics of false saints to whom false martyrdom is attributed. [iii]

Now, let’s return to Mahatma Gandhi which Varma praises for his “respect for all religions.” Does Varma remember that Gandhi had made the last-ditch proposal to Jinnah to accept Muslim/non-Muslim parity in Parliament, making one Muslim equal to three non-Muslims? (As an aside, how could Gandhi who has “respect for all religions” be praised for his “Catholic spirit”? Too bad, Mr Varma for using a communal brush on your hero.)

Varma calls out Hindutva forces for communalization in this country. Doesn’t he know that it was Hindutva forces who opposed communal electorates and recruitment quota which Congress had endorsed in pre-Independent India? Doesn’t he know that Hindus can never be fundamentalist because this concept belongs to Biblical-Quaranic traditions? And that Hindu scriptures are universally acknowledged repository of plurality?

We all know, as I am sure Varma does, that words such as “secularism” and “Hindu communalism” were made popular by Nehru. But did Nehru, his other hero, ever say a word about Muslim League which was a reincarnation of “communalism?”

Let’s now take up Varma’s diatribe against the Hindutva forces, which as I infer, is Rashstriya Swamsewak Sangh (RSS) and Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP).

In RSS’ official statements, the notion of a “Hindu state” is totally absent. Every BJP member, on joining the party has to take the solemn pledge of “Sarva Dharma Sambhav.” That, “I subscribe to the concept of a secular state and nation not based on religion.”

In the RSS literature of the last 60-odd years, “not a single derogatory word or expression towards Christ, Biblical teachings, Prophets of the Bible, Mohammad Paigambar or Koran, or pilgrimage to the Holy Land Jerusalem or Mecca, or about anything which is purely religion,” has been mentioned. [iv]

The BJP election manifesto clearly states that “diversity is an inseparable part of India’s past and present national tradition.”

Varma would never condemn the curious fact that media never mentions the service aspect of RSS. He wouldn’t mention that Hindu India has no history of book-burning, of executing heretics or throwing dissidents to lunatic asylums. Does he remember that it was Hindus’ India which gave shelter to Christian refugees in 345AD and never took that protection away?

Varma in his editorial piece slams Hindutva forces for the “vitriolic politics” on Ram Mandir-Babri Masjid dispute even when the “dispute” is before the Supreme Court. Varma would do well to tell his readers that dispute is not about Mandir or Masjid. The High Court had already awarded Mandir to Hindu litigants. What the Hindu litigants are demanding is the entire land and not one-third of it. Besides, who began the Ayodhya issue? Wasn’t it “janeu-dhari” and “Shiv-bhakt” Rahul Gandhi and the blundering Kapil Sibal?

Wasn’t it Lal Krishna Advani who noted in a BJP Today editorial (16.11.97) that “non-Hindu” luminaries such as VS Naipual and Nirad C. Chaudhuri  had justified the Babri demolition and that it was Advani himself who “still regretted the manner in which this happened” ?

Would the intellectual Varma offer us a clue why even after 25 years of Babri demolition, neither he nor his friends in Lutyens’ Media have attempted to find out the real culprits? Surely such forces which can dig up every cent being credited to the Jan Dhan accounts can do the job.

I do not know if Varma is a socialist or Marxist. But I do remember this popular saying about the misfortune of Hindus and their cultural heritage. “Hindus have been facing a sustained attack from Islam since the seventh, Christianity since the 15th and the Marxists since the 20th century.”

[i]  – Joseph Shattan: Review of Stanley Wolpert’s book, “Nehru: A Tryst with Destiny, in American Spectator, February 1997

[ii]  Decolonizing the Hindu Mind by Dr. Koenraad Elst, Page 273

[iii] Decolonizing the Hindu Mind by Dr. Koenraad Elst, Page 277

[iv] Christianity in India, by Sreepaty Sastry, Page 18