Take a read of this AFP report entitled "'Islamic Jesus' hits Iranian movie screens".
Apparently "A director who shares the ideas of Iran's hardline president has produced what he says is the first film giving an Islamic view of Jesus Christ, in a bid to show the "common ground" between Muslims and Christians.
Nader Talebzadeh sees his movie, "Jesus, the Spirit of God," as an Islamic answer to Western productions like Mel Gibson's 2004 blockbuster "The Passion of the Christ," which he praised as admirable but quite simply "wrong".
"Gibson's film is a very good film. I mean that it is a well-crafted movie but the story is wrong -- it was not like that," he said, referring to two key differences: Islam sees Jesus as a prophet, not the son of God, and does not believe he was crucified."
So the "common ground" would appear to be that Jesus existed and was a prophet but not that he was the son of God, or was resurrected. I think the idea of "common ground" might be a little fanciful.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I see the Mail online has a story about a Muslim M&S shop assistant who refused to serve a lady buying a childrens Bible Stories book as it was 'unclean'! This is getting silly.
BTW, the Mail isn't allowing comments to be posted, although I doubt they'd accept mine anyway - they usually don't.
I am surprised about the tone of this one, please tell me I am wrong, but you are saying here that a Muslim country should not do a film about Jesus because Jesus is an individual whose story can only be told from the Christian perspective. Or if not even that, but attempts to give the Muslim story equal footing on the world not the domestic stage is again a sad attempt a political opportunism or something?
From either point this is basically incorrect. There are very many views on who Jesus was, and what he did, with each of the major religions have their own view. In fact I think that Christianity is in the minority of opinion in saying that Jesus was Crucified, and though the historical account can see this as a possibility it is not without some amounts of doubt.
That being said the thing about M&S is as daft as anything, even from a Muslim perspective as the oxymoronic concept of Fundamentalist (note not Conservative - there is an important distinction) Muslims takes hold with their own totally unique and above all recent ideas of how a Muslim should and should not behave. And the fact that it is done in this country makes the point even stronger.
Anyway, please realize the politics Iran may effect the coverage but not the essential truth (from the Muslim perspective) of the story. A story held by all Muslims, just as we can say that all Christians believe that Jesus was the Son of God. Indeed I can see the opposite as being true; when he accepts the Passion of the Christ as being a good film. It is a good step forward to show that in some ways there is join dialogue to be had between the major religions above the level of academic interest.
Anthony, just ask yourself what sort of reception a film made in the Christian West casting doubt on any of the accepted "facts" about "the prophet" Mohammed would have received in Islamic countries. In fact ask yourself whether such a film would even be made for fear of what it might provoke.
That misses the point in many ways. This sort of film hasn't been written to doubt the truth of the Christian Jesus. It is written to tell of the Muslim Jesus. A very important and vital figure within Islam whose message was tainted and lost over time for whatever reason, but still an important and revered person.
That is how Muslims will see it.
Indeed it is how they read it ever day in the Qur'an. This story is not made up and is not created for film it is a part of the Qur'an and the Religious history, theology and tradition of Islam.
This does not belittle the Cristian Christ, no right minded Muslim would want to do that. What this film does is tell a story that contradicts the Christian story, the same way the Christian story contradicts the Muslim story every year. There is no outcry for that late in ever December.
You example just does not fit either. One that would fit would be if there was a figure within the Bible that was called Muhammad and he is seen as a follower of Jesus, but misguided. And a film was made then by Christians then there is a comparison.
The important point is that he would not be the Muslim Muhammad. He would not effect the millions of Muslims who follow his teachings, just because the name is the same and the historical figure is the same does not meant the meaning is the same. Indeed if we come to this, for many Christians the historical figure of Jesus is the last thing they will want to hear about and indeed could happily say on a theological basis that the Muslims can have him.
Post a Comment