Why Banning The Movie ‘Muhammad - Messenger of God’ is Nonsensical
By
Arshad Alam, New Age Islam
Trailer of the movie, "Muhammad - Messenger of God"
-------
Muslim
fundamentalists have done it again. They have won a decisive victory by
coercing the Maharashtra government to prevent the release of Muhammad: The
Messenger of God, a film by the Iranian director Majid Majidi. The movie is
first part of a proposed trilogy depicting the life of Muhammad from childhood
to his final days. The first part largely concentrates on the social context of
the times in which Muhammad was born, the relationship of child Muhammad with
his two ‘mothers’ Amina and Halima, the love, trust and care that he received
within his clan the Banu Hashim, especially by his grandfather Abd al-Muttalib
and later by his uncle Abu Talib. This movie was to release on the 21st July on
an online media platform in Maharashtra. But before that, a group of Muslims,
led by Raza Academy in Mumbai successfully petitioned the Maharashtra
government to ban the release of the movie. Not just that, the home minister of
Maharashtra, Anil Deshmukh, wrote to the union government to see to it that the
movie is banned nationally across all streaming and other platforms as it will
hurt the ‘religious sentiment of Muslims’ and might lead to ‘religious tension’
in the country. It remains to be seen what decision the union government takes
on the issue but, in the meanwhile, the Raza Academy has definitely won a
victory over all those, Muslims or otherwise, who would very much have wanted
to see the movie.
Prophet Muhammad sits with the Abrahamic prophets in Jerusalem,
anonymous, Mirajnama (Book of Ascension), Tabriz, ca. 1317-1330
Credit: Topkapi Palace Musuem, Istanbul, Turkey.
-----
Raza
Academy is one of the many Barelwi organizations in India. The Academy has
organised protests against Salman Rushdie, Taslima Nasreen and even A R Rahman,
all for ‘hurting’ the religious sentiments of Muslims. This should have some
impact on those who have argued that Barelwis are an inherently tolerant group
who should be cultivated for the promotion of moderate Islam. The Barelwis
understand Prophet Muhammad as more than a model human being. They have
consistently argued the prophet had qualities which bordered on the divine.
Within the Barelwi theology, the Prophet did not cast a shadow as he was made
of light (Nur), that he could see the whole world in the palm of his hand, thus
having the ability to see and hear the whole world while being at one place.
The development of Barelwi prophetology has necessarily been against a
perceived diminution of such extraordinary powers of Muhammad by groups like
the Deobandis. This level of identification with the prophet has meant that
Barelwis have been at the forefront of any perceived affront on the personae of
Prophet Muhammad. It is not surprising therefore that the ban on Satanic Verses
was first demanded by a Barelwi organisation in Bradford.
However,
the Raza Academy certainly does not represent the full spectrum of Barelwi
thought in India. Moreover, there are many different Sufi organization who have
at various times called out the Academy for doing ‘politics’ and indulging in
extremism. The speed with which the Maharashtra government accepted the
Academy’s request to ban the movie only proves that the state is invested in
portraying Muslims as conservative and regressive. Muslims must oppose this
demand of Raza Academy in their own interest. After all, being a minority, they
should be at the forefront of advancing democratic rights and free speech,
rather than demanding such bans. Through their myopic politics, they give
legitimacy to Hindu right-wing political discourse that any critique of their
politics is equal to criticising the Hindu religion. If things go on like this,
then very soon, Hindu and Muslim communalism will hardly leave any liberal moderate
space in this country.
However,
there are other reasons why the ban on the movie is nonsensical, even from a
religious point of view. The movie in question shows the child Muhammad. There
is theological consensus that Muhammad was anointed prophet at the age of
forty. If the argument is that the prophet should not be represented through
images, then certainly this principle should not be applied before he attained
prophet-hood. Sunni imagery of Muhammad at times depicts him with his face
either veiled or represented by light. The movie does not show the face of
child Muhammad and therefore conforms even to this Sunni principle. The
objection of the Raza Academy therefore does not make sense, either politically
or even in terms of religious principles.
Representing
of Prophet Muhammad has not always been a taboo in Muslim society. We do get
evidence till the 15th century that his sketches were used throughout the
Islamicate world, at times even as aids to focus on religious rituals. However,
this does not mean that the practice was widespread; it was only used in select
religious and political circles. The Shias of course have been representing the
Prophet through various means including images and certainly it is not a taboo
within their interpretation of Islam. In the Sunni world, however, whatever
little imagery of the Prophet existed gradually ceased to the point that people
have forgotten that such practice even existed. It is the Sunni world which now
has this peculiar problem of understanding any representation of Muhammad as a
Shia heresy. Part of the reason for Raza Academy’s posturing is that the
director of the aforementioned film is a Shia.
Muslim
theologians, including Sufis, have always argued that while certain practices
can be legitimate for the elite, the same cannot be allowed for the masses.
There has always existed this doubt in the capacity of Muslim masses to
comprehend the abstraction of monotheism which Islam demands. So, while images
of the Prophet were tolerated and at times even allowed within the Muslim
elite; for the masses, the practice was completely prohibited. Images were
thought of as having the potential to corrupt the fundamental tenet of
monotheism and lure them to relapse into polytheism.
This fear
of the masses is completely unfounded. Even after several centuries, Muslim
masses, despite experiencing Islam in myriad ways, have shown an acute
understanding of monotheism and have remained true to their religion. Muslims
continue to practice Islam despite living in age of moving images and consuming
them. If the combined might of Bollywood and Hollywood have not been able to
lead the Muslims astray, why will a movie on the life of Prophet Muhammad make
their belief weak? There is no sound reason to believe that using images of
Muhammad will in any way lessen the belief of Muslims. On the contrary, it can
well be an educative experience to know about the life and times in which their
religion was born and how the Prophet navigated social challenges to bring
Islam to his people. As it is, Muslims, especially the Sunnis, know very little
about the history of their religion. The movie might actually do them some good
in this regard. It is thus in the interest of Sunni Muslims to condemn the Raza
Academy and demand the release of the movie.
Arshad
Alam is a NewAgeIslam.com columnist
URL: https://newageislam.com/islamic-culture/banning-movie-‘muhammad-messenger-god’/d/122484
New Age Islam, Islam Online, Islamic Website, African Muslim News, Arab World News, South Asia News, Indian Muslim News, World Muslim News, Women in Islam, Islamic Feminism, Arab Women, Women In Arab, Islamophobia in America, Muslim Women in West, Islam Women and Feminism