God’s messenger: Noah, said to have built an ark (pictured) which saved the human and animal worlds from a great flood, features in Christianity, Judaism and Islam, but depicting Allah’s messengers is banned
One of the world’s most respected Islamic institutions has issued a fatwa against a Hollywood epic about Noah’s Ark because it ‘contradicts the teachings of Islam’.
Russell Crowe’s £75million film Noah has also been banned in three Arab countries after religious leaders complained that it depicted the Biblical figure – who is also a holy messenger in the Koran.
Due to premiere later this month, the blockbuster will not show in Qatar, Bahrain or the United Arab Emirates and several other countries are expected to follow suit.
Islam forbids representing holy figures in art, instead using conceptual line patterns and lettering to adorn the walls of mosques.
A whole chapter of the Koran is devoted to Noah, who legend tells built an ark which saved himself, his family and many pairs of animals from a great flood.
He also features prominently in the Biblical book of Genesis and is revered by Christians and Jews.
Fatwa: Cairo’s al-Azhar (which includes the mosque pictured left) issued a fatwa, which is a ruling under Islamic law, saying the film starring Russell Crowe (right) as Noah was a ‘clear violation’ of their teachings. The film is due to premiere in the U.S. on March 28 and was due to air in Egypt in the near future.
The fatwa – a ruling or injunction under the laws of Islam – was made by the influential Al-Azhar institution in Egypt’s capital Cairo, a centre of Sunni Islam thought which was founded in around AD970 and includes a university and a mosque.
‘Al-Azhar… renews its objection to any act depicting the messengers and prophets of God and the companions of the Prophet (Mohammad), peace be upon him,’ it announced in a statement.
The fatwa added that the depictions ‘provoke the feelings of believers… and are forbidden in Islam and a clear violation of Islamic law’.
The film also stars Anthony Hopkins and Emma Watson and will premiere in the U.S. on March 28.
Depictions of the Prophet Mohammad in European and North American media have repeatedly sparked deadly protests in Islamic countries over the last decade, fanning cultural tensions with the West.
The worst riots were triggered after the Prophet Mohammad was depicted in a Danish newspaper in 2006. It sparked protests in the Middle East, Africa and Asia in which at least 50 people died.
A spokesman for Paramount Pictures said: ‘Censors for Qatar, Bahrain and the UAE (United Arab Emirates) officially confirmed this week that the film will not release in their countries.
‘The official statement they offered in confirming this news is because “it contradicts the teachings of Islam”,’ the representative said, adding the studio expected a similar ban in Egypt, Jordan and Kuwait.
Noah, whose trailer depicts Crowe wielding an axe and computer-animated geysers swamping an army of sinners hoping to board his ark, has also stoked religious controversy at home.
Stars: Russell Crowe as Noah with Jennifer Connelly, who plays his wife Naameh and won an Oscar for best supporting actress for her appearance alongside Crowe in A Beautiful Mind.
Last year angry reactions at test screenings reportedly stoked tensions between the studio and director Darren Oronofsky.
Perhaps wisely the filming took place nowhere near the Middle East, instead being carried out in New York State and in Southern Iceland.
Harry Potter star Emma Watson plays the adopted daughter of the prophet, while screen legend Anthony Hopkins stars as his sagely grandfather.
Jennifer Connelly will play Naameh, Noah’s wife. She won an Oscar for best supporting actress for her appearance alongside Crowe in A Beautiful Mind (2001).
The title role was reportedly offered to Michael Fassbender and Christian Bale – both of whom declined.
Jerry A. Johnson, president of a conservative National Religious Broadcasters (NRB) group, said last month he wanted to ‘make sure everyone who sees this impactful film knows this is an imaginative interpretation of Scripture, and not literal.’
Paramount responded by agreeing to issue a disclaimer on advertising for the film.
‘While artistic license has been taken, we believe that this film is true to the essence, values and integrity of a story that is a cornerstone of faith for millions of people worldwide,’ it reads.
The film is not the first to stoke controversy among Muslims.
Mel Gibson’s 2004 film The Passion of the Christ, showing Jesus’s crucifixion, was widely screened in the Arab World despite objections by Muslim clerics.
A 2012, an amateur Youtube video deriding the Prophet Mohammad which was produced in California stoked protests throughout the region, and may have contributed to a deadly militant raid in Libya which killed the U.S. ambassador and three other American staff.
Saiyyidina Abu Bakr as Siddiq rad. holds a special place within the Ummah. Indeed, there is a hadith that says after the Ambiya, the first to enter Jannah among this Ummah is Saiyyidina Abu Bakr.
The Ulema delved into this to ascertain why. They came up with the concept of the Mauqif. A standing point. A moment in time when, through one’s actions, one distinguishes one’s self above the rest. And there are so many occasions which are the mawaaqif where Abu BAkr shone. Very briefly, When he accepted Islam. Rasulullah SAW he never wavered even for a second when Rasulullah SAW first made dawah to Abu Bakr. Then, the incident of Isra Me”raj, a test for the Ummah. Abu Bakr never wavered or doubted the words of Rasulullah SAW. Then the incident of the passing of Rasulullah. In a moment where fitnah could emerge for the Ummah, Abu Bakr made that famous statement, ‘He who worships Muhamad, let him know that Muhammad is dead. But he who worships Allah, let him know that He is Alive, and Cannot die.’ Then the sending out of the army of Usama Bin Zaid, when even the senior sahabahs advised him to hold back and protect Madinah.
The life of this remarkable individual is filled with so many Mawaqif that will be his witness when he stands in the Court of Allah azzawajal.
Brothers and sisters, what is our Mawqif?
What actions can we take in this fleeting life to present in the Court of Allah azzawajal? In this current LGBT controversy, do we sit back within the safety of our comfort zone, or do we stand up and speak the Truth, for the sake of Allah azzawajal?
Wallahualam, but I believe this could count as a Mauqif for Prof Khai. There are many comments made regarding the NUS Provost letter. To my mind the capitulation and pandering to the Liberals is predictable. And at the end of the day, it is nothing more than a slap on the wrist for Prof.
I am very heartened that the unintended outcome of this event is the awakening of our community. We have been asleep for far too long. Subhanallah, so many has come up to voice their support. The pushback against the LGBT lobby is indeed eye-opening and unprecedented. The Ulema have come forward in numbers. The conservative majority is becoming less and less docile.
Brothers and sisters, this is the time to push forward. There are so many issues that are harming the Ummah. The LGBT lobby. The larger issue of the poison of Liberal Islam. So many of our youth are ideologically-defeated and dancing along the periphery of jahannam.
It is not the time to pull back. And focus on individual worship.
We have serious work to do. And in the process, in sha Allah,gather our own mawafiqs – standing points that can be our Witness in the Court of Allah azzawajal.
Barakallahufeek.
Syed Danial commented on Minister Shanmugam’s Facebook comment regarding the LGBTQ issue.
There’s some confusion going around that I wish to address.
LGBT is a movement. It wishes to legitimize unnatural acts that is unacceptable in the sight of Allah azzawajal. I do not support the movement. I support homosexuals or people with tendencies who wish to change. To these people, we lend a helping hand. Not the LGBT movement.
At it’s heart, the movement is hypocritical. They claim to be promoting love. Universal love. That is disingenuous. Two people can profess love for each other. That does not mean they have to consummate it by piercing an orifice whose function is to excrete human waste. So the movement does not promote love. It promotes disease causing acts against nature .
We must differentiate between the two. Peace
Syed Danial and his friend MD Shawal created Facebook PicBadges to show support for the anti-LGBTQ movement.Syed Danial and his friend MD Shawal created Facebook PicBadges to show support for the anti-LGBTQ movement.
I literally just posted on the fact that God hates Islam when the Holy Spirit led me to an article about Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370 disappearing en route to China. Malaysia is a heathen country filled with Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, and witch-doctors, and God has allowed this plane to disappear as a way to open they eyes of the Malaysians to the wrong-ness of their ways. It is likely that God allowed their plane to crash into the sea as punishment for the sinfulness of many on the flight. Unfortunately, many families will experience sadness due to this event, but if the passengers were all True Christians, this plane would not have crashed. It’s as simple as that.
The disappearance of this plane is a punishment from God. .Either God will allow the plane to turn up safely as a way to lead the passengers to Christ, or God will crash the plane into the ocean. If the passengers were willing to be saved and embrace Jesus, then the plane will land safely. If not, the plane will crash and the passengers will be cast into Hell. The Holy Spirit has told me of this fact.
Let us pray that the passengers have made the correct choice and embraced Jesus so that they might land safely.
Yours in Christ,
Jim Solouki
P.S., if you don’t believe that Islam is from Satan, here’s proof (link).
Having studied at a local university, I have observed that students and even professors faced intimidation and retaliation when they attempted to discuss issues such as homosexuality.
Those holding and expressing conservative views were often ridiculed as ignorant or homophobic and subject to religiously offensive comments, while those who made such comments received no sanction.
I am thus disappointed with the National University of Singapore’s stance towards Associate Professor Syed Muhd Khairudin Aljunied. (“NUS professor acknowledges ‘poor judgment’ in posts on sexuality”; March 6)
Homosexuality is a contentious issue and it is important that we respect academic freedom when debating this matter. NUS’ restriction on academic freedom by censuring Assoc Prof Khairudin is antithetical to our development as a society, which depends on robust debate and critical inquiry.
NUS should rethink its policies if it sees itself as a respectable university in Asia and the world.
Alex Au, a blogger at Yawningbread and founder of a Singapore gay rights group, People Like Us.
When the story first broke, what struck me most was the focus on lesbians. It is far more common in anti-LGBT speech for the reference to be either directed at gay males or framed with reference to gay male sex, at least in Singapore and the West. But coming from a lecturer in Malay Studies, I wasn’t surprised.
On 20 February, Syed Muhd Khairudin Aljunied made a post on Facebook in which he lambasted “liberal Islam” and its support for lesbianism, describing them not only as “wrongful ideologies” — a matter of opinion, perhaps — but also as “diseases” and “cancers”. The latter may have stepped into hate speech.
As the story in the Straits Times (headline shown above) shows, it generated protests and several petitions.
Now, before I go further, it is important to look at what Khairudin actually said. An anonymous comment led me to the Rilek1Corner site which had a screengrab (see thumbnail at left). His Facebook post seems to have been an answer to a question by an unnamed person, concerning a “new development” in which liberal Islam may be affirming unorthodox sexual identities. In his answer, Khairudin suggested giving advice, going to “proper religious classes”, and seeking help from counsellors. He urged using the “power of technology” to alert groups and movements about spreading these “wrongful ideologies”.
The recommendation may sound reasonable, even if we disagree with his view. Nevertheless, the dehumanising tone he used to describe lesbians — and for that matter, adherents of “liberal Islam” too — is what made the post stand out.
I have on several occasions argued that homophobia is deeply linked to insecurity stemming from a loss of male privilege. You get clues to this when you read some of the things Pope Benedict XVI used to say, speaking of both “radical feminism” and “homosexual lifestyles” in virtually the same breath, and how both have undermined “family life”. Traditionalists’ conception of a happily ordered family is one where the husband is the dominant member, and where the sexes had clearly demarcated roles. Feminism, which argued for equality and autonomy for women, was a serious threat. The gay rights movement sprang from this, making the point that true autonomy includes autonomy in sexual orientation and gender identity.
It is not easy to see this linkage between feminism and gay rights when one looks at the speech of the US-based Christian Right, and that may be why we forget that there is a link. This, in my view, is because in the US, it has become socially impossible to speak openly against equality for women. Thus, even as the Christian Right goes ballistic over gays and lesbians, they know it won’t be politick to attack heterosexual women as well.
However, this does not mean they don’t engage in side actions that try to limit women’s autonomy. The same people also tend to support tighter restrictions on abortion. But they have cleverly packaged it as a “right to life” issue, not as an “attack women’s right to control their bodies” issue, which in reality it is.
Islam is much less reticent about speaking out against equality and autonomy for women. I used to joke that Muslim clerics aren’t as prominent in attacking the LGBT movement as the Christian Right because they were too busy trying to control women. Things may be changing now, not because they are any more accepting of equality for women, but because the LGBT issue has made enough progress that we can’t be ignored any longer.
But it is probably no coincidence that the religions that feel most threatened by this “deadly mix” of feminism and gay rights, and are more explicit about linking the two, are the ones that still segregate men and women, either in prayer halls or in clerical roles. Gender distinctions are not just important in Islam and Roman Catholicism, they are part of the teaching. It is much easier for them to speak out against both feminism and gay rights simultaneously than it is for conservative Protestants, who have already conceded the point on women’s equality (even if they have not internalised it).
This dual threat perception comes together to explain why the question that Khairudin had to answer focussed on lesbians. Lesbians represent both a refusal to be subordinate to men and a challenge to heteronormativity. They are the “worst of the worst”.
* * * * *
In the wake of the news reports, I asked around if anyone knew Khairudin or had heard him speak on previous occasions. One friend gave me a particularly interesting answer, painting a negative picture of the man. She had attended one (or maybe more than one — I didn’t clarify with her) lecture by him and came away with the impression that he was insufferably sexist. She remembered how the notion of male privilege and dominance held up many of the ideas he propounded.
The other strong impression she came away with was his condescension towards Malays. She said, “His opening remarks was something along the lines of ‘I want to stress that while my field is Malay Studies, I myself am not Malay, but Arab’. Why was it necessary to stress that? He then added, ‘However, I married a Malay wife,’ and saying how much he ‘loved’ Malays.”
My friend got quite agitated just retelling this to me. I don’t blame her. It sounds awfully like people who say, “I have nothing against gays, in fact some of my best friends are gay, but . . . “
It’s a bit ironic then that a group called Fellowship of Muslim Students Association (FMSA), responding to petitions being circulated, described in a statement it issued,
Dr Syed Khairudin is an icon of the Malay/Muslim community in the field of academic achievement. He continues to play a contributing role to the Malay/Muslim community and the mainstream society.
Another thing you’d note from the FMSA statement is its reference to a “Neo-Sodom-Gomorrah community”, presumably newly coined by them. However, as playwright Alfian Sa’at pointed out,
They do use the term LGBT as well, which clearly shows that the coinage is a silly and childish attempt at testing the limits of provocative and inflammatory speech.
Which brings me back to the question of hate speech.
* * * * *
There is at least one petition calling on the university authorities to sanction Khairudin for committing hate speech. Khairudin’s defenders argue that if the university did so, it would be a violation of academic freedom.
Where is the line between academic freedom and hate speech? It may be hard to draw, for indeed there is value in allowing space for counter-mainstream, even offensive ideas. But a necessary test may be whether the idea being espoused is intellectually grounded: What is the basis for the idea? How sound is it?
This test may be easier to apply in some disciplines than others. It is, for example, quite clear that advocating the “truth” of creationism can seek no protection from academic freedom, but arguing the moral value of large-scale genetic engineering of humans — well, that may not be so clear-cut.
But lost in the debate about whether Khairudin was exercising his academic freedom is this: Was his Facebook posting on a matter that was within his area of expertise? It is doubtful. From what little I know, his area is that of Malay Studies, which I would think is quite distinct from Islamic Studies. He was pronouncing on religion, particularly on liberal Islam. I am sure there are scholars out there with much deeper knowledge about Islamic perspectives.
This is important. A professor of monetary theory can have no special claim to be an expert on transgender identities.
If on balance his passing judgement on liberal Islam and lesbians wasn’t within Khairudin’s area of expertise, then the greater laxity that one might give for academic freedom will not apply. He was in fact just exercising his right to free speech, the same right that you and I have. That speech will need to be tested on the same basis as anyone else’s speech for hate content. So the question comes back to this: Is labelling a class of people a “disease” and “cancer” something that would cross the line? Suppose one said that the migration of dark-complexioned people from such and such a place to Singapore was a “cancer” — would that be OK? Suppose one said that a new religion making inroads and gaining adherents was a “disease” infecting Singapore society, would that be acceptable?
POST-SCRIPT
In Straits Times’ Breaking News,
The National University of Singapore (NUS) professor who drew criticism last week for referring to lesbianism as “cancers” has been counselled by the university.
In an e-mail to all faculty members, staff and students on Wednesday, NUS provost Tan Eng Chye said he had counselled Associate Professor Syed Muhd Khairudin Aljunied, who acknowledged that his original post “reflected poor judgment in the tone and choice of words”.
Prof Tan, who is also NUS deputy president of academic affairs, said Dr Khairudin’s comments “contained provocative, inappropriate and offensive language”.
– Straits Times, 5 March 2014, NUS professor “counselled” by university for Facebook posting on lesbianism, by Pearl Lee
In a Clarification Statement which I found on Rilek1Corner (the source was Khairudin’s Facebook page) he wrote that he has not removed the original post, except the words “cancer” and “social diseases”. He also wrote that “My position as a Muslim about LGBT remains clear and is in line with the view of Muslims scholars”, and that “There is no disagreement in Islam on the prohibition of homosexuality.” Although Khairudin stressed that this was his personal view, the sense one gets from the foregoing is an attempt to invoke his religion for justification and defence.
