Dubai Forums Dubai Discussions Dubai Politics Talk Philosophy and Religion Forums

I've opened this topic in here as Lionheart is making the one in the movies section into a religious debate.

Here are a few thoughts of mine about the book and movie (bear in mind people it's fiction!).

Christians from all factions believe that Jesus Christ was the son of God, whereas people from other religions (Islam for example) believe that he was a Prophet and therefore a man. In this case why is it so unfeasible to think that Jesus might have got married or even had children? Other Prophets had families of their own, why would Jesus be the one denied these things, when it's a perfectly human thing to do!

Also have you noticed how it only seems to be the male populus objecting to the film? Because the majority of religions, intentional or not appear to put males above females, but what the Da Vinci Code (if true) would imply is that in actual fact it is woman who is more important and the true gift of god.

Paganism celebrated womanhood and worshipped the Goddess long before Christianity or Islam came along, so why is that also so unfeasible now and why are woman in many societies still treated as second class citizens?

In light of this, is it just male pride that being hurt and that 'manhood' is beig questioned - in my opinion - probably.

In Islam, the trueness of the matter is that a woman is EXTREMLY IMPORTANT.

In fact a woman is more important than a man because in Islam they say that importance is as follows:

1) God
2) The Prophet
3) Your mother
4) Your mother
5) Your mother (yes I am not having any typos)
6) Your father
etc....

So there you go!!!

Also in the Quran it was mentionned that the Prophet Mohammad had was married and the names of his wive's were mentioned. Other prophets with their women were also mentioned. None is made of the Prophet Jesus. If he was married the Quran would have mentioned it. It is not mentioned.

While that does not cast 100% doubt on a marriage, it does put a hamper on it because Rabyaa was mentionned so it would have said that they got wed since they are both important. Also if Jesus had a child or children it would be mentionned just because of his important to humanity.

Best see this movie and enjoy it for what it is... A nice, suspensful, action packed work of fiction.

Leave the consipracy as blasphemy talk at home. In any event, if it insults you so much to see this movie then do not see it. Nobody is forcing you!!

Hmmm thanks for sharing your thoughts Liban. As I said I'm just being rhetorical here.

Liban wrote:In Islam, the trueness of the matter is that a woman is EXTREMLY IMPORTANT.

In fact a woman is more important than a man because in Islam they say that importance is as follows:

1) God
2) The Prophet
3) Your mother
4) Your mother
5) Your mother (yes I am not having any typos)
6) Your father
etc....

So there you go!!!

Also in the Quran it was mentionned that the Prophet Mohammad had was married and the names of his wive's were mentioned. Other prophets with their women were also mentioned. None is made of the Prophet Jesus. If he was married the Quran would have mentioned it. It is not mentioned.

While that does not cast 100% doubt on a marriage, it does put a hamper on it because Rabyaa was mentionned so it would have said that they got wed since they are both important. Also if Jesus had a child or children it would be mentionned just because of his important to humanity.

Best see this movie and enjoy it for what it is... A nice, suspensful, action packed work of fiction.

Leave the consipracy as blasphemy talk at home. In any event, if it insults you so much to see this movie then do not see it. Nobody is forcing you!!

Liban as muslim would you watch a movie that insults prophet Mohammed(pbuh), if not than how can you tolerate a movie that insults and questions what is written in the about Prophet Issa(pbuh). You say its just a movie...but the cartoons of the prophet Mohammed(pbuh) were just cartoons drawn by kuffar in a fareway land and we muslims could have just ignored it..but we didn't, we boycotted, protested, etc...did what need to be done. So I ask you, why can't we do the same thing for prophet Issa(pbuh), why do we allow them to question what is written in the Qoran about the prophet.



[qoute]Best see this movie and enjoy it for what it is... A nice, suspensful, action packed work of fiction.

Leave the consipracy as blasphemy talk at home. In any event, if it insults you so much to see this movie then do not see it. Nobody is forcing you!! [/qoute]

Liban how is that you complain about the Cartoons of prophet Mohammed(pbuh) and yet support this movie that does not only insult the Catholics, but also questions the beliefs of Muslims. how can you be soo hyprocrite.

Lionheart

The films merely raises qustions and alternative theories, dont get too uptight over it.

Chill

Christians from all factions believe that Jesus Christ was the son of God.

Nope, Unitarian Christians don't.

is it just male pride that being hurt and that 'manhood' is beig questioned

Not necessarily. No offence, but this is stereotyping.

Liban how is that you complain about the Cartoons of prophet Mohammed(pbuh) and yet support this movie that does not only insult the Catholics, but also questions the beliefs of Muslims. how can you be soo hyprocrite.

That's directed to Liban but I'll add my 2 cents.

For one, two are not same. Showing married live of a prophet is not the same as caricaturizing as a terrorist indirectly or directly (it depicting all followers as terrorists which is stereotyping and dehumanizing). If Prophet Muhammad were in the place of Jesus, I still wouldn't have mind the story; on the other hand, I would mind a caricature of Jesus cluster bombing Iraqi women and children.

The movie "the last temptatio of Christ" also caused an uproar. Guess what the world did not end because of it. In fact all this "controversy" only hypes a the movie (fiction) and makes more money to the producers, eth. Richie Cunningham needs to make some money.

By the way, (pardon the ignorance) by are there any direct decendants of the Prophet Mohammed?

Once again Lionheart you seem incapable of telling the difference between truth and fiction - learn the difference and get over it!

Lionheart, you are confused.

The cartoons was a direct insult of the Prophet by portraying him as a terrorist for example.

This is a work of FICTION....

ill start by saying that im a protestant christian, so that nobody would call me names for what ill say.
unfortunately the church has very little to do with faith or religion. meaning that its and has always been more about dogmas and controll over people. so why would the church wellcome anything that is different from what it has been preached for so long? by admitting smthing "new" they would undermine their own power and legitimacy. any question or issue that would come to the attention of the world, is just simply not acceptable for the mere fact that is uncompatible with the politics of the church.
secondly, their is a passage in the bible. it says-don t throw pearls to the pigs. if i remember well, not just anybody, but jesus says those words. well, its a methaphore and in translation it means that there r things that r just not for the masses, because they would simply not understand it. in other words the bible is a code and we don t know the most of it.

so sorry if smbody feels offended, but i think one can "gain" more by saying a pray at home and being a nice persone with others, than going everyday to church, "acting" like a good christian and not even thinking about he says he believes in.

Great post Raidah, totally agree with everything you've said. There is certainly a form of control and of course the Church would be terrified if there were any revelations that could undermine their teachings and or more importantly their 'income'.

Ever seen the movie Stigmata? It looks at exactly the issues you've highlighted there.

I haven't seen the post in the movies thread (I don' t think I've ever ventured there, so must have a look).

I've read the book and enjoyed it. I'm looking forward to the film, despite the awful reviews its been getting.

I'm a Muslim and therefore do believe in Jesus and actually believe in all that Jesus taught as recorded in the Bible. I take what Jesus said literally and really only differ/object to the later teachings of St Paul.

Raidah quotes the Bible when referring to 'casting pearls before swine'. Jesus was actually telling his disciples in no uncertain terms NOT to preach to non-Jews... saying his message and his prophethood was only for the Jews. To preach to non-Jews (Gentiles) would be like casting pearls before swine, giving the bread for children to dogs.

But that is another discussion.

Da Vinci Code is a work of fiction and should be viewed as such. From a Muslim perspective, there is nothing blasphemous about the theory that Jesus married and had children - if anything, it is something that cannot be ruled out, and in fact should be ruled in.. let me explain.

The Quran does not mention Jesus marrying.. but this does not imply he didn't. The names of wives and children of other prophets of God aren't all named in the Quran - eg Moses, Aaron, Joseph, David, Solomon - but we do know that they all married and had wives (Solomon was the son of David, after all.

Prophets do not lead celibate lives according to Islam.

Jesus, according to one hadith, lived to the age of 120 and the hadith that talk of his second coming all say that one of the things he will do is get married and have children.

There are many Muslims that believe Jesus was taken bodily to heaven after an imposter was made to look like Jesus and was crucified in his place. There are other Muslims (many of them Arabs) who read the Quran and disagree with this view - they believe that Jesus was put on the cross, but survived the ordeal (he survived the attempted crucifixion - crucifixion means to be killed by putting on the cross, just like drowning means to be killed by immersion in water. If you survive a drowning episode, you say that the person did not drown, but this doesn't rule out that he was in the water drowning. The Quran says Jesus was not crucified (wa ma'a salahu) and not that he was not put on the cross.. another theological debate..)

Back to DVC - the premise that Jesus was mortal and married and had children does not actually contradict the Christian tenets, in my reading. Dan Brown is a Christian and took pains not to question the divinity of Jesus.

But at the end of the day, it is a work of fiction and does not in any way insult or denigrate the personage of Jesus from a Muslim perspective. I, for one, have no issues with the book and will feedback my impressions of the film when I see it.

Wasalaam,
Shafique

Cool post Shaf once again.

Liban wrote:Lionheart, you are confused.

The cartoons was a direct insult of the Prophet by portraying him as a terrorist for example.

This is a work of FICTION....

I know the cartoons were insulting to prophet Mohammed(pbuh), but this movie is also insulting and blasphemous for its theory that prophet Issa( pbuh) was married and had children. You say this movie is the work of fiction, than what if tommorrow they write a book they claim is factional that new theories about the life of prophet Mohammed(pbuh). Would let a movie based on this book to be shown in cinemas in Dubia, would you allow them to children to view such blasphemous movie, if no, than how can you allow punch Atheist, shaytan worshippers insult one of Allah's beloved prophets..Issa(pbuh)..

Also we muslims complained about Europeans use of Freedom of speach to publish cartoons that insult our beloved prophet Mohammed(pbuh) and we are using the freedom of speach to get back at them. Don't you think its bit hyprocy from our point of view and doesn't Islam teach us do not do to others what you don't want them do to you...

shafique wrote:I haven't seen the post in the movies thread (I don' t think I've ever ventured there, so must have a look).

I've read the book and enjoyed it. I'm looking forward to the film, despite the awful reviews its been getting.

I'm a Muslim and therefore do believe in Jesus and actually believe in all that Jesus taught as recorded in the Bible. I take what Jesus said literally and really only differ/object to the later teachings of St Paul.

Raidah quotes the Bible when referring to 'casting pearls before swine'. Jesus was actually telling his disciples in no uncertain terms NOT to preach to non-Jews... saying his message and his prophethood was only for the Jews. To preach to non-Jews (Gentiles) would be like casting pearls before swine, giving the bread for children to dogs.

But that is another discussion.

Da Vinci Code is a work of fiction and should be viewed as such. From a Muslim perspective, there is nothing blasphemous about the theory that Jesus married and had children - if anything, it is something that cannot be ruled out, and in fact should be ruled in.. let me explain.

The Quran does not mention Jesus marrying.. but this does not imply he didn't. The names of wives and children of other prophets of God aren't all named in the Quran - eg Moses, Aaron, Joseph, David, Solomon - but we do know that they all married and had wives (Solomon was the son of David, after all.

Prophets do not lead celibate lives according to Islam.

Jesus, according to one hadith, lived to the age of 120 and the hadith that talk of his second coming all say that one of the things he will do is get married and have children.

There are many Muslims that believe Jesus was taken bodily to heaven after an imposter was made to look like Jesus and was crucified in his place. There are other Muslims (many of them Arabs) who read the Quran and disagree with this view - they believe that Jesus was put on the cross, but survived the ordeal (he survived the attempted crucifixion - crucifixion means to be killed by putting on the cross, just like drowning means to be killed by immersion in water. If you survive a drowning episode, you say that the person did not drown, but this doesn't rule out that he was in the water drowning. The Quran says Jesus was not crucified (wa ma'a salahu) and not that he was not put on the cross.. another theological debate..)

Back to DVC - the premise that Jesus was mortal and married and had children does not actually contradict the Christian tenets, in my reading. Dan Brown is a Christian and took pains not to question the divinity of Jesus.

But at the end of the day, it is a work of fiction and does not in any way insult or denigrate the personage of Jesus from a Muslim perspective. I, for one, have no issues with the book and will feedback my impressions of the film when I see it.

Wasalaam,
Shafique

"Jesus, according to one hadith, lived to the age of 120 and the hadith that talk of his second coming all say that one of the things he will do is get married and have children."


I hae never heard of hadith or verse in the Qoranic that stats Issa(pbuh) was ever married or had children. For this reason I think this movie goes against what is written down in the Qoran in the same manner when Christians claim of Issa(pbuh) being god or son of god goes against the what is written down in the qoran. You right about prophet Issa(pbuh) marrying and having children his second coming.

Lionheart, you also have to bear in mind that it's not talking about the Koran here, but the Bible which was in existance far earlier than the Muslim holy book.

You can't accuse people of blasphemy just for having thoughts or theories, that's ridiculous.

What you want everyone to have an implant which shocks them everytime they have a thought which goes against what you believe or feel ala The Fortress?

Once again it's fiction fiction fiction, nothing more!

Take a step back and look at the things your saying, it's a bit silly really, even Liban and Shaf look at it objectively.

The Da Vinci Code is a book and a movie and should be looked upon as a piece of creativity, put together by a brilliant author. Just take it for what it is and stop getting worked up over something which is for all in tense and purposes as harmless.

Instead why dont' you go and watch the film Valley of Wolves - Iraq? Now there's something to actually make a fuss about!

The Quran does not mention that Jesus married and had children. It does not say he didn't have a wife and child either.

Therefore, in my view the underlying notion of the book/film is not a reason for any muslim to have any objection - it does not offend the Muslim view of the personage of Prohet Jesus (Issa, pbuh).

At the end of the day it is a work of fiction that does not offend Islamic views of prophets and how they behave. It should be judged as a work of fiction and is certainly not a 'Last Temptation of Christ' or 'Satanic Verses' for that matter.

Anyway - it certainly is generating a lot of publicity, and I think this is just making Ron Howard and Dan Brown very, very happy - as it will translate inevitably to much wider viewership than otherwise would be the case!

Cheers,
Shafique

Ah, the voices of sanity!! Yes, it is fiction-that means not real, fantasy to be taken with a grain of salt and to be enjoyed with some nachos, caramel popcorn and malteesers but not scrutinised.

GAB, you mentioned my favourite word - Popcorn! Caramel that is!

i have read some very interesting posts both from moslem and christian poit of view.
and it crossed my mind that maybe this is the problem, that we represent a religion or a belief whenever me make a statement or give an opinion. as much as we try we just cannot be objective. our "prejudicies" don t let us to. and in this case these prejudicies consist in the knowledge we have, the information stored in our brains.
if u bear with me, ull see my point.
belief is a veeeery tricky thing. ppl are borned into moslem, christian, jewish, hindi, etc. families. and grow up with the belief of their parents, so by the time they become adults they will share the same belief. so basically we r tought what to believe in and its not smthing that we chose. speacially in religious practicant families the child has no freedom of choice. so it is normal that all the information and teaching we get from our family and society get inprinted in our conscious and unconscious mind and whenever we make an opinion, me make it upon what we have stored in us.
but than, can this belief called a true one? whenever i hear smbody talking about the legitimacy of only one religion, i post the same question-if only one is legitim, why r there so many ppl have different perseption of faith and god?

well, lets move forward. since there r things we cannot agree upon, how about we ask an "outsider" to give his opinion. i said give an opinion and not decide on purpose. we r limited due to our human nature, so no man can or should decide fo the other.
so lets imagine the following situation. we have a tarzan of our own, in the sence that his mind and behaviour have not been influenced by any religion or belief. still he can read, write and speak and he has an avarage intelligence(not a retard and not a genius, just an everyday person) and we give him books to read and get aquainted with religions, interpretations of religions, with books or writings that question the legitimacy or certain aspects of religions and so on. we cannot know what he ll believe at the end of his readings, but there is a good chance he will be objective and wont be influenced by his feelings or fears that he might be rejected or condamned for not sharing the belief on order, or any other factor that would keep him from being objective.
and he will probably have lots of questions, like
- just because smthing is not written down, it does not mean that it cannot be true-so why could jesus have not been married or had children
(i don t know how many of u watch dicovery, nationaly georaphic, etc. there r several documentay movies about the person next to jesus on the painting made about the last dinner before his capture. she might be mary magdalen. what would she be doing there if she were only a whore?)
- nobody talks about the teenage and adult life of jesus-where was he all that time, and what did he do? india maybe...
- why is the catholic church so upset about the "passion of jesus", the movie? why is that a blasphemy? any person with minimum humanity and sensibility for others suffering can see that the whole movie is not about a religion. is an exclamation sign and a wake up call, and yes its meant to be a shock so that ppl see and realize that this is what we r. if a human being can do all that and much more to another human being, than what r we? the move underlines 2 things. one is that homan cruelty has no limits whatsoever. and that there was smbody who was willing to go through all that suffering without a word of complain for the rest of us.
so in the eyes of a layman, why is that movie a blasphemy?

the truth is that we can debate here for years to come and still wont think the same way. let me give u another short exapmle: raise ur hand at look at the palm of it. what u see? ur palm. than ask smbody who stays in front of u to also look at UR hand. what he will see? ur hand, not the palm of ur hand. suma summarum-u both r looking at the same thing, still u would descrive it differently and u both r right.

and we still said nothing about aaaall those things that once we thought to be falce, both religiously and scientificly, to admit somewhat later that we were wrong...

like i said before, im christian. but not religios, for the simple fact that i dont think christianism is the beholder of the only and whole truth, just as nor other religion or belief is.

Dracus, stop insulting other people. Unfortunately Dracula has met his match in the Queen of the Damned!

too bad we abandoned this topic, since its good and very complex...

The movie made Mary Magdalene into a Saint.

maineus wrote:The movie made Mary Magdalene into a Saint.

and ur point is...?

maineus wrote:The movie made Mary Magdalene into a Saint.

by the way, wellcome to the club i see u just joined us

raidah wrote:

maineus wrote:The movie made Mary Magdalene into a Saint.

and ur point is...?

Wouldn't the point be she's not?

Chocoholic wrote:put together by a brilliant author.

Ahem, you think? He's not exactly Nobel prize material...

I did think it was a great read but it is just pop fiction really .

maineus wrote:The movie made Mary Magdalene into a Saint.

And a mother and Jesus a father and many other things that were all part of the story. It's a movie for entertainment, not a documentary.

GAB wrote:Wouldn't the point be she's not?

I thought she was anyway? Or am I thinking of Mary the mother of Jesus?

sharewadi wrote:

maineus wrote:The movie made Mary Magdalene into a Saint.

And a mother and Jesus a father and many other things that were all part of the story. It's a movie for entertainment, not a documentary.

GAB wrote:Wouldn't the point be she's not?

I thought she was anyway? Or am I thinking of Mary the mother of Jesus?

The hooker is not a saint-but personally I can't see why not. A lot of jobs involve prostitution of some sort and cross the borders of morality for some.

GAB wrote:The hooker is not a saint-but personally I can't see why not. A lot of jobs involve prostitution of some sort and cross the borders of morality for some.

She probably wasn't a prostitute. It's often assumed that the woman Jesus rescued from being stoned was Mary Magdalene but that's not made clear and it seems unlikely. There are several Marys in the New Testament that are more likely to be different people than the same person. And the woman getting stoned (no pun intended) was only referred to as a sinner, not a prostitute.

One view is that she was the "Beloved Disciple" mentioned several times in the book of John. Not that that would necessarily conflict with the view that she had been a prostitute.