The Lady of Heaven review – ambitious religious epic about Prophet Mohammad (PBUH) daughter

[silentkiller187]

This wayward, occasionally handsome account of the story of Fatima is more interesting on paper than in practice.

This British-made epic earns a significant accolade: it is the first film to put the “face” of the prophet Muhammad on screen. No single actor is credited with playing him, or any of the other holy figures in his entourage. And, as a nervous initial disclaimer points out, their faces, often shown in dazzling sunbursts, are computer-generated. Presumably, this is enough to placate Islam’s prohibition on visual representation of the prophet, but this is a Shia-aligned film that is evidently a little more lenient on the issue.

While claiming, as per the title, to be about Muhammad’s daughter Fatimah, this is largely focusing on his cousin and successor Ali. Director Eli King and writer Sheikh al-Habib attempt to give the Islam origin story a contemporary parallel: it has a framing sequence in which Laith (Gabriel Cartade), a young boy from Mosul, is orphaned when his mother is executed by Islamic State soldiers for teaching him a blasphemous song. Laith is adopted by a soldier from Baghdad, and the serviceman’s mother comforts the youngster by telling him the tale of the saintly Fatimah, whose example of strength she promises will keep him going in dark times.

The strange thing is that the film, until its closing stretch, hardly features Fatimah – who in any case is the only Islamic luminary whose face is never shown, which along with an embarrassingly plummy vocal performance, hobbles our attachment to her. Instead, The Lady of Heaven gives a stilted walkthrough of the nascent outsider religion that is more drawn to her eventual husband Ali, a martial badass with vehement anime eyes. Only after Muhammad’s death, with the depiction of the emerging tyranny of his father-in-law Abu Bakr (Ray Fearon), does this flat-footed telling start to chime with present-day religious intolerance.

The production values are decent, with impressive mud-brick sets and the kohl-eyed, vibrant-cloaked pagan rabble contrasting nicely with the austere Muslim camp. But with some half-baked performances, and the odd tinge of cockney creeping in, it feels a bit too apparent that the cast hail from closer to Mile End than Medina. The Lady of Heaven has precious little of the poetic flair of Muhammad: Messenger of God, Majid Majidi’s 2015 treatment of the prophet’s early years, or indeed the uncanny rigidity of 1977’s The Messenger, often shot from the prophet’s first-person perspective. And for a film that aims to promote religious diversity and freedom of thought, its metronomic alternation between time frames, narrative slavishness and laughable coda have a suffocating sense of orthodoxy.

The Lady of Heaven is released in cinemas on 3 June.

https://www.theguardian.com/film/20...tious-religious-epic-about-muhammads-daughter

 

[James]

This is causing protests at cinemas across the country by people who are offended by the film.

 

[DeadlyVenom]

I dont see a reason to ban it.

Most of what the film indirectly mentions has sources in sunni books and is key to shia belief.

Yes it may have been filmed in a provocative way, but the historical incidents themselves are quite an eye opener, especially for Sunnis who don't learn this stuff.

 

[MenInG]

My suggestion to those offended by it...Don't watch it!

 

[SpiritOf1903]

My suggestion to those offended by it...Don't watch it!

Exactly?!. Select idiots bringing attention to the whole again

 

[Stewie]

Quite honestly, I do not agree with the concept of blasphemy associated with caricatures of our holy personalities. Those rule apply for us as Muslims and others do it, thats their deal and God will deal with it, we should not start losing our crap over it.

I would personally like to think my faith and belief is strong enough that I would never actually put a picture in front and start praying to it, so they can try and make as many pictures of our holy personalities, I would not care.

 

[Champ_Pal]

My suggestion to those offended by it...Don't watch it!

If someone's speech is offensive, should we just close our ears then?

 

[Major]

If we want to spread islam and want people to admire islamic personalities, than instead of focusing on ertaguls or salahudins we need to make more televisiable stuff on the prophet or his close ones.

Now adays people get inspired or learn by what they watch. People dont just read stuff as only select few do.

Does islam specifically mentions against anyone trying to depict the prophet as blasphemy or is this just a man made law?

The message was a great film, got a good understanding how wars were fought, how the people lived during those times. But, it lacked was not being able to see the Prophet and how he was different.

Omar series by qatar was also another great series on Islam but than again, it lacked the main person.

People get inspired by the Dark Knight and many super hero films.. but what they dont know how Our Prophet was a realistic hero who cared for all of his mankind even when the ones close to him couldnt understand it .

Best example is treaty of hudaibiya. No one understood, many were not very happy with the decision that was made. But Prophet bared their unhappiness for the short period as he understood the benefit of the treaty.

But many cant get to see this due to our own self made rules and not wanting to integrate religion with modern times

 

[in_cutter]

I dont see a reason to ban it.

Most of what the film indirectly mentions has sources in sunni books and is key to shia belief.

Yes it may have been filmed in a provocative way, but the historical incidents themselves are quite an eye opener, especially for Sunnis who don't learn this stuff.

You say this as if Sunnis don’t know the history of Islam. The problem here is the depiction of the Prophet ﷺ and the mockery of people of importance in Islam.

 

[KingKhanWC]

You say this as if Sunnis don’t know the history of Islam. The problem here is the depiction of the Prophet ﷺ and the mockery of people of importance in Islam.

Some think If they try to act as some sort of neutral liberals it will make them seem more intelligent & civilised when it shows the opposite.

Some also saying don’t like it , don’t watch it , a great revelation of life , as if people don’t know this lol

Movie seems to be Extreme Shia based narrative , pretending to be somehow revolutionary. Even Iran banned this , also many Shia scholars denounced it .

You can never stop all films but to suggest it’s fine being a Muslim shows lack of understanding or their own faith.

The Message is still the best Islamic movie , a masterpiece

 

[Manunited18]

Some think If they try to act as some sort of neutral liberals it will make them seem more intelligent & civilised when it shows the opposite.

Some also saying don’t like it , don’t watch it , a great revelation of life , as if people don’t know this lol

Movie seems to be Extreme Shia based narrative , pretending to be somehow revolutionary. Even Iran banned this , also many Shia scholars denounced it .

You can never stop all films but to suggest it’s fine being a Muslim shows lack of understanding or their own faith.

The Message is still the best Islamic movie , a masterpiece

Agree with this.

 

[DeadlyVenom]

You say this as if Sunnis don’t know the history of Islam. The problem here is the depiction of the Prophet ﷺ and the mockery of people of importance in Islam.

Was Nabi (saw) depicted? I wasn't aware of this - the protestors seem to be focussing more on depictions of the sahaba.

If he is depicted by an actor then yes I would be against this aspect.

As far as the depiction of the sahaba - we don't have a monopoly over them and how people perceive them.

As Major said - the show about Umar (ra) in which he was depicted is much loved by Muslims worldwide, but some Shia argue that it didn't depict Ali (ra) correctly and twisted other facts.

Since I am fine with positive depictions of the sahaba in the Umar series or in the message movie, then naturally we need to reluctantly tolerate some Shia who may depict him in a manner we find negative.

Otherwise the option would be to have a complete moratorium on all religious movies as there will always be someone with an objection.

 

[topspin]

As expected, the British Muslims come around to intimidate their local cinemas. This kind of mob mentality and entitlement (especially in a non-Muslim country) is out of order.

If you don't like the film, don't watch it. If the Prophet (SAW) was alive today, he would have ignored it.

British Muslims need to stop getting overly sensitive about these things and actually focus on themselves. This behaviour is repulsive and creates a very bad image of Muslims.

 

[moghul]

If we want to spread islam and want people to admire islamic personalities, than instead of focusing on ertaguls or salahudins we need to make more televisiable stuff on the prophet or his close ones.

Now adays people get inspired or learn by what they watch. People dont just read stuff as only select few do.

Does islam specifically mentions against anyone trying to depict the prophet as blasphemy or is this just a man made law?

The message was a great film, got a good understanding how wars were fought, how the people lived during those times. But, it lacked was not being able to see the Prophet and how he was different.

Omar series by qatar was also another great series on Islam but than again, it lacked the main person.

People get inspired by the Dark Knight and many super hero films.. but what they dont know how Our Prophet was a realistic hero who cared for all of his mankind even when the ones close to him couldnt understand it .

Best example is treaty of hudaibiya. No one understood, many were not very happy with the decision that was made. But Prophet bared their unhappiness for the short period as he understood the benefit of the treaty.

But many cant get to see this due to our own self made rules and not wanting to integrate religion with modern times

Absolutely.

 

[SpiritOf1903]

If we want to spread islam and want people to admire islamic personalities, than instead of focusing on ertaguls or salahudins we need to make more televisiable stuff on the prophet or his close ones.

Now adays people get inspired or learn by what they watch. People dont just read stuff as only select few do.

Does islam specifically mentions against anyone trying to depict the prophet as blasphemy or is this just a man made law?

The message was a great film, got a good understanding how wars were fought, how the people lived during those times. But, it lacked was not being able to see the Prophet and how he was different.

Omar series by qatar was also another great series on Islam but than again, it lacked the main person.

People get inspired by the Dark Knight and many super hero films.. but what they dont know how Our Prophet was a realistic hero who cared for all of his mankind even when the ones close to him couldnt understand it .

Best example is treaty of hudaibiya. No one understood, many were not very happy with the decision that was made. But Prophet bared their unhappiness for the short period as he understood the benefit of the treaty.

But many cant get to see this due to our own self made rules and not wanting to integrate religion with modern times

It categorically bans depictions of the Prophet SAW and family. This. Is a deliberately provocative 'movie'

 

[Technics 1210]

You do not need movies to spread Islam, Islam spread just fine in the past 1400 years without movies. In fact the same applies to other religions. The main reasons for religious movies these days is to change public perception or to provoke, the later being a cunning trick to generate controversy, thus interest, thus money.

Saying this, movies like The Message, 10 Commandments, and Passion of the Christ, were received because said movies provide insight into the lives of the messengers of God, in parallel to the birth/context of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, and why these Monotheistic religions exist today.

 

[MenInG]

Some think If they try to act as some sort of neutral liberals it will make them seem more intelligent & civilised when it shows the opposite.

Some also saying don’t like it , don’t watch it , a great revelation of life , as if people don’t know this lol

Movie seems to be Extreme Shia based narrative , pretending to be somehow revolutionary. Even Iran banned this , also many Shia scholars denounced it .

You can never stop all films but to suggest it’s fine being a Muslim shows lack of understanding or their own faith.

The Message is still the best Islamic movie , a masterpiece

Ok so denounce it but why bring it so much attention?

 

[MenInG]

As expected, the British Muslims come around to intimidate their local cinemas. This kind of mob mentality and entitlement (especially in a non-Muslim country) is out of order.

If you don't like the film, don't watch it. If the Prophet (SAW) was alive today, he would have ignored it.

British Muslims need to stop getting overly sensitive about these things and actually focus on themselves. This behaviour is repulsive and creates a very bad image of Muslims.

Do you think this movie will be met with throngs holding popcorn in the rest of the Muslim world

 

[Major]

You do not need movies to spread Islam, Islam spread just fine in the past 1400 years without movies. In fact the same applies to other religions. The main reasons for religious movies these days is to change public perception or to provoke, the later being a cunning trick to generate controversy, thus interest, thus money.

Saying this, movies like The Message, 10 Commandments, and Passion of the Christ, were received because said movies provide insight into the lives of the messengers of God, in parallel to the birth/context of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, and why these Monotheistic religions exist today.

Media didnt existed for 1300 years.

To spread islam, molvies in pakistan buy channel spaces and uare using YouTube. Thusz even they have identified that media is needed to spread islam.

Isis terrorist narrative exists due to social media.

You want to foght islamophobia and portray islam or atleast the prophets seerag, than movie is the only way to rid of those misconception.

Even the message was banned and got people to do protest against it

 

[in_cutter]

I don’t agree with the contents of the movie…but on the flip side, having big protests has brought the movie to peoples attention…lets be honest, not many including myself had heard about this movie until the protests. I’ve been reading on twitter etc that people are actively going to seek this movie, thanks to the protests.

 

[Mamoon]

Easiest question in the world:

Followers of what religion are the easiest to offend and aggravate?

 

[KingKhanWC]

Easiest question in the world:

Followers of what religion are the easiest to offend and aggravate?

Up for debate but what isn’t is your ideology Muslim children should be bombed by people who worship multiple gods , so these kids don’t grow up to be extremists .

 

[KingKhanWC]

Ok so denounce it but why bring it so much attention?

It’s being screened in national cinemas , attention is already there by those showing it .

There’s no need to protest but try making a movie against Jewish beliefs Ie holocaust , you may be imprisoned . If Jews have rights & protection so should others .

 

[topspin]

Do you think this movie will be met with throngs holding popcorn in the rest of the Muslim world

Other than the UK, I've not come across any protests anywhere else in the world.

I disagree with the contents of the film but I just think we need to stop giving it energy as it's counterproductive. We're just giving it free publicity.

 

[sweep_shot]

Seems like one of those idiotic movies.

I condemn the movie for unnecessarily trying to cause controversies.

 

[MenInG]

 

[Technics 1210]

Easiest question in the world:

Followers of what religion are the easiest to offend and aggravate?

Your Indian brethren are the easiest to offend and aggravate, they want to ban cricket leagues in Kashmir, the player who plays in such leagues, cos your brotherhood feel offended, and this is not even religion, and just the start.

Move on pal.

PS : It's which religion, not what religion.

 

[Champ_Pal]

Your Indian brethren are the easiest to offend and aggravate, they want to ban cricket leagues in Kashmir, the player who plays in such leagues, cos your brotherhood feel offended, and this is not even religion, and just the start.

Move on pal.

PS : It's which religion, not what religion.

Indians are extreme when it comes to their nation. IMO, Muslims are extreme when it comes to their religion.
This is why Indians become very defensive when someone criticizes India. Indians take it to heart and become emotional. The country is their Mother in literal sense.

 

[James]

I have no interest in watching this film, although concurrently I must admit that without these protests and the news coverage about the movie being pulled from various cinemas I don’t think that I ever would even have heard of it.

 

[Mamoon]

Your Indian brethren are the easiest to offend and aggravate, they want to ban cricket leagues in Kashmir, the player who plays in such leagues, cos your brotherhood feel offended, and this is not even religion, and just the start.

Move on pal.

PS : It's which religion, not what religion.

Which is used when you have a list of choices in front of you. What is used when you don’t have a list of choices in front of you.

“Which” implies a choice of pre-defined options.

“What” implies you should answer however you want. It is an open question.

“Which” religion would have appropriate had I provided a list of religions which I didn’t not.

Scenario 1: Which is your favorite color? red, yellow, green?

Scenario 2: What is your favorite color? There is no pre-determined list of options. You have nothing to choose from so “which” doesn’t apply.

Thank me for the free grammar lesson. You can tag me for more.

 

[mazkhan]

I have no interest in watching this film, although concurrently I must admit that without these protests and the news coverage about the movie being pulled from various cinemas I don’t think that I ever would even have heard of it.

This film i think is not produced by westerners but by a Shia from the rafida foundation.

It's basically portraying holy persons by human actors which is blasphemous under sunni Islam.

On top its relates the story from a Shia perspective and portrays holy personalities dear to sunnis in a negative light and the producer is equating them with isis that those people were the historic isis and now you have the modern isis tormenting an iraqi Shia women called fatima and her son. Also in one of the battles at karbala the opposing army soldier yazeedi army looks like a giant orc with horns , I can assure you the Syrian army that came at karbala didn't look like giant orcs and horns, so again it's Shia fairytale tellers getting carried away.

It's fanning sectarian hatred Shia vs sunni.

 

[MenInG]

A cinema chain has been forced to pull a film about the prophet Muhammad’s daughter over fears for the safety of its staff.

Cineworld told The Independent it had removed The Lady of Heaven from schedules across the UK following protests by Muslims who accused the firm of “promoting hate”.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/lady-of-heaven-film-blasphemy-protest-b2095822.html

 

[Robert]

Presumably, this is enough to placate Islam’s prohibition on visual representation of the prophet, but this is a Shia-aligned film that is evidently a little more lenient on the issue.

What is the reason for this, out of interest?

Muslim chap was on LBC chatting to JOB about this just now. He liked the film but found it curious that most of the "goodies" looked like they were European.

 

[MenInG]

A large group of protesters assembled outside of Cineworld Sheffield ahead of a screening of The Lady of Heaven on Sunday.

Demonstrations have been held across the country in response to the film and its depiction of the life of Lady Fatima, the daughter of Prophet Muhammad.

The movie, which puts the "face" of the Prophet Muhammad on screen, has been branded "highly offensive and blasphemous" by some Muslim activists.

Following Sunday's peaceful protest, the Sheffield branch of the cinema chain cancelled its screenings. A video shared online captures a speech delivered to the crowd, apparently by a member of the cinema's staff, when delivering the news.

He said: "I am confirming that we have cancelled this film and will not be showing it again. We value you as customers. We value all of our customers. We are in the heart of this community.

"At a local level it wasn’t our decision to show this film; it came from above. We totally agree with what you are saying, and we are not prepared at this cinema to show this film."

The UK cinema chain has now cancelled all screenings of the film. A spokesperson from Cineworld said: “Due to recent incidents related to screenings of ‘The Lady of Heaven’, we have made the decision to cancel upcoming screenings of the film nationwide to ensure the safety of our staff and customers.”

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/ukne...sedgntp&cvid=8f79b0ee989a47d29f867d8cfab1f007

 

[MenInG]

Cineworld has cancelled screenings of a film about the daughter of the Prophet Muhammad which has led to protests outside some cinemas and been branded "blasphemous" by a Muslim council.

The cinema chain said it made the decision to remove The Lady Of Heaven, which was released on Friday, "to ensure the safety of our staff and customers".

More than 120,000 people have signed an online petition describing the film as "racist" and calling for it to be removed from all UK cinemas, and protests have taken place in Bradford, Leeds, Sheffield, Bolton, Blackburn and Birmingham.

And in a letter to Cineworld shared on its social media sites, the Bolton Council Of Mosques said the film had caused "much distress to Muslims across the globe".

However, a House of Lords peer has described the decision to remove the film as "disastrous" for the arts and "dangerous" for free speech, and critics of the decision have hit out at the film's "censorship".

Video has circulated online reportedly showing a member of staff at a Sheffield cinema telling protesters that a screening of the film had been cancelled at the weekend.

"The heart-wrenching journey of Lady Fatima, the daughter of Prophet Muhammad," reads the synopsis for the film on its website.

"Separated by 1,400 years, an Iraqi child, in the midst of a war-torn country, learns the importance and power of patience."

A trailer for the film, posted in December 2020, has been viewed more than 3 million times on YouTube, but comments have been turned off.

In its letter about the film, the Bolton Council Of Mosques said: "It is underpinned with a sectarian ideology and is blasphemous in nature to the Muslim community.

"It grossly disrespects the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) in many ways and is deeply disturbing to every Muslim."

What have the cinema chains said?

A Cineworld spokesperson told Sky News: "Due to recent incidents related to screenings of The Lady Of Heaven, we have made the decision to cancel upcoming screenings of the film nationwide to ensure the safety of our staff and customers."

Vue, another cinema chain, has also reportedly pulled some screenings, although the film is still listed at some venues.

A spokesperson for the chain said: "Vue takes seriously the responsibilities that come with providing a platform for a wide variety of content and believes in showcasing films of interest to diverse communities across the UK.

"Vue will only show a film once the BBFC (the independent British Board of Film Classification) has assessed and rated a film. The Lady of Heaven has been BBFC accredited and is on show in a number of our cinemas.

"Decisions about how long a film remains on show are taken on a site-by-site basis and based on a variety of commercial and operational factors."

According to The Lady Of Heaven website, the film was also due to be shown at Showcase cinemas. Sky News has contacted Showcase for comment.

'Not befitting of a free and progressive country'

In a tweet, Baroness Claire Fox said the decision to remove the film from cinemas was "disastrous for the arts, dangerous for free speech, a lesson to those who argue identity politics are no threat to democracy".

And some 3,000 people have signed an online counter-petition calling for the film to be supported by UK Cinemas, arguing that "taking it down due to online mobs and bullies is not befitting of a free and progressive country such as the UK".

The BBFC said The Lady Of Heaven had been classified as a 15 for "strong bloody violence, gory images, and threat" but that there is nothing in the film that exceeds guidelines or deems it unsuitable for classification.

"Filmmakers are free to explore historical or controversial themes and events within their films," the organisation said in a statement. "The BBFC's role is to ensure the content is classified appropriately based on our guidelines, in order to protect children and other vulnerable groups from potential harm and to empower consumers to make informed viewing decisions."

Malik Shlibak, The Lady Of Heaven's executive producer, told Sky News that the publicity surrounding the controversy was introducing more viewers to the film.

However, he said that "dictating" what people "can and cannot watch, what we can and cannot discuss, is a very dangerous thing".

He continued: "We tolerate a plethora of different views and standpoints and interpretations on all various topics. As long as they're not breaking the law, as long as they're not calling for violence, we welcome discussion because that will lead us to a brighter future. Any time we try to censor one side, we will not be able to manoeuvre in the correct manner going forward.

"So the solution isn't to stop talking about things that they don't want us to talk about. The solution is to talk about them, to prove and show that we are an open, free society, we are tolerant people."

SKY

 

[leonidas_alexandar]

There's many movies that get released directly on myriad streaming services. Why can't the producers strike a deal with a streaming service to release it? This way you can get your movie out - and you would nullify any potential violence or protests on the streets jeopardizing public life.

 

[James]

A cinema chain has been forced to pull a film about the prophet Muhammad’s daughter over fears for the safety of its staff.

Cineworld told The Independent it had removed The Lady of Heaven from schedules across the UK following protests by Muslims who accused the firm of “promoting hate”.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/lady-of-heaven-film-blasphemy-protest-b2095822.html

Unfortunately it is the everyday Cineworld employees who get caught up in this stuff, they just get sent through the selected titles to show at specific times on the basis of strategic decisions taken by their superiors and it is their job requirement to play the films.

Complaints should be directed at the high level leadership and not the individual branches imo.

 

[PakLFC]

Don't see the point in such religious films. If they want to do so then why not in cultures that allow it? The west knows that revered Muslim figures offend many believers only creating social unrest. Muslim's too must refuse all forms of violence when protesting or threatening to kill any person for blasphemy. These threats do not help anyone.

 

[ElRaja]

It’s being screened in national cinemas , attention is already there by those showing it .

there's dozens of films screened every week, no one knows abt 95% of them. the protests are exactly what the film maker wanted, and he knew what buttons to push, too easy for them, even with the ban they will make them a lot of money via streaming, etc, and encourage people to do the same in the future.

 

[Robert]

This film i think is not produced by westerners but by a Shia from the rafida foundation.

It's basically portraying holy persons by human actors which is blasphemous under sunni Islam.

On top its relates the story from a Shia perspective and portrays holy personalities dear to sunnis in a negative light and the producer is equating them with isis that those people were the historic isis and now you have the modern isis tormenting an iraqi Shia women called fatima and her son. Also in one of the battles at karbala the opposing army soldier yazeedi army looks like a giant orc with horns , I can assure you the Syrian army that came at karbala didn't look like giant orcs and horns, so again it's Shia fairytale tellers getting carried away.

It's fanning sectarian hatred Shia vs sunni.

A Shia chap rang up LBC last night to say that the film-makers are considered troublemakers within their community.

 

[DeadlyVenom]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b7Fv0GJ65zQ

Quite an interesting debate. The Shia guy wiped the floor with the Sunni guy on this.

The protestors position needs to be consistent.

They cannot make this about preventing sectarian violence ( If a film causes that they should take a good hard look at themselves), nor is the argument about it being racist because the main characters are black a valid one.

If their argument is that they are against the depiction of holy figures then fair enough, but trying to twist and turn isn't doing them any favours.

 

[Saj]

I've not seen the film.

What are the protestors unhappy with about the film?

 

[James]

there's dozens of films screened every week, no one knows abt 95% of them. the protests are exactly what the film maker wanted, and he knew what buttons to push, too easy for them, even with the ban they will make them a lot of money via streaming, etc, and encourage people to do the same in the future.

Yep plus this publicity means the movie is brought to the attention of more well known figures who identify strongly with the alt right and anti Islam groups, such as Geert Wilders and Tommy Robinson for example, who can then post about the film on social media and whip up support amongst their like-minded legions of followers.

 

[James]

<b>Qari Asim: Imam removed as government adviser over film protests</b>

An imam has been dismissed as a government adviser after backing calls for a film about the Prophet Mohammed's daughter to be banned.

Qari Asim, 44, was removed from his role as an Islamophobia consultant after protests against the film The Lady of Heaven.

Supporting the campaign "to limit free expression" precluded him from continuing, the government said.

Mr Asim was appointed MBE in 2012 for building "community harmony" in Leeds.

On Wednesday, cinema chain Cineworld cancelled all UK screenings of the film after protests outside a number of cinemas.

Mr Asim, imam of the Makkah Masjid mosque in Leeds, was told his appointment as deputy chair of the government's Anti-Muslim Hatred Working Group had to end in a letter from the Department of Levelling Up, Housing & Communities.

It said: "Your recent support for a campaign to limit free expression - a campaign which has itself encouraged communal tensions - means it is no longer appropriate for you to continue your work with government in roles designed to promote community harmony."

The solicitor was told his actions were "a clear effort to restrict artistic expression" and that the campaign had "led to street protests which have fomented religious hatred".

The government said that on Monday Mr Asim had posted on Facebook: "We have been working with many brothers and Imams across the country to liaise with the cinemas….Some Imams have taken a view to protest and others are in dialogue with the cinemas trying to resolve the situation."

The letter continued: "Resolving the situation, as you made clear, meant cancelling screenings. You wrote that "in some places we have been successful and those cinemas will no longer be showing the movie".

Mr Asim was said to have advertised a protest in Leeds, with details of its timing and location.

"This clear involvement in a campaign to limit free expression is incompatible with the role of a government adviser," it said.

"You will have no doubt seen reports of the scenes outside different cinema venues. These included deeply disturbing videos of sectarian chanting and anti-Shia hatred.

"As you know, anti-Shia hatred is a long-standing and very serious issue, which must be challenged at every opportunity as part of a wider effort to combat anti-Muslim hatred.

"We were disappointed to see that you failed to condemn some of the protests complicit in these behaviours."

Mr Asim has been approached for comment.

<I>BBC Leeds</I>

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-61771695

 

[MenInG]

Morocco has banned controversial British film The Lady Of Heaven over its "blatant falsification of established facts in Islamic history".

UK cinema chain Cineworld has already cancelled screenings of the film after protests over its depiction of the Prophet Muhammad's daughter Lady Fatimah.

Now the Moroccan Cinematographic Centre (CCM) has issued a statement to say no cinema in the country will be granted a licence to show the movie.

Morocco's Supreme Council of Ulema has strongly condemned the film, claiming its writer, Shia Muslim cleric Sheikh Yasser al-Habib, was stripped of his Kuwaiti nationality over his "extremist ideas".

It describes the "incarnation of the Prophet" as a "heinous act that cannot be accepted by Muslims" and says it "categorically rejects the blatant falsification of established facts in Islamic history".

The Lady Of Heaven is believed to be the first on-screen depiction of Lady Fatimah's life.

Most Muslims find any portrayal of their prophets highly offensive, making attempts to do so extremely contentious.

The filmmakers say they went to great lengths to avoid any holy person being played by an actor.

Instead they chose to convey them through a mixture of CGI, lighting and visual effects.

Film 'might lead to communal violence'

But Roshan M Salih, editor of the British Muslim news site 5Pillars, warned it could still lead to violent uproar.

He wrote on Twitter: "Let me put this simply - Lady of Heaven should be banned because it might lead to communal violence.

"Muslims love the Prophet and Sahaba [companions of the Prophet] so much that provocations like this might lead to criminal reactions from some misguided individuals."

He said the film could "lead to a reaction even if that reaction itself is wrong".

Egypt, Pakistan, Iran and Iraq are among the countries to condemn the film.

In the UK, demonstrations have taken place outside cinemas in Bradford, Leeds, Sheffield, Bolton, Blackburn, Birmingham and east London.

It was due to be shown in Cineworld, Vue and Showcase cinemas.

But after the former pulled screenings over safety concerns for staff and customers, only Vue viewings appear to be available to book online.

https://news.sky.com/story/the-lady...ant-falsification-of-islamic-history-12632488

 

[KingKhanWC]

there's dozens of films screened every week, no one knows abt 95% of them. the protests are exactly what the film maker wanted, and he knew what buttons to push, too easy for them, even with the ban they will make them a lot of money via streaming, etc, and encourage people to do the same in the future.

All films are noticed when scheduled. People have a right to protest in a peaceful manner. I wouldnt protest but create a response as to why the movie is wrong from an Islamic perspective.

The problem is again of freedom of speech which is inconsistent. You cannot even criticise Israeli policies without being labellled an anti-semite as supported by UK governments. People will see this , so will find no reason not to protest or speak out.

The other elephant in the room is the war of terror resulting in 4 million deaths. This war was backed by Islamaphobic propaganda. Its easier to bomb people after they are demonised. So any Islamaphobia or secterian type of media/movie will only continue this demonisation.

 

[Robert]

Once again, people don’t grasp the concept of freedom of speech.

It doesn’t mean freedom to offend.

It doesn’t mean getting banned from FB or Twitter.

It means you can walk up and down Parliament Square with a loud hailer and shout “Boris is an idiot” or “The Monarchy should be abolished”…. and nothing bad happens to you.

Try that in Putin’s Russia and you will disappear and nobody will ever see you again.

Note however that you can now be arrested under the Police and Crime Bill for being “seriously annoying” - this is a breach of your right to free speech and should repealed because it is a step down the slippery slope to fascism.

 

[PakLFC]

Protesting must be within what the law allows. No burning cars or anything like that. the west's obsession with Islam doesn't do anyone any favours either.

 

[Champ_Pal]

I saw a video on this. One of the biggest issues for Sunnis is the depiction of Hazrat Umar and Abu Bakr as compared to Hazrat Ali.

 

[ElRaja]

All films are noticed when scheduled. People have a right to protest in a peaceful manner. I wouldnt protest but create a response as to why the movie is wrong from an Islamic perspective.

The problem is again of freedom of speech which is inconsistent. You cannot even criticise Israeli policies without being labellled an anti-semite as supported by UK governments. People will see this , so will find no reason not to protest or speak out.

The other elephant in the room is the war of terror resulting in 4 million deaths. This war was backed by Islamaphobic propaganda. Its easier to bomb people after they are demonised. So any Islamaphobia or secterian type of media/movie will only continue this demonisation.

so the point is that you should be openly allowed to criticise zionism, and the western military industrial complex, not co-opt that ideology and attempt to silence even more people.

fwiw i see criticism of the zionist policies increasing amongst regular folk who thanks to youtube and social media are becoming more aware of the apartheid in israel.

Once again, people don’t grasp the concept of freedom of speech.

It doesn’t mean freedom to offend.

It doesn’t mean getting banned from FB or Twitter.

It means you can walk up and down Parliament Square with a loud hailer and shout “Boris is an idiot” or “The Monarchy should be abolished”…. and nothing bad happens to you.

Try that in Putin’s Russia and you will disappear and nobody will ever see you again.

Note however that you can now be arrested under the Police and Crime Bill for being “seriously annoying” - this is a breach of your right to free speech and should repealed because it is a step down the slippery slope to fascism.

that is the slipperiest slope of all, why should i not be allowed to offend you? who sets the threshold of whether your offense is reasonable or petty. there is a very obvious delimitation between offending someone, and inciting violence against them, the latter of which is wrong and has to be unlawful given the type of society we live in.

you have a right to be offended, i have a right to not care, that is the essence of free speech for me.

 

[Robert]

so the point is that you should be openly allowed to criticise zionism, and the western military industrial complex, not co-opt that ideology and attempt to silence even more people.

fwiw i see criticism of the zionist policies increasing amongst regular folk who thanks to youtube and social media are becoming more aware of the apartheid in israel.

that is the slipperiest slope of all, why should i not be allowed to offend you? who sets the threshold of whether your offense is reasonable or petty. there is a very obvious delimitation between offending someone, and inciting violence against them, the latter of which is wrong and has to be unlawful given the type of society we live in.

you have a right to be offended, i have a right to not care, that is the essence of free speech for me.

Then you have not understood the right to free speech either. It is the right to express political opinions without facing state persecution. It does not refer to giving offence. It is unrelated to that.

I do not have the right to offend if that offence is Islamophobic, racist, homophobic or transphobic. I can face criminal prosecution for it..

 

[ElRaja]

Then you have not understood the right to free speech either. It is the right to express political opinions without facing state persecution. It does not refer to giving offence. It is unrelated to that.

I do not have the right to offend if that offence is Islamophobic, racist, homophobic or transphobic. I can face criminal prosecution for it..

I'm not talking abt the legal definition, I'm talking about the essence of free speech, to me. i grew up on sticks and stones and all that, but I'm too old and tired to argue on this anymore, i know the worlds a different place, i just keep my mouth shut and play ball.