The same applies to Amina, the mother of the Prophet, too. These points are in clear contradiction with the information in our sources and they seem to be motivated by a Shiite approach with the concern, “How come Ali's father is not Muslim?”ĥ. In the film, Abu Talib appears to have become Muslim long time ago and be in a position of preaching Islam to the polytheists. The same applies to Amina, the mother of the Prophet, too. These points are in clear contradiction with the information in our sources and they seem to be motivated by a Shiite approach with the concern, “How come Ali's father is not Muslim?”Ĥ. This is a distortion of reality that goes beyond fiction. Abu Lahab’s hate towards the Messenger of Allah is in fact a polytheistic hate that arises after the Messenger's call to Islam. Attributing this to the jealousy of his wife, who belonged to the Umayya tribe, cannot be justified by the language of the film or fiction. Here appears an obvious sectarian bigotry. The reason why Umm Jameel is mentioned negatively in the sources is not because she was a member of Ummayya tribe but is due to the pain she caused to the Prophet and his family in the course of invitation, as mentioned in Surah Lahab (Quran, 111). According to the movie, she deprived the Prophet of milk and led Abu Lahab to hold a grudge against his nephew since his birth. She even caused Abu Lahab to plot murder against his nephew and pay a Jew for this purpose. Information provided regarding Umm Jameel is pretty problematic. The image choice for Abu Sufyan is also noteworthy. It is easily noticed that an ugly and repulsive character is purposefully chosen for him.ģ. However, no data exists in our sources pointing such a central position of Abu Sufyan in the pre-migration period. He leads the role in every conversation against the Prophet. In the boycott period, Abu Jahl is replaced with Abu Sufyan as the leader and spokesman of Mecca. To serve this purpose, historical figures and events are distorted.Ģ. With far-fetched interpretations and fictitious narrations, it is underlined that the members of Banu Umayya family had a negative attitude towards the Prophet since his birth. Banu Hashim conflict marks the period between the birth of the Prophet and the boycott days. However, unfortunately, Majid Majidi’s film has many elements that are not compatible with historical facts about the Prophet’s life. Looking at these narrations, it becomes clear that there is no need for fiction except small gap-fillings. Our sources regarding both Mecca and Madina periods have adequent information to provide basis for tens of film scenarios. In order to make a film on the life of the Prophet, it is necessary to hold on to solid narrations, minimizing fictional elements. It is obvious that there can be no justification whatsoever to deliberately making untruthful attributions to him. Every text written, every word said about the Prophet is precious. The film “Muhammad” (2015) by Iranian director Majid Majidi is the second major production following “The Message”, both of which are a result of the effort to introduce the Prophet in the form of cinema. Scholarly or literary writing about the Prophet still continues in Muslim and non-Muslim geographies without pause.
Within this period, countless works about the life of the Prophet have been published both in prose and in verse, in the West and the East. Fourteen centuries have passed over the divine call of the last prophet, Muhammad Mustapha (pbuh) - the call that had started in Mecca and invited people to unite around the common ground of monotheism.