Errors in the movie: "The Message"

بـسـم الله والحـمـد لله والـصلاة والـسـلام عــلى رسـول الله، وبـعـد

It’s been 40+ years since the movie: “The Message” was released. Even though the senior scholars from Saudi Arabia and some scholars from Azhar (Egypt) in the past spoke against its release, yet it has remained widely in circulation in the Muslim world. For many, this movie is and was the only source of learning the Seerah (the biography) of the Prophet ﷺ. Many things in this movie have been portrayed which are factually untrue, or based on Weak and fabricated narrations, or exaggerated to say the least.

This movie is again making a comeback due to recent praise by some “famous personality”, saying that this is the best movie according to him even if it is not 100% Halaal.

The movie even has a few obvious Shi`ee elements, the most obvious of which is the display of the “sword” of `Alee رضي الله عنه having two heads (or tips). The actuals sword, known as Dhul-Fiqaar (ذو الفقار), had only one head (tip). As for the one portrayed in the movie with two tips, it is more in resemblance to the dagger of Abu Lu’lu al-Majoosee, the one who killed `Umar رضي الله عنه, and who is venerated by the Shi`aa. Another obvious Shi`ee element was the absence of mentioning Abu Bakr and `Umar رضي الله عنهما and their contributions and support for the Prophet ﷺ and Islaam.

The following are a few points against the movie, “The Message”:

1) The movie is more based on famous historical narrations – irrespective of their authenticity - instead of the authentic Hadeeth based narrations. Rather, in some incidents it went into exaggeration just to make it more dramatic and deployed the techniques to fill the gap in the movie, which had no basis with the Muhadditheen, rather even the historians have not mentioned them.

2) It employed the services of non-Arab and non-Muslim actors to represent the characters, who in real life were into drinking and other vices. It’s more like the whitewashing of the movie. Moreover, the Senior Scholars have spoken in details against depicting Prophets and Companions on the screen, movies, and plays.

3) Neglecting the numbers of participants, like the number of participants in the battles, the number of martyrs, and the number of migrants to Abyssinia, without any evidence.

4) Neglecting the contribution and support of the Major Sahaabah for the cause of Islaam, like Abu Bakr, `Umar, `Uthmaan رضي الله عنهم. The movie hides the roles of these Companions even though they were the closest to the Prophet ﷺ, and always accompanied him, and were with him throughout the Dawah, and in the battles of Badr, Uhud and the other battles. Even the role of `Alee رضي الله عنه was very limited. It mostly concentrated on the role of Hamzah, Bilaal, `Ammaar, and Zaid Ibn Haarithah رضي الله عنهم. As a whole, they hid the contributions of the Ten Companions who were promised Paradise; knowing that this is a 3 hour plus movie. This is the sign of grudge the Shi`aa have against these Companions.

5) Mostly, the dialogues which took place between the Mushriks themselves, or between the Companions, there is no authentic evidence for them. The dialogues in the movies are mostly for keeping the movie rolling, especially the dialogue between Abu Sufyaan and his wife, Hind, and the dialogue between Hudhayfah Ibn `Utbah and his brothers and father, and the dialogue between Ja`far رضي الله عنه and `Amr Ibn al-`Aas in the presence of Najaashee about the importance which Islaam gives to women, and the dialogue between `Abdullaah Ibn Ubay al-Salool (the leader of the hypocrites) and the leaders of Quraysh before the Prophet’s ﷺ migration to Madeenah. These are all cinema based dialogues and nothing more.

6) No doubt that the Mushriks of were involved in all sorts of evil and vices, still there was no need to add dancing to the movie before the battles of Badr and Uhud.

7) The whole movie is plagued with music.

8) Nothing has been mentioned about the contributions of the children of the Companions in spreading Islaam, like Ibn `Umar, Ibn `Abbaas, Anas رضي الله عنهم.

9) The real message of Tawheed is missing from the movie, and nothing is mentioned from the Qur’aan except for an Aayah or two.

In the dialogue between `Ammaar Ibn Yaasir and Abu Sufyaan, Abu Sufyaan says: “You say that Allaah is everywhere”, and according to the movie, `Ammaar does not correct him. This is a clear error in `Aqeedah.

As for the Creed of Ahl al-Sunnah wal-Jamaa`ah, we do not say that Allaah is everywhere, rather, Allaah rose over the Throne and is above His creation.

Saying that Allaah is everywhere means that believing that Allaah is in everything and every place, like in the toilets, in the animals, trees, rocks etc.

10) It is not sure if the importance of a beard was intentionally downplayed in the movie or not. Some of the Companions, like Bilaal, are shown without a beard, while some are shown with trimmed or really short beards, as if the Prophet ﷺ never commanded them to grow their beards long. While all the Mushriks are shown to have long beards with ugly appearance, to tarnish the image of the people with beard.

11) Even Muslim women are shown without proper Hijaab, with their face, necks, and hair being shown. Narrated Umm al-Mu’mineen, Umm Salamah رضي الله عنها: ❝When the Aayah: {That they should cast their outer garments over their persons} was revealed, the women of Ansaar came out as if they had crows on their heads, because of the thick cloak (which they used to cover themselves).❞ [Sunan Abu Dawood (4101) and graded as “Saheeh” by Shaikh al-Albaanee]

12) It is depicted in the movie that Hind Bint `Utbah conspired with Wahshee to kill Hamzah Ibn `Abdul Muttalib رضي الله عنه, and in return, she guaranteed him his freedom and riches in gold. But in reality, this is not what happened and this has no basis, because Wahshee was not the slave of Hind Bint `Utbah رضي الله عنها. Rather, he was the slave of Jubair Ibn Mut`im, and it was him who instructed Wahshee to kill Hamzah, as a retaliation for the killing of his uncle, Ta`eemah Ibn `Adee, by Hamzah رضي الله عنه in the battle of Badr. Eventually all the three, Jubair, Wahshee and Hind رضي الله عنهم accepted Islaam.

13) There are some evidences that the body of Hamzah رضي الله عنه was mutilated by Kuffaar after the battle of Uhud. But the depiction in the movie that Hind رضي الله عنها chewed the liver of Hamzah رضي الله عنه is not true. This incident is taken from the Shi`ee, al-Tabrisee, the liar. As for Ahl al-Sunnah wal-Jamaa`ah, nothing authentic is reported that Hind ate or chewed the liver of Hamzah رضي الله عنه. Rather, all the Ahaadeeth reported in this regards are graded as Dha`eef (Weak), either due to the defect in its chain or due to the defect in its text.

One can also read the Fatwa of the Permanent Committee, headed by Shaikh Ibn Baaz رضي الله عنه from the following link:

https://www.troid.org/media/pdf/hindandhamzah.pdf

14) The movie depicts Abu Taalib as a Muslim, calling towards Tawheed, and this is not true. For Abu Taalib died upon Kufr, as reported in the Saheehain but this fact was hidden in the movie to avoid hurting Shi`aa sentiments who believe that he died upon Islaam:

When Abu Taalib's death approached, the Prophet ﷺ went to him while Abu Jahl and `Abdullaah Ibn Abi Umaiyah were present with him. The Prophet ﷺ said: ❝O uncle, say: None has the right to be worshipped except Allaah, so that I may argue for your case with it before Allaah.❞ On that, Abu Jahl and `Abdullaah Ibn Abu Umaiyah said: “O Abu Taalib! Do you want to renounce `Abdul Muttalib's religion?” Then the Prophet ﷺ said: ❝I will keep on asking (Allaah for) forgiveness for you unless I am forbidden to do so.❞ Then there was revealed: {It is not fitting for the Prophet (ﷺ) and those who believe that they should invoke (Allaah) for forgiveness for pagans even though they be of kin, after it has become clear to them that they are companions of the Fire.}

[Saheehain]

15) The killing of Abu Jahl, it is depicted in the movie that he was killed by an spear thrown at him by an unknown person; whereas, in reality he was killed by two youths, Mu`aadh Ibn `Amr Ibn Jamooh and Mu`awwadh Ibn `Afraa’, because they heard that he had insulted the Prophet ﷺ. [Saheehain] And then Ibn Mas`ood رضي الله عنه finished him off.

16) Portraying that a spider spun the web at the mouth of the cave and that the pigeon laid eggs near the entrance when the Prophet ﷺ and Abu Bakr took shelter in them. This story is not authentic. [See al-Dha`eefah (1128, 1129, 1189) of Shaikh al-Albaanee رحمه الله]

17) Showing the two tip dagger of the accursed, Abu Lu`lu, the killer of `Umar رضي الله عنه, and who is venerated by the Shi`aa, as if it were the sword of `Alee رضي الله عنه. This is a clear error, for the sword of `Alee رضي الله عنه, Dhul-Fiqaar had only one tip and not two.

18) There is a difference between the Arabic version of the movie and its English counterpart.

19)  Removing some of the scenes that are present in the Arabic version, like the incident of the Christian youth, `Addaas who was impressed by the Prophet ﷺ, during the trip to Taaif, and the supplication the Prophet ﷺ made therein. Even though this incident became famous yet the narration in itself is Dha`eef (Weak).

20) Changing some of the statements and phrases from one version to the other. Example: Regarding the first Aayaat that were revealed about Jihaad, the Arabic version of the movie has the following Aayah recited: {Permission to fight is given to those (i.e. believers against disbelievers), who are fighting them, (and) because they (believers) have been wronged,} [Surah al-Hajj (22): 39], whereas in the English version it is: {Fight in the way of Allaah those who fight you but do not transgress. Indeed. Allaah does not like transgressors…} [Surah al-Baqarah (2): 190-191]

21) In the Arabic version of the movie, when the Prophet ﷺ is depicted to enter the Ka`bah, the following Aayah is recited: {وَإِذْ بَوَّأْنَا لِإِبْرَاهِيمَ مَكَانَ الْبَيْتِ أَن لَّا تُشْرِكْ بِي شَيْئًا}. The reciter, instead of reciting “al-Laa Tushrik bee” (with the Sukoon on the Kaaf), recites as “Tushrika” (with the Fathah on the Kaaf).

22) Saying “Sadaq Allaahul-`Adheem after reciting an Aayaah was also not from the practice of the Prophet ﷺ or his Companions.

23) The Prophet ﷺ is alleged to have said: “Work is worship”, has no basis, and no book of Hadeeth has recorded it.

24) Saying that the Angel Jibreel عليه السلام came into him (the Prophet ﷺ) is more like the Christian ideology. Rather, the Jibreel عليه السلام brought him the revelation inside the cave. In the Arabic version, “Zaid Ibn Haarithah” says that when the Prophet came out of the cave. Jibreel عليه السلام said to him: “O Muhammad! You are the Messenger of Allaah, and I am Jibreel!”, this has no authenticity to it.

25) There is no authenticity to the details about the discussion which took place between `Ammaar رضي الله عنه and his parents, and the breaking of the idol.

26) `Ammaar رضي الله عنه says that the Prophet ﷺ said: “Before Allaah, all men are equal like the teeth of a comb.” The narration with this wording is fabricated. [See al-Dha`eefah (596, 3158)]

27) There is no authenticity to the incident that Bilaal رضي الله عنه accepted Islaam and refused to hit `Ammaar رضي الله عنه, after `Ammaar said that the Prophet ﷺ equates between a master and his slave.

28) The offer which the leaders of Quraish put forth to Abu Taalib, but the Prophet ﷺ responded by saying: “By Allaah! Even if they put the Sun in my right hand and the Moon in my left, so that I stop this preaching; I will not stop till this religion becomes widespread or I die trying.” This narration has no basis, see al-Dha`eefah (909) and graded as “Weak” by Shaikh al-Albaanee.

The authentic narration is as follows: The Quraish came to Abu Taalib and said: ‘Did you see Ahmad (the other name for the Prophet)? He harms us in our gatherings and in our place of worship. Stop him before we harm him.’ (Abu Taalib) said: ‘O `Aqeel, bring Muhammad to me.’ So I went and came back with him. He (Abu Taalib) said: ‘O son of my brother! The children of your uncles’ claim that you harm them in their gatherings and their place of worship, so stop doing that.’ (`Aqeel) said: The Prophet ﷺ looked up at the sky and said: ❝I will under no circumstances stop (preaching the truth) for your sake, even if they were to bring to me a torch (flame) from it (i.e. the sun).❞ Abu Taalib (addressing the Quraish) said: ‘My nephew never lied, so go back (all of you).’” [Shaikh al-Albaanee said: “The chain of this narration is “Hasan” (good) in al-Saheehah (92)]

29) Not everyone proclaimed their Islaam openly as depicted in the movie.

30) Hamzah رضي الله عنه accepted Islaam in the Sixth year after Muhammad ﷺ was sent as a Messenger, and not in the Third year as portrayed in the movie. Also there is no authenticity to the conversation between Hamzah and Abu Jahl, even though it has become famous.

31) The incident that when the Quraish decided to kill the Prophet ﷺ, he ﷺ made `Alee رضي الله عنه to sleep in his bed and the Prophet ﷺ escaped unnoticed is also not authentic, even though it has become famous. [This is mentioned in Musnad Ahmad (3251) and graded as “Dha`eef” by Shaikh al-Albaanee in al-Dha`eefah (3/262), as well as by Shaikh Shu`aib al-Arnaoot in his checking of Musnad Ahmad. Shaikh Ahmad Shakir said: “There is defect in its chain.”]

32) The first person to announce the arrival of the Prophet ﷺ and Abu Bakr رضي الله عنه to Madeenah was a Jew and not some ordinary person.

33) The famous Nasheed which the people of Madeenah sang upon the Prophet’s ﷺ arrival in Madeenah: “Tala`al Badru `Alaynaa” (The full moon rose over us), even though it is famous, is based on a Weak narration. For more details on this, visit the below link.

http://ilm4all.blogspot.com/2017/03/Weakness-of-hadeeth-famous-nasheed.html

34) There is no evidence that the leader of the hypocrites, `Abdullaah Ibn Ubay al-Salool, offered the Prophet ﷺ to stay at his place upon his ﷺ arrival to Madeenah.

35) It is shown in the movie that every Ansaaree from Madeenah was to take with him an Immigrant from Makkah, and that the Immigrant would embrace an Ansaaree next to him, and that Bilaal embraced Ibn al-Salool. The correct is that it was decided by drawing lots, as to who will go with whom. And what is famous in the books of history is that the brotherhood in Islaam was established between Bilaal and Abu Ruwaihah al-Khas`amee رضي الله عنهما.

36) There is a clear error in the movie that it was `Abdullaah Ibn Ubay al-Salool, the leader of the hypocrites, who first incited the Muslim to form an army to attack the caravans of the Quraish, as a retaliation for the plunder which the Mushriks of Makkah did with belongings of the Muslims which they had to leave back when they migrated to Madeenah. And that Hamzah رضي الله عنه took this idea from Ibn al-Salool and persisted with the Prophet ﷺ and then the command to fight was revealed.

37) There is no evidence that the Prophet ﷺ used to gather his Companions on issues other than Salaah by giving the Adhaan, like how it is shown in the movie, that when the Command to fight was revealed, Bilaal gave out the Adhaan and the Companions were surprised by this unexpected Adhaan.

38) The sword of `Alee, Dhul-Fiqaar, was given to him by the Prophet ﷺ after the battle of Badr, which was obtained as a war booty from the battle of Badr. Therefore, depicting the special sword of `Alee before the battle of Badr was incorrect.

39) There is no authenticity to the incident that Khalid Ibn Waleed tried to provoke those who came for `Umrah.

40) The incident that the Companions entered Makkah while beating drums and reciting the Takbeer of Eid is not authentically proven.

41) In regards to the incident that Bilaal رضي الله عنه climbed the Ka`bah and gave the Adhaan, the narrations in this regards have some weakness. They are mostly Mursal (hurried, having a broken chain where the name of the Companion is missing).

42) There are many authentic things left out. Instead of using fabricated or weak narrations, they could have relied upon the authentic source. Example: There is an authentic narration regarding how the Adhaan was started, but in the movie, it is made to look like that Bilaal رضي الله عنه was instructed to give the Adhaaan without telling him the wordings.

43) Other authentic incidents that were skipped were, the list is numerous, but a few important once are:

a) The discussion with Waraqah Ibn Noufal.

b) The Israa wal-Me`raaj

c) Did not mention the suffering the Prophet ﷺ suffered at the hands of the Mushriks.

d) Did not mention how the Prophet ﷺ went to mount Safa and invited the people to Islaam, especially his closed relatives.

e) Did not mention how `Umar رضي الله عنه accepted Islaam.

f) Did not mention about the acceptance of Islaam by al-Najjaashee.

g) It just mentioned about the death of Abu Taalib but nothing about the death of Umm al-Mu’mineen Khadeejah رضي الله عنها, and that the demise of these two was known as: “the year of sorrow”.

h) Hid the fact that Abu Taalib died upon Kufr.

i) Did not mention about the first Masjid in Islaam, Masjid Qubaa’.

j) The achievements of the Sahaabah in the battlefields were downplayed, like Abu Dujaanah, Sa`d ibn Abee Waqqaas, Abu `Ubaidah and others رضي الله عنهم جميعاً.

k) Omitted the Battle of the Trench and the treachery of the Jews.

Question: If someone asks that how can all these details be added to a movie and be shown in a limited time?

Answer: Who asked to make only a three-hour movie and add the fabricated or weak narrations to it? Moreover, these important incidents could have been mentioned as a way of narration if showing all of them was not possible. Furthermore, relying on weak and fabricated narration did more damage to the Seerah than not showing what was authentic.

Conclusion:

There are many movies and TV shows on the life of Moosaa, Yusuf, Eesaa عليهم السلام, as well as on the lives of the Companions like `Umar, `Alee, Bilaal, Khaalid Ibn Waleed رضي الله عنهم, as well as on the lives of important personalities like Ahmed Ibn Hanbal, Ibn Taymiyyah رحمهم الله. It is clear that the authentic text about them is very little, and to make a movie or a TV show, they have to employ the use of fabricated or weak narrations, or straight out exaggeration, and baseless dialogues to make it more dramatic and to keep the show running. And not to forget, the use of music has become common, as if music is a part of Islaam, and women are shown without Hijaab. والله المستعان