On Friday we finished watching Four Lions. I thought the first half of the movie was funny but I didnt like the second half at all. I read through the blogs regarding the movie and almost everyone said the movie did a good job in showing how disorganized terrorirism often is. Although that does have some truth to it, I felt the movie was pretty far for reality. The reactions to the movie reminded me of the comment someone made in class regarding The Seperation. What we see on screen is simply what the director wanted it to be. It may be far from reality. I often overanalyze the movies we watch in this class because it is an Intro to Islam class. I assume it will teach me about Islam and Muslims. Educating the viewers on those two things might
…show more content…
I think the two seperated due to which sources are considered more authentic. We talked about this when we talked about Hadith. Because it is important to maintain consistency as Professor Mozaffar said in class, I dont think it would be possible to consider both sources credible because I assume they condratic eachother at some point. On your second point, I think this story is avoided in Sunday schools because it might create confusion for the young students. It might solidfy the idea of sectarianism and accidentally teach the student to be intolerant of one sect over the other. I assume most Sunday schools want to promote the idea of "One Ummah." Although I'd like to think their intentions are pure, my experiences as a Shia Muslim lead me to think otherwise. Most of my friends who attended Sunday schools had a negative preconcived notion about Shias before they met me. They remember being told Shias arent Muslim, and no more. From that point of view, I'd assume this part of history is not taught in Sunday schools becasue it show students the difference between the two sects is close to none. In response to Gina, I dont think it is something sectarianists can forget and move past. As Professor Mozaffar was listing the events that occured after the Prophets death, there was an idea that kept coming
I think the two seperated due to which sources are considered more authentic. We talked about this when we talked about Hadith. Because it is important to maintain consistency as Professor Mozaffar said in class, I dont think it would be possible to consider both sources credible because I assume they condratic eachother at some point. On your second point, I think this story is avoided in Sunday schools because it might create confusion for the young students. It might solidfy the idea of sectarianism and accidentally teach the student to be intolerant of one sect over the other. I assume most Sunday schools want to promote the idea of "One Ummah." Although I'd like to think their intentions are pure, my experiences as a Shia Muslim lead me to think otherwise. Most of my friends who attended Sunday schools had a negative preconcived notion about Shias before they met me. They remember being told Shias arent Muslim, and no more. From that point of view, I'd assume this part of history is not taught in Sunday schools becasue it show students the difference between the two sects is close to none. In response to Gina, I dont think it is something sectarianists can forget and move past. As Professor Mozaffar was listing the events that occured after the Prophets death, there was an idea that kept coming