Corruption is pervasive everywhere in the world

"Stop corruption" in Russian

Corruption, and more corruption. That is the back story to the Sochi Winter Olympic Games. Even those who know very little about these Olympics have heard about the corruption that accompanied the preparations for the Games.

I have written about corruption previously, a little more than two years ago. In that post I pleaded for a stop to corruption. I was not so naive at the time, however, to think that my post would change the world and put an end to corruption. Nothing much has changed, nor it it likely to. My purpose was merely to inform. Corruption persists everywhere in the world, especially in Russia, as the Sochi Games illustrate so vividly.

This time I will not philosophize as much about corruption the way I did before. Nor will I catalog how extensive it is in Russia. That list would be very long indeed, although I will highlight a few examples from the Sochi Games. The Russians may not like that, but they have a lot of company when it comes to corruption.

In this post I examine Transparency International’s Corruption Perceptions Index 2013 in order to show how pervasive corruption is throughout the world today. Russia provides a useful case study, and the preparations for the Sochi Games are a vivid illustration of how corrupt that country is.

This Index provides the best indicator of the extent of corruption in a particular country. That is why I am including the list in its entirety so that you will not have to follow a link. But you can easily see how extensive corruption is any country you choose, as measured by the Index. The Index provides a much-needed window on something most countries want to hide.

I have modified the formatting of the Index slightly, but all the figures have been retained and were not modified in any way. The entire report can be downloaded.

RANK	COUNTRY	SCORE	SURVEYS USED	CI: LOWER	CI: UPPER	2012 SCORE

1	Denmark	91	7	87	95	90
1	New Zealand	91	7	87	95	90
3	Sweden	89	7	85	93	88
3	Finland	89	7	86	92	90
5	Norway	86	7	82	90	85
5	Singapore	86	9	82	90	87
7	Switzerland	85	6	81	89	86
8	Netherlands	83	7	80	86	84
9	Australia	81	8	79	83	85
9	Canada	81	7	77	85	84
11	Luxembourg	80	6	75	85	80
12	Germany	78	8	74	82	79
12	Iceland	78	6	73	83	82
14	United Kingdom	76	8	74	78	74
15	Hong Kong	75	8	71	79	77
15	Barbados	75	3	63	87	76
15	Belgium	75	7	71	79	75
18	Japan	74	9	70	78	74
19	United States	73	9	66	80	73
19	Uruguay	73	6	71	75	72
21	Ireland	72	6	65	79	69
22	Bahamas	71	3	69	73	71
22	France	71	8	67	75	71
22	Saint Lucia	71	3	70	72	71
22	Chile	71	9	68	74	72
26	Austria	69	8	64	74	69
26	United Arab Emirates	69	7	61	77	68
28	Qatar	68	6	56	80	68
28	Estonia	68	9	64	72	64
30	Botswana	64	7	61	67	65
31	Bhutan	63	4	59	67	63
31	Cyprus	63	5	57	69	66
33	Portugal	62	7	57	67	63
33	Saint Vincent and the Grenadines	62	3	53	71	62
33	Puerto Rico	62	3	52	72	63
36	Taiwan	61	7	54	68	61
36	Israel	61	6	58	64	60
38	Brunei	60	3	43	77	55
38	Poland	60	10	56	64	58
40	Spain	59	7	51	67	65
41	Cape Verde	58	4	50	66	60
41	Dominica	58	3	54	62	58
43	Lithuania	57	8	51	63	54
43	Slovenia	57	9	51	63	61
45	Malta	56	5	52	60	57
46	South Korea	55	10	51	59	56
47	Hungary	54	10	48	60	55
47	Seychelles	54	4	41	67	52
49	Rwanda	53	5	44	62	53
49	Costa Rica	53	5	46	60	54
49	Latvia	53	8	47	59	49
52	Mauritius	52	5	50	54	57
53	Malaysia	50	9	44	56	49
53	Turkey	50	9	46	54	49
55	Georgia	49	6	38	60	52
55	Lesotho	49	5	43	55	45
57	Croatia	48	9	43	53	46
57	Bahrain	48	5	39	57	51
57	Namibia	48	6	42	54	48
57	Czech Republic	48	10	43	53	49
61	Slovakia	47	8	39	55	46
61	Oman	47	5	34	60	47
63	Cuba	46	4	39	53	48
63	Ghana	46	9	41	51	45
63	Saudi Arabia	46	5	35	57	44
66	Jordan	45	7	41	49	48
67	Montenegro	44	4	40	48	41
67	Macedonia FYR	44	6	36	52	43
69	Kuwait	43	5	37	49	44
69	Romania	43	9	38	48	44
69	Italy	43	7	39	47	42
72	Brazil	42	8	36	48	43
72	Serbia	42	7	36	48	39
72	South Africa	42	9	37	47	43
72	Bosnia and Herzegovina	42	7	37	47	42
72	Sao Tome and Principe	42	3	34	50	42
77	Tunisia	41	7	38	44	41
77	Bulgaria	41	9	36	46	41
77	Senegal	41	9	39	43	36
80	China	40	9	35	45	39
80	Greece	40	7	33	47	36
82	Swaziland	39	4	36	42	37
83	Trinidad and Tobago	38	4	30	46	39
83	Mongolia	38	7	34	42	36
83	Liberia	38	7	33	43	41
83	Jamaica	38	6	35	41	38
83	El Salvador	38	6	35	41	38
83	Peru	38	7	34	42	38
83	Burkina Faso	38	7	32	44	38
83	Zambia	38	8	35	41	37
91	Malawi	37	8	34	40	37
91	Sri Lanka	37	7	34	40	40
91	Morocco	37	8	32	42	37
94	Algeria	36	6	31	41	34
94	Benin	36	6	30	42	36
94	Armenia	36	6	30	42	34
94	India	36	10	32	40	36
94	Philippines	36	9	32	40	34
94	Suriname	36	3	31	41	37
94	Colombia	36	7	33	39	36
94	Djibouti	36	3	22	50	36
102	Moldova	35	8	30	40	36
102	Thailand	35	8	33	37	37
102	Ecuador	35	6	29	41	32
102	Panama	35	6	31	39	38
106	Bolivia	34	7	28	40	34
106	Gabon	34	5	32	36	35
106	Mexico	34	9	31	37	34
106	Niger	34	5	28	40	33
106	Argentina	34	8	30	38	35
111	Kosovo	33	3	29	37	34
111	Ethiopia	33	8	29	37	33
111	Tanzania	33	8	29	37	35
114	Egypt	32	7	27	37	32
114	Indonesia	32	9	26	38	32
116	Albania	31	7	28	34	33
116	Nepal	31	5	29	33	27
116	Vietnam	31	8	27	35	31
119	East Timor	30	3	25	35	33
119	Mozambique	30	7	27	33	31
119	Sierra Leone	30	8	26	34	31
119	Mauritania	30	5	23	37	31
123	Dominican Republic	29	6	23	35	32
123	Belarus	29	5	22	36	31
123	Guatemala	29	6	25	33	33
123	Togo	29	5	23	35	30
127	Azerbaijan	28	6	22	34	27
127	Comoros	28	3	16	40	28
127	Gambia	28	5	17	39	34
127	Lebanon	28	6	23	33	30
127	Madagascar	28	8	25	31	32
127	Mali	28	6	23	33	34
127	Nicaragua	28	7	24	32	29
127	Pakistan	28	8	23	33	27
127	Russia	28	9	24	32	28
136	Bangladesh	27	7	20	34	26
136	Ivory Coast	27	8	23	31	29
136	Kenya	27	8	23	31	27
136	Guyana	27	4	22	32	28
140	Honduras	26	6	22	30	28
140	Laos	26	4	18	34	21
140	Uganda	26	8	21	31	29
140	Kazakhstan	26	8	21	31	28
144	Cameroon	25	8	20	30	26
144	Central African Republic	25	4	16	34	26
144	Iran	25	6	19	31	28
144	Ukraine	25	8	22	28	26
144	Papua New Guinea	25	5	18	32	25
144	Nigeria	25	9	20	30	27
150	Guinea	24	7	18	30	24
150	Paraguay	24	5	19	29	25
150	Kyrgyzstan	24	6	20	28	24
153	Angola	23	7	18	28	22
154	Congo, Republic of	22	6	16	28	26
154	Tajikistan	22	5	16	28	22
154	Congo, Democratic Republic of	22	5	15	29	21
157	Burundi	21	5	17	25	19
157	Zimbabwe	21	8	14	28	20
157	Myanmar	21	6	15	27	15
160	Venezuela	20	7	16	24	19
160	Eritrea	20	4	2	38	25
160	Cambodia	20	7	15	25	22
163	Guinea Bissau	19	4	15	23	25
163	Haiti	19	5	14	24	19
163	Chad	19	5	13	25	19
163	Equatorial Guinea	19	3	15	23	20
167	Yemen	18	6	14	22	23
168	Uzbekistan	17	6	14	20	17
168	Syria	17	4	11	23	26
168	Turkmenistan	17	3	12	22	17
171	Iraq	16	4	12	20	18
172	Libya	15	6	10	20	21
173	South Sudan	14	3	11	17	0
174	Sudan	11	6	5	17	13
175	North Korea	8	3	2	14	8
175	Afghanistan	8	3	3	13	8
175	Somalia	8	4	5	11	8

The scale has changed slightly from the 2011 Index, which used a scale from 0 (highly corrupt) to 10 (very clean). This is what I used in my earlier post. Yet, when I compare the two Indexes, it is apparent that many nations have for the most part remained in very similar places relative to one another.

The 2013 Index scores 177 countries and territories on a scale from 0 to 100. The report notes that no country has a perfect score, but that two-thirds of the countries score below 50. This indicates, according to the authors of the Index, a serious, worldwide corruption problem. The tentacles of corruption can be found everywhere in the world.

This annual Index measures only the perceived level of public sector corruption. It does not include other more private forms of corruption, but these, I suggest, are often closely correlated with public sector corruption.

The Nordic countries, together with New Zealand and Singapore, occupy the top five spots on the 2013 list. North Korea, Afghanistan and Somalia share the last place. Russia is 128th on this list with a score of 28, which is rather dismal. It indicates that corruption is pervasive in that country.

That is hardly surprising. I lived in Russia for seven years, and taught philosophy and political science at Moscow State University. What was true then is still true: corruption, and more corruption.

The Sochi Olympic Games cost about $51 billion, which is more than four times the original estimate when Sochi was awarded the Games seven years ago. Corruption is the primary reason for these cost overruns. It is also the reason why not all the structures, especially some hotels, were not finished on time.

Corruption has contributed to the security problem that the Sochi Games are experiencing. The Russian government has not been able to deal effectively with dissidenta, except in typically heavy-handed fashion. This is especially true of terrorist groups that resort to violence. If the government had used the money wasted through corruption more usefully these groups might never have arisen. Instead, their needs could have been achieved through non-violent means.

A poll by the Levada research group found 47 percent of Russians believed the cost of hosting the Games has soared because funds have been embezzled or mismanaged. Only 22 percent said they believed officials or businessmen responsible for pilfering funds would be brought to justice after the Olympics, and 17 percent said they thought that Russia had bid for the Games mainly to boost Putin's image.

The Russian Olympic Organizing Committee, under the instruction of  President Vladimir Putin, awarded many of the contracts for the Olympic buildings and infrastructure to Putin's friends, most of whom had been his associates from his days in the KGB. 

It is estimated that at least 20% of all these contracts were kick backs. This is massive corruption. If the pattern in many other countries also holds true in Russia, everyone in the food chain right up to the very top took their cut of that amount. As I noted in my post a few years ago, corruption can take structural forms. This is what makes it so difficult to eradicate.

My focus on the Sochi Games is because of the way they help to illustrate both the endemic nature and the extent of corruption in Russia. A handful of people have become scandalously rich indeed, while the majority of the population have not benefited from the largess that was disbursed so freely in the run-up to the Games.

Russia has many needs, but these cannot be met while corruption bleeds off the money that could help to alleviate these needs. Corruption can and does destroy nations. Russia is one example, but there are many more. And the forces that drive corruption are very powerful.

The same thing is happening in many other countries around the globe, as the Index shows. When two-third of the countries in the world have a score below 50%, the world is in bad shape. Corruption is endemic not only in Russia but also in much of the world.

Even the United States has no reason to boast when it comes to corruption: it shares 19th place on the Index with Uruguay. A score of 73 is nothing to be proud of. Canada fares a little better, but not much: it ties with Australia with a score of 81 for 9th place. Transparency International may group Canada among the least corrupt countries, but it is still far from perfect.

The fact that no nation has a perfect score indicates that corruption can be found all over the globe. Sadly, no nation is immune from this disease. The only thing that differs is the degree and extent of corruption.

Corruption indeed has to stop, but it will not, not as long as there are greedy people in the world. The problem is made worse when you realize that corruption has achieved structural proportions in many countries. In other words, the structures of a particular society make it almost impossible to eradicate. I give examples of this in my earlier post on corruption.

Although much of the world may not want to hear the word, corruption is a sin that is deeply rooted in many individuals and societies. All of us share that sin to varying degrees. Few of us may be corrupt, but when we condone corruption in any way, we contribute to its persistence. We are all guilty. All of us are also affected by corruption, whether we like it or not. Thus it is important that we keep ourselves aware of the extent of corruption in the world. Corruption persists everywhere, but efforts must be made to stop it.

From my own religious perspective, corruption will persist until Jesus Christ returns and ushers in a new earth where sin is no more, and neither is death. Then corruption too will end. But that event still lies in the future. We must all wait until that day.

The Transparency International Corruption Perceptions Index 2013, in its own words, "serves as a reminder that the abuse of power, secret dealings and bribery continue to ravage societies around the world. The world urgently needs a renewed effort to crack down on money laundering, clean up political finance, pursue the return of stolen assets and build more transparent public institutions."

                  

"Putin's Games" and the games he played to get there

I am writing this post only a few days before the opening of the Olympic Games in Sochi. In it I briefly discuss these Games and the role Vladimir Putin has played and hopes to continue to play on the world stage.

The 2014 Winter Olympics in Sochi, Russia, have already been labelled "Putin's Games." Vladimir Putin was the main driving force behind the Olympics coming to Russia, but more than that these games will give him an opportunity to strut on the world stage and to burnish his own image and that of his country. Both are in great need of polishing.

This is only the second time that the Olympics are being held in Russia. The first time was in Moscow in 1980. Russia was then still part of the Soviet Union.

Putin pressured the International Olympic Committee to select Sochi in spite of its sub-tropical climate, defeating Salzburg, Austria, and Pyeongchang, South Korea. Reputedly, he used money -- tons of it -- to win this coveted prize for Russia. He has now made these games the most expensive in Olympic history.

Sochi was a favorite summer resort place that was noted for its warn climate during the Communist period. At one time ordinary workers spent their summer vacations there. Today it is still a playground, especially for for the rich in that country.

It was proposed to hold the games in two main venues. Hockey, skating, and curling would be hosted in the Olympic Park in Sochi, and the mountain events in Krasnaya Polyana, a village about 60 km by road from Sochi. Krasnaya Polyana is now a favorite skiing place for Putin. It is only a short helicopter ride from his residence on the Black Sea near Sochi, where many of Russia's government and business elite have homes as well.

The proposed budget of US$12 million has since then ballooned to more than four times that amount. It is estimated that between one-third to one-half of the total has been siphoned off through corruption. Some of Putin's KGB friends have received fat contracts. Thus it is not surprising that only a few days before the opening of the games some hotels are still not ready. Some buildings were so badly situated that they are sliding down a hill. And some people have had their homes confiscated without any compensation.

Permit me to give one example of excessive spending. As I wrote last year, the road from Sochi to Krasnaya Polyana is so expensive ($9.4 billion) that it could have been covered in its entirety with a layer one cm thick of Russian black caviar (which costs as much as $10,000 per kilo). I have not done the computation myself, but it is a lot of money for one road.

At that price the road should be considerably better than it was when we first visited Sochi in 1999. Then the ride to Kransnaya Polyana and back was hair-raising. Now there will not only be this new highway but also fast trains connecting the two sites.

Aside from the corruption, the cost overruns, and the problems with the infrastructure, the biggest issues that Putin faces as he stands on the world stage at the opening and closing ceremonies of the Sochi games are security and gays. Both issues have the potential to diminish the role of Russia in the world and to give Putin a personal black eye, since he has so much personal prestige invested in these Olympics. 

The security threat has already cut into ticket sales. Apparently many relatives of the athletes are reluctant to go to Sochi because of the terrorist threat, and thus tickets for many events, even the prestige ones, are still unsold. The athletes are also concerned. It is to be hoped that this concern for themselves and their family and friends does not affect their performance in their events. That is hardly surprising, however, under these circumstances. The danger of terrorism is very real, especially since Chechnya is only about 450 km away.

Vladimir Putin with Thomas Bach, President of IOC

The Russian government has deployed more than 40,000 police to provide security at the games. A 100 km-wide ring of steel surrounds Sochi and Krasnaya Polyana to provide protection. Security cameras are everywhere. Phone conversations will be monitored. Yet whether that will be enough to deter all terrorist attacks remains to be seen. Suppose there are already terrorists hiding in Sochi. If a major incident does take place despite all the security measures, Putin will end up with even more egg on his face.

The gay rights issue too has already affected attendance. President Barack Obama and Vice-President Joe Biden have announced that they will not attend the Sochi Olympics. Prime Minister Stephen Harper of Canada, French President Francois Hollande, and some other western leaders have indicated the same. And, as if to rub salt in the wound, the US promised to send some gay athletes. 

This boycott is largely symbolic, although all these leaders deny that their actions are a political statement, unlike at the Moscow Olympics. Putin, no doubt, is offended, yet this may help to cement his relationship with the Russian people. But in the eyes of the world Putin has already lost a lot of face, and this will damage his international prestige. These are, after all, his games, and he wants to restore Russia's former glory.

Putin has responded by stating that gays are welcome in Sochi. But he can hardly say anything else, since the opposition in the western world to Russia's anti-gay law has been very loud. Putin has to walk a narrow line. On the one hand, the international community wants to protect LGBT people; on the other hand, the anti-gay law expresses the sentiment of many Russian people, especially the Russian Orthodox, who have been vocal in their condemnation of gays. 

It is noteworthy that the Russian government paid for building a new Russian Orthodox church in Sochi. This can be seen as an expression of the symbiotic relationship between the two as well as official support for the stance of the ROC on gays. 

Will Putin's dream for the Sochi Olympics turn into a nightmare? It is premature to conclude that, but I do suggest that this dream is the culmination of a long process which started when Putin first became president of Russia in 2000. Now this dream is possibly over, and with it Putin's legacy.

Putin has steadily acquired more and more power ever since former President Boris Yeltsin selected him as prime minister in August 1999, and announced Putin as his successor. Putin became acting president when Yeltsin resigned on December 31, 1999. I was surprised when I heard the news.

I remember the animated discussions I had with my political science students at Moscow State University in the years before Putin's selection. We tried to guess who the new president might be, but Putin's name was never mentioned before 1999. If memory serves me correctly, no political commentator either guessed his name at the time. 

Putin served as president for two four-year terms, which were scarred with a number of incidents, including the Kursk submarine disaster, the Moscow theater hostage incident, and the Beslan school hostage crisis. Yet he weathered all of them, in spite of widespread critique of his actions. Corruption, as I mentioned already, is endemic. Many friends of Putin have enriched themselves through the Olympics. Putin himself, some claim, is worth $70 billion, but that seems excessive. But he is, at the very least, comfortably well off.

When Putin was barred from a third term, he arranged that Dmitry Medvedev was elected as president, who soon after the election, appointed Putin as prime minister of Russia. In 2012 Putin was again elected as president. His present six-year term expires in 2018. He has already said he may seek a fourth term. If he does win then, this would make him Russia longest-serving ruler since Josef Stalin.

The Sochi Olympics will give Putin an opportunity to strut on the world stage and to bask in the glory these games will give Russia. That is his dream, but this dream may yet turn into a nightmare. The list of problems is long. Corruption, infrastructure, security, and gay rights, which were mentioned already, are only a few.

The major problem Putin faces is the economy. It is in disarray. The Olympics can serve as a distraction, a sort of "bread and circuses," yet this problem especially has the potential to destroy him and his presidency.

The Economist notes that the opening ceremony on Friday will include the image of the Russian "troika-bird" from Nikolai Gogol’s "Dead Souls," where Gogol writes:

"Rus, aren’t you soaring like a spry troika that can’t be overtaken? The road is smoking under you, the bridges thunder, everything steps aside and is left behind!…Is this lightning thrown down from heaven? Other nations and states gaze askance, step off the road and give [you] right of way."

The mystical regeneration of Russia that Gogol foresaw may not happen under Putin's presidency. Instead, the Sochi Olympics could mark the beginning of the end for this macho president, especially if all the security he has implemented fails and a few terrorists do manage to wreak havoc. 

Ultimately, however, it is the economy that is most likely to destroy Putin. The Olympics could be a harbinger of disaster. I hope and pray that does not happen. Yet I have a sense of foreboding, if not for "Putin's Games" then for the Russian economy. 

I have lived in Russia for many years and know how serious its problems are, but I have also witnessed the resilience of the Russian people. They will survive, in spite of what happens to Putin, his games, and even the Russian economy. They survived for 70 years under Communism and they will survive this too.

        

Films about the Prophet Muhammad: an examination

This is the second of a two-part series on films about great religious leaders. Last time I looked at films about Jesus Christ. This time I examine films about the Prophet Muhammad. This series is prompted by the slated appearance in 2014 of two new films about these founders of the two largest religions in the world today.

A scene from Majid Majidi’s film "Prophet Muhammad"

(I cannot understand why this ad for it was published)

As I mentioned last time, 2014 will witness not only the appearance of the new film Son of God about Jesus Christ but also the premiere of Oscar-nominated Iranian filmmaker Majid Majidi’s expected blockbuster Prophet Muhammad. This movie will focus on prophet's life from childhood until he became a prophet.

Now, almost four decades after the famous Syrian film director Moustapha Akkad made a film about the life of the Prophet Muhammad (The Message). Majidi is bringing the prophet's life to the big screen. It already promises to be the most expensive film in Iranian history -- now an estimated US$50 million and still rising.

The film was expected to be ready by spring in 2013, but it now appears that it will not be ready even by the spring this year. Thus there is no certainty that it would be released in 2014. However, Majidi has promised that the film would be submitted to the 2015 Fajr International Film Festival, the most important film festival in Iran, so there is hope that it will appear by then at the latest.

Early on the film makers decided that no image of the Prophet Muhammad’s face would be shown to reduce the potential for controversy in the Islamic world. Many Muslims regard any portrayal of the prophet as blasphemy. There are also conflicting reports that the film might be limited to the Prophet's childhood, with sequels to follow dealing with his later life.

The conservative clerics in Iran are very sensitive to the idea of any venerated religious figures being visually depicted. But Majidi has repeatedly denied that he would show the face of the Prophet, “Because of my own beliefs, I am not, and was never, planning to depict his holy image in my film. These rumors are completely unfounded.”

Majid Majidi

Majidi pulled out of a Danish film festival in protest against the publication in Denmark in 2005 of cartoons satirizing the Prophet Muhammad. He sxpalins that he was withdrawing "to protest against insulting any religious belief or icon"  He writes, "I believe in God and live with my beliefs in every single moment of my life. I would like to protest against insulting any religious belief and icon. For this reason, I would like to announce my withdrawal from your festival."

A cleric in Tehran explained that all Muslim clerics, whether Shiite or Sunni, agree that the Prophet's image should not be shown: "On the other hand, Shiites are more sensitive about this issue. For example, during the 1990s, when Davood Mirbagheri directed the series 'Imam Ali,' he did not show the imam’s face. Naturally, Majid Majidi wouldn’t dare to break such a great taboo either, particularly in a theocratic system and given the large budget that the establishment has provided him with."

How Majidi can produce a film on the Prophet Muhammad with showing his face will be difficult, but it has been done before, most recently in an animated film. Muhammad: The Last Prophet is a 2002 film that focuses on the early days of Islam and The Prophet Muhammad. He is not depicted in this film, but every scene where he is present is shot from his perspective or his words are paraphrased by the narrator.

There are several other reasons that made Prophet Muhammad controversial even before its pending release. Chief among them is political. Majidi had earlier supported Mir-Hossein Mousavi, a former prime minster of Iran and Reformist leader, who according to official results lost the presidential election in 2009 against incumbent President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Musavi is now along with his wife under house arrest

Finances, because of the ballooning budget, are also crucial. The cost is already twenty times greater than that of any previous Iranian film. But even this cost is dwarfed by the news from Qatar, which in December 2012 announced that it would produce its own movie about the Prophet’s life. The budget for this film would be one billion dollars.

Muhammad: The Last Prophet is a 2002 animated film that  focuses on the early days of Islam and the Prophet Muhammad. In this film Muhammad is not depicted. Every scene where he is present is shot from his perspective, and his words are paraphrased by the narrator.

There have been many documentaries on the life of the Prophet Muhammad made by PBS and the BBC, as well as a few made for the History Channel, National Geographic and several other broadcasters. Muslims have also produced many introductions to the Prophet's life. None of them, however, have been controversial.

The most controversial film of all was Innocence of Muslims, which is the title attributed to an anti-Islamic movie "trailer" that was written and produced by Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, an Egyptian-born Coptic Christian and U.S. resident. This video was posted on the Internet in two versions (each between 13 and 14 minutes) in 2012, but it led to violent protests in which hundreds were injured and more than 50 deaths.  

This film was originally titled "Desert Warrior." Any references to Islam were overdubbed and added after the filming over the original spoken lines. According to reports, the entire cast and crew were extremely upset and felt taken advantage of by the producer. It was clearly designed to offend Muslims, portraying the Prophet Muhammad as a bloodthirsty murderer and pedophile.

Depictions of Muhammad have caused a lot of disagreement within Islam. Although the Qur'an does not explicitly forbid images of Muhammad, there are a few hadith which have explicitly prohibited Muslims from creating visual depictions of the Prophet. Most Muslims reject depictions of all the prophets and especially the last one, Muhammad.

Muhammad receiving the submission of the Banu Nadir

Nevertheless, such depictions do occur in the long history of Islamic art. They were, however, rare. The key medium of public religious art in Islam was and is calligraphy. 

If you visit a mosque today, you will never find a picture of Muhammad, but you may find calligraphy of his name. Hagia Sophia in Istanbul is no longer a mosque but it is now a museum that retains elements from the period when it was a church and included frescoes depicting Jesus Christ. However, there are no images of Muhammad. Instead one is confronted with huge shields that contain his name.

Judaism and Christianity have struggled for a long time about the propriety of making images of God. The second commandment strictly forbids making any "graven images." During the Iconoclastic controversies in the Christian church in the 8th and 9th centuries, the making of icons or images of any sacred figure was forbidden according to many believers. Even today, many Protestants reject any images or symbols of Christ in churches, except for a cross.

Calligraphy of the name Muhammad

How Muhammad will be portrayed in Prophet Muhammad remains to be seen when this film is actually released. So far there not even any trailers for it. The controversy surrounding any depictions of the Prophet will no doubt continue. 

Most Muslims are extremely upset when such depictions do occur, as the world saw after the Danish cartoon controversy in 2005 and the Innocence of Muslims in 2012. The violence that ensued demonstrates how deeply rooted their feelings lie. That such violence may have been excessive does not negate the beliefs of many Muslims. Rather it illustrates how deep seated these beliefs are.

Christians and Jews should be careful not to reject the belief of Muslims when it comes to depictions of holy figures, especially Muhammad. Christians have had their own difficulties with the issue of icons.

The world eagerly awaits the release of this latest film about the Prophet Muhammad. I hope that it may not become as controversial as some such films have been. Time will tell.

      

Films about Jesus Christ: an examination

I am beginning a two-part series on films about great religious leaders. This time I will look at Jesus Christ. Next time I will consider films about the Prophet Muhammad. This series is prompted by the appearance of two new films about these founders of the two largest religions in the world today.

Jesus Christ is coming to theaters in February. 20th Century Fox has announced that Son of God, a film that is based on History Channel's miniseries The Bible, will open in theaters in the U.S. on February 28, 2014. This film is the latest in a very long list of movies going back more than a century dealing with Jesus Christ.

This year will also witness the premiere of Oscar-nominated Iranian filmmaker Majid Majidi’s blockbuster Prophet Muhammad. More about that film and the controversy it has already generated next time. The chief reason: many Muslims regard any portrayal of the Prophet Muhammad as blasphemy, but there are many other reasons as well.

Son of God will feature selections of the miniseries as well as deleted scenes that were not featured during the telecast. The film will feature Portuguese actor Diogo Morgado as Jesus Christ. This film will no doubt enjoy a big reception, as many other films dealing with the life of Jesus have done over the years.

The most famous and influential film about Jesus, simply called Jesus, or alternatively The Jesus Film, is a 1979 motion picture which was based primarily on the gospel of Luke. According to the home page of the Jesus Project, "Every eight seconds, somewhere in the world, another person indicates a decision to follow Christ after watching the "JESUS" film."

The same page continues: "Every eight seconds... that's 10,800 people per day, 324,000 per month and more than 3.8 million per year! That’s like the population of the entire city of Pittsburgh, PA coming to Christ every 28 ¼ days. And yet, if you are like many people, you may have never even heard of it." 

To use the figures of the Jesus project, the total number of decisions to follow Christ adds up to 133 million to date so far. Yet the Jesus project claims that over 200 million people made such a decision after viewing the film, although that claim has been questioned by some. The numbers just don't add up.

Regardless of the precise figures, one secret of the film's success is that it has been translated into more than 1,200 languages, with more languages being added all the time.

Other films have received a different reception. As part of the Bath Film Festival 2014, Wells Cathedral in England hosted a screening of Martin Scorsese’s controversial film The Last Temptation of Christ on Saturday, January 25. In spite of a storm of protest, the Cathedral decided to show the film anyway.

That film caused outrage when it was released in 1988 because of it's interpretation of Jesus' life on earth, depicting, among other things, his marriage to Mary Magdalene and raising a family with her. Popular authors like Dan Brown have used the Mary Magdalene theme as well. Today there are a few biblical scholars who share this view of Christ, even though most do not endorse it.

Nevertheless, there are many in England, and indeed elsewhere, who regard this depiction of Christ as scandalous, if not blasphemous, and protested this screening in the Cathedral. In 1988 many people already protested this film for this reason. These protests have continued.

The film is not based on any of the gospels. In fact, it totally distorts the biblical story: Jesus does not die on the cross, but is rescued by an angel, who is later revealed to be Satan. Jesus is told he is the Son of God, but not the Messiah. He marries Mary Magdalene and, after she dies prematurely, he marries Mary and Martha, the sisters of Lazarus, and has many children with them.

As an old man, Jesus finally does die on the cross. He overcomes the "last temptation" of having escaped death and getting married. Only when he hangs on the cross a final time does he cry out, "It is accomplished."

The film, which stars Willem Dafoe as Jesus and was directed by Martin Scorsese, received some critical support, but many evangelical Christians were outraged by it. To this day it is still banned in some countries.

I happened to attend the same college and at the same time as Paul Schrader who did the screenwriting not only for this film but for many others including Taxi Driver and American Gigolo.

Schrader turned his back on his Christian faith in The Last Temptation of Christ. He distorted the biblical story so much that any semblance of gospel or good news is gone. Thus it not surprising that for many years Christians, including some very recently in England, have condemned this film as blasphemous.

Blasphemy has been defined as the act or offense of speaking sacrilegiously about God or sacred things. The Last Temptation of Christ clearly falls into that category for some Christians.

Christians typically have no problem with seeing Jesus Christ portrayed in a film. The Jesus Film is a case in point. But The Last Temptation of Christ goes too far for some believers, and perhaps even for a majority.

Even when some dubious non-biblical material is introduced into a film, as happened in The Passion of the Christ, many Christians can accept the story and even enjoy it.

This film is controversial also because of its extreme violence, yet it was a commercial success. It has become the highest grossing non-English language film of all time. Mel Gibson, who directed the film, used vernacular languages -- Latin, Aramaic and Hebrew, with added subtitles -- in order to surprise the viewers. He wrote the English script, which was then translated.

Muslims regard any portrayal of the Prophet Muhammad as blasphemous (as I will explain further next time), but a portrayal of Christ is not the issue for most Christians, nor even a slight distortion of the biblical story. It is rather the gross distortion typified by The Last Temptation of Christ that creates major problems.

I expect a positive and even enthusiastic reception for Son of God. This will contrast sharply with that which Prophet Muhammad can expect later this year, if it is finally allowed to appear.

Politics played a role in the production of the latter film. That also contributes to the controversy surrounding it. This is not the case with the former one. But that is understandable, since politics and religion are generally not as intertwined in Christianity as in Islam, especially when it comes to films since the portrayal of Christ is not the primary issue.

I am writing this post about films which portray Jesus Christ in order to contrast the Christian view with the Islamic view. But there is no criticism implied about the validity of either one. Next time I will examine further the controversy surrounding Prophet Muhammad. 

Watch the trailer for Son of God and see for yourself whether you may enjoy it. I admit that I have never much enjoyed watching portrayals of Christ, or any other biblical figure for that matter, on the screen. That is a matter of personal taste, yet it has not kept me from this brief examination.

Especially if you are not a Christian, I hope my comments are helpful in understanding the Christian view of how Jesus Christ has been portrayed in films and what problems that creates at times for Christians.