Jump to content

Dude, I Am Not A Muslim Vs. Dude, I Am Not A Terrorist


Jaginder88
 Share

Recommended Posts

Greetings to all,

My name is Jaginder Singh and I am an independent film maker based in Perth, Western Australia.
Post 9/11, there have been many hate crimes (retaliatory) attacks on Muslims and persons that are assumed to be Muslims.
I now hate flying as they "randomly" make me jump the hoops to get through security (not that I am saying security if unimportant) but, I know that the inconvenience that I face is nothing compared to what some others may have to endure on a regular basis just because they are Muslims or even look like a Muslim. This thought has always been in my mind but I when I read about the massacre in Wisconsin I felt extremely distraught. I remember feeling the same way during the attacks on 9/11. A sinking feeling of disgust and indescribably hurt. Don't let my name or my words fool you, I am not even remotely religious but I felt I was attacked too. I feel the need to document this controversial issue but I had other projects then. Now a year later, I am about to embark on my latest project, a documentary about mistaken identity and racial profiling.
I do however, have a dilemma on what would be the most apt tittle for my documentary.
This where I need your insight as a community/sangat.
Should I call it *Dude, I am not a Muslim* or *Dude, I am not a terrorist*
What's in the name you may ask? A lot.
If we were to call it the former, one may be accused of alienating Muslims though the intention is to shed light on the fact that you not all colored people are Muslims and not all Muslims are colored people. Focus will fall on the turbaned Sikhs as they have the uncanny resemblance to terrorism's most famous poster boy, Osama bin Laden (at least to a layman). It would be controversial and intriguing hence more bums on the seat hence may possible attract more investors, something every indie film maker struggles with. Of course, there would be a segment about peace loving Muslims as well for it is not my intention to portray Muslim as terrorist.
The latter may be more politically correct and the focus would be that not all Muslims are terrorist and also the subject above which is not all colored people are Muslims. We would still do segments of turbaned Sikhs and attacks on non Muslims and Muslims alike.
I hope I am making sense and that everyone can freely voice the opinion or even disgust (?).

I have created 2 FB pages for this reason, feel free to drop by and check them out too.

https://www.facebook.com/dudeiamnot

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Dude-I-am-not-a-Muslim/690950187585172

Jinder
Perth

Link to comment
Share on other sites

'Dude, I Am Not a Terrorist' sounds much better and is a more accurate reflection of the aims of your documentary. The controversial, intriguing title of 'Dude, I am not a Muslim' may get you more bums on seats, but you will also face a lot of backlash from the Muslim community and you will alienate them even further causing them to boycott your documentary. And that is not what you want to achieve. 'Dude, I am not a Muslim' implies that all Muslims are terrorists, which we all know is not true, just as all terrorists are not Muslim. So using the umbrella term of 'Terrorist' is better as it does not discriminate against any religion/race and will be appealing to a more universal audience. If executed well and with good research, acting, writing, advertising and a good trailer I don't think you will have to worry about about bums on seats, so best of luck. It sounds like a really interesting project.

Thanks Mkaur for taking the time to share your thought. You points are very valid indeed.

Below is a very good point contributed by some one else in another forum

I'd go with 'Dude, I am not a Muslim', that way you'll kill two birds with one stone: People will be aware that Sikhs are not Muslims, and once that realization settles in, we'll no longer be suspected of being Islamist terrorists.

If you were to go for the latter title, the more Islamophobic elements will likely refuse to watch it, as the distinction will not have been made between Sikhs and Muslims. The first title is more likely to peak their curiosity.

Thoughts?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Call it 'Dude I'm not a Muslim'.

If the shoe was on the other foot and Sikhs were doing all the bombings and muslims were being targetted, I can guarantee you that they would call the film 'Dude I'm not a Sikh'

Who cares if we alienate the muslim community, the same community that tries to groom our girls.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How about calling it "Dude, I am a Sikh"

Thanks for you thought Jonny101,

If I may speak bluntly a network or any distribution platform will not be 'moved' with a topic like "I am a Sikh" simply because majority of the population don't know about Sikhs and especially because the is very little in the current psyche that would generate enough interest to want to watch it a film about "I am a Sikh". This where we need to use a different approach to introduce the same subject matter. A word like terrorist or Muslim is recognizable. Image whether good or bad is still publicity. I learned this after making "Antim Ardas" in 2011. Its does not create enough intrigue if non-Punjabi speakers do not understand the meaning of Antim Ardas.

I am currently writing a feature (90 minutes) version of Antim Ardas and I might possibly call it "The Last Ardas", ''The Journeyer" or something else that would be relevant to story.

That is why my thought is to use either 'terrorist' or 'Muslim' which are by happenstance very relevant in this subject. Hope that made sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a good initiative, in fact to do my little bit, I've been contemplating printing tshirts with a similar title. As I agree with pros and cons of both titles, why not replace Muslim and Terrorist with Al-Qaeda? Majority of the World through media has been brainwashed to think that anyone resembling Bin Laden is Al-Qaeda, aka Muslim/Terrorist. This way you are not offending all Muslims just the fanatics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a good initiative, in fact to do my little bit, I've been contemplating printing tshirts with a similar title. As I agree with pros and cons of both titles, why not replace Muslim and Terrorist with Al-Qaeda? Majority of the World through media has been brainwashed to think that anyone resembling Bin Laden is Al-Qaeda, aka Muslim/Terrorist. This way you are not offending all Muslims just the fanatics.

Thank you IderjitS Ji,

To be honest I have been thinking of the Al-Qeada tittle for last couple of days but Hezbollah, PLO and others are infamous too.

I am thinking on moving on with research and work. Perhaps some inspiration may come during that.

I also thinking on starting a dialogue locally and hear what they have to say.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you IderjitS Ji,

To be honest I have been thinking of the Al-Qeada tittle for last couple of days but Hezbollah, PLO and others are infamous too.

I am thinking on moving on with research and work. Perhaps some inspiration may come during that.

I also thinking on starting a dialogue locally and hear what they have to say.

Hezbollah, PLO aren't that well-known. I agree with the brother above.

Go with "Dude, I am not Al Qaeda!" ...In this way, you'll be able to tell people that difference b/w Sikhs and Al Qaeda....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt


  • Topics

  • Posts

    • https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-63072113 Russia's Vladimir Putin will hold a signing ceremony on Friday to annex four more areas of Ukraine after self-styled referendums condemned by Ukraine and the West as a sham. Russian-backed officials had earlier claimed the five-day exercise secured almost total popular support. So-called votes were held in Luhansk and Donetsk in the east, and in Zaporizhzhia and Kherson in the south. The Russian president will make a major speech at the Kremlin. A stage has already been set up in Moscow's Red Square, with billboards proclaiming the four regions as part of Russia and a concert planned for the evening.  The event echoes Russia's annexation of Crimea in 2014, which also followed a discredited referendum and was heralded by a Kremlin signing followed by a presidential victory speech in parliament. That initial annexation has never been recognised by the vast majority of the international community, and nor will this.  Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky said the "pseudo-referendums" were worthless and did not change reality. "The territorial integrity of Ukraine will be restored. And our reaction to recognition of the results by Russia will be very harsh."  No independent monitoring of the Russian process took place and election officials were pictured going from door to door escorted by armed soldiers. "Tomorrow at 15:00 (12:00 GMT) in the St George Hall of the Grand Kremlin Palace a signing ceremony will be held on incorporating the new territories into Russia," said spokesman Dmitry Peskov. Separate agreements will be signed with the two Russian-backed separatist leaders from the east and the two Russian-appointed officials from the south. As with Crimea, Russia's two houses of parliament will formally ratify the annexation treaties next week. The Russian president is expected to address to the upper house of parliament on 4 October, three days before his 70th birthday.  The US has said it will impose sanctions on Russia because of the staged referendums, while EU member states are considering an eighth round of measures, including sanctions on anyone involved in the votes.
    • ਨਾਮਧਾਰੀ ਠਾਕੁਰ ਦਲੀਪ ਸਿੰਘ  ਨਿਹੰਗ ਸਿੰਘਾਂ ਦੇ ਜੱਥੇਦਾਰ ਸਰਦਾਰ ਮੇਜਰ ਸਿੰਘ ਜੀ ਨਾਲ ਨੇ ਸਹਿਮਤ । VID-20220929-WA0000.mp4
    • You really are full of nonsense. The reason the Gujaratis came to Britain after being expelled from Africa was because they had British citizenship, no other reason. Many of them had to live in detention camps when they arrived! They did not uplift the image of Indians by selling saris and owning corner shops, something that Punjabis were doing where they were a majority anyway. 
    • Because Naamdharis are absolute masters at kirtan. Simple. On the topic of Akal Takht, it doesn't really hold the same authority as it did in the past. Just look at the people running it and you'll get what I mean. Most the panth, outside of stuff like Tankhaya, don't care about anything they have to say. 
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use