The crowd sourced encyclopedia's article on the film, read directly for this entry. Its strength is a well referenced summary of production credits, plot, the film's cinematographic approach to not depicting Muhammad, and the reception controversy, cross checked here against RFE/RL's contemporary reporting and against the Pak-Shiraz academic article's framing. Its limit is that it is not independently peer reviewed, so it is cited for corroborated factual detail rather than for interpretation. This description is adapted from Wikipedia contributors under CC BY-SA 4.0; changes were made. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/
Facts
Assessment
Reliability Tier3
Wikipedia's article on the film is a continuously revised, community edited tertiary encyclopedia entry with no named author or peer review process, hence the lower tier, though useful for its well referenced production and release record. NotesRead directly during research; cited for production credits, plot detail, cinematographic technique and the full reception and controversy record.
Citation
AuthorWikipedia contributors
PublisherWikipedia
URLhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad:_The_Messenger_of_God_(film)
Source Typereference
Connections
Associated With
This source names Muhammad directly: "nematographic approach to not depicting Muhammad, and the reception controversy, cross c"
Source Wikipedia, "Muhammad: The Messenger of God (film)"Wikipedia contributors
Shiraz, Cities This source names Shiraz directly: "reporting and against the Pak-Shiraz academic article's framing."
Source Wikipedia, "Muhammad: The Messenger of God (film)"Wikipedia contributors
Claims Backed By This Source (22 claims)
This source backs 22 claims across the atlas. As facts: 14 well-attested. As cited relationships: 5 holds. Plus 3 entities citing it as a general reference with no single fact or relationship attached.
Disposition By Topic
- Screen Works, 11 claims: 6 well-attested, 3 holds, 2 general references.
- Sources, 9 claims: 7 well-attested, 2 holds.
- Articles, 2 claims: 1 well-attested, 1 general references.
Reader Challenges (0)
No disputes yet. Spotted an error or a better source? Open the first one.
Sign in to dispute this or suggest a correction.