One then wonders if the poorly dubbed and amateurish clips on YouTube
are actually the entire film?
In other words, there is no film, just a series of scenes.
says Nakoula made it.
He also says that Nakoula changed it in post-production to be about Muhammad.
"Nakoula altered the film without anyone's knowledge, changing its entire focus and dubbing in new dialogue. He edited it. The final product, "Innocence of Muslims," bore no resemblance to the film I thought he was making, or the film the actors thought they were creating."
So it is not the great "Life of Muhammad" that will change the world when it is ever made.
It is also by a deeply flawed and unpleasant character.
But it is still free speech, and westerners have the right to make such films.
"Mr. Nakoula ... explained .. that his plan was to fool actors into thinking they were making a movie built around an ancient tribal villain named George, dubbing in the name “Muhammad” later
... Mr. Israel said Mr. Nakoula told him that “Muhammad would be named George to mislead the actors.”
Lily Dionne, an extra with no lines who was called to dub for another actress, said that a fellow actor had also been asked back and that Mr. Nakoula told him to say “Muhammad” into a microphone. He did."
Nakoula's son said:
"The actors were misled. My dad thought the film would create a stir, and as a precaution for their safety, there are no acting or production credits at the end of the trailer or the full-length movie."
"there was enough footage for a feature-length movie, which exists, running roughly one hour and 40 minutes. Mr. Basily ... said he watched the entire film on DVD early this year and found it historically accurate.
All that has been seen on the Web is the 14-minute YouTube trailer".
"On July 2, the trailer was posted on YouTube by someone using the name Sam Bacile. Mr. Nakoula’s son said he was the one who did it.
“My dad is not tech-savvy at all, and does not know how to work social media,” Abanob Nakoula said. “So he asked me to take the initiative to spread the word, and I did my best.”
He explained that using the name Sam Bacile, he created a Facebook account before production started and then the YouTube account."
A huge protest against Google/YouTube in London, 14 Oct 2012, by Muslim fanatics who want the film banned in Britain.
That is, they want Islamic sharia law applied in Britain.
Note the hilarious banner that says:
"Prophet Muhammad is the founder of freedom of speech"!
Yes, very funny.
Anyway, these people are opposed to freedom of speech!
And another comic claim:
"Prophet Muhammad gave light to the Dark Ages",
Islam probably caused the Dark Ages.
To add to the comedy, these banners were held by the women,
who were forced to hide around the corner in a separate protest to the men!
In short, the film raises interesting and troubling issues about Mohammad's life that are never covered by film,
even if it covers them badly.
It is not remotely clear that the film is "libel" or "slander",
as so confidently declared by western liberals ignorant of Islam.
Jacey Fortin, International Business Times, September 12, 2012, sneers at the movie, but also shows why it (or similar) is needed:
"It depicts Muhammad in the most insulting terms; he is portrayed by turns as foolish, murderous, lecherous, nonsensical and corrupt.
... The film's jokes range from caustic, to obscure, to inane. In one scene, an old woman asks why Allah is "such an oppressor and so unfair to the people" before she is torn apart by donkeys."
Jokes?? She has never even heard of the story of
Yet again, journalists refuse to stand up for freedom of speech.
Instead she says:
"In an environment like this, ...
Bacile's decision to produce a provocative anti-Islam video was both reckless and foolish."
is the traditional day of Islamic rioting and killing,
following angry sermons at prayers.
And so Friday 14 Sept 2012 brought an escalation of riots and killing,
and attacks on US and other western embassies across the Islamic world.
See photos of the
crazed mobs of religious maniacs
around the Islamic world.
"So another internet clever-clogs sets the Middle East on fire ... outrageous Muslim revenge thus "proving" the racist claims of the trash peddlers that Islam is a violent religion."
You're close to the truth.
But shouldn't that read:
"outrageous Muslim revenge thus proving the claims that Islam is a violent religion."
Fisk seems to want all criticism of Islam stopped.
Apparently this will help, rather than prevent, Islamic reform.
"there is room for a serious discussion among Muslims about, for example, a re-interpretation of the Koran; but Western provocation - and western, alas, it is - closes down such a narrative."
Obama seems to agree with the crazed Islamic mobs:
US embassy in Egypt
responds by ... agreeing with the mob!
"We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others".
US Secretary of State Hilary Clinton responds by ... agreeing with the mob!
"The United States deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others."Jack Cashill
Hillary Clinton actually went to the blasphemous
The Book of Mormon in 2011-12.
Blasphemy against Mormonism is fine, but not against Islam?
Clinton seems to be a total hypocrite.
Obama asks YouTube to take the film down.
Disgusting abuse of power.
Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff,
asks Terry Jones
to stop promoting the film.
Disgusting abuse of power.
Deputy National Security Adviser,
Denis McDonough says he wants to create
"a world where the dignity of all people - and all faiths - is respected.
This work takes on added urgency given the truly abhorrent video that has offended so many people".
Sounds like a very sinister kind of world he wants to create.
EU Parliament President Martin Schulz fails to stand up for free speech.
Instead, he attacks anyone who criticises Islam:
"I strongly condemn the use of religion to incite hatred and violence. I also criticise any attempt to ridicule Islam."
He says the Islamic world needs to learn a lesson, that the West is based on the Enlightenment,
and they need to deal with it.
"We don't punish blasphemy in the United States. Our government isn't allowed to punish citizens for disrespecting a religion, a political party, the president, or anything or anyone else. This is not going to change. It's certainly not going to change because violent reactionaries on the other side of the planet don't like it.
The West will not, cannot, change its laws to accommodate anybody's emotions, especially not people on the other side of the planet who replace our flag with the Al-Qaeda flag and murder our diplomats. The Internet will always be offensive and our First Amendment will not be repealed. The longer it takes for Middle Easterners to understand this and adjust, the more people are going to die."
Obama apologises to the Islamic world:
"Since the beginning of my administration the United States has been a nation that respects religious faiths.
With the exception of Christianity I reject all efforts that denigrate religious beliefs.
Now, although I understand your anger
... I really need you to put aside your eagerness to maim, rape and murder until after the election in November."
Clinton apologises to the Islamic world:
"I promise that along with President Obama I will do everything in my power to ensure that Prophet Mohammad is never again mocked for being an insecure, sex-starved pedophile."
He declares, without bothering to provide evidence, that everyone must reject this video:
"the United States government had nothing to do with this video,
and I believe its message must be rejected by all who respect our common humanity.
It is an insult not only to Muslims, but to America as well"
He does not explain what the "message" of the video is,
and so does not explain why it should be rejected.
Is all mocking of religion to be rejected?
Or just this mocking?
And what is it about this mocking that makes it different to the mocking of Mormonism that Hillary Clinton enjoyed?
Obama never attempts to explain.
Obama defends the Prophet Muhammad:
"The future must not belong to those who target Coptic Christians in Egypt
The future must not belong to those who bully women
The future must not belong to those corrupt few who steal a country’s resources
The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam."
This is absurd. He should take no official position on whether the video slanders the Prophet or not.
That is a complex question, and it is wrong for the US to insist everyone should believe one line.
It is not clear at all that the video slanders the Prophet, and whether it did or not, either way
the US government should not care.
Law experts discuss the case.
One says this stinks:
"This case breaks the mold. If the video hadn’t gone viral, and caused the Arabic world to blow up, who would care if this guy is using YouTube? It’s all about politics with this guy."
But the great thing about American law is that Nakoula can argue this:
"If the case does go before a judge, Nakoula could argue he was singled out on a probation technicality for exercising his right to free speech".
Joseph Klein, 9 Nov 2012, finds the case disturbing.
He points out that after arrest, Nakoula was held in prison without bail:
"Experts on the subject have said that prison detention without bail while waiting for a probation violation hearing is highly unusual."
Jonathan Turley, 8 Nov 2012, also finds the case disturbing.
"Violations of probation conditions are quite common and rarely result in re-incarceration. Probation terms tend to be sweeping and most such violations result in warnings or brief appearances before the court.
None of this excuses Youssef’s actions, particularly in his acquiring of the driver’s license. Yet, the speedy arrest (and now conviction) leaves many civil libertarians uneasy as to whether the Administration found a way to “hoist the wretch” by other means than blasphemy."
Robert Spencer, 12 Nov 2012:
"The Feds got Al Capone for tax evasion when they couldn’t make more serious charges stick, and when they couldn’t imprison Youssef for violating Sharia blasphemy laws, they got him for violating probation. Or maybe Mark Basseley Youssef really did have the bad luck to land probation officers who were unusually scrupulous. Maybe it is just a total coincidence that suddenly they decided that this probation violation was the one that they could not and would not tolerate, while untold numbers of other violators of probation still roam free today."
The defining photo of the Obama presidency?
of Innocence of Muslims is taken away at night to discuss parole violations.
See many other captions.
I expected western dhimmis to attack the film and call for censorship.
And that is what happened.
associate professor of religious studies at the University of Pennsylvania,
declares, 12 Sept 2012, that films attacking Islam should be banned, and the makers arrested.
Comically, she declares that it is
"not because I am against the First Amendment.""If there is anyone who values free speech, it is a tenured professor!"
she declares, as she calls for censorship and arrest.
One of her arguments is that a US military figure asked people not to promote the film.
Ken White responds, 13 Sept 2012:
"I had to read that three times to make sure I hadn't gone nuts. An American college professor - one who just paragraphs earlier announced that college professors are self-evidently supporters of the First Amendment - just said that speech should be punished by the government if the United States military thinks it should be. Is this real life?"
She is a dhimmi American Christian living in Egypt.
She thinks the
Muslim Brotherhood takeover of Egypt
is a good thing.
Absurdly, she says:
"I respect the U.S. First Amendment and freedom of speech rights very much".
And then she says it should be illegal to mock religion:
"Who would even think of portraying any religion's prophet as a buffoon, preaching fictional texts, engaging in sex, and condoning pedophilia and killing of women and children in warfare? These images of the prophet Mohamed occur in the first five minutes of the trailer. It is beyond reprehensible. I think it is defamation of the religion."
She never even attempts to show that these portrayals are false.
She just wants the
government to ban them.
Can Islam Be Criticized?, October 11, 2012,
by Malise Ruthven,
foolishly flirts with the idea that "crude" criticism of Islam can be banned,
while "serious" criticism of Islam will be allowed.
"These contrasting responses suggest the possibility of a two-pronged approach ...
“Insulting” the Prophet with the intent of stirring up hatred might be categorized as a form of “hate speech” comparable to anti-Semitism, racism, flag desecration, or Holocaust denial, which are forbidden by law in many countries
While in practice it may be difficult to draw the line between “insult” and “criticism,” if there is a distinction it must lie in intention.
Critical analysis of the Quran that challenges the myths surrounding the primal figures of Islam is another story entirely
It would be utterly wrong for the law to discriminate in favor of (or effectively against) Muslims by insulating them from this process".
Foolish, foolish man.
Ban all the "vulgar" works (vulgar according to who?)
and he thinks the "serious" works will survive??
Washington Post editorial, 12 Sept 2012, attacks the film:
"The movie that provoked the protests, which mocks the prophet Muhammad and portrays Muslims as immoral and violent, is a despicable piece of bigotry".
They do not however explain what type of mocking of the prophet Muhammad would be acceptable.
Is all mocking of the prophet Muhammad unacceptable to them?
Cenk Uygur, 12 Sept 2012, claims he would support a movie critical of Islam. But oddly, he fails to
name any actual such movies that he supports.
He then spends all his time attacking this movie and its makers:
"These people are despicable."
One "fundamentalism" made a film. That no one had to watch.
The other "fundamentalism" burned and slaughtered people.
They're just the same!
How shameful of TIME magazine not to defend the right of free speech.
What do they teach journalists these days, that they do not care about defending free speech?
It may be just that the journalist
is a Muslim and
does not like to see Islam "disrespected".
But if so, why would TIME magazine promote his opinion?
A similar case:
complained in the Irish Times in 2010
about disrespect to Islam,
without revealing that she was Muslim herself.
discovers cracking New York Times double standards:
New York Times editorial of October 2, 1999, defends the display of "Piss Christ" and The Virgin Mary in dung.
New York Times editorial of September 12, 2012, condemns the film "The Innocence of Muslims".
"whoever made the film did true damage to the interests of the United States and its core principle of respecting all faiths."
Justin Raimondo of "antiwar.com" describes people who criticise Islam as "vermin", 19 Sept 2012.
"The idea that these vermin, who deliberately set out to make a “movie” that would inflame the Muslim world, are “free speech” heroes is worse than nonsense: it is valorizing villains."
A Scottish communist
declares that criticising the Islamic religion is "racism".
I bet he doesn't feel that way about Christianity!
This pious atheist declares that the film is
"another racist provocation
a .. disgusting work that portrays Muslims as infantile, sexually perverse, violent and insane
this vile piece of hate cinema".
What a prig!
He even attacks Salman Rushdie!
"The real story is that Rushdie wrote a semi-literate anti-Muslim polemic, ‘The Satanic Verses’, which portrayed Muslim men as sexual predators and Muslim women as inviting of sexual violence.
To be frank if I found a crowd of Jews burning copies of a book that perpetrates the blood libel I’d pass some matches, my attitude to the ‘Verses’ is much the same."
The Guardian attacks the film
the most pro-jihad newspaper in the English-speaking world,
came out against the film.
What a surprise.
Andrew Brown, The Guardian, 12 Sept 2012, calls for the film to be banned.
Knowing nothing about Islam, he is baffled by the film:
"Cut to an old woman, saying she is 120 years old "and in all my young life, I have never seen such a murderous thug as Muhammad … he sells the children as slaves after he and his men have used them". The camera cuts back to show her feet are tied with ropes to a camel; as it moves forwards, she is hoisted into the air.
The watching Muslims LAUGH - in great capital letters, pantomime villain style."
Deborah Orr compares criticising Islam in this film (or anywhere)
with forcing your speech on people who don't want to hear it.
She compares it to
a threatening mob standing on your doorstep shouting lies.
Or people hurling bullying abuse at children.
Or "winding up" an acquaintance.
Her analogy makes no sense.
No one should be forced to listen to speech they are not interested in.
But that is not the issue here.
If you don't like brutal criticism of Muhammad,
how about not clicking that link on YouTube?
Just ignore it.
What's so hard about that?
Her article is a logical jumble from start to end.
She says denying blacks entry to pubs is a free speech issue, when it is obviously not.
She says if there are any restrictions at all on speech (like libel)
then why not have lots more (like blasphemy)?
She piously announces that we should allow Muslims live their own lives - as if that is of any relevance to the issue.
There is endless moral equivalence between "Islamophobes" and Islamic killers.
Islamic anger is caused not by Islam, but rather (of course) by the West.
And so on.
Her most absurd sentence is as follows:
"Free speech does not confer the right to be wrong, mistaken, biased
or merely a doggedly axe-grinding pain-in-the-ass about your pet hates."
To which the answer is, yes, of course it does confer that right.
And just as well, since Deborah Orr is an axe-grinding pain-in-the-ass,
whose speech nevertheless must be protected.
A law professor calls for restrictions on free speech.
He complains that American ideas of free speech
"prevent the U.S. government from restricting the distribution of a video that causes violence abroad and damages America’s reputation. And this is a video that, by the admission of all sides, has no value whatsoever."
What "all sides" is he talking about?
It is not clear that the video has no value.
It raises issues about Mohammad's life that are never covered by film, and even if it covers them badly,
it raises the question of why no one covers them well.
Posner points out that the US cracked down on pro-fascist speech during WW2
and pro-communist speech during the Cold War.
But the analogy is wrong.
He is urging the equivalent of the US cracking down on anti-Soviet speech during the Cold War,
because it might anger the Soviets!
In other words:
"Give the Soviets victory or they will be angry.
Do what they want.
Follow their communist ideas."
In modern terms, far from being a "national security" position,
this is a "surrender to the enemy" position.
It basically says:
"Islamic terrorists attacked us. So do what they want.
Introduce sharia law to America. Make it illegal to criticise Islam.
Stop making them angry.
Do what they want or they will attack us again.
Follow Islamic law so as not to anger the Islamists."
Sometimes one perfect comment destroys an entire article.
for some reason
says we should not "disrespect"
the false heresy of Islam:
"Profound respect for the beliefs, texts, outstanding figures and symbols of the various religions is an essential precondition for the peaceful coexistence of peoples. The serious consequences of unjustified offence and provocations
against the sensibilities of Muslim believers are once again evident in these days".
"Respect" the mob, or we will kill you.
And then it is your fault, not ours.
I got it. I understand the Islamist world view.
I just don't understand why the Catholic church is promoting it.
A well-meaning, pee-cee Christian is bizarrely offended by "blasphemy" against a religion he doesn't believe in.
Letter to Irish Times, 15 Sept 2012.
He declares "peace be upon him" about a warlord whose armies forced Christians to abandon their faith.
He declares that "Allah" is his God too!
A modern Christian dhimmi who actually wants sharia law!
An American "Christian" on YouTube says he wants
the Muslims to kill a Christian for blasphemy against Islam.
You can't get more dhimmi than that.
On this video.
Christian pastor Jens Lind marches with Muslim fanatics against free speech in Denmark, 7 Oct 2012.
A Christian offended by blasphemy against Islam,
and calling for Islamic law to be enacted.
"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam."
- US President
Barack Obama, speech to the UN, 25 Sept 2012.
"We’re going to have that person arrested and prosecuted that did the video."
- US Secretary of State
allegedly said this on 14 Sept 2012 to
Charles Woods, father of
who was killed in Benghazi.
According to Charles Woods.