Is THAT movie about Muhammed based on truth?
By Sam
Bacile
The
commentary and analysis of the Muslim riots and terror attacks in reaction to
the 15 minute cheap movie trailer about
Mohammad on You Tube, have generally focused on the freedom of speech and
whether this extends to inflammatory & offensive material.
There
has also been a measure of shock and horror at the barbarity of the Islamic
response, including the brutal murder in Libya
of the US
Ambassador Chris Stevens. And plenty of speculation about the identities and
motives of those who produced the movie.
However,
I have not yet seen anyone address whether the allegations in the movie, The
Innocence of Muslims, are indeed dastardly slurs and lies against the
Prophet Muhammad – or may actually be true.
The
classic example of a restriction on freedom of speech is that it is forbidden
to shout "Fire" in a crowded theatre.
Doing
so causes a public menace – and is therefore illegal.
However,
such a rule would not apply if there really were to be a fire.
In
such a case, it would be irresponsible NOT to shout "Fire" in a
crowded theatre.
So,
whereas the movie is clearly very low budget, and looks like a Monty Python
spoof – perhaps its message has more gravitas than has been assumed.
The
movie raises the following quick-succession allegations against Muhammad:
- That he was of lowly birth, illegitimate
- That the Koran is a non-prophetic mix of Jewish and Christian sources.
- Muhammad practised extortion & forced conversion
- Pedophile - that at 53 he married a 9 year old girl
- "A murderous thug"
- Permitted himself to commit adulatory
- Promoted an oppressive God
- Cruel torturer & murderer of opponents – particularly Jews.
- Systematic murderer of men women and children (Jihad/war crimes).
Many
of these allegations (and others) are addressed on Wikipedia:
and
Google brings to light numerous historical and quasi-historical evaluations of
Muhammad, many of which restate, or even magnify the crimes attributed to The
Prophet.
For
example:
And
other videos on You Tube include:
All
this is not simply of academic debate – but perhaps provides a context for
Islamic fundamentalism and Islamic terror & jihad (illustrated by the
attacks on Coptic Christians at the beginning of the movie trailer).
Of
course there are peaceful Muslims – hundreds of millions of them.
But
the 20th and 21st Centuries have been indisputably marked by
Islamic-inspired violence and terror throughout the world.
Where are Hezbollah, Hamas and Al-Qaida coming from? Are they distorted aberrations, or are they consistent with the origins of Islam itself?
I
note that there is no parallel commentary about the life of Jesus, for example.
Perhaps
the most unseemly criticism of Jesus' life is around his relationship with
Mary Magdalene – made famous in the Dan Brown book & movie The Da Vinci
Code.
The
Middle Ages produced unimaginable horrors in the name of Jesus – but there was
little or no example from Jesus' recorded life that directly inspired that.
No-one
would seriously allege that Jesus was a mass murderer, torturer &
pedophile.
Today,
as Mahmoud Ahmadinejad makes his way to the UN Assembly podium, to spout hatred
of the Jewish State, while he hatches his plans for our nuclear
annihilation, the message of the cheap movie trailer, and the barbarism of the
response in the Muslim streets, should be taken far more seriously than the
issue of "freedom of speech".
Perhaps
there really is a raging fire burning down the theatre.
How do the commandment to destroy Amalek, the war against Midean, the wars against the Canaanite nations, and many other wars and incidents described throughout Tanach, fit into this discussion? Or the marriage of Rivkah to Yizchak at the age of 3, according to Rashi? Freedom of speech should certainly be supported, loudly and clearly, but we have a serious glass house issue if we're going to start justifying the besmirching of other religions based on anything other than the value of free speech in democratic, Western countries.
ReplyDeleteHi Baruch
ReplyDeleteThe same thoughts went through my mind.
Here's how I resolved it:
1. Jews look to the Tenach, which indeed has many scenes of violence, crime and explicit sexual sin, etc. Yet the Jews are historically a peaceful and morally upright people. I guess rabbinical Judaism filled in any behavioural gaps between the simple reading of Tenach and how we actualy live our lives.
2. Christianity looks to the New Testament. It's a pretty clean text, about Jesus who has a non-violent and sinless narrative. It has generated horrors (particularly in the Middle Ages) in its/his name - and that sounds like an aberation by corrupt men.
3. Islamic texts may have (apparently - I've never read the Koran etc) a violent and sinful narrative about Mohammad. This appears to have directly generated groups of violent and sinful men. Even today, and even whole countries, such as Iran.