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:

  1. That he was of lowly birth, illegitimate
  2. That the Koran is a non-prophetic mix of Jewish and Christian sources.
  3. Muhammad practised extortion & forced conversion
  4. Pedophile - that at 53 he married a 9 year old girl
  5. "A murderous thug"
  6. Permitted himself to commit adulatory
  7. Promoted an oppressive God
  8. Cruel torturer & murderer of opponents – particularly Jews.
  9. 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.


  1. 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.

  2. Hi Baruch

    The 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.


Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Minister for Welfare Visits Lema'an Achai Today

Will Motty Borger’s Suicide Make Any Difference?