A Movie about Muhammad: An Idea whose Time Has Come.

A Movie about Muhammad: An Idea whose Time Has Come.
by Ali Sina

I started writing about Islam in 1998. When I read the Quran and the life of Muhammad it became clear to me that the world is in danger. Islam is a threat to mankind and this threat will not end until we all surrender to a global tyranny ruled under Sharia — the most draconian law since Hammurabi. Never underestimate the power of stupid people motivated zealotry.

When I started my campaign, the Internet was new and apart from AnsweringIslam.org, and Ibn Warraq’s few articles on ISIS, there were no other sources of truthful information about Islam online. There were also pundits like Dr. Daniel Pipes who wrote about “Islamism.” They conveyed the message that the problem is not Islam per se, but a tiny minority of radicalized extremists.

That sounded to me like shadow boxing. I grew up in the Muslim world and never had heard the word “Islamism,” unless in a pejorative way to discredit the zealots. I knew that categorizing Muslims between moderates and radicals is misleading. In the words of Erdogan, Turkey”s Prime Minister, “These descriptions are very ugly. They are offensive and an insult to our religion. There is no moderate or immoderate Islam. Islam is Islam and that’s it.”

Radicalism is only pure Islam. Islamic terrorism is a symptom. The disease is Islam. My message was not politically correct. Although many people read my articles, I was dismissed by the mainstream media as one on the fringe.

However, truth is obstinate. That message spread and many ex-Muslims such as Wafa Sultan, Ayan Hirshi Ali, Nonie Darwish and others started echoing it. Today, there are thousands of blogs and sites on the Internet delivering that very politically incorrect message. I am elated to see so many non-Muslims have joined this crusade. My special thanks go to Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller for raising the awareness of millions of people, and of course to Geert Wilders for elevating the discussion about Islam to political sphere. I can’t hide my satisfaction of what has been achieved in such a short time. The trickle has turned into a torrent. It is now unstoppable.

But the mission is not accomplished. In the first year of this century, I predicted that Islam will be eradicated in our own lifetime. On the surface, it appears that it has become stronger. Secular despots in Islamic countries are being replaced by extremist Muslims. But don’t let appearances deceive you. This is a necessary step in the de-Islamization of the world. Muslims must first taste the bitterness of Islam before they spit it out for good. This process has already happened in Iran. If given freedom, Iran will be the only country today that will renounce Islam. In the land of Cyrus the Great, the illusion of Islam is all but waned. Other Islamic countries need to go through the same cleansing process. They are just three decades behind.

To get rid of Islam we need to reveal the truth about it. The Internet was godsend to critics of Islam. However, sites that are critical of Islam are blocked in Islamic countries and even if they were not, the great majority of Muslims don’t read. We need to get our message to the masses.

Masses watch movies. If a picture is worth a thousand words, what is the worth of a motion picture? We need to make a motion picture about Muhammad — a biopic that reveals the details of his life. The Devil is in the details.

The true story of Muhammad is untold. It is available in the books of Siras. But those are voluminous books. Combined, they are thousands of pages. I read them all and have condensed them in a script. This biopic starts with Muhammad’s childhood. Like all tyrants and psychopaths of history, he had a loveless childhood. This is crucial to understand his psychology and his ruthlessness in his later years.

The movie shows Muhammad’s raids, plunders, massacres, rapes, assassinations and other crimes. A small subtitle in the lower right corner of each scene will give reference to the source of the story. This movie is entirely factual. Wherever possible, I copied the Quran, the Sira and the Hadith verbatim. It is a riveting story. Truth about Muhammad is more shocking than fiction.

The world does not know Islam. What is known is a watered down and euphemized version of it that has no bases in reality. The truth is that Muhammad was a cult leader, much like Jim Jones, Shoko Asahara and Charles Manson. Unlike them he succeeded because there was no central power in the seventh century Arabia to stop him.

The other good news is that I have been promised a substantial angel financing. I have been daydreaming about this movie for ten years. It was this promise that prompted me into action. I put everything aside for five months, read everything I could about my protagonist, selected the most salient episodes and wrote the script.

The seed is now sown. Now it’s time to nurture it. What I need is an experienced executive producer, someone who shares my values, to make it happen with professionalism and missionary zeal.

I am not thinking of a high budget movie, but given the subject matter, it can become one of the most seen motion pictures ever. (Recall Danish cartoons?) There are hundreds of millions of people all over the world who fear their freedom is under attack. They will be our primary viewers, as well as promoters.

I don’t think this movie will require much investment on promotion. People in the movie industry know that nearly half of the budget of a film is spent on advertising and on marketing. We won’t need any of that. We have an army of millions strong who will promote this movie for free.

Just as the Internet allowed us to spread our message to millions of people, with this movie we can spread the same message to hundreds of millions. When the world discovers the truth about Muhammad, Islam’s days will be numbered. I have led thousands of Muslims out of Islam. I know truth sets people free.

New technology allows us to hide the identity of the actors. And we can distribute worldwide, even in Islamic countries. These would have been impossible a few years ago.

My interest in making this movie is not financial. I want truth be known. However, given the controversy and the buzz that such a movie will necessarily generate, and the fact that it is an untold and fascinating story about the most influential man in history, I can foresee a huge return on the investment. When I know about the budget and the legalities are in place, I will give a chance to those who might be interested, to invest in this project. If you have questions you can email me to faithfreedom2 at gmail.com. In the subject boxplease write Movie Investment.

Although this biopic is about Muhammad, its focus is on his victims. I have given a face to his forgotten victims. I cried when reading their stories and I want the world to cry remembering them.

Truth will set mankind free. A movie is the fastest way to spread the truth.

Ali Sina is the founder of Faithfreedom.org, from which this piece is reprinted with permission.

FacebookTwitterLinkedInDiggBlogger PostDeliciousEmailPinterestRedditStumbleUponPrint

Comments

  1. says

    A wonderful bonus from the making of such a movie would be Karen Armstrong’s reaction to it… Would she end up swallowing her own tongue after a severe fit of hydrophobia?

  2. says

    Count my family, my friends, and all free people as supporters. We are after TRUTH. As hard and demoralizing as it may be to witness. It will lay the foundation for greatness in a world stricken by Islam. Cheers to Dr. Sina.

  3. says

    Dear Robert and Ali: This is wonderful news. If you need financial backing, then perhaps a fund raising drive would be appropriate. I would certainly contribute something.

  4. says

    Needless to say, I am one of the ardent fans of Ali Sina (Just a fan – no contributions!). Around 1981, one of the greatest hindu saints (not alive now)from Kanchi Puram, Tamil Nadu told Subramanian Swamy, a well known Indian politician, “Why do you still remain a staunch anti-communist – It is all over. Mind your other businesses. He did not understand the saint at that time. Just after 10 years the unexpected happened. The mighty Soviet Union collapsed without a trace and communism buried even in china. I quote this incident to reassure Ali Sina as well as others not to go by the belligerency of Islamic nations. The end is coming.(I am not a saint, of course)!

  5. says

    But make sure it doesn’t go OTT with the madly passionate burka-ripping scenes with Aisha, or it might get banned as child porn.

  6. says

    This is tremendously good news.

    Muslims in Muslim countries are not allowed to choose the religion that best fits their values out of free will. Muslims in the West are likewise prevented from making a free-will choice because they are protected from the truth. How can someone make a free choice if they don’t have accurate information?

    To protect Muslims from the truth about Islam is treating them like little children who have to be protected from finding out their father is a dangerous criminal. I am all for protecting little children from upsetting news. I think it is better for young children to live in something of a fairy tale dreamland and be protected from harsh realities. However, if grown-up Muslims are given all the same adult rights as other adults, then they don’t need to be protected from the truth. (In this case, it is not their father but their “prophet” who is the dangerous criminal.)

    In fact, it is better for Muslims to have the truth, because only then can they be truly free.

  7. says

    The movie would have to made in total secret and at a secluded location, preferably an island. The pressure to stop production will be enormous if word got out. But this is the best idea I’ve heard in a while.

  8. says

    Can’t wait. Can’t wait.

    Dear Ali Sina, get comment on your script from David Wood.

    Sina, you deserve to be rich enough to afford bodyguards!

  9. says

    like I said many times before. democracy is a work in progress. Islamic government is the best thing that has to us Iranians. after 35 years all Iranians know the evil that Islam is. like Ali said, iranians will renounce Islam and and foe a few arab countirs the if the islamists is a blees to them such as lybia, tunisia, and egypt. they need to tast it them selves that islam is all about destruction.I am going to tell you this now there is going to be blood bath. Iranians are going to take revenge on the islamist like you never seen it before. here is one little example:
    no cab driver in Iran picks up a mullah. noone. they are forced to wear civilian cloth in order not be detected! while everyone here knows my disdain for all reliogns Islam in particular, but if you beleive in god, pray for the down fall of the syrian government. this will speed up the down fall of the ayatollahs by light years.
    M
    PS; this does not hold true for afghanistan, pakistan, yemen and saudi arabia.

  10. says

    Muslims must first taste the bitterness of Islam before they spit it out for good. This process has already happened in Iran. If given freedom, Iran will be the only country today that will renounce Islam. In the land of Cyrus the Great, the illusion of Islam is all but waned. Other Islamic countries need to go through the same cleansing process. They are just three decades behind.

    Talk about shadowboxing. A stunning burst of naivete from someone who, of all people, should know better. One suspects that a residual sentimentality for Islam, still clinging in spots deep within the cavernous sinuses so to speak of Ali Sina’s soul, possibly familially based (perhaps consanguineous with the mingling memory of the smells of the home cooking of our late Muslim nana) are the reason for this grievously misplaced optimism.

    Persians have been Muslim for some 1300 years. Not only is it ingrained in their history, culture and collective psyche, there is the historical fact that at one point in their history, they were conquered by non-Muslims from the north, who were more tolerant than their previous (and later) Muslim rulers: they gave everyone a choice to be anything they wanted: they gave all Persians the choice to leave Islam. Guess what: they didn’t leave Islam. Why not? Because they didn’t want to. For the first eight generations of the Ilkhanate Empire, when non-Muslim Mongols conquered Persia in approximately the 13th to the early 14th century, Persian Muslims chose to remain Muslim, even though they had the complete freedom to leave Islam.

    Ali Sina, like those others who hailed the recent “Green Revolution” of Iran with indiscriminate hope is confusing Iranian dissatisfaction for particular politicians, particular Mullahs, particular Ayatollahs for a rejection of Islam; which is an absurd, and dangerous, miscalculation. And then to expand this colossal, catastrophic miscalculation about Persian Muslims to Muslims in general just takes the cake, and our breath away.

    The safest way to approach Islam is to regard all Muslims as our inveterate, implacable enemy, and expect the worst. Only modify this grim strategy occasionally, selectively, individually, and only with irrefutable proof.

    And please, pocket the rose-colored glasses. They tend to camouflage the blood on the hands of the hopeful Muslims.

  11. says

    Really, wonder which actor will have the cajunes to play Mohammed’s role? Or will it just be anybody, but w/ a black or white shroud over his head?

    Aside from this, Ali Sina seems to engage in a lot of wishful thinking. Islam eradicated in our lifetime? Maybe, but the way he suggests it – that ‘Muslims must first taste the bitterness of Islam before they spit it out for good. This process has already happened in Iran’ – is just too fanciful. After all, Iran did have Islamic kingdoms in its history that were as zealous – the Safavids, for instance, as well as the Saminids, but that didn’t make them spit out Islam. Incidentally, Iran was also occupied by a non-Muslim conqueror – the Mongol Ilkhanate, but although the Iranians had the freedom to discard Islam under the Mongols, they never availed of it, and 8 centuries later, one Ilkhanate contender for the throne embraced Islam, and when he became the khan, the Ilkhanate islamized as well.

    The last election in Iran – the so called ‘Green Revolution’ should have been an eye-opener – the bulk of Iranians are still loyal to Islam, and what they think about the Mullahs or Ahmadinejad is irrelevant. As long as the Iranians remain Muslims, Zoroastrians, Jews, Christians and Atheists living in Iran will remain under threat. People think that the Arab Spring revolutions have exposed the fact that the grassroots support is really for Islamic rule, and guess what? Same is true about non Arab countries – Turkey, Pakistan, Iran, Afghanistan, et al.

    Back to the movie thing – it promises to be a really depressing movie. Whenever one sees a movie, one wishes for a happy ending, even if it’s a localized, or scope limited one. But this movie would only illustrate the triumph of evil, so despite my own interest in it, even I wouldn’t want to watch it. Of course, it’ll be a non starter in Muslim countries, but even in non-Muslim countries, I can see theaters refusing to carry it out of fear of jihadi violence, and I can also see governments, such as India, banning it for the same reason.

    I think the best way to distribute and show this movie would be either online (forget YouTube or anything like it, but instead get a dedicated server w/ the bandwidth that’s needed, and plenty of mirror sites. Also create a DVD/Blu Ray disc and sell it, and use its proceeds to raise the needed cash.

    If it’s released to theaters, some may carry it, get Muslim demonstrators outside, and while that would be good publicity wise in terms of exposing Muslims as thugs even more, I don’t want that theater employees should risk lives & limbs by carrying it. OTOH, if this movie doesn’t show in theaters, the only people who get it would be people on JW, FF, DS, and so on, defeating the purpose of making it.

    I also agree w/ what sean said. I think if they showed a 6 year old girl playing Aisha marrying this ugly beardo in his 50s, the message would have been delivered: I don’t think there would be any need to show her being thighed. Also, this movie would have anything from an R to an X rating, given all the violence (they’d have to show the effects of the beheadings, if not the beheadings themselves, as well as all the sexual scenes of Mohammed marrying the woman whose father & husband were killed in battle). In fact, the more I think about it, it seems that such a movie would have to be on a .xxx website i.e. a porn site, since there is no way this movie could be targetted at general audiences, even though that would be the desire of Ali Sina and whoever makes this movie.

  12. says

    A movie about Muhammad from a non-Muslim critical perspective is an excellent idea. On the depiction issue, it will be important to violate Islamic taboos by showing the character Muhammad’s face (even if it is one that is so heavy done with make up etc. that the real actor cannot be recognized). Obviously, there will be some things too terrible to show, such as Muhammad’s rape of Aisha, but could only suggest. As long as the focus is on Muhammad murdering and assassinating critics, launching surprise attacks and terroristic raids, stoning adulterers, raping women and girls, enslaving people, and plundering and usurping other people’s property and land, I think it will be an important project.

    I think it’s also important, if one takes the view that Muhammad existed, that he was a fraud and was knowingly making this “Islam” stuff up. Muhammad fabricated partly by plagiarizing, and partly by distorting, and partly by adding his own self-helping rules to satiate his own base motivations as well as achieve his grandiose aims. So not only did he commit every major crime known to humanity, he was also a massive liar and a huge fraud–probably history’s biggest one, if he existed. Finishing it off with Muhammad dying due to being poisoned by a Jewess victim of jihad, with him exclaiming “I feel that my aorta has been severed,” (cf. Q 69:46) would be a nice touch.

    Another good idea for a movie about Islam to inspire people to stand up against it would be one about Charles Martel, or perhaps John Sobieski.

  13. says

    I have thought about the idea of a movie about muhammed as well, and thought Mel Gibson would be a good director/producer, if he could be persuaded. Notwithstanding his antisemitism, I though Passion of the Christ was quite good. Perhaps he could play muhammed???

    Also, I’ll definitely throw some money into such a project. I’ve always wanted to be a producer……. :-0)

    Ima

  14. says

    “Not Without My Daughter” (1991) with Sally Fields is good viewing in the meantime. I stumbled upon it last month finally and it was excellent. Iranian husband (Alfred Molina) takes US wife and kid back to Iran and the Islamo-fun starts. Filmed in the middle east, not L.A., so the visual realism is right up there with Midnight Express.

    I looked up the flick on IMDB and discovered that in 1999, CAIR demanded that Amazon change the description. Amazon did so. Groan.

    I always thought this was some kind of corny Lifetime movie but I was wrong.

  15. says

    I couldn’t agree more with all of this, but: the movie will not be shown publicly.

    No one would show it. It will be forbidden in Muslim countries, and most Westerners will obligingly censor themselves. Anyone who doesn’t censor himself will be subject to harassment up to and including destruction of property and the infliction of grievous bodily harm or worse. The only point that will be made by the movie will be the one no one listens to – that Islam is willing to use the most barbaric means there are to stop free expression about itself.

    Even DVD distribution will be hampered. DVDs have to be purchased. Things are purchased in stores. Stores can be attacked.

    I am all for the making of this film, but, those who propose to make it should not be unaware, and they shouldn’t pretend to be unaware, that if it is made, people will die.

    And that is, like it or not, a heavy responsibility.

  16. says

    You should raise the money at kickstarter.com. There are a lot of small movies raising money there.

    Have Spencer and all other like minded sites post a link to the fundraising page and readers can all donate in small amounts. You’ll raise the money like this.

    You should maybe do this with animation so the actors aren’t threatened for the rest of their lives. You can do amazing things animated on a budget these days.

  17. says

    One way of protecting actors would be not to use live action at all: do it as an animation.

    Get the artists – who will remain strictly anonymous – to look at lots of Persian and Mughal miniatures and use something of the style (though, of course, showing the face of Ha-Meshugga, going from the hints that are given in the hadith and sira) – frankly, if it was done well, you’d end up with something that although a horror-story would *also* be seriously ‘arty’.

    Alternatively, you use a grungy, satirical comic-book style, as exemplified already by the online comic ‘Mohammed’s “Believe It – Or Else!”).

    The ‘distancing’ effect of using animation rather than live actors might allow the sexual violence and the butchery of the assassinations and mass-murders to be represented without incurring more than an MA+ rating.

    You’ll still need people to voice the characters, but these days the marvels of technology should allow the voices to be disguised.

    A further suggestion, re. the soundtrack.

    Use NO music as backing for any scenes that Ha-Meshugga appears in.

    You could get a really eerie subliminal effect by having, for example, music on the soundtrack for, say, an establishing scene of the Jewish community in the Khaybar Oasis, or a scene of Asma Bint Marwan singing her children to sleep; and then the moment you see the Mohammedan assassin sneaking toward her house, or the moment Mohammed ha-Meshugga and his mob of brigands pop their heads above the sand-dunes, the music cuts out.

    Have a musical soundtrack for the scene of little Aisha playing on her swing; and then the music stops, when Mohammed appears, and the women go to get her for him.

    A couple more ideas, about what might be in the film.

    I hope Ali Sina intends to include the episode of the slaughter of the dogs. *That* would be particularly devastating.

    And there’s a hadith that describes Mohammed – presumably at a time in his career when he was not yet powerful enough to do as he pleased – encountering a musician, and stuffing his fingers in his ears and going in a different direction. That would be a powerful and very disturbing scene, done right.

  18. says

    Hesperado wrote:

    “Persians have been Muslim for some 1300 years. Not only is it ingrained in their history, culture and collective psyche, there is the historical fact that at one point in their history, they were conquered by non-Muslims from the north, who were more tolerant than their previous (and later) Muslim rulers: they gave everyone a choice to be anything they wanted: they gave all Persians the choice to leave Islam. Guess what: they didn’t leave Islam. Why not? Because they didn’t want to.”

    History is indeed history, and the collective reasoning of those scaped in history cannot be reduced to a single perceptive reality. That is nearly ludicrous to postulate. “They” didn’t want to is far too reductionist to be of any value as a critique of Sina’s proposition. It speaks nothing of those born into the bondage of Islam, generation after generation, with systemic gender discrimination and Stepford-Wive control, to breed more potentially murderous intolerant Muslims.

    Sina writes in the article:

    “But the mission is not accomplished. In the first year of this century, I predicted that Islam will be eradicated in our own lifetime. On the surface, it appears that it has become stronger. Secular despots in Islamic countries are being replaced by extremist Muslims. But don’t let appearances deceive you. This is a necessary step in the de-Islamization of the world. Muslims must first taste the bitterness of Islam before they spit it out for good. This process has already happened in Iran. If given freedom, Iran will be the only country today that will renounce Islam. In the land of Cyrus the Great, the illusion of Islam is all but waned. Other Islamic countries need to go through the same cleansing process. They are just three decades behind.”

    Now I agree that Sina’s prediction may be a bit fanciful, and I understand Hesperado’s exception to it, but I think that Hesperado misses Sina’s ultimate point of the article. Whether or not Sina’s vision is realized, and I agree with Hesperado that Iran collectively will not actualize this goal in three decades as predicted, precisely for the reasoning of the powerless perpetually born into Islamic slavery that was aforementioned in my comment. That said, what is the valid criticism of the proposal by Sina to the film about Muhammad? Is documenting the abject base moral transgressions of the Islamic prophet a form of Islamic aopologia? I think not.

    Anyway, Sina’s utopian future of a complete Iranian abandonment of Islam is unrealistic, even in three decades, in my estimation, but is that the target audience the film would help to gird?

    Again, I think not. The film should and would be aimed at non-Muslims as a pedogogical expose on the virulence of Islam and its supposed founding prophet. In that regard, Sina has suggested a more tangible avenue above and beyond an official call for forced deportation of all Muslims from non-Muslim countries into Muslim-dominated cesspools of their own choosing. Of course that is only my opinion which Hesperado undoubtably disagrees with. So be it.

    I like the idea of the movie. In my opinion, dishonoring Muhammad is the key to dishonoring Islam in the hearts and minds of non-Muslims. Additional Muslim apostasy is indeed a bonus by-product, but should not be the central focus of the exercise. As long as Islam exists and is tolerated in the West, well, Houston, we indeed still have a problem.

    Hesperado continues to write in the absence of ANY substantive proof about the character of Ali Sina:

    “One suspects that a residual sentimentality for Islam, still clinging in spots deep within the cavernous sinuses so to speak of Ali Sina’s soul, possibly familially based (perhaps consanguineous with the mingling memory of the smells of the home cooking of our late Muslim nana) are the reason for this grievously misplaced optimism.”

    Indeed. ONE suspects. Sina is a closet Islam apologist and probably only lies about his abandonment of Islam according to Hesperado. Talk about the “Boogeyman under the bed” syndrome. Even public Islam apostates are still subject to Hesperado’s SS-like suspicions and interrogations.

    Sina suggests something quite tangible in view of the alternatives suggested, ones without any concrete anything, so why the accusation that Sina, a publicly proposed apostate from Islam, is actually a taqqiya-ridden, Islam supporting, fifth-columnist in disquise?

    I find that accusation nothing short of unsubstantiated libel to date.

  19. says

    Though movie depicting true character of Muhammed is welcome and will generate some awareness, Islam going away just due to enlightenment of muslims is wishful thinking. Islam is born with violence and it will end with violence. I am not proponent of violence but Islam is cult of death who worship death and that’s bitter truth. Communists had destructive nuclear power but they were afraid of mutual destruction but islamist don’t fear mutual destruction. Once they have WMDs they will let loose like mad dogs. Remeber Islam virus is in blood of 1 billion people. You may cure 80% by enlightening them. Rest 20% psychopaths will resort to anything to stop that happening.

    A suggestion for movie makers. Practise taquiya. There is a film glorifying muhammed called ‘The Message’ where Muhammed is not shown. While making of film publicise that it will be like ‘The Message’ so that there are no disruptions during making.

  20. says

    Marvellous idea and the actor playing Mohammad can show great cultural sensitivity by wearing a white veil over his face as he rapes, pillages, tortures etc.

  21. says

    A good idea, a biopic, but of course it ought to done in confidence, shot in the deserts of the American West, not North Africa, as some scenes of Lean’s “Lawrence of Arabia” were apparently shot. Then it can be announced that another remake of the “Thief of Baghdad” is being made, or some such cover. The first thing is to get the film finished, then alternative distribution channels can be arranged, for the dhimmis in Hollywood will be too scared to promote it. For the same reason, Monty Python have said that they ain’t about to do a burlesque or satire about the life of Brian set in Mecca and Medina.

    Now someone who might just have the guts (I was tempted to say “chutzpah’) to make this film might be Mel Gibson, an extremely talented actor-director, an enfant terrible of sorts, who courts controversy, whether drunk or sober, protests be damned. I know some will object that Gibson, a staunch Roman Catholic, blames the Jews for supposedly killing Jesus (Yeshua), who was also a Jew–this is an old canard. Still, whatever you might think about his views about who killed Christ, Gibson’s “Passion of the Christ” (2004) is a far cry from the Iranian movie entitled “The Messiah” (2008), which claims that Jesus was a Muslim. Of course, there were massive Christian protests against this Iranian picture in the West. Korans were incinerated, Mosques demolished, innocent Muslims victimized all over America because they dared to say that Sharia was superior to Roman Law. The Christians accuse us of being Islamofascists, the Iranians say, but the truth is that it is they who are the fascists, not us–they’re Christofascists.

    Ok. Now supposing that Ali Sina’s script has artistic merit, and yes, it has to be art not propaganda, even though the subject is despicable, more so or equivalent to the exemplary life of Caligula–, assuming then that the script is accepted by Mel, then if Mel can get the same actor that played Jesus in the “Passion” play ‘the’ Prophet in this new movie, then the contrast between the two lives and stories would be telling. This film would not only be educational but an eye-opener, and a blockbuster. Remember there are more “kaffirs’ in the world than there are Muslims, and that doesn’t include one billion non-Muslim Chinese. And they’re not about to be converted to Islam. You can bet on it. And they will see the movie if it’s released over there.

  22. says

    I’ll try & combine my responses within this thread – hence its anaconda size length.

    Miriam

    1. 800 years ago, while Muslims worldwide may have been raving fanatics, not everybody was. The Mongols, who I mentioned above, may have been only too happy to loot and pillage the lands they overran, but under their rule, they tolerated, in fact patronized all the religions of their subjects (unfortunate that that had to include Islma). Exhibit A in this – had that not been the case, everybody from Aleppo to Tashkent would have been following Shamanism. As both LL & I mentioned, your Iran was under non-Muslim rule then and they had the freedom to revert to Zoroastrianism if they wanted to. They didn’t, which is why it puzzles me why Ali would refer to Iran as the land of Cyrus the Great – an observation that would only make sense if Iranians were sharing the characterestics of the Median Empire, rather than the Islamic Republic.

    Incidentally, Iran did once change religion after its conquest by the Arabs. During the Safavids, they switched from Sunni to Shia Islam, not b’cos of their choice but b’cos they were forced to! That is the only model in which I think Iranians can quit Islam – a non-Islamic dictatorship taking over, banning Islam and forcing everybody to pick any of the others – Zoroastrianism, Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, Shamanism, et al. Not the ‘Iranians spitting it out’ theory.

    2. I never said Iranians love the Mullahs. I said that Iranians love Islam! Whenever they are confronted about that, they try and deny that what the Mullahs are doing is true Islam. Yeah, I too have heard stories about some Iranians secretly practising Christianity or Zoroastrianism, and in a free Iran, it would be wonderful if that came out in the open in magnitudes meaningful enough to make what Ali and you theorized as true.

    3. I agree w/ Ali that the Arab Spring is good, but not for the reasons he theorizes. Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, Iraq, Kuwait, Morocco, Yemen, et al will never be sick of Islam – they’re not 30 years behind Iran, as he thinks. The reason that the Arab Spring is good is so that people in the rest of the world, watching this, can see for themselves what happens when Muslims are given democracy – it’s simply a mix of mob rule, shariah, civil war and persecution of minority religions and women.

    4. I agree w/ liberty.or.death – Iranians need to actually leave Islam for Ali’s statement to be true. By which, I mean, actually convert to something else, and then be, depending on how they wish, either devout or nominal followers. If they simply remain MINOs, it’ll be like Iranians in 1978, where their Muslim subconscious can be re-awakened any time. That Muslim subconscious needs to be extinguished, and with all due respect to Atheists & Agnostics, it doesn’t happen w/ Atheism & Agnosticism for the simple reason that one can’t replace something w/ nothing. If Iranians, en masse, were to embrace, say Zoroastrianism – their religion before the Muslim conquest in the 7th century – then Ali’s and your observations would be correct.

    5. On the negative side, there’d be no publicity about this movie that would cause people who are totally disconnected w/ this subject to find out, which would seem to me to defeat the purpose of such a movie. On the positive side, Muslim propagandists like CAIR would be clueless as to how many people (a)downloaded the movie or watched it online (b)agreed w/ it. In other words, for them, it would be a PR nightmare.

    Awake

    Reading Hesperado’s critique, I didn’t read him touch on the movie @ all. His only criticism was Ali’s observation about Muslims leaving Islam. The reason the historical perspective is interesting is that it at least provides a precedent for what would happen when Muslims are given the freedom to leave Islam. In case of the Ilkhanate, they didn’t. Not after 800 years of non-Muslim rule: if anything, the Ilkhanate itself embraced Islam after that time. Hardly encouraging.

    But the part about Hesperado’s observation on Sina’s observation that I found bang on – he extrapolates what Persians might do to what all Muslims elsewhere might do. This might be excusable from any other observer of Muslims, but Sina? This is the man who, in his autobiography on FF, described how while Iranians hate being thought of as Arabs, Pakis love being thought of as Arabs, as he found out during the time he lived in Pakistan and studied Islam. So if one extrapolates an Iranian hatred of Arabs and their own Mullahs to their rejection of Islam (itself an unconvincing argument – Miriam’s assertion that cabdrivers in Iran won’t pick up Mullahs tells me squat about whether they’d switch from Islam to Zoroastrianism given the choice) – how does that template fit people like Pakistanis, whose sole identity is Islam (or else, they’d have no reason to not call themselves Indians).

    Hugh used to criticize the Bush administration for assuming that Iraq – essentially a Shia Arab country – would be an inspiration for Sunni Arab countries like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Syria and so on. He was right – it didn’t happen that way – an accident of a self immolation in Tunisia was what started it all, and it began w/ the ouster of a secular dictatorship in Tunis. The same criticism would be valid here, but this time of Ali – Iranians are Shia, while 90% of the world’s Muslims are Sunni. Why does someone, who knows how much both these groups hate each other, assume that the actions of one would inspire events to unfold in the other?

    Also, I didn’t read LL say that Ali Sina has a soft corner for Islam. I read him say that Ali seems to be harboring illusions about Muslims (yeah, yeah, yeah, I know it was I who have repeatedly pointed out how meaningless is the distinction b/w Islam & Muslims, but some people, who are otherwise realistic about Islam, suddenly go into a denial mode when it comes to Muslims), and then proceeds to speculate that it may be a leftover of memories of his past Muslim familial connections. Hugh, during the time he used to write here, used to sometimes speculate the same on why many Muslims don’t leave Islam – maybe it was the scent of the Mughlai dishes or the Bareh Kabobs or the Falafel. I’ve noticed some of this myself in the comments section of FF, where you have people who are ex-Muslims, but are strongly opposed to a ban on Muslim immigration to the West on the grounds that a lot of Muslims are like them and just too scared to state their opposition to islam publicly. Thankfully, Ali Sina is nowhere near that, and supports things like military action against Iran, a total ban on Muslim immigration, et al. But his theory that all Muslims, or most, will leave Islam once they find out what it is like and are then free to, defies credulity.

    Also, the 30 years Ali referred to was the gap b/w the Iranian revolution in 1979 and the Arab Spring in 2011, not how long it would take Iran to become non-Muslim. 32 years to be more precise. He was saying that Iran was in 1979 where the Arab countries are today, and so presumably, in 2044, we should see an equivalent of Iran’s Green Revolution countries like Egypt, Libya, PA, et al after their people are sick of the Muslim Brotherhood.

    liberty.or.death

    Back to the movie – I don’t want to be totally off topic – in case it wasn’t obvious, I support it. I was just thinking about the practical ramifications of the movie for it to be effective. For starters, it’d have to be X rated, although I suppose they could try toning down any gratuitious scenes.

    You are right that just b’cos they didn’t jettison Islam before doesn’t mean that they won’t do so this time. But more often than not, history is a guide, and as I mentioned above, there was a situation where Iranians had the freedom to revert to Zoroastrianism or embrace Buddhism, Shamanism or others, which they did not take – under the Ilkhanate. But under the Safavids, they were forced @ swordpoint to jettison Sunni Islam for Shia. I’d say that unless someone has a plan to force them to jettison Islam for something else, it’s not going to happen.

    Kinana

    I agree w/ you that it’s good to have one based on non-Muslim observations of Islam.

    One thing – it is true that a Jewess poisoned him, but was it ever proved that it was as a result of her poisoning that Mohammed died? If that’s the case, the movie may not have such a tragic ending after all.

  23. says

    I’ll try & combine my responses within this thread – hence its anaconda size length.

    Miriam

    1. 800 years ago, while Muslims worldwide may have been raving fanatics, not everybody was. The Mongols, who I mentioned above, may have been only too happy to loot and pillage the lands they overran, but under their rule, they tolerated, in fact patronized all the religions of their subjects (unfortunate that that had to include Islma). Exhibit A in this – had that not been the case, everybody from Aleppo to Tashkent would have been following Shamanism. As both LL & I mentioned, your Iran was under non-Muslim rule then and they had the freedom to revert to Zoroastrianism if they wanted to. They didn’t, which is why it puzzles me why Ali would refer to Iran as the land of Cyrus the Great – an observation that would only make sense if Iranians were sharing the characterestics of the Median Empire, rather than the Islamic Republic.

    Incidentally, Iran did once change religion after its conquest by the Arabs. During the Safavids, they switched from Sunni to Shia Islam, not b’cos of their choice but b’cos they were forced to! That is the only model in which I think Iranians can quit Islam – a non-Islamic dictatorship taking over, banning Islam and forcing everybody to pick any of the others – Zoroastrianism, Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, Shamanism, et al. Not the ‘Iranians spitting it out’ theory.

    2. I never said Iranians love the Mullahs. I said that Iranians love Islam! Whenever they are confronted about that, they try and deny that what the Mullahs are doing is true Islam. Yeah, I too have heard stories about some Iranians secretly practising Christianity or Zoroastrianism, and in a free Iran, it would be wonderful if that came out in the open in magnitudes meaningful enough to make what Ali and you theorized as true.

    3. I agree w/ Ali that the Arab Spring is good, but not for the reasons he theorizes. Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, Iraq, Kuwait, Morocco, Yemen, et al will never be sick of Islam – they’re not 30 years behind Iran, as he thinks. The reason that the Arab Spring is good is so that people in the rest of the world, watching this, can see for themselves what happens when Muslims are given democracy – it’s simply a mix of mob rule, shariah, civil war and persecution of minority religions and women.

    4. I agree w/ liberty.or.death – Iranians need to actually leave Islam for Ali’s statement to be true. By which, I mean, actually convert to something else, and then be, depending on how they wish, either devout or nominal followers. If they simply remain MINOs, it’ll be like Iranians in 1978, where their Muslim subconscious can be re-awakened any time. That Muslim subconscious needs to be extinguished, and with all due respect to Atheists & Agnostics, it doesn’t happen w/ Atheism & Agnosticism for the simple reason that one can’t replace something w/ nothing. If Iranians, en masse, were to embrace, say Zoroastrianism – their religion before the Muslim conquest in the 7th century – then Ali’s and your observations would be correct.

    5. On the negative side, there’d be no publicity about this movie that would cause people who are totally disconnected w/ this subject to find out, which would seem to me to defeat the purpose of such a movie. On the positive side, Muslim propagandists like CAIR would be clueless as to how many people (a)downloaded the movie or watched it online (b)agreed w/ it. In other words, for them, it would be a PR nightmare.

    Awake

    Reading Hesperado’s critique, I didn’t read him touch on the movie @ all. His only criticism was Ali’s observation about Muslims leaving Islam. The reason the historical perspective is interesting is that it at least provides a precedent for what would happen when Muslims are given the freedom to leave Islam. In case of the Ilkhanate, they didn’t. Not after 800 years of non-Muslim rule: if anything, the Ilkhanate itself embraced Islam after that time. Hardly encouraging.

    But the part about Hesperado’s observation on Sina’s observation that I found bang on – he extrapolates what Persians might do to what all Muslims elsewhere might do. This might be excusable from any other observer of Muslims, but Sina? This is the man who, in his autobiography on FF, described how while Iranians hate being thought of as Arabs, Pakis love being thought of as Arabs, as he found out during the time he lived in Pakistan and studied Islam. So if one extrapolates an Iranian hatred of Arabs and their own Mullahs to their rejection of Islam (itself an unconvincing argument – Miriam’s assertion that cabdrivers in Iran won’t pick up Mullahs tells me squat about whether they’d switch from Islam to Zoroastrianism given the choice) – how does that template fit people like Pakistanis, whose sole identity is Islam (or else, they’d have no reason to not call themselves Indians).

    Hugh used to criticize the Bush administration for assuming that Iraq – essentially a Shia Arab country – would be an inspiration for Sunni Arab countries like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Syria and so on. He was right – it didn’t happen that way – an accident of a self immolation in Tunisia was what started it all, and it began w/ the ouster of a secular dictatorship in Tunis. The same criticism would be valid here, but this time of Ali – Iranians are Shia, while 90% of the world’s Muslims are Sunni. Why does someone, who knows how much both these groups hate each other, assume that the actions of one would inspire events to unfold in the other?

    Also, I didn’t read LL say that Ali Sina has a soft corner for Islam. I read him say that Ali seems to be harboring illusions about Muslims (yeah, yeah, yeah, I know it was I who have repeatedly pointed out how meaningless is the distinction b/w Islam & Muslims, but some people, who are otherwise realistic about Islam, suddenly go into a denial mode when it comes to Muslims), and then proceeds to speculate that it may be a leftover of memories of his past Muslim familial connections. Hugh, during the time he used to write here, used to sometimes speculate the same on why many Muslims don’t leave Islam – maybe it was the scent of the Mughlai dishes or the Bareh Kabobs or the Falafel. I’ve noticed some of this myself in the comments section of FF, where you have people who are ex-Muslims, but are strongly opposed to a ban on Muslim immigration to the West on the grounds that a lot of Muslims are like them and just too scared to state their opposition to islam publicly. Thankfully, Ali Sina is nowhere near that, and supports things like military action against Iran, a total ban on Muslim immigration, et al. But his theory that all Muslims, or most, will leave Islam once they find out what it is like and are then free to, defies credulity.

    Also, the 30 years Ali referred to was the gap b/w the Iranian revolution in 1979 and the Arab Spring in 2011, not how long it would take Iran to become non-Muslim. 32 years to be more precise. He was saying that Iran was in 1979 where the Arab countries are today, and so presumably, in 2044, we should see an equivalent of Iran’s Green Revolution countries like Egypt, Libya, PA, et al after their people are sick of the Muslim Brotherhood.

    liberty.or.death

    Back to the movie – I don’t want to be totally off topic – in case it wasn’t obvious, I support it. I was just thinking about the practical ramifications of the movie for it to be effective. For starters, it’d have to be X rated, although I suppose they could try toning down any gratuitious scenes.

    You are right that just b’cos they didn’t jettison Islam before doesn’t mean that they won’t do so this time. But more often than not, history is a guide, and as I mentioned above, there was a situation where Iranians had the freedom to revert to Zoroastrianism or embrace Buddhism, Shamanism or others, which they did not take – under the Ilkhanate. But under the Safavids, they were forced @ swordpoint to jettison Sunni Islam for Shia. I’d say that unless someone has a plan to force them to jettison Islam for something else, it’s not going to happen.

    Kinana

    I agree w/ you that it’s good to have one based on non-Muslim observations of Islam.

    One thing – it is true that a Jewess poisoned him, but was it ever proved that it was as a result of her poisoning that Mohammed died? If that’s the case, the movie may not have such a tragic ending after all.

  24. says

    A movie about muhammad? Finally, a movie that I can both laugh and cry through. Yeah, I’ll cry while he’s alive committing his evil crimes, and then I’ll laugh through the happy ending where muhammad endures a slow, agonizing death. I just love a movie with a happy ending! :)

  25. says

    Good idea but imagine what would happen; two minutes into every film some screaming Muslim with a suicide vest shouting allahu akbar would come running down the aisle & throw himself at the screen, blowing it up & killing everyone in the front half of the theatre. It would make seat position something to think about.

  26. says

    It is, indeed, an idea whose time has come. I’ve also considered writing a film script depicting Muhammad’s life, as told by the Quran and hadiths, and am interested to know a project like that is already underway.

    Some concerns:

    – If it’s going to be made, it better be truly cinematic. Paradoxically enough, it’s the artistic edge that’s going to give the content legitimacy. You want it to really resonate, not have people walk away feeling like they just saw a documentary on the History channel.

    – Please have other writers look at your script and use their feedback.

    – It might be a mistake to think it’s going to stay a low-budget project. Even if the production itself is handled with the utmost economy, controversy and attention is inevitable, along with very real threats to everyone involved. Security would have to be top-notch, and that means $$$ expensive. Every dollar saved on promotion is going to go right into security – we’re talking closed sets with large security perimeters, bodyguards for everyone (can you imagine what the guy playing Muhammad will go through not just during the shoot, but for the rest of his life?), monitored communications, constant searches, bomb-sniffing dogs, background checks on everyone, etc. It’ll be tough. What’s more, that security would have to continue for many of the people involved long after the movie’s made, and the production company may be contractually obligated to pay for it.

    – It’ll be an interesting chore to get good people attached, whether they’re unknowns or not. Most aren’t going to be eager to participate in a project that’s inevitably going to be labeled Islamaphobic, let alone find themselves the targets of lifelong death threats/fatwas, and perhaps never be able to find good work again.

    There are other concerns, but overall I think it’s doable, as long as that first bit is kept foremost – make sure it’s a damn good movie. Because if you make a crap or mediocre movie about the life of Muhammad, it won’t matter how accurate it is – it’ll just be forgotten.

  27. says

    Ali Sina wrote:

    “The world does not know Islam. What is known is a watered down and euphemized version of it that has no bases in reality.”

    He is indeed, correct. They should know it, for everything it touches is either adulterated or is utterly destroyed but they don’t, and by “they” I mean both Muslims and non-Muslims alike. This movie holds value for both groups.

    I’m glad you support the movie IP, regardless of it ultimate value in terms of results or even Sina’s gross over-estimation of Muslims abandoning Islam wholesale in the near future.

    Apostasy from Islam should be encouraged at every turn and education about Islam spread as far and wide as possible through both Muslim and non-Muslim societies. The truth about Muhammad is a most-compelling argument to encourage and assist in both.

  28. says

    Well done Ali I can’t wait to see this movie. I can see by your writing your are an honest man and please use real people it may also have to be 4 to 6 hours long 3 to 4 movies tell all the truths in this mans life.
    I fill a lot of people reading your article will respond and the people of Hollywood should also.
    Kind regards
    Mike Hughes
    Australia

  29. says

    Clarification – Mel made his movie in Aramhaic, w/ English subtitles running. I suggested above that this movie be made in Arabic, and on the DVD, the viewer can choose which language subtitles s/he wants.

  30. says

    Suggested viewing: watch on an empty stomach, and don’t bring in the popcorn. After Dr Mohammed prescribes camel urine to 4 men who later go on to steal or kill his camels & escape after converting out of Islam having first converted in – their left hands & right feet are chopped off. Either scene, and several more both before & after it would make one want to throw up, so leave the popcorn or the pringles untouched.

  31. says

    I think it’s safe to say that muhammad was a sociopath, and that a large percentage of muslims are sociopaths, too; and although this disorder won’t be discussed in the movie, I do think that it’s important for everyone to understand who and what a sociopath is, so that we might be better prepared NOT to be taken in by one–whether they’re muslim, or not.

    This profile is very informative and I found it fascinating …

    http://www.mcafee.cc/Bin/sb.html

    Hey, maybe you’re a sociopath, lol! šŸ˜€

  32. says

    On the film againā€¦

    Wishful thinking, and perhaps a dare, but if the maker of “Apocalyto” (2006), Mel Gibson, is listening, with his brave heart, then we might suggest that the dialogue of this movie scripted by Ali Sina, tentatively entitled “Mohammed of Arabia,” (I am guessing) be set in Koranic Arabic (the dialect of Mecca) of the 6th century A.D. Ninety-nine percent of the Arabs living today don’t understand this language. So what contemporary followers of Islam will have to get their heads around first is to decipher what the movie is really saying. Subtitles should not be provided initially for them in Modern Standard Arabic. For the others, subtitles, in their different national dialects, so they may know the truth and defend themselves world-wide against imitating the life of this man, who, as we all know, was perfect.

    As for a documentary approach, portraying the victims of Mohammed–this idea also has some merit, and can be propagandized, a la Riefenstahl, which I think would be quite apposite, since the subject had quite a lot in common with the Fuehrer, including his rabid antisemitism. What we don’t need is another rehash of movies such as “Kingdom of Heaven” (Scott, 2005), about the chivalry of the Muslims and their inborn noblesse oblige. Robert’s new book “Did Mohammed Exist?” (2012), for example, could be spun into a cinematic tale of mystery, a thriller no less, but the problem is that it might become another film like that about the historicity and importance of the “apostle’ Mary Magdalene, that is, just a surmise, or fiction, not conclusively proven. Nevertheless, this soon-to-be- released book has a catchy title, and if Frontline (PBS) were to get hold of it and make it into a show, to boost ratings because of its controversial subject matter, then at least Jihadwatch will get some more funding if not more notoriety. Frontline of course will not do this. Most likely the Liberal producers of the show will treat Robert’s text as another species of hate-speech and reject it. On the other hand, what if the academic community goes through the references in the book and finds the thesis convincing? Then this could lead to a major revision of Middle-Eastern history. Karen Armstrong would have to rewrite her positive book on Mohammed. Do you think she would? Nah.

    Lastly, another idea for a documentary, to show Islam in a positive light. Hope Ibn Warraq is listening. Just as in Darfur, also in South Asia, we have a real case of a historical genocide in modern times that hasn’t been adequately documented yet. This crime happened at the hands of the largely Punjabi Pakistani Muslims in Bangladesh in 1971, against Bengali Muslims who were specifically targeted because they were considered not true or pure Muslims, i.e., not much different than “kaffirs.’ Lest we forget, here is a reprint of the famous “Blood Telegram’ sent by the U.S. Consulate in Dacca (April 6, 1971):

    “Our government has failed to denounce the suppression of democracy. Our government has failed to denounce atrocities. Our government has failed to take forceful measures to protect its citizens while at the same time bending over backwards to placate the West Pak[istan] dominated government and to lessen any deservedly negative international public relations impact against them. Our government has evidenced what many will consider moral bankruptcy,(…) But we have chosen not to intervene, even morally, on the grounds that the Awami conflict, in which unfortunately the overworked term genocide is applicable, is purely an internal matter of a sovereign state. Private Americans have expressed disgust. We, as professional civil servants, express our dissent with current policy and fervently hope that our true and lasting interests here can be defined and our policies redirected.”

    What this as-yet-to-be-made documentary about the atrocities in Bengal needs is for someone to borrow techniques from the master, Spielberg (of the Shoah Foundation), and then record the voices of these Bengali survivors on tape, film, disc or hard drive, and then tie these voices together, with objective commentary, and make this narrative into an artistic and truthful whole. Many of these Bengali survivors are still alive today, but alas they won’t be for long….

  33. says

    Hesperado wrote:

    “Yeah, Infidel Pride, such a movie would be cool. But you’re sitting here, in this comments field on Jihad Watch, on the slopes of a mountain of data taller than Mt. Everest indicating the horrific consequences of such a movie. You want the owners of DVD stores and their families to risk their lives carrying this film?”

    Actually, Ali Sina suggested it originally. IP and myself, and others have vetted the idea, your cowardice aside.

    Honestly Hesperado, put up or just shut up already. You suggest that the movie would put undue duress on the movie hosts, yet in the same breath, you suggest that Robert Spencer make a public declaration of a position to deport all Muslims from the West to meet your rigid ideological standards, as if the repercussions won’t be worse than he already experiences?

    I never thought I’d say this, but Hesperado seems scared and pathetic in the face of Muslim retribution. Don’t incite the Muslims because they might kill you, but Spencer has to put himself squarely in their crosshairs to appease you and your holistic army of one?

    Preposterous. You are an embarrasment and your comment is consistent with one who attacks his closest allies for not falling in lock-step with your timidly put forth unwavering requirements.

    Think about the collateral damage, IP? You have indeed become a neutered, frightened caricatare of yourself. You are a grovelling pathetic excuse of a man, your anonymous, suicidal directives required of others aside.

    You are the biggest hypocrite I have ever experienced in my 40+ years on this Earth, and a coward to boot.

    Not a good combination in my opinion.

  34. says

    And to add, since Hesp doesn’t want another drop of infidel blood wasted in his campaign. Who exactly enacts this mass, forced deportation, as if given the known qualities of a Muslim male all to often, won’t result in some bloodshed?

    Naive is a term I would use, but it is far more insidious. Hesperado doesn’t care, as long as it is done, and he is safely tucked away in anonymity and out of harm’s way during the bloody process.

    Pathetic.

  35. says

    IP,

    Do you think determined Muslims won’t be able to find the offices and outlets of Netflix and Amazon.com, etc? And won’t be able to find out the identities and addresses of various employees and employers involved?

    But they won’t have to, because Netflix and Amazon won’t carry such a film in the first place — both out of fear and out of PC MC.

    Talk of producing and distributing a brazen anti-Mohammed movie is the classic case of putting the cart before the horse — in this case, on a colossal level.

  36. says

    Amazon carries books like that of RS, Trifkovic and others, and it also carries ‘Islam: WTWNTN’ – the video released a while ago. IIRC, it also carried Ali Sina’s book on Mohammed. So I don’t expect this case to be much different – Muslims know that anti-Islamic stuff is out there, and prefer to focus their threats – for now at least – to the origins, such as Sina.

    Netflix, I have no idea. I’ve never heard of them caving to anybody. I do guess however, that if they see indications of violent reprisals, both they & Amazon would fold.

    Doesn’t matter. Sina can still have a central server, adequately mirrored and well piped, on which the movie is hosted, and where anybody can watch. Only that if it’s not on Amazon or Netflix, fewer people may know about it, but getting it out still won’t be an issue. Don’t you think Muslims would be going after web hosting services that host FF, JW, DS and a whole bunch of myriad other anti-Islamic websites?

  37. says

    I actually did see both “The Stoning of Soroya M” and “Submission, part 1” in theaters. “Soroya M” was just a regular showing in a complex in Berkeley which always has a few tiny theaters dedicated to showing “small” or “art” films, while the lager screens carry the blockbusters.

    I saw “Submission, part 1” as part of San Francisco’s Atheist Film Festival a year or two ago. Not only was the entire festival at a small theater, but “Submission” was part of a program at an even tinier venue next door. It wasn’t even listed separately, but just as one of a slew of shorts. The theater staff didn’t even know when it would be shown, so I had to watch the entire program. That gives you a sense of how much publicity this got.

    Not that I’m complaining”I’m very glad they showed it.

    But none of these films are as controversial as a movie about the “Prophet” would be. Some may have read my account of the insanity that resulted from showimgs of”or even just the making of”the smarmy and pro-Muhammed film “The Messenger”.

    I believe most theaters were caught off-guard in 1977. Screening a “religious film” starring Anthony Quinn probably seemed a solid bet”if not exactly a runaway blockbuster.

    Distributors would probably be a *lot* more leery at this point”even if they can’t be considered really savvy about Jihad.

    I don’t believe LemonLime can be characterized as a coward”anyone who knows his postings knows this is not true. I believe the point he is making is that such insane violence would follow any attempts to screen such a film that no commercial theater would carry it.

    Even private showings at rented auditoriums might be problematic, and certainly targets for bombings and other Jihad attacks.

    I believe his point is that while the West is crawling with Jihadists and potential Jihadists, that wide showings would be difficult or impossible. And he is not wrong.

    That being said, I’d go see it”and so would many readers here. But the wider public? I’m not sure…

    As for television airings, I imagine there would be similar problems. Any network or cable station would be a target”and I don’t mean for irate letters.

    DVD and YouTube distribution would likely be easier. But I’m not at all sure that Netflix and Amazon would carry it”they don’t carry “Fitna” or “Submission, part 1”, although you can find “The Stoning of Soroya M”.

    You *can* find both films on YouTube. Of course, YouTube”boon that it is”has its drawbacks. It is best suited to short videos”watching an entire feature film in this format might prove difficult. Secondly, I believe (correct me if I’m wrong) that this would mean disseminating the film for free, which might be hard on the bottom line.

    If the film *was* successfully made, we would probably see it distributed through anti-Jihad sites and through small distributors. This would make it available, yes”but it would probably never see a wide audience.

    The fact is that at this point”after “The Messenger”, after the “Satanic Verses”, after the insanity over the MoToons and Lars Vilks, after South Park and Molly Norris, after the bombing of Charlie Hebdo, after all the other violent and hysterical actions of Muslims”that we *are* faced with de facto censorship.

    How many projects never get beyond the talking stage”in newsrooms, at publishing houses, at film and television studios, in cafes, in forums like JW”because of abject fear at the likely reactions?

    Islam is *already* censoring us. I applaud and greatly admire Jyllands Posten, and Charlie Hebdo, and Geert Wilders, and Ayaan Hirsi Ali.

    But who can fail to notice the cost? Salman Rushdie living twenty years under a death Fatwa, the offices of Charlie Hebdo firebombed, Kurt Westergaard attacked in his own home along with his little five-year-old granddaughter by a Jihadist wielding an axe, Lars Vilks home set on fire, Geert Wilders and Ayaan Hirsi Ali living under massive security, Molly Norris in hiding, and Theo van Gogh lying on a street in Amsterdam with a knife in his chest.

    I understand that if we don’t fight back that this will only get worse”I understand the history, and I understand the stakes.

    And yet”I will not lie, though the admission makes me cringe”the personal threat still gives me pause.

  38. says

    Piero Pasolini died too soon…

    He was born in 1922.

    Had he lived (he died in 1975) he would have been 91 this year…and he would have been *just the man* to direct a movie about Muhammad. And I think he might have been game enough to do it…had anyone pitched it to him, back in the early 1970s, when it *could* have been gotten away with, I think.T

    He did films based on the Decameron, The Canterbury Tales, and **The Thousand and One Nights** – and he also did the horrifying ‘Salo’.

    Actually: if there is any director lurking out there, reading this, who is brave enough to pick up on Ali Sina’s idea and make a truthful film about Muhammad – based on Sira, Hadith and Quran – for distribution as ‘samizdat’, then I would urge that person to watch those four notorious films by Pasolini that I have just mentioned, before they embark on the storyboarding.

  39. says

    DDA

    The Thousand and One Nights that he did – did he show Muslims as fanatical as usual? If you’ve read Sindbad the Sailor, you might have noticed how Sindbad usually ended up shipwrecked in some land of Infidels, and @ the end, the Infidel was either killed or defeated, and his daughter ended up w/ Sindbad – those type of things. If Pasolini showed that in his depictions of the Thousand & One nights, I’d agree that he’d be a good candidate to direct such a movie.

  40. says

    Ali,

    Please make this movie PG-13, so kids who are being indoctrinated can see it. Or, at least, put out 2 different versions. Err on the side of understatement, so leftists and Islamists will have less ammo to tear it down.

    Best Wishes,

    jt

  41. says

    To jog your memory, here’s a clip from a documentary, the first of the rock concerts for charity, made even before the Band Aid concerts. Thanks George and Ravi…

    George Harrison performing “Bangladesh” during the concert for Bangladesh at 1971, Madison Square Garden. See:

    See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jZZ96J_PVbk

    The US should pay more jizya to Pakistan, see:
    http://www.indianexpress.com/news/alqaeda-chief-zawahiri-calls-pakistanis-to-revolt-against-govt-army/924990/

    These charges that a “Bangladesh genocide” occurred are false. The Armenian genocide never occurred as well. These are lies. Mass murder is against Islam. Yeah, we know. Keep sponsoring these war criminals. Pakistan is not an ‘Islamic” state, but our ally. We condone genocide by Muslims, so long as it is not done to us….

  42. says

    Dear Infidel Pride,

    I see too much doubting and pessimism in your post. Any endeavour can turn out to be a failure, but we are supposed to try with optimistism. Bhagvad Gita says “Take action, do not worry about its fruits”. It means we can hope for fruits only if we try, no matter how little chance there is of success. If we do not even try then of course there would be no fruits.

    Just because the Pesians did not ditch Islam in the past does not guarantee they will not do so this time either.

    So thanks for noting all the things that you did, but please support the movie.

    Thanks

  43. says

    Hi there! you have made number of points here that are not correct. as you well know I am from Iran and so is Ali, whose post is here.

    1- you say that the iranians were ruled by mslims ruler like safavids, correct but that was 800 years ago. can you name a democracy back then? no. this is the age of internet and whole different era. mid easterns do get to see west and what it stands for.

    2- you say the Iranians love the mullahs. this so far from truth the distance between the sun and earth. thay are hated and despised. I for one went back during the revulution everyone supported it. now our people see the evil called Islam.

    3- Ali is right that the arab spring is good. democracy is a work in progress. they too need to see it for themselves.

    4- Iranians will renounce Islam. Islam and what it stands for is hated there. would they leave islam? no just like catholics who go to chuech once a month. they are still catholics.

    5-as fpr the movie: you are wrong about this as well. I am a senoir executive in entertainment and there is no need for it to go to theaters and theater would be the last place to put this movie on. the medium my friend is now the internet. that is where it belongs and that is where it will succeed.youtube, hulu, netflix and countless other platforms.
    Have a great day.
    M

  44. says

    Hi miriam, I am glad that like me, you too support Ali Sina’s movie project.

    I am a little concerned about what you said in point 4 in your reply to Infidel Pride. YOu said “would they leave islam? no just like catholics who go to church once a month. they are still catholics”

    Islam is not like Catholicism. Iranians will have to completely leave Islam and start teaching it as an evil subject matter like they teach about Nazism in Western schools. Failure to do so will surely result in Islam becoming a ruling power sometime in future again. From whatever little I know of Iran’s history, I understand that Iranians have had at least two opportunities to leave Islam, the latest of which was during Reza Shah Pahelvi’s era. Each time the Iranians failed to take advantage of the opportunity and Islam came right back to power.

    Next time, whenever the mullahs lose power (and I pray it happens soon), wise Iranians like yourself must make all effort to completely cut your people off from Islam. Then and then alone can Iranians be safe from Islam long term. What do you think?

  45. says

    I met a woman recently who had escaped from Iran 30 years ago. She told me that 80% of Iranian Muslims would leave Islam if they could. Also, I have been told that many immigrants from Iran are converting to Christianity here(I have met a couple as well – truly joyful people).
    Maybe, apropos Lemonlime’s doubts, the Muslims who chose to remain Muslims when given a choice at that stage of history were ignorant about Islam, not having access to the facts as people do now. Yes, I know Muslims in the West have all the freedom and all the information in the world available to them yet most still choose Islam, but give them time: the truth will trickle out, if it is allowed to.
    Which is why the OIC want to shut us up.

    As for the film, it could be an idea to make it from the point of view of a fictional companion of Mohammed’s who had growing doubts but ended up being entrapped by fear; even a companion who tried to assassinate Mohammed, or helped the Jewess poison him. A straight “life of Mohammed” could be simply too gruesome.

  46. says

    Then the only thing to do is to buy a movie theatre and show it. There are plenty of old theatres around town that show “cult classics,” like The Rocky Horror Picture Show, so I’m willing to throw down some cash in order to show it, if others will poney up to make the movie. In the meantime, we can show such movies as Fitna; Islam: What the West Needs to Know; The Stoning of Soraya M; and many others that need to be seen. The extra cost of security will more than pay for itself in knowledge. Think of the money the country (insert name of any western democracy) would save in welfare payments and fraudulent claims made by “refugees” and polygamists once the public becomes aware of the decrepitude of islam and its adherents.

    Ima

  47. says

    Midshipman,

    You raise an important point which we can’t realistically avoid, despite our enthusiasm for the idea of a movie shedding critical light on Muhammad and his many crimes against humanity.

    The Danish cartoon test case, and other such cases, showed us how various Muslims will respond, i.e., not only by demanding censorship and punishment* of the artists and publishers, etc., but also by engaging in deadly violence against people who had really nothing to do with making the cartoons.

    *The large majority of Muslims in the U.K. and Denmark want Islam critics and cartoonists etc. to be criminally prosecuted and punished.

    This brings us back to the reality of our current situation: The ever-present prospect of lethal Muslim violence in response to un-Islamic opinions about Islam. Given that current situation, what should our responses to Islam be? What should we be doing if we want to defang and declaw mainstream Islam, if not fully outlaw Islam, so that such artistic expressions as films, cartoons, etc., can be done in a climate when people are not at significant risk of being killed or maimed.

    I’m just thinking out loud here, but if Muslims in the aggregate, including among some populations of Muslims within the west, are so dangerous that we can reasonably expect mass killings and all-out mayhem in response to a mere film about Muhammad, shouldn’t we be taking massive and serious large-scale measures in order to eliminate or drastically reduce that threat so that our democratic free societies can function safely and smoothly? If we don’t, aren’t we continuing in effect living under a kind of tyranny of the mob? How can we have our democracies which depend absolutely on freedom of expression? How can we protect people’s safety and sanctity, their free expression and appreciation of the arts, and basic capacity for free inquiry, and so on? How can we protect all of this when there is a potentially murderous mob amongst us, always at the ready, it seems, to engage in death threats and deadly violence at the drop of a mere critical comment?

    As much as I like the idea of doing a movie about Muhammad, the mere fact that all reasonable people in the west today know there is a significant chance that some Muslims will kill people in response to such a movie indicates clearly that we have a more fundamental problem to deal with.

    To conclude that the Muslim population in the West has become too big depends on the validity of the premise that there are enough Muslims within that Muslim population who will threaten and/or engage in deadly violence in response to non-Muslims’ expressions about Islam and Muhammad. There is a reason why the vast majority of reasonable people in the west aren’t asking whether the Hindu population has become too big, or the Chinese population become too big. The reason why people are worried about the size of the growing Muslim population in the west is that straightforward probabilistic reasoning shows that the risk of being killed by violent Muslims increases as that population increases. The population of Muslims in the West is not, for the most part, moderating. The risk of being killed by a Muslim for criticizing Islam or Muhammad is far, far larger than it was thirty years ago or even fifteen years ago.

    —————
    Islamic apologists in the west are fond of telling us that we have more chance of being killed by other things, even by lightning strikes, than by Islamic terrorists. There are problems with these analogies, of course. One of the problems with the lightning analogy is that lightning is not an intentional thing that targets specific people for specific reasons. Lightning doesn’t selectively strike people who criticize Islam. In contrast, Islamic jihadists pick Islam critics as prime targets and go to great lengths to try to get to them. I would imagine that the rate of people being struck and killed by lightning would substantially increase if the population started the practice of going out in thunder storms, standing in the middle of fields and holding up long steel rods. Prudent people don’t do that. Hence the rates of being killed by lighting are not as high as they could be.

    Likewise, people, and especially those in the media, artists, politicians, and academics–those in the most prominent positions to potentially make expressions about Islam–tend to be the most careful about what they say about Islam. They make prudent statements about it in order to avoid having their heads blown off or to avoid being raped and tortured by Islamic jihadists, or to avoid having to receive endless death threats and having to live in fear. Hence the rates of being killed by Islamic jihadists are drastically lower than what they could be, not because Muslims are moderating (they aren’t), but rather because most people are holding back and not saying what they really think about Islam.

    Muslims are intentional agents who can and should be held fully accountable for the risk that they are creating in our societies. They are severely warping and damaging the realm of debate and discussion and marketplace of ideas in our societies due to this ever-present threat of some Muslims killing or maiming people over some expression. In fact, all of us, whether Muslim or non-Muslim, adults of sound mind and able capacity, can be held to account for allowing this situation to degenerate to the point that it has. When an unruly passenger on a plane starts threatening other passengers and the crew, in the absence of a police presence on the plane, the onus is now on the most able people on that plane to work together to get that unruly passenger under control.

    …anyways, sorry about this lengthy and disorganized stream of thought response, which is not really a rigorous and complete representation of my views.

    It has been said that we are like the passengers on the planes hijacked on 9/11. Atta said to the passengers (my paraphrase) “We have some planes…just be quiet, don’t make any stupid moves and everything will be fine.” In the same way, Islamic jihadists in the west can say “We have some countries…just be quiet, don’t make any stupid moves, everything will be fine…”, meanwhile they are leading us toward subjugation under sharia–in this case with the willing compliance of much of the non-Muslim authorities and media.

  48. says

    PJG, there is no need for a “fictitious companion”. You have just given the exact biography of a real companion, Abdullah b Saad b Abi Sarh. http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:bgdoJduQ-MMJ:www.answering-islam.org/Quran/Sources/sarhrr.html+Abdullah+ibn+Saad+ibn+Abu+Sarh&hl=en&gl=au&strip=0

    However, Ali Sina has indicated that he has already written the script, so it is probably too late to suggest structural changes like that one.

    By the way, we know the name of “the Jewess”, and I do hope she features in the story. I wrote up her story here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeynab_bint_Al-Harith and you can click the internal link to find out more about her unfortunate husband.

  49. says

    awake,

    Indeed, Hesperado/Lemon Lime’s statement about Ali Sina’s alleged “residual sentimentality for Islam” is absurd–and needlessly personally insulting, to boot.

    I will agree however with both Hesp/LL’s and Infidel Pride’s cautionary statements about the extent of opposition toward the idea of an Islamic regime per se among Iranian Muslims. Sina’s claims are wildly optimistic. The voting results and anonymous poll and survey results simply don’t bear out these claims; the majority of Iranians support the regime, support ayatollahs, view Hizballah and Hamas positively, etc. I suspect that the optimistic claims about the allegedly high levels of Iranian resistance to Islam are based on anecdotal impressions and Iranian dissidents living in the west. The fact that the majority of Muslims worldwide support “strict” sharia also makes it seem more likely to me that we can assume the majority of Iranian Muslims feel basically the same way about it.

    This is not to suggest Sina shouldn’t do what he suggests. Just that he may be overestimating the effect such a film might have.

  50. says

    Thanks very much for that information.
    There is so much to learn…sometimes it seems quite perverse to learn such dreadful stuff; but it does come in handy. Why, just recently I had a discussion with a man from Darfur. He tried to tell me that Westerners misunderstand Islam, and it is a religion of peace. Can you imagine that?! He tried other nonsense as well, and I argued with him quite firmly and offerred to teach him about his religion. You would think that someone from Darfur would know by now that the religion their forefathers had signed up to had flies on it!

  51. says

    KoK,

    I fully agree with your call to pause over Sina’s statements about Iran as an Islamic Republic unbecoming one in 30 years or any timframe for that matter, seems fanciful. Those who assume power rarely cede it, unless they are coerced to do so, and I agree that it is unlikely, and a rather wishful thinking on Sina’s part.

    I think I stated as such explicitly in my comment, no?

    That said, I agree with your concurrence about Hesperado’s comment. It was ripe with personal invective, when you wrote:

    “Indeed, Hesperado/Lemon Lime’s statement about Ali Sina’s alleged “residual sentimentality for Islam” is absurd–and needlessly personally insulting, to boot.”

    That is the point always KoK. With Hesperado, the “irrefutable logic” of his arguments always seem to be somewhat based on his personal opinion of the mind of the man he is critiquing, not facts. In Hesperado’s world, not only are all Muslims guilty, but even those who leave Islam, by extension, even those who are public and outspoken against Islam as a former Muslim, are still subject to his rigid skepticism. Absurd indeed.

    So what is to be said of apostates going forward according to Hesperado? Should they all be labeled as taqqiya agents, suspect and subject to Hesperado’s Muslim cleansing philosophy.

    That’s a tenuous position to hold in my estimation, and one not surprising that no anti-Islam commenter has espoused to date, besides Hesperado himself. Now being born Islam, like being born Christian, is irreversible in Hesperado’s estimation. Thankfully he only holds sway over his own domicile, or so I presume.

    Just look at IP’s comment on this very thread for comparison. It’s basically the same message, but without the baggage and personal vendetta vitriol inherent in Heserado’s comments here today and abroad historically.

    Just saying.

  52. says

    “Indeed, Hesperado/Lemon Lime’s statement about Ali Sina’s alleged “residual sentimentality for Islam” is absurd–and needlessly personally insulting, to boot.”

    I find Ali Sina’s optimism about Muslims far more insulting — and dangerous.

  53. says

    Awake,

    “I think I stated as such explicitly in my comment, no?”

    Right you are. Sorry about my wording, which wasn’t very good. My “however” wasn’t meant as a contradiction to your post, but was meant as a transition from disagreeing with one of Hesp/LL’s points to basically agreeing with the other.

  54. says

    IP,

    I’m not sure about “proved,” but certainly many Muslims believe Muhammad’s death was caused by the Jews, in particular a Jewess who poisoned a piece of meat that Muhammad then ate. This belief is based on hadiths. David Wood has put together a superb video discussing this subject of Muhammad’s death.
    http://www.answeringmuslims.com/2011/10/who-killed-muhammad.html

    If you don’t have the 24 minutes, you can scroll down the article at that link, below the video, and see the various hadiths which together indicate Muhammad was poisoned by a Jewess and later died, possibly because of that poisoning. I mentioned the “aorta” or “life artery” part because in the Quran, “Allah” says if Muhammad lied about the revelations then Allah would sever his aorta. Then in the hadith, as Muhammad is dying, he is reported to have said he felt as though his aorta was being severed.

  55. says

    I agree more or less with “D”. Any public showing of such a movie would require security practically on a par with what the US President requires; and would doubtless be preceded by international death threats (from jihadist groups, from individual usually anonymous Muslims, and — in more veiled forms — Muslim state officials of various Muslim majority nations along with representatives of various Muslim advocacy groups); not to mention mass demonstrations around the world, and probably riots and stampedes and arsons and killings.

    Anyone who would attend the movie without such security measures being provided has a death wish or a martyr complex. Finally, anyone objecting to my concerns and their logic (on the basis of something along the lines of “you’re a coward” or “we shouldn’t be afraid of the terrorists”, etc.) should attend every public showing of the movie along with his or her family to, as the saying goes, “put his money (and his ticket stub) where his mouth is”.

  56. says

    Anyone who would attend the movie without such security measures being provided has a death wish or a martyr complex. Finally, anyone objecting to my concerns and their logic (on the basis of something along the lines of “you’re a coward” or “we shouldn’t be afraid of the terrorists”, etc.) should attend every public showing of the movie along with his or her family to, as the saying goes, “put his money (and his ticket stub) where his mouth is”.

    ~~~~~~

    Excellent point, LemonLime! …that’a a great litmus test: are you willing to bring your wife & kiddies? Even if this movie were rated PG–although I don’t see how it could be since it is about muhammad afterall, so it’s going to be very bloody and violent–would you still risk bringing your family due to possible violence breaking out in or near the theatre? I hope not!

  57. says

    “I agree more or less with “D”. Any public showing of such a movie would require security practically on a par with what the US President requires; and would doubtless be preceded by international death threats (from jihadist groups, from individual usually anonymous Muslims, and — in more veiled forms — Muslim state officials of various Muslim majority nations along with representatives of various Muslim advocacy groups); not to mention mass demonstrations around the world, and probably riots and stampedes and arsons and killings.”

    You are most likely, entirely correct of course. Sina cetainly has not though out the logistics beyond production, actualized to distribution. That is why IP proposed a different venue as opposed to a traditional cinema releases, understanding the near-infeasibility of finding a backer for that endeavor.

    In addition, platforms that are easy to access and upload, like youtube while not necessarily wholly infiltrated by pro-Islam agents at this point, would most assuredly kowtow to pressure and remove the content. So there appears to be some serious obstacles to overcome.

    That said, the movie is still a good idea. There is certainly ways to host private sites for free distribution and actual release of this film might be largely irrelevant.

    My point is that Pastor Jones made enough of a statement by the typical threatening response from the Muslim communities worldwide, (established governmental agencies included) with his threat of burning a Qur’an, prior to his actual burning of one, which initially he did not even follow through with. So there are teaching moments everywhere, moreso to the non-Muslim populace rather than Muslims as Sina focused on.

    Only when non-Muslims’ comprehension of the truth about Islam reaches a critical mass, (not Muslims), will any change originating at public opinion and then transferred through elected governance representatives, occur.

  58. says

    “are you willing to bring your wife & kiddies?”

    correction: anyone willing to bring their wife and kiddies?

    ..not just you, LL.

  59. says

    Awake

    Yeah, I fully support this movie. That said, one thing I worry is that such a movie would almost necessarily be a concatenation of snuff videos. Ever saw the beheading videos of Daniel Pearl or Nick Berg? Imagine something like it, but plenty of it for 3 hours. I am forgetting the names of some of the victims now, but the marriage-rape to the woman whose husband & father were killed in battle that very day? The beheadings @ the trench? Showing a very pregnant Asma bint Marwan being stabbed in her belly? Yeah, I suppose they could turn the camera away on such scenes and just show splatterings of blood on the screen. Hopefully, it would have the same revulsive effect.

    Personally, even though I support such a movie and am even willing to pay to watch it, I don’t know that I could actually sit thru it. I never watched Mel Gibson’s movie on Jesus, b’cos I simply dodn’t have the stomach for gratuitious violence, and in this case, the cruelty, albeit by the protagonist, is only going to be much greater. Nobody should even think of showing their kids this – I mean, seriously, do you want your kid to watch 9 year old Aisha being taken into a room and then….? Scenes like Mohammed admiring a nude Zainab b4 he asks his (adopted) son for her hand in marriage, although disgusting, would look tame by comparison. Anybody who can watch this entire movie can watch any porn or snuff videos going forward.

    Somewhat ironically, this ban on the depiction of Mohammed has worked well for Muslims so far – had there been movies about Mohammed made by Muslims since time immemorial the way there was the Ten Commandments or the Passion, a lot of people who today are romanticized by it would have been turned off by it. Actually, one idea – like Mel Gibson, have the movie only in Arabic, and then have English subtitles (which can be turned on or off in the DVD edition) below it. That way, no one can claim that the movie is not true to the Sunnah, since it will have the verbatim words of Mohammed right out of their texts.

    Kinana clarified it for me, but given that something like 3 years or so passed b/w Mohammed being poisoned & his actually dying, I’m not sure whether even the hadiths claim that he was killed by a Jewess. But yeah, if that is actually shown to be true, then that would be the only silver lining to this movie. Of course, one would have to put aside from the back of one’s mind what happened after his death.

    Let’s assume that it doesn’t hit theaters, but is one of those movies made available only in video stores, or via media like Netflix, Hulu… Actually, just like Ali Sina put together wikiislam, he might also use the money he gets to put together a server that is capable of handling all that traffic, and host the movie there. Maybe make some money on the side as well by hosting other videos about Islam, like ‘Islam: What the West needs to know’ and others. That, as well as having the DVDs available on Amazon, B&N, and other online stores.

  60. says

    Well put IP. There are so many vaiables, but with Islam realistically, all depictions should be unwatchable to the sentient eye.

    This is necessary, as disgusting as it will assuredly be. Snuff at best, global snuff desired by Muslims at large based on their prophet’s actions at worst, (building a fire on a man’s chest aside). Ol’ Mo being wasted at the hands of a Jewess is a priceless culmination in my opinion, whether proven or not.

    As Wellington would put it, destroy Muhammad, destroy Islam, and yes I not only saw those videos, I have them, as a constant reminder of what Islam is all about.

    Regards.

  61. says

    Well put IP. There are so many vaiables, but with Islam realistically, all depictions should be unwatchable to the sentient eye.

    This is necessary, as disgusting as it will assuredly be. Snuff at best, global snuff desired by Muslims at large based on their prophet’s actions at worst, (building a fire on a man’s chest aside). Ol’ Mo being wasted at the hands of a Jewess is a priceless culmination in my opinion, whether proven or not.

    As Wellington would put it, destroy Muhammad, destroy Islam, and yes I not only saw those videos, I have them, as a constant reminder of what Islam is all about.

    Regards.

  62. says

    That is why I suggest animation – preferably quite stylised – rather than live action.

    And forget about kids.

    Aim for a rating similar to that which was imposed on ‘Silence of the Lambs’.

    As regards the Aisha episode: why not have her *narrating* it. Don’t show it; have her *tell* it, verbatim as presented in the Hadith.

    It might be possible to cover some of the other horrors the same way – as narrations by a witness, after the event.

  63. says

    DDA

    Somehow, I don’t think animation will have the same effect as a live action. I’ve seen several animated movies – namely in Hindu mythology – where you have heads of enemy warriors being severed by arrows in battles, spears going completely through the combatants, heads flying off when chopped by swords, etc (similar to how I felt when I watched the movie Troy, and how different combatants slew each other, even though Troy wasn’t an animated movie). Somehow, none of it really had a traumatizing effect on me.

    However, watching a live action movie along the lines of the Passion, or Schindler’s list would be very different. I just don’t have the stomach to watch that, but that’s precisely the sort of stuff that would need to be shown in order for it to sink in.

    The narration suggestion of yours is not bad, except that if one follows the hadiths and have the various narrators narrate it, then while some of them – like Aisha, will get prominence, others, like Abu Afak or Asma bint Marwan – would not get to narrate anything. Also, having Aisha say that ‘I got engaged to the prophet when I was 6 and married when I was 9’ – like the hadith says – misses the whole point of cinemetizing this in the first place. After all, a lot of people – including those not on our side – have read biographies of Mohammed, but it’s only after it’s shown that it’ll have an effect.

    Ali may have completed the script, but I’d say he has his work cut out for him – he can’t be too gratuitious, but at the same time, he can’t do a sanitized movie either.

  64. says

    “Nobody should even think of showing their kids this” — Infidel Pride

    “And forget about kids.” — dda

    My point wasn’t to bring children to a movie depicting X-rated stuff as an accurate Mohammed movie would entail.

    Yes; forget about kids. Bring your mother, grandmother, father, grandfather, your grown son and his girlfriend or wife; or your grown daughter and her boyfriend or husband — and throw in an aunt and uncle (even the weird uncle of the family). Let your whole family get blown up to prove whatever point you’re trying to prove. Would you risk that?

    Or just forget about all the potential violence this is going to engender, caused by Muslims.

    Come to think of it, I needn’t have added that last sentence; apparently you all have, amazingly. I wish I could do it as easily as you all apparently can. What do you do, compartmentalize in your minds the deadliness of Muslims from the perniciousness of Islam, and leave unconnected the synapse between the two that would lead to certain logical conclusions which in turn would lead to certain concrete proposals? Better not to do that; those conclusions and proposals may make you think you’re a “bad” person — and that you will “become like then”. Better to maintain the high ground, in abstraction from where the rubber meets the road.

    Yeah, Infidel Pride, such a movie would be cool. But you’re sitting here, in this comments field on Jihad Watch, on the slopes of a mountain of data taller than Mt. Everest indicating the horrific consequences of such a movie. You want the owners of DVD stores and their families to risk their lives carrying this film? How about you announce publically that you are storing a stock of hundreds of these DVDs in your home for sale, and publish your address and see what happens. Would you do that? Why not? It would be lucrative, educational and important. What could go wrong?

    Now, I can understand it when PC MCs fail to connect dots; but it continues to perplex me when people who should know better do so about Islam Slash Musims.

  65. says

    Kinana

    I checked out your link. Reading it, I think there is a considerable questionmark on whether Zaynab bint al Harith’s attempt to poison Mohammed actually succeeded. Some of them said that he spit out the meat, and others say that he didn’t consume it in the first place. The other person who did consume it & die – Bishr – his next of kin got custody of Zaynab and executed her. So I don’t see how this movie could make this look like having a happy ending.

    Whether he felt his aorta being severed or not is tangential to whether the movie would have anything other than a depressing ending. Of course, not all movies have to be happy – a lot do end tragically, and this one would be no different. I’m sure Mohammed suffering would be a silver lining, but even this Zaynab who poisoned her would have been in his list of victims.

  66. says

    A Movie about Muhammad: An Idea whose Time Has Come.
    …………………………..

    Hey”I’d work on that movie. I have to honest, though”I *wouldn’t work on it under my own name*.

    Bala wrote:

    A suggestion for movie makers. Practise taquiya. There is a film glorifying muhammed called ‘The Message’ where Muhammed is not shown. While making of film publicise that it will be like ‘The Message’ so that there are no disruptions during making.
    …………………………..

    Good luck with that, Bala.

    Here’s some of what happened with “The Message””even though it was a hagiographical film meant to present the “Prophet” in the best light possible.

    Problems began almost immediately when it was falselly rumored that Peter O’Toole, and then American star Charlton Heston, would star in the lead role, causing two days of bloody riots in Karachi, Pakistan.

    Endless protests, riots and death threats accompanied the film’s seven years of production.

    Dirctor Moustapha Akkad had to move production from Saudi Arabia to Morocco to Libya, where he finally secured funding from Jihad terror sponsor Muamar Gaddaffi.

    After its release various Muslim groups called the film “sacrilegious” and “an insult to Islam” and it was banned from showings in much of the Arab world.

    There was further controversy when the film was scheduled to premiere in the U.S. in Washington, DC, in March, 1977. The Hanafi Black Muslim extremist group led by Hamas Abdul Khaalis staged a heavily-armed siege against the local Jewish chapter of the B’nai B’rith under the mistaken belief (without having seen the film) that Anthony Quinn played Mohammed in the film. During the two-day crisis, they took nearly 150 people hostage, and threatened to blow up the building while demanding the film opening’s cancellation. Future DC mayor Marion Barry was shot when the terrorists overran the District Building, and many others were injured.

    The hostage situation was eventually defused by the FBI and Muslim ambassadors, and the theater chain that had booked the film cancelled the showing. This disastrous opening unfortunately ruined US box-office for the controversial film, as various moviehouses were forced to cancel their showings due to political pressures and further fears of violence.

    Then in late 2005, Akkad and his daughter died from injuries sustained during unrelated Jihad terrorist attacks in Jordan”when the brave Mujahideen attacked a wedding.

    Believe it or not, there are two remakes allegedly in the works:

    In October 2008, producer Oscar Zoghbi revealed plans to “revamp the 1976 movie and give it a modern twist,” according to the Internet Movie Database and the World Entertainment News Network. He hopes to shoot the remake, tentatively titled The Messenger of Peace, in the cities of Mecca and Medina in Saudi Arabia.

    In February 2009, the producer of the “The Matrix” and The Lord of the Rings film trilogy Barrie M. Osborne was attached to produce a new movie about the Prophet Muhammad. The film is to be financed by a Qatari media company and will be supervised by Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi.

    Yes”*that* Qarqdawi”who is for the imposition of dhimmitude on Infidels, for Jihad terror against the Jews, and for executing apostates.

  67. says

    I thought that it had already been sorted out that such a movie would be viewed in the privacy of one’s home, w/ family, friends and anyone else that’s interested. Quite a few people in this thread already recognized the risk theaters would be running if they went w/ it – Muslim demonstrators outside theaters, threats and actual acts of violence, etc. Either watch it on Netflix, Hulu or some online downloads, or order a DVD (made available on Amazon, just like all the anti-Islam books that are there) and watch it.

    One thing it would miss though – it would then become a pull campaign, rather than a push campaign. For instance, if one wanted to promote the movie ‘The Artist’, it would be easy, albeit expensive, for the producers to pay theaters to carry & promote the movie. In this case, such promotions would be out of the question, not so much b’cos of Ali’s again fanciful assertion that he has an army of millions who will promote the movie for free (I love Ali dearly, but sometimes, he just comes across as an MLM salesman w/ wild-eyed ideas), but b’cos theaters wouldn’t want to carry it out of fear of repercussions, and therefore, the advertizing and promotional budgets, even if not eliminated, would still be a fraction of what it would normally be.

    However, in such a case, such a movie would suffer from a lack of viewers. Let’s assume that people who follow this news on sites like this one, FF, DS and so on do rent this movie on Netflix or other movie rentals and watch it. It’d do fine in terms of making money for the movie and maybe break even for the original financiers. In terms of coverage, it would just be preaching to the choir.

    Since theaters would be out of the question, some promos of the movie would need to be done on TV, b’cos practically, that would be way more valuable than the ‘word of mouth’ formula promoted by Ali. Here, just like there were calls to boycott Lowes for dropping sponsorship on TLC of ‘American Muslim’ (which thankfully is going off the air), there would be pressure by CAIR on all TV channels not to carry such promos. I think such a movie should be promo’ed on the broadcast channels, not the cable ones, and go from there. Later, if it has any success that would interest the likes of HBO, Cinemax, Starz or others, it can play there.

    I think the biggest challenge of this movie would be to get the bulk of people, who do not follow Muslims being Islamic reports day to day and are either ambivalent about this issue, or on the PCMC side of it, to be interested enough to watch this in the first place and not get turned off by it in a manner that they suggest that others not see it. Last thing this movie needs to be is Waterworld.