Iran: Muhammad movie was "designed to stir up anti-Islamic sentiments, and it succeeded, with hundreds injured and many killed as a result"

Steffen Larsen wrote:

and we are left with the impression that islamophobic muslim-haters went on a rampage. And not Muslims. Who anyway always are deeply offended by anything and everything.
.......................

This is so, so true, Steffen. A person who knew nothing about the situation would assume that "Islamophobes" were rioting an murdering Muslims.

Of course, it was just the opposite.

I have even read accounts of 9/11 that would give you the impression that all that happened on that terrible day was the enabling of Islamophobia.

Not only is this utterly false regarding the aftermath, but you never even learn that 9/11 itself was a horrific attack by Muslims against innocent Infidels.

Steffen, hope you are doing well.

Good post, Wellington.

And OT, but I hope that you and all other American Jihad Watchers are having a wonderful Thanksgiving!

Anne, as an American and anti-Jihadist, I'm sickened at what must be the answers to your questions. A President who pretends to be a scholar of Constitutional Law and a Secretary of State who started her legal-political career helping to bring down Nixon over Watergate are foisting another Watergate on us, and while doing so, insinuating that the First Amendment is to blame for Islamic hatred of the USA. That 51.7% percent of the American public voted for the 'bama tells me that our country is going down the tubes, and our major media, in failing to cover Benghazigate, are hastening the demise of the Constitutional provision that made them possible.

Exactly so! So what are they complaining about? What they don't like is that this poorly made video depicts Mohammad truthfully.

Thank you, gravenimage. May you and those you hold most dear have a memorable Thanksgiving. I close by saying this: Jihad Watch is a better place because you post here regularly.

Here's "Faith Matters" ridiculous site, including the article "An Overview of Anti-Muslim ‘Cultural Racism’"...

http://faith-matters.org/

And here's their board of directors. I've taken the liberty of re-writing their "About Us" page on their website, to help cut through the bridge-building interfaith projects PR camelshit:

Andrzej Warhaftig

Hi, I'm Andrzej. I'm the Director of Faith Matters, and I'm a flaming idiot. I'm as bloody dumb as a sack of rocks. I believe Muslims are good people and their Islam needs to be protected from bigotry, while the West is horrible and Judaism and Christianity are the two most evil entities in history. Did I mention that I'm a bloody stupid idiot? How do I sharpen this pencil? The end with the eraser on it keeps jamming my pencil-sharpener...

Iman Abou Atta

Hello, my name is Iman. I am proud to be the first female (and first Muslim) Deputy Director of Faith Matters. In the coming years as I work here, I hope to pull the wool over the eyes of more flaming idiots like Andrzej, my colleague (not really my colleague, per Qur'an 5:51 -- but he'll never find out) in this despicable West. I'm thankful they make it so easy!

Rehman Anwar

Yo, what the Muslima said. Submission out, bro.

Sarah

Greetings, I'm Sarah, Project Manager at Faith Matters, and I'm too afraid of Islamophobic EDL type hooligan hoodies to give out my full name. We hope to change all that here at Faith Matters -- and to do our small part in the ongoing Ji- er, I mean, the ongoing mission to bring harmony and tolerance to the diversity of UK society.

as you kknwo I am in entertainmet. do not buy any more dvd players. that model is almost obsolete
m

because they are doing it in the name of islam.
m

LemonLime wrote:

And here's their board of directors. I've taken the liberty of re-writing their "About Us" page on their website, to help cut through the bridge-building interfaith projects PR camelshit...
..............................

LemonLime, your CVs were *hilarious*—and far more accurate than those found on Faith Matters own site!

Hope you are having a wonderful Thanksgiving.

Thank you so much for your kind words, Wellington. Coming from you, they are high praise indeed.

Thanks graven, I'm glad you enjoyed them maybe as much as I did creating them. Happy Thanksgiving to you and yours.

LOLZ! LemonLime,

Your "about us" comment is the most hilarious I have seen in a long, long time.

By the way, the adjective "wahrhaftig" means "truthful".

" Would Muslim people become violent about such a presentation of the true Muhammad? I think they might accept such a film."

Ralph, I wish you well on your continuing endeavor to find a way off your space station orbiting Neptune, and return to Earth.

Thanks Steffen, glad you liked it. It writes itself, as they say.

Thanks for the German adjective -- I looked up the spelling as is, without the "h" and found nothing in my German dictionary. Damn, forgot about "wahr"...

Ralph wrote:

The portions about Muhammad were largely propaganda for public consumption, since the video had apparently been presented on TV about ten years ago. There was apparently no violent reaction to this public presentation of Muhammad; so it appears that merely presenting Muhammad in a video is acceptable to Muslim people.

2) Non-whitewashed Muhammad: Suppose someone were to spend enough money to make a high-quality, deadly-serious, tasteful, documentary film about the life of Muhammad that was factually accurate -- based on approved Islamic sources -- but not over-the-top gratuitously insulting or comical. Would Muslim people become violent about such a presentation of the true Muhammad? I think they might accept such a film. Many of them are not ashamed of the true Muhammad, but they apparently do get angry when a caricature of Muhammad is presented. Many western Muslim people might be repulsed by the true Muhammad, but would they become angry? The goal here would be to present Muhammad with many -- but not all -- of his warts and avoid the comical caricatures.
..........................

Ralph, your supposition that Muslims are murdering people in the streets only because things like the Danish MoToons and the "Innocence of Muslims" present "caricatures" of Muhammed, and that Muslims would embrace any positive or straight-forward presentation of "The Prophet" is, I'm afraid, way off the mark.

It's not just that director Moustapha Akkad's 1970s film "Mohammad, Messenger of God" (also known as "The Messenger" and "The Message") didn't present Muhammed in a negative light—it was almost hagiographical in depiction.

How did pious Muslims react?

This, from the New York Times: "when the film was scheduled to premier in the U.S., another Muslim extremist group staged a siege against the Washington D.C. chapter of the B'nai B'rith under the mistaken belief that Anthony Quinn played Mohammed in the film, threatening to blow up the building and its inhabitants unless the film's opening was cancelled. The standoff was resolved" after the deaths of a journalist and policeman...

In other words, they took hostages, murdered, and threatened to blow sh*t up.

Notice, too, that while the film was produced by a Muslim and that none of the Infidel cast, which included Anthony Quinn, were Jewish—yet these Muslims targeted the B'nai B'rith.

Also, keep in mind that the scenes in the "Innocence of Muslims" are all straight out of the Qur'an, the Hadith, and the Sira. Nakoula didn't make anything up.

It may well be that the video you watched failed to spark a homicidal Muslim reaction—but I imagine that has less to do with the "respectful" nature of the piece, and more to do with the haphazard nature of most Muslims.

Rushdie's "Satanic Verses" and the Danish MoToons and the "Innocence of Muslims" and Molly Norris' cartoons may have been fairly obscure, but they happened to catch the eye of touchy Muslims, who took violent umbrage.

Whereas, Derek Devereaux's scathing portrait of Muhammed has, so far as I have heard, passed without death threats:

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_MzxspybHr6Y/S9DlgRttdiI/AAAAAAAABx0/3qIq3FmtqUM/s1600/revenge7.jpg

My own "Everybody Draw Muhammed Day" art has gotten some nasty attention from Muslim trolls posting here at Jihad Watch, but unlike MoToon cartoonist Kurt Westergaard, I haven't have any crazed Somalis staving my front door in with an axe yet.

But I well realize that that could change overnight, for Derek Devereaux or myself or the makers of your Muhammed TV special, as well.

Indeed, part of the nature of intimidation is that thugs don't need to target *every* case in order to scare most people into self-censoring.

I'm afraid here is no perfect balance of appeasement that you can reach with people who are always poised to violently threaten anyone who "Insults" their "Prophet".

LemonLime,

I chuckled heartily after reading your comment, which I understand. You do have a way with words.

However ...

There are many YouTube videos presenting debates between Muslim apologists and blatantly-honest anti-jihad people, and those videos don't seem to get public attention. A Muslim person with suitable access and language skills can watch them and calmly ponder the truth about Muhammad.

There are many written debates on the internet between Muslim apologists and such forthright people as Ali Sina and Bill Warner and Robert Spencer, and they don't seem to get public attention. A Muslim person with suitable access and language skills can read them and calmly ponder the truth about Muhammad. Ali Sina claims that many people have left Islam after reading his reasoned arguments.

There are thousands of comments on the internet about the real Muhammad, and they don't seem to get public attention.

We must ask, "What was unique about the video that got so much public attention?" Perhaps the video was outrageous to Muslim people if it was gratuitously unserious and unprofessional and uncaring and condescending.

For example, there are various ways to inform a person that he or she needs to do a better job of bathing. There are tactful, professional, caring ways; and there are demeaning, condescending, prideful ways.

Muslim violence is unacceptable for any reason, and none of us condones it. But, knowing the natural, Muhammad-inspired tendency of some Muslim people to violence, we can always tell the truth about Muhammad's utter moral failings in a professional manner, in whatever medium we are using. Facts presented professionally may come across differently than facts presented demeaningly.

I remain hopeful for many Muslim people, because many are stuck in their predicament and would escape if they had sufficient motivation and means of egress. Many people do leave Islam.

If I were talking with a Muslim person about Muhammad face to face, I would be professional. That would be wise. Talking about Muhammad in a demeaning, condescending manner, regardless of the facts about him, would be counterproductive. It would close off the hearing of the person with whom I was talking. The problem in that case would be me and my unwise presentation, not the facts about Muhammad. I would have lost a hearing due to my prideful, uncaring attitude toward the Muslim person with whom I was communicating. After all, the goal is to win the Muslim person. Muhammad is dead, and there is nothing that I can do to either hurt him or help him. My concern is for the Muslim person.

I recommend on YouTube the multi-segment, calm, articulate debate between Jay Smith (a Brethren in Christ clergyman) and a Muslim apologist, Shabbir Ally, from Canada with whom Jay is surprisingly friendly. Jay hopes that the Muslim apologist will someday leave Islam. I share his hope. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YmYHnkMCUN4&playnext=1&list=PL1F35FABB08405D33&feature=results

gravenimage, it's also useful to point out that it's written in their Islamic holy script which all Muslims revere as the word of Allah that

a) blasphemy against Mohammed warrants the death penalty

b) non-Muslims (even "protected" People of the Book) are not permitted to say or write anything about Mohammed or the Koran (though Muslims likely temd to turn a blind eye to any dhimmis who merely praise Mohammed/Koran -- and certainly see that as useful wheresoever they, the Muslims, have not gained full control).

Another fact Ralph hasn't apparently digested: Spencer has done just what Ralph advises (though in terms of video presentations of himself talking, or in audio presentations, or in books) -- i.e., ostensibly respectful strickly intellectual expositions of the ugly side of Mohammed, without using any inflammatory language. I don't see Muslims falling in love with Spencer, much less doing him the courtesy of debating him in good faith without tap-dancing like sophistical monkeys.

Did I just type "strickly"...? Oh my.

gravenimage,

You presented some good arguments.

However ...

Unlike the 1970's video that you cited, the c2002 video that I viewed did not contain acting. Rather, everything was limited to simple, calm narration, most of which was done by Muslim people whose faces were shown as they spoke.

That is a major difference between the two videos.

We must ask whether it is the acting -- the depiction of Muhammad by actors who Muslim people believe are inherently incapable of fairly representing the purportedly-noble Muhammad -- that is offensive to Muslim people.

Perhaps any visual depiction of Muhammad by a Kafir is the thing that actually offends them. This rationale is based on the concept that earthly idols are incapable of fairly representing God, and so idolatry is forbidden.

Perhaps we should ask American Muslims to tell us what -- specifically -- offends them in specific videos about Muhammad. It might surprise us. Many Muslim people in America might be willing to answer that question.

Getting a lot of consistent answers from American Muslim people would not assure us, however, that other Muslim people worldwide will always think similarly; and so we could not ever be sure -- as you explained -- that violence would never ensue.

Worldwide, Muslim people's reactions will remain unpredictable, as you explained.

LemonLime,

My guess is that many Muslim people have left Islam after simply observing the respectful demeanor of Robert Spencer, Jay Smith, and others like them -- their demeanor being consistent with their reasonable words. We may never know the number.

Many people throughout history have become Christians after simply observing the noble lives of other Christians and hearing consistent words. The conversion chain began with those who observed and listened to Jesus the Messiah in person about 2000 years ago.

LemonLime wrote:

Another fact Ralph hasn't apparently digested: Spencer has done just what Ralph advises (though in terms of video presentations of himself talking, or in audio presentations, or in books) -- i.e., ostensibly respectful strickly intellectual expositions of the ugly side of Mohammed, without using any inflammatory language. I don't see Muslims falling in love with Spencer, much less doing him the courtesy of debating him in good faith without tap-dancing like sophistical monkeys.
..........................

Actually, LemonLime, I was just just going to point out Robert Spencer's always professional and carefully measured presentations, and that none of this has prevented a constant barrage of death threats from pious Muslims against him, when I read your post.

Ralph wrote:

gravenimage,

You presented some good arguments.

However ...

Unlike the 1970's video that you cited, the c2002 video that I viewed did not contain acting. Rather, everything was limited to simple, calm narration, most of which was done by Muslim people whose faces were shown as they spoke.

That is a major difference between the two videos.

We must ask whether it is the acting -- the depiction of Muhammad by actors who Muslim people believe are inherently incapable of fairly representing the purportedly-noble Muhammad -- that is offensive to Muslim people.

Perhaps any visual depiction of Muhammad by a Kafir is the thing that actually offends them. This rationale is based on the concept that earthly idols are incapable of fairly representing God, and so idolatry is forbidden.

Perhaps we should ask American Muslims to tell us what -- specifically -- offends them in specific videos about Muhammad. It might surprise us. Many Muslim people in America might be willing to answer that question.
.............................

Good God, Ralph. I'm sure you mean well, but consider: firstly, as LemonLime notes, under Islamic law *no one*—especially Infidels—are allowed to criticize or even question Islam or the "Prophet" in any way, and can be murdered if they do so. This is laid out in the 7th-century Pact of Umar, and it has not changed since.

In Pakistan, a governor was murdered for merely suggesting that the blasphemy laws might be reviewed. His savage assassin was lauded as a hero, and *quite literally* showered with rose petals.

More:

Getting a lot of consistent answers from American Muslim people would not assure us, however, that other Muslim people worldwide will always think similarly; and so we could not ever be sure -- as you explained -- that violence would never ensue.
.............................

American Muslims are doctrinally no different from Muslims anywhere else in the world. The only reason they have so far proven less of a threat than they have in—say—Nigeria, is that they still comprise considerably less than 1% of the population. Even as it stands, Muslims in America are involved in more and more violent Jihad against Infidels here.

But even if your supposition were correct—that if *only* we are sufficiently fawningly "respectful" of Islam that Muslims might hold off from murdering us, the whole idea is repellent.

The very backbone of the West—America, especially, I might venture—is our freedom of speech.

Positing that we restrict any hint of anything that could conceivably "offend" violent, supremacist, irrational savages, that we betray our own deepest held convictions in order to show our "respect" of utter savagery, sickens.

This would mean that the schoolyard bully sets the tone of what may or may not be uttered.

Not only is this appalling, but it *does not* lead to a safer world.

mattofaus wrote:

Not surprisingly, my comment for the article never showed up.
...........................

mattafaus, what is your comment? Why didn't you just post it with your above comment that your comment never posted?

A lot of people—myself included—have been having trouble signing in and post. Technical glitches, which Mr. Spencer is trying to address.

Some tips: save your comments if they don't appear to have posted right away, and hit the "refresh" button to see if your comments actually have posted. If they haven't—which is rare—then you may have to repost. Good luck!