Brandon Ferdig is incredulous that the extended trailer for “Innocence of Muslims” is responsible for riots in the Middle East.
This was previously published on New Plateaus.
The narrative surrounding the protests and violence in the Middle East is that it is occurring because a film called Innocence of Muslims depicts Mohammed. It’s against Islamic law to create images of their prophet, and this movie certainly crosses that line as it has an actor portraying him. This same reason was credited for the fury in reaction to a drawing of Mohammed in a Danish newspaper in 2005. This led to a Danish embassy bombings and fires across the Middle East:
Danish embassy in Lebanon
As well, threats were directed toward the creators of the American television series South Park for featuring Mohammed in a bear costume in an episode in 2010:
Interestingly, in the summer 2001, South Park featured an image of Mohammed in an episode alongside all the figures of the major religions: Jesus, Buddha, Moses, and others:
It takes what is most sacred to Islam and mocks and desecrates it to extreme levels. And to help get away with it, the filmmakers duped the actors by having them recite the scripted lines and then dubbing in different words in post-production.
|
Truth be told, though, it’s not just the depiction of Mohammed in Innocence of Muslims that’s getting people’s goad. The film—or rather the extended trailer lasting almost 14 minutes—shines a very unflattering light on Mohammed, Muslims, and Islam in general.
Featuring slayings of innocents and resisters—some almost comically gruesome, plenty of womanizing by Mohammed and his followers, asserting Mohammed as homosexual and pedophile, and demonstrating Islam as nothing more than a improvised set of rules to favor the movement’s leaders, this trailer does a “nice” job of touching on every way to irritate and inflame a religion’s followers. It takes what is most sacred to Islam and mocks and desecrates it to extreme levels. And to help get away with it, the filmmakers duped the actors by having them recite the scripted lines and then dubbing in different words in post-production.
When looking at the deception and poor taste of the filmmakers, combined with the reaction from the Middle East, there are two common angles to this topic: one that gets after the movie-makers for causing the violence that’s led to untold property damage, further eroding international relations, and the killing of Americans and locals abroad. The other gets after the protesters for doing all this. It’s an important distinction where to place your scorn, because the one you blame is the one you demand more from.
U.S. officials are taking both sides, prefacing their condemnation of the violence with a condemnation of the film:
Diplomatically, this may be best. Legally, I have to wonder why the FBI reportedly detained the filmmaker for questioning:
filmmaker/invisible man
This is a mess of a situation, and much must be done to clean it up. But beyond the on-the-ground Xs and Os of how to move forward, the intriguing questions remain about the fury in the Middle East. Why do they get so angry? (Have psychologists studied this phenomena?) We take it granted as this has happens repeatedly, but it is extraordinary:
Recent protests: what level of attachment does one have to have with one’s belief system to engage in this kind of activity?
It appears to be one so rigidly defining that it proves too brittle to withstand the satirical attacks of a film.
Watching it, I actually laughed at how silly it looked and over-the-top it was.
Apples to apples, I would think that most Christians viewing a comparable indictment of Jesus might even laugh at such an attempt to rouse them. Christians I know who are strong in their faith use it as a shield against naysayers, able to stand the barbs of others. This film about Mohammed is so barb-full that it becomes a joke making fun of itself.
still from the film
another one
And here, in all it’s glory, is the 13:51 seconds that has triggered chaos, vandalism, and death:
Then again, I do think one has to simultaneously take an apples to oranges approach. Americans either by word or deed have been riling up the region for many decades. This film is the latest in escalating tensions in a region of growing instability; it didn’t just happen in a vacuum. Nor is it the first example of a group taking exception to a film. I remember how angry some Jewish groups got over The Passion of the Christ. Sometimes things that seem trivial to one person are a big deal to another.
Nonetheless, the rage in the Middle East all seems to go back to the age-old lesson: not caring so much about what others think. If people insult you or your religion, you don’t have to get so incredibly angry. I am open (actually hopeful) that there’s more to explaining these emotional explosions than a movie.
This is worth discussing, because I want to expect more from these charged and reactive populations. To dismiss their activity as usual or normal, I think, implies a severe loss of respect: When a young child eats too much candy we blame the adult looking after them. “The child doesn’t know better,” says the common knowledge. We can blame this film-maker for poor taste. We can blame him for taunting. We can blame him for creating hateful art. But by pinning the violence on him, what are we then saying about the Muslims? Who have they become in the above analogy?
to new plateaus,
-Brandon
p.s. Please chime in if you’ve anything to add. This is a tough topic to cover in one article, but perhaps it can be used as a jumping off point for further discussion below.
Read more on Conflict
Images courtesy of the author
Bless you heart, Brandon… you’ve got courage to step up and speak out on a difficult topic. No, no one should write songs, write literature, make films, etc. ad infinitum ad nauseum on things that will offend other people, BUT…. that is every person’s right: to speak their mind and express what they feel regardless of how I might perceive it. Personally, I don’t think this film has any value. On the other side, I have a great deal of difficulty resolving Islam, and I do believe that Allah is God. A Hindu man once watched Mother Teresa tend to… Read more »
To borrow: “I have no special knowledge but even a moron can discern certain patterns. Half of the pattern is a bunch theocratic douchebags that oppress people. They have perfected the successful gambit of blaming America (or Israel) for their manifest failures. Their people, exposed to generations of propaganda, are buying it hook, line, and sinker. Here’s a hint, if your cat barfs on the rug in Aswan (Egypt) and you think America (or Israel) is the cause, you’re an embarrassment to yourself and your society. The other half are American elites (both parties) who make a living pretending that… Read more »
In case you haven’t heard, the Administration has admitted that the embassy attack was planned, and set up for 9/11. Including RPGs and mortars, and intelligence gathered. This, remember, is in a country where we just helped get rid of the Kadaffy, and have been supplying lots of money and other donations. The video is an excuse being used, nothing more. Now, in other countries, yeah, lots of muslims are losing their collective minds over an insult to the prophet; which is also enough, in their minds to try to kill people over cartoons, Might check this out: http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/151199/ As… Read more »
…and the guns are to blame for ATF’s Fast & Furious.
Here is another missing bit of context: 30,000 protest militias in Benghazi, Libya, burn militants’ compound These thousands of people marched in opposition to the embassy killings, many carrying signs of mourning for the victims, expressing nearly comparable outrage (although nobody was killed in this case) about the murders as the murderers themselves expressed. About 50 people are believed to have been involved in the killings. About 30,000 marched in opposition to them and their crimes. That is 600 TIMES AS MANY PEOPLE opposing the crimes as those who committed them. Yet the broad brush strokes used to paint Muslims… Read more »
Kirsten, thanks for your contributions–each of which add something to this conversation. Though I believe we receive a sensationalized version of the emotion that exists there, and though I do not believe them to all be murderers as you accuse me, I do choose to believe the reports that there are mass protests in many locations throughout the Muslim world–in this latest case–due to this video. And I don’t want to lay blame on the film-maker for stirring up the hornets nest, because I think that that’s insulting to these angry Muslims who get dismissed as crazy. So, no, I… Read more »
“I simply want to know why they are acting this why.”
Again, have you directly asked any Muslims about this? You say that you choose “to believe the reports”- from whom exactly do these reports come? What about the analysis of the situatioin from Tariq Ramadan that I posted above? Do you choose to believe that?
As a side note, has anyone else noticed a shitload of anti-muslim hate? In Australia after the Sydney riot I saw so many people comment hate and want to deport all muslims…It made me sick. I guess I know who of my “friends” are bigots now…
Yes. The Council on American-Islamic Relations documents not just anti-Muslim hate, but a sharp spike in anti-Muslim crime over a two-week period in August: http://www.cair.com/ArticleDetails.aspx?ArticleID=26980&&name=n&&currPage=1
It’s pretty obvious why A FEW muslims are angry, espeicially as they’re targeting the U.S Embassies. What’d the U.S think would happen? You go slapping bee’s nest, expect to get stung. The video is a spark, history (especially last decade) provided the fuel. I think they have a good reason to be angry, though nothing excuses the violence. I’d be pissed too if westerns/or a group of people were invading my homelands and killing, especially after seeing kids get killed. People in the U.S would react the same way if they were invaded, hell look at the hatred after 9/11?… Read more »
Archy,
fortunately not everybody repays perceived injustice with violence. As you say, a few Muslims are angry. There are plenty of examples in history where countries didn’t retaliate. Look for example at the Europe post second world war.
“1 MILLION civilians in Iraq died in the last decade over an illegitimate war”
Who killed those people? Who should be held responsible for those killings?
Please don’t tell me that the responsibility lies with the US invasion, if the logic would work that way you would have had a lot more killing in Soviet occupied eastern Europe for example.
Unnecessary death, “collateral damage”, of course people are going to be pissed even if they can’t blame anyone but yes American led forces did contribute heavily. Would they have died if there wasn’t invasion? Even if only 10,000 deaths were caused by the fighting alone, that’s enough to cause major anger. Doesn’t matter if the U.S didn’t purposely aim n kill those 1million, what do you think the people would think around the world seeing a death toll like that after an invasion?
Archy: “Unnecessary death, “collateral damage”, of course people are going to be pissed even if they can’t blame anyone… I think it is normal that they are angry, the problem is how they express this anger and esecially towards whom. “Would they have died if there wasn’t invasion?” Well, we don’t know, do we? The rule of Saddam Hussein was certainly bloody and many of the death seem to be victims of the conflicts between different Muslim groups. There is no natural law which makes a person resort to terrorism, when faced with occupation, bombarding or killing of loved ones.… Read more »
Saddam wasn’t a foreign aggressor.
Only the extremes are getting batshit angry about it all, the majority don’t seem to be supportive of that anger, hence the point. It gives fuel to the extremists to wage war and gives great propaganda material to recruit more hate.
“Saddam wasn’t a foreign aggressor.”
What about with the Kurds in Northern Iraq? You might say they’re Iraqi, but from what I’ve heard Iraq was formed by the allies after WWII. If might made right to bind the Kurds to Iraq, then why doesn’t might make right when the U.S. invaded Iraq?
I stand corrected, he was a foreign invader to some, others he was their leader. Although he was still of a similar descent was he not? Similar background vs someone christian, white (at the time) waging war on your country from an ocean away based on dodgy intel. How many American’s would feel good about China invading and bringing “freedom” to them?
Based on U.S. media accounts and my memory, the Kurds were actually hopeful for U.S. intervention in 2001 when the U.S. liberated Kuwait. People tend to forget that this started with Iraq’s invasion of it’s neighbor. After the U.S. bombarded Iraq, they turned over the captured Iraqi artillery to the Kurds by way of abandoning it. They basically purposely left it unsecured so the Kurds could retrieve it in hopes that the Kurds would revolt, which they did. Unfortunately, the Kurds expected U.S. support, which they didn’t get and they were slaughtered. Let’s accept the premise for the moment that… Read more »
Speaking of apples to apples, Christians would be a lot angrier if they were being bombed into oblivion for other people’s crimes for more than the last decade, if they had to get used to seeing or holding bloody, mangled, and lifeless children in their arms as a “normal” part of daily life, if they were subject to torture and indefinite detention with no due process or recourse, if they were targeted for assassination merely because the president and is cronies took such a whim at the Tuesday kill list meeting, and so on. Framing this as just about a… Read more »
By the way Brandon, how many Muslims have you asked about this? What were their answers to your question about why Muslims are so angry?
Kirsten,
there are indeed examples of Christians being attacked, murdered and occupied by a foreign country and a foreign culture, for example the very Christian country of Poland. Now have Poles attacked Russian embassies? Btw to my knowledge Polish people really hate Russia, but they show their hatred in different ways.
It is, of course, very easy to cherry pick examples and come up with a picture of angelic Christians vs. evil Muslims. It is not, however, very useful in developing an accurate picture of reality. Let’s visit first your Poland example, and then another Christian example or two to see how terribly skewed a picture this one example suggests. First, Poland. When was the last time Poland was bombed on a regular basis by the Soviet Union? When was it last occupied by the Soviet Union? When was the last time Polish mothers and fathers collected their children off the… Read more »
Russians killed millions of people in Poland. Do not forget that.
Kirsten: “It is, of course, very easy to cherry pick examples and come up with a picture of angelic Christians vs. evil Muslims.” I haven’t said anything Muslims, though I concede that somebody reading my response to you might think, I want to go in the direction “Christian good-Muslim bad”. Frankly I don’t. What I was objecting to was your statement: “Christians would be a lot angrier if they were being bombed into oblivion for other people’s crimes for more than the last decade” You didn’t provide evidence for this prediction. As I see it most people (whether they are… Read more »
“Christians would be a lot angrier if they were being bombed into oblivion for other people’s crimes for more than the last decade” You didn’t provide evidence for this prediction. As I see it most people (whether they are Christians, Muslims or whatever) don’t react to being invaded, being bombed and being killed with terrorism, they don’t even react with violence. People want that violence against them stops, but most are very reluctant to use violence themselves, especially against innocent. First of all, there is a difference between anger and violence. Are you seriously suggesting that we need “evidence” that… Read more »
These are exactly the points that I would have tried to make on this topic, if you hadn’t made them so well already. Thank you, Kristen, you’re awesome!
Sorry, typo, I meant Kirsten!
Here is a different example. Did you see the cheering for the deaths of 3,000 American civilians by the majority Muslim Palestinians? When was the last time you saw mass celebration in the streets for the killing of 1,000s of innocent civilians in the U.S.? Innocent civilians might be killed in war, but only one side actively and routinely targets them.
I saw plenty of Americans show an attitude of basically “F them R-Heads” “Kill em all”, etc. No cheering in the streets but I guarantee there are just as many racist assholes in both countries, cept the ones in the U.S decided to do it mostly online vs walkabout protests.
And therein lays the problem. When the argument becomes these grievances are my justification for why I’m about to perpetrate an injustice against you, you never get rid of the violence because one side will always feel that they were more victimized and so owe the other side some violence. People can continue to fight the battles of the past or they can forge a future peace. They can’t do both.
P.S. Data for civilian deaths in Iraq: http://www.iraqbodycount.org/
Any idea why this differs? ht tp://www.reuters.com/article/2008/01/30/us-iraq-deaths-survey-idUSL3048857920080130
Yes the example lies in the past, so what? Roman-Catholic is by far the biggest denomination in Christianity. As you noted the involvement of the Catholic church might have made the movement more peaceful. It seems that this rather supports the thesis of Christians being peaceful. No, it’s a cherry-picked example that shows that SOME Christians are peaceful, and it is placed next to a cherry-picked example that shows that SOME Muslims are violent. This provides a misrepresentative and skewed picture of the situation. If we pick a different example, such as the Irish example I provided, where we take… Read more »
I think it was made to piss off the Muslims by the RWNJ who are anti-Muslim and want to start a war with Israel. It backfired on them and killed Americans there and threatens our troops. I even think it might be our Oct. surprise as it leads up to Romney meeting with a bunch of anti-Mulsims in Aug. And Yes we have religious zealots here, they say PBO is trying to take “God” out of the square? What square? And everyone at the DNC HAD to say “God bless the United States of America” a zillion times. They want… Read more »
PBO?…the Prophet Barack Obama reduced to an acronym? Blasphemy!…if you owned a flag I’d burn it.
I suspect that a lot of the anger has less to do with the video itself and more to with the perception in the region of the US as a meddling imperialist power. The video is just a pretext for people to express preexisting grievances. I’ve also read a theory that makes a lot of sense to me (although it originated with a random cab driver, so take it with a grain of salt) that citizens of Middle Eastern countries that have media that are tightly controlled by the government find true freedom of speech difficult to believe in. Everything… Read more »