[Marxism] Muhammad film: Israeli director goes into hiding after protests
d.koechlin at wanadoo.fr
Wed Sep 12 14:00:30 MDT 2012
I watched the trailer for the "Innocence of Muslims" movie on YouTube.
The acting is abysmally bad, so bad that one wanders on what exactly the
supposedly $5 million production costs went.
That the film is meant to cause offence to Muslims is obvious. IT is
it's only goal.
But the depiction of Muhammad as a petty warlord, intent on pillaging
settlements, raping women and children before selling them as slaves is,
despite all the idiotic slapstick "life-of-Brian-like humour", basically
correct. As far as I can see, the narrative does not deviate
substantially from what is recorded in the hadiths.
The mores of the 7th century Arabian Peninsula were brutal and cruel,
and that is unfortunately a fact that present-day Muslim apologetics
must come to terms with. "Innocence of Muslims" is an "ignorant film"
because it is meant to infuriate Muslims, not because it displays
blatant ignorance of accounts of Muhammad's life and times. Muhammad was
indeed beset by "Djinns" and prone to periods of profound
despondency/depression, he did indeed order his men to rape captured
women, he occasionally enjoyed the companionship of young boys
(pederasty was normal at that time, as is recorded in the hadiths)
although the term "gay" is really anachronistic, he did complain of not
being able to keep his numerous wives from bickering, etc.
Of course, similar portrayals of the main protagonists of the Old
Testament would make for equally gruelling viewing for a modern audience
: murder, rape, humiliation, extortion, torture, enslavement, ... The
LORD telling the children of Israel to put to the sword every last
inhabitant of Canaan would be just as unpleasant to watch, if an
Anti-Zionist small budget director were to take on the project.
But again "Innocence of Muslims" is so crude, so badly written, the
actors so amateurish, the cutting and editing so haphazard, the sound so
grotesquely unmixed, the costumes so hideously anachronistic, that it is
not a movie at all. IT is a youtube video, first and foremost, and
cannot have cost more than $100,000 if that. I have seen better films
shot by my high-school students. IT is just a kick in a hornet's nest
which was designed to go viral over the internet.
More information about the Marxism