When the world was torched
with fire as a result of a movie called “Innocence of Muslims,” I paid only
scant attention to it. I first came to
know about it a few hours after the US Diplomat in Libya was killed in Benghazi,
along with his three staffers. The
Breaking News stated that those four were killed during violent demonstration against
the movie.
Somewhat curious, I
searched the net looking for the movie, and managed to have a look at the short
trailer. Having watched the trailer, and
seeing that all news channels were focusing on the massive and often violent
demonstrations especially in the Muslim countries, I thought that this reaction, though massive, will be a short one.
True enough, about three
weeks later, it was no longer news. By
the time I write this piece, about two months after the death of the American
Diplomat, which purportedly caused by the movie but was later proven to be
false, practically no one talks about it anymore.
That the movie elicited
such a massive reaction by the Muslims is not surprising. The cheaply made movie has insulted the Prophet
Muhammad. You can insult the Muslims,
but not their Prophet. We have seen it many
times before.
That the reaction would be
brief is also not surprising. We have
seen it many times before as well.
Since it is no longer news,
why writing about it? You may ask. Because there is something
sinister, which I am afraid to be quite true, about us as the Muslims. We the Muslims are rather "innocent," if you know what I mean.
Now, the first thing that comes
to mind when the word “innocence” is used is that it means “not guilty.” Of course it makes no sense to employ that
meaning to this movie. The second and
more subtle meaning is therefore intended.
Innocence also means “naïve” or plain “stupid.” Employing this meaning, then the movie can be
retitled “Stupidity of Muslims.”
The film is essentially saying
that the Muslims are not only naïve, but plain stupid. They have idolized a horrible man like
Muhammad the Prophet (God forbid) to be their model. No wonder the Muslims were so angry. Not only that the maker of the movie has
insulted their Prophet, he has called the Muslims stupid and naïve as well. Yet, I am very certain that
the majority among the Muslims who have demonstrated did not even watch the
movie, which does not appear to exist in the first place. There was only a 13 minute or so trailer.
Whatever the case may be, we
have reacted in a very predictable fashion: innocently,
one might say. The maker of the movie
appears to have a sinister theory to test, and he has practically proven it.
When the movie was made, it
seems that the title was different. The
actors who had been duped into acting were under the impression that they were
acting in a movie called the “Desert Warrior.”
When the movie came to the public, it has been dubbed differently. Insulting references to the Prophet were inserted, which were not in the script when the actors were playing their roles. No wonder many of the actors came forward to
claim their “innocent.”
The movie maker who at
first went with the false name of Sam Bacile, claiming himself a Jew, turned
out to be a conman by the name of Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, a 55 year old
Coptic Christian living in California.
He was sent to a one year jail a few weeks after the debacle, but not for making the “Innocence of
Muslims.” He was jailed for breaking his
parole, having earlier served his time in prison for financial fraud.
Nakoula is probably
laughing in the prison now, having seen how successful his “experiment” had
been. He may not have intended his movie
to be a sort of experimentation, but he worked hard to bring it to the public,
despite having so little fund to do it. When
he finally managed to get the attention of the world, thanks no less to
unsuspecting Muslims who helped made him notorious, Nakoula must have felt
great satisfaction in the process.
Whatever motives he may
have had, it is clear that he knew the kind of reaction such a movie would
elicit. We have seen it many times
already, and so must have he. When the
US Diplomat and his three staffers were killed, the mass media quickly pointed
out that it was the reaction to the movie.
Such is the perception of the people on Muslims. The Muslims are easily agitated, emotional
and cannot think straight. All you need
to do to make them go crazy is to insult their Prophet. And you can do it in the most stupid way,
such as making a very stupid movie.
It is also for this reason
that when another conman, by the name of Walid Shoebat, a self-styled ex-Islamic
extremist turned Conservative Christian, claimed that the movie is actually
made by Islamic terrorists with the purpose to agitate and provoke violent
reaction from the Muslims, his view got the hearing from the media. No doubt many believed him, until it was
proven that his theory was baloney.
What all this signifies is
that we the Muslims are quite “innocent.”
We are not innocent in the sense of “not guilty,” but in the sense that
we are quite “naïve.” Had we watched the
movie with an objective view, we would come to the conclusion that it was made
by a desperado who did not worth our attention.
No one of note would have paid attention to such silly movie had we just
ignored it.
But there is also a bright
side in all this. It shows that we love
our Prophet. We can still keep our cool
if the joke is on us, but all hell would break loose if the joke is on our
Prophet. In that sense, it is not all
that bad to be "innocent," is it?
Whether or not Nakoula has purposely attempted to show that the Muslims are stupid, his "innocent" approach has brought the other subtle "innocence" side of the Muslims. You see, "innocence" also means "pure" in some unsophisticated way. What this episode suggests is that the Muslims' love to their Prophet is pure, irrespective whether they really follow his teachings or otherwise. In one brief period, all observant and non-observant Muslims were united in showing their anger to those who have insulted their Prophet.
This kind of approach is always counter productive. We have seen it many times already. Every time the Prophet is insulted, the Muslims would strongly protest in unison. Even those Muslims who have paid little attention to Islam in their daily lives rise to the occasion. In that sense, we can say that Nakoula's approach shows only his "innocent," read naive and plain stupid, in dealing with the matter.
The not so "innocence" way is the subtle approach by the Orientalists. Hiding behind scientific and scholarly works, these people have, to a large extent, succeeded in desanctifying Islamic Scripture and secularized Islamic Law. They have gained many adherents among the "innocence" Muslims who thought that they are sophisticated.
For that reason, I am not concerned with the "innocence" work such as the movie "Innocence of Muslims." Because it is too sickening, even the non-Muslims are embarrassed with it, as signified by the response made by Hillary Clinton, the US Secretary of State. My concern is the subtle works made by the Orientalists. Through their white magic, many Muslims have "innocently" fallen into their traps, as we have seen in al Mu'awwidhatayn.
Nincompoopla a.k.a Sam Bacile is a piece of shit. That is all.
ReplyDeleteI think the missing tribe refers to Gog Magog not malay
ReplyDeleteHope you could elaborate on the phrase '... secularized Islamic Law' you briefly mentioned in 2nd last para. With so much brouhaha on Islamization, Islamic Law being secularized instead sounds not only anticlimax but a reversal setback.
ReplyDeleteThanking you for the article and further elaboration
Your question deserves an entry by itself, as it touches on a very important subject. Perhaps when I am not too engaged with my current preoccupation, I will write a new entry on the subject.
DeleteBut briefly, I was referring to the fact that Islam has taken the road traversed by the Christianity, namely, the separation between the Church and the State. Islam of course does not separate between what is religious and what is state affair. Nothing escapes Islam. No matter how mundane or trivial, Syariah or Islamic Law has a say in it. If done in an Islamic way, this mundane thing is deemed a religious act.
But due to Western influence, the Muslims have separated between what are deemed religious duty, and what are not. So religion is only about prayer or other ritual. Other aspects are treated as secular and have nothing to do with religion.
Thus, in effect, Islamic Law, which covers everything concerning life, no matter how mundane, what more of paramount important such as political affair, have been secularized, as these things are considered worldly matters which have nothing to do with religion.