By Ihsan Bal
Innocence of Muslims is a despicable movie that corresponds to the anniversary of the September 11 attacks, produced by a shrewd orientalist mind updated by the conditions of 2012. This movie insults Islam, Muslims, and their prophet. Therefore it is clearly a provocative artifact.
Created for neither artistic concerns nor bearing any aesthetic value, the film also provides us with no clue at all about the director’s past and connections. Furthermore, we are not yet clearly informed about who is backing up the director “behind the scenes.”
Steve Klein, an American who is a Vietnam War veteran and a religious fundamentalist, is one of the rare individuals who overtly embrace the film. It is important to note that he is also a fan of Breivik, who cold-bloodedly murdered 77 people in Norway.
What a great pleasure for those who hate true Muslims pursuing success and quality education as well as aspiring to take their part in the global efforts toward enhancing human civilization and flourishing prosperity. Likewise, it is quite clear that Muslims are ill-portrayed and stereotyped as if they are ready to be provoked at any time, and are savages who murdered four diplomats including an American ambassador in Libya.
On top of the list of those happy to think that their basic arguments are proven thanks to this film are Klein at the outset, and Breivik, who is behind bars in Norway. If we are to expand the list, we may include “disciples” of Samuel Huntington who suggest that Muslims can never make their peace with values such as human rights, democracy, freedom of conscience and thought, a pluralist society, respect for different ideas and the rule of law.
Secret agenda behind the scenes
The statement by the fiendishly clever producer of the film, “I already knew that such a thing would happen,” demonstrates it is not hard to find Muslims standing for wearing a dress tailored as such to pattern Muslims on a false identity. On the other hand, the same statement reveals the secret agenda of the movie’s producers.
This movie was not produced because it carries any value in itself. On the contrary, the vulgarity of the film shows us that it was released to the public just to agitate masses of people. The masses who protest the movie and shed the blood of innocent people having nothing to do with the film, as if in the name of Islam, just play stage roles uncomprehendingly serving the cause of another real-life, anti-Islam movie. It is important for conspiracy-seekers to focus especially at this point.
On the other hand, it may be said that Obama, who pursued restrained policies in counter-terrorism and strived to be at peace with the Islamic world, took a step back due to the pressure on him. While cursing the movie and its content at the beginning, Obama afterward brought the tensions to the level of sending battleships, because of the blockade based on electoral opportunism by his rival Mitt Romney.
Even Bin Laden ending up in Davy Jones’ locker thanks to Obama’s success may not be helpful to the Democratic Candidate throughout his current electoral campaign.
Maybe the tossing out of the newly emerging culture of democracy and living together brought about by the Arab Spring, against the traditional dominance of “divide – tear up – rule” policies in the region, to the waste yard of history before they take root in the Mediterranean Basin and the Middle East is being attempted. Maybe the belief in the existence of groups that do not hesitate to wear the dresses tailored specially for them, as a requisite of a conspicuous scenario, keeps alive both such vulgar films and the helplessness of continuously staging such rotten plays.
A movie without an audience will not take place at box office
A similar stage was set in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks on September 11 in the industry of terrorism, and the terms “Islam” and “jihad” began to be used interchangeably with “terrorism” by those who took mischievously advantage of the sensitivity of the events. But this time, numerous intellectual Muslim scholars and politicians seem to have awakened to the fact that the same scenario has been wheeled out by the very same anti-Islamic circles for once again.
Those who violate the reasonable limits of protests and disgrace their coreligionists and the societies they belong to by committing unacceptable murders are today facing a much bigger wave of criticism.
When the soaring number of Muslims who realize and give voice to the fact that this film is all too familiar are recognized and responded to with common sense by the Western world, and those with diehard malicious intelligence who are behind such provocations will be easily revealed. Only a common effort will be able to transfix such plans to the hazardous grounds they originate from.
Head of USAK Science Committee