Talk:Innocence of Muslims/Archive1

This is an archive page, last updated 29 February 2024. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:  , (new)(back)

Untitled

http://www.buzzfeed.com/rosiegray/inflammatory-anti-muslim-movie-may-not-be-a-real Turns out, this may not be a real film. God, now even I'm going all conspiracy esque.GodotBe informed. Vote. 21:12, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Most of it seems pretty straightforward: "Sam Bacile" used a pseudonym because he didn't want to end up like Theo van Gogh, and he duped his actors because he had trouble finding anyone who'd willingly appear in a film like this.

The thing I find strange, though, is that he claimed to be Israeli and said that the film had been funded by over 100 Jewish donors. At this point it looks more likely that the people responsible for this film were Christian, so why pretend to be Jewish? Balaam (talk) 12:13, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

EDIT: His identity's (possibly) out. Better add this.

Jews have been Scapegoated throughout the centuries. What's new? Proxima Centauri (talk) 13:44, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, being blamed for a terribly edited D-grade film is a certainly a new twist on it. Lord knows if I'd made that thing I would've blamed the Jews to escape having my name associated with it, too. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 14:21, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

The producers are trying to jump-start the apocalypse. Matzosphere (talk) 14:50, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Cost of the film

Seeing as how 14 minutes of such poorly-produced footage couldn't have possibly cost $5,000,000 I speculate Bacile has embezzled the majority of that money. And he's going to need every damn penny of it, now. --TheLateGatsby (talk) 14:41, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

The 14 mins is a trailer. 69.89.111.229 (talk) 18:23, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

The movie

I've seen Innocence Of Muslims Original Movie. Does it misrepresent Islam? Proxima Centauri (talk) 15:30, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Are you seriously asking that question? There is not one thing in the movie that is factual. --GodotBe informed. Vote. 15:45, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

The marriage of Mohammed and Aisha at an early age is factual, I'm asking about the rest. Proxima Centauri (talk) 16:03, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Even that's doubtful. Most scholars for the last 1200 years suggest she was 11-14. hardly a child bride given the time. This movie presents her as an actual child. 8ish maybe? As I said, nothing in this movie is factual.--GodotBe informed. Vote. 16:09, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia says she was nine. Proxima Centauri (talk) 16:59, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Presumably it would be possible to go through the thing and decide if the claims were true, untrue or of unknown veracity. Wikipedia certainly says nine or ten for the consummation.--Weirdstuff (talk) 17:28, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree, I'd guess the film mixes truth with falsehood. Proxima Centauri (talk) 17:41, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Experts on Islam please check the following:

1. Muhammad's father was known and was called Abdullah.
2. I found no evidence that Muhammad was treated as a slave when young.
3. I found no evidence that a donkey was anointed as the first Muslim animal.
4. The Qu'ran includes elements from the Old and New Testament as stated. I know no evidence that anyone other than Muhammad wrote it for him. Rather I believe Muhammad claimed to receive divine messages and dictated these 'messages' to scribes.
5. I found a test with the title MUHAMMAD'S SUICIDE ATTEMPTS, I haven't got time to read it or asses it.
6. SLAVERY IN ISLAM says Muhammad took slaves and I have read that elsewhere.
7. I found a test claiming Muhammad has special permission to marry any woman who desired to be his wife, All About Muhammad. I don't know if it's reliable.
8. Non Muslims have to pay a special tax called Jizyah in a state of humiliation. Non-Muslims Paying Jizyah In a State of Humiliation
9. Naturally there is speculation that Muhammad was gay, I don't know how reliable.
10. Muhammad forbade adoption when (he wanted/Allah wanted him) to marry someone related to him by adoption. Adoption in Islam and History of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) Marriage to Zainab Bint Jahsh.
11. Muhammad enslaved people, I'm uncertain about breaching agreements, Treaty of Hudaybiyyah
12. Non Muslims who weren't people of the book had few or no rights.

Proxima Centauri (talk) 17:48, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Of course, all of this is moot, given that Muhammad is a fictional character with no historical evidence of ever having existed, aside from being the protagonist in the Qu'ran. -- Seth Peck (talk) 18:32, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

You're joking, right Seth? Cause unlike Jesus, Mo's life is pretty well documented.

Prox - "wikipedia" says, if you read, that there are several versions of aisha's life, and scholars are all in doubt about what it means in the language to be "child bride". Again, i would caution you to do a "see, here is a fact" without being well schooled in the various arguments around. by the way, Mo didn't write any of the Qu'ran. those are saying attributed to him. Unlike Jesus and the NT, however, there are comments in later writings about who preserved the sayings (Aisha and Khadija) and how they were preserved (rote) that make it more likely they are similar to what he said, if not somewhat word for word. Mo had slaves, this is mentioned in the Qu'ran. this was a standard practice of the day. There is no tax for non muslims to pay today, though non-muslims cannot enter Mecca. Jizya was a tax of an empire to tell those conquered, "you belong to us". It had little to do with religion, and everything to do with a State saying "we are the best". There is no actual real reason to think Mo was gay. Depending on the source, he had from 20-200 wives, 40 or 50 the likely number. He had two loves of his life, Aisha and Khadija. Given how he talks of them, and the power he gave to them within his growing band of followers, there's no reason to suspect they were not the love of his life. Prior to Mo, you could have as many wives as you want. However, he put a 4 wife "soft rule" into practice. a rule he, himself did not follow. However, all the wives he took, other than Khadija and Aisha were in fact, widows of his followers who had orphan kids. GodotBe informed. Vote. 19:00, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Godot. Could you link to the WP page which says that she was was older than nine or ten when the marriage was consummated? I can't seem to find it. Thanks.--Weirdstuff (talk) 10:50, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

It's not Wikipedia, but here's an article from the Huffington Post which discusses the issue. Although the notion that Aisha was 9 years of age at consummation is the traditionally accepted narrative, it doesn't hold up to analysis. Stile4aly (talk) 19:20, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Those are simply Moiz Amjad's arguments that have been rehashed countless times. I linked to Shaykh Haddad's response earlier (read it here). It's the claim that Aisha was older that don't hold up to scrutiny. IslamoCriticism (talk) 19:44, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

An interesting article, but ultimately we're arguing over interpretation of 1400 year old quotations. I don't think one scholar's comments are the be all end all of the argument. Stile4aly (talk) 01:01, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

It's not an argument over interpretation. The text clearly say only one thing. For anyone with a little knowledge on the subject and who has actually read the source material, it is disingenuous to claim otherwise. Dr. David Liepert claims 'Sahih Bukhari included one recalling that Aisha said she was 6 when betrothed and 9 when she was wed.' I've read at least 4 different narrations in Sahih Bukhari and 3 in Sahih Muslim that state she was 9. There is none to the contrary. Simply lying about what sources say may be effective in apologetic pieces, but they're useless if the intentions behind them are to reform your religion. IslamoCriticism (talk) 09:03, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Godot wrote, "Are you seriously asking that question? There is not one thing in the movie that is factual."
Well I was seriously alking the question and I think the answer is the film mixes truth with falsehood. Parts are factual parts are made up. Proxima Centauri (talk) 05:52, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Eh? Тy^ILAB 12:31, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I've been avoiding editing Islam pages here like the plague, but I have to say the claim that 'Most scholars for the last 1200 years suggest she was 11-14' is simply untrue. So is the claim that Muhammad's other wives were made up of 'widows of his followers who had orphan kids'.

1. To the best of my knowledge, the first ever pro-Muhammad objection raised to Aisha's age was by Maulana Muhammad Ali (see here). He's an Ahmadi (lived 1874–1951). His arguments have achieved some popularity among orthodox Muslims only very recently, and mainly on the Internet. Clearly a reaction to the avalanche in criticism of his life. Almost every single authentic (sahih) narration of her engagement, bar one that states 7, puts her age at 6. Every single authentic narration (reaching back to Aisha) puts her age at consummation of marriage at 9. The Wikipedia article is also in error. The reference given for the claim that Tabari states Aisha was 10 at consummation is Tabari, Volume 9, Page 131; Tabari, Volume 7, Page 7. I own all 40 volumes of Tabari's History. Opening up both pages, Volume 9, Page 131 says she was aged 9. Nowhere does it claim she was 10. Volume 7, Page 7 says she was 9 three times. Nowhere does it claim she was 10. It is the Shi'ite Muslims who believe she was possibly aged 9-10. These alternate ages and the methods used in reaching them are a joke. Serious Muslim scholars literally laugh at them. For example, take a look here. That is written by Shaykh Gibril F. Haddad. He is one of the most respect Muslim scholars alive. A Sufi who is against terrorism, but unlike apologist, he, uh... doesn't apologize for his religion by making up lies.

2. One example. Safiyah was war booty. Oh yeah she was certainly a widow, but guess whose men made it so? IslamoCriticism (talk) 22:54, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

This seems like the kind of page we should ban Proxima Centauri from editing

As she will only fill it up with bigotry, stupid shit she pulled out her arse, her own misconceptions about what people are "suppose" to believe, and godaweful writing. Tmtoulouse, and nobody else 12:52, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Also, every other page on the wiki. -- Nx / talk 14:44, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Please. Тy^ILAB 14:53, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Suddenly I have an urge to watch Minority Report. DickTurpis (talk) 15:16, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

The film and Middle Eastern crap

This film did not actually incite the anger in the Middle East right now...they're just using it as an excuse to do the things they're doing. The real problem is Obama's lack of leadership. If G.W.B. was in office right now, we wouldn't have four Americans dead in Libya. Remember after 9/11 where not much happened outside of the wars? Yeah. The point is: the film actually causing them to do this is pure bullshit the White House pulled out of their asses. It was too well orchestrated. Are you that much of Obama's sheeple you'll listen to anything his guys say and report it as fact? Or are you rational skeptics? Ask yourself this. --Elvis is King (talk) 10:33, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

If it was GWB in power now, there'd be 40 Americans dead, as well as the four hundred Libyans nearest them, whether or not they were involved in the embassy attack. Ride 'em cowboy! Sophie^Wilder 10:41, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Don't you mean "now watch this drive"? Wēāŝēīōīď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 10:51, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

And we'd be at war in Morocco. Stile4aly (talk) 19:12, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Tense

I take it that at some point after today somebody will shift all the appropriate tenses and rewrite the section "Violence spreading in the Middle East and North Africa"? Something written like an ongoing situation report will quickly look out of date. Example: "Protests are continuing and possibly increasing with United States and other embassies being attacked, the death toll rises steadily and inexorably."--Weirdstuff (talk) 18:27, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Not sure exactly what you're saying. You mean like, Angry at a film on YouTube? Attack an American embassy. Mad about a cartoon in a French newspaper? Burn an American flag. Cranky about some islands in the East China Sea? Throw things at the American Ambassador. nobs^{Corporations are people, too} 19:18, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

What I'm saying is that, as it's written, the article will be out of date by tomorrow or in a couple of days at least. "United States and other embassies (are) being attacked" Now. Today. This will soon be out of date. The tense is all wrong for this sort of article and it will very soon need to be rewritten.

In order to avoid this problem it should be written in such a way that it will stand the test of time for example: "The protests continued on the 21st of September amid fears that the disturbances might increase as American and other embassies were being attacked, and the death toll was rising."

I'm amazed that this is difficult to understand!--Weirdstuff (talk) 20:29, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I see that the tense in the section Violence spreading in .... is still all over the place.--Weirdstuff (talk) 11:24, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Islamophobia

Ha ha, just kidding. Turns out "the religion of peace" is just a slogan, and Muslims react poorly to blaspheming Muhammad.

I think that while criticizing religion in such a way isn't uncommon for here, more care should be taken towards not creating moral panic over Islam since unlike Christians, Islam is being associated with a certain stereotype of people that is becoming more commonly victim to hate crimes, and therefore there should not be encouraging of such a thing. Especially when it's in the same words and tone as most right-wing hatemongers. 75.76.181.230 (talk) 16:48, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

New type of spam?

I was surprised to find in my Spam folder several e-mails with subject lines mentioning the name of the movie. Has this happened to anyone else? I deleted them before getting curious about the contents.--ZooGuard (talk) 10:09, 2 October 2012 (UTC)