Top Menu

Not A Shocker: More Muhammad movies planned, film-makers reveal

The anti-Muslim Movie Festival that we are likely to encounter in the upcoming months and years is just beginning. The Islamophobia machine has whet its appetite, and those who thrive off of instigating civilizational and cultural conflict are salivating at the chance to incite another conflagration. The Innocence of Muslims is not the first anti-Muslim hate movie produced, it is just another in a long line, but the Geller’s and Spencer’s of the world see an opportunity, will their counterparts in the Muslim world, the loony and extremist fringe oblige? One prays not.

The following Guardian article details Geller and Spencer’s production of an upcoming “Muhammad movie,” but that’s not the only one, there are reports that former Mossad agent Musab Youssef, who bills himself the “Son of Hamas” is also working on a movie about the Prophet Muhammad. (h/t: Jai)

More Muhammad movies planned, film-makers reveal

By Ben Child (The Guardian)

Protests have erupted across the Muslim world after clips from a film depicting Muhammad appeared on YouTube. Now, according to the LA Times, there could be more provocation to come: the newspaper says it has uncovered evidence that at least two further film-makers are planning movies which will show the prophet on screen.

Innocence of Muslims, the film currently at the centre of a religious firestorm, has caused anger for its depiction of Muhammad as a womaniser and paedophile, but has also upset worshippers who believe that it is blasphemous to depict him on screen. The Times says two further film-makers are both planning to do just that. Just as worryingly for US relations with the Muslim world, both are ex-believers who no longer embrace Islam and both are raising funds for their biopics in the United States.

The newspaper names the first film-maker as Mosab Hassan Yousef, a Palestinian who moved to Los Angeles several years ago. He told the LA Times he had already cast a “prominent Hollywood actor” in the title role of his $30m (£18.5m) film, titled simply Muhammad. “My goal is to create this big mirror to show the Muslim world the true image of its leader,” Yousef says, adding that the film would feel similar to the Mel Gibson drama The Passion of the Christ. The film-maker was reportedly inspired to convert by the radical Egyptian Christian Zakaria Botros Henein, who has described Muhammad as a paedophile and buffoonand who may have also influenced the makers of Innocence of Muslims.

The second film-maker is named as Ali Sina, a Canadian atheist who was raised as a Muslim in Iran. He says he has secured $2m (£1.2m) for a film that will portray Muhammad as a cult leader in the style of David Koresh or Jim Jones. Sina hopes to shoot next year if he can raise an extra $8m. He has been planning his film for a decade but says it only recently became a possibility due to technical advances in film distribution.

“We can bypass theatres completely and sell the movie online with a profit to a large number of people, especially Muslims,” Sina said. “They can download it and watch it even if they are living in Karachi or Mecca or Medina.”

Perhaps the best known film about the life of Muhammad is The Message, a 1977 film by Halloween producer Moustapha Akkad; described as the story of Islam, it was ultimately financed by Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi after Hollywood refused to fund it. Starring Anthony Quinn and Irene Papas, the film avoided any depiction of Muhammad on screen. Scenes were occasionally shown from the prophet’s perspective but he was not seen and his voice was not heard. Even so, the film drew anger among Muslims who had heard a rumour that Quinn was playing Muhammad. In March 1977, the film was named as a grievance (among others) by an armed group who took 149 hostages and killed a radio journalist and a police officer during a standoff in Washington, DC.

At least 51 people, including the US ambassador to Libya, have been killed in violence linked to protests over Innocence of Muslims. So far, only clips from the film have been aired and it is not clear whether a full cut exists.

, , , , , , ,

  • Stoned Gremlin

    @Free World Your hadith numbering is impossible to follow. Hadith normally have a volume number, book number and hadith number. I don’t know what part of Bukhari “4:141” is or even says outside of the shady paraphrasing by Muslim haters.

    The actual Quranic references you quoted were from surah 33, Surah Al Azhab. I’ll give you some time to find out what Al Azhab may be referencing. Maybe you’ll even learn what Al Azhab means in English.

  • sir David (aged 13 3/4)

    I believe that freedom comes with responcibility to accept the actions of that freedom.
    Yes these con artists are free to make that trailer .
    You are also free to go to Harlem , New York and call everyone a Nigger . It may be the first black person who thumps you or the one hundred and first . Let me know when you will try this experiment as I will sell tickets to watch .
    Both the Bible and the Quran are complicate works and many people have spent their lives researching there meaning . It is interested to note that many of the people who have used such writings to justify violence where not scholars of these works . Its a pity we cannot ask the authors what they mean 🙂
    Brevik murdered scores of people based on his understanding of the works of Geller , y’Or , Spencer and Fordman etc. These people are still alive did they denounce Brevik ? Have they apologised for feeding the hate that caused that man to kill? Geller went as far as to blame the victims.
    You say they do not hate muslims ,only Islam I had a good chuckle over that one . I see hate and weasle words frankly saying they only hate radical islam etc but they never define what they think radical Islam is .
    Violence is never right weather you call it honour violence ,domestic violence ,rioting , mugging ,targeted assasination, bombing ,colateral damage …… alas the list goes on

    Sir David Angers

  • Free World


    First of all, I’d like to think of our conversation as a joint investigation rather than some challenge of who is wrong and who is right.
    I’d be delighted to be proved wrong on this issue, really, I would like it to be as you say, that there is no scriptural support for blasphemy law within Islam. Perhaps then Islam could reform. Unfortunately it seems that there is scriptural support. And most importantly, as far as I am aware all Islamic authorities agree on it.
    I have been looking for an Islamic authority that would contradict this, but have not found one.
    There are 5 Islamic schools of thought, and they all agree on this. They even agree that apostasy should be punished by death, with the exception of one which claims that woman can be imprisoned instead of killed.

    I also explained that Sharia is based on trilogy, not on Quran alone. And I gave you three examples of Muhammad ordering killing of those who mocked him. Good Muslims must follow the example of Muhammad.
    Finally I gave you this Quranic verse:
    “Accursed, they will be seized wherever found and slain with a fierce slaughter.”

    I believe that no reasonable person can disagree that this is a commandment to slay “those who malign Allah and His messenger”
    Again, I want to say that I would have loved if it was different.
    I would love to be able to convince the Muslims that they don’t need to be so intolerant and that they can allow people to have their opinions and express them. I have not found a basis for that.

  • Free World

    You are asking me to meet your challenge.
    I don’t know what you mean.
    I thought you requested that I give you Quranic verses supporting blasphemy laws. If so, I have given you a very thorough answer and included verses, too.
    Is that what you meant by you challenge?

    AS for being able to make a distinction, you are right that some distinctions are difficult to make. However, the morality and legality is quite easy, and I indeed would not consider someone worth talking with if they could not make such distinction. (unless it was a little child, of course)

  • Free World


    You said that I was unable to make a distinction between morality and legality.
    What would that say about my intelligence?
    Anyway, I am happy that you and I stand on the same firm ground of defence for freedom of speech. I was confused about that for a moment, and I appreciate you clarifying that.

  • Free World


    I do appreciate exchanging views with you, and I am certainly learning though doing that. Only one request. Please don’t insult me. There is no need for that is a good discussion. If we think that our conversation partner is stupid, there is no point in having conversation. So let’s keep it respectful.
    There is no need to say that I apparently don’t know the difference between morality and legality.
    Of course I do, I was talking about morality not about legality.
    I don’t think that it is immoral to make a movie that call attention to the facts about Muhammad. (how ever badly that movie was made, and it was really terrible)
    Let’s just assume for the sake of argument that Muhammad was a rapist, a child abuser, a torturer, a mass murderer and much more. Perhaps above all he was a cunning deceiver.
    Now this may or may not be true. May, or may not be supported by the Islamic trilogy (Quran,Hadith, Sirat).
    However any attempt to make the above point and argue for it logically by referring to the sources will be received with violence by the Muslims. It will indeed hurt their feelings. If the only purpose for making such movie was to hurt someone feelings, than I would agree with you that it would be immoral.
    However if the purpose of the movie was to inform the public about the perceived evils inherent in Islam and Muhammad, then it is not immoral.

    More subtly, if the purpose was to show that every attempt of criticizing Islam leads to violence, then that too was not immoral, as such demonstration is indeed important for our understanding.

    Here is my opinion: Without blasphemy laws and without riots Islam would have ceased to exist long time ago. It is only because people have not been informed about the truth, that this primitive cult has persisted for so long.

    Therefore Muslims will insist on enforcing blasphemy laws through violence and riots.

  • Free World

    Dear Ilisha,
    Thank you for bringing this important point up for discussion.
    Lately, in connection with the riots, there have been voices claiming that Islam does not have blasphemy laws. Or at least that Quran does not support them.
    Most of these voices came from Islamo-apologist. It is important to investigate such claims:

    There are plenty of verses in Quran which are interpreted by modern Islamic authorities and have been historically interpreted as blasphemy laws.
    The highest authority of Iranian Shiites, the Ayatollah, routinely issues fatfa condemning blasphemers to death. Most famously against Salaman Rashdi.
    Within the Sunni world some countries have that in their constitution and officially enforce death penalty for blasphemy. Most importantly Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan.
    Other countries (e.g. Egypt) in effect enforce them too, thought not death penalty.
    For several years now, OIC, an association of 56 Islamic states, representing the biggest voting block it the UN, has been pushing for international adoption of anti-blasphemy laws. Tragically our current president does not object to this. He said that he will look how to accommodate them within the frame of our Constitution of 1st Amendment.

    I don’t want to get into a theological discussion about how Quranic verses should be interpreted. I am only interested in how they actually are being interpreted.

    Quran is not the only source of Islam. Hadith and Sirat are juts as important.
    Without Hadith there could be not Islam.
    Quran does not say to pray 5 times per day, Hadith does.
    Quran does not say to go on Hajj to Mecca, Hadith does.
    Quran does not say to fast and how to fast during Ramadan, Hadith does.

    Without the above rules, there is no Islam. Hadith is just as necessary as Quran.
    Hadith has many example of Muhammad murdering, or ordering the murder of those who criticized him.

    Bukhari (59:369) – Ka’b bin al-Ashraf, a Jewish poet wrote verses about Muslims that Muhammad found insulting. Muhammad asked his followers, ‘Who will rid me of this man?’ and several volunteered. al-Ashraf was stabbed to death while fighting for his life.

    Bukhari (3:106) – “The Prophet said, “Do not tell a lie against me for whoever tells a lie against me (intentionally) then he will surely enter the Hell-fire.”

    Bukhari (4:241) – Those who mocked Muhammad at Mecca were killed after he had retaken the city and asserted his authority.

    I want to finish with a few verses from Quran which commonly are interpreted as condemning criticism of Muhammad and Islam:
    Qur’an (6:93) – “Who can be more wicked than one who inventeth a lie against Allah?”
    33:57) to 33:61)
    “Lo! those who malign Allah and His messenger, Allah hath cursed them in this world and the Hereafter, and hath prepared for them the doom of the disdained”
    “Accursed, they will be seized wherever found and slain with a fierce slaughter.”

  • Free World

    Critical Dragon
    You said,
    >Normally making a movie about something, anything isn’t immoral, but it is, if your goal is provoke a violent reaction.

    I strongly disagree with you on that. Whatever the goal behind the movie, the responsibility for violent reaction lays squarely with those who react violently.
    To take the opposite approach would be the end of our freedom of expression.

    Then violence will become a way to stifle the freedom of speech.
    It is indeed documented in Islamic holy trilogy (Quran, Hadith, Sirat)that Muhammad (and his companions with Muhammad’s approval) engaged in rape, mass murder, torture, child abuse and extermination and oppression of the infidels.
    The connection between today’s acts of terror, and the Muhammedan literature is an important point that requires discussion and understanding.
    This connection may be false, or true, but to stifle all discussion, of this subject brings us back to Dark Ages.

  • Free World

    Dear Sir David,
    You said:
    >Firstly what film? There is a trailer
    Yes, that’s correct, but that does not relate to my point. Whether it is film or a trailer, or a flier, it makes no difference. It is everyone’s right to express their opinion about Muhammad, Jesus, Hitler, or Alexander.
    Almost all commenters here are attacking the film trailer (which unfortunately was really amateurish), rather than condemning the Muslims who use violence to steal our freedom of speech.

    >there was the money for a film.
    >The film was never made ,it was all a con.

    That’s a separate story. Interesting one, for sure. But the main point remains that the trailer showed us what it needed to show: The attempt to use rioting and violence to institute Sharia in the United States. They partially succeeded. Our President and Secretary of State apologized for the movie. The Secretary of State promised to punish the producer. The producer was in fact punished, while technically for other violations, it still creates the impression that we complied with Sharia.

    >I have yet to meet someone who was anti islam who was not also anti muslim.
    Well, I am one.
    Other than that the people maligned in the article are not anti Muslim either.
    Neither Pamela Geller, nor Robert Spenser, nor Ali Sina, nor Hirsi Ali are anti-Muslim.
    In fact most of them are very compassionate towards Muslims while they are against the ideology of Islam.

    Now try to understand my point:
    I am against AIDS, but I am not against AIDS victims. The greatest act of love and compassion towards AIDS victims is to destroy AIDS.

    Likewise with Nazism. I would not be against the Hitler Youth kids. I would do everything in my power to destroy Nazism to liberate these unfortunate kids raised in such horrid ideology. Likewise with communism, and the members of Consomol. (Soviet communist youth).

    Likewise with other ideologies including Christianity, which I oppose, (for it’s stupidity and hypocrisy), while I respect certain moral standards strength of character among some of the followers.

    So please understand the difference between opposing ideology, and hating the followers.

  • @Free World

    Normally making a movie about something, anything isn’t immoral, but it is, if your goal is provoke a violent reaction.

    Also, who here is specifically saying that Anti Islam equals anti Muslim? No one here is saying that disagreeing with is the same as bigotry against Muslims.

  • sir David (aged 13 3/4)

    You need to get out more .
    Firstly what film? There is a trailer , there was the money for a film .The film was never made ,it was all a con . Since you believe in freedom I suggest you watch the film and get back to us when you have .
    I have yet to meet someone who was anti islam who was not also anti muslim .

    Sir David

  • Free World

    I do feel shocked by the comments here.
    Someone want’s to make a movie about Muhammad, or about Ghandi, or about Hitler, on Stalin, or Jesus, or Lincoln, or God or Satan, or whatever.
    The civilized choice is to either see it or to not see it.
    I can’t believe all the cowards suggesting that making a movie, or writing a book, or making cartoons, or whatever, is morally reprehensible.
    After 500 years of fighting for our right to criticize Christianity, we have achieved some freedom of expression. And now all these politically correct cowards want to give away this freedom just to not offend Muslim mobs!

    Another point missed here is that anti-Islam is not the same as anti-Muslim.
    It is perfectly legit to hate an ideology be it Islam, or communism, or Nazism, or Christianity. Ideology is not people, nor is it a race.

  • Sam Seed

    I have on many occasions seen AS claiming to be a Muslim. We don’t need Muslims like you dear, you should join your Islamophobic pals on Atlas Shruggs.

  • Pingback: Not A Shocker: More Muhammad movies planned, film-makers reveal | Spencer Watch()

  • Sir David ( Illuminati membership number 5:32)

    “Your screeds were deleted, not lost.”

    Well said ,I tried to post on Atlas Shruggs once .Strangly that was never passed by the moderator either . I wonder what words Mrs MacBeth did not like ?

    Sir David

  • Anticipated Serendipity

    As expected – lost in moderation.

  • Sir David ( Illuminati membership number 5:32)

    Expected stupidity
    yet again you appear like bad breath and no facts to back up your maleverlent opinions .
    Please next time dont forget your evidence

    Sir David

  • Anticipated Serendipity

    Why wasn’t my response posted? Scared?

  • @Anticipated Serendipity

    “I highly doubt atheists/agnostics who didn’t believe paradise and virgins were waiting for them on the other side would carry out something like 9/11 or suicide attacks in general.”

    Marc Sageman & Scott Atran

    Have debunked this , and yes various atheist groups have carried out suicide attacks over history

  • @Anticipated Serendipity

    The US had been intervening in the Mid East for decades before 1989. Especially in Iran the entire Hostage Crisis was blow back for over throwing their democratically elected leader and installing the dictator the Shah, don’t forget them supporting Saddam.

  • AJ


    “I highly doubt atheists/agnostics who didn’t believe paradise and virgins were waiting for them on the other side would carry out something like 9/11 or suicide attacks in general.”

    You think $$$ could make someone carry a suicide attack? That’s what all the people caught in FBI’s string operations were promised. These could-have-been suicide attackers were not expecting virgins – they were expecting that their families got paid after their deaths. Does that expand your knowledge a little bit?

  • Cengiz K

    …What values? Going out of your way to upset and provoke as many people as possible under the phony mantra of “free speech” and then act like victims? Westerners need to quit fooling themselves….

    That’s so “in Your face”, it’s hard to believe people still would ignore this.. It’s all a publicity play imho, and lotsa people are not that dumbed down yet to be able to see through this!
    Beyond the ocean over here in Germany I can see the very same anti-muslim public “mechanisms”, such as provocations and accusations and its sometimes artificial reactions, and internet-distributed pseudo-arguments full of falsehood, as if all was coordinated somewhere.. There is a lot of money involved, that’s for sure, and the thinktanks of such are mainly located in the US.. You can see a short delay between what is being said by Spencer/Geller and consorts in the US public and when that identical lies appear over here..
    Keep it up, You are doing a great job..

  • AJ


    You reap what you sow!

Powered by Loon Watchers