Accurate Muhammad Film Coming?
The remarkably courageous Ramallah-born Mosab Hassan Yousef, the eldest son of Hamas cofounder Sheikh Hassan Yousef and a former Hamas activist himself, served time on several occasions in Israeli prison. Yousef is also known as “the Green Prince,” his code name per the Shin Bet (Israeli security agency), with whom he later collaborated for a decade to thwart numerous terrorist attacks during the second intifada, sparing hundreds of Israeli lives.
Now living in the U.S., two years ago Yousef published the book Son of Hamas: A Gripping Account of Terror, Betrayal, Political Intrigue and Unthinkable Choices. The book elaborated his rejection of Hamas’ inherent jihadist violence, his personal forsaking of Islam and conversion to Christianity, and his decision to assist Israel clandestinely for approximately a decade starting in 1996.
Now Yousef is undertaking another profoundly dangerous task: producing an accurate film biography of Muhammad, the Jihad Model (as so designated by Muslim Brotherhood “Spiritual Leader” Yusuf Al-Qaradawi), based on the earliest, most complete pious Muslim biography of Islam’s prophet: The Life of Muhammad: A Translation of Ishaq’s Sirat Rasul Allah.
W.H.T. Gairdner, the great Arabic linguist and scholar of Islam, noted with understatement in 1915 what is readily apparent from Muhammad’s actual biography (as opposed to the treacly Muslim hagiography) based exclusively on the reverent Muslim sources:
As incidents in the life of an Arab conqueror, the tales of raiding, private assassinations and public executions, perpetual enlargements of the harem, and so forth, might be historically explicable and therefore pardonable but it is another matter that they should be taken as a setting forth of the moral ideal for all time.
In 1919, Gairdner wrote an essay titled “Muhammad Without Camouflage,” responding to a mendacious birthday tribute panegyric of Islam’s prophet written collaboratively by Muslims and non-Muslims. A particularly trenchant segment of Gairdner’s rebuttal discussed the slaughter of the vanquished Medinan Jewish tribe, Banu Qurayza, whose massacre became an important motif in jihad war jurisprudence. Relying exclusively upon Muslim sources, Gairdner highlighted without equivocation the pivotal role that Muhammad himself played in orchestrating the overall events:
The umpire who gave the fatal decision (Saad) was extravagantly praised by Muhammad. Yet his action was wholly and admittedly due to his lust for personal vengeance on a tribe which had occasioned him a painful wound. In the agony of its treatment he cried out: “O God, let not my soul go forth ere thou has cooled my eye from the Bani Quraiza” [Banu Qurayza]. This was the arbiter to whose word the fate of that tribe was given over. His sentiments were well-known to Muhammad, who appointed him. It is perfectly clear from that that their slaughter had been decreed. What makes it clearer still is the assertion of another biographer that Muhammad had refused to treat with the Bani Quraiza at all until they had “come down to receive the judgment of the Apostle of God.” Accordingly “they came down”; in other words put themselves in his power. And only then was the arbitration of Saad proposed and accepted — but not accepted until it had been forced on him by Muhammad; for Saad first declined and tried to make Muhammad take the responsibility, but was told “qad amarak Allahu takhuma fihim,” — “Allah has commanded you to give sentence in their case.” From every point of view therefore the evidence is simply crushing that Muhammad was the ultimate author of this massacre.
Reinforcing Gairdner’s earlier observations, another major scholar of Islam, Arthur Jeffery, in his review of A. Guillaume’s seminal 1955 English translation of the defining pious Muslim biography of Islam’s prophet, remarked:
Years ago the late Canon Gairdner in Cairo said that the best answer to the numerous apologetic Lives of Muhammad published in the interests of Muslim propaganda in the West would be an unvarnished translation of the earliest Arabic biography of the prophet. In this present volume such a translation is put into our hands in a beautifully printed and produced book. … Byzantine, Syriac, and Armenian writers who mention him say only that he was a merchant who appeared as a prophet and sent the Arabs out on their wars of conquest.
During a press conference on June 19, Yousef announced his intention to make a film depicting Muhammad’s life based upon Ibn Ishaq’s biographical account of Islam’s prophet. Citing the popular fanaticism of Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood — unleashed by the “Arab Spring” as evidence of Islam as a retrogressive force — Yousef insisted that the world, including Muslims, must know “the truth” about Muhammad. Most notably, he wants it known that Islam’s holiest prophet glorified and encouraged murder and violent conquest, as well as child marriage.
Yousef stated that he is working with Israeli film producer and actor Sam Feuer on the Muhammad film project, and maintained that the movie has already attracted sponsors and a major screenwriter.
Given the ongoing, millennial history of violent Muslim rage aroused by (even reverent) depictions of Muhammad in words or images — and the lethal punishment for such portrayals still sanctioned at present by Islam’s Sharia-based blasphemy law — it is fitting that only a person of Mosab Hassan Yousef’s remarkably intrepid conviction would attempt such a forbidding, if critically important, task.
If it’s accurate, it will have to be the most gory film ever.
“Given the ongoing, millennial history of violent Muslim rage aroused by (even reverent) depictions of Muhammad in words or images — and the lethal punishment for such portrayals still sanctioned at present by Islam’s Sharia-based blasphemy law…”
We may have to kill a lot of fanatical muslims before this is over with.
mmm’kay…
It would be interesting to read Robert Spencer’s comments on the accuracy of any Muhammad biography.
Hehe. I’ve just started “Did Muhammad Exist?”. But if the only two real choices are shown to be (a) “murderous thug” or (b) “non-existent” that would be OK by me, and probably OK by Robert as well.
I’m fairly convinced at this point that Muhammed never existed. Not even in a historical sense. Proof at least can be made of a historical Jesus (Roman records and a second source) but none of a Mohammed. It seems a cooked up justification of arab expansionism.
This notion is getting popular around PJMedia, but I don’t see it. Why on earth would Muslims invent so rotten a character as Mohammed to satisfy their need for a holy man, a prophet? If they’re going to invent someone, why not make him sinless (in fact, make his mother sinless too or go one better and make his grandmother sinless)? The horror that is Islam makes perfect internal sense with this killing, raping prophet. It actually makes less sense to me without him.
As for grasping for justification for Arab adventurism, the sacred texts and the ensuing studies within the faith simply don’t do that. They just assert. Being non-Muslim is reason enough. I admit I don’t follow the scholarship back that far, but I’ve argued a lot with Muslims who are well versed in their faith and it’s pretty clear they are relying on little to no tradition of justifying Mohammed’s slaughters in terms that would satisfy western ideas of justice.
Well, you as much as articulated that nothing a muclim does (according to their holy book) will ever sit well nor can it be justified (not that they care to justify it) to a westerner. As far as arabs are concerned, Mohammed IS perfect. He IS sinless. Therefore it is ok for them to kill people who are unbelievers. It is ok to them to engaged in peodophilia. It is ok to them to lie to you and then stab you in the back. Everything, in fact, is ok as long as it will evendually break down the civilization of the foreign body they are invading. They do this easily with their population bombs. They don’t NEED to invade by force anymore. Sendf a bunch of women and children and then DARE the host country to do something about it.
You also must consider the societal norm that existed in the groups that mohammed supposedly dealt with. If he was made up, then it was in agreement the way the male leaders in that society behaved. This would then justify their own behaviors. And because he did exemplify the behaviors that were in existence, he then became “perfect” and the role model for millions of males (why women, treated as chattel and apparently widely abused, from what I read, follow this BS is beyond me).
As a Christian I believe. However, I’ve also thought of it in a more secular way. Jesus’ teachings were so at odds with some of the norms in that society or with what some wanted in a Messiah that it would be hard to believe that He was made up.
Except that Mohammed was considered a threat to the societal norms of his day. He had to fight and flee for survival because of the things he was doing and saying.
Sorry but don’t stick to pre-Islam Arabs (they already had their own) Muhammad’s sins. As an example let’s take a look at his marriage with Aisha. He “fell in love” of Aisha when she was six. What kind of mean is atrracted by a siw years old? Islam apologists tell this was Arab custom, but it wasn’t.
First: Men are simply not programmed to be attracted by pre-teen girls (and still less when they are six years old) because in additioon to the physical damage sexual realtions would do to the girl (possibly umpairing her future ability to have children) it is not good to have men spend on girls energies who should be better used on fecund women (remember that for hundreds of thousands years humankind barely manageed to maintain its numbers). That is why evolution has ensured most of male humans (and probably males in most/all vertebrates) are not atracted to females until they develop their secondary sexual atributes whose role is telling males “Here, here, I am fecund”. No society, no species survives if peadophilia is the norm rather than the exception.
Second: Aisha’s familiy opposed the union or at leat its consumption. Do you think they would have opposed the all powerful prophet, a man notorious for being quick to order the killing of those who didn’t bend to his will if marriage and sex with so young a girl had been conisdered normal by 7th centuy Arabs? Do you really think they would have dared to oppose Muhammad had they thought most Muslims believed Muhammad’s demands were reasonable and thus were likely to support him? Would have Muhammad accepted Aisha’s familiy refusal had he felt himself in a position of strength?
Dear ‘lolly’,
It doesn’t matter what you believe. What matters is that you understand what 1.5 billion Muslims believe.
Simply put they believe that Muhammed was ‘al-insan al-kamil’ …’the perfect man’…the moral standard bearer for all Muslims…despite the fact that as recorded by Muslims in Islamic source texts Muhammed was a tyrannical sadistic socipathic criminal.
It is important to understand this, because this is what inform the consciousness of the Muslim….not the love of Jesus or the peace of Buddha.
Until the myth of Muhammed as a moral leader is destroyed by the truth, humanity will continue to suffer its violence and hatred.
~ The Infidel Alliance
Dear ‘lolly’,
Clarification…
‘It doesn’t matter what you believe.’ (in the context of whether Muhammed actually existed or not)
Regards,
~ The Infidel Alliance
Can’t wait for the “love” scene between the 55 year old Mohammed and his nine year old “bride”, Ayesha.
Or their marriage when she was 6.
How about a scene where he fancies his buddy’s wife and the guy HAS to give her up?
Wow. That sounds as bad as the Mormons under Brigham Young. That kind of stuff was routine.
Ooops. I wasn’t supposed to mention that fact!
My bad.
Mark V,
“Wow. That sounds as bad as the Mormons under Brigham Young. That kind of stuff was routine.
Ooops. I wasn’t supposed to mention that fact!”
1. Did that make it right?
2. Do they still do it?
3. Will they gleefully sanction your murder for bringing it up?
If you are a critic of polygamy then you should be really down on islam. Oh wait, that wouldn’t fit your smug moralism. My bad.
Except it’s not a fact, just the moronic ramblings of an insignificant little nothing.
The point is to present Mohamed as he is described in Islamic narrative, warts and all. Whether he existed or not is a sequel to the 1st movie. The Mormons don’t blow up buildings and decapitate people, nor do they traffic in slaves so brazenly in the XXI Century. Don’t try to confuse the issue.
according to spencer this guy is a fraud
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2011/05/did-son-of-hamas-mosab-hassan-yousef-dupe-the-counter-jihad-movement.html
I remember reading that at the time. My respect for Robert knows no bounds – a brave man and true scholar – so yes, it does put a question mark against the guy.
Islam is the world’s fastest growing relgion? Well, yeah, for two reasons.
(1) Promise any 3rd world jobless illiterate guy absolute power over women plus an X-rated afterlife…what’s not to like?
(2) In the finest organized crime “Murder Incorperated” fashion, kill anyone who declines to join (or wants to leave) the party. I wonder how many muslims just mouth the appropriate words, no different from the zombies in North Korea.
I doubt it is. The growth of Christianity in China and Africa is both massive and under-reported. So Islam is certainly not the fastest growing in raw numbers, and probably not in percentage terms either.
This is wonderful! Islam is a totalitarian ideology that needs to be destroyed, and Muhammed is its Achilles heel.
When the truth about Muhammed is widely exposed, the moral foundation of islam will collapse because far from being a ‘holy prophet’ Muhammed was just another in a long line of sadistic sociopathic tyrants afflicted with gran mal narcissism.
Muhammed was, according to Islamic sources written by Muslims, a mass murderer, a human slaver and human trafficker, a sadistic torturer, a bloodthirsty mass decapitator, a sexual deviant, a child rapist, an abusive misogynist, a perfidious liar, a looting stealing thief, a sex slaver and sex trafficker, a genocidist, a bigoted intolerant supremecist, a self proclaimed terrorist.
By any objective standard, Muhammed was one of the most vile examples of a man in the pantheon of human history, a sexual glutton consumed by unquenchable lust, a materialistic theif consumed by asymptotic greed, a classic sadist with a passionate bloodlust.
Muhammed was in reality little more than a 7th century Charles Manson, a Meccan Adolph Hitler, just more succcessful in the depths of his evil.
Like Hitler, Muhammed should be reviled not revered. And like Manson, Muhammed the sociopathic criminal should have been incarcerated, not venerated.
Please support this project. Read the biography of Muhammed for yourself. Help expose the evil truth about Muhammed.
~ The Infidel Alliance
Good this prophet and desciple of Satan the Deceiver needs exposer like this!
What Studio or Theater would dare risk Islam’s raging lunitics’ wrath by showing anything even close to the truth of Mohammad.
I remember what Jesus says about the biggest end time lies against the Saint of Most High and about the liars/beast that invaded the lands of the Saint of Most High, killed the people, stole the treasures and properties and make the lands not suitable for living in all through lies.