Tell me more ×
History Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for historians and history buffs. It's 100% free, no registration required.
up vote 1 down vote favorite

Innocence of Muslims, previously called Innocence of Bin Laden (working title: Desert Warrior. YouTube titles it as The Real Life of Muhammad and Muhammad Movie Trailer), is an amateur 2012 film that disparages Islam and its prophet Muhammad. My question is, is it historically accurate?

share|improve this question
7  
I think evaluaing correctness of a movie is off-topic here.. But if you have something specific in mind (e.g. a historical event mentioned in the movie), then it might be on-topic if you edit your question.. – Louis Rhys Sep 15 '12 at 15:10
@Cross-world-war3, based off the reaction in Libya, I'd guess this was a lot less than historically accurate. – Russell Sep 16 '12 at 2:26
@Russel, not necessarily true. It could be accurate but people won't accept else than they were taught and born to believe. So imagine if these things were about someone whom they glorify. – The Byzantine Jan 27 at 21:30
@TheByzantine What you say makes sense, but Innocence of Muslims only shows one side. Yes, some of it could be true, but, it doesn't show the whole truth. – Russell Jan 28 at 2:33
I agree. We are all men. We have good and bad qualities. The movies purposely showed the bad side. And they only believe he is the most pure and holy man ever lived, simply brainwashing in my opinion. justifying every mistake and making it to be have a divine purpose. So the reaction to the movie is understood especially when it was directed to be an insult. Even moderate Arab and Muslim liberals and moderate scholars when trying to open their eyes to the truth are prosecuted. And some know but prefer to be silent and live their ways. – The Byzantine Jan 28 at 2:49

closed as off topic by knut, Anixx, Louis Rhys, Luke, Joe Sep 15 '12 at 19:38

Questions on History Stack Exchange are expected to relate to history within the scope defined in the FAQ. Consider editing the question or leaving comments for improvement if you believe the question can be reworded to fit within the scope. Read more about closed questions here.

1 Answer

up vote 0 down vote

you be the judge. check wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad

imho, in a general and broad sense it is. i was surprised when i watched it how it contained a lot of stuff i heard beforehand.

however, it is interesting that the actors were fooled about what the movie was about, and many of the words were 'dubbed'. check this article out:

http://www.onthemedia.org/blogs/on-the-media/2012/sep/12/religious-references-innocence-muslims-dubbed/

so it looks like someone trying to use mockery to dissuade followers.
the interesting thing is, since the muslims don't allow pictures of any kind to represent muhommend, they are unable to produce a movie of their own to counter it.

share|improve this answer
2  
I've seen at least one claim (the one about the age of one of Mohammed's wives) being refuted rather strongly. See storify.com/MDaaysi/ayshasage . At least, Muslims don't seem to believe what's in the movie, and frankly at this late date that's what's important. Otherwise, somebody could take all those "the Disciple that Jesus loved" references from the Bible and use them to justify making a flick where Jesus and John are homosexual lovers. That isn't what any Christians believe, but you could claim its in there if you really want to be a jerk. – T.E.D.♦ Sep 15 '12 at 23:40
1  
Also, I think a devout Muslim could make a movie about the life of Mohammed by shooting it all in first person perspective. – T.E.D.♦ Sep 15 '12 at 23:45
@T.E.D. Except for the fact that Muslims forbid visual depictions of Muhammad. – Luke Sep 18 '12 at 1:25
1  
@Luke - Yes. "First person" means he would not be visually depicted. Just everyone else would. – T.E.D.♦ Sep 18 '12 at 1:53

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.