US ambassador to Libya killed in violence over anti-Islam film

The reaction to a nonsensical and offensive film has sparked protests in Bengazi and Cairo.

With the US ambassador to Libya killed in Bengazi and a protest of 2,000 in Cairo raising an Al-Qaeda-associated flag above the US embassy on the anniversary of 9/11, it is clear the reaction to a small video published online yesterday has got out of hand.

The YouTube clip of a film named "Innocence of Muslims" has been reported in the (rumour-filled) Egyptian press to have been the work of Koran-burning Florida Pastor Terry Jones and Coptic Egyptian Christians, who make up about 10 per cent of the population in Egypt. It was in fact produced by an Israeli filmmaker named Sam Bacile. "Islam is a cancer," he told the Wall Street Journal. "The movie is a political movie. It's not a religious movie."

The film itself is comic in its ridiculous condemnation of Islam, almost a satire of far-right Christians’ worst stereotypes about the Middle East. It features a cast of orange-looking Americans with large stick-on beards attacking Christians and burning down their houses.

Scenes of the Prophet’s life take place against a static computerised desert backdrop and include historical incongruities such as plastic-looking weapons taken from a range of periods and women combining their hijabs with low cut mini-dresses.

The film accuses Muhammad of paedophilia, extortion, womanising, drinking wine, being gay (“Is the master dominant or submissive?” a follower asks, while Muhammad replies “both - remember the night at the gym?”), terrible grammar “how pleasurable is our Islamic ways”, and generally portrays him as being a murderous brute. A 102-year-old woman with an extremely strong New York accent claims “never have I seen such a murderous thug as Muhammad”, before being dragged away attached to a camel's leg.

Other figures from the Koran, such as Bilal, make an appearance. Although a freed slave of Ethiopian descent, known to be a companion of the Prophet famed for his beautiful voice, he is here presented as a large overweight white man with strange markings on his face.

The film has caused conspiracy theories to fly. Was it a plot by Morsi to provoke the US on the anniversary of 9/11? A Salafi plan to spread sectarian tensions? Protests are rumoured to intensify in Cairo today, with the violent football fans the Ultras Ahlawy heading down to the embassy. Sheikhs in Egypt are already calling for the revocation of citizenship of Copts living abroad.

All over a film that is so ridiculous it seems like a parody of itself. Much like the Danish cartoon controversy, something trivial has highlighted extreme underlying tensions and insecurities. They say that the offensive cartoon caused widespread anti-government protests in Libya. The film may also have brought to the surface tensions which will be harder to bury.

“Man + X = Islamic Terrorist” one character in the film philosophises in a characteristically nonsensical scene. What is X, we are left to wonder. By this film's estimation, the most obvious conclusion would be fake tan, a cheap beard, and some strong glue.

A still from "Innocence of Muslims".
Getty
Show Hide image

The most terrifying thing about Donald Trump's speech? What he didn't say

No politician uses official speeches to put across their most controversial ideas. But Donald Trump's are not hard to find. 

As Donald Trump took the podium on a cold Washington day to deliver his inauguration speech, the world held its breath. Viewers hunched over televisions or internet streaming services watched Trump mouth “thank you” to the camera, no doubt wondering how he could possibly live up to his deranged late-night Twitter persona. In newsrooms across America, reporters unsure when they might next get access to a president who seems to delight in denying them the right to ask questions got ready to parse his words for any clue as to what was to come. Some, deciding they couldn’t bear to watch, studiously busied themselves with other things.

But when the moment came, Trump’s speech was uncharacteristically professional – at least compared to his previous performances. The fractured, repetitive grammar that marks many of his off-the-cuff statements was missing, and so, too, were most of his most controversial policy ideas.

Trump told the crowd that his presidency would “determine the course of America, and the world, for many, many years to come” before expressing his gratefulness to President Barack Obama and Michelle Obama for their “gracious aid” during the transition. “They have been magnificent," Trump said, before leading applause of thanks from the crowd.

If this opening was innocent enough, however, it all changed in the next breath. The new president moved quickly to the “historic movement”, “the likes of which the world has never seen before”, that elected him President. Following the small-state rhetoric of his campaign, Trump promised to take power from the “establishment” and restore it to the American people. “This moment," he told them, “Is your moment. It belongs to you.”

A good deal of the speech was given over to re-iterating his nationalist positions while also making repeated references to the key issues – “Islamic terrorism” and families – that remain points of commonality within the fractured Republican GOP.

The loss of business to overseas producers was blamed for “destroying our jobs”. “Protection," Trump said, “Will lead to great strength." He promised to end what he called the “American carnage” caused by drugs and crime.

“From this day forward," Trump said, “It’s going to be only America first."

There was plenty in the speech, then, that should worry viewers, particularly if you read Trump’s promises to make America “unstoppable” so it can “win” again in light of his recent tweets about China

But it was the things Trump didn't mention that should worry us most. Trump, we know, doesn’t use official channels to communicate his most troubling ideas. From bizarre television interviews to his upsetting and offensive rallies and, of course, the infamous tweets, the new President is inclined to fling his thoughts into the world as and when he sees fit, not on the occasions when he’s required to address the nation (see, also, his anodyne acceptance speech).

It’s important to remember that Trump’s administration wins when it makes itself seem as innocent as possible. During the speech, I was reminded of my colleague Helen Lewis’ recent thoughts on the “gaslighter-in-chief”, reflecting on Trump’s lying claim that he never mocked a disabled reporter. “Now we can see," she wrote, “A false narrative being built in real time, tweet by tweet."

Saying things that are untrue isn’t the only way of lying – it is also possible to lie by omission.

There has been much discussion as to whether Trump will soften after he becomes president. All the things this speech did not mention were designed to keep us guessing about many of the President’s most controversial promises.

Trump did not mention his proposed ban on Muslims entering the US, nor the wall he insists he will erect between America and Mexico (which he maintains the latter will pay for). He maintained a polite coolness towards the former President and avoiding any discussion of alleged cuts to anti-domestic violence programs and abortion regulations. Why? Trump wanted to leave viewers unsure as to whether he actually intends to carry through on his election rhetoric.

To understand what Trump is capable of, therefore, it is best not to look to his speeches on a global stage, but to the promises he makes to his allies. So when the President’s personal website still insists he will build a wall, end catch-and-release, suspend immigration from “terror-prone regions” “where adequate screening cannot occur”; when, despite saying he understands only 3 per cent of Planned Parenthood services relate to abortion and that “millions” of women are helped by their cancer screening, he plans to defund Planned Parenthood; when the president says he will remove gun-free zones around schools “on his first day” - believe him.  

Stephanie Boland is digital assistant at the New Statesman. She tweets at @stephanieboland