There is no mistaking the offensive nature of the film, as it accusing the Prophet of having been a womanizer, a fool, a sexual pervert, and a homosexual (though that last “insult” plays into homophobia).  There is also no mistaking the fact that the murder of the four Americans, including Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens is cruel and barbaric by any measure.

  Here are twelve points to keep in mind, in an attempt to bring some sanity to a controversy that has already generated far more heat than light:

1)  This is not an issue of Freedom of Speech vs. religious sensitivity.


Every time that there is an offensive piece written to target Muslim sensitivities, there is the temptation to cast it as an issue of “freedom of speech”, held to be absolute, vs. the religious sensitivity of Muslims.    That framework is either unhelpful or at best only partially helpful.   In reality, pieces like the “Innocence of Muslims” so-called film are best classified as “hate speech”, as they seem to be of the same genre as anti-Semitic films of the 1930’s or Birth of the Nation KKK movies.

The issue of freedom of speech vs. religious sensitivity also misses the point because it assumes—falsely—that Muslims are only capable of religious sensitivity.    Muslims, whether in relatively free societies like Turkey or under more oppressive regimes like Iran and Saudi Arabia have rich traditions of filmmaking, political cartoons, and satire. 


To Read the Rest of the Essay CLICK HERE