The movie, ‘Innocence of Muslims’ provoked widespread fury in the Islamic societies throughout the world. In an interview with Khabar Online, Farid Marjayi, an Iranian researcher and writer residing in the U.S. commented on the persistent American policy in the Middle East which will be no longer in the best interests of Washington. He believes that after the victories of the Arabian revolutions in the region, the ground has been provided for people to voice their demands. In the meantime, the extremist Muslims and the moderate ones should be differentiated.
At the beginning, please give us details on the controversial film which insults the holy Prophet of Islam.
The movie [‘Innocence of Muslims’] is absolutely superficial and amateurish. Due to the freedom of speech in the West, entertainment products including the yellow press and vulgar films have found their own place and audience. For example some European magazines recently published topless photos of Kate Middleton, the Duchess of Cambridge and annoyed the British royal family.
Back to the anti-Islam movie, it was firstly supposed that an Israeli-American had produced the film under a pseudonym, but then it was disclosed that a Christian Egyptian [with the pseudonym, Sam Bacile] who had earlier been accused of a fraud scheme and sentenced to prison in Los Angeles is responsible for making of the work. The film's budget, allegedly about $5 million has been provided by some extremist (anti-Islam) Christians. Despite all these information, the truth may be uncovered a few years later. As a video, ‘Innocence of Muslims’ has been on YouTube for two months, although because of violent protests, at the moment, it's not accessible in Egypt and Libya.
What was the reaction of the U.S. media to the film and its aftermath?
The U.S. media and press initially pretended that they have been shocked, but later drew the analysts to the story primarily to discuss the subject as a security issue. However, all the media in the United States are directly or indirectly affiliated to the power centers and are tasked with creating paradigms and discourses for international disputes. They generally attribute the crises to the foreign elements. For instance, they claim that an extremist minority Islamic group is responsible for the violent protests caused after the arrival of the anti-Islam movie. From their view, everything except the U.S. policy in the Middle East is subjected to change except the foreign policy adopted by their country which is not deemed subjected to criticism.
Even in a situation where the production and release of a film endangers the security of the American politicians, aren’t legal authorities allowed to restrict such works?
The freedom of speech as has been widely developed and defended in the United States is remarkable. On the other hand, I should stress that the American officials and executives have their own interpretation of such freedom. As the extremist capitalist system is practiced in the U.S. political economy demands its own especial cultural context.
What's your analysis of the response given by Barack Obama's government to the controversial event?
The U.S. government had not any kind of involvement in the production of the insulting movie and I would honestly say that after the video was uploaded on the Internet, both Barack Obama as the U.S. President and Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State reacted appropriately against the anti-Islam video, both denounced sacrilege acts against the religions and condemned the anti-Islam movie and disrespect for Islam. Moreover, the US government already requested in vain from Google Company which owns YouTube to remove the video, but defending its acts, Google referred to the freedom of speech.
281
