The Western Art of Offending Muslims: the Sexual Weapon

The Western art of offending Muslims is a long established art. Western Christians have excelled in it and modern Zionists (Jewish, Christian, and atheist) have merely incorporated the clichés of Western Christian hatred of Islam and Muslims. Of course, fanatical Muslim groups have deliberately exploited the release of The Innocence of Muslims in order to whip up hate and hostility and to advance their own horrific, fanatical agenda. But their ability to resonate has to do with history.

The sexual content of the movie tells the story. For centuries, Western Christians offended Muslims with their sexual obsession with the life of Mohammad. From the earliest encounter of Christians with Islam, the life of Mohammad was considered the primary object of theological wrath.

For Christians, Mohammad did not represent the ascetic ideal that is embodied in the Christian moral system. Furthermore, he did not perform the miracles that he was expected to perform as a legitimate prophet – in the eyes of Christians. But Mohammad’s sexual life was always on the mind of Christian critics.

Those who formed the Christian church and constructed the Christian value system, promoted an ascetic ideal for the believers. Thus, there are no references to the earthly pleasure preferences and concerns for Jesus in the New Testament. Jesus, as a Jewish man in his 30s, must have been married, and yet the accounts of Jesus life contain no references whatsoever to a wife. There is nothing in the official church accounts about any pleasures of the earth that Jesus enjoyed. That would have conflicted with Christian morality where happiness is to be sought in the “City of God” and not in the “city of man.”

An ideal Christian man would have lived his life like St. Augustine, who in order to resist the temptations of the flesh would not allow women to be in his vicinity and would not even chew his food to avoid experiencing pleasure. St. Augustine admitted in his “Confessions” that he used to plead for God to save him in earlier years but would add: “but not yet.”

Islam – to the chagrin of early Christian critics – did not share that ascetic morality with Christianity. A man who came to the Prophet to inform him that he would not get married and would devote his life to God, was met with a surprised reaction from the Prophet. We know what food the prophet enjoyed and we know that the Prophet enjoyed sex with his wives. That did not offend early Muslims who often bragged about the sexual prowess of the Prophet and his companions.

For early Muslims, this was not a weakness and it was not shameful. Muslims were aware that their religion did not abhor the enjoyment of earthly pleasures. Muslims only became defensive about such matters when they incorporated some of the Christian moral sensibilities of shame and politeness and even streaks of asceticism into their religious practice.

Yet, Christian polemics against Islam always resorted to sexual insults and taunting. The story of Zaynab Bint al-Jahash was a favorite story for Orientalists and for Christian polemicists (and the two often were one). For them, the idea that Mohammad was attracted to a woman was scandalous in itself, and that she was married to his adopted son, Zayd, only made the scandal more salacious to Westerners.

Contemporary Muslims became so aware of the Western Christian legacy of polemics that the story of Zaynab is now often ignored in Arab Muslim accounts. Unsurprisingly, the story of Zaynab made it into the film.

Fittingly, the producer of the film selected a pornographer to direct his film. He knew that sexual insults of the Prophet had to be included in the project for extra effect. He, growing up in Egypt, knew that contemporary Muslims are very sensitive on this subject. But this is not unique to Christian insults of Muslims and Islam. Western anti-Semites often used sexual insults against Jews and Judaism – and this is not the only similarity in the style of hate between anti-Semites and anti-Muslims. Yet, some Zionist Jews are in the forefront of the proponents of the Western ideology of hostility against Islam and Muslims.

Western views of Muslims have often focused on the sexual. The native Arab or native Muslim is seen as a sexual predator who is intent on adding yet another wife to his harem. The film that is being discussed and protested against did not appear in a vacuum. There is a long history of Western Christian hostility behind it.

Comments

Don't blame us all for what a few are making.

This is one the biggest embarcement that western countries makes object on personal basis librately on Muslims way of life although every one in the world knows better what are the social expectations in Islam for a society to be why u poke ur nose into it. It does not kill any one if a women wears hijab and man do not make fun off liberately why?????
funny quotes

As a lifelong victim of the kind of Christian attitudes you discuss, bro - specifically as routed via Scottish Presbyterianism - I salute you.

As well as being so often right on the mark politically, you're often LOL amusing. And we sure as hell need all the righteous laughs we can get.

First, I am totally against the stupid film which seems to have a budget of $100,000 max.

This article shows that the writer is anti-Christian. The pot calling the kettle black. By all of today's civilized standards, what Mohammed did would put him in jail in most countries, i.e. having sex with a nine year old. Also, Mohammed had his adopted son divorce his wife so that he, i.e. the prophet, can have sex with her. This is not even acceptable in modern Islamic society.

If the author is proud of the Muslim sexual prowess, so be it. Alf mabrook. It is clear that the reaction of Muslims to this stupid and senseless film only makes non-Muslims less sympathetic to Muslims.

This film should have been ignored and not given any importance. It would have disappeared into oblivion immediately. Now, anyone who wants Muslims to jump up and down burning their own country can do that with $50,000.

"This article shows that the writer is anti-Christian. The pot calling the kettle black"
ad hominem attacks mean you're short on arguments,
to your knowledge the author is a self-confessed atheist
so he may be anti-religious and not only anti-Christian
he will not defend Islam against Christianity out of zeal if he didn't see something to write about

"By all of today's civilized standards, what Mohammed did would put him in jail in most countries, i.e. having sex with a nine year old."

This kind of argumentation is a red herring. In earlier eras of human history, including European history, the marriageable age was considerably lower than that which might be regarded as normal in western countries now. Even in the 20th century, in certain jurisdictions within the United States, the age of consent for young women was several years lower than it now is; that is, while in most jurisdictions it is now around 16 years of age (with parental consent) it has been in the recent past 13 (also with parental consent).

By most accounts, the prophet Muhammad was betrothed to his youngest wife Aisha (with parental consent) while she was yet a girl of nine. But the marriage was not consummated (again with parental consent) until she had reached the age of 13.

In some jurisdictions within the United States as late as the mid 20th century and in most jurisdictions in Europe throughout the so-called "age of Enlightenment" that would have been legal.

Judging the behavior of people in earlier civilizations or even those in earlier eras of modern civilizations by today's standards is an absurdity.

The film is worth 100 000, but all bombs that "Christians" are using against Muslims are sure worth much more, even during this year.

And KN is shows he(?) is anti-Muslim bigot. As'ad is an Atheist and often defends Christians from attacks by bigots, usually Jewish, but Muslim as well.

stop calling followers of other faith as kaffirs.
do not attribute each and every failure of your government on the jews and west.
give more voice to your women.

before that there can be no compromise.
muslims are indeed going to be singled out, and will encounter these things quie often.

The vicious lies in the video have the obvious intent to incite violence, and thereby, to thwart existing peace initiatives worldwide.
The proof of the character of the Holy Last Messenger Muhammad (peace be upon him) as the teacher of broadmindedness, integrity, tolerance, love, respect for others and balance, is available in any noteworthy, scholarly text: Muslim or non-Muslim. The things attributed in the video clip are unspeakable injustices and an immoral and disgusting rewrite of history. To verify this just read the scholarly work of your choice.
Incitement to violence must be rejected. Muslims have nothing to win by that, nor do Christians. Understand that a true Muslim believes that the destiny of Islam is to be united with Christianity and vice versa. This is in our traditions and will lead to peace on a global scale.
Unfortunately, not everyone prefers peace to their own agendas.

Ben, I'm wondering whether you read the article. As'ad Abu Khalil condemns -- in the first paragraph -- the "horrific, fanatical agenda" of organizations protesting the film. How is that an "incitement to violence?" Second, the author (on his blog) repeatedly and frequently condemns the "anti-women, anti-poor, anti-homosexual, anti-Jewish" statements and practices within the Middle East and in the "west." Where in this article does the author incite other people's religions, beliefs, etc. ?

My response is: So what? So what if some Westerners "insult" Islam and Muhammad with "the sexual weapon"? With his use of the word, "insult" or "offend" in this piece, does the writer adhere to the belief held by the fanatics that any critiquing of the life of Muhammad is an insult or offensive? Is Muhammad off limits?

Jews are anti-women, anti-poor, Anti-black african, anti-muslim and anti-homo. Read Israeli newspapers.

Big Title, little content... i wish for once 'Dr' abikhalil would go in depth in analyzing this dichotomy, and deeper in the psychological undercurrents of it, and also, in attempting to explain the historical aspects of the prophet's 'sexual' activity.

Now, also that Hassan Nasrallah have joined the stupid wagon of protesting this stupid 13-minute movie. Why does he not have the guts to protest the slaughter in Syria?

Do not be silly. Protest the blood of the instruments of the forces of darkness and and fanaticism?

As a matter of fact Hassan Nasrallah used the demo against the film to protest the slaughter in Syria - i.e. the NATO/Zionist/GCC war crimes against Syria.

Now, anon has a lot of guts attacking official foes of NATO/Zionist/GCC

YOU GOT IT TOTALLY WRONG, AS USUAL

IT'S the slaughter in Syria - i.e. Russia/Iran/Assad/Nassrallah war crimes against Syria.

non, anon the NATO lover got it as his NATO masters told him LOL

After all, how could USA not to be the best friend of Arabs? USA spend billions to arms and other ways to slaughter Arabs, helped Zionists in their crimes against Arabs and support such democratic rulers of Arab world as Saudi, Jordan and Bahrain kings

I hear that alot
Arab ultra-leftists calls other "traitors" to legitimize killing them
its the same when a religious leader call someone "mortad"
its the same why the hell your call for murder of co-citizens makes any different or superior to another fanatic calling to murder co-religion because they differ in opinion and for your informations
most of these 50.000 you called traitors are civilians and include women, children and elderly.
when USA & Israel kill you get outraged and when your ilk do the same of worse when say its to defend the country against conspiracy!?

I am a Jew and writing this on our new year (5773). I think it is dumb for some Copt to make such a dumb film but even dumber for Muslims to protest violently (doesn't Islam mean peace?) But perhaps that definition alludes those who would blame an entire 'civilization' (western) for one person's incitement. So you are inciting to violence what was also incitement perhaps. BUT you should look at your own 'civilization' which has anti-women, anti-poor, anti-homosexual, anti-Jewish media abounding: newspapers, tv shows, movies, internet sites, Holocaust denial, etc.

If you want Copts or others to not incite in such a dumb film, you should also not insult others peoples' religions, beliefs, etc.

It's clearly illogical for a dumb film to be met with such a violent reaction. But if you take into account the history of western foreign policy in dealing with Muslims, it starts to add up. Countless offensives, invading and bombing several countries, and alliances with dictatorships over the people's interests are all imprinted into the collective conscience of Arabs and Muslims. More importantly the double standards which are manifested with respect to anti-Muslim as opposed to anti-Semitic movements magnify this feeling of resentment. It is certainly worth taking a look at everyone's own "civilization", but your over-generalization of 1.2 billion people shows the level of ignorance and prejudice which needs to be fought by all societies, western, eastern, northern, southern, and extraterrestrial.

Didn't your ilk also expect the Palestinians to go quietly in the wind and were and still are enraged because they are still lying around and haven't forgotten that your people expelled hundreds of thousands of them from their homeland and razed their villages?

Assad mentioned in his blog or in the previous article about these protests that it was dumber to protest the film 'violently', although saying that the vast majority of the protests have been peaceful. Assad also continuously posts against injustices in the arab world, and where they occur western governments themselves ignore the most (Saudi Arabia). Plus in Britain where I live Women still do not get equal wages to men, still goes to war without consulting its people, doesnt punish torture, sends people to countries to get tortured, doesnt prosecute MPs for war crimes and so on, and the same is true for most Western nations and Israel. You will also note that most of the proests in the Arab world looking for democracy have occurred in states that are clients of Western governments. It is also worth looking at how protests for democracy in Morocco, outnumbered the protests about this film yet received no coverage in the Western Press and the same is true in other countries as well like, Jordan, but hey lets focus on the insignificant.

Ben the Zionist is SO boring with his stale orientalist cliches, and, by the way, who is air-bombing and droning whom "his" "civilization" Muslims or vice versa?

When NY cops are shown by their bosses anti-Muslim racist movie and then sent to spy on Muslims (illegally, of course, but who cares?), when Zionists officially and proudly deny non-Jewish "citizens" of Israel aparteid state the same rights as Jewish one have, Ben sure has a lot of chuzpa to preach about "anti-women, anti-poor, anti-homosexual, anti-Jewish media" to victims of Western imperialism and its bastard child - Zionism.

Next time, Ben should at least try harder to cover his Zionist racism.

"But perhaps that definition alludes those who would blame an entire 'civilization' (western) for one person's incitement."

Same to you for implying the entire Arab/Muslim world is up in arms over this silly film. No, they aren't.

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd><img><h1><h2><h3><h4><h5><h6><blockquote><span><aside>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

More information about formatting options

^ Back to Top