Steve Klein interviewed on Trentovision about Innocence of Mohammed
by Jerry Gordon, ICONOCLAST
Steve Klein, advisor to film The Innocence of Muslims
Last, Friday, Tom Trento of The United West did a Skype interview with Steve Klein, an advisor on the maligned film, The Innocence of Muslims on his Trentovision program that airs on WUNN 1470AM in Florida. The Huffington Post had a profile of Klein, see here. Because of the quality of the USStream video, we asked our colleague Vlad Tepes at the Vladtepesblog.com to excerpt and clean up the audio portion of the interview with Klein. The excerpted interview with Klein has been posted this afternoon on the MRCTV channel. Klein has been interviewed by several international news organizations and characterized as an anti-Islam extremist.
Klein is a former Nam era Combat Marine officer and besides his insurance agency he had become a counter Jihadist educator in California working with Christian and former Muslim refugees from the Middle East. He notes in the Trentovision interview that some of the portrayals in the poorly made film were allegedly checked out by knowledgeable experts like Nonie Drawish to verify that the scenes complied with the Qur’an, the Hadith and Sunnah.
Klein’s association with the production with the film was marginal, he reviewed the script. However, he indicated in the Trentovision interview that he would act as a spokesperson for a better quality production dealing with Mohammed and Aisha. Given the furor, he has had to go into hiding and is the subject of death threats that he indicated are under FBI investigation.
Unfortunately, some of the actors involved with the film’s production noteriety are vitally concerned that they were mislead. When the trailer aired they found that “George’ in the script had been substituted with “Muhammad” during the post production process. Note this example from The Hollywood Reporter:
- In the infamous Innocence of Muslims, a 14-minute YouTube video (see below) that has sparked riots and killing in the Middle East, actress Cindy Lee Garcia plays the mother of a 12-year-old girl who is to marry the Prophet Muhammad. At the nine-minute mark in the video, she is speaking to her husband and utters the lines: “Is your Muhammad a child molester? Our daughter is but a child, and he’s 55 years old.” The husband responds: “He is 53, not 55.” Garcia, though, says she never said the word “Muhammad” while shooting the video. She spoke to The Hollywood Reporter about her experience with the film, which was shot under the title, Desert Warrior.
Ms. Garcia wasn’t the only one that was mislead by the film’s producer Kaoula Basseley Nakoula, The Los Angeles Times reported today that Joseph Nassralla, head of non-profit charity Media for Christ was shocked to find out what the film was all about dismayed that he had been misled and that Kaoula had used his offices for shooting locations.
Nakoula a convicted bank fraudster and ex-patriate Coptic Christian has been closely questioned on whether he violated his federal parole. Note this comment from a New York Times blog post:
- One of the men behind “The Innocence of Muslims,” Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, was questioned by federal probation authorities in California over the weekend, Ian Lovett reported. Among the questions they may have asked Mr. Nakoula, who was convicted in a 2010 check-kiting case, was whether he uploaded the video to YouTube. The terms of his sentencing included a restriction against using the Internet without permission from a probation officer.
The 14 minute trailer for the film was posted on You Tube this summer and shown at one movie theater with little to no reaction. After the trailer for The Innocence of Muslims was loaded on You Tube it was seized upon by Salafist preachers in Egypt and translated-which translation has yet to be compared with the original English version.
After reloading with Arabic sub-titles it was the alleged spark to the outrage in the Muslim Ummah that eruped in riots and protests on 9/11 resulting in deaths and property destruction across the Muslim Ummah. Some Obama Administration spokespersons, most recently US UN Ambassador Susan Rice have maligned the shoddfy parody as contributing to the ‘spontaneous’ seizure of the legation by Islamist extremists in Benghazi that resulted in the death of our US Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three colleagues, two former US Navy Seals, Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods and legation spokesperson, Sean Smith. Even the current Libyan President Mohamed Magarif told “NBC Nightly News” that the benghazi attack had been deliberately planned, some contend in retribution for the US drone attack in June that killed Libyan-born al Qaeda leader Yahya al-Libi in Pakistan.
What followed in the wake of that horrid event on 9/11 was the eruption of embassy attacks and protests stretching across the Muslim ummah from Morocco, Tunisia, Egypt, the Sudan, Gaza, Israel, Lebanon, Iran, Pakistan, India, and Indonesia. We had graphic photos of rampaging fundamentalist Muslims breaching US Embassies in Tunis, Cairo and Sana in Yemen burning the US flag replacing it with the black flag of Islam. The Obama Administration is caught like a deer frozen in the headligjhts of an on-coming vehicle, reaching for any rationale after the failure of its ‘soft power’ apologetics delivered to the Muslim ummah at the Cairo New Beginnings Speech in June 2009. Now the Administration has to contend with the embarrassment of a meeting at the White House with Muslim Brotherhood Egyptian Brotherhood President Mohammed Morsi during the UN General Assembly meetings. As noted in this Jordan Times article:
- But there has been concern that he failed to immediately apologise after protesters Tuesday scaled the Cairo building’s walls and tore down the US flag.
“We Egyptians reject any kind of assault or insult against our prophet. I condemn and oppose all who… insult our prophet,” Morsi said Thursday.
This was the same Mohammed Morsi who urged Egyptian voters during a May Campaign speech to follow the credo of Imam Hasan al-Banna, founder of the Muslim Brotherhood.
Freedom of Speech.
Criticizing Islam, presenting facts that favor Israel, or exposing the technical details and inhumanity of abortion have become taboo. Those who persist are shouted down or worse.
Having the right to freedom of speech on the books is not worth very much when mobs can determine what is sanctioned speech or not, and when Muslims demand “respect” at the point of a gun.
@ CuriousAmerican:
Hateful??? You know nada about Judaism and our scripture.
Amalek
“Remember what Amalek did to you, on the way, when you were leaving Egypt, that he happened upon you on the way, and he struck those of you who were hindmost, all the weaklings at your rear, when you were faint and exhausted, and he did not fear G-d. It shall be that when Hashem, your G-d, gives you rest from all your enemies around, in the Land that Hashem, your G-d, gives you as an inheritance to possess it, you shall wipe out the memory of Amalek from under the heaven – you shall not forget!” (Deut. 25:17-19
Amalek’s sin is the great and eternal sin of those who refuse “to know Hashem” and to accept His yoke upon themselves, and who thereby desecrate His Name. The Children of Israel were on the way, and the word ba-derekh (“on the way”) appears here twice, indicating that they were both on the way out of Egypt and on the way to the Land of Israel: both of these components together prove G-d’s power and might in the eyes of the nations, so that they would accept the yoke of His sovereignty. And now Amalek, the foremost and most brazen representative of “I do not know Hashem” launches himself against Israel, in an attempt to demonstrate both to Israel and to the rest of the world that G-d has no power, and that He is not the G-d of history
This is the key to understanding why G-d was more angry at Amalek than at any other nation. . This was the awful sin of Amalek, regarding which it is said (Ex. 17:16), “The hand is on G-d’s throne. The L-rd shall be at war with Amalek for all generations”. King David said, “Enemy! The waste places are come to an end forever, and the cities which you did uproot, their very memorial is perished” (Ps. 9:7). What follows? “But the L-rd is enthroned forever. He has established His throne for judgment.”
Since, in the nations’ eyes, Israel’s weakness and lowliness, and their suffering at the nations’ hands, are interpreted as G-d’s weakness and inability to save His people, and that is a Chilul Hashem, it follows that Israel’s power, exaltation and victory over their own enemies and the blasphemous enemies of G-d is a Kiddush Hashem.
Do you want to know how the Name of G-d is desecrated in the eyes of the mocking and sneering nations? It is when the Jew, His people, His Chosen, is desecrated! When the Jew is beaten, G-d is profaned! When the Jew is humiliated – G-d is shamed! When the Jew is attacked – it is an assault upon the name of G-d![…] What he [the non-Jewish persecutor] is really saying is: “There is no L-rd, there is no G-d of Israel and if there is, He is an impotent and helpless god. For if He truly existed as the Omnipotent and All-powerful Sovereign of the Universe, His people would not be in exile, they could not be at my mercy, they could not be beaten and shamed and humiliated by me.”
This is the desecration of G-d’s name. Every pogrom is a desecration of the Name. Every Auschwitz and expulsion and murder and rape of a Jew is the humiliation of G-d. Every time a Jew is beaten by a gentile because he is a Jew, this is the essence of Chilul Hashem. An end to Exile – that is Kiddush Hashem. An end to the shame and the beatings and the monuments to our murdered and our martyred. An end to Kaddish and prayers for the dead. A shaking off of the dust of the Exile and its shame and a return to a Jewish state of our own created with the fire and the spitting of Jewish guns. A Jewish fist in the face of an astonished gentile world that had not seen it for two millenia. This is Kiddush Hashem. Reading angry editorials about Jewish “aggression” and “violations” rather than flowery eulogies over dead Jewish victims. That is Kiddush Hashem.
The State of Israel came into being not because the Jew deserved it, but because the gentile did. It came into being not because the Jew was worthy of it but because the Name of G-d had reached its fill of humiliation and desecration. “I do this not for your sake, O House of Israel, but for Mine holy Name’s sake which ye have profaned among the nations”. […]
G-d established a principle that as long as Israel possesses a sovereign government with the power to blot out Amalek’s memory, it is a mitzvah and a duty for them to do so. For this reason our sages said (Sifri, Re’eh, 67): Israel were commanded regarding three mitzvot for when they entered the Land: to appoint a king, build the Temple and destroy Amalek’s seed.
One need not mock Muhammed in a film. It is enough to accurately depict his life. For example, he married a 6 year old, began molesting her at once, and began having intercourse with her (raping her) when she was 9. That isn’t what non-Muslims say; that is what Muslims say, and their justification for the ongoing forced marriage, including of underage girls, in so many countries.
There is so much more. In any event, the criticism of the poor quality of the film trailer is utterly irrelevant. People have every right to criticize Islam and Muhammed and make fun of them. These are god-given rights (“endowed by their creator with … inalienable rights…”) (read your Decl of Independence and Constitution), and recognized in the Constitution.
CuriousAmerican Said:
Again you appear to have lost the trend of conversation. You are quoting the bible I am talking about modern days. The muslims have been bombing, stoning, slaughtering,libeling, slandering, etc. These are not lies but facts. I know of no other significant population or culture which is currently engaged in this behavior at the same intensity. It is intellectually disingenuous to seek equality between facts and fictions, muslim behavior and that of non muslims. Laws can be made but a corrupt population may not enforce those laws as meant. This does not mean there is something wrong with the laws but with the people.
CuriousAmerican Said:
The nazi wannabe Holocaust denier Irving, was sent to prison.
The Bible verses in relation to Amalek are hateful.
Are courts now to decide whether the New Testament which loves Jesus and condemns the rabbis who rejected him – or the Talmud which loves the Rabbis and condemns those who follow Jesus – to be suppressed?
Regrettably lies have to be allowed.
Ted Belman Said:
dont agree, as stated
you cannot prohibit hate but you can prohibit lies in the furtherance of hate. The propagation of lies appears to be the main currency of Islamic intolerance.
CuriousAmerican Said:
The matter has always been there for the Jews. It is now haunting others. Let us not confuse opinion with lies. The holocaust happened, it is a fact, Muslim intolerance and slaughter is also a fact. There always appears to be this disingenuous equality floating around as if people cant discern the truth.
This is an article on this is American Thinker
http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/09/the_arabs_of_south_america.html
To see how bad this is:
The Saudis got land for a mosque in DOWNTOWN BUENOS AIRES (still one of the richests locations on the planet).
They set up the King Fahd Mosque.
The set up CIRA, El Centro Islamico de la Republica Argentina.
On Argentina’s few Muslims, most are not even practicing.
Yet the SAUDI financed Mosque and CIRA have gotten TV shows – ON PUBLIC TV – cancelled to make way for Islamic TV.
They got Argentina to give them this land 8 acres of the most expensive real estate in Argentina.
http://v003o.popscreen.com/eGd2cnBtMTI=_o_visit-the-king-fahd-mosque-in-buenos-aires-argentina.jpg
Argentina is over 80% Catholic, 9% Pentecostal 1% Jewish, 9% non-practicing Catholic and 1% Muslim and most Muslims do not even practice.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cfDKDKsrBig&feature=relmfu
The Arab Christians – who are over 90% of the Arabs in Argentina were furious about this.
But Saudi money prevailed.
The Saudis do not bother with media. They bribed their way in.
Thomas Klocek was fired for defending Israel during a Pro-Palestinian rally at DePaul.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yVTJVn6rBn4&feature=relmfu
But only Finkelstein is remembered. Klocek is the more grevious case.
Klocek was a Catholic who defended Israel, but got booted for doing so.
The so called “Jewish power” is decreasing. The real power is “Saudi” and it is increasing. One might have been able to claim Jewish power 20 years ago. NO LONGER!
This is not so obvious in America, but if you read Spanish, the Saudis have control over South American Media when it comes to Israel Palestine issues.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M-dg193qngo
Argentina is only 1% Muslim with most non-practicing. Yet, the Saudis got a popular show cancelled to make way for this Saudi show financed in Buenos Aires ON PUBLIC TV .
We all recall how Finkelstein was drummed out of a well known US university for not towing the line.
It is in Canada and Europe. Even England and Ireland are shaky on that.
The odd thing is that these anti-hate crimes laws do not protect Jews, they end up protecting Muslims from criticism. Michel Houellebecq, and Bridgette Bardot have been brought to trial over minor things for criticizing Islam. Houellebecq was brought to trial for criticizing the literary merit of the Koran.
Lawsuits are the answer; not criminalization.
But rather than forbidding a pro-Palestine protest; meet it with an anti-Islam protest.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2260922.stm (VERY GOOD ARTICLE)
Michel Houellebecq (pronounced Wellbeck) wrote a literary criticism of both the Koran and the Torah. While he found some parts of both texts of poor quality; he admitted that the Tenach rose to heights of unparalleled poetry and excellence. He found the Koran to be literary trash. [I agree. I have read the Koran and it is literary trash]
He called Islam the dumbest religion.
For this opinoin, Michel Houellebecq was brought to trial.
The answer is to teach the Holocaust; not to ban its denial. In schools, curriculum can be set. Freedom of speech is allowed, but you cannot teach 1+1=3
In France, Bridgette Bardot is regularly brought to trial for criticizing Islam
http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/04/15/us-france-bardot-muslims-idUSL1584799120080415
In the USA, the ADL favors anti-hate laws. It is a trap. On the surface, it looks good, but it opens a door and Muslims will walk in and take over with it.
This is what we are headed to.
Canada’s deportation of Ernst Zundel backfired.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zoC6Z02x2-4 (Michael Coren)
Mr. Coren says it should not have been illegal, but then why did Canada deport him?
Zundel was everybody’s nutty German uncle. He should have been labelled a lunatic, and ignored.
The reason this is important is that in Canada and the USA, the Palestinians have taken over the campus.
Some Jewish groups are trying to fight back with legal restrictions; but the Muslims will walk in and turn the tables.
A free and open debate will favor the Jews. Free Speech is ugly, but it is the only thing that works.
They are now debating if this movie is protected by the First Amendment.
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-chayes-innocence-of-muslims-first-amendment-20120918,0,3112718.story
Free Speech has to be protected, but the Muslims will shut it down.
Holocaust denial is not outlawed in America.
This was merely a pretext. It is obvious why the feds really brought him in for questioning.
Anyway why are we focusing on the filmmaker instead of the marauding mobs?
This quote (from Canadian Otter) is from yesterday’s posting on “the movie”. What it says concerns LIBEL, and it seems to me that if there are lies involved (such as in Holocaust denial and blood libels) then this way – the accepted legal way – is the way to handle it, although the expense of bringing such situations to court is something that has to be addressed. Keegstra said things that were outright lies, as do muslims these days. If not censoring free speech is a major consideration, then the libel approach seems to be the only alternative.
Freedom of speech does not imply freedom from the consequences of that free speech.
Wow. Great discussion guys. Its good to see an important issue like this being debated in such an erudite way.
Yes there is a link between outlawing holocaust denial and outlawing criticism of Islam. Many conservatives worried when legislation outlawing holocaust began to be debated. It was fully understood as a slippery slope. We see the fruits of it now in the demands for outlawing criticism of Islam.
In Canada, James Keegstra, a notorious holocaust denier was prosecuted for hate crimes and convicted.
Wikipedia
James “Jim” Keegstra is a former public school teacher in Eckville, Alberta, Canada, who was charged and convicted of hate speech in 1984. The conviction was overturned by the Court of Appeal but re-instated by the Supreme Court of Canada. The decision received substantial international attention and became a landmark Canadian legal case.
Initial trial
In 1984, Keegstra was stripped of his teaching certificate and charged under the Criminal Code of Canada with “wilfully promoting hatred against an identifiable group” by teaching his social studies students that the Holocaust was a fraud and attributing various evil qualities to Jews. He thus described Jews to his pupils as “treacherous”, “subversive”, “sadistic”, “money-loving”, “power hungry” and “child killers”. He taught his classes that the Jewish people seek to destroy Christianity and are responsible for depressions, anarchy, chaos, wars and revolution. According to Keegstra, the Jews “created the Holocaust to gain sympathy” and, in contrast to the open and honest Christians, were said to be deceptive, secretive and inherently evil. He taught his students the myth of a Jewish world-conspiracy whose blueprint allegedly came from the Talmud.[3] Keegstra expected his students to reproduce his teachings in class and on exams. If they failed to do so, their marks suffered.[4]
Keegstra attempted to have this charge quashed as a violation of his freedom of expression; this motion was denied, and he was convicted at trial. Many of his former students testified against him. Publicly stating that Keegstra had brought their town into disrepute, locals were unable to impeach Keegstra as mayor and instead overwhelmingly voted him out of office at the next election.
I remember when this case was proceeding, the crown prosecutor had to prove that the Holocaust actually happenned, so many survivors and experts were called to give evidence. In his decision the Judge noted how with the passage of time that it would become harder and harder to prove it due to the absence of survivors, so he took judicial notice of the fact of the holocaust so it wouldn’t have to be proved in Canada again.
While many would argue that the Holocaust is sui generis meaning it was a unique case. Whether or not this is so, it opens up the case for others to argue likewise..
So what is happening in the UK now is that while you can’t deny it, you also can’t teach it. I can’t understand why the Muslims are given the right to remove it from the curriculum. Others will follow and it will not be PC to acknowledge it. Thus it will fade from memory.
For my money it is more important to teach it than to ban its denial.
Keegstra’s appeal ultimately reached the Supreme Court of Canada, in the case of R. v. Keegstra. In December 1990, the Court upheld Keegstra’s conviction, ruling that the law’s prohibition of hate propaganda and suppression of Keegstra’s freedom of expression was constitutional. The majority of Justices looked at hate speech as not being a victimless crime, but instead having the potential for psychological harm, degradation, humiliation, and a risk of violence.[5]
One could similarly argue that criticism of Islam or Mohammed has “the potential for psychological harm, degradation, humiliation, and a risk of violence.”
Muslims are screaming for censorship.
There is problem here: These Muslims say Holocaust Denial is illegal, so criticism of al-Islam should be illegal.
For years, I have been telling my Jewish friends that, as vile as Holocaust denial is, it should not be illegal – or else, it will soon be made illegal to criticise Islam.
Yes, I know Holocaust denial offends Jews, but if offensive is the criterion for criticism, then who can speak.
But, you say: Holocaust denial is a lie.
Yes, it is: But if we make lying illegal then half of academia, 90% of clerics [including, but not limited to priests, rabbis, mullahs and preachers], and 100% of politicians would be in prison.
Now, the matter has come back to haunt us.
The last Holocaust Denial symposium was in Iran, who sponsored it in response to “inflammatory cartoons” of Mohammed. The West cried “Freedom of Speech.”
Okay, said Ahmedinejad, if you believe in Freedom of Speech, why do you imprison Holocaust Deniers (in Europe)? And then he had a Holocaust Denial conference.
The issue is coming back.
If we believe in Freedom of Speech … and YES, IT MUST INCLUDE CRITICISM OF AL-ISLAM – we regretably must allow Holocaust Denial.
The issue is resurfacing.
I think Holocaust Denial is idiotic; but I also believe in Free Speech.
Canada and Europe have laws against Holocaust Denial.
The same liberals who made Holocaust Denial illegal will now make criticism of al-Islam illegal. Many Jewish people support the criminalization of Holocaust Denial, but regrettably, they have set the precedent to make criticism of Islam illegal.