Why am I not outraged by the Anti-Islamic film ? (Must read Article)

Few wanted to fund the movie. Even fewer wanted to be part of the production. Hardly anyone wanted to see the movie, until Muslims across the world publicly denounced it.
There is a rabble rousing across continents, instigated by 14-minutes of celluloid.
The fundamentalists are seething. The moderates are miffed. Law enforcement officials, in Muslim countries, are uncertain, nervously shifting in their protective armor. It’s a difficult choice to make – belief vs responsibility. Behind them is the U.S. embassy and facing them is a mob. Several people caught up in the action (intentionally or inadvertently) have died, including the U.S. Ambassador to Libya. Even more are injured. And the numbers refuse to halt just there.
Amidst the cries of blasphemy against the anti-Islam film Innocence of Muslims, a French paper has brazenly published a caricature of Prophet Muhammad on its cover. It is not anyone’s guess, that there will be more consequences. A new plethora of demonstrations will follow. Some will be peaceful, but many are sure to be violent. The death toll will keep mounting, until the director himself issues any apology. How long would it take? And what do we, Muslims, do till then? Do we keep screaming till our lungs get soar or do we contemplate and move on?
Unlike the hundreds taking to the streets, I, for one, have seen the Innocence of Muslims, and I am not outraged. And here is why.
The movie is unbearably bad. Not because it endeavors to insult the Islamic Prophet, but because it makes any searingly awful Lollywood production seems like a James Cameron venture. The 150-page script is rife with egregious dialogues. In one scene the narrator intones“ …and after Muahmmad went to the mountain for a third time, the same thing happened. But this time when he returned he had changed. No longer was he being nice. He was now evil, telling people to convert to Islam, pay a tribute to him or die.” If the haphazard sowing of words isn’t bad enough, it gets worse. The entire low–budget project is shot against a green screen. Jumps between scenes are incongruous and migraine inducing. Anti-Muhammad lines are blatantly interposed, shoved into the clueless protagonist’s mouth.
Muhammad is evil and Islam is a hateful scourge, a theme constantly badgered into the movie, without any bases or argument. The threadbare plot reads like a bad high school production with cut out actors.
Drafted in 2009, the film was initially labeled Desert Warriors – a name discarded only after production. According to ABC, Nakoula Basseley Nakoula wrote the entire script while serving a 21-month prison sentence for financial fraud. Actors were invited through a print ad to be part of an ‘historical Arabian Desert adventure film.’ Funds were scarce and investors were just not interested, forcing Nakoula to rely largely on his own earnings (legal or illegal) to bankroll the movie.
The movie, shot last year, opens in present day Egypt where a kind Coptic Christian pharmacist, Dr. Matthew’s pharmacy is being thrashed by a mob of angry Muslims. He flees the clinic to return home, where he then explains to his two daughters why Islam in such a violent religion. For the entire course of the movie, the pharmacist dwells into a warped history (portrayed through flashbacks) of Islam and its messenger Muhammad.
In July, someone named Sam Bacile – allegedly an alias for Nakoula – posted the movie on Youtube. It failed to attract much attention. In the days that ensued, a Coptic Christian, known for his anti-Islamic activism, sent a link to reporters in the U.S., Egypt and elsewhere on Sept. 6. His email message promoted a Sept. 11 event by anti-Islamic pastor Terry Jones and included a link to the trailer.
The full version of the film has only been screened once in late June at Hollywood’s Vine Theatre. Newsweek reports that no one showed up except a handful of people. A sweat drenched Nakoula sat from across the theatre, watching his movie open to an empty hall. Since then the anti-Islam film has not been screened. Actors associated with the film are one by one raising their voices to decry fraud. Cindy Lee Garcia, an actress who plays Hazrat Abu Bakr’s wife, is suing the filmmaker for slander and fraud. Nakoula is in hiding. Even the handful of people who initially supported the concept are retracing their steps. Joseph Nasralla, the CEO of a Coptic Christian charity that took out the permits to shoot the film, claims Nakoula duped him. He said he thought the movie was a generic adventure story set in the ancient Arab world.
Few wanted to fund the movie. Even fewer wanted to be in its production. Hardly anyone wanted to see the movie, until Muslims across the world publicly denounced it. Now Youtube has been banned in various countries to restrict access to the trailer. Nakoula, although a wanted man, has become a household name. Internet users are using torrent to download the movie and newspapers are calling it ‘the most influential movie this year’ in a twisted way.
In 1979, the British comedy group Monthy Python released the Life of Brain. The film pilloried Jesus Christ, although more intelligently. It portrayed him as naïve and an accidental prophet. Ireland and Norway quickly banned the production. BBC and ITV refused to even air its trailer. Christian communities world over thronged the streets to express their sentiments.  What happened next was unexpected. The filmmakers used the ban to further promote the movie. ‘So funny that it is banned in Norway’ read one of the posters. Sales skyrocketed and in no time, the movie propelled to the top of the box office. The uproar played well into the hands of the makers, while those insulted just stood by and watched in disbelief.
A bad publicity stunt that is Innocence of Muslims should be worthy of little heed. Let us, as Muslims, learn to look the other way. Mind numbingly bad productions should not elicit responses. The only response, if any, for such desperate attempts for attention should be – scroll through the content, roll your eyes and move on. Or we could unwittingly be converting bad art into influential art.