15 sept 2012
Confirmed: The Director of ‘Innocence of Muslims’ Is a Schlocky Softcore Porn Director Named Alan Roberts
The anti-Islam film that's set off a firestorm in the Middle East was directed by a 65-year-old schlock director named Alan Roberts, we've confirmed. He's the creative vision behind softcore porn classics like The Happy Hooker Goes Hollywood.
An Alan Roberts is listed as director on the film's casting calls and call sheets from the summer of 2011, back when it was innocuously called Desert Warriors.. Castmembers and crew told us yesterday that Roberts was brought on by producer "Sam Bacile" aka Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, and he muddled his way through a disorganized three-month shoot.
This is the same Alan Roberts listed in IMDB as the director of a handful of softcore porn movies and other low-budget films, according to acquaintances we spoke to today.
"I am sure it was the same Alan Roberts, as I remember him speaking about this project," said filmmaker David A. Prior, a longtime acquaintance of Roberts, in an email. Roberts is listed as a producer on two of Prior's films, 2008's Zombie Wars and 2007's Lost at War.
"He did work on [Innocence of Muslims]," confirmed a man who was Roberts' business partner in a post-production facility he ran, who asked not to be named.
The backstory behind how Roberts became director of Innocence of Muslims is still unclear, like so many things about the film. We've tried to reach Roberts, but his business associate told us he "turned off his phone" soon after protests broke out over the film and is laying low. But he said Roberts was "non-political" and did not have any apparent anti-Islam feelings. Roberts may have been duped by the film's producer in much the same way as the rest of the cast and crew. They believed they were participating in a period piece about ancient Egypt and had no idea the movie would be edited and dubbed into a piece of Islamophobic propaganda..
"They redubbed it, they brought in the actors, put in new sounds, changed the names," said the business partner. "And this was done later, before it was initially released. Of course Alan had nothing to do with it."
An actress who worked with Roberts on Innocence of Muslims agreed that he had nothing to do with the political bent of the film.
"My gut tells me he was just a has-been director who was trying to prove he could still be Hollywood," she wrote in an email.
Alan Roberts' real name is Robert Brownell. Vice obtained documents showing a person from Santa Montica named Robert Brownell had paid for some pre-production services for the film that would eventually become Innocence of Muslims, and Roberts' business partner confirmed that Robert Brownell was Alan Roberts' real name.
Until the release of Innocence of Muslims, the 65-year-old Roberts has had an unremarkable career as a small-time director and editor. His directing credits include some softcore porn from the 70s and 80s like 1977's Young Lady Chatterly, The Sexpert and The Happy Hooker Goes to Hollywood, third of the Happy Hooker trilogy. (It's probably no coincidence that the cast included at least two porn stars, or that Innocence of Muslims contains a graphic scene of Muhammed performing oral sex on a woman.) Roberts tried to break into action in 1991 with Karate Cop: "John Travis is the last honest cop in a future dominated by terroristic martial-arts gangs who fight gladiator-style in arenas."
Roberts is more accomplished as a film editor, with 28 editing credits, including the 2003 Johnny Knoxville/Christina Applegate vehicle Grand Theft Parsons. In the mid-2000s, he ran a digital post-production facility called Genesis Post-Production according to a press release for a documentary about Burning Man where he's credited as producer.
"At one time he edited some fairly large films but he really never got a break to the really big ones for whatever reasons," said the business partner. "But for the work I've seen, the editing he's done, he's actually very creative."
Anyone who's seen the embarrassing 14-minute trailer for Innocence of Muslims, which he helped edit as well as direct, might disagree. But then sloppy editing is far from the worst thing about the film.
Who Is Alan Roberts, the Director of 'Innocence of Muslims'? We Think His Real Name Is Robert Brownell
Early yesterday morning VICE was anonymously furnished with documents that link a California man named Robert Brownell (aka Robert Brown) to the pre-production of Innocence of Muslims, the F-grade anti-Islamic film that has resulted in violent protests at and around US embassies in Sanaa, Yemen; Cairo; Tripoli; and Doha, Qatar. He is a man who has, as of yet, not been named in association with the film.
The documents clearly state that in 2009 and 2011 Robert Brownell purchased pre-production services related to Desert Warrior, which has been widely reported as the working title of the film that the world now knows as Innocence of Muslims.
The documents also include Robert Brownell’s address in Tarzana, California (or at least his address when the purchases were made in 2009; the property is now up for sale), phone number, and “contact information,” which lists yet a different name—Alan Roberts.
An Alan Roberts is listed as director on the film's casting calls and call sheets from the summer of 2011, back when it was innocuously called Desert Warriors.. Castmembers and crew told us yesterday that Roberts was brought on by producer "Sam Bacile" aka Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, and he muddled his way through a disorganized three-month shoot.
This is the same Alan Roberts listed in IMDB as the director of a handful of softcore porn movies and other low-budget films, according to acquaintances we spoke to today.
"I am sure it was the same Alan Roberts, as I remember him speaking about this project," said filmmaker David A. Prior, a longtime acquaintance of Roberts, in an email. Roberts is listed as a producer on two of Prior's films, 2008's Zombie Wars and 2007's Lost at War.
"He did work on [Innocence of Muslims]," confirmed a man who was Roberts' business partner in a post-production facility he ran, who asked not to be named.
The backstory behind how Roberts became director of Innocence of Muslims is still unclear, like so many things about the film. We've tried to reach Roberts, but his business associate told us he "turned off his phone" soon after protests broke out over the film and is laying low. But he said Roberts was "non-political" and did not have any apparent anti-Islam feelings. Roberts may have been duped by the film's producer in much the same way as the rest of the cast and crew. They believed they were participating in a period piece about ancient Egypt and had no idea the movie would be edited and dubbed into a piece of Islamophobic propaganda..
"They redubbed it, they brought in the actors, put in new sounds, changed the names," said the business partner. "And this was done later, before it was initially released. Of course Alan had nothing to do with it."
An actress who worked with Roberts on Innocence of Muslims agreed that he had nothing to do with the political bent of the film.
"My gut tells me he was just a has-been director who was trying to prove he could still be Hollywood," she wrote in an email.
Alan Roberts' real name is Robert Brownell. Vice obtained documents showing a person from Santa Montica named Robert Brownell had paid for some pre-production services for the film that would eventually become Innocence of Muslims, and Roberts' business partner confirmed that Robert Brownell was Alan Roberts' real name.
Until the release of Innocence of Muslims, the 65-year-old Roberts has had an unremarkable career as a small-time director and editor. His directing credits include some softcore porn from the 70s and 80s like 1977's Young Lady Chatterly, The Sexpert and The Happy Hooker Goes to Hollywood, third of the Happy Hooker trilogy. (It's probably no coincidence that the cast included at least two porn stars, or that Innocence of Muslims contains a graphic scene of Muhammed performing oral sex on a woman.) Roberts tried to break into action in 1991 with Karate Cop: "John Travis is the last honest cop in a future dominated by terroristic martial-arts gangs who fight gladiator-style in arenas."
Roberts is more accomplished as a film editor, with 28 editing credits, including the 2003 Johnny Knoxville/Christina Applegate vehicle Grand Theft Parsons. In the mid-2000s, he ran a digital post-production facility called Genesis Post-Production according to a press release for a documentary about Burning Man where he's credited as producer.
"At one time he edited some fairly large films but he really never got a break to the really big ones for whatever reasons," said the business partner. "But for the work I've seen, the editing he's done, he's actually very creative."
Anyone who's seen the embarrassing 14-minute trailer for Innocence of Muslims, which he helped edit as well as direct, might disagree. But then sloppy editing is far from the worst thing about the film.
Who Is Alan Roberts, the Director of 'Innocence of Muslims'? We Think His Real Name Is Robert Brownell
Early yesterday morning VICE was anonymously furnished with documents that link a California man named Robert Brownell (aka Robert Brown) to the pre-production of Innocence of Muslims, the F-grade anti-Islamic film that has resulted in violent protests at and around US embassies in Sanaa, Yemen; Cairo; Tripoli; and Doha, Qatar. He is a man who has, as of yet, not been named in association with the film.
The documents clearly state that in 2009 and 2011 Robert Brownell purchased pre-production services related to Desert Warrior, which has been widely reported as the working title of the film that the world now knows as Innocence of Muslims.
The documents also include Robert Brownell’s address in Tarzana, California (or at least his address when the purchases were made in 2009; the property is now up for sale), phone number, and “contact information,” which lists yet a different name—Alan Roberts.
Click to enlarge
|
If you’ve been following this story closely, you know that Alan Roberts was listed as the film’s original director alongside a man who produced—and some reports suggest ended up directing—the film: Sam Bacile, aka Sam Basselley, aka Nakoula Bassely Nakoula.
Peoplefinders.com lists a 65-year-old man named Robert Alan Brown in North Hollywood, California, as having the aliases Roboert [sic] Brownell and Alan B. Roberts. His “business associations” include Alan Roberts Entertainment. A cross-search on Nexis’s public records database seems to corroborate that Robert Brownell, Robert Brown, and Alan Roberts are all the same person. Digging around on the person—or persons—named Robert Brownell, you’ll find myriad accounts for him on places like YouTube, GodTube, Jokeroo, and many other religious-themed video-streaming sites. There’s also divinerevelations.info, a terribly designed website that on first glance appears to be an ode to a funny-looking Chinese Christian pastor named Yong Doo Kim, but if you keep digging you’ll discover that divinerevelations.info corresponds almost identically with a spiritlessons.com, “The Testimony of Robert Brownell,” a goofball account of some guy who was obsessed with porn but eventually found the lord. |
pre-production (which isn’t out of the question considering that Nakoula Bassely Nakoula has gone to prison for identity theft, among other things), or 2) Robert Brownell/Brown and Alan Roberts are the same person.
Multiple calls to and voicemails left on the number listed for Alan Roberts in the documents were not returned.
And to my ears, the voicemail greeting states, "Hi, thanks for calling. I'm sorry I'm not in to take your call but if at the sound of the tone you leave me your name and telephone number, I'll be happy to get back to you as soon as possible. Thanks for calling and have a great day," spoken in the even-cadenced voice of a middle-age man. Is this Alan Roberts? Robert Brownell? Robert Brown? Will we ever know?
The documents also list a purchase made by a second (or possibly third) party: Jimmy Israel, who says he had minimal involvement in the film, the script of which he says was drastically different from the YouTube clips that have been denounced by members of the cast and crew and sparked widespread outrage in the Middle East. The accounts through which this information was obtained are registered to two users: Jimmy Israeal—and wouldn’t you know it—Adenob Basseley (whose address is listed as being in Hawaiian Gardens, CA, which would match up with the AP story that listed Nakoula Bassely Nakoula’s approximate location).
After innumerable dead-end calls and emails to Steve Klein, various cast and crew members, and completely unrelated people who happened to have the same names as people associated with the film, I attempted to contact Terry Jones (whom Motherboard interviewed yesterday) whose associate told me he was too busy to answer one follow-up question. When asked to relay the question she said, “No, nu-uh, we have never heard of a Robert Brownell or Robert Brown.” I pressed her: “Are you sure Terry has never heard of this name?” She said no. It seemed to me that if Robert Brownell played more than a cursory and unmemorable role in the film’s production, no one was going to own up to it.
The only other people to speak to me on the record were model and Desert Warrior/Innocence of Muslims cast member Tim Dax (who respectfully declined an interview with a “ : )” and “Way too much!”) and, completely unexpectedly, Jimmy Israel—the only name without “Brown” in it that appeared in the leaked documents mentioned above.
Judging from our conversation, Jimmy seems like a very nice man. But if he does know Alan Roberts, or is friendly with someone named Robert Brownell, he did not spill the beans. (But if you have any information about this person or persons and are willing to share it with us, please email [email protected].)
VICE: I was sent information that suggests you purchased pre-production services for Desert Warrior/Innocence of Muslims.
Jimmy Israel: I don’t deny that, but I will only speak for myself. No one else.
Yeah.
Then the original person came back. I worked two days on this job and that was it.
What was your official position on the production? Do you know if you’re credited in the film?
No. When Sam Bacile came to me he wanted me to produce the film, and I said OK. I am not a director; I am a producer. But I was going to—I wanted to direct the film. The original person who introduced me to Sam came back and said he would do it, so Sam went with him. So I worked two days and that was it.
What other movies have you produced?
I haven’t. I’ve written screenplays. I have worked at the very highest levels of European filmmaking, but they were not produced. I have only worked on very fine literary-type feature films. This was something that came out of left field. And when I read the screenplay I was really sick. Not so much because of the blasphemy of Mohammed, but how in the original screenplay his name isn’t Mohammed, it’s George.
Yeah, it seems like whoever was responsible for the final product majorly misled the cast and crew.
Yeah, and I mean it’s not—if you read the whole screenplay, you know, it’s very thinly veiled that [the main character is] Mohammed. You can tell that it is Mohammed, at least for me. It’s all of his characteristics. So that’s all I did, and then I was replaced. I think it wasn’t right that Sam changed the whole thing to include the blood, torture, and all of this horrible crap.
How did you meet Sam Bacile?
I met him through the other fellow, the fellow that originally took over to back the production.
And you’re saying that Sam Bacile is absolutely not Nakoula Basseley?
He’s not, he’s not—I’m sorry, what?
Sam Bacile and Nakoula Basseley are not--
I don’t know, I really don’t know. I heard Nakoula Basseley was the name of his son.
I see, but you’re saying that, as far as you know, they’re not the same person.
Well, he told me it was his son.
Do you know Robert Brownell, aka Robert Brown?
I have no comment on—it’s not my place to comment. I don’t know anybody else.
As far as I know, his name has not been associated with this film thus far. I do have his number and I do have other information about him, but you’re saying you don’t know this man?
No. I’m certain that I have no comment on this person at all. Like I said, I’m only here to comment on my own about myself.
Has there been any fallout from the film’s release? Have you had any death threats or anything?
No, no, no.
Seeing as you got out of it early--
I’ll probably be the first one to have [threats] because my name was found out. If you can find out and other people can… all the other news agencies are calling me. So…
And I know that must not be great, but I appreciate you talking to me.
I don’t have time, I’m not a wealthy man and I need work. As I said, I worked on this two days. That’s it.
It’s been reported that the original director, who you will not name, is in hiding.
Yes, he is. He is very frightened.
I would imagine. And did the original director know going in that perhaps Bacile had ulterior motives for the final product?
The film is about the persecution of Coptic Christians through Egypt. That’s what it’s about. The references to the pre-contemporary times where, you know, George appears are integrated into the story, the contemporary story. And so, what was the question again?
There have been allegations that it has been redubbed. I know you don’t have knowledge of this specifically because you weren’t--
No, I don’t have knowledge of that. What I think is that Sam Bacile went to Egypt. He told me he was trying to raise money. I don’t know why, how, and so forth, but he might have shown this picture and some people in Egypt might’ve said they wouldn’t give money out but they took a copy of it and dubbed it, that’s my guess. But did Bacile himself do this? I don’t know. Because, as I said, the name of the character [in the original script] was not Mohammed, it was George.
Do you have a copy of the original script?
I do somewhere, and I haven’t found it yet. I just got the calls yesterday. And I haven’t looked. I also have thrown out a lot, just recently, so I don’t know if I threw it out or whatever but I have my notes on the screenplay, which are pretty intensive. That’s what I’ve got.
You haven’t seen the full film, correct?
I have not seen the full film. I didn’t see anything from Sam because he still owes me money. He does to everybody on the film, I think. He was, he was still… he was kind. He’s not a vicious person but he’s kind of sly, you know, and what was the--
It’s OK, it’s very confusing, all of this. I guess I’ll ask you, have you ever known Sam Bacile to be anti-Islamic or extreme in any way in terms of ideology?
You know, he’s just… he was very concerned about the Coptic Christian problem. He is a Coptic Christian. That’s what he told me, and that’s what the story is about. It’s not about the hatred of Mohammed or the hatred of Muslims, but if you’re a Coptic Christian, when you’re being persecuted it’s kind of like being Jewish and having fear and hatred of the Nazis. I myself am a pacifist and don’t hate anybody.
Do you have any religious affiliation?
I’m mostly Buddhist but I was raised Jewish.
What do you think about the initial rumors that said the film was financed by wealthy Jewish backers?
That’s ridiculous. That’s totally, totally ridiculous. Sam himself was the person who put up the money, maybe $90,000, maybe 100, but you know, I don’t really know, something like that. And that’s all that was spent on the film. It’s a terrible film. I saw the clip on YouTube.
You haven’t seen the full film though, right?
No, no. I don’t even know if there is a full film. He was continuing to edit, and that’s all I know.
Do you know anything about how it ended up on YouTube? What I don’t understand is--
No. No, I don’t, I don’t. I was just… I guided myself there yesterday and took a look yesterday.
Something I don’t quite understand is that you said there’s a possibility that some extremists got ahold of the film when he was trying to get financing and dubbed it. Is that hearsay? Is it just a hunch you have?
That’s just my, you know, story of, you know, my fiction. I created that. I don’t know anything about that. He didn’t tell me that. He just told me he was in Egypt trying to raise money. So if you’re trying to raise money, you usually show part of the picture and then people say, “Oh yeah, we’ll give you what you want.” So I guess that’s—my guess is, that’s just a guess, that’s all it is.
Freedom of speech is no excuse for insulting religious symbols
By Khalid Amayreh* in occupied Jerusalem
The tragic consequences triggered by the recent sleazy anti-Islam film "innocence of Muslims" have presented several challenges to political and religious leaders in the West as well as the Muslim world.
They have also shown how an utterly insignificant act by a little known, though malicious individual, could reverberate fast throughout the globe, causing lethal and fatal repercussions and destroying and ending the lives of innocent people.
The modern media, in its numerous forms, have certainly played a role in spreading the sleazy film and also in provoking and infuriating Muslims. None the less, the media's role hasn't exceeded that of the proverbial messenger.
In the final analysis, the media didn't make the news, it just reported it.
The anti-Islam film is undoubtedly a malicious and wicked act meant to insult and provoke. This is what the producer of the film himself said of his intent behind embarking on the cheap feat.
But Muslims have not acted ideally, too. They seem to have overreacted to the original calculated provocation by attacking embassies and indulging in violence, which led to the spilling of innocent blood.
I believe all sides, those who made, financed and promoted the film, as well as those mobs that overreacted to it, are wrong.
But saying so is not enough, if only to prevent the recurrence of similar events.
I urge responsible political and religious leaders in the West and Muslim world to make every possible effort to strike a delicate balance between freedom of speech and misusing or abusing that freedom, e.g. by insulting religious symbols and offending religious faith.
I am not talking about legitimate freedom of speech and expression and other civil liberties which we all value and respect. What I have in mind is deliberately offending religious sensibilities with malice aforethought.
This is more than just an academic matter since ignoring it does obviously cause the shedding of innocent blood.
Having studied at and graduated from a number of American colleges, I realize how most Americans are jealously fanatical about preserving and clinging to their constitution, especially the First Amendment.
However, Americans and others westerners ought to understand that the religious and cultural traditions of other people, e.g. Muslims, ought to be respected as well. The First Amendment must not be used as an excuse to offend Muslims and their faith, as well as other religious traditions.
There are many wise people in America who could find the perfect formula to resolve this problem once and for all. In the final analysis, the American constitution was founded and shaped in a way that would protect religion from the interference, hegemony and encroachment of the state, not the other way around.
And it is not impossible to strike the right balance between freedom of speech and the right of adherents of various religious groups not to be offended. After all, one's freedom ends where another person's freedom begins.
In some western countries, laws have been enacted against those who deny the holocaust. And in America itself, the country of the First Amendment, politicians and journalist think ten times before thinking of criticizing Israel and Jews.
Hence, the visibly malicious discourse against Islam and its symbols in the US and some other Western countries has more to do with a morbid and hateful proclivity to malign, smear and besmirch and less with the legitimate practice of freedom of speech and expression.
In the final analysis, my right not to be offended and insulted overrides a scoundrel's right to malign the Prophet of Islam in order to satisfy his sick Islamophobia.
The American Civil Liberty Union is likely to vociferously object to this argument. And they would probably make many counter arguments which may sound valid.
But the ACLU, which has done many good things and defended many good causes, can not guarantee that insulting religious symbols will not lead to further bloodshed. Which brings us to the ultimate argument that in such circumstances when one is faced with conflicting rights and conflicting freedoms, it is never enough to be right; one has to be wise as well? Hence, the need for the delicate, fine balances between freedom of expression and the right not to be offended.
I also hope that the tragic events of the past few days will prompt a genuine religious dialogue between Muslim and Christian leaders. The task of maintaining the peace, let alone building stable and friendly relations between the followers of the great religions is too paramount a task to be left for pyromaniacs on both sides.
We must start this dialogue right away. We owe it to the victims of the latest madness to see to it that fanatics and ignoramuses on both sides of the isle are not allowed to savage our faces and burn our hearts with the fire of their ignorance and fanaticism.
* Khalid Amayreh is an American-educated journalist living in the southern West Bank town of Dura near Hebron. He graduated from the University of Oklahoma in Norman in 1981. He also, received a Master degree in Journalism from the University of Southern Illinois at Carbondale in 1983.
Mass rallies in Gaza against the film that insults the Prophet of Islam
Tens of thousands of citizens participated, Friday afternoon in Gaza, in marches called for by "Hamas" movement protesting an American film that mocks the Prophet of Islam, Muhammad (PBUH).
The protesters launched the march from all Gaza’s mosques and headed to the Legislative Council Square chanting "Except the Messenger of Allah" and other slogans condemning the abuse on the Prophet.
The demonstration was organized jointly by "Hamas" and "Islamic Jihad", reported PIC's correspondent.
Dr. Ismail Radwan, Minister of Awqaf and Religious Affairs, considered in a speech he gave during the march, that producing a film satirizing the Prophet Muhammad demonstrates American-Zionist hatred against humanity and against Islam and Muslims in particular.
He stressed that: "this anger that erupted in all the Arab countries will not stop until the defamation against the prophet stops", and called the Arab and Islamic nation to continue peaceful activities against this abuse.
In turn, a member of the politburo of the Islamic Jihad Mohammed al-Hindi said that U.S. administration is the one which allowed provocation of one and a half billion Muslims, stressing that abusing the Prophet Muhammad and Muslims is a red line that cannot be tolerated.
A similar march was also launched from Kholafaa mosque in Jabaliya as protesters gathered in front of the police station in Jabaliya refugee camp while angry youths set fire to American and Israeli flags and raised anti-US banners.
The cities of Central Khan Younis and Rafah have also witnessed similar mass rallies, during which demonstrators raised banners denouncing the abuses on the Prophet and demanded a U.S. apology.
Hamas prisoners call for boycotting US products
The Hamas-affiliated prisoners in Israeli jails strongly denounced the blasphemous US movie against the prophet of Islam "Muhammad" and demanded all Arab and Muslim official and popular parties to resist such profanity against Islam.
In a statement, the prisoners condemned this movie as an affront to all Muslims around the world and called for stopping all kinds of attack against Islam and Prophet Muhammad.
The prisoner also urged all Muslims to boycott the American products in order to pressure the US government not to repeat such reprehensible acts and to officially apologize to the Muslim nation for the anti-Islam movie.
Marches engulf West Bank against film satirizing Prophet Muhammad
The occupation forces quelled the peaceful marches that engulfed in the West Bank's cities of Jerusalem and Bethlehem on Friday, in protest against a film satirizing the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH).
Clashes erupted, Friday afternoon, between Israeli occupation forces and the masses of Palestinians participating in the peaceful march, launched from the courtyards of al-Aqsa Mosque to condemn the American film abusing the Prophet of Islam
The Hebrew radio reported that hundreds of Jerusalemites headed towards the former headquarters of the American Consulate, but were repressed by forces of the Israeli army and police that prevented them from reaching their destination.
It pointed that the police forces, using stun grenades and tear gas, tried to disperse the crowds of Palestinian demonstrators and arrested a number of them.
The radio also reported that a number of Israeli policemen were slightly injured after being hit by stones hurled by Palestinian protesters in the vicinity of the U.S. Consulate.
Jerusalemites marched against the offending film, in Damascus Gate in occupied Jerusalem where the occupation forces dispersed using force the demonstrators and arrested three of them.
Thousands of Palestinians also protested in Al-Aqsa Mosque yards chanting slogans condemning the film, but were prevented by large forces of occupation police from leaving al-Aqsa mosque.
In Bethlehem, a number of Palestinian civilians suffered from suffocation after the Israeli occupation army suppressed the participants in al-Maasara weekly march while they were heading towards confiscated lands, chanting slogans condemning the defamation of the Messenger Muhammad
Meanwhile, hundreds of angry citizens from the city of Nablus marched also after Friday prayers, protesting at the American film; and burned an American flag.
Participants called on the Arab and Islamic governments to support their voices and their protests and demanded U.S. government to apologize for the film it had published.
Multiple calls to and voicemails left on the number listed for Alan Roberts in the documents were not returned.
And to my ears, the voicemail greeting states, "Hi, thanks for calling. I'm sorry I'm not in to take your call but if at the sound of the tone you leave me your name and telephone number, I'll be happy to get back to you as soon as possible. Thanks for calling and have a great day," spoken in the even-cadenced voice of a middle-age man. Is this Alan Roberts? Robert Brownell? Robert Brown? Will we ever know?
The documents also list a purchase made by a second (or possibly third) party: Jimmy Israel, who says he had minimal involvement in the film, the script of which he says was drastically different from the YouTube clips that have been denounced by members of the cast and crew and sparked widespread outrage in the Middle East. The accounts through which this information was obtained are registered to two users: Jimmy Israeal—and wouldn’t you know it—Adenob Basseley (whose address is listed as being in Hawaiian Gardens, CA, which would match up with the AP story that listed Nakoula Bassely Nakoula’s approximate location).
After innumerable dead-end calls and emails to Steve Klein, various cast and crew members, and completely unrelated people who happened to have the same names as people associated with the film, I attempted to contact Terry Jones (whom Motherboard interviewed yesterday) whose associate told me he was too busy to answer one follow-up question. When asked to relay the question she said, “No, nu-uh, we have never heard of a Robert Brownell or Robert Brown.” I pressed her: “Are you sure Terry has never heard of this name?” She said no. It seemed to me that if Robert Brownell played more than a cursory and unmemorable role in the film’s production, no one was going to own up to it.
The only other people to speak to me on the record were model and Desert Warrior/Innocence of Muslims cast member Tim Dax (who respectfully declined an interview with a “ : )” and “Way too much!”) and, completely unexpectedly, Jimmy Israel—the only name without “Brown” in it that appeared in the leaked documents mentioned above.
Judging from our conversation, Jimmy seems like a very nice man. But if he does know Alan Roberts, or is friendly with someone named Robert Brownell, he did not spill the beans. (But if you have any information about this person or persons and are willing to share it with us, please email [email protected].)
VICE: I was sent information that suggests you purchased pre-production services for Desert Warrior/Innocence of Muslims.
Jimmy Israel: I don’t deny that, but I will only speak for myself. No one else.
Yeah.
Then the original person came back. I worked two days on this job and that was it.
What was your official position on the production? Do you know if you’re credited in the film?
No. When Sam Bacile came to me he wanted me to produce the film, and I said OK. I am not a director; I am a producer. But I was going to—I wanted to direct the film. The original person who introduced me to Sam came back and said he would do it, so Sam went with him. So I worked two days and that was it.
What other movies have you produced?
I haven’t. I’ve written screenplays. I have worked at the very highest levels of European filmmaking, but they were not produced. I have only worked on very fine literary-type feature films. This was something that came out of left field. And when I read the screenplay I was really sick. Not so much because of the blasphemy of Mohammed, but how in the original screenplay his name isn’t Mohammed, it’s George.
Yeah, it seems like whoever was responsible for the final product majorly misled the cast and crew.
Yeah, and I mean it’s not—if you read the whole screenplay, you know, it’s very thinly veiled that [the main character is] Mohammed. You can tell that it is Mohammed, at least for me. It’s all of his characteristics. So that’s all I did, and then I was replaced. I think it wasn’t right that Sam changed the whole thing to include the blood, torture, and all of this horrible crap.
How did you meet Sam Bacile?
I met him through the other fellow, the fellow that originally took over to back the production.
And you’re saying that Sam Bacile is absolutely not Nakoula Basseley?
He’s not, he’s not—I’m sorry, what?
Sam Bacile and Nakoula Basseley are not--
I don’t know, I really don’t know. I heard Nakoula Basseley was the name of his son.
I see, but you’re saying that, as far as you know, they’re not the same person.
Well, he told me it was his son.
Do you know Robert Brownell, aka Robert Brown?
I have no comment on—it’s not my place to comment. I don’t know anybody else.
As far as I know, his name has not been associated with this film thus far. I do have his number and I do have other information about him, but you’re saying you don’t know this man?
No. I’m certain that I have no comment on this person at all. Like I said, I’m only here to comment on my own about myself.
Has there been any fallout from the film’s release? Have you had any death threats or anything?
No, no, no.
Seeing as you got out of it early--
I’ll probably be the first one to have [threats] because my name was found out. If you can find out and other people can… all the other news agencies are calling me. So…
And I know that must not be great, but I appreciate you talking to me.
I don’t have time, I’m not a wealthy man and I need work. As I said, I worked on this two days. That’s it.
It’s been reported that the original director, who you will not name, is in hiding.
Yes, he is. He is very frightened.
I would imagine. And did the original director know going in that perhaps Bacile had ulterior motives for the final product?
The film is about the persecution of Coptic Christians through Egypt. That’s what it’s about. The references to the pre-contemporary times where, you know, George appears are integrated into the story, the contemporary story. And so, what was the question again?
There have been allegations that it has been redubbed. I know you don’t have knowledge of this specifically because you weren’t--
No, I don’t have knowledge of that. What I think is that Sam Bacile went to Egypt. He told me he was trying to raise money. I don’t know why, how, and so forth, but he might have shown this picture and some people in Egypt might’ve said they wouldn’t give money out but they took a copy of it and dubbed it, that’s my guess. But did Bacile himself do this? I don’t know. Because, as I said, the name of the character [in the original script] was not Mohammed, it was George.
Do you have a copy of the original script?
I do somewhere, and I haven’t found it yet. I just got the calls yesterday. And I haven’t looked. I also have thrown out a lot, just recently, so I don’t know if I threw it out or whatever but I have my notes on the screenplay, which are pretty intensive. That’s what I’ve got.
You haven’t seen the full film, correct?
I have not seen the full film. I didn’t see anything from Sam because he still owes me money. He does to everybody on the film, I think. He was, he was still… he was kind. He’s not a vicious person but he’s kind of sly, you know, and what was the--
It’s OK, it’s very confusing, all of this. I guess I’ll ask you, have you ever known Sam Bacile to be anti-Islamic or extreme in any way in terms of ideology?
You know, he’s just… he was very concerned about the Coptic Christian problem. He is a Coptic Christian. That’s what he told me, and that’s what the story is about. It’s not about the hatred of Mohammed or the hatred of Muslims, but if you’re a Coptic Christian, when you’re being persecuted it’s kind of like being Jewish and having fear and hatred of the Nazis. I myself am a pacifist and don’t hate anybody.
Do you have any religious affiliation?
I’m mostly Buddhist but I was raised Jewish.
What do you think about the initial rumors that said the film was financed by wealthy Jewish backers?
That’s ridiculous. That’s totally, totally ridiculous. Sam himself was the person who put up the money, maybe $90,000, maybe 100, but you know, I don’t really know, something like that. And that’s all that was spent on the film. It’s a terrible film. I saw the clip on YouTube.
You haven’t seen the full film though, right?
No, no. I don’t even know if there is a full film. He was continuing to edit, and that’s all I know.
Do you know anything about how it ended up on YouTube? What I don’t understand is--
No. No, I don’t, I don’t. I was just… I guided myself there yesterday and took a look yesterday.
Something I don’t quite understand is that you said there’s a possibility that some extremists got ahold of the film when he was trying to get financing and dubbed it. Is that hearsay? Is it just a hunch you have?
That’s just my, you know, story of, you know, my fiction. I created that. I don’t know anything about that. He didn’t tell me that. He just told me he was in Egypt trying to raise money. So if you’re trying to raise money, you usually show part of the picture and then people say, “Oh yeah, we’ll give you what you want.” So I guess that’s—my guess is, that’s just a guess, that’s all it is.
Freedom of speech is no excuse for insulting religious symbols
By Khalid Amayreh* in occupied Jerusalem
The tragic consequences triggered by the recent sleazy anti-Islam film "innocence of Muslims" have presented several challenges to political and religious leaders in the West as well as the Muslim world.
They have also shown how an utterly insignificant act by a little known, though malicious individual, could reverberate fast throughout the globe, causing lethal and fatal repercussions and destroying and ending the lives of innocent people.
The modern media, in its numerous forms, have certainly played a role in spreading the sleazy film and also in provoking and infuriating Muslims. None the less, the media's role hasn't exceeded that of the proverbial messenger.
In the final analysis, the media didn't make the news, it just reported it.
The anti-Islam film is undoubtedly a malicious and wicked act meant to insult and provoke. This is what the producer of the film himself said of his intent behind embarking on the cheap feat.
But Muslims have not acted ideally, too. They seem to have overreacted to the original calculated provocation by attacking embassies and indulging in violence, which led to the spilling of innocent blood.
I believe all sides, those who made, financed and promoted the film, as well as those mobs that overreacted to it, are wrong.
But saying so is not enough, if only to prevent the recurrence of similar events.
I urge responsible political and religious leaders in the West and Muslim world to make every possible effort to strike a delicate balance between freedom of speech and misusing or abusing that freedom, e.g. by insulting religious symbols and offending religious faith.
I am not talking about legitimate freedom of speech and expression and other civil liberties which we all value and respect. What I have in mind is deliberately offending religious sensibilities with malice aforethought.
This is more than just an academic matter since ignoring it does obviously cause the shedding of innocent blood.
Having studied at and graduated from a number of American colleges, I realize how most Americans are jealously fanatical about preserving and clinging to their constitution, especially the First Amendment.
However, Americans and others westerners ought to understand that the religious and cultural traditions of other people, e.g. Muslims, ought to be respected as well. The First Amendment must not be used as an excuse to offend Muslims and their faith, as well as other religious traditions.
There are many wise people in America who could find the perfect formula to resolve this problem once and for all. In the final analysis, the American constitution was founded and shaped in a way that would protect religion from the interference, hegemony and encroachment of the state, not the other way around.
And it is not impossible to strike the right balance between freedom of speech and the right of adherents of various religious groups not to be offended. After all, one's freedom ends where another person's freedom begins.
In some western countries, laws have been enacted against those who deny the holocaust. And in America itself, the country of the First Amendment, politicians and journalist think ten times before thinking of criticizing Israel and Jews.
Hence, the visibly malicious discourse against Islam and its symbols in the US and some other Western countries has more to do with a morbid and hateful proclivity to malign, smear and besmirch and less with the legitimate practice of freedom of speech and expression.
In the final analysis, my right not to be offended and insulted overrides a scoundrel's right to malign the Prophet of Islam in order to satisfy his sick Islamophobia.
The American Civil Liberty Union is likely to vociferously object to this argument. And they would probably make many counter arguments which may sound valid.
But the ACLU, which has done many good things and defended many good causes, can not guarantee that insulting religious symbols will not lead to further bloodshed. Which brings us to the ultimate argument that in such circumstances when one is faced with conflicting rights and conflicting freedoms, it is never enough to be right; one has to be wise as well? Hence, the need for the delicate, fine balances between freedom of expression and the right not to be offended.
I also hope that the tragic events of the past few days will prompt a genuine religious dialogue between Muslim and Christian leaders. The task of maintaining the peace, let alone building stable and friendly relations between the followers of the great religions is too paramount a task to be left for pyromaniacs on both sides.
We must start this dialogue right away. We owe it to the victims of the latest madness to see to it that fanatics and ignoramuses on both sides of the isle are not allowed to savage our faces and burn our hearts with the fire of their ignorance and fanaticism.
* Khalid Amayreh is an American-educated journalist living in the southern West Bank town of Dura near Hebron. He graduated from the University of Oklahoma in Norman in 1981. He also, received a Master degree in Journalism from the University of Southern Illinois at Carbondale in 1983.
Mass rallies in Gaza against the film that insults the Prophet of Islam
Tens of thousands of citizens participated, Friday afternoon in Gaza, in marches called for by "Hamas" movement protesting an American film that mocks the Prophet of Islam, Muhammad (PBUH).
The protesters launched the march from all Gaza’s mosques and headed to the Legislative Council Square chanting "Except the Messenger of Allah" and other slogans condemning the abuse on the Prophet.
The demonstration was organized jointly by "Hamas" and "Islamic Jihad", reported PIC's correspondent.
Dr. Ismail Radwan, Minister of Awqaf and Religious Affairs, considered in a speech he gave during the march, that producing a film satirizing the Prophet Muhammad demonstrates American-Zionist hatred against humanity and against Islam and Muslims in particular.
He stressed that: "this anger that erupted in all the Arab countries will not stop until the defamation against the prophet stops", and called the Arab and Islamic nation to continue peaceful activities against this abuse.
In turn, a member of the politburo of the Islamic Jihad Mohammed al-Hindi said that U.S. administration is the one which allowed provocation of one and a half billion Muslims, stressing that abusing the Prophet Muhammad and Muslims is a red line that cannot be tolerated.
A similar march was also launched from Kholafaa mosque in Jabaliya as protesters gathered in front of the police station in Jabaliya refugee camp while angry youths set fire to American and Israeli flags and raised anti-US banners.
The cities of Central Khan Younis and Rafah have also witnessed similar mass rallies, during which demonstrators raised banners denouncing the abuses on the Prophet and demanded a U.S. apology.
Hamas prisoners call for boycotting US products
The Hamas-affiliated prisoners in Israeli jails strongly denounced the blasphemous US movie against the prophet of Islam "Muhammad" and demanded all Arab and Muslim official and popular parties to resist such profanity against Islam.
In a statement, the prisoners condemned this movie as an affront to all Muslims around the world and called for stopping all kinds of attack against Islam and Prophet Muhammad.
The prisoner also urged all Muslims to boycott the American products in order to pressure the US government not to repeat such reprehensible acts and to officially apologize to the Muslim nation for the anti-Islam movie.
Marches engulf West Bank against film satirizing Prophet Muhammad
The occupation forces quelled the peaceful marches that engulfed in the West Bank's cities of Jerusalem and Bethlehem on Friday, in protest against a film satirizing the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH).
Clashes erupted, Friday afternoon, between Israeli occupation forces and the masses of Palestinians participating in the peaceful march, launched from the courtyards of al-Aqsa Mosque to condemn the American film abusing the Prophet of Islam
The Hebrew radio reported that hundreds of Jerusalemites headed towards the former headquarters of the American Consulate, but were repressed by forces of the Israeli army and police that prevented them from reaching their destination.
It pointed that the police forces, using stun grenades and tear gas, tried to disperse the crowds of Palestinian demonstrators and arrested a number of them.
The radio also reported that a number of Israeli policemen were slightly injured after being hit by stones hurled by Palestinian protesters in the vicinity of the U.S. Consulate.
Jerusalemites marched against the offending film, in Damascus Gate in occupied Jerusalem where the occupation forces dispersed using force the demonstrators and arrested three of them.
Thousands of Palestinians also protested in Al-Aqsa Mosque yards chanting slogans condemning the film, but were prevented by large forces of occupation police from leaving al-Aqsa mosque.
In Bethlehem, a number of Palestinian civilians suffered from suffocation after the Israeli occupation army suppressed the participants in al-Maasara weekly march while they were heading towards confiscated lands, chanting slogans condemning the defamation of the Messenger Muhammad
Meanwhile, hundreds of angry citizens from the city of Nablus marched also after Friday prayers, protesting at the American film; and burned an American flag.
Participants called on the Arab and Islamic governments to support their voices and their protests and demanded U.S. government to apologize for the film it had published.
14 sept 2012
Director, Lead Producer and Screenwriter of the Controversial Film “Innocence of Muslims,” Speaks Out
In an exclusive interview with RadioSawa.com, reporter Fadoua Massat conducted an interview by telephone with a man who claimed that he is the director, lead producer and screenwriter of the controversial film "Innocence of Muslims," which has caused violent protests across the Arab World.
RadioSawa conducted two interviews with this man in Arabic; one was recorded.
In the interview, the man did not confirm or deny that his name was Nakoula Basseley Nakoula. His location could not be confirmed. However, the source that provided the contact number confirmed that he has a long-standing relationship with the man and his identity is indeed that of Mr. Nakoula.
The AP has reported that U.S. law enforcement authorities have identified a Coptic Christian by the name of Nakoula Basseley Nakoula as the man responsible for producing the film. The AP reports he pleaded no contest in 2010 to federal bank fraud charges in California.
The man told RadioSawa.com that he is an Egyptian and got a degree at the Faculty of Literature at Cairo University and is also a self-proclaimed researcher in Islamic studies. He doesn't claim to hold a degree in that subject. He claims he wrote a book in 1994 after being disturbed by the treatment of Jews in Iran and the fatwa against author Salman Rushdie.
Below is an English transcript of the interview conducted in Arabic.
Q: Are you the producer behind the movie "Innocence of Muslims?"
A: I am the screenwriter of this film but I am not the producer. I only uploaded 14 minutes of the movie on the Internet. I still have the full movie but if I put the entire movie online there will be a great fuss because of the parties that produced it. [Nakoula later confirmed he was the main producer.]
Q: Who are these parties?
A: I am not able to reveal them.
Q: Some are saying that the United States was involved...
A: This is funny and ridiculous. America has nothing to do with the film.
Q: Who produced this movie then?
A: I will not disclose the producers' names.
Q: How did you decide to write the script for this film?
A: I had published a book in 1994 [on Islam] and it impressed certain parties who asked me if I could turn this book into a movie and this is what I did.
Q: What is the title of the book?
A: I refuse to disclose the title of the book for security reasons because the title of the book will reveal my true identity. This book later became the script now directed by a famous European director whose name is jumbled on the film and one day he will reveal his true identity.
Q: Some actors who participated in the film told U.S. media that you had misled them and believed they were acting in a movie about Egypt 2000 years ago.
A: The actors who participated in the film do not belong to an actors union and therefore do not have the right to contest the final form of the film. The producer retains full right to change the details of the film as he pleases.
Q: Are you admitting that you misled the actors?
A: This is a producer's right. He can put what he wants in the film without consulting the actors and what happened was that the actors performed roles under pseudonyms. I understand that they now fear for their lives, but my answer to them is that they do not belong to a professional association.
Q: Did you expect that the film would cause such strong reactions in the Arab and Muslim worlds?
A: Some people advised me – the other producers – but they put my mind at ease believing nothing would happen. The advisers were foreigners who do not know anything about Arabs and have never visited Arab countries. The producers were European and do business with the United States and Australia.
Q: How do you feel about the death of the U.S. Ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens and the three other members of the embassy who died because of the angry reactions to the film?
A: First, the U.S. ambassador's death has nothing to do with the film. The people who did this are thugs and thieves. I have a question for those people: If you are defending the Prophet, why do you steal from embassies? President Sadat said in the past: "Such is an uprising of thugs."
Q: But the film touched the feelings of Muslims strongly and they expressed outrage about it. You say that you are a researcher in Islamic Studies and know the stature of the Holy Prophet to Muslims and the film used [by Muslims] as a pretext to kill the U.S. ambassador.
A: America is a victim of injustice in this case.
Q: How is the American government a victim?
A: What does the U.S. government have to with these subjects? If a person anywhere in the world does something, should a government be held responsible? Of course not. We have to learn demonstrate peacefully against the issues on which we disagree, but it seems that Omar Suleiman was right when he said, "We are not yet ready for democracy."
Q: Do you regret the production of the film?
A: No, I do not regret it. I am saddened for the killing of ambassador, but I do not regret making it.
Q: If you had the chance again you will produce the same film?
A: I am no longer a young man. I've decided to retire. Enough.
Q: Do you have any kind of official protection by a government?
A: Absolutely not. I never enjoyed any kind of protection and why would I need protection while living a normal life?
Q: If you are living a normal life why not reveal your true identity?
A: For personal reasons.
Q: Many Egyptian Coptic organizations have condemned your film and rejected it completely. What is your comment on that?
A: They are free to do this and this is their right. These people have nothing to do with the subject of the film. The film was my idea alone and it only concerns me. I did not fabricate anything and everything in the film exists in Islamic books and heritage.
Q: Have you read the Koran?
A: Of course I read the Koran and more than 3,000 books on Islam and put these ideas in my film.
Q: You say you read about Islamic heritage and read the Koran, have you read about other religions? Why are you associating only negative things about Islam? Did you not find any negative things in other religions?
A: I'm familiar with other religions but I am interested in Islam in particular.
Q: You have defended America often in this conversation. Do you feel guilty after it happened?
A: Yes, I feel guilty. America has nothing to do with this subject and endured the results of film it has nothing to do with it.
Q: Do you have a message to Muslims?
A: Yes, I have a message for the whole world and not for Muslims. I hope that you watch the movie in full before you judge it.
Q: Are you saying the excerpts were manipulated to show negative scenes?
A: No, I am the one who leaked the 14 minutes and put it on the Internet and I am thinking about releasing the full film. Nobody manipulated my film.
Q: President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton denounced the film strongly and absolutely...
A. By God, the U.S. President is responsible for his people, as well as U.S. Secretary of State and every one has the right to say what he wants.
Q: How do you describe yourself?
A: An Arab thinker interested in Islamic affairs who refuses to disclose details such as my name or where I am or the name of the producers... I want to offer my condolences to the people of the United States.
In his second interview, the man also said that he was approached by anonymous people in recent days to write a "blank check" so they could buy the rights to the master copy of his entire two-hour film and destroy it.
The Prophet: The Ultimate red line
By Khalid Amayreh* in Occupied Jerusalem
"You shall certainly be tried and tested in your wealth and in your persons, and you shall certainly hear much abuse from those who received the Scripture before you (Jews and Christians) , and from the idolaters but if you persevere patiently, and observe the commandments of thy Lord, then verily, that will be an affair of great resolution." V. 186-SuraIII
By now it is still unclear who exactly produced the despicable and malicious film "the Innocence of Muslims," which defames and abuses the Prophet of Islam. The alleged producer has given many pseudonyms for himself, apparently to elude the public and escape possible retribution by angry Muslims.
However, by connecting the dots and in light of information provided so far, it is highly likely that the author of the disgusting feat is a Coptic Christian who harbors a pathological hatred of Islam. Earlier reports suggested that the hate-filled bastard was an Israeli Jew by the name of Same Baceil, but these reports have been discounted.
The author of the film seems to have received assistance and encouragement from some evangelical and Zionist circles, probably including Terry Johns, the Nazi-like Evangelical preacher who had threatened to burn the Quran, as if doing so would remove the Holy Book from the hearts and minds of hundreds of millions of Muslims around the world.
Other possible accomplices are Daniel Pipes, another notorious hater of Islam, and David Horowitz, an Israeli basher of Islam who spreads his anti-Muslim venom on American campuses. Both Pipes and Horowitz reportedly provided assistance to Geert Wilders, the extreme Dutch politician who has been disseminating his hateful anti-Islam propaganda throughout Europe.
The producer of the rubbish film was quoted as saying that his goal behind the film was to provoke and hurt Muslim feelings. If so, he seems to have succeeded to a large extent in realizing his goal.
Millions of Muslims, especially those who watched the preview of the promiscuous film, have been grieved, seeing the holiest and most saintly man ever to walk on earth, portrayed in such a bad light, to put it extremely mildly.
In several Muslim countries, angry Muslims have protested the sacrilegious feat. In Cairo, thousands surrounded the U.S. embassy, demanding the U.S. authorities to take action against those who abuse the religious symbols of Islam. Hundreds were reportedly injured from tear gas inhalation and flying stones
In Sana, the capital of Yemen, a close ally of the U.S. in the war against al-Qaida, at least four people have been killed so far as security forces tried to disperse protesters outside the American embassy.
In Libya, the American Ambassador and a number of the embassy staff suffocated to death following the torching of a nearby building to which the diplomats were previously withdrawn for their safety.
These are some of the provisional tragic consequences of the despicable act which infuriated Muslims around the world.
It is probably useless to express one's sorrow for the death of these innocent Americans and Yemenis. However, we should have the moral courage to proclaim the truth and say what much of the Jewish-controlled American media wouldn't say, namely that the blood of these victims is decidedly though vicariously on the hands of the fanatical criminal or criminals who concocted that piece of garbage about the Prophet of Islam who commands the veneration of over 1.6 billion human beings.
Some people might sharply disagree with me by arguing that nothing, absolutely nothing, justifies the killing of an innocent human being, especially when the victim or victims have personally nothing to do with the original provocation.
This is perfectly true and valid. However, things are not as simple as that. In the final analysis, it should have been known that vilifying and ridiculing the Prophet of Islam would provoke Muslims and lead to tragic consequences.
In other words, the killing of the American diplomats was almost inevitable, regardless of it being wrong and unjust. The American government and its various intelligence arms should have foreseen these developments before it was too late. Failing to anticipate these tragic reactions is an intelligence fiasco.
More to the point, enhanced security at US embassies throughout the Muslim world may help provide some security for the foreseeable future. However, it should be clearly understood by the wise men in Washington that a determined fanatic who feels deeply offended and hurt by this virulent act of blasphemy against the Prophet of God could elude all security precautions around American diplomatic missions. Muslims wouldn't flinch from sacrificing their own souls in defense of their Prophet.
As Americans have their own idiots and fanatics, we, too, have our idiots and fanatics. And as Americans are utterly unable, probably unwilling as well, to stop their idiots, we, too, are even less able to rein in ours.
Yes, we understand the First Amendment and all of this stuff. But you must also understand that the Prophet is a million times more sacred than the American constitution.
You may argue that Freedom of speech and Expression is sacred in your country. Well, likewise, you ought to understand that for us Muslims the sanctity of our Quran and our Prophet is absolutely more paramount than the views and opinions of the founding fathers of the American constitution.
Now a word to Muslims. It is perfectly legitimate to be angry and furious about what happened. After all, Muhammed is the final and greatest messenger of God to humanity. And any Muslim that reacts with indifference to the sleazy film must check his faith.
However, our reactions must never exceed the bounds of what is acceptable from the Islamic perspective. We must not hurt innocent people under any circumstances; we must not target churches or institutions belonging to Christians.
Doing so would achieve the morbid goal of the author of that piece of hatred.
Similarly, we must not hold all Christians responsible for the disgusting behavior of one idiot who claims to be a follower of Jesus Christ. After all, there are thousands of sincere Christians who have voiced their indignation and outrage at this outrageous act. We salute these courageous Christians for their solidarity and decency. They are our natural partners in the long and difficult battle for inter-religious fraternity and universal brotherhood.
--------------------------------------------------
* Khalid Amayreh is an American-educated journalist living in the southern West Bank town of Dura near Hebron. He graduated from the University of Oklahoma in Norman in 1981. He also, received a Master degree in Journalism from the University of Southern Illinois at Carbondale in 1983.
Protests in Gaza, Jerusalem against anti-Islam video
Hundreds of protesters gathered in Jerusalem's Old City and the Gaza Strip on Friday, as regional protests continued against an anti-Islam video produced in the US.
Around 400 protesters left Friday prayers in Jerusalem's Al-Aqsa Mosque and tried to march towards the US consulate, Israeli police spokesman Mickey Rosenfeld said.
Israeli forces prevented protesters reaching the consulate, blocking the rally at Damascus Gate using stun grenades. Four people were detained, Rosenfeld told Ma'an.
Hundreds gathered in cities across the Gaza Strip on Friday, after Hamas and Islamic Jihad called for demonstrations against the video for its insult to the prophet.
Jihad leader Abu Tariq al-Mdalal said the protests "send a message to the whole world condemning this attack against our prophet... we call on the Arab world to use all its abilities to respond to this attack, and to close the (Israeli) and US embassies."
Hamas Minister of Religious Affairs Ismail Radwan called on the Arab and Islamic world "to continue peaceful protest and rejection (of the video)."
"We should boycott all US products as the US was involved in this attack," he added.
Gaza Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh called for the US administration to apologize to the Arab and Muslim world in his Friday sermon.
US-based Egyptian Coptic activists and American evangelical Christians have been linked to production and promotion of the film, which portrays the Prophet as a womanizer, a homosexual and a child abuser.
US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has condemned the film as "disgusting and reprehensible," adding that the US government had "absolutely nothing to do with (it)."
Apparently produced in California, the video sparked an attack on a US mission in Libya on Tuesday that killed the ambassador and three other Americans.
One demonstrator was killed and two others were wounded in clashes with security forces in the northern Lebanese city of Tripoli on Friday in protests over the production and against the pope's visit to Lebanon.
Protesters also clashed with police near the US embassy in Cairo on Friday before a nationwide protest called by the Muslim Brotherhood.
Marches sparked clashes with police in Yemen, where one person died and 15 were injured on Thursday when the US embassy compound was stormed, and crowds gathered against video in Malaysia, Bangladesh and Iraq.
California bank fraud convict linked to anti-Muslim video
By Dan Whitcomb
Evidence mounted on Thursday that a Los Angeles-area man who served time in prison for bank fraud may have been involved in an anti-Muslim video that stoked violent protests in the Islamic world against the United States.
Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, 55, who lives in the Los Angeles suburb of Cerritos, has been linked by news organizations to production of the low-budget film clip, which has been circulated under several titles, including "Innocence of Muslims."
The 13-minute English-language video, which was filmed in California, portrays Islam's Prophet Muhammad engaged in crude and offensive behavior. Many of the Islamic faith regard any depiction of the prophet as blasphemous.
The US ambassador to Libya and three other Americans were killed on Tuesday in an attack on the US consulate and a safe house in Benghazi that US officials have said may have been planned. The attackers were part of a crowd blaming America for a film they said insulted the Prophet Muhammad.
Demonstrations against the film have also flared in Egypt, Yemen and other Muslim countries, with US embassies again the targets of popular anger among Muslims questioning why the United States has failed to take action against the makers of the film.
Adding to the incendiary nature of the film was the fact that it had been promoted by a US-based Egyptian Coptic Christian activist who said his intention was to highlight discrimination against Egypt's Coptic Christian minority. Copts have expressed fear the film could lead to retaliation.
The Coptic Bishop for Los Angeles, who said he feared the impact of the film on the Coptic community if Copts are linked to it, told Reuters that Nakoula called him on Thursday denying any link to the film.
"He told me that he was not involved in this movie in any way, and I asked him, 'Why did they put your name'" on it? Bishop Serapion told Reuters. The bishop said Nakoula replied that he was essentially the victim of mistaken identity by the media.
Another Coptic clergyman in California, Father Mauritius of St. George Coptic Orthodox Church in Bellflower, described Nakoula as a former parishioner who had been an infrequent worshiper before he quit attending three years ago. He said he had no reason to believe Nakoula harbored any extremist views.
The Los Angeles Coptic diocese issued a statement condemning and disavowing any Coptic association with the film.
"The producers of this movie should be responsible for their actions," the diocese said. "The name of our blessed parishioners should not be associated with the efforts of individuals who have ulterior motives."
Compelling connections
Attempts by Reuters to contact Nakoula directly were unsuccessful. But it appeared that at least one scene in the video may have been filmed at Nakoula's home.
A distinctive interior front door shown in one scene was nearly indistinguishable from the exterior door at Nakoula's house. Both have frosted-glass, half-moon-shaped cutouts with stenciled rose designs in the wood double-door entrance.
The house was besieged on Thursday by throngs of reporters and camera crews, who saw residents inside paper over at least one half-moon window for privacy. Police maintained a light presence near the home after they were called to the scene on Wednesday night over concerns about Nakoula's safety. The officers declined to elaborate.
The Coptic activist from Virginia, Morris Sadek, who said he played a role in promoting the video, gave Reuters a telephone number for a man he described as the filmmaker. That number later traced back to the Nakoula residence.
That number turned up in a public-records search as a pay-as-you-go cell phone registered to a user who shares a residence with Nakoula. The number initially went unanswered and later seemed to have been disconnected.
Sadek had attributed the video to a man he named as Sam Bacile, which was also the name used by an individual who posted a copy of the video in July on YouTube. But at least two other people linked to the film have said that name was likely a pseudonym.
Known to federal law enforcement
Federal authorities investigating the slayings in Libya declined to comment on whether Nakoula was linked to the movie. He has been known to federal law enforcement for other reasons long before the anti-Muslim video emerged.
He pleaded guilty to bank fraud in 2010 and was sentenced to 21 months in prison, to be followed by five years on supervised probation, court documents showed. He was released from prison in June 2011, shortly before production began on the video, prison records show.
Nakoula was accused of fraudulently opening bank and credit card accounts using Social Security numbers that did not match the names given on applications, according to a criminal complaint.
Under the written terms of release from prison, Nakoula was forbidden from using the Internet or assuming any aliases without approval of his probation officer. He also was ordered to make restitution for more than $790,000 from the scam.
Nakoula also pleaded guilty in 1997 to possession with intent to manufacture methamphetamine and was sentenced to a year in jail, said Sandi Gibbons, a spokeswoman for the Los Angeles District Attorney's Office.
Non-profit with religious ties
Meanwhile, details of the film's production remained murky.
A group called Media for Christ, which maintains an Arabic-language Christian website, obtained a permit to shoot the film on Aug. 8, 2011, at a studio in the Santa Clarita Valley, north of Los Angeles, said Paul Audley, president of FilmL.A., the agency that processes regional on-location film permits.
The area is home to a Middle East-style village stage set commonly used for Hollywood productions, Audley added.
The actual permit for the shoot was withheld from the public on Thursday. Los Angeles County assistant CEO Ryan Alsop said in a statement that the permit was removed due to "public safety concerns" raised by the US State Department and the FBI.
Media for Christ is a nonprofit organization based in Duarte, California, which describes itself as an evangelical Christian group, according to federal tax documents. A 2011 tax filing listed revenue of just over $1 million but did not disclose its main donors.
Officials from the group could not immediately be reached, and the front door to the organization's office in Duarte was locked.
RadioSawa conducted two interviews with this man in Arabic; one was recorded.
In the interview, the man did not confirm or deny that his name was Nakoula Basseley Nakoula. His location could not be confirmed. However, the source that provided the contact number confirmed that he has a long-standing relationship with the man and his identity is indeed that of Mr. Nakoula.
The AP has reported that U.S. law enforcement authorities have identified a Coptic Christian by the name of Nakoula Basseley Nakoula as the man responsible for producing the film. The AP reports he pleaded no contest in 2010 to federal bank fraud charges in California.
The man told RadioSawa.com that he is an Egyptian and got a degree at the Faculty of Literature at Cairo University and is also a self-proclaimed researcher in Islamic studies. He doesn't claim to hold a degree in that subject. He claims he wrote a book in 1994 after being disturbed by the treatment of Jews in Iran and the fatwa against author Salman Rushdie.
Below is an English transcript of the interview conducted in Arabic.
Q: Are you the producer behind the movie "Innocence of Muslims?"
A: I am the screenwriter of this film but I am not the producer. I only uploaded 14 minutes of the movie on the Internet. I still have the full movie but if I put the entire movie online there will be a great fuss because of the parties that produced it. [Nakoula later confirmed he was the main producer.]
Q: Who are these parties?
A: I am not able to reveal them.
Q: Some are saying that the United States was involved...
A: This is funny and ridiculous. America has nothing to do with the film.
Q: Who produced this movie then?
A: I will not disclose the producers' names.
Q: How did you decide to write the script for this film?
A: I had published a book in 1994 [on Islam] and it impressed certain parties who asked me if I could turn this book into a movie and this is what I did.
Q: What is the title of the book?
A: I refuse to disclose the title of the book for security reasons because the title of the book will reveal my true identity. This book later became the script now directed by a famous European director whose name is jumbled on the film and one day he will reveal his true identity.
Q: Some actors who participated in the film told U.S. media that you had misled them and believed they were acting in a movie about Egypt 2000 years ago.
A: The actors who participated in the film do not belong to an actors union and therefore do not have the right to contest the final form of the film. The producer retains full right to change the details of the film as he pleases.
Q: Are you admitting that you misled the actors?
A: This is a producer's right. He can put what he wants in the film without consulting the actors and what happened was that the actors performed roles under pseudonyms. I understand that they now fear for their lives, but my answer to them is that they do not belong to a professional association.
Q: Did you expect that the film would cause such strong reactions in the Arab and Muslim worlds?
A: Some people advised me – the other producers – but they put my mind at ease believing nothing would happen. The advisers were foreigners who do not know anything about Arabs and have never visited Arab countries. The producers were European and do business with the United States and Australia.
Q: How do you feel about the death of the U.S. Ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens and the three other members of the embassy who died because of the angry reactions to the film?
A: First, the U.S. ambassador's death has nothing to do with the film. The people who did this are thugs and thieves. I have a question for those people: If you are defending the Prophet, why do you steal from embassies? President Sadat said in the past: "Such is an uprising of thugs."
Q: But the film touched the feelings of Muslims strongly and they expressed outrage about it. You say that you are a researcher in Islamic Studies and know the stature of the Holy Prophet to Muslims and the film used [by Muslims] as a pretext to kill the U.S. ambassador.
A: America is a victim of injustice in this case.
Q: How is the American government a victim?
A: What does the U.S. government have to with these subjects? If a person anywhere in the world does something, should a government be held responsible? Of course not. We have to learn demonstrate peacefully against the issues on which we disagree, but it seems that Omar Suleiman was right when he said, "We are not yet ready for democracy."
Q: Do you regret the production of the film?
A: No, I do not regret it. I am saddened for the killing of ambassador, but I do not regret making it.
Q: If you had the chance again you will produce the same film?
A: I am no longer a young man. I've decided to retire. Enough.
Q: Do you have any kind of official protection by a government?
A: Absolutely not. I never enjoyed any kind of protection and why would I need protection while living a normal life?
Q: If you are living a normal life why not reveal your true identity?
A: For personal reasons.
Q: Many Egyptian Coptic organizations have condemned your film and rejected it completely. What is your comment on that?
A: They are free to do this and this is their right. These people have nothing to do with the subject of the film. The film was my idea alone and it only concerns me. I did not fabricate anything and everything in the film exists in Islamic books and heritage.
Q: Have you read the Koran?
A: Of course I read the Koran and more than 3,000 books on Islam and put these ideas in my film.
Q: You say you read about Islamic heritage and read the Koran, have you read about other religions? Why are you associating only negative things about Islam? Did you not find any negative things in other religions?
A: I'm familiar with other religions but I am interested in Islam in particular.
Q: You have defended America often in this conversation. Do you feel guilty after it happened?
A: Yes, I feel guilty. America has nothing to do with this subject and endured the results of film it has nothing to do with it.
Q: Do you have a message to Muslims?
A: Yes, I have a message for the whole world and not for Muslims. I hope that you watch the movie in full before you judge it.
Q: Are you saying the excerpts were manipulated to show negative scenes?
A: No, I am the one who leaked the 14 minutes and put it on the Internet and I am thinking about releasing the full film. Nobody manipulated my film.
Q: President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton denounced the film strongly and absolutely...
A. By God, the U.S. President is responsible for his people, as well as U.S. Secretary of State and every one has the right to say what he wants.
Q: How do you describe yourself?
A: An Arab thinker interested in Islamic affairs who refuses to disclose details such as my name or where I am or the name of the producers... I want to offer my condolences to the people of the United States.
In his second interview, the man also said that he was approached by anonymous people in recent days to write a "blank check" so they could buy the rights to the master copy of his entire two-hour film and destroy it.
The Prophet: The Ultimate red line
By Khalid Amayreh* in Occupied Jerusalem
"You shall certainly be tried and tested in your wealth and in your persons, and you shall certainly hear much abuse from those who received the Scripture before you (Jews and Christians) , and from the idolaters but if you persevere patiently, and observe the commandments of thy Lord, then verily, that will be an affair of great resolution." V. 186-SuraIII
By now it is still unclear who exactly produced the despicable and malicious film "the Innocence of Muslims," which defames and abuses the Prophet of Islam. The alleged producer has given many pseudonyms for himself, apparently to elude the public and escape possible retribution by angry Muslims.
However, by connecting the dots and in light of information provided so far, it is highly likely that the author of the disgusting feat is a Coptic Christian who harbors a pathological hatred of Islam. Earlier reports suggested that the hate-filled bastard was an Israeli Jew by the name of Same Baceil, but these reports have been discounted.
The author of the film seems to have received assistance and encouragement from some evangelical and Zionist circles, probably including Terry Johns, the Nazi-like Evangelical preacher who had threatened to burn the Quran, as if doing so would remove the Holy Book from the hearts and minds of hundreds of millions of Muslims around the world.
Other possible accomplices are Daniel Pipes, another notorious hater of Islam, and David Horowitz, an Israeli basher of Islam who spreads his anti-Muslim venom on American campuses. Both Pipes and Horowitz reportedly provided assistance to Geert Wilders, the extreme Dutch politician who has been disseminating his hateful anti-Islam propaganda throughout Europe.
The producer of the rubbish film was quoted as saying that his goal behind the film was to provoke and hurt Muslim feelings. If so, he seems to have succeeded to a large extent in realizing his goal.
Millions of Muslims, especially those who watched the preview of the promiscuous film, have been grieved, seeing the holiest and most saintly man ever to walk on earth, portrayed in such a bad light, to put it extremely mildly.
In several Muslim countries, angry Muslims have protested the sacrilegious feat. In Cairo, thousands surrounded the U.S. embassy, demanding the U.S. authorities to take action against those who abuse the religious symbols of Islam. Hundreds were reportedly injured from tear gas inhalation and flying stones
In Sana, the capital of Yemen, a close ally of the U.S. in the war against al-Qaida, at least four people have been killed so far as security forces tried to disperse protesters outside the American embassy.
In Libya, the American Ambassador and a number of the embassy staff suffocated to death following the torching of a nearby building to which the diplomats were previously withdrawn for their safety.
These are some of the provisional tragic consequences of the despicable act which infuriated Muslims around the world.
It is probably useless to express one's sorrow for the death of these innocent Americans and Yemenis. However, we should have the moral courage to proclaim the truth and say what much of the Jewish-controlled American media wouldn't say, namely that the blood of these victims is decidedly though vicariously on the hands of the fanatical criminal or criminals who concocted that piece of garbage about the Prophet of Islam who commands the veneration of over 1.6 billion human beings.
Some people might sharply disagree with me by arguing that nothing, absolutely nothing, justifies the killing of an innocent human being, especially when the victim or victims have personally nothing to do with the original provocation.
This is perfectly true and valid. However, things are not as simple as that. In the final analysis, it should have been known that vilifying and ridiculing the Prophet of Islam would provoke Muslims and lead to tragic consequences.
In other words, the killing of the American diplomats was almost inevitable, regardless of it being wrong and unjust. The American government and its various intelligence arms should have foreseen these developments before it was too late. Failing to anticipate these tragic reactions is an intelligence fiasco.
More to the point, enhanced security at US embassies throughout the Muslim world may help provide some security for the foreseeable future. However, it should be clearly understood by the wise men in Washington that a determined fanatic who feels deeply offended and hurt by this virulent act of blasphemy against the Prophet of God could elude all security precautions around American diplomatic missions. Muslims wouldn't flinch from sacrificing their own souls in defense of their Prophet.
As Americans have their own idiots and fanatics, we, too, have our idiots and fanatics. And as Americans are utterly unable, probably unwilling as well, to stop their idiots, we, too, are even less able to rein in ours.
Yes, we understand the First Amendment and all of this stuff. But you must also understand that the Prophet is a million times more sacred than the American constitution.
You may argue that Freedom of speech and Expression is sacred in your country. Well, likewise, you ought to understand that for us Muslims the sanctity of our Quran and our Prophet is absolutely more paramount than the views and opinions of the founding fathers of the American constitution.
Now a word to Muslims. It is perfectly legitimate to be angry and furious about what happened. After all, Muhammed is the final and greatest messenger of God to humanity. And any Muslim that reacts with indifference to the sleazy film must check his faith.
However, our reactions must never exceed the bounds of what is acceptable from the Islamic perspective. We must not hurt innocent people under any circumstances; we must not target churches or institutions belonging to Christians.
Doing so would achieve the morbid goal of the author of that piece of hatred.
Similarly, we must not hold all Christians responsible for the disgusting behavior of one idiot who claims to be a follower of Jesus Christ. After all, there are thousands of sincere Christians who have voiced their indignation and outrage at this outrageous act. We salute these courageous Christians for their solidarity and decency. They are our natural partners in the long and difficult battle for inter-religious fraternity and universal brotherhood.
--------------------------------------------------
* Khalid Amayreh is an American-educated journalist living in the southern West Bank town of Dura near Hebron. He graduated from the University of Oklahoma in Norman in 1981. He also, received a Master degree in Journalism from the University of Southern Illinois at Carbondale in 1983.
Protests in Gaza, Jerusalem against anti-Islam video
Hundreds of protesters gathered in Jerusalem's Old City and the Gaza Strip on Friday, as regional protests continued against an anti-Islam video produced in the US.
Around 400 protesters left Friday prayers in Jerusalem's Al-Aqsa Mosque and tried to march towards the US consulate, Israeli police spokesman Mickey Rosenfeld said.
Israeli forces prevented protesters reaching the consulate, blocking the rally at Damascus Gate using stun grenades. Four people were detained, Rosenfeld told Ma'an.
Hundreds gathered in cities across the Gaza Strip on Friday, after Hamas and Islamic Jihad called for demonstrations against the video for its insult to the prophet.
Jihad leader Abu Tariq al-Mdalal said the protests "send a message to the whole world condemning this attack against our prophet... we call on the Arab world to use all its abilities to respond to this attack, and to close the (Israeli) and US embassies."
Hamas Minister of Religious Affairs Ismail Radwan called on the Arab and Islamic world "to continue peaceful protest and rejection (of the video)."
"We should boycott all US products as the US was involved in this attack," he added.
Gaza Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh called for the US administration to apologize to the Arab and Muslim world in his Friday sermon.
US-based Egyptian Coptic activists and American evangelical Christians have been linked to production and promotion of the film, which portrays the Prophet as a womanizer, a homosexual and a child abuser.
US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has condemned the film as "disgusting and reprehensible," adding that the US government had "absolutely nothing to do with (it)."
Apparently produced in California, the video sparked an attack on a US mission in Libya on Tuesday that killed the ambassador and three other Americans.
One demonstrator was killed and two others were wounded in clashes with security forces in the northern Lebanese city of Tripoli on Friday in protests over the production and against the pope's visit to Lebanon.
Protesters also clashed with police near the US embassy in Cairo on Friday before a nationwide protest called by the Muslim Brotherhood.
Marches sparked clashes with police in Yemen, where one person died and 15 were injured on Thursday when the US embassy compound was stormed, and crowds gathered against video in Malaysia, Bangladesh and Iraq.
California bank fraud convict linked to anti-Muslim video
By Dan Whitcomb
Evidence mounted on Thursday that a Los Angeles-area man who served time in prison for bank fraud may have been involved in an anti-Muslim video that stoked violent protests in the Islamic world against the United States.
Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, 55, who lives in the Los Angeles suburb of Cerritos, has been linked by news organizations to production of the low-budget film clip, which has been circulated under several titles, including "Innocence of Muslims."
The 13-minute English-language video, which was filmed in California, portrays Islam's Prophet Muhammad engaged in crude and offensive behavior. Many of the Islamic faith regard any depiction of the prophet as blasphemous.
The US ambassador to Libya and three other Americans were killed on Tuesday in an attack on the US consulate and a safe house in Benghazi that US officials have said may have been planned. The attackers were part of a crowd blaming America for a film they said insulted the Prophet Muhammad.
Demonstrations against the film have also flared in Egypt, Yemen and other Muslim countries, with US embassies again the targets of popular anger among Muslims questioning why the United States has failed to take action against the makers of the film.
Adding to the incendiary nature of the film was the fact that it had been promoted by a US-based Egyptian Coptic Christian activist who said his intention was to highlight discrimination against Egypt's Coptic Christian minority. Copts have expressed fear the film could lead to retaliation.
The Coptic Bishop for Los Angeles, who said he feared the impact of the film on the Coptic community if Copts are linked to it, told Reuters that Nakoula called him on Thursday denying any link to the film.
"He told me that he was not involved in this movie in any way, and I asked him, 'Why did they put your name'" on it? Bishop Serapion told Reuters. The bishop said Nakoula replied that he was essentially the victim of mistaken identity by the media.
Another Coptic clergyman in California, Father Mauritius of St. George Coptic Orthodox Church in Bellflower, described Nakoula as a former parishioner who had been an infrequent worshiper before he quit attending three years ago. He said he had no reason to believe Nakoula harbored any extremist views.
The Los Angeles Coptic diocese issued a statement condemning and disavowing any Coptic association with the film.
"The producers of this movie should be responsible for their actions," the diocese said. "The name of our blessed parishioners should not be associated with the efforts of individuals who have ulterior motives."
Compelling connections
Attempts by Reuters to contact Nakoula directly were unsuccessful. But it appeared that at least one scene in the video may have been filmed at Nakoula's home.
A distinctive interior front door shown in one scene was nearly indistinguishable from the exterior door at Nakoula's house. Both have frosted-glass, half-moon-shaped cutouts with stenciled rose designs in the wood double-door entrance.
The house was besieged on Thursday by throngs of reporters and camera crews, who saw residents inside paper over at least one half-moon window for privacy. Police maintained a light presence near the home after they were called to the scene on Wednesday night over concerns about Nakoula's safety. The officers declined to elaborate.
The Coptic activist from Virginia, Morris Sadek, who said he played a role in promoting the video, gave Reuters a telephone number for a man he described as the filmmaker. That number later traced back to the Nakoula residence.
That number turned up in a public-records search as a pay-as-you-go cell phone registered to a user who shares a residence with Nakoula. The number initially went unanswered and later seemed to have been disconnected.
Sadek had attributed the video to a man he named as Sam Bacile, which was also the name used by an individual who posted a copy of the video in July on YouTube. But at least two other people linked to the film have said that name was likely a pseudonym.
Known to federal law enforcement
Federal authorities investigating the slayings in Libya declined to comment on whether Nakoula was linked to the movie. He has been known to federal law enforcement for other reasons long before the anti-Muslim video emerged.
He pleaded guilty to bank fraud in 2010 and was sentenced to 21 months in prison, to be followed by five years on supervised probation, court documents showed. He was released from prison in June 2011, shortly before production began on the video, prison records show.
Nakoula was accused of fraudulently opening bank and credit card accounts using Social Security numbers that did not match the names given on applications, according to a criminal complaint.
Under the written terms of release from prison, Nakoula was forbidden from using the Internet or assuming any aliases without approval of his probation officer. He also was ordered to make restitution for more than $790,000 from the scam.
Nakoula also pleaded guilty in 1997 to possession with intent to manufacture methamphetamine and was sentenced to a year in jail, said Sandi Gibbons, a spokeswoman for the Los Angeles District Attorney's Office.
Non-profit with religious ties
Meanwhile, details of the film's production remained murky.
A group called Media for Christ, which maintains an Arabic-language Christian website, obtained a permit to shoot the film on Aug. 8, 2011, at a studio in the Santa Clarita Valley, north of Los Angeles, said Paul Audley, president of FilmL.A., the agency that processes regional on-location film permits.
The area is home to a Middle East-style village stage set commonly used for Hollywood productions, Audley added.
The actual permit for the shoot was withheld from the public on Thursday. Los Angeles County assistant CEO Ryan Alsop said in a statement that the permit was removed due to "public safety concerns" raised by the US State Department and the FBI.
Media for Christ is a nonprofit organization based in Duarte, California, which describes itself as an evangelical Christian group, according to federal tax documents. A 2011 tax filing listed revenue of just over $1 million but did not disclose its main donors.
Officials from the group could not immediately be reached, and the front door to the organization's office in Duarte was locked.