Protests have spread over the Middle East about an amateur film called Innocence of Muslims that depicted Islam’s prophet Muhammad... but are they justified? Christian Peregin asks commentators.

The film’s production quality is worse than even the most notoriously amateur Maltese TV programmes.

And though it may have been intended as the anti-Islam version of Monty Python’s Life of Brian (which was banned in the 1970s amid Christian uproar), it has none of the British film’s redeeming qualities.

Instead, it simply portrays Muhammad as an easily-seduced silly American-type character who is exhilarated by the idea of a donkey not liking women.

But protests over the short YouTube clips have already claimed the lives of US Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other staff members in Benghazi on Tuesday evening.

As Muslims target the US establishment, a heated debate has ensued about the reactions to the film: are Muslims overreacting? Are they being egged on by extremist insurgents? Should America have prevented the film from being made and aired?

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton yesterday called the film “disgusting and reprehensible” but said that with today’s technologies, it was not even worth debating whether such films should be stopped.

David Bloss, an American jour-nalist based in Tripoli, was im-pressed by her clarity of thought.

“Pastor Terry Jones (who promoted the movie) is extremely unpopular in our country... But the internet flattens everything and gives an equal platform to everyone: whether they are great statesmen or amateur film-makers.”

Having worked with Muslims in Asia for 12 years, Mr Bloss does not believe they are more sensitive than Christians. The crucial difference, he says, is that violence marred their protests.

“But while in our countries we have a tradition of police that goes back centuries, these people are coming from areas where there are security problems and unstable governments.”

Neither is it surprising, he says, for the protesters to direct their anger towards the US. After all, many Americans are using the same generalisations and targeting their anger over the actions of a few towards all Libyans or Muslims.

To make matters worse, the protesters are used to living in countries where censorship is the order of the day so they believe any media must have been approved by a government body.

Many have accused the film-makers of deliberately seeking a reaction like the one delivered.

Arsalan Alshinawi, International Relations lecturer at the University of Malta, told The Times the film’s sole intention was to provoke enough violence to give the US an excuse to attack Iran.

He said the film should not have been allowed because it crossed a sensitive taboo in the most senseless manner.

But according to Maltese anti-censorship campaigner Mark Camilleri, it would not have been justified to censor the film, even if it was simply intended to provoke the Muslim mob.

He stresses that the mob’s actions do not reflect the attitude of Muslims towards satire and art, which is changing along with the developments brought about by the Arab Spring. His point is reflected in the words of Libyans who are ashamed of the behaviour of their countrymen.

One young man who was particularly vocal during the Libyan uprising, Abdallah Kablan, wrote on Facebook: “What happened in Benghazi by those barbaric inhumane fundamental extremists is a shameful moronic crime against everything human. Fundamental extremists are a cancer worse than Gaddafi and if they are not fully exterminated they will burn down what is left of a broken country.”

But as Mr Camilleri points out, those blaming the US for the film might have hidden political motives for doing so. This may not simply be about defending religion.

In fact, the attacks have already been blamed on Sunni Islamist groups such as Ansar al-Sharia, which may have political aspirations. They have been responsible for the demolition of “heretical” Sufi mosques in the past weeks – incidents which also earned the support of former Gaddafi loyalists with an interest in destabilising the country.

As Mr Bloss says, the protesters in Libya brought automatic weapons, not banners. The fact that they also brought ammunition indicates that this was not simply a spontaneous protest that went out of control but something more organised, he said.

The question now is how to move on from here.

Former US Ambassador Douglas Kmiec wrote in a letter to Mrs Clinton that the incidents would necessitate a review of the country’s relationship with Libya. “[But] you and I both know what Chris Stevens would contribute to that review: an optimistic confidence in the prospect for democracy in Libya and all of North Africa.”

Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi – who condemned the attack yesterday – said he hoped this would not overshadow progress on the path to democracy. “In this there is a lesson to be learnt – we have to follow closely what is happening. There is a story unfoldingand we need to continue to participate in it.”

Arrests made

A “big advance” has been made in the probe into the deadly attack on the US consulate, Prime Minister Mustafa Abu Shagur told AFP yesterday.

“We have some names and some photographs. Arrests have been made and more are under way as we speak,” Abu Shagur said in his first interview since his election as premier on Wednesday night.