Background:

Yūsuf Shāhīn, born on (25.1.1926–27.7.2008), was a prominent Coptic Christian film director and was active in the Egyptian film industry from the 1950s until his death on July 27, 2008. He is best known for controversial themes present in his movies and the legal issues he had regarding the movie, Al-Mohāger (The Emigrant). The film is loosely based on the story of the Biblical Joseph, and created a storm of controversy in Egypt between the enlightened wing and conservative Muslims who oppose the depiction of religious characters in films. Yūsuf Shāhīn publicly denied he portrayed the Biblical Joseph yet in private agreed it was inspired by the Biblical story.

Side A (Arabic):

Aḥmad al- Khawāja, Yūsuf Shāhīn’s lawyer says that the film, like any film in Egypt, needed a permit from censorship authorities which has the right to see the movie and judge it. Al- Khawāja stresses that artistic innovation is protected by the Egyptian constitution. The first level court did not even see the film prior to the hearing and the opponent depended on newspaper articles which is not valid evidence. He requests that the film be shown at any film theatre. However, he prefers the theatre where it was first shown; Karīm One Movie Theatre.

Another lawyer requests the court to live up to its values of protecting freedom of innovation like they did when they rejected banning Ṭaha Ḥussaīn’s book on pre-Islamic poetry. He is justifying his request by explaining that a society that lacks innovation would also lack faith because the Islamic Sharīʿa, on which the Egyptian constitution is based, protects freedom of innovation.

A third defendant of the film says the judge of the first level court should have sought help from a committee from al-Azhar Islamic Research Academy or a committee of artists. The first level judge also, according to the lawyer, ruled in a case that was not part of his court’s specialization since it was a court for urgent matters. That is why the lawyer is requesting the rejection of first level court for urgent matters’ ruling.

Maḥmūd Abū al-Fid, Shāhīn’s opponent’s lawyer uses a verse from the Qurʾān to justify his point, (Sura 12:18) that states:

“And they brought upon his shirt false blood. [Jacob] said, "Rather, your souls have enticed you to something, so patience is most fitting. And Allah is the one sought for help against that which you describe.”

Abū al-Fid accuses many writers of harshly attacking what he called the noble Egyptian judiciary because of the first level court ruling. Many audiences objected to his words. He then says that he has evidence to prove what he was saying.

Abū al-Fid seconds his opponents’ request of showing the film because he thinks this will prove his point that the film is inappropriate. He prefers to call it a crime instead of a film. He is against the idea that Shāhīn portrays a prophet in the first place. For him, the film insults Islam, a prophet, and the Egyptian people. He is worried that if the film is showed to court, the inappropriate parts will be removed from the film by the producers. That is why he is requesting that the court reviews the actual script.  He says that the same scenario was rejected first by censorship authorities but the producers changed the name of the film as well as the names of prophets Yūsuf (in English: Joseph) and Yaʿqūb (in English: Jacob). He requests that the court reviews the scenario of the original film as well.

Side B (English):

An Egyptian present at the court hearing is asked to comment on the controversy regarding Yūsuf Shāhīn’s film, al-Muhājir. The man claims Shāhīn continues to deny the possible link between his film and the story of the Biblical Joseph (in Arabic: Yaʿqūb), and argues all names in the production have been changed. Shāhīn is asking members of the court to first watch the film and then continue the discussion; the judge agrees to do so. The film, according to the interviewee, represents democracy and liberty of mind, but many argue that such stories/films must be stopped. The court case is about freedom of artistic expression, not about the law. Cornelis Hulsman questions how such a case can be brought up in court when it is not based on the law, but rather on political terms. The person he questioned argues this to be something called a “quick court”, which essentially refers to people filing law suits about whatever they do not like in society (not based on legal terms), and have the court decide whether they have the right to make a case or not. The man argues the controversy to be a political case in the sense that some groups are trying to stop the development of society in ways of the cinema, books, television and so forth.

According to the man, the government gave approval to Shāhīn to make such a film, but the government does not have the authority to stop the film once the film has already been approved, this is then in the hands of the court or the Azhar. The Azhar has the right to stop anything that ridicules religion. However, the man advocates that the Azhar is not against the film, but rather it is an issue of independent fundamentalists who want to put a stop to the broadcasting of the film.