Jihad Watch director Robert Spencer in FrontPage on the movie Kingdom of Heaven:
"It’s not like a stupid Hollywood movie,” said French actress Eva Green about the English director Sir Ridley Scott’s Crusades flick, Kingdom of Heaven.That’s true. It’s, like, a stupid English movie.
The Crusades are hot, and Ridley Scott (director of Alien) is about to make them hotter. “Muslims,” gushed the New York Times after an advance showing of the new blockbuster, “are portrayed as bent on coexistence until Christian extremists ruin everything. And even when the Christians are defeated, the Muslims give them safe conduct to return to Europe.” Sir Ridley, according to the Times, “said he hoped to demonstrate that Christians, Muslims and Jews could live together in harmony — if only fanaticism were kept at bay.” Or, as Green put it, the movie is intended to move people “to be more tolerant, more open towards the Arab people.”
Bent on coexistence, eh? That’s right: the Kingdom of Heaven script invents a group called the “Brotherhood of Muslims, Jews and Christians.” A publicist for the film elaborated: “They were working together. It was a strong bond until the Knights Templar cause friction between them.” Ah yes, everything was all right until those “Christian extremists” spoiled everything.
Kingdom of Heaven is designed to be a dream movie for those guilt-ridden creatures who believe that all the trouble between the Islamic world and the West has been caused by Western imperialism, racism, and colonialism, and that the glorious paradigm of Islamic tolerance, which was once a beacon to the world, could be reestablished if only the nasty white men of America and Europe would back off. A dream movie for the PC establishment, except for one little detail: it isn’t true.
Professor Jonathan Riley-Smith, author of A Short History of the Crusades and one of the world’s leading historians of the period, called the movie “rubbish,” explaining that “it’s not historically accurate at all” as it “depicts the Muslims as sophisticated and civilised, and the Crusaders are all brutes and barbarians. It has nothing to do with reality.” Oh, and “there was never a confraternity of Muslims, Jews and Christians. That is utter nonsense.”Professor Jonathan Philips, author of The Fourth Crusade and the Sack of Constantinople, also dismissed the film as history and took issue with its portrayal of the Crusader Knights Templars as villains: “The Templars as ‘baddies’ is only sustainable from the Muslim perspective, and ‘baddies’ is the wrong way to show it anyway. They are the biggest threat to the Muslims and many end up being killed because their sworn vocation is to defend the Holy Land.”
Nor does Kingdom of Heaven take any notice of the historical realities of Christians and Jews who lived under Muslim rule. They were never treated as equals or accorded full rights as citizens, and always suffered under various forms of institutionalized discrimination and harassment.
The Muslim warrior Saladin, who captured Jerusalem from the Crusaders in 1187, is, according to a film publicist, a “hero of the piece.” He is one of the most legendary figures of the Crusades and in our age he has become PC as well: Saladin has become the prototype of the tolerant, magnanimous Muslim warrior, historical proof of the nobility of Islam and even of its superiority to wicked, Western, colonialist Christianity. In The Crusades Through Arab Eyes, Amin Maalouf portrays the Crusaders as little more than savages, even gorging themselves on the flesh of those they have murdered. But Saladin! “He was always affable with visitors, insisting that they stay to eat, treating them with full honours, even if they were infidels, and satisfying all their requests. He could not bear to let someone who had come to him depart disappointed, and there were those who did not hesitate to take advantage of this quality. One day, during a truce with the Franj [Franks], the ‘Brins,’ lord of Antioch, arrived unexpectedly at Saladin’s tent and asked him to return a district that the sultan had taken four years earlier. And he agreed!” The lovable lug! If asked, he might have given away the entire Holy Land!
However, as I explain in my forthcoming book The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam and the Crusades (Regnery), the real Saladin was not the proto-multiculturalist and early version of Nelson Mandela that he is made out to be by modern-day PC myth. Much is made of the fact that when Saladin recaptured Jerusalem for the Muslims in October 1187, he treated the Christians with magnanimity — in sharp contrast to the behavior of the Crusaders in 1099. But Saladin was no stranger to massacre: when his forces decisively defeated the Crusaders at Hattin on July 3, 1187, he ordered the mass execution of his Christian opponents. According to his secretary, Imad ed-Din, Saladin “ordered that they should be beheaded, choosing to have them dead rather than in prison. With him was a whole band of scholars and Sufis and a certain number of devout men and ascetics; each begged to be allowed to kill one of them, and drew his sword and rolled back his sleeve. Saladin, his face joyful, was sitting on his dais; the unbelievers showed black despair.”
Also, when Saladin and his men entered Jerusalem later that year, their magnanimity was actually pragmatism. He had initially planned to put to death all the Christians in the city. However, when the Christian commander inside Jerusalem, Balian of Ibelin, threatened in turn to destroy the city and kill all the Muslims there before Saladin could get inside, Saladin relented — although once inside the city he did enslave many of the Christians who could not afford to buy their way out of town.
Yet despite Kingdom of Heaven’s numerous whitewashes of history and strenuous efforts to portray the Muslims of the Crusader era in a favorable light, Islamic apologist Khaled Abou El Fadl, a professor of Islamic law at the University of California, is in a froth about the film: “In my view,” he raged, “it is inevitable – I’m willing to risk my reputation on this – that after this movie is released there will be hate crimes committed directly because of it. People will go see it on a weekend and decide to teach some turbanhead a lesson.” Of course, this is less an indictment of the film than of the American people. I think it very likely that there will be no hate crimes against Muslims committed because of this film — and I hope that in that event Dr. Abou El Fadl’s reputation will be accorded the treatment it deserves.
In any event, Kingdom of Heaven cost over $150 million to make, features an all-star cast, and is being touted as “a fascinating history lesson.” Fascinating, maybe — but only as evidence of the lengths to which modern Westerners are willing to go to delude themselves.
Ridley Scott is one of my favorite directors. His
epics like "Gladiator" and "Blade Runner" have shown
his unique view of the past and future. However
I will be skipping "Kingdom of Heaven". I'm disappointed that he has not attempted to make a more historically accurate history. This revisionism
is ludicrous to say the least.
Movies are for entertainment. It's a sorry day when most Americans get their history lessons from film rather than from scholars and scholars are afraid to tell the truth for fear of blacklisting or worse.
"Entertainment" need not be toothless, ball-less and pointless, as something like the book "The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn" showed. (It all depends on the mind behind.)
Ridley is okay when adapting other people's strong ideas, as he did with Phillip K. Dick's "Blade Runner" ("Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep"), but with weak concepts, he clearly doesn't have any spine of his own to add.
If Scott had wanted to make an accurate anti-Western film on this same topic, he might have filmed "The Children's Crusade"- a truly dark and surrealistically mordant moment in European history. But to delve into the early Crusades without the historical sense of their origins (militant, conquering Islam)- and substitute a fantasy of 'brotherhood disrupted'- seems disingenuous at best -and even more anti-Western in the long run.
The 'given' imagery of pop culture feeds the spirit, wittingly or unwittingly. Or half-wittingly.
But we who live in the civilized world don't have a lobby like C.A.I.R. to vent our disgust with such cinematic deception, nor do we anathemize a film director who displeases us, nor do we shoot them down on the streets of their hometown, nor do we then nearly cut their heads off in religious fury, nor do we finally stab a theocratic proclamation through their heart with a butcher knife.
We write a critique exploring the movie's merits and the director's aims.
In this instance, it appears aimed at squeezing mega-dollars from contented Muslims.
Ridley, either grow a set, or skip the whole revisionist enterprise.
I think I'll give The Caliphate of Heaven a miss.
Ridley Scott is one of my favorite directors. His
epics like "Gladiator" and "Blade Runner" have shown
his unique view of the past and future. However
I will be skipping "Kingdom of Heaven". I'm disappointed that he has not attempted to make a more historically accurate history. This revisionism
is ludicrous to say the least.
Posted by: sococm at May 3, 2005 09:22 AM
Trust me, sosocm, Ridley Scott's accuracy in "Gladiator" wasn't. I gagged most of the way through it just from what was either overdone creative license, or incredible ignorance.
"Blade Runner" was interesting, though.
Now with "Kingdom of Heaven," it's beginning to look like a score of 1 out of 3.
Hey, epg, I agree wholeheartedly that a lot of what Hollywood is producing is rubbish, but please don't forget that there is a difference between good art and bad art. Movies are a contemporary art form, and as such, are one of the five major branches of philosophy.
"Art" is the selective recreation of reality according to the artist's metaphysical values.
When you have someone dissing the truth about the Crusades and Islam, it tells you a whale of a lot about the values of the person creating "Kingdom of Heaven."
Looking at what people like and dislike in art, be it movies, sculpture, painting, literature, music, etc. truly gives one a view to their souls.
thanks for the heads up...
adding this right behind Million Dollar Baby
i've got three kinds of movie lists on the do not watch list
1) 'Has Actors I Despise'
2) 'Is not the Movie they portray it to be'
3) 'I saw the best parts of the movie in the Trailer'
I was reading this weeks Big Issue on the train tonight. For those not familiar with it The Big Issue is a magazine sold by homeless or vulnerably housed people on the streets of big cities. It gives them a chance to make an income, and a step back up off the streets. It also gives homeless people a voice. Which could be the reason most of the articles are refreshingly normal, and not necessarily PC.
Which brings me to the review of Kingdom of Heaven.
Intricate plot...barely makes sense. ....Bloom (heart throb of the ladies from your CAIR) who for all his high cheekbones looks like he could barely lead a boy band...Worthily PC, fundamentalists on both sides are the baddies here....But all that checking and balancing rather goes against it's blockbuster grain. (This is the good bit) - It's as if Scott doesn't know whether he wants to be Michael Bay or Edward Said. The film is too mealy mouthed ...
I like a good war film, or a swashbuckler (I have never seen Sleepless in Seattle yet) but this doesn't sound like a good war film. Now where did I put that DVD of A Bridge too Far?
People should be organising demonstrations and boycotts of this dangerous rubbish. In this way the intended effect of the film could be turned on its head: it could be a used as a tool for raising public awareness of the Muslim threat, dhimmitude in high places, and the chronic dishonesty of Muslims and their lackeys.
"It's like a stupid English movie"
LOL. Considering how the English have allowed the Muslims to make London a comfortable place for Jihadist networking and ...
The colonizers have become the colonized, the feral Muslims smell blood and weakness.
I`m not going to even try to compare this Hollywood garbage,with The Passion of the Christ.
But look what a vicious publicity and boycott threats have done to Mel`s movie...it has incited even the people who didn`t plan to see the movie,to go see it .
Don`t boycott it!!
Just let it sink on its own.
OT- The fastest growing religion is what?
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=44033
cubed:
"Gladiator" was a work of fiction, with some characters very loosely based on real historical figures (Commodus was in fact the only Roman Emperor
in history to fight as a gladiator in the arena)
Scott was not trying to tell a real historical
story. But with "Kingdom", he is depicting a
real historical event and real historical people. Considering that he tackled "Black Hawk Down"
with a fair degree of accuracy (though that was
filmed before 9/11), Scott should have taken
the opportunity to keep the story of the Crusades as accurate as possible and not make it an exercise in
post 9/11 Muslim revisionism.
Anyway, I think the film will fail because the market place has seen a glut of such "sword and
sand" epics in recent years... Gladiator, Troy, Alexander, and now Kingdom.
Here is a film that should be seen:
http://lastbestchance.org/
EPG: The sad day when Americans get their history from Hollywood has been going on for a long time now. I fear that it will continue.
I've said some positive things about Saladin here. I should explain.
Saladin wasn't particularly bad for the sword-wielding, scourging, religious zealots of the day. The Twelfth Century was, of course, one of the lowest points in Western Civilization since two rocks were smacked together to make sharp rocks. The Thirteenth and Fourteenth weren't much better. Saladin probably had more class than most of the female-head-sawing jihadis of today. That's not much of a compliment.
What is perfectly clear is that the West has advanced far beyond the High Middle Ages. Saudi Arabia, OTOH....
I will continue to boycott Hollywood. The last movie I paid to see: When We Were Soldiers. Before that: Saving Private Ryan.
I am not exactly sure about Saladis aqeedah or manhaj (belief and methodology respectively)but having suspcion of other Muslims is considered very bad according to this hadeeth found in Shahih Muslim narrated by Abu Huraira, "Allah's Apostle said beware of suspicion for it is the worst of false tales and dont look for the others faults and do not spy ad hate each other, and dont desert (cut the ties)one another Oh Allah's salves, be brothers."
BTW Beagle Jihad is a noble cause to call to and to engage it please dont mix it with those who use it to murder for dollars. Thanks....
I dont understand why Middle Eastern Christians and Jews arent eqaully worried about the sexing up of Crusader History, the Jews and ME Christians were victims of it just as much as the Muslims were.
Carolyn your fastest growing religion bit would be good if religion were a magazine subscription. Doesnt qaulity count more than qauntity? It sure does in Islam, you ever heard of that hadith,
The Messenger of Allaah (sallallaahu ’alayhi wa sallam) said, “The Jews split up into seventy one sects, and the Christians split up into seventy two sects. And my Ummah shall split up into seventy three sects, all of them being in the Fire except one.” We said, ‘Which one is that, O Messenger of Allaah?’ He said, “The one that follows what I am upon and my Companions.”
According to this hadith it is important that you stick to the Jummah, or group of Prophet Muhammed and the pious people that came before him no matter how big or small that group is. Islam is all about worshipping Allah (swT) without partners and going to Jennah (Paradise) not filling the ranks.
Adela: The point about demonstrations and a boycott is not to try to cause the film to flop. That won’t work; it’ll be a success regardless. The purpose is to get publicity for the opposing point of view, otherwise people will simply take the picture of the Crusades it presents to be true.
I loved Ridley Scott's Bladerunner. It's one of my favorite films of all time. Every time I see it, I shed tears. I've seen it three times so far.
That being said, Kingdom of Heaven (KoH) looks like it will be a steaming pile of crap. It's not only bad history, but it's anti-Western. That's my perspective. From a more objective point of view I expect it to be only a little better than your average action drama. As such, I expect it will probably be only somewhat effective propaganda. It's rated 7.7 on imdb with 600 votes or so.
That rating will almost certainly drop to 7.0-7.5 once a few more people see it other than the brothers, sisters, mothers and second cousins of the cast/crew/producers. The same phenomenon always happens with new movies, and I suspect there is a larger effect with bigger budget films because there are more industry movie people involved and therefore more people who have been longtime imdb members. Check out the movie ratings yourself - see the inordinate number of 10s. And note that this movie is big budget, $130 million.
http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0320661/ratings
A movie rated 7-7.5 for a drama is "good" but nothing special (thank god!). The average imdb rating is around 6.7 IIRC. Rest assured, as a propaganda piece it's no Schindler's list, Doctor Strangelove, Das Boot, Fight Club or American History X. (All of which were rated as 8.3 or above, and appear in the top 60 movies of all time in imdb). The best movies in any given year will get above an 8.0, usually 8.3 and above.
Based on that, KoH it will likely be around the quality of "The Butterfly Effect", or if we are talking about propaganda pieces, "Supersize me". Translation: No one will talk about it in 5 years. It's like Gladiator versus Troy. No one will talk about Troy in 5 years either, but people will still remember Gladiator.
I hesitate to compare KoH to the Passion of the Christ. That is because I doubt that there are as many people who are anti-Islam and know what KoH is trying to do as opposed to anti-Christians that knew the Passion was a pro-Christ movie. Overt propaganda films (left OR right) in general typically don't do so well on imdb due to the large effect of protest votes on weighted averages.
For example, if there are 100 votes for 10 and only 12 people vote 1, the movie will rate a 9. If instead, 25 people vote 1, the movie now rates an 8. Effectively, people voting "1" have about 9 times the voting power of people voting 10.
For instance, look at the voting breakdown for the Passion of the Christ:
http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0335345/ratings
Many people on the left realized it was in large part a propaganda movie (no offense to Gibson at all, in actual fact I'm sympathetic) and voted 1 (10%) as a protest vote. In much the same way as people (12%) realized F911 was also a propaganda piece and voted it 1.
http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0361596/ratings
I suspect Bowling for Columbine (MM's other anti-gun propaganda movie) got higher ratings because less people are ardent 2nd amendment absolutists than Bush voters. The protest vote was only 6%.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0310793/ratings
So, what does all this mean? Well, it means that Ridley Scott most likely has not made a movie that will stand the test of time. As such, the ground is still ours to take with effective propaganda. We have "A Few Good Men", a movie that everyone can quote thirteen years later. It's only a start.
Consider that there is a tremendous amount of money to be made from satisfying latent demand. Do Westerners want to pay money to be made out as good guys or bad guys? Gee, I wonder. For example, Mel Gibson produced The Passion for an estimated $30 million and raked in over $600 million Gross, and $200 million FROM VIDEO ALONE, I think that not only can we win the propaganda war but we can make money doing so.
One last thing: If you do see KoH, MAKE SURE THAT IT IS A PIRATE COPY! Do not pay one red cent to Ridley Scott or his enablers. Don't publicize the movie except to say that it's crap. There is bound to be a torrent of the movie floating around sooner or later. (Google bittorrent if you don't know what I'm talking about.) And if you are a member of imdb, vote it a big fat 1.
p.s. I turned this comment into a post over at my blog. Click on my name if you want, it takes you there.
This sounds like the most historically accurate movie since Rachel Welch’s "One Million Years BC" - but I doubt whether it has got many chicks running around in fur bikinis.
"A bad English movie"? What English movie was ever like this?? Monty Python and the Holy Grail? No, then again, that was funny, the KOH sounds as enjoyable as getting your teeth drilled.
Timbo:
Oh but to have all the Pythons, alive, well and making a movie about the world's fastest growing religion and its adherents.
Brownfinger, I was surprised by your posting of the hadith from Shahih Muslim about how having suspcion of other Muslims is considered extremely evil ("Allah's Apostle said beware of suspicion for it is the worst of false tales and dont look for the others faults and do not spy ad hate each other, and dont desert (cut the ties)one another Oh Allah's slaves, be brothers."). Does this extend to Wahhabis as well?
How also can you call jihad a "noble cause"? The rape and massacre of your neighbours is "good" somehow? Please explain.
Thirdly, I was surprised at your intentional insult to members of the fastest growing religion in the world - Christianity. Do you assume that because it's the fastest growing that the followers must therefore be the shakiest in faith? When muslims make this claim, using your math, I suppose we ought remind them that only 1/73rd of them are really going to get the message right anyway. How does being the fastest growing religion mean "filling the ranks"? Why do you assume that only muslims can be faithful theists? I find your presumptions extremely insulting, and frankly very naive. An apology is in order.
And finally, I can't imagine why you'd think either Jews or surviving Middle Eastern Christians ought to be worried about a film about the Crusades; certainly they'd have much more concern about a film about islam, or merely from watching TV in the Middle East - the "Blood Libel" on Syria cable comes immediately to mind. If I were them, I'd be far more worried about a film about Mohammed's life; doubtless it would spur muslims to "have a go" at the "filthy kafirs and the pig Jews" in the Middle East, which by contrast has a much decreased presence of Crusaders these days. I'm actually forced to wonder what kind of point it is Brownfinger's trying to make here: that suddenly, out of nowhere, gangs of Franks will appear and begin hacking people to death? Far more likely that they'd be muslims, which does of course still go on today; then again, "surprise is the chief weapon of the Spanish Inquisition!" as the old Monty Python comedy sketch used to go. LOL.
Geoff
Interested was saying just the same thing to me on DW earlier on the UK election thread.
Geoff
I googled Brownwonder (I kept wanting to say Golden Wonder, the crisps) Brown Wonder is some sort of lipstick. On a search as all one word a swinger site in Wisconsin came up with an advert for the gentlemen available. I didn't follow that further but I wonder which one he or she is?
I saw a brownwonder this morning and had to give it the ol flusharoo. Bawoooosh!
Granny, I rather suspect that Brownwonder would be the homeliest of the lot; one can only guess.
That or in fact, Brownwonder had aspirations to become a better islamofascist, and is secretly trying to get a secret moon base built, after which he will threaten the world with destruction unless everyone agrees to stop converting away from islam, or maybe just give up pork products.
At that point, of course, he will change his handle to something more apporiate for a myopic, would-be-dictator. "Brownfinger" springs suddenly to mind.
Geoff
Cross, ROFLMAO!
Only watch Disney movies...Mighty mouse and Daffy Duck..."Here I come to save the day!!!" Where's Mighty when you need him...?
I did watch an old John Wayne movie once. John was about 19 years old and some old gray haired man whooped him good... I would like to see a big budget (Lord of the Rings) type movie of Mohammads life. Michael Jackson could play Mohammad and Michael Moore Ali. Use your own imagination as to who you would star as Aisha, Uthman, Umar, Hamza, Abu Bakr ect. Maybe Brownwonder would like to star as Hamza...he gets killed out early....
"Does this extend to Wahhabis as well?"
Referring to Muslims by the label Wahhabis is accusing them of taqleed, i.e. blind following of the Noble Shaik Muhammed ibn abdul Wahhab (ra). Wahhab called to the end of shirk that had been common place in Arabia during his time. Muslims are to follow the haq - truth, to the exclusion of batil- falsehood. Following one scholar to the exclusion of others is wrong.
"How also can you call jihad a "noble cause"? The rape and massacre of your neighbours is "good" somehow? Please explain."
Again, I am not knwoledgeable about the details of Jihad, neither are you. Perhaps you should take from the scholars like Shaikul Islam ibn taymiyah or Imam Ahmed or Hanbal or Maliki etc. If you want to know about Jihad. I have no knowledge of it so I will sit quiet for fear that I may misguide someone and recieve a double punihsment.
"Do you assume that because it's the fastest growing that the followers must therefore be the shakiest in faith?
Because she emphasized numbers not faith.
"Why do you assume that only muslims can be faithful theists?"
The above was your asumption not mine.
"If I were them, I'd be far more worried about a film about Mohammed's life; doubtless it would spur muslims to "have a go" at the "filthy kafirs and the pig Jews"
Muslims arent supposed to remake images so No muslim would be watching television. Kafir are najis- unclean because they dont properly clean, accordint to the sunnah after being defiled by going to the bathroom, sexual intercourse, waking up from sleep, mentration, post natal bleeding. Spiritually they are najis- unlcean because they dont worship Allah (swt) and are disobedient. Didnt Allah (swt) say in the Quran that he didnt create mankind Jinn and all the exist except to worship him?
"Does this extend to Wahhabis as well?"
Referring to Muslims by the label Wahhabis is accusing them of taqleed, i.e. blind following of the Noble Shaik Muhammed ibn abdul Wahhab (ra). Wahhab called to the end of shirk that had been common place in Arabia during his time. Muslims are to follow the haq - truth, to the exclusion of batil- falsehood. Following one scholar to the exclusion of others is wrong.
"How also can you call jihad a "noble cause"? The rape and massacre of your neighbours is "good" somehow? Please explain."
Again, I am not knwoledgeable about the details of Jihad, neither are you. Perhaps you should take from the scholars like Shaikul Islam ibn taymiyah or Imam Ahmed or Hanbal or Maliki etc. If you want to know about Jihad. I have no knowledge of it so I will sit quiet for fear that I may misguide someone and recieve a double punihsment.
"Do you assume that because it's the fastest growing that the followers must therefore be the shakiest in faith?
Because she emphasized numbers not faith.
"Why do you assume that only muslims can be faithful theists?"
The above was your asumption not mine.
"If I were them, I'd be far more worried about a film about Mohammed's life; doubtless it would spur muslims to "have a go" at the "(unclean) kafirs and the pig Jews"
Muslims arent supposed to remake images so No muslim would be watching television. Kafir are najis- unclean because they dont properly clean, accordint to the sunnah after being defiled by going to the bathroom, sexual intercourse, waking up from sleep, mentration, post natal bleeding. Spiritually they are najis- unlcean because they dont worship Allah (swt) and are disobedient. Didnt Allah (swt) say in the Quran that he didnt create mankind Jinn and all the exist except to worship him?
'Muslims arent supposed to remake images so No muslim would be watching television' ~ brownwonder
Oh yes? So all the Immams teaching on Nationally-run TV in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, et al, are apostate? Doesn't this make the Millions of muslims watching those religous programs Apostate?
Saaaaay: Brownfinger's a Wahhabi!
Only Wahhabis use this argument, near as I can tell:
"Referring to Muslims by the label Wahhabis is accusing them of taqleed, i.e. blind following of the Noble Shaik Muhammed ibn abdul Wahhab (ra). Wahhab called to the end of shirk that had been common place in Arabia during his time. Muslims are to follow the haq - truth, to the exclusion of batil- falsehood. Following one scholar to the exclusion of others is wrong."
Ding ding, you suck, Wahabbi-boy. Did you know that one of the other muslim posters on here, Ia786, really dislikes you guys? Says you're scum. Ia, that's right, isn't it?
Me: "How also can you call jihad a "noble cause"? The rape and massacre of your neighbours is "good" somehow? Please explain."
Brownfinger: "Again, I am not knwoledgeable about the details of Jihad, neither are you....I have no knowledge of it so I will sit quiet for fear that I may misguide someone and recieve a double punihsment."
There's that old-time religion for ya. It's ok, Wahabbi-boy, I already know all about jihad. But since you know nothing, maybe you'd better not comment on it. For it may be that Allah likes a thing that you do not like, but that Allah knows best.
I like this section:
**************************************************
"Do you assume that because it's the fastest growing that the followers must therefore be the shakiest in faith?"
Because she emphasized numbers not faith.
"Why do you assume that only muslims can be faithful theists?"
The above was your asumption not mine.
**************************************************
Actually, wrong on both counts but it's refreshing to have the taquiyya out like this. YOU assumed that they were shakier, not me. Thus, this it's also your assumption that only muslims can be good theists. But keep on talking; this is good for everyone, I think.
"Muslims arent supposed to remake images so No muslim would be watching television. Kafir are najis- unclean because they dont properly clean, accordint to the sunnah after being defiled by going to the bathroom, sexual intercourse, waking up from sleep, mentration, post natal bleeding. Spiritually they are najis- unlcean because they dont worship Allah (swt) and are disobedient. Didnt Allah (swt) say in the Quran that he didnt create mankind Jinn and all the exist except to worship him?"
Well, no, allah didn't say that. He doesn't exist. Remember? Good thing Saudis have no TV sets, either; they'll never have to watch the Blood Libel on Arabia TV. And why is waking up from sleep bad?
Geoff
My goodness!
Read 'browndownunder:"
Muslims are well and truly devoid of logical reasoning, everything is used to defend the indefensible 'faith', the coffee-filter becomes impenetrable, the doctrin of Mohammed is like the Hitler helmet: it repells anything that would bring light into darkness...
They suck the hatred in with the mothers milk, but can not come to terms with the fact the we don't want this disease in our society. Amazing!