Sex and the City 2 blasted as “anti-Muslim” for depicting Muslim society as “puritanical and misogynistic”

When they’re bashing the moral laxity of the West, it’s OK to be puritanical. When Westerners notice that Islamic society is puritanical, it is an act of “Islamophobia.” Nonetheless, Muslims are enraged yet again, this time because of this film’s depiction of Islamic society as “puritanical and misogynistic.” And really, I must say I’m outraged as well. I mean, who would ever have thought to characterize Islamic society in such a way? The hijab, the niqab, the burqa, the chador — puritanical? Perish the thought! The wife-beating (cf. Qur’an 4:34), the polygamy (Qur’an 4:3), the genital mutilation, the honor killing — misogynistic? What are you, some kind of Islamophobe?

“Sex And The City 2 Blasted As ‘Anti-Muslim,'” from SkyNews, May 25 (thanks to Twostellas):

The first reviews of Sex And The City 2 have been published, with one critic claiming the new film featuring Carrie and the girls is “anti-muslim”….

The film sees the four New Yorker friends travelling to the Middle East for a trip to Abu Dhabi, but the Hollywood Reporter says it conjures up a “scathing portrayal of Muslim society”.

Carrie, played by Sarah Jessica Parker , Samantha Jones (Kim Cattrall ), Charlotte York Goldenblatt (Kristin Scott ) and Miranda Hobbes (Cynthia Nixon ) get caught up in moments there which the review says shows the region as “puritanical and misogynistic”.

“The rather scathing portrayal of Muslim society no doubt will stir controversy, especially in a frothy summer entertainment,” read the review by Hollywood Reporter.

One scene even features the four main characters being rescued by Muslim women who strip off their burkhas to reveal the stylish Western outfits they are concealing beneath their black robes.

While in another scene, the ladies perform a karaoke version of Helen Reddy’s I Am Woman in an Abu Dhabi nightclub, as man-eater Samantha shocks the locals with her sexual escapades.

Officials in the United Arab Emirates had denied the production team permission to film within the city, as did Dubai and instead the Abu Dhabi scenes were recreated in Morocco.

Abu Dhabi is currently considering whether to ban the film.

Indonesia: Islamic police to carry skirts, force women in violation of Muslim dress codes to wear them
U.S.: 228,000 women have undergone or are at risk for female genital mutilation
FacebookTwitterLinkedInDiggBlogger PostDeliciousEmailPinterestRedditStumbleUponPrint

Comments

  1. says

    Sex and the City 2 blasted as “anti-Muslim” for depicting Muslim society as “puritanical and misogynistic”
    ……………

    Hah! As soon as I saw previews for this film, I wondered about this.

    The movie looks silly and formulaic, but if it tweaks a few Islamists, it can’t be all bad!

  2. says

    the film sees the four New Yorker friends travelling to the Middle East for a trip to Abu Dhabi,

    That’s a good way to get kidnapped and end up in a harem in Somalia…I bet they wouldn’t put that in the film…

    And as far as puritanical, Allah is puritanical, Mahound was puritanical, sharia is very puritanical…But of course Islam is not…

  3. says

    Of course, if films made in the West criticise Islam, they are inclined to be deeemed ‘controversial'; but if films made in the West take an Islamic viewpoint against the West, as in the case of director Ridley Scott’s films ‘Kingdom of Heaven’* (which is pro-Muslim, anti-Crusades), and his latest film ‘Robin Hood’**,which has the same propaganda line – then this is not deemed controversial, but politically correct (despite being historically very incorrect)!

    * Thomas Madden reviews film ‘Kingdom of Heaven':

    http://old.nationalreview.com/comment/madden200505270751.asp

    ** ‘Gates of Vienna’ reviews film ‘Robin Hood’

    http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2010/05/dhimmi-hood.html

  4. says

    Although I’ve never been a Sex and the City fan, way too materialistic for me, but if they are prepared to misogyny of Islam, good luck to them! Respec’!

  5. says

    Seems a fair chance that Sex and the City 2 will be edited to be less honest and more politically correct, no doubt at the expense of making Westerners in the film look hypocritical and immoral. Or if it’s too late to alter (as in neuter) Sex and the City 2, then Sex in the City 3 will compensate by drawing some idiotic moral equivalence in a tale that shows how Western society is in its own way no better than that of the Middle East.

    Or maybe recent events are finally waking up one or two people in Hollywood?

  6. says

    I’m that rare chick who doesn’t like SATC, but if the producers don’t bow to the pressure and leave the plot alone, maybe I’ll stop telling people how much I hate SATC. LOL!

  7. says

    At least one horribly ironic aspect of this is that Abu Dhabi is major hub of prostitution, which is perfectly legal in Islam, as long as the prostitutes are non-Muslim females who aren’t married to Muslim males (that is, by regular marriage–temporary marriage is another issue). Women from all over the world–Eastern Europe, China, Indonesia, and so on–are brought in to Abu Dhabi to work as prostitutes in the “night clubs” there.

  8. says

    I’ve never watched SATC, but will certainly keep an eye out for this episode. It would appear that the writers of the show “get it” about Islam. Now the thing to watch for is how they react when the serious blowback from Muslims occurs.

  9. says

    What a laugh! As if Abu Dhabi is a devout muslim city. Pot calling kettle here….

    I agree with the posters above, it’s drivel but this story has redeemed it in my eyes :)

  10. says

    “The Real History of the Crusades”

    (by Thomas Madden)

    [Excerpt]:

    “So what is the truth about the Crusades? Scholars are still working some of that out. But much can already be said with certainty. For starters, the Crusades to the East were in every way defensive wars. They were a direct response to Muslim aggression – an attempt to turn back or defend against Muslim conquests of Christian lands.

    “Christians in the eleventh century were not paranoid fanatics. Muslims really were gunning for them. While Muslims can be peaceful, Islam was born in war and grew the same way. From the time of Mohammed, the means of Muslim expansion was always the sword.”

    http://www.catholicity.com/commentary/madden/03463.html

  11. says

    Islam is just the latest bogey man wheeled out by the media to keep the masses frightened and dependant on the state for security.

    When the Irish Republican Army was bombing London all Roman Catholics were not classed as terrorist and nuns were not banned from wearing their habits.

    Much of Islams bad press is connected to their attitude to women.

    However, Hollywood is not much better.

    People who express views here need to make the own videos. It is very easy. Sex and the City2, is it celebrating women ?

    Make your own video or express a view win cash prize see http://www.deathtoglamour.com .

  12. says

    The new poster, Ezzy Elliott, above, would have us believe that the danger that we see in Islam is all illusion; that Islam is merely “the latest bogey man wheeled out by the media to keep the masses frightened and dependant on the state for security.” (Never mind that our MSM in the west is for the most part *whitewashing* Islam and could not in any real sense be said to be raising the alarm; not like it *ought* to be doing!)

    Ezzy Elliott is talking nonsense. (As also in his ridiculous attempt to claim that the follies of Hollywood are somehow on a par with, oh, shall we just say, honor murders, the FGM condoned by the Shafii school of sharia law, and Wafa Sultan’s bleak conclusion that ‘allah *hates* women’?).

    None of the following historical events, recent or in past centuries, is fiction; each is directly the product of Islam, Islam, Islam; and the conclusion one is forced to draw, is that a very large part of the Ummah represents a permanent menace to everyone who is not a Muslim.

    The siege of Beslan.

    http://www.esquire.com/features/ESQ0606BESLAN_140

    The genocide of the Armenian Christians by the Turkish, Arab and Kurdish Muslims.

    http://www.americanthinker.com/2005/04/the_jihad_genocide_of_the_arme.html

    From an interview with Armenian historian Vahakn Dadrian:

    “Q. It’s pretty clear in Warrant for Genocide that Islamic teaching and practice is a problem and that religion played a big role in this.

    “A. A very big role. First of all, Islam played a major role both in the period of the Abdul Hamit massacres [1894-1896] and the 1909 Adana massacres and the World War I genocide.

    “During the Abdul Hamit era, Islam was the main impetus, the direct impetus of the massacres, because 90 percent of the massacres took place on Fridays, which is the religious holiday.

    “Immediately at the end of the religious ceremonies in the mosques, the mobs, harangued by Muslim clerics, were incited and as a result the motivation was reinforced to attack and massacre the Armenian population of the respective regions.

    ” In other words, Islam as an institution, and champions of Islam, the Muslim clerics, played a major role in the organization and execution of the series of massacres.

    “In World War I, Islam also was exploited by way of formally declaring jihad, the main target of which became the Christian Armenians”.

    There is a book that can be consulted, an old book (published 1896) called “Armenian Massacres or The Sword of Mohammed- a complete and thrilling account of the terrible atrocities and wholesale murders commited in Armenia by Mohammedan fanatics” by F.D. Greene, M.A.

    There’s what was done to the Bulgarian Christians.

    http://www.attackingthedevil.co.uk/related/macgahan.php

    ‘The Turkish Atrocities in Bulgaria: Horrible Scenes at Batak’.

    And there is what Islam did to India, as described by, for example, K S Lal, in his ‘Muslim Slave System in Medieval India’

    http://voiceofdharma.org/books/mssmi/

    and ‘The Legacy of Muslim Rule in India’

    http://www.voiceofdharma.com/books/tlmr/index.htm

    Oh, and since I’ve covered Europe and Asia, let’s throw in Africa, and mention Tidiane N’Diaye, “Le Genocide Voile’ – a historical study of 1200 years of Muslim mass murder, conquest, pillage and mass enslavement in black Africa.

    ‘just the latest bogey man’???

    No.

    The Mohammedans have been terrorising – not in fiction, but in fact – all their neighbours for the past 1400 years, producing so far a guesstimated total death toll of some 270 million non-Muslims, i.e. roughly 200 000 victims a year, much of that in times when the total world population of humans was a good deal less than nowadays.

    And God alone only knows how many of *their own women and girls* the Mohammedans have deliberately destroyed, by a whole set of destructive practices, during the same period of time.

  13. says

    Thomas Pellow,
    I saw the Robin Hood film, and it does take an obsequious dhimmi line about the historical significance of the Crusades. Visually it’s a good film, but the as told, the story is rather unsatisfying and nothing special. Ridley Scott also took an obsequious dhimmi line in his other film, the Kingdom of Heaven.

    Yes, we all know that the Crusades, spread out over two centuries, included horrific atrocities that all people should condemn. We all know or should know that the concept of “Holy War,” while appropriate in Islamic theology and named “jihad,” runs directly counter to the teachings of the central figure of the New Testament. But we also need to keep in mind that over the four hundred years prior to the Crusades, something like half of Christian lands had been invaded and taken over by Muslim armies and that the Christian and Jewish populations of those lands were subjugated as third-class citizens under Islamic law. For centuries both before and after the Crusades, Muslim armies raided, invaded, and took over Christian lands. Compared to the hardy perennial of Jihad, which is rooted in the behavior of Muhammad as recorded in all the core Islamic texts, the Crusades were short-lived, because they find no support from the teachings of the central figure of the New Testament.

  14. says

    “This redeems what is otherwise mediocre and trivial rubbish.”

    Right. In fact, the ONLY “SATC” I’ve ever been interested in.

  15. says

    “At least one horribly ironic aspect of this is that Abu Dhabi is major hub of prostitution”

    Oh, I’m sure Abu Dhabi is a sink of corruption, and the dominant, misogynist, chest-beating Muslim males as arrogant and immoral as their false prophet.

  16. says

    “I saw the Robin Hood film, and it does take an obsequious dhimmi line about the historical significance of the Crusades.”

    I plan on seeing it – though I refused to give my money to “Kingdom of Heaven,” either in the theatre or renting, once I heard Ridley sided with the Muslims. And since “Alien” is one of my favorite films, that was a definite firm stand.

    Tell me – what does Robin Hood have to do with the Crusades?

  17. says

    The Crusades were short-lived because the Crusaders were basically undisciplined aristocratic gangsters who worshipped land, money and power.They had no hesitation in attacking fellow Christians if there was profit in it.

  18. says

    A little trivia from your Wiki link about “Ishtar”:

    “In one of Gary Larson’s “The Far Side” comic strips, captioned “Hell’s Video Store”, the entire store is stocked with nothing but copies of the movie Ishtar. Larson later apologized, saying “When I drew the above cartoon, I had not actually seen Ishtar. … Years later, I saw it on an airplane, and was stunned at what was happening to me: I was actually being entertained. Sure, maybe it’s not the greatest film ever made, but my cartoon was way off the mark. There are so many cartoons for which I should probably write an apology, but this is the only one which compels me to do so.”

  19. says

    Kim – you asked what ‘Robin Hood’ has to do with the Crusades.

    Basically, the adventures of Robin Hood take place in England while King Richard I, Richard the Lionheart, is away from England taking part in a Crusade (as, historically speaking, he did in fact do), and his younger brother John is minding the shop at home and – so the legend goes – doing a bad job of it and letting evil characters such as the Sheriff of Nottingham oppress the people.

  20. says

    “Islam is just the latest bogey man wheeled out by the media to keep the masses frightened and dependant (sic) on the state for security.”

    lol. You’re not too bright, are you?

  21. says

    Yes,the Crusades were a direct response to Muslim aggression-in Anatolia,not in the ME.If the Crusaders had aided the Byzantines in recovering lost lands in Anatolia,history might have run a different course as the loss of that region was ultimately disastrous for the Byzantine Empire.
    The Byzantines quickly realized that these northern barbarians had a different agenda and were as dangerous to them as the Moslems.

    ‘Byzantium and the Crusades’ by Johnathan Harris.

    ‘The Dream and the Tomb’ by Robert Payne.

    ‘Byzantium’ by John Julius Norwich

  22. says

    I read John Julius Norwich work and I do see your point.

    However, you still confirm the blatant and very cruel agression by the Islamic Turks in Anatolia. You do acknowledge the request for help from Alexius Comnenus, which was the impetus for the papal call for a crusade.

    And you should also admit that the ME also was taken violently by Muslims, only centuries before. So the Turks only added, aggravated, as the Islamic agression came in fits and starts.