| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Jihad Watch | Robert Spencer | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog |  |
|
|
||||||||||
|
|
In my book Onward Muslim Soldiers, a study of global jihad, I spend a chapter debunking the myth of Muslim Spain — the idea that Al-Andalus was in the Middle Ages a beacon of tolerance where Muslims, Jews, and Christians lived together in harmony. I thought this was important to do because the myth of tolerant Al-Andalus is used as a weapon today for political ends. Most ominously it is used to deflect anti-terror efforts and to encourage non-Muslims to let their guard down in the face of restive and growing Muslim populations in Western countries, even though no effort has been made or will be made to determine what percentage of those Muslim populations is still attached to the Sharia.
The political significance of this kind of whitewashing of history is summed up by this Telegraph headline. It refers to a new film about the Crusades being filmed by Ridley Scott: "Ridley Scott's new Crusades film 'panders to Osama bin Laden'." (Thanks to LGF. Ridley Scott is the guy who made Alien, Blade Runner, Thelma and Louise, and Black Hawk Down. When Black Hawk Down was shown in the Muslim world, some crowds cheered when the Americans were in trouble. Now Scott is planning to give them something else to cheer about:
Sir Ridley Scott, the Oscar-nominated director, was savaged by senior British academics last night over his forthcoming film which they say "distorts" the history of the Crusades to portray Arabs in a favourable light.The £75 million film, which stars Orlando Bloom, Jeremy Irons and Liam Neeson, is described by the makers as being "historically accurate" and designed to be "a fascinating history lesson".
Academics, however - including Professor Jonathan Riley-Smith, Britain's leading authority on the Crusades - attacked the plot of Kingdom of Heaven, describing it as "rubbish", "ridiculous", "complete fiction" and "dangerous to Arab relations".
The film, which began shooting last week in Spain, is set in the time of King Baldwin IV (1161-1185), leading up to the Battle of Hattin in 1187 when Saladin conquered Jerusalem for the Muslims.
In a particularly silly example of dhimmi wishful thinking (at best), the film invents a multiculturalist cooperative, the "Brotherhood of Muslims, Jews and Christians." In reality, of course, such a thing did not exist and would not have existed. If Ridley Scott and the others making this film had bothered to pierce through the deceptive half-truths about Islamic tolerance that no doubt led them to invent this, they would have known that dhimmis were (and are) forbidden by Islamic law to fight alongside Muslims in jihad. Nowadays, doubtless inspired by their allies in the peace movement, radical Muslim spokesmen often spin this as "Dhimmis were excused from military service!" But in a culture that valued strength and honor above all things, this was just another sign of the humiliation of the subject peoples.
Predictably, the Christians are the villains in this script:
The script depicts Baldwin's brother-in-law, Guy de Lusignan, who succeeds him as King of Jerusalem, as "the arch-villain". A further group, "the Brotherhood of Muslims, Jews and Christians", is introduced, promoting an image of cross-faith kinship."They were working together," the film's spokesman said. "It was a strong bond until the Knights Templar cause friction between them."
The Knights Templar, the warrior monks, are portrayed as "the baddies" while Saladin, the Muslim leader, is a "a hero of the piece", Sir Ridley's spokesman said. "At the end of our picture, our heroes defend the Muslims, which was historically correct."
Prof Riley-Smith, who is Dixie Professor of Ecclesiastical History at Cambridge University, said the plot was "complete and utter nonsense". He said that it relied on the romanticised view of the Crusades propagated by Sir Walter Scott in his book The Talisman, published in 1825 and now discredited by academics.
"It sounds absolute balls. It's rubbish. It's not historically accurate at all. They refer to The Talisman, which depicts the Muslims as sophisticated and civilised, and the Crusaders are all brutes and barbarians. It has nothing to do with reality."
Prof Riley-Smith added: "Guy of Lusignan lost the Battle of Hattin against Saladin, yes, but he wasn't any badder or better than anyone else. There was never a confraternity of Muslims, Jews and Christians. That is utter nonsense."
Dr Jonathan Philips, a lecturer in history at London University and author of The Fourth Crusade and the Sack of Constantinople, agreed that the film relied on an outdated portrayal of the Crusades and could not be described as "a history lesson".
He said: "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."
Dr Philips said that by venerating Saladin, who was largely ignored by Arab history until he was reinvented by romantic historians in the 19th century, Sir Ridley was following both Saddam Hussein and Hafez Assad, the former Syrian dictator. Both leaders commissioned huge portraits and statues of Saladin, who was actually a Kurd, to bolster Arab Muslim pride.
Prof Riley-Smith added that Sir Ridley's efforts were misguided and pandered to Islamic fundamentalism. "It's Osama bin Laden's version of history. It will fuel the Islamic fundamentalists."
Amin Maalouf, the French historian and author of The Crusades Through Arab Eyes, said: "It does not do any good to distort history, even if you believe you are distorting it in a good way. Cruelty was not on one side but on all."
Sir Ridley's spokesman said that the film portrays the Arabs in a positive light. "It's trying to be fair and we hope that the Muslim world sees the rectification of history."
Sure. You make a complete whitewash and rewriting of history, and then present it as a redressing of grievances. What may be more unfortunate than the film itself is that untold numbers will believe it. After all, Riley-Smith won't be in theaters to tell them the truth. And the march of dhimmitude will continue.
Posted by Robert at January 18, 2004 7:44 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
When this movie comes out, there will have to be demonstrators outside the movie theaters objecting to the way the movie portrays history.
Posted by: Chaya Eitan at January 18, 2004 9:46 AMSir Ridley Scott, no doubt a descendent of famed 19th Century author Sir Walter who wrote The Talisman, should be forced to put an editorial warning at the opening of his film, now a work in progress. The warning should clearly state that this is fiction and that no such confraternity of Christians, Jews and Muslims existed in fact at the time of the Crusades and that both Crusader and Muslim jihadist behavior was uncivilized. Any failure on his part to make the merest of changes so as not to distort "historical accuracy" should result in a giant "dhimmi" award faux Oscar ceremony and a program aired on the History Channel asking the usual question: was this "History or Hollywood."
Posted by: Jerry Gordon at January 18, 2004 11:42 AMThis movie wouldn't be so bad if the other side of the story were allowed to be told. But we have already slid so far into dhimmitude that it's impossible. How many film makers would be brave enough to film the story of the Zanj slave rebellion in Baghdad? The Fall of Constantinople? The Battle of Tours? The Tripolitan Wars? Any of these films if they were honest about Islamic atrocities and slavery would inspire widespread rioting and killing from Muslims. We must present Islam as a peaceful and ideal religion at all times, or else we will be killed, or inspire the killing of other innocents. That's the bottom line.
Posted by: Susan at January 18, 2004 11:43 AMRidley Scott, when not making movies, makes commercials. He is not independently wealthy, and is keenly interested in money. One wonders who financed this propaganda effort --perhaps the same disinterested souls who financed Islam: Empire of Faith, that exercise in a sanitized version of Islam (starring such academics as Michael Sells, he of the carefully-selected "lyric" suras). Or perhaps the financiers are the same Arab financiers who several decades ago were responsible for the movie Muhammad. (Both Libyans and Saudis were mixed up in this). The screenplay was by Harry Craig, an alcoholic charmer based in Rome. In the middle of the shoot, in Morocco, King Hassan (I believe) received a phone call from a Saudi, who was furious about something (perhaps the showing, on screen, of a physical Muhammad? I can't recall). In any case, the phone call worked; the Moroccan king snapped to attention, and the movie was moved, overnight, out of Morocco. Can't recall where it was finished. The movie of course had little to do with the historical Muhammad (assuming, arguendo, that he existed at all), as depicted by anyone, Ibn Ishaq or Sir William Muir.
When it comes to the history of Islam, or the life of Muhammad, or that episodic event, the Crusades -- a counter-Jihad to keep the Holy Land open for pilgrims, at a time when Muslim raiders still threatened Europeans as far north as Iceland -- history and the truth will ALWAYS be sacrificed. Ridley Scott, and all those associated with this idiotic version of history, will laugh all the way to the bank. After all, it happened so long ago -- and who cares anyway, other than a few professors, about what really happened? One more nail in our own coffin.
Posted by: Hugh at January 18, 2004 11:45 AMThis movie will be effective Islamic dawah for impressionable Western teen-agers, as was "Malcom X" more than a decade ago.
I wonder if this quaint Saudi tradition applies to filmmakers? It could explain many things.
The Saudis make a practice, for instance, of buying former U.S. ambassadors to Saudi Arabia. "If the reputation then builds that the Saudis take care of friends when they leave office," Bandar once said, "you'd be surprised how much better friends you have who are just coming into office."
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/richlowry/rl20030725.shtml
This movie could not come at a worse time for the sensitive negotiations occurring in the Middle East. Not only will it inaccurately portray historic Islam, but will likely fuel the misguided belief that Jerusalem properly belongs to Islam as the location of its third most important holy site. This will be just what the Palestinians need as they advocate their "one state" solution in an attempt to destroy Israel.
Too bad "Sir Ridley" doesn't use his money and artistic talents to show the real story of the FIRST Islamic invasion of Jerusalem (which was relatively bloodless as the Jews and Christians surrendered peacefully - only because they had recently been decimated by the Persians and knew what the Muslims would do to them if they didn't submit.) Additionally, he should include a history of the next century of Umayyad propaganda intended to convince Muslims that the Temple Mount was the "far off place of worship" from which Mohammed had made his night journey (even though "Jerusalem" is never mentioned as the location in the Koran.) The concerted effort by the conquering Umayyad to appropriate Jewish and Christian holy sites, while promoting the Dome of the Rock as the far off place of worship, was a very successful propaganda campaign intended to convert the infidels and to generate funds from visiting Islamic pilgrims. It was so successful that you will not meet a single Muslim today that knows anything about seventh century arguments between the Muslims in Jerusalem, who were promoting their location as a valid holy site, and Arabian and other Muslims who absolutely disagreed that Jerusalem could be the site of the night journey.
If Sir Scott instead made a movie about this documented history, he might be able to help stop the bloodshed that escalated three years ago when Palestinian suicide bombers were angered by Sharon setting foot on what is falsely thought to be "Islamic holy ground," (which can be proven by archeology to be Jewish)
Surely we don't need any more propaganda to add fuel to an already tender-box situation.
If the Middle East escalates in violence after this movie's premiere, Scott should be held accountable.
Everyone has their own history. Especially this last post by liz, who obviously knows very little about Islamic history, which she obviously received from some Christian site on Islam. Liz, I especially love this part when you said,
"which was relatively bloodless as the Jews and Christians surrendered peacefully"
about the Muslims conquering Jerusalem. If you had any knowledge you'd know that a key part of that is wrong. There were NO jews in Jerusalem at that time, they had been banned from the city by the Christians and the Temple Mount was used as a trash dump, and guess who had it cleaned up afterwards and guess who allowed the Jews to come back into the city and resettle, the muslims.
-mark
(Note: Comments on articles are unmoderated, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Dhimmi Watch or Robert Spencer. Comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying may be summarily deleted. However, the fact that particular comments remain on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Robert Spencer of the views expressed therein.)