| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Jihad Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
Sounds as if the upcoming movie on the Crusades may actually be accurate. Whether it is or it isn't, I will be setting the record straight soon thereafter in my forthcoming book The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam and the Crusades (Regnery).
However, Khaled Abou El Fadl, whose highly questionable reconstructions of Islamic theology and history I discuss in Onward Muslim Soldiers, is in a froth. In fact, he is willing to stake his reputation on the proposition that this movie will inspire hate crimes: "In my view, 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."
I haven't seen the movie or the script, but this is less an indictment of them than of the American people. I saw the predictions of pogroms after Gibson's Passion come to nothing, and I think it likely that there will be no hate crimes (other than a few concocted ones, probably) after this film. And I hope that in that event Dr. Abou El Fadl's reputation will be accorded the treatment it deserves.
From The Herald, with thanks to EPG:
SEVERAL months have passed since Dr Khaled Abou El Fadl first read the shooting script for Sir Ridley Scott's forth-coming epic about the Crusades, Kingdom of Heaven, but he speaks as though his anger is fresh."There's no doubt in my mind people are going to come out of this movie disliking Muslims and Arabs more than they already dislike them," says the professor of Islamic law at the University of California.
"In my view, 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."
Scott has said he intended to make a film about a noble knight and settled on Balian of Ibelin, portrayed by Orlando Bloom. In 1187, Balian defended Jerusalem against the Muslim leader, Saladin, played by Ghassan Massoud, and lost. However, the religious context of Balian's story dominated discussion of the production and, as soon as the script for the £75m production became available, the New York Times passed copies to five experts on the Crusades, one of them Abou El Fadl.
One expert has defended the script, saying it contains nothing that should upset Christians or Muslims, but criticisms from others range from historical inaccuracies to character and cultural misrepresentations and claims of insensitivity to current perceptions of Islam in the western world. The criticisms were echoed when British experts attended a Kingdom of Heaven junket, during which Scott talked about the plot and its purported historical accuracy. Questions from the audience were not permitted, but Dr Jonathan Phillips, a member of the audience and a lecturer in history at Royal Holloway, University of London, knows what he would have asked.
"The main problem is he's got this idea that the noble knight and Saladin could have made peace, but a few people wrecked that for secular motives such as greed," says Phillips, author of The Fourth Crusade and the Sack of Constantinople. "He's got a religious subject and I think he's secularised it in part. He wanted to make a film about a knight as an icon. He's done that, but in a context where religion is saturating the concept of a knight in a Crusader context."The question is whether it's an appropriate subject right now and whether he has done it in a way that is appropriate."
Oh, I see. So the problem is not whether or not the thing is historically accurate. It is whether or not it is politically correct:
While academics acknowledge that a degree of artistic licence is to be expected with any big-budget Hollywood movie, many agree that the religious context of the Crusades warrants a careful depiction, given the current religious and political climate.Phillips believes that although Scott initially defended the accuracy of the film, he has begun to climb down as more and more criticisms emerge.
Some of these are of little consequence; for example, Balian is portrayed as a blacksmith who becomes a knight. He was, in fact, according to Phillips, "born to the top table". The leper king, Baldwin, makes an appearance, in spite of having died two years earlier. However, others are seen to propagate stereotypes of Muslims that could have dangerous consequences, as Abou El Fadl predicts.
"There's a single (Muslim) character who is human-like – Saladin, he has consciousness and awareness," he says. "There's another character who is a mad, ranting, raving, blood-thirsty lunatic, screaming 'jihad, jihad, jihad'. The rest of the Muslim characters are willing to die without any emotion."
Yeah, that couldn't possibly be accurate. Never mind that those who consider themselves the spiritual descendants of those who fought the Crusaders say things like "the Americans love Pepsi-Cola, we love death" and "America must fear the nation that does not fear death."
Abou El Fadl says he anticipated this pattern of characterisation; that in any western film involving Muslims he has come to expect only one complex character surrounded by many simplistic others. He also predicted that Saladin would be portrayed as being conflicted about his Islamic identity, though not to the extent that the script suggested."This movie actually went a step further, which I found deeply, deeply offensive," says Abou El Fadl. "Despite the savagery of the Crusaders and despite their ability to commit massacres and pillage and rape [of which he acknowledges the Muslims were also capable], Saladin identifies with them and is nearly sympathetic towards them. In one of the most unbelievable scenes, though I don't know if it stayed in the movie, Saladin thanks the Crusaders for teaching Muslims chivalry."...
Abou El Fadl here displays his own prejudices: by no historical account were the Crusaders always and everywhere committing massacres and pillage and rape; in other words, they weren't raving maniacs with no admirable qualities that Saladin might have noticed. This is particularly true in the aspect of chivalry, which was indeed a Western concept that the Crusaders brought East.
Anyway, Abou El Fadl looks even sillier in light of the fact that others take issue with the film's too-positive portrayal of Saladin:
Phillips believes this "soft-focus" portrayal diverts attention from Saladin's motivation. "There's a layer in this movie that doesn't take on board that, although Saladin was an honourable man, his career was based on throwing the Christians out," he says. "His rise to power revolves around jihad, the holy war, so, while he can be treated as an individual, Christians were the enemies of his faith. He's rather more hard underneath than Scott's."Abou El Fadl believes that, beyond individual characters, Muslim culture is overlooked and notes that, while the film includes sequences of Muslims jumping on crucifixes, little is communicated about the comparative sophistication of Islamic society at the time.
"The historical record is established in that the Europeans find a superior culture invading it and learn to indulge in the luxuries the Muslims had become very good at enjoying," he says. "You don't even get a hint that there's an Islamic law that regulates warfare; that the slaughter of innocents is strictly prohibited in the Koran."
Maybe this is because the definition of "innocents" in some schools of Islamic law does not include non-combatants who are perceived as aiding the war effort (cf. al-Mawardi, al-Akham as-Sultaniyyah, 4.2; 'Umdat al-Salik o9.10) -- a distinction that allows for pretty much anything (including, in our own day, the idea that "there are no civilians in Israel").
Abou El Fadl believes an opportunity to encourage understanding between Christians and Muslims has been missed, though he won't commit to saying whether he believes it is intentional. "I'm not a conspiracy-theory type, but the timing of this movie is most suspect," he says. "The film falls in the category of 'it's okay to invade these people, something good will come out of it'. Not only that, but the fanatics are better off dead because they want to go to heaven.
Horror of horrors. The "fanatics" are depicted as "better off dead because they want to go to heaven"? This couldn't have anything to do with them saying things like "we will get you [with] mujahideen who love to be martyrs," could it?
"This at a critical time when the logic of the white-man's burden is coming back through the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq and a lot of people are wondering if there is a civilisational showdown between Islamic and Christian culture."
This is Abou El Fadl's most egregious statement of all. The "white man's burden" is an idea from British colonialism: that the Christian West had a responsibility to civilize the rest of the world. The Crusaders had no such notion. They went to the Middle East to defend Christian pilgrims from attack by Muslim raiders, and to secure the Holy Land for those pilgrims. They made no organized or large-scale attempt to convert Muslims to Christianity, and certainly offered them nothing like the Hobson's Choice of the dhimma.
Make no mistake about it: all this distorted history coming from Abou El Fadl and his ilk is politically motivated. It is driven by a political agenda that is not at all interested in yesterday, but in today and tomorrow. And that's why it's so dangerous.
Posted by Robert at April 4, 2005 9:18 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
"There's a layer in this movie that doesn't take on board that, although Saladin was an honourable man, his career was based on throwing the Christians out," he says. "His rise to power revolves around jihad, the holy war, so, while he can be treated as an individual, Christians were the enemies of his faith. He's rather more hard underneath than Scott's."
Where was he throwing the Christians out? Of lands that had been Christian for hundreds of years.
And, gee, it sure doesn't look like Saladin rose to fame on the "peaceful introspection" form of jihad, does it? Interesting that El Fadl says that Saladin's climb "revolves around jihad", and also whines about another character who "is a mad, ranting, raving, blood-thirsty lunatic, screaming 'jihad, jihad, jihad'".
So does El Fadl believe jihad is good or bad? Is it violent or is it peaceful? Why is it good for the Muslims to throw Christians out of Christian lands, but not good for Christians to throw Muslims out of Christian lands?
Posted by: Robert Crawford![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/nav-commenters.gif)
at April 4, 2005 10:22 AM
In Templars, by Pears Paul Read, it's obvious that Muslims under Crusader 'occupation' had more freedoms (in particular, freedom of religion) than non-Muslims have in MODERN Saudi Arabia.
Saladin was a prince among men compared to the bloodthirsty, overly-religious, and demented modern jihadis.
Posted by: Beagle at April 4, 2005 10:41 AM
My read on Saladin also put him well above today's 'leadership' in islamic countries.
A copy of this movie shall find a nice spot on my shelf, and Thanks for making it, guys!
Posted by: Gary at April 4, 2005 10:55 AM
Let's not forget that long after the Christian crusades ended, the second muslim crusade began with the conquest of Constantinople in 1453. Then the muslim crusaders proceeded to conquer Greece, Bulgaria, Rumania, Yugoslavia, Albania, Hungary, all the way to Vienna, Austria, where they were defeated in 1683.
Why do the islamists always forget their own crusades while voiciferously complaining about the Christian crusades? In their minds their incursions are not crusades, but rather the natural inevitable expansion of islam. The Ottoman Empire was the last remnant of Islamic imperialism. It was a colonial power. Yep, everything that islamists attack the West for, has been an integral part of their own history.
The main problem with islamists is that they cannot easily grow beyond the parameters of their cultural context. The rules of Islam are set in stone. It is the most fundamental of all fundamentalisms. No separation of church and state. No self-critical review of its belief system. No lapse in faith allowed (apostates are punished by death).
Combine this with a deeply wounded pride, plus the physuical ownership of most of the world's proven oil reserves and you get a recipe for major conflict.
Posted by: Mike H at April 4, 2005 10:55 AM
"In my view, 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."
What a complete idiot he is. Harold Koh must be breathing a sigh of relief that he and the Yale Law School Faculty, briefly taken in -- enough to have El Fadl around for a term or two -- did not offer him what he was so confidently assuming was in the bag -- an offer from Yale.
Whew. That was a close one.
Posted by: Hugh at April 4, 2005 10:59 AM
"This is Abou El Fadl's most egregious statement of all. The "white man's burden" is an idea from British colonialism: that the Christian West had a responsibility to civilize the rest of the world."
It's especially egregious since Jesus was Semitic and as a member of that Afro-Asiatic group, he probably looked more like Osama Bin Laden than the Pope.
Th muslims conveniently forget (or refuse to mention) that the first Christians were Middle Easterners.
Posted by: 3812Michelle at April 4, 2005 11:08 AM
I saw a review in Empire magazine a short while ago and sent off a letter to Steve O'Hagan who wrote it in order to clarify the "tolerance if islam"
The e mail address for Empire is: empire@emap.com
I have pasted it below:
PLEASE FORWARD TO STEVE O'HAGAN
Dear Mr o'Hagan,
I have just read your reveiw of "Kingdom of Heaven".
In the column "Kingdom Under Siege, will the religious backlash start here ?"
You made the statement
"islam is depicted as practically insane, reflecting
nothing of the tolerance,historically,
shown by moslems to jews
and christians;
the film attributes that characteristic to the christians".
I am not a christian or a jew, I am infact an atheist, however I am also an apostate from islam.
The penalty for apostacy in islam is death. The sentence is regulary carried out in
islamic countries. This is why I must hide my identity under an alias.
If you wish to learn about TOLERANCE in islam, may i suggest that you purchase this book.
"the myth of tolerance in islam" by Robert Spencer.
Also I suggest you visit these websites which have been set up by ex-moslems.
www.faithfreedom.org
http://www.dhimmitude.org/index.php
http://home.earthlink.net/~drbettyh/Sudanpage.htm
http://www.apostatesofislam.com/
If you find the idea if a woman being stoned to death disgusting I suggest you visit this Site:
This is not a matter of racism, I am asian, it is a matter of truth and humanity.
Please forward this e mail to as many of your friends and collegues
Kind regards
Apostate_islam
Posted by: apostate_islam at April 4, 2005 11:14 AM
I wonder if the movie will depict the 10 000 women who were sold into slavery (and were used for the sexual recreation of the "misunderstood" Jihadis that conquered Jerusalem) by Saladin because they couldn't pay the special fee demanded to let them go? I heard about this in a recent documentary about the fall of Chrisitan Jerusalem. Yet Saladin was the better of the lot.
The film would have been more accurate though if the "mad" muslim had cried "Jihad, rape, slavery"
Posted by: obl r us at April 4, 2005 11:27 AM
All the Muslims have to do in reply is produce and accurate big budget movie about the life and actions of their 'perfect man' Mohammad.
Now wouldn't that be fun to see?But it would need an R rating... especially the scene where the 53 year old guys takes his 9 years old 'bride' into his tent.
And those scenes of beheading about 700-900 surrendered Jews , including one woman, might actually result in some hate crime.
One can dream:
"MOHAMMAD- the Movie".
Hollywood, start cranking!
Posted by: BigSleep at April 4, 2005 11:35 AM
To oppose the truth being shown... doesn't that imply a degree of SHAME on the part of El Fadl? He knows when people see what islam has done that it will cause revulsion among thinking, feeling HUMAN BEINGS.
Posted by: Carolyn2 at April 4, 2005 11:48 AM
"In my view, 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."
Wow. A classic case of paranoid projection. This is what the Muslims would do (and are doing), so the primitive assumption is that we will go nuts the way they do.
"MOHAMMAD- the Movie".
Hollywood, start cranking!
Posted by: BigSleep at April 4, 2005 11:35 AM
Bigsleep, maybe we can begin to take some encouragement from some of the flickerings that indicate that the ties that bind us to PC are beginning to unravel. Bit by bit, we are seeing things like Steve Harrigan's report on Fox about how the Muslims are making themselves unwelcome, about Dutch recognition of problems with Muslims after the van Gogh murder, about the "24" episode actually depicting (gasp!) Muslims as (gasp!) terrorists, and now an actual movie about the Crusades... Keep dreaming, folks, the tide is turning!
Now all we have to do is keep those South American gangs from targeting the Minuteman organization trying to bring some integrity to our borders, get rid of da'wa in the schools, convince the FBI that there are people in this country who do not wish us well, convince the President that Islam is NOT a "religion of peace," and a few other things.
But if the citizens of this country get the picture, it won't much matter that our Protectors don't; we'll have an opportunity to vote in people who do understand what's going on before long.
So keep it up!
Posted by: cubed at April 4, 2005 12:00 PM
"In my view, 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."
Wow. A classic case of paranoid projection. This is what the Muslims would do (and are doing), so the primitive assumption is that we will go nuts the way they do.
"MOHAMMAD- the Movie".
Hollywood, start cranking!
Posted by: BigSleep at April 4, 2005 11:35 AM
Bigsleep, maybe we can begin to take some encouragement from some of the flickerings that indicate that the ties that bind us to PC are beginning to unravel. Bit by bit, we are seeing things like Steve Harrigan's report on Fox about how the Muslims are making themselves unwelcome, about Dutch recognition of problems with Muslims after the van Gogh murder, about the "24" episode actually depicting (gasp!) Muslims as (gasp!) terrorists, and now an actual movie about the Crusades... Keep dreaming, folks, the tide is turning!
Now all we have to do is keep those South American gangs from targeting the Minuteman organization trying to bring some integrity to our borders, get rid of da'wa in the schools, convince the FBI that there are people in this country who do not wish us well, convince the President that Islam is NOT a "religion of peace," and a few other things.
But if the citizens of this country get the picture, it won't much matter that our Protectors don't; we'll have an opportunity to vote in people who do understand what's going on before long.
So keep it up!
Posted by: cubed at April 4, 2005 12:00 PM
sorry about the double...
Posted by: cubed at April 4, 2005 12:01 PM
"the New York Times passed copies to five experts on the Crusades, one of them Abou El Fadl."
What makes Abou El Fadl an expert on the Crusades? And who else was sent a copy of the script to discuss its historical veracity -- and is this not an unusual thing for The New York Times to have done? Was it fishing for something -- a little Muslim indignation, perhaps?
And who were the other "experts on the Crusades" to whom the script was sent?
Was Jonathan Riley-Smith one of them? Or was one of them Carole Hillenbrand, a recent winner -- for "Services to Islam" -- King Faisal Prize winner (the scientists who receive this prize are completely legitimate, and are cleverly included both to mimic the real Nobel Prizes, and to disguise the services-to-Islam basis for the King Faisal Prizes given outside of the sciences, which are given only to apologists for Islam).
This is, of course, a Hollywood movie. One cannot reasonably expect to rely on it for complete historical accuracy . It is a question of whether or not the intent was to airbrush out reality, or to offer a feelgood movie where the chivalrous acts of individuals obscure reality. Imagine a movie about Oskar Schiindler that offered him as not a lonely exception, but the norm --just the average, goodhearted Nazi, who would finally see the light.
But there is the matter of context. What does the movie show by way of explaining the reasons for the Crusades in the first place? Do we see the razing, in 1009, of the Church of the Holy Sepluchre? Do we see the other Christian sites vandalized and destroyed? Do we see attacks on churches or on Christian pilgrims? No? If we don't, then we leave the theatre wondering just what the whole thing was all about, anyway. .
There was agitation in Western Christendom for rescue of sites and people several decades before the Crusades actually began -- is this shown, or aluded to?
As for Khaled Abou El Fadl -- he deserves some special attention as the self-described "world's leading authority" on Islam, or Islamic law, or Islamic reform. His gall, you see, is divided into three parts.
Posted by: Hugh at April 4, 2005 12:02 PM
'His gall, you see, is divided into three parts.'
Arrrrgghh! What a pun. I've just lost the will to live.
Puns would be a good weapon against the Jihadis, except that they wouldn't get them.
at April 4, 2005 12:19 PM
So Is there a Fatwa on getting your ass kicked by your fellow jihadies so some made up “Rights” group can point fingers ?
Is it a good Jihad?
at April 4, 2005 12:41 PM
The timing has more to do with the rip-roaring financial success of the Passion of the Christ, which didn't seem to generate a lot of anti-Semetism, except, or course, in Arab and Muslim countries where it was used as further justification for hating Jews.
Posted by: waterdragon52 at April 4, 2005 12:45 PM
"Willing to risk his reputation" on this? Has he any to risk?
And what's this nonsense about people 'going out to teach turbanheads a lesson'?? People are going to get mad at muslims and beat up Sihks?
Geoff
Posted by: Geoff at April 4, 2005 1:09 PM
If I recall "Passion of the Christ" despite being "anti-Islamic" was nonetheless shown all over the Arab world to sold out theatres?
So while a historical account of the Crusades is potentially 'hateful' apparently the Arab world was eager to see a movie that displayed the Jews as "killer of the prophets"
And by the way while I'm no liberal or paraoid person, stating concern regarding the Passion was over "mass pogroms" is about as logical a retort to rational concern over the movie as the hysterics you rightfully mock.
I knew nothing about Jesus, passion plays or why Jews got their asses kicked in Europe for centuries and I thought that movie definitely played to stereotypes of Jews... As I'm sure Rabbis in 30AD looked like European stereotyped Jews with hooked noses, money hungary and dirty teeth.....
LOL!! you want to debate me on that topic, any time!
Posted by: Mike_Nargizian at April 4, 2005 1:40 PM
BigSleep- MOHAMMAD the Movie will more likely be rated NC-17 No One 17 and Under Admitted (NC-17 is between an R rating and an X rating).
Posted by: RED at April 4, 2005 1:43 PM
RE-
I'll go for a hardcore X if it helps in the cause of ending the Great Western Slumber Party by tearing the veil off this "religion of peace".
Let's see the 'perfect man' with his many slave 'mistresses' (rape victims), multiple wives (6 years old and up), his vicious calls to kill the innocent merchants in passing caravans and steal their goods, the epileptic-like hysterics he displayed (according to the Hadiths) when he heard the angel Gibreel telling him whom to anathemize or to kill next, the loopy theories he espoused -like a) dipping a fly into your drink to render the poison [?] on the insect's wings inert, or b)procaliming that the stars were created as missiles to hit devils with.
Or showing Mohammad under 'an evil magic spell' that caused him 'to hallucinate that he was having sexual relations with his wife when he wasn't' -according to the recollection of his pedophile favorite little 'bride' Aisha.
Or the many other cruel, stupid, laughable and terminally weird things the 'perfect man' thought and taught. Plus his obessiveness with mentrual problems. And the murderous vendetta he undertook against a woman poetess who lampooned him.
It's pure "PULP FICTION", so I hope Quentin Tarentino gets on the screenplay ASAP.
Something like:
"FADE IN-
EXTERIOR. A desert oasis. NIGHT.
A huddled group of bearded, burnoose-clad men are sipping date wine around a guttering campfire. In the backround, a dozen semi-naked slave women are cowering silently, tied in a ragged line to a chain strung between palm trees.
ABU BANNA
(chuckling lasciviously)
So, Mohammad? You will only pay 100 shekels each for the slave girls?
MOHAMMAD
(drinking a rhyton of milk)
They are too old for my taste.
SHAKIR HAMAS
(laughs at a private joke)
Ah, yes! The heir of the woman camel driver likes them young!
With Mel Gibson as Mohammad, perhaps?
And then let the popcorn fly!
at April 4, 2005 5:51 PM
'With Mel Gibson as Mohammad, perhaps?' ~BigSleep
*blinks*
*pictures Mel... adds long, wild hair and beard...*
Ya know, he has the eyes for it! (Sorry Mel, this is just funny!)
But how do we get Barbara Streisand to play the 9-year-old?
Posted by: Gary at April 4, 2005 5:56 PM
Interesting ideas. How about a comedy that does nothing but reenact scenes from the Qur'an, hadiths and sira; plays of comic contrast between the ridiculous advice of 'the Messenger' and those who take his every word seriously; also: contrasts between grotesque violence (like dismembering people) and normalcy and rote civility, like 'peace be upon you'...
Contrasts, extremes, exaggerations abound; comic writers could have a field day. The publicity would be staggering and the budget low.
Anybody out there?
Posted by: JTF at April 4, 2005 6:15 PM
Dear "Mike Nargizian":
I haven't actually seen Mel Gibson's "Passion" movie.
Therefore I was referring to nothing in the movie itself.
I was referring to predictions that there would be pogroms after the movie was shown. Such predictions were made. They were wrong.
The point I was making was that that says something about the American people, not about the movie.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
at April 4, 2005 8:12 PM
Hmmm... Actually, there are some pretty darned good writers posting to this site. That movie about Muhammad... Hmmm. Why not? Maybe by the time it got written, the climate might be right for it to be shown. Maybe the climate wouldn't even have to change... I mean, it's a phenomenal story!
Seriously, folks.
Posted by: cubed at April 4, 2005 8:45 PM
I can't wait for your new book, but then again I'm still waiting for delivery of The Myth of Islamic Tolerance. Can't figure out why Amazon.com is taking so long to deliver it, I ordered it around the middle of March.
I look forward to the movie as well.
As an aside, the ADL predicted Hate Crimes and raised a ruckus about The Passion, and the Musims and CAIR raise a ruckus about books and movies that cast Islam in an accurate light.
ADL and CAIR are bed partners. How interesting.
Posted by: Giaour at April 4, 2005 9:09 PM
So this movie (because it tells the truth) will make people dislike Muslims more than they already dislike them.
Imposssible. Nothing could make me dislike Muslims more than I already do.
Posted by: DianaC at April 4, 2005 9:23 PM
BigSleep and cubed:
1 BIG reason a movie on mohd may never get made is that under islamic law, no visual depiction of mohd is permitted anywghere in the world - ever.
I remember a case in saudi where 4 indians were sentenced to execution because they organized a play promoting religious tolerance that mistakenly alluded to the body of mohd.....
But yeah, sure, dhimmi hollywood suddenly growing balls would be a great sight indeed ... a guy can always hope, eh?
Posted by: voletti at April 4, 2005 10:18 PM
Giaour, it took four days to get my copy of Robert's book.
Posted by: Carolyn2 at April 4, 2005 10:25 PM
JTF-
"...how about a comedy..."?
But it would be. A tragic comedy.
(And with music, it could be:
"The Man of La Mecca"???)
But imagine the shock of people -if they saw a film about Jesus, and he owned slaves?
Or the Buddha -and he is ordering people beheaded?
Or the Wise Old Man of Taoism raping a 9 year old?
This is NOT what people expect of an enlightened soul.
The sordidness of it would disillusion audiences globally. And such Stone Age cruelty from a 'self-proclaimed messiah' would only make people choke. Reminding them too much of Jim "Jonestown Kool-Aid/Mass-murderer" Jones.
Mohammad, exposed, would no longer charm.
P.S.
The 'Christian version' has already been made.
And not one of film's authors, actors or crew
had death 'fatwas' issued against them by either the Pope or even the most righteous fundamentalist thumper of the Good Book.
Called "The Life of Brian"...of course...
If the Monty Pythons had made it about Mohammad, and were themselves Muslims, their entrails would have been smeared across the streets of Mecca within the week. And danced on by pilgrims come to celebrate their slaughter on special junkets.
While the film itself would have been turned into a billion banjo picks.
Posted by: BigSleep at April 4, 2005 10:52 PM
Anyone foolish enough to be connected in any fashion to a film about Mohammed would cause a furor in the Muslim world that would set the world on fire and result in the same fate as befell Theo VanGogh. So much for the characterization, "religion of peace", and the concept of "religious tolerance".
Posted by: epg at April 4, 2005 11:15 PM
Perhaps the actors could wear bushy beards to disguise themselves, bumbling around, engaging in ridiculous pious talk about the absurd minutia of what to do and not to do, all right out of the hadiths.
Muhammad the horny, explosive, temperamental, madman, moving about as if he knows what he is talking about with wide-eyed followers taking notes; following his advice and doing idiotic things, like sipping on camel urine for good health.
And then, sudden bursts of gore that do not even raise an eyebrow in the scene, reminiscent of the rabbit scene in Monty Python, and all right out of Islamic texts.
A great opportunity for a courageous underground filmmaker; the film would make history and a lot of money with a minimal budget.
And think of the buzz: based on the Qur'an, hadiths and sira (with some comic license, of course). More free publicity than one could imagine.
Posted by: JTF at April 5, 2005 12:10 AM
Having researched the vile politics of Mel Gibson's father , i decided Not to see the film.
And coupled with Gison's ultra right wing opus dei views, i concluded that it would be impossible for him to make an UNBIASED movie.
I have been told that opus dei strongly object to the apologies the Vatican have made in respect of their treatment of Jews.
All i do know is the Jesus Christ was one of TWO HUNDRED AND FIFTY THOUSAND Jews crucified during the Roman occupation, and to take the murder of One Jew out of context is wrong.
IF a movie is made of the historical islamic exceesses, it will be done only of there is demand from the general public.(IE it is a commercially viable proposition)
Sites like Robert Spencers and the literature which is emerging are indeed the precursors for the viabilty of such a film.
i can think of no weapon which would be more harmful to Islamic proliferation on the west than the making of such a film.
at April 5, 2005 12:51 AM
"There's no doubt in my mind people are going to come out of this movie disliking Muslims and Arabs more than they already dislike them," says the professor of Islamic law at the University of California."
Jeezus, is that really possible?
Posted by: Kemaste at April 5, 2005 1:49 AM
How about this for start of the movie
Two holywood Arabs are seriously down on their luck. they have produced a string of Flops and the money men are avoiding them like the plague.
Even with a hired RollsRoyce they cannot even get past the gateman at the studios.
they look through their rotten scripts in desperation and suddenly Behari yells out. "this is it ! better than 72 virgins "
"What are you talking about Bozie?"
"The Prophet of peace! This is and ode to Mohamemed and his conquests written by a crazy Jihadist called Abu Ali. Its got the lot- the destruction of the Jews of Medina and the romps in the desert with the lovely Aisha"
"You are mad, who in Holywood is going to put money into this?"
"No one, but the Saudi Sheiks will queue up to finance this. I'm phoning our cousin in Jeddah right now!"
A trip to Saudi ensues where the two men grovel at the feet of the Sheik.
"Everyday americans are laughing at and Blaspheming the prophet. It makes us so angry!we want to fight this and show them the true Prophet. the man of peace with a song in his heart"
.....
at April 5, 2005 3:11 AM
How about this for start of the movie
Two holywood Arabs are seriously down on their luck. they have produced a string of Flops and the money men are avoiding them like the plague.
Even with a hired RollsRoyce they cannot even get past the gateman at the studios.
they look through their rotten scripts in desperation and suddenly Behari yells out. "this is it ! better than 72 virgins "
"What are you talking about Bozie?"
"The Prophet of peace! This is and ode to Mohamemed and his conquests written by a crazy Jihadist called Abu Ali. Its got the lot- the destruction of the Jews of Medina and the romps in the desert with the lovely Aisha"
"You are mad, who in Holywood is going to put money into this?"
"No one, but the Saudi Sheiks will queue up to finance this. I'm phoning our cousin in Jeddah right now!"
A trip to Saudi ensues where the two men grovel at the feet of the Sheik.
"Everyday americans are laughing at and Blaspheming the prophet. It makes us so angry!we want to fight this and show them the true Prophet. the man of peace with a song in his heart"
.....
at April 5, 2005 3:12 AM
epg-
The only safe place to make such a film about Mohammad would be on the international space station.
Or maybe do it in 'Claymation'?
(It might be poetic justice if the pedophile prophet were 'acted' by a pile of animated Playdough -and some henna-colored Brill-o for a beard.)
chevalier st. g.-
Never saw "The Passion", either. Not a big scourging fan, and always thought the point of Jesus's message was not to be fixating on -or flinching at- literal suffering, but was about the transubstantiation of anguish into compassion.
And THAT only takes one profound or poignant image, not a hundred literal lashes.
I heard Mel G. interviewed about his father's holocaust denying blather ("It's all... maybe not all fiction.. but most of it is."- Hutton Gibson, 2004.), and rather than just say: "My old man's got a few stripped screws... and I feel sorry for him..." Mel hemmed and hawed and refused to make any other statement than: "He's my father... 'leave it alone."
If it WERE your parent, and if they were SERIOUSLY cracked ("Do you know what it takes to cremate a body? It takes a litre of petrol and 20 minutes.* Now, 6 million of them? They [the Germans} just didn't have the gas to do it!" -Hutton G. 2004), -then you have to call them on it. Or call the looney bin.
What father would want a son to excuse such scurrilous crap? ("[The missing 6,000,000 Jews] simply got up and left! They were all over the Bronx and Brooklyn...and Los Angeles.")
Even Jesus was accusatory, on the cross, of his own padre: "Father, why hast thou forsaken me?"
(What this meant has never been convincingly explained to me... )
*Nazi crematoria used coke (coal) furnaces, except for Terezin, that used natural gas.
at April 5, 2005 3:25 AM
BigSleep:
A small step....
http://ahmed-mohammed.mindswap.net/index.php?Faith=GoodMuslim
at April 5, 2005 4:08 AM
BigSleep:
A small step....
http://ahmed-mohammed.mindswap.net/index.php?Faith=GoodMuslim
at April 5, 2005 4:08 AM
BigSleep:
A small step....
http://ahmed-mohammed.mindswap.net/index.php?Faith=GoodMuslim
at April 5, 2005 4:08 AM
Terribly sorry for tose multiple posts. I thot something was wrong with the pc.
Posted by: hutchrun at April 5, 2005 4:15 AM
Yes Big Sleep, you are correct. Mel has never oncedenied or honestly refuted his own father's holocaust revisionism and that should suffice in judging his own ideas.
As awful as it is , the refutation of the fuel calomny is what every frist years science student knows - that ech incinerstion creates so much geat energy that it is sel perpetuating , providing the crematoria are not switched off.
I believe that Hutton is not australian but canadian? He is aknown associate of notorious holocaust revisionist Dr Toben of the adelaide institude who was arrested in Germany. Australia did not have the required legislation.
He is also said to be a freind of Ernst Zundel, the awful German/Canadian revisionist.
Is he married to Ingrid Rimland , the white aryan supremacist?
at April 5, 2005 4:15 AM
It sounds as if _The Kingdom of Heaven_ may be a harbionger of a trend towards greater historical accuracy and honesty about history in both pop culture and serious books. I've noticed in too many American circles that there's a tendency to forget that other people had their historical trajectories set long before the anointed "we" got involved. It sounds like a movie I might just like to see.
Re Gibson's _The Passion_, while I can understand the nervousness of people like Foxman (many Jews his age grew up on grandparents' tales of how Jews didn't go out of doors during Passiontide in old Poland and Rumania, for fear of being attacked), nonetheless made it clear that Jesus and all the "Christian" characters were Jews (I found the dissents of Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus in the Sanhedrin quite moving and convincing--although the scene may have been lost on viewers unaccustomed to reading through the Gospels frequently). This may have been the reason why Greek, the international tongue of the day, was excluded; with the Jews all speaking Aramaic and the Romans using Latin. The fact that Gibson had his own hands shot driving the nails into Christ's hands represents, to me at least, a profound theological insight into who is really to blame and the true glory of the atonement Christ made for us--even though continue to think The Book much, much better, and object to snippets drawn from medieval and later Catholic tradition.
Also, people in missions whom I read say that a noteworthy part of the Muslim world's response to _The Passion_ was enquiry into Christianity rather than more Jew-hatred.
Posted by: Kepha at April 5, 2005 10:12 AM
Kepha's amazimg claim seem to be correct.
It seems that it was Gibson's own Hands that were nailed to the cross!
Are we dealing therefore with the Passion of Mel Gibson and not the Passion of Christ?
I am dumfounded by the arrogance of a man who would substitute his own hands for those of Jesus Christ in some religious masochistic self agrandissement.
Gibson seems to be a man on the verge of madness, struggling with overwhelming religious fervour and inner violence. Does all this come from his childhood at the hands of an authoritarian notoriously antisemetic father?
Can't wait to see " the passion of gibson" a psychological thriller, but please lets have Al Pacino , not Mel in the lead part.
at April 5, 2005 4:47 PM
…back to Carl in New York.
Thanks Amy. Good morning everyone. We have a treat for you today folks. Stanley Kubrick is here (long applause) …Stanley’s here to talk about his upcoming film “Moe.” (greeting and seating) This thing is white hot Stanley, lots of people are angry. But before we talk politics, or rather religion, tell our audience what the movie is about.
It’s about a modern man who zealously pursues Islam to the point of imitating, quite literally, the Islamic prophet Mohammed. It’s about blind faith Carl, misguided blind faith and the consequences thereof.
What’s your feeling on the uproar this film has caused?
This movie was based on the texts of Mohammed’s life, of events generally accepted as true in the Muslim world. Perhaps I’m confused but, seriously, how many movies have been made of Jesus? And one film about Mohammed is going to start a war? We can make movies of anything except Mohammed? That sounds ridiculous to me.
I’ve heard there have been threats on your life. Is that true?
Yes, many. Since the fatwa was issued, I’ve been under FBI protection.
Fatwa? Would you explain that to us?
Sure. It’s a death sentence issued by the…
at April 5, 2005 10:30 PM
BigSleep
I don’t know if this will shed so light onto your question. I believe that Jesus is quoting Psalm 22.
Lama Sabachthani?
You shall measure the height of his love, if it be ever measured, by the depth of his grief, if that can ever be known. See with what a price he hath redeemed us from the curse of the law! As you see this, say to yourselves: What manner of people ought we to be! What measure of love ought we to return to one who bore the utmost penalty, that we might he delivered from the wrath to come? I do not profess that I can dive into this deep: I will only venture to the edge of the precipice, and bid you look down, and pray the Spirit of God to concentrate your mind upon this lamentation of our dying Lord, as it rises up through the thick darkness-"My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?
I. By the help of the Holy Spirit, let us first dwell upon THE FACT; or, what our Lord suffered. God had forsaken him. Grief of mind is harder to bear than pain of body. You can pluck up courage and endure the pang of sickness and pain, so long as the spirit is hale and brave; but if the soul itself be touched, and the mind becomes diseased with anguish, then every pain is increased in severity, and there is nothing with which to sustain it. Spiritual sorrows are the worst of mental miseries. A man may bear great depression of spirit about worldly matters, if he feels that he has his God to go to. He is cast down, but not in despair. Like David, he dialogues with himself, and he enquires, "Why art thou cast down, O my soul? and why art thou disquieted in me? Hope thou in God: for I shall yet praise him." But if the Lord be once withdrawn, if the comfortable light of his presence be shadowed even for an hour, there is a torment within the breast, which I can only liken to the prelude of hell. This is the greatest of all weights that can press upon the heart. This made the Psalmist plead, "Hide not thy face from me; put not thy servant away in anger." We can bear a bleeding body, and even a wounded spirit; but a soul conscious of desertion by God it beyond conception unendurable. When he holdeth back the face of his throne, and spreadeth his cloud upon it, who can endure the darkness?
March 2nd, 1890, C. H. SPURGEON
Posted by: Bar at April 5, 2005 11:08 PM
Hopefully, this movie will encourage other filmmakers to produce movies about the Crusades and other atrocities committed throughout the history of Islam.
Posted by: Christian at April 6, 2005 12:03 AM
Why not something more modern, what to think about a movie about Theo van Gogh? A fierce atheist and lover of the Human rights figthing the decline of our civilization and defending it against Islamic (Nazist) overpowering. I'm more then willing to supply the details and even to (but my English is not good enough to voice what I'd like to voice) help writting the script. Forget about what happened 1000 years ago, let's deal with what is happening today.
Posted by: Ernst at April 6, 2005 2:33 AM
Chevalier--OT, I know, but Gibson's hands were those driving the nails in; not the hands of Christ. Forgive me if I didn't make it clear.
i.e., Gibson seems to be saying that the blame for the death of Christ lies with us all (makes sense, given how he started the film with a quote from Isaiah 53).
Bar--You are right that Jesus quoted Psalm 22 when he said, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" This shows how our savior took on our alienation from God so God might see us through the prism of Jesus' righteousness. It's called substitutionary atonement in theological parlance.
This, by the way, is the crux (pun dleiberate) of the difference between Islam and Christianity. Islam has no appreciation for how thoroughly sin has corrupted the human heart, and holds out the false hope that your good deeds can outweigh the bad attitudes and deeds you've accumulated. Thanks be to God that Messiah has come and worked atonement!
Hence, anyone who considers the death of Christ and wants to find people to blame or find some way to suffer as much rather than humbly accept that such was the price of his own redemption simply hasn't gotten the point.
Posted by: Kepha at April 6, 2005 6:03 AM
Kepha ~ You are absolutely correct. If one needs to find blame for the death of Christ, blame me, my sins nailed him to that cross.
I have not been able to completely reconcile these two concepts, on one hand Christ had to die for our redemption, yet, God held those who crucified Christ accountable.
In 70 AD, after 143 day siege which began at Passover, a Roman military force of about 30,000 troops under the command of Titus entered the city, they destroyed everything including Herod’s Temple fulfilling the prophesy spoken of by Jesus 40 years earlier.
The population and the great number of Passover visitors who had been trapped there were brutally slaughtered, with an estimated 600,000 people killed.
at April 6, 2005 12:25 PM
Bar: Unlike Thomas Jefferson, I see more than a rhetorical flourish in the words, "I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just." I do indeed believe that the events of 70 AD were a divine payback (that's how I read Matthew 24 and 25). So, what am I to do with such knowledge? Throwing rocks at Jews and Italians is out of the question (they got their payback long ago; so it's the love thy neighbor as thyself part that now applies to my dealings with them). But, perhaps, if I belong to a civilization that was also granted a deep knowledge of the Word of God, yet proudly and arrogantly decided it knew better and chose the seat of the scoffers (Psalm 1), how should I see the challenges of political radicalism and the Furor Islamicus I have seen in my own lifetime?
Posted by: Kepha at April 7, 2005 6:21 AM
Kepha
That quote from Thomas Jefferson, took the words right out of my heart.
Your question is quite intriguing, I find no answer in myself, I can only think of what Jesus said on the Mount of Olives.
And Jesus answered them, "See that no one leads you astray. For many will come in my name, saying, 'I am the Christ,' and they will lead many astray. And you will hear of wars and rumors of wars. See that you are not alarmed, for this must take place, but the end is not yet. For nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom, and there will be famines and earthquakes in various places. All these are but the beginning of the birth pains. "Then they will deliver you up to tribulation and put you to death, and you will be hated by all nations for my name's sake. And then many will fall away and betray one another and hate one another. And many false prophets will arise and lead many astray. And because lawlessness will be increased, the love of many will grow cold. But the one who endures to the end will be saved. And this gospel of the kingdom will be proclaimed throughout the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come.
(Matthew 24:4-14 ESV)
at April 7, 2005 3:33 PM
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)