| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Jihad Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
The new blockbuster movie Kingdom of Heaven is looking more and more like a dhimmi whitewash of history. I have written a column about the film that appeared in Human Events last week; a longer version is slated to show up in FrontPage tomorrow or Wednesday. Meanwhile, tomorrow or Wednesday also I hope to finish, and send off to the publisher (Regnery), my new book The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam and the Crusades, which should be out this summer. In it, I plan to discuss the historical errors of the film in detail.
In the meantime, however, ZombieTime (thanks to LGF) has assembled a large amount of evidence showing that this is a propaganda film.
And this article, "Kingdom of Heaven ignites debate," from the South African Press Agency (SAPA) and Deutsche Presse Agentur (DPA) quotes the renowned historian of the Crusades Jonathan Riley-Smith and me to show what the film really is. I am honored to be in Dr. Riley-Smith's company, and I think his remark about the film being "Osama bin Laden's version of history" is the only thing one needs to know about this movie: it is yet another example of the suicidal Western tendency to see the world in terms of oppressed and oppressors, with the "White Man" ever cast as the oppressor and the "Brown Man" as the oppressed.
Khaled Abou el-Fadl, a renowned Islamic jurist at the University of California in Los Angeles, said he believes the film promotes the idea of "a civilisational showdown between Islamic and Christian culture"."In my view, it is inevitable that there will be hate crimes committed directly because of it," he told Scotland's Herald newspaper.
Remember that statement.
But Scott said he made every effort to give the film the opposite message. He even invented a mythical order in which Jews, Christians and Muslims co-operated."The characters portrayed in the film are so important in Muslim culture that I knew we had to do it absolutely properly and correctly," he said. "Saladin fights battles, but he also enters into dialogue. We want to show that dialogue can be much better than war."...
Saladin was not this proto-Nelson Mandela figure at all. Watch for the real Saladin in my book.
"It's basically Osama bin Laden's version of history," said Professor Jonathan Riley-Smith, a British academic and expert on the Crusades. "It depicts the Muslims as sophisticated and civilised, and the Crusaders are all brutes and barbarians. It has nothing to do with reality.""Kingdom of Heaven is being touted as a fascinating history lesson," said Robert Spencer, the director of Jihad Watch. "Fascinating, maybe - but only as evidence of the lengths to which modern Westerners are willing to go to delude themselves."
Posted by Robert at May 2, 2005 8:15 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
Excerpt from the Knights Oath: Speak the truth even if it leads to your death.
So are there any "real" knights making movies about the crusades these days?
Posted by: obl r us![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/nav-commenters.gif)
at May 2, 2005 9:15 AM
The Hollywood idiots continue to ignore the truth and to insult our intelligence.
4 years after 9/11 and they couldn`t muster the guts to come up with a decent movie,but now they are ready to release one,in which the main character believes that 'we asked for it"....
Look at "Hotel Rwanda"..a political corect nonsense,look at "The Interpreter" ,a glorification of the UN and indictment of the US "arrogance",and now look at this "Kingdom of heaven" garbage...
They spent $140 million to make it and i hope it will be a bigger flop than "Alexander the Gay".
at May 2, 2005 9:18 AM
Rise a "truth telling" knight!!!
Rise a "truth telling" knight!!!!
Damn it!!! Where are they?
at May 2, 2005 9:23 AM
Does anyone know anything about the financing of the 140 million dollars?
Posted by: chevalier de st george at May 2, 2005 9:24 AM
chevalier de st george:
$140 million does seem a little steep, but hollywood has never been known for high IQ. Quite the contrary according to Michael Crichton.
But I do think someone should look into where the $140 million came from.
Any takers here?
Come on! Someone here must be able to ferret out the financing!
We've got to work together or all of this is just so much whinning!
Come on people! Lets get with the program!
Posted by: BillR at May 2, 2005 11:02 AM
Maybe I can pitch my proposed film "The Right of Return" to some big Hollywood exec, preferably Jewish. It is about a Jewish community that, in the first story board, is shown living peacefully for two thousand years in Lahtrib (sp?) in the arabian penisula. In the second story board a band of mid seventh century murderous thugs led by a deranged moon god worshiping hallucinating lunatic slaughtered all the men Lahtrib and enslaved all its the woman and children. The third story board shows their leader taking the finest specimens of pre-prubescent boy and girl slaves for his own warped sense of pleasure (we may have to pitch this to Michael Jackson for funding and get Roman Polanski as director). As lunatic leader is committing repeated acts of pedophilia, the fourth story board shows his band of thugs building a great monument to the moon god and consecrating the renamed land medina. Now that is a historical epic.
Posted by: Lisa at May 2, 2005 12:05 PM
EVERYONE! AM I EVER EXCITED ABOUT THIS!
Take a good hard look at the new splash graphic in the upper left of the Jihad Watch entry page!
The graphic is hot and has a web of links to interesting and informative web sites.
Would anyone here be willing to put your money where your mouth is for a second or more billboard? I sure as hell am willing!
It's a real opportunity to piss of CAIR and I personally relish the thought.
Let the masses of the uneducated become educated about what's really going on in the United States!
IN YOUR FACE CAIR!!!!
Posted by: BillR at May 2, 2005 12:11 PM
As I am very interested in history, especially Byzantium history I was looking forward to seeing this film, sadly I will just watch it for the warfare and ignore the rest, I do not like historically inaccurate films made for todays ignorant. I can let a little go, but this is silly.
Posted by: Daffersd at May 2, 2005 1:24 PM
Anybody that goes to the movies and expects a history lesson is out of their cotton picking minds. I can't say I am aware of this movie being touted as "a history lesson" but it will be as much of a history lesson as Hidalgo or Braveheart. Braveheart was cowboys and indians with kilts, this movie will be cowboys and indians in turbans.
Posted by: ReligionOfPeaceMyArse at May 2, 2005 2:18 PM
'Kingdom of Hollywood' is more like it. Did anybody honestly expect a factual depiction of the Cusades? I expect about as accurate a movie about the Crusades as 'Gladiator' was about ancient Rome.
I fully expect a load of PC garbage complete with 'tolerant muslims' and a token African cast member.
Posted by: Belisarius at May 2, 2005 2:34 PM
Someone in the press would have a great scoop connecting the new Dhimmitude billboard with the movie. In fact, the studio itself should look into this. Imagine the buzz, and millions in free advertising: Is Kingdom of Heaven anti-history and pro-Bin Laden?
And learn from Mel Gibson, oh merchants of entertainment. Don't fear the negative press. Embrace it; and in this particular case the negative buzz will not only enrich you, but will serve as poor penance to the truth.
Posted by: JTF at May 2, 2005 2:37 PM
Lisa:
There are probably still plenty of Jews in Hollywood, but I worry that most of them are so PC they wouldn't be interested -- unless it looked like it would put a lot of bums in seats and sell an s-load of DVDs after release.
Posted by: waterdragon52 at May 2, 2005 3:06 PM
I'll pick up from JTF by suggesting that we stand along side the line-ups of ticket buyers for the film and pass out our own mini-billboards, copies of the flash art on the main page. It's going to show all over the world, and there will be people receptive to picking up a bit of take-home work. It worked well when Costa-Gavras made Missing. Just walk down the line passing out handbills. You can do it on a Saturday evening, after work, or just whenever you happen to be passing by and see a line-up for a movie showing something different at the same multi-plex. This can be the best bit of advertizing we could hope for here. We can piggy-back on this movie, picking up readers by the thousands, and in turn sending them into the streets armed with real knowledge of jihad.
Posted by: sonofwalker at May 2, 2005 3:17 PM
Lisa,
You were in doubts about the name of that place.
It was Yatrib now called Medina.
If anyone's interested, Medina means city in Arabic.
at May 2, 2005 3:23 PM
You ask where did the money come from for this movie.
Three years ago in the media headlines the State Department was calling Hollywood executives to meetings saying that they needed movies that would help out with the American image in the world, specifically towards muslims.
Of course, what a fool I was in thinking that we might see a future of butt kicking Americans.
Did the State Department help/or contribute to this film? I don't know.
Has our goverment helped in movies before during war time? You bet they have.
Since the State Department was meeting with Hollywood execs three years ago they obviously had success with some of their meetings and backed some productions. Which ones?
Of course the State Department would have to make us look bad and make islam look good in order to have a better world image.
Is it beyond belief? Do some research and come to your own conclusion.
Posted by: alaskan1000 at May 2, 2005 5:15 PM
Lisa - excellent!!
Posted by: Interested at May 2, 2005 5:24 PM
I want to see this movie. The trailers looked great with lots of action. But if it's a total sop to Islam, then no way will I go and contribute to the bottom line. The more I read, the more this appears to be the case. How could an intelligent man, Ridley Scott fall for this Islamic drek? He's made some of my favorite movies, this movie looks like a no go for me.
Posted by: dennisw at May 2, 2005 5:27 PM
Keeping in line with my comment above, maybe the movie is more for islamic countries than it is for Western countries.
Posted by: alaskan1000 at May 2, 2005 6:01 PM
The Encyclopedia Britannica, 11th edition, has a long and detailed entry by Ernest Barker on the Crusades. So detailed is the entry that it was published, first as a small separate text, with burnt-sienna covers, and then republished as well, as a chapter in "The Legacy of Islam" (ed. Thomas Arnold and Alfred Guillaume).
Here is the last paragraph from the first version, that of the Britannica:
"When all is said, the Crusades remain a wonderful and perpetually astonishing act in the great drama of human life. They touched the summits of daring and devotion, if they also sank into the deep abysms of shame. Motives of self-interest may have lurked in them--otherworldly motives of buing salvation for a little price, or worldly motives of achieving riches and acquiring lands. Yet it would be treason to the majesty of man's incessant struggle towards an ideal good, if one were to deny that in and through the Crusades men strove for righteousness' sake to extend the kingdom of God upon earth. Therefore the tears and the blood that were shed were not unavailing; the heroism and the chivalry were not wasted. Humanity is the richer for the memory of those million sof men, who followed the pillar of cloud and fire in the sure and certain hope of an eternal reward. The ages were not dark in which Christianity could gather itself together in a common cause, and carry the flag of its faith to the grave of its Redeemer; nor can we but give thanks for their memory, even if for us religions is of the spirit, and Jerusalem in the heart of man who believes in Christ."
A period piece, no doubt, this paragraph that ends the Britannica piece by Barker, a self-assured doctus balliolensis, and there is much in it to disagree with. But there is also much that can be accepted, or that provokes an understanding that grades into acceptance. It is a pity that in this Iron Age, with its new and shabbier idols of the tribe, a summing-up like this, or even one that hints at possibly agreeing even with part of this, would today be impossible -- impossible for anyone to have written, impossible, were it to be written, for anyone to publish it, so that it might be read.
Muslims have deliberately cultivated in recent times a newly-invented resentment over the Crusades that, historically, they never felt. The Turks beginning in the late 19th century not only claimed Saladin (a Kurd and native of Tikrit) as a Turk, but Abdulhamid II (the Red Sultan) began to describe the pressures on the Ottoman rulers from Western powers to treat their non-subjects more decently as a "new Crusade." The Arabs, in turn, claimed Saladin as -- naturally -- an Arab, and misdescribed the original Crusades in order to link them, an even limited to the Holy Land, as an earlier version of that supposed European "colonialism" from which the Arab peoples suffered less, and gained more (including the removal of the Turks), than any non-European people in the world. And, as colonialists themselves, the practitioners of the most successful and longest-running colonialism in world history, Arab Muslims ought to be careful in any case about flinging about charges of "colonialism" as they should dragging in the Crusades which were a counter-offensive to centuries of Arab conquest of Christian lands, and of terrible treatment of subjugated non-Muslims (and let us not forget the Zoroastrians of Persia, at least some of whom were sent to Medina as slaves, and others enslaved, to the Muslim Arab conquerors, in their own land. Where are those Zoroastrians of Persia today? How many managed to remain un-islamized over the centuries of intolerable pressure? And will Iranians, or some Iranians, choose to recover their Zoroastrian identities, if only to find a way to slough off Islam in a manner that still leaves them with a suitable replacement?
at May 2, 2005 6:13 PM
Sort of OT, Here is what CIC says about Pope John Paul II apologizing for the crusades;
http://www.canadianislamiccongress.com/mc/media_communique.php?mcdate=2005-04-02
Posted by: Carolyn2 at May 2, 2005 6:25 PM
"the Canadian Islamic Congress expressed hope that John Paul II's successor will continue to champion the cause of world peace with justice, to speak out against aggression and oppression everywhere, and to ask the world's Muslims for forgiveness of wrongs committed during the Crusades and subsequent tragedies of history."
I may laugh out loud.
Posted by: Carolyn2 at May 2, 2005 6:27 PM
Robert--
Are you ready for your close-up? Mr. DeMille wants to know.
Posted by: Hugh at May 2, 2005 6:29 PM
EVERYONE! AM I EVER EXCITED ABOUT THIS!
Take a good hard look at the new splash graphic in the upper left of the Jihad Watch entry page!. . .Would anyone here be willing to put your money where your mouth is for a second or more billboard? I sure as hell am willing!
Posted by: BillR at May 2, 2005 12:11 PM
I'm in. Robert, you know where to find me.
P.S. Not quite as exciting, but good nontheless, go to Co-Jet.org and print off the nullification symbol over "sharia," "dhimmitude" and "jihad," and tape it to the inside of your car's rear window.
I've done it, and I've already upset several Muslims. There was a car behind me full of Muslims who were having hissy-fits at the graphic, and a few days ago, a Muslim family (grandmother, mother, father, and SIX kids) coming to a garage sale in the neighborhood stared at my car, but not knowing who it belonged to, came to buy anyway. It was at the end of the day, and we were just packing up, and the grandmother (very sour look on her face) wanted to bargain over an item. I kept saying "no" to all her "offers" and it FELT GOOD! She turned away, and I started wrapping up the item. Suddenly she turned abound and just literally THREW down the FULL PRICE on the table, picked up the item, and stalked away!
Tee-hee! We take our victories where we find them!
Posted by: cubed at May 2, 2005 7:29 PM
Save your money for Robert's book.
Posted by: Mike at May 2, 2005 7:30 PM
I love Ridley Scott. He's one of my all-time favorite directors.
That said, there's no way I'll see this movie. Ever.
Posted by: Freedom1 at May 2, 2005 7:33 PM
Great idea, Mike! Will do!
Posted by: cubed at May 2, 2005 7:34 PM
Hugh:
I'm still in makeup. As Dick Nixon could have told you, it takes HOURS.
Yrs
Robert
at May 2, 2005 8:03 PM
for those interested in research, in order to comment on Ridley Scotts film, which apparently centers on the Battle of Hattin-
the account of ERNOUL a local frank circa 1197 , about ten years after the Battle of Hattin (was it fought on the 4th of July?!).
"Now I will tell you about King Guy and his host. They left the spring of Saffuriya to go to the relief of Tiberias. As soon as they had left the water behind, Saladin came before them and ordered his skirmishers to harass them from morning until midday. The heat was so great that they could not go on so that they could come to water. The king and all the other people were spread out and did not know what to do. They could not turn back for the losses would have been too great. He sent to the count of Tripoli, who led the advance guard, to ask advice as to
what to do. He sent word that he should pitch his tent and make camp. The king gladly accepted this bad advice. When (the count) had given him good advice he would never take it. Some people in the host said that if the Christians had gone on to meet the Saracens, Saladin would have been defeated.
As soon as they were encamped, Saladin ordered all his men to collect brushwood, dry grass, stubble and anything else with which they could light fires, and make barriers which he had made all round the Christians. They soon did this..."
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/1187ernoul.html
at May 2, 2005 8:50 PM
A Muslim world view is being imposed upon Europe through the education system and, now, by Hollywood. It is easy to get the ignorant to believe a lie if they have no other source of information. Too many get their history lessons from films than from scholars, and today's scholars are intimidated by p.c. universities to tread lightly on subjects that would offend Muslims.
Posted by: epg at May 2, 2005 11:31 PM
History is not silly putty to make p.c. points with.
Ridley Scott seems to think that it is a tool to promote a vision of peaceful relations between creeds.
That is for inter-faith organizations.
History is for as accurate a representation of reality as can be managed for the medium involved.
Movies require a telescoping of events and simplification or merging of characters, but not a complete falsification of the events to please the present audience.
Scott should stick to fiction if he can't handle reality. Or can only mishandle it.
From his own words about his 'intention' for this epic, he is not interested in what happened, or why, but with warping it for his own propagandizing ends.
"Triumph of the Will" is a bad model for a modern director.
May it join "Alexander" in the bootom of the $1.99 remaindered bin at the nearest superstore soon.
Posted by: BigSleep at May 3, 2005 12:03 AM
Someone should remake El Cid -
although I can't imagine who would replace Charlton Heston.
at May 3, 2005 1:24 AM
Very disappointed in Ridley Scott - seems like he has become a Dhimmi. Have always wondered about the relationship between Richard the Lionheart [well known homosexual] and Saladin [not averse to
'pearls']. Would make fascinating subject for a film although one would have to brave Death threats from 'tolerant' Muslims.
LISA - Your film script sounds terrific, hope you are going ahead with it BUT DON'T USE YOUR REAL NAME.Remember what happened to Van Gogh....
at May 3, 2005 1:26 AM
http://enjoyment.independent.co.uk/film/news/story.jsp?story=635179
scathing review
at May 3, 2005 2:42 AM
Well, you've all sold me. My money is staying in my pocket this time.
By the way, Lisa, the crescent moon's association with Islam is actually very late. The following link (Muslim) links it to the Turkish conquest of Byzantium, which used the symbol earlier.
http://islam.about.com/library/weekly/aa060401a.htm
Not that I hold a candle for Islam, or anything, but methinks Muhammad's God was a none-too-clever counterfeit made up of bits and pieces, including poorly understood Bible-based folklore (verbal and legendary expansions of what was in the text--things like the boy Jesus making clay pigeons fly and Abraham getting thrown into the fiery furnace by Nimrod) rather than the deity of an actual pre-Islamic moon cult--unless, given what they did with the boys of the Banu Qurayza, the sort of "moon cult" that's a little too down-to-earth.
Posted by: Kepha at May 3, 2005 4:34 AM
It is extraordinary that no-one asks why Arabs (and even Muslims far removed from Arab culture) get so agitated about the Crusades after all these years. I'm an Englishman and I have never thought about asking a Frenchman to apologise for the Norman Conquest.
I wonder how many references there are to the crusades in early 20th century Arab political literature (or any other century closer to the actual events).
Posted by: 1630r at May 3, 2005 4:46 AM
1630r: Good question!
Simple to answer: The crusades did stop the spread of Islam, and that in the eyes of the Mohammedans is unforgivable.
That's why they still claim "Al Andaluz"- that's why they all support the Jihad in Iraq (against common sense and even their own interests) and that's why Israel must be destroyed at all cost...
No Arab, no muselman gives a hoot about the Filibusters who blow up their children for Jihad. It's just written in the Qu'ran, and fighting Jihad, that's what counts...
Posted by: Terminator at May 3, 2005 5:55 AM
A few years ago, I was teaching ESL to adults. One of my students was a woman from Saudi Arabia. When we were covering sequence of tenses, she had a very difficult time with the very concept of Past Tense. As far as I could tell, Arabic doesn't have a Past Tense--at least not in the sense that other languages have.
If something is not over and done with, then time is one long continuum. Dangerous concept! And this concept has many applications, including OBL's references to events that we Westerners see as over and done with.
No wonder these Arabs keep up their feuding ways, even among themselves. They're worse than the Hatfields & McCoys.
In addition to the violent teachings of the Koran, their very language will not allow Arabs to express regret or to regard the past as something to let go.
Posted by: WatchfulEye at May 3, 2005 7:00 AM
1630r, that was a good question. Come to think of it, the British burning Washington in the War of 1812 happened even more recently, but we Yanks haven't demanded and apology for that one either (at least not that I'm aware of). While we're at it, why don't the Israelis demand an apology from Egypt for holding their people, after all the good Joseph did for Egypt, as slaves? Maybe the Thai and the Burmese could demand apologies from China for driving their ancestors south.
Hey, folks! Let's start digging through the history books and have a "Let's Lance that Painful Boil that Should've Healed Two Years Ago" contest!
Posted by: Kepha at May 3, 2005 8:22 AM
Watchful Eye: Neither Hebrew nor Aramaic have past tenses, either. Chinese doesn't have grammatical tense at all.
Posted by: Kepha at May 3, 2005 8:26 AM
In addition to the violent teachings of the Koran, their very language will not allow Arabs to express regret or to regard the past as something to let go.
Posted by: WatchfulEye at May 3, 2005 07:00 AM
Watchful, you are very perceptive. There have been numerous studies on the ability of language to actually affect structural changes in the brain, and to functionally alter the ability to read, write, and reason.
Rafael Patai, author of "The Arab Mind," mentions the strong effect of the Arab language on the child.
The fMRI's of native speakers of many different languages show distinct differences in brain structure, and in some instances, the differences are associated with difficulties in thinking and reasoning.
Even for native English speakers, there can be serious problems in this regard. For example, it is not at all unusual for a child of normal intelligence to enter school having been a "native ebonics" speaker all his life. The longer the child has spoken this way, the more likely he is to have problems with certain kinds of learning in school. Even when, later on, he is taught to speak normal English flawlessly, the learning difficulties persist. The "biological window" for correcting the problem has been closed.
Language is not arbitrary, and it is not solely used for communication. The acquisition of language is literally a mind-altering event.
at May 3, 2005 1:24 PM
WatchfulEye & cubed, that concept needs more exposure.
Posted by: Carolyn2 at May 3, 2005 2:53 PM
Lisa, nice post.
I'd also add that another character ought to be Mohammed's wife Zainab al-Bint, who was ultimately responsible for his death - she poisoned the vicious old pedophile after he'd killed the men of her tribe, including her husband, brother and father. Her story would be good enough for a movie on her own.
Poetic justice for one who spreads poison, of course.
Geoff
Posted by: Geoff at May 3, 2005 4:01 PM
Great opinion piece in the Telegraph about this. The Telegraph can be fearlessly un PC at times:
Posted by: Interested at May 3, 2005 8:02 PM
Interested-
Good link to the Telegraph article on Scott's fantasy film. Thanks!
The author Mr. Howse appears to be familiar with the thoughts here at Jihadwatch/Dhimmiwatch.
Finally someone who considers history not to be a playpen but a place to prove one's mettle.
Ridley Scott gives agnostics a bad name.
Posted by: BigSleep at May 4, 2005 12:35 AM
(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.)