| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Jihad Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
Christopher Marlowe, you Islamophobe! Over 400 years ago, without the slightest regard for the sensitivities of the Muslim Council of Britain, you put these words into the mouth of your character Tamburlaine the Great (which character bears only a glancing resemblance to the actual Tamerlane -- “Timur the Lame,” 1336-1405 -- the bloody conqueror of Central Asia, who was actually a member of the allegedly peaceful Naqshbandi Sufi sect of Islam):
Now, Casane, where's the Turkish Alcoran, And all the heaps of superstitious books Found in the temples of that Mahomet Whom I have thought a god? they shall be burnt.USUMCASANE
Here they are, my lord.TAMBURLAINE
Well said! let there be a fire presently.[They light a fire.]
Now, Mahomet, if thou have any power,
Come down thyself and work a miracle:
Thou art not worthy to be worshipped
That suffer'st flames of fire to burn the writ
Wherein the sum of thy religion rests:
Why send'st thou not a furious whirlwind down,
To blow thy Alcoran up to thy throne,
Where men report thou sitt'st by God himself?
Or vengeance on the head of Tamburlaine
That shakes his sword against thy majesty,
And spurns the abstracts of thy foolish laws?--
Well, soldiers, Mahomet remains in hell;
He cannot hear the voice of Tamburlaine:
Seek out another godhead to adore;
The God that sits in heaven, if any god,
For he is God alone, and none but he.
But lie quiet, Christopher. A new London production of your play has ensured that it is multicultural enough to suit the new dhimmi Britain.
From the TimesOnline, with thanks to Interested:
IT WAS the surprise hit of the autumn season, selling out for its entire run and inspiring rave reviews. But now the producers of Tamburlaine the Great have come under fire for censoring Christopher Marlowe’s 1580s masterpiece to avoid upsetting Muslims.
Audiences at the Barbican in London did not see the Koran being burnt, as Marlowe intended, because David Farr, who directed and adapted the classic play, feared that it would inflame passions in the light of the London bombings.
Simon Reade, artistic director of the Bristol Old Vic, said that if they had not altered the original it “would have unnecessarily raised the hackles of a significant proportion of one of the world’s great religions”.
The burning of the Koran was “smoothed over”, he said, so that it became just the destruction of “a load of books” relating to any culture or religion. That made it more powerful, they claimed.
Members of the audience also reported that key references to Muhammad had been dropped, particularly in the passage where Tamburlaine says that he is “not worthy to be worshipped”. In the original Marlowe writes that Muhammad “remains in hell”...
A minor point: someone should tell these modern-day Bowdlers that Muhammad is not actually worshipped in Islam. More importantly, they should be reminded that changing old texts to suit modern sensibilities sets a dangerous precedent, not only one of bowing to the specter of violence from angry Muslims but also of rewriting history to suit the present -- a practice that supremacist jihadists who dismiss all that is not Islam as worthless "jahiliyya" will undoubtedly applaud.
Posted by Robert at November 24, 2005 7:45 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
No, not passing brave, Techelles,
Usumcasane, and Theridamas.
Not passing brave at all.
![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/nav-commenters.gif)
at November 24, 2005 8:35 AM
There are two plays now which are anti-Islam: Voltaire's Mohamet, and not Tamburlaine the Great. Are there any more plays out there? We'll be able to stage our own anti-Islam drama festival soon.
Posted by: Voltaire at November 24, 2005 8:45 AM
Sorry, I meant Now Tamberlaine the great.
Posted by: Voltaire at November 24, 2005 8:48 AM
It is Voltaire's play, apparently, which makes some Muslims in French schools refuse to read him, as they refuse to hear lessons about World War II, which might inadvertently arouse sympathy for Jews. Why should they be forced to read Infidel writers, whether the odious Dante in Italy, with his depication of Mahomet, or Voltaire (and possibly others as well) in France. Why should Muslims, the best of peoples, the people who deserve and someday will dominate, have to listen, even if only temporarily, to the false histories written by Infidels for Infidels? Why shouldn't they insist on their own histories, which are the true ones, and work toward the day when everyone reads their version of the world's history? After all, so many Infidels are so ignorant of history, it should not be hard to convince them. Start with the ignorant, who know nothing and consequently have nothing with which to defend themselves and know nothing worth defending, and then work your way up until the last few holdouts are overwhelmed and overcome.
Posted by: Hugh at November 24, 2005 8:53 AM
I wonder what the Muslim position is on Edward II.
Best not to ask - don't want to stoke the flames.
Posted by: Interested at November 24, 2005 8:56 AM
More lefty arty cowards who do not have the strength of their convictions.
The "self imposed self censorship" under threat of murder from Muslims is a massive failure of the art scene in Britain.
All those BBCesque comedians (Jeremy Hardy..still no jokes about Islam? & there I was thinking you were ME Topical) who are shying away from any reference to Islam are a disgrace. We have a great tradition of the "hot topics of the day" being mauled by comedy in the UK.
Not any more.
By their silence on all things Islamic they are known for the cowards, "jobsworths" & AlBBCeera ass kissers that they are.
Posted by: albion at November 24, 2005 9:01 AM
The inability to make any reference to Islam of course undercuts any claim by anyone to "boldness." There cannot be such a claim as long as everyone is aware that the brave Lenny-Brucish or George-Carlinesque comedian is in fact as fearful as anyone else, and chooses to display his daring in mocking that which is easy to mock for there are no consequences for the transgression.
The makers of the "Pissing Christ" and similar grotesque artifacts of the age are all fakes. They are fakes, because if asked to do something similar with the Qur'an, or anything else having to do with Islam, they would not dare to do so. So they mock only in those cases where there is no penalty, yet present themselves as defiant and on the edge or even the ledge. But they are not. They are nothing of the sort. So much for all those unartistic mountebanks, hailed by The Tate Modern or some rich and tasteless collector (the rich really need to receive better educations in art, don't they? -- not for their sakes, but in order that they will prefer to collect the right things, and thereby encourage the right makes of those things, and discourage the wrong ones). Fake transgression, fake art, fake everything.
Posted by: Hugh at November 24, 2005 9:53 AM
"Simon Reade, artistic director of the Bristol Old Vic, said that if they had not altered the original it 'would have unnecessarily raised the hackles of a significant proportion of one of the world’s great religions'”.
Funny. Nobody in the UK arts community was terribly worried about offending a significant proportion of one of the 'world's great religions' by staging various plays and conducting various concertos in honour of the deceased martyr to the Palestinian cause, Rachel Corrie. But then Jews aren't given to bombing subway trains, etc., are they?
at November 24, 2005 10:09 AM
In the late 90's I was signed to a major record label and we decided to change my bands name to
"Marlowe" in honour of the great man.
Nobody knew who he was then.
I wonder if in todays climate of advanced Dhimmitude we would of released anything?
I used to be a socialist and lean to the left until I woke up and realised how weak and spineless they all were at not speaking out against historical revisionists.
The art establishment in Britain has a long history of beourgoise dilletantes who just parrot everyone else.
It stems from the middle classes who populate the art schools.
Real artists dont need to be taught how to flounce round a gallery or theatre spouting rhetoric.
If your a struggling artist one way to get work out is from an arts council grant.
I can tell you from experience that then whole grant based system is inherently rascist towards the dhimmi..fact.
at November 24, 2005 10:29 AM
"More importantly, they should be reminded that changing old texts to suit modern sensibilities sets a dangerous precedent, not only one of bowing to the specter of violence from angry Muslims but also of rewriting history to suit the present"
Exactly.
And once again Hugh, you've hit the nail on the head.
Posted by: pastor_matt023 at November 24, 2005 10:50 AM
And why has the story only just been reported in The Times, now that the play's run has ended ?????!!!!
In case of protest, and calls to boycott? Still at least it proves that Marlow, unlike Sheikspeare (utter balderdash), WAS NOT A SUFI.
Posted by: Granny Weatherwax at November 24, 2005 10:51 AM
ovinesongs posted above (in abbreviated form):
"......The art establishment in Britain has a long history of beourgoise dilletantes....."
"......It stems from the middle classes who populate the art schools...."
".....If your a struggling artist one way to get work out is from an arts council grant."
"...inherently rascist...."
And you USED to be a socialist and lean to the left?
Mate, if you are a conservative, we are all in trouble!
Posted by: Anthony
at November 24, 2005 11:14 AM
That American blacks continue to convert to Islam ignoring its ignoble history vis a vis slavery, and its current genocidal war on their African brethren is impossible to fathom, so I guess it's hardly surprising that the "anti-globalization" types are totally unaware of the economic imperialism conducted by stealth of Arab/Muslim nations.
Posted by: waterdragon52 at November 24, 2005 12:24 PM
Oops. The above was supposed to be posted under Hugh's thread.
Posted by: waterdragon52 at November 24, 2005 12:24 PM
Perhaps some brave souls will dare to make the Uncensored Version!! I wonder what former greats such as Sir Laurence Oliver would have thought and done about this sacrilege of the arts??
Have an interesting snippet here and from BBC of all Dhimmis.
"MULTICULTURALISM HAS BETRAYED THE ENGLISH, ARCHBISHOP SAYS.
Dr John Sentamu, first black Archbishop of York had this to say before his enthronement.
"ST GEORGES DAY SHOULD BE CELEBRATED AND THE ENGLISH RECLAIM THEIR NATIONAL IDENTITY AND CULTURE."
Right Dr John, at least you are on our side unlike that Ding Dong Rowan Williams.
at November 24, 2005 12:51 PM
Morgane, As I said earlier on the "Anglican leader urges reform of Pakistan’s blasphemy laws" thread, I have hopes of Dr John and I believe that the Archbishop of Canterbury has been listening to him.
Posted by: Granny Weatherwax at November 24, 2005 1:04 PM
Perhaps some Brits here can answer my question: is the "Bristol Old Vic" the same thing as "the Old Vic", or are they two different theatres?
The article above says that David Reade is the "artistic director" of the "Bristol Old Vic"; however, the American actor Kevin Spacey has been the artistic director of the Old Vic for about two years now.
Posted by: Dr. Pepper at November 24, 2005 2:41 PM
Granny Weatherwax
Think Dr John should take William's place. Do admire his 'speaking out' and support of adopted country.
Everyone - There is a debate on Times Online about Marlowe's play. You are invited to submit comment which I have recently done. Granny & all Jwatchers click on and support full,uncensored Marlowe .
at November 24, 2005 3:19 PM
The dilution of Western culture on the altar of multiculturalism and accommodation to Islam gets worse everyday. Asking to give up alcohol and pub life so that they can "feel included," putting away cherished images such as pigs so that they can "feel included," now bowdlerizing Shakespeare so that and other cherished works of literature and art so that they can "feel included" or not offended shows how stupid Westerners have become.
Who are they to make such demands of us in our own lands? Actually we the ones that should demand an apology of them for the offense of such demands. Does anyone else feel offended?
Posted by: epg at November 24, 2005 3:36 PM
Do people worry about putting on The Merchant of Venice because it offends Jews?
Posted by: Voltaire at November 24, 2005 3:56 PM
Hugh said, "The makers of the "Pissing Christ" and similar grotesque artifacts of the age are all fakes. They are fakes, because if asked to do something similar with the Qur'an, or anything else having to do with Islam, they would not dare to do so...Fake transgression, fake art, fake everything."
Voltaire said, "Do people worry about putting on The Merchant of Venice because it offends Jews?"
The artists and writers of today who challenge Islam are the avant-garde--not just of the art world, but for all of the world. These few brave artists talk past the art establishment--those dreary Western-yet-Westernophobe post-modernists--directly to society and to history.
Marlowe and Dante thought Mohammad (morally) belonged in hell. According to the Koran, all non-Muslims (morally) belong in hell. The PC-bone-heads who censored Marlowe's play are in effect saying that the Koran is right and Marlowe and Dante (et al) are wrong.
Posted by: Archimedes at November 24, 2005 4:41 PM
Answer to poster above: No. Nor is one aware of any attempts to prevent dissemination of the many movie versions of Oliver Twist -- a new one came out just the other day. There are no doubt some protests, and some qualms, about assigning "The Merchant of Venice" to, say, children deemed too young, just as there might be protests against assigning Huckleberry Finn to junior high school students. But protests, expressions of worry. Not violence,not death threats. Not the kind of thing that caused those staging Voltaire's "Mahomet" to take the essential out of it.
Posted by: Hugh at November 24, 2005 4:42 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.)