Kingdom of Heaven, another attempt to alter history?
May 04, 2005
Watson: ‘Kingdom of Heaven’, another attempt to alter history?
DC Watson takes aim at the PC flick Kingdom of Heaven:
Some Muslims are upset, now there’s a surprise. Not about something that happened yesterday, last week, or last year, but about events that occurred nine centuries ago. They’re still angry about history. It would be alarming to learn that intelligent, refined Muslims were still upset, but then, they aren’t the focus of this column.
Since film director Ridley Scott, whose film “Kingdom of Heaven” is set for release on May 6th, and is reported to have portrayed Christians as villains and Muslims as victims, the reason for the Christian Crusades should be reiterated.
According to a column written in the Ottawa Citizen, Scott wants the film to show that “religious fanaticism destroyed the balance of peace.”
Why, yes it did, Mr. Scott.
For anyone planning to see this film, please know that the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) attended a private screening of “Kingdom of Heaven”, and summed it up this way. Rabiah Ahmed concluded that “the Muslim filmgoer could leave the theatre feeling good about the portrayal of Islam. And part of that, aside from the removal of the scenes flagged by Mr. Abou El Fadl as inflammatory, was the portrayal of Saladin as a humane and complex individual.”
Is this what life’s all about? Making Muslims who are still angry about something that happened centuries ago feel good about themselves? Attempting to make changes to history in order to avoid hurting their fragile feelings? Is this not how spoiled children are treated in an attempt to stop their screaming and whining? While we’re at it, should we hand these crybabies a bottle of warm milk and a blankey?
“Scenes flagged as inflammatory by Mr. Abou El Fadl.” This would be Khaled Abou El Fadl, a professor of Islamic law at the University of California, who was “concerned and angered” after a reporter handed him an advance copy of the script.
The scenes removed from the film included one of victorious Muslim soldiers spitting on the Christian relic known as the True Cross and several scenes in which a Muslim cleric, in contrast to his reasonable and more secularized Christian counterpart, is portrayed as “a raving lunatic.”
A Muslim cleric a raving lunatic? The chances of that are better than average. Abu Hamza suddenly comes to mind. However, since scenes such as these were removed from the film, it appears more likely that moviegoers will see Christians playing the role of the raving lunatics.
“For Muslims, the Crusades represent a very painful memory, akin to the memory of the Holocaust for Jews. Millions of Muslims were killed in repeated invasions,” said Mr. Abou El Fadl, who points to the immediate Muslim outcry against U.S. President George W. Bush’s use of the word “crusade.”
The difference is, Mr. Abou El Fadl, the Jews hadn’t invaded Germany and slaughtered millions of innocent Germans, forcing religious conversion onto the survivors. The Holocaust was an offensive campaign of genocide perpetrated by the Nazis, comparable to the one going on in Sudan today, perpetrated by an Arab militia, the Janjaweed. The Crusades were a defensive campaign against Muslim onslaught. Brutal, but defensive nonetheless, not to mention necessary. Is it not true that Islam wasn’t even in existence until centuries after the death of Christ? Is it not true that Muslims initiated the first attacks?
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/6981/defense.htm
Since the film reportedly portrays Saladin, the Muslim who in 1187 captured Jerusalem as a humane and complex individual, we’ll have to wait and see if he demands ransoms for prisoners, sells them as slaves, or orders mass beheadings sometime during the movie, as he did in true history.
Some Christian groups in the U.S. have said they were offended by the portrayal of Christians, said Mr. Abou El Fadl. He finds comfort in that. It shows that there’s balance, he said. Balance? Christian groups being offended by distorted portrayals of their history and Muslim groups being offended by the truth of their own religion being exposed can hardly be categorized as balance.
Many argue that if it weren’t for the Christian Crusades, the entire world would be Islamic today. Is this why they’re so angry? Because they were stood up to? They had better get used to that. Is it not time for them to stop blaming everyone else but themselves for their shortcomings? Some of them, instead of changing a light bulb, would rather blame the Christians and Jews for having to sit in the dark.
If the Crusades, after nine centuries are still an open wound for some Muslims, is it not appropriate to question their ability to leave history alone and move forward with efforts of peace, not continued rage over historical events that none of us can do anything about? Perhaps someday, someone in Hollywood will produce a film that reveals entire story about the Christian Crusades, which will include the Muslim aggression that prompted them. However, if they do, they should expect Muslim groups to protest. After all, Scott’s watered down version brought on anger from Muslims until the scenes portraying Muslims as barbaric were removed.
Perhaps Ridley Scott is just playing it safe, knowing that if you criticize Muslims in your movie, there’s a chance you could end up like Dutch filmmaker Theo Van Gogh, who was shot and stabbed to death last November, being nearly decapitated by a Muslim whacko for making a film entitled “Submission”, which was critical of how women are treated in Islam. After all, how pleasant could it be for your killer to attach a note declaring Islamic holy war to your body by ramming a knife through the note into your chest?
No matter, Christians and Westerners can simply turn on their television set to see that not much has changed in many parts of the Islamic world over the past fourteen hundred years. The oppression of women, persecution of non-Muslims, rapes, limb amputations, stonings, and beheadings continue to this day. This is not opinion, it is documented fact.
Fellow Christians and Americans, and our Jewish, Hindu, and Buddhist friends, please take into account that the facade has already been exposed, no matter what the militant Muslim hyenas attempt to hide at every turn.
It’s quite amazing in itself, how Islamic organizations have so conveniently portrayed Muslims and themselves as victims of bigotry. What’s more amazing, and absolutely pathetic, is the fact that they compare their alleged victimization to the Holocaust, Japanese internment, and to everything African-Americans have endured. Their routine has become tiresome and stale. Many Muslims, including the ones I know personally, think of these organizations as another pothole in the road to peace.
Have they been forced into ovens, moved into internment camps located in one section of the country, or sprayed with fire hoses, beaten, and completely segregated from American society? No. Therefore, they ought to stop playing off of true atrocities and placing themselves on some phony “endangered species” list.
Remember, it was our ancestors who were loyal to America that built this nation that we’ve inherited. It wasn’t passed down to us so it could be handed over to two-bit, immigrant bully wannabes who have no interest in co-existence. You don’t honestly believe that you were put on earth for the purpose of being accused of bigotry because you want peace and safety for you and your loved ones in your own homeland do you?
Remember your faith, and your heritage. The lettuce heads in Hollywood cannot rewrite true history, they can only present their distorted views of how they would’ve liked things to have gone down. Speak freely, American brothers and sisters. Speak your mind. And if they don’t like it, speak louder. You have that right, let no circus clowns attempt to take it from you.
Dhimmi Watch: Watson: ‘Kingdom of Heaven’, another attempt to alter history?