Muslim Groups Praise 'Kingdom of Heaven'

  • Thread starter Thread starter MugenOne
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The word from J. Akin is that it is a problematic film, but not an all-out Christian bash-fest.

Scott
 
You were expecting anything else in a culture in which every intolerance is intolerable except actions and words against the Catholic Church?
 
In these films, being objective is very anti everything, the killing of jews or muslims by the christians, and the muslim killings of armenian, catholics and the turcoples, namely, the muslims converted to catholicism, that were beheaded by Saladin, convert the film in objective but dangerous, I will see it, but I think that it will be pro-muslim propaganda
 
from Catholic News Agency:

Scholars call new Crusade movie ‘rubbish’

Los Angeles, May. 04, 2005 (CNA) - With anticipation of English director Ridley Scott’s new film, Kingdom of Heaven steadily growing, the skepticism of many scholars of the middle ages is also growing. Hollywood observers are predicting that the film will be one of the summer’s biggest blockbusters with a cost of over $150 million and an all-star cast including Orlando Bloom of Lord of the Rings fame.

A recent New York Times review said that Muslims in the film “are portrayed as bent on coexistence until Christian extremists ruin everything. And even when the Christians are defeated, the Muslims give them safe conduct to return to Europe.”

Robert Spencer, however, in a column in Front Page Magazine noted that the film, “is being touted as ‘a fascinating history lesson.’ Fascinating, maybe”, he said, “but only as evidence of the lengths to which modern Westerners are willing to go to delude themselves.”

One leading scholar, Professor Jonathan Riley-Smith, author of A Short History of the Crusades, called the movie “rubbish,” and pointed out that, “it’s not historically accurate at all.”

He said that Scott’s film “depicts the Muslims as sophisticated and civilized, and the Crusaders are all brutes and barbarians. It has nothing to do with reality.”

He also blasts one particular plot line saying, “there was never a confraternity of Muslims, Jews and Christians. That is utter nonsense.”

Likewise, Professor Jonathan Philips, who wrote The Fourth Crusade and the Sack of Constantinople, criticized the film’s representation of the Knights Templar, saying that portraying “the Templars as ‘baddies’ is only sustainable from the Muslim perspective, and ‘baddies’ is the wrong way to show it anyway. They are the biggest threat to the Muslims and many end up being killed because their sworn vocation is to defend the Holy Land.”

Spencer added in his column that Kingdom of Heaven takes no “notice of the historical realities of Christians and Jews who lived under Muslim rule.

“They were never treated as equals”, he said, “or accorded full rights as citizens, and always suffered under various forms of institutionalized discrimination and harassment.”

Despite firm criticism however, director Scott is convinced he’s portrayed all sides equally in the film.

“When you see the film, you see balance,” he said.
 
I have been looking forward to this film for ages,im going to see it on saturday,and ill fill you in on my thoughts
 
Here’s another:

Reconciliation is a dialogue, says Archbishop Chaput about Crusades

Denver, May. 04, 2005 (CNA) - In light of Friday’s release of Ridley Scott’s new film about the Crusades, Kingdom of Heaven, Denver’s Archbishop Charles Chaput is challenging Christians to reclaim their lost memories. In his weekly column, the Archbishop chided the loss of Christian identity and history from the American and European culture, and noted the new film, which, as the New York Times puts it, portrays Muslims as “bent on coexistence until Christian extremists ruin everything.”

He said that, “By influencing our choices here and now, memory encourages a certain shape to the future — and discourages others. That’s why every new ideology and generation of social engineers seeks to rewrite the past. Whoever controls the memory of a culture also has power over its future.”

He added that Christians have a duty to prevent the loss of “the real facts of history” and thereby prevent God being “scrubbed out” of America’s future.

While humbly facing the legitimate evils, which were done by Christians in the Crusades, Archbishop Chaput pointed out that they need to be viewed within their historical context, noting also the genuine “faith, nobility, heroism and self sacrifice.”

The Archbishop pointed out that, “Lasting reconciliation between aggrieved parties always begins with an honest, mutual examination of past sins. This requires an accurate historical record.”

“As Christians,” he said, “we need to repent of our own many sins and acknowledge the sins — sometimes, terrible sins — committed by Christians in the past. We also need to invite, by our example and by our commitment to telling the truth, the repentance of others who have sinned against Christians — sometimes, terribly — over the centuries.”

“Unfortunately, over the past few decades,” he said, “the confession of sins has often seemed like a Christian monologue. That isn’t just. It isn’t honest. And it doesn’t serve charity, because charity is always wedded to truth.”
 
My father is a history professor, so naturally I grew up to be skeptical of all historical movies. He’s openly praised only a few - I distinctly remember him liking “Dances With Wolves”. Anyway, I also have a background in literature, which by necessity causes you to learn history, so I have a profound distaste for the revisionist trend that seems to be prevalent these days. It is indeed possible to make a good fictionalized account of historical events & keep it interesting from a creative standpoint without compromising the truth, but because it takes so much effort (and the intention to be truthfull as well), I doubt that Scott or many other people are very interested in doing it.However, I’ll be interested to hear the reactions of people who have actually seen it.
 
How are we to refrain from repeating history when people are being taught (through movies, books etc) lies (however small they may seem)?
 
I’m fairly skeptical of historical movies as well - which isn’t to say I don’t enjoy them. I generally approach them as fantasy movies that happen to be set in the past.

Regarding revisionism, what I’d like to see is more complete histories. I grow tired of revisionism, because it’s often no better than the history it’s trying to correct - it seems its up to the individual to read both sides in order to get a complete view. Not that I’m trying to absolve us as individuals of the responsibility for making the effort to learn the complete picture, but it seems many historians are falling short on their responsibility to give us the complete view. History’s not sports, after all, you can’t reallly just choose a “team” to rally behind. It’s really a story of AND (heroes AND villains on both sides), rather than OR (one side good, one side bad).

On a related note, I’m also looking forward to the TNT series “into the West.” Claims that it’ll show the story from both the European and Native American side. Let’s see how it does.
 
Scott Waddell:
The word from J. Akin is that it is a problematic film, but not an all-out Christian bash-fest.

Scott
Click to expand...
Technically, assuming your source is his blog, it’s not the word from Akin himself, but rather what Akin is hearing from others.
 
40.png
stellina:
My father is a history professor, so naturally I grew up to be skeptical of all historical movies. He’s openly praised only a few - I distinctly remember him liking "Dances With Wolves". Anyway, I also have a background in literature, which by necessity causes you to learn history, so I have a profound distaste for the revisionist trend that seems to be prevalent these days. It is indeed possible to make a good fictionalized account of historical events & keep it interesting from a creative standpoint without compromising the truth, but because it takes so much effort (and the intention to be truthfull as well), I doubt that Scott or many other people are very interested in doing it.However, I’ll be interested to hear the reactions of people who have actually seen it.
Click to expand...
I loved “Dances With Wolves” as well. It’s not too often that my native brothers are portrayed to be a people of pride & dignity when the norm has been to portray them as savages.

I’m hoping to see Kingdom of Heaven as soon as I can, but I don’t ever except Hollywood to make christians out to be the good guys, especially not in this day & age.
 
Some interesting plot twists too. Lipka Tatars (Sunni Muslims) fought along side Sobieski.
 
I find it ironic that in the nearly four years since 9/11 it has become unacceptable in the West to say anything negative about Islam and yet the attacks on Christianity, particularly Catholicism are at an all-time high.
 
Have a chef bake a cresent shape bread, that would be an interesting scene.
 
40.png
David_Paul:
We’ll never see a movie about the Muslim sack of Rome in the 9th century.
Click to expand...
No, this isn´t interesting for Hollywood, the truth isn´t important, only is important the propaganda. And almost forever, the anti-christian and anti-catholic propaganda.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top