NationStates Jolt Archive

Kingdom of Heaven (http://www.kingdomofheavenmovie.com/)

Although methinks this movie looks like it will be good, there is one thought that looms in the back of my mind. It's a movie about a holy war between Muslims and Christians. Now, before 9/11 that probably would have been O.K., but now in this post 9/11 world, this could prove a problem.

As you all know, Anti-Muslimism(ok, so I forgot the real term) is unfortunatly high in the U.S. now. This movie, about the battle for Jerusalem, will undoubtedly cause trouble. Why? Because it shows the Muslims winning. The far Chrisitan right is going to have a field day, talking about how this movie shows the evils of Islam yadda yadda yadda. Now, while this is just what I think will happen, I would like to know what you think is gonna happen.

Quite fascinating. I don't think it'll have any negative ramifications, though. Remember how supposedly anti-Semitic The Passion was?

Yes ... as a Muslim ... I am a little worried. People, especially Americans, get their truth from movies and TV.

However, I'm hoping that there will be a voice somewhere in the back of people's minds that say, "It's history. It's a movie. I'm over it."

Although I doubt it.

Quite fascinating. I don't think it'll have any negative ramifications, though. Remember how supposedly anti-Semitic The Passion was?

True...

But the difference is that anti-semitism is now small in the U.S., but anti-Muslimism is on the rise.

Quite fascinating. I don't think it'll have any negative ramifications, though. Remember how supposedly anti-Semitic The Passion was?


Big difference. Islamaphobia is chic is the US. Anti-semitism has never been Chic.

When they enter Constantinople (in whatever Crusade that was) they should play "Take me to Constantinople"

That'd be sick.

Oh, and on a personal note, it's a Ridley Scott film. He is the greatest film director of all time and, thus, it will be a good movie.

So I will advise everyone see it.

Well, I can't say I much like Islam, but I certainly won't go burning down mosques after seeing this movie. Especially considering that this is politically correct Hollywood, folks; do you really think that they will portray the Muslims as being total bad guys?

Maybe they could show the Christians burning the Jews in a synagogue after promising them safety. Or sacking Constantinople. Or Richard executing prisoners. That might be less than popular with the Christian right. Oh well.

Oh, and on a personal note, it's a Ridley Scott film. He is the greatest film director of all time and, thus, it will be a good movie.

So I will advise everyone see it.

I agree. I plan on seeing it as soon as it comes out in Panama. I am just worried about the consequences of the movie itself...

At least the trailer doesnt portray the Muslims as bad...not good, but not bad either.

When they enter Constantinople (in whatever Crusade that was) they should play "Take me to Constantinople"

That'd be sick.

Hehe. Just like in The Passion they should have constantly played "Beat it."

The Muslims won the crusades, how is portraying history correct wrong. But those conservatives will always find something to winge about.

Maybe they could show the Christians burning the Jews in a synagogue after promising them safety. Or sacking Constantinople. Or Richard executing prisoners. That might be less than popular with the Christian right. Oh well.

Its in Jerusalem, and it's about the second crusade.

The Muslims won the crusades, how is portraying history correct wrong. But those conservatives will always find something to winge about.

Are you retarded? You are accusing conservatives of something that they haven't done yet.

Quick questions keruv, how do you raise your kids anyways? Jewish? Muslim? Or do you both, but let them pick at the end?

Brilliant idea.
Go with it.

Look at how the Passion did.
It didnt cause Jews to kill christians-Well cept in Bethlahem.LOL

The Muslims won the crusades, how is portraying history correct wrong. But those conservatives will always find something to winge about.

I'm not saying it's wrong, just that the evangelical christian right may use this as a tool to show the supposed "evils" of Islam.

Looks like a good movie. I hope that it is as historicly accurate as reasonably possible. There aren't always clear-cut good-guys and Bad guys.

Remember guys, this is the guy who made Gladiator. Did you come out of that movie hateing the Italians?

Looks like a good movie. I hope that it is as historicly accurate as reasonably possible. There aren't always clear-cut good-guys and Bad guys.

Remember guys, this is the guy who made Gladiator. Did you come out of that movie hateing the Italians?


No, i came out hating the Romans. :p

No, i came out hating the Romans. :p

I hated the Romans before I saw the movie though.

(I am a Carthage person. Yes, there are more than 5 of us.)

Its in Jerusalem, and it's about the second crusade.

Ah, nice to know. At that time the Muslims were so much more civilived than Christendom. Surely they won't have a hard time portraying them in a positive light.

I hated the Romans before I saw the movie though.

(I am a Carthage person. Yes, there are more than 5 of us.)


i was trying to make a joke..since they were known as romans and not italians..see. bleh.

eh.... go Gladiator! whooooooooo

Ah, nice to know. At that time the Muslims were so much more civilived than Christendom. Surely they won't have a hard time portraying them in a positive light.

I can't tell if you are speaking sarcasticly or not...

Quick questions keruv, how do you raise your kids anyways? Jewish? Muslim? Or do you both, but let them pick at the end?

I raise my children to be proud of their Jewish heritage. Islam forbids me from forcing them to be Muslim. They will decide on their own by my example.

Ah, nice to know. At that time the Muslims were so much more civilived than Christendom. Surely they won't have a hard time portraying them in a positive light.

Try to learn some history, pal. Muslims were more "civilized" than Christians at the time because Muslims had steadily conquered and beaten on Christendom for centuries. The Crusades (at least the first one) were a valiant attempt to defend Christendom from such expansionist violence.

i was trying to make a joke..since they were known as romans and not italians..see. bleh.

eh.... go Gladiator! whooooooooo

I know what ye meant ^^

Try to learn some history, pal.

You try to learn some history, "pal".

At that time, Muslims were documenting medicinal and surgical techniques that are still in use today, Muslims were inventing Algebra, Muslims were inventing the telescope, Muslims were creating massive libraries of information open to everybody, Muslims were catalouging diseases (thought at the time by Christians to be caused by "demons") ... and so on and so on and so on.

Muslims also live side by side in peace with the Jews and the Christians couldn't stand that.

I'm sorry if you don't like it, but much of Western knowledge came from things Muslims knew 1,000 years before the Protestant Reformation.

Try to learn some history, pal. Muslims were more "civilized" than Christians at the time because Muslims had steadily conquered and beaten on Christendom for centuries. The Crusades (at least the first one) were a valiant attempt to defend Christendom from such expansionist violence.

Actually, what had happened was that the Christians harrassed the Muslims, the Muslims fought back, and then the crusades happened. The first Crusade, second, and maybe third were the only crusades that were fought to defend christianity. In the other 6 the Christians succumbed to greed.

Yes, too bad the Pope absolved them of any sins they might commit, so the Crusaders went on a hideous and brutal killing spree, (hilariously going on a quick detour to massacre some Jews), raping the lands around them, and finally coming to Jeruselum and winning, then losing a short time afterwards.

Yes, too bad the Pope absolved them of any sins they might commit, so the Crusaders went on a hideous and brutal killing spree, (hilariously going on a quick detour to massacre some Jews), raping the lands around them, and finally coming to Jeruselum and winning, then losing a short time afterwards.

Just for the record, this movie is about them losing Jerusalem(because Saladin captrued Jerusalem, and he was only in the 2nd and 3rd crusades. And Saladin is in this movie.)

You try to learn some history, "pal".

At that time, Muslims were documenting medicinal and surgical techniques that are still in use today, Muslims were inventing Algebra, Muslims were inventing the telescope, Muslims were creating massive libraries of information open to everybody, Muslims were catalouging diseases (thought at the time by Christians to be caused by "demons") ... and so on and so on and so on.

I'm sorry if you don't like it, but much of Western knowledge came from things Muslims knew 1,000 years before the Protestant Reformation.

Read my post again. No seriously, do it. I know that Islamic civilization was flourishing at the time compared to Christendom, but this growth can hardly be considered meaningful if it happened at the expense of Christendom; Islam was conquering as much as it could, and you can hardly fault Christendom for ignoring some of the more flowery aspects of culture in order to survive. Hypocrisy is perhaps the best word to describe the growth of Islamic civilization at this time.

Just for the record, this movie is about them losing Jerusalem(because Saladin captrued Jerusalem, and he was only in the 2nd and 3rd crusades. And Saladin is in this movie.)

Which is why I'm a little worried. However, I know Ridley Scott's work and I don't think it will be a problem. I believe it will show accuracy and I believe the Christians will be the ones who go into an uproar over this one.

I will see it as soon as I can and judge then, but my Spidey Sense tells me that this may cause more Islamophobia by the uneducated masses.

Actually, I think they're doing one based on the 3rd.

Third Crusade
Full article: Third Crusade

In 1187, Saladin recaptured Jerusalem. Pope Gregory VIII preached a crusade, which was led by several of Europe's most important leaders: Richard I of England, Philip II of France and Frederick I, Holy Roman Emperor. Frederick drowned in Cilicia in 1190, leaving an unstable alliance between the English and the French. Philip left in 1191 after the Crusaders had recaptured Acre from the Muslims, while Richard left the following year after establishing a truce with Saladin.

Ah, good ol' wikipedia.

Read my post again. No seriously, do it. I know that Islamic civilization was flourishing at the time compared to Christendom, but this growth can hardly be considered meaningful if it happened at the expense of Christendom; Islam was conquering as much as it could, and you can hardly fault Christendom for ignoring some of the more flowery aspects of culture in order to survive. Hypocrisy is perhaps the best word to describe the growth of Islamic civilization at this time.

Yeah, but remember, that the Christians were conquering everyone in sight as well. I don't think of the Crusades as wars with "good" guys and "bad" guys, but just two groups of people trying to beat each other. Both had valid points for fighting.

The image of Muslims as extremists and hate-mongers in the US is older than sept, 2001, though that certainly didn't do much to change that view. The Nation of Islam was probably the first experience that most Americans of today had with Islam. For anyone who doesn't know, The Nation of Islam is an African American sect that preaches seperation of races and hatred of whites, jews and asians(strange to me that white racists ass-holes are considered backward red-necks but black racist ass-holes are a religion). And many acts of terror by Islamic extremists prior to Sept 2001 served to confirm this view with many. That is the problem that the image of Islam has in the US, I think. The only Muslims Americans ever see are racists or terrorists.

As far as the movie is concerned I don't think it could have a big effect either way. I mean, if you leave a movie hating a group of people it is because you sat down to watch it hating them.

Actually, I think they're doing one based on the 3rd.

Third Crusade
Full article: Third Crusade

In 1187, Saladin recaptured Jerusalem. Pope Gregory VIII preached a crusade, which was led by several of Europe's most important leaders: Richard I of England, Philip II of France and Frederick I, Holy Roman Emperor. Frederick drowned in Cilicia in 1190, leaving an unstable alliance between the English and the French. Philip left in 1191 after the Crusaders had recaptured Acre from the Muslims, while Richard left the following year after establishing a truce with Saladin.

Ah, good ol' wikipedia.

No, it's the second. King Guy of Lusignan is in the movie, and he was only in the second crusade.

Yeah, but remember, that the Christians were conquering everyone in sight as well.


Sorry, but if we're talking about the period from about 1000-1250 AD or so, then the Christians were in a position to conquer absolutely no one. We were being pressed in by the Muslims on all sides. I guess the Christians did convert the Vikings to Christianity, but I don't know if it was through force; even if it was, they had it coming.


I don't think of the Crusades as wars with "good" guys and "bad" guys, but just two groups of people trying to beat each other. Both had valid points for fighting.

I think mainly of the First Crusade as a war between good and bad guys, because the Crusaders really did have a far more just cause. The conduct of many soldiers at Jerusalem (which, despite being exaggerated, was still awful) was inexcusable, but I don't think that negates the ultimate mission. When Saladin enters the picture, things become grayer and even more interesting.

I only read the first few posts and all I saw was people over reacting already, just like The Passion this will blow over in only a few weeks, and I doubt it will have near the impact that The Passion did. I watched that movie and it had not effect on me, does that make me a heathen? An infidel? Am I now destined to go to hell? I know what Mel Gibson would say.

Damnit, my computer froze up and lost my last post. But Keruvalia already said it better anyway.

The image of Muslims as extremists and hate-mongers in the US is older than sept, 2001, though that certainly didn't do much to change that view. The Nation of Islam was probably the first experience that most Americans of today had with Islam. For anyone who doesn't know, The Nation of Islam is an African American sect that preaches seperation of races and hatred of whites, jews and asians(strange to me that white racists ass-holes are considered backward red-necks but black racist ass-holes are a religion). And many acts of terror by Islamic extremists prior to Sept 2001 served to confirm this view with many. That is the problem that the image of Islam has in the US, I think. The only Muslims Americans ever see are racists or terrorists.

Well, fortunately, Muslims know that the Nation of Islam is not Muslim, it is Farrakhanism. I have met many Nation of Islam brothers since my conversion to Islam and I have swayed a few to the true Muslim path simply by inviting them to come pray beside me in Mosque. They see white, black, brown, and yellow people, people of all nationalities praying beside one another - unlike the segregated Nation of Islam and, sadly, the segregated Christian churches.

They see this and they realize that we have all come together under Allah.


As far as the movie is concerned I don't think it could have a big effect either way. I mean, if you leave a movie hating a group of people it is because you sat down to watch it hating them.

*standing ovation* Yes, this is true.

Damnit, my computer froze up and lost my last post. But Keruvalia already said it better anyway.

Knowing that you'd have said it in a way I would have is enough for me to give you a fluffle.

:fluffle: :fluffle:

or two.

In the spirit of the movie "True Romance", I am now handing you a note that says, "You're so cool". :D

I think mainly of the First Crusade as a war between good and bad guys, because the Crusaders really did have a far more just cause. The conduct of many soldiers at Jerusalem (which, despite being exaggerated, was still awful) was inexcusable, but I don't think that negates the ultimate mission. When Saladin enters the picture, things become grayer and even more interesting.

Although i think the Crusaders may have had more "goodness" on their side, it wasn't like, say, when the Allies went up against the Axis kind of good. It was an Iran vs Iraq kind of "good".

I do believe it was a Muslim Caliph who destroyed the Church of the Holy Seplica, sparking the first Crusade which was to "liberate Jerusalem from the infidels" oh how the tables have turned.

And remember, this is a movie, regardless of what the directors and producers say it's only purpose is to make money, nobody in Hollywood makes a movie without the intentions of making money, and if it also happens to send some sort of message home to the viewers all the better. Do you really think Mel Gibson would have made The Passion if he didn't think there was a chance he would at the very least get his money back. Just go in there looking to be entertained and you will come out happy, go in to the theatre looking to take home some sort of message and you will, regardless of whether it was there or not.

I watching the trailer I just thought it looked like a good movie, sure it made the Crusaders look like the good guys but I failed to see anything saying that the Muslims should all die, this is just telling one side of the story in a positive light without trying to disrespect the otherside too much, trying to play both sides. Just look at it as a movie rather than history, I wish I would had done that before seeing Alexander, but then again that was Oliver Stone, what should I have been expecting?

You try to learn some history, "pal".

At that time, Muslims were documenting medicinal and surgical techniques that are still in use today, Muslims were inventing Algebra, Muslims were inventing the telescope, Muslims were creating massive libraries of information open to everybody, Muslims were catalouging diseases (thought at the time by Christians to be caused by "demons") ... and so on and so on and so on.

Muslims also live side by side in peace with the Jews and the Christians couldn't stand that.

I'm sorry if you don't like it, but much of Western knowledge came from things Muslims knew 1,000 years before the Protestant Reformation.
Yeah, but when the people you're lauding are still living in a time period a thousand years before the Protestant Reformation, it doesn't look to well on them. When you look at what diseases Christians have cured, inventions Christians have created, and books Christians have written, and compare that to anything the Muslims have done in the past...thousand years...well, it's kinda pathetic for you guys really.

If you'd read the whole thread you'd know that Keruvalia made that comment in response to a poster who asked how the Muslims at the time were more civilized than the Christians of the time. It was not an arguement on which religion is inherently better.

If you'd read the whole thread you'd know that Keruvalia made that comment in response to a poster who asked how the Muslims at the time were more civilized than the Christians of the time. It was not an arguement on which religion is inherently better.
I'm not saying either religion is inherently better. Just that the Muslim nations have stagnated, for whatever reason, political, religious, external, since their glory days a few hundred years ago.

But the original post was about the two groups at a certain historical time. At the time, the Muslims were ahead. All civilizations have their glory days and eventually decay. It's the way things happen, and then somebody else gets to be on top.

I just watched the trailer, and I think everyone has little to fear from this thing.

From what I gather, it is emphisizeing the honorable soldier who is bound by oath, while the kings and others that guide him are the corrupt ones. A soldiers job is to fight for his country, which is true on both sides of many historical conflicts. Weather or not the heads of state of as good people as the soldiers matter reletively little.

Yeah, but when the people you're lauding are still living in a time period a thousand years before the Protestant Reformation, it doesn't look to well on them. When you look at what diseases Christians have cured, inventions Christians have created, and books Christians have written, and compare that to anything the Muslims have done in the past...thousand years...well, it's kinda pathetic for you guys really.
Westerners, not necessarily Christians. Part of the reason that the West is today so far ahead of the Middle East is because in the West science and rationality rebelled against outdated dogma and Christianity while in the Middle East religion still dominates society.

It would be nice if the "Historical" movies were forced to prove they are acurate. Like the advertisments.

I have seen too many of this type of film, that just ignore or worse re-write history because they want it to appear this way. I'm thinking of titanic and the public apology that had to be given to the officers families, no money just apology. Also the film about the taking of the uboat encryption machines, which in the film was done by the US, whom weren't in the war at the time.

I have taken to just not seeing this type of film, even though I like the idea.
One of my favoured authors is Bernard Cornwell, who always puts an acknowledgement in his books stating all the inaccuracies that he used to move the story as he wanted.

I have taken to just not seeing this type of film, even though I like the idea.One of my favoured authors is Bernard Cornwell, who always puts an acknowledgement in his books stating all the inaccuracies that he used to move the story as he wanted.

Yeah, like with the Sharpe and Starbuck novels that he penned. But can you see hollywood films handing out leaflets after the movie saying what historical inaccuracies had taken place in their films though?!?

I hated the Romans before I saw the movie though.

(I am a Carthage person. Yes, there are more than 5 of us.)


But where are we?
Carthage rules!

Anyway, I don't see that this is anything to really worry about...
Better be a good movie, though.

A film on the crusades? May it join the ranks of Alexander, King Arthur and Troy as shit historical films. How will it not be offensive to Christians, Jews, Muslims, English, French, Italians, Austrians, and all those who took part in the crusades?

Two mistakes people make here

1) That we are in the midst of a Christian/Muslim conflict today

2) That the Crusades were motivated primarly by religion


1) American and Europe can indeed be said to be largely Christian nations (although Europe is rapidly becoming secular) but there is very little evidence that the recent conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan are about Religion. America may be a Christian nation and Europe may be a Christian going secular contienent but that doesnt matter. The recent conflicts were political in nature and not about Religion. Besides the use of the words "crusades" in one or two of George Bush's speaches what evidence does anyone have that this is some kind of Christian holy war?

2) The Crusades were not conflicts primarly motivated by religion. If you look at world history, you will see that (contrary to popular opinion) that Religon is not the mass murdering cause of war that everyone thinks it is. What it is is territory. In this case, the Europeans had occupied large parts of the Middle East a long time ago and now the Saracans wanted them back, so they attacked. Now I'm not saying either side is right or wrong but its not religion that caused this war. Religion may be the fuel behind it (in the same way that Capitalism/Communism Vs Facisim was the fuel for the Second World War) but it was not the primary cause. King Richard/Saladin did not say "Look, here are Muslims/Christians. We must kill them all because they are Muslims/Christians and are an offence to Mohammad/Jesus" (delete as approptite). What they said was "Look, X has taken our land. Lets go get it back".

Yeah, but when the people you're lauding are still living in a time period a thousand years before the Protestant Reformation

What the bloody hell are you talking about? I'm a Muslim and I'm sitting here in my air conditioned home with my car parked outside, on the internet, with a cell phone on my desk, drinking a Dr Pepper I pulled out of my refrigerator ... and so on.

Have you ever even been to a Muslim country? Have you never seen the skyscrapers and major freeways in Tehran, Iran? Are you unaware that people in Indonesia have electricity and Universities?

Why do people have this image of Muslims as nothing more than cave-dwelling camel riders? I simply do not understand it.

I'm not saying either religion is inherently better. Just that the Muslim nations have stagnated, for whatever reason, political, religious, external, since their glory days a few hundred years ago.

No they haven't.

Looks like a movie not to be displayed in my NS nation.
We can't have movies about the Crusaders losing Jerusalem!
The first crusade was much better.

:D

Muslims were inventing the telescope,

The telescope was invented in 1609 by Galileo Galilei, a Roman Catholic from Pisa.

Muslims also live side by side in peace with the Jews and the Christians couldn't stand that.

And how things change. :/

The telescope was invented in 1609 by Galileo Galilei, a Roman Catholic from Pisa.


Noooo ... Galileo was merely the first to use it to look up.

Abul Hasan invented it.

And how things change. :/

It hasn't changed. Muslims still live side by side in peace with Jews. If someone shoots at us, however, we're going to shoot back. Being a peaceful people doesn't mean being cattle.

No they haven't.

Forgive me but I don't think you can claim with any validity that the Muslim nations sphere of power is as large as it was. The same is true of Britain and Spain.

Kingdom of Heaven (http://www.kingdomofheavenmovie.com/)

Although methinks this movie looks like it will be good, there is one thought that looms in the back of my mind. It's a movie about a holy war between Muslims and Christians. Now, before 9/11 that probably would have been O.K., but now in this post 9/11 world, this could prove a problem.

As you all know, Anti-Muslimism(ok, so I forgot the real term) is unfortunatly high in the U.S. now. This movie, about the battle for Jerusalem, will undoubtedly cause trouble. Why? Because it shows the Muslims winning. The far Chrisitan right is going to have a field day, talking about how this movie shows the evils of Islam yadda yadda yadda. Now, while this is just what I think will happen, I would like to know what you think is gonna happen.

This is going to have to be the goriest movie ever...

Regardless of which side...the Christian Crusaders or the Muslim Warriors... Both sides were brutal to everyone...

If anything I don't think this will have an effect on just Islam...but also on religion as a whole...

Most likely people are gonna start saying that if religion could spawn such violence even today... Then mabye it's a bad thing or something...

Which I hope doesn't happen...being a Roman Catholic and all...

Forgive me but I don't think you can claim with any validity that the Muslim nations sphere of power is as large as it was. The same is true of Britain and Spain.

At the moment, no, but we have not stagnated. Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world and has been for quite some time. It is conceivable that we could see a resurgence of global Muslim power in our lifetimes.

At the moment, no, but we have not stagnated. Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world and has been for quite some time. It is conceivable that we could see a resurgence of global Muslim power in our lifetimes.
the perception, with some truth in it, is that Islamic societies are culturally and scientifically stagnant compared to other more liberalized countries. Although Islamic societies can benefit from materialism and have large and expanding populations, most of the world's research and cultural publications occur in non Islamic countries.

You try to learn some history, "pal".

At that time, Muslims were documenting medicinal and surgical techniques that are still in use today, Muslims were inventing Algebra, Muslims were inventing the telescope, Muslims were creating massive libraries of information open to everybody, Muslims were catalouging diseases (thought at the time by Christians to be caused by "demons") ... and so on and so on and so on.

Muslims also live side by side in peace with the Jews and the Christians couldn't stand that.

I'm sorry if you don't like it, but much of Western knowledge came from things Muslims knew 1,000 years before the Protestant Reformation.


Maybe so, and look at the Middle East today, the Muslims haven't done anything for the world in the last 800-1000 years in regards of inventions, unless suicide bombings counts as an invention. Also look at Iran, they're a model of all an Islamist government can achieve.

Maybe so, and look at the Middle East today, the Muslims haven't done anything for the world in the last 800-1000 years in regards of inventions, unless suicide bombings counts as an invention. Also look at Iran, they're a model of all an Islamist government can achieve.

Haven't done anything in 800 to 1,000 years, eh? So the Muslims - who had invented the mariners compass - who helped Colombus navigate to the new world had no significance? Or the Muslims who navigated for Magellan?

Abd al-Rahman Ibn Mohammad's contributions to sociology are insignificant?

15th century advances in Astronomy and Physics by Muslims hold no significance?

16th century planetary models by Muslims - some of which are still in use today - have no significance?

The Great Observatory at Samarkand, Uzbekistan (founded in 1420) has no significance?

I mean ... come on ... Muslims still contribute to the arts and sciences in a significant way. In history, Muslims have invented things that have remained a basic part of Western education - such as Algebra. Our "golden age" may have ended, but that doesn't mean we've rolled over and died.

Also ... what's wrong with Iran? Try to avoid conjecture and unprovable allegations, please.

At the moment, no, but we have not stagnated. Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world and has been for quite some time. It is conceivable that we could see a resurgence of global Muslim power in our lifetimes.

In terms of religion perhaps Islam is rising but not in terms of national power. Saudi Arabia, Iran and other nations do not apper to be rising.

In terms of religion perhaps Islam is rising but not in terms of national power. Saudi Arabia, Iran and other nations do not apper to be rising.

Iran is actually doing quite well. I'm not sure about Saudi Arabia.

Iran may very well elect its first female President if Shirin Ebadi can pull it off. I would laugh my ass off if Iran got a female President before the US.

Ebadi: http://nobelprize.org/peace/laureates/2003/ebadi-bio.html

From what I've seen about the movie, it's less about the ideals of the crusade and more about honour and stuff like that. It even seems that at some point, the main character is on better terms with his opponents than with his fellow crusaders.

In any case, Ridley Scott is behind the wheel, and after Gladiator, I'm highly anticipating this film.

Well, aside from the fact that the Muslims did 'win' the Crusades3 (I think it was 7-2, more if you count the non-major Crusades...hehe, Childrends Crusade...:P)
Other than that, I think it sounds like good movie.
My opinion for now is reserved until the damn website loads on my damn 56k connection.
Damn.
*shakes fist at computer*

Iran is actually doing quite well. I'm not sure about Saudi Arabia.

Iran may very well elect its first female President if Shirin Ebadi can pull it off. I would laugh my ass off if Iran got a female President before the US.

Ebadi: http://nobelprize.org/peace/laureates/2003/ebadi-bio.html

I'll admit I don't know details of the Iran government, but I was under the impression that the position of president doesn't hold a whole lot of power compared to the religious leaders. If that's true, it's far less significant than you make it out to be.

In any case, Ridley Scott is behind the wheel, and after Gladiator, I'm highly anticipating this film.

Oh yeah ... everything he touches is magic ... Bladerunner, Alien, Black Hawk Down ... all masterpieces of poetic cinematography. I will definately be seeing this film.

I'll admit I don't know details of the Iran government, but I was under the impression that the position of president doesn't hold a whole lot of power compared to the religious leaders. If that's true, it's far less significant than you make it out to be.

Used to be, yes, but now that Iran has created the office of the Vice President, their Executive branch has gained more power. Iran, unlike many Middle Eastern countries, has been trying very hard to ensure a Democracy.

Many people confuse Iran and Iraq. Iran is actually a very nice place to be. It's not perfect, but what country is?

Haven't done anything in 800 to 1,000 years, eh? So the Muslims - who had invented the mariners compass - who helped Colombus navigate to the new world had no significance? Or the Muslims who navigated for Magellan?

Abd al-Rahman Ibn Mohammad's contributions to sociology are insignificant?

15th century advances in Astronomy and Physics by Muslims hold no significance?

16th century planetary models by Muslims - some of which are still in use today - have no significance?

The Great Observatory at Samarkand, Uzbekistan (founded in 1420) has no significance?

I mean ... come on ... Muslims still contribute to the arts and sciences in a significant way. In history, Muslims have invented things that have remained a basic part of Western education - such as Algebra. Our "golden age" may have ended, but that doesn't mean we've rolled over and died.

Also ... what's wrong with Iran? Try to avoid conjecture and unprovable allegations, please.

In large part, you might blame Western ethnocentrism for the apparent lack of Muslim nations contributing to areas such as mathematics and physics since the late 19th century to the present (to pick a window). But I can't really say that the ethnocentrism really has existed in those fields since the late 1950s - early 1960s. There are a billion Muslims in the Muslim nations. But, why is it that India and China both have contributed greatly to these fields, whereas it is essentially a dead end for Muslims?

I believe that the answer may lay in their faith. It's hard to cozy up to a field that contradicts your faith. As an example, it would be hard for a fundamentalist Christian to become a top-rate biologist - he would have to accept evolution - or never get his degree.

In Iran, shortly after the Revolution, a physics professor held up a six-sided die in order to begin discussing the concepts of probability as they apply to particle physics. One of the students stood up and shouted, "A Satanic artifact" (loose translation), and the professor was dragged from the lecture hall and shot by a revolutionary committee of students.

For a faith that strongly believes in determinism, it's hard to be faithful and simultaneously accept theories completely based on the idea of non-determinism. I would postulate that a higher percentage of Muslims believe in this determinism - that God knows and controls all things - than there are Christians (by percentage) who believe that evolution is wrong.

It only takes a little religious idea - a very simple one - to make it impossible to accept some modern theories, and thus be of any success in critical fields of endeavor.

Pakistan, according to Dr. Khan himself, could not produce the caliber of student necessary to build a nuclear device. They have universities. Most US physics graduates have the necessary skill set (intriguing how most US physics students are Chinese, Japanese, or Indian). So Dr. Khan had to ask the Chinese to do the more difficult math for the design.

That's solid proof to me that there is something in their very culture that prevents them from advancing in some areas.

I am wondering when this change in Islam took place. For at one time, they could accept mathematics (perhaps as long as it was underpinned by determinism). But as soon as modern math and physics came into play (the late 19th century), this would become impossible to accept.

Even Einstein didn't want to accept non-determinism. But he was wrong.

If you have an electronic watch on you right now, it uses a small circuit called a tunnel diode. It relys on an electron behaving in a non-deterministic manner. If you believe your watch is working, you have to accept that some things are non-deterministic (or you can just ignore the theory behind it). But if you ignore the theory behind it, you will be ignorant - you won't be able to tell anyone how to build the watch.

I havent been able to view the website yet, but knowing hollywood, I would be surprised if this movie really were focused on the crusades themselves. If you think about it, a movie about a war is quite the boring movie. You can only take so many battle scenes before you become bored with it. What is more likely is that the movie will focus on a particular person's struggles and passions set against the backdrop of the crusades. For that reason, I doubt this movie will be useful as propaganda.

My only reservation about this film is Orlando Bloom.

How can an actor be so good in one role (Legolas) but absolutely shit in all others is completely beyond me. Could be something to do with the stuff thrown his way though.

Although Kevin McKidd is in it. I hope he gets a decent role.

i thought this one would have the crusaders as Americans and the locals (Muslims) as Europeans ?

why break the habitof a lifetime? :headbang:

I read somewhere (I am not sure where, but I can find out) that the whole crystallisation of Islam arose after the Turks conquered most of the original Muslim heartland. They were fanatical horse nomads with little respect for city dwellers and no taste whatsoever for academia.

Incidentally, their regime was the same that stopped christian nomads from travelling to Jerusalem, creating the theological justification for the crusades in the first place. Before that, Christians had wandered into and out of the holy land quite cheerfully and trade had flourished, even with the incidental border skirmishes that always occured in that time period.

This film does look like it focuses on the dilemma of an honourable man trapped in service to dishonourable leaders. The only people I could spot being demonised were the English, but we've all long got used to that. ;)

As with all these, the effects of the movie are probably going to be minimal:

a) A few crazies, both Christian and Muslim, will see this as conclusive proof of something or other, probably something bad relating to the other religion
b) The director is going to be constantly asked in interviews if it is a political film. He will deny it.
c) Despite this, some people will think that it actually is political
d) Lots of people will see it. Hopefully it will be a good film, and Saladin, one of my favourite historical characters, will be featured.
e) All the girls in my class at school will drool over Orlando Bloom. Again.

Thats it. No apocalypse, no sweeping social or religious reforms. Depending on the amount of nudity, some family values groups may sue, but that will probably be the worst consequence.

If you'd read the whole thread you'd know that Keruvalia made that comment in response to a poster who asked how the Muslims at the time were more civilized than the Christians of the time. It was not an arguement on which religion is inherently better.

I think instead of saying more civilized one should say that the Muslim Civilization was more advanced, either you are civilized or you aren't, but one civilization can be more advanced than the other, which was the case here.

As with all these, the effects of the movie are probably going to be minimal:

a) A few crazies, both Christian and Muslim, will see this as conclusive proof of something or other, probably something bad relating to the other religion
b) The director is going to be constantly asked in interviews if it is a political film. He will deny it.
c) Despite this, some people will think that it actually is political
d) Lots of people will see it. Hopefully it will be a good film, and Saladin, one of my favourite historical characters, will be featured.
e) All the girls in my class at school will drool over Orlando Bloom. Again.

Thats it. No apocalypse, no sweeping social or religious reforms. Depending on the amount of nudity, some family values groups may sue, but that will probably be the worst consequence.

What!?!? How can you say that? This film is clearly going to be showing Muslims in a negative light and probably cause another Crusade, to liberate Jerusalem from the Muslims, oops, too late.

Yes, too bad the Pope absolved them of any sins they might commit, so the Crusaders went on a hideous and brutal killing spree, (hilariously going on a quick detour to massacre some Jews), raping the lands around them, and finally coming to Jeruselum and winning, then losing a short time afterwards.
Claps hands as he says
Prester John Prester John Prester John.

And you thought The Passion of the Christ was violent!

A shame it's not about the first crusade, then there was a movie about a Flemish warrior. :(

And you thought The Passion of the Christ was violent!

:)

A shame it's not about the first crusade, then there was a movie about a Flemish warrior. :(

Yeah, but then Saladin(the greatest general of the Crusades) wouldn't be in it.

Quite fascinating. I don't think it'll have any negative ramifications, though. Remember how supposedly anti-Semitic The Passion was?


The Passion was antisemitic. I saw it a couple of days ago, man it disturbed me. Also i think the reaction could be worse with Kingdom of Heaven because there are many, many more Christians and Muslims in the world today than there are Jews.

Which is why I'm a little worried. However, I know Ridley Scott's work and I don't think it will be a problem. I believe it will show accuracy and I believe the Christians will be the ones who go into an uproar over this one.

I will see it as soon as I can and judge then, but my Spidey Sense tells me that this may cause more Islamophobia by the uneducated masses.

What ever happened to the “good old days” when a person could see a movie and it was just a movie? No political correctness crap, no worry about “hurt feelings. Why does everything these days always have to have a hidden agenda? :headbang:

Yeah, like with the Sharpe and Starbuck novels that he penned. But can you see hollywood films handing out leaflets after the movie saying what historical inaccuracies had taken place in their films though?!?

Please correct me if I get this wrong. There are two types of movies, those that are produced present historical fact and those produced to entertain. Those that present fact are called documentaries and should be historically correct. Movies produced for entertainment may be based on a historical event but “artistic license” is taken and the movie does not have to be factually correct. I presume this movie is of the second type, so where is the problem?

Iran is actually doing quite well. I'm not sure about Saudi Arabia.

Iran may very well elect its first female President if Shirin Ebadi can pull it off. I would laugh my ass off if Iran got a female President before the US.

Ebadi: http://nobelprize.org/peace/laureates/2003/ebadi-bio.html

I thought that in the Muslim religion a woman cannot hold power over a man. If Iran is an Islamic State, and a theocracy, how could a woman be elected president?

I thought that in the Muslim religion a woman cannot hold power over a man.

You thought wrong.

You thought wrong.

Yeah. It's just in those Uber-Wahabi's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wahabi) in Saudi Arabia that say things like women can't hold power etc. Saudi Arabia is the kind of Muslim state that makes me sick... Countries like Iran, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Indonesia are good though.

Oh, and on a personal note, it's a Ridley Scott film. He is the greatest film director of all time and, thus, it will be a good movie.

So I will advise everyone see it.
I wouldn't go as far as to say he's the greatest director of all time. In fact he wouldn't make my top ten. However he is a damn fine action movie director - probably the best in that field - and off-hand I can't think of any of his movies that have been crap. His movies rarely have any underlying moral message (aside from Black Hawk Down and that was mostly enforced upon him by the US army in exchange for using real Black Hawks).
Having seen the previews, I think it'll be well up to his usual high standard of awesome action scenes and a coherrent well-paced script. I can't see it being anti-anything, at least not delibrately.

I wouldn't go as far as to say he's the greatest director of all time. In fact he wouldn't make my top ten. However he is a damn fine action movie director - probably the best in that field - and off-hand I can't think of any of his movies that have been crap.


Ah ... he's far more than just an action director. His cinematographic artistry can be seen in movies like "Thelma and Louise", "Legend", and "Hannibal".

It's just my opinion, though. He and Kubrick are tied for the #1 spot on my greatest directors of all time list.

Ah ... he's far more than just an action director. His cinematographic artistry can be seen in movies like "Thelma and Louise", "Legend", and "Hannibal".

It's just my opinion, though. He and Kubrick are tied for the #1 spot on my greatest directors of all time list.
Yes, I think I was over-simplifying it a bit to say he is an action film director. I meant in terms of movies that are there mainly for entertainment purposes, not action in a specific way as to mean a Vin Diesel/no plot/no acting/just one-liners and lots of explosions type movie.
"Thelma & Louise" is a road movie, and so falls within the overall general genre of action movie, imo. I can't remember much of "Legend" other than Tim Curry overacts magnificently throughout and I haven't seen "Hannibal" to tell the truth.
I like and admire Scott's work because it doesn't pretend to be anything other than a good solid 2 hour entertaining movie. And he always delivers that. That's why I wished it was Scott that had made 'Alexander' and not Stone, as it would have not had any of the shit pretentiousness that prevades all of Stone's work, as he thinks of himself an 'artistic' director with a point and moral to tell us unworthy types.

Kubrick is far superior, as ever shot is so wonderfully thought out and analysed. As is Lars von Trier and was Fellini. But that's just my opinion.

they should do the third crusade.

or the fourth

just to show how incompetent they were

they should do the third crusade.

or the fourth

just to show how incompetent they were
Or the 5th, but that hasn't finished yet. Not until they catch Bin Laden at any rate.

<snip>

I love your signature.
Its soo funny, I am still laghing like a minute after wards.

I love your signature.
Its soo funny, I am still laghing like a minute after wards.
thanks :)

but the credit has to go to Jesussaves