Muslims(Saladin) Vs The Crusades

5 Attachment(s)

Asalaamu Alaykum

The movie Kingdom of Heaven says it tells the historic battle between the Muslims lead by Salahudin Al Ayubi, known to the west as Saladin, and The Christian Crusades, lead by Balian of Ibelin, who is given the task to defend Jerusalem.

Now, there is already a contravorsy about the movie, mainly coming from western scholars, saying this movie shows the Muslims and Saladin as the "hero and good guys", while the Crusades are the "Bad guys." They say this movie will fuel the current rise of "Islamism" in the Islamic world and their return to the Honor of Jihad.

Anyhow, I opened this thread so we could talk about the actualy events, what happened? It is hard, but lets use sound judgement and debate with sources. Do you think this movie will fuel "Islamism"? or will it Fuel the "Anti-Muslim" feelings in the west, and the U.S. in particular?

Peace!

To View the Trailer, Visit: http://www.kingdomofheavenmovie.com/

Here are some images from the Trailer:

4 Attachment(s)

More Images:

3 Attachment(s)

Some More:

from the trailer the impression i got was that its going to be emotionally pro-Christian but show the Muslims winning only because historically that is what happened.... if you look at all these 'epic' genre of movies one thing is always consistent: the "bad guys" are dark coloured in clothing and atmosphere... that already seems apparant in this movie in regards to the Muslims! Which makes me quite angry. Subconcious messages. Biggest example of this is the Lord of the Rings movies, its no accident the bad guys are all dark and gloomy whereas the good guys are shiney, white and clean (this isn't a racial thing however).

the articles speaking about pro-islamism arising as a consequence from this movie seem like, to me, an attempt to dodge the bullet regarding muslims protesting and potentially boycotting the movie! it may all be smart marketing tactics..... but I could be just overly suspicious here.

my housemate is a bro very educated on Islamic history I'm going to discuss this with him and insha'allah share anything that is more specific to the discussion you have raised here.

Talib, I see your point.

The thing they are talking about is that its the Crusades who provoke the Muslims and Saladin. If you look carefuly at the Trailer, you will see one Crusade ordering, "Give me a War!". That is when Saladin and the Muslims Wage their Jihad.

They also don't like that in Saladin's army their are some Jews and Christians who fight against the Crusades. The Jews, because of what hapanned to them at the start of the Crusade.

Another reason why the Trailer seems to point the Christians as the good guys, is because their is no dialogue from the Muslims. I think the reason they did this is because they don't want to claim that Saladin or the Muslims said something that he didn't.

Insha'Allah bring your mate into Ummah, so he may give us his knowledge on the subject.

Allah Knows Best.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Salahudin

If you look carefuly at the Trailer, you will see one Crusade ordering, "Give me a War!". That is when Saladin and the Muslims Wage their Jihad.

Historically speaking it was Salahudin who waged Jihaad to reclaim the land of Palestine, he reunited a crumbling Caliphate with his work and by that time Palestine had been under Christian control for approx 80 years.

(I could be wrong regarding this... it's what I can remember from a recent discussion with a bro.)

Quote:

Originally Posted by ay1404

Historically speaking it was Salahudin who waged Jihaad to reclaim the land of Palestine, he reunited a crumbling Caliphate with his work and by that time Palestine had been under Christian control for approx 80 years.

(I could be wrong regarding this... it's what I can remember from a recent discussion with a bro.)

Salahudin was the Sultan of Egypt and Syria. The Crusades controled Palestine, and Jerusalem. There were treaties between Saladin and the Christian Rulers, Then one of the Lords broke the Treaty by Attacking a Muslim Caravan from Egypt in Palestine on their way to Makkah for pilgrimage, Salahudin's own sister was amongh them. That is when Salahudin Called for the Liberation of Palestine.

Jazakallah bro :D

Quote:

Originally Posted by ay1404

Historically speaking it was Salahudin who waged Jihaad to reclaim the land of Palestine, he reunited a crumbling Caliphate with his work and by that time Palestine had been under Christian control for approx 80 years.

(I could be wrong regarding this... it's what I can remember from a recent discussion with a bro.)

when the crusaders sacked Jerusalem, they killed everyone in the Al Aqsa mosque. On the way over they killed all the jews they came across. (hence the reason why many Jews fought with the Muslims against the crusaders) Then its like Salahuddin (the one on this forum!) said :up:

this comes from Christian historical sources, though most history books omit any details such as these that put Christians in a bad light. It's only in the last ten years or so that mainstream history books in the west have started questioning the actions of the church. (who are also responsible for "witch" hunts, conversion of most of northern Europe by the sword, the spanish inquisition etc etc etc)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Salahudin

Then one of the Lords broke the Treaty by Attacking a Muslim Caravan from Egypt in Palestine on their way to Makkah for pilgrimage, Salahudin's own sister was amongh them. That is when Salahudin Called for the Liberation of Palestine.

his mother not his sister....and that is when he took an oath to himself to behead Renyald with his own hands...oh wait...no...he took this oath when he recieved the news the Reynald is planning to attack the Medina and destroy the Prophet :saw: grave.....i believe that what angered Saladin more than the plan was what Reynald said about the prophet.....the best and "romantic" part about this story is that Saladin really beheaded Reynald with his own hands :D

Quote:

Originally Posted by Al-Nasser

his mother not his sister....and that is when he took an oath to himself to behead Renyald with his own hands...oh wait...no...he took this oath when he recieved the news the Reynald is planning to attack the Medina and destroy the Prophet :saw: grave.....i believe that what angered Saladin more than the plan was what Reynald said about the prophet.....the best and "romantic" part about this story is that Saladin really beheaded Reynald with his own hands :D

Nasser, It was his sister bro. I'm not even sure if his Mother was alive at the time.

And yes, it was Reynald's plan that angred Saladin the most.

It also made it into the Trailer, if you look at one of the images I attached, "Saladinstrikes" it is when he is beheading Reynald. ;)

Battle of Hattin
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

The Battle of Hattin in 1187 was a major setback in the fortunes of the Crusader movement, enabling the Muslims to regain control of Jerusalem from the Christians.

The battle took place near Tiberias, in an area whose chief geographic feature is a double hill, in fact an extinct volcano, (the "Horns of Hattin") beside a pass through the northern mountains between Tiberias and the road from Acre to the west.

The Darb al-Hawarnah road, built by the Romans, served as the main east-west passage between the Jordan fords, the Sea of Galilee and the Mediterranean coast. Saladin had taken the town of Tiberias, to the east, on July 2, 1187 with only a small portion of his overall forces. Raymond III of Tripoli, whose wife Eschiva was besieged in the citadel at Tiberias, and King Guy of Jerusalem were at Acre with the bulk of the Crusader army, which consisted of 1200 knights, possibly as many as 20 000 foot soldiers, and a large number of mercenaries hired with money donated to the Kingdom by Henry II of England. Raymond argued that a march from Acre to Tiberias was exactly what Saladin wanted and that Sephoria was a strong position for the Crusaders to defend, but due to internal court politics and accusations of cowardice, King Guy ordered the army to march immediately against Saladin at Tiberias. This was what Saladin had planned, for he had calculated that he could defeat the crusaders only in a field battle, rather than by besieging their fortifications.

The Crusaders began their march from Sephoria on July 3, and were almost immediately under harassment from the Muslim skirmishers on horseback. By noon on that day Saladin had joined his forces at Cafarsett and sent his army to engage the exhausted and depleted Crusaders. The Crusader army was divided into three divisions and the rearguard was forced to a halt by continuous attacks, thus halting the whole army. The Crusaders, after a day with no fresh water, were forced to make camp in the middle of the plain, surrounded by the Muslim army, and Saladin's forces started fires around the camp during the night to make the situation worse for King Guy's army.

On the morning of July 4, the Crusaders, thirsty and demoralised, broke camp and changed direction for the springs of Hattin, but their ragged approach was attacked by Saladin's army which blocked the route forward and any possible retreat. Count Raymond launched two charges in an attempt to break through. The second of these saw him cut off from the main army and forced to retreat. Most of the Crusader infantry had effectively deserted by moving on to the Horns of Hattin. Without infantry protection the knight's horses were cut down by Muslim archers and they were forced to fight on foot, and they, too, retreated on to the Horns. The Crusaders were surrounded and, despite three desperate charges on Saladin's position, were defeated. The Muslims captured the royal tent of King Guy, as well as the True Cross, a relic sacred to the Christian forces. Saladin took Guy prisoner, as well as Raynald of Chatillon, whom Saladin personally executed, fulfilling a threat he had made when Raynald had been harassing Muslim trade and pilgrimage routes earlier in the decade. Gerard de Ridefort, the Grand Master of the Knights Templar, and the Grand Master of the Knights Hospitaller were also captured. Perhaps 3,000 Crusaders escaped. Of those captured, those with wealthy families were ransomed, the rest were enslaved and knights of the military orders were executed.

By mid-September, Saladin had taken Acre, Nablus, Jaffa, Toron, Sidon, Beirut and Ascalon, and Jerusalem fell to the Muslim army on October 2, 1187, making the beginning of the end for the Christian presence in Outremer.

News of the disastrous defeat at Hattin was the catalyst for the formation of the Third Crusade, and was also said to have caused Pope Urban III to die of shock.

---------------

more on Hattin:

*

Battle of Hittin, 1187 This account is given by Salah al-Din’s own secretary and chronicler of his military campaigns, Imad ad-Din al-Isfani:
http://www.umich.edu/~iinet/worldrea...ittinarab.html

* Account of the Battle of Hattin, 1187
by a local Frank, "Ernoul", written soon after 1197:
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/1187ernoul.html

* Battle of Hattin on wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Hattin

* From the Templar's view:
http://www.templarhistory.com/hattin.html

*The Horns of Hattin - The Fall of the Kingdom of Jerusalem
by Ludovic Dias:

http://hksw.org/despatches_106_1_a.htm

* Nice page, with graphs and images:
http://www.juniorgeneral.org/hattin/hattin.html

Plot Summary:"Kingdom of Heaven" is an epic adventure about a common man who finds himself thrust into a decades-long war. A stranger in a strange land, he serves a doomed king, falls in love with an exotic and forbidden queen, and rises to knighthood. Ultimately, he must protect the people of Jerusalem from overwhelming forces – while striving to keep a fragile peace. From Ridley Scott, the master of the modern epic.

[The above has been taken from another website.]

Crusaders protecting the people of Jerusalem? Did I read that right?

Are they trying to re-write history and make the crusaders seem like the good guys?

Thank God for history books hey!

Then again, we have to watch the film and see how correct it is. Maybe it might surprise us and show the muslims as they really were back then.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jabaraltariq

Plot Summary:"Kingdom of Heaven" is an epic adventure about a common man who finds himself thrust into a decades-long war. A stranger in a strange land, he serves a doomed king, falls in love with an exotic and forbidden queen, and rises to knighthood. Ultimately, he must protect the people of Jerusalem from overwhelming forces – while striving to keep a fragile peace. From Ridley Scott, the master of the modern epic.

[The above has been taken from another website.]

Crusaders protecting the people of Jerusalem? Did I read that right?

Are they trying to re-write history and make the crusaders seem like the good guys?

Thank God for history books hey!

well.....it seems like the whole xtian thing (the religion itself) is based upon manipulating facts...Paul lie to the common people and make Jesus (pbuh) into a God...the Roman Emperor lie to the people and tell them that the sweet mixture of Paganism and Jesus teachings is christianity....and priests lie to the people and tell them that they are selling parts of heaven to whoever pay more....then the pope lie to the people and tell them that it is a holy crusade while he knew that it is a bandits raid.....then come hollywood gang and lie to the people....

you know what....let 'em say what they want....they will just make idiots of themselves when they try to make saints of the savages who annihilated the whole population of Jerusalem while making Saladin look like a barberian

In all fairness we should wait to see the movie before commenting on its historical quality.

Good topic though. This conflict was special historically because it does not fall into the 'The winners write the history' catagory.

~Bub

there is a good crusades game you can play either Muslim or Christian side you can build castles and defend them or attack other castles and they have all the weapons they used in the crusades. Christian side has swordsman and Muslim side has horse archers.

here is the site

http://www.fireflyworlds.com/shc_index.php

Or, I'd recommend the Saladin campaign at the Age of Empires II: Age of Kings; very accurate and al-Hamdulillah, quite interesting. :)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Abu Sabr

Or, I'd recommend the Saladin campaign at the Age of Empires; very accurate and al-Hamdulillah, quite interesting. :)

you can play Saladin side on stronghold crusader too :) stronghold crusader is way better then Age of Empires in Stronghold c you can use some of the weapons that the muslims used like fire arrows boiling oil horse archers and those ninja guys that could climb walls.

8 April, 2005, 17:30 GMT 18:30 UK

Crusades film 'will help Muslims'

Orlando Bloom and Liam Neeson co-star in the film
Two Arabic actors starring in a Hollywood film about the Crusades say it will improve Western understanding of Muslim world.

Kingdom of Heaven depicts a 12th century Muslim-Christian battle for Jerusalem during the Third Crusade.

Syrian actor Ghassan Massoud, who plays the Muslim leader Saladin, said the film would not reinforce old stereotypes as some had feared.

The Ridley Scott-directed movie also stars Orlando Bloom and Liam Neeson.

Big budget

Massoud also said Kingdom of Heaven would show the US the benefits of diplomacy over war in resolving Middle East crises.

"Saladin fights battles, but he also enters into dialogue. We want to show that dialogue can be much better than war," he said.

"Today, America has overwhelming force but it is as if they don't want to build a dialogue."

Kingdom of Heaven, with a budget estimated at $130m (£69m), is being tipped as one of the summer's biggest film releases.

Some religious figures have raised concerns that the film will fuel the idea of a clash of civilisations between East and West, and could increase Western animosity towards Islam.

'Positive' film

But Egyptian actor Khaled el-Nabawy, said: "We have Christians who think this movie is pro-Muslim and Muslims who think that this movie is pro-Christian.

"It will make both go and see the movie, which is positive for improving understanding.

"It's time for the West to know more about us."

"We are not terrorists. We are very civilised and our history is a witness to this."

The film, which was shot in Morocco and Spain, opens in the UK on 6 May.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertain...lm/4426133.stm

<TT>Here are some more review links to the film. I have to say it looks quite positive indeed…insha-allah.<O:p</O:p</TT>

<O:p</O:phttp://entertainment.timesonline.co...1570727,00.html<O:p</O:p

<O:p</O:p

http://www.aint-it-cool-news.com/display.cgi?id=18988<O:p</O:p
<TT></TT>
<TT><TT></TT>
<TT>p.s. </TT>
<TT></TT>
<TT>for those that have not seen the movie yet and are quick to make assumptions about the movie, please brothers and sisters let’s not over-react like the Jewish community did when the passion of Christ was released. Remember we are a people of intellect and a people of patience. Let’s put these qualities into use in this situation. From what I have read things are looking quite optimistic and it is not a film that is intent on making the Muslims look like the bad guys. In fact from the reviews it is very clear who the bad guy is in the movie and that is “Guy de Lusignan”. Either way, let’s be positive rather than thinking negative things. I think it is about time Muslims had some Muslim hero figures in a big budget movie like this. Furthermore, if you read the history of the crusades and look into the character of Saladin it is actually very hard for anyone to make Saladin look bad because even the west looked at Saladin with great admiration and even during that period the Christians looked to him to understand what it means to be chivalrous.</TT>
</TT>

Quote:

Originally Posted by ay1404

Historically speaking it was Salahudin who waged Jihaad to reclaim the land of Palestine, he reunited a crumbling Caliphate with his work and by that time Palestine had been under Christian control for approx 80 years.

(I could be wrong regarding this... it's what I can remember from a recent discussion with a bro.)

but, someone i dont think they will show that, maybe it ends before they capture the city back?! sounds fishy...

there was a really good documentary recently about the war between Salahuddin and Richard the "lion"heart (someone on this forum called him richard the chickenheart :rotfl: I think it was sayfAllah :up: ) - it was done by western historians but they consulted a load of Muslim and Arab scholars and it was really quite balanced, and portrayed the Muslims pretty well for a western programme. Unfortunately I don't believe the makers of this film went to those troubles to try to be unbiassed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Al-Nasser

his mother not his sister....and that is when he took an oath to himself to behead Renyald with his own hands...oh wait...no...he took this oath when he recieved the news the Reynald is planning to attack the Medina and destroy the Prophet :saw: grave.....i believe that what angered Saladin more than the plan was what Reynald said about the prophet.....the best and "romantic" part about this story is that Saladin really beheaded Reynald with his own hands :D

he said very very bad things about the prophet!! and if he did not swore, i bet saladin in his mercy would have let him go , saladin was really soft and gentle hearted, some would say that was his greatest weaken, i would differ, since it earned him a great amount of respect, and not many leaders, have been praised like him in the eyes of his enemy.

shows his amazing chrisma and personality, after all he was a muslim!! :D

If anybody is interested in watching a really great documentary about the crusades, then check this out, however it is only avaialble in region 1 if you are after the dvd version.
</O:p

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...s=dvd&n=507846<O:p</O:p

<O:p

I have seen this and it is very, very good. Although there are many crusader sympathisers that do not like this documentary and only because it shows the true and barbaric nature of the crusaders and what they did to the Muslims, Jews and even their fellow orthodox Christians.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dhakiyya

there was a really good documentary recently about the war between Salahuddin and Richard the "lion"heart (someone on this forum called him richard the chickenheart :rotfl: I think it was sayfAllah :up: ) - it was done by western historians but they consulted a load of Muslim and Arab scholars and it was really quite balanced, and portrayed the Muslims pretty well for a western programme. Unfortunately I don't believe the makers of this film went to those troubles to try to be unbiassed.

dhakiyyah !! that doc. i have seen and its a shaam !!

trust me some years back 2-3 i saw the real deal on channel 4, its was 2 hours long, this was cut version of that and twisted in one hour!

the history of salaudin is so great you will just be amazed!, they protrayed him as an old man, full of sins, and regreatful, losing control of the muslims!!

when we know that muslim historians write, one of them rights,

that if people could gives their lives to save the life of the sultan salaudin, they would have with ease, and in their thousands.

lol, sis ?!

did you notice the masonic shytaani way of praying salaah ?! the 2 rakus, one sajood, and ending by turning the face to the left and then right?!?!

they are very crafty and .... but i saw through it all.

they showed chickenheart all alone, when we know that the 3rd crusade was a europe wide effort, the emporer of france and that german dude fredrick himself took part, and they the spiteful crusaders, amassed an army so great to conquer and rid the middle east of Islam.

But, saladin contained them in the top corner, and in those 4 years of intense battles did not let them move an inch, they show chicken heart as a peace maker, and show only 2-3 battles thats it, when reality is different.

they forced all those chaste and pious muslimahs into prostitution at acre, and beheaded 3000 civilians, somehow in the doc. they twist that too, already present brothals and etc.

hey, I didn't say it was perfect, just better than previous western historians' attempts - which portray Salahuddin as a monster that ate babies.

Thank you for drawing my attention to those other problems however :up:

I didn't notice the thing about the salat, what has this got to do with masons (out of interest, I know masons are derived from stuff the crusaders learned about Islam which was then twisted to fit with their other beliefs.)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Saifullah

he said very very bad things about the prophet!! and if he did not swore, i bet saladin in his mercy would have let him go , saladin was really soft and gentle hearted, some would say that was his greatest weaken, i would differ, since it earned him a great amount of respect, and not many leaders, have been praised like him in the eyes of his enemy.

shows his amazing chrisma and personality, after all he was a muslim!! :D

<O:p</O:p
<O:pFunny that you mention that quality about him. there is a great deal of discussion about what happened at the battle of jaffa when Saladin first met Richard the lion heart and and many historians have come to the conclusion that the reason why he had lost at the battle of jaffa was simply because he had been so kind and merciful o the Christians soldiers many of Saladin’s soldiers were getting tired of this treatment and wanted to see justices being served by killing a few of these Christians. Therefore, at the battle of <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" /><st1:City><ST1:pJaffa</ST1:p</st1:City> there was a mutiny, Saladin had lost control of his army and his army went berserk and wanted to kill as many Christians as they could. And obviously if a general loses control of his army, this can only mean chaos and the inability to give strategic commands. Therefore, the Saladin had lost this battle. For a while many historians could not work out why Saladin had lost this battle especially when he outnumbered the Christian army and with his incredible military tactics, how could he have lost a battle that should have been an easy win. Many crusader sympathisers who are extremely bias will say that it was because Richard the lion heart was the commander of the Christian army and he was a great general. This is now considered incorrect and the accurate explanation is that in that moment Saladin had lost control of his army because his soldiers wanted revenge.<O:p</O:p
</O:p

Sallam,

The following is an extract from the book 'The Islamic State' by Hizb ut-Tahrir, first published in 1953.

The Crusaders’ Animosity<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>

One of the French learned writers Count Henri Decastri wrote in his book entitled ‘Islam’ in 1896, <o:p></o:p>

"I cannot imagine what the Muslims would say if they heard the tales of the mediaeval ages and understood what the Christian orators used to say in their hymns; all our hymns even those which emerged before the 12th century emanated from one concept which was the cause of the crusades, these hymns were filled with hatred towards the Muslims due to the total ignorance of their religion. As a result of those hymns and songs, hatred against that religion became fixed in people’s minds, and the erroneous ideas deeply rooted, some of which are still carried nowadays. Everyone used to regard the Muslims as polytheists, disbelievers, idol worshippers and apostates."<o:p></o:p>

This is how the Christian clergy in <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" /><st1:place>Europe</st1:place> described the Muslims and their deen. The allegations in the mediaeval ages were horrible and these were used to incite the feelings of hatred and animosity against the Muslims. The Christian world became affected and the crusader wars took place. After lasting two centuries resulting in the defeat and the humiliation of the Christians, the Muslims began to reconquer the West in the 15th century when the Islamic State entered <st1:place>Constantinople</st1:place>. Then in the 16th century the Muslims swept across southern and eastern <st1:place>Europe</st1:place> and carried Islam to its peoples. Millions of the inhabitants of <st1:country-region><st1:place>Albania</st1:place></st1:country-region>, <st1:country-region><st1:place>Yugoslavia</st1:place></st1:country-region>, <st1:country-region><st1:place>Bulgaria</st1:place></st1:country-region> and other countries embraced Islam in the process. Once again the crusader animosity was revived and the Orientalist concept emerged, which was concerned at the time with resisting the Muslim armies, halting the Islamic conquest and lessening the threat of the Muslims. This deeply rooted animosity in the minds and hearts of the Europeans prompted all Christians in <st1:place>Europe</st1:place> to send their missionaries to Muslim land in the name of science and culture. The missions took the shape of schools, clinics, associations and clubs. The Europeans devoted almost unlimited resources and huge efforts to the missionary work. They combined their efforts and methodology despite their differences in policy and interests. Peoples and states were united behind the missionary effort since it was conducted by their consuls, ambassadors, delegates and missionaries.<o:p></o:p>

The crusader hatred harboured by the Westerners, especially in <st1:place>Europe</st1:place> and more so by <st1:country-region><st1:place>Britain</st1:place></st1:country-region>, and their deeply rooted animosity and wicked malice were the cause of our eventual humiliation in our homeland. General Allenby said in 1917 when he entered al-Quds, <o:p></o:p>

"Only today the crusades have ended." <o:p></o:p>

This was simply a genuine expression of what he really felt. It reflected the hatred and malice he harboured and the same could be said about every European that fought in the battles - cultural and military - against the Muslims, and Allah (swt) says:<o:p></o:p>

Rank hatred has already appeared from their mouths; what their hearts conceal is far worse.[TMQ 3:118]<o:p></o:p>

<o:p></o:p>
What Allenby said was indeed most loathsome, and what his country, <st1:country-region><st1:place>Britain</st1:place></st1:country-region>, harboured was even greater without a doubt; this goes without saying for every European.<o:p></o:p>

<o:p></o:p>
This malice and hatred has existed ever since the days of the crusades and it is still perpetuated today. What we face in terms of oppression, humiliation, colonisation and exploitation - in addition to the political aspect - is in fact an act of brutal revenge on the Muslims. Indeed it is particular to the Muslims.Professor Leopold Weiss (Muhammad Asad) wrote in his book Islam at the Crossroads,<o:p></o:p>

"Verily the renaissance, or the revival of science and European arts which owed a great deal to Islamic and Arabic sources, used to be attributed to the material contact between East and West. <st1:place>Europe</st1:place> has indeed benefited a great deal from the Islamic world, but she never acknowledged or recognised this favour, nor did she show any gratitude by easing her hatred to Islam, in fact this hatred grew stronger and deeper over the years and at times reached uncontrollable proportions. This hatred engulfed the popular feeling and was triggered each time the word Muslim was mentioned. The hatred became a part of their popular heritage until it took root in the heart and mind of every European man and woman, and more astonishing though was that it remained alive even after all the stages of cultural change that took place. Then came the era of religious reform, when Europe became divided into sects, and each sect stood in the face of other sects, armed to the teeth, ready for battle; however, animosity towards Islam remained the same within every sect. Soon after, a time came when religious fervour diminished but the hatred of Islam remained as strong as ever, a clear example of this was delivered by the French philosopher and poet Voltaire, although he was an arch enemy of Christianity and the Church in the 18th century, he also was at the same time expressing his feelings of hatred and arrogance towards Islam and the Messenger of Islam; after a few decades, there came a time when the Western intellectuals began exploring foreign cultures and looked upon them with some kind of sympathy and open-mindedness, however when it came to Islam, the traditional disdain began infiltrating their scientific researches in an extraordinary factional way; and the wide gap which history dug up between Europe and the Islamic world remained unbridged, then the contempt for Islam became an integral part of the European mentality."<o:p></o:p>

It was on this basis that the missionary associations mentioned above were established. Their aim was to preach the Christian religion and to arouse suspicions in the Muslims about their deen, thereby leading them to hold it in disdain within their hearts and to blame their own failures on it. On the other hand, the aim of the associations was also political and the consequences were in fact horrendous on both accounts until they reached unexpected proportions. The missionary movements were founded on the basis of wiping out Islam by libelling it, by creating problems and misgivings about it and about its rules, in order to come between the people and the way of Allah (swt), and to alienate Muslims from their deen. Behind these missionary movements came the Orientalist movements who had the same target and the very same objective.<o:p></o:p>

Efforts and resources were unified throughout the whole of Europe and a crusade was waged against Islam for the second time; this time it was a cultural war which poisoned the mind by what they had distorted from the Islamic laws and Islam’s high values, the poisoning of the young Muslim minds by what they alleged about Islam and the history of the Muslims in the name of scientific research and scientific fairness. It was in reality the cultural venom which was far more dangerous than the crusader wars. The missionaries carried out the spreading of their poisonous filth in the name of science and humanity. They used to do it in the name of Orientalism. Professor Leopold Weiss wrote,<o:p></o:p>

"The reality is that the first Orientalist of modern times were Christian missionaries working in the Muslim countries, the distorted picture they fabricated allegedly from Islamic teachings and history was expertly designed to guarantee a negative reaction and influence the European opinion towards the idol worshippers, i.e. the Muslims; however this twisted concept continued <o:p></o:p>
despite the fact that Orientalist studies had been liberated from the missionary influence, stripping the Orientalism from any religious and ignorant fervour that would misguide it. As for the Orientalist’ hostility to Islam, this was an inherited instinct and a natural characteristic derived from the effects of the crusader wars."<o:p></o:p>

<o:p></o:p>
This inherited animosity is the one that sparks the hatred in the hearts of Westerners against the Muslims. It is the one that portrays Islam, even in Muslim countries, to Muslims and non-Muslims as being the bogey of humanity, or this demon which would destroy the progress of humanity. This is in fact to conceal their real fear of Islam, for they know that if Islam were deeply implanted in the hearts and minds of the people it would signal the end of the hegemony of the disbelieving colonial powers over the Islamic world and the return of the Islamic State to once again resume the carrying of the Message of Islam to the world - and indeed it will return insha’Allah - for the sake of humanity and the West itself. The work of the missionaries would eventually turn into grief and sorrow for them; Allah (swt) says:
<o:p></o:p>

The disbelievers spend their wealth in blocking the way of Allah, and will go on spending still more of it. But in the end, these very efforts of theirs will become a cause of their regret; and they will be overcome.[TMQ <st1:time Hour="8" Minute="36">8:36</st1:time>]<o:p></o:p>

The inherited animosity is the one that supports any anti-Islamic movement. You will find the Westerner exploring Taoism, Hinduism, Buddhism, or Communism without any hatred or prejudice at all. Whereas, if he were to explore Islam malice, hatred and contempt would soon appear despite the fact that Muslims were defeated by the colonial disbelievers. The Western clergy - backed by the colonialists - still actively conspire against Islam and they will never abate from libelling Islam and the Muslims and from degrading Muhammad (saw) and his Companions, or from injecting slander into the history of Islam and of the Muslims. All this is to get their revenge and to strengthen the hold of the colonialists.<o:p></o:p>

Hmmmm...that extract seems to not be very objective and is being extremely selective, and often too many times HT members fail to be objective when they are dealing with Islamic history.
<O:p

Firstly, Christians who are seen as hell bent on seeing the destruction of the Muslims is nothing new. In fact it is what would be expected of how non-Muslims would react to the Muslims, if you think otherwise then you must be pretty naive. Either way what is the point you wish to make anyway?
<O:p</O:p

Secondly, and as I have said before the extract you are using is being very selective because it does not include the internal struggle of the Muslims. This is the key reason as to why the Islamic state or should we say the <ST1:pOttoman Empire </ST1:pcame to an end. Not only have the Christians been trying to destroy the Muslims, but the Muslims themselves are trying to destroy each other. Ok let’s take a look at the <ST1:pOttoman Empire</ST1:p. What we can see from history is that the Ottomans were at war with the Christian empire in the west; from the East you have the Safavid Empire who are shiis. And then in the south you have Sunni Mamuleks waging war against the Sunni Ottoman empire. The Islamic empire was in self-destruct mode from the time of Uthman’s (ra) murder. In fact most Islamic scholars will argue that technically the last true Islamic khilafah was during the reign of Uthman’s (ra) khalifate. Not even Ali (ra) khalifate was technically legitimate in the sense that when the rebel forces after having murdered Uthamn (ra) forced Ali (ra) into being the next khalif. But anyway, I don’t want to go too deep into this because this is a very delicate period that needs to be examined with much care. The point is that the Islamic empire was fragmented way before Christians started sending in their missionaries to do their dirty work. I think that ultimately the point I want to make is that rather than always blaming external forces, and although they are definitely a problem too, however Muslims need to start recognising that in order for the Muslims to truly prosper they all need to stand united and stop their internal fighting.
<O:p</O:p
Just one last point, I think it is silly to argue that the <ST1:pOttoman Empire </ST1:pwas even actually an Islamic khalifate, which many HT memebers keep giving as an example of what a khalifate should be, especially when there was clearly hereditary rule taking place within this empire. Hereditary rule in not a legal way of selecting a ruler in Islam.

I heard that the film depicts a muslim woman commiting adultery with a crusader. If it does the film is nothing but an open insult to muslim women.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Islamistan

I heard that the film depicts a muslim woman commiting adultery with a crusader. If it does the film is nothing but an open insult to muslim women.

What you heard is one thing and what you actually know is another thing. Therefore, because you don’t actually know what the truth is it is better to not utter such assertions because all you are doing is adding more unnecessary fuel to the fire….don’t you think so bro?

we as muslims should not care what westen people think what any people think for that matter. look at 911 a time when bush blamed the muslims for what he did. yet at this time you would think no one would become muslim from the out side. but in true islam grew large even still. we should only care what allah thinks. he is the only one who makes muslims. this movie is bull. i dont care if they show some favor to any muslims because they attack others. they have a knight asking muslims to bow to him and they do. we know that is not true. why do they have sex in or sexual things in a movie like this. look at what they did with alexandia they made him gay. these people are sick. let them see what they wont in this movie it wont change allah plans. it wont change the last day from coming. we must make sure to let them know we are unhappy with there movie. the main start of this movie is a white(as in race) knight (how might even be a templar( a mason) because we must remember masons grew in this time. and what then.) as the lead role. why not place a muslim in the lead role. this is the same thing as when they took a african king and made him and his people white. they change history and we must make sure to teach our kids the truth.

2 Attachment(s)

Salaams fellow Ummahyads!

check out the trailers, they got 2 new ones:

http://www.kingdomofheavenmovie.com/trailer.html

I especilly like the one, on the top-right,(excul. online trailer).

at the end when Muslims breach the Walls of Baitul-Maqdis, Balian comes out to meet Saladin(ra), he asks him, "how much is juresalem worth?" Saladin turns to him and says, "Nothing!", he then raises his two arms, holds his fist and says, "EVERYTHING!"

man! that gave me high-iman boost! :D

Lol this is really funny.....

Christian conservatives to do battle against crusader film -25/04/ 05

Christian conservatives in America are marshalling their forces against Sir Ridley Scott’s forthcoming crusader epic, The Kingdom of Heaven, claiming the film is insulting and unfair.

A spate of hostile reviews that are due to appear in the increasingly influential religious press this week will urge American Christians to avoid the £100m film, reports the Sunday Times.

But the groups set to oppose the film, may find themselves facing further charges of hypocrisy.

Christian support for Mel Gibson's 'The Passion of the Christ', which contained graphic violence, was supported by many religious figures who had previously condemned other films for their violent content.

The Kingdom of Heaven features violence perpetrated by Christians during the crusades, which many churches may rather ignore and forget.

Full article in the link below:
http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/content/ne...5kingdom.shtml