Chapter 14ISLAM AND CHRISTIANITY:EQUIVALENT TRADITIONS?It's not like a stupidHollywoodmovie." said French actress Eva
Gr ee n ab ou t En gli sh di re ct or Si r Ri dl ey Sc ot t' s Cr us ad es fl ic k,
K i n g d o m o f H e a v e n.
That'strue.
It's, like, a stupid English movie.
Musl ims,. " gushe d theNew York Timesafter an adva nce showi ng of this
new blockbuster. "are portrayed as bent on coexistence until Christian
extremists ruin everything. And even when the Christians are defeated.
Muslims give them safe conduct to return to Europe." Sir Ridley,
according to theTimes,"said he hoped to demonstrate that Christians,
Muslims and Jews could live together in harmony—if only fanaticism
were kept at bay." Or, as Green put it, the movie is intended to move
people "to be more tolerant, more open towards the Arab people."'
By now it should be clear The idea that Muslims were "bent on coexistence"
with non-Muslims untilthe Crusaders arrived is historically
inaccurate—unless by "coexistence" Ridley Scott means the coexistence
of oppressor and oppressed thatwasthe dhimma. Both he and Eva Green
mak e the PC mot iva tio ns beh ind thi s movi e cle ar: to sho w tha t wha t.
interferes with peaceful coexistence between Muslims and non-Muslims is
"fanaticism,"' not any element in a religious tradition. The film is also
intended to make us intolerant racist Westerners nicer to Arabs.
171guesswhat?
Mostmodern-day
presentations ofthe
Crusades are
politicallymotivated,a
historical nonsense.
The problem the
worldfaces today is
not generalized
"religious
fundamentalism"—it
isIslamic jihad.6 Wewill not beable to
resist jihadwithout
recoveringpride in
Western civilization.