5/8     Just saw Kingdom of Heaven. I'm not religious and I don't know
        much history to say much about it, except that it is very visually
        pleasing. Now I'm curious. How much of it was historically
        accurate? Did Muslims/Christians really get alone well back then,
        and were the events and provocations accurate, agreed upon by
        historians and confirmed by archeologists? I'd like to hear from
        HISTORIANS first. However, if you are Muslim/Christian/Jew and you
        must respond to this thread, do so but indicate your religion first.
        \_ Sometimes, sort of.  Jews and Muslims were sometimes tolerated
           in Europe, often persecuted and killed, and despite what you
           hear from a lot of blue-eyed utopian historians, infidels were
           second-class citizens in pretty much all of the muslim world as
           well, with the major difference that many of the muslim rulers had
           better things to do (think harems.)  -John
           \_ Yeah, that's a pretty good summary. Note that I sat through
              some of the most left-biased history classes available and
              even they never said anything other than that non-Muslims were
              second class citizens in Dar al-Islam. They just emphasized that
              being non-Christian in Christendom often got you killed and in
              pretty amazing and creative ways. There is a very readable
              version of this history in Larry Gonick's "Cartoon History of the
              World" volumes II and III. No, really! -- ulysses (okay,
              maybe I'm not a historian but I did get a degree in it)
        \_ The movie showed that some Christians were evil, and that Salahadim
           (sp?) the ugly looking Muslim was honest and kept his words, unlike
           previous barbaric Christians. I bet that confused a lot of Average
           Joes who were expecting a typical Hollywood GOOD/EVIL movie, or
           Xians=good/Muslims=bad movie. I liked the movie, not as a historian,
           but as someone who prefers seeing perspectives from both sides which
           the movie did pretty well. On the other hand, the loves scenes were
           the movie did pretty well. On the other hand, the love scenes were
           cheezy and I doubt the authenticity in them.
           \_ Saladin/Salahuddin/Salawhatever was a skilled tacician and
              strategist, and a reasonably decent and enlightened ruler, but
              it's always useful to look at these things in the context of
              the times.  -John