ISLAM, the Untold Story, which aired on Channel 4 last week, came pretty close to suggesting that Mohammed may have been a man of myth.
Reviewing the programme for the Telegraph, James Walton wrote:
Presenter Tom Holland took the brave step of applying the West’s own (admittedly more recent) traditions of scholarship and scepticism to Islam’s origins. What he found was rather surprising. In the 7th century, the Arabs did indeed roar out of their desert peninsula and conquer half the world. But in those days were they Muslims at all? And if so, why didn’t they, or anybody they conquered, mention the fact?
He added:
Clearly these are uncomfortable questions – and for a while Holland kept asking them without providing an answer. Eventually, though, he forced himself to come clean. No, those world-conquering Arabs probably weren’t Muslims. Only later did Islam appear, and possibly as a neat variation on the Roman use of religion to demonstrate God’s approval of their empire. Moreover, Prophet Mohammed’s life is a historical blank and for decades after his death, Mecca was a place of no special significance. Holland – who by now seemed to be involved in a game of How Far Can You Go? – did stop short of questioning whether Mohammed ever actually existed. But only just.
Historian Tom Holland and Mo, who may never have existed
Throughout the programme, he [Holland] allowed an American Professor of Islamic Studies to champion the oral tradition against the arrogance of the Western “intellectual elite”. None the less, there was no doubting that in its quiet, somewhat earnest way, this was explosive stuff – and, for Channel 4, a welcome return to the fearlessness of its glory days.
Explosive stuff indeed. Today we learn that the documentary has triggered nearly 550 complaints to both the television regulator Ofcom and Channel 4 itself.
It has also sparked a bitter war of words on Twitter involving leading historians and Islamic scholars.
Since it was screened last week, presenter Tom Holland, a historian with a double first from Cambridge, has been subjected to a torrent of abusive tweets, some of which have included physical threats.
He is accused of distorting the history of Islam by claiming the Koran makes little or no reference to the religious city of Mecca.
One Twitter user accused Mr Holland of trying to destroy Islamic history while another called him a “fool” for suggesting Islam is a “made-up religion”.
The Islamic Education and Research Academy has published a lengthy paper denouncing the programme. But historians have rallied to Mr Holland’s defence.
The Academy claims the programme’s assertion that there are no historical records detailing the life and teachings of the Prophet Muhammad is flawed, saying:
Holland appears to have turned a blind eye to rich Islamic historical tradition.
Ofcom, which has received 150 complaints about the programme’s alleged bias, inaccuracy and offence caused to Muslims, is considering an investigation.
The BBC’s new sitcom Citizen Khan, which confronts the issues faced by a modern Muslim family, is also being considered for investigation after receiving just 20 complaints.
Last night Holland said:
The origins of Islam are a legitimate subject of historical inquiry and this film is wholly in keeping with other series and programmes on Channel 4. We were of course aware that we were touching deeply-held sensitivities and went to every effort to ensure that the moral and civilisational power of Islam was acknowledged.
More on this documentary here.
Hat tip: BarrieJohn & Pete H.
If Mohammed didn’t exist then who was it on the flying horse?
And the complaints about Citizen Khan were due to it’s unreal portrayal of a typical muslim family.
The youngest daughter went out partying, dressed in trousers and wearing make-up, and yet she wasn’t beaten to death and buried by the rest of her tribe.
I’m posting this one again!
http://www.jesusandmo.net/2012/08/08/sow/
All areas of belief,power structures, political,religious movements etc, should be open to public scrutiny and criticism equally. Nothing should be exempt or given special status. When, or if, we ever achieve this, human civilisation will have arrived.
National security and defense are obvious exceptions, but of course these need their own public checks and balances.
In the meantime, an Imam has been arrested for trying to frame someone for blasphemy.
Tom Holland’s programme might just be the log that has broken free and is allowing the dam of doubt to flow. Until now any sceptical comments or analysis have been stiffled by threats of fatwahs and death. Salman Rushdie was persecuted by people who not only had not read the offending book but with their limited education were incapable of reading it.
Enquiry, debate and historical analysis have been off limits and, on pain of death, accepted as such. Any “disrespect” i.e. not having a slavish admiration for what now seems to have been a fiction similarly punished. And on the basis of this apparent fiction rests sharia law, the brutal treatment of women, “honour killings” and so much else. The genie is out of the bottle and they are not going to get it back in.
So, as we rationalists always suspected, their “religion” is indeed a joke. A pretty sick one, but a joke all the same.
But if there were no Islam, there would be no Jesus and Mo, and the world would be a sadder and smaller place as a result.
But Jesus may not have existed either:
http://www.jesusandmo.net/2012/08/22/case/
Funny thing… at least Joseph Smith and L Ron Hubbard were real.
I think this should stick a pin in the Islamic apologists who keep going back to the days when ‘Muslims contributed so much science and mathematics to the world’. Apparently even that is wrong.
I started watching that citizen Khan programme and on realising that it was boring and not funny I changed the channel and watched something else, now why can’t these sad bastards who complained not just do the same is there really a new generation of mary whitehouse wannabes who go out of their way looking for things to be offended by notepad’s and pens at the ready.
I’ll have to give this islam the untold story programme a look I thought it was just going to be another “oh look they’re not all nutters” brownnosing deals if I’d known it was going to piss a bunch of zealots off I’d have watched right away
“…. Islamic apologists who keep going back to the days when ‘Muslims contributed so much science and mathematics to the world’…”
But I thought everybody knew the intellectual influence from the Arab world effectively ended in approx. 10th or 12th century. Who is there after Omar Khayyam?
Similar to how the great intellectual and mathematical culture which started at about 600 B.C. in Greece effectively ended with the murder of Hypatia at the hands of a mob of Christian anti-intellectuals in 415 A.D.
Is there even a case to be rested?
‘…..a bitter war of words on Twitter involving leading historians and Islamic scholars.’
Barry, surely the phrase ‘Islamic scholars’ is an oxymoron?
At least we know that the founder of a competing religion actually existed. But thanks to the fact that he existed in the here and now we can also be sure that he was, like every other religious leader, a complete and utter fraud.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-19459604
@ Matt Westwood,
The Islamic apologists are grasping at straws. Actually, Moslems destroyed 99% of Greco-Roman civilisation in the NE and North Africa and saved 1% — on balance, Islam was a particularly destructive force compared with the “barbarians” who invaded the Western Roman empire.
Omar Khayyam was a Persian, BTW.
suggesting Islam is a “made-up religion”.
As opposed to any other religion, which is not “made-up” at all!
Yeesh.
“Only later did Islam appear, and possibly as a neat variation on the Roman use of religion to demonstrate God’s approval of their empire.”
And this explains best the ancient world and their understanding of the planet beyond their own landscape. They have a god so we had better have one who favorers us. Because if you have a god on your side that entitles one to do most anything in his name, no matter how dastardly.
I truly think had our species evolved as an agnostic, or even atheist species…we would prob be a more peaceful civilization. Not saying there would not be the occasional psychopathic leader, but less likely others would blindly follow without the use of a deity to persuade them.
Even the Nazi’s thought god was on their side.
Does it really matter whether Mohammed or JC really existed. The fact is, Islamism and Christianity do e
Robert Spencer wrote “Did Muhammad Exist?: An Inquiry into Islam’s Obscure Origins” in April 2012.
ALL religions are “made up”. Are you kidding me?
Mohummad is already described as an illiterate thug who rose to power.
I guess those fever-dream angels had no magic to give him instant literacy during his wild orgies in that cave. Can’t fix stupid, you know. Not even “allah” can do that. Nope.
I thought the programme was actually very mild mannered and polite, though its obviously a good thing to at least broach the issue of Big Mo’s id, the torrent of complaints and death threats is in itself proof of Islam’s inability to co-exist with science and democracy.
Whilst on the subject of Islamic frauds, here is part one of a responce to the propaganda film “1001 Inventions and a Library of Secrets”; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FCtjXpLyvxA&feature=em-uploademail
the moral and civilisational power of Islam was acknowledged.
Really? What moral and civilisational power is that then? No doubt, being a historian, he dug it up from the first days, while Muhammed was still a used-camel salesman, and not yet a warlord?
Some muslims have recently started claiming that Mo’s first wife being a business women is proof that islam treats women well. So logic can’t really be their strong point.
I’m currently reading Tom Holland’s latest book, In the Shadow of the Sword, which tells the story and it’s well worth the read.
@Geaorgina. “Some muslims have recently started claiming that Mo’s first wife being a business women is proof that islam treats women well”.
That would be the ‘business’ of being a paedophile’s victim then.
To finish off my previous post (it was very early morning and hit the wrong button on my Ipad), I was going to say that Christianity and Islam are very real and very potent. For the moment, anyway.
To be honest, I’m not sure where I’m going with this. I need sleep.
Tom Holland – one brave man.
Tony E – “Barry, surely the phrase ‘Islamic scholars’ is an oxymoron?” All that Islamic scholars study is Islam itself. The list of Nobel prizewinners is evidence of that. Perhaps there should be a prize for the best-gazed navel.
Last year I had a part in “Fiddler on the Roof” which is a musical about a small Jewish village in Russia. They are repressed by their own religion, by an obsession with tradition, and finally by the Russians who drive them out with a pogrom. The main character is the dairyman Tevye, who dreams of being rich. And the sweetest thing he can think of doing is to spend all day discussing the holy book with the scholars. Needless to say he is not particularly well educated or intelligent – just an average Joe. You can see these layabouts in all ME countries – the men sit about drinking coffee under the tree or outside the cafe, no doubt discussing their damned religion, while the women get on with the actual work.
There is something about these damn books that twists its way into people’s minds and won’t let go. Sometimes I think that the only way to fight such inanity is with a carefully crafted better inanity that has fewer downsides. I am pretty sure that it could be done. Hubbard showed that it is possible to just make up a religion, though I’m not sure how you actually get it off the ground. Science and rationality is all very well but it is too hard and obviously has little gut-level emotional appeal for the masses.
Angela_K. Mad Mo’s first wife, the businesswoman, was in her forties when he married her. He was in his twenties. It was little Aisha, his second missus, who was still at primary school when he started shagging her.
The Woggler. But there is only one button on an iPad!
@Angela_K: His first wife was supposed to have been an older woman who was, indeed, a successful businesswoman who actually proposed to HIM, but it all sounds like fairy stories to me!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khadijah_bint_Khuwaylid
barriejohn. It’s actually true. She proposed on St Valentines day in a leap year, and they got married at Gretna Green.
Remigius: George Galloway (Gorgeous George) officiating!
OT: Might be worth looking out for.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2012/sep/02/the-master-review
Lidia wrote
I think the point behind this, which Holland implied but didn’t quite say explicitly, was that the Roman and Persian empires used religion to “legitimise” their rule and the Arabs saw the need for a religion to legitimise their new empire. So Islam was, perhaps, made up quickly and deliberately to fill the gap. Rather than being made-up piecemeal over a longer period.
Brian Jordan: Very similar, too, to the way that the Jews virtually reinvented their faith during The Captivity, in anticipation of their return to “their” land. This involved a rewriting of their “holy books”, etc!
Lazy Susan,
When you think about it, what a job!
You get paid for talking bollocks.
It’s turtles all the way down.
If you want to see the turtles, you just have to look underneath the world.
They are there, wearing giant sunglasses in space.
They are space turtles.
The root cause of humanity’s need for a “God” is the combination of the compulsion to survive, inherent in all animals, and the conflict presented by clear evidence that we do not. So, using this desperate need to survive our own deaths, charlatans invent”God” entities and sell them using “an afterlife if you believe” as the bait and recruit, rather easily, the very high percentage of humanity that favors wishful, over rational, thinking.
Because the source and mysteries of the universe appear to be beyond human comprehension does not entitle anyone to invent explanations and then insist these explanations are fact.
Muslims — such crybabies.
Channel 4 has just had to cancel a screening of the program after threats.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/sep/11/channel-4-cancels-screening-islam
“Did Big Mo exist? Historian’s question enrages Muslims”
Is there anything at all that does not enrage Muslims? This is a “dog bites man” headline.
Personally I believe Tom Holland ought to be allowed to arm himself and then shoot at will at anyone in ay-rab costume who approaches him with a cross face.
More evidence the muslims have lost their argument. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/us-ambassador-in-libya-killed-in-rocket-attack-while-fleeing-protest-over-mohamed-film-claims-official-8130138.html
Don’t like the truth do they these muzzie crypto-fascists?
I’ve been deliberately insulting muslims and blaspheming against Mohamhead for getting on for 20 years now, but they haven’t come after me yet. Is it just that in Libya and Pakistan they have safety in numbers and know that they aren’t likely to come to any personal grief themselves while doing this sort of shit? Cowardly bunch of pussies, aren’t they?
Not only Muslims:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2012/sep/11/scientology-campaign-master
They all know that their incoherent bullshit doesn’t stand uop to scrutiny!
Lazy Susan (above) seems to have forgotten that ALL religions are made up. According to some sources as many as 2500 new religions ‘appear’ every year. After a period of looking pretty radical the more successful ones usually copy aspects of other religions – Christianity copied The Last Supper, halos, and the fish symbol (Ichthys) from pre-existing religions, to name but three. Scientology uses the crucifix (with sunburst) as its symbol.
(The Wikipedia article on Ichthys does not include the pagan origin of the symbol. See ‘The Jesus Mysteries’ by Freke and Gandy.)
Hopefultoo – Do you have a reference for your figure of 2500 new religions per year? Wikipedia’s list of new religions (at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_new_religious_movements) comes nowhere near that.