Britain: Islam Documentary Cancelled Amid Threats of Physical Violence
Islam is "a legitimate subject of historical inquiry. I think there's a degree to which Muslims, far more than Christians, have felt that the foundation myths of their religion are somehow historical fact, and it seems to me that they're clearly not." — Tom Holland, author, Islam: The Untold Story, cancelled by Channel 4, after threats.
The British television broadcaster Channel 4 has cancelled the screening of a controversial documentary about the history of Islam after the presenter was threatened with physical violence.
The private screening was due to take place at the broadcaster's headquarters in London on September 13 before an audience of historians and opinion shapers, to be followed by a debate.
"Islam: The Untold Story" is a documentary by historian Tom Holland, a well-known British author, who examines the origins of Islam and argues that there is little written historical evidence to verify truth-claims about the Muslim prophet Mohammed and the origins of Islam.
In the documentary, the Cambridge-educated historian offers a critical examination of the traditional Islamic narrative that the Koran, the Muslim holy book, was transmitted directly and "fully formed" to Mohammed through the angel Gabriel in the seventh century.
Holland says that contrary to Muslim claims, it is far more probable that the Koran and Islamic theology developed gradually over many centuries in conjunction with the expansion of Arab empires. He also says there are many "black holes" in the historical record and suggests that Islam is essentially a "made-up" religion. Says Holland: "I had expected to find contemporaneous Muslim evidence, but there's nothing there."
In the film, Holland also questions the centrality of Mecca in the origins of Islam. He states: "Aside from a single ambiguous mention in the Koran itself, there is no mention of [the Muslim holy city of] Mecca, not one, in any datable text for over a hundred years after Muhammad's death."
The documentary, which was previously aired on Channel 4 on August 28, has generated more than 1,000 complaints by Muslims who accuse Holland of distorting the history of Islam.
The London-based Islamic Education and Research Academy has published two papers (here and here) denouncing the program. It accuses Holland of "recklessness," of making "baseless assumptions" and of engaging in "selective scholarship."
The British telecommunications regulator, Ofcom, says it may launch an investigation after it received more than 100 complaints that the documentary is biased and offensive to Muslims.
Holland insists that Islam is "a legitimate subject of historical inquiry." Indeed, the documentary follows on the heels of a growing number of scholarly and popular books (here, here, here, here, here, here and here) that challenge some of the most fundamental assumptions about the origin of Islam.
In an interview about the origins of Islam with the London-based The Spectator, Holland states: "I think there's a degree to which Muslims, far more than Christians, have felt that the foundation myths of their religion are somehow historical fact, and it seems to me that they're clearly not. There must be a bedrock of fact, but it is more sacred history than it is history...." He also says: "There's a sense in which I think as Islam evolves and as, let's say, Muslims start to realize that they are in competition with Jews and Christians, they need to have their Prophet have a revelation from an angel...."
In any case, Holland's documentary has earned him an online flood of abusive messages. According to the British newspaper The Telegraph, one message reads: "You might be a target in the streets. You may recruit some bodyguards, for your own safety."
A spokesperson for Channel 4 said: "Having taken security advice, we have reluctantly canceled a planned screening of the program Islam: The Untold Story."
The dust-up follows a similar controversy over a new BBC comedy series called Citizen Khan, which confronts issues faced by a modern Muslim family.
The six-part series, which aired for the first time on BBC1 in August, was created by British Muslim Adil Ray, who also plays the lead role.
Following its first episode, the BBC received more than 600 complaints from Muslims who claim the program is guilty of "stereotypes about Asians" and is "disrespectful to the Koran." Some of the angry reactions have been compiled here.
Muslims were particularly angered by a scene where an actress who plays Khan's glamorous daughter rushes to put on a hijab and pretends to be reading the Koran when her father comes home.
According to the Union of Muslim Organizations of UK and Ireland, a London-based Muslim umbrella organization, "a large proportion of Muslims will be un-amused by the negative stereotypes because it leads to misrepresentation."
British Muslims are not, apparently, allowed to laugh at themselves.
Soeren Kern is a Distinguished Senior Fellow at the New York-based Gatestone Institute. He is also Senior Fellow for European Politics at the Madrid-based Grupo de Estudios Estratégicos / Strategic Studies Group. Follow him on Facebook.
Reader comments on this item
|Live interview with Tom Holland [75 words]||Sajid||Nov 16, 2012 09:55|
|BBC, Islam, and threats [133 words]||Mary||Oct 11, 2012 20:29|
|↔ Islam and threats [69 words]||Mac||Oct 12, 2012 14:30|
|Much though the BBC has a Left-wing bias ... [60 words]||Yokel||Sep 23, 2012 03:29|
|Sir Winston Churchill [195 words]||Hans_Solo||Sep 22, 2012 09:45|
|An Excellent Documentary [24 words]||Newspaniard||Sep 22, 2012 04:44|
|Churchill on Islam [234 words]||Sadie||Sep 21, 2012 15:33|
Comment on this item
by Burak Bekdil
Where Turkey stands today is a perfect example of how, when Islamists -- mild or otherwise -- rule a county, even the most basic liberties are systematically suppressed.
"A climate of fear has emerged in Turkey." — Hasam Kilic, President, Turkey's Constitutional Court.
The prosecutor demanded a heavier penalty for the victim than for her torturers.
The European Commission identified government interference in the judiciary and bans imposed on social media as the major sources of concern regarding Turkey's candidacy for full membership.
by Khaled Abu Toameh
To understand what drives a young Palestinian to carry out such a deadly attack, one needs to look at the statements of Palestinian Authority leaders during the past few weeks.
The anti-Israel campaign of incitement reached its peak with Abbas's speech at the UN a few weeks ago, when he accused Israel of waging a "war of genocide" in the Gaza Strip. Abbas made no reference to Hamas's crimes against both Israelis and Palestinians.
Whatever his motives, it is clear that the man who carried out the most recent attack, was influenced by the messages that Abbas and the Palestinian Authority leadership have been sending their people.
by Richard Kemp
Would General Allen -- or any other general today -- recommend contracting out his country's defenses if it were his country at stake? Of course not.
The Iranian regime remains dedicated to undermining and ultimately destroying the State of Israel. The Islamic State also has Israel in its sights and would certainly use the West Bank as a point from which to attack, if it were open to them.
There can be no two-state solution and no sovereign Palestinian Arab state west of the Jordan, however desirable those things might be. The stark military reality is that Israel cannot withdraw its forces from the West Bank.
Fatah leaders ally themselves with the terrorists of Hamas, and, like Hamas, they continue to reject the every existence of the State of Israel.
If Western leaders actually want to help, they should use all diplomatic and economic means to make it clear to the Palestinians that they will never achieve an independent and sovereign state while they remain set on the destruction of the State of Israel.
by Louis René Beres
The Palestine Liberation Organization [PLO], forerunner of today's Palestinian Authority, was founded in 1964, three years before Israel came into the unintended control of the West Bank and Gaza. What therefore was the PLO planning to "liberate"?
Why does no one expect the Palestinians to cease all deliberate and random violence against Israeli civilians before being considered for admission to statehood?
On June 30, 1922, a joint resolution of both Houses of Congress of the United States endorsed a "Mandate for Palestine," confirming the right of Jews to settle anywhere they chose between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea. This is the core American legacy of support for a Jewish State that President Obama now somehow fails to recall.
A sovereign state of Palestine, as identified by the Arabs -- a Muslim land occupied by "Palestinian" Arabs -- has never existed; not before 1948, and not before 1967. From the start, it was, and continues to be, the Arab states -- not Israel -- that became the core impediment to Palestinian sovereignty.
by Timon Dias
It looks as if this new law is meant to serve as a severe roadblock to parties that would like to dismantle the EU in a democratic and peaceful way from within.
A rather dull semantic trick pro-EU figures usually apply, is calling their opponents "anti-Europe."