It seems of late that every change of seasons brings with it another documentary on Islam; this time it was one by Tom Holland, an academic in the field of religious history. Perhaps it was Holland's academic background that made me look forward to watching this- an academic, I thought, would surely apply all the rigour to this documentary that he otherwise would to any serious work which is to bear his name. And as an academic, surely Holland is aware of the importance of scrutinising his research methods, examining his sources, and treating all significant evidence fairly. The 'Untold Story', unfortunately, tells another story altogether, and its impact on British society is one that cannot be overlooked.
On the surface, Holland's 'Untold Story' has all the elements of a great documentary. He appears to challenge the status quo by questioning commonly accepted beliefs about the origins of Islam, he travels to all the exotic places that one would associate with an in-depth study of Islamic history, and he interviews Western academics that appear to be specialists within the field. All of this combined with Holland's romantically ruffled hair, an accent which tells of a privileged upbringing, and poetic phrases which convey a sense that he is uncovering an enigma wrapped within a mystery ("History is like a labyrinth...who knows where it may lead?") added to the several palpable, strategically-placed pauses, could be enough to convince the average viewer of the credibility of his work. Upon scratching the surface, however, I am left wondering what about Islam, if anything, Holland's story tells us at all.
In reality, any scholar of Islamic history will point out forthwith the fatal flaw in Holland's methodology. While he makes references, albeit limited and self-serving, to the Qur'an in trying to uncover the origins of Islam, he also chooses to simultaneously overlook an entire corpus of scholarly material on Islamic history from Islamic sources. As Holland is shown rifling through books in what is presumably a British library, it begs the question- does he not know of the vast body of work that has been put together by Islamic historians in Arabic and Persian, which is housed in seminaries in Cairo, Riyadh and Qom, among others? Does he not realise that scholars of Islamic history dedicate their lives to studying these original texts? Is he really expecting to find evidence of a man who lived and died in Arabia, almost fourteen centuries ago, conveniently tucked away in a library in Britain?
While his conversation with the Danish Professor Patricia Crone alludes to "oral tradition" and its unreliability in trying to create an accurate account of history, Holland never stops to fully justify his outright and wholesale rejection of Islamic scholarly material. Crone scoffs at the inferiority of the oral tradition due to it being tainted by the perception of the reporter, yet to assume as unreliable the entire oral tradition in Islamic records, the examination of which has been brought down to a science in which specialist scholars work tirelessly to sift out strong traditions from weak ones, makes about as much academic sense as assuming that written history has never been tainted by the perception and motives of the person who wrote it.
So convinced is Holland of the worthlessness of Islamic historic records that not only does he make no reference to them, he does not even interview a single seminary-educated scholar as part of his research. Of course he interviews Western and even Israeli academics, along with Professor Seyyed Hossein Nasr who provides a Muslim academic perspective, but consulting Islamic scholars and historians is neglected in favour of a much more exotic, oriental experience: speaking to bedouins in the Saudi desert. Even Nasr, except for being a token Muslim voice, provides little which can be considered of academic substance; this is not surprising when one considers that Nasr is not a historian, his specialist subject being Islamic philosophy.
Less than a day after the documentary was aired, the Islamic Education and Research Academy (IERA) issued a press release with details of several documents in Western history that mentioned either 'a prophet' among the Arabs or 'Muhammad' by name. Proselytising claims aside, the historic evidence presented in IERA's statement proves at least that the existence of Muhammad in (Western) history is not the 'black hole' that Holland purports it to be. Even if it is argued that this is evidence which had not come to Holland's attention, there is still one decisive document that we know he was aware of yet neglected to mention in the documentary.
This is the 'treaty of Medina' and has been mentioned in Holland's book, 'In the Shadow of the Sword' which was published in April of this year. The treaty is a peace agreement between Muhammad and the Muslim and Jewish tribes native to the area at the time, and is described by Holland in his book as "a single lump of magma sufficiently calcified to have stood proof against all erosion." This treaty would have provided answers to some of Holland's questions and rendered others null and void; it is textual and archaeological evidence of Muhammad's existence and his life in Medina (and not the Negev desert). So why didn't Holland, instead of fretting over coinage and post-Muhammad Arab imperialists, include this key piece of evidence? Was it because he was seeking only to promote his own version of events?
In the aftermath of Holland's controversial research being aired and watched reportedly by over a million viewers, many people took to social media and reacted in obvious ways. Recognising the shortcomings in Holland's methodology, Muslim viewers objected to what they perceived as a biased portrayal of Islam. Some who knew little about Islamic scholarship praised Holland's work. Others went a step further and accused Muslims of reacting disproportionately and being incapable of accepting criticism of their faith- these are the folks who live with the dichotomy of upholding liberal values and yet marginalising those who disagree with their secular viewpoint. Still others resorted to inflammatory, hate-filled comments, cursing Muslims and portraying Islam as an ideology that is about little more than hate, violence and oppression. Yes, the Islamophobes had a field day.
It's all well and good for Tom Holland though, as he casually Tweeted, "you win some, you lose some." I wonder if he realises at all that with his research into the origins of Islam, one in which he assumes the superiority of secular Western historic traditions over all others and appears to make his evidence conveniently fit his desired conclusion, he has only served to worsen the understanding of an already poorly-understood faith and its much-maligned adherents.
Dr. Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed: In the Shadow of Fiction: How Television Is Making (Up) Muslim History
Best to ignore such charlatans.
And I think those who say that Holland suggested that Muhammad never existed in the documentary are mistaken. He never says that and in fact has said elsewhere that the treaty of Medina and seems to accept it as some evidence of Muhammad's existence. Once again it was a one hour documentary.
Funny how the Tawrat, Zabur and Injil can simply be written off as tahrif, but any suggestion of a similar scrutiny of the Holy Qu'ran is treated as blasphemous or Islamophobic.
A non-Muslim scholar attempting textual criticism of the Holy Qu'ran is clearly a much bigger problem for Muslims than Muslim scholars doing the same thing for the Christian or Jewish bibles. A true religion needs no such double standards to defend itself.
Christians in the modern West have had to get used to sometimes harsh criticism from outsiders and non-believers, even to the point of derision and direct insult. It's part of living in a free society.
Muslims need to realise almighty Allah does not need their own personal contribution to His defense, and do the same.
Tom Holland responds to his critics here
http://www.channel4.com/programmes/islam-the-untold-story/articles/tom-holland-responds-to-the-programmes-critics
and a very good rebuttal to the IERA Press Release can be found here
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=erxWJ5XdVnE
His response on the Channel 4 website does not address any of the key issues that I have raised above. Why a wholesale rejection of Islamic scholarship, that too without any proper justification of this rejection? Why not speak to even a single seminary-educated Muslim scholar, but then go and speak to Saudi bedouins? Why not take a Western academic with more mainstream views on Islamic history (and there are several) instead of featuring an apologist who specialises in Islamic philosophy? And why not mention the Treaty of Medina, when this has been mentioned in his own book? All of this is valid critique, and Holland addresses none of it in his statement.
In fact, from his response, he seems to be incapable of objectively considering any critique at all, as he keeps regurgitating the same justifications, e.g."The origins of Islam are a legitimate subject of historical enquiry" and the same sources, such as Prof Fred Donner's comments on the Quran. Yes, of course the origins of Islam are a legitimate subject of historical enquiry, and moreover a hugely significant one, so all we ask is that this subject is handled with the rigour that it deserves, which does not appear to have been done by Holland.
The documentary is a summary of his book "In the Shadow of the Sword", within which you will find his thoughts fully laid out and sourced.
Holland's point in the documentary is a religion that claims to be "born in the full light of history", has little evidence to support that claim. It follows that he offers little evidence since little exists and that is his point.
Islam claims that a man, Muhammad received a revelation from God to become a Prophet, he united the Arab tribes under this religion before dying in approx 632ad and his followers who were called Muslims created an Empire, inspired by Islam, which was fully formed. The individual revelations were collected together and made into a book, “The Quran”, after Muhammad’s death but that they are the unaltered word of God.
Holland does not concern himself with the message he concentrates on the history, that is to say verifiable sources. Historically, the Arab’s don’t call themselves Muslim’s for 50-60 years after the death of Muhammad, nor do the newly conquered Jews and Christians, why? Holland then asks the question, is it possible that Islam was formed during those 50-60 years? It is a perfectly reasonable question and the lack of evidence lends it weight.
The easiest way to refute Holland is to provide evidence, you chose not to do that instead, you attacked the man, his methods, integrity, credentials etc.
In his film he confessed that every so often he wonders if he isn't making a big mistake. He should have listened to his soul.
The whole of a religion depends on believing the word of one man, a self-appointed prophet (obviously there are no contemporaneous witness statements of his visits to the heavens). Just like Moses, Jesus (I'm the son of God etc), Joseph Smith etc. - you either believe it or you don't. The supernatural is obviously not susceptible to rational and scientific proof.
Surprise surprise: since we have the means to film and test real events, no believable prophet, miracle, angel appearance or anything else remotely connected with supernatural beings has stood up to scrutiny.
Wake up and smell the coffee!
What was on test was not the truth of revelations and beliefs, but whether of not the Prophet Mohammed (true or false) existed. The entire exercise was to show that the Prophet Mohammed did not exist when he was supposed to. Nowhere near enough evidence was produced to support these extraordinary claims.
Of course all this doesn't address the supernatural - in other words, even if they can dredge up robust evidence (not just oblique references), it can never address the belief in the supernatural aspects (visits to the heavens etc) which is limited only by the bizarre imaginations of the self-appointed scribes.
Keep it up and keep blogging. Loved your points.
"The fact that he is not able to conclude with certainty his theories, just goes to show that he was probably doing this show with some ulterior agenda." - My sentiments exactly.
I disagree. I don't think there was an ulterior motive, just a lack of evidence to back up his slightly surprising claims.
This is welcome news? Arab scholars may be a little inhibited in researching such matters as the origins of the Quran? When the Arab scholar Suliman Bashear argued that Islam developed as a religion gradually rather than emerging fully formed from the mouth of Mohammed, he was defenestrated by his students at the University of Nablus in the West Bank.
In the meantime it is good that people such as Holland are at least asking questions and there is no need for some Muslims to be so defensive.For example Holland never seriously questions the existence of Muhammed as this article seems to imply.