Channel 4 History of Islam sparks Flood of Complaints

[~Zaria~]

Dont ever underestimate the power that just ONE person has in making a difference.


Just wanted to site as an example the following article:

--> where a Christian viewer made an appeal to the national advertising authority to remove an advert, that had been airing for quiet some time and had gained alot of popularity.
It contained NO racist/ prejudicial/ discriminatory/ overtly pornographic/ sexist content.

His objection: the angels that were depicted as 'falling out of heaven', being attracted to the scent of a mortals man's perfume (Axe) - were against his religious beliefs.
And he won!

The question we should be asking is: 'Why was this objection not raised by MUSLIMS?
If this was considered offensive to a Christian......what was our excuse in keeping silent?'

Down-to-earth Axe ad gets the chop for obtuse angel riff
JOHANNESBURG, SOUTH AFRICA - Oct 26 2011 06:53
​

The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) has instructed a TV advert depicting angels falling from heaven because they are attracted to a man's deodorant, to be withdrawn, as it could offend Christians.

A viewer who complained to the ASA about the advert said the suggestion that angels would literally fall for a man wearing this deodorant was incompatible with his belief as a Christian, according to the ruling by the ASA's directorate this month.

The advert for Axe deodorant depicts winged, attractive women crashing to earth in what appears to be an Italian town, and then being drawn towards and sniffing a young man who has used the deodorant. The text at the end of the ad reads: "Even angels will fall."

The directorate was concerned that the angels were depicted falling and, secondly, being attracted to a mortal man.

"As such, the problem is not so much that angels are used in the commercial, but rather that the angels are seen to forfeit, or perhaps forego their heavenly status for mortal desires. This is something that would likely offend Christians in the same manner as it offended the complainant."

While the directorate was mindful of the hyperbole employed in the advert, it was not convinced that this was sufficient to negate the offence experienced by the viewer.

The respondent in the matter, Unilever SA, was ordered to withdraw the commercial in its current format. -- Sapa

Moral of the Story:

“Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world.
Indeed, it's the only thing that ever has.”

Margaret Mead
​

 

[~Zaria~]

A Response to Channel 4's 'Islam: The Untold Story'



This paper is a response to the Channel 4 Programme "Islam: The Untold Story", which was shown on Tuesday 28 August 2012 and presented by Tom Holland. The paper will address each of the main claims made by Holland.

1. The claim that there is no historical evidence in the seventh century on the origins of Islam:

Tom Holland's assertion that there is no historical evidence for the seventh century origins of Islam is historically inaccurate. This notion cannot be sustained in light of the contemporary non-Islamic as well as material evidence. For instance, early Christian chronicles in the seventh century elaborate on the origins of Islam, the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) and some of the laws practised by the early Muslims. Below are some examples of these chronicles:

Doctrina Jacobi written in 635 CE

A document called Doctrina Jacobi written only two years after the death of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) clearly mentions that a prophet had appeared amongst the Arabs:
"I, Abraham, went off to Sykamina and referred the matter to an old man very well-versed in the Scriptures. I asked him: “What is your view, master and teacher, of the prophet who has appeared among the Saracens”.(1)


Here it can be clearly seen that a prophet among Saracens [i.e. the Arabs] is mentioned. The questions is: who was this prophet among Arabs? And what does a prophet do? The Prophet of Arabs was non other than Muhammad (peace be upon him) and it appears that the meaning of the term “prophet” was clearly understood by the author of this narrative. A prophet, in a Judeo-Christian sense, leads his people and teaches them about God and this is exactly what the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) did. A Christian chronicler couldn't have understood the term differently. Holland’s claim that there is no evidence of Islam before the early Islamic conquests is anachronistic. If there is evidence of a prophet among Arabs, why then one should doubt the existence of the teachings of that prophet?


A record of the Arab conquest of Syria written in 637 CE

A record of the Arab conquest of Syria written in 637 CE, just 5 years after the death of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), clearly mentions him by name. Interestingly, the date of the document agrees with the best Arab date for the battle of Yarmuk:
"...and in January, they took the word for their lives did the sons of Emesa, and many villages were ruined with killing by the Arabs of Mụhammad and a great number of people were killed and captives were taken from Galilee as far as Bēth." (2)
In this record, the name of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) is clearly mentioned. Holland’s claim that the Prophet does not appear in records until 60 years after his death is historically obnoxious.


Sebeos, Bishop of the Bagratunis (Writing c.660 CE)

A mid seventh century account of Islam comes from Sebeos who was a bishop of the House of Bagratunis. This chronicle suggests that he lived through many of the events he relates. As for Muhammad (peace be upon him), he had the following to say:

"At that time a certain man from along those same sons of Ishmael, whose name was Mahmet [i.e., Mụhammad], a merchant, as if by God's command appeared to them as a preacher [and] the path of truth. He taught them to recognize the God of Abraham, especially because he was learned and informed in the history of Moses. Now because the command was from on high, at a single order they all came together in unity of religion. Abandoning their vain cults, they turned to the living God who had appeared to their father, Abraham. So, Mahmet legislated for them: not to eat carrion, not to drink wine, not to speak falsely, and not to engage in fornication. He said: with an oath God promised this land to Abraham and his seed after him forever. And he brought about as he promised during that time while he loved Ishmael. But now you are the sons of Abraham and God is accomplishing his promise to Abraham and his seed for you. Love sincerely only the God of Abraham, and go and seize the land which God gave to your father Abraham. No one will be able to resist you in battle, because God is with you." (3)


This narrative by Sebeos clearly undermines Holland's assertion that there are no historical records elaborating on the life, teachings and mission of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). In fact this particular narrative suggests that the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) had taught his companions about Islam and the tenets of this faith were well established and understood by the time Sebeos was writing his chronicle. Holland, for some reason, failed to notice these important non-Muslim testimonies as to the established existence of Islam as a way of life in the mid seventh century. Some more evidence of the early mention of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) can be seen here:
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/History/Islam/Inscriptions/earlysaw.html.


Holland appears to have turned a blind eye to the rich Islamic historical tradition. There are no “black holes” and there is no missing information. There is plenty of material evidence available to substantiate the accuracy of the Islamic narrative on the early history of Islam. For instance, there are thousands of inscriptions on rocks in Saudi Arabia confirming the chronological accuracy of the Islamic historical records such as Hadith and Sira/Maghazi literature. One such inscription can be found here:
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/History/Islam/Inscriptions/kuficsaud.html.


This inscription states ‘In the name of Allah, I, Zuhayr, wrote [this] at the time Umar died in the year four and twenty (i.e. 24 AH)’. This dated early text confirms the established existence of the Islamic Hijri calendar, the truth of the event of Hijrah (migration) of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), the existence of Umar bin Khattab (the second Caliph of Islam), and the accuracy of the Islamic chronology, as according the Islamic historical records, the second Caliph of Islam died in the year 24 AH (644 CE). Also, there is an undated early seventh century inscription, which documents the Islamic Shahadah proclamation. It can be found here:
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/History/Islam/Inscriptions/hamid3.html.


There is also plenty of Papyri evidence available to confirm the chronological as well as the factual accuracy of the Islamic narrative. Some of this papyri evidence can be witnessed here: http://www.islamic-awareness.org/History/Islam/Papyri/.


Why would Holland ignore all of this visible evidence and turn a blind eye to it?

2. Unjustified rejection of the Islamic narrative:

Tom Holland’s presentation was clearly biased in the programme, as he ignored other scholarly views that would call his approach into question. For example, Michael Cook, a historian specialising in early Islamic history explains the importance of early non-Muslim accounts of the origins of Islam:

"What does this material tell us? We may begin with the major points on which it agrees with the Islamic tradition. It precludes any doubts as to whether Muhammad was a real person: he is named in a Syriac source that is likely to date from the time of the conquests, and there is an account of him in a Greek source of the same period. From the 640s we have confirmation that the term muhajir was a central one in the new religion, since its followers are known as 'Magaritai' or 'Mahgraye' in Greek and Syriac respectively. At the same time, a papyrus of 643 is dated 'year twenty two', creating a strong presumption that something did happen in AD 622. The Armenian chronicler of the 660s attests that Muhammad was a merchant, and confirms the centrality of Abraham in his preaching. The Abrahamic sanctuary appears in an early source dated (insecurely) to the 670s." (4)


Holland's rejection of the Islamic narrative lacks academic rigour. Commenting on Holland's approach Peter Webb, who teaches Classical Arabic literature at SOAS, the University of London, explains the "resilient" and "robust" nature of the Islamic tradition:
"Over the past century, the Muslim tradition has been challenged by many academics and it has proven remarkably resilient in its own defence...but the Muslim account of history, the textual integrity of the Koran and the mnemonic capacity of oral traditions are more robust than Holland gives them credit...few scholars today would claim it was entirely fabricated. Holland would have done better to adopt a cautious and sensitive approach to the Arabic sources, rather than abandoning them in favour of a sensational rewriting of history." (5)


Professor Robert Hoyland from the University of Oxford highlights how conclusions similar to Holland's, including the view that Mecca was in a different place, is a result of not studying the Islamic material and developing scenarios not based on evidence:
"..the historical memory of the Muslim community is more robust than some have claimed. For example, many of the deities, kings and tribes of the pre-Islamic Arabs that are depicted by ninth-century Muslim historians also feature in the epigraphic record, as do many of the rulers and governors of the early Islamic state. This makes it difficult to see how historical scenarios that require for their acceptance a total discontinuity in the historical memory of the Muslim community - such as that Muhammad did not exist, the Quran was not written in Arabic, Mecca was originally in a different place etc. - can really be justified. Many of these scenarios rely on absence of evidence, but it seems a shame to make such a recourse when there are so many very vocal forms of material evidence still waiting to be studied." (6)

3. Rejecting the Islamic oral tradition:

As discussed above, Holland's approach is inherently biased as he unjustifiably rejects the entire corpus of the Islamic tradition, including the oral Prophetic traditions. Patricia Crone asserts in the documentary that with oral traditions "you remember what you want to remember". With this assertion Holland attempts to undermine the entire science of Hadith (Prophetic traditions). The science of the Prophetic traditions is based upon scrutinising the isnad (chain of narrations) and the matn (the text). Nabia Abbot, a prominent academic who has conducted extensive study on the Prophetic traditions, explains how the growth of these traditions was as a result of parallel and multiple chains of transmission which highlights that these traditions are trustworthy and a valid source of historical information.

She writes:

"...the traditions of Muhammad as transmitted by his Companions and their Successors were, as a rule, scrupulously scrutinised at each step of the transmission, and that the so called phenomenal growth of Tradition in the second and third centuries of Islam was not primarily growth of content, so far as the hadith of Muhammad and the hadith of the Companions are concerned, but represents largely the progressive increase in parallel and multiple chains of transmission." (7)
Harald Motzki, an academic on Hadith literature, has similar sentiments. In an essay that appeared in the Journal of Near Eastern Studies he concludes that the Prophetic traditions are an important and useful type of source concerning the study of early Islam:


"While studying the Musannaf of `Abd al-Razzaq, I came to the conclusion that the theory championed by Goldziher, Schacht and in their footsteps many others - myself included - which in general, reject hadith literature as a historically reliable sources for the first century AH, deprives the historical study of early Islam of an important and a useful type of source." (8)


Hence, even a sceptic like Motzki couldn't resist the strength of the preservation the Islamic Prophetic tradition. On what basis then people like Holland reject the entire Islamic literary corpus?

4. The absurdity of rejecting the oral tradition:

Even if we were to follow Holland's line of enquiry, it would lead us to absurdities. The philosophical implications of rejecting the Prophetic traditions are quite ****ing. In epistemology - which is narrowly defined as the study of knowledge and belief - testimony is considered as one of the sources of knowledge, and when applied properly it can form justified beliefs. Testimony is a valid source of knowledge only when it comes from a reliable source especially if there are multiple sources in agreement. Obviously there are conditions as to how we can use testimony, but in the majority cases we consider testimony as a valid source of knowledge. For instance, take our certainty on the fact that China exists. Many people have never been to China, eaten Chinese food in China or spoken to someone in China. All they have as evidence is a map of the world and people telling them they have travelled to China and others claiming to be from China but is this sufficient? However, if we examine why we have such a high level of certainty that China exists, regardless of the above questions, we will conclude that it is due to recurrent testimony. Recurrent testimony is when such a large number of people have reported a claim to knowledge (such as the existence of China) that it is impossible for them to agree upon a lie or to simultaneously lie. This is accentuated by the fact that most of these people never met and lived in different places and different times. Therefore to claim that they have lied is tantamount to propose the existence of an impossible conspiracy.


Linking this to the Prophetic traditions, not only do we have mass testimony of events and statements of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), we have a detailed science dedicated to authenticate these traditions. Prophetic traditions consist of two components: isnad (chain of narrations) and matn (text). Each of these have detailed criteria that scrutinise the chain and the text to a degree that leaves very little room for doubt. To reject these traditions is tantamount to rejecting facts such as the existence of China or the entirety of history, as these events have been verified via recurrent testimony also. Moreover, each Prophetic tradition has been scrutinised more rigorously than any historical fact we have with us today. Thousands of companions of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) narrated reports from him and these reports were then transmitted to subsequent generations with maximum care and authenticity. An anonymous report or a narration originating from an unknown source was immediately rejected. Companions such as Abdullah bin Umar, Anas bin Malik, Abu Hurairah, Aysha, Hudaifah bin Yamaan and many more narrated reports from the Prophet and they were then passed onto the next generation. A very good treatment of this subject can be found in M. M. Azami’s “Studies in Early Hadith Literature”.

The criteria used to verify prophetic traditions are summarised below:


Some criteria for the evaluation of Isnad

The unblemished and undisputed character of the narrator was the most important consideration for the acceptance of a prophetic tradition. A branch of the science of hadith ('ilm al-hadith) known as asma' ar-rijal (the biographies of the people) was developed to evaluate the credibility of narrators. The following are a few of the criteria utilized for this purpose:

1. The name, nickname, title, parentage and occupation of the narrator should be known.
2. The original narrator should have stated that he heard the hadith directly from the Prophet.
3. If a narrator referred his hadith to another narrator, the two should have lived in the same period and have had the possibility of meeting each other.
4. At the time of hearing and transmitting the hadith, the narrator should have been physically and mentally capable of understanding and remembering it.
5. The narrator should have been known as a pious and virtuous person.
6. The narrator should not have been accused of having lied, given false evidence or committed a crime.
7. The narrator should not have spoken against other reliable people.
8. The narrator's religious beliefs and practices should have been known to be correct.
9. The narrator should not have carried out and practiced peculiar religious beliefs of his own.

Some criteria for the evaluation of Matn

1. The text should have been stated in plain and simple language as this was the undisputed manner of speech of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him).
2. A text in non-Arabic or containing indecent language was rejected (for the same reason as above).
3. A text prescribing heavy punishment for minor sins or exceptionally large reward for small virtues was rejected.
4. A text which referred to actions that should have been commonly known and practiced by others but were not known and practiced was rejected.
5. A text contrary to the basic teachings of the Qur'an was rejected.
6. A text contrary to another established prophetic tradition was rejected.
7. A text inconsistent with historical facts was rejected.
8. Extreme care was taken to ensure the text was the original narration of the Prophet and not the sense of what the narrator heard. The meaning of the Prophet tradition was accepted only when the narrator was well known for his piety and integrity of character.
9. A text by an obscure narrator which was not known during the age of the Prophet's companions or of the subsequent generation was rejected.

It is clear from the above that the criteria for verifying the Prophetic traditions is comprehensive and robust. Even in the philosophy of history we do not find such comprehensive criteria.

5. The textual Islamic tradition:

Holland continues to espouse his uninformed perspective by claiming that there is an absence of textual evidence from the Islamic narrative. In response to this there are a myriad of written works in the early period of Islam. Below is a list of some of the early works:
Saheefah Saadiqah: Compiled by Abdullaah Ibn ‘Amr ibn al-Aas during the life of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). His treatise is composed of about 1000 prophetic traditions and it remained secure and preserved.


Saheefah Saheehah: Compiled by Humaam Ibn Munabbih. He was from the famous students of Abu Hurairah (the eminent companion of the Prophet). He wrote all the prophetic traditions from his teacher. Copies of this manuscript are available from libraries in Berlin and Damascus.
Saheefah Basheer Ibn Naheek: Ibn Naheek was also a student of Abu Hurairah. He gathered and wrote a treatise of Prophetic traditions which he read to Abu Hurairah, before they departed and the former verified it. (9)

One of the early Hadith compilations was Muatta of Imam Malik , compiled by Malik bin Anas (d. 179 AH/795 CE). A fragmentary papyri manuscript of this collection from the time of the author is extant to this day. It can be seen here:
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Hadith/PERF731.html.

This clearly shows that the Hadith literature existed in textual form and was written with extreme care and enthusiasm. Malik bin Anas was a student of Nafi’, who was a student of Abdullah bin Umar and Abdullah narrated directly from the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). This is an uninterrupted chain of Hadith (also known as the Golden Chain). Malik narrates extensively from Nafi’ in his book and all these reports reach the Prophet Muhammad directly and some of these reports can be verified in manuscript form in international libraries.
In light of the above, the claim that there were no texts or historical documents in the early seventh century is a false one, and clearly undermines the integrity of the programme. All authentic Hadith literature can be traced back to the Prophet and much of this literature existed in written form in the early days of Islam.

6. Further baseless assumptions:

Holland's unjustified rejection of the oral and textual Islamic tradition forces him to attempt a coherent alternative. Admitting that he cannot do this, many times describing his source of information as a "black hole", he uses certain Quranic verses in an attempt to justify his revisionist approach to the Islamic narrative. Holland uses the story of the Prophet Lot and the so-called non-mention of the city of Mecca as means to justify his alternative theory.

The Story of Lot

Holland argues that the Qur'an alludes to places, landscapes and geography that are not descriptive of Mecca and the immediate surrounding areas. He claims that this implies that the Qur'an originates from a location other than Mecca or southern Arabia. He mentions the following verse of the Qur'an:
"And indeed, Lot was among the messengers. [So mention] when We saved him and his family, all, except his wife among those who remained [with the evildoers]. Then We destroyed the others. And indeed, you pass by them in the morning. And at night. Then will you not use reason?" (10)


Holland claims that the words "you pass by them in the morning and at night" indicate a place outside of Mecca because the ruins are nowhere to be found in Mecca. With this conclusion Holland makes some bold assumptions. He assumes that Meccans did not travel. This is a blunder as the historian Ira M. Lapidus in his book, "A History of Islamic Societies", clearly states that the Arabs in Mecca were established traders travelling far and wide:
"By the mid-sixth century, as heir to Petra and Palmyra, Mecca became one of the important caravan cities of the Middle East. The Meccans carried spices, leather, drugs, cloth and slaves which had come from Africa or the Far East to Syria, and returned money, weapons, cereals, and wine to Arabia." (11)


If Holland had carefully read the Qur'an, he would have understood that the context of these verses was explained elsewhere in the book, as the Qur'an rhetorically asks the Meccans if they had travelled through the land to see the ends of other civilisations and cities:
"Have they not travelled through the land and observed how was the end of those before them? They were more numerous than themselves and greater in strength and in impression on the land, but they were not availed by what they used to earn." (12)

The non-mention of Mecca

Holland claims that the city of Mecca is not mentioned in the Qur'an and therefore justifies his revisionist perspective. This is a complete fabrication. The Quran in the forty-eighth chapter clearly mentions the city of Mecca.
"And it is He who withheld their hands from you and your hands from them within [the area of] Makkah after He caused you to overcome them. And ever is Allah of what you do, Seeing." (13)
This in itself shows as to how reckless, ill-informed and biased was Holland’s approach to the whole subject.

7. Did the Arab Empire create Islam?

Although this contention of Holland's does not provide a strong argument against Islamic tradition, it is worthwhile pointing out that his view that Islam emerged as a result of the Arab empire does not make sense when the historical events are viewed objectively. The late professor of Islamic studies William Montgomery Watt asserts:
"Islamic ideology alone gave the Arabs that outward – looking attitude which enabled them to become sufficiently united to defeat the Byzantine and Persian empires. Many of them may have been concerned chiefly with booty for themselves. But men who were merely raiders out for booty could not have held together as the Arabs did. The ideology was no mere epiphenomenon but an essential factor in the historical process." (14)


Hence, according to Watt, it was the religion of Islam that inspired the Arabs to unite and consequently carve an empire, not the other way around. In a similar vein the author Dr. Lex Hixon writes:
"Neither as Christians or Jews, nor simply as intellectually responsible individuals, have members of Western Civilisation been sensitively educated or even accurately informed about Islam…even some persons of goodwill who have gained acquaintance with Islam continue to interpret the reverence for the prophet Muhammad and the global acceptance of his message as an inexplicable survival of the zeal of an ancient desert tribe. This view ignores fourteen centuries of Islamic civilisation, burgeoning with artists, scholars, statesmen, philanthropists, scientists, chivalrous warriors, philosophers…as well as countless men and women of devotion and wisdom from almost every nation of the planet. The coherent world civilisation called Islam, founded in the vision of the Qur'an, cannot be regarded as the product of individual and national ambition, supported by historical accident." (15)


To claim that the empire of the Arabs produced a religion called Islam is to assert that a child gave birth to his mother. Holland was certainly attempting to challenge all established historical laws.

8. What if the Qur'an is God's word?

One of the key reasons of why the Muslim narrative has remained resilient against baseless and uninformed polemics is based on the fact that the Qur'an is from God. The argument is simple yet profound. If it can be shown that the Qur'an is from God, an Infallible and Omnipotent being, then it follows that whatever is in the Qur’an is true. This will include the fact that Islam is a religion sent by God and not the development of an Arab empire, as claimed by Holland.

How can we ascertain that the Qur'an is from the Divine?


The Qur’an, the book of Islam, is no ordinary book. It has been described by many who engage with the book as an imposing text, but the way it imposes itself on the reader is not negative, rather it is positive. This is because it seeks to positively engage with ones mind and emotions, and it achieves this by asking profound questions, such as:
“So where are you people going? This is a message for all people; for those who wish to take the straight path.” (16)
“Are the disbelievers not aware that the heavens and the earth used to be joined together and that We ripped them apart, that We made every living thing from water? Will they not believe?” (17)
“Have they not thought about their own selves?" (18)
However the Qur’an doesn’t stop there, it actually challenges the whole of mankind with regards to its authorship, it boldly states:
“If you have doubts about the revelation we have sent down to Our servant, then produce a single chapter like it – enlist whatever supporters you have other than God – if you truly think you can. If you cannot do this – and you never will – then beware of the Fire prepared for the disbelievers, whose fuel is men and stones.” (19)
This challenge refers to the various wonders in the Qur’an, even within its smallest chapter, that give us good reasons to believe it is from God. Some of these reasons are the existence of supernatural linguistic, historical and factual statements in the Quran and these statements couldn't possibly have originated from the mind of an unlettered seventh century Arabian inhabitant of Mecca i.e. the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him).

Linguistic

The Qur’an’s use of the Arabic language has never been achieved before by anyone who has mastered the language past or present. As Forster Fitzgerald Arbuthnot, a notable British Orientalist, states:
“…and that though several attempts have been made to produce a work equal to it as far as elegant writing is concerned, none has as yet succeeded.” (20)

The Qur’an is the most eloquent of all speeches that achieves the peak of excellence, it renders peoples attempts to match its miraculous style as null and void.

It is no wonder Professor Bruce Lawrence writes:

“As tangible signs Qur’anic verses are expressive of inexhaustible truth, the signify meaning layered within meaning, light upon light, miracle after miracle.” (21)
For more information please read the essays "The Qur'an's Challenge: A Literary and Linguistic Miracle" and "The Philosophical Implications on the Uniqueness of the Qur'an".

Historical

There are many historically factual statements in the Qur’an that show us that it is from God. One of them is that the Qur’an is the only religious text to use different words for the rulers of Egypt at different times. For instance while addressing the Egyptian ruler at the time of Prophet Yusuf (Joseph), the word "Al-Malik" in Arabic is used which refers to a ruler, king or sultan.
“The King said, 'Bring him to me straight away!'…”(22)


In contrast, the ruler of Egypt at the time of the Prophet Musa (Moses) is referred to as "Pharaoh", in Arabic “Firaown”. This particular title began to be employed in the 14th century B.C., during the reign of Amenhotep IV. This is confirmed by the Encyclopaedia Britannica which states that the word "Pharaoh" was a title of respect used from the New Kingdom (beginning with the 18th dynasty; B.C. 1539-1292) until the 22nd dynasty (B.C. 945-730), after which this term of address became the title of the king. So the Qur’an is historically accurate as the Prophet Yusuf lived at least 200 years before 18th dynasty, and the word “al-Malik” or “King” was used for the king of Egypt at the time, not the title “Pharaoh”.


In light of this, how could have the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) known such a minute historical detail? Especially when all other religious texts, such as the Bible are mistaking in this regard? Also, since people at the time of revelation did not know this information (as the Hieroglyphs was a dead language at the time), what does this then say about the authorship of the Qur’an?


There are many more reasons for the Muslim belief in the Qur'an. We hope this provides the window of opportunity for the reader to study further and engage with a text that not only changed Arabia, but the entire world. Johnston , an authority on early Islamic history, agrees:
"Seldom, if ever, has a set of ideas had so great an effect on human societies as Islam has done, above all in the first half of the seventh century. In little more than twenty years, the religious and political configuration of Arabia was changed out of all recognition. Within another twenty all of the rich, highly developed, militarily powerful world enveloping Arabia was conquered, save for Asia Minor and north Africa." (23)


One of the biggest effects of the Quran on human history was the survival of Jews and some minor Christian sects due to the protection of Islam. This outcome of the teachings of the Quran in itself was a phenomenon, please see “Islam’s War on Terror” for details here: http://www.iera.org.uk/downloads/Islam_war_on_Terror.pdf.

9. Selective Scholarship

Holland's choice of scholarship was very selective and was carefully planned to substantiate his argument. He appears to have ignored a bulk, in fact the majority, of scholarship to make his point stand out. He relied heavily upon the opinions of Patricia Crone (featured in the documentary), whose theories on the early Islamic history are discarded by most historians today. She has expressed her erroneous views on Islamic sources in a number of works. She went as far as to assert that some of the Islamic sources are ‘"debris of obliterated past"; and some of the early works, including Ibn Ishaq’s Sira (biography of the Prophet), are "mere piles of desperate traditions". (24)


Crone has been heavily criticised by fellow historians for her radical views. Even Fred M. Donner, another historian featured in the documentary, rejected Crone's approach. Referring to people like Crone, Cook and Wansbrough, Donner asserts that:


"...the sceptics have encountered some scepticism about their own approach, because some of their claims seem overstated – or even unfounded. Moreover, their work has to date been almost entirely negative – that is, while they have tried to cast doubt on the received version of ‘what happened’ in early Islamic history by impugning the sources, they have not yet offered a convincing alternative reconstruction of what might have happened." (25)


Angelika Neuwirth, a German scholar on the Quran, has expressed similar sentiments on Patricia Crone and her likes. She states:


"As a whole, however, the theories of the so called sceptic or revisionist scholars who, arguing historically, make a radical break with the transmitted picture of Islamic origins, shifting them in both time and place from the seventh to the eighth or ninth century and from the Arabian Peninsula to the Fertile Crescent, have by now been discarded...New findings of Quranic text fragments, moreover, can be adduced to affirm rather than call into question the traditional picture of the Quran as an early fixed text composed of the suras we have...The alternative visions about the genesis of the Quran presented by Wansbrough, Crone and Cook, Luling and Luxenberg are not only mutually exclusive, but rely on textual observations that are too selective to be compatible with the comprehensive quranic textual evidence that can be drawn only from a systematically microstructural reading." (26)


Carole Hillenbrand has also rejected the extremely negative and selective approach of Patricia Crone and her school. (27)


It is clear from above, mainstream scholarly opinions that the Islamic historical narrative is far richer and trustworthier than most historical traditions. Most historians, who have no underlying political or religious agendas, accept the historical validity of Islamic sources.


In summary, Tom Holland has cherry picked from evidence as well as scholarship to take an unsubstantiated and marginalised view on the origins of Islam. He saw what he wanted to see and rejected recklessly what he didn't like. His exclusion of established academic positions and material facts points to the only conclusion of justifying his own prejudices and ignorance of Islamic tradition.

____________________________________________________________



​

1. Doctrina Jacobi, Readings in Late Antiquity: A Sourcebook, Routledge, 2005, p. 354.

2. A. Palmer (with contributions from S. P. Brock and R. G. Hoyland), The Seventh Century In The West-Syrian Chronicles Including Two Seventh-Century Syriac Apocalyptic Texts, 1993, Liverpool University Press: Liverpool (UK), pp. 2-3; Also see R. G. Hoyland, Seeing Islam As Others Saw It: A Survey And Evaluation Of Christian, Jewish And Zoroastrian Writings On Early Islam, 1997, op. cit., pp. 116-117.
3. R. W. Thomson (with contributions from J. Howard-Johnson & T. Greenwood), The Armenian History Attributed To Sebeos Part - I: Translation and Notes, 1999, Translated Texts For Historians - Volume 31, Liverpool University Press, pp. 95-96. Other translations can also be seen in P. Crone & M. Cook, Hagarism: The Making Of The Islamic World, 1977, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, pp. 6-7; R. G. Hoyland, Seeing Islam As Others Saw It: A Survey And Evaluation Of Christian, Jewish And Zoroastrian Writings On Early Islam, 1997, op. cit., p. 129; idem., "Sebeos, The Jews And The Rise Of Islam" in R. L. Nettler (Ed.), Medieval And Modern Perspectives On Muslim-Jewish Relations, 1995, Harwood Academic Publishers GmbH in cooperation with the Oxford Centre for Postgraduate Hebrew Studies, p. 89.
4. Michael Cook. Muhammad, Past Masters Oxford University Press, Page 74. First published 1983 as an Oxford University Press paperback. Reissued 1996
5. http://www.standard.co.uk/arts/book/islams-real-origins-7640194.html
6. Robert Hoyland, New Documentary Texts and the Early Islamic State, 2006
7. N. Abbott, Studies In Arabic Literary Papyri, Volume II (Qur'anic Commentary & Tradition), 1967, The University Of Chicago Press, p. 2.
8. H. Motzki, "The Musannaf Of `Abd al-Razzaq Al-San`ani As A Source of Authentic Ahadith of The First Century A.H.", Journal Of Near Eastern Studies, 1991, Volume 50, p. 21.
9. M. M. Azami. Studies in Early Hadith Literature. 2001. American Trust Publications.
10. Qur'an 37: 133 - 138
11. Ira M. Lapidus, ‘A History of Islamic Societies’, Cambridge, p.14.
12. Qur'an 40: 82
13. Qur'an 48: 24
14. William Montgomery Watt, ‘Economic and Social Aspects of the Origin of Islam’ in Islamic Quarterly 1 (1954), p. 102-3.

15. Lex Hixon. The Heart of the Qur'an: An Introduction to Islamic Spirituality. Quest Books. 2003, page 3.
16. Qur'an 81: 26 – 28
17. Qur'an 21: 30
18. Qur'an 30: 8
19. Qur'an 2: 23
20. F. F. Arbuthnot. The Construction of the Bible and the Koran. London, p 5.
21. Bruce Lawrence. The Qur’an: A Biography. Atlantic Books, p 8.
22. Qur'an 12: 50
23. Johnston, Witnesses to a World Crises (Oxford, 2010), p. 357-8.
24. Patricia Crone, Slaves on Horses (Cambridge, 2003), p. 10.
25. Fred M. Donner, Modern Approaches to Early Islamic History, New Cambridge History of Islam v. 1, 2010, p. 633.
26. Angelika Neuwirth, Structural, Linguistic and Literary Features, the Cambridge Companion to the Quran, 2006, p. 100-1.
27. Carole Hillenbrand. Muhammad and the Rise of Islam. New Cambridge Medieval History.





http://www.iera.org.uk/press_29aug2012.html

 

[Scimitar]

Now how about complaining, and copy pasta job that into the compaint? Eh?

I mean, it's no good here is it?

We look like a bunch of fools twiddling thumbs here... send it in already.

Scimi

 

[M.I.A.]

i lol'd

so its pushing an agenda under the guise of a historical program.

either way it wants a reaction.

the sad thing is that you need to make something that incites opinion rather than an hour long factual program.


its called entertainment!

so how do you react? behead those that insult islam?

or maybe you need people who can make something that glues more heads to the tv than topgear..

good luck finding people who can tell the facts and keep the figures.


but yes, our intelligence has been questioned.

but do you need a bigger stage?

i mean its an easier way to tell the truth and be heard than physical fighting!


..i aint on twitter so good luck





anyway i finally got around to watching it and it took all but 20minutes to actually have a valid answer.

the narrator hears from an arab the story about female babies being buried alive in context of oral tradition.

and although he feels moved, he asks how do we know this?

in the context of oral tradition being scrutinised.

and the simple answer is that it is in the quran.. im only 20minutes in so i dont know if they go on to question the validity of the quran as an unchanged text.


it seems that some source material may not have been fully examined.

anyway the edit is in haste so feel free to bring me up to speed.

 

[GuestFellow]

Walakum Salaam akhi

Best we learn how to walk first yes bro? lest we try to run and trip. Small, easy, manageable steps.

Of course, your right. How can I be so stupid.

 

[جوري]

the narrator hears from an arab the story about female babies being buried alive in context of oral tradition.

and although he feels moved, he asks how do we know this

ummmm.. simple answer is how do we know anything before 1436 when Johannes Gutenberg printing press began?
At least with Islamic tradition everything was written down on bones and parchment after the kaffirs conspired and killed 70 hafith that the prophet PBUH sent to teach them unlike the thousand year missing work from Jewish and the vote for what kind of Grecian God you like Nicene council. The Quran exonerates itself through its content I doubt very much that fellow gave it a first glance for it is still the number one reason people convert to Islam.
Other than that I don't see anyone calling for anyone's head to be chopped off, where are you getting that from? or would you prefer we ignore the stupidity completely, the same way you want us to establish a new sharia per your other thread?

best,

 

[~Zaria~]

A Response to Channel 4's 'Islam: The Untold Story' posted above has been submitted by iERA......
Alhamdulillah, its a great response.

 

[StopS]

The iERA refutation gets Refuted


A documentary by a British historian shown end of August 2012 on a British TV-Channel has ruffled some feathers amongst the Muslim community. Their feathers are easily ruffled as all it takes is someone pronouncing Muhammad or Koran in a way they don't like, heated arguments and violence ensue.

So imagine what a documentary of over an hour will do, if it dares to question the existence of texts from the viewpoint of a historian? Not a theologian, but a historian. Someone who looks at indications and left-overs from ancient days and then pieces them together to form a view or understanding what might, could or even probably happened.

Only a few hours after this documentary was aired, a paper made the rounds, where Muslim apologists already attacked the veracity of the documentary, going into their usual whining and playing the victim card and begging for special consideration and mercy.

But are there some points which are justly raised or something which was accurately raised as being erroneous?

Let me point out something right from the start: Tom Holland is a historian. He does not have an attitude and now sets out to prove his point of view. He does not attack Muslims or their faith but tries to establish facts and I don't think I am misrepresenting him here.

iERA however is the opposite. They have made up their minds and anyone asking critical questions is attacking their entire existence, their raison d'etre.

Whoever wrote this paper claims that the #1 claim the documentary is making is that "there is no historical evidence in the seventh century on the origins of Islam"

Looking at what the documentary is saying I find the first claim is that from antiquity to the middle ages the most "influential of all these empires" was "the empire founded by the Arabs in the 7th century - the empire that gave us Islam"

Next, Tom Holland says he would have - based on what majestic claims he found - expected some sort of Muslim testimony, describing the circumstances of the birth of Islam. He says he can't find anything which would warrant the expression: in the full light of history. So the claims surrounding the birth of Islam is what drives expectation.

And iERA, in their naivety and endless ignorance demonstrate exactly what Tom Holland is lamenting: instead of an abundance of supportive literature and narrative, all they could find are some vague texts mentioning a prophet here, some Muhammadan slaughter there, but certainly nothing contemporary or precise. And the first real account of a person with a name similar to Muhammad appeared decades after his death - written not by a Muslim, but a Christian Bishop.

Whoever wrote the paper trying to discredit the documentary and Tom Holland's research, has little or no confidence into their own points and uses projection to score some points using "clearly mentions", "clearly seen", "clearly understood", when all there is, is a vague reference to "the prophet who has appeared among the Saracens".

iERA researchers, who must be the most overpaid blunderers in the UK, claim this is "the contemporary non-Islamic as well as material evidence" for the origins of Islam.
Is it contemporary? They themselves say: "only two years after the death of the Prophet", so the answer is: no.
Is it non-Islamic? Yes, some.
Is it material? No, because mentioning some prophet or other does not really constitute the explanation for the origins of a religion, does it? Tom Holland never ever claims that Muhammad does not exist, so the point they are trying to make is utterly superfluous.

Instead, they contradict themselves and just waffle without substance. Nothing new.

But again: what is Tom Holland trying to tell us? He very clearly states it only 5 minutes into the video:

"We know how and when the Romans became Christian because contemporaries tell us all about it. But what we don't know is how the Arabs became Muslim. Take a journey into the past and you can't be certain where it's going to end. History is like a labyrinth. Once you're inside, who knows where it may lead?"

Next comes another masterpiece of logical deduction: the next contemporary person who wrote just "5 years after the death of the Prophet" says that some Arabs killed several villagers and plundered - or ruined - them and took the survivors captive. How does this relate to the birth of Islam?

Where does Holland claim that Muhammad is not mentioned in records? If he did, how would that be "historically obnoxious"??? I remember the senior or chief researcher having vocabulary problems before, so maybe consulting a dictionary once in a while would be in order.

Anyway, what Tom Holland actually says is: "For nearly 60 years, the rulers of the Arab empire didn't put Muhammad on their coins. And then they did. Maybe, 60 years was what they needed to work out what the story really was."

There is a difference between "records" and "coins".

What they also don't mention, is that the text in the book is taken not from the text itself, but the footnotes as is stated in their footnote #2. Referring to footnotes in a book, which state: conjectured by Palmer, conjectured by Hoyland, Brooks conjectured, etc etc. How is that accurate, honest and reliable research?

Where the iERA researcher is 100% sure that it mentions Muhammad by name, all I see is the Syriac reference to someone called MWHMD. Is it really so 100% clear this can only be Muhammad?

I could go into even more details and discredit every single word in this statement, but I'll just move on.



Next up is an Armenian non-contemporary who is simply recounting hearsay and is thus exactly the kind of typical lack of real evidence that Tom Holland is talking about.

Again, iERA misrepresent what the claim in the documentary is and try to wriggle their way into religious doctrine by claiming that the mentioning of Muhammad automatically accounts for the origin of Islam, while this does nothing of the sort. Never at any point does the iERA paper deliver any real refutation and simply answers claims never made.


Next, we get the real source for their paper: the Islamic apologist site Islamic-Awareness, which several people, including myself have demolished in the past. But there we also find the same stories about the existence of Muhammad, which was never contested by Mr. Holland in his documentary, Fail.

They carry on misunderstanding the topic and argue something not under scrutiny.


The iERA jokers now jump to the next false conclusion, by referring to non-Muslim authors. In their #2 point they insult the character of Tom Holland - well, what else can they attack when lacking factual grounds - and claim that other views would by earlier scholars would question the approach of Tom Holland.

How so? Well, Tom Holland says that merely mentioning Muhammad does nothing to explain WHY people converted and HOW that was achieved and that there were no Muslim accounts for any of this or confirming any of this and iERA bravely refutes this by stating that a Greek text mentions Muhammad.

How ignorant do you need to be to take

"Mohammed is the prophet of God. Islam is submission to God. And it was this message that gave them an empire. Or was it? No-one doubts the conquests really took place, but the question is, was it because of Islam?"

as meaning: did Muhammad exist?



When looking at Greek or Roman texts, there was evidence for claims, much smaller than the immense and huge ones found in Islam. Yet the Greek claims added up. So did the Roman ones. But where are the Muslim Arab texts? Nothing.

Because the clueless researchers at iERA run out of ideas but need to come up with something that will guarantee them further donations and income, they turn to other authors and use their opinions and approaches, instead of them developing their own.

And because they are so desperate, they tend to get sloppy, inaccurate and simply keep their fingers crossed and hope for the best. Are Muslims in general renowned for critical thinking? Hardly. Ar Muslim known to be critical of something which supports Islam? Hardly.

So when iERA comes up with Peter Webb (Peter Webb teaches Arabic and classical Arabic literature at the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London) and him stating that "the mnemonic capacity of oral traditions are more robust than Holland gives them credit" they are understandably ecstatic. They are so carried away that they somehow forget that Peter Webb is commenting on a book Tom Holland wrote and not anything to do with the current documentary. It is another unprofessional attack of Mr. Holland's character, not a factual refutation of his claims made in the programme.

Also, the fact that iERA can't understand anything Tom Holland says is not a good advertisement for a "perfected" oral tradition.

Next up, instead of finding factual mistakes and clarifying them for their trusting Muslim readership, they find an important sounding name: Professor Robert Hoyland from the University of Oxford. Wow!

Does this professor contribute anything meaningful? Yes, if you claim that Muhammad is an invention and a fictitious character such as Jesus Christ in the Bible. Does Tom Holland claim this, no, quite the opposite.


This is so frustrating!

WE now reach the highlight of the paper, with point #3: rejecting the Islamic oral tradition, which Tom Holland never does.

But, just for good measure, the iERA researches first attack the person and character of the historian before - once again - jumping to false conclusions.

But first, they introduce a new concept, which Mr. Holland also does not contest: the oral Prophetic traditions

How does Mr. Holland in the documentary totally reject the oral tradition? Well, by saying:
In most religions, the tradition was handed down through oral history, for millennia.

There you have it.

Next, the ludicrous researchers at iERA quote a different person in the programme and attribute that quote to the evil intentions of Tom Holland. Because this is not infantile enough, the collation and writing down of centuries old hearsay is now termed a science and an entire area of Islam, the hadiths, never mentioned by Mr. Holland, are defined as trustworthy and valid.

For what? The documentary never contests it. So, what exactly is the point?

Was the Koran suddenly found lying next to the Kaaba one day or was it based on oral tradition? Was it collected by people just reciting what they had memorised? So how are floating mountains and talking ants accurate history?

If talking about Islam and the followers of the Koran, are all followers automatically also believers of the hadiths? No, of course not. More and more Muslims or believers or followers believe in what a god told them in one book and reject what humans collected about what a human did several centuries earlier as unreliable hearsay. Does the documentary touch on this in any way? No!

Now we get the same point again: rejection of what is not rejected. Wow, the author of this paper really is desperate now. A total ignorant of philosophy and epistemology is now attempting to use these words and coherently explain something. And fails horribly.

We are talking about history here and not philosophy.

Next we have a moronic statement: "In epistemolog ... testimony is considered as one of the sources of knowledge" where anyone with just a cursory acquaintance with epistemology knows it is the opposite.

Embarrassingly bad! Even worse is the chosen example to demonstrate this, using the existence of China, which can easily be refuted by providing scientific evidence for the physical existence of China through photographs or other hard proof. Oh dear. Reading the iERA text just killed another 20 braincells.

And now the researchers at the iEResearch Academy equivocate the claim of oral passing on messages over centuries with accurate knowledge.

We come to point 5 of the hilarious iERA refutation and their claim fro a textual tradition in Islam.

What the documentary claims is that there is no library full of accounts of people telling their stories. As one would expect if the claim is that Islam was born in the full light of history is correct.

Does iERA refute this? No, not at all. They are unable to do so.

They claim that there are "a myriad of written works in the early period of Islam". Do they prove what they claim? Nope. What iERA does, is simply quote people who said something about someone else and then say: 4597 narrations are attributed to this person. Using the hadiths to validate the hadiths. Great stuff. And so primitive.

Maybe the hadiths were written "with extreme care and enthusiasm", but that does not make them accurate or true.

And quite frankly, I don't think anyone cares whether the story of a guy splitting our moon in half is told enthusiastically or not, it is not a fact and not true.


In #6 our professional researchers now slide into the next abyss: the "baseless assumptions" which they would like to add their accomplishments. But because they have not shown any baseless assumptions yet, I really wonder how can they claim there will be further ones?

It starts off once again by stating what was not claimed and then expanding on this.

Nowhere in this documentary are any traditions rejected. If they are, why not quote the sentence?

When and if the text used by Tom Holland to read out a sentence from the Koran they correct it using one of their own, more toned down and politically correct translations. Why not provide some hard evidence?

Because now it gets really grotty. This is some of the worst apologetics I've come across. Because the Koran says a city was destroyed and Muslims surrounding Muhammad (the you) pass by it "day and night" (i.e. all the time) it implies closeness to Mecca or Medina.


What our heroic t***** are doing is saying this is equivalent of Muslims not travelling because they can pass the ruins during the day or the night, even if these are 1000s of kilometres away. I feel like crawling under the desk and waving a white flag.



Our desperately searching researchers must have been sitting until late at night. I have no idea what substances they were subjecting their brains to, but I doubt it would have been legal. They now claim that Tom Holland, in his documentary about the historical roots of Islam "claims that the city of Mecca is not mentioned in the Qur'an".



Neither the Qur'an nor any contemporary source actually specifies where Bakkah was, but Muslims, now, would have absolutely no doubt that Bakkah is another name for a place deep in the Arabian deserts. Mecca. The holiest city in Islam. The birthplace of Mohammed .

It is not about the existence at all, but the location. Of a city called Mecca, which for some reason seems to show up in the Koran as "Makkah" or "Bakkah". It is mentioned in a side-sentence, not in conjunction with the oldest Islamic site, the Kaaba, or the Birthplace of Muhammad.

And again later he says: "Aside from a single, ambiguous mention in the Qur'an itself, there is no mention of Mecca, not one, in any datable text for over 100 years after Mohammed's death."

So where does Tom Holland, in mentioning Mecca 24 times, claim: Mecca does not exist?

It sure makes you cry. This boundless incompetence of paid researchers, whose job it is to inform fellow Muslims about issues accurately and what I find again and again is that they simply have no clue what they are doing, but they are doing it loudly.


Whatever. Let me move on, wipe the tears of laughter and frustration from my eyes and boldly venture on to #7, where the iERA people are once again mistaking a probing question for an assertion.

What if it wasn't Islam that gave birth to the Arab empire?
But the Arab empire that gave birth to Islam?

They quite rightly state that this does not represent any threat to Islamic tradition. But why don't they just shut up? They dig up some quote and embarrass themselves, showing their lack of historical knowledge. The ideology of Islam did not unite Islam, but split it. Muslims were killing each other in power struggles which prompted Muawiyah to set up shop in Damascus and kill his political opponents in Medina and the other power centres via henchmen. He was a politician, not a religious person at all. The same we see today where Islam is dying due to internal struggles, tearing the system of Islam apart.


We are now approximately halfway through their paper, which claims to refute the findings of Mr. Tom Holland. Have they managed to refute anything so far? No!
Have they provided a single document which would help the case of Tom Holland in finding the historical origins of Islam? No!
Have they managed to even cast some doubt over what has been said? No, not at all. All they have done so far is write about things not claimed or stated and, when they ran out of arguments, they attacked the personality of Mr. Holland and his co-narrators. Not good so far.

But will they be honest and retract their paper? Will they ever apologise for their unwarranted assertions and that they lied to their fellow Muslims and deceived them? My atheistic ethics would compel me to do so. But Muslims have ethics plus religion, which poisons everything and results in morality, which does not require a guilty conscience or fairness towards others.


Let's move on and get out of this emotional low and look at #8. What if the Qur'an is God's word?
One of the key reasons of why the Muslim narrative has remained resilient against baseless and uninformed polemics is based on the fact that the Qur'an is from God. The argument is simple yet profound. If it can be shown that the Qur'an is from God, an inflaiible and omnipotent being, then it follows that whatever is in the Qur'an is true. This will include the fact that Islam is a religion sent by God and not the development of an Arab empire, as claimed by Holland.

Is this what Tom Holland claims or finds?
What does he himself say?


But even if none of this were the case and Holland were really to claim that Islam is a human invention, would the iERA arguments make any sense?

Let's take a look at the reasoning:
1. the Muslim narrative has survived
2. What has it survived: baseless and uninformed polemics

Is it difficult or does it require any remarkable qualities to survive baseless and uninformed polemics? No, of course not. It's dead easy. Just look at the iERA text as a prime example.

If, however, the attacks were fact based and substantial, well, then it would be a different story and the narrative concept would need to be robust and reliable.

So in his attempt to discredit anything sounding just the slightest critical of Islam the author of this paper shoots himself in the foot. Or wahtever the case may be if there were several authors.


Following this we immediately have the next fallacy.

"based on the fact that the Qur'an is from God"

Fact? What fact? If a god wrote or dictated the Koran we first need to establish the existence of a god, before that god can do something, right? Well, this has been attemmpted numerous times, but so far without tangible result. After 6000 years with all types and kinds of gods we are nowhere closer to demonstrating the existence of just one of them.

The following shows the childish dispensation of the author. Why does it follow that if the Koran was in fact written by a god this automatically means the contents of the book is true? Maybe the authors would like this to be the case.

They claim a god is "inflaiible and omnipotent" whatever inflaiible is supposed to mean. Don't they have spell checkers in a professional Research Academy for the professional senior researchers?

And infallible or unfailable is projection and omnipotent a logical absurdity.

Anyway, let me ignore the unprofessional attitude and concentrate on the contents. A god can write a lie. Why not? Do we have a god who does not lie as an example? No, this is sheer wishful thinking.

So even if I - for the sake of the argument - allow the existence of a god, why does it follow that this god is honest and writes books and sends religions to people? They are just piling on supposition after assumption after wishful thinking. No proof, no evidence and not even reasonable argumentation. Frustrating.

Next we get plain assertions: the Koran is extraordinary. It is imposing, positive, engages, asks, challenges - and if you don't accept it you go to hell. Great logics and highly compelling.

Then we are confronted with the most stupid and ridiculous argument anyone has ever come up with: produce something like it.

But how? How much? How many? Like what? Where are the definitions? Who judges this? What is the result if I do produce something like it?


But hang on, it gets worse. Because the challenge to try something is already thwarted by the next sentence: you never will. So no matter what the outcome of the challenge is, it will never be enough and will never be accepted. So what is the point?

And it still gets worse. Because if you should attempt to produce something, you have just pulled the go straight to hell card.

What does any of this have to do with the historical origins of the civilisation and religion of Islam?

iERA now leave the area of the documentary they are attempting to refute completely and go into the standard apologetic mode, where nothing makes sense and does not have to. Everything here is built on faith and that is all that is required.

They think that quoting some people saying the Koran is nice represents some sort of argument. But we are not talking about the contents of the Koran. Why don't they understand this? Why don't they understand the topic of the documentary? We are talking about the origins of a civilisation, not a book.

How can you even hope to refute a factual and objective approach regarding the historical development of a religion and civilisation with using the unsubstantiated fairy tales inside the book? How is a talking ant or the erroneous naming of a ruler in Egypt relevant? The Koran merely copies the Bibles with its reference to Pharaoh. Thinking it is a name and not a title. Instead of shutting up about this, iERA are attempting to turn the flaw into a feature.


Let's turn to item #9. Does it get better here? Nope. We get the all too familiar attack on a person rather than the facts to try and discredit the value of the satements made by that person. Some guy comments on something that this person has said or done elsewhere, without referring to the statements at hand. Pitiful.

Looking at the statements here I can only shake my head in utter disbelief. Tom Holland makes use of different people delivering their opinions. The "refutation paper" mentions Patricia Crone, but not the Muslim philosopher and professor for Islamic Studies Seyeed Hossain Nasr. And iERA accuses Mr Holland of selecting people who substantiate his approach and corroborate his findings. Of course he does. Should he present his points with someone who immediately rejects his facts on the basis of faith? Hardly. He candidly admits that Prof Crone "has sharply divided the world of early Islamic studies".

No, Mr Holland did not heavily rely on Patricia Crone, who have, have? no has been criticised by some people. Anyone who asks a question about the origins of Islam or the Koran is automatically criticised by over-protective, scared apologists.

iERA is now selective themselves by bringing up named critics of Patricia Crone. How could they?


In summary we see that the simpletons at iERA have not understood the documentary, which showed how a person tried to establish the historical sources surrounding the birth of a civilisation and religion which heavily influenced the world and is still doing so. The claims made by the followers of this system and worldview makes one believe that the origins are well documented and there for the finding. Alas, this is not the case.

And that is all the documentary says. There is no judgmental tone or any passing of value regarding the Koran or its contents, just the historical approach. Tom Holland does not claim to be an Islam scholar and just inspects the facts. iERA don't seem to like a factual approach, even if it is unbiased, if it does not arrive at the conclusions they wish to see concluded. But not everybody takes a result as pre-supposition and then sets out to find arguments for it. All iERA tries to do is to apply censorship to any other approach, no matter how honest and straightforward it might be.

That is the message I am taking away from this group of apologists, who just seek sensationalism for the sake of generating more income.


Last I heard is that iERA are starting to apologise to Mr. Holland for their misrepresentation. Well done!

 

[~Zaria~]

^ Why dont you do us all a favour and take your babble to iERA themselves? - considering that you are directly contesting their response to the documentary.

iERA is hoping to hold a public dialogue with Mr Holland himself.

Last I heard is that iERA are starting to apologise to Mr. Holland for their misrepresentation. Well done!

Please quote your sources as this is completely untrue......as is your emotional soliloquy above.

 

[Scimitar]

The iERA refutation gets Refuted... [snip]

*cough* you're a shill who revels in seeing Muslims argue. Not gonna indulge you - or your falsified information, or your wrecked opinion.

Neither should anyone else.

...

Of course, your right. How can I be so stupid.

Walakum salaam akhi. I didn't think of it as stupid at all bro, infact, I kinda admired your zeal in that post BIGTIME... to tell the truth, I was as enraged as you seemed to be in that post.

If anything, maybe we can all learn from this experience, how to revive the spirit within us to fight back against the kuffar, on an intellectual level.

We need to all collectively work on some kind of project... I mean, whats the point of a forum if it doesn't make something happen? Try to change something? Right?

I caught this sentiment from you bro TT. So, faaaaar away from being stupid, instead I think you deserve credit in teaching a little lesson brother Masha-Allah.

Scimi

 

[M.I.A.]

ummmm.. simple answer is how do we know anything before 1436 when Johannes Gutenberg printing press began?
At least with Islamic tradition everything was written down on bones and parchment after the kaffirs conspired and killed 70 hafith that the prophet PBUH sent to teach them unlike the thousand year missing work from Jewish and the vote for what kind of Grecian God you like Nicene council. The Quran exonerates itself through its content I doubt very much that fellow gave it a first glance for it is still the number one reason people convert to Islam.
Other than that I don't see anyone calling for anyone's head to be chopped off, where are you getting that from? or would you prefer we ignore the stupidity completely, the same way you want us to establish a new sharia per your other thread?




best,

your question is one you should already have the answer to.

there are so many hadith which are posted here, day in and day out.

please tell me they are not posted for the sake of being posted.



islam is a whole, and has to be approached as a whole.

picking and choosing which ayah to use as justification for an action is not really what its about.


in my experience, stupidity is something which you either address or ignore..

once you realise it cant be addressed without transgression then you realise it can only be ignored. there is no compulsion in religion.

each to his own end.

and once it is ignored then you realise who is pushing for stupidity. who wants that?


if you tell me the quran may have been lost long before any of us had the chance to read it.. then you had better hope there is a god.

and if he were to tell you that his word is preserved until the day of judgement then you better had start looking for it.


im not too concerned with sharia, i have often thought and read that god is the disposer of affairs.

he has no need of me and indeed even if there were no government i would still fear his punishment.

i could imagine a population with education, understanding and compassion is as close if not closer to allah swt than a nation established over any other pillars.


anyway its a lot harder to do, then it is to say.

 

[جوري]

You often write from a different premise than the one discussed and go off on tangents and circumstanciality I have a difficult time discerning what you're advocating for or against! I pick up key words of your alleged concerns and then you spin a winded tale!
In two sentences or less what are your concerns and what are people doing to rouse or what would you like to have done to allay that?

 

[M.I.A.]

i have no idea, im just trying to get from day to day without doing anything silly?

i mean islam is far from an exact science so i try to deal in opinions and theory rather than authority, its like if you can read between the lines there is twice as much to think about...but i have many deleted posts so if you think these are off topic i bet the mods are having a right laugh.

 

[جوري]

I just don't think you understand what Islam is.. are you a convert? I am not saying this to be cruel walhi. I just want to clear your misconceptions because you seem to make up things as you go along.. You understand that 3ibadaat are a done deal? and the other stuff requires ijtihad. So there's in fact an exact science to it, it isn't arbitrary and not left to individual devices.
There's no shame in seeking knowledge but there's in dispensing with opinion as a religious fact.

 

[Scimitar]

i mean islam is far from an exact science

turbo eyeroll

Islam is the way to live... we have all we need in the example of our nabi rusool Allah pbuh, and the examples left by the companions RA, and ofcourse, the Quran.

Anything else is extra-curricular, science falls into that category.

Scimi

 

[Scimitar]

Got another response from C4:

Thank you for your email regarding the documentary, Islam: The Untold Story.
Channel 4 has consistently provided thought provoking programming around the theme of religion and this particular documentary follows very much in the footsteps of series such as our strand, Witness or series such as The Bible: A History.
Tom Holland, who presents the programme, is an award-winning and respected historian, who has written four acclaimed books on the ancient and early medieval periods – including one on the emergence of Islam. We believe that the programme provides a balanced view of the historical aspects of the emergence on the Islamic faith and that we have ensured that a wide and balanced group of experts were consulted/interviewed in the making of this documentary.

Thank you again for taking the time to contact us. We appreciate all feedback from our viewers; complimentary or otherwise.

Regards,

Dylan Redmond
Channel 4 Viewer Enquiries


For information about Channel 4 have a look at our FAQ section at http://www.channel4.com/4viewers/faq

next stop: OFCOM.

Scimi

 

[M.I.A.]

I just don't think you understand what Islam is.. are you a convert? I am not saying this to be cruel walhi. I just want to clear your misconceptions because you seem to make up things as you go along.. You understand that 3ibadaat are a done deal? and the other stuff requires ijtihad. So there's in fact an exact science to it, it isn't arbitrary and not left to individual devices.
There's no shame in seeking knowledge but there's in dispensing with opinion as a religious fact.

id argue the opposite, if the quran is a message to all of mankind.

who all live AND are tested individually. (there is that thing about being brought forward in groups but.. you figure it out)

then you should think for yourself when you are capable of praying for yourself. that conversion took place at 26 for me.
i had read the quran when i was 5 and a half.. no joke for once.. because i forgot it until i was 26.

but why tell a person to ponder over a book when your told what it means? i mean the imam that gives my khutba's cant teach anymore because of work permit-visa issues. and the other one (pray at various mosques)has caused a kafuffel because he doesnt like some of the other mosques.

each person faces there own tests and its better to understand how the world works rather than this is the right meaning or that is the right meaning..

the world has worked the same way from the beginning by the way, god never changes.

the people and times do.

turbo eyeroll

Islam is the way to live... we have all we need in the example of our nabi rusool Allah pbuh, and the examples left by the companions RA, and ofcourse, the Quran.

Anything else is extra-curricular, science falls into that category.


Scimi

i think you misunderstood, its a term used to imply that the nature of things is not as easy to follow and reproduce as you would think it to be.

maybe it does not translate well.

all joking aside,

islam is not an exact science. (sure we all do the regular things, prayer, fasting, charity, declaration of faith, hajj.. hopefully. but thats not where we differ is it?)

we all read the same words and yet are all lead on different paths,

if it is an exact science then where is the unity?



ps, the mods thing was a joke.

i know that keeping freedom of speech while trying to do best for the whole is a hard task. or hardest.

 

[Scimitar]

one of these would help us to determine whether you are posting a joke or trying to be serious bro

Scimi

 

[جوري]

id argue the opposite, if the quran is a message to all of mankind.

A message to all mankind that we walk aright, worship Allah swt mokhlseen lah ad'deen on the sirat al mostaweem not that we interpret at whim!
Islam requires discipline. I hope for your sake you understand it correctly, not just for the sake of not spreading faulty and erroneous beliefs but because the investment you make in this religion is the same as you'd make in anything that requires dedication, love and care.
You can't say that medicine is left to individual devices if it is meant for all mankind. There has to be a protocol that all of mankind adhere to.
The definition for high blood pressure or diabetes or stills dz. is going to be the same in Guadalajara or Saskatchewan .. we're not going to modify protocols at whim there's a study.. I am trying to make this an easy analogy for you since I think many people lost interest or hope in engaging you in a meaningful discussion when your definitions are so skewed from the Aqeedah..

best,

 

[M.I.A.]

lol blood pressure?

have you tried meditation?

i mean i know its an alien concept, but i found that once i had learned to control my temper.

i realised what triggered it.

the same is easily applied to almost all things. if you are like water.

then you know what moves you.

also my bp varies a lot, its not fair to condition a behavioral response to the bp machine.

but alas, nice guidlines seem to think that statins at an earlier age..are of more benefit?

...last time somebody mentioned anyway. iv been away from pharmaceuticals for 5 years.. and im sure the doctors would have a field day on my butt given all the knowledge at there disposal.

no id have to check, that paragraph just sounds like me ranting.

stay calm.

id say im stubburn but i once pulled my back at work. i stood upright and walked it off.. Manuel labor jobs are hell for drop out pharmacists.

that sort of arrogance only has one end.

plz back on topic before i get deleted.