You are here:   Civilisation >  Screen > Tiptoeing in the Mecca Ballroom
 

 
Brave Broadcasting: Tom Holland's documentary "Islam: The Untold Story" 

When my colleagues at the Guardian and Observer level accusations of political correctness gone mad, you had better take notice. Things must have reached a pretty pass to draw such complaints from such quarters. So it appeared when the Guardian's television critic complained that Tom Holland's documentary on the origins of Islam "tiptoed around the subject and apologised for his findings".

On the face of it, the critic was right.  Channel 4's documentary — Islam: The Untold Story — seemed as nervous as a Victorian debutante at her first ball. Holland is a conservatively minded historian with a strong sympathy for the religiously inclined. Holland's documentary was as formal and — apparently — as inoffensive as a courtly dance.

Holland took a step forward and advanced the claim that there is no evidence in written records, coins or inscriptions that a new Islamic religion inspired the armies that erupted out of Arabia and conquered the Persian Empire and much of the Byzantine Empire. Having advanced, Holland took a step back and allowed religious conservatives to assure the viewer that the oral tradition, which emerged into the light of history in biographies of the prophet written 200 years after his lifetime, was all the evidence we needed that the word of God as delivered to Muhammad inspired the Arab conquests. Holland said nothing, moved a step to the side and advanced again to say that there was only one ambiguous reference to Mecca in the Koran, and what evidence we have suggests that the koranic city was 100 or so miles north of the modern place of pilgrimage. He then stepped back again, and allowed the purveyors of conventional wisdom to assert this was not the case. He did not harry them with sceptical questions but moved to the side once more, stepped forward and explained that Islam became the religion of the new empire some 40 years after the conquests when its rulers decided to harness the power of monotheism and distinguish themselves from the conquered Zoroastrians, Christians and Jews of the near East. The dance finished when he stepped back for the final time and sought assurances from an orthodox believer that he was not guilty of orientalism or imperialism or any other ghastly "ism" that right-thinking people so rightly deplore.

Holland appeared gentility personified, but appearances deceived. The critics may not have realised it, but censorious clerics did.

In my recent study of censorship — You Can't Read This Book — I examined the manufacture of offence. A writer or broadcaster did not need to have been deliberately offensive for trouble to begin, I said. Religious reactionaries had "to feed their supporters a diet of indignation, and needed to supply them with new targets for their rage". The identity of the targets they selected was almost irrelevant. As we have seen from Salman Rushdie onwards, the smallest transgression can lead to a disproportionate response that defies rational explanation. Not all manufactured offences generate fatwas and bomb alerts. But whether the controversy explodes or the bomb is a dud the manufacturing process is the same.

View Full Article
 
Share/Save
 
 
 
 
Lago1
October 10th, 2012
2:10 PM
The bigger problem with the documentary was just how unconvincing it was even for non-Muslims. His arguments from silence were not impressive.

Asajew
September 27th, 2012
2:09 PM
I was struck by the casual way in which the programme referred to the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem and associated historical facts concerning the Jewish presence in what is now Israel. Such references should be completely uncontroversial but in the current political climate they are often 'contextualised' in the light of Arab/Muslim revisionism. At a time when antisemitism and historical distortion are common and uncontroversial signs of Arab patriotism and Muslim solidarity it is no wonder that this documentary did not suit some people.

Sean
September 27th, 2012
12:09 PM
I'd be interested to know what Rageh Omaar has to say about the Channel 4 documentary and it would also be great to see a debate between Holland and Omaar on Holland's findings.

Post your comment

CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.