Calls for Channel 4 apology over documentary

First published in United Kingdom news

There has been criticism of a Channel Four documentary which questioned the origins of Islam.

Islam: The Untold Story was aired on the channel last night. In it historian Tom Holland raises questions about the traditional history of Islam. Historial knowledge which is deemed as fact by many Muslim scholars is put into doubt.

Mr. Mohammed Shafiq, Chief Executive of the Ramadhan Foundation said, “I strongly condemn Channel 4's documentary which makes a mockery of impartial and objective broadcasting.

"This distorted, biased programme did not have the decency to check its facts.

" I am disappointed that an international broadcaster like Channel 4 has behaved in unbelievable way.

"There are thousands of Muslims scholars across the globe including many in locations where Tom Holland visited during the programme."

"For instance he said Mecca was never mentioned in the Holy Quran, but in reality it is mentioned two times; Al- Azhab Chapter 33 Verse 6, Al Fath Chapter 48 Verse 24. There is also a mention of the Kaaba and Sacred Mecca Mosque in the Quran in Surah Al Isra Chapter 17 verse 1.

"A simple search would have produced this but his desire to distort Islam blinded him to objectivity and honesty.

"I have asked several senior Muslims Scholars in the United Kingdom to watch the programme and identify all the inaccuracies which we will forward to relevant authorities for action as detailed in our complaints.

"The Ramadhan Foundation calls on Channel 4 to apologise for this programme, withdraw it from online viewing and also order an immediate inquiry into why this was allowed to be broadcast."

Comments (22)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

12:40pm Wed 29 Aug 12

John Stacks says...

Tom Holland - maybe you should speak to a Muslim scholar who can tell you a bit about your history. You can hide all you want and distort facts but the truth is the truth and this will always prevail.

When the dust settles you will see whether you were mounted on a horse or a mule.
Tom Holland - maybe you should speak to a Muslim scholar who can tell you a bit about your history. You can hide all you want and distort facts but the truth is the truth and this will always prevail. When the dust settles you will see whether you were mounted on a horse or a mule. John Stacks
  • Score: 0

3:20pm Wed 29 Aug 12

BigC1905 says...

FFS ! When will you people ever stop moaning ? U seem to spend your whole lives being offended by every little thing . Holland spoke to scholars frm yr superstition didnt he ?? Just because u dont agree doesnt make him wrong ! Im suprised he aint had a salman rushdie put on him !! GO AWAY !!!
FFS ! When will you people ever stop moaning ? U seem to spend your whole lives being offended by every little thing . Holland spoke to scholars frm yr superstition didnt he ?? Just because u dont agree doesnt make him wrong ! Im suprised he aint had a salman rushdie put on him !! GO AWAY !!! BigC1905
  • Score: 0

4:36pm Wed 29 Aug 12

brianad says...

If I were involved in the TV business and had responsibility for vetting possible TV programmes, I would veto any programmes about Muslims .When any programmes are made about Muslims there are always complaints .The best thing to do is to pretend that Muslims do not exist.
For example the recent Citizen Kahn programme has been accused of insulting Pakistani Muslims.
It is possible to make fun of English regions ,for instance 'Last Of The Summer Wine' and Emmerdale (Yorkshire).'Coronat
ion street (Manchester).'Easten
ders (London).
Pakistanis and Muslims in general are strictly off limits ,any such programmes will be deemed to be offensive by many people.
If I were involved in the TV business and had responsibility for vetting possible TV programmes, I would veto any programmes about Muslims .When any programmes are made about Muslims there are always complaints .The best thing to do is to pretend that Muslims do not exist. For example the recent Citizen Kahn programme has been accused of insulting Pakistani Muslims. It is possible to make fun of English regions ,for instance 'Last Of The Summer Wine' and Emmerdale (Yorkshire).'Coronat ion street (Manchester).'Easten ders (London). Pakistanis and Muslims in general are strictly off limits ,any such programmes will be deemed to be offensive by many people. brianad
  • Score: 0

8:15pm Wed 29 Aug 12

Sathacker says...

I watched the program, by accident actually I was looking at the schedules for something else and thought it may be worth a watch. I must say I find Mohammed Shafiq's critique to be entirely correct and fully justified.

The program appeared poorly researched and biased. It also perpetuated several myths concerning the temple mount for one example, leading me to think it was perhaps, if not zionist propaganda per see, it certainly conformed with the perception of being such. I agree it should, be removed if only for the fact that it was utter crap.
I watched the program, by accident actually I was looking at the schedules for something else and thought it may be worth a watch. I must say I find Mohammed Shafiq's critique to be entirely correct and fully justified. The program appeared poorly researched and biased. It also perpetuated several myths concerning the temple mount for one example, leading me to think it was perhaps, if not zionist propaganda per see, it certainly conformed with the perception of being such. I agree it should, be removed if only for the fact that it was utter crap. Sathacker
  • Score: 0

5:30pm Thu 30 Aug 12

Muslim says...

Tom Holland who presented the show doesn't even know Arabic, yet he claims to be an expert on a rich Arab history which stems over 1 and a half millenia?
.
It's like someone presenting a show on Englands history while not knowing a word of English!
.
A Good read on the topic:
http://www.iera.org.
uk/press_29aug2012.h
tml
Tom Holland who presented the show doesn't even know Arabic, yet he claims to be an expert on a rich Arab history which stems over 1 and a half millenia? . It's like someone presenting a show on Englands history while not knowing a word of English! . A Good read on the topic: http://www.iera.org. uk/press_29aug2012.h tml Muslim
  • Score: 0

8:47pm Mon 3 Sep 12

StopSp says...

What utter nonsense. Nobody in the programme ever contested the origins of Islam or that Mecca is mentioned in the Koran.

Mr. Mohammed Shafiq, Chief Executive of the Ramadhan Foundation does not represent facts and proves how unreliable the oral tradition is by misrepresenting Mr. Holland's words and twisting their meaning. He neither heard what what Mr. Holland said, nor did he understand it.
Why do Muslims embarrass themselves so willingly?
Also, the iERA press release was thoroughly refuted and shown to be nonsense and fabricated.
What utter nonsense. Nobody in the programme ever contested the origins of Islam or that Mecca is mentioned in the Koran. Mr. Mohammed Shafiq, Chief Executive of the Ramadhan Foundation does not represent facts and proves how unreliable the oral tradition is by misrepresenting Mr. Holland's words and twisting their meaning. He neither heard what what Mr. Holland said, nor did he understand it. Why do Muslims embarrass themselves so willingly? Also, the iERA press release was thoroughly refuted and shown to be nonsense and fabricated. StopSp
  • Score: 0

11:41pm Fri 14 Sep 12

M B Mehdi says...

Apology for what? The documentary was not an attack on Islam, it was just very, very poorly researched. At best it exposed Tom Holland as a poor historian at worst it was a deliberate attempt to mislead.

Any of the claims raised could easily be refuted by anyone with a basic understanding of Islam but I daresay that's why many Muslims found the documentary difficult to watch - because they did not know the answers to the questions themselves.

The merits of programs like this, regardless of their inaccuracies, is that they give Muslims and none Muslims the opportunity for discussion, to clear up misconceptions and educate others about the faith. Seeking knowledge, asking questions is positively encouraged in Islam and absolutely not something to run from or avoid. Tim Holland asked basic questions only he asked the wrong people and got the wrong answers. C4 were obviously looking to cause controversy and given the reaction of some Muslims they got exactly what they wanted. Shouting and screaming like idiots, saying you are offended, the programme is a disgrace, is an insult to Islam etc, etc makes you look pathetic, thin skinned and reactionary i.e. the very things Muslims are accused of.
Apology for what? The documentary was not an attack on Islam, it was just very, very poorly researched. At best it exposed Tom Holland as a poor historian at worst it was a deliberate attempt to mislead. Any of the claims raised could easily be refuted by anyone with a basic understanding of Islam but I daresay that's why many Muslims found the documentary difficult to watch - because they did not know the answers to the questions themselves. The merits of programs like this, regardless of their inaccuracies, is that they give Muslims and none Muslims the opportunity for discussion, to clear up misconceptions and educate others about the faith. Seeking knowledge, asking questions is positively encouraged in Islam and absolutely not something to run from or avoid. Tim Holland asked basic questions only he asked the wrong people and got the wrong answers. C4 were obviously looking to cause controversy and given the reaction of some Muslims they got exactly what they wanted. Shouting and screaming like idiots, saying you are offended, the programme is a disgrace, is an insult to Islam etc, etc makes you look pathetic, thin skinned and reactionary i.e. the very things Muslims are accused of. M B Mehdi
  • Score: 0

11:45pm Fri 14 Sep 12

M B Mehdi says...

StopSp wrote:
What utter nonsense. Nobody in the programme ever contested the origins of Islam or that Mecca is mentioned in the Koran.

Mr. Mohammed Shafiq, Chief Executive of the Ramadhan Foundation does not represent facts and proves how unreliable the oral tradition is by misrepresenting Mr. Holland's words and twisting their meaning. He neither heard what what Mr. Holland said, nor did he understand it.
Why do Muslims embarrass themselves so willingly?
Also, the iERA press release was thoroughly refuted and shown to be nonsense and fabricated.
No it wasn't.
[quote][p][bold]StopSp[/bold] wrote: What utter nonsense. Nobody in the programme ever contested the origins of Islam or that Mecca is mentioned in the Koran. Mr. Mohammed Shafiq, Chief Executive of the Ramadhan Foundation does not represent facts and proves how unreliable the oral tradition is by misrepresenting Mr. Holland's words and twisting their meaning. He neither heard what what Mr. Holland said, nor did he understand it. Why do Muslims embarrass themselves so willingly? Also, the iERA press release was thoroughly refuted and shown to be nonsense and fabricated.[/p][/quote]No it wasn't. M B Mehdi
  • Score: 0

12:43pm Sat 15 Sep 12

StopSp says...

M B Mehdi wrote:
StopSp wrote:
What utter nonsense. Nobody in the programme ever contested the origins of Islam or that Mecca is mentioned in the Koran.

Mr. Mohammed Shafiq, Chief Executive of the Ramadhan Foundation does not represent facts and proves how unreliable the oral tradition is by misrepresenting Mr. Holland's words and twisting their meaning. He neither heard what what Mr. Holland said, nor did he understand it.
Why do Muslims embarrass themselves so willingly?
Also, the iERA press release was thoroughly refuted and shown to be nonsense and fabricated.
No it wasn't.
Was.
[quote][p][bold]M B Mehdi[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]StopSp[/bold] wrote: What utter nonsense. Nobody in the programme ever contested the origins of Islam or that Mecca is mentioned in the Koran. Mr. Mohammed Shafiq, Chief Executive of the Ramadhan Foundation does not represent facts and proves how unreliable the oral tradition is by misrepresenting Mr. Holland's words and twisting their meaning. He neither heard what what Mr. Holland said, nor did he understand it. Why do Muslims embarrass themselves so willingly? Also, the iERA press release was thoroughly refuted and shown to be nonsense and fabricated.[/p][/quote]No it wasn't.[/p][/quote]Was. StopSp
  • Score: 0

1:18pm Sat 15 Sep 12

M B Mehdi says...

Is that the best you can do? Where's your proof the article was a fake given it's still on their website 2 weeks after it was first published? No one has refuted it, you cannot refute factual evidence, most historians would struggle let alone the likes of you, and it most certainly was not nonsense.

"It's better to keep your mouth shut and let people think you're a fool then to open it and erase all doubt"

So I await your reply, so you can put your foot in your mouth again.
Is that the best you can do? Where's your proof the article was a fake given it's still on their website 2 weeks after it was first published? No one has refuted it, you cannot refute factual evidence, most historians would struggle let alone the likes of you, and it most certainly was not nonsense. "It's better to keep your mouth shut and let people think you're a fool then to open it and erase all doubt" So I await your reply, so you can put your foot in your mouth again. M B Mehdi
  • Score: 0

9:11pm Sat 15 Sep 12

StopSp says...

M B Mehdi wrote:
Is that the best you can do? Where's your proof the article was a fake given it's still on their website 2 weeks after it was first published? No one has refuted it, you cannot refute factual evidence, most historians would struggle let alone the likes of you, and it most certainly was not nonsense.

"It's better to keep your mouth shut and let people think you're a fool then to open it and erase all doubt"

So I await your reply, so you can put your foot in your mouth again.
"Is that the best you can do?"

Given that all you manage is: No it wasn't.

yes, indeed.

Why should I bother explaining something to a person who will not understand? A person who makes a comment such as yours is not interested in facts, but just wants to argue. A rational person would ask and explain their own position. You are unable to do so.

No, I did not even say it is fake. I said I refuted it. Thoroughly. So thoroughly in fact that Tom Holland condoned and recommended my refutation to people who thought iERA had made some factual points.
Now you may apologise and feel ashamed.
[quote][p][bold]M B Mehdi[/bold] wrote: Is that the best you can do? Where's your proof the article was a fake given it's still on their website 2 weeks after it was first published? No one has refuted it, you cannot refute factual evidence, most historians would struggle let alone the likes of you, and it most certainly was not nonsense. "It's better to keep your mouth shut and let people think you're a fool then to open it and erase all doubt" So I await your reply, so you can put your foot in your mouth again.[/p][/quote]"Is that the best you can do?" Given that all you manage is: No it wasn't. yes, indeed. Why should I bother explaining something to a person who will not understand? A person who makes a comment such as yours is not interested in facts, but just wants to argue. A rational person would ask and explain their own position. You are unable to do so. No, I did not even say it is fake. I said I refuted it. Thoroughly. So thoroughly in fact that Tom Holland condoned and recommended my refutation to people who thought iERA had made some factual points. Now you may apologise and feel ashamed. StopSp
  • Score: 0

10:06pm Sat 15 Sep 12

M B Mehdi says...

Talk is cheap. You've made wild claims and haven't backed them up. Where is the evidence to show :

a) You have refuted the iera response
b) Tom Holland recommended it to others
Talk is cheap. You've made wild claims and haven't backed them up. Where is the evidence to show : a) You have refuted the iera response b) Tom Holland recommended it to others M B Mehdi
  • Score: 0

10:52pm Sat 15 Sep 12

M B Mehdi says...

Your youtube video is a lame attempt at a response and I daresay the reason more people, in addition to those in the comments section, didn't take you to task was after 5 minutes of your self congratulating, condescending tone, complete with a silly fake laugh for added effect, they couldn't bear to continue. "There is no full light of history" sure - if you ignore the Qur'an and hadeeth, the prophets grave, his mosque etc, etc.

Here it is for those of you who are having trouble sleeping :

http://www.youtube.c
om/watch?v=erxWJ5XdV
nE
Your youtube video is a lame attempt at a response and I daresay the reason more people, in addition to those in the comments section, didn't take you to task was after 5 minutes of your self congratulating, condescending tone, complete with a silly fake laugh for added effect, they couldn't bear to continue. "There is no full light of history" sure - if you ignore the Qur'an and hadeeth, the prophets grave, his mosque etc, etc. Here it is for those of you who are having trouble sleeping : http://www.youtube.c om/watch?v=erxWJ5XdV nE M B Mehdi
  • Score: 0

10:54pm Sat 15 Sep 12

StopSp says...

M B Mehdi wrote:
Talk is cheap. You've made wild claims and haven't backed them up. Where is the evidence to show :

a) You have refuted the iera response
b) Tom Holland recommended it to others
I am thrilled to see that you are learning!
a. http://www.youtube.c
om/watch?v=erxWJ5XdV
nE
b. twitter.com/holland_
tom

As a demolition of IERA's cloth-eared misrepresentations of my script, this is supercilious but pretty comprehensive: http://www.youtube.c
om/watch?v=erxWJ5XdV
nE
[quote][p][bold]M B Mehdi[/bold] wrote: Talk is cheap. You've made wild claims and haven't backed them up. Where is the evidence to show : a) You have refuted the iera response b) Tom Holland recommended it to others[/p][/quote]I am thrilled to see that you are learning! a. http://www.youtube.c om/watch?v=erxWJ5XdV nE b. twitter.com/holland_ tom As a demolition of IERA's cloth-eared misrepresentations of my script, this is supercilious but pretty comprehensive: http://www.youtube.c om/watch?v=erxWJ5XdV nE StopSp
  • Score: 0

11:08pm Sat 15 Sep 12

M B Mehdi says...

Yes I have seen 5 or so minutes of your video, 5 minutes of my life that I won't get back, that's more than enough. You like the sound of your own voice, you've mastered the art of talking and saying nothing - like a good politician. Some brothers have already taken you to task in the comments section. As I said "There is no full light of history" if you ignore substantial evidence such as the Qur'an and hadeeth, the prophets grave, his mosque etc, etc which obviously does nothing for Tom Holland's credibility nor that of his acolytes. I'm just stunned C4 would air such a poorly, poorly researched documentary but then it's in keeping with the dreadful level of programming on the UK's #1 channel for chavs. Keep peddling those videos, maybe you'll get a book deal or like your 'learned' friend Tom Holland a documentary.
Yes I have seen 5 or so minutes of your video, 5 minutes of my life that I won't get back, that's more than enough. You like the sound of your own voice, you've mastered the art of talking and saying nothing - like a good politician. Some brothers have already taken you to task in the comments section. As I said "There is no full light of history" if you ignore substantial evidence such as the Qur'an and hadeeth, the prophets grave, his mosque etc, etc which obviously does nothing for Tom Holland's credibility nor that of his acolytes. I'm just stunned C4 would air such a poorly, poorly researched documentary but then it's in keeping with the dreadful level of programming on the UK's #1 channel for chavs. Keep peddling those videos, maybe you'll get a book deal or like your 'learned' friend Tom Holland a documentary. M B Mehdi
  • Score: 0

11:46pm Sat 15 Sep 12

M B Mehdi says...

Tom Holland "When it comes to Islam's beginnings, there is no full light of history". Part 1 of iera's response is clearly addressing that issue yet five minutes into your video, when dismissing their evidence from HISTORICAL documents you ask "Where does Holland claim that Muhammed is not mentioned in records?" you are clearly and dishonestly misleading your viewers, you're moving the goalposts. The response is addressing Islam's beginnings, your clue would be the heading "1. The claim that there is no historical evidence in the seventh century on the origins of Islam". I could continue to pick holes in the rest of your video but I can't be bothered and I don't see the point. Talking in riddles, as I daresay you do throughout, is a diversionary tactic and dishonest but then given you hide behind a pseudonym, and please don't insult our intelligence by saying you do so for fear or reprisals, that's not really surprising.
Tom Holland "When it comes to Islam's beginnings, there is no full light of history". Part 1 of iera's response is clearly addressing that issue yet five minutes into your video, when dismissing their evidence from HISTORICAL documents you ask "Where does Holland claim that Muhammed is not mentioned in records?" you are clearly and dishonestly misleading your viewers, you're moving the goalposts. The response is addressing Islam's beginnings, your clue would be the heading "1. The claim that there is no historical evidence in the seventh century on the origins of Islam". I could continue to pick holes in the rest of your video but I can't be bothered and I don't see the point. Talking in riddles, as I daresay you do throughout, is a diversionary tactic and dishonest but then given you hide behind a pseudonym, and please don't insult our intelligence by saying you do so for fear or reprisals, that's not really surprising. M B Mehdi
  • Score: 0

5:48pm Sun 16 Sep 12

StopSp says...

M B Mehdi wrote:
Your youtube video is a lame attempt at a response and I daresay the reason more people, in addition to those in the comments section, didn't take you to task was after 5 minutes of your self congratulating, condescending tone, complete with a silly fake laugh for added effect, they couldn't bear to continue. "There is no full light of history" sure - if you ignore the Qur'an and hadeeth, the prophets grave, his mosque etc, etc.

Here it is for those of you who are having trouble sleeping :

http://www.youtube.c

om/watch?v=erxWJ5XdV

nE
We, fortunately, still live in a free country. You are welcome to take my video and tear it apart sentence by sentence and tell the world what is so wrong with what I say.
Making blanket accusations does not cut it.
You don't seem to understand the topic! It is not: "What can I find about Islam from Islam scholars and repeat it?"
It is: what is there that is historically accurate correct and shows the origins of Islam?

When was the Koran complete? Nobody knows.
When were the hadiths completed? Nobody knows.
You believe the legends surrounding Muhammad, his life, house, grave, etc are correct. Is there proof substantiating your belief? No! Do you have a factual reason to believe what you believe? No! You live on sheer, pure faith and I don't share it.
[quote][p][bold]M B Mehdi[/bold] wrote: Your youtube video is a lame attempt at a response and I daresay the reason more people, in addition to those in the comments section, didn't take you to task was after 5 minutes of your self congratulating, condescending tone, complete with a silly fake laugh for added effect, they couldn't bear to continue. "There is no full light of history" sure - if you ignore the Qur'an and hadeeth, the prophets grave, his mosque etc, etc. Here it is for those of you who are having trouble sleeping : http://www.youtube.c om/watch?v=erxWJ5XdV nE[/p][/quote]We, fortunately, still live in a free country. You are welcome to take my video and tear it apart sentence by sentence and tell the world what is so wrong with what I say. Making blanket accusations does not cut it. You don't seem to understand the topic! It is not: "What can I find about Islam from Islam scholars and repeat it?" It is: what is there that is historically accurate correct and shows the origins of Islam? When was the Koran complete? Nobody knows. When were the hadiths completed? Nobody knows. You believe the legends surrounding Muhammad, his life, house, grave, etc are correct. Is there proof substantiating your belief? No! Do you have a factual reason to believe what you believe? No! You live on sheer, pure faith and I don't share it. StopSp
  • Score: 0

5:54pm Sun 16 Sep 12

StopSp says...

M B Mehdi wrote:
Yes I have seen 5 or so minutes of your video, 5 minutes of my life that I won't get back, that's more than enough. You like the sound of your own voice, you've mastered the art of talking and saying nothing - like a good politician. Some brothers have already taken you to task in the comments section. As I said "There is no full light of history" if you ignore substantial evidence such as the Qur'an and hadeeth, the prophets grave, his mosque etc, etc which obviously does nothing for Tom Holland's credibility nor that of his acolytes. I'm just stunned C4 would air such a poorly, poorly researched documentary but then it's in keeping with the dreadful level of programming on the UK's #1 channel for chavs. Keep peddling those videos, maybe you'll get a book deal or like your 'learned' friend Tom Holland a documentary.
Can you give me an example of a sentence where I say nothing?

}"Some brothers have already taken you to task"
Is that what you call mindless patter?

You keep on repeating your opinion, saying the documentary is poorly researched - yet torpedo your own credibility by a.) not bringing up any examples and b.) pandering to hearsay and wishful thinking.
[quote][p][bold]M B Mehdi[/bold] wrote: Yes I have seen 5 or so minutes of your video, 5 minutes of my life that I won't get back, that's more than enough. You like the sound of your own voice, you've mastered the art of talking and saying nothing - like a good politician. Some brothers have already taken you to task in the comments section. As I said "There is no full light of history" if you ignore substantial evidence such as the Qur'an and hadeeth, the prophets grave, his mosque etc, etc which obviously does nothing for Tom Holland's credibility nor that of his acolytes. I'm just stunned C4 would air such a poorly, poorly researched documentary but then it's in keeping with the dreadful level of programming on the UK's #1 channel for chavs. Keep peddling those videos, maybe you'll get a book deal or like your 'learned' friend Tom Holland a documentary.[/p][/quote]Can you give me an example of a sentence where I say nothing? }"Some brothers have already taken you to task" Is that what you call mindless patter? You keep on repeating your opinion, saying the documentary is poorly researched - yet torpedo your own credibility by a.) not bringing up any examples and b.) pandering to hearsay and wishful thinking. StopSp
  • Score: 0

6:01pm Sun 16 Sep 12

StopSp says...

M B Mehdi wrote:
Tom Holland "When it comes to Islam's beginnings, there is no full light of history". Part 1 of iera's response is clearly addressing that issue yet five minutes into your video, when dismissing their evidence from HISTORICAL documents you ask "Where does Holland claim that Muhammed is not mentioned in records?" you are clearly and dishonestly misleading your viewers, you're moving the goalposts. The response is addressing Islam's beginnings, your clue would be the heading "1. The claim that there is no historical evidence in the seventh century on the origins of Islam". I could continue to pick holes in the rest of your video but I can't be bothered and I don't see the point. Talking in riddles, as I daresay you do throughout, is a diversionary tactic and dishonest but then given you hide behind a pseudonym, and please don't insult our intelligence by saying you do so for fear or reprisals, that's not really surprising.
}"Part 1 of iera's response is clearly addressing that issue"

What part 1? Where they bring up the Doctrina Jacobi or Sebeos? If yes, then I shot it down.

You need to learn to write in a more structured way. You are accusing me of lying and I have no idea about what.

What is possible is that you mean that iERA claims that "Tom Holland’s assertion that there is no historical evidence for the seventh century origins of Islam is untrue."

What he does is ask: "is the name of the Prophet Muhammad mentioned? No, no."

So all you need to do is find a document from between 610 and 630 which mentions him and his function and you have successfully refuted me. Oh And refuted Tom Holland too. So, off you go.....
[quote][p][bold]M B Mehdi[/bold] wrote: Tom Holland "When it comes to Islam's beginnings, there is no full light of history". Part 1 of iera's response is clearly addressing that issue yet five minutes into your video, when dismissing their evidence from HISTORICAL documents you ask "Where does Holland claim that Muhammed is not mentioned in records?" you are clearly and dishonestly misleading your viewers, you're moving the goalposts. The response is addressing Islam's beginnings, your clue would be the heading "1. The claim that there is no historical evidence in the seventh century on the origins of Islam". I could continue to pick holes in the rest of your video but I can't be bothered and I don't see the point. Talking in riddles, as I daresay you do throughout, is a diversionary tactic and dishonest but then given you hide behind a pseudonym, and please don't insult our intelligence by saying you do so for fear or reprisals, that's not really surprising.[/p][/quote]}"Part 1 of iera's response is clearly addressing that issue" What part 1? Where they bring up the Doctrina Jacobi or Sebeos? If yes, then I shot it down. You need to learn to write in a more structured way. You are accusing me of lying and I have no idea about what. What is possible is that you mean that iERA claims that "Tom Holland’s assertion that there is no historical evidence for the seventh century origins of Islam is untrue." What he does is ask: "is the name of the Prophet Muhammad mentioned? No, no." So all you need to do is find a document from between 610 and 630 which mentions him and his function and you have successfully refuted me. Oh And refuted Tom Holland too. So, off you go..... StopSp
  • Score: 0

8:49pm Sun 16 Sep 12

M B Mehdi says...

The pompous, condescending tone, the pathetic forced fake laugh for dramatic effect, the not so subtle attempts to demonstrate your superior intellect e.g. questioning the iera authors vocabulary, who exactly do you think you're fooling with this charade? This isn't an amateur dramatics audition.

You mock the iera's vocabulary (5 or so minutes in) yet do you even know what the word refute means? Mocking a statement isn't refuting it, to refute a statement or claim you have to prove it to be false, you've done no such thing.

Actually we know when the Qur'an was 'complete' as you call it. The origins of the Qur'an and how it was complied were detailed by Richard Hooker of Washington State University, among others, and date back to around 20 years after the prophets death under the 3rd caliph, copies of which are preserved in museums to this day.

Hadith? We know the dates Bukhari and Muslim were complied. This very basic stuff and almost certainly more documentation exists in Arabic which obviously highlights another major failing in Tom Holland's research, deliberately, deceitfully ignoring texts written by scholars would be akin to ignoring texts on the Roman Empire written by Italians.

I don't care what you believe, if Richard Dawkins and Darwin are your prophets and evolution is your religion knock yourself out none of this however is relevant to the discussion, another example of your diversionary tactics.

Examples where you say nothing? The whole video. I explained why the documentary was poorly researched as have others. What part of "the Qur'an and hadeeth, the prophets grave, his mosque etc, etc" as early evidence is it that you do not understand?

You didn't shoot down anything. The first source which you arrogantly dismissed was a chronicle written in 635CE yet in a twitter discussion Tom Holland refers to another chronicle (Doctrina Iacobi written in 634CE) to support his claims so care to explain how Holland's source is legitimate whereas the source used by iera isn't?

610 and 630? Another attempt to move the goalposts. Tom Holland said 60 years but nonetheless the Qur'an is that very document. If you dispute how the Qur'an was complied then not only would you have to know the names of the sources who transcribed it from the prophets lips but also prove they were not trustworthy, you would need to know the names of the sources the third caliph instructed to compile it and also prove they were not trustworthy, then, to be consistent, you would have to apply the same criteria to every historical account.

"You need to learn to write in a more structured way. You are accusing me of lying and I have no idea about what."

I think you'll find you have the problem with structure and you clearly cannot follow an argument so let me repeat what I wrote earlier and give another example :

1. "Tom Holland "When it comes to Islam's beginnings, there is no full light of history". Part 1 of iera's response is clearly addressing that issue yet five minutes into your video you ask "Where does Holland claim that Muhammed is not mentioned in records?" you are clearly and dishonestly misleading your viewers. The response is addressing Islam's beginnings, your clue would be the heading "1. The claim that there is no historical evidence in the seventh century on the origins of Islam". I cannot give more examples from your self congratulatory, tiresome video because five minutes of your inane rambling was all I could bear.

2. In an earlier post you claimed the iera's response was refuted, which implies that it was refuted by a body or someone in a position of authority only to later reveal, and I quote "I said I refuted it" no you didn't SAY you refuted it, your exact words were "the iERA press release was thoroughly refuted" 'was' and 'I'? Do you know the difference? YOU refuted it! And who are you exactly? Clearly you're no historian. You're just another message board troll. You talk for 30 minutes and yet say absolutely nothing. Trolling is trolling now matter how many bells and whistles you use to dress it up
The pompous, condescending tone, the pathetic forced fake laugh for dramatic effect, the not so subtle attempts to demonstrate your superior intellect e.g. questioning the iera authors vocabulary, who exactly do you think you're fooling with this charade? This isn't an amateur dramatics audition. You mock the iera's vocabulary (5 or so minutes in) yet do you even know what the word refute means? Mocking a statement isn't refuting it, to refute a statement or claim you have to prove it to be false, you've done no such thing. Actually we know when the Qur'an was 'complete' as you call it. The origins of the Qur'an and how it was complied were detailed by Richard Hooker of Washington State University, among others, and date back to around 20 years after the prophets death under the 3rd caliph, copies of which are preserved in museums to this day. Hadith? We know the dates Bukhari and Muslim were complied. This very basic stuff and almost certainly more documentation exists in Arabic which obviously highlights another major failing in Tom Holland's research, deliberately, deceitfully ignoring texts written by scholars would be akin to ignoring texts on the Roman Empire written by Italians. I don't care what you believe, if Richard Dawkins and Darwin are your prophets and evolution is your religion knock yourself out none of this however is relevant to the discussion, another example of your diversionary tactics. Examples where you say nothing? The whole video. I explained why the documentary was poorly researched as have others. What part of "the Qur'an and hadeeth, the prophets grave, his mosque etc, etc" as early evidence is it that you do not understand? You didn't shoot down anything. The first source which you arrogantly dismissed was a chronicle written in 635CE yet in a twitter discussion Tom Holland refers to another chronicle (Doctrina Iacobi written in 634CE) to support his claims so care to explain how Holland's source is legitimate whereas the source used by iera isn't? 610 and 630? Another attempt to move the goalposts. Tom Holland said 60 years but nonetheless the Qur'an is that very document. If you dispute how the Qur'an was complied then not only would you have to know the names of the sources who transcribed it from the prophets lips but also prove they were not trustworthy, you would need to know the names of the sources the third caliph instructed to compile it and also prove they were not trustworthy, then, to be consistent, you would have to apply the same criteria to every historical account. "You need to learn to write in a more structured way. You are accusing me of lying and I have no idea about what." I think you'll find you have the problem with structure and you clearly cannot follow an argument so let me repeat what I wrote earlier and give another example : 1. "Tom Holland "When it comes to Islam's beginnings, there is no full light of history". Part 1 of iera's response is clearly addressing that issue yet five minutes into your video you ask "Where does Holland claim that Muhammed is not mentioned in records?" you are clearly and dishonestly misleading your viewers. The response is addressing Islam's beginnings, your clue would be the heading "1. The claim that there is no historical evidence in the seventh century on the origins of Islam". I cannot give more examples from your self congratulatory, tiresome video because five minutes of your inane rambling was all I could bear. 2. In an earlier post you claimed the iera's response was refuted, which implies that it was refuted by a body or someone in a position of authority only to later reveal, and I quote "I said I refuted it" no you didn't SAY you refuted it, your exact words were "the iERA press release was thoroughly refuted" 'was' and 'I'? Do you know the difference? YOU refuted it! And who are you exactly? Clearly you're no historian. You're just another message board troll. You talk for 30 minutes and yet say absolutely nothing. Trolling is trolling now matter how many bells and whistles you use to dress it up M B Mehdi
  • Score: 0

11:22pm Sun 16 Sep 12

StopSp says...

Is criticising my style really that relevant to the contents?

Could you show me where Richard Hooker "details" this completion date? I am unable to find one. Nor am I able to find a completion date of the Koran in any other text by any other scholar.

Could you show me texts detailing the origin of the Koran?

}"We know the dates Bukhari and Muslim were complied."
I assume you mean "compiled". Really? Was this in the period between 610 and 630CE, the time when Islam originated?

Oh dear, your primitive cortex is taking over and you are unable to control it. I am trying to have a civilized conversation. Why can't you attempt the same?

I don't adhere to religions or alleged prophets. I prefer facts. And answering my specific question with a global "everything" shows your intellectual capabilities.

You don't seem to understand what people are writing. Maybe you should watch my video on what IslamicAwareness claims regarding those texts. Then you have some facts and can address them.

I demand, and always have, historically accurate texts between 610 and 630 for any meaningful contents to be valid. What Tom Holland seems to do is have a more lenient disposition and demand anything before 660 to be relevant. In either case, nobody has brought anything forward to satisfy either one of us.

Maybe you can change that?

Let me accept your attempt at appearing structured:

1.1. iERA "clearly addressing" what?
1.2. I am asking where THolland says what iERA claims he us saying. He does not. He asks. That little squiggly thing at the end of a sentence denotes the previous words as question.
1.3. what is misleading when I explain something?
1.4. How does iERA in any way address the origins of Islam?
1.5. Why don't you concentrate more on the factual arguments and points rather than the ad hominems? You are being childish.

2. Ah, yes, no points you are capable of addressing so you attack my style and credibility and question my authority. Very mature!

Do you have any factual points to contribute here? Look, if you can't follow and have nothing to contribute you can easily run away like all the others do. I am used to it.

Alternatively, you can always bring 1 (one) point to the table and see if you can coherently formulate and prove it. But I sense that we have reached the point where insulting is the only course of action remaining for you.
Is criticising my style really that relevant to the contents? Could you show me where Richard Hooker "details" this completion date? I am unable to find one. Nor am I able to find a completion date of the Koran in any other text by any other scholar. Could you show me texts detailing the origin of the Koran? }"We know the dates Bukhari and Muslim were complied." I assume you mean "compiled". Really? Was this in the period between 610 and 630CE, the time when Islam originated? Oh dear, your primitive cortex is taking over and you are unable to control it. I am trying to have a civilized conversation. Why can't you attempt the same? I don't adhere to religions or alleged prophets. I prefer facts. And answering my specific question with a global "everything" shows your intellectual capabilities. You don't seem to understand what people are writing. Maybe you should watch my video on what IslamicAwareness claims regarding those texts. Then you have some facts and can address them. I demand, and always have, historically accurate texts between 610 and 630 for any meaningful contents to be valid. What Tom Holland seems to do is have a more lenient disposition and demand anything before 660 to be relevant. In either case, nobody has brought anything forward to satisfy either one of us. Maybe you can change that? Let me accept your attempt at appearing structured: 1.1. iERA "clearly addressing" what? 1.2. I am asking where THolland says what iERA claims he us saying. He does not. He asks. That little squiggly thing at the end of a sentence denotes the previous words as question. 1.3. what is misleading when I explain something? 1.4. How does iERA in any way address the origins of Islam? 1.5. Why don't you concentrate more on the factual arguments and points rather than the ad hominems? You are being childish. 2. Ah, yes, no points you are capable of addressing so you attack my style and credibility and question my authority. Very mature! Do you have any factual points to contribute here? Look, if you can't follow and have nothing to contribute you can easily run away like all the others do. I am used to it. Alternatively, you can always bring 1 (one) point to the table and see if you can coherently formulate and prove it. But I sense that we have reached the point where insulting is the only course of action remaining for you. StopSp
  • Score: 0

4:31am Mon 17 Sep 12

M B Mehdi says...

I have already addressed your dishonesty but as you're bizarrely struggling to comprehend what I said I'll explain it a third time.

When discussing part 1 of the iera response you claimed :

"Where does Holland claim that Muhammed is not mentioned in records?"

Implying that is what they i.e. iera are addressing despite the fact the heading of the piece you are mocking reads :

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

That is obviously what they are addressing, they are not claiming Holland said Muhammed is not mentioned in records they are refuting his claim re seventh century historical evidence.

Why would I watch another of your videos when you don't even know the basics? You think you're in possession of some deep dark secrets that can discredit Islam? People have been trying and failing for over 1400 years, join the queue.

http://www.jewishvir
tuallibrary.org/jsou
rce/History/Caliphat
e.html

'Uthman's death was ironic for many reasons, including the fact that he was the first Islamic caliph or leader to be killed by fellow Muslims. But 'Uthman's greatest and most lasting achievement was the formal rescension of the Qur'an . Until 'Uthman, the Qur'an was largely an oral text that was recited by followers who had memorized it. The wars of conquest, however, had thinned their ranks, and the introduction of foreign peoples into Islam threatened the integrity of the text as an Arabic text. So 'Uthman ordered that all versions, written and oral, be collected together and a definitive version written down. It is this definitive version which became the central text of Islam and the bedrock on which all Islamic history would be built. And it was this version, this brilliant achievement, that 'Uthman was reciting from when he was killed.

Source: Islam from Washington State University, ©Richard Hooker, reprinted by permission.

Uthman was killed in 656, the prophet Muhammed died in 632, therefore the Qur'an was compiled at the very latest 24 years after his death. Copies of the Qur'an from that very period have been preserved in museums in Tashkent, Cairo, St Petersburg and possibly other cities. The Hadith were compiled decades later.

On what basis are the Qur'an and the Hadith not legitimate, historical sources? They are the most meticulously preserved documents in history. Tom Holland deceitfully skirted over this issue because it comprehensively destroys his argument. To dismiss either source as valid accounts of what the prophet said and did between the year he received revelation and his death (590-632CE) simply because the contents were compiled by Muslims is pure bigotry. Italian accounts of the Roman Empire are not dismissed due to any perceived bias, Greek accounts of ancient Greece are not dismissed due to any perceived bias so on what grounds could anyone call into question the credibility of those that collated and complied the Qur'an and Hadith? Where is your or Holland's evidence to suggest they were not credible sources? Had Holland even dared to question their authenticity or credibility he would have not only come in for even more deserved criticism from Muslims but also from historians and the academic community at large e.g.

http://www.independe
nt.co.uk/news/uk/hom
e-news/fear-and-loat
hing-another-unholy-
row-about-islam-8131
189.html

"Holland's work is based primarily on a lot of research that was published in the 1970s," explains Professor Hugh Kennedy, an expert on Middle Eastern history at the School of Oriental and African Studies. "It's interesting and challenging but in the end unconvincing."

More recent scholarship, he argues, has tended to vindicate the narrative laid down by Muslim tradition. "Just because you cannot definitely prove that something happened doesn't mean it didn't occur," he says. "At the same time the Anglo-Saxon invasions of Britain were taking place. We don't have a huge amount of contemporaneous evidence but no one doubts it happened."

"you can easily run away like all the others do. I am used to it."

Sorry and you are a historian?
I have already addressed your dishonesty but as you're bizarrely struggling to comprehend what I said I'll explain it a third time. When discussing part 1 of the iera response you claimed : "Where does Holland claim that Muhammed is not mentioned in records?" Implying that is what they i.e. iera are addressing despite the fact the heading of the piece you are mocking reads : "1. The claim that there is no historical evidence in the seventh century on the origins of Islam" That is obviously what they are addressing, they are not claiming Holland said Muhammed is not mentioned in records they are refuting his claim re seventh century historical evidence. Why would I watch another of your videos when you don't even know the basics? You think you're in possession of some deep dark secrets that can discredit Islam? People have been trying and failing for over 1400 years, join the queue. http://www.jewishvir tuallibrary.org/jsou rce/History/Caliphat e.html 'Uthman's death was ironic for many reasons, including the fact that he was the first Islamic caliph or leader to be killed by fellow Muslims. But 'Uthman's greatest and most lasting achievement was the formal rescension of the Qur'an . Until 'Uthman, the Qur'an was largely an oral text that was recited by followers who had memorized it. The wars of conquest, however, had thinned their ranks, and the introduction of foreign peoples into Islam threatened the integrity of the text as an Arabic text. So 'Uthman ordered that all versions, written and oral, be collected together and a definitive version written down. It is this definitive version which became the central text of Islam and the bedrock on which all Islamic history would be built. And it was this version, this brilliant achievement, that 'Uthman was reciting from when he was killed. Source: Islam from Washington State University, ©Richard Hooker, reprinted by permission. Uthman was killed in 656, the prophet Muhammed died in 632, therefore the Qur'an was compiled at the very latest 24 years after his death. Copies of the Qur'an from that very period have been preserved in museums in Tashkent, Cairo, St Petersburg and possibly other cities. The Hadith were compiled decades later. On what basis are the Qur'an and the Hadith not legitimate, historical sources? They are the most meticulously preserved documents in history. Tom Holland deceitfully skirted over this issue because it comprehensively destroys his argument. To dismiss either source as valid accounts of what the prophet said and did between the year he received revelation and his death (590-632CE) simply because the contents were compiled by Muslims is pure bigotry. Italian accounts of the Roman Empire are not dismissed due to any perceived bias, Greek accounts of ancient Greece are not dismissed due to any perceived bias so on what grounds could anyone call into question the credibility of those that collated and complied the Qur'an and Hadith? Where is your or Holland's evidence to suggest they were not credible sources? Had Holland even dared to question their authenticity or credibility he would have not only come in for even more deserved criticism from Muslims but also from historians and the academic community at large e.g. http://www.independe nt.co.uk/news/uk/hom e-news/fear-and-loat hing-another-unholy- row-about-islam-8131 189.html "Holland's work is based primarily on a lot of research that was published in the 1970s," explains Professor Hugh Kennedy, an expert on Middle Eastern history at the School of Oriental and African Studies. "It's interesting and challenging but in the end unconvincing." More recent scholarship, he argues, has tended to vindicate the narrative laid down by Muslim tradition. "Just because you cannot definitely prove that something happened doesn't mean it didn't occur," he says. "At the same time the Anglo-Saxon invasions of Britain were taking place. We don't have a huge amount of contemporaneous evidence but no one doubts it happened." "you can easily run away like all the others do. I am used to it." Sorry and you are a historian? M B Mehdi
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree