Posted: Sep 19, 2017 3:36 am
After viewing this video, it struck me as odd that Holland never once goes to, or even mentions, Medina, where Mohammed supposedly consolidated his power. So much about Mecca, but not a word about Medina, huh? So I Googled "Medina Channel 4 Islam Tom Holland", and I did find an in-depth article on this documentary that, among other things, cites the absence of Medina in this film as quite troubling:
" [In this film,] [t]he inference [taken from the barrenness of Mecca, as opposed to thriving agriculture] is truly bizarre: neighbouring Medina, where Muhammed emigrated fleeing persecution in Mecca - and where he continued to receive a large bulk of the revelations of the Qur’an - was a thriving “agricultural settlement, with widely scattered palm groves and armed farmsteads.” " (August 31, 2012)
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/dr-nafe ... 42822.html
Also in the Huffington Post -- yes, I went surfing further, so sue me -- there is a piece from one day earlier that points to at least one deliberate lacuna that Holland knowingly creates out of whole cloth in the historical record:
"[T]here is still one decisive document that we know he was aware of yet neglected to mention in the documentary.
This is the ‘treaty of Medina’ and has been mentioned in Holland’s book, ‘In the Shadow of the Sword’ which was published in April of this year. The treaty is a peace agreement between Muhammad and the Muslim and Jewish tribes native to the area at the time, and is described by Holland in his book as “a single lump of magma sufficiently calcified to have stood proof against all erosion.” This treaty would have provided answers to some of Holland’s questions and rendered others null and void; it is textual and archaeological evidence of Muhammad’s existence and his life in Medina (and not the Negev desert). So why didn’t Holland, instead of fretting over coinage and post-Muhammad Arab imperialists, include this key piece of evidence? Was it because he was seeking only to promote his own version of events?"
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/afroze- ... 42984.html
Look, it doesn't take a brain surgeon to realize that this notorious thread already has a poisonous atmosphere, and since it's inevitable that someone will point out that both these pieces are probably written by believers, we can save a lot of time here by saying that YES, THESE TWO AUTHORS ARE PROBABLY BELIEVERS. O.K.?
Fact is, there probably ARE other non-Muslim sources on the web that will also talk about this same surviving treaty in Medina and the obvious agriculture at Medina. But I don't have time right now to chase those down. That will have to be next week. That's a shame, since I know I may as well whistle for anyone else here bothering to find non-Islamic Internet scholarship on Medina even if they DID have the time.
Look, maybe the scholarship in these two HuffPost pieces is also hogwash. But it sure looks like this documentary is no better than hogwash with its flagrantly ignoring Medina altogether. Also, the idea of presenting an eccentric documentary like this without so much as a nod in the direction of the profound controversy it emphatically caused is flagrantly dishonest enough to make one just throw up.
Stein
" [In this film,] [t]he inference [taken from the barrenness of Mecca, as opposed to thriving agriculture] is truly bizarre: neighbouring Medina, where Muhammed emigrated fleeing persecution in Mecca - and where he continued to receive a large bulk of the revelations of the Qur’an - was a thriving “agricultural settlement, with widely scattered palm groves and armed farmsteads.” " (August 31, 2012)
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/dr-nafe ... 42822.html
Also in the Huffington Post -- yes, I went surfing further, so sue me -- there is a piece from one day earlier that points to at least one deliberate lacuna that Holland knowingly creates out of whole cloth in the historical record:
"[T]here is still one decisive document that we know he was aware of yet neglected to mention in the documentary.
This is the ‘treaty of Medina’ and has been mentioned in Holland’s book, ‘In the Shadow of the Sword’ which was published in April of this year. The treaty is a peace agreement between Muhammad and the Muslim and Jewish tribes native to the area at the time, and is described by Holland in his book as “a single lump of magma sufficiently calcified to have stood proof against all erosion.” This treaty would have provided answers to some of Holland’s questions and rendered others null and void; it is textual and archaeological evidence of Muhammad’s existence and his life in Medina (and not the Negev desert). So why didn’t Holland, instead of fretting over coinage and post-Muhammad Arab imperialists, include this key piece of evidence? Was it because he was seeking only to promote his own version of events?"
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/afroze- ... 42984.html
Look, it doesn't take a brain surgeon to realize that this notorious thread already has a poisonous atmosphere, and since it's inevitable that someone will point out that both these pieces are probably written by believers, we can save a lot of time here by saying that YES, THESE TWO AUTHORS ARE PROBABLY BELIEVERS. O.K.?
Fact is, there probably ARE other non-Muslim sources on the web that will also talk about this same surviving treaty in Medina and the obvious agriculture at Medina. But I don't have time right now to chase those down. That will have to be next week. That's a shame, since I know I may as well whistle for anyone else here bothering to find non-Islamic Internet scholarship on Medina even if they DID have the time.
Look, maybe the scholarship in these two HuffPost pieces is also hogwash. But it sure looks like this documentary is no better than hogwash with its flagrantly ignoring Medina altogether. Also, the idea of presenting an eccentric documentary like this without so much as a nod in the direction of the profound controversy it emphatically caused is flagrantly dishonest enough to make one just throw up.
Stein