Posted: Sep 19, 2017 10:33 am
Stein wrote: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
If the author of the piece quoted above is reporting accurately, then Holland does indeed acknowledge this Treaty of Medina and appears to take it quite seriously. This would be evidence that as far as Holland is concerned there is no 'lacuna' for anyone to get upset about.
So it would seem odd that the BBC chose to leave that out of their video production. I don't have enough information to blame Holland for editorial decisions made by the BBC.