The Life of Muhammad: Mixed Reactions

From what I gather from my non-Muslim friends on Twitter, Facebook and face-to-face interactions – all are very much enjoying the BBC’s Life of Muhammad documentary.

From what I gather from my Muslim friends on Twitter, Facebook and face-to-face interactions – all are very much disappointed at the BBC’s Life of Muhammad documentary.

It is wonderful to have a generally sympathetic portrayal of the Prophet Muhammad on national TV in a prime-time slot. A great opportunity to share the man and message so close to the heart of billions of Muslims.

Yet it still isn't quite right. Several things just fail to hit the mark.

The first is its insistence on linking modern day events with the biography. Yes, the Satanic Verses, 9/11 and the Israel-Palestine conflict are all important issues regarding Muslims today. But you can’t miss out 1400 years of history. Quite obviously the Israel-Palestine conflict has more to do with the millions of Palestinian refugees that lost their homes and land upon the creation of the state of Israel in 1948 than al-Israa wal-Miraaj (the Prophet's journey to Jerusalem and beyond). Something that isn’t conveyed in the documentary.

An older American documentary, Muhammed: Legacy of a Prophet did the same thing. But instead of contextualising the life of the Prophet with 9/11 or such, it used the day to day lives of modern Muslims – doctors, lawyers and so on. To hear from Muslims about how a specific event in the life of the Prophet resonated with them, or made them who they are felt more intimate and more meaningful. It also made a lot more sense then trying to link complex global issues to a single incident from the life of the Prophet.

The next issue is the choice of commentators. One commentator was Robert Spencer, a very well known anti-Islam commentator who founded and runs the website Jihad Watch. To give you a sense of Jihad Watch’s paranoia – it accuses a dodgy kebab shop in Cardiff of being al-Qaeda trained terrorists. Like seriously, click the link, they actually say it! And this guy is a commentator on the show? Bizarre. The line up also includes Nonie Dariwsh, Director of Former Muslims United. An ex-Muslim was given more speaking time on the Prophet Muhammad than Tariq Ramadan, a prominent Muslim scholar.

I can totally understand the need for impartial and unbiased (if such a thing exists) commentators, in the form of academics and experts – but how can Robert Spencer and Nonie Darwish be justified?

A final issue that bugs me is choice of content. You have 23 years during which the Prophet Muhammad was active as a preacher and reformer of society. In a documentary of three hours, there is naturally a need to highlight certain important incidents; so no one expects everything to be covered.

But for many Muslims, this documentary misses out a lot of the important stuff. Important first in understanding who was Muhammad, and important in understanding who are Muslims.

For example, the suffering and persecution faced by the Prophet in Makkah is mentioned only in passing. Yet this shaped so much of the Prophet’s experiences, and is such an important aspect of the Prophetic story for Muslims. In the face of torture and punishment, all the early Muslims stood steadfast in their faith, adhering to the Quranic injunction of ‘sabr’, patience. To overlook this is to miss the foundation of the Prophetic biography.

Another aspect I was looking forward to in the second part of the documentary, that was barely mentioned, was how the Prophet united the tribes of Madinah. So much of the Islamic understandings of unity, brotherhood (of humanity and Muslims), sacrifice, asceticism and so on stem from the importance of Madinah, yet it was barely looked at.

Instead the documentary tends to focus on the controversial. When discussing Makkah and the Constitution of Madinah, the documentary is keen to mention historians who argue both didn't even exist. When it comes to the controversial issues however, the Banu Quraizah for example, the documentary seems less concerned with historical debate and is content to accept a single narrative around the issue.

Finally, a documentary that tries to look at the life of the Prophet but that omits his relationship to God will always fall short. Even from a critical, atheist position; his relationship to God is paramount to understanding the Prophet. Karen Armstrong is the one commentator who reminds us of this. She understands how central it is to the story.

Overall, it still feels like this documentary is struggling to break free of Western Orientalism. The issues it focuses on, the way the Prophet is presented, the questions asked; they all mimic previous Orientalist studies of the Prophet.

Yet ultimately, I have to remind myself and perhaps other Muslims that this documentary is step in the right direction. So little knowledge exists in the public realm about the Prophet Muhammad, that anything is better than nothing.

PANORAMA: a response

“British Schools: Islamic Rules” ran the title of this week’s Panorama on BBC1. It dealt with what it considered questionable material being taught in British schools.

There are several point of response, or themes of objection, that I have with the documentary. I highlight them in the hope that others will be able to see the questionable ground upon which the Panorama documentary was based.

OTHERING:

Othering is a process by which one identity is secured in opposition, and often in conflict, with another. In this case, it is the clear distinction between British and Islamic.

For many, myself included, there is little conflict between the two. Like millions of Muslims in the UK, I am confident in my British nationality and the Islamic principles and teachings I live my life by – and in fact I find many areas of commonality.

Yet the show with its title (British Schools: Islamic Rules) directly proposed an antithesis between that which is British, and that which is Islamic. This was a theme that reoccurred through out the show.

The presenter criticises some of the schools for teaching anti-Western views (essentially a construction of opposition between Islam and ‘the West’), when the show itself is guilty of doing exactly the same in its title and narrative.

EXTREMISM AND CONSERVATISM:

Religious extremism and religious conservatism are two very distinct notions, and must never be conflated if a mature and informed discussion on religion is to take place.

Yet Panorama is sloppy in distinguishing between the two. An example found in the show is of the religious opinion it cites which disfavours music. Yes, this is a position expounded by many scholars within Islam, though not all, and is well within the mainstream of Islamic religious opinion. Does this lead to extremism, or fundamentalism, or indeed anything of concern? Of course not, and importantly, Islam is not the only faith tradition with varying opinions on the role of music.

Again, this amateurism can be found in discussions of ‘medieval Islam’ and the way that Muslims use the word ‘kuffar’ (it can be used in a derogatory sense, but also in a technical sense, as scholars of jurisprudence are prone to doing).

CLAIMS OF ANTI-SEMITISM:

It is very difficult to examine the material presented in the documentary regarding anti-Semitism. I watched the documentary with a notepad in hand, but all the issues raised were vague, brief and generalised.

Where there is hate and prejudice being taught in Islamic schools, communities must contest this. But as I can’t bring a specific example from the documentary to discuss, I will simply outline what Islam teaches about Judaism, and the equality of humanity in general.

The Prophet Muhammad left no room for doubt about the nature of mankind when he stated in the Farewell Sermon, an important summa theologica of Islam, that: -

“All mankind is from Adam and Eve, an Arab has no superiority over a non-Arab nor a non-Arab has any superiority over an Arab; also a white has no superiority over black nor a black has any superiority over white; except by piety and good action”

Jews, along with Christians and Mandaeans are counted amongst the ‘People of the Book’, and honoured title within the Quran used for the Abrahamic traditions.

The Constitution of Madinah, a social contract drafted and signed by the Prophet Muhammad, states in strong terms that between Muslims and Jews ‘there shall be sincere friendship, exchange of good counsel, fair conduct and no betrayal'.

Islam does not view the ‘Children of Israel’ in history as a differing religious tradition. Rather the story of the Children of Israel is the story of faith amongst humanity in the Quran. And so there are stories of piety and morality, of sin and forgiveness and indeed of sin and condemnation. These are for instruction and reflection of present day believers –Quranic references to Children of Israel should be understood in this context.

GENERALISATION AND SENSATIONALISM:

I refuse to accept the now token disclaimer offered by journalists and presenters who say “not all Muslims are like this, but” and then spend the whole show demonising and misrepresenting Muslims.

Despite almost all the schools mentioned by the documentary receiving ‘good’ or ‘excellent’ classifications by Ofsted (a very rare grade), the show then went on listing tenuous claims of ‘extremism’.

Often this is done by quoting speakers out of context, with some ominous music playing. This is a common technique, and one which wilfully misrepresents the speakers and the content of their message, and as mentioned, conflates extremism and religious conservatism.

If the issue of Muslim faith schools, and the content of their syllabus, is to be examined, it should be done thoroughly, with adequate time and an objective analysis.

This short documentary, with sloppy terminology, lack of understanding, vague accusations, sensationalism and generalisations of a two million strong Muslim community is anything but the right way to do it.