Speaking to family members, Muslims and non-Muslims there has been a mixed reaction about the British Broadcasting Corporation’s (BBC) latest production on Islam.

“Talk of the devil”

Review on the BBC2 documentary – TheLife of The Prophet Muhammad (SAW).

It’s worth noting that the broadcasters of this programme are the same BBC that has in the past had a poor track record on representing Muslim viewsand the very same BBC that broke away from the usual norm and refused to air a disaster emergency committee appeal for those whose lives were ruined by the Israeli bombardment of the Gaza strip, in a pretext to appear “impartial”, alongside it’s unfair coverage of the Gaza war, which was entirely aired by journalists in Israel alone. Hence, it almost felt too good to be true when a programme was going to be aired about the life of the Prophet Muhammad (SAW), that may do just that – depict his life (SAW) and what he (SAW) means to ¼ of the world’s population. What happened in reality?

Unfortunately the personalities used to construct this documentary did nothing more than confirm the culture of the BBC’s executive staff and in general the murky media barons that “call the shots”Unfortunately, the epistemological and ethical foundations of contemporary mass media in the west, has been exclusively rooted in perverted western ideologies about Islam and the prevailing modern philosophies of those who hold fiscal power and authority. Hence, no matter how much an image of good ethical practise and impartiality is portrayed, in reality only those that conform to these ideologies are the ones given exclusive access to present their narrative. It’s also short sighted on the part of the majority of orthodox Muslims to believe that it’s only due to a lack of qualified individuals that we lack a voice in the media, when in essence, it’s only those that are deemed progressive enough and in line with the “pre-set narrative”, that are given the opportunity to represent Muslims. I would like to briefly analyse some of the characters given the opportunity to air their views on the Prophet’s life in this latest BBC concoction:

1.       ZiauddinSardar – is the writer and editor of this documentary.ZiauddinSardar openly supportedthe idea of women Imams leading mixed prayer congregations in an article published in Emel magazine. He has authored books on “Islamic sciences”, where he describes such sciences as a “subjectively objective enterprise” and goes on to clarify what’s lawful and prohibited (halal and haram) should be based on theconsensus of the community and public benefit. Therefore, not on revelation, this is contrary to the basic concept of divine teachings. He’s also the editor of the journal “futures”, where he went on to conjure the discipline of “Islamic futures”, where Muslim Civilisation should stop looking at the past and should bereconstructed based on intellectuality. He’s also a firm critic of the concept of an Islamic state and this interestingly comes across subtly in the latest BBC programme, where the Prophet’s (SAW) state in Madinah is deliberately described as a non-religious one, where only constitution and laws prevail.  Of all the Muslims available in the United Kingdom those with “Islamic insecurities” and who representa fringe proportion of so called Muslims are once again given more than just airtime.

2.       Robert Spencer – A very active and aggressive critique of Islam, who makes a living out of defaming the Prophet (SAW)’s teachings, is bizarrely invited as a regular commentator on the programme. Robert Spencer founded and runs the website “Jihad Watch”, as well as writing well over one hundred articles on “Islamic” terrorism. At one point in the BBC program Robert Spencer’s own obsession with the importance of global Jihad comes through, where he comments on the ayah “fitnah (translated as persecution by him) is worth than killing”, hence he goes on to inaccurately elaborate that Islam as a whole advocates the mass slaughterof humans when it’s in anyway threatened.

3.       Nonie Darwish – is a director of “former United Muslims” (i.e. those who have left Islam) and “Arabs for Israel”. Staunch supporters for Israel, alongside Jewish academics were interestingly invited to comment on the situation where the Prophet (SAW), dealt with the Jewish tribe BanuQuraidah, as opposed to unbiased historians.

BanuQuraidah severed their peace and mutual cooperation agreement to side with the overwhelming attack of the confederation of Arabs, in a bidto support them to what on paper would have resulted in a blood bath to annihilate all Islamic elements within Madinah;  combatants and non-combatants, women and children, old and young.  So it was BanuQuraidah and the confederation of Arabs that were clearly religiously intolerant and sought mass slaughter of Muslims regardless of any crime. While the Muslims, who could have easily dealt with any surrounding non-Muslim tribes like BanuQuraidah much earlier, had opted not to in according to the teachings of Islam.BanuQuraidah began their traitorous actions by first attacking innocentwomen and children who were far behind the the Muslim army. Consequently, whenBanuQuraidah was intercepted by the Muslims, the Prophet (SAW) out of compassion gave them the option of nominating a person to judge their traitorous actions. Subsequently the Jews chose their business partners from the side of Muslim’s (SaadibnMuaad), who passed the judgement ofputting to death every potential combatant (not women or children), which was also in accordance with the teachings of the Torah for their heinous treachery. This in comparison is more compassionate thanthe modern war on terror venture strongly supported by Nonie Darwish in one of her books and Robert Spencer. The modern war on terror brutally punishes combatants and non-combatants, women and children, sympathisers and bystanders and those completely innocent, regardless of their proximity to any war zone.

4.       Michael Nizar Ali – is a former bishop and has on several occasions made outrageous public outbursts against Islam.

There were several other dubious characters and not to mention unfounded comments throughout the documentary. For example, the questioning of the authenticity of Ahadith without any appropriate alternative answer given by a knowledgeable orthodox Muslims on the intricacy of this scienceand the many principles of good journalism that can be extracted from it, which the BBC may have found useful. In summary, this is not an analysis of the effectiveness or truth-fullness of the BBC documentary, but rather a reflection on the way our media always operates with respects to covering Islam, the personalities that are allowed airtime and the deliberate exclusion of those with a genuine alternative narration.And all praise is due to God who we as believers know can bring forth some good, from what we perceive as evil.

O you who believe! If a Fasiq (liar — evil person) comes to you with any news, verify it, lest you should harm people in ignorance, and afterwards you become regretful for what you have done. (49:6)