Recent Posts
Six of the Best from the BFI London Film Festival, 2020October 22 2020 - Read more
Poem: Look CloselyOctober 9 2020 - Read more
The Platform Preview to the BFI London Film Festival, 2020October 6 2020 - Read more
Poem: The JokeOctober 4 2020 - Read more
Poem: Smart PhoneSeptember 25 2020 - Read more
BBC 2: The Life of Muhammad
Posted by: The Platform
Tags: bbc,history,islam,mohammed,prophet,Reviews Posted date:
July 13, 2011 |
37 Comments
Share This
By Anna-Maria Ramzy
An excited whisper of a BBC documentary about the Life of Muhammad, (pbuh*), a TV first, spread to the four corners of the Isles, as Muslims awaited Monday evening with bated breath. A documentary on Islam’s greatest figure and right before Ramadan; at last, something worth the licence fee! And to be presented by Rageh Omaar, of Al-Jazeera fame, it seemed as though Christmas, or Eid rather, had come early.
Directed and produced by Faris Kermani, and written by Ziauddin Sardar, ‘The Seeker’ was to be a historical documentary with a difference since depiction of the Prophet was strictly off bounds, as programme summaries anxiously highlighted. Instead, the crew, with Omaar before the lens, returned to the roots of the Prophet and retraced his steps.
It was clear from the outset, however, that this was not simply a relation of the events of Muhammad’s life, oh no. Familiar scenes of the 9/11 attacks, rioting Muslims, and video suicide notes served to completely dispel any such expectations within the first few seconds of the programme. It was not just an exploration of the past which the team were attempting to broadcast, but the implications of this history for the present.
Throughout the hour-long programme viewers were taken on a journey through the harsh, wind-carved deserts of the Prophet’s early life, explored the complexes of great symbols of Islam such as the Masjid al-Haram in Mecca, gazed from Cave Hira out over the city peered into a church in Ethiopia, and inevitably ventured down the dark alleyways of events in more recent times, including the reaction to the Danish cartoons and the furore following the publication of Salman Rushdie’s Satanic Verses.
What could have been a very difficult task, documenting the life of a historical figure without a single image of his face, was easily overcome by well-shot cinematic scenes of natural and architectural beauty interspersed with the drama of more recent events, interviews with historians and Islamic scholars, and numerous shots of Omaar perusing the pages of the Qur’an.
Reaction to the ‘The Seeker’ has varied. As anticipated by the makers of the series, there have been some vocal objections, namely, and predictably, from the Iranian government, who are coincidentally making their own series on the Prophet’s life. However, there are those who thoroughly enjoyed the first episode, such as Chris Harvey from the Telegraph, and John Wilson of BBC 4’s the Front Row who interviewed Omaar about his experience making the documentary. The BBC would perhaps have done well to make this interview essential listening before viewers, particularly Muslims, went on to watch part one, many of whose hearts I am sure sank as they heard the likes of Tom Holland adhering to the hard-core Orientalist line that Mecca was most likely non-existent in seventh century Arabia.
In his radio interview, Omaar explains far more comprehensively the aim behind the series and the premises upon which it was filmed, than he does in the episode itself. ‘This is not a programme made for Muslims, very far from it. This is a programme made for people of any faith and none.’ Omaar admits that he filmed the series ‘with two very different hats on’. Donning his two pieces of white cloth and heading for the Ka’bah, Omaar ‘sets his stall’, as he put it in the interview, as to why it was him before the camera, explicitly stating his Islamic background as justification. His other hat is of course the journalist’s one, rammed firmly into place by the BBC who set the ground rule that this was to be a series suitable ‘for all audiences’. As such, the story of the life of Muhammad is told from all angles; the traditional and the secular, the academic and the literary, the religious and the sceptic.
Thus, for Muslims seeking an Islamic telling of the Prophet’s life story, this was not the place to look, and it would be unfair to expect it, but for those simply wanting to know more about the history of this great religious figure, the program served them well and there are several reasons to be pleased with the documentary. The emphasis on the role of Khadijah in particular was beautifully stressed, as well as the fact that the early Muslims adopted a successful policy of non-violent resistance in the face of brutal persecution, juxtaposed with images of fierce protests, which highlighted the unfortunate, but often common contrast between the teachings of the Prophet and the actions of many in the Muslim world today. This is perhaps what most people will take away from the programme, what the Prophet himself actually taught, and the fact that there has been over fourteen hundred years of re- and mis-interpretation of his words and actions since then.
Whilst part one seems to have proven rather an emotional roller-coaster ride for some Muslim viewers, it has proven an entertaining and historically insightful hour well spent for others, with sufficient amounts of excitement and drama. It is important to bear in mind that this is, after all, a TV programme and, as recent events in the media have proven, the sensational does sell. It is perhaps not surprising then that episode one ended on references to a massacre and that part two is rather crudely entitled ‘Holy Wars’, which I anticipate with intrigue but perhaps less bated breath.
* Muslims repeat the phrase “peace be upon him” after mentioning the Prophet Muhammad’s name. It is abbreviated to (pbuh) in the text.
Anna-Maria Ramzy is Spirituality Sub-Editor of the Platform and Co-Director of the Oxford Muslim Women’s Association. A keen writer with a penchant for poetry, she is currently studying for her undergraduate degree in Oriental Studies (Arabic, Persian and Islamic Studies) at Oxford University.
Photo credits: BBC/Crescent Films
About the author
The Platform
The Platform Team
The Platform Team
37 Comments
Bejewelled
I felt it was a very balanced documentary and brought in key elements of contention in western discourse on the prophet Mohammed. Of course some hadeeths are always in question, but the documentary sought to humanise the prophet to a general british audience and I think it did it perfectly well.
Michiel Mans
It certainly is an interesting documentary. Maybe some of the criticism I have will be ‘answered’ in the next to parts so I’m looking forward to these. However, for me as an atheist and rationalist it remains very difficult to understand how anyone can believe that voices supposedly heard in a cave can be from an angel with devine messages. And such detailed messages too.
Tom Cale
What a great documentary – informative, balanced and fair with a broad range of expert comment, expertly constructed and edited, this is a really intelligent project. Looking forward to the next episodes
Zainab
The program is far from ‘fair and balanced.’ It is an insult to the non-Muslims’ who were forced to live as dhimmis in their countries, occupied by Islam till this day. Not to mention those who were massacred, 80 million in India alone, in the name of Islam. SHAME ON YOU, RAGEEH!
Abu Talib
BBC says that they have consulted all the big Muslim personalities in the world to make this series. One of the biggest personality that I know and everybody in the world know is Ayatullah Sistani. Why wasn’t he consulted? Secondly BBC said that didn’t take any sides in Muslim sects while in the series he makes comments which are only one sided like: the great guy Abu Bakr who became khalifa after Mohammed. If BBC did go into history then you would have found also a day that was called: Al-Ghadeer day. Then the whole khalifa conflict would have been proven wrong. Also another comment was that Abu Talib never became Muslim: if BBC really wanted to take no sides then BBC should have not said this as BBC has offended now about 500 million Muslims around the world. Think 100 times and talk only 1 time (saying from Ali ibn Abu Talib)
Abdul Aziz
@ M Mans, Yep in agreement with you with most parts. Although, as a theist I find it baffling to entertain the explanations atheists provide for existence. But each to their own. 🙂
@ Abu Talib- what are you on about? The documentary was about the prophet (saw), not others, and certainly not the political system in place after his death. Just try to understand the purpose of the show and leave your political differences aside. This isn’t the time nor place for that discussion.
S Ahmad
The more I learn about Islam the more and more I love it. I was so excited by the thought that Rageh Omaar was involved with this project as he has always brought an element of sophistication to the documentaries he has made. He does not hide the facts yet confronts them in a manner that engages viewers and allows them to think about issues which we are not used to questioning. It will be interesting to see how he handles the more controversial elements of the Prophet’s life.
Haydar Al-Rikabi
I can see that the documentary tried to be impartial, showing various views about the events that took place during the life of the prophet Muhammed (PBUH).
But in their effort to make the documentary more acceptable to the western thinking, the makers of the documentary have evidently drifted away from presenting the prophethood side of Muhammed (PBUH).
For example:
1- There was no mention whatsoever about the miraculous way how the prophet fled Mecca, when all armed men surrounding his house fell asleep as he passed by praying to God to save him.
2- When Quraish folllowed the prophet outside Mecca on his way to Medina, there was no mention whatsoever about how he came close to death when they reached the cave where he was hiding and how he was protected by God through a spider and a pigeon.
3- In his journey to Jerusalem and heavens, it was stated that the prophet travelled spiritually, not in his real body (as it is more common amongst Muslims).
Also, there was no mention about how the prophet surprised Quraish by telling them about some events that he saw during his journey that proved to be true later on.
4- The execution of the traitors of (Bani Kuraiza), was presented in the concept of the hollocost analogy, not stressing the fact that this treason could have led to a hollocost of Muslims due to betrayal of trust and written constitution in Medina.
There was supposed to be more emphasis on the consequences of trason at that scale and in that difficult time when the community was endangered by an outsider enemy, and then see what modern laws experts say about the punishement of traitors.
This is important, because you cannot raise sensitive points like this, and expect to get away with it just by sparing a minute or two making one or two comments.
All in all, the BBC viewers deserve to get a better insight about the personality of Muhammed (PBUH), a better understanding about what made Muhammed such an important figure in the eyes of quarter of people on earth.
People in the west have been hearing a lot of bad things about the prophet (PBUH), so the Muslim’s view deserves a little bit more time to explain in this documentary.
jac
hi, thank you for the mythology….. they should make a cgi film of these events like clash of the titans!
Nasir
I quite agree with Haydar’s comments above. Though this is a briliantly presented documentary as it tries to demystify certain aspects of the Prophet’s life as whether rightly or wrongly understood by many muslims of today but, why was there little or no mention at all of the greatness of the Prophet. Muhammad(pbuh) was presented in this documentary as an ordinary man looking to set up community of his own, there was such a detailed account of how the traitors were killed and so on, it is rather unfortunate that this is presented by Rageh omaar, the entire documentary seems to have been packaged to suit some people than some other people. A little bit biased.
Ricardus
Never mind all the debates above, what I want to know is where he got his man-bag from?!? Looks a great piece of kit!! Rageh, help us out on that one 🙂
Zainab
Haha Ricardus. I’m with you on this fundamental question of life! Also that blue shirt turns up in the exact same manner in Istanbul, London, Mecca, Medina, Ethiopia, Jordan, Jerusalem……
Ricardus
@ Zainab, thanks for the comment! He could have worn islamic green on occasion, which still would have matched the ever-popular man-bag 🙂
AAs
Yep agreed. That bag is great. I was actually thinking of getting something similar today.
Ah
To Ricardus.
I got a man bag very similar from a company called Brady Bags.
Great quality, last you years.
Did not realise this was a platform for male sartorial accessorization as well…Bravo!
Hussain
I somewhat differ from what has been written here in that I think the documentary was biased in favour of the prophet Muhammad (pbuh). After watching it, what I learnt about the prophet was that he was first and foremost mindful of the community – that humans of all backgrounds have to coexist peacefully and together. He was respectful, understanding and kind to an extent which was uncharacteristic of leaders of his time, and represents him as someone who had to face tough decisions and live with those consequences, even now. Furthermore, it demystifies Islam and religion in general by portraying Muhammad as a man with both faults and character. This is why, Haydar Al-Rikabi, I believe that these stories that you mention were skipped over because they are clearly grandiose stories designed to illustrate how profound the spiritual connection the prophet had with Allah actually was. The story about the spider and the pigeon, or about how he managed to escape while his house was surrounded, are fanciful (and i mean no disrespect here) stories. They are a way to teach the spirituality of the prophet, which can be difficult to understand.
However, balanced I don’t think it was. Maybe the BBC were too afraid of the response they might get from the Muslim population but I think what was missing was elaboration on his flaws. Prophet he was, but he was also human, and we are flawed. While this would have tricky to navigate without upsetting many people, I think to truly be a documentary of his life an insight into his strong points and his flaws would have helped people to understand his decisions and woes.
Very informative though.
Hafizur
These documentaries as the titles suggest aim to give an insight into the life of our Prophet (pbuh). However, they are far from the truth. The presenter, Raggeh Omar has confused and misinterpreted many facts about the Prophet (pbuh).
The errors made about the Prophet (pbuh) and certain Islamic facts are too many to list, but the nature of these errors are so grave that ones belief (aqidah) can become questionable. Hence, it is strongly recommended that we do not get our knowledge about the Prophet (pbuh) from unreliable sources like these because they can be very dangerous for our imaan. Instead we should seek knowledge pertaining Islam from pious and god-fearing individuals who have spent their lives studying the laws of Islam and the life of the Prophet (pbuh) unlike the intellectuals chosen on tv.
Rob Hudson
I respect the fact that Omaar is a Muslim but his bias towards Islam is so obvious.
I am proud and relieved that I was born into a Christian environment.
tamoor
why??????
jac
you are very honest but you should go further and explain your conflictions
zainab
This program is dissapointing from beginning to end:
1) it is a totally one sided opinion of one Muslim journalist whose view of Islam was already formed.
2) there are valid questions about Islams that were not properly discussed. Islams’ critics, like Trefkovic, R Spencer and Nonie Darwish, have been given not more than 10 seconds airtime. This program seemed more like a forum for pro-Islam speakers.
3) Debatable are the origins of the Quran, the Hudabiya Treaty, the ‘divorced’ (as Omar put it) wife of Muhammad’s adopted son who became Muhammad’s wife, the last words of Muhammad, to name but a few.
4) Overlooked were the 160 verses of the Q that promoted hate against the kafir (unbeliever cannot lead over a muslim, unbeliever is the worse of the worst etc), the ayas that reduce Muslim women as mere object and Muhammad’s cause of death (poisoned by a Jewess for Muhammad’s massacring of her clan) and of course his last words (”there shall be no two religions if Arabia”),
3) IT is a classic reflection of how Muslims maintain their belief:: by accepting Islam uncritically.
It is a shame that it has to be aired by a publicly funded broadcaster like the BBC. NO wonder then that at the moment BBC is being investigated for it’s partiality
E+
“R Spencer and Nonie Darwish, have been given not more than 10 seconds airtime.” – Perhaps that is because they aren’t proper scholars or experts on the subject. They should’ve been glad to have been given any air time at all. Not to mention that your assertion is completely false as they were given ample time to air their views and very weak arguments in the second episode.
As for your comments there is a blatant incoherence in them or they are purely false. How can you claim that hudaibiya/the Qur’an etc are doubtful to have occurred during the Prophet’s life yet accept that the prophet said “there will never be two religion in Arabia”? You can’t have it both ways. Either you deny the sources or accept them as historical evidence (in which case it is a perfectly respectable position, with real experts such as hugh kennedy maintaining that most of the traditional material is authentic) or in the traditionalist sense. Your typical orientalist point of view is not maintainable since essentially you end up speaking two different languages; one which accepts the sources and one which does not purely based on the point you want to make.
“the ayas that reduce Muslim women as mere object and Muhammad’s cause of death (poisoned by a Jewess for Muhammad’s massacring of her clan) and of course his last words (”there shall be no two religions if Arabia”),” – First of all how can an aya reduce muslim women by denouncing a Jewess? (Judaism and Islam are two different religions) And furthermore there is no verse in the Qur’an that states this. As for women that is a statement based on your interpretations and your idea of “objects” so it isn’t proof of anything.
Please present your source. I would only expect something like this from someone like Nonie Darwish. I’m afraid I really can’t take your points seriously now and I’m wondering why I even bothered replying. Also I’ll be waiting attentively for those 160 verses that order Muslims to kill people (Even if you took them all out of context as I’m sure you probably will you won’t find 160) Plus Kuffar in the Qur’an refers to specific groups of pagans and not Christians or Jews who are referred to as ahlulkitab.
Ayub Xinana
SHAMEFUL if not nauseating propaganda of Islam by the BBC, but then could we have expected anything otherwise?
Monex fraud
But with all such men who appear as Prophets do you accept them without scriptural proof?.Paul says that he was born a Jew . He also knew that when confronted with Jesus Christ all this was vanity. I was born of solid German heritage with a mixture of Norwegian and dutch.
van Chapman
26 july 2011
There were questionable affirmations in the film on BBC about the life of Mohammed.
One of them is that the Prophet Mohammed in his last speech, said that believers and unbelievers as black and white people) were alike.
This is really a wishful thinking teaching, seen many underlying Koranic texts that prejudice all unbelievers and justify and even gratify real horrors from believers towards unbelievers.
If it was true Mohammed said this, why is it then that to enter Mecca today one has be a Muslim?
If this was a true essential message of Mohammed as messenger, he deserved indeed to be among those who bring true wisdom and peace and not bloody fratricide wars to all humanity.
If he contradicted himself about this, the result is for ever unclarity;
and tragically unquestionable and unquestioning militants of the Islam will continue to kill their brothers for a different interpretation of belief.
Any belief which has no other argument than murder against those who disbelieve cannot be truly intelligent. Only the clarity of love will set us free, even from Mohammed and the like..
Philosophic Community Projects
van Chapman
http://www.naturestudio.net
E+
“This is really a wishful thinking teaching, seen many underlying Koranic texts that prejudice all unbelievers and justify and even gratify real horrors from believers towards unbelievers.
If it was true Mohammed said this, why is it then that to enter Mecca today one has be a Muslim?”
The word translated from arabic into english and rendered as unbeliever is kaafir/kuffar it refers to a group of pagans. Jews/Christians/Sabians and Zoroastrians were referred to in the Qur’an as people of the book “ahlulkitab. Please don’t base your views on assumptions.
Bejewelled
The fact that there are such extreme opinions: some advocating that the documentary was anti-Islam and some pro-Islam, shows just how strong/balanced the documentary was.
From my perspective, the last episode had huge gaps in explanation – on hijab, jihad and marriage. But it was a good effort. People who want to learn more can research.
I think readers here who have strong opinions would do well to read all the works of all interviewees on the programme. My favourite book is Professor John Adair’s concise book on “The Leadership of Mohammed.”
The acts of ‘Muslims’ and ‘Muslim governments’ should be separated from the actual doctrine – there is a huge difference between values and implementation. FYI the verse about human equality (hugely radical for it’s time) is chapter 49, verse 13. You can see different translations here, if you scroll down to verse 13: http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/quran/049.qmt.html
As for the use of “kaafir” in today’s world, that is highly contentious. To quote a different article: “You’d think God hadn’t given enough clues as to who the Kuffar are in the Quran. The word is associated with numerous characteristics and actions – those who are not good to their parents, relatives, orphans, needy, neighbours or travellers, those who are arrogant, boastful, miserly (4:36-37), those who break covenants (2:100), those who those who wage war, drive you our of your lands, oppress you, take away your right of worship (4:102 and 22.25), and even the dodgy guys who plotted to murder Jesus (3:52-56). So, yeah, it really isn’t your Average Joe white boy mate from school.”
So it would be nice to avoid rhetoric and approach the programme with an open mind, before judgement.
Joseph
It seems that the difference between Islam and Christianity is the very fact that Muslims are allowed to question their beliefs. It’s what Abraham, Moses, Mohammed (etc) all do before prophethood… The Quran is constantly asking people to ponder and reflect.
The thing is, if you believe in a religion, you tend to accept it as a whole and base your life on it. Not pick and choose. Otherwise it’s a shaky, incomplete belief, right? And so, Muslims study the Quran and hadeeth to try and glean the right interpretations of it, rather than dismiss it. They critique people’s wrongdoing but not the religion itself. Perhaps they could be more vocal about Muslim wrongdoing around the world though.
Ayesha
I want to congratulate the BBC on an excellent programme. It was informative and neutral and managed to convey the essence of peace and forgiveness that is central to Islam but never given any airtime. It also managed to convey that Mohammad never sought to promote himself or his ego at any point in his life, but perservered in promoting the rights of the oppressed with a vision that transcended all cultures and tribes.
Stuart Parsons
With the greatest of respect and goodwill Ayesha, might I recommend you read the Quran, closely consult the Sunnah and read Ibn Ishaq’s ‘Sirat Rasul Allah’. You will find Islam’s own sources paint a very different picture of Muhammad than that which you have been led to believe is the true portrait.
The Quran and Sunnah repeatedly call for holy war against ALL non-musilms until the religion is for Allah alone throughout the entire world and Ibn Ishaq tells us Muhammad Murdered or mutilated all who spoke out against him. In addition, with the help of his deluded and sex motivated followers, the ‘Prophet’ lied, plotted, tortured, killed, robbed, ransomed and raped his way to absolute political and religious power.
Stuart Parsons
As someone who has made a serious study of Islam and its self-proclaimed ‘Prophet’, I can unequivocally state the BBC2 series the ‘The life of Muhammad’ was a travesty. The programmes were more noteworthy for what they chose to conceal about the ‘Prophet’s’ life than what they were prepared to reveal.
Islam’s own sources, the Quran, Sunnah and sirahs present a very different story. They tell us Muhammad murdered or mutilated All who spoke out against him and with the support of his deluded, booty and sex motivated, followers, he lied, plotted, tortured, killed, robbed, ransomed and raped his way to absolute political and religious power.
Mr Aaqil Ahmed, Head of BBC Religious Broadcasting, was clearly trying to disingenuously lead us up the Islamic garden path and pull the holy wool over our eyes.
Niklas Schier
This documentary was airbrushed beyond belief and so blatantly excluded much of Mohammeds life,teachings and actions.
Instead we are shown only his early life when he had to compromise to gain a following nothing of course about the later years when he gained power Mohammed the warrior and he was no armchair warrior either,nothing about this documentary gave an acurate depiction of his character or his more violent side.
No mention of brutality and expansionism here just dishonesty and the usual BBC pro Islam propoganda and politically correct nonsense well have all come to expect.
Niklas Scchier
”The fact that there are such extreme opinions: some advocating that the documentary was anti-Islam and some pro-Islam, shows just how strong/balanced the documentary was”
Bejewelled This documentary was in no way balanced it was typical BBC apologist fare I am afraid people are not stupid their research team must have been drinking when they made this farce.
Honesty and integrity is something that is lacking at The BBC they have scrapedthe bottom of the proverbial barrel with this one I fear.
How can anyone ever take them seriously again?
Ayesha
Well, apparently, it has been clear that that bad people don’t take them seious.
Najneen
the BBC documenetary by Omer also projects one false event about him,,,it is said in the BBC documentary that Prophet had called for an execution of 700 Jews, rhe concpet of 700 JEWs being executed comes form teh Torah I think , didnt even happeen during the time of Prophet ……………during early prphethood he moved to MEdina where he had a treaty with the ppl of MEdina je no matter wht relgion (Jews included) , the MEdina ppl wud stand against anyboyd who wud attack Medina and its ppl……….The meccanas at the time had some JEws to break the treaty for the first time in order to attck Prophet ,,, so the Prophet being the leader of the region had those unfaithful JEWs sent to exile…. then there was a seocnd time the again some other JEws betrayed and cheated on the contarct to portect MEdina and it ppl and Prophet again send those to exile. …but he never punsihed the women or children of those tribes …only the men involved were asked to got o exile. ……then a third time the JEws cheated to helop the MEccans and this time the JEws demaned tht they dont want to be judged by Prophet and chose soembody else to offer the judgemnet and this man was actually part of the battalion who fought to portect against the attacks by the MEccans and so at the time he was chosen he was severely injured and when he was asked to judge , he said the 3 Jews who broke the treaty be executed,but the women and children should not be harmed, nor shoudl anybody else form the tribe…and the executetion was carried out for 3 JEws .. so it wasnt even the Porpeht who ordered the execution…and the conpect of 700 was nt there ………so last yr or so i saw this BBC documentary falsely claiming thst Prophet had ordered mass exceution of 700 JEws and now this movie ………..
ahmed
Salam
does any body know who was reciting The Surat Al-`Alaq. i just love the way he recites.
As a whole this first part of the documentary was excellent, however I do have some serious reservations some aspects of its content. I look forward to watching other parts.