Indoctrination / Muhammad / Muslim extremism / Muslims WorldWide / Quran

Michael Coren discuss Tom Holland’s ‘Islam: The Untold Story’


The wafer thin argument from a Muslim about the program:


Another thin argument against Tom Holland’s documentary investigating history. This is the mindset that keep Muslims stuck in the middle ages. This argument by Nouman Ali Khan with iERA has already been proven wrong by historians many years ago. Khan tries to argue that the Koran was handed down by oral tradition. But historical evidence indicate this to being wrong: the oldest Koran found is complied in so many dialects that the only way it could be transferred through oral tradition, is if the population spoke 30 languages fluently which is highly unlikely.
Rarely are Muslims able to counter historical or scientific discoveries that dispute their fairy tales of a prophet that clearly didn’t exist, and Arab discoveries that were merely looted from other cultures and no actual discoveries at all. Since the Muslim culture block reasoning and analysis, Muslims cannot present a proper reasoned and analysed counter argument. They can only present ideas and opinions. But ideas and opinions are extremely weak arguments.

3 thoughts on “Michael Coren discuss Tom Holland’s ‘Islam: The Untold Story’


    The Jinn And Tonic Show tomorrow will have Tom Holland as a guest – the producer of the Channel 4 documentary “Islam – The untold story” and author of “In the shadow of the sword.” It is possible to watch the show live on BlogTV (link on the video) and if you wish you may also call in to the show with Skype.


  2. The best series about Islam that I have ever seen was ” When the Moors Ruled Europe” written and presented by Bettany Hughes. Ms Hughes presented an absolutely riveting series about Islam. By comparison, this program paled into insignificance and I am not surprised there have been complaints. Whilst Mr Holland has academic standing, he would have been wise to consult with and include more Arab experts on Islamic Affairs, Culture and History and had he taken a more inclusive and respectful approach, I doubt there would have been any problem at all. I know quite a few Muslims, some strict, others moderate. I also know an adviser on Islamic Affairs. All are very happy to see a wider understanding of Islam and I think it is more a case of ” not what one does, but the way one does it” that can best explain the problem.

    Tom Holland did not study History at Cambridge. His degree was in English and Latin. He is not a qualified historian. I was horrified to see how poorly Tom Holland covered the topic. The program was lacking in real information, made no reference to the extensive hadith literature, which are numerous records of Muhammed’s life, written later, and based on a strong oral tradition. If he wanted to argue that we have no evidence of the origins of Islam, he should have started with a discussion of the hadith and of why it can or cannot be trusted. Of course the origins of Islam are a legitimate subject of historical enquiry, but that enquiry needs to be done thoroughly by properly trained historians. I found the program deeply patronising and offensive because of the lack of real depth of understanding shown by Tom Holland. This is a very partial thin piece of work. More an opinion than a historical investigation. The thesis is confused, I think he’s saying the roots of Islam are distorted by theology but it came over far cruder than that. I remember that 25 mins in he had already repeated himself three times. It was a very poor piece of work and I think confused and unenlightening. What exactly was the purpose of this biased documentary?’ Anyone with any intelligence and basic knowledge about islam knows it was an utterly biased view of the religion with no real evidence! Even if he had some evidence why not go to Islamic Historians and ask them what their feelings were on the matter of question – at least then we would have heard from both sides. Holland really let himself down in this documentary. Utterly ribbish! I thought Holland was weak on the historical background: he isn’t an Islamicist, so he founders a bit in using Arabic material.

    Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) said: “The most perfect in faith amongst believers is he who is best in manners and kindest to his wife.” [Abu Dawud] Before marriage, a woman has the right to choose her husband. Islamic law is very strict regarding the necessity of having the woman’s consent for marriage. The groom gives a marriage dowry to the bride for her own personal use. She keeps her own family name, rather than taking her husband’s. As a wife, a woman has the right to be supported by her husband even if she is already rich. She also has the right to seek divorce and custody of young children. She does not return the dowry, except in a few unusual situations.

    A very poor attempt by channel 4 at trying to re-write history. I myself, a simple layman found flaws in this oxbridge proffessors arguements. I managed to answer his questions without doing any research but whilst watching the documentary which made it even more laughable. his claims held no grounds, just seem to be clutching at straws. Even non muslim historians would deem this programme a farce, which then begs the question, for what reason would C4 commission such a programme.


Published under FAIR USE of factual content citing US 17 U.S.C. § 107 fair use protection, Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976 and UK Section 30(1) of the 1988 Act.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s