BBC2- LIFE OF PROPHET MUHAMMAD - 3 PART SERIES

Salaam

Did anyone watch this?
what did you make of it?

wslaam

I watched it.
It was alright, but there wasn't actually THAT much about his actual life.
I figured at least like they'd go through a timeline of his life, but they just gave bits of stuff; like mentioned Khadija but no other wives or the fact he had them; I assume that's because there are 2 other parts but it makes sense to have a brief overview of his life in the first one.

Otherwise good. I loved the variety of scholars and views but I was a bit annoyed they mentioned Salman Rushdie's retarded book that Rageh went on to say lacked any hadith or Quranic validity (therefore essentially rendering it moot) meaning there was no point mentioning it and it most certainly had nothing to do with the Prophet (saww)'s history.

I have been thinking about the BBC's dilemma when someone proposes Islamic programming for the coveted 9pm slot. I was thinking sympathetically, and I hope you guys enjoy the series, but for sure I would have turned it down without blinking (not just because I'm a Zionist conspiracy).

[quote=Joie de Vivre] (not just because I'm a Zionist conspiracy).[/quote]

That's exactly what a zionist would say

[quote=MakeMeRawr_8TeenF][quote=Joie de Vivre] (not just because I'm a Zionist conspiracy).[/quote]

That's exactly what a zionist conspiracy would say[/quote]

[quote=Joie de Vivre][quote=MakeMeRawr_8TeenF][quote=Joie de Vivre] (not just because I'm a Zionist conspiracy).[/quote]

That's exactly what a zionist conspiracy would say[/quote][/quote]

Yeah, that too 😛

BBC has a mandate to provide programming for minority groups and should shy away from populist shows (especially BBC2)

And seeing as its the run up to Ramadan, this is the perfect time to show it.

Also, Islam is frequently in the news (usually in a negative context), do you object to that?

I wish I was a conspiracy. I'm just a theory at the moment...

well for a 3 part documentary to come on BBC about the Prophet(pbuh) itself is an acheivement.

I think it was 80% good and 10% not good.

good aspect was it gave people an insight to the Prophet(pbuh) like his childhood, his marriage, what he stood for etc

the negative was the argument that mecca never really existed
the satanic verses can leave a lot of doubt/misconceptions as I dont think the Muslims arguing against it did a good job.

all in all, not bad for a BBC production

[quote=TheRevivalEditor]well for a 3 part documentary to come on BBC about the Prophet(pbuh) itself is an acheivement.

I think it was 80% good and 20% not good.

good aspect was it gave people an insight to the Prophet(pbuh) like his childhood, his marriage, what he stood for etc

the negative was the argument that mecca never really existed
the satanic verses can leave a lot of doubt/misconceptions as I dont think the Muslims arguing against it did a good job.

all in all, not bad for a BBC production[/quote]

what was the other 10% ?
*tenterhooks*

I thought it was alright, but one of the speakers (Tom Holland guy), I didnt like his attitude which was very (I found) yh, right(!) throughout the whole thing. Especially when they were talking about the role of Mecca before Islam and the illteracy of the prophet (saw). Im not 100% sure, but I thought he said tht the Quran doesnt mention tht he ﷺ was illiterate, in fact the opposite??

[quote=Ya'qub][quote=TheRevivalEditor]well for a 3 part documentary to come on BBC about the Prophet(pbuh) itself is an acheivement.

I think it was 80% good and 20% not good.

good aspect was it gave people an insight to the Prophet(pbuh) like his childhood, his marriage, what he stood for etc

the negative was the argument that mecca never really existed
the satanic verses can leave a lot of doubt/misconceptions as I dont think the Muslims arguing against it did a good job.

all in all, not bad for a BBC production[/quote]

what was the other 10% ?
*tenterhooks*[/quote]

lol
hey my maths is poor:-)

I liked that they touched controversial issues and then left them without an editorial answer. it may get people to investigate the stuff themselves.

I only watched like 20 minutes though.

There was no overview and the period covered, the prophet ﷺ was only married once, so not much mention of later wives I wasnt too bothered by.

It seems like a well thought out educational series.

i watched the BBC crap on 11 July 2011.

it was wahhabi version of Prophet's life.
no sunni or shia scholars were interviewed by BBC. only wahhabis.

the BBC program was propaganda to put down the Prophet (pbuh).

it said so many bad thing about him. such as Prophet tried to commit suicide.
this is harram in Islam. how a Prophet of God decide to end his own life.

many other things were said in the program which were against God and against Prophet.

i dont think they were wahabi scholars what ever you mean by that, salafis i suppose, but if you have problems with Al Wahhab tough He will have problems with you.

But i kinder agree with malik its not really a biographical account, docubiography, it seems to keep linking negative news stories with the biographical content. Yes i can see it's doing so for a purpose but i personally think it should have been purely biographical, no mention of 9/11, satanic verses was necessary.

What scholars were interviewed because i missed them? They were academic professionals not ulema in the islamic sense, i wasn't disappointed by this, because i expected as much from the media. The UK and USA have many ulema who can speak English and i'm sure would haven taken part in the programme, it's a shame they didn't make an effort to ask the opinions of those that hold more authority.

Didn't Iran threaten UK over this before the programme even aired. Having seen part 1, what is the Iranian position now...?

The only good biography ive seen is the PBS version, they should have just aired that again, rather than wasting their money on what appears to be a sub standard effort so far...

Like someone else said i was kind of bored watching it too, i think the music contributed to that, and the fact that Ragheh Omar and the other academics were flicking through a book in almost every scene in the documentary..couldn't they find something more visual for us to look at?

If you give rave reviews on part 2 i will watch it, otherwise i shall pass.

[quote=Hajjar]...if you have problems with Al Wahhab tough He will have problems with you...[/quote]

It is arrogant to presume the will of God, though I understand why malik's words may have offended you.

As for the documentary, it was an attempt to educate, to draw interest and for that it was very good. It was not meant to be a sermon or preaching to the converted.

Yes, we all may have issued with certain aspects of it, but that is a question of focusing on the 1% and ignoring the 99%.

and generally, Rageh Omar is fair, he has a few good documentaries about Muslim history.

As a side note, I hear tehre was a documentary on the Sabbath at the same time on ITV. I wonder if that was any good.

EDIT

Near the end they should surely have mentioned the Mi'raj? if this one was the meccan era and the next the madinan era, the Mi'raj would fit in here (but then, what would be in part 3?)

The other interesting thing is that the documentary maintains itself in a way that rejects many interesting stories of the time of birth and miracles etc, because while there are such opinions, they are not the only ones (and then there is the issue of how some things are presented while there are other interprtations too). All this does fit the current saudi version of things.

But this is an argument of 99% Vs 100%

There WAS a large break between the first revelation and the second (though I am sure I have read it was a month and not months, either way, there was a gap). This was hard, but the words used in the docu are probably poetic flair as opposed to fact.

i didnt presume the will of God, that was not my intent, my intent was to highlight it is acutally one of the names and attributes of Allah, something ppl forget when they chant it with hatred at people who choose to follow the hanbali fiqh or salafi way.

[quote=You][quote=Hajjar]...if you have problems with Al Wahhab tough He will have problems with you...[/quote]

It is arrogant to presume the will of God, though I understand why malik's words may have offended you.

But this is an argument of 99% Vs 100%[/quote]

Actually i was angry because i've heard it too much, but i should be happy, and thats the attitude i will take from now on, because abdul wahhab was trying to reestablish correct tawheed. Malik has made quite a few digs, frankly somethings got to give, i am a human being i have feelings too, its not all about malik malik malik with his grand controversial statements, and yes he makes a lot of them!

If Wahhabism means Da’wah to the Qur’ān and Sunnah… and holding on to the foundations, guidance, and understanding of As-Salaf As-Sālih (the Pious Predecessors)… and forsaking biasness towards a Math’hab… as the Da’wah of the Shaykh was… Then, yes! I am a Wahhabist! (By Shaykh Abū Basīr At-Tartūsī)

'The Bestower'

More details coming up in a while insha'Allah!

[quote=Hajjar]i didnt presume the will of God, that was not my intent, my intent was to highlight it is acutally one of the names and attributes of Allah, something ppl forget when they chant it with hatred at people who choose to follow the hanbali fiqh or salafi way.[/quote]

I dont like the guy either, but it is clear to me atleast that none of the people who use the word "wahabi" refer to "Al Wahhab", ie God (swt), but to a person whose surname that was.

I can see you will get offended by the constant criticism of him (but I don't have any good thiongs to say about him either), especially if you hold him in high esteem.

[quote=Ocean]Are all prophets (pbut) humans?[/quote]
What else would they be :S

[quote=Hajjar]i didnt presume the will of God, that was not my intent, my intent was to highlight it is acutally one of the names and attributes of Allah, something ppl forget when they chant it with hatred at people who choose to follow the hanbali fiqh or salafi way.

[quote=You][quote=Hajjar]...if you have problems with Al Wahhab tough He will have problems with you...[/quote]

It is arrogant to presume the will of God, though I understand why malik's words may have offended you.

But this is an argument of 99% Vs 100%[/quote]

Actually i was angry because i've heard it too much, but i should be happy, and thats the attitude i will take from now on, because abdul wahhab was trying to reestablish correct tawheed. Malik has made quite a few digs, frankly somethings got to give, i am a human being i have feelings too, its not all about malik malik malik with his grand controversial statements, and yes he makes a lot of them!

If Wahhabism means Da’wah to the Qur’ān and Sunnah… and holding on to the foundations, guidance, and understanding of As-Salaf As-Sālih (the Pious Predecessors)… and forsaking biasness towards a Math’hab… as the Da’wah of the Shaykh was… Then, yes! I am a Wahhabist! (By Shaykh Abū Basīr At-Tartūsī)

[/quote]

Like what admin said, when people say 'Wahabbi' they don't mean what the word originally met.

Like, for example, when you call someone 'nice', you probably don't mean it in its original meaning, which is 'ignorant'.

[quote=Ya'qub]Like, for example, when you call someone 'nice', you probably don't mean it in its original meaning, which is 'ignorant'.[/quote]
Since when did nice mean ignorant? :O

I liked the docu, tbh 🙂

I'm starting to like the word nice.

It could result in some nice insults.

[quote=ThE pOwEr Of SiLeNcE][quote=Ya'qub]Like, for example, when you call someone 'nice', you probably don't mean it in its original meaning, which is 'ignorant'.[/quote]
Since when did nice mean ignorant? :O

I liked the docu, tbh :)[/quote]

in latin:
Middle English nice "foolish, stupid," from early French nice (same meaning), from Latin nescius "ignorant," from nescire "not to know," from ne- "not" and scire "to know"
http://www.wordcentral.com/cgi-bin/student_clean?va=nice

Only what God gives them.

Prophet Ibrahim (as) was saved from the fire when the people wanted to burn him, but this was the doing of God, not something from himself (as).

and a ferrari is only a car.

It all depends on the angle you come from.

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)

[quote=Ali ibn 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)[/quote]
It's the truth :S

a disputed truth.

There are many different versions and it is best to not commit one way or the other on this matter.

People who say that he didn't also mention a verse for this situation but that was about something else and AFAIK it was revealed near the end of the madani period, not here.

[quote=MakeMeRawr_8TeenF]... I was a bit annoyed they mentioned Salman Rushdie's retarded book that Rageh went on to say lacked any hadith or Quranic validity (therefore essentially rendering it moot) meaning there was no point mentioning it and it most certainly had nothing to do with the Prophet (saww)'s history.[/quote]

that was pretty much exactly what my dad thought.

i dont know if watching the first half in a state of near exhaustion has anything to do with this but i didnt find it very..hmm..stimulating..

and i have to agree with hajjar, the music nearly very much made me "want to throw myself off a cliff"

Geez Malik...LOL...why isnt he blocked yet? it Is kinda hurtful...sometimes...