Unfortunately I was wrong, the program turned out to be another typical crass, unstimulating, poorly researched attempt at entertaining the non muslim mass which should have been called “The Common Stereotypoes about Muslims- Again”. The representatives chosen to speak about the religion were far from capable bar one or two and the content, well it was obvious that Antony Thomas himself had not read the Quran but decided he was playing to an audience who new even less than him and what the hell, he blagged it.

The Quran, the word of God is very different from other religions in that its Holy scriptures do not allow clergy (i.e priets, popes, pirs or sheikhs) for God is very well aware of they ways in which mans vanities and often simple lack of knowledge can innocently lead people away from the truth. In Islam an ‘Imam’ sometimes called a Sheikh can preach the Holy words and explain them as they are but at no point can he impress his own personal interpretation or opinion to the people. This is why any ‘Quran’ when translated in English or any other language will often make clear that the translation can in no way be taken as the Quran itself and any true muslim must learn Arabic and read the text as God intended.

Your program proved to be a perfect example of why God does not allow such practice (clergy) as any representative that makes a living off preaching the word of God is in complete contradiction with Islam. The Quran is free and therefore none should accept donation, charity etc for explaining it. If they are claiming to have any special knowledge that is not in the Quran than they are basically saying the Quran is incomplete and this is false. To add the speakers had wildly varying understandings and opinions of the text and some of their practices bore no resemblance to the teachings of the Quran whatsoever.

Firstly not only did the program focus on differenct sects, mainly shiites (which make up only 20% of the muslims) and sufis (which are really gnostic, mystics first and foremost rather than muslims) the point is sects themselves are against the Quranic teachings of a united Ummah. It continued to focus on cultural traditions such as the female circumcision which is a totally barbaric act and if you remember that Islam was brought down to liberate women so that women could choose who they wanted to marry and not be forced into marriage, so that parents no longer buried daughters in favour of sons, you begin to realise that this is nothing to do with the Quran at all.

The Quran is a Book which is guarded by God so that “none can change it” but they claim the Saudis have done so to include ‘anti semetic verses’ this is not the case. But it made the program more an excercise about placing blame yet again rather finding truths or understanding.

Then another predictable stereotype shows up when a woman wearing a niqaab gives up a good job to be a stay at home wife and mother. The way Antony Thomas proceeds with this interview incites the viewer to be shocked and disturbed by it. If it were the Jerry Springer show and a woman had left her husband and kids to run off and join a circus group as a half naked trapeez it would have seemed normal. Never does Antony Thomas actually remind the viewer that the niqaab is absolutely not mentioned in the Quran and in fact neither is a veil covering the hair.

More to the point by the end of this long and tedious collection of stereo typical propaganda the only lasting memory your left with is the disgusting image of a mutilated little girl, which I’m sure is no accident by Channel 4. I strongly suggest that if Channel 4 are not bothered about researching the subject matter of a program they are making they stick to doing what they do best, letting the subject make the program…i.e Big Brother.

I think that the Azhari Shaykh was not supporting FGM but rather a circumcision that is mentioned in the Sunnah and which does not involve destroying the clitoris. Yet this however was neatly skipped over by the documentary and they made it seem as if the Azhari Shaykh was all for FGM, yet they did not ask him. There is a precedent for circumcision which is well known in the Sunnah and that does not involve FGM.

Generally, it started off okay but then descended into all sorts of crazed things. Interestingly, the arm-chair experts and Christian evangelists are already using the Syriac-version as a proof, along with Puin’s analysis. By the way, Puin’s argument was totally deconstructed and rubbished by Dr Azami in his book: The History of the Qur’anic Text; From Revelation to Compilation, A Comparative Study with the Old and New Testaments (Leicester: UK Islamic Academy, 2003/1424).

I must say that it is rather patronising for a non-Muslim to come to Muslims and attempt to “tell” Muslims what the correct interpretations and history is of their religious text, as if Muslims have no idea as to the history of it. The documentary made no referral whatsoever to the abundant manuscripts of the Qur’an that are in the Topkapi library in Turkey or the early Mus-hafs in Egypt, Iran and elsewhere.

The documentary also showed an Egyptian woman who claimed that “at Nasr’s funeral all of the women are uncovered” and she later claimed that women in Egypt only began wearing the hijab and niqab in the 19070s!!? This is false, and it is historically bankrupt to say this as all throughout the 19th century and early 20th century Egyptian women all wore niqab and the same is for Morocco, Algeria and the Arab countries generally. Taking off the niqab occurred after colonialism in the 1940s, not to mention that the practicing Muslims were not exactly fans of Nasr hence their non-attendance at his funeral. The documentary however ran with this and claimed that her claim was historically accurate when in fact it is ahistorical.

AbdulHaq