Update
Since the article below was written, it appears that Channel 4 relented and went ahead on Thursday night with the repeat showing of 'Islam: The Untold Story'. Whether or not the broadcaster will now ignore the threats and reinstate the special screening and attendant debate at its headquarters, remains to be seen.
The decision of Channel 4 to pull a repeat showing of Tom Holland’s Islam: The Untold Story from the schedules is a depressing one, underscoring a growing and worrying trend in our country today expressive of an aggressive religious obscurantism articulated by resident Islamists. The broadcaster received circa 1,200 complaints about the programme, with the decision to cancel its repeat being explained as follows:
Since the article below was written, it appears that Channel 4 relented and went ahead on Thursday night with the repeat showing of 'Islam: The Untold Story'. Whether or not the broadcaster will now ignore the threats and reinstate the special screening and attendant debate at its headquarters, remains to be seen.
The decision of Channel 4 to pull a repeat showing of Tom Holland’s Islam: The Untold Story from the schedules is a depressing one, underscoring a growing and worrying trend in our country today expressive of an aggressive religious obscurantism articulated by resident Islamists. The broadcaster received circa 1,200 complaints about the programme, with the decision to cancel its repeat being explained as follows:
Having taken security advice, we have reluctantly cancelled a planned screening of the programme Islam: The Untold Story. We remain extremely proud of the film which is still available to view on 4oD.
Moreover, The Daily Mail reports that a further screening at
Channel 4’s London HQ later this month, that was to be accompanied by a debate,
has been cancelled owing to security fears. The two decisions, although in some
respects understandable, amount to an effective surrender to the Islamists who
issued the threats, demonstrating that a small and violently-inclined minority
can have a hugely negative impact upon our public and intellectual life, which
surely raises the question: why is it that we are constantly being told that
all immigration ‘enriches’ us, when quite clearly some of it does not, and instead
constitutes a direct threat to our way of life? With Channel 4’s announcement
coming on the anniversary of 9/11 and Islamist mobs storming the US embassies
in Libya and Egypt on the same day, the reality of the world around us teaches
that Islam – in its literalist forms – is not something to be “celebrated” or “respected”, but something to be wary of and
abhorred. We do not share values with these people; rather, our values are
diametrically opposed. To its discredit, the BBC has not even reported this story, possibly out of cowardice, but more likely out of its deep-rooted aversion to criticising any facet of Islam or Muslim behaviour.
As is to be expected of The Guardian, a paper that
masquerades as ‘progressive’ but in fact provides active protection for, and
propaganda on behalf of, the fastest growing anti-rational ideology in Britain
today – Islam – its coverage of the story – penned by Ben Quinn – offered no
support to Holland, or to the principle of free speech and academic enquiry,
whilst simultaneously affording uncritical prominence to a tweet made by Inayat
Bunglawala in which he described Holland’s analysis as constituting “bizarre
conjecture about Islam’s birthplace”. Seeking to ascertain the facts – so far
as they can be ascertained – regarding the origins of Islam and the alleged
historicity of its founding figure, does not strike me as “bizarre”, but rather
as the correct approach to the subject. Only one of the “faithful” and
“devout”, such as Bunglawala, who has swallowed Islamic doctrine and tradition
wholesale, could find anything “bizarre” about Holland’s salient observations
regarding the absence of contemporaneous sources testifying to the existence of
Mohammed, both inside and outside of the Muslim world.
This, of course, is not to say that he did not exist as a
historical figure, but that if he did, it is peculiar that he left no trace in
the historical record. As such, he may be no more historical a figure than
Woden in the Anglo-Saxon historical tradition. However, whereas my doubt with
respect to the historical reality of Woden does not cause any existential
disquiet to me as an Englishman, the suggestion that Mohammed as a historical
personage may not have existed, does not appear to be as phlegmatically received
by the greater part of Muslims. Then again, my doubting in the existence of
Woden does not entail any threat to my Englishness, whereas if a Muslim were to
doubt the existence of Mohammed and his ‘divine’ mission, this would threaten the very basis of their faith and identity itself. It is a matter
that could cause some believers to lose their heads, as quite clearly, a number
have on this occasion; whipping themselves up into an hysterical state
of offence, complaining about Holland’s treatment of their religious tradition,
and even going so far as to threaten his physical safety. How peculiar it is
that we constantly hear Muslim voices stating that we “should respect Islam”,
for respect cannot be demanded, but can only be earned; threats of violence and
demands for the silencing of rational critics of dogma and its negative
associated cultural practices, deserve not so much our respect, as our contempt.
Tom Holland
To the tune of 'Hitler' etc.....
ReplyDelete"and C4 has no balls at all".....
Laurie -
It's a depressing turn of events, so I am assuming that credible death threats had been made against Holland. I hope that the police are making headway in tracking down who was responsible, and will eventually manage to bring them to book.
DeleteWhat do you mean, "respect cannot be demanded"? Oh, yes it can. While the word "respect" is widely used, it is rarely defined: and it is difficult to come up with any definition that doesn't contain a strong element of fear. We respect the law because we fear the consequences of breaking the law. When Muslims demand that we respect their religion, they are stating quite bluntly that they will turn violent if we don't do exactly as they say. Recent history suggests that they aren't kidding.
ReplyDeleteI would not define “respect” as arising from fear; reluctant “obedience” or “acquiescence” yes, but not “respect”. Genuine respect is accompanied by a sense of admiration for a particular individual, institution or set of beliefs or, at very least, a recognition of their legitimacy. Feigned respect may be granted to those who bully and threaten, but it is merely dissimulation hiding contempt or hatred. Some of us respect the law because we recognise the necessity of a common law for the government of society and recognise this as right, not because “we fear the consequences of breaking the law”. The latter may well be applicable to criminals who do not subscribe to this undergirding principle, but not to the majority of citizens. Nonetheless, you are right in noting that certain Muslims are prone to turn violent without us feigning “respect” for their irrational set of beliefs and traditions. The key to defeating this is through standing up to them and dealing with them appropriately: through a combination of incarceration and expulsion. I do not respect Islam.
DeleteThis deference to Islam really annoys me. I respect anyone's right to insult me and I expect the right to insult others too. We risk giving Islamic extremists exactly what they want by self-censoring our media and we show ourselves to be scared stiff of them when we cave in to 'expected' outrage. If any groups violate our laws with their protests we should arrest them and treat them the same as any other thug would be treated. Stop this defference now - it sends a message that we are scared of Islam.
ReplyDeleteYou are quite right: we must not yield to such threats, but face them down.
DeleteThis article is wrong. The repeat showing went out last night, as scheduled (1:10AM C4). I know because I saw it. There was never any announcement that this showing would not go ahead.
ReplyDeleteSorry to correct you but the article isn't wrong. This quote is from the Mail about Channel 4's decision:
Delete"...the broadcaster was planning a screening for 'opinion formers' at its London headquarters later this month.
It had hoped to organise a debate around the screening but the whole event has had to be axed because of fears it would be targeted."
There were fears that the lunatics would strike, most likely a car bomb or suicide attack in my opinion. So much for a religion of 'peace and tolerance'...
It seems that Channel 4 did indeed screen the documentary in the early hours of Friday morning, for I have also received an email from someone saying that they have recorded the programme. The Daily Telegraph, The Daily Mail and The Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain all stated that the repeat screening had been cancelled, so either Channel 4 relented whilst still leaving in place the impression that it was not to be screened, or there has been some sort of oversight.
DeleteWhatever has happened with respect to this particular programme, it would set a dreadful precedent were attempts to make and screen objective documentaries to be abandoned because of threats from violent fanatics. The latter must be identified and disposed of: either imprisoned if their origins are in this country, or deported to their ancestral familial lands of origin if they hail from elsewhere.
The Oxford dictionary defines terrorism as:
ReplyDelete"The unofficial or unauthorized use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims."
Given the threats received by Channel 4 I think islam as an ideology falls clearly into this category. Their intimidation is plain to see, they don't attempt to hide the fact. Muslims seem proud to threaten, maim and kill to force their controlling ideology on the rest of the world.
Surely those making the threats should therefore be charged with an act of terrorism?
As you note, the ‘religion’ in question is characterised by a number of features possessing a natural affinity with the dictionary definition of terrorism, with many of its followers having liberally employed its methods since its inception. All the blood in the world, it seems, would not be sufficient to slake the thirst of the sands of Arabia.
Deleteyoutu.be/aAMX3ecS6Kc
ReplyDeleteThe 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.