Post date: 01-Oct-2010 15:55:47
A couple of years ago I received a message from a friend asking me to watch Channel 4’s programme ‘The Quran’. I did so and expressed my expert opinion that it was clearly biased against several branches of Islam that are at variance with the Wahabi interpretation of Islam. Following this, in 2008, I was involved with many other scholars in the preparation of a detailed document putting forth evidence of this bias. According to spokespersons for C4, National Geographic and Anthony Thomas the film’s director, we were “orchestrated”. Oddly, this phrase was repeated by them, as if they were reading from a PR script, to any individual or organisation that criticised the film. Ofcom ruled that the issues were outside of their remit and Antony Thomas claims this as a victory over “orchestrated” troublemakers. The truth is he did the job he was paid to do and got away with it and all we asked was that it should have been done with an even hand. Perhaps they spent so much on beautiful cinematography there was no budget for genuine research.
Now National Geographic has placed before us in 2009 ‘Journey to Mecca’ another visually sumptuous ‘educational’ film. The big problem is it re-invents the history that it purports to teach. The film re-draws the route that Ibn Batutta followed across the North African desserts and in the process reverses the direction of his first journey by boat on the Nile. Small details to anyone convinced that Hollywood epics are educational and should replace books as sources for the study of history.
However, in this novel version of history they also remove all mention of Ibn Batutta’s visits to Sufi Shaykh’s in Egypt and that he had his dream of flying to Eastern lands on the roof of one of their houses and not while he was in Tangier as the film claims. The screenplay also removes all reference to his stay in Alexandria and Battuta’s description of what he did there like being involved in prayers for the dead in graveyards, something disapproved of by followers of Saudi Islam but practised by millions of Sufis and Shi’a. Strangely, these were the groups that were condemned by association as not being Islamic in C4/National Geographic’s ‘The Quran’. However, these are small details of little consequence for anyone who believes that socialist realism is a valid form of historiology.
Unfortunately, I do not regard Hollywood movies as primary sources for any discipline other than film studies or believe that historical fact may be bent or rewritten to suit an agenda other than the truth. Which leaves the question of who is orchestrating the agenda that seems to be behind National Geographic’s interpretation of what Islam should be presented as to the public it seeks to ‘educate’?
If you do choose to provide an answer to my question or wish to ask National Geographic for their views please do not discuss the matter with anyone before hand since it may be deemed as ‘orchestration’. It might even lead to me being accused of conducting, arranging or composing a harmonised attack upon them in the guise of expressing my well tempered concern.