 |
|
Image of Early Islam
As Seen Through PBS lens
Not a pretty picture…
By A.H. Jaffor Ullah
Our e-mail accounts have been swamped for the last couple of
days with the news that Public Broadcasting Corporation (PBS) --
which is equivalent to BBC -- would show a program entitled
"Islam—Empire of Faith" on May 8, 2001. Robert
Gardner produced this film to cover more than thousand years of
turbulent history of mankind. Naturally, everyone who has some
connection with Islam would be interested to view the PBS
program. According to Mr. Gardner this program was part of a PBS
series call Empires.
The PBS folks had hosted a web site to highlight how the film
was made. Robert Gardner, the filmmaker, wrote an article in
which he mentioned the complex nature of this new type of movie
making. This is what is known as docu-drama. The director
mentioned in his article that this docu-drama is going to be
very different from other historical narratives. The
two-and-a-half hour film most certainly showed a plethora of
violence but apart from that what was new in this film? About a
decade ago in television, I used to watch programs in which the
director would re-create historical events. But those were
mostly done on stories from Europe either from olden times or
from mediaeval period. Yes, from the perspective of Islam it was
something new. For this, Robert Gardner should be congratulated.
The filming was outstanding. The reenactment was terrific but
the substance was lacking. For technical perfection, the program
should get A+++ rating. But for telling the viewer the complete
story of Islam, Gardner’s movie will score a very low C++. May
be the filmmaker thought the bulk of the viewer is going to be
the western folks. If that is what was the assumption, then I
would up grade one notch higher to B to B+.
After watching this lengthy two-and-a-half hour show, one may
be lead to believe that Islamic empire ended with the demise of
Suleiman the great, the fierce Ottoman ruler of Istanbul. From
historical perspective, it is perhaps true. But the story of
ever growing Islam didn’t quite end there. Turkey no doubt
evolved after emergence of Kemal Pasha. But we had new royal
family in Arabia. Most of the Islamic countries in world fell in
the hands of despotic rulers. Except for Egypt where the
Islamists had already assassinated one president for making
truce with the Jews and where repeated attempts had been made to
kill the present president, most countries are politically not
stable at all.
The rise of Islamic fundamentalism in Afghanistan and
Pakistan should cause concern for us all. Bangladesh’s
politicians show their hatred for democracy. And it makes full
sense now as to why they behave like this. Islam is not
compatible with democracy. A few years ago Professor Ausaf Ali
came to this conclusion while he wrote an article for Los
Angeles Time. He took a lot of flak for his view. I wish
Professor Ausaf Ali’s detractors could have viewed Robert
Gardner’s film before they wrote those nasty comments. Yes
folks, Islam is not compatible with democracy. Except for some
few minutes here and there, the entire two-and-a-half hour show
was studded with violence ad infinitum. It is appropriate to
note here that in a recent Friday Times’ (Lahore, Pakistan)
article, Khaled Ahmed also pointed out that Muslims in U.K. do
not think that democracy is good for them. In the article
entitled "Not so good news about British Pakistanis"
Khaled Ahmed writes, "Much of Islamophobia in the UK has
been aroused by the indecision in the Muslim mind about what
kind of state he wants. British Muslim organizations, Hizb al-Tahrir
and al-Muhajirun, who believe in caliphate and oppose democracy,
opened their offices in Lahore in 2001."
The filmmaker used symbolism throughout the movie. For
example, the curved sword, which symbolizes early Islam, was
overused. When the program was finished, the images of desperate
men on horse waving naked sword at each other would surely
linger in viewers’ mind. Let us be honest here. Islam was not
shown as a peaceful religion. The filmmaker was also very
successful in showing that Islam’s mantra throughout was
"Might is Right." The spread of Islam in neighboring
Arab countries was a done through violent means. War, war, and
war. That is what was portrayed in the aftermath of Prophet
Mohammad’s (PBUH) receiving the Qur’anic verses through
archangel Gabriel. Also, after the prophet’s demise, the
religion was spread essentially through the benevolence of
military power. How come then one could say that Islam is the
religion of peace. This PBS movie about the empire builder of
Islam blatantly tells us that Islam was anything but peaceful.
In the web site hosted by PBS, one could see that the
filmmaker gloated about the technical innovation in filmmaking
being used to come up with this movie. But one think was
noticeable very clearly. The lip-synching in shots where the
experts talk did not match with what they were talking. My
thirteen years old son also pointed out this anomaly to me. This
alludes to one think and that is the expert’s views were
altered. Whatever they said originally during filming were
masked and in its place new dialogues were added. Why did they
do it? I got no clues. But one may be lead to thinking that the
original commentary about Islam may have certain phrase
politically not correct.
The other explanation could be that the filmmaker was under
pressure to accommodate certain viewpoints. Whatever may the
case be, this oddity (dialogue not matching the lip movement)
would confound certain viewers and cast a show of doubt among
viewers. While describing the Ottoman rule of fourteenth
century, the narrator described recruitment of Christian minor
boys from Balkan states for the position of Janizaries (military
and bureaucracy) by Ottoman rulers. It was undoubtedly cruel to
snatch away young boys from their family for the purpose of
Janizaries; however, the naïve narrator saw only youthful
beauty in the boys. The narrator (a woman) failed to see the
cruelty Janizary system was imposing on Balkan families.
A significant amount of time was being spent on Ottoman
empire because the main thrust of the program was on empire
building. The viewers were shocked to hear the brutality that
was inherent among Ottoman rulers. In cold voice, the narrator
reminded us that a newly appointed Ottoman ruler would
mercilessly eliminate their brothers to make sure that no one
would conspire to overthrow the Sultan. What a dreadful thought!
The entire segment on Ottoman Rulers was jammed with destruction
and incidences of violence. What a way to introduce new viewers
to the world of Islam! The filmmaker failed miserably to create
a favorable view on Islam. All in all, violence was the main
theme of the two and one-half hour program. It was really an
overkill.
There were pockets of peaceful scenes in the two and one-half
hour PBS program. We learned that European heathens who had
participated in Crusade in 11th through 13th centuries came in
contact with Saracens and learned how to spice up one’s food
by using exotic spices. Also, they were exposed to fine things
in life such as jewelry, silk, etc. We also learned that
Saracens gave the Europeans the concept of banking, Arabic
numeral. This is quite surprising that when the Muslim Empire
builders were blithely immersed in hedonism, the Europeans were
living in austerity. Therefore, when the West met the East, the
former had a lot to learn from the nomadic empire builder. Now
after six or seven centuries later, there is role reversal. The
East through decadence had fallen behind. These days, things are
so rotten in Islamic world that the Old Glory doesn’t mean
much. For example, in Afghanistan, the Mullahs are out there to
destroy the relics of past. When will they look to the future?
How would I like to remember the TV program
"Islam—Empire of faith" in years to come? I will
probably remember it as a violence-ridden program. The
modern-day Islamists got the black eye for the sins of their
forefathers of which not everyone was a sword waving
megalomaniac. An ordinary television viewer in America who never
had any background in Islam must be thinking now that Islamic
empire was build by the sheer strength of Zulfikar (sword). But
then, the early and mediaeval period had a plethora of violence.
May be, the violence and brutality were norm in those days.
Perhaps through this logic one apologist might say that all that
brutality associated with Islamic invasion was part of the
society in those yesteryears. That will be the only way one
could defend the atrocities perpetrated by the sword waving
soldiers who were riding high in the desert of Arabia. Violence
went hand-in-hand with empire building. And Islamic Empire was
no exception, either.
May 10, 2001
|
|
|
