Author: Daniel Pipes
Publication: New York Post
Date: December 17, 2002
URL: http://www.danielpipes.org/article/982
URL: http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/64772.htm
What would be the best way to convert
lots of Americans to Islam?
Forget print, go to film. Put together
a handsome documentary with an original musical score that presents Islam's
prophet Muhammad in the most glowing manner, indeed, as a model of perfection.
Round up Muslim and non-Muslim enthusiasts to endorse the nobility and
truth of his message. Splice in vignettes of winsome American Muslims testifying
to the justice and beauty of their Islamic faith. Then get the U.S. taxpayer
to help pay for it.
Show it at prime time on the most
high-minded TV network. Oh, and screen it at least once during the holidays,
when anyone out of synch with Christmas might be especially susceptible
to another religion's appeal.
This is precisely what the producers
of "Muhammad: Legacy of a Prophet" have done. In a documentary The Washington
Post calls "absorbing, . . . enjoyable and informative," exotic images
of the desert and medieval miniatures mix with scenes of New York City
and the American flag. Born- and convert-American Muslims speak affectingly
about their personal bond to their prophet.
The Public Broadcasting Service
(PBS) will premiere this two-hour documentary across the nation tomorrow
night, then repeat it in most areas. The film's largest tranche of funding
comes from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, a private, nonprofit
corporation created by Congress that in fiscal 2002 received $350 million
in taxpayers' funds.
The heart of the film consists of
nine talking heads competing with each other to praise Muhammad the most
extravagantly. Not one of them criticizes him.
Some of their efforts are laughable,
as when one commentator denies allegations about Muhammad contracting a
marriage of convenience with a rich, older woman named Khadija: "He deeply,
deeply loved Khadija." Oh, and his many marriages were "an act of faith,
not of lust." How could anyone know this?
Other apologetics are more consequential.
What Muhammad did for women, viewers learn, was "amazing" - his condemning
female infanticide, giving legal rights to wives, permitting divorce and
protecting their inheritance rights. But no commentator is so impolite
as to note that however admirable this was in the 7th century, Muslim women
today suffer widely from genital mutilation, forced marriages, purdah,
illiteracy, sexual apartheid, polygamy and honor killings.
The film treats religious beliefs
- such as Muhammad's "Night Journey," when the Quran says he went to heaven
and entered the divine presence - as historical fact. It presents Muslim
wars as only defensive and reluctant, which is simply false. All this smacks
of a film shown by missionaries.
Move to the present and the political
correctness is stifling. Hostility is said to be "hurled" at American Muslims
since 9/ 11 - but there's no mention about the prior and vastly greater
(foreign) Muslim hostility "hurled" at Americans, killing several thousand.
The narrator exaggerates the number of American Muslims, overestimates
their rate of growth and wrongly terms them the country's "most diverse"
religious community.
But these are details. "Muhammad:
Legacy of a Prophet" is an outrage on two main counts.
* PBS has betrayed its viewers by
presenting an airbrushed and uncritical documentary of a topic that has
both world historical and contemporary significance. Its patronizing film
might be fine for an Islamic Sunday school class, but not for a national
audience.
For example, PBS ignores an ongoing
scholarly reassessment of Muhammad's life that disputes every detail -
down to the century and region Muhammad lived in - of its film. This is
especially odd when contrasted with the 1998 PBS documentary, "From Jesus
to Christ," which focuses almost exclusively on the work of cutting-edge
scholars and presents the latest in critical thinking on Jesus.
* The U.S. government should never
fund a documentary whose obvious intent is to glorify a religion and proselytize
for it. Doing so flies in the face of American tradition and law. On behalf
of taxpayers, a public-interest law firm should bring suit against the
Corporation for Public Broadcasting, both to address this week's travesty
and to win an injunction against any possible repetitions.
