If you can provide a transcript of the documentary, l’ll be happy to deconstruct all of its claims one by one. Otherwise it’s too much work for me to keep pausing, giving timestamps, writing up the claim, writing up the rebuttal, etc.
I have to say, the documentary is thick with lies. Thick with lies. Right from the start.
It’s not just the spoken words, it’s the awkward camera shots of the least handsome wind-battered nomads the author could find, it’s the sound effects, e.g. the seductive mournful female singing while discussing Christian Constantinople, the heavy metallic thump when discussing its Muslim conquest.
I’ll give a few rebuttals to lies l can recall so far (only saw the first quarter of it or so):
- The early Muslims did not say God gave them the Qur’an and God gave them an Empire. Actually, Empires (dynastic rulership) are forbidden in Islam. Monarchies are forbidden.
- The conquerors of the Arabia were not nomads. The nomadic bedouin were a part of the conquering armies yes, but by no means the entirety. In fact the nomads are reprimanded in the Qur’an.
- It wasn’t the nomadic Arabs that conquered the Near East. This is a classic and deliberate error to delegitimise Islam in the Near East (Arabia). The Arabs were joined by conquered nations e.g. Byzantine converts. Arabic was a language and the Prophet taught us that from now on, anybody that speaks Arabic is an Arab. The definition irrevocably passed from ethnic to linguistic. That is how the Near East became Arabic. They changed their language to the cousin language Arabic. The people were the same people that had always been there.
- The documentary begins by closing in on the least handsome aged Bedouin men.
- The documentary claims these nomadic Muslims conquered the Promised Land and claimed it for their own, and that they sought legitimacy via Isma’il son of Abraham (peace be upon them both). This makes it seem like we subscribe to the same nationalistic cult as Zionism. It’s not at all true. We did not claim Abraham to be our own instead of Judaism’s founding father. Abraham was not a Jew and he had his own revealed scripture called The Scrolls of Abraham (plagiarised from Islam by the Mormons). Muslims revere Isma’il and Ishaq as prophets, peace be upon them both.
- The documentary claims Constantinople was the capital city of a universal Christianity, for a universal Roman empire, and that the Muslims saw this and coveted it and so forumulated Islam as a rival universal religion. This is false. Christianity may have been made universal by Paul but this was not what Jesus (peace be upon him) intended, he only came for Israel. And the documentary thus tacitly admits that Islam was universal, yet earlier it had claimed it was tied to Isma’il’s descent from Abraham. The fact is Islam is universal, the Prophet Muhammad was the only Prophet that came for the entire world as we know it.
- Holland describes the time just before birth of the Prophet Muhammad as being at “5 minutes to midnight”. At the start of the documentary he claims to feel like he’s being dragged into a “black hole”. His authorities on the matter all have the most dishonest faces you’ll ever see and they do indeed lie flatulently. All except Syed Hossein Nasr who eloquently answers his question re: can a non-Muslim understand Islam, with “No”. I’m actually going to say: “Yes” It’s possible, but you have to be honest and blot out the vile propaganda against Islam, feed off clean sources. Avoid Wikipedia, every single article is based on Orientalist sources. Muslims don’t bother editing it, we stick to our own sites.
- Finally for now, let me get to the crux of the matter: There were no famous Arab polymaths from Mecca or Medina in the Golden Age of Islam, this was because it was the eye of the swirling intellectual hurricane. The holy cities were not places of worldly lore, they were the centre of gravity where religion is wordless. Moreover, Makkah is actually referred to in the Qur’an (as everyone admits) both directly and indirectly:
Directly:
Qur’an 48:24 directly mentions Makkah (elsewhere in the Qur’an it refers to Bakkah):
And He it is Who hath withheld men’s hands from you, and hath withheld your hands from them, in the valley of Mecca, after He had made you victors over them. Allah is Seer of what ye do.
Indirectly as Bakkah (note: the footprint of Abraham is found in Makkah, at the sanctuary built by Abraham and his firstborn, Isma’il, not at any valley near Jerusalem):
3:96 Lo! the first Sanctuary appointed for mankind was that at Becca, a blessed place, a guidance to the peoples;
And indirectly as “The House” (the Ka’aba, the epicentre of Makkah):
Qur’an Surah 106 (Quraysh):
For the taming of Qureysh.
For their taming (We cause) the caravans to set forth in winter and summer.
So let them worship the Lord of this House,
Who hath fed them against hunger and hath made them safe from fear.
The “House” is, and can only ever be, understood as the Sacred House, the Black Box, possibly the first house ever built, albeit drastically changed over time by successive nations.
The Quraysh are the ruling tribe of Makkah in present day Saudi Arabia. So you see, this Qur’anic chapter is absolutely locked on to the Sacred House looked after by the Pagan Quraysh that turned it into the equivalent of the Stock Exchange for Arabia and who weren’t too happy that Prophet Muhammad was bringing their stock exchange down and replacing it with Allah and in fact ending all the wheeling and dealing around the Sacred House just as Jesus tried to do with the Temple of Solomon - hence the Surah was revealed, reminding the Quraysh that Allah has always looked after them so they should now cleave to their first and only only Prophet and accept Monotheism The documentary states it was a desert stronghold when in fact it is an oasis city, you can’t have an ancient city purely in desert sands, there has to be a rich, verdant oasis. Islam is not a desert religion as such, it was originally an oasis city religion.
By the way, Mu’awiyah used existing coins and stamped one side, hence there wasn’t full Islamic coinage in his time, perhaps. There are in fact hoards of Muslim coins with Islamic inscriptions in Scandinavia, dating from circa 770-1050CE.
Also note:
https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/C_1913-1213-1
English King Offa of Mercia issued gold dinar coins dated 773-774 CE, with the Islamic declaration of faith “There is no god but Allah, and Muhammad is his Messenger” on one side, and “Offa Rex” on the other. That is 157AH, circa 146 years after the death of the Prophet. Then subtract the time it would have taken for the coin to even reach England - circa 50-100 years - and also subtract the time it would have taken for a Muslim caliphate to establish itself long enough to start minting fresh coins with the Islamic declaration of faith - circa 50-100 years - so that’s way, way, way sooner than the 200 years after the death of the Prophet claimed by the documentary
Also please view this Christian man’s summary of why Bakah / Bacah = Makkah - the part where he discusses Islamic scholars’ opinions, here: https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-Valley-of-Baca-in-Psalm-84
I’m unsure about traditional Bible scholarship though. I have read the morphology of the Biblical “Baca” and the Qur’anic “Bakka” may be different, but they may refer to the same type of tree, a balsam tree.
Finally: Check out the mathematical miracles of Makkah, the only Makkah, in present day Saudi Arabia, which l gave as another way of rebutting your video: Two Mathematical Miracles of Mecca (only discovered via Modern Measurements)
I could go on but l swear it’s very hard to catalogue the flatulent lies in this documentary, plus as l say, it’s not just the words, it’s the sound effects deliberately imposed to sway you and the innuendo with the camera shots of world weary ageing bedouins. If you can provide a transcript it would be easier for me.
But please note, all that l’ve given above is a long rebuttal of what is an obvious lie to anybody with common sense. We know where Makkah is.