I agree with your analyses. The documentary was a step forward however I do have queries but overall we should thank Ch4 for their efforts

I watched th whole programme and agree that it was a good effort at being unbiased in their approach to the subject.
What i liked was when the shia ayatollahs were shown that what they did or believed is not in the quran, they tried to make simplistic excuses.
Also i liked the fact that they showed that muslim are for peace all the way but when under attack and occupation they will not hesitate to fight back.
One little bit of p.r which always gets snuck into programes like this, was when he stated in the last century more muslims have been killed by other muslims false statement, other than that a good effort.

Thank Channel 4? You must be joking, couldn't you see this attack on Islam and the Qur'an? Was that an image of Al-Aqsa Mosque you saw or a different one?

Well, write in and tell them that! Regardless of whether you think it was positive or negative, Muslims need to engage the media.

The programe was quite clearly promoting this idea of a secular reformation of Islam. According to some of the guests on the show Islam was only introduced to Egyptian society 40 YEARS ago. Also the nonsense at the end of the programe about the syriac reading of the quran aserts that muslim scholars have misread the quran for over a thousand years and this german man is now reading what the original revelation was. Like the thoery of evolution this theory makes wild alegations but provides ZERO emperical proof. Orientalism is funny is'nt it? They want us to believe that they know more about Islam than its adherants do.

It started off well - but then it began to focus on the negatives. I mean of all things to discuss - female genital mutilation should not have been one prioritised. It also ended on an ambigious note - letting the audience decide the answers for themselves! Some good input and bad input - overall some christian missionary arguments that we have all heard before!

they said women were allowed to be beaten!!!!!!!!
this is toatally against what the beloved prophet peace be upon him said!
were humans treat us like humans

The net result of the documentary was to project a message that the book of the Muslims is an ambiguous and complex exposition, which says one thing here and another thing there. This is completely untrue, because where the Qur'an speaks, the Hadith or authentic narration of the Prophet of Allah complete the sentence. The proramme makers convieniently forgot to explore this. Classic example was towards the end where the 72 Hour'Ul'Ain (blessed virgins of Paradise) were interpreted as 72 grapes in the Qur'an. However the Prophet in a Hadith in Tarmidhi spoke about the rewards attained by the true martyr, who sacraficed that which was most precious for the sake and pleasure of His Lord, and the hadith clearly states that from amongst the 7 favours bestowed upon a martyr, alongside his sins being forgiven at the first drop of his blood, he sees his place in Paradise, intercession for his relatives who were destined for the fire, protection from the test/punishement of the grave, peace on the day of great terror (Judgement Day) and he will be married to the women (Hour'Al'Ain) of Paradise.

I respect the efforts, but the somewhat skewed input from reformists always worries me. We must reflect and learn from history, the Muslims of Bosnia assimilited to the degree that alcohol, inter-marraige and all vices became acceptable, the 'scholars' allowed this to happen and it ultimately cost the nation deeply, for a generaton that is misguided and adrift from the faith is indeed a generation lost in this life and the next. Let us return to the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of the Prophet and understand it for ourselves, for Allah (swt) has assured us that this is a Deen (religion) of ease for those who embrace it wholeheartedly.

Everyone here saw something they feel isn't right or needs to be changed, and so on. So, that means, all of you are going to write in and tell them that, with tone of respect.

Or is this all talk and everyone here is just debating like most people usual do? You see right at the bottom of the article isthe address of Channel Four.

And when you get a reply, please bang it here or create a thread in forum. If you don't, then the facts shows that one is like the rest who debate, and say what they don't like and do jack about it.

There we go - solution. Sorted. Now write in!

The programme was intersting in so far as it presented the range of Muslim practice and the absence of the monolith that is often presented. It was a good beginning to what might be a greater understanding of Islam and Muslim people.
Despite what is claimed above the Egyptian woman did not say that Islam had only been introduced 40 years ago. What she said was that the expressions of Islam have changed since the disillusionment with Nasser, and that in her opinion these changes were regressive.
The idea that the Bosnians paid a terrible price for their laxity is a dangerous avenue. The Bosnians paid the price of being trapped between competing nationalisms, desire for revenge and global indifference. If Muslims are to be punished for their neo-Western habits and consumptian of alcohol what awaits the Turks?

i think just the reaction they wanted now all the none believers are say i told you so it true so that’s what they are like . the angles on people’s faces and the zoom into the nikab women her eyes would you trust her? No i wouldn't i think the program could never do the subject justice instead a little her a little there i am a Muslim. if i saw that i,d say what a strange lot those Muslims. Propaganda!!
rubbish

In my opinion this programme was a definite step forward in reporting on the subject of Islam. It was a serious work that elicited a range of opinion by a number of sources and seemed to be a genuine effort to explain the Qu'ran to non-Muslims.

It was not without flaws however. He used MEMRI a Zionist organisation that has a track record of mistranslating the footage acquired and its political motivation should have ruled it out as some sort of arbiter of the truth.

The other problem was the use of that dodgy Sudookoe (or whatever his name was). A highly suspect individual.

The Yemen thing, whilst interesting was a detour and has no credibility. People will always try to re-write the Qu'ran. They are our enemies.

The program started off well on the whole good more than bad. Then went negative towards the end with unnecessary tangents. esp. The genital mutilation, no need for the drama and footage all be it true.
1)The program was the Quran not really warped cultural practices.
2) Not enough clear condemnation about this, and there really wasn’t a need to get a fringe priest saying British women sleep around.
3) The beating of women verse... all we needed to hear is that the prophet Muhammad never once ever raised his hands against any of his wives.
4) Penal code, could have mentioned that prophet said "its better to let a guilty man go free than to punish and innocent man" the emphasis always being on finding a reason not to punish.
5) I would really like to see a program on the Talmud, and the ideas of the Goyem / gentile, and the strange Jewish law anti-Semitism equated with anti Zionism.
I have some great ideas for it.
Also there was no Hamza Yusuf Hanson he’s always really good just like Tim winter.

the programme was a neo conservative view of what islam represents and what it should represent.

the underlying rhetoric was negative .

for anyone to think that this was about channel4 changing their spots and representing muslims and islam in a fair and just manner , they are certainly deluded.

channel4 has been one of the main broadcasters to damage muslims and islam through their dispatches and affiliated programmes in this country.

[quote=Mohammed Karim]The net result of the documentary was to project a message that the book of the Muslims is an ambiguous and complex exposition, which says one thing here and another thing there. This is completely untrue, because where the Qur'an speaks, the Hadith or authentic narration of the Prophet of Allah complete the sentence. The proramme makers convieniently forgot to explore this. Classic example was towards the end where the 72 Hour'Ul'Ain (blessed virgins of Paradise)

No where in the quran does in say that the Hour'Ul'Ain are virgins NOWHERE AT ALL WHERE DOES IT SAY IT SAYS "PURE" BUT ITS BEEN TWISTED BY UNEDUCATED AND IGNORANT PEOPLE

I, today, watched the Dispatches programme and have to confess, overall it was a much-needed, and an almost accurate potrayal of the Quran. What pleased me most was throughout the programme, the Quran's message of tolerance, diversity, and forgiveness was consistently emphasised not only by Thomas, but by leading luminaries of Islamic thought such as the ever slim Tariq Ramadan, Hakim 'The Racanteour' Murad (aka as T. Winter who I have witnessed live on a rainy night in West Yorkshire), and Amjad Masnsour. The programme was also true to form in separating Islamic theology from cultural norms, something which many programme makers are guilty of. I would imagine Tehran and Qom would be unhappy with the programmes correct depiction of quasi-pseudo Shiite Islam, but then they would be. A few majestic moments of film was sufficient enough to demolish the Shiite argument brick-by-brick. As a footnote, it showed the mosiac landscape of the muslim faith and gave muslim women some much needed airtime, I don't think they would be given that luxury at your local mosque mind you. Answers on a postcard if it does.

If I were to be over-critical and fussy, I would have liked a deeper investigation into muslim contribution towards Europe and the World. If you blinked you would have missed it. Finally, the view that the Quranic text may have been influenced by Syrian-Aramaic text was unecessary. Anyone, with reasonable historical knowledge knows that at that particular time, many languages were in existence that could have sneaked into the Quran without changing the message such as Hebrew, Latin, Greek, Aramiac. And considering the term 'Jihad' seems to be the flavour of the year, a piece on the true meaning of Jihad according to the Quran would have been long overdue. Mind you, this was the channel that gave us The Word, Ali G, Big Brother and Krishna GuruMururu Eddie Murphy

The general consensus I get from this show is quite simply one, “A deliberate and indirect attack on particular type of Muslims"

Firstly I hold many versions of Saudi translated text of the Quran and none of them have those kinds of translations, ladies gentlemen do you remember Policy Exchange's allegations!!!

Second whatever you may think of Shia's it is part of our religion to respect their beliefs not to attack them, this programme does this, maybe a political agenda!!!!

and most importantly it tries to show Islam's leniency towards women, it forgot to inform the illiterate that it was Islam who conferred women's rights in the world.

and for Pete’s sake Kashmir is not a religious issue for those dimwits who think it is, as a Muslim I firmly stand with India.

Whatever your thoughts, communicate with Channel 4 and tell them.
Engage in the world, and that especially includes the more hostile sections of the media.

The assertion that the quran sends out a contradictory message in parts is either the work of an ignoramus or a clever ploy to malign the quran by an adversary. Clearly when someone reads the pages of any book they need to read it in context however this program in its pretentiously unbiased and investigative approach completely ignored this principle. Further to this they give credibility to the 'fictional' literary work of an orientalist whose claims have been thoroughly refuted

I thought the programme had a confused thesis. It couldn't decide between authenticity, uniqueness, ease of memorisation, on the one hand and neo-con/missionary hysteria about so-called 'Islamic' practices, on the other.

However it did increase my knowledge of Shia perspectives (which seemed un-Islamic to me). The business about having intermediaries between you and Allah (because you are not good enough to appeal to Allah direct) doesn't stand up. An all-knowledgeable God knows what's in your heart, as well as what is right for you, whereas the intermediary does not (because he/she isn't all-knowledgeable).

Also we saw how Saudi's are adding words to the Quraan (in translation) and thereby misleading many Muslims all around the world. [parenthetical insertions should ONLY be used for untranslatable words (e.g. the English word 'football' is untranslatable - similar Arabic words also exist) and for conveying a more precise meaning of a colloquial &/or archaic expression].

Footage of, pagan, female circumcision in a programme about a book was just silly and sensationalist.

As for including comments from Patrick Sukhdeo: well it was like having Ahmedinajad commenting on the reasons for the existence of Israel! What did the producer expect him to say?

I Sidat from your name it implies that you are a gujerati who stands firmly with india when it rapes-kills and murders muslims in india.
I on the other hand being of kahsmiri heritage take offence to your assertion that those who think it is a relgious issue are dimwits, a muslim is the brother of another muslim,so when one brother is beaten and killed the other one feels the pain and does not say i stand with the oppressor of my brothers.
As for shias i respect them in the same way as hindus-christians and jews, the issue is the others do not pretend to be muslims, whereas the shias pretend to be muslims but act against the very basics of islam.
As i said before it was a good attempt to be unbiased with the usual p.r in between.

The worst thing about the programme is that it promoted the opinions of people like Taj Hargey. He has no qualifications in Islam and cannot even speak Arabic yet Channel 4 allowed him more time than any other contributor - to criticise all the scholars and rubbish 1400 years of scholarship.
I wonder if they would do the same with the Torah?

idiot, so Hizbollah the shia when defending lebonan against Israel is acting against Islam?

As to who the idiot is can be judged from the comments and the name used.
Hizboallah did not defend lebanon from israel, they defended themselves after a operation to capture israeli soldeirs to bargain with.
Otherwise can you tel us how they defended lebanon when it was bombed with impunity from the air,the programme pointed out very clearly the contradictions of shia claims and reality.
When someone points outs genuine mistakes then one should rectify them.

'and for Pete’s sake Kashmir is not a religious issue for those dimwits who think it is, as a Muslim I firmly stand with India' I Sidat

So are Chechnya, Somalia, Aghanistan and Iraq also not religous issues? Was the killing of Muslims in Gujrat in 2002 a religous issue (I presume you are a Gujrati). Shame on you Ummah hater, 100,000 Kashmiri's murdered, over 50,000 Kashmiri women raped, over 900,000 Indian troops stationed in Kashmir, orchestrated migration of Hindus to Muslim land, Burning of homes, arbitary arrest, detention, inconcievable torture, regular curfews and harassment, broken treaties and violations of UN directives by India, the biggest of which was the Simla Agreement of 1974, where all parties re-iterated the need for the right of self-determination and a referendum for the Kashmiri people. And it is not a religous issue...When the Ummah is pain the whole body should hurt, you need to do some reading Mr Sidat.

I was really dissapointed with the show, I thought it was going to be fair and unbiased, when it clearly wasn't. As others have specified it clearly had a version of Islam that it wanted to promote.

It's impression that Shia's can only pray through an intermediary is INCORRECT!!! The Shia school of thought does and always will pray directly to Allah - THIS WAS SERIOUSLY MISLEADING AND SHOCKING!! It was absolute rubbish and the fact that not one of the hundereds and thousands of Shia scholars in Iran or Britain were not asked to produce evidence in the Qur'an supporting the concept of intercession which is allowed in the Shia school of thought has to be viewed with suspicion. I didn't here one Shia questioned as to where in the Qur'an the evidence was - if they had the viewers would have heard the numerous verses.

Common people Sunni and Shia scholars have debated the issue using the Qur'an for CENTURIES if it was that easy there would be no issues! Use your head!

The show was supposed to hear the numerous interpretations of the Qur'an but this was not the case. I sympathise that it's a difficult topic to cover but it must be done with unbiase and cover the spectrum.

I have made the necessary complaints...I urge others to do he same...

The same can be said about Pakistan and it's reputation and history when it comes to the minority in their country, have a bit of intellectual rigor.

All am pointing out to is that Kashmir is not a religious issue, it is about pride it is about how the British left things, it is about a fact that Kashmir wasn't part of the separation it's about a contractual basis, but people like you and the illiterate individuals make it religious issue just like Palestine it's never been about Jews vs Muslims because in Palestine Christians, Muslims and Jews use to live together and now the majority of the Palestinians (people of all three religions) of that era are in refugee camps.

Bottom line for me Kashmir was never part of the land divide, it did become part of it after consensus a period, do your research.

I Sidat i am still presuming that you are a gujarati, who states people who think kashmir is a religious issue are dimwits and further states people like you and the illiterate make it a religious issue.
You have also stated the same can be said for the minorites in pakistan and its reputation leaves me in no doubt that you are not a muslim but a non muslim pretending to use a muslim sounding name.
You have eqauted the slaughter 100,000 kashmiries-50,000 sikhs-20,000 muslims and hundreds of christians in india with how minorities are treated in pakistan, can you to inform us how many hundreds of thousands of hindus-sikhs and christians have been killed in pakistan.
as to have some intellectual rigor learn how to debate without using primitive remarks such as dimwits and illiterate first.
I find it amusing that a non kashmiri and non muslim tells me to do research about my own heritage.
One further fact which proves you are a non muslim is that fact that you failed to mention the gujerat genocide of muslims, where women were gang raped in front of their families and mutilated to death and others burnt for simply being muslims.
If you are still with india then i pray one day your wife or sister does not have to go through what my sisters and mothers in gujerat went through.

what you witnessed was theology presented to you with a neo conservative vision.

islam tells you not to comment on things that you dont understand. it asks you to be on jihad to become a better muslim. it asks you to be respectful with regardt to the koran.

what you were being told was that islam and muslims have a belief in a corrupted piece of fiction. what you were being told was that islam is not a unifying faith that seeks to provide social and political set of directions but one that kills more muslims , is divisive and politically has no relevance to the modern era.

what you were being told was to doubt your faith, doubt your fellow muslims .

what you were being told was that islam has no place in todays society because it is backwards, primitive and cannot provide the solutions that are required.

Br Shan, thank you for exposing the kafir in our midst, pretending to be a Muslim. Don't worry Mr 'Sidat' your decietful gameplay will not hinder the truth, Kashmir is Muslim Land which the Mahraja Singh unlawfully asceded to India though its official status was to have been decided by the Kashmiri people themselves. You need to study the Ummah paradigm which the Prophet (pbuh) cast in stone when he stated that 'The believers, in their love, mutual kindness and close ties, are like one body; when any part complains, the whole body responds to it with sleeplessness and fever (Sahai Bukhari). Nice try Mt Sidat, but the global awakening in the Ummah has already begun...and our true identities are gradually crystalising...we are Muslims first and foremost.

Why is it a false statement to say most muslims have been killed by others muslims ? The Iran-Iraq war, Pakistan's slaughter of Bangladeshis in 1971,Indonesia's mass murder of "communists" in 1975, the on-going communal slaughter in Iran all suggest otherwise.

First things first, am not going to sit by the computer all day to answer your questions i have a life.

Second am quite insulted by your ridiculous assumption of me being a non-Muslim i have done more for Muslims (my community) and contributed more than people who insult me like you guys.

Thirdly am Muslim first does it matter what language i speak.

Fourthly i have more Pakistani friends than my fellow compatriots who openly discuss the Kashmir issue without violence which seems apparent within the radicalized people.

Finally are you trying to say that Pakistan didn't force hundreds of non Muslims out of a newly formed Pakistan? a part which was predominantly Sikh, there was blood shed on both yes both are to blame but what am trying to say and what your trying to do is different. Am saying that Kashmir was never part of the deal!! and people like you guys are inferring religion into this like you have just done.

This is why MPACUK and many Muslims can't get the real Islamic word out, why because people like Shan and his other fried want blood not civilised conversation.

I sidat states i am quite insulted by your assumption that i am non muslim, well i sidat your proving from your own comments that you are a non muslim.
Yes i am saying pakistan did not force out hundreds of non muslims,just like india did not force out millions of muslims out of india,during partition people out of fear rightly or wrongly chose to move into pakistan and india.
mr.I.Sidat read up your own comments dimwits-illiterate are the words you used not me, so first of all learn how to debate and then comment again.
Still you have not said anything about the slaughter in gujerat.
Further proving that you are non muslim.

Andy the following is the list of muslims killed in the last century.
More than 1 million died during the partition of india, i am sure the muslims were not killing themselves.
more than two million were killed in algerian war of liberation from france, i am sure the french were not muslims.
More than two million dead in afghanistan i am sure the russians were not muslims.
More than 10 million killed in the soviet union under communism i am sure commits were not muslims.
More than 2 million killed to date in iraq by american occupation i am sure they are not muslims.
During the iraq war around 600,000 soldeirs on both sides died.
During the pakistan civil war around 300,000 cvillians died, the terrorists were trained and financed by india who attacked pakistan.
60 years of occupation and slaughter in palestine under israeli occupation, i am sure israelis are not muslims, there are many others in the world.
So the programme was inaccurate when it stated in the last century more muslims have been killed by muslims.

Shan i sympathise with what you have to say about the unlawful killing of Muslims, but to include the Asian sub continent in your list does you no justice because history and account will tell you that in parts of old India clashes occurred from all fronts, i.e. trouble broke out due to a particular sect there were extremist Hindus, Sikhs and even Muslims.

The reason why my opinion is different to yours is because, some Muslims didn't want partition the ones that did i.e. today's Bangladeshi’s, Pakistani’s and Guajarati’s (to put you at peace) according to you were blind to all civilised sanctity of understandings that none of the Muslims would not have caused trouble? are you forgetting the way Muslims were treating Muslims who didn't want to be part of that partition, dirty tactics are within all radicalized society whether it is Christian, Jews or Muslims.

Why is it that people feel as though Indian Muslims betrayed Muslims this is an incorrect notion, the Muslims of India had a right to their say they wanted to be part of India respect them for it and stop creating this false perception.

Lastly, there are more Muslims in India than Pakistan are these trained terrorists of the Indian state, GROW UP and show some form of self respect.

The difference between me and you is that i don't make facts up, you’re a falsifier of facts and it’s apparent in tone

Thanks for all of your comments on The Qur'an. We're glad that many of you enjoyed the programme and the channel will, of course, take all of your feedback on board.

If you're interested in reading more about the making of both this programme and The Seven Wonders of the Muslim World, please visit www.channel4.com/thetvshow where commissioning editor Aaqil Ahmed explains his motivation for commissioning the projcts.

I sidat the typical non muslim pretending to be a muslim has sympathies for me when the comment was in answer to andy.
Mpac can you please print my response from earlier on today to i sidat,you do not make up facts is a good laugh calling others dimwits and illiterate shows how much you know what facts mean.
No one has stated muslims who stayed in india made a mistake or are any less muslims,so whats with that.
as to show some self respect why not start with being proud of your own identity without having to hide behind others, why hide the fact you are a non muslim.
It sees we have some confidence issues there, everyword you use in your comments confirms you are a non muslim who is ashamed of his own identity.

[quote=shan]I sidat the typical non muslim pretending to be a muslim has sympathies for me when the comment was in answer to andy.
quote]

Ha ha ha ha i was answering your question, your probably new on this site. read your own comment then read mine.

Finally you moron i am a very proud Muslim and i don't need to convince you.

I sidat the non muslims who lectures about intellectual rigor states,finally you moron i am very proud muslim and i do not need to convince you.
Wow with words like dimwits-illiterate and moron you truly have shown your level of intellect.
Finally when the gujerati muslim women were being gang raped-mutilated and burned alive were you standing next to india as well.

Find me an Academic proof of what you say and then I’ll believe you, it's Muslims like you who insult Islam with ridiculous assumptions. So no i don’t need to answer your 'intellectual' question. And intellectual rigor isn't insulting; moron is which is very clear when it comes to you.

I am deeply disappointed in MPAC's uncritical praise of this documentary. In order to be a credible, visionary and forward-looking organisation you must not fall at the feet of anyone who produces a programme about Islam. The programme did indeed have some interesting things to say, but couched in a typical narrative with a frame of reference that simply said: The Qur'an is confusing and misleading, Muslims don't like non Muslims re-interpreting (see the end about the German/Austrian guy. Have you ever heard of him? So what if he has re-interpreted it in aramaic? but making it sound like he is heralding the end of civilisation). And worst of all, definitely worst of all, and why I am HORRIFIED at MPAC's congratulations, is that it went across different parts of the Muslim community, misrepresenting pretty much all of them, and then 'guiding' us as to which should be our preference. Pitting one Muslim idea against another. MPAC, please screw your head on correctly and start supporting the Muslim community, not praising those who are laying foundations for it to disintegrate. I am very very disappointed in you

www.theinimitablequran.com

The Documentary would make a non-muslim believe that the Qur'an has inherent Contradictions- Exactly like the Bible- Typical Missionary & Zionist Propaganda!

Muslim Scholars have already debunked the Yemen discovery propaganda. However no muslim scholar was given a chance to debunk these and the German man's claims. I understand that Islam is rapidly rising in Germany but is it such an alarming issue that one has to bring third grade scholars on this Docu. to disprove validity of Qur'an being the unchanged word of the God for the last 1400 years!

In Munich, an Institute for Research on Quran was founded after world war II which researched on more than 40,000 Qurans from around the world and came to the conclusion that Indeed, as claimed by Muslims the message of the Qur'an has not changed since its revelation 1400 years ago- No other book can claim this distinction-certainly not the Torah and the Bible or the Vedas!!! The only difference they found was mistakes by scribes in placing the Fathhas, Dhammas, the dots etc-It was a transcriptional error and nothing more. Compare this to 50,000 mistakes and contradictions found in the Bible by their very own scholars! However this very seminal discovery was never mentioned!

Salaams,
I was initially quite impressed with the documentary but as it continued I realised that they were just trying to do a hatchet job on the Quran.
There is a very good discussion/response to it on UmmahPulse.com - I would encourage everyone to have a look.

Regarding that ludicrous Syriac re-reading of the Qur\\\'an then that was assessed in 2003 by MSM Saifullah of the Islamic Awareness, that research can be read here: http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Text/luxreview1.html

I think that the Azhari Shaykh was not supporting FGM but rather a circumcision that is mentioned in the Sunnah and which does not involve destroying the clitoris. Yet this however was neatly skipped over by the documentary and they made it seem as if the Azhari Shaykh was all for FGM, yet they did not ask him. There is a precedent for circumcision which is well known in the Sunnah and that does not involve FGM.

Generally, it started off okay but then descended into all sorts of crazed things. Interestingly, the arm-chair experts and Christian evangelists are already using the Syriac-version as a proof, along with Puin\\\\\\\'s analysis. By the way, Puin\\\\\\\'s argument was totally deconstructed and rubbished by Dr Azami in his book: The History of the Qur\\\\\\\'anic Text; From Revelation to Compilation, A Comparative Study with the Old and New Testaments (Leicester: UK Islamic Academy, 2003/1424).

I must say that it is rather patronising for a non-Muslim to come to Muslims and attempt to \\\\\\\"tell\\\\\\\" Muslims what the correct interpretations and history is of their religious text, as if Muslims have no idea as to the history of it. The documentary made no referral whatsoever to the abundant manuscripts of the Qur\\\\\\\'an that are in the Topkapi library in Turkey or the early Mus-hafs in Egypt, Iran and elsewhere.

The documentary also showed an Egyptian woman who claimed that \\\\\\\"at Nasr\\\\\\\'s funeral all of the women are uncovered\\\\\\\" and she later claimed that women in Egypt only began wearing the hijab and niqab in the 19070s!!? This is false, and it is historically bankrupt to say this as all throughout the 19th century and early 20th century Egyptian women all wore niqab and the same is for Morocco, Algeria and the Arab countries generally. Taking off the niqab occurred after colonialism in the 1940s, not to mention that the practicing Muslims were not exactly fans of Nasr hence their non-attendance at his funeral. The documentary however ran with this and claimed that her claim was historically accurate when in fact it is ahistorical.

AbdulHaq

Shan's posts is a classic example of someone who has completely misunderstood the shia school of thought. I have advice for you shan...gain some knowledge, and apologise for your childish comments, that only divides the Muslim ummah.

What do you expect from non-Muslims. They report what they get from the Muslim world. One side Muslims are claiming Islam to be a religion of peace while simultaneously other Muslims are equaly justifying it to murder people. WHY SHOULD NON-MUSLIMS HAVE TO MAKE UP FOR OUR INABILITIES. These contradictions might be put out there by The western media but they are generated by Muslims.
WE HAVE TO GET OUR HOUSE IN ORDER BEFORE WE EXPECT NONMUSLIMS TO KEEP UP.
The Quran is not ambigious, in reality it has been made ambigious by MUSLIMS,

we can not open our mouth or put pen to paper without attacking another Muslim or group even if they are only slightly skewed from our own personal view of perfection.

It is time for Muslims to work together no matter how big or small there differences are. because for far to long we have been divided into bitesize pieces.

U fool

THE ZIONIST CHANNEL 4 LIED ABOUT;
1) Making PAlestinians look like European Occupiers and Israelis look like Native Indians (its the complete opposite)

2)They completely lied about Shias

3)They said many half and miss truths about Sunnis

4)They are making Sufis look great

--
THE YAHOOD WILL ALWAYS DIVIDE THE MUJAHIDEEN AS WE ARE 2 STRONG UNITED

The tv program "The Qur'an" shown on C4 Mon 14 July 2008 at 8pm: It is very commendable for Channel 4 in giving 2 hours of valuable air-time. The program had a lot of true and a lot of false perspective, points and propaganda which were portrayed. This i believe constitutes poor journalism. Instead of involving non-Islamic African customs like female mutilation, why wasn't male circumcision shown which is accepted by Muslims and Jews alike to display balance? Also showing the Iranian shia sect pilgrims "supposedly" praying to Imam in place of God again is very wrong and a blatant lie. I have converted from the sunni sect to the shia sect so i am fully aware of the beliefs of the shia sect. To clarify, shia muslims pray to God alone and in case of intercession most sects ask for the intercession of the last prophet (peace be on him), the shia sect also asks intercession from the family members of the last prophet (peace be on them all). Due to not
informing the viewer with all the information, the program creates arguments out of nothing.