Showing posts with label Tom Holland. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Tom Holland. Show all posts

Wednesday, 1 December 2021

Yazidi-phobia


A five-year old Yazidi girl’s Islamic State killer has been convicted of genocide in an historic trial in Germany. 

There are certain things I read in The Times's account of his conviction that I didn't read in the BBC's account, the most important being the name of the child: Reda. 

I don't know why the BBC didn't think to humanise her by including it. 

The Times also tells us that IS, among all the other wicked things they did to Reda and her mother, ''forced them to practise Islam', something the BBC also omits to mention. 

And, of course, in standard BBC practice, IS are ''militants'' while for The Times they are ''terrorists''. 

At least the BBC reported the case. The Yazidis have largely been forgotten. One of my favourite historians, Tom Holland, has done his best to help remind us of their fate and is always worth reading on the matterOn reading the shocking story that a school board in Toronto, Canada withdrew support for events featuring the memoir of Nadia Murad, the Yazidi woman who was enslaved by IS, because it could "promote Islamophobia", he wrote
What about the Yazidi-phobia that led the Islamic State to attempt the genocide of the Yazidis: a crime that is not only in danger of being forgotten in the West, but - it seems - is now actively being covered up?

Sunday, 9 February 2020

Snap!



The three-way tie suggested by the exit poll in the Irish general election between the Family of Gaels, Ourselves Alone and the Soldiers of Destiny reminds the presenter of BBC Radio 4's Making History, historian Tom Holland, of my favourite film scene: the three-way shootout at the climax of The Good, The Bad and The Ugly. Having thought that, Tom then had another thought:
Obviously, if it DOES come to a shoot-out, one of those 3 parties will have a bit of an unfair advantage...

Monday, 12 March 2018

Buried in Shropshire


So the BBC finally posted a report on its News website about the Telford grooming scandal at 14:42 this afternoon

Pressure had been building on them to do so - from Nick Ferrari on LBC to eminent mainstream journalists like Ed West and Jane Merrick on Twitter
Ed West: The scale of this across England is simply staggering, far worse than I thought possible, almost too horrific to comprehend. I can't think of anything in modern British history that comes close. 'The fundamental rule of political analysis from the point of psychology is, follow the sacredness, and around it is a ring of motivated ignorance'. Not only is the Telford story not on the BBC news front page, it;s not mentioned in the England news page and not even on the Shropshire page. Bizarre.
Jane Merrick: Yes I looked for it last night. Searched “Telford”, nothing. It is very weird and I’m not normally a critic of the BBC.
Ed West: Considering how many talented people work at the BBC, people who understand news so well, I find it very hard to believe they're not omitting it for reasons to do with racial sensitivity. The enormity and horror of is just staggering.
The only place you'll find that article now is on the BBC's Shropshire page. 

By several accounts, it never made it to the the BBC's Home page, or UK, or even the England page and people are now accusing the BBC of burying the story. 

According to BBC Radio Shropshire's Jim Hawkins, however, the story isn't news: 
Jim Hawkins, BBC: Well, there's nothing new to say apart from the renewed call for an inquiry. BBC's covered the story in depth and detail for many years.
Millennial Woes: Yes, there is something new to report. 1000 victims.
Jim Hawkins: Not new, says the police.

Update: A much more detailed take on the themes of this post can be found over at The Spectator in a new piece by Douglas Murray headlined The BBC’s shameful silence on the Telford sex scandal.

And historian and Radio 4 presenter Tom Holland has just tweeted the following:
If the Sunday Mirror's story is true (& I don't know, is there a case that it isn't?), then Douglas Murray is quite right: the silence of BBC News on the rape of 100s of girls in a single English city is indeed shameful. Obviously, I totally get the need to tread with sensitivity. Nevertheless, what greater responsibility does a society have than to protect its most vulnerable children from systematic abuse? And shouldn't our national broadcaster have a role to play in that?
And extending the question beyond the BBC, here's Andrew Neil responding to a tweet from Caroline Lucas MP:
Caroline Lucas: Pleased that my Urgent Question on bullying and harassment in House of Commons has been granted. I'd ask MPs please to ensure that their focus is on those affected. This is not about settling old political scores.
Andrew Neil: Wouldn’t the appalling sexual abuse and exploitation, including rape and terrible violence, in Telford involving hundreds of vulnerable young women over a long period, as impressively revealed by the Mirror, be a more appropriate use of an Urgent Question?

Saturday, 23 December 2017

That would be a blandly ecumenical matter



Historian and Radio 4 presenter Tom Holland has a fascinating piece in the FT, 'Our secular society draws from the well of Christian tradition'

In it he mentions the BBC ("a broadcaster so unapologetically liberal that it has entrusted responsibility for its religious output to an atheist, and even then only on a part-time basis"), focusing on the corporation's newly-published 40-page Religion and Ethics review:
The tone may have been that of an anthropologist observing with curiosity the customs of distant tribes but the report did at least commit the BBC to making an effort to understand them.
He continues:
Nevertheless, there are limits to how far it is willing to go. Acknowledging that the great array of the world’s faiths are now to be found in Britain, the BBC’s response will be to double-down on what has long been its default setting: a bland ecumenism. Henceforward, Eid will be given primetime coverage as well as Christmas; Diwali as well as Easter. The template for this approach is provided by Thought For The Day, a three-minute slot on the BBC’s flagship radio morning news programme, in which bishops, rabbis and Buddhists compete to utter vacuous platitudes. No one ever says anything that a speaker from a different faith might not equally have said. Not a hint of the passions or the yearnings that can animate believers — still less the hatreds — is ever betrayed. It is the theological equivalent of milky tea.
And here's his account of the thinking that underlies the BBC's "bland ecumenism":
The conviction that underlies the BBC’s approach, that all religions are essentially the same, is not unique to Britain. Rather, it is the secular orthodoxy across the west. It has its militant wing, in the form of atheists who dismiss all religions as equally pernicious. It has its pacific wing, in the form of liberals who refuse to countenance the possibility that, say, the actions of Isis might have anything to do with Islam. 
The underlying conceit, though, is invariably the same: that it is possible to leave behind the swirl of religious identities and attain a plateau of moral and intellectual superiority; that to be secular is somehow to have left belief behind.
The whole article is well worth reading.

Saturday, 2 September 2017

That would be an ecumenical matter



The second post ever published on this blog might seem somewhat recherché to some of you now but the outcry it provoked among conservative Catholics evidently hit a raw nerve with the BBC.

Our findings proved that Radio 4's Sunday programme, presented by a trustee of the liberal Catholic magazine The Tablet (Edward Stourton)overwhelmingly used Catholic voices associated with The Tablet to discuss Catholic matters.

It was a palpable hit. Things changed on Sunday for a few years after that. We heard far less from Tablet voices and, in the immediate wake of the outcry, Sunday suddenly began featuring voices from the Tablet's main rival, the conservative Catholic Herald (previously totally excluded)

As we've not pursued the matter much since then, Sunday has started slipping back again, especially in the past couple of years. Maybe it's time to revisit that second post.

*******

Meanwhile, the death of the liberal former Archbishop of Westminster Cormac Murphy O'Connor brought tributes on this morning's Today from Tablet editor Catherine Pepinster and, yes, Edward Stourton, and reminded me of my own favourite long-term study of the BBC: my ten-year review of the speakers on Thought For The Day.

A side-finding of that study was that Today's choice of Catholic voices was entirely restricted to liberal Catholic voices. There wasn't a single conservative Catholic among them.

The phrase 'BBC Catholic' was used by some conservative Catholics about such people - evidently with good reason.

*******


Talking of conservative Catholic critics of the BBC....

The Catholic Herald had a very interesting piece by David Paton this week on the BBC's schools output.

It focused on a BBC Bitesize page called Medical stagnation in the Middle Ages which blamed Christianity for medical stagnation in the Middle Ages and repeated now-discredited claims that the Church prohibited dissection (in favour of "superstition") but provided one glimmer of good news: namely Islam...


The relevant BBC Bitesize passage reads: 


The question here is whether that page, from the early 2000s ('no longer updated'), still plays a part in the education of British pupils. It's to be hoped not.

Even BBC Radio 4 Making History presenter Tom Holland (a wonderful historian and engaging tweeter) was aghast on learning about this BBC Bitesize commentary, calling it "so grotesquely wrong as to be laughable".

Monday, 26 December 2016

An intriguing tweet


Some people - including BBC history programme presenters like Radio 4 Making History presenter Tom Holland - enjoy tweeting.

They even tweet as they read books

Tom Holland is presently spending his Boxing Day evening reading Sunday Times political editor Tim Shipman's All Out War: The Full Story of How Brexit Sank Britain's Political Class and tweeting as he goes

Tom's latest tweet about Tim's book evidently deals with Chapter 17, Aunty Beeb, and reads:


That would certainly be a fair point (and echoes points made here, at News-watch and elsewhere), but precisely what "BBC review" is this? That's a review I'd like to see.

I can't find anything about it anywhere though, not even on the internet. Do I have to buy the book to find out?

Thursday, 2 July 2015

'Beyond Belief': Muhammed and Aisha

Sahih al-Bukhari, 7:62:64 & 65

This week's Beyond Belief on Radio 4 was quite a bad-tempered affair at times.

It featured two Muslim converts and an infidel, and the two Muslim converts were surprisingly rude on occasions to the infidel - historian Tom Holland. (Ed - Fancy that! Who knew that Muslim converts could be so uptight and huffy?)

The programme discussed the Hadiths - the collected stories and traditions about Muhammed compiled after his death and held in high importance by Muslims.

The programme's guests were (to cite the descriptions provided by the BBC): Jonathan Brown, Prince Alwaleed bin Talal Chair of Islamic Civilisation at Georgetown University; Sahib Bleher, Imam and author on the Qur'an; and Tom Holland, a Classicist and author of several best selling books including In The Shadow of the Sword, on the origins of Islam.

This is the second time I've failed to warm to Sahib Bleher on Beyond Belief. 

The last time I heard him he was being less than moderate in his denunciation of the 'heretical' Ahmedis. Our Is the BBC biased? post at the time laid out the extraordinary record of this man, a co-founder of the Islamic Party of Britain. (He thinks 9/11 was organised by the U.S. and Israel, has described 7/7 as a "set-up", refers to the Holocaust as "the Holocult", and associates with the anti-Semitic far-right.) 

Quite why Radio 4 keeps inviting him on is beyond me.

Professor Brown is  much more respectable (if no less prickly). He's a distinguished academic after all.

The Prince Alwaleed bin Talal whose chair he holds at Georgetown University, if you were wondering, is a billionaire member of the Saudi royal family. He funds lots of Western universities. There's a Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal Centre of Islamic Studies at Cambridge University and an Alwaleed Centre at Edinburgh University too.

For those who missed it, here's part of their discussion - the bit where Tom Holland stopped turning the other cheek.

It's well worth following closely not just for the good sense of Tom Holland, but also to study the slippery response of Sahib Bleher and the truly extraordinary arguments of Georgetown University's Professor Brown - arguments that even seemed to take presenter Ernie Rae aback. (Ernie Rae deserves credit here for asking the questions many an astonished Radio 4 listener would have wanted asking):

*****

Tom Holland: The classic example...I guess the single hadith that has caused most anxiety would be one which describes Aisha, the favourite wife of Muhammed, marrying him at six, and them Muhammed consummates the relationship when she is nine. People tended not to have a problem with this until quite recently, as under-aged sex has become ever more of a taboo, so this has provoked more and more anxiety among Muslim commentators, and various attempts have been madeto solve it - either by saying, "Well, this was the practice of the age", which is, of course, to relativise the prophetic model, or to say, "The chains of transmission by which we know this aren't reliable", which, of course, I would absolutely agree but, again, that is to problematise the relationship. Or possibly to go back and look at this hadith and to regard it not as sort of a literal detail, not as a snatch of historical information telling us what the historical Muhammed did, but as something more symbolic, something more representative of the significance of Aisha within the Muslim tradition.

Ernie Rea: Sahib?

Sahib Bleher: It's the usual mud slinging that's going on here again. A careful reading of the hadiths defined that Aisha was about five years younger than Fatima. That means that when she was betrothed to Muhammed then she must have been at least ten years old. It was another four years before she moved over to his household. so the marriage wouldn't have been married until she was fourteen or fifteen...

Tom Holland (interrupting): So Bukhari is wrong?

Ernie Rea: So where does this story that she was nine when the relationship was consummated come from?

Sahib Bleher: Well, there are various reports. But this is the whole thing. You don't...

Tom Holland (interrupting): But they are canonical accounts of Hadith, aren't they? I mean, they are absolutely canonical.

Ernie Rea: Jonathan?

Jonathan Brown: I think it's an absolutely authentic report. In fact I think the scholar whose work does represent the state of the field in Western scholarship on Hadith, the German scholar Harald Motzki, if you were to take his methods of dating hadiths, I think you could date that report of Aisha back to actually about the time of Aisha, so I think...

Ernie Rea (interrupting): Contemporary reports, you're saying?

Jonathan Brown: Yes, I think that's accurate. I think even from a non-Muslim perspective it's a good argument that that goes back to Aisha.

Ernie Rea: So how do you reconcile this with your sense of modernity?

Jonathan Brown: Well, I reconcile it because nobody had a problem with this until 1905. I mean (laughing) there was just not an issue. Even Western scholars writing about Muhammed in 1800, even in the 20th Century, just didn't care about...

Ernie Rea (interrupting): So the problem is that you're using Muhammed as a moral exemplar. You're saying this is the person that we should follow and he had sex with his wife when she was just nine years old?

Jonathan Brown (interrupting): OK, OK, well, Muslim scholars have been very clear about this. You cannot have sex with someone who is not physically able to have sex. Just because the Prophet did something doesn't mean Muslims have to do it. In fact the Prophet himself in another hadith refused to marry his daughter to somebody he felt was too old for her. Just because the Prophet did something it means it's permissible in general. It doesn't mean you have to do it. And, in fact, it also doesn't mean that you can't make very good arguments that it's bad policy. I mean, if you look and you say now people go to high school and have ambitions of university degrees and they want to have careers in our day today, it might be very good policy for Muslims to say it's better not to marry until you're sixteen or eighteen years old. That's why if you look at most Muslim countries, now have age restrictions that are sixteen or eighteen years old.

Ernie Rea: Tom?

Tom Holland: Now, this is absolutely an illustration of the point that is possible when you have hadiths that are generally held to be reliable that by the moral standards, say, of the 21st Century secular liberal society are regarded as rebarbative it is possible to sort of essentially wash away the more unpalatable aspects of it - and that. obviously, has to be a process that I personally hope will carry on. But we also have to recognise that there are plenty of people out there who do still regard the fact that Muhammed slept with a nine year old as sanctioning them to do the same. And we have the evidence for that in the fate of the capture Yazidi girls. That is what is providing Islamic State with their sanction. So this is not a purely academic exercise. It is having a knock-on effect in the Middle East.

Ernie Rea: Jonathan?

Jonathan Brown: This idea that somehow what's happening to Yazidi girls in Iraq is caused by this hadith...an American soldier in Iraq was convicted by an American military court of raping and murdering an Iraqi child, and American soldiers sexually abused Iraqi children in Abu Ghraib prison...

Tom Holland (interrupting): They probably weren't saying that they were inspired by a religious leader.

Jonathan Brown: No, no, my point is...(laughing)...my point is that this kind of action of warfare is not just the purview of Muslims.

Tom Holland: No. No one is saying it is, but the issue is that Islamic State are sanctioning what they are doing...they are sanctioning slavery, execution, the rape of nine year olds by drawing on the hadiths. I'm not saying that is what every Muslim does. It's clearly not what has happened over the course of Islamic civilisation, but the fact that it is possible to use hadiths in this way seems to me a problem.

Jonathan Brown: There's families in Iraq and families in Afghanistan that gladly marry their children off at young ages not in a war time and not in situations where the Islamic State is taking over. So this is not just something that is being used by some extremist organisation. This is part of the culture in those areas.

Ernie Rea: But Jonathan, you don't think it's a problem that people like Islamic State and Boko Haram in Nigeria can use a hadith as justification for the sexual abuse of their captives?

Jonathan Brown: I think the problem is that they're engaging in the practices. I don't blame a body of tradition that's been around for 1400 years for the decisions of some group that exists today. I blame people who use and abuse the law for those decisions. I don't blame the legal tradition itself.

Sunday, 31 May 2015

The two Andys

Now that the election is but a distant memory, the Andrew Marr Show and The Sunday Politics have lost their lustre. Both now seem directionless. Andrew Marr tries to generate some vitality by punching the air with his good arm, but it’s no good.

I suppose the Labour leadership is vaguely interesting to Labour voters. As I watched Yvette Cooper a huge amount of indifference and gloom descended. She seemed to be saying a whole lot of words and sentences that had no meaning. 



I was trying to read an article in the Times by Tom Holland (£) at the same time, but I did observe that Yvette has got quite a small head and rather large feet. Imagine being married to Ed Balls.

Tom Holland has decided that Islam could be reformed if only Muslims were willing to take the prophet Mohammed’s life story with a pinch of salt, since it was written many years after the event, and its accuracy could not be guaranteed. If only some of those literal interpretations of Mohammed’s more unsavoury lifestyle choices could be ditched, posited Tom wistfully, Islam might actually become worthy of its claim to be a religion of peace. All you need is love.  It seems a bit of a long shot. Good read though.


Anyway, Andrew Neil, everyone’s favourite interviewer, tenacious, sharp and ferocious, lost both his bark and his bite, dammit, at a most inopportune moment. On interviewing George Galloway he  just went all limp. 


I tried to see if I could spot where Galloway’s hat was, to no avail. Someone must have persuaded him to take it off and maybe leave it out of camera shot, which must have taken some coaxing. “Hats off” to whoever managed that. 
As. You know, Galloway wears the hat at all times including in the bedroom. You saw it when he announced, from the end of the bed through the medium of Twitter, that his next project was to be London Mayor.



For some reason Andrew Neil had turned on the saccharine; he and George chatted away amiably about Lutfur Rahman and other matters of interest.  
“You declared Bradford an Israel-free zone” challenged Andrew, smiling with amusement. “Will you be doing the same for London?” he probed in jest.
“No” his chum replied.  “It would certainly be my aim to encourage support for the Palestinians. London has more supporters of Palestinians than any other part of the country” said he, modestly. “Me and Ken Livingstone are exceedingly fond of the religion of peace” he added, or something to that effect.

I wonder if IS would let him wear the hat, should he decide to travel. They’re sharp dressers As. You know.

Saturday, 7 March 2015

TweetOff


Radio 4's The Film Programme looked into the history of Ennio Morricone's music for the final shootout in Sergio Leone's A Fistful of Dollars -  music that defied the bullfighter-music-like expectations of Leone and which drew on a pre-existing lullaby of Morricone's to create music so haunting that, when it reached its height, it could truly stir the heart - music of tenderness turned into operatic spaghetti western magnificence.


Actually, I'd say that the final shootout of For a Few Dollars More shows that even more clearly. If there's a better use of music in a film I've yet to hear it.


Shootouts are so last century though (if only). What we have now are 'TweetOffs'.

Sadly Ennio Morricone was unavailable to score today's epic 'TweetOff' between a British historian (more likely to be found on Channel 4 than the BBC - for reasons that will soon become apparent) an a U.S. academic.

Now we start...


The RUSI/ Brookings guy goes down, crows calling in the distance, clutching his sides. The undertaker rubs his hands. Tom Holland turns and walks away into the sunset. 


 Not brought to you by the BBC

Thursday, 8 January 2015

BBC Guidelines: "The Prophet Mohammed must not be represented in any shape or form"


I wasn't aware, until BBC Watch pointed it out, that the BBC's Editorial Guidelines explicitly ban the BBC from using images of Mohammed:
Due care and consideration must be made regarding the use of religious symbols in images which may cause offence. The Prophet Mohammed must not be represented in any shape or form.
No other religion is protected by such a blanket prohibition. No other religion is treated with such sensitivity.

Douglas Murray, writing in the Daily Mail, says:
....what happened yesterday – though the most appalling incident of its kind yet – is in many ways far from unprecedented. It is just the latest chapter in a long, concerted campaign to shut down criticism and discussion of one religion, its founder and its teachings.
The aim of the campaign is to place that religion – Islam – above the level of all other religions or ideas and make it immune from criticism. And the tactic is working.
The historian Tom Holland, writing on the BBC News website, recounts his own experiences of "a firestorm of death threats" following a film he made for Channel 4, Islam: The Untold Story, which "explored the gathering consensus among historians that much of what Muslims have traditionally believed about the life of Muhammad is unlikely to be strict historical fact":
Unlike Charlie Hebdo, I had not set out to give offence. I am no satirist, and I do not usually enjoy hurting people's feelings. Nevertheless, I too feel that some rights are worthy of being defended - and among them is the freedom of historians to question the origin myths of religions. That was why, when I heard the news from Paris yesterday, I chose to do something I would never otherwise have done, and tweet a Charlie Hebdo cartoon of Muhammad.
The BBC, by contrast, has decided not to reproduce the cartoon for this article. Many other media organisations - though not all - have done the same. I refuse to be bound by a de facto blasphemy taboo.
While under normal circumstances I am perfectly happy not to mock beliefs that other people hold dear, these are far from normal circumstances. As I tweeted yesterday, the right to draw Muhammad without being shot is quite as precious to many of us in the West as Islam presumably is to the Charlie Hebdo killers.
We too have our values - and if we are not willing to stand up for them, then they risk being lost to us. When it comes to defining l'infâme, I for one have no doubt whose side I am on.