PDA

View Full Version : PBS to Air Propagandist Show on Muhammad


MMMMMM
12-15-2002, 01:07 PM
Here's a show which could have had great potential for REAL and OBJECTIVE documentary of Muhammad and Islam--something we might all find informative.

Instead, what we will get is a show admittedly designed by the creators for the specific purpose of "countering" Americans' negative perceptions of Islam.

Interestingly, both of the show's creators are Muslim converts.

I suspect we will see a whitewashed version of Muhammad's highly aggressive, violent life; his myriad exhortations to violence, terrorism, and torture; his many military campaigns, genocide, extortion of special taxes from non-Muslims; promises of sex with youngsters in Paradise for warriors; horribly oppressive codes for the treatment of women, belief that most women are evil and will go to hell; and overall religiously sanctioned fascism. I also wonder how much time will be spent on detailing his sexual relationship with his 9-year-old wife which is detailed quite extensively in the Hadiths.

PBS: I'm very disappointed. You have some great shows, but you should keep your own views OUT of it all and go back to producing OBJECTIVE documentaries---not unbalanced "documentaries" with agendas. Documentaries should NOT be constructed to further any views or to counter any views, but rather to inform in an unbiased manner. Shame on you PBS.

(excerpt)
"Americans get most of their images about Islam and Muslims from
the headlines. Demonstrations and shouting in the streets makes the
news, and those images are repeated," said producer Alex Kronemer, an
American convert to Islam with a master's degree in theology from
Harvard University.
"We wanted to offer a counter to that, to help Americans
understand that every Muslim is not Osama bin Laden," Mr. Kronemer
said yesterday.
"Muhammad: Legacy of a Prophet" will air on most of the 349 PBS
affiliates nationwide Dec. 18, though District-based WETA will
broadcast the program Dec. 26. PBS also plans to rebroadcast
"Muslims," a two-hour "Frontline" special, on Dec. 19.
Daniel Pipes, director of the Middle East Forum and author of
"Militant Islam Reaches America," said yesterday that he had only
"seen advance materials" of the production.
"But all of this suggests that the American taxpayer is
subsidizing an attempt to proselytize Islam in America," Mr. Pipes
said.
The production airs in an uncertain marketplace as Americans
continue to assess their stand on Islam after September 11.
In the past two weeks, evangelist Pat Robertson took on President
Bush, who visited a Washington mosque Dec. 5 and praised Muslims who
"lead lives of honesty, integrity and morality."
In interviews with The Washington Times and ABC, Mr. Robertson
called Islam "violent at its core," and said that Mr. Bush should
refrain from religious commentary, as he "is not elected as chief
theologian."
ABC characterized the dust-up as "a theological dispute which is
driving a political wedge between President Bush and some of his
conservative Christian allies."
Meanwhile, representatives from PBS and the Corporation for
Public Broadcasting (CPB) said yesterday that they have received no
negative responses from viewers about the new program, or its
scheduled air time of Christmas week.
Producers say that their project has been a long time coming, and
the direction has changed more than once.
"The ground kept shifting under our feet," Mr. Kronemer said.
Work began on the production three years ago, and was two-thirds
complete when terrorists struck September 11. What began as a
narrative documentary became a potential foil to public backlash
against American Muslims after the attacks.
Initially, Mr. Kronemer and partner Michael Wolfe, also an Islam
convert, sought out the perspectives of American Muslims.
The pair partnered with filmmaker Michael Schwartz, who said in a
statement that he was struck "by the numerous affinities between basic
American values and core Islamic beliefs" and that the production was
intended for "a predominantly non-Muslim American audience."

MMMMMM
12-15-2002, 03:54 PM
I think it's fine to show interviews with moderate Muslims, and to show that all Muslims aren't bin-Ladens. Some people in this country probably need to hear this. But they also should be shown an accurate, unbiased portrayal of Muhammad's life and legacy, and I somehow doubt this show will provide that.

What I object to is any "documentary" with an agenda.

Easy E
12-16-2002, 04:51 PM
By definition, doesn't ANY documentary have an agenda? If it didn't, it would be a news report....

(yeah, i know, news isn't unbiased either)

MMMMMM
12-16-2002, 05:34 PM
I believe that documentaries essentially should be detailed news/historical reports.

If instead they have significant agendas, they are not, in my view, true documentaries--but are rather commentary (or even propaganda).

Also, it irks me somewhat that the producer/creators appeared to decide in advance what the American public's perception of Muslims is--and what should be done about it.

Insp. Clue!So?
12-16-2002, 10:43 PM
That we apply rigorous documentary criteria to all the claims of major (and minor) religions. Have you actually ever read the Old Testament, for example? Deistically-sponsored murder, rape and mahem on practically every page. Yet this stuff gets a total freeroll by just about all forms of media.

My guess is you don't mind a little or lot of bias as long as it nurtures your own private ones.

MMMMMM
12-17-2002, 01:57 AM
Well your guess is 100% wrong, as I don't have any sort of bias towards the Bible.

Why don't you READ the Koran, if you think the Old Testament is violent? You might be surprised. And by the way, show me one passage in the New Testament where Jesus advocates the slaughter of those who refuse to submit to Christianity. There are MANY such passages where Mohammed exhorts his followers to do just this. He also advocates torture of infidels who refuse to convert. He says to smite their necks, cut off their fingertips, pour boiling water on them. Did Jesus ever advocate anything like that?

The penalty for leaving Islam (apostasy) happens to be death.

No, I'm not so much biased in favor of the Judeo/Christian tradition, but I am biased AGAINST any fascist ideology which seek to eliminate free thought. Under Islam, submission to the word of Allah must be total. Laws are laid down by the Koran and are interpreted by clerics. People don't get to pass laws or vote on laws; laws are divinely ordained (and horribly oppressive of women too). A man was recently sentenced to death in Iran for merely questioning why only the clerics should be able to interpret the Koran. Imams issue fatwas containing murder warrants (do Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson issue murder warrants?). It is illegal to bring a cross or a Bible into Saudi Arabia (airport officials rip crosses of the necks of visitors and throw them into the trash can), and it is a most serious offence, punishable by death, to proselytize--to try to get a Muslim to convert to Christianity.

No, I'm not a Christian nor a Jew. I just loathe totalitarianism. An objective inspection will clearly show that Islam is absolutist and uncompromising in nature, divisive in that it considers itself the only true faith in a struggle against the rest of the (infidel) world, aggressive and expansionist in design, and generally fascist in practice. Do you really think a religion which has a death penalty for leaving could be anything else?

IrishHand
12-17-2002, 09:45 AM
You might want to give your harsh anti-Muslimism some reflection. It shines through in the majority of your posts on the topic. The above documentary seems perfectly reasonable to me, and to the majority of Americans, I suspect. Of course, being produced by a pair of Muslims will cause it to be more focused on a positive view of Muslims, but that's only to be expected. An intelligent person would simply factor that into his analysis of the production (if indeed he chose to watch it, which I'm sure than neither you nor I will) rather than rant about how improper it is for a pro-Muslim show to sully our media.

Irish

MMMMMM
12-17-2002, 12:56 PM
You misconstrue my posts entirely.

My post was NOT anti-Muslim. My specific objection, in case you missed it, was in regards to a documentary WITH AN AGENDA being produced and aired. In fact the creators of this show admitted to having an agenda which was the initial impetus for the show in the first place. That's bad journalism.

Obviously an intelligent person would simply factor into the equation that the show might have some bias, given that it's produced by two Muslims, but that's NOT my point. Thanks for deceptively implying that it was. My point, again, was that according to the creators, the show's inception and raison-de-etre is to COUNTER certain presumed public perceptions about Muslims. Now if that's not an agenda, and a one-sided agenda at that, I don't know what is.

I am not anti-Muslim nor do I subscribe to anti-Muslimism. My latter post was anti-Islam, not anti-Muslim--and there's a huge difference.

Why don't YOU read the Koran and try to defend it, or the practices of Islamic rule in countries where it exists. If you can't, maybe YOU are the one who should step back and reflect. Maybe certain ideologies and practices SHOULD be condemned regardless of how many people subscribe to them.

By the way, I also roundly condemned the institution/hierarchy of the Catholic Church throughout the ages, in case you missed it, some months ago (perhaps before you started posting).

On this forum I've also condemned China's governmental policies, the former Soviet Union, Nazism, Fascism, Islamism, and probably a few others which escape my memory at the moment.

I'm an equal opportunity critic of systems which I see as significantly flawed and which facilitate manipulation, control, and abuse--and the whole free world should be, too.

B-Man
12-17-2002, 01:14 PM
It's a disgrace that our tax dollars are going to support this blatant propoganda for the religion of the sword.

What ever happened to separation of church and state?

MMMMMM
12-17-2002, 01:49 PM
Well in one newswire I recently read, a principal in the USA (forget where) issued instructions to the teachers that nobody (including students) would be allowed to use the word "Christmas," in school.

Also, a city in Australia recently banned nativity scenes during Christmas on the grounds that it might offend Muslims.

Some Santas in malls in the USA may be under pressure too.

MMMMMM
12-17-2002, 06:51 PM
from the preview at www.pbs.org (http://www.pbs.org) :

(excerpt) Muhammad: Legacy of a Prophet
His father died before he was born and his mother died when he was only six. But sheltered by a powerful uncle, he made a good start in life, established himself in a profitable business and married well. Then, at age 40, he was transformed.

A man who could neither read nor write, he announced that he was the prophet of God.

His name was Muhammad, and in the next 23 years, he would bring peace to the warring pagan tribes of Arabia and establish the new religion of Islam, which today has 1.2 billion followers. (end excerpt)

Muhammad organized upwards of 80 military expeditions and personally led quite a number of those.

He brought peace to warring pagan tribes? Well for that matter, so did Caesar and the Holy Roman Empire.

The peace of forced submission or death has historically proven pretty effective. That doesn't mean it is something to be admired.

MCS
12-27-2002, 05:29 AM
Yes, heaven forbid there's a show with an "agenda," because then people may rethink their preconceptions or hear a different viewpoint.

MMMMMM
12-27-2002, 01:26 PM
So can't your remark also be applied to a documentary which doesn't leave out very important historical information? Then people might have to rethink their preconceptions too--but at least they wouldn't be getting only one side of the historical basis.

Likewise, regarding the depiction of present-day beliefs and practices: a statistically valid sampling should be utilized, and the views of both "moderate" and "radical" Muslims should be presented, with an accurate notation made of the frequency of occurrence of these views in the population bases. The same should be done with a statistically valid sampling of the views of Muslim clerics.

A one-sided portrayal to further an agenda is simply intellectual dishonesty and should be condemned. And let me note that my own guess is that most Americans think the percentage of "radical" Muslims worldwide is much lower than it actually is, not the other way around. But maybe an ACCURATE, scientifically-based survey would change my mind. Certainly, a blatantly one-sided documentary admittedly produced to "counter" certain perceptions just isn't going to do it, and I think it's a shame that PBS would stoop to such a level in their journalism.

Let's have the FACTS: then let people decide for themselves--not "let's presume what people are thinking, then present only the facts which counter what they are thinking, since we think that what they are thinking is wrong." That's not journalism, that's propaganda: shame, shame, shame on PBS for this one.