My Thoughts on Islam, Media, and the West

Today was a very sad day in New York City. Everywhere you look, every newspaper, every news station was dedicated to the events that took place 7 year ago. We didn't get a chance to have class yesterday to discuss post-9/11 Islam but I think it is important to do so. Prior to 9/11/2001, I had very little knowledge about the Arab world, the Middle East, or Islam. I was a freshman in high school just trying to get through Algebra II and Biology. However, the events of that day changed the entire country's interest in that area of the world. Of course oil was always an issue, but now there was an enemy that directly attacked the United States killing about 3000 innocent citizens. Two people in my school lost parents that day. It was sad and very much close to home.

Our media went into a frenzy, suddenly opening our eyes to an area of the world that was unfamiliar. Through the media, I learned that there were people in the Arab world that hated me just because of the fact that I was an American. Being so young, I couldn't comprehend how people could have such an extreme hatred and not even know me. Granted, our media exposed us to the extreme fundamentalists, in my head at that time it was difficult to seperate peaceful Muslims with their dangerous neighbors. And then, of course, a war began in Iraq, which didn't even have anything to do with the attacks on 9/11. But, as I explained earlier, it is hard to separate the peaceful from the extreme. At that time, we were all conditioned into understanding that there was an enemy and Americans were going to war to fight it. The sad part of American culture is our willingness to believe what we are told. When we are told there is an enemy, many people are willing to hate them without a second thought. In my Propaganda and Persuasion class we learned how the enemy is created an how it is important to have one in a war.

However, I had no idea how rich Arabic history was. After I read the Hammond reading I understood that only recently the Arab states have freed themselves from foreign colonies. I also didn't realize that there was and is tension between Arabs from different countries and that they too have a common enemy. Their way to unite is over the hatred of Israel (which I have many opinions about but I will save for another blog on another day). The Hammond reading was a necessary part of this course. You really do have to look back and understand the history before you can examine current culture.

Overall, I just wanted to blog today in order to express my extreme sorrow for all those who lost loved ones in the World Trade Center and to express my prior ignorance in everything Islam.

Last week, we had to read on article by Daniel Kimmage regarding the Al Qaeda Media Nexus. In the article, Kimmage describes how Al-Qaeda attempts to spread its ideologies through the internet. One of its main priorities is reaching the people of Iraq. However, today I am reading Andrew Hammond's article which outlines the way the internet works in Arabic countries. The two articles seem contradictory to me. Kimmage describes how the internet gives fundamentalist organizations an outlet to reach there audiences. However, Hammond says that due to fear of uprising, most Arabic countries censor all anti-government materials. So my question is: How can the Al-Qaeda Media Nexus exist and reach their target audience if there is a particular ban on these types of articles and websites?

Later in Hammond's article, he does address the fact that radical Islamist groups "engage in a game of hide-and-seek with Internet providers, but there is too much space in the vastness of the World Wide Web to keep them down." (Hammond, 122). I want to know how all these extremist find the websites if they are constantly redefining themselves within cyber space? How does the government not find those responsible if their readers can find them? In addition, Kimmage explained how Iraq is a definite target for fundamentalists because it is a conflict zone. However, Hammond explains that Iraqis have only selective access to the Internet. I am just confused as to how sites such as Al-Queda's Media Nexus are deemed successful when their materials appear to threaten government and should be banned (according to the laws of the land).

The word clash reminds me of a particular situation in high school. In my mind it is a word that embodies two teenage girls who are too different to ever get along and therefore “clash”. According to many authors, this juvenile dysfunctional relationship acts as a parallel to the relationship between the West and Islam. The problem with this theory is that a clash of civilizations forces the word civilization to become too generalized. It is much easier to say that one person clashes in every way with another person. But, to group an entire religion together and claim that this group will never get along with an entire other population creates a specific weakness in the terminology and concept of the clash of civilizations. It reduces a population on an assumption that the members are all the same and they all interpret the religious and government laws in exactly the same way. Without considering the beliefs of each individual, the theory on the clash is fundamentally flawed. The clash of civilizations frames the world in such a way that two sides are pitted against each other in a never-ending circle of violence. The essential issue is not that of a clash of civilization but rather fight among leaders.

The problems with the concept of a clash of civilizations are sometimes overlooked due to its power. The strength of such a perception lies in the fact that it unites people over a common cause. When Americans hear their president claim that we are raging a crusade for good against those that are evil, we unite over a common cause. Similarly, when Osama bin Laden addresses his followers, he uses the same “us versus them” mentality. In bin Laden’s letter posted on the Internet entitled To the Americans, he justifies aggression against all the Americans including innocent civilians by claiming, “America is the land of freedom, and freedom’s leaders in this world… American people are the ones who choose their government through their own free will” (bin Laden 164). Therefore, he justifies violence against all Americans just because a little over half the population (though for many unique and varied reasons) voted for President Bush in the past election. What about all those Americans that did not vote for Bush? These propaganda tactics by bin Laden create an image of the enemy. It is very strong tactic which is extremely useful when war is raging against another nation. Both sides use the terms associated with the clash of civilizations theory in order to create a negative image and attempt to unify their population against what is deemed as the enemy. The argument is very convincing, however it is extremely flawed. Instead, people should not be treated as sheep following senselessly as their leaders rage war.

Today an interesting situation is occurring: the world is getting smaller. While culturally the West and the rest of the world are very diverse, the technology available today gives everyone a means to unite. The internet, telephones, and satellite television make communication available between anyone in the world. The mere fact that I can watch videos of Osama bin Laden’s speeches on YouTube is an example of how connected the world truly is today. According to Benjamin Barber, as the world gets smaller, nations and subcultures are more likely to rebel and declare their diversity. He claims, “Ironically, a world that is coming together pop culturally and commercially is a world whose discrete subnational ethnic and religious and racial parts are also more in evidence, in no small part as a reaction to McWorld” (Barber 11). In other words, Barber explains that in reaction to all the new media, technology, and economic interdependence, many cultural groups are attempting to return to their own traditions and values. Barber goes on to discuss that the clash among civilizations is a direct result of this rebellion against modernity. For example, Osama bin Laden calls his people to return to the basics of Islam. Ironically, he is reaching his people through the media, an example of the modernity that he is simultaneously discouraging.

Due to the fact that the battle is among the leaders of these two civilizations, I will use the juvenile term “clash”. My belief is that the leaders of both sides are too similar to ever truly get along. They are both like animalistic creatures during mating season, wanting to spread their seed and birth nations that will carry on their family name and traditions. The Western leaders want to force feed democracy into the screaming mouths of countries that could potentially threaten their manhood. Similarly, Islamic “fundamentalists” (a term that I have qualms about after reading Mamandi) want to save the world from rotting in hell by demanding a return to the traditional and literal interpretation of the Quran, expelling all those who challenge these ideas. Each leader feels threatened by the opposition’s power and commands their people to take action. In addition, both leaders interpret their religious texts exactly as read. As Mamdani points out in his Culture Talk about the very religious Christian leaders of America, “Jimmy Carter was America’s first ‘born-again’ president. Ronald Reagan was the second, and George W. Bush is the third” (Mamdani, 44). Yet, how can these selected leaders of democracy and the “free world” understand the separation of church and state when they are the embodiment of both? I am not denying the existence of a clash. There are many types of clashes that are occurring even in our own presidents. I believe that the term “civilizations” is too broad. Ultimately, the true clash that exists is the clash between leaders, striving to impose their personal beliefs on the rest of the world.