Islam, Media and the West: Fall '08

http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/music/2008/11/21/2008-11-21_call_him_mikaeel_michael_jackson_reporte.html

So Michael "Mikaeel" Jackson has converted to Islam, says the Daily News and a few other sources. What is interesting about the swarm of tabloid gossip that has emerged out of this is that no one is asking "why Islam"... they're just enjoying the oddity of Jackson's private life and looking at the story as pure entertainment. Although I did see another article claiming "Al Qaida would support his decision," bring in an element of politics that is almost unnecessary in a piece like this. It was Jackson's own choice to convert, and we should not be looking to any organization or individual to authenticate his decision- the media continuously drag negative buzz words and images into stories about Islam when there is no reason to do so. We have been looking at the modernizing islam/islamizing modernity idea from the Eastern point of view- I think that this change needs to happen for both the East and the West. This new movement for change/growth, if sparked at the same time in both parts of the world could enable a new outlet for a progressive dialogue about the conflicts that exist today. Yes, I am often idealistic, but that is because if I am not I will get lost in the anger and negativity that is imbedded in the exploration of these conflicts. We call it a culture war for a reason--there are casualties, not only of people but of logical reasoning--perhaps this loss of logical reasoning is the reason that we have war in the first place. But that begs the question, did we lost the ability to communicate without violence somewhere along the way, or did we ever have it to begin with?

Ayman al-Zawahiri recently released a tape denouncing the election of Barack Obama to the office of the presidency. In the process he called him some pretty terrible names and compared him “unfavorably to the late Malcolm X” (CNN). Most of the articles I’ve read about this have all suggested that Al Qaeda’s position on the election is contradictory—the “tactics favored by George W. Bush, including his ill-fated invasion of Iraq, were a gift to al-Qaeda and its recruiting efforts. They allowed bin Laden and Zawahiri to paint the U.S. government as an imperial power bent on a 21st-century crusade against Islam. However, that’s a more difficult argument to make when the Oval Office is occupied by a black man whose Kenyan grandfather was Muslim and who played with Muslim friends during his childhood years in Indonesia” (Tucker). For me, the issue (or non-issue) of Obama’s religious belief was one of the most interesting of the campaign. The media often aired/published stories where his name was linked to Islam, but only ones that carried a negative message. It was implied that if any evidence of devotion or practice of Islam in President-elect Obama’s life surfaced, the election would have had a very different outcome. The thing I find the most frustrating about the stigma that this places on Islam is that there aren’t more people out there challenging the fact that these rumors could have such an impact on American political views.

When Obama delivered his speech, “A More Perfect Union,” he left one question unasked that many of us are waiting to hear. He discussed the concerns that the American public voice about his views on religion, freedom, race and patriotism, but did not address one the controversial rumor that Senator Obama is actually a Muslim and will “hand the keys of the West Wing to bin Laden” as soon as he is elected (Tucker). If there is actually a strong base of people who truly believe that a Muslim leader would destroy the democratic, supposedly secular values of the country, what does that say about our belief system as a country? That freedom of speech or freedom of religion is fine as long as it is not affecting me directly? It is perhaps a tribute to the current state of modernization as we know it that Obama was unable to pose the question that is on the tip of my tongue whenever these discussions come up, “Even if I was a practicing Muslim, why should that matter?” Although I know that others have spoken out (most notably Colin Powell) about this issue- but it needs to come from Obama himself if we really want to bring notice and discussion to this very skewed assumption that being Arab or Muslim does not fit in with the American dream, or with American values.

All this back-and-forth about his religious beliefs then leads us to the larger question at hand—If this election was the first step toward a new generation of equality and tolerance in the United States, how do we reconcile this new internal image with the much uglier one that we have acquired abroad thanks to recent foreign affairs policies? The idea of Change has been a key message for Obama, and I like to believe that we will see change. Not just within our own country, but in how our country interacts with the rest of the world. If the election of a black US president signifies the beginning of the end of white male supremacy as a social norm, then the theory that the US is run by a bunch of privileged, imperialistic white men falls short as Obama comes into power. Will this have an impact on how the greater Muslim community views our country and our politics? Its too soon to tell, but I think that we sent a message to the world (not just to the East, but to the rest of the Western nations as well) that we are trying to move in a new direction. Again, I’m sounding idealistic, but this is just one possibility in many as to how things will turn out as this all unravels.

by Cynthia Tucker
http://www.ajc.com/services/content/opinion/stories/2008/11/23/tucked.html

From CNN
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/US/11/21/obama.muslim.remark/?imw=Y&iref=mpstoryemail#cnnSTCVideo

I’ve discovered a blog written by members of the Baghdad Bureau of the New York Times. Its probably old news, but I just came across it for the first time this week. Some of the reporters are Iraqi and some are on assignment from the United States. The entries encompass everything from political cartoons, to photo-documentaries of events, to political, social and finical analyses of the current situation in Iraq. While looking through the recent posts on the blog, I came across an entry comparing Britain’s imperial history in Iraq (between 1922-1948) and the current American occupation of the country. The entry is written in response to the vote in Iraq’s parliament (on Monday, November 20, 2008, finalized today) on the proposed Security Agreement between Iraq and America The author chose to make the comparison by looking at headlines of the New York Times at key moments in Iraqi history to show the viewer that there are striking similarities to the headlines we are seeing today.

The comparison is not lost on the Iraqi government, because they are looking back to ensure that the past will not be replicated with the new Security Agreement. In another post about the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA), an Iraqi journalist discussed the nature of politics in Iraq, in regard to the relationship between politics and religious beliefs. He commented on how interesting it is to see the impact that Ayatollah Sistani has had on the agreements. Every time there was a disagreement over the clauses of the agreement Shiite members of parliament came to Sistani and each time he told them to go back and keep negotiating, that an answer would present itself. The reporter, Al-Salhy, believes that it is Sistani’s wish to keep the debate over the SOFA in the parliament and out of the streets, because if we see that transition the country “will lose more blood [because] Each leader on the Sunni and Shiite side will ask his followers to fight the other” (Al-Salhy). This take on the process of the agreement is interesting, and suggests the possibility of a new way of dealing with the hybrid of religion and politics by Iraqis in power, such as Ayatollah Sistani. His need to keep the arguments trapped in the political realm rather than transferring the tensions to civilians is a change from how the agreements with the British were dealt with in the 1930s and 40s. There were riots in the city protesting the contracts being drawn up, resulting in civilian casualties and also the deaths of foreign attachés. This is something that both sides want to avoid, although in the situation of an occupied country negotiating its freedoms, violence will always play a part in the process.

The first article (comparing the headlines) discussed the forced resignation of the Shiite Prime Minister in 1948. Currently, I’m sure that the significance of this history is not lost on al-Maliki. The possibility of an uprising is not out of the question, and both US and Iraqi forces are very aware of this risk. I hadn’t really looked into the British-Iraqi agreements until reading this article, but it is something that I am going to continue to investigate as I continue to read and learn about happenings in Iraq. This urge to keep the review and approval (or disapproval) of the agreement in the government may have ulterior motives, especially to help those who are currently in power stay in power. So far it has been beneficial because they have come to an agreement to allow US Forces to stay in the country until 2011--pending a vote mid-2009 over several of the clauses in the agreement--without rioting or violence. Maliki gave a televised address today when Iraqi lawmakers approved the SOFA, so we have yet to see the aftermath of the civilian response (if any).

http://baghdadbureau.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/27/analysis-sofa-the-view-from-parliament/
by Suadad al-Salhy

http://baghdadbureau.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/20/security-agreement-deja-vu/
by Stephen Farrell

Also, I am addicted to following the story as it unfolds in India because my uncle was supposed to be staying in the Taj Mahal hotel starting tomorrow while on a business trip- which has now been cancelled but I'm still a little freaked out. Of course, the terrorist attacks have immediately been compared to the "work" of al-Qaeda. Almost every news report I have read or seen has discussed the similarities between Deccan Mujahideen and al-Qaeda, and then follows up with the fact that so far there is not any established connection between the two groups (at least for this incident). It is ridiculous that the media are pulling in this non-connection just to put things into context for the viewers. There are rumors that the Deccan Mujahideen are based out of Pakistan, and that this will be detrimental to the discussion of reconciliation of the two countries that was slowly beginning with the push from president-elect Obama's foreign policy plan. There is also discussion that the attacks are in response to Hindi-Muslim relations in the country, though news reports are saying that many of the victims are actually tourists, especially Americans and Brits. Also, one of the attacks was on a Jewish center in Mumbai, so who knows in the midst of all this chaos if any of this will prove to be true. I'm going to bed, more to follow when there is new information that is not a jumbled mess of speculation.

"India's inability to modernize its 150-million strong Muslim population, the second largest after Indonesia's, has spawned a community that is ill-equipped to seize new economic opportunities and susceptible to militant Islam's faith-based appeal."
-Sadanand Dhume, Wall Street Journal 11/28/08

This article caught my attention because it was the only one (in a long list of coverage) that discussed the fault of the terrorist attacks as partially India's burden. I've poked around on a few sites to find out what this writers background is, and why he is so harsh in his article, "India's Antiterror Blunders." I have watched some interviews with him and read about his book, My Friend the Fanatic, which is the story of traveling with an Indonesian fundamentalist. In interviews he repeatedly states that he believes that the threat of terrorism is not as eminent as it once was in the West, due to increased intelligence and a smarter, more aware defense force. He sees the East, with more of a focus on Indonesia, India and Pakistan than on the areas this class has focused on, as the new battle grounds of terrorist militant groups.

Dhume is quick to denounce the India government and their weak antiterror defense system. I am not well versed in Indian foreign or internal policies, but I do think there is something inherently problematic with his accusation, that 'modernizing' the Muslim population should not have crept into his argument. He casually throws around the term, as if it is a weakness that the population is "not modern." His writing style is guilty of Orientalism, as he uses knowledge and power to indicate that he knows better than those immediately involved. His view of modernity is interlinked with Orientalism. He sees modernism as a way of thwarting fundamentalism and Islamist groups, but only if Muslims come to modernity, not if modernity comes to them. And, for that matter, that they will be "susceptible to militant Islam's...appeal" because they are not modernized. His statements are bold and Said would say that he needs to use a humanistic lens to examine the problems in India before making such generalizations about the Muslim population of the country as a whole- and I'd agree- this type of writing in mainstream media outlets such as the WSJ only serves to further the idea of a 'clash' in the minds of people who do not actively seek to deconstruct the theory.