Islam, Media, and the West

The New York Times has a series entitled "Generation Faithful," which focuses on trends evolving among young Muslims as a reaction to the modernization of their environments. This particular article in the series is "Young and Arab in Land of Mosques and Bars" and the link is http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/22/world/middleeast/22dubai.html.

The article details the unique atmosphere created in Dubai, which holds Western commerce and perceived materialism over religious practice and the traditional Muslim way of life. Hamza Abu Zanad is 28 and moved to Dubai from Egypt and is quoted on his take on the city, "'We like that it’s free and it still has Arab heritage,' he said 'It’s not religion, it’s the culture, the Middle Eastern culture.'" This interested me after reading texts on the Clash of Civilizations, whose authors Lewis and Huntington were adamant that Arab culture is inseparable from the Islam religion because of Muslim values and practices that have shaped that culture. Abu Zanad's observations point to the contrary, implying that there may be a middle ground after all, and that achieving a global awareness and level of success does not have to mean sacrificing one's Muslim beliefs.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/10/30/syria.us.protests/index.html

An article on CNN.com on Thursday reported that thousands of people rioted in Damascus, Syria in protest of an American air strike that occurred last weekend. The U.S. attributed the air strike to the killing of Abu Ghadiya, an al Qaeda member who smuggles soldiers into Iraq. While its great for the U.S. that we got anothe al Qaeda operative, what about Syria, who we are not at war with, but just crossed the Iraq border at our own liberty to chase a man down? Some of the protesters carried signs reading, "We will not submit to terrorism," and Syria's foreign minister called the attack "terrorist aggression."

I thought this was an interesting perspective that the article provided. The Western media tells us that we have the right to find and kill terrorists, and that these are acts of U.S. protection and defense. But these Syrian people in the capital feel endangered by our presence in their neighboring country, because the U.S. has shown no heed to national boundaries. I know that many Americans disagree with the war on terrorism, but I wonder what other countries think of our demeanor, and how this may affect our foreign relations in the future.

Towards the beginning of Control Room there is footage of dead civilians strewn across the ground after heavy bombing commenced in Baghdad in 2003. I know that the Western media prohibits showing images of deceased American soldiers and rarely shows the dead in general. This is the most propagandist property of the government and the military in my opinion, because prohibiting images with negative effects clearly forms a biased environment for the media. Images make the strongest propaganda because they make the strongest impressions and are easily recalled in the memory. Even though I am anti-war, if more people could see these photos I think the war would definitely have less American support (precisely why the government doesn't allow them being shown). This censorship troubles me and leads me to the question, what else don't we know?

So a while ago, I finally got around to reading the New York magazine article about Dubai that people had brought up in class. Not going to lie, that article made Dubai sound like the chosen land. I’m literally ready to pack my suitcases right now and blow out of this country. Economic opportunity for college grads, networking left and right, beautiful weather, and awesome nightlife that the article details are pretty much all a girl like me can ask for. Thinking back to when Muhammed visited our class, we discussed a little bit about the authenticity of the city. How it was built on a barren expanse of sandy wasteland so recently, as opposed to every other major city in the Western world that has roots dating back hundreds upon hundreds of years. Muhammed questioned if this made Dubai any less authentic as a city, even pointing out that there were replicas of ancient structures to enhance the city’s atmosphere of legitimacy. I have to admit that this approach is pretty bizarre, I really just don’t know where they were going with that one.
But today, while I was at my internship, I came across this user post in response to the New York magazine article “Doha, Qatar is the New Brooklyn:”
“ Hah, Islamic art...what an oxymoron. It's just an amalgamation of artistic styles from places the Muslims ransacked in the Middle Ages. And doesn't Islam forbid representation of living things in art? You can't call something art if its constrained by a series of arbitrary rules created by the clergy. Also, can everyone please get off Dubai's nuts? The place is a tradition-bound shit hole posing as a tacky shrine to consumerism.”

FIRST OF ALL, I'm pretty sure, at least from the research that I did, that portraying living things in art is another one of those issues where some people who are very devout are against it, while others see no problem with it. I can't be sure about this, but at least that's what I uncovered, and I'm pretty sure from this person's comment that they aren't Muslim either, so how can they be SO sure about this assertion? They also has a very specific criterium of what consists of art, which I won't get into, but definitely elevates them to asshole status. As far as Dubai, yes it is based on consumerism, but so is Western culture, if this person would just take a look around.... And so what if it's tacky??? Las Vegas is tacky, and similar in many ways to Dubai, and as far as I'm concerned they may not be built upon ancient cities but that doesn't mean that they don't have their own histories of modern times - they are manifestations of business booms and progressive thinking, which are shared as aspects of modern cities such as New York City.

NYT: "A text-message moving among Mumbaikars expressed the uniqueness of the now: 'Brothers and sisters, it’s time to wake up and do something for the country — however little — related to this or not — start today and continue it through the years — do not forget as easily as we are used to forgetting.'

Many told themselves and each other that this time would change things, just as Americans had told themselves after 9/11. But they knew their own history, and America’s, and they seemed, even as they spoke the words, to disbelieve them already."

This is something that totally pissed me off about 9/11 and reading this about Mumbai is totally infuriating. It may be sort of unrelated to what this blog is supposed to be about, but I feel it's important. Why do we let horrible things happen and get all worked up about it, only to so quickly just let it go and become reabsorbed into our personal lives. Its like we pretend to care for awhile and then everyone just turns a blind eye. I always find myself ranting on here...

But seriously, what will it take for a change in attitude? A genocide? Or will even that not change anything? No one cares about fellow human beings - the sick, the wounded, the persecuted, nobody. Why are we divided by hate but not joined in compassion? Why do we think that being current on daily news articles about global events to promote our own awareness is enough, without ever contributing to change? Ugh.

Obama's message was really big for me in this respect - how we all have our own social responsibilities as well as being accountable for our own actions. I realize this sounds incredibly naive and idealistic, but who cares. It drives me crazy how I'll log on to cnn.com and some of the top headlines are "Man saves girl from alligator attack" or "Lindsay Lohan might be a lesbian were not really sure," but when I go to BBC news it's all about important issues such as political unrest abroad and actual stuff happening in the Middle East, not "Jessica Simpson performs for troops in Baghdad." The American media just caters to entertainment in so many instances, and I'm not sure if it's because Americans are dumb and only care about celebrities, or if the media's celebrity coverage is making us dumb.

NYT 11/29 - http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/30/weekinreview/30giridharadas.html?pagewanted=2&hp

I found these articles from CNN very interesting. The use of social media to dispense information in the wake of the Mumbai terrorist attacks exemplified the formation of a community and the compassion these people felt during a time of disaster. Social media such as blogs and Twitter are instantaneous and a great way to reach out to an unlimited amount of people who are seeking help.

However, CNN seemed surprised that this method was used to weather the aftermath, as if they hadn't expected urban Indians to be familiar with electronic media. The reports conveyed that it was really noteworthy that people felt connected through their computers during a crisis - as if that isn't how people are connected nowadays anyway.

It was so clear that CNN deemed these technologies to be Western social phenomena, and that the fact that it is also shared in the East is a surprise. Maybe the news coverage of these attacks will illuminate some parallels between Eastern and Western cultures, such as developing electronic social behaviors and put a face on that part of the world - what we considered so special about America was the unity and patriotism that rose from the 9/11 attacks, which is also happening in Mumbai. We have more in common than differences, especially now that we are all linked together through the World Wide Web. Shared cultural and social customs such as internet use could be an indication of the growing world culture where we may live in different places and hold different beliefs but are all fundamentally linked.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/asiapcf/11/27/bloggers.mumbai/index.html

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/asiapcf/11/27/mumbai.twitter/index.html

I am profoundly disturbed by the trampling of the Wal-Mart employee in Long Island. This is not the first time that shoppers have gotten into altercations and have resorted to violence over something so stupid as a toy or a blender. America is faulted for its shameless consumerism, but this is way beyond anything having to do with nabbing a bargain. This man was trampled by 200 people in a doorway - they ripped the doors off the hinges and walked on another human being's body while he lay on the ground dying. Out of 200 people, not one person tried to help him.

In America we cover stories of terrorist attacks and violence in the Arab world, pointing fingers and doing the usual Orientalist projection onto them of what we neeeever could be (ahem). I think this serves as a distraction from taking an honest look at ourselves as a country. America is still entrenched in antiquated ideals and practices, such as prejudice based on race, religion, and sexual orientation. We are not the country that celebrates equality, like we claim to be. The passing of Proposition 8 in California indicates the American majority's intolerance for lifestyles that are considered "alternative." In recent weeks, we have not only seen voters revoke equal rights for our own citizens but also Americans senselessly trampling and killing other Americans. It is a disgusting reality that exists in a country that politically imposes itself on other parts of the world and considers itself the best country on Earth.

We don't need enemies; we have ourselves. If anything, this class has opened my eyes even more to how other countries see us. Coming from a family with English parents, I do possess a more cynical, outsider perspective on America, especially coming from England where everyone always makes fun of the rigidity of the monarchy, but always in good fun. Here, some of the most "patriotic" people are the most hateful and being lumped into that group in the opinions of foreigners really bothers me. Every stereotype and misconception that American people have about the Middle East, is mirrored by stereotypes and misconceptions that they have about us.
The whole "us vs. them" mentality really needs to go in my opinion. I think that this may slowly erode through globalization and evolving multiculturalism as people become more informed in the "information age." But then again, I'm just blogging about myself, I can't really speak for everyone because that's a generalization which inherently can't be 100% true.

Osama Bin Laden's former driver is being relocated to a prison in Yemen, and how this signifies the end of Guantanamo Bay. I personally have always thought that what goes on at Guantanamo Bay is completely evil and hypocritical of the U.S. For example, Salim Hamdan was an employee of Osama Bin Laden - the BBC article quotes, "his lawyers described him as a two-bit driver who hung out with the wrong people." This man may or may not be linked more seriously with Bin Laden's terrorist activities, but the fact of the matter is that there is not enough evidence to make that call. Guilty until proved innocent, much? So just to be safe, he was detained "indefinitely" until the trial sought to reduce that sentence - ultimately down to 10 years, five of which he has already served. A slap in the face to Guantanamo Bay's former free rein with deciding who to detain and for however long they please.

If Hamdan's successful trial does lead to the gradual dissolution of Gitmo, we face the possibility of having some of these people make it back into society through rehabilitation processes, such as one in Yemen where Mr. Hamdan is headed. The article mentions that three out of seven terrorists responsible for the bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Yemen had completed the rehabilitation. Therefore, there is a concrete risk of closing Guantanamo and leaving the fate of these men and women to the judicial systems in the Middle East.

As someone personally affected by the events of 9/11, potentially letting terrorists get away without justice is an unbelievably hard thing to support. No one wants to be a friend to terrorists, which undoubtedly is an argument that some will make, but if America believes in freedom and the right to a fair trial, there is no way that we can continue to violate this belief by detaining the innocent. We cannot let fear stand in the way of justice and have to find a way to protect our country without throwing every suspected terrorist in jail for eternity.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7757225.stm

This article w/ accompanying video from this weekend's NYT literally made me cry. This woman, along with many other women have suffered from acid burns at the hands of men. Apparently it is a regular occurence that men throw acid on the faces of their wives or on female strangers, simply for attending school or the workplace.

2% of these atrocities end with the conviction of the attacker - the rest walk free. Since the victims are female and poor, their rights are not a priority in society. The examples of victims that were given were from Pakistan and Afghanistan, which does not bode well for independent women living in the Middle East. I cannot imagine living in a place where I live in fear of bodily harm simply for being a woman with ambitions.

Then again, this article focuses on crimes that are frequent but not applicable to all women in the Middle East. While this abuse against women is horrific and a solution must be found before the danger escalates, the article may raise awareness to an issue that is less prevalent as the sensational media may make it seem. Don't get me wrong, no human being, male or female, should have to live their life with this possibility for violence poised at all times, but it is not an accurate portrayal of everyday life for a Middle Eastern woman.

It's also interesting that this article came about as a response to the Mumbai attacks - stating that terrorism is classically thought of as explosions and burnings. Mumbai's attacks showed us that a handful of terrorists can kill or injure hundreds of people face to face, execution style. And acid burnings have preceded these terrorist attacks by being committed by other civilians and even husbands. In regards to the war on terror, how can you prevent an unidentified band of youth from wreaking havoc across the border or your husband from mutilating you in your own home? This progression of terror really does keep everyone guessing and feeling unprepared for the atrocities that may happen at any moment. If there's nothing that can be done in terms of prevention on an individual level, what are these stories accomplishing? There is a difference between paranoia and being informed, but I can't help that during a time of war such as this one, the media is playing on our fears and we are somehow being controlled.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/30/opinion/30kristof.html?scp=1&sq=terrorism%20personal&st=cse