Islam, Media, and the West

Writing these blogs throughout the semester has been useful for several reasons. First and foremost, they are a great platform to deal and work out the confusion we have with any sort of topic dealing with the Middle East and Western relations. More obviously, it gives us an excuse to research more on topics we know very little about. After reading our classmates’ blogs, one theme in particular stood out to me- the theme of stereotypes. Whether it is the breaking of stereotypes, trying to understand stereotypes, or unintentionally disseminating certain stereotypes, this theme is evident in just about everyone’s blog. Many stereotypes have certainly been broken both within this class as well as in the media, despite an overarching orientalist perspective that it falls victim to. For example, Lauren talks about how Robert Deniro talks about how New Yorkers’ “stereotypical misconceptions” about Muslims have escalated in our post 9/11 word and he said with the festival, “we have a chance to start altering prejudices.” On the same note, many people, including myself, talked about the Doha Museum as a vehicle for seeing Islam in a new light.

As a result, it is evident that stereotypes certainly can be broken. It is also important to then discuss the power of the media. The media has certainly perpetuated particular negative stereotypes and while its power cannot be ignored, it is important to note that there are a multitude of media outlets (specifically via the internet) that are offering so varying perspectives today. As a result, the media is not the sole entity to blame. Part of the problem in regards to the negative perceptions people have of Muslims is the lack of personal contact that we have with them. Despite going through such a diverse school, I unfortunately cannot say that I know many Muslims. As a result, the way we do learn or know about them is through the media. Moreover, the media usually ignores universalities and focuses on differences. For example, Mike talks about the incident with the couple in Dubai having sex on the beach. The media failed to acknowledge that this act would not be okay anywhere, not just in Muslim countries.

In regard to stereotypes, I don’t think categorizing people is necessarily a bad thing. There is certainly a need to categorize things and to frame events against your own understanding. Blogs ranged from comparing 99 to Harry Potter, Al-Jazeera to the New York Times, or simply realizing that we frame things according to an American perspective (according to Rachel). This comparison has a two-fold effect. One on hand, it is crucial for debunking myths, but at the same time, it can lead to ignorance and a greater polarization between two groups. It is interesting to note that because we tried so hard to see through an “open” lenses in this class, we often ended up stereotyping ourselves. Looking back on it, I know I certainly came across as being anti-American in many of my posts because I was trying to consciously make sure I wasn’t negatively stereotyping Muslims or more generally, blogging through a static, reductionist viewpoint. By trying to be more open to other groups, it is common to fall victim to stereotyping our own group as being ignorant. If this class has taught me anything, its that this is ultimately a complex issue and there is such a fine line because you either end up categorizing ourselves or others. This is an inevitable outcome of our human nature. Stereotypes become a problem when they are taken too far and when there is no alternative perspective to that stereotype. America is a country that is full of minorities who constantly must deal with breaking these stereotypes, especially when they have led to negative personal outcomes. Rebuttals need to come from Muslims themselves, cut through the media clutter, and catch mainstream attention in order to for perspectives to change. The problem is, when will they be given this opportunity to voice these issues and will this be enough?

Download file

Thank you for a great semester...I just reposted the essay at 1130 so if it was printed before then, can you re-print this version- Mal

Reflecting back to the first day of class, I realize that I have really learned a lot throughout the entire semester. Not only do I have a greater understanding of the relations between the West and Islam, but I have also gained the ability to critically analyze the media and the role it plays in creating a "clash" between the two cultures. In addition, my knowledge for what daily life is like in the Middle East/Arab world has greatly increased because traditional media sources rarely report on such matters because it is not always necessarily "newsworthy." I have certainly attained just about all the goals I set for myself...with the exception of marrying that Muslim man...(which I first need to find)

The controversial short film entitled Fitna was created in 2008 by Dutch parliamentarian, Geert Wilders. The name Fitna literally means disagreement and division among people. The film essentially is a selection of Surahs from the Quran interspersed with media clips and newspaper clippings showing acts of violence committed by Muslims. Its aim is to "prove" that Islam promotes violence and terrorism and consequently, that Islam is a religion that wants to dominate the world.

Fitna starts off warning the audience that the movie contains very shocking images. Even still, I had no idea what I was in for. The word shocking is an understatement to say the least. It then continues with a verse from the Quran that says, "prepare for them whatever force and cavalry ye are able of gathering, to strike terror, to strike terror into the hearts of the enemies, of Allah and your enemies." This is immediately followed by footage of the attacks of September 11th and the Madrid train bombings. The film follows this format throughout the 18 minutes of footage. It ends just as disturbing as it began, saying that the Netherlands is under the spell of Islam and that people need to defeat this Islamic ideology.

To be quite honest, it was very difficult for me to watch this film. It was beyond graphic- it showed dead bodies, beheadings, explosions, etc. Even more so, it was scary to know that a film like this could be made and that people would believe what they see in the film to be the absolute truth when in reality, it is blatantly negative propaganda. Moreover, I find it disturbing that Geert Wilders could even be elected into office. Even though the UN human rights council passed a resolution against the movie, it is so easy to youtube the video or google video it (as I did to view it). Not only does the film perpetuate hatred against Muslims, but all you see is a very extreme interpretation of the holy book. Even though the creator of the film claims that Fitna is not an attack of Muslims but rather just on the radical sect of it, it still represents Islam has an inherently violent religion. Like any other religion, different interpretations of certain verses are possible. Islam is no exception. However, the Dutch constitution bans the discrimination of people on their gender, sexual orientation, race or religion. If so, I can't help but wonder- when does freedom of speech cross the line and become discrimination?

To watch the film, click here: http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=Fitna&hl=en&emb=0#

As President Barack Obama prepares to take office next year, it seems as though he is inheriting a Middle East that is damaged by anti-American sentiment and in many ways, less stable and more violent than it was when President George Bush took office in 2001. Will change come and what will this change be? According to Professor Alon Ben-Meir, a New York University professor, President Obama will need to deal with several crucial challenges in the Middle East. Not only will he face the challenge of ending the war in Iraq "honorably," but he will also obviously need deal with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as well as "engage with Iran and Syria while fostering regional economic development." Even beyond the Middle East, Obama will need to deal with the recent terrorist attacks in Mumbai by Muslim extremists, which were strategically aimed at places visited by Westerners. Yes, dealing with these tasks will obviously take a long time to accomplish and unfortunately, its seems like these issues will be impossible to solve. Moreover, there is even more at stake because how Obama goes about addressing foreign policy will need to be handled in a manner that will restore America's credibility abroad while serving our own interests as well.

Specifically focusing on America's future in Iraq, Obama has two options. He can either continue to negotiate for an agreement for permanent US bases, as done by President Bush, or he can implement a full troop withdrawl. Both have their share of uncertainties and problems, but if Obama chooses the first option, it will go against what has been preaching his entire campaign. Yet, if he chooses the latter, this would inevitably lead to a conflict with senior American military leaders and their corporate allies who have made a lot of money with the war. In terms of Aghanistan, during the campaign, Obama differentiated himself from John McCain by emphasizing a shift of focus from Iraq to Afghanistan. The problem with this is that our enemy is so vague and ill-defined that it seems like we don't even know who we are fighting. Regardless, I don't believe that military action is solely the answer to our problems.

So far, Obama has made a smart decision to keep Robert Gates as the defense secretary, who is the most ideal person to help his organize his plan for leaving Iraq. Unlike the previous two presidents, Obama will need to address relations with the Middle East sooner rather than later. Bill Clinton did not particularly focus on policy in the Middle East until his final months in office. A similar statement could argubly be made for Bush. The Bush Administration, in my opinion, has badly mismanaged relations with the Arab world. Any change in leadership would probably be an improvement, but will Obama's election into office mean substantial changes in US foreign policy? Really, only time will tell but it will certainly be interesting, to say the least, how things will pan out in the near future. Luckily, to our country's benefit, Obama has one advantage - he seems to be liked worldwide.

http://hnn.us/blogs/entries/56738.html
http://www.theglobalist.com/StoryId.aspx?StoryId=7369

In a region that is dominated by discourse on the war on terror, Dubai, a small state located on the edge of Iran and Iraq, has become well known for something completely different- its glitz and glamour. Its architecture is becoming world famous, which includes 300 constructed islands mapping out the shape of the world, an indoor ski mountain, and Burj Dubai, the tallest building in the world. Dubai has often been regarded as the Las Vegas of the Middle East. For a predominantly Muslim sate, comparisons with the United States might seem odd. Yet, with development plans that include amusement parks, a replica of the Eiffel Tower, and a resort owned by Donald Trump (just to name a few), Dubai is quite unique. It is full of contradictions and paradoxes- it is an example of "western modernity" but at the same time, retains the qualities of the conservative Gulf States. Behind its most famous monuments are many contractions, such as the fact that it has probably been built by a non-citizen work force which is estimated to be about 1 million poeple. Dubai is increasingly playing a larger role in the international economy, providing platforms for foreign investors ranging from media industries to financial firms. Yet, interestingly, it is located literally at the crossroads of the "war on terror," located near to Afghanistan, Iran, and Iraq.

In a society where the majority of the workforce are non citizens who do not have the right to work and live/work in dangerous conditions, one would think that the spectacle that is Dubai would be a target. As a result, part of Dubai's paradox is also the fact it is possible to be a symbol of luxury while the majority of the people in the Middle East are disenfranchised. Part of the reason for why this is the case is the Dubai has found a way to make itself indespensible to many countries in the region. Similarly, the Dubai is a crucial military zone for the US.

Regardless, Dubai such a fascinating country because it is changing the notion of what it means to be Arab, particularly in terms of the backwardness that is associated with the Middle East. Moreover, it is a prime example of globalization. Dubai is a hybrid, pushing the boundaries of modernization but also holding onto many of its traditions and the islam religion.
There is no other country to compare Dubai. One can argue that Dubai has taken what they believe to be the best qualities from various cities, such as Hong Kong, New York, Disney Land or Las Vegas. Yet, combining these qualities have created an entirely unique place. It will be interesting to see whether Dubai will become a platform for changing the negative views associated with the Arab world as tourism in the country increases.
.

http://www.rabble.ca/news/tale-two-cities-dubai

Are western human rights, such as the rights of women, compatible with Islam? Nadira Artik, an Islamic womens activist and journalist, was born and raised in Soviet Uzbekistan as a devout Muslim. Yet, she is known for her blog for women in Uzbekistan, which raises highly contentious and taboo issues, such as domestic violence, child abuse, divorce, virginity, and sexuality. She explains that Uzbekistan, like many Muslim countries, are deeply patriarchal and the main roles for women are in the home as a wife and a mother. "Any aspirations of women that went beyond the "classical" female jobs of teacher and medic were discouraged." Her aim, like many other islamic feminists, is to spread equality through her religion, the "voice of the Quran." Muslim feminists point out that the Quran describes marriage as a pact between two equal parties. As a result, the key to gaining equal rights will entail non-traditional interpretations of the Quran, which will obviously be very hard to overcome. "A lack of progressive Islamic scholars has created a great imbalance in Islamic discourse in general and Islamic law in particular by giving far more weight to extremely restrictive opinions on the role of women."

In many western and nonwestern countries, there is a belief that human rights need to be secular and cannot exist within the framework of religion. As a result, islamic feminism, in a sense, is at odds with the discourse of womens rights in the western world. For example, many people around the world have a general lack of understanding for islam and believe that it must be so awful for Muslim women to have to wear the hijab when in fact many choose to wear it and see it as a sense of liberation. The western media has coined Muslim women as the symbol for oppression in the middle east, with islam being the source of this oppression. So its ironic that the beliefs of islam are actually closely connected with the feminist movement for Muslim women. As a result, theywill have to deal with this battle on multiple fronts, from both within and outside of the Muslim community. Within, I am sure there are men who fear the loss of their power and women who fear the loss of having a man's protection. Yet, abroad, in the realm of politics and discourse on the Middle East, coining Islam as irredeemably anti-women has a certain convenience. With a current war in Iraq, this image aids the notion of the Middle East as our "enemy." There is so much hatred towards Islam from the west, but sympathy for Muslim women, particularly in the media, is overwhelming. Yet, its important to note that this notion itself is contradictory and ironic because of the close connection of equal rights and religion in the Muslim world.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/11/28/opinion/edartyk.php?page=2

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7744586.stm

Veteran architect I.M. Pei, the man behind the glass pyramid at the Louvre, has decided to design one last “statement building,” a museum build on a man-made island called Doha, in Qatar. The museum houses 800 pieces of the best Islamic art, with artifacts that range from Spain, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Turkey, India, and Central Asia. The building itself is inspired by Islamic architecture and looks like a middle ground between modernity and tradition. There are high hopes for this weekend’s opening because its aim is part of a larger effort to put the Gulf region on the cultural map of the world. The Doha Museum hopes to bring prestige, attract tourists, and create a brand for Islam.

This article is particularly interesting because it addresses how not long ago, “the idea of culture being a reason to visit the Gulf would have made other Arabs laugh. No longer.” There have been misconceptions about Islamic art both by the east and the west. Moreover, there has been little understanding of the scriptures or the concept of art and what it means to the Islamic world. Adding to this is that unlike the old or new testament, there is no narrative you can illustrate. The Quran “guides but it doesn’t narrate.” As a result, the Doha Museum marks a reawakening for Muslims to study their own history, particularly by raising awareness that the study of Islamic art has traditionally been a western creation. Orientalist views of Islamic art have created ignorance. Moreover, it has created a false notion of otherness that has coined the Middle East as a territory of fantasy and mysticism. As a result, this museum is a huge stepping stone for the Islamic world. Today, the west is overall fairly incurious about the history of Islam, its art, and its people. Rather, there seems to be a blank wall of fear or terror when it comes to that part of the world. Yet, it seems as though one possible and realistic solution for overcoming this boundary is for cultures to encounter one another through the forms of art and learning. We seem to forget that many European and Americans were inspired by the “Orient.” The Doha Museum is one step of many others in the future to raising awareness of how the Islamic world has also changed aesthetics in the west rather than what we are used to hearing- how western arts depicted the Islamic world. However, I cant help but wonder whether this museum itself is enough for bringing tourists to Qatar, especially with all the negative connotations attached to the Middle East that are so deeply embedded in our society and media.

The New York Times has published a series entitled Generation Faithful, which is a series of articles that “examine the lives of young people cross the Muslim world at a time of religious revival.” One of these articles, entitled Youthful Voice Stirs Challenge to Secular Turks focuses on Turkey, which is described as being a “rebellion” because it has built its modern identity on secularism. I was actually quite surprised to learn that wearing the hijab is banned in Turkey. Women on billboards are not shown in scarves nor are girls allowed to where the hijab in schools and on universities. This is an interesting contrast to Marjane Satrapi’s experience with the hijab in her book Persepolis. Satrapi associates wearing the hjiab a form of survival- if she didn’t wear it, she would be arrested. However, I think banning people from wearing it is just as repressive. The article specifically tells the story of a young girl who is rebelling against her country by wearing the hijab and dropping out of school. “For some young people today, freedom means the right to practice Islam, and self-expression means covering their hair.” Whether a woman wants to wear a hijab or not, I think is completely up to her. What I find more interesting, however, is that the hijab and the choice to wear it or not has led to woman being in the middle of the fight between fundamentalists and secularists. The act of wearing it or not wearing it has come to symbolize these two sides at a extreme with no option for a middle ground. The article ends by raising an interesting point. It says that these people who wear the hijab in a secular country like Turkey are “redrawing lines between freedom and devotion, modernization and tradition, and blurring some prevailing distinctions between East and West. Turkey is literally and metaphorically an intersection of eastern and western ideas which is why I think it is such a fascinating country and is worth exploring in terms of addressing whether the east and the west are really in a "clash" with one another.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/14/world/europe/14turkey.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

Found some famous arab americans...

Monk star Tony Shaloub

Music countdown legend Casey Kasem

Politician and activist Ralph Nader

a few others...Steve Jobs is half Syrian. Wentworth Miller, star of Prison Break, is part Arab.

...I had no idea most of these people were of Middle Eastern descent. However, it is important to note that this list is very short