Islam, Media, and the West

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/17/magazine/17wwln-Q4-t.html

Follow the above link to a few questions asked of Brigitte Gabriel, a Lebanese-Christian immigrant to the United States. Gabriel has made a name for herself as a “crusader,” as someone who finds radical Islam to be the only Islam that exists in the world today, and who feels that radical Islam (i.e. all Islam) must be stopped. Stopped from what? From infecting the world with a religious doctrine that calls for killing other people, from a religion that sponsors “jihad camps” that teach classes like “Preparation for Death,” from American communities installing public foot baths for Muslims to wash before prayer, according to Gabriel.
Does this interview make you hate or fear Muslims? Does Gabriel’s message further the notion of a clash of civilizations between Muslims and the West, between the believers and the unbelievers? Or does it sound like yet another extreme interpretation of two religions that have differences from one another, differences that may be “fundamental,” yes, but differences all the same. And as Huntington says in The Clash of Civilizations?, “differences do not necessarily mean conflict, and conflict does not necessarily mean violence” (25). Interpreting messages like Gabriel’s and those from political theorists, government officials, and Middle Eastern scholars that all seem to rest on this notion of us versus them brings one word to my mind: hypocrisy. When Gabriel attacks Muslims, saying that “they are taking over the West… doing it culturally inch by inch,” what justification does she have for the generations-long history of American military presence in Muslim countries or to the influence of Westernized mass media that reaches every part of the world? Perhaps there has been an increase in the way Muslims influence Western culture, but it is likely miniscule in comparison to the way the West has influenced other cultures. And even if they could muster enough influence to cause a great change in our culture, could not they justify it as following the tradition of cultural imperialism that America began? As Lewis says in The Roots of Muslim Rage, the West can defend the criticisms it hears from other cultures for being sexist, racist and imperialist simply by saying that America was following a long tradition of mankind being sexist, racist and imperialist (53). In other words, can we not all justify and justify and justify some more until we have reasoned away our faults? It seems that America has been able to do it, so why not the Islamic fundamentalists?
There are Islamic fundamentalists as Gabriel says, just as there are Christian fundamentalists and communist fundamentalists and any other kind of fundamentalist one might think of. But what about the rest of the Muslims? Should we rid the world of one of the oldest religions simply because a few of its followers call for extremism?

George W. Bush versus Osama bin Laden. Andrew Hammond versus Samuel Huntington. Akbar Ahmad and Benjamin Barker versus Bernard Lewis. Group these politicians and thinkers any way you wish: set them up as oppositions, find similarities and differences, and then start all over again. Despite their differing views on politics, culture, history and society, they all have one thing in common. Their commonality is their struggle in trying to understand the differences between people. Should we call the differences “The West versus The Rest,” “Modernity versus Tradition,” “Consumerism versus Morality,” or “Muslims versus non-Muslims?” For the sake of this discussion, I will label one side as the West to encompass connotations of America like capitalism, modernity, democracy. I will refer to the other side as the Islamic world to encompass the Middle East and the Arab world. I believe there is difference between the West and the Islamic world and it is currently being used as justification for conflict and violence in places like Iraq and Afghanistan. However, as Huntington says in The Clash of Civilizations?, “differences do not necessarily mean conflict, and conflict does not necessarily mean violence” (25). Whether his argument goes on to support this claim or not, its importance should echo through every reading of the differences between Islam and the West, whether they are historical, cultural, social, political or religious. All players in this so-called clash are human beings; perhaps the solution to the problem is strengthening this fundamental similarity.
The notion of a clash of civilizations was first expressed in so many words by Bernard Lewis. Lewis makes an historical argument concluding that animosity has existed between Islam and the world since the religion’s birth fourteen centuries ago. He goes on to say that because many in the Islamic world see an illogic in secular governments, the differences in religion manifest to larger differences in culture and politics. Samuel Huntington builds upon Lewis’ argument of a clash of civilizations saying that past wars were fought between princes or nation-states or political ideologies and the next war will be fought over cultural or civilizational divides. In making this argument, he insinuates that globalization has eroded the kind of identity people used to feel within a nation-state. This is interesting to note because I think it is a point Huntington and Barber would agree on, the idea of a loss of cultural identity as globalization homogenizes society more and more. However, to focus more on Lewis and Huntington together, their arguments lose authority in their assumption that Islam and everyone else are fundamentally at odds with one another. They give little attention to political events that may have created animosity. To return to Huntington’s quote about difference not necessarily meaning conflict or violence, I find it misused as he does not proceed to support that argument. His prescriptions for the clash are perhaps more violent than Lewis’, saying countries should ideally modernize and westernize but he does not explain how to achieve this. So while these two writers successfully point out core differences between Islam and the rest of the world, they do so with a narrow view of what difference means and they do little to critically explore where the differing views came from. Moreover, since they see the clash beginning at the birth of Islam, they do not see media as a huge player since the differences are so inherent and deep-rooted
Benjamin Barber represents the next step in this discussion of a clash. While he does not believe in an inherent clash of religions and cultures as Lewis and Huntington do, I believe he does see a growing rift between the two groups. Again, he does not see it inherently but as a result of globalization and westernized media spreading throughout the world, threatening the traditional values of Islam. He discusses the notion of jihad and McWorld as both the reasons for the rift and the outcome, both cause and effect. It is an interesting argument that has much to do with a search for identity, the same identity that Huntington suggests is being eroded as a result of globalization. I find this notion of a search for identity more compelling in how it creates fundamental differences between people, as opposed to Lewis and Huntington saying the fundamental differences come from religion. The need to understand yourself within the context of society is a strong psychological tendency and therefore I find Barber’s argument forceful in this respect. However, stemming from Hammond and Mamdani, we understand that identity is just as hard to define and categorize as it is hard to identify the roots of animosity between the cultures. Hammond’s entire article points out all the cultural caveats that exist within the Arab or Muslim world. While Barber’s argument is strong in its depiction of a two-way relationship between jihad and McWorld, it does not look at political events as Mamdani does, which is a big part of the picture. And like Lewis and Huntington, it really only focuses on Islamic countries and America, not expanding the view.
Mamdani’s argument presents a powerful interpretation of the current situation. Coming from a more nuanced position of historical sensitivity, he considers the political events that created the current animosity. Lewis and Huntington would have us believe that Islam is inherently different enough from the religions of the west so as to cause an event like 9/11. Barber, along with Akbar Ahmad, would say that Muslims feel so threatened from the power of western media, democracy and capitalism that they feel they need to retaliate. However, Mamdani argues that 9/11 was a result of years of American, British and French colonialism and imperialism. He says that the victims of yesterday become the perpetrators of tomorrow because of the subjugation they suffered. In doing so, he places upon the West a much more active fault. For Lewis and Huntington, the West is not faulted at all. In Barber’s argument, the West is at fault to an extent in that the cultural products that we export cause resentment and anger. However, for Mamdani, it is the actions of the West that have caused such anger, in addition to the cultural imperialism that is spread through media.
As a high school freshman watching the events of 9/11 unfold on the television screen in geometry class, I could not even begin to fathom the centuries-long history of the day. It was the first time I heard the word terrorist and also the first time I saw my country attacked in such magnitude. As the years have passed and I’ve grown as a person and as an intellectual, my opinions on the situation have certainly changed as well. So does the clash resonate for me? A few years ago, I might have said yes. I see certain truths in what Lewis and Huntington say. Yes, there are pieces of Islamic religion and law that are fundamentally different from the doctrines that I ascribe to. And yes, I think religion is something so ingrained in a person that it does spread to culture and thus creates a culture for some that is worth fighting for. However, religion is not everything and even if it were, Islam is not different enough from all other religions of the world to inherently call for a clash of civilizations. I see the current state of world affairs as a result of a combination of Barber’s and Mamdani’s arguments. As a student of media and communications, we learn to have a critical eye and so we have been critiquing American media for years now. Thus, I think we all see truths in Barber’s argument about the power and effect of western media. However, I find Mamdani’s political history to be sound and forceful. He provides the most believable evidence to support the argument that these fundamentalists are only responding to a long history of harmful actions by America and other western powers.
If I can add anything to this discussion, it is a critique of all three arguments. NYU hosted a panel called “Compassion in Leadership” on September 24th. The words of Queen Noor of Jordan, Rabbi Irwin Kula and the Sakyong, Jamgon Mipham Rinpoche of Tibet seemed to summarize the idea that has been forming in my mind over the past seven years. None of the writers mentioned in this paper discuss the most fundamental similarity between all religions, cultures or politics: we are all human beings. Somehow through political history and culture talk, I think this may have been forgotten as the sides have been drawn. The three members of the panel discussed the importance of compassion and understanding in leadership, something that simply is not practiced as much as it should be. If we practiced compassion and cultural understanding, wouldn’t we be able to respect another religion? And they all agreed on another key factor: the solution to this volatile world we live in is not cultural, religious or political even, it is human. Apparently in our age, differences between people mean conflict and violence. But it would not be that way if we practiced more compassion and demanded the same of our leaders.