Another look...

September 11, or famously known as 9/11, has certainly made an impact on all of us. It has even dug a deep crater in the hearts of families whom members were victims of the unduly actions of other people. What did the world see of the people who were responsible for creating a sad and ugly chapter in the world’s history? The American government quickly state that they were engaged in a war against terrorism, and not a war against Islam. However, it is ironic and unfortunate that the terrorists who caused 9/11 all happened to be Muslims.

There are always two sides of a coin. Why did the 9/11 happen? Was it because the Middle East wanted to be heard, and hence used this tactic to gain attention? We have only heard the American side of story, and sympathized with them because it happened in their land, at the same time so tragic; but did we hear the other side’s story? Do we actually know why these terrorist did all these? We did not even have time to sit down and listen to their needs because the whole world was busy moaning over what had happened, and the media became a tool of showing us the direction of where they want us to ‘go’.

The point is, we, from the other side of the world, do not know what is really going on, and can only obtain news through the media. The media can be bias in a way where they report what they want us to believe. They definitely cannot change news, but with just a slant. The late Edward Said, who was a literary theorist, cultural critic, an advocate, and a Professor at Columbia University, said that the American news media have portrayed “Islam” as a monolithic entity, synonymous with terrorism and religious hysteria. Today, the mass media paints a picture of Islam in a very depressing and misleading one. As Said have put it, “What emerges is that Ayatollah Khomeini…. and Palestinian terrorists are the best –known figures in the foreground, while the background is populated by shadowy notions about jihad, slavery, subordination of women and irrational violence combined with extreme licentiousness”. One would not deny this statement as what we have heard so far are all those terms in news.

I very much have to agree with Edward Said as we cannot simply judge Islam just because of how the media portrays them to be. When you watched Persepolis, what did you think about the Shah and his regime during the Iranian Revolution? Shah had his ‘most hated and feared institution’, domestic security and intelligence service of Iran (SAVAK) with him. The SAVAK is best known for its torture and execution of regime opponents. Now, I would have to admit that what the SAVAK did was just downright inhumane and definitely unacceptable, but what if I told you that the SAVAK interrogators were sent abroad to be trained? Ironic part was, it was reported that CIA (Central Intelligence Agency) actually trained the SAVAK agents. If America is responsible for training them, why isn’t anyone putting the blame on America for producing Muslims whom now they call ‘terrorist’? Training them on how to interrogate their prisoners, and then letting the media view these interrogators as people who have no heart? Call America a hypocrite.


In 1980, Said criticized what he regarded as poor understanding of the Arab culture in the West:

“So far as the United States seems to be concerned, it is only a slight overstatement to say that Moslems and Arabs are essentially seen as either oil suppliers or potential terrorists. Very little of the detail, the human density, the passion of Arab-Moslem life has entered the awareness of even those people whose profession it is to report the Arab world. What we have instead is a series of crude, essentialized caricatures of the Islamic world presented in such a way as to make that world vulnerable to military aggression.”

Is the American government taking Islam, or to be more precise, the Middle East countries for granted – as just mere oil suppliers? And when it came to politics, as Mahmood Mamdani described, Muslims in the Middle East were corrupted with the very same politics that corrupted the American government and its ideals. Author of the book Good Muslim, Bad Muslim, Mamdani actually made a distinction within Muslims, and categorized them into two – good Muslims, and bad Muslims. The good ones were described as secular and westernized; and the bad as premodern and fanatical. Does Mamdani have to actually distinguish Muslims into two categories? What if he’s wrong?

According to Fereydoun Hoveyda, National Committee on American Foreign Policy, in his book titled ‘The Shah and the Ayatollah’¸ he said, “Each of them represented (at least partially) one of the basic and contradictory trends that had agitated the nation since the early years of the twentieth century: secularist modernization on the one hand, and religious orthodoxy and traditionalism on the other. [the Shah and Khomeini, respectively]. So if this is the case, the Shah would be the ‘good Muslim’ and Khomeini, the ‘bad’ one – when the Shah had more brutality during his leadership. Ridiculous, isn’t it?

Terrorists are not bad, not to that extent. Most of you may oppose me, but I personally think that they did what they thought was right, nothing bad. Just as how Mamdani puts it, they are highly motivated, religious Muslims who believe they have the key to creating a just, equitable, and divinely sanctioned society. It was just somehow their actions were unacceptable. That was all. But Mamdani need not go to the extent of actually regard this particular group bad, and the other good. It is time we listened to their side of story, and not all about the West.