Jihad as Terrorism: The Western Media and the Defamation of the Qu’ran, Fida Mohammad (pdf)
Chapter 14 of Jeff Ferrell and Neil Websdale (eds.), Making Trouble: Cultural
Constructions Of Crime, Deviance, And Control, Aldine, 1999.
This article is about the definition and the defining of the word ‘terrorism’ with particular emphasis (via a few paragraph ‘case study’ on a particularly divisive Geraldo Riviera show) on how the media portrays terrorism.
It starts out with the definition of jihad broadly as struggle for betterment, which is as accurate a generalization as you can get, but goes further in detailing the various types of jihad explicit in Islam. For me, seeing this written out in an article for people to read is refreshing. Here they are:
• jihad-e-bil-Lissan: Jihad with words; speaking the truth. According to one saying of Mohammad: "To utter a word of truth in the face of a tyrant is a supreme jihad" (that tyrant could also be a Muslim one).
• jihad-e-bil-Qalam: Jihad with a pen; writing the truth against injustice.
• jihad-e-bil-Mal: Jihad with one's property and wealth; spending in the name of God, helping the poor and doing charitable works.
• jihad-e-bil-Nafs: Jihad against one's evil desires.
• jihad-e-bil-Saif: Jihad with the sword, if you are challenged by an outside power.
Fighting in Islam is highly regulated by Islamic moral guidelines (do not assault noncombatants, old, young, women, priests, even cattle; be magnanimous to enemies).
“Holy war” has no meaning in Islam; it’s an oversimplification by the Western media.
The only fundamental precepts in Islam are in the statement of faith: “There is no other deity but God, and Mohammad is the Messenger of God.” That’s fundamental.
Edward Said’s “Orientalist discourse” is the typical mode in which Islam is covered in the West. This discourse is an “us” or “them” dialog where the distinctions between things are oppositional and posed as inversions. This brings up and ties into a lot of other modes of discourse and categorization, in-group/out-group, dominant/subservient, the “other,” etc. It reminds me of the Wired column “wired/tired” or “hot/not” types of comparisons.
This direct generalization leads to ahistorical and acontextual comparisons, ie They’ve have always (and will always) be that way. “We”’ve always been (and will always be) “right, rational, democratic, humane” etc. It’s also an out for “us” when we overstep our bounds, since we always do good.
Imperialism and colonialism always come up with regards to any sort of power discussion in the West, simply because it’s our legacy. “Power relations” is something we can’t ignore in a discussion like this, and it shapes how we as Westerners talk to each other. Constructs of power are inherent in our government and, while not necessarily bad, does contribute to the explanation of a “good” vs. “bad” ideology.
Continuing, the chapter briefs some common Islam vs. Christendom conflicts over the years, while noting that there are common theological beliefs:
1. defeat of the early Byzantine (Eastern Roman) empire by lslam in the 7th century
2. the fierce Crusades during the 11th and 12th centuries
3. the expulsion of Moors from Spain and the Inquisition
4. the Ottoman threat to Europe
5. European (Christian) colonial expansion and domination in the 18th and 19th centuries
6. the political and cultural challenge of the superpowers (America and Soviet Union) in the latter of half of the 20th century;
7. the creation of the state of Israel;
8. the competition of Christian and Muslim missionaries for converts in Africa today
9. the contemporary reassertion of lslam in politics. (Esposito 1992:3-4)
One of the best things about this article is how it (briefly) describes the tempting desire to identify another global ideological menace in the “threat vacuum” of the downfall of communism. There’s the “red scare” of the USSR, “yellow peril” of China, and now, the “green peril”/”green curtain” of Islam. I think this fear and association is so knee-jerk in America that it’s not even questioned who our new threat is. There’s an interesting tie here to Algiera electing ex-Afghani Islamic political parties to power in 1992. This was perceived as greater threat than the previous Marxist-socialist government which’d come to power in a military coup.
The definition of how to create “peril”:
1. Mysterious sources
2. Colorful intelligence reports
3. journalists
4. collusion btw foreign sources and the us government (encouraging foreign sources to talk to journalists)
A discussion of the “Rivera Live” episode 04/19/1995 which talks about the Oklahoma City bombings as having the “fingerprints” of the middle east with Steve Emerson, self-styled terrorist-hunter journalist and proves the point that the “Orientalist argument” as per above, is still alive, well, and accepted.
http://www.fair.org/extra/9901/emerson.html
http://www.geocities.com/CollegePark/6453/emerson.html
There’s a good discussion of how the label of “terror” is used by the state or the “established order” to perpetuate control structures and political agendas. Some of this type of discussion’s a bit wishy washy, since I tend to think it’s implying that governments can do something else than vague propaganda for coercive consensual control. (An “all volunteer citizenry,” so to speak, to twist a Bush phrase.)
The “vernacularization” of terminology, or to make a symbolic shorthand out of a word, to make a word or phrase mean something symbolically takes cooperation between those who define the word and those who repeat and accept the symbolic notation – a “collective consciousness.” “Definition, therefore, involves the exercise of power.” Sounds creepy, doesn’t it? It’s not, really, it’s called vocabulary. Now, when used for political purposes or as a means of propaganda, that’s definitely creepy.
The argument here is that the people that define how “terrorism” is used are defining it for their benefit, to establish an “us” vs. “them,” and a “status quo” vs. “dissent.” There’s a bit about how formal power constitutes coercive power, which again, I’m not sure I like the implication of a negative coercion, since I think that there’s agreement which is positive coercion. “.. coercion can compensate for the lack of consent or generate apparent consent out of fear. …” “The state quite frequently enjoys a legitimacy born of political socialization and the power of ideology.” Ok, so, that’s called “power.”
More sinister is how bluntly the term “terrorism” can be wielded by people in positions of power, giving the label itself inherent power. He who uses “terrorism” first vs. an opponent wins. It’s just that powerful.
The point is also made that socialized audiences “presented with decontexualized media portrayals of terrorism” may not uncritically accept what they see and that “we ought not to fall into the trap of assuming the passivity of social actors by arguing that they do not critically process” the information. That’s all well and good, but I do think that people are alarmed for this specific reason. I know I do: Stuff’s so blatant to me, I can’t believe that people aren’t just reacting to what they hear. Information overflow and all that.
The media’s complicity in the use and portrayal of terrorism seems to also fall into an Orientalist discourse, US or Western victims are given more air time. Also, there’s that forgiveness or excuse of “understandable” violence when it’s done by Western states.
Some examples of racial and religious double standards in the media wrt Islam are given.
An interesting set of quotes are given which states more or less that Islam is appealing to people as a political force because it’s seen as a refuge from the “psychological dislocation and cultural threat of hegemonic power.”
The definition of “hegemony” is given:
- a “process of securing and shaping consent so the power of the dominant classes appears both legitimate and natural”
- a “means by which a system of attitudes and beliefs, permeating both popular consciousness and the ideology of elites, reinforce existing social arrangements and convince the dominated classes that the existing order is inevitable”
Media are “vectors of hegemonic discourse.”
The conclusion of the article is that if the use and definition of jihad and terrorism are allowed to continue in such a distorted and symbolic way, the discourse will remain “characterized by essentialist logic, racist invective, and imperialistic posturing.”