Us vs. Them?
Forward Article to a Friend
Print Article
A showing of the documentary “Obsession: Radical Islam’s War against the West” occurred in the History Corner on Wednesday, February 20th. The event was met by a mixture of vocal support and skepticism from the movie-goers, and drew a large crowd of students and community members of all different faiths and creeds. [Disclaimier: Several Review staff helped organize the event, though this author did not].
The documentary combines narration, interviews, television clips, speeches and other primary sources to argue that “war has been declared against the West by radical Islam.” Professing itself to be “non-partisan,” the movie made sure to emphasize that its focus was solely on Islam’s most extreme fringes and the not the “moderate majority.” (Indeed, the movie stated that only an estimated “10-15%” of the Muslim world is radical.) Nonetheless, its main argument amounted to a “clash-of-civilizations”-like view of the modern world: radical Islam, in fundamental opposition to the ideals of the Western world, single-mindedly seeks to destroy the Untied States and Europe. The controversial film hoped to show the audience a view supported by some American conservatives, including much of the Bush Administration.
The film goes on to argue that, in order to wage war against the West, this radical wing of Islam has infiltrated the mainstream, spreading its views through the media and the education system. To illustrate this phenomenon, Obsession used television clips from Palestinian and Iranian channels, Al-Jazeera, and other sources that were openly anti-Semitic, anti-American, or anti-European. Most of these clips were passionate denunciations of the West followed by threats of violence. Some depicted the glorification of suicide bombers as religious martyrs, including by young children on a children’s program. The film also included excerpts from Jordanian and Palestinian textbooks teaching hatred of non-Muslims, thereby implying that Muslim youths are being indoctrinated by the radicalism present in some Middle Eastern schools.
Obsession drew on quotes from a variety of sources, but most notably various Middle Eastern Imams, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran, and the late PLO leader Yasser Arafat. The movie implied public support for anti-Western statements through clips of rallies against the West, in support of Al-Qaeda, or even in celebration of September 11th. Along with primary source footage, Obsession used interviews from experts and moderate Muslims to build its case. The movie’s most noteworthy commentator was Daniel Pipes, the famous conservative Middle Eastern scholar. Despite this big name, the movie also featured a number of ambiguous sources that had unspecified expertise on the subject such as a man identified simply as “Prosecutor.”
Most controversially, Obsession drew direct comparisons between radical Islamic terrorists and the Nazis. The movie claimed that the two groups share common doctrines (anti-Semitism, anti-democracy) and goals (eliminating all other ways of life, ultimately controlling the world). In short, the film fits into the contemporary school of thought that compares radical Islam (Islamofascism) to the totalitarian states of 20th century Europe [see sidebar]. In order to highlight the similarities between these two groups, Obsession methodically compares the similarities in rhetoric and youth indoctrination. Some examples—whose relevance was later disputed—included Palestinian and Nazi propaganda posters depicting an octopus with the Earth in its grip and the use of the Nazi salute by some Islamic militants. The most concrete example was the involvement of the Mufti of Jerusalem, Mohammad Amin al-Husayni with Nazi forces in Yugoslavia during the Second World War.
After the movie was over, two people representing the movie led a question and answer session and discussion. When pressed for her personal background, one of the moderators simply described herself as “representing the film Obsession,” declining to spell out her qualifications for discussing its content. The representatives then began fielding comments and questions from the full room.
Despite support from some audience members, the film met its fair share of criticism. Many audience-members claimed that the documentary took a very narrow view of Islam, focusing on radicalism within the religion without providing a larger context. For example, one student raised the point that the majority of Obsession’s anti-Western television clips were taken from “only three” Middle Eastern satellite channels “out of the hundreds offered,” unfairly depicting the entire region and faith as radical. One French Lebanese scholar in attendance stood and gave an impassioned critique of the movie as “not showing both sides of the story.” An older gentleman suggested that the movie—and our modern views of radical Islam—must be put in the context of Western civilization’s atrocities “such as Hiroshima,” in order to see that “we are even worse.”
The most common criticism of the movie, however, was its neglect of the motivations for radical Islamic militants; it never answered why Muslims hate America. Many audience members declared that the film did not provide proper context of foreign policy and history, context that would help explain why radical Islam hates the West as intensely as the movie suggests. A solution can only be found, a few audience members argued, once we understand the cause of such behavior. In response, supporters of the film declared that the cause of Islamic extremism was not, ultimately, as important as its manifestations. The panel moderator responded, “I don’t care what your reasons are—you shouldn’t be flying planes into buildings.” And this comment, like the movie itself, immediately launched the room into a heated debate.
