College Media Network

Muslims are at peace with you

Fatemeh Keshavarz

Op-Ed Subission

Print this article

Published: Friday, October 3, 2008

Updated: Friday, October 3, 2008

If you read “When being impolite is imperative” by Caleb Posner (Sept. 26), you may be wondering why, as the article points out, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch has rejected an offer made by the Clarion Fund to provide free copies of a “documentary” called “Obsession,” a special value-added insert to its paying customers. I have not approached the Post-Dispatch to find out the answer but I guess they have been puzzling over another question. Why has this collection of hair-raising images and wild claims about the danger Muslims pose to the democratic west­­—made in 2006—magically resurfaced on the eve of the general election? This is a valid concern. 

Since some other newspapers don’t seem to have had the insight to ask this question, you might have received a copy of this hair-raising “documentary.”  28,000,000 other people are about to receive it (or have done so already).  And you all have one thing in common: you belong to a sought-after group of people: the residents of a swing state estimated to be undecided voters. The film is supposed to convince you that your country is at war with the majority of Muslims who are willing to conquer America, kill or convert you, and establish a fascist empire. Images can be manipulated. Voices may be added or omitted. And documentation could be made to look authentic. If you watch the film by yourself, and have no way of evaluating its content, chances are you will be persuaded. Rather, you will be terrified.

That 28 million free copies of “Obsession” is landing on doorsteps in swing states at this point in time speaks for itself. Nonetheless, people (particularly professors of Religious Studies such as Professor Omid Safi at UNC) have been digging deep in search of the sources of financial support for this massive campaign of fear. I’d say more power to them. Any campaign of emotional manipulation reminiscent of fascist-like ideologies that have resulted in massive human tragedies should be exposed. For now, however, there are easier and more practical ways of countering this scare attack. As a Muslim who has never been at war with anyone, I list five of them here.

First, the movie tells you that in a Muslim country, a non-Muslim is supposed to be killed or sold like an animal. Look in your neighborhood or among colleagues, relatives and friends for an ordinary fellow American who has travelled to a Muslim country in recent years. Ask if he or she felt the threat of being abducted, converted, sold or killed at anytime during his or her stay in that country.

Second, the movie claims that the Egyptian textbooks tell school children that Muslims should kill non-Muslims and take over the world. Egypt has millions of Coptic Christian inhabitants. In fact, they form 20 percent of the Egyptian population. Ask yourself how have they survived living in Egypt for thousands of years? Then, locate an Egyptian Copt through your local library, university, the internet and/or friends. Ask that person if he or she ever saw such a statement in his or his children’s school books.

Third, invite a Persian speaking friend (of whom hundreds of thousands live in the U.S.) to watch the movie with you. When supposed scenes from Iranian TV are shown, they will tell you that the actual language they hear is not Persian but Arabic. The documentary makers did not know what they were piecing together. They banked on the fact that the audience will not know that either.

Fourth, the film interviews supposed Muslim fundamentalists who have turned nice, loving and truthful after conversion to Christianity. Ask yourself why you should trust them anymore now than when they were ruthless terrorists—if indeed they were terrorists. If not, why are they lying?

Fifth, when images of large and loud crowds in the film frighten you, imagine someone taking a few shots from the GOP convention’s loud chants, put a scary voice over, add a few shots of American soldiers breaking into Iraqi homes in the middle of the night, and throw a few statements from right wing shows into the mix. It could be sold to Muslim audiences as “The American War on Islam.”

Finally, please send this simple guide to a friend who has been terrified after watching Obsession and tell them to vote for Mr. McCain only if they like four more years of what they have experienced for the past eight years…not because Muslims are at war with America. They are not.

Comments

2 comments
Your name
Mon Oct 6 2008 10:19
Great article. I don't see how these points could be called irrational? I was disappointed by the political jab at the end... it nearly took away all the poignancy of the article and detracted from the message.
Caleb Posner
Fri Oct 3 2008 12:52
I think many of the points you make here are quite irrational, especially with regards to the distribution. Being that it was made before either Obama or McCain declared their presidency, neither is mentioned in any fashion. Indeed, the documentary avoids discussing contemporary US politics. So it certainly isn't some evil ploy to steal votes for Obama. If a movie just generally sounds the alarm about a security threat, and it thereby compels the audience to vote for McCain, the only thing that should tell you is how the American public sees them Democratic approach to foreign policy.

Further, you state a number of falsehoods, including the suggestion that it describes most or all Muslims as violent, dangerous, or threatening. It goes to great lengths to do the exact opposite, noting that they a proportionally small, but numerically large. After all, 10-15% or 1.3-1.6 billion people isn't a majority, but it is very significant.

As for the status of Egypt's Coptic Christian minority, it is true that they still exist. But they are subject to massive discrimination and violence. That is not something in dispute. See: http://www.themiddleeastnow.com/articles/egyptcopticriot.html

Regarding the decision of Mr. Shoebat and others to abandon terrorism, there is a reason the claims are trustworthy. He still would've been credible as a terrorist, because he'd have come straight out then and given ideological justification for his ambitions. Having evolved into a decent member of humanity, he can now look back on it and see how horrific his proposals were. This is something that should be applauded, not subject to attack. But then again, Islam calls for killing of apostates, so I suppose such a reaction is to be expected.

Perhaps the most offensive suggestion you make is your fifth one. Jihadists, while I once again acknowledge do not include the average Muslim, support the general slaughter of Infidels who refuse a life of dhimmitude and extortionist jizyas. Their goal is not peace or security for anybody, but rather ruthless, religiously-inspired slaughter. By contrast, the US is more selective in how and when it wages war, and does with great efforts taken to protect civilians. Do jihadists off aid to areas they suicide bomb? Because while the US may occasionally have to bomb certain areas in the course of war operations, there are substantial aid and recovery operations.

More to the point though, I fail to see why you must single out the GOP. Last I checked, many Democrats authorized both of our current wars, and indeed history shows they, not the Republicans, are the party of war. It also means they're more likely to pick the wrong side, like when Bill Clinton offered support to the Kosovo Liberation Army, a group with clear ties to Al-Qaida. But I guess there is always a need to play victim, and pretend that all that is wrong is the work of some evil, monolithic right wing. So please, go ahead and do that. But don't count on too many other people blindly buying into that, liberal as our student body may be.