Sulayman’s Stories

I watched The Road to Guantanamo. If you haven’t seen it yet, go do so. (Trailer) Right now. I mean it. Heck, I’ll even pay your cab fare and the price of a ticket.

The film centers on the “Tipton Three,” three British citizens of Pakistani descent who were arrested in Afghanistan, sent to Guantanamo, and later released. The actual three are in the film, narrating and remembering what happened, although much of the film is a dramatization with their narration of it. It starts off with them in Pakistan to attend a wedding in 2001, and told they could make a difference if they brought supplies into Afghanistan. Of course, they get stuck because of the war and wind up in US custody. They were sent to Guantanamo and tortured into admitting they were physically with Bin Laden years earlier, until the UK passport check proved they hadn’t even left the UK until a year after the video. The film is graphic in its recreation, and it will leave you horrified at the abuse: to me it was like reading Elie Wiesel’s book, Night, or watching a movie about the Holocaust. The Northern Alliance rounded up and killed lots of prisoners, and that’s mentioned. We all left the film feeling a bit shaken.

Interesting tidbit: After the film, I saw Shafiq Rasul, one of the main characters, on CNN. Wolf Blitzer’s first question was, What do you think of Osama Bin Laden? Shafiq was trying to say, I’m not a fan but what difference does that make? Wolf Blitzer dropped the ball on this interview, the interview was very unproductive and I didn’t learn anything new about Gitmo, which Thomas Friedman called “the anti-Statue of Liberty.”

I think this film highlighted some of the nasty stuff that went on in Guantanmo and seems to be building here. CAIR had an alert about some idiots fairly south who decided to buy a Quran, shoot it full of bullets, and throw it at a mosque, videotaping it and posting it online. It reminds me of the jerk who purposely threw the detainee’s Qurans into the waste area of the camp. Multiple times.

I disagree with Umar Lee on how innocent they were. Yeah, it was a foolish idea, and they said on CNN they regretted it. However, their treatment and the sheer barbarity of the entire thing made me walk out of the theater ashamed to be American. If you want to criticize that, go see it first.

Share This

For class I was given the book The Lesser Evil: Political Ethics in the Age of Terror by Michael Ignatieff. It’s a very good book, perhaps the best thing I learned during the entire class while discussing the delicate balance between freedom and government power, civil liberties versus security and counter terrorism. While I had initially braced myself to disagree with him on such a dicey topic, I found his arguments astoundingly well-written. The author understands that democracies around the world were fighting terrorism long before 9/11. He knows his stuff, going into detail about the history of governments that faced internal and external threats, from Weimar Germany to Israel to America during the Civil War and second World War; and the threats they faced and their solutions and outcomes to curtailing rights. He gives numerous case studies and shows what democracies can learn from their examples; he reasons that German and Italian police succeeded in their campaign against the Baader Meinhof gang in the 1970s while their counterparts in Spain failed during the same years to eradicate the cells of Basque terrorists. Turning attention to Al Qaeda, it lays out a good detailed strategy for confronting them and others, while not destroying the democracy in the process.

The sheer diversity of his case studies enables Ignatieff to discredit any simple-minded approach to terrorism. He expounds on the history of civil liberties curtailment, and proposes solutions that don’t go too far towards one end at the exclusion of the other (e.g. allowing searches with warrants and putting expiration dates on laws such as the Patriot Act). His thesis should calm any reader; America is not under its worst threat of its lifetime; the rules haven’t changed all that much, etc.

Reading him is a bit like having a conversation with an eminently reasonable but convinced and powerfully convincing man.”–Anthony Lewis, New York Review of Books

Ignatieff is apparently no stranger to discussions on civil liberties and political ethics and terrorism. He’s Director of the Carr Center for Human Rights Policy at Harvard University and has written much on the subject before it. The book is 232 pages, but it flows quickly and is well-annotated. He draws a middle course of action between freedom and security. A good portion of his book concerns hypothetical situations, on a scale of increasing threats, from whether it’s OK to torture a suspect if there’s a ticking bomb hidden somewhere, to whether its OK to suspend rights if there’s a threat of nuclear terrorism, to why democracies can only be ethical if they act civilized. He’s so well-informed and willing to consider the implications of each side in his proposals, something Bush never seems to do. He warns democracies not to fall into the trap of “turning into nihilists in order to fight nihilistic enemies.” He argues quite well on the need for liberal democracies to have a moral response to terrorism, not to sink to their level. He’s quite opposed to Alan Dershowitz’s advocation of torture, and even cites the Israeli Supreme Court’s rejection of it in his argument.

I think it’s the sheer level-headedness of his ideas that impressed me. He admits it’s tempting to suspend civil rights under the sense of a crisis, but at the same time points out that the terrorists never have won in history; governments fell from within or due to other reasons. Perhaps it IS a good thing to have sneak-and-peak warrants, but only if there is judicial oversight, or allowing detentions, as long as there’s a system of review, sunset clauses in laws (ie expiration dates), and the ability to challenge things in court. In the end, he struck a balance between liberty and security. He actually convinced me to reconsider, moderating my opinions. If you are a politics major, or find the domestic “war on terror” to be a vital issue, you have to read this book. If I were President, I’d put him in charge of homeland security. It’s that good of a book.

Share This

The Siege was a movie released in 1998 starring Denzel Washington, Tony Shalhoub, Bruce Willis, and Annette Benning. It has the unusual distinction in that I thought it was a poor and unrealistic film when it was in theaters, but years later I realized how thoroughly chilling it was.

Here’s the plot (Spoiler alert) Imagine the US government sent a SEAL team to Afghanistan and managed to secretly capture Osama bin Laden. He’s safely hidden in US custody (like Hotel California), but nobody knows that, its Top Secret.

Suddenly, New York has a problem on its hands. Suicide bombers. Buses full of people are blown up, and an anonymous terrorist group makes one demand: “Release Him.” The implication is that it is the guy the US caught. But the government swears up and down they don’t know where he is, nor do they have him.

Meanwhile, the bombings in the city intensify, and more details emerge. It turns out that the US government actually armed and trained some of these terrorists years ago to overthrow Saddam Hussein, but then withdrew support suddenly, allowing most of them to be slaughtered. As a result, the survivors have 2 things: knowledge in subversive warfare like bombmaking, and a hatred of the US.

Denzel Washington plays an FBI agent trying to figure this whole situation all out. He’s there for the first bombing, and uncovers how this group got their motivation. It’s going to be very hard to break up, since the terrorist cells are compartmentalized, and stepping up their campaign to schools and theaters.

Suddenly, calamity strikes. The terrorists manage to take out basically the entire New York FBI branch with a car bomb. The city is put under martial law, with the US military in full control of the city and its resources. As a precaution, and to catch the terrorists, they arrest every Arab and Muslim male in New York City within a certain age range, and move them to a detention camp, not unlike what happened to the Japanese-Americans in World War II.

The actors were great for this movie. Denzel Washington is the FBI guy trying to do his job while upholding the Constitution and civil liberties, Bruce Willis is a cold monstrous pragmatist general. Tony Shaloub is the best, he plays an Arab-American FBI agent who’s caught in this whole thing on two sides; loyalty to his country, and rage at having his family detained at an interment camp for being Arab. Annette Benning has a role, albeit not as great as her others. Plotwise, however, it’s another story.

I gotta say a few things. The plot, as unrealistic as it is in some places, suddenly has a new effect after September 11, 2001. I HATE saying that, since the idea is so overused, but this one I really believe to be the case. Many Arab-Americans and Muslims protested this movie, understandably, since it had Arabs and Muslims as the bad guys. At the same time, it did portray innocent legal Arabs who love this country and still got arrested and interred as a group. That really doesn’t fix the problem, it’s like saying Tonto was a moderating character in all the Lone Ranger movies where the Indians were the bad guys. The film ostensibly wasn’t about anti-Arab sentiment, it was more about paranoia and hasty-decision making. On that note, it does a good job, Denzel fights for civil rights and justice. Still, I did think they had a very distorted image of what a terrorist would be, and what real Muslims do. Worse, the film connected Islamic activities, like reciting from the Holy Quran, the ritual wudu (washing before prayer), and the adhan (call to prayer), with terrorism. Also, once again, it had Palestinian bad guys, and even worse, it showed Arab immigrants, a college professor, and Arab-American auto mechanics in Brooklyn as terrorists. In 1998, Arabs and Muslims demonstrated in front of movie theaters showing the film, and after watching it, I wouldn’t blame them. As Jack Shaheen said in Reel Bad Arabs, Hollywood couldn’t get away with the same stereotypes if the plot was about Jewish extremists led by a terrorist rabbi.

Personally, after September 11, the thought of this film gave me chills. It was the kind of thing that people predicted would happen in a worst-case scenario. I had nightmares that I was arrested in NY just for being Muslim. Someone astutely pointed out that one of the bad guys in this movie, Bruce Willis, does exactly what Ariel Sharon has done recently in the West Bank; seal off the neighborhood, arrest all males in a specific age range, and put them in temporary concentration camps.

A film reviewer wrote this in May 2002: “Another thing to note is that this movie simply isn’t the same movie after September 11th. Which is remarkable of itself, because most movies about current events are made after the fact, rather than before.” Think of it as an alternate result to what happened after 9/11.

Share This

I’m a big fan of Khalil Bendib’s political cartoons.

I stumbled upon this cartoonist, Tales of Iraq War, by Latuff

Oh don’t forget Get Your War On

I have another but I lost the source: Sadly, this is how a lot of Muslims view American policy today:

Source unknown

Share This

The Brass Crescent Awards are given annually to the best Muslim bloggers and non-Muslim bloggers of Muslim topics.

My favorites and votes this year;
Best Blog: Jihad of Umar (Umar Lee)
Best non-Muslim blog: Juan Cole
Most Deserving of Wider Recognition: Rolled-up Trousers
Best Design: Hadithuna
Best Group Blog: Muslim Matters
Best South Asian Blog: All Things Pakistan
Best Post or Series: Umar Lee: The Rise and Fall of the Salafi Dawah in the US
Best Multimedia Blog: The Reminder Series (Baba Ali of Ummah Films)

See the nominees and vote for yourself at http://www.brasscrescent.org/

Also, good blog posts from last years’ nominees:

Tariq Nelson has a nice piece “They Kill More Muslims than Anything”
Why Racial Profiling of Muslims is a bad idea by Lota Enterprises

Share This

Pitch Black, now ex post facto titled “The Chronickes of Riddick: Pitch Black” is a B-scifi movie I suppose.

The plot is simple, a transport passenger ship crash lands on a foreign planet en route to its destination. The survivors try to figure out how to survive, and discover the planet isn’t empty of life. Ok, simple scifi plot.

Why bother to even discuss it then? It has a somewhat interesting addition of characters. I’m not talking about Vin Diesel (the convict Riddick) or the crewmember-turned-captain or the Frenchman, but rather the Muslims. Yes, there are Muslims in a futuristic SciFi movie. Apparently among the survivors are an imam and his sons making Hajj to “New Mecca” which is implied to be some other planet.

Ordinarily I hate depictions of Muslims in movies (they never pray realistically etc) but this time they did an OK job, even reciting the shahadah properly (or would they need to say “Labbayk” instead?) They even make a theme out of it as the imam and nihilist Riddick argue over faith when characters start to die off.

My rating? See it if you want to see a somewhat decent portrayal of Muslims, but avoid it if you don’t like lame mild horror movies or “people on alien world struggling to survive” movies. I didn’t really care for how the plot went, so I waver between “worth seeing once” or “a waste.”

I liked the sequel, The Chronicles of Riddick more, though I can only describe it as “Galactic Space Crusader Romans who attack planet Morocco” (at least in the beginning). The imam makes a minor appearance as well, but they left it so we won’t see more in any sequels. A shame, since he was my favorite and most interesting. I think the Chronicles of Riddick series is going somwhere and making a cool universe for the stories, but the rest of the episodes are either animated or in book form. A shame because the sequel leaves off at a fairly crucial point.

Share This

Reel Bad Arabs: How Hollywood Vilifies a People

As anyone who watches a lot of movies will tell you, there are plenty of movies where the Bad Guy is either Arab or Muslim. There have been plenty of movies in the last 30 years where the stereotypical Arab is the bad guy terrorist; brutal, heartless, dirty, uncivilized, misogynistic, religious fanatics. How many Hollywood movies off the top of your head have you seen or heard of that have an Arab bad guy? Personally, I can think of over a dozen.

The author, Jack Shaheen, is a professor of Mass Communicatons at Southern Illinois University and a former CBS News consultant on Middle East affairs. He’s written a number of books like Arab and Muslim Stereotyping in American Popular Culture, Nuclear War Films, and The TV Arab, and the biography in his book calls him “the world’s foremost authority on media images of Arabs.” I probably couldn’t dispute this, as his book lists and reviews the 900+ films he saw and researched. In the vast majority of the films where Arabs are mentioned or portrayed, they are demonized, distorting their image with offensive stereotypes.

How do you remember an Arab looking in a movie? Black beard, headdress or kiffeyah (the black/red and white checkered cloth), and dark sunglasses, and sometimes a sneer. They usually have a limousine, harem girls, oil, or a machine gun. Now consider this, when do you remember seeing a movie depicting an Arab as a regular guy, a good neighbor with kids, looking and acting like you or me? How many Arab actors do you know who don’t regularly play a bad guy? (I can think of Tony Shalhoub, who plays detective Monk, but he’s not prolific in cinema). F. Murray Abraham, the Academy Award Winner from the film Amadeus, was once asked what the ‘F’ stood for. “F stands for Farid. When I first began in the business I realized I couldn’t use Farid because that would typecast me as a sour Arab out to kill everyone. As Farid Murray Abraham I was doomed to minor roles.” Alexander Siddig, an actor for Star Trek: Deep Space Nine, actually was born in Sudan and his proper name is Siddig El Fadil.

According to Shaheen’s analysis, there is some definite racism in these films. Perhaps it may not be as palpable in the films of the 90’s and beyond, but his research goes back to the 1930’s, and there are some really offensive stereotypes. Sure, there was racism against blacks too, but this racism of the swarthy Arab attacking the Westerner, or in some cases Christians and Jews, continued when other stereotypes faded, even through the 1990’s. He calls it “the New Anti-Semitism” because many of the anti-Semitic (yes, Arabs are Semites too) films against Arabs were released in the last third of the twentieth century, when stereotypes against blacks, Jews, and other minority groups were on their way out of cinema. Also, these images of hook-nosed Arabs in robes dressing and talking different are similiar to the Nazi propaganda films of the 1930’s and 40’s where the Jews looked and acted different than the protagonists.

These stereotypes existed before film, but the number of films derogatory of Arabs only perpetuated the stereotype, making it last in society while others fade. Many recycled films on cable TV are loaded with the sterotypes, like Protocol, The Delta Force, Ernest in the Army, Rules of Engagement etc..

These films are having an influence on everyone who watches these movies. The images get burned into your mind, and the more of the stereotype you see, the more it is reinforced. Plato wrote in his Republic, “Those who tell the stories also rule society.” Ben Barber in The Nation wrote, “Disney does more than [David] Duke.” Hate crimes against Arabs and Muslims are on the rise in the last decade, and these movies that still air today don’t help. One wonders, how effective do you think movies are in shaping the way Americans think about Arabs, especially Palestinians, and about the “peace process” in the region? Many people have never been to the Middle East and don’t personally know any Arabs, yet plenty have formed their own opinions. A 2006 poll found that 25% of Americans would not want a Muslim neighbor, and I strongly believe that these movies are responsible for pushing the stereotpye along. It’s one thing to read about terrorism or watch a clip on the news, but another to watch a well-lit sneering Arab holding a machine gun and saying a line like “It’s the sword of Islam…sent to deliver a blow to the belly of the infidel.” (from the movie Executive Decision(1996)). (Personally, that image lingered in my mind for years, buttressed by vague stories in the news mentioning violence in the Middle East. I was sweating with fear the first time I came into contact with genuine Muslims some time later.)

A film critic Anthony Lee proposed a litmus test, “…try replacing one Semitic group with another–Jews instead of Arabs–and THEN listen for the laugh.” The point he is making is that it is considered unacceptable to impugn Judaism by negatively showing Jewish people, but nobody seems to bat an eyelash when Arabs or Muslims are portrayed as “dirty” or inhuman. Written in 2001, the book is still correct in its assertions. Recently, the movie “The Passion of the Christ” drew large protests and allegations of anti-Semitism, while the movie The Siege was just as derogatory to another group yet ignored by most mainstream media.

Islam also gets unfairly portrayed. The actions and dialogue of the Arabs in the film link the religion with male supremacy, holy war, acts of terror, and hatred of the West. Nothing can be further from the truth regarding the religion, but the vast majority of these 900+ movies reviewed make the Muslims look evil or stupid, and very few actually show a Muslim as a hero. It seems as if only terrorists say “Allah be praised” in these films, and if the hero mentions it, calls Him “God.” (One criticism of Munich was that the Hebrew spoken by the main characters had english subtitles but no subtitles for the Arabic, as if they weren’t important.) These movies, without some balanced movies to counter the negativity, are partly responsible for a large proportion of polled Americans thinking Islam is a violent religion. 1985’s biggest box office draw was Back to the Future and the idea that Libyans being Arab terrorists trying to make an atomic bomb seems to have stuck in people’s minds. You never see innocent Muslims being attacked by Westerners in film, but frequently the other way around.

This book is organized in an excellent way. It’s in alphabetical order by movie, giving a short description of the film and what goes on that shows the stereotype. Also, the movies are grouped into categories of the stereotypes; Best List, Worst List, Villans, Sheikhs, Cameos, Maidens, Egyptians, and Palestinians. The “Maidens” list is where you see stereotypical belly dancers, harem girls, or other poor portrayals Arab women. Sheikhs are in reality considered to be wise elders, but you wouldn’t think that by watching one of these films. They are Muslim religious leaders, but in film, anyone who wears a robe and headdress is considered a sheikh (think Jamie Farr from Cannonball Run or the arms dealer at the beginning of Three Ninjas). Egyptians are a popular choice as they are a stereotypical Arab in the eyes of an American, I guess. They’re in Mummy movies, pyramids and pharoahs and such. Palestinians get a rough treatment, where do you see even one Palestinian who isn’t a character trying to kill Jews/Israelis/Westerners/Americans?

In addition, he includes some worthy appendices; alternate film titles, Best List, Reccomended List, Worst List, Cannon films, a list of Epithets directed at Arabs in film, a list of phony Arab lands used in films, silent films and travelogues featuring Arabs, films for future review (he didn’t finish his research), and a glossary of common Arabic words used in those films, like “Allahu Akbar.”

Some movies that made the Best List (a good portrayal):

• King Richard and the Crusaders(1954)
• Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves(1991)
• The 13th Warrior(1999)
• Three Kings(1999)
• Lion of the Desert(1981)

Some movies on the Recommended List “…balanced and humane portraits; young people may view them without being ashamed of their heritage”:

• Ben Hur(1959)
• The Message(1976)
• The Long Kiss Goodnight(1996) (a bit of a stretch IMO)
• A Perfect Murder(1998)

A sampling of the Worst List (a long list, I cut it down a bit):

• Back to the Future(1985)
• The Black Stallion(1979)
• The Black Stallion Returns(1983)
• The Bonfire of the Vanities(1990)
• Chain of Command(1993)
• The Delta Force(1986)
• Freedom Strike(1998)
• Ground Zero(1994)
• Iron Eagle(1986)
• Ishtar(1987)
• Killing Streets(1991)
• Navy SEALs(1990)
• Operation Condor(1997)
• Protocol(1984)
• Rules of Engagement(2000)
• Terror in Beverley Hills(1988)
• True Lies(1994)

I recommend this book, it makes interesting reading, and I especially recommend it to people taking some sort of Film Study class. It mentions so many movies that I’m sure you’ve seen several at least. Curiously, it leaves out Not Without My Daughter (which has Persian stereotypes), which I think no listing like this would be complete without.

Update: Apparently some person inspired by this book collected together a montage of several of the “Worst List” and assembled it into a 9-minute-long trailer called “Planet of the Arabs.” It was an Official Selection at the 2005 Sundance Film Festival, and quite impressive.

Share This

“What is the price of oil?”

Syriana is a complicated movie that is made with fictional characters, but supposed to be based on real-life issues and conflicts in the Middle East.

The film comes from writer/director Stephen Gaghan, winner of the Best Screenplay Academy Award for Traffic. It’s similar to Traffic; multiple plots and characters revolving on a unified topical theme. The Tagline for the film is “Everything is Connected.” The screenplay is based on See No Evil: The True Story of a Ground Soldier in the CIA’s War on Terrorism, by Robert Baer, a former CIA officer who worked in the Middle East. (I haven’t read the book yet, but have purchased it mainly because the film intrigued me so much)

The plot? It’s a political thriller that shows us the inside conflicts within the oil industry. You have governments getting desperate for a shrinking resource, Middle East leaders who want reform and maximized profits, shifting alliances and middlemen. The settings range from Tehran, to boardrooms, to Lebanon, to Geneva, to Washington DC, to desert oil-fields. The movie follows four characters around, and shows how each plays a role in the world oil affairs.

• A CIA operative, played by George Clooney, working on weapons proliferation and assassinating certain people.
• An oil broker/analyst, played by Matt Damon, who’s working on a business deal with a reformist Arab prince (Alexander Siddig).
• A corporate lawyer, played by Jeffrey Wright, who’s working towards the corporate merger of two shady oil companies.
• A young Pakistani immigrant worker who loses his job in the oil fields and falls in with a charismatic recruiter.

A lot goes on in this movie, and it certainly gave me plenty to think about. It goes into corruption and foreign influence. Heck, the movie opens with an arms deal and an American CIA agent planting a car bomb. (It was in the preview, I don’t see it as a spoiler) It alludes to American influence of power in the Middle east over oil, but to its credit, provides characters who defend the practices, saying that China and other countries do the same thing and if America didn’t (because of its ethics laws of American companies working overseas), it would lose the competition for the limited resource. It’s hard to figure out who the good guy is, people you think are good aren’t, and you see someone get tortured. There’s a one-line bill mentioned in the film from a law firm to the Saudi government for “services rendered.” (the film writer said in an interview it’s an actual bill, and the services were allegedly to stop an FBI investigation) The film deals with contemporary issues, same as Traffic. It describes a lot, but doesn’t give us a remedy or a solution, although the advertisements for the film do list an online campaign to reduce dependance on oil. As George Clooney said in an interview, it doesn’t supply answers, but it opens things up for debate by getting people talking about it. He wanted to be clear that the film doesn’t glorify terrorism (it really doesn’t), but it tries to help audiences understand its workings.

George Clooney actually had to gain 35 pounds and grow a beard for this film, to better depict the middle-aged character. He also suffered a spinal injury during a rough scene, and later needed surgery and was bed-ridden for a month.

I purposely went with a group of Kuwaiti Arabs to see the film, and they were able to explain a lot. In short, they didn’t really like it much. Their complaints were that the accents were horrible and they actually had to read the subtitles because the non-Arab actors were so bad. Although the Arab country is unnamed in the film (and most Americans will probably think its Saudi Arabia anyway), the subtle difference in dress indicates its United Arab Emirates. They also told me that these reform-minded leaders who exist in the film don’t really advocate women’s rights at all in the actual Gulf, far from it. One thing they disliked was the terrorism subplot; a disaffected immigrant goes to an Islamic school and decides to become a terrorist. They told me, and I agree, that the film depiction was completely false; Islamic schools aren’t like that, and those terrorists we know of today become what they are through other means, outside of a school setting.

Syria isn’t mentioned at all in the film, despite the title. I thought it maybe meant “Our Syria” but my Arabic-speaking friends disagreed with me.

Rated: R (USA), 126 Minutes

After you see the film, there’s a roundtable discussion with George Clooney, Jeffrey Wright, Alexander Siddig, See No Evil author Bob Baer, and writer/director Stephen Gaghan in NYC online

Ebert and Roper gave the film 2 thumbs way up, and it made both of their top 10 lists of 2005, grabbing first and second place on their respective lists.

Here’s a note, my three favorite actors (among many) are George Clooney, Al Pacino, and Nicholas Cage

Share This