The Kingdom: Presenting Complexities to the One-Sided Portrayal of War

It is an understatement to simply say that that Arab/Muslim identity has been negatively portrayed throughout the majority of Hollywood cinema. Images and scenes of terrorists, assassins, brutalizing acts of violence towards the innocent, and a complete opposition to American ideals have summarized what it means to Arab/Muslim to the American entertainment industry. Recently, a new movie titled The Kingdom has challenged the “us vs. them” binary by addressing the reality and complexities of political and culture differences.

The Kingdom is the story of the aftermath of a terrorist suicide-bomber attack on a foreign-workers facility site in Saudi Arabia. Because of the attack, an FBI team (portrayed by the well known celebrities Jamie Foxx, Heather Garner, and Chris Cooper) is sent to investigate the bombing and must adapt to the intensity, culture shock, and political tension of the situation. Issues of race (Foxx being African American), gender (Garner is prohibited from wearing a t-shirt that exposes her arms despite the extreme heat) and power hierarchy (the Americans challenge their enforced curfew, discontent with being demobilized) remain at the plot’s forefront throughout the movie.

Unlike the majority of action movies, The Kingdom also tells the familial and personal story of the terrorists. The audience is exposed to the terrorists’ everyday habits and interactions, translated prayers, and community involvement. This presents an “often deliberately” hidden perspective on Arab/Muslim life. In doing so, The Kingdom is able to humanize and devillianize the terrorists, ultimately breaking down the protagonist versus antagonist construct as well as the common “us versus them” binary.


The Kingdom also deconstructs the “good Muslim/bad Muslim” dichotomy with the character Al-Ghazi, a military officer placed in charge of the Americans and who is also very dedicated to capturing the terrorists. Throughout the movie Al-Ghazi and Jamie Foxx face numerous challenges while growing closer together, allowing the audience to connect the common goals and ideals (patriotism, family values/responsibility) shared by the not-so different individuals. By contrasting their cultural and political similarities and differences, The Kingdom poses the complexities and shortcomings of the “good Muslim/bad Muslim” ideology. At the end of the movie, Al-Ghazi defies orders and takes the FBI agents to speak with terrorist associates, local youth, and corrupt governing officials. Al-Ghazi is then killed rescuing the captured FBI agent, followed by a scene displaying Jamie Foxx consoling his son. Foxx uses the same lines and gestures when comforting his diseased best friend’s son (seen in the beginning of the film), representing the established camaraderie between Al-Ghazi and Foxx, the reconciling of cultural differences, and the universal pain shared by all those affected by war.

Recasting the Other in American Media

The fall of the Soviet Union and the dismantling of the alliance between former Soviet bloc countries left the American media with a void. With the fall of America's largest ideological enemy, American media was also left without an imaginary enemy in films. Its not suprising that the Soviet Union would compromise the Other when we consider that the popular forms of mass media developed significantly during the era of the Cold War. However, after 1991 the search for the new Other was on, but it wouldn't take more that ten years to find exactly what they were looking for. After September 11, 2001 it became clear that America's new enemy would be the illusive terrorists, soon the television and film industries began constructing new stories and images that pitted the United States against Islamic fundamentalists.

The majority of the stories that depict terrorist as the primary enemies of the United States focus on a post-September 11 world. Examples of these include 24, James Bond: Casino Royale (a franchise that normally pitted the U.S. against communists and Russia), Iron Man, Sleeper Cell, The Grid, Vantage Point etc. However, the new enemy is not limited to newly written films and TV series but instead has allowed us to go back in time and do a rereading of the past. One film that finds terrorists in places where we hadn't bothered to look before is Steven Spielberg’s 2005 film Munich which is based off of the 1972 Munich massacre of Israeli Olympic athletes by Black September terrorists.

While it is true that Black September was labeled a terrorist organization long before the events of the September 11 attacks, we should still question the reasoning behind the production of the film. It seems doubtful that interest in producing this movie would not have been as great had it not been for the September 11 attacks. Its production would not have been as likely if Islamic terrorist had not come to encompass the new Other, the anti-thesis of the United States and her allies in the west.

The film Munich shares many similar qualities with other post-9/11 films. Evelyn Alsultany documents some of these characteristics and strategies in her article Representing the War on Terror in TV Dramas. One of the most important of those strategies for this film is what Alsultany calls the “humanizing of terrorist characters.” Alsultany says that, “…post 9/11 terrorist characters are humanized by representing them in relation to their families, or by narrating a back story or motive” which is opposed to pre-9/11 terrorists that where one-dimensional all around bad guys. The protagonists in Munich are hired by the Israeli government to kill 11 members of the Black September organization involved in the massacre of Israeli Olympic athletes. However, in the process they come into to contact members of the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO). In a scene where the leader of the PLO and the protagonist of the movie have a conversation we are given a more humanizing view of the PLO. The leader of the PLO explains their motives and justifies their actions. He ends the conversation by saying that “Home is everything.”

Saving the Nameless Afghan Girl

For seventeen years Steve McCurry searched for the girl that captivated the western world with eyes that were “haunted and haunting, and in them you can read the tragedy of a land drained by war.” McCurry attempted to find this woman several times after the photograph was taken including several attempts in the nineties when the Taliban was in power. Unfortunately these endeavors ended in failure as he was limited by his ability to travel through the region during the time. However after the September 11 attacks in New York and the subsequent invasion of Afghanistan in the War of Terror, there was a large increase in interest for the girl who had been photographed in the 1980’s.

The interest for the woman in the photo stems not only from the fact that her eyes and face became a sort of spokes person for the war in Afghanistan in the eighties but also from the fact that nothing about her was known. McCurry says that when the photo was taken he didn’t expect it to stand out from any of the photos he had taken that day, photos he took while documenting life for refugees in a refugee camp in Pakistan. That is why he never bothered to ask for her name, about her family, about her life.

Yet could there be another explanation for the western media’s fascination for this woman? There is no doubt that the photo itself warrants attention, it is after all a very good photo of a young girl with strong piercing eyes. However, if this image had been of a boy with strikingly green eyes, would it have been able to garner the amount of attention and interest that this young girl did? What if the girl would have had brown eyes? There is the distinct possibility that the western medias interest also stems from our often-misplaced desire to save Muslim women.
According to Lila Abu-Lughod the history of saving Muslim women extends far back into the eras of colonialism. In India, the examples Abu-Lughod uses are the of interventions of Sati, in the Middle East and Arab regions she cites Englishman that opposed veiling and saw it as a form of oppression (while opposing women’s suffrage at home.)

The idea of saving Muslim women became central again with the current military campaigns that the United States is waging in Afghanistan and Iraq. After the invasion of Afghanistan Laura Bush, wife of then president George W. Bush, made a radio address to the nation in which she stressed the importance and impact the war had on the lives of Afghani women. While the invasion may have been justified by the attacks of September 11 alone (not to mention U.N. support), the radio address by Laura Bush added another element in support of the war. The speech was problematic because it approached the issue that women face under the scope of cultural relativism. That is, there was a concern for these women that intended to free them from the oppression imposed upon them by men and laws from the Taliban. It made those issues the primary ones while also mixing in other more important ones into the mix such as malnutrition, poverty, and poor health, issues that had had nothing to do with the Taliban. The issue in essence became one of “white men needing to save brown women from men.”

Dandana TV and the Arab American Beat: Participating in the Global Exchange

Dandana TV is a relatively new television cable network that airs in the United States and Canada. According to its own website

“Dandana TV has been one of the fastest growing channels in the United States and Canada. Dandana TV's hip approach to the Middle Eastern culture through pop music, lifestyle programming and entertainment has made Dandana TV the one and only channel to reach the untapped Middle Eastern market as well as the viewers that want to be in the know on the real Middle East.”

The channel has a format that is very similar to those found on other networks that focus on popular culture such as MTV, BET and Mun2. The stations lineup has a variety of shows that include Top Ten, a countdown of popular Middle Eastern music and news, Mobasher Ma3a Amr which offers a reflection of the lives of Middle Easterners and ALO Dandna Show which is a game show focused on entertainment trivia among others.

In what ways can we view this television network in a post-9/11 era? One of the more obvious ways is the greater visibility of Arab Americans on a national scope. However with an continuously negative focus on the Middle East region Dandana TV seems to fill in a void that the news networks have left open, positive representations of Arab Americans at home as well as abroad. The network not only serves this purpose but it is also an affirmation of an important consumer base that had previously been ignored.

One show of particular interest is Arab American Beat, which features events happening around the country ranging from local community events to interviews with popular Arab and Arab American artists. The premise of the show, according to the networks site is “Education through Entertainment.” Beyond its educational value though, we can see something perhaps more significant than its intentions in what Edward Said has called the Globalization of Capital. Said’s idea of the globalization of capital argues that there is a weakening of boundaries between cultures and societies due to the motion of people, ideas, products and many other things. This weakening of boundaries then stipulates that the differences we perceive between ourselves and others are only not inherent but they are also diminishing. Arab American Beat perhaps best demonstrates this because it focuses on popular artists that perform in Arabic, yet the production is usually done here in the United States. This inevitably carries some influence over into the work of the artists. In an interview with a rising artist called Zindiali, she discusses how even though her newest music video is sung in Arabic, it was filmed in Miami with the help of a Latino director. The Latino director had only previously worked on music videos with reggaeton artists. The experience of just one artist demonstrates how interconnected the media industry has become. What this means, then, for those who consume these products is that they are actively participating in the globalization of capital.

Muslim Rappers: Religion in the Hip-Hop Community

One may easily argue that the Islam religion is one of the last things to come to mind when mentioning the mainstream hip-hop movement. This popular culture phenomenon has become categorized and stereotyped as a genre for African Americans, gang promotion, arms and violence, money and accessories, and degrading women. However, a wide majority of mainstream rappers consider themselves Muslim. While some rappers’ behavior and legitimacy in the Islam community are questioned, particularly due to their religious/denominational beliefs grounded in The Nation of Gods And Earths, their lyrics and identity as a Muslim shed diversity on the American entertainment’s stereotypical Muslim. This article will address the similarities and differences between traditional Islam and The Nation Of Gods And Earths, how they are portrayed through an artist’s lyrics, and how these individuals challenge the synonymous relation between Arab and Muslim.


Clarence Smith founded The Nation of Gods And Earths (NGE), also referred to as The Five Percentage Nation of Islam, in 1964 in Harlem New York. His teachings promoted the original Blackman as God, and the original Blackwomen as planet Earth: allowing any individual to transform and possess their true potential. Ultimately, followers may come to view themselves as their own god. The beliefs and teachings of The Nation of Gods And Earths is typically passed through oral tradition, following a universal language comprised of supreme mathematics and the supreme alphabet. Despite these differences from traditional Islam, NGE shares numerous beliefs with Islam, such as refraining from drinking, promoting community and family, and following life rules of peace.

As mentioned, a wide array of famous rap artists identify as Muslim and/or as part of the NGE. Ice Cube, Ghostface Killah, Busta Rhymes, Q-Tip, Beanie Sigel, Mos Def, and Lupe Fiasco are prominent artists in the hip-hop community who openly acknowledge their religious beliefs publicly and lyrically. In “Muhammad Talks” Lupe Fiasco states, “In the Quran they call him Isa…Don't think Osama and sadaam are is our leada…We pray for peace”. Busta Rhymes quotes part of the Quran in “Arab money” singing, “La ilaha illa Allah, ha la ili, hay yo…Hili b’Allah, hey hili bay yo…We getting Arab money”. Incorporating Islamic culture into a growing musical medium challenges and reshapes American official culture towards Islam, by providing definitions of ideals such as patriotism, loyalty, and boundaries and belonging.

The majority of the aforementioned artists are African American, debunking assumed parallels between Muslims and Arabs. By openly identifying as Muslim, the American entertainment industry and the American public may begin to see that not all Muslims are Arabs, and not all Arabs are Muslim. Although certain rappers have changed their names to adapt to the hip-hop world (Lupe Fiasco is actually Wasalu Muhammad Jaco) they still convey an image and message of Islam. This further exemplifies the diversity of the Islamic culture and the ability to be rooted in Middle Eastern, Southeast Asian, or African American ways of life.

Post-9/11 Counter Culture on The Onion

With the September 11th attacks came a national inability to process any type of dissent or counter culture in light of such a tragedy. The normality of an American counter culture and political satire in response actions made by the American government was halted after the event, and it’s first sign of response came on September 29th, 2001 when Saturday Night Live released its first 9/11 Tribute show. The episode opened with former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani and writer Lorne Michaels as Michaels posed the question whether it was “okay for the show to be funny again?” Giuliani responded by saying, “Why start now?” With this comedic performance, American popular culture slowly moved back to accepting counter culture and satiric responses.

Many of these satiric responses, however, do not utilize the role of terrorist in their comedy. In the Onion’s videocast, “'9/11 Conspiracy Theories Ridiculous' - Al Qaeda”, the satirical news network approaches the issue of conspiracy theories surrounding the 9/11 attacks. In the video, the moderators brings in two guests — an American conspiracy theorist and a leader in the al-Qaeda terrorist cell which is responsible for the World Trade Center attacks. The conspiracy theorist argues that the 9/11 attacks are the product of a U.S. government conspiracy, while the al-Qaeda leader defends that his terrorist cell was proud of their attack, and it is insulting to him that there are conspiracy theories.

This satirical response is one that would not be allowed shortly following the attacks. In the Saturday Night Live tribute show, satirical sketches like this one were not portrayed due to the complicated emotional responses surrounding the event. However, seven years later, when this video came out, the counter culture had already redeveloped. The use of an al-Qaeda terrorist as a guest, and even more so, the seemingly “sane” guest of the two, is still controversial. This satire attempts to not only show the ridiculous nature of conspiracy theories but also reverse the binary opposition that placed the United States as the victims. Instead, the al-Qaeda terrorist claims that his terrorist cell is being victimized by not receiving credit for the 9/11 attacks. The video goes even further past political correctness, towards the end as the terrorist leader indirectly threatens another terrorist attack on the Washington Monument.

In response to the conspiracy theorist, the al-Qaeda leader actually takes the role that a normal American would in the situation. It is often the place of conspiracy theories as a joke in American culture, and the al-Qaeda leader makes a farce out of the theory. The moderator even begins to chastise the conspiracy theorist for not allowing the terrorist leader to talk. In this, we can see that Orientalism and Islamophobia have become simply a source of satirical material for The Onion writers, allowing for those who watch to approach the issue with a different level of comfort, one that allows them to critically analyze the media messages given surrounding Americanism and the threat of terrorism.

With the massive change from a vulnerable and sensitive culture following the attacks of September 11th, it’s clear that with videos such as The Onion’s, that there is truly restlessness in culture. Edward Said refers to this in regards to the creative provocation that changes cultures on a consistent basis. The value of this redevelopment of counterculture is exponential in the sense that comedy gives people an avenue to speak out about serious subjects. By doing watching videos such as The Onion’s, Americans are given the satirical framework to question the government and further understand the inequalities in the post-9/11 world.

Comparing the two seminal 9/11 films: Oliver Stone's World Trade Center and Paul Greengrass' United 93

United 93


World Trade Center


Of all the media surrounding the September 11th terrorist attacks, the two major Hollywood films, United 93 and World Trade Center, are the most intriguing cases to analyze. First, one must understand the concept of making a profitable film about such a disastrous event in the country’s history. As the United States continued to mourn several years later, the movies were released and grossed $76 million (United 93) and $162 million (World Trade Center). Additionally, the question of representation becomes a problem, as Hollywood films tend to represent high-emotion events with profitability at the center of its purpose, leading to objectivity problems and the continued question of what it means to be patriotic or a proper American.

In United 93, director Paul Greengrass follows the events of September 11th from the periphery at first and then from the infamous flight deck of United 93, which was destined to crash into the Capitol Building before being overtaken by its heroic passengers. In World Trade Center, big-time Hollywood director Oliver Stone, who directed movies such as Alexander, Wall Street, and Natural Born Killers, directs in a cast led by actor Nicholas Cage with Maggie Gyllenhaal and Maria Bello in supporting roles. The story follows two Port Authority officers who are caught in the wreckage of the south tower of the World Trade Center and the effect it has on their families.

The differences between these two movies, despite the fact that they cover the same day in history is clearly manifested throughout the film. In United 93, Greengrass uses completely unknown actors, even using actual employees who experienced the crash when they were on the job. In World Trade Center, Stone uses popular Hollywood actors that cause the movie to be more disjointed from the emotion of the event. By using recognizable Hollywood actors, Stone’s portrayal utilizes a more profitable Hollywood approach. In addition, World Trade Center is full of hegemonic and patriotic lines that appeal to the exceptionalist point of view and the us vs. them binary opposition created in light of the September 11th attacks. In one scene where both Port Authority officers are found, Marine character Dave Karnes, described in many reviews as a “robotic soldier of Christ”, claims "Don't worry, I won't leave you! I'm a marine!" This clear allusion to the patriotism and courage of the armed forces is a clear sign of Americanism following the attacks, and it is these exact moments and images that contributed to the popularity of the film.

There are no signs of what Edward Said referred to as Orientalism in either film, other than the behavior of the hijackers in United 93, which shows clear signs of extremist Islam, but Greengrass tends to use this portrayal of Muslim terrorists in a tasteful fashion. Stone, on the other hand, chooses not to use any images of terrorists or even imagery of the buildings falling. His character, Karnes, however, makes reference to how he will make sure that those responsible for the attacks will “suffer for what they did”. Karnes reinforces the us vs. them binary opposition, alluding to the fact that those responsible must hate Americans for their freedom. This appeal to patriotic Americans tend to also separate who are or are not considered Americans, similar to many other pro-American entertainment in the post-9/11 era. This indirect Orientalism has the same dichotomous effect that outright Orientalism had before the 9/11 attacks — reinforcing hegemonic patriotism that forces those who do not fit the ideal American framework out of the picture.

In comparing the two movies, it’s clear that Greengrass’ United 93 is made in a thoroughly objective framework, honoring the victims of the flight without sensationalizing the story for a Hollywood audience. With Stone, however, World Trade Center is a mostly sensationalized Hollywood film that clearly alludes to binary oppositions and ideas of Americanism that would appeal to many citizens under patriotic hegemony in the post-9/11 world.

Brought to you courtesy of the Red, White and Blue

***Unfortunately, the embed for this video has been disable on YouTube, you can watch it here.

In the post-9/11 world, vulnerable Americans often clung to anything that would unite them – a common interest or common medium that classified them under the umbrella term of what it meant to be or not be an American. In this struggle for identity, many Americans found that music united them in this fashion, especially country music, a uniquely patriotic genre that was often conservative and pro-America in nature. Songs such as Darryl Worley’s “Have You Forgotten?” or “Courtesy of the Red, White and Blue” by Toby Keith (as I will further analyze) pose, often controversial, patriotic statements such as “We’ll put a boot in your ass, it’s the American way” or “Have you forgotten how it felt that day to see…your people blown away?” Although these questions may be unnecessarily brash and politically incorrect, the avenue that they are described in make them viable to the American public. Specifically, one should understand the relevance of “Courtesy of the Red, White and Blue” and the country music genre in the framework of the us vs. them binary and the hegemonic nature of what it means to be “American”.

Keith’s song has an unbridled amount of patriotic symbols. The music video opens with Keith on a stage, donning a cowboy hat, which is a clear sign of patriotism and the American image. His guitar has an American flag style that is similar to the multitude of flags behind him on the stage. Clearly, his appearance is intentional. When he begins to sing the song, Keith uses heavily Americanized personifications such as in this line: “Uncle Sam puts your name at the top of his list, the Statue of Liberty started shaking her fist” and so on. By appealing to this, as well as the fact that his father was in the Army and that he gave his “right eye” for his country, Keith appeals to inherently “American” qualities.

The most concerning aspect of this song, however, is the nature of Keith’s creation of an us vs. them binary opposition. In the period after 9/11, the tendency was to distinguish between those who were for America and those who were against America. Keith sings as if he is singing to enemies of the United States, in short, threatening them that the backlash of being against America is violent. “You’ll be sorry that you messed with the U.S. of A. We’ll put a boot in your ass, it’s the American way”. Not only does Keith generalize that American responses are strictly violent and defensive ones, but he perpetuates an us vs. them binary that shows the United States, and those considered Americans, as retaliatory. Never in the song does Keith reference ethnicities or specifically Arab/Muslims that would most likely be racialized in the song. He does not even mention the word “terrorist”. However, the simple reiteration of the United States being locked in a struggle against an enemy, one that, in the situation of the violence of the Iraq War, Keith feels is “the American way”.

The hegemony of what it means to be an American and what the United States is, as a whole, is retold in several fashions throughout the song. Keith alludes that his father is the ideal American because he was injured fighting for his country and that he flew a flag outside of his house every day. Open signs of patriotism such as this, however, do not necessarily speak to an individual’s level of patriotism. The United States, as a country, is characterized in the song to be the defender of freedom, the ideal environment for liberty and other various Americanized catch phrases, but with these ideas come a dangerous amount of exceptionalism that often leaves many groups on the outside looking in. Most notably in this situation, those who may be subjected to the stereotype of any of the enemies Keith refers to in his song. Although the song is intended to unite patriotic Americans in a time of desperation and vulnerability, the song also, indirectly, discounts those who may not fit the average image of an American — Caucasian and Protestant—something that’s discussed by many concerned with Muslims perception in the media, including Edward Said. With these perpetuated lines of what is or is not an American defined in the sense of a binary opposition, songs like “Courtesy of the Red, White and Blue” have continued to wedge a separation between the American population, fueling the fire of prejudice and Islamophobia, especially in a post-9/11 era.

Wage Peace: An American Response to September 11, 2001

Wage Peace
by Judyth Hill
Wage peace with your breath. Breathe in firemen and rubble, breathe out whole buildings and flocks of red wing blackbirds. Breathe in terrorists and breathe out sleeping children and freshly mown fields. Breathe in confusion and breathe out maple trees. Breathe in the fallen and breathe out lifelong friendships intact. Wage peace with your listening: hearing sirens, pray loud. Remember your tools: flower seeds, clothes pins, clean rivers. Make soup. Play music, learn the word for thank you in three languages. Learn to knit, and make a hat. Think of chaos as dancing raspberries, imagine grief as the outbreath of beauty or the gesture of fish. Swim for the other side. Wage peace. Never has the world seemed so fresh and precious: Have a cup of tea and rejoice. Act as if armistice has already arrived. Don't wait another minute. Celebrate today.

In the aftermath of September 11, many people struggled with how they wanted to define their response to the events. Some knew that they supported the attacks against the United States, perhaps feeling that the only way to get through to the super power was to use violence to air grievances. Authors Esposito and Mogahead discuss the concept that many people were unable to understand the idea that the terrorists wanted to air their grievances. Others did not know how they wanted to respond and contemplated the stances that could be taken. However, most people, especially in the United States, took a firm position against the attacks, denouncing them and calling for retaliation against the perpetrators. What we saw in the days and months following the attacks on the World Trade Center were many people who called for violence and destruction to those they considered to be enemies of the United States. However, one poem by Judyth Hill did not have the same response of violence. Wage Peace is a poem that calls for people to respond to the attacks with peaceful and everyday activity and it is very different from the patriotic poetry and other art that was so popular at the time.

Wage Peace is an example of a more holistic approach to September 11. The title itself lends us to this kind of thinking as one generally sees the word “wage” in front of “war.” The play on words suggests that Hill believes that we should go about being peaceful as intensely as a war would be waged. Additionally, in the beginning of the poem, she writes: “Wage peace with your breath. 
/Breathe in firemen and rubble, 
breathe out whole buildings and flocks of red wing blackbirds. /Breathe in terrorists
and breathe out sleeping children and freshly mown fields.
” In these passages, Hill uses opposing imagery to suggest that the reader should take in and understand the moment of 9/11 but also “exhale” or act out moments of peace, not hostility. Her poem can be considered a form of counter-culture as it calls for peace, instead of the many other poems, newscasts, government responses and art forms that contributed to the violent and accusatory dominate rhetoric or “official culture” of dealing with 9/11.

Furthermore, Hill’s poem not only calls for peace but it asks people to respond to the attacks with performing an everyday activity. Hill writes, “Make soup. 
/Play music, learn the word for thank you in three languages. 
/Learn to knit, and make a hat.” This part of the passage asks for people to continue about their daily lives and really, not do anything out of the ordinary. The poem suggests that readers “make soup” or learn a new language in order to broaden horizons. One of the most interesting aspects of this poem is that there is no dwelling on anger or sadness. Hill simply believes that the events should be absorbed and acknowledged but that people should peacefully continue on with their normal routine or use this experience as a chance to reinvent themselves and understand new things about life.

Aladdin and the Good Muslim, Bad Muslim Dichotomy

Released on November 25, 1992, Disney’s animated feature, Aladdin, became the highest grossing film of that year, earning $217 million in domestic ticket sales alone. Among four other awards and seven other nominations, Aladdin won both Golden Globes and Oscars for Best Original Score and Best Original Song. The storyline, adopted from The Book of One Thousand and One Nights, features a young street urchin named Aladdin who hopes to win the heart of Princess Jasmine. Along the way, Aladdin discovers a lamp that houses a magical genie whom he befriends to help him on his mission. However, the evil grand vizier, Jafar, needs to obtain the lamp in order to receive three wishes and become the sultan of Agrabah. Despite the movie’s immense success, I would like to argue that Aladdin can be analyzed as one of the most controversial films of our time because it reinforces negative stereotypes about Arabs and Muslims by using the framework of the “good Muslim versus bad Muslim” ideology.

Although released nine years before the September 11th terrorist attacks, the film premiered just one year after the end of the Gulf War, and thus the rhetoric for framing people of the Middle East as the enemy was already engraved in the minds of the American people. The film’s setting, Agrabah, is largely based off of Baghdad, and in fact, was rumored to originally be set in Baghdad, but later changed due to the Gulf War.The opening song of the film, “Arabian Nights,” originally contained the lyrics “Where they cut off your ear if they don't like your face/It's barbaric, but, hey, it's home.” However, due to protests from the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, in July 1993 the lyrics were changed to the less offensive, “Where it's flat and immense and the heat is intense/It's barbaric, but, hey, it's home."Regardless of the change in lyrics, the link between the Middle East and barbarianism remains, drawing from the dominant “us vs. them” ideology that claims Arab/Muslim cultures are inferior and backwards.





Stereotypes about Middle Easterners are further reinforced through the physical appearance and language of the characters of the film. To begin with, the character of Aladdin was drawn to resemble actors Michael J. Fox and Tom Cruise, who are both of European descent. Similarly, Princess Jasmine also has very Anglo-Saxon features and does not wear a veil typical of the time period in which the movie is set (although that time period is debated). On the other hand, the “bad guys” of the story, the most obvious of which is Jafar, are characterized by darker skin, eyebrows, and mustaches and are usually wearing turbans. Furthermore, they speak in thick accents that are noticeably different from the Midwestern American accents of Jasmine and Aladdin. This distinction between the heroes and the villains of the film directly play into the good Muslim/bad Muslim dichotomy prevalent in American media. Author Mahmood Mamdani argues that “good Muslims” are constructed as secular, modern, and Westernized, while “bad Muslims” are the direct opposite—barbaric, fanatical, and ultimately evil. As Alsultany concludes, the media, even children’s movies like Aladdin, has used the good versus bad Muslim ideology in order to avoid appearing racist towards all Muslims while simultaneously requiring Muslims to be understood in the framework of the War on Terror.

Response through Art: Photography and Murals in Response to 9/11

After a tragedy, people often turn to different forms communication or expression to deal with the experience. Sometimes, the only form of communication that people interact with is the news. The get, what is believed to be, the facts on the situation from a person at the news desk. Others choose to deal with the story in a different way. By expressing himself or herself through word of mouth, music, paint or a camera, what they capture can often express much more than any news source or ad campaign that is set in place to cope with the aftermath. Expressions to 9/11 have been no different as they seek to highlight a myriad of feelings and reactions. Some have expressed a very patriotic view toward the United States, with art forms including images or descriptions of the Statue of Liberty and the American flag. Others may take a different side, suggesting that it is possible that the United States is not without fault and that the reaction to the attacks and those who share the same ethnicity as the attackers may be too harsh. The photograph Muslim woman with 9/11 mural by documentary photographer Jonathan Hyman seems to highlight the dueling reactions to September 11.

Muslim woman with 9/11 mural is a photograph that was taken in 2005 in Brooklyn, New York. The photographer is sponsored as Cultural Envoy by the American Embassy in Vienna, Austria and has exhibited his works in a variety of exhibitions surrounding September 11^th and people’s reactions to it. The main focus of this photo is the large mural painted onto the side of a building in a bleak, dreary part of Brooklyn. The mural is typical of many murals painted in New York City after 9/11, which often depict a patriotic fervor. The mural is an image of New York harbor with an orange sun setting behind the Statue of Liberty. But, what takes up the majority of the mural is the giant American flag and image of a bald eagle. The bright red, white and blue dominate the mural and call attention to the eagle’s yellow beak and sharp eye which suggests violence and puts the viewer at a lower level, causing the eagle to look down on everything and person in its path.

Hyman’s photograph captures a very interesting moment as a Muslim woman with a headscarf and covered body passing through the courtyard and right in front of the mural. This moment is so important because of the subject of the mural itself and the way in which the Muslim woman is positioned in relation to the eagle. The eagle’s eye seems to bare down on her, glaring at her with a ferocious stare. This image represents the feeling that many Muslim Americans may have about the way that they have been treated in the post-9/11 world. Because many people who practice Islam have been made to be targets of terrorist accusations and derogatory behavior, it is noteworthy that the eagle looks down on this woman, imposing the “us vs. them” binary. This is literally a “clash of civilizations”, as two groups who have found opposition with one another are depicted in one image. Author Edward Said would agree with this image is creating” an us vs. them” logic as the “morality” of the “patriotic mural” rains down on the Muslim woman as the target of marginalization.

Muslim Women Versus Muslim Men in the Media

ABC Primetime recently aired a segment in which one actor posed as a Muslim woman dressed in traditional hijab and another posed as a bakery clerk. The premise of the experiment was to observe the reactions of bakery customers when the clerk refused service to the Muslim woman. The reactions of the 41 customers varied. Twenty-two of the customers, over half, said or did nothing about the discrimination. Six sided with the bakery employee, some giving him an emphatic “thumbs up” and another claiming he would also refuse service to Muslims. Most revealing, though, are the reactions of the thirteen customers that stood up for the Muslim woman. These customers expressed extreme disgust at the clerk’s decision, calling it “offensive,” “disgusting,” and “sick,” and asserting that she is an American. Despite these courageous people, I would like to argue that the news clip propels stereotypes about Islam and further adds to the racially biased media rhetoric surrounding the War on Terror.

Using Europe as an example, Sherene Razack’s essay argues that legislation “culturalizes” domestic violence against Muslim women by claiming this violence and oppression is an inherent part of Muslim culture. The U.S. government has used this explanation to legitimize and gain support for the War on Terror. The racist construction of the “imperiled Muslim woman” has become a rallying point that the media perpetuates in its programming, such as the ABC Primetime clip. This imperiled Muslim woman is characterized by her veil, which is seen as a symbol of her oppression by the inherently tyrannical Muslim culture. Razack argues that the Muslim man is constructed in opposition to the imperiled Muslim woman. He is seen as dangerous and violent, a representation of terrorism, and something that needs to be destroyed. The War on Terror flourishes on this stereotype, rallying support behind the claim that Muslim women need saving from their male oppressors.

Although the ABC Primetime segment does not directly employ the rhetoric of the imperiled Muslim woman, the reactions of the bakery customers certainly indicate that this type of ideology is present in the minds of Americans. For example, a young customer defending the Muslim actor states that her culture requires her to dress in a hijab. This reference to the intersection between culture and a hijab implies that the Muslim woman should not be discriminated against for an item of clothing she had no choice in wearing. The customer seems to be saying that it is obviously not the Muslim woman’s fault, and thus we must accept her despite the oppressive nature of her culture.

On the other hand, what if the Muslim character in the segment was played by a man rather than a woman? What if he looked like the dangerous Muslim man that is typified as an oppressor of Muslim women? The reaction of the customers to the bakery clerk’s refusal to serve the Muslim man would most likely be very different than their reaction towards the Muslim woman. I would expect many more to endorse the behavior of the bakery clerk on the grounds that he is being patriotic and American. Their basis for this approval is drawn from the same ideology that states Muslim women need saving. The Muslim man is classified as inherently dangerous due to his culture, and thus “terrorist” becomes conflated with “Muslim.” Essentially, the media demonizes Muslim men as enemies of the state, while women are upheld as repressed victims of their culture.

Maz Jobrani: Highlighting Stereotypes Through Comedy

In William Youmans’ article, Humor Against Hegemony: Al-Hurra, Jokes, and the Limits of American Soft Power, he considers humor theory and some of the concepts that are built into it. Specifically, Youmans discusses the American television station Al-Hurra, or “the free one” which is located in the Middle East as a source for American propaganda and influence in the region. The theories that Youman’s employs is applied to his studies on the reactions of both the employees and viewers of the station, however, they can also be applied to American, popular culture and humor. The comedian, Maz Joubrani and the other Axis of Evil comedians use humor in order to defuse a certain negative or hostile attitude toward Muslims after September 11 and to highlight injustices that they face.

In one of his comedy routines Joubrani compares Arabs and Iranians. He begins his act by explaining that his friends often assume that because he is Iranian he identifies himself as Arab. When they find out that he does not feel this way, they ask, “Well, how can we tell you apart?” His routine explains the differences between Arabs and Iranians first by showing a similarity but then by showing differences. One of the first things that he does is suggest that all people in the Middle East are being “shot at”. He is referencing the fact that the United States is in the Middle East, but does not seem to be able to differentiate between different types of Middle Eastern people, but considers them threatening simply because they are Arab. However, his delivery and execution of the joke because it has truth to it, get people laughing and make a serious situation feel less serious by acknowledging the ridiculous nature of the situation.

Another aspect of Joubrani’s explanation of the difference between Arabs and Iranians is the way that they speak. He exaggerates the ways in which Arabs and Iranians talk, saying that Iranians speak much slower and are much more friendly than Arabs who speak much more quickly and harshly. Using his “Arab accent” he says, “Arab, Arab talk a lot faster, Arab a lot faster…” One thing that Joubrani does really effectively is poke fun at Arabs while still making those members of the audience feel good about what he is saying. Joubrani executes his performance in a perfect way by highlighting the stereotype often put in the media that Arabs are in general, a violent intense and emotional people. He acts out his Arab friends, who when asked about their ethnicities scream out that they are “ARAB!” He uses stereotypes as the humor, and without saying it directly, highlights how absurd these notions are by getting his audience to laugh with him.

Joubrani’s and rest of the Axis of Evil tour’s approach to post- 9/11 stereotypes and issues that people of Arab and Muslim descent have to deal with, is one of the most effective. It allows a group of people to collectively acknowledge situations, stereotypes and difficulties that the majority of the group faces and laugh at the way that they are understood or treated by the population. This form of “counter culture” is very interesting because the dominant rhetoric of the time was to make fun of Arabs through vehicles like Saturday Night Live or highlight indiscretion on the news. Joubrani’s approach to changing the rhetoric is best exemplified by Henri Bergon’s theory that humor can be “a functional form of ‘scorn and humiliation’ intended to correct certain transgressions.” That is to say, the tour highlights transgressions and conclusions that people have made about the Arabic community based on the actions of a certain group of people. The tour intends to bring these issues to light through comedy and hope that people become more aware.

“The Politics of Fear”: Racializing Muslims in the Media

In July 2008, months before the presidential election, The New Yorker ran a cover cartoon entitled “The Politics of Fear” by Barry Blitt. In the caricature, Barack Obama and his wife, Michelle, stand facing each other in an oval-shaped room. The presidential candidate is dressed in a tan tunic, sandals, and a turban. Michelle wears combat boots, camouflage army pants, and a tight black shirt. A machine gun is draped over her right shoulder and her hair crowns her head in an Afro. The Obamas are connected to each other by the fist-bump that became infamous in the summer of 2008. Behind Barack is a lit fireplace, in which burns an American flag, and above the mantel hangs a framed portrait of Osama Bin Laden. The cartoon is charged with criticisms of race, religion, and the politics of the War on Terror. I would like to argue that this cover of The New Yorker is an example of the Islamophobia that has permeated our society since September 11th.

Islamophobia, in its most basic form, is a fear or hatred of Islam and Muslims. In the post-9/11 American society, however,

Islamophobia has become attached to a racial component. Junaid Rana argues that race has a long history of attaching to a cultural or religious component of a group of people. For example, in the late 15th century, the Spanish Inquisition racialized Jews and Muslims by claiming that they were inherently inferior to Christians, and therefore needed to be converted or destroyed. Scientific racism of the late 18th and early 19th centuries allowed the religious component to be separated from race, and race was thus determined by white supremacy. Decades later, Hitler applied this biological ideology to Jews during the Holocaust.

As an immediate reaction to the September 11th terrorist attacks, Congress passed the USA PATRIOT Act, which expanded government surveillance powers and avoided both the bureaucratic and judicial systems. As a result of the act, Arab and Muslim Americans became the target of thousands of FBI and CIA arrests, most without knowledge of their charges or the evidence against them. Essentially, the liberty of these Americans was taken in order to keep the nation secure from future terrorist attacks. As Rana argues, racial profiling has become rampant in our nation, relying on the racialized logic that assumes Muslims can be identified solely on appearance. “Muslim” and “Arab” quickly became conflated terms, and anyone with a beard, turban, or veil was deemed an enemy.

“The Politics of Fear” cartoon takes the identity of Muslims a bit further. Barack and Michelle Obama are African-American, a historically racialized and consequently marginalized group in American society. Yet in the caricature, the identity of the Obamas is mapped onto the current ideology of Islamophobia and reflects the concerns of the time surrounding the true religion and ethnic origins of Barack Obama. Obama’s turban resembles that of Bin Laden’s in the background, and without any other indication, the reader assumes Obama is Muslim, based solely on appearance. Michelle, on the other hand, is not dressed in a traditional hijab that is so representative of Muslim women. Rather, she wears a militant outfit, coupled with wild hair and machine gun, and she can easily be classified as a terrorist. The skin color of the Obamas even seems to be lightened in order to give them the appearance of Arabs or Muslims rather than African-Americans. By appropriating their blackness and giving them a Muslim identity, Blitt effectively makes the Obamas the enemy of the nation, even including a burning American flag to further emphasize his point.

Sayid Jarrah: Representing the Arab Identity in LOST

After September 11, 2001 the presence of the Arab and Muslim character in prime time television has become increasingly popular. ABC’s hit TV show “LOST” is no exception; a principal staple of the large ensemble cast is the fan favorite Iraqi, Sayid Hassan Jarrah, played by London’s Naveen Andrews. Despite his popularity, Sayid’s representation does not stray far from the Orientalist, Arab/Muslim stereotype. Although Sayid often displays moments of kindness and good conscience, his separate portrayals as a torturer and assassin reaffirms Arab/Muslim stereotypes in popular entertainment television.

A brief explanation of the plot and formatting of LOST is necessary to properly understand the various stages of Sayid’s character development and representation. LOST is the story of a plane crashing on a tropical island and follows the struggles and adventures of the passengers attempting to survive amidst harsh conditions, living with each other, and battling a mysterious group of individuals already present on the island. Along with the present focus on the island, each episode focuses on the background story of a particular individual, allowing the viewer to learn about the character as well contextualize their current actions on the island.

Sayid’s roll on the island is quickly established amongst the survivors as callous and insensitive when he is forced to torture another character to obtain the whereabouts of a scarce medication. The episode’s back-story later establishes Sayid as a communications officer in the Iraqi Republican Guard with a specialty in torture. Throughout LOST, Sayid is the go to character for torture and brutalizing acts. He continues to torture in Season 2 and 3 (with more back-story displays of torture) despite his numerous vows to never torture again. This constant correlation between Arab and torturer establishes and perpetuates the Arab/Muslim stereotype of Arabs as angry, violent, closed-minded, and ultimately incapable of straying from such brutalizing (arguably uncivilized) acts.

Lost 1x08 : Sayid Tortures Sawyer - Watch today’s top amazing videos here