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.