When “Obsession: Radical Islam’s War Against the West,” a documentary that shows Muslims urging attacks on the United States and Europe, was screened recently at the University of California, Los Angeles, it drew an audience of more than 300 — and also dozens of protesters.It's not clear who Sarsour thinks the focus should be on at a time when Islamist terrorist attacks are going on around the world.
...The documentary’s proponents say it provides an unvarnished look at Islamic militancy. “It’s an urgent issue that is widely avoided by academia,” argued Michael Abdurakhmanov, the Hillel president at Pace.
Its critics call it incendiary. Norah Sarsour, a Palestinian-American student at U.C.L.A., said it was disheartening to see “a film like this that takes the people who have hijacked the religion and focuses on them.”
Overall, the article tries to be evenhanded:
Mr. Shore describes his film as nonpartisan and balanced, and many viewers agree with him. Traci Ciepiela, who teaches criminal justice at Western Wyoming Community College in Rock Springs and has a screening scheduled this week, says she learned from the film and did not think that it was unfair or inflammatory.
But others see it as biased. Arnold Leder, a political scientist at Texas State University, San Marcos, decided not to use it for his course “The Politics of Extremism” because of what he called “serious flaws,” including that it did not address Islam in general, the history of Islam and the schisms within the faith.
Little Green Footballs, on the other hand, thinks the article tries to smear the movie.
Myself, I think it the article is interesting if for no other reason than the reasons given by those who oppose the movie. Sarsour, above, thinks that highlighting the actions of Islamist radicals is wrong.
- Arnold Leder, a political scientist at Texas State University claims the movie has “serious flaws,”such as not addressing Islam in general (It's treatment of non-Muslims as second-class citizens?), not discussing the history of Islam (It's history of attempted global conquest?) and not dealing with the schisms within the faith (How is that relevant to Islamist terrorism?). He goes call the movie "a polemic." I assume Leder considers this a condemnation, but a polemic is nothing more than a controversial argument. Give it time...
- Rabbi Chaim Seidler-Feller, director of U.C.L.A. Hillel, claims the movie is “a way to transfer the Middle East conflict to the campus, to promote hostility.” He must be new on campus.
- A student is quoted as saying that “the movie was so well crafted and emotion manipulating that I felt myself thinking poorly of some aspects of Islam.” Considering the topic and the fact that the movie is not a condemnation of Islam itself but of Islamists, just why is that a problem?
Mr. Friedman told the audience, “You have to understand a problem before you can solve it.”But most of the viewers, including both a rabbi and a Muslim chaplain on a discussion panel put together by the students, said the film did not foster understanding.
Mr. Friedman is talking about dealing with the actual problem of Islamist extremists and terrorism; the rabbi and Muslim chaplain are talking about creating better relations between the two religions--a fine idea, but something which is clearly not what the movie is meant to do.
This may be a substantial difference of opinion on how to deal with and relate to the situation.“The question about radical Islam and how do we fight it is unproductive,” said Yehuda Sarna, the New York University rabbi on the panel. “The question is how to break down the stereotypes facing the two religions.”The problem is that saying that fighting radical Islam is unproductive may very well end up being a self-fulfilling prophesy.
Technorati Tag: Israel and Obsession and Islam and Islamists.
No comments:
Post a Comment