What to Make of the Bombay Massacre

Terror attack it is, but the questions of "why?" resounds loudly. I am not sure what exactly this is all about, Pakistan and India have been rocked by such attacks. While Pakistan, just days after my departure, my Mom was shopping in a open air market, an hour after her departure, that market was attacked by a suicide bomber.

I have seen articles about "marginalized Muslims of India" and "al-Qaeda" and on "Kashmir rebels". One thing I have to admit, in all the Indian reports, this attack is described in plain simple "terrorist" and "criminal" terms. No association with Islam or Muslims and when used, its largely in the Western Press.

Here is a run down that I got in an email on this issue. I havent read through everything provided, but found the end part to be more interesting.

Here are some excerpts from the news.

The whole affair smells like a false flag event designed to bring India into a more active role in the War on Terror, and rein in control of the Indian/Afghani/Pakistani region with NATO/US forces.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7752625.stm
<http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7752625.stm>

Then, the "foreign looking, fair skinned" men, as Mr Mishra remembers them, simply carried on killing.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7756073.stm
<http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7756073.stm>

1004: Maharashtra state chief minister says no evidence that Mumbai attackers are British citizens, Reuters news agency reports

http://www.islamicity.com/m/news_frame.asp?Frame=1&referenceID=41293
<http://www.islamicity.com/m/news_frame.asp?Frame=1&referenceID=41293>

The BBC reports <http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7752625.stm> that three men walked into the Leopold Cafe, drank beer, settled their bills and walked out. Then they fished out guns from their bags and began firing. Just one problem there, alcohol is forbidden in Islam.

The BBC further reports <http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7752625.stm>
an eye witness account from Gaffar Abdul Amir, an Iraqi tourist from Baghdad, stating he saw at least two men who started the firing outside the Leopold Cafe.

They did not look Indian, they looked foreign. One of them, I thought, had blonde hair. The other had a punkish hairstyle. They were neatly dressed.

The whole affair smells like a false flag event designed to bring India into a more active role in the War on Terror, and rein in control of the Indian/Afghani/Pakistani region with NATO/US forces. With much of the world now demanding Pakistan agree to inspections and an investigation, they seem to be winning the minds of those who don't bother to question what they are spoon fed on the television.

http://www.arabnews.com/?page=4&section=0&article=116812&d=29&m=11&y=2008
<http://www.arabnews.com/?page=4&section=0&article=116812&d=29&m=11&y=2008>

A high-level team of terrorism experts from the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) arrived in Mumbai yesterday and guided the Indian security forces fighting terrorists there, according to reliable sources in the state government.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7759309.stm
<http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7759309.stm>

They also said that Qasab is a 21-year-old and a fluent English speaker.

That description seems to be at odds with the general population in the village he is said to hail from.

They captured but one of the perpetrators of the Mumbai attack. Someone that they are claiming is from Faridkot, Pakistan. But there's just one problem, as McClatchy now reports, no one from Faridkot has ever seen or heard of this person that supposedly was born and raised there.
<http://www.mcclatchydc.com/226/story/56808.html>

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7757500.stm
<http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7757500.stm>

We are checking whether the gunmen had any local support. But what we are sure is that they were not from India, and had trained in and were carrying stuff - AK-56, AK-47 and 9mm revolvers and hand grenades possibly of Chinese make," said an investigator.

They also found lots of dry fruits, Indian and American currency, ammunition and fake Mumbai college student identity cards in the bags the gunmen had left behind during the attacks.

The use of Arabic Words in the Media

This article which I found interesting was in the LA times a few days ago. Here are some excerpts:

“English has always had a special fondness for other European languages, a neighborly soft spot -- perhaps because Britain has been invaded by speakers of those languages from the onset of its recorded history.”


“So whenever I come across an Arabic word mired in English text, I am momentarily shocked out of the narrative. Of course, English has pilfered numerous bits of Arabic -- "artichoke," "zero," "genie," "henna," "saffron," "harem," "tariff" -- but the appropriation was so long ago that few English speakers know the words' origin. These dictionary entries were probably introduced by the Moors into Spanish first, and then by the Spaniards into English.”

“If we take away the familiar food pilferages ("hummus," "falafel"), words recently adopted from Arabic are all troublesome: "hijab," "intifada," "fatwa" and "jihad." For an English speaker, the first suggest humiliation, the last three violence.”

“English has yet to incorporate these words fully, and history suggests it might never do so. The language is filled with words that are culture specific: "sahib," "coolie," "effendi," "bey." The word "emir" simply means prince in Arabic, but in English it is a prince or ruler of an Islamic state. When my sister in Beirut tells her daughter a bedtime story, the emir kisses the sleeping princess awake. No mother in the U.S. or Britain would let an emir anywhere near a princess' lips. No princess will ever sing "Someday My Emir Will Come.
"”

“That in some ways is how it should be. Language, after all, is organic. You can't force words into existence. You can't force new meanings into words. And some words can't or won't or shouldn't be laundered or neutered. Language develops naturally.”

“I bring all this up, however, to get to the word whose connotation I would love to see changed -- "Allah.
"”

“In Arabic, Muslims, Jews, Christians and Zoroastrians all pray to Allah. In English, however, Christians and Jews pray to God, and Allah is the Muslim deity. No one would think of using the word "Allah" to talk about any other religion. The two words, "God" and "Allah," do not mean the same thing in English. They should.”


“God, however, is a big deal. The word for God matters quite a bit more than what lands on one's table for dinner at night. We never say the French pray to Dieu, or Mexicans pray to Dios. Having Allah be different from God implies that Muslims pray to a special deity. It classifies Muslims as the Other. Separating Allah from God, we only see a vengeful, alarming deity, one responsible for those frightful fatwas and ghastly jihads -- rarely the compassionate God. The opening line of every chapter in the Koran is "Bi Ism Allah, Al Rahman, Al Rahim": In the name of God, the Gracious, the Merciful. In the name of Allah. One and the same.”

“The separation is happening on all sides. This year, the Malaysian government issued an edict warning the Herald, a weekly English newspaper, that no religion except Islam can use the word Allah to denote God. No such edict, or fatwa for that matter, is needed for the New York Times: a quick search through the archives shows that Allah is used only as the Muslim God.”

I’ve written about the issue of orientalism in the media before. I also agree the author that the word Allah should be more inclusive on all sides. I don’t agree in not using it all together however, or using it in a non-Muslim context necessarily, but nevertheless good article.

An understanding of the power the media uses in their methodology to describe Islam is crucial when considering the significance of their representation. There is nothing simple or contained about the way language operates. In the Western dichotomy of self and other, the self always holds the universal truths and the position of good, while that which the other holds as truth is incorrect and the label as a whole takes on the position of evil. When labels become widely accepted definitions, such that they actually shape what they are labeling, the glaring inequality between the labeled and labelers truly come to light such that the cultural and ideological imperialism of the West fundamentally defines and constructs the Islamic World through discourse.

In light of this, we, as media audiences, must be aware of the motivations and reasons for the current media coverage of the Islamic world. To what extent is the coverage and investigation of Muslims and their culture rooted in America's innocent curiosity and need to know, and to what extent is it fueled by the post-9/11 paranoia and other national interests that associate Islam with terrorism. Ideas and information spread by these news sources can lead to dominant definitions worldwide and have the ability to manufacture the opinions and consent of significant numbers of people, such as the consent to rescind civil rights from certain groups of people, to go to war, and to view the deaths of innocent civilians on foreign soils as "collateral damage."

Islam remains, as Said argues, the last association of peoples where malicious and derogatory generalizations about them remain accepted in the mainstream. We, as the media's audience and as producers of media, must reexamine our perceptions of Islam and be skeptical of the dominant images of Islam in the media.

Study shows 'demonization' of Muslims

An article recently reported that a research study in London found that Muslim images in the media were predominantly ‘negative’. Here are some excerpts:

Research into one week's news coverage showed that 91% of articles in national newspapers about Muslims were negative. The London mayor, Ken Livingstone, who commissioned the study, said the findings were a "damning indictment" of the media and urged editors and programme makers to review the way they portray Muslims.

"The overall picture presented by the media is that Islam is profoundly different from and a threat to the west," he said. "There is a scale of imbalance which no fair-minded person would think is right." Only 4% of the 352 articles studied were positive, he said.

Livingstone said the findings showed a "hostile and scaremongering attitude" towards Islam and likened the coverage to the way the left was attacked by national newspapers in the early 1980s. "The charge is that there are virtually no positive or balanced images of Islam being portrayed," he said. "I think there is a demonisation of Islam going on which damages community relations and creates alarm among Muslims."

I conducted a similar study twice regarding articles in the U.S., where I compared Muslims/Islam in the media pre and post 9/11. Not surprisingly I found very similar results. Muslims are currently one of the most scrutinized, misrepresented and vilified people. Many factors have played a role in the way Muslims are perceived, one of which, perhaps with the largest responsibility, is the media. It is hard to comprehend how journalists can speak with such authority. The word choice in articles can affect a person so much as to enlighten them, in consequence, to the immense power journalists possess to create such images, portray people and events, and mold the opinions of their readers. Islam is judged by the public through these pre-existing stigmas and stereotypes which are then only perpetuated more.

Not only is it sad that most of America's only connection to Muslims is through the media but also, unless you were on the streets of New York or standing outside the Pentagon on 9/11, these events were framed and explained to us by the media as well. Edward Said’s Orientalism helps to describe this conscious othering and demonizing of the Arab and Islamic worlds that influences and is commonly perpetuated in the Western mainstream media. When you think about it, this is an institution that is very powerful as it possesses orientalist tendencies and creates the discourse such as body of language, labels, symbols and representations that are used to describe and characterize Islam. Thus, Muslims find themselves in the forefront of Bush’s “war on terror” having to be examined at airports, deported, held in secret prisons without evidence and without a proper trial. They are deemed guilty without proven guilty while the majority turns the blind eye without second guessing their guilt.

The “war on terror” in Iraq as well as 9/11, is a testament to the powerful role the media plays in influencing our perceptions. Americans were led to believe that somehow Iraq was involved in the 9/11 attacks. The vague suggestion that Iraq was involved—by invading them as part of the post 9/11 "war on terror”, not only confused and misguided Americans, but can also be argued that it contributed to a certain conceptual cohesiveness of the Middle East in the minds of Americans that is false and deeply damaging. Specifically, it drew subtle links between the violence in Palestine, the Taliban in Afghanistan and Saddam Hussein's government in Iraq, and now Iran, creating a deceptive picture of the terrorist-filled "Middle East." Terrorism is America's favorite bad guy and evildoer, guilty as charged. It has become the sinister monster that has plagued these first years of the 21st century.

Furthermore, what’s sad is that terrorism and Islam have become linked in the minds of many Americans, especially after 9/11. Some believe that there has been somewhat of a positive change with shows such as “Little Mosque on the Prairie” and “Aliens in America” that seek to inform the larger community in what Islam truly is. However, I wonder if we’ll ever see a big top selling blockbuster movie where the main character is Muslim “and” a hero. Will Muslims become the next “token black person” in movies and shows? I personally don’t know though, I guess we’ll just have to wait and see in the coming years.

Osama bin Laden -The Latest Fake

Whatreallyhappened.com has released a few photoshop images in which they successfully (in my opinion) attempt to debunk this new supposed Osama video. They point to several of his facial features including the differences in the nose, cheekbones and his beard. I'm not sure if anyone has had the chance to look at the images of Osama in the new video, but they really don't look like him. Coincidentally this new tape is released amidst the anniversary of 9/11, tensions with Iran and the results of a new Zogby poll indicating Americans want a new 9/11 investigation. Now, I know not all Muslims agree with my theory here but whether you think these are real tapes or not, one has to wonder why they are always released on a silver platter during the most convenient political times. Additionally, IntelCenter who is releasing the tapes, does not have the best reputation when it comes to dependable information. You can write me off as a conspiracy theorist, I don't care, but what bothers me most is that if these tapes are manufactured, not only Americans but globally, people defend the actions of groups and governments to curtail the rights of Muslims worldwide. In my experience I have not come across many Muslims that will publicly declare they believe 9/11 was an inside job. I wonder however what Muslims in America think of these videos not only of Osama but of the laughing 9/11 hijackers, Al Zarqawi and others. Feel free to let me know.

You can find the article here: http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/