Demonising Islam

Huntington, from a background of classical American pragmatism, maintains this dialectical doctrine. The gaps in the texts also, such as distinctions between literalists and moderates and the violence caused by the Christian crusades impact as much as what is said and contribute to an imbalanced, subjective account of history and society today.

Despite the controversy and slanderous comments made about the portrayals in The Satanic Verses and Clash of Civilizations, they merely reflect the contemporary “other” in Western culture, something that is only exacerbated by events such as the Gulf wars and terrorism. Other best sellers like Betty Mahmoody's Not without my Daughter and Norma Khouri's Forbidden Love, along with cinematic blockbusters True Lies and The Siege and the television series Threat Matrix are mainstream popular texts that demonstrate this increasing demonisation in Western countries. Ignorance has been widely attributed to being the cause of such “fear of the other” and fear of the unknown, ignorance that is most often filled by the media, through populist literature and film.

The power of language to construct this “reality” has been exploited for the purpose of identity consolidation and is evident in literature and throughout the history of propaganda. Significantly, language is often used as a precursor or justification of action against the “other”. Awareness of the power of literary portrayals and language in altering our perceptions of the Islamic “other” allows for a certain amount of scepticism, so that one may make sound judgements rather than blindly accepting linguistic portrayals.

The concept of the “other” is embedded not only in literature but also in Western philosophical traditions dating back to Plato's Theory of Forms. Its exploitation for political gains and for purposes of identity consolidation has been evident throughout history.

Language is exploited through the negative connotations that often act as a precursor to the actions of the “self” against the “other”; the pen is not mightier than the sword but the former must precede the latter. The European imperialist advance of the early 19th century was the heroic advance of civilization against barbarism, bringing the cross and the sword to inferior races, an act that justified murder, rape and enslavement. The scathing Nazi depiction of Jews in films such as The Eternal Jew went beyond the realms of mere anti-Semitism. It was propaganda that constructed an entire race as rodents and scum, an unvalued “other” in comparison to the Aryan “self”. At one point the language was dismissed as political rhetoric; however the gift of hindsight reveals to us a key catalyst of the Holocaust.

The self-other dichotomy is simplistic and counter-productive, ineffective in understanding complex issues of race, religion and people. Refusal to succumb to cultural polarisation and awareness of the power of language to construct and determine our view of reality allows us to make more logical choices about the issues presented to us and to accept the possibility that we as human beings cannot necessarily be identified through easy categories and broad labels.

If the demonisation of the “other” is purely for the consolidation of the “self,” then “the new others” (or as President Bush termed it, the new “axis of evil”) are merely an enemy of necessity. Our submission to such unintelligent and ultimately destructive dialectical thinking allows language to be a weapon of marginalisation, and more severely a catalyst of suffering. Language exploitations and subjective constructions of reality are inevitable; the dominant culture will continue to rely on simplistic divisions for the purpose of creating a superior self. The question that we must ask ourselves therefore, if we are to engage and understand the complex issues presented to us by Rushdie, Huntington, world leaders and the media is this: Do we succumb to the pictures they construct?