The words Muslim and terrorist are not synonymous

The words Muslim and terrorist

Media outlets are frequently criticized for painting crude caricatures of certain groups. Nowhere is that more evident than in stories about Muslims, write Sheherazade Hirji and Noordin Nanji, who say it's time for journalists to strive for more context when writing stories.  From the Spring, 1998 issue of Media Magazine, the official publication of the Canadian Association of Journalists In Alberta, a young Muslim man was elected a member of Parliament in 1997. He is a member of the Reform Party. Also in Alberta, a Muslim man was re-elected to the legislature. He is a Progressive Conservative. In British Columbia, a Muslim woman was nominated as a federal candidate for the Liberal Party.

But the media, particularly in the West, seem to have quite a different standard when they report on issues related to what they refer to as the "Muslim world." Uninformed readers of the Western media can, at times, be forgiven for confusing the terms "Muslim" and "terrorist." Many of us recall the reckless search for a "Muslim-looking man" following the Oklahoma bombing for which Timothy McVeigh was convicted. Following his arrest, there was neither a retraction nor an apology to all Muslims, not to mention "Muslim-looking" men (whatever that might mean).

Islam has played a significant role in the development of Western civilizations, so one would have hoped for a better understanding in the West about the religion, its history and the evolution of the societies in which it took root. With a little appreciation for this evolution, much of what is going on in the "Muslim world" can be properly contextualized.

In its broadest definition, Islam is expressed through many cultures, languages, and civilizations. In its narrowest definition--the one usually reflected in the media--it can simply be viewed as a religious belief. There are about one billion Muslims in the world today. We do not all share identical goals, motivations, political persuasion, or interpretations of our faith, any more than the world's billion or so Christians.

A critical distinction which is seldom recognized or explained in the media is that there is no central orthodoxy in Islam. Hence, the "Islamic" (political) affiliation of any ruler, dynasty, or regime does not imply that the political beliefs espoused have a religious basis in common with any other ruler, dynasty, or regime.

It is, admittedly, hard to make this distinction when many extremist groups cloak themselves with the banner of Islam and claim the Shari'a to be the law that governs their behavior. Behind this veil lies another concept which is more difficult to explain, but which is crucial to understanding the complex nature of the faith. In his keynote address to the 1996 Commonwealth Press Union in South Africa, His Highness the Aga Khan, spiritual leader of the Shia Ismaili Muslims, said, "Journalists learn to use these words, but how many of them know what they really mean? How many of them understand, for example, that the Shari'a is seen by most Muslims as a changing body of law, subject to what we call the fiqh, the capacity for evolving interpretation?"

The two main branches of Islam, Shia and Sunni, became widely distinguishable within the context of the revolution in Iran. But whether the underlying causes of the revolution bore any relationship to Islam was neither examined nor understood at the time. As a result, where Islam was ignored before, the media started seeing it everywhere, even when it was not relevant. Recent events in Iran suggest that attempts there to theocratize politics have broken down in spite of the effort over a number of years to enforce a particular cultural viewpoint through a political process controlled by a few. There is no unifying culture in Islam either. There are cultural or social practices which may have been inspired by individual or community interpretations of the faith. In some countries with large Muslim populations--Afghanistan for example--headscarves and beards are "mandatory." In others, notably Algeria, they have been banned.

The standards in reporting events involving Muslims took a noticeable downward trend with a recent Reuters story from Algeria which reported a ban on "Moslem headscarves and beards." One is prompted to ask whether someone sporting a "Christian" or "Jewish" beard would have been exempt from this ban! The report would have been accurate and effective if, in this context, "Moslem" had been omitted.

The motivation behind every act is an individual one. Its attribution to a group which identifies itself with a particular religious tradition--but where the acts have no basis in religious faith or doctrine--is intellectually dishonest, not to mention incompetent. Abbreviated religious affiliations which convey some dramatic connotation are usually misleading. How can journalists covering stories affecting Muslims or countries with large Muslim populations be more effective and accurate in their reporting?

• Consider the relevance to the story of a person's religious beliefs or cultural practices. Is it necessary at all?

 
• Try substituting the word "Muslim" with Christian, Jewish or any other grouping. In the Oklahoma bombing case, imagine the reaction if the call had been for a "Jewish-looking" man.

 
• If you include a reference to a person or a group's religious affiliations, explain why you are doing so and ensure that a religious label is not being affixed to political, cultural or social practices.

 
• If you are unfamiliar with Islam or with Islamic studies, consult someone who is. They will be able to help to distinguish between culture and politics from religion in the context of Muslim societies.

 
• Add a "sense-making" screen to your story. Were the religious beliefs of Marc Lepine or Clifford Olsen covered extensively in the media? Do we know what these were and how are they relevant?

 
• For those photo-ops, do they fairly represent the subject being covered? Women wearing headscarves make a supposedly dramatic statement. What about the hundreds of millions of Muslim women who do not ordinarily wear headscarves?

 
• If you are going to cover religious beliefs, whose interpretation of the faith are you covering? There are many different sects and interpretations of Islam. For some, their religion is a personal search within the context of their interpretation of their faith.

Sheherazade Hirji ([email protected]) and Noordin Nanji ([email protected]) are lawyers. Both are volunteers with the Ismaili Council for Canada, an organization responsible for the social governance of the Ismaili Muslim Community in Canada.

Return to top