Introduction
One of the foremost issues, which affect the political dynamics in Western countries, is the problem of Islamic terrorism. After all, it does not represent much of a secret that it now became a common practice, on the part of Western politicians that strive to ensure citizens’ support, to emphasize the sheer acuteness of this particular problem in their public speeches. Nevertheless, there are a number of good reasons to believe that it is specifically the politicians’ unawareness of the true causes of Islamic terrorism, which prevents them from being able to address it effectively. This simply could not be otherwise, because the roots of Islamic terrorism are being commonly discussed outside of what causes people to profess Islamic beliefs, in the first place – hence, making them potentially capable of turning into Islamic fundamentalists.
For example, many particularly ‘progressive’ social scientists in the West promote the idea that ordinary Western citizens need to blame themselves for the fact that they periodically become the target of terrorist attacks because they deny the Islamic believers’ right to explore their religious self-identity (Akbar 8). In its turn, this explains why many of contemporary Western media-products distort the issue at stake. The validity of this statement can be well illustrated in regards to the 2007 film Brick Lane, in which British citizens’ presumed inability to accommodate Pakistani immigrants is being exposed, as such that causes the latter to consider becoming terrorists (Macdonald 420).
Nevertheless, there are still a number of recently produced movies, which promote the idea that, contrary to what is being assumed by the hawks of political correctness, the Islamic terrorists’ thirst for the blood of civilian ‘infidels’ is the direct byproduct of their commitment to celebrating their cultural and ethnic uniqueness. One of the films that provide viewers with the actual insight into the phenomenon of Islamic terrorism is Ridley Scott’s 2008 film Body of Lies. This is because the main idea, which is being promoted throughout this film’s entirety, is that the problem of Islamic terrorism should not be assessed within the context of ‘clash of civilizations’ (Huntington 23), but rather within the context of civilization vs. barbarianism. In my paper, I will aim to substantiate the validity of this film’s subtly advocated claim at length.
Main body
As it was implied earlier, in order for us to be able to gain a better understanding of the phenomenon of Islamic terrorism, we need to make an inquiry into the very tenets of Islam, as a religion that thrives upon the values of a communal/collectivist living. After all, it does not account for much of a secret that it is a commonplace practice for Muslim families to feature as many as 5-10 children (Westoff & Frejka 798). Why does it appear to be the case? This is because the religion of Islam originated in the arid area (essentially desert) where people are being required to apply an extra effort while indulging in agricultural activities. In its turn, this explains the historical cause of Muslims’ high fertility – the more there are children in the family, the higher are the chances for the parents to survive physically because even young children can be turned into agricultural helpers. What it means is that, contrary to what devout Muslims believe, their ability to reproduce in great numbers does not reflect the sheer strength of their commitment to Allah’s commandments, as much as it reflects their affiliation with unmistakably primeval existential values.
The legitimacy of this statement can be shown in regards to the Ridley film’s initial scene, in which the Chief of CIA’s Near East Division Ed Hoffman (Russel Crowe) expounds on what represents the foremost challenge of dealing with Islamic terrorists, “Our enemy has realized that they are fighting guys from the future… If you live like it’s the past, and you behave like it’s the past, then guys from the future find it very hard to see you… you turn your back on technology and just disappear into the crowd” (00.05.46).
Hoffman’s statement, in this respect, really does confirm the legitimacy of the initial thesis. This is because once we assume that an ongoing confrontation between secularized Westerners, on the one hand, and religiously devout Muslims, on the other, can be best discussed in terms of future vs. past, then there can be no rationale in regarding Muslims, as such that represent the unique civilization of their own. The reason for this is quite apparent – the very concept of civilization is being synonymous with the concept of technological progress, which means that those who regard the notion of progress as ‘wicked’ cannot be considered civilized individuals, in the first place. This, however, does not mean that they cannot effectively oppose the civilization, because these people’s unchallenged babies-making ability allows them to create crowds, in which they can successfully hide – just as Hoffman suggested.
The earlier suggestion also helps to explain why there are so many young Muslims who are willing to become ‘martyrs’, by the mean of carrying out suicide attacks against ‘infidels’. Contrary to what many Westerners believe, this phenomenon cannot be explained by the fact that these young Muslims simply happened to be utterly irrational and suicidal-minded individuals, who strive to reunite with Allah in the ‘kingdom of heaven’, as soon as possible. The explanation for this phenomenon is much simpler – the abundance of a particular commodity (in our case, human resources) automatically reduces this commodity’s actual worth. Given the fact that, as it was mentioned earlier, the majority of Muslims never ceases being preoccupied with baby-making on an essentially industrial basis (even after having immigrated to Western countries), it naturally causes them to depreciate the value of human life and to endow their numerous children with the same attitude.
What adds to this problem, even more, is the fact that the majority of young Muslim men with numerous brothers and sisters, born and raised in impoverished families, simply do not have any opportunities to advance in life. Therefore, they naturally think of the prospect of dying as ‘martyrs’, as the only way to be able to ‘accomplish’ something in life. There is another memorable scene in the movie, in which CIA’s special agent Roger Ferris (Leonardo DiCaprio) asks one of the Al-Qaeda’s former affiliates to explain the reason why he refused to consider the possibility of becoming a ‘martyr’. The received answer thoroughly supports what has been said earlier, “I don’t want to die… I want to go to America. I have a Ph.D., you know? Nobody should say ‘martyr’ to me. Nobody” (00.11.56). Apparently, this person had a good reason to live. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said about the majority of young Muslims in the Middle East, who grow ever more wary of their pointless existence, associated with the constant hunger and with the absence of even basic life-enhancing commodities that Western ‘infidels’ take for granted.
This explains the significance of the scene in which, after having been shown the pictures of young men coming in and out of a suspected ‘safe house’ in Amman (Al-Qaeda’s sanctuary), Ferris wonders why no surveillance team has been dispatched to this place. After all, the very appearance of these men betrayed them as potential terrorists, “All of them are unmarried males between the ages of 18 and 35” (00.28.32). What it means is that, contrary to the politically correct idea that it is not possible to identify potential terrorists visually, before they actually commit the act of terror, such possibility does exist. Apparently, just about every young Muslim, who bends down on his knees and praises Allah five times per day, should be regarded as socially dangerous. We can only wonder why these types of people are being allowed to immigrate to Western countries en masse (Warner & Wenner 462). All that they are good for is to conspire against ‘infidels’, while relying on welfare checks, provided by the same taxpaying ‘infidels’, as the primary source of their income. The scene, in which ‘diversity celebrating’ Muslim immigrants blow up the whole building in Manchester, featured at the film’s very beginning (00.02.37), does cause psychologically adequate viewers to consider the possibility that those Western politicians that are being currently in charge of designing immigration policies, should be required to undergo a psychiatric evaluation.
The same can be said about those politicians that never cease praising the benefits of ‘multiculturalism’, as a policy aimed to provide ethnically diverse citizens with an opportunity to explore their ‘cultural uniqueness’, which in turn is supposed to help ethic immigrants to get adjusted to the secularized realities of Western living. Nevertheless, as practice indicates, the actual consequences of multiculturalism do not quite correlate with the utopist expectations of this policy’s promoters (Lentin & Titley 125). This is because the notion of civilized living in being firmly embedded in specifically Western (materialist) existential values – whereas, non-Western (spiritual) cultures relate to this notion only formally. The validity of this suggestion can be illustrated in regards to the film scene, in which the head of Jordanian intelligence Hani Salaam (Mark Strong) shows Ferris what needed to be done, in order to prompt the strongly committed member of Al-Qaeda Mustafa Karami to agree to become an informant, within a matter of few minutes.
Contrary to Ferris’s expectation, Hani did not subject Karami to any tortures but simply passed him the phone and told him to talk to his mother, who immediately began thanking her son for having bought her a nice apartment with a couch, refrigerator, and TV-set. Even without being able to hear the conversation between Karami and his mother, Hani was perfectly aware of what it would be all about, “She (Karami’s mother) will tell him, that she always knew he would be a success, even when he was a little boy in the refugee camps. And now he has sent her money. She is glad he is no longer mixed up with the radicals” (00.46.42). What it means is that there is indeed very little rationale in believing that the reason why many young Muslims become extremists is that they are being denied an opportunity to explore their cultural/religious traditions. Quite on the opposite – the reason why it happens is that, while encouraging Muslims to conceive as many children as possible, the Islamic law of Sharia simultaneously regards people’s strive to expand their intellectual horizons as utterly ‘sinful’ (Langman 247). As a result, the pace of technological and cultural progress in Muslim countries lags behind the pace of population growth – hence, causing the majority of young Muslims to exist in a state of extreme poverty when it is being only a matter of time before they decide to become ‘martyrs’.
Nevertheless, it would be quite inappropriate to blame the rise of Islamic fundamentalism solely on the peculiarities of Muslim culture/religion. This is because, as political analysts are being well aware off, a bulk of Islamic fundamentalists’ financing comes from such oil-rich countries as Saudi Arabia, Qatar and OAE. Yet, if it was not up to America’s continual military support (In Saudi Arabia alone, the U.S. has 13 military bases), these countries’ theocratic regimes (so much for the talks about ‘democracy’) would have been overthrown a long time ago – much to the joy of all Muslims, throughout the world. This is because, while Saudi oil-magnates (whose predecessors used to ride camels) are able to afford to collect the world’s most expensive sport-cars, the overwhelming majority of their brethren in faith in the Middle East are experiencing a hard time, while trying to meet the ends. In other words, America does indirectly contribute to the continued functioning of a number of Islamic terrorist organizations in the Middle East – whatever improbable it may sound (Rosenthal 63).
Had it been otherwise, Ridley’s film would not contain scenes that imply that American high-ranking politicians are indeed interested in the continual existence of Islamic terrorist organizations. For example, there is a memorable scene in the movie, in which, after having been kidnapped by the main antagonist Al-Saleem (Alon Aboutboul), Ferris tells his archenemy that, if it was not up to America’s ‘best friends’ in the Persian Gulf, Al-Saleem’s terrorist organization would not be able to operate. As the film’s main character noted, “You’re slaves to the Saudi oil sheiks and the Wahabi oil money that funds you. And when that oil money runs out, my friends, you will all disappear into the ashes of history” (01.50.08). In the same conversation, Ferris specifies his point rather explicitly, “You work for us” (01.51.14). In light of what we now know about the CIA’s involvement in the orchestration of ‘Arab spring’ revolutions in Tunisia, Egypt, and Libya, the motif of corruption in this organization, explored throughout the course of Ridley’s movie, certainly does make a logical sense.
Conclusion
I believe that the earlier deployed line of argumentation, in regards to the themes and motifs, contained in the Body of Lies, does confirm the legitimacy of the paper’s initial thesis. After all, the watching of this particular film leaves very few doubts, as to the full objectiveness of seemingly irrational political violence, perpetrated by Islamic fundamentalists. To sum up – Islam breeds poverty, which in turn increases the extent of Muslim believers’ ‘religious faithfulness’ – hence, making it harder for them to get out of poverty. Moreover, given the fact that in this world, the amount of natural resources is limited, Western politicians that work on behalf of transnational corporations, are objectively interested in maintaining such a state of affairs in the Muslim world. This explains the phenomenon of Islamic terrorism’s ‘longevity’ – it helps Western countries to maintain their geopolitical dominance over the globe. Therefore, there is indeed a good reason to consider Ridley’s film; as such, that contains many discursively legitimate clues, as to the very essence of Islamic terrorism and the significance of its political implications.
Works Cited:
Akbar, Ahmed. “Ibn Khaldun’s Understanding of Civilizations and the Dilemmas of Islam and the West Today.” The Middle East Journal 56.1 (2002): 20–45. Print.
Body of Lies. Ex. Prod. Ridley Scott. Burbank, CA. Warner Brothers Pictures. 2008. DVD.
Huntington, Samuel. “The Clash of Civilizations?” Foreign Affairs 72.3 (1993): 22-49. Print.
Langman, Lauren. “The Dialectic of Unenlightenment: Toward a Critical Theory of Islamic Fundamentalism.” Critical Sociology 31.1-2 (2005): 243-279. Print.
Lentin, Alana & Gavan Titley. “The Crisis of ‘Multiculturalism’ in Europe: Mediated Minarets, Intolerable Subjects.” European Journal of Cultural Studies 15.2 (2012): 123-138. Print.
Macdonald, Myra. “British Muslims, Memory and Identity: Representations in British Film and Television Documentary.” European Journal of Cultural Studies 14.4 (2011): 411-427. Print.
Rosenthal, John. “America, Germany, and the Muslim Brotherhood.” Policy Review 174 (2012): 63-78. Print.
Warner, Carolyn & Manfred Wenner. “Religion and the Political Organization of Muslims in Europe.” Perspectives on Politics 4.3 (2006): 457-479. Print.
Westoff, Charles & Tomas Frejka. “Religiousness and Fertility among European Muslims.” Population and Development Review 33.4 (2007): 785-809. Print.