“Obsession” is biased, but so what?

Among those involved in the debate over radical Islam vs. “moderate” Islam, the film “Obsession” has become quite the spark for igniting fiery rhetoric. As a former journalist and a Muslim, I watched parts of the film as part of a Fox News report on it. Perhaps the report was not entirely unbiased (certainly the networked earned its stripes as a neo-con mouthpiece with that report), but nor did I find what I saw of “Obsession” to be all that egregious. It doesn’t purport to be a balanced look at Islam; it says right up front that it’s talking about the crazies – the ones that make me cringe when I hear them talk because they identify themselves and their views as representing true Islam.

The disclaimer that the film is not about the majority of Muslims – who it describes as peaceful – is derided by the film’s critics as hollow lip service, while the rest of the film “blurs the line” between the extremists and mainstream Muslims.

I suppose that’s true of viewers who aren’t discerning and apt to generalize inappropriately – and arguably that describes most of the American public, ignorant as it is about all things relating to Islam – but what would be the remedy to this criticism? Should the film’s producers have repeated the disclaimer several more times? Are they obligated to include just as many moderate Muslims in their film as they do radicals? Why?

Clearly, “Obsession” is a work of propaganda and fear-mongering. But it’s not the “hate speech” it’s being made out to be by critics like Hate Hurts America. It’s just plain-old free speech. And, as any red-blooded American knows, the answer to error is truth. Hate Hurts America is responding with detailed rebuttals and discussions about why “Obsession” is problematic for moderate Muslims, which is the way it ought to be. But I’m less enthused about it’s suggested remedies. It’s recommended action steps include badgering the newspapers into which the DVD was inserted (as a paid advertisement), and accusing them of carrying racist hate speech.

This, in my opinion, is unfortunate. It is taken from a page from the pro-Israelis’ play-book: accuse anyone with a concern about anything even tangentially related to Jews as being anti-Semitic. This, effectively, removes everyone’s ability to criticize the state of Israel without being accused of anti-Semitism, no matter how egregious the behavior being addressed. If Muslims begin accusing people of “hate speech” for pointing out that there are hate-mongers in the Islamic world, it might end up being a successful strategy in the short-term, but it will stifle much-needed debate of radical Islam and its role in, and effects on, the rest of the Muslims throughout the world.

As a final note, I share the concerns expressed about those interviewed in “Obsession,” in that they are generally vitriolic, uncompromising and intellectually dishonest purveyors of anti-Muslim rhetoric that purposely seek to eliminate the demarcation between Islam and radical Islam. However, from what I’ve seen in “Obsession,” they largely kept the most heinous of those views under wraps, so the film should be evaluated on its face, rather than on its background.