Islam According to Hollywood: The Impact on American Foreign Policy
By Ajmer Darawal
In the summer of 1990, at the age of 8, I watched my very first movie. Having arrived in Canada 18 months prior from Afghanistan via Germany, and spending my childhood as a refugee fleeing war, I had never seen or visited a video store before, let alone a movie theatre. As a little kid, walking into the local Video 99 with my father and younger brother, and seeing rows and rows of cardboard boxes with colourful images, characters, scenes and titles on them overwhelmed my senses.
My father scoured the aisles, eventually asking an employee, in his minimal English, what he was looking for. The VHS we left with would ignite my love of films and be my sole experience of mainstream American cinema where the people of Afghanistan and Islam were portrayed in a positive and dignifying light. That movie was Rambo III (1988).
Written by and starring Sylvester Stallone, Rambo III “depicts fictional events during the Soviet-Afghan War. In the film, Rambo sets out on a dangerous journey to Afghanistan in order to rescue his former commander and his longtime best friend…while helping a local band of Afghan rebels fight against Soviet forces threatening to destroy their village.” (1)
I was mesmerized by Rambo. To me, he was Afghanistan’s superhero, willing to stand with my people and fight the oppressors, to liberate Afghans from Communism. Rambo III gave me a glimpse into the bravery, sacrifice and strength of the Mujahideen, also known as the Freedom Fighters (a term coined by U.S. President Ronald Reagan). I watched that movie over and over again. It made me proud to be Afghan and Muslim. The film gave a voice to a people who are still rarely seen in films, and brought awareness to the plight of Afghans, by vividly portraying their humanity.
In the subsequent 30 years, Hollywood’s representation of Muslim ethnic groups and Islam, in general, has been recklessly irresponsible. What has become abundantly clear for me, as an Afghan Muslim, is the vilification of targeted minorities in American cinema, and how it has repeatedly aligned with US foreign policies.
In 1989, as the Berlin Wall crumbled, symbolizing the end of communism, Hollywood needed to recast the cinematic villain. Along with Rambo III, films such as Octopussy (1983), The Hunt for Red October (1990), Red Dawn (1984), Rocky IV and Red Heat (1988) echoed the fears of American politicians and media. That if left unchecked, communist ideology could eventually infiltrate the United States, threatening long-held economic, religious, social, and democratic values.
The “Soviet Invasion” narrative seen in these kinds of films reinforced the paranoia that foreign entities threatened American culture, principles, and beliefs, as well as its citizens and its very soil. The end of the Cold War meant there was a need for a new kind of bad guy — especially one whom American heroes could battle (either in war or “terrorism” plotlines), and victoriously defeat; or who could die an undignified death.
The Rise of American Propaganda in Cinema
In the 1940s, before the attack on Pearl Harbour, there was very little public support to join the war. A finally flourishing, isolationist America did not feel compelled to intervene in a war that had seemingly no threat to Americans.
Once the U.S. joined the war, pro-war sentiments to unite the public toward a common enemy began to hit mainstream media. According to Elmer Davis, the head of the Office of War Information, “The easiest way to inject a propaganda idea into most people’s minds is to let it go through the medium of an entertainment picture when they do not realize they’re being propagandized.” (2)
Formed in 1942, the Office Of War Information intended to collaborate with and oversee aspects of film and television development, to create propaganda content depicting America’s involvement in WWII as noble, just and heroic. These became the “newsreels” shown prior to feature films, in movie theatres across the nation. Somewhat romantic and idealistic, and fostering feelings of excitement rather than fear, the storylines invoked hope that loved ones would be safe, and return home swiftly, emerging as heroes.
Along with the help of fictional characters such as Donald Duck and Batman, and performances by some of the most acclaimed actors and actresses of the time, Hollywood established the American soldier as the ultimate evil-defeating hero. A good hero always needs a worthy villain, someone the audience can fear, but also jeer at; so, Japan fell neatly into this role for American storytellers.
Films like My Japan (1945), Our Enemy the Japanese (1943) and The Mask of Nippon (1942), funded by the Office of War Information, intentionally portrayed and depicted Japanese values, cultures and beliefs as antithetical to those of Americans. Framing Japanese life as backward, unsophisticated, aggressive, uncooperative, and unintellectual, creating an “us and them” mentality, easily justifying American aggression towards the Japanese.
Between 1942–1946, 120,000 Japanese people were placed in internment camps in the United States. 92% of Americans polled supported the xenophobic policies against the Japanese (3). The atrocities committed against innocent Japanese-Americans were further compounded by the 1945 nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki (killing upwards of 214,000 innocent civilians). (4)
The end of World War II permanently forged the marriage between Hollywood and the American government. The visual medium became an effective propaganda tool in gaining public support for America’s foreign policies.
Decades later, as the 1990s came around, Hollywood shifted from creating movies that focused only on “ethnic” villains, to making films that vilified entire religions, countries, or cultures.
“Allahu Akbar”
In the opening scene of Sicario: Day of the Soldado (2018), a film filled with racial and ethnic tropes about Mexicans, a group of Muslim terrorists enter the United States illegally through the U.S./Mexico border. One individual blows himself up after reciting the phrase “Allahu Akbar,” while the others enter a grocery store and detonate bombs strapped to their bodies as they raise their hands praying. Without context or a wide variety of other portrayals of Muslim people across the globe in American film, the American public has no informed way of digesting this kind of imagery.
Additionally, the misunderstanding and bias of Islam by the creators of these films are glaringly obvious. As an example: Allahu Akbar is a sacred phrase for Muslims. As stated by Islamic scholar Imam Omar Suleiman:
“It is a powerful declaration used by Muslims on many occasions and in many prayers. It is a celebration of life, the first words fathers whisper in the ears of their newborns. They are used to indicate gratitude when God bestows something upon you that you would have been incapable of attaining were it not for divine benevolence. It is a prayerful phrase that reminds us that, no matter what our concerns may be, God is greater than them.”
The American film industry, in cooperation with political interests, has consciously perverted the honourable meaning of Allahu Akbar and linked Islam — and all those practicing it — as symbiotic with hate, violence and terror. An obvious case study being The Siege (1998). The film tells a fictional story about “Islamic” terrorist cells bombing New York City and the FBI’s pursuit of capturing them. It stars Denzel Washington, who had portrayed the iconic Muslim-American civil rights activist Malcolm X only six years prior.
The Siege does not disguise its intentions. In sensationalistic fashion, the film makes every concerted effort to cement a connection between terrorism and Islam in the mind of the audience. As one character says, “To die for Allah is beautiful,” and if one commits a suicide bombing, “he will live in Paradise with 70 virgins.” Scene after scene, Muslim Arabs are shown either praying or reciting the Quran, then immediately committing heinous acts. Subtle efforts to depict the majority of Muslims as actually antithetical to terrorist ideologies do appear in the storyline, but these moments feel more like a slap than a kiss, with no follow-through to meaningfully develop this story arc.
Despite being released three years before 9/11, The Siege’s portrayal of America’s response to terrorism turned out to be eerily similar to the eventual real-life reaction of the United States government and military in 2001. In the movie, all Arab men in New York City are rounded up and placed in mass prison camps, their legal and civil rights withheld, reminding me of what eventually transpired at Guantanamo Bay.
Almost 20 years since opening, Guantanamo Bay holds “prisoners of war” for whom due process has been voided and who have been tried in secret military courts. (5) Their stories have faded from the pages of newspapers and social media sites. Much like actual events at Guantanamo, The Seige justifies military acts of torture “for the greater good.” In one scene, Bruce Willis playing a military commander states, “I did what was necessary, and I won’t apologize for it. I am serving my country.” These scenes are a prelude to the CIA’s Interrogation Program, where they used a variety of torture techniques against captives, including waterboarding, confinement in small boxes, short shackling and sleep deprivation, (6) as well as denying fundamental human rights and legal processes to individuals deemed “terrorists.”
Films as “Facts”
In films such as True Lies (1994), Executive Decision (1996) and many others, terrorists were often depicted as Muslim Arabs, as if this were a common fact. Not all Muslims are Arabs and not all Arabs are Muslim. Homogeneous representation neglects to recognize the vast diversity and ethnic/geographical differences amongst Muslims. There are 1.9 billion Muslims globally, and only 20% of Muslims live in the Middle East and Africa.(7) Secondly, the movies represent the motivations of terrorists as ideological clashes with the West, completely ignoring the significant and often devastating impact American foreign policy has had in countries such as Afghanistan, Iran and Iraq throughout the last century.
Additionally, though films characterize the victims of “radical Islamist” terrorism as overwhelmingly white and American, in reality, the most affected group is Muslims themselves. Between 1979–2019, 91% of all “Islamist terrorism” occurred in predominantly Muslim countries, targeting Muslim civilians. (8)
While it’s difficult to draw direct lines between screenplays and policy, I believe that Hollywood profoundly impacted the American perspective and opinion about Islam and Muslims. The false narrative that has been historically perpetuated by American mainstream media and strengthened by American cinema — that Islam is inherently and ideologically violent— has had real-life implications for growing Islamophic sentiments in America. According to a 2020 poll conducted by the Institute for Social Policy and Understanding, 60% of Muslims have experienced religious discrimination. In addition, the findings of the same poll show that Muslims are more likely than other groups to experience religious discrimination in institutional settings (healthcare services, airport, law enforcement, etc.) and public spaces (restaurants, work/school, etc.). (9)
By continuously representing Muslims as caricatures, Hollywood has created a blurriness between fiction and reality. In a 2015 poll, 30% of Republicans and 19% of Democrats would support the bombing of “Agrabah,” the fictional country depicted in Disney’s animated film, Aladdin (1992). (10) In the history of cinema, no other religion has been so blatantly targeted and vilified like Islam. The pre-9/11 films established a world where Muslims hated democracy, human rights and promoted the oppression of women. Influencing the American public's understanding of the motives of the 9/11 hijackers, these movies contributed to the eventual justification for the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. In the words of George W. Bush:
“Our enemies send other people’s children on missions of suicide and murder. They embrace tyranny and death as a cause and a creed. We stand for a different choice — made long ago, on the day of our founding. We affirm it again today. We choose freedom and the dignity of every life.” (2002).
Good Guys vs. Bad Guys
As we entered a new dawn of filmmaking post-9/11, misleading beliefs about Islam and Muslims became widespread. Hollywood shifted and began to produce movies that celebrated and highlighted the trials, tribulations, achievements and heroism of the American soldier. Taken straight out of the playbook created during WWII, glossy, big-budget war movies dominated our screens, receiving critical acclaim and largely accepted as the accurate depiction of events.
The likes of Black Hawk Down (2002), The Hurt Locker (2009), Lone Survivor (2013), Zero Dark Thirty and 13th Hour (2016) have a through-line, portraying Muslim countries, cultures and people as oppressed, politically corrupt and desperate for American intervention. How the policies of the American and other western governments contributed to the destabilization of these countries is rarely, if ever, explored or examined. Hollywood continuously overlooks the U.S. responsibility in the creation of terrorist organizations such as the Taliban and ISIS and gives very little consideration to the effects of ongoing conflict and its impact on halting modernity and progress in war-torn nations.
In Michael Bay’s the 13th Hour, all the non-American characters are essentially deemed “bad guys” and “good guys,” with one marine poignantly stating, “You can’t tell the good guys from the bad guys.” This quote manifests one way or another in every single one of these films. The natives are often relegated to merely background actors, their otherness magnified, appearing to have very little agency and lack of self-determination. Even when attempted, very little screen time is dedicated to pursuing the storyline of the “others.”
The human stories of those greatly affected by war end up as an afterthought. Accounts of their contributions in the pursuit of sustainable change, human rights and ongoing peace for their people and homeland are missing. The 20-year war in Afghanistan has led to over 64,000 Afghan soldiers being killed and at least 43,000 civilian casualties. Yet, our knowledge and understanding of this conflict centres on American lives. Harsh and disturbing truths are often overlooked by filmmakers. (11)
What is unknown to the mainstream public is that messages, storylines and ideas propagated in these films include the funding, support and input of the American government. Up to 800 feature films and 1,100 television shows have received support from the Department of Defense, Pentagon, and CIA. (12) In exchange for location approval, military equipment and other resources, the U.S. government is closely involved in script development.
In the example of Zero Dark Thirty, a film about the hunt and capture of Osama Bin Laden (OBL), director Kathryn Bigelow and writer Mark Boal developed a relationship with the CIA. According to documents obtained by VICE, the filmmakers were given access to confidential government records in exchange for falsely amplifying the effectiveness of interrogation techniques in capturing OBL in the film. (13)
The one-sided storytelling in post 9/11 American war films creates an account that confirms and validates the official record provided by the government. Hollywood has significantly benefited from this relationship. In the words of film director Steve Mcqueen “There is film reality, and there is real reality.” The problem for Muslims is that both realities blend to create real-world impact.
Where Do We Go From Here?
Hollywood will continue to make propaganda war movies because they are profitable. But the false and misleading representation of Muslims needs to stop. Let’s start by no longer hiring white men to tell the stories of black and brown people. Acclaimed directors such as Ridley Scott, Clint Eastwood, Peter Berg, Edward Zwick and Michael Bay have all made movies that depicted Islam as a terrorism-monger religion. Many of these films are reckless in using video game-style violence towards Muslim characters. Muslims are often seen as necessary collateral damage in the pursuit of American freedom and justice. Telling our Muslim stories from the white lens invalidates our lived experiences and suppresses important POVs when excavating the truth of an event.
When the news validates the same worrisome messages found in the movies we love, it trickles down to the public and their treatment of marginalized groups — eventually empowering the government to implement prejudicial and Islamophobic policies. In the past 20 years, the “War on Terror” has led to the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq, the use of illegal interrogation techniques, displacement of 38 million people, Guantanamo Bay, the Muslim travel ban, the birth of ISIS and the regained control of Afghanistan by the Taliban. Hollywood and the entire American film industry have been complicit in using their power and influence to tell stories that create propaganda to make us comfortable and accepting of the unjust treatment of Muslims by the most influential and wealthy country in the world.
As I watch in real-time while the country I left as a young boy burns, I feel deep-rooted anger. No Rambo is coming to help. There is no real accountability for what the world is witnessing in astonishment. In 2021, are we waking up to the idea that sometimes the great American hero does more harm than good despite his intentions? I hope one day soon, Hollywood dares to explore this alternative story.
Resources:
Rambo III, Wikipedia
How Hollywood became the unofficial propaganda arm of the U.S. military, CBC
Public Opinion Poll on Japanese Internment, United States Holocaust Memorial Museum
Hiroshima Bomb: Japan marks 75 years since nuclear attack, BBC
I was a prosecutor at Guantanamo. Close the prison now, Washington Post
What the CIA torture program looked like to the tortured, NY Times
Muslims and Islam: Key findings in the U.S. and around the world, Pew Research Center
Islamist terrorist attacks in the world 1979–2019, Fondapol.org
American Muslim Poll 2020, Institute for Social Policy and Understanding
Political ignorance and bombing Agrabah, Washington Post
Cost of War, Watson Institute
Washington DC’s role behind the scene in Hollywood goes deeper than you think, Independent
About: Educator, writer, content creator, social justice advocate. Currently working on his first children’s book, “Above and Beyond: A Refugee Tale.”
Keep in touch with Ajmer Darawal
Instagram @Ajmer81
Youtube Channel https://youtube.com/channel/UCIRMfvnFMalajFSf98A3DPg