Column Fails to Distinguish Arabs From Muslims

To the editors:

Noah D. Oppenheim's piece (Op-Ed, Oct. 22), in its unconditional praise for Steven Emerson's documentary "Jihad in America," unwittingly conflates, Islam and political terrorism. There is a tendency in American society to view Middle Eastern politics solely within the context of Islam. One indication of the fact that people do not separate religion and politics is that people do not know the difference between an Arab and a Muslim. Indeed, in a conversation with me Wednesday night, Oppenheim asked me the difference between the Society of Arab Students and the Harvard Islamic Society. Arab is an ethnicity, Islam a religion. Members of Islam come from many different ethnic and national groups such as African, Indonesian, American, Indian etc. The Arab world only constitutes 18-20 percent of the world's Muslims.

Here is the fundamental problem with referring to terrorists as "Islamic terrorists." The word "Islam" refers to the religion and its ideology while "Muslim" refers to the worshippers themselves. This is an important difference. The dangerous misnomer Islamic terrorist implies that the religion itself is the cause or the motivation of the violence--that terrorism can be carried out within the dictates of Islam. By referring to such a terrorist as a Muslim terrorist, one merely refers to the fact that the terrorist happens to be a Muslim without implicating the religion as a whole.

Oppenheim also fails to note that Emerson has been criticized by The Nation, The New York Times and the well respected media watchdog group FAIR (Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting) for his racially biased reporting. FAIR's extensive article on Emerson's reporting history can be read at www.fair.org/extra/9901/emerson.html. Whenever an event that could potentially be construed as a terrorist attack occurs, Emerson is quick to point a finger at the Muslim community without any substantive evidence.

He characterized both the explosion of TWA Flight 800 and the bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah building in Oklahoma City as works of extremist Muslims, charges that were both later proved false. As someone often regarded as a expert on terrorism, he is listened to and believed readily when he makes these comments, and thus has a responsibility to weigh evidence and choose his words more carefully. Otherwise, he propagates stereotypes.

Oppenheim's piece has commendable elements, particularly in noting that Islam itself does not condone violence. The issue of terrorist threats posed by extremists deserves media attention. Terrorism persists as a reality in our world, and an investigation into its activities has a definite relevance and validity. However, Emerson does not make adequate efforts to highlight the political ideologies that compel these terrorists to act. So we are left to think that religion itself motivates terrorists to act.

As a new religion in America, Islam is easily misunderstood, and the media has not shown sufficient care in delineating between politics and religion in its coverage of the Muslim world.