Truer Words

A critical look at the Western Muslim Mosquers Review

Disclaimer: The response below is my opinion and my opinion only and is in no way affiliated with the rest of the Mosquer’s Committee.  Furthermore, the below is in no way an attack on the writer, but more of a rebuttal to his review.  I should also add that this criticism includes references to the original article that was later changed, but in my view that article should not have made it past the editing stage. 

First of all, as a Mosquers committee member, I would like to thank the Western Muslim for providing coverage of our event and posting the videos onto their website.  However, I would like to respond to some of the points raised in the article that I felt were unfair and, in some cases, outright demeaning.  I would also like to make clear that the committee is not averse to constructive criticism, but that criticism should be fair which I felt was not true in this case.

Backtracking Claims of Objectivity

The “review” is featured on the front page of the Western Muslim e-zine banner which is usually reserved for the title banner.  What struck me the most was the original title of the article: An unbiased review of the Mosquer awards which was then abruptly changed after the editors realized that the article is littered with bias throughout.  As one can see, approximately 3/4th’s of the article is a heavy endorsement of one particular film entitled False Confessions of a Muslim Lawyer that did not win an award.  The writer admittedly claims that the creator of the film provided him with a private screening and is also a fellow Western Muslim writer who happens to be a lawyer.  He then goes onto state that his dislike of lawyers frees him from any bias which was basically a very poor attempt at exonerating himself.

The original article continues by taking a stab at the event itself claiming that introductory speeches were boring when the committee later found out that the writer was not even present at the event.  How does one arrive to such a subjective opinion without even attending the event they’re supposed to be covering?

Futile Character Assassination

The contents regarding how the 2007 winning submissions were poor and did not deserve to win is the writer’s opinion and I can accept that.  However, I felt that the criticism could have been leveled without questioning the intellect of the submitters, some of whom were teenagers with no experience in film, or insulting their projects as dishonest, irrelevant, and as “jingoistic power point presentations.”

Perhaps the greatest blunder of the original article was the comparison of Muslims playing Non-Muslims in their films to racist whites who played African American characters wearing theatrical makeup in the 1915 film the Birth of a Nation - a film known for its glorification of the Ku Klux Klan. The article went further by attacking the character of these Muslims by labeling them with a superiority complex.  Again, the criticism of the films could have been easily made without personally insulting the film-makers or labeling them as racist or “non-integrated”, but the rhetoric was probably employed in order to create sensationalism and controversy to attract greater readership.  This reference was later deleted, but should have never made it on in the first place.

Maybe if the writer viewed all of the submissions (including those that were not up when the article was released), interviewed the contestants, got their perspective, did a little research on how their submissions were relevant to them, it may have provided a better picture.  After all, the other media that covered the event did their homework.

Deflecting Blame to External Factors

After more endless accolades for False Confessions, the writer launches an attack on the comedy that actually won the award and dismisses it as a “group of friends driving around and goofing off”.  The crowd of 500 strong thought otherwise, and the crowd reaction was markedly different between the two films.  Of course, the writer was not present at the event to witness this.

Rather than examining the weaknesses of False Confessions, the article instead begins to question the wisdom of the judges, two of which included a creator of a hit TV show and a scholar of Film Studies.  The irony, in this case, speaks for itself.  The article proceeds to explain the loss by blaming the Muslim community as being backward, unable to come to terms with implied nudity, and somehow intimidated by a beer when the winning submission included concepts of implied homosexuality, mockery of Muslim conspiracy theories, and continual visuals of bacon, something just as prohibited in Islam as alcohol.  Judging from the reactions, people were not only ready for it, but embraced it without question.

Journalistic Integrity?

Without getting into the specifics, the original article should have been reviewed by somebody who did not have a vested interest in it.  The writer’s last name also brings up further questions of objectivity and how much leniency was given throughout the editing process.  How the original article made it past the initial editing stage is beyond me.

Missing the Point

Calling the event a “missed opportunity”, and judging it based solely on the submissions is the real flaw of the article.  The films and the competition are only a part of the event and the greater, overarching purpose was to get the Muslim community together, engage the youth creatively, and foster an understanding with the greater mainstream community, something that can only truly be understood by being at the event itself.  It is unfortunate that some people did not understand the true spirit of the initiative.  I am sure that as the event progresses, the films too will evolve over time and more people will see the bigger picture.

Criticism is always valid, but the review itself does not stand up to critical scrutiny.  I therefore felt that I had to state the alternate perspective on the matter.