Licorice (Glycyrrhiza glabra) is a Mediterranean perennial plant having light blue flowers, feathery leaves, and a sweet, distinctively flavored root. Its generic name, “Glycyrrhiza,” comes from the ancient Greek words glycos riza, meaning “sweet root.”1 It has grown in the wild in many Middle Eastern, European, and western Asian countries.

Licorice is 50 times sweeter than table sugar, though some researchers have placed it at more than 150 times sweeter than sucrose. This intense sweetness can be traced to Glycyrrhizic acid, a multi-purpose molecule that consists of two sugar moieties. Glycyrrhizic acid, one of the main components found in Licorice root, is believed to contribute to the herb’s healing properties. The varied properties of this molecule have led to the surprising mix of products containing licorice today: medicines, cough syrups, herbal supplements, gum, drinks, and candy.

History of licorice as a healing herb

Licorice root has been used since ancient Egyptian, Greek and Roman times in the West, and since the second and third centuries B.C in the East. Hindus, Chinese, Sumerians, Assyrians, Babylonians, and eventually the Greeks and Romans all were acquainted with its sweet flavor. Egyptians used it as the main ingredient of a very well known drink, called erksoos,2 which is still popular in modern times. In Japan, the oldest specimen of licorice introduced from China in the middle of the eighth century still exists in the Imperial Storehouse. Ancient soldiers found that if they chewed the root on long marches, it would prevent thirst. The benefits of licorice were also known by physicians in the Middle East, so they prescribed it as a medicine. Ibn Sina (Avicenna), the famous physician and philosopher, said that: “the infused licorice purifies the voice and the trachea, and is useful in disorders and diets.”3 He used this plant in treating his patients nine centuries ago. Greeks and Romans ate licorice to treat coughs, asthma, colds, and sore throats. Today it’s still a popular flavor for cough drops and other medicines. During the Ottoman Empire Eastern Turks used to make a drink called “Meyan serbeti” by combining licorice and water. Even today it is sold by the street vendors in Southeast Turkey.

Medicinal uses and indications

In both the East and West, licorice has been used to treat a variety of illnesses ranging from the common cold to liver disease. This herb has long been valued as a demulcent (soother) and expectorant (which rids phlegm and mucous from the respiratory tract). It is particularly popular for relief from respiratory ailments such as allergies, bronchitis, colds, and sore throats. It is also used as a treatment for stomach problems, diseases of the skin, relief from stress, and diseases of the liver.

Today’s studies and findings have revealed the amazing properties of licorice, which will be a remedy in medicine for different diseases beside pharmaceutical products.

• Animal studies and trials in humans have supported the value of licorice for stomach ulcers. “If I had an ulcer, the first thing I’d go for is licorice,” says James Duke, Ph.D., botanist at the US Department of Agriculture. .Dozens of studies, he says, endow licorice root with formidable anti ulcer properties.4 Many studies have shown the licorice is just as effective as the commonly used ulcer drug Tagamet in healing ulcers.

• The Journal of Drugs in Dermatology July edition reports that licorice, among other natural products, is very effective for use in treatment of rosacea, atopic dermatitis, irritated skin, drug-induced skin eruptions, and psoriasis.

• Licorice is showing well in studies of its use in heart treatment. In recent research, people with high cholesterol experienced significant reductions in total cholesterol after taking licorice root extracts for one month. Systolic blood pressure was reduced by 10%. These measures returned to their previous elevated levels when participants stopped taking the licorice supplements.

• Researchers at the University of California have been studying licorice root to prevent cavities. Studies which have been done so far have shown that compounds isolated from licorice root could be inhibitors for microbes to cause tooth decay. “More studies are needed before it is proven that the compounds effectively fight cavities in humans. If further studies show promise, the licorice compounds could eventually be used as cavity-fighting components in mouthwash or toothpaste” says Wenyuan Shi, Ph.D, a microbiologist at UCLA’s School of Dentistry.”5

• Some people in the USA face a serious oral problem which is the severe pain in the mouth called “canker sores”. Dentists have been trying different types of treatments for this disease. Studies have shown that the best result received the treatment that is used the adhesive patch with the licorice extract.6

Even though there are many benefits to using licorice, at high doses there may be some side effects such as high blood pressure and low blood potassium levels, and fluid retention because of glycyrrhizin. Some licorice root extracts, with the glycyrrhizin removed, are known as deglycyrrhizinated licorice (DGL). This form retains many of licorice’s healing properties and is the better choice for long term use. Scientific studies have shown that DGL reduces inflammation and is as effective as prescription drugs for gastric ulcers without side effects. Natural health experts Phyllis and James Balch reported to naturalnews.com that “it’s best not to eat more than three ounces a day and it should not be used on a daily basis more than seven days in a row by persons with diabetes, heart diseases and high blood pressure.”

Food and other uses

Licorice root has a long history of being used to make candy. Two licorice candies that originated in England are Allsorts and Pontefract Cakes, which have been around since Elizabethan times when licorice was grown in the Pontefract district of Yorkshire. Allsorts are pastel-colored and round-square candies. Pontefract Cakes are soft, coin-shaped black licorice. Today, some of these candies are decorated with a stamp of Pontefract Castle. In Finland, red and black licorice is shaped like little smoking pipes, while in Germany it’s shaped into wheels. Salty licorice, shaped in coin-diamond, is very popular in Holland. Another popular Dutch candy is Katje, shaped with black cats and made of strong-flavored licorice [10]. Although it seems odd, many flavors such as mint, coffee, cherry, honey and chocolate are combined with licorice to make tasty treats. Unfortunately, many American candies that are called licorice actually contain no licorice at all. Licorice, fennel, and anise all have an essential oil called anethole, which gives them a distinctive taste. Many “licorice” candies are actually flavored with anise instead. Next time you eat licorice, check the package to see if licorice extract is one of the ingredients.

Although licorice is something to eat or drink, some of its more interesting uses have little to do with food. Much of the natural licorice grown today ends up flavoring tobacco instead of candy. But what about the parts of licorice that remain once the flavor is removed?

One of the products of licorice roots is a foaming liquid. This can sometimes be added as a flavoring in some beverages, but an unexpected use for the same liquid is found in fire extinguishers. It can extinguish fires in oil tanks, where other traditional methods are unsuccessful.

Even after every drop of liquid is removed from roots, they’re still useful. Pulp mills blend the root’s fibers with other ingredients to make boxes and wallboards. Walls with only a half-inch-thick piece of this fiber board are better insulators from heat, cold, and sound than six-inch walls of brick, stone, or concrete.

Until several decades, Scientists have emphasized only how plants do photosynthesis other than informing or searching other amazing functions. Today, scientists have been studying plants in order to get more useful benefits from them. The licorice plant needs further research in order for us to discover other benefits to human being’s ecology. In the light of explored results about licorice, numerous ways of using this plant have been proven and caused people to ponder about how a simple plant is able to carry the varied properties in its roots. It is basically wood, but sweeter than sugar.

Conclusion

Almost every day humankind faces a new health problem which can never be healed by medicine, nor can they determine the root cause. Today, by understanding the amazing properties of the Licorice plant, we should explore the earth for other plants in search for what has been created and its benefits to us. There are surely countless other unknown and useful plants waiting to be discovered and used for their real purpose of living.

Even though there have been many promising findings, there are ongoing debates in the scientific community regarding the value and side effects of licorice products. Further studies are needed.

Despite its long history, licorice may yet surprise us. Its presence in the candy aisle, at the pharmacy, among the natural food products, and on the checkout stand attests to the complexity and rich chemistry of this sweet beneficial root.

Sumeyra Dural Cokavci has a Master’s degree in Nuclear Physics, Georgia State University, Atlanta.

References

1. The Green Pharmacy Herbal Handbook: By James A. Duke p:194

2. Toxicology and clinical pharmacology of herbal products By Melanie Johns Cupp, p: 223

3. http://www.asehlicorice.com/

4. Food–Your Miracle Medicine By Jean Carper p:177

5. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2632514?dopt=Abstract

6. http://www.food-info.net/uk/products/sweets/liquorice.htm

It is our observation that the popular image in Romania of the Turk as an enemy is a late, nineteenth-century acquisition, triggered by the political motives of contending Romanian groups at the time, and it has rolled on ever since with no real justification in “third-form History,” including in school textbooks. For the first four hundred years or so of common, close ties in Romanian–Turkish history there is no serious indication leading us to think that the Turk’s image was the image of the “enemy” for Romanians as a whole. The Turk’s image, as it emerges from the chronicles of the time, is essentially based on religious difference-he is “the Pagan,” the believer in a “wrong belief,” just like the Catholic (“the Papist”) or the Mosaic (“the Jew”). The difference in religion does not necessarily entail hostility or enmity.

Things change in the nineteenth century when Moldova and Walachia are disputed by the Russian and the Ottoman empires, to the point that legends of the Moldovan capital of Iasi say that the local princes had a huge double-sided painting with a portrait on one side of the Sultan and on the other side of the Tsar: according to which empire’s troops entered the capital, they would display one side of the painting or the other. This is probably a legend or an exaggeration, but it is illustrative of the political atmosphere in the extra-Carpathian Romanian Principalities, an atmosphere proper for the development of pro-Russian and pro-Ottoman partisan groups-political parties, in all but name. Later, there would also emerge a pro-Western “party.” It was in order to accomplish their immediate and local goals that the anti-Ottoman “parties” forged the image of the Turk as an enemy.

This image was forged against a rather favorable popular image the Turk had gained after centuries of rather tolerant suzerainty. A popular rhyme of the time-still quoted by the national poet Mihai Eminescu late in the second half of the nineteenth century-claimed that “Our affairs would have been prosperous if the Turk was not as he is; a master warrior, but a poor diplomat.” (“Bine ne-ar fi fost în toate, dacă turcul n-ar fi fost / Mester numai la războaie, da-n diplomatică, prost!”). The evaluation, while notably precise-the Ottomans fought bravely and successfully the Tsarist troops in the 1806–1812 war, but made a disadvantageous peace, handing over the eastern part of Moldova to Russia, on account of the betrayal of their grand dragoman, the Greek Nicolae Moruzi-does not lack sympathy and understanding for the Turk. But instead of this Romanian frustration taking an anti-Russian or even anti-Greek form, it took, thanks to “third-form history,” an anti-Turkish form. Like all biases, this one too proved to be self-entertaining, and rolled through the centuries with nothing to fuel it after the 1877 Romanian Independence war, a war of doubtful utility for Romania, in Mihai Eminescu’s opinion (as well as, modestly, in ours), since after the 1829 Adrianopolis peace, the advantages of Turkish suzerainty far outweighed the disadvantages.

But the change for the worse of the Turk’s image as a result of local political interests in the nineteenth century is frustrating to the truth-seeking researcher for reasons lying deeper in history, namely, the fact that the Romanian people owes to a degree the free conservation and development of its identity throughout the late Middle Ages to the full observation by the Turks of the original treaties between the two nations. We shall further develop this subject.

The original peace treaties between the Ottoman Empire and the principalities of Walachia and Moldova-the so-called “old capitulations”-were agreed by the Turks with the greatest princes in the history of these countries: with Mircea the Old for Walachia at the beginning of the fifteenth century, and with stefan the Great for Moldova, at the end of the same century. Both these treaties were agreed after the Romanians had obtained brilliant military victories against the Turks. Therefore, their accepting Turkish suzerainty was considered, according to Islamic principles, as willing surrender, not as surrender obtained by force. Walachia and later Moldova were thus considered “Dar-ul-Sulh,” Lands of Peace. According to the Qur’anic recommendations, such countries received much better treatment than countries conquered by the sword-“Dar-ul-Harb,” or Lands of War. This treatment was inferior only to that received by Muslim countries-“Dar-ul-Islam,” or lands of Islam. While the neighboring peoples-Bulgarians, Serbians, for a short time Hungarians-received the “Dar-ul-Harb” treatment and lost their autonomy, being ruled by Turkish generals, the Romanian principalities of Walachia, Moldova and for a short time Transylvania enjoyed the “Dar-ul-Sulh” treatment.

Practically, this meant three main provisions in the “old capitulations”:

a) the interdiction of Turks’ ownership of land north of the Danube (with the exception of four bridgehead cities-“raia”).

b) the interdiction of religious proselytism by Turks north of the Danube.

c) the political autonomy of the principalities, which were to be ruled by Christian princes.

Later, the “old capitulations” were repeatedly transgressed by the Moldovan and Walachian princes, allowing in principle the Turks to transgress in their turn the three above-mentioned main provisions. However, they felt Qur’an-bound and Islam-bound to continue treating the two principalities as “Dar-ul-Sulh.” It is our opinion that this constancy of the Turks in observing the treaties, namely the three provisions, allowed the Romanians to maintain and develop their national and religious identity during the late Middle Ages in much better conditions than the neighboring peoples.

And it is a pity that this merit of the Turks, and of Islam, does not find its way into “third-form History” textbooks in Romania for presentation to the young.

Died on January 8, 2009, Victor Nitelea was a former expert, Romanian Commission for UNESCO and a leading Romanian journalist.

In memory of a dear friend

Victor Nitelea (April 8th 1952 – January 8th 2009) was my best friend in Romania. He was a unique person in many ways-an intellectual with a vast ability to incorporate sound knowledge and wisdom in politics and history as well as in mathematics and engineering. When he told me that he had written a dissertation on table tennis, I told him that it would not be a surprise if he came out with another thesis on spacecraft.

The Great Stefan told his child with his dying breath, “You can always trust Turks as they never betray you.” Victor had a deep trust in me as his Turkish friend. We had long, delightful discussions. He was a good listener, while his knowledge was enough to be the only speaker in any conversation.

He wrote fourteen books, was columnist on several journals, and appeared regularly on TV shows. He had a beautiful mind and was a popular face in the community. It was very sad hearing the news that he had lung cancer. I could not imagine the coming days without his company. Romania was not only losing an intellectual but also a good believer. Victor was a monotheist, saying that God cannot be associated with partners. He had deep respect for the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him.

Before he died, he gave me an article about the relationship between Turks and Romanians. For him, it was because of Turks that Romania still exists as a nation and as a country. Sharing this essay with The Fountain readers is, I hope, a fair treatment of his legacy.

I had the chance to meet him many times. I hope this essays provides an opportunity for The Fountain readers to have a conversation with Mr. Nitelea.

Dr. Ahmet Ecirli, University of Bucharest, Department of Sociology

Although this industry had been an effective instrument for advertising and increasing political and social efficiency, the wide screen is being used for different purposes. In contrast with earlier films, which were dominated by guns, money, and status and also promoted authority, individualism, adventure-seeking, and atheism, the last 5 years have seen movies highlight something else: material gain should not be the ultimate purpose, the necessity of unity and cooperation, and life after death. This reflects the severely deteriorated structure of the American family and wondering how it can be restored.

Movies with social themes

Family themes. In The Kid (2000), Bruce Willis plays a workaholic who long ago forgot his past and family and refuses to see his father. Then one day his childhood appears before his eyes in the form of himself as a child. Thanks to this event, he makes peace with his past and gradually regains his lost values. This movie is one of many recent movies depicting weakened family ties: a lack of spousal love, children leaving home at earlier ages and forgetting their families, and elderly parents being left unprotected by their children.

In The Family Man (2000), Nicholas Cage is a passionate businessman desperate to achieve as high a status as possible. He does not know that real pleasure can be found in a lovely wife and children. One day, he wakes up and finds himself married with two children. As fictitious as it is, he cannot realize how his life changed all of a sudden, but later realizes real happiness with his new family. The first thing he does after this so-close-to-real dream is to search for the woman he is going to marry.

American Beauty, which won the Oscar in 1999, made its way through many other big-budget movies. Spousal mistrust and the widening generation gap were the main topic in this movie, and the fact it won The Best Picture award shows the importance given to the concept of family.

Life after death themes. Life after death also has been a popular theme. The Sixth Sense (1990), a nominee for The Best Picture award in 1999, features a child who sees dead people walking around like regular people. They have an explicit message: The universe is more than what we can perceive through our five senses. In Ghost (1990), Patrick Swayze is a dead person whose soul is still in touch with this world and his beloved wife, whom he tries to protect from danger. What Dreams May Come (1998) takes Robin Williams into Heaven and Hell so he can meet his wife and children again. Gladiator (2000), awarded five Oscars including The Best Picture award, is the story of the Maximus, commander-in-chief of the Roman army, who is willing to leave behind status and fame so that he can reunite with his family for happiness. He is an invincible ” but praying ” commander, who teaches his soldiers about what comes after death, and tragically reaches his family at the end.

Angels and the Devil. Angels and the Devil also are frequent topics. City of Angels (1998) is a good example. Meg Ryan is a person who can exercise free will, taste worldly pleasures, and is expected to know God, whereas Nicholas Cage is an angel who lives in a different dimension and has none of these abilities. Likewise, Brad Pitt portrays the angel of death in Meet Joe Black (1998) and shows us a fictional perspective through an angel’s eyes.

In the digitally remastered and remixed version of The Exorcist (2000), a family tries to reclaim their possessed teenage daughter through every possible medical treatment. In the end, however, two priests are called to exorcise the demon. In The Devil’s Advocate (1997), Al Pacino portrays the Devil, who seeks to control people with lust, status, and money. Keanu Reeves portrays a very successful lawyer who has never lost a trial. He finds himself in a struggle between the Devil’s intrigues and his human virtues.

In End of Days (1999), Arnold Schwarzenegger is an ex-cop who believes in the brute power of muscles and weapons. However, he comes to realize that conventional methods of combat do not work on Beelzebub (the Devil), and so has to devise other solutions. Throwing away his machine gun, he kneels at the altar and prays for help.

Destiny. Destiny is another hot topic. Destiny is a significant part of the belief that keeps societies up and strong. Such a belief lets us know that everything comes from God, which gives us the strength to bear life’s difficulties. Almost 100 years ago, speculation that a comet might hit Earth scared many people who did not believe in destiny. Final Destination is about a group of young people who attempt, but fail, to challenge the destiny that is chasing them. The Green Mile and Fight Club are also good examples for movies with metaphysical content that show that life is not all that we can see.

Religion. Christianity is being questioned in Hollywood movies. In Stigmata (1999), during the 1940s some scripts ” supposedly the original New Testament scriptures from Jesus’ time ” written in ancient Aramaic on leather pieces are found rolled in several jars. They are sent to Rome, after which nothing is heard about them. In the meantime, Frankie, a young girl in her twenties, is attacked brutally by an unseen assailant. She consults doctors and psychiatrists, but nobody can help her. The only man who can help is Andrew Kiernan (Gabriel Byrne), an investigator sent by the Vatican to stop demons from taking over her life.

Bless the Child (2000) tells about a child with supernatural powers. Her evil occultist mom and stepfather want to take her back from her aunt who raised her. The girl talks with her stepfather just like Jesus talked with the Devil, as recorded in the Bible. Her aunt tries to save her from a Biblical prophecy, and in the end angels help them out. In Dracula (2000), people realize that they can defeat Dracula’s supernatural powers only by seeking help from God.

Hollywood also has become interested in other religions. Several movies have been made about Buddhist Tibet and the Dalai Lama. Islam, despite its close and popular association with terrorism in the minds of many, has appeared in a few movies with some positive images. For example, Antonio Banderas played a Muslim envoy (Ahmad Ibn Fadlan) from Amawis in the 13th Warrior (1999), who was an educated and refined person. In Robin Hood (1991), during the Fourth Crusade Kevin Costner brought with him back to England a scholarly Muslim who was admired by the English because he could use binoculars and gunpowder.

Conclusion

These movies inspire us with a promising future, as materialism appears to be less popular and people are interested in searching for the soul, the Hereafter, brotherhood and sisterhood, peace, and love. We can only hope that this trend will continue.

References

• www.hollywood.com
• www.movies.go.com

Jalal: Let me begin first. Basing myself on the Islamic viewpoint, I argue that in an Islamic political regime, sovereignty can belong only to God. However, given that democracy means popular sovereignty, democracy is anti-Islamic.

Jamal: Your argument is based on your reductionist worldview. There is only right or wrong for you. Your world is black and white, and has no room for any gray area. Real life is fuzzier than your rigid opinions.

Contrary to your claim, God’s ontological sovereignty and the people’s political sovereignty are not contradictory. I believe that God, in His capacity as the ultimate Creator, created everything. Therefore, God is sovereign in the universe.

However, His creation in the material universe is different from His creation in social life. He has given each person the freedom of choice and free will; no other member or part of creation has these abilities. Given this, God can create something in social life even though it does not seem appropriate. For instance, He creates heroin and creates the people’s actions when they use it. However, God does not like the people to use it. In other words, He orders them not to use it but does not force them not to use it. God provides the people with free will and thereby makes them responsible for own decisions.

So, God creates whatever happens. Therefore, electing a leader is ontologically a creation of God and cannot contradict His sovereignty, although we cannot know whether this is an appropriate election in His sight.

Jalal: I still think that any popular vote is incompatible with Islam. Think about the designations of Prophethood. God is the ultimate decision-maker Who chooses the Prophets, regardless of what the people think.

Jamal: Perfect example! Of course, the people cannot elect a Prophet through voting, because by definition a Prophet is God’s messenger. Political leaders, however, are the people’s representatives, not God’s. Also, the Qur’an states that no Prophet will come after Prophet Muhammad. Thus, the people are free to elect their own leaders.

Furthermore, democracy based on popular sovereignty is an alternative to monarchy and oligarchy, not to God’s sovereignty. Why don’t you accept that monarchical and oligarchic sovereignties also contradict His sovereignty? Can you really claim that the various royal dynasties received their right to rule from God? Similarly, are the militaristic regimes the shadow of God upon Earth? I don’t think so.

Jalal: Frankly, I never thought of that. But I’m still curious about what you would say if a man-made rule happens to contradict a Divine rule. In Islam, the Qur’an and the Hadith reflect God’s commands and so are accepted as absolute truth. In a democracy, however, ideally the people have the absolute power and legitimacy to create the law.

Jamal: But there is no paradox here. First, Muslim populations normally do not support laws that contradict the Revelation. Second, the Qur’an or Hadith contain no concrete and fixed political principles. Politics deals with temporary and mundane issues, which are subject to change according to time and place. Thus, the people can pass laws that are compatible with the constant, general, and universal principles of Divine rule on one hand, and with changeable sociopolitical contexts on the other. Third, it is more likely that the sovereignty of dictators, dynasties, or oligarchies will contradict the Divine rule than the sovereignty of the people will.

Finally, democracy has different forms, such as direct and representative. In direct democracy, the people vote directly in referendums for almost every political issue. In representative democracy, however, politics is conducted by the people’s representatives. Moreover, some representative democracies (e.g., the U.S.) have a Supreme (or Constitutional) Court to restrict law-making. In sum, possible contradictions between popular sovereignty and Divine rule can be minimized by creating institutions (e.g., a representative system and a Supreme Court) that include some Divine rules as pillars of the constitution.

Jalal: You try to show that democracy is compatible with Islam

Jamal: Moreover, I accept democracy as being more compatible with Islam than with non-democratic systems. The Prophet’s statement that my community will never agree upon an error reveals that the people are the source of political legitimacy. Moreover, the fact that the four Rightly Guided Caliphs were elected shows that election is a more suitable political institution for Muslims than any monarchic or oligarchic alternatives, despite the fact that such elections may not necessarily be considered purely democratic according to modern standards.

Jalal: If everything is so smooth, why did classical Islamic thinkers oppose democracy?

Jamal: First, evaluating classical thinkers by modern paradigms is an anachronism. Historical ideas need to be examined in their historical contexts. Don’t forget that until the French Revolution, monarchy was the dominant political institution. Second, many classical Islamic thinkers (e.g., al-Baqilani and al-Mawardi) generally emphasized the necessity of elections in determining a new caliph. They did not legitimize hereditary systems. Finally, the non-democratic components of classical thought are the results of historical sociopolitical contexts instead of the essence of the Islamic thought. Therefore, Islamic political thought can easily adapt, adopt, and legitimize democratic systems.

Jalal: If Islam and democracy are so compatible, why are so many Muslim countries non-democratic?

Jamal: As I have tried to demonstrate, Islam does not necessarily oppose democracy and is not the only cause of non-democratic regimes in the Muslim world. While discussing the lack of democracy in Muslim countries, one should consider such other factors as the economic, cultural, and international conditions that shape these countries’ political systems.

Second, Islam can be interpreted from different political viewpoints. While Islam encourages obedience to the rulers (4:59), it also encourages resistance. For example, the Prophet said: The best jihad is to say the truth to a tyrant’s face. Non-democratic Muslim rulers have their own interpretations of Islam, which have been shaped by their particular conditions. Therefore, their practices cannot represent Islam’s theoretical principles and essentials and its relations with democracy.

Jalal: Sounds interesting. Are you saying that democracy is the only political system compatible with Islam?

Jamal: No. Muslims may have changeable opinions, although Islam has absolute and universal values. The essentials of Islam are unchangeable and eternal truths. Political ideas, however, depend upon circumstances. Thus they are not absolute and change along with the sociopolitical and economic transformations. For that reason, Muslims could accept multiple political arguments. At this point in time, I personally prefer democracy to other political systems. However, if another system proves to serve humanity better, I might favor that one.

Together with massive campaigns to promote Western products, such story-lines and images, perpetuate the inferiorized stereotypes that used to be taught openly in the nineteenth century. Films especially can be seen as an arm of economic domination: ‘Because every film is a part of the economic system, it is also part of the ideological system… cinema and art are branches of ideology. None can escape; somewhere, like pieces in a jigsaw puzzle, all have their allotted place’ (Nicholls, 1976, vol.1, p.24).

Because the US got the edge over the Europeans in the mass-market film industry, Hollywood and what it stands for have often been accused, even by Europeans, of cultural imperialism. The English as well as the French often complain that the norms of popular culture in their countries have been ‘taken over’ by the Americans. But the fact is that the success of American styles has been largely due to their commercial skill and power relative to English and French products. In no sense can it be claimed that the American popular culture industry portrays the French or the English negatively. By contrast, it is true to say that Western cinema, particularly American cinema, portrays Orientals, especially Muslims, negatively as a matter of course. All easy, popular stories have goodies and baddies, but must the baddies so often be foreigners and need the foreigners be culturally foreign? In order to be popular, popular films reinforce popular stereotypes-it is a vicious circle, at least for its victims. For those who manage such images, popular cinema is a powerful instrument of cultural suppression and domination. As one writer maintains, the virtual monopoly Hollywood has enjoyed for the last quarter century has made it the single most powerful advocate and purveyor of a simplified, homogenized American culture (Collins, 1989).

Within this Hollywood style in particular, there has been a consistent Middle Eastern stereotype-Arab or Arab-Palestinian, or Turk or Iranian-with negative physical and moral characteristics- lustful, fanatical, irrational, cruel, scheming, unreliable, often cowardly, and always outwitted and defeated. The adventurer-hero, once in the Flash Gordon style of noble warrior on the side of the good (in simple contrast to arch-enemy Ming the Merciless, an Oriental tyrant), is now, typically, a morally imperfect figure, nevertheless worthy of the audience’s full sympathy. The ‘James Bond’ character of the sixties and seventies remains by far the most successful hero-formula. He was designed for British and American audiences to identify with: ‘he is worldly, has diverse but specialized expertise, and has a passion for excitement. He is self-reliant, proud, wedded to privacy, honest, candid, loyal, a man of honour…’ (Simon, 1989). This figure exemplifies, in a form appropriate to the genre of comic caricature, the virtues and ethos which are supposed to give the British and the Americans their directness and sense of humour, their get-up-and-go, their problem-solving success. The villain-figures altogether lack positive characteristics, even any energy or wit they have is of a mad, evil-genius type; their characters lack any exposition; they have no past, their only present is to pose the challenge to the hero. It follows that no audience, not even the non- British/American audience can possibly do otherwise than identify, through the momentum of the story, with the hero and the ethos he represents.

Among recent historical films which have to do with Muslim lands and people, the most popular have been Lawrence of Arabia, Death on the Nile, Midnight Express, and Robin Hood. Of these, only the first has any substantial claim to be a serious, well-made film. In it, Lawrence, a British army officer, stationed in Cairo during World War I, works to ally the Sharif of Makka with the British against the Turks. The Arabs are presented as bumbling, loud, unruly primitives with some barbarian dignity but, in the end, easily bribed, easily tricked. The Turks are utterly vile and disgusting with no saving qualities of any kind. Indeed, the Turkish Pasha in Egypt is, in addition to being, ugly, foul and aggressive, a sodomite- characteristics flatly contradicted by historical evidence (Kirkbride, 1956). The fact that Lawrence was a British spy with very British images about the desert, about Arabs, Turks and Muslims in general, never enters into the film or the consciousness of its audience-there is not the slightest hint that the events might be presented from another point of view and so tell quite a different story. For all the undeniable beauty of some scenes, this film well illustrates the general point made by Raymond Williams that, in spite of their being artistic, works of art still serve an ideological function, that is, serve as propaganda (Williams, 1982). Embedded in Lawrence of Arabia there are all the usual distortions, political and cultural, which less artistic films present also, but crudely.

Midnight Express has been widely and continuously shown since its production in 1978. Though shot mostly in a nineteenth-century British barracks in Malta, the film is set in Istanbul which comes over as a most depressing place – a shock surely for anyone who has actually visited it. David Putnam, the director, freely admits that the film is based on a ‘dishonest book’ (Shipman, 1984, vol.2, p.1103). It wholly misrepresents what really happened to Billy Hase who was sentenced in Turkey for drug smuggling: the story implies that he was innocent; it makes much of his escape, though he was released under an amnesty agreement’ (ibid.). The quality of the director’s attention to the Islamic setting can be judged from the scene in which hairy- eared Hamidou (the actor is in fact an American) is whipping Jimmy with a leather belt while some other Turks are praying to Allah – Jimmy’s yells of pain provide the ‘music’ to the praying chorus (Kael, 1980, p.498).

Much the same kind of attention (and the same intention) is evident in the opening scene of Robin Hood: in a gloomy atmosphere the call to prayer rises from a minaret in Jerusalem, then an abrupt ‘cut’ to a filthy prison where an executioner is chopping off the hand of a prisoner – an illustration for the audience of Islamic justice. The point of these and similar devices of narrative and plot of setting, colour, tone and music – many examples could be given – is not only to present an image of Islam and Muslims that is as negative and humiliating as possible. It is also intended to contrast that negative with the positive virtues of the Western characters portrayed within the same story: the audience are required (and expected) to conclude that ‘the Americans, and the Englishmen and the Swedes, are civilized and sensitive…’ (Kael, 1980, p.498).

References

• COLLINS, J. (1959) Uncommon cultures: Popular Culture and Post Modernism, Routledge, London.
• KAEL, P. (1980) When the lights Go Down, Holt, Rinehart & Wilson, New York.
• KIRKBRIDE, Sir As. (1956) A Crackle of Thorns: Experiences in the Middle East, John Murray, London.
• NICHOLLS, B. (1976) (ed.) Movies and Methods, University of California Press.
• SHIPMAN, D. (1984) The Story of Cinema, Hodder & Stoughton, London..
• SIMON, S.R. (1989) The Middle East in Crime Fiction, Lilian Barber Press, New York.
• WILLIAMS, R. (1982) The Sociology of Culture, Fontana, London.