Introduction

In a neverending access to instant information, it can be difficult to find accurate and

factual information. When listening or reading about current world events, it can be that much

more important to take the time to discern the intent of the media. We often allow ourselves to

be caught up in misinformation especially regarding “others”. Especially in an era where the

mere mention of religion is causation for social anxiety, we must be overly cautious when we are

uninformed about religions and world cultures. This is when we tend to be easily rooted into

these misrepresentations. For the purpose of comparing and analyzing media and its

representation of religion, I have chosen one event in a series of attacks on the Shiite minority

religious group (or Shia Muslims) in Afghanistan in the last few weeks.

Afganistan’s population is approximalty 99.7% Muslim (Central Intelligence Agency,

2018). According to Cultural Atlas (2021), between 15-20% of this population is a Shia Muslim

(Beaumont, 2021). Although the majority of Afganistan is Muslim and practice the same basic

Islamic religion, there has been an increase of discrimination and actions agaisnt Shiite’s

minorities since 2016 (Minority Rights Group International, 2018). It is important here to

understand that although Afghanistan has a very religious population, there are a lot of

restrictions in place regarding religious affairs. Nevertheless, with the population being mostsly

Muslim, there are a few things that the media doesnt highlight or emphasise enough regarding

this fact. In the coverage of this hateful act in The Guardian and U.S.News, we will see how the

media depicts Afghanistan and its religious majority and minorities.

Summary of Issues/Article
 In the online news website The Guardian, the article was titled Shia mosque bombing

kills dozens in Afghan city of Kunduz. Meanwhile, on U.S.News, the same event was covered

and named IS Bomber Kills 46 Inside Afghan Mosque. Both articles that have been selected talk

about the horrific suicide bombing in a Shia Muslim Mosque, on a Friday the 8th of October

during the noon prayer. They mention similar information, the large difference being the number

of deaths and injuries, this may falter due to sources. They similarly acknowledge the various

attacks on these Islamic minorities in the last few months, which led to this particular one, such

as another suicice bombing in an airport in afghanistan.

The U.S.News articles says the attack was one from a Uyghers Muslim, in protest to the

Shia Muslims apparent cave in to Chinas’ demands to expel the former. The act was one of hate

and violence, perpetuated from a series. The bombing targeted a specifically Shiite Mosque, in

central Kunduz during the noon prayer on friday. The U.S.News article specifies that the targets

were “Hazaras, who have long suffered from double discrimination as an ethnic minoirty and as

followers of Shiite Islam in a majority Sunni country” (Associated Press, 2021). On the other

hand, The Guardian article mentions Hazaras, but makes no clear link between the events and

this ethnic minority.

Analysis of Articles

Although both articles mention the religions of the people involved, they do not mention

anything else regarding this distinctive feature. Firstly, it is important to know that both victims

and perpetrator were Muslim, following an Islamic faith. In this faith, the scriptures mention that

people will, most likely, disbelieve and hate unto them, “ for example, that ‘When you journey

about the earth it is no crime that you come short in prayer if you fear that those who disbelieve

will attack you.’ Koran says this explicitly”(Smith, 2014). It is to note that this religious scripture,

the Koran, purposefully mentions hatred and disconnect from human beings in fear of attack in
hopes that the Mosque is a safe space to practice their faith. Therefore, the articles should

highlight and emphasize that this violent act has been done in the space where these victims

were to feel safe, accepted and at peace. Bringing this information to light brings a deeper

understanding to the event and the violence.

Furthermore, it is to be understood that in Islam, “Muslims are expected to pray in

mosques when they can, and the Friday noon prayer is emphasized in this respect” (Smith,

2014). As mentioned earlier, Muslims are not forced to pray when they feel it will make them

stand out. Nevertheless, they are strongly encouraged and expected to join the Friday noon

prayer at the mosque. In the numerous articles that can be found on the internet, I only found

the New York Post and U.S.News that specified this timing: “the blast tore through a crowded

mosque in the city of Kunduz during Friday noon prayers, the highlight of the Muslim religious

week”(Associated Press, 2021). By adding this to the article it further demonstrates the thought

and planning the attackers went through to arrive at this horrendous event. Without these

specifications, anyone who is uninformed about the religion wouldn’t understand the severity of

this attack.

Finally, I think it would have been compelling if rather then pointing out the hatred

between these varieties of Islamic faith, the articles brought forward “these notable words,

spoken by the Prophet [...] shortly before his death” (Smith, 2014) : “Know ye that every Muslim

is a brother to every other Muslim, and that you are now one brotherhood” (Smith, 2014) . It

would have been interesting for the articles to point out the previous citation in the spirit of

utilizing media in the effort of raising awareness, knowledge and questions. We understand in

this citation, that Muslims are supposed to be hand in hand, a brotherhood, regardless of

differences. Nevertheless, they seem to have forgotten these and have shifted to seeing each

other as “others”, as Miedema would say. Although the articles identify and transmit the

important information, they should take the chance to also question the actions and the reality of
it. As the Prophet said, they should be one, one brotherhood. Therefore, someone should put

this into evidence and question what occured and where this shift happened, because Miedema

would suggest that they should have been “prepared for living, working, and learning together

with these “others” in the social and public domain instead of locking them in. These “others”

should no longer be perceived as a threat but as an enrichment” (Miedema, 2013).