Why did it matter that they were Muslim?

Why did it matter that the pilots were Muslim?

That’s the question I’ve been asking myself every time I read or watched one of the theories surrounding the tragedy of Malaysia Airlines flight MH 370. Understandably, after the flight was missing for more than a week, one of the theories that emerged centered on hijacking. Almost immediately, the American media started pointing to the fact that both the pilot and the copilot (as well as presumably a majority of the passengers and flight attendants) were Muslim. My question is, why does that matter? Or more specifically, why does that matter when assessing whether or not a hijacking has taken place?

In the wake of 9/11, the American media has become obsessed with the trope of Muslim-as-terrorist. Yet the country on average remains blissfully ignorant of a) what exactly Islam is and who exactly Muslims are, and b) the history of terrorism. For instance, it probably surprised most citizens (and newscasters) to learn that the largest Muslim country in the world is not, in fact, in the Middle East. It’s in East Asia, and is Indonesia, the country that borders Malaysia. It probably surprised many to learn that Malaysia is a Muslim majority country as well, with around 61 percent of the population professing Islam as their religion. In fact, most of the world’s Muslims live in South or Southeast Asia, and only about 20 percent of the world’s Muslims live in Arab countries.

It also probably shocks most people to find out that more terrorist attacks on US soil since 1980 have been carried out by Jewish extremists than Muslims. You read that right: Jewish extremists. Yet I’m guessing that if the flight had been piloted by a Jewish person rather than a Muslim, their religion would never have been brought up in musings over whether the flight had been hijacked.

Terrorist attacks committed on US soil 1980-2005; Source: FBI

I don’t really expect the majority of Americans to know these facts. They offer perspective, and they’re certainly pertinent to the debate on terrorism, but people are busy trying to get by and live their lives, while only nerds like me spend their days obsessing over international trivia. What I do expect (or more appropriately, wish) is for television news (lookin' at you CNN) to at the very least offer a more nuanced view of terrorism, its perpetrators, and the psychology behind those who commit terrorist acts. It is, after all, their job, and with the proliferation of 24-hour news networks, you’d think at least one segment of those 24-hours could be devoted to actually informing people. For further rants on CNN's awful reporting, please see The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, who does an immensely better job than I at taking this network down a peg or two.

Sometimes Muslims commit acts of terror. Sometimes Jewish people do, and sometimes Christians do as well. Sometimes people with no particular religious affiliation at all are terrorists. It’s never certain why people participate in terrorism, but I suspect that it’s often because they’re scared, and angry, and just a little bit crazy. What is certain is the incredible tragedy that 239 people lost their lives recently on flight MH 370. To think of what the (presumably Muslim) families of the pilot and co-pilot had to go through as they waited to find out whether or not their father/brother/son was dead is… unthinkable. Investigators going through your house; the international media castigating your loved one; and countless people pointing their fingers suggesting that you loved a terrorist.

The unimaginable grief that those families, as well as the families of the passengers, are going through now seems more than one person should have to deal with in a lifetime. Defending against charges of terrorism based on little more than a relative’s religion is too much to ask these people to bear.