Abstract

Politics and social agendas have in many ways molded a variety of literary works and imposed their views either implicitly or explicitly on them. Updike’s Terrorist and Umm Zakiyyah’s If I Should Speak exemplify this tendency and fit snugly onto the cultural and political stage as they both tackle the issue of Islam’s image in American society. In reading the two novels, we see that both writers attempt to prove their points of view using characters and sources of evidence that properly serve their respective agendas. This article explores both writers’ points of view by evaluating the reliability of each writer’s narrator based on the sources that both writers relied on. In so doing, we reveal how Updike upholds the Western stereotypical image of Muslims and presents his work in a political and religious framework that supports this image. By contrast, Umm Zakiyyah embodies the counterargument as she presents a moderate Islamic figure that corrects Updike’s (and, by extension, American society’s) misconceptions about Islam. The present article compares and contrasts the two novels to assess the reliability of each author’s view and help reveal the gap between the real and misconceived Islam. A close reading of both texts shows that Updike relies mainly on vague sources about Islam to fabricate a plot grounded in a prejudicial tendency to frame Islam in its Westernized stereotypical image. Umm Zakiyyah’s text, on the other hand, serves as a counterargument that manifests Islam in its authentic image. We believe that such exposition is critically needed to establish cultural bridges and mutual understanding between the East and the West.