Why does the film only focus on religion as the motivating factor behind radical Islam?
This question seems to focus mainly on the idea of the construction of film and narrative. People sometimes assume that because a film is a documentary it is therefore a reflection of reality and therefore not a constructed narrative.
However if you have seen anything by Michael Moore you will know that a documentary can be used as a polemic and can be shown to present one point of view. The polarisation of review comments seem to suggest that while some agree with the film others do not. When watching a documentary it is best to treat it the same as any other film. It is up to you to consider what your opinion is and whether it offered the argument you wanted to hear.
In answer to your question it seems that you were not satisfied with the film. As a counterpoint I suggest the Chris Morris satire Four Lions. It offers an alternative argument- that a lot of the people that become radicalised terrorists are frustrated young adults who need focus for their anger. While it uses humour to make this point it is worth watching. Like a lot of his work it is provocative, much like this documentary.
• Obsession does not blame terrorism on Islam. Rather, the film explores the justification that terrorists themselves give for their actions. Islamic fundamentalists believe that they need to save their countries and their fellow Muslims from the immorality and evil of the West. Suicide bombers act in the name of Allah, as clearly documented in suicide videos left behind by the bombers. Iranian President Mahmud Ahmadinejad, who is slowly purging his country of Western influences, openly encourages ‘martyrdom,’ and is obsessed with the coming of the Messiah. Terrorist groups such as Al-Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, and Islamic Jihad have all couched their rhetoric in religious ideology.
