Jonathan Majors is returning, but the fact that he’s coming back to the films might cause almost as much controversy as the circumstances which brought his Hollywood career to a halt. He is starring in Run Hide Fight: Infidels, an action thriller linked to The Daily Wire that combines radical Islamic terrorism, pro-Palestinian campus activism, race, patriotism and America’s culture war into one intense storyline.
Before most Americans have had the chance to see the whole film, the political controversy about it has already started. The critics have charged the film with promoting Islamophobia and taking advantage of people’s fears regarding Muslims, while its supporters claim that Hollywood has become frightened of showing radical Islamic terrorism because of political correctness.
This brings us to a question that deserves more than yet another shouting match on social media—whether Run Hide Fight: Infidels is promoting anti-Muslim stereotypes or whether we have now reached the point where portraying radical Islamic terrorism is seen as unacceptable? There is another question worth looking at, especially from the perspective of Black audiences: why did Jonathan Majors, a Black actor who is rebuilding his career outside of Hollywood’s traditional power structure, pick this politically explosive film as part of his comeback?
What does Run Hide Fight: Infidels Entail?
The film is based on Run Hide Fight, the 2020 action thriller concerning students who are trying to survive a school shooting. This time the filmmakers have taken up one of the most controversial political and religious issues in America.
The situation centres on radical Islamist terrorists taking over a pro-Palestinian encampment at a liberal college with the aim of setting up a temporary caliphate, and the students and other people who find themselves in the crisis eventually manage to put up a resistance, during which Major Clay Saunders — a former Delta Force soldier — becomes a key figure in the effort to combat the terrorists.
It is by no means aiming at subtlety in its filmmaking; rather, it is an unapologetic action film which features heroes, villains, and a clear enemy. Just as clearly, the political message of the film is that its makers think mainstream Hollywood has become unwilling to deal with radical Islam.
The argument merits examination just as much as the manner in which the filmmakers choose to present it.
I Do Not Believe All Muslims Are Terrosits?
Acknowledging the difference between peaceful Muslims and extremists does not mean pretending radical Islamist terrorism does not exist. Americans witnessed the September 11 attacks, ISIS seized territory in Iraq and Syria, and Al-Qaeda carried out terrorist attacks around the world. Muslims themselves have also been among the victims of these extremist movements, so pretending this history does not exist simply to avoid offending someone would be intellectually dishonest.
But honesty must work both ways. Radicalized Christianity exists too. American history includes extremists who used Christian language and symbols to justify white supremacy, racial violence and other forms of hatred. That does not mean Christianity teaches those things, just as radical Islamist terrorism does not mean every Muslim supports terrorism.
This is where The Daily Wire should be consistent. If it wants America to confront radical Islam, it should also acknowledge people who have weaponized Christianity. We cannot demand that people separate Christianity from Christian extremists while refusing to separate ordinary Muslims from Islamic extremists.
The real question surrounding Run Hide Fight: Infidels, therefore, isn’t whether radical Islamist terrorists can be portrayed as villains. Of course they can. The question is whether the movie distinguishes those extremists from Muslims generally.
That becomes especially important because the terrorists are connected to a pro-Palestinian college encampment. Supporting Palestinian civilians or criticizing the Israeli government does not automatically make someone a supporter of Hamas, ISIS, terrorism or radical Islam. Christians, Jews, Muslims and others can have complicated views about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
If Infidels erases those distinctions, criticism is justified. But if we’re going to confront religious extremism honestly, the same standard must apply whether the extremist is carrying a Quran or claiming to carry a Bible
Has ‘islamophobia’ now become a way of ending the conversation?
There is also another aspect of this discussion which merits consideration.
It is possible for America to protect Muslims from discrimination as it deals with violent religious extremism. These two positions are not contradictory.
To call every form of criticism directed at radical Islam “Islamophobia” can amount to a method of preventing legitimate debate from taking place. In a free society, religious beliefs and political ideologies should stay open to scrutiny. Christianity is frequently criticised. Black churches are criticised. Conservative Christians are criticised. White evangelicals are criticised. Judaism and its political organisations are the subject of discussion. Political movements associated with religion are regularly looked at by journalists, filmmakers and academics.
Islam cannot be the only belief system that is free from criticism.
Yet Christians should not ask for the right to examine radicalism within Islam while at the same time becoming defensive when extremism linked with Christianity is being looked at. If we are to talk about religious extremism, we should look at all forms of it and the principle in question must not vary according to the religion that is being examined.
It is in this area that certain sections of the conservative media tend to lose credibility; although they are right to object when people on the left use the actions of extremists to stereotype Christians, some conservative commentators seem to be much more at ease in employing generalised language when talking about Muslims.
It is not possible to ask for religious nuance when dealing with Christians on Monday and at the same time fail to ask for it when dealing with Muslims on Tuesday.
The Jonathan Major question
The most interesting aspect of this controversy is Jonathan Majors himself.
Major’s career in Hollywood took a dramatic turn after he was convicted in 2023 of a misdemeanor involving assault and harassment. As a result, Marvel broke association with him, which greatly changed what had seemed certain to become one of the most prominent careers in Hollywood. At present, he is working with filmmakers who operate outside much of the traditional Hollywood establishment.
It makes Infidels more than just another acting role.
Majors isn’t shown as a side character; instead, the promotional material positions him at the heart of the story as an American military veteran fighting back against extremists. For a Black actor who is trying to reestablish his career, selecting a politically conservative production, one that is sure to offend some sections of Hollywood, is an unusual decision.
There is also a wider Black political debate lying beneath the film, since Black Americans are increasingly under pressure to accept fixed stances on issues such as politics, race, immigration, religion, policing, Israel, Palestine and even as to which media organisations they are supposed to watch.
People of colour should be able to watch a Daily Wire film without ending up as conservatives. Just as we should be able to watch a progressive documentary without becoming progressives, we should be able to hear arguments put forward by both the political left and the political right without losing our capacity for independent thought.
We Must The Movie Before Passing Judgment
This leads me to my current view of Run Hide Fight: Infidels.
I will watch it.
The trailer is intended to be provocative. The producers obviously hold a political viewpoint, and the critics do too. Neither side has the right to decide what I am allowed to watch or what conclusion I have to draw afterward.
It is possible that the film will end up being precisely what its critics are afraid of; it might irresponsibly blur the line between Muslims, Palestinians, protesters, and terrorists, and in that case we ought to say so.
It could, on the other hand, turn out to be a politically incorrect action film for which the controversy ends up exceeding that of the movie itself. It might well provoke valid questions regarding radicalism which mainstream entertainment has become unwilling to address. In that case, we ought to be ready to acknowledge that as well.
Yet I shall assess it according to one fixed criterion, namely that I will not pass judgment on Christianity based on its most extreme followers, and I will not pass judgment on Islam on the basis of its most extreme followers.
Even as a Christian, I can disagree with Islamic theology and at the same time acknowledge the humanity, faith and good character of Muslim men and women who have never carried out any act of terrorism. Yet to respect Muslims does not mean pretending that radical Islamist terrorism does not exist.
The Daily Wire is entirely within its rights to challenge the way Hollywood handles radical Islam. Critics are equally within their rights to challenge the way The Daily Wire presents Muslims, and the rest of us have every right to hear both sides and draw our own conclusions.
The true test is not whether America is able to produce a film about radical Muslims. The real test is whether America is intellectually mature enough to confront extremism wherever it appears without condemning millions of peaceful people simply because they share a religious label with the extremists.
