FITNA
March 27th, 2008 by Andre Soares
Fitna, the work of hate created by Dutch far-right-wing member of Parliament Geert Wilders, is now available online. (Don’t expect a link to it here.)
I managed to watch bits and pieces of it before fast-forwarding through repetitive hate-filled discourses by fanatical Muslim clerics interspersed with scenes depicting terrorist attacks committed by Muslim fanatics. By using (out-of-context?) verses from the Koran, Wilders ties the horrors of terrorist attacks in London, New York, and Madrid to the Muslims’ holy book.
In Wilders’ warped mind, there’s no socioeconomic-political context for modern-day terrorism. It’s all about the ancient Koran. (But if so, I wondered while watching Fitna, why weren’t there terrorist attacks 60 or 160 or 260 years ago? True, there are more Muslims in Europe now than before, but there has always been a Muslim presence on that continent.)
My disgust aside, I must credit Wilders and his collaborators for creating a masterpiece of hate propaganda. True, Fitna is both simple-minded and dishonest, but that’s perfect. Wilders knows his audience. Complexity and honesty are of no interest to radicals.
Something else that came to mind while I was watching Fitna was a hate-filled film of yore. I’m referring to Veit Harlan’s Jud Süß, a 1940 slice of anti-Jewish bile in which the Jewish protagonist is portrayed as a rapacious monster. (I’ve never seen the complete film, only bits and pieces of it in assorted documentaries on Nazi propaganda films.)
If you’re curious about Fitna, beware. Its images are stomach-churningly graphic, and the purpose behind those images — the demonization of a culture and of more than one billion human beings — make for a horrendously disturbing experience.
That said, others seem to think otherwise…
Maurits Berger, professor of Islam in the West at Leiden University, didn’t seem to be too shocked by Fitna. "It’s a series of images and photos, headlines from recent years which we already know," adding that the short film tells more about Wilders than the Koran. "It represents his fear of Islam."
Mohamed Rabbae, chairman of the National Moroccan Council in The Netherlands, told the Associated Press that "on the one hand, this is less bad than we thought he was going to do. But he also gives the impression the Quran justifies violence, and that is really wrong." (Note: Rabbae had not seen the film, yet.)
On Saturday in Amsterdam, thousands of Dutch demonstrated against Fitna, trying to show the world that Wilders does not represent the whole country.
I lived in Holland for a couple of years. Met all sorts of people there. Catholics, Protestants, Muslims, Hindus, atheists, drug addicts, Turks, Moroccans, Danes, Frenchmen, Germans, Americans, Indonesians, Australians, Surinamese, businesspeople, government officials, journalists, bakers, prostitutes (they were the coolest), etc.
Some of the above were friendly, some were obnoxious; some were open-minded, some were bigoted; some were well-educated, some were ignorant. All of them were human beings.
Now, you want to see a truly disturbing Koran short, a Powerful Warning to the West? Check this one out:
Technorati Tags: Fitna, Geert Wilders, bigotry, Islam, Koran, online video, The Netherlands, Fitna satire
Nick Turse’s Six Degrees of Pentagon-Hollywood Separation
"Films of 1907" Presentation in NYC and DC
IFTA’s President Jean M. Prewitt Defends Net Neutrality
MPAA’s President Dan Glickman Attacks Net Neutrality
Patrick Goldstein on New Line’s Bob Shaye in the LOS ANGELES TIMES
THE UNKNOWN WOMAN in New York City
Oscar Nominated Shorts at the American Cinematheque
Mick LaSalle, the Future, and Teen Pregnancies
DEEP SEA 3D, MAGNIFICENT DESOLATION, ROVING MARS: Contemporary Documentaries Screening
44 Responses to “FITNA”
Reminds a bit of The Protocols of Zion from a couple of years ago and the general public’s swallowing of conspiracy theories about Jews leading up to WWII. Pretty sick how some filmmakers successfully create propaganda.
I’ll tell you what’s “hateful”, what’s “warped”. The people committing the atrocities in that film are hateful and warped.
Oh, my. Religious fanatics are hateful and warped! What a surprise! Who would have guessed if it weren’t for something like Fitna?? Thank you, Mr. Wilders, THANK YOU for enlightening us all!
“…I wondered while watching Fitna, why weren’t there terrorist attacks 60 or 160 or 260 years ago? True, there are more Muslims in Europe now than before, but there has always been a Muslim presence on that continent.”
After the Spanish drove the Moslems from Iberia in 1492, there has been minimal Islamic presence in Europe. Islamic doctrine also discouraged the faithful from leaving Moslem states to live under infidel rulers, stating that it was impossible to live under Islamic law, even if the non-Islamic government was not hostile.
It wasn’t until the late 20th century that you see large numbers of Moslem immigrants to Europe, when France’s withdrawal from North Africa opened the first floodgate. Turkish entry into NATO also provided a means for immigration into western Europe. The advent of the EU and the collapse of internal immigration controls has increased the trend, and the decline of European Non-Moslem birthrates and high Moslem rates have also served to increase the Moslem population of Europe. Prior to that, the only major Moslem communities in Europe were in the Balkans, which were a flashpoint of ethnic hatreds and combat for centuries.
As for the absence of terrorism, the incidence of piracy (the pre-20th Century equivalent of terrorism) was extremely high in the Mediterranean until the defeat of the Turkish fleet at Lepanto, although it continues even today in the waters around the Horn of Africa and Mindanao in the Philippines. The piracy depredations were so bad that even the newly independent United States was forced to fight against the Barbary pirates in Lybia, and the Moro Insurrection in the Philippines was as much about piracy as Jihad.
“After the Spanish drove the Moslems from Iberia in 1492, there has been minimal Islamic presence in Europe.”
That isn’t true. I know you reference the Balkans later on in your post, but that was a HUGE Muslim presence. (It was called the Ottoman Empire…)
Now, one can’t blame Muslims alone for the Balkan wars. That part of Europe, **long** before Islam, was a boiling pot of ethnic/national strife.
Piracy as “the pre-20th Century equivalent of terrorism”? You can’t be serious. What about colonialism? Slavery? The Inquisition?
There’s an interesting article about the Barbary Wars here (including some socio-political context missing from your post):
http://muslimheritage.com/topics/default.cfm?ArticleID=868
And here’s wondering if Jean Laffite was a Jihadist…
you have just embarressed any form of opposition against the film. Has has already been shown by previous posts, you obviously don’t know what you’re talking about. And you’ve obviously gone into watching it with such a firm position already set, you could of written the review without even watchting. and your comparison to jud sub! they are not in the least comparable. i wonder if you have actually seen that film. (sorry about my poor english by the way) but my biggest critism is that i bet you think you’re such a free spirit, standing up for equality, fighting oppression against the establishment. I bet you actually believe that you are going against the current morality (which according to you is racism and prejudice). don’t you see you are the perfect embodiment of everything that is fashionable in today’s morality! Wilders is closer to any embodiment of free thinking than you ever will be.
Hello Mr. Soares,
You wrote : ” By using (out-of-context?) verses from the Koran, Wilders ties the horrors of terrorist attacks in London, New York, and Madrid to the Muslims’ holy book. ”
Ali Sina wrote : “The movie shows how the Quran provokes hate and inspires terrorism. This explosive movie does not have any comments. It consists solely of the verses of the Quran, the sermons of the Islamic clerics and what Muslims do. If Muslims are offended by it, they should ask themselves why. Do they find the Quran and their own actions embarrassing?”.
Let’s see if you have in-depth understanding about Fitna/Islam.
Ahmet,
I have no knowledge of the Koran as I’ve never read it. (See the question mark after “out-of-context.”)
BUT I do have quite a bit of knowledge about filmmaking. I know how editing can be used to make a point, however dishonest. That’s how a filmmaker makes “comments.” And that’s what Wilders does quite cleverly — if unimaginatively — in “Fitna.”
I also have some knowledge of the Bible (from my Catholic school days…) I do know that if someone wanted to make a similar short film showing the Bible as the inspiration for horrendous, violent acts, they could.
There’s always a way to distort the complex truth to make a simple-minded point.
Loved the “truly disturbing Koran short”. It made me laugh, big time.
I bumped into your page looking for the actual short by Wilders, but after reading your post and watching your own (?) video on the subject, I am feeling much better. My interest in that information has just vanished. So, thank you very much for defusing me! :-)
It’s pretty obvious that most of the above responders have their heads stuck in their rear end. The film is based strictly on documents and facts. There is no need for much editorial input or opinions. The facts speak for themselves.
Andre,
Try putting your ideology aside and watching the movie. Whitch part of it do you disagree with?
Pictures are worth 100s of words:
The most shocking aspect of Wilder’s film is the live scenes of Muslim clerics/leaders inciting hate and a little Arab girl, obviously brainwashed, calling Jews pigs (a loaded term in both Islam “halaal” and Jewish “kosher” dietary laws). Odd that you do not find this shocking.
Adding to these scenes quotes (or misquotes?) from the Koran and Dutch headlines, does not change this.
To compare a film based upon documentary fact to Nazi propaganda (pictures of rats representing Jews) is itself a tad “pot calling kettle black”, distortion yourself
“I know how editing can be used to make a point, however dishonest. ” Does that apply to your unflattering image of Wilders, too?
Mr. Soares,
The difference between the passages in the Old Testament is that no-one except extremist Jews (and their allies among the Religious Right) in Israel are touting them as justification for political activity.
And those socio-political sub-groups should be critiqued just as thoroughly as extremist Islamists.
But your REALLY should read the Koran (I have) to see if those quotes are actually being used to incite political action against non-mulims (they are, and the Koran does actually say that (it does - read the history), embodied in Sharia law, which is morally and ethically repugnant to those who live in free democracies - or even other forms of government)
This is NOT to say that democracies make mistakes - now that we Americans have elected a real religious idiot it may be time to elect and intelligent black or woman to the presidency of the US……
Oops - should have said “not that democracies DON’T make mistakes….”
Also - “Religious Right in the US)
I would also add that the weapons of terror are much more available, deadly, and easy to use than they were before the 1990’s when the mass migration of Muslims as workers entered Europe….
The real question is whether these Muslims should attempt to enforce Sharia on Western culture - if through terror, it can be legitimately considered an invasion (funded by Arab states (and/or their proxies) (Saudis, etc.) without the necessity of an industrial base as in WWII)
So called `Liberal` critics of the Fitna film such as Andre Soames, by using the hackneyed `racist! bigot! filth!!` cries about this film, are unwittingly condoning the violence that that will undoubtedly be aimed at anyone associated it (or anyone vaguely dutch, English etc.etc.).
Nevermind, like the Barbary pirates, so long as there are good complex socio-economic-political justifications.
The core point Fitna makes is that Islam is irretrievably violent and facist. As A. Soames points out there are many passages from the bible that are equal in kind to the koran, and in the past when the church was more powerful christian fundamentalists have used them to justify many cruelties. A difference between the two is that the koran is very specific about about there being an `Islamic State` and what its laws should be.
Given that it does its best not to be as conveniently woolly as the bible, that appears to me to back Wilders point of view and critics resorting to personal abuse(obnoxious as his politics may be)do not answer any of his fears.
Jose,
The Koran short is even funnier if you can read Dutch. The end titles are quite clever. (It’s not my creation. I found it on youtube.)
Lenny,
“Try putting your ideology aside and watching the movie. Whitch part of it do you disagree with?”
I can’t put my “ideology” — a yearning for fairness and for peace? — aside. Sorry. I disagree with the demonization of hundreds of millions of human beings because of a small minority of psychopaths. And psychos can be found in *every* culture.
Colin,
“Pictures are worth 100s of words.”
True. And clever film editing is worth 1,000,000,000… I never said I don’t find the scenes in “Fitna” shocking. They’re horrifying! But hey, have you ever heard a little white Christian boy saying disgusting, deranged things about blacks and Jews? I have. Brainwashing is not the registered property of mad Muslims.
I understand that “Jud Suss” is a work of fiction. “Fitna” isn’t. However, both are works whose intent is the demonization of a group of individuals. In that regard, they have a LOT in common.
Marge,
A “good complex socio-economic-political” context is never a justification for violence. BUT it can help people understand where violence comes from and do something to prevent it from happening again.
Chuck,
The Religious Right is hardly a tiny minority among Christians, but hate propaganda directed at them would hardly be the best way to make the world a better, safer, more tolerant place.
Also, Muslims — had they so wished — could have used whatever weaponry was at their disposal to wreak havoc in Europe (and elsewhere) long before the end of the 20th century. That didn’t happen.
Why not? Because they didn’t have access to dirty bombs?
No. It’s just that history doesn’t happen in a vacuum. We’re paying today for problems that have been fermenting for decades — or even centuries.
It’s time to stop the bloody madness, but hate propaganda created by a power-hungry politician is not the way to achieve that goal.
By the way, I’ve never read the Koran, but I’ve read Karen Armstrong’s “A History of God”… Highly recommended.
Addendum: The Armstrong remark was (sort of) a pun. In no way did I mean that Armstrong’s book, however informative, was enough for me or for anyone else interested in the subject.
You’re getting out of your depth when you move from discussing film to your (minimal)knowledge of the Qu’ran, the history of Islam, and the history of Islam’s relation to the West. You’ll need to read a lot more than Karen Armstrong!
Start by reading the Qu’ran by all means, but also please do read up on the Ottoman Empire before you pontificate. The Battles of Lepanto and Vienna were all about saving the “evil, racist, intolerant, slave-trading colonialist West” from the evil, racist, intolerant slave-trading Islamic imperialists. Funny how the victors of those battles developed cultures that have a healthy sense of self-criticism, which unfortunately has devolved into a righteous masochism (with supposedly “liberal” pundits competing to show their fitness for dhimmitude), while the losers (like many Confederate apologists) make NO apologies for their cultures’ barbarities, past and present.
Also, for understanding today’s religious conflicts, René Girard’s _Violence and the Sacred_ and _Things Hidden Since the Foundation of the World_ are worth two acres’ worth of books by PC writers like Edward Said or conservative lightweights like Robert Spencer.
Andre,
The “small minority of psychopaths” are very popular among “hundreds of millions of human beings” that you say you don’t want to blame. In any other religion such people wouldn’t have this popularity and following. You are trying to defend something that’s very bad, with something that’s not perfect. Ignoring reality, because it doesn’t fit ones ideological templet is an indication of a nerrow mind.
I wonder if you were as outraged at the death of film maker Theo VanGogh by one of the purveyors of the “religion of peace” as you are by Fitna? I am completely disgusted by the level of cowardice and apology shown by the “intelligensia” for lack of a better term, when confronted with the facism of Islam.
“I wonder if you were as outraged at the death of film maker Theo VanGogh [sic] by one of the purveyors of the “religion of peace” as you are by Fitna?”
I’m not sure if I was “outraged.” I believe I was horrified, angry, disgusted.
I have no sympathy for fanatics of *any* kind.
Le film de la honte qui dénonce les agissements d’une minorité de terroriste qui agissent au nom de l’islam. Seulement Geert Wilders ne vaut pas mieux que ces gens là car pousser la provocation jusqu’à ces limites démontrent clairement une instabilité profonde de cet individus.
i’m agree with andre.you know, muslims are human being too.as human being,there must be a good and a bad people.i want to ask you, where in the world did you find a religion that its followers are all good,even cristianity!i am shocked to know there are still people like you guys that are very short-minded.i live in a muslim country and this country gives an authority to the non-muslims to drive the country together.We have about 7 non-muslims ministers out of 30 ministries . This is far more better than dutch government that has never given an authority to the muslims .
hmm … I see what you mean - I remember watching films of the Nuremburg rallies and thought its not that all Nazis are nasty people - after all you have to see the socio-economic and historical factors behind all this rumpus - and anyway all that silly stuff about roasting the reviled Jew was - well - just their silliness getting the better of them, wasnt it, just their way … ho hum, shame they meant what they said it would have been so easy to appease their silly ways and headstrong militants if only we’d had the instructional and insightfulness of web-sites like this all those years ago
oh well never mind
“hmm … I see what you mean…”
No you don’t.
hmm.. see duncan white.You are the best example for the people I meant.
>>
Do you even know the history of Eastern Europe?
Geert Wilders do this film and show it to us all in the prinsip of freedom of speech and freedom of act (free expressions) . Then Those radical islamists also should be allowed to do what they want for the sake of human rights. Why double standard?
Mohamad,
“Freedom of expression” is another way of saying “freedom of speech” — it’s not “freedom of act.”
Although I don’t agree with Geert Wilders, I’d say there’s a *big* difference between freedom of speech — and to a certain extent, even freedom of hate speech (that’s “Fitna”) — and committing violent acts, no?
who are you reffering at lenny?if you ask me, i am a history student. so, I do know the eastern europe and its history.
I was referring to a claim in Andre’s article that Islam wasn’t a problem for Europe 60 or 160 or 260 years ago.
Sorry Andre, what I meant is that the demonstrations against the film Fitna by people who dont agree to what Wilders did. ( I dont support terrorism although I believe its caused by suppression- mind my spelling.) Have peace in Palestine and we will have a peaceful world. And He did that film right. That’s an act. Not a speech.
Lenny,
In my article I specifically refer to terrorist acts in Europe. Religion — no matter which — has always been a serious problem in Europe. And elsewhere, as well.
Mohamad,
Thanks for the clarification. However, I should add that filmmaking — though an “act” — is considered a form of speech. Much like writing a book is an “act,” but that’s also covered under freedom of expression or freedom of speech.
Protesters, of course, should also have the right to be vocal. Demonstrating against something is an act, but it’s also “speech.”
Modern Islamic terrorism is made for TV news and video cameras, without them it could not make any impact. That’s why they didn’t have these type of attacks in Europe in the past. Your whole argument is based on a nuance. Europe spans all the way to the Ural Mountains and Islam has been a source of violence for centuries. It doesn’t compare at all to what was going on with other religions at the time.
deconstructing ‘the problem’ into a weighty balance of whether some members of a Grand Narrative are ‘good’ whilst others are ‘not good’ is like dusting the furniture on the Titanic
The problem remains that in the name of that ideological driven Grand Narrative vile acts are perpetrated and the fact that a sizeable percentage of followers purport to disown those vile acts is immaterial unless they act to dismantle the ideology that gives rise to it
what does it matter that on some arbitrary scale of historical seriousness or precedent contemporary muslim ‘terrorism’ is slightly less disgusting than 13th century christianity or slightly more vile than 20th century nazism - the material issue at stake is that it is a religious ideological grand narrative attempting to usurp and replace the way of life of other cultures - the infidel - and the trajectory of this enterprise is there to be seen.
If you dont think contemporary socio-economic and anthropological advances of the last thirteen-hundred years are worth preserving in the face of a faction behaving like a barbaric medieval death-cult because we want to be visibly tolerant to aberrant minorities and/or intolerant ideologies we either have to be universal in this approach and surrender to anarchy or we have to stand up and say to extremists that their vile ideology is unacceptable
what makes you think that the quotes Wilders uses could be out of context? Do you not know that muslims are taught to believe that the koran was dictated to mohammad, and is the unalterable word of allah? So when the verse of the sword is quoted (kill the unbeliever wherever you find them….) in what context are muslims supposed to take that verse?
There are none so blind as those that will not see.
Andre,
Thanks for sharing your views. Listen, if we are honest with ourselves, not holding back, we must see that the Bible and the Koran DO in fact have these writings in them, and they are not simply figurative, they are literal, quite simply because they express the language that was written at the time it was written,that is the scary part. While it goes without saying that there MUST be some of it here and there, in all religious texts, for example, it doesn’t appear in every other verse of the Buddha’s gargantuan body or writing, it does however, appear (I read it) in the Koran. If the texts are not the problem, then who is at fault? Is in the manner in which they were interpreted by their lackluster readers? I think not.The Islamists and Judeo-Christians have been fighting and killing one another for thousands of years, and Mohammad’s entry into many a village was to convert the citizens to Islam, or to levy the blade to their heads–or taxes…depending on how spiritually inclined he and his devotees were, that day…
Guys, first thank you Andre for being honest and reasonable in what you’ve presented. I do agree with Mohammad that Palestine is the central issue from which most of the Arab-Western conflicts emerge.
What many Westerns may not know is that it’s not about Hamas or Hizbullah, but every single Arab/Muslim stands against Israel in some way — even those who live a secular life.
The film Fitna plays on this issue in a tactical way. It “cuts & pastes” verses from the Qur’an which picture Muslims as blood thirsty for killing Jews & that is complete nonsense. Jews and Christians have been living in the Arab world for centuries. They even got their own laws and the right to govern themselves — see the history of Lebanon under the Ottoman reign. Maybe there were times which rules were broken — that’s how life goes on.
Wilders did as well connect the film immediately to Sep 11 - a move to grab the American public opinion to his side. But to me, Sep 11 is a maneuvering show to get into Iraq and monopolise its black gold - oil. Saddam Hussein didn’t have nuclear weapons!
In short, much of what is REALLY going on in the world is being blurred. We here, in the Middle East, live somehow a life which is completely alien to the one depicted in Fitna.
One word I say to the world: Open your eyes!
So 9/11 was an American conspiracy to get Iraqi oil
and Bin Laden fell on the sword for president Bush by taking the blame? Thanks for opening our eyes.
Lenny,
I don’t believe that’s what Aouni meant. That’s certainly not how I read it.
Now, discussions about supposed conspiracies will not be approved. I ask future “commenters” — if any — to stick to commenting about “Fitna.”
Andre,
All major polls taken in Muslim world show that majority believes that 9/11 was staged by US government or Israel.
The Comments option for this page has been closed.