Geert Wilders' Fitna: What Do You Think About It?
I posted my thoughts on this short film below, but what are yours? Please leave your comments here, once you've watched the movie. And please focus primarily on the movie itself, or the reaction to it, rather than on the broader debates about Islam (though when you're commenting about the movie, you may of course refer to the relevant parts of the broader debates).
Related Posts (on one page):
- LiveLeak Brings Back Fitna:
- Threats Cause Fitna To Be Taken Down By Its Hosting Service:
- Geert Wilders' Fitna: What Do You Think About It?
- I'm Now Watching Geert Wilders' Fitna,
But. I say again, BUT!
BUT when certain followers of the religion act in the consistently despicable way we have seen from radical Islamists, that is the heart of the problem. And that is the heart that must be plucked from the chest of a society that loves its children and wants to leave them a better world.
This films shows the despicable actions of radical Islamists. And shows the insidious indoctrination of hate that will perpetuate these actions. In that it is very successful.
We should and must condemn these people. I think this is what Geert Wilders is doing. They will probably be proud of what they've done and laugh at our condemnation, but they're free to do so. We don't kill them for disagreeing with us.
But I think the film is unduly provocative by blaming all these actions on the Koran. The filmmaker's technique of solemnly showing the verses, with ponderous music, then showing the "result" of those verses -- that's overly dramatic and actually takes away from the message.
The film would have been just as effective (actually more, in my opinion) without insinuating that the Koran is the root cause. A billion Muslims who believe the Koran but do not kill innocent people prove that the Koran is not the cause. We don't need a film that condemns the Koran.
So just explicate the actions and show the radicals who are creating these actions in the name of Islam -- in the perversion of Islam. Show the people and blame this on them, not the holy book.
Whatever one thinks of its politics, it's an aesthetic disaster. Wilders is obviously trying to stir up strong emotions, but he's sabotaged by the slow pacing, the music, and the visual effects he's using.
I'd never seen the beheading scene before, but by then I was so annoyed with the film it had little impact. A well done documentary can powerfully manipulate ones' emotions, but this was just so heavy-handed. There's no finesse to running split screen footage of the Koran and 9/11 backed by ponderous music. It felt like he was shouting "Muslims are evil; be scared of teh terrorists!!!!" at me, so I wasn't going to be just to spite him.
If I ran a TV station I wouldn't show this either, I'd be worried people who change channels.
So the question is, "What value does this film have?" I think it has very little. I assume it will confirm all the conspiracy theories of the denialists, and all the stereotypes of anti-Islamic absolutists. What the people on both those extremes need is to confront their own determinism, and propaganda pieces like this don't perform that job very well. Films like this don't tend to open minds. They just harden convictions.
But I liked the sound track.
No where does the film suggest that the vast majority of Muslims reject the extremists, even if they do feel threatened by the West.
For polemic, an A. For deftness in conveying his message, D-. For anything approaching the reality of Muslims across the world, F. For an attempt at even approaching objectivity, F.
It was inevitable, there there be a film-maker who could make Michael Moore look professional. Geert Wilders is the one.
And that's the point.
It doesn't because their voices are remarkably quiet.
Find the rejections. Bring them here and post them. We'll wait.
OTOH, if you're one of the people who knows the proper context--like many of the posters and commenters on this site--it serves as a chilling reminder of some things we try not to think about every day.
Big Opps!
There are two broad points:
1) Islam itself is a dangerous ideology.
2) The quick rise in the number of Muslims in Europe is worrying. Let's treat them in turn.
As to 1), this claim simply isn't true. Are there a lot of Muslim extremists? Sure. But there are over a billion Muslims. Muslims I know here in the US, or that I've met while traveling, have been no different from the majority of people worldwide in the importance they place on their family, or a better future, or prosperity, etc. For much of the last 1400 years, majority-Islamic countries had better relations with non-Muslims than majority-Christian countries had with their religious minorities. As someone who does find certain strains of Wahhabism worrying, I find claims like "Islam on the whole is backward and dangerous" to be completely counterproductive.
As for the second point, I'm much more in agreement with Wilders. National culture is important, and the Dutch (being a Democracy) should rightly be worried if a very large group of immigrants with wholly different ideas about liberality move to their country, ideology intact.
There is a faction of Islamists, a very large one, that thinks their religion should be forced on the world, and that extends to denying the rest of the world freedom, free speech, etc.
The movie itself could be the best ever made, or the worst - that is not the issue. The issue is the film makers right to make it, and viewers right to watcht it if they choose ( or not watch it if they choose not to ).
It's pure inflammatory dribble, appealing to the worst of our inclinations to lump together groups of people we don't understand.
I also don't like how the movie shows the Muslim population in Europe. That isn't an essential. It seems like it would lead to advocating immigration restrictions in general or specifically on Muslims, but that wouldn't solve anything. That doesn't remove the threat.
Europeans first need to define the positive: what the West is, and why it is good and worth fighting for. On the Europeans' washed-out-socialists mentality, they don't have the will to live. This is how one should defend the West.
What happens once we do understand them? Are we free to make generalizations then?
The production itself was amateurish and youtubeish and distracting.
But none of this actually matters because the moral of the story isn't the end of the video but what happens after. And we pretty much already know. Many Westerners will denounce the video for its "message of hate," others will claim that Christianity and the West are no better, many will suggest that the portrayal of Muslims in the video represents only the fringe element and the vast majority are good people who for whatever reason do not speak up loudly to fight against those who have hijacked their religion. And there will be riots in the Muslim world and likely throughout Europe, death threats will be made, Wildert will be forced further into hiding with Hirsi Ali and others, moderate Muslims (and others) will argue that freedom of speech should be limited to that which doesn't offend and in the end, probably a lot of people will die.
And that will be the moral of the story. One man makes an amateur movie about how barbaric and violent and unfit for Western civilization Muslims are and many Muslims the world over will behave barbarically and violently and very, very many others (Muslims and nonMuslims alike) will respond not by criticizing their brutal brethren but criticizing and seeking to limit the greatest values of Western civilization. Wildert's point will have been made (just as van Gogh's and the cartoonists' were) but very few people will have noticed. And he might pay for it with his life.
you wouldn't need to.
Another important point is that the majority of Muslims never denounce the radicals. If the movie’s message distorts Islam, if the infamous cartoon defames Islam, then so does every one of Bin Laden’s messages. Where are the protestors? Where is the outrage? In Hamlet, Shakespeare cautioned us about a lady the protests too much. In Fitna, Wilders is cautioning us about a religion that doesn’t protest enough (at least, concerning its own extremists).
I agree, but the speech that needs defending and the person who delivers it can't be ignored. The demands for censorship and the accompanying threats and violent demonstrations are intolerable, but the items they complain of often happen to be offensive. And no, I'm not suggesting any kind of moral equivalence. But we do find ourselves having to defend, as we should, the rights of flawed actors behaving badly. For those of us who don't want our support of the speech rights to imply support of the messenger or his message, that point has to be made too.
Well, there's always Ali Eteraz—here, for example, opposing the idea of Sharia family courts in England, and here dissing the Canadian Muslim group that filed the complaint against Mark Steyn—but of course he's not an influential person or anything as far as I can tell, outside the blogosphere. Still, he does meet your criteria, doesn't he?
Anbar Awakening doesn't use strong or fiery speeches. Its words are hard to hear. If you're willing to listen, though, its actions speak volumes.
Wilders could have been much more sensational, for instance reminding his audience of the case of Ilan Halimi, who was tortured for a month in France. The Arab animals who lived in the neighborhood where he was being held did not go to the police. Instead, they dropped in to help torture him.
He could have quoted Mullah Krekar as saying that Muslims were growing like "mosquitoes." He could have pointed out the disparate birthrates between Muslims and non-Muslims.
Fitna should have been an hour long, and it should have addressed what Europeans could do about the problem.
You mean inflammable dribble? Like a slow dribble of gasoline?
The worst governments are the work of fanatical revolutionaries and "peaceful" majorities often find themselves under the thumb of a violent minority. The history of the 20th century is a history of the awful things that fanatical revolutionaries do.
And while I understand the concern many Muslims have about being unfairly lumped in, it would be nice once in a while to see genuine outrage and protests directed at the violent minority, not film-makers and cartoonists.
So?
I mean that. So?
See the polls in England, or Canada, or Europe about sharia or violent attacks like the subway bombing. Or honor killing. A third in favor isn't, strictly speaking, a majority. So?
When der Tag comes, the Muslims who approved and helped won't be distinguishable from those who approved but didn't help from those who disapproved but didn't call the cops when they knew something from those who knew nothing at all.
I suppose it depends on who and what you consider significant voices raised against Islamic extremism. Particularly if you're looking for English-language material, you're not going to see most of it. If you restrict your reading to the likes of 'Front Page', you're not going to find it at all.
Here's Asharq Alawsat, the largest-circulating Arabic-language newspaper (in English translation):
Saudi Arabia: Facing up to Terrorism
Here's MEMRI citing Saudi media on Islamic extremism:
MEMRI on Saudi Commentary on Saudi Jihadists
Here's Arab News (largest-circulating English-language paper in Saudi Arabia):
Arab News on ‘Religious’ Extremism
Arab News on getting extremist teachers out of Saudi schools:
Getting Away from Extremism
Arab News on the program to retrain 40,000 Saudi imams to teach them about tolerance:
Saudis Detail Plans to Retrain Imams
These examples are all Saudi-centric, as I blog about Saudi Arabia at Crossroads Arabia. You can, if you want to make the effort, find similar things from across the Islamic world. It helps, of course, if you can read other languages, but the links above are all to English translations or original materials.
Perhaps you're not finding 'voices' because you're listening to the wrong people?
John, you're attacking a strawman. The claim is not that nobody on the muslim street is criticizing islamofascists, it's that not enough people are doing it. I'm sure you can find brave voices in the wilderness willing to stand up (but that's true of just about every viewpoint).
Likewise, the claim that a majority of muslims don't hold these beliefs suffers from the same malady. The fact that it's not a majority doesn't mean it's not a problem.
This film is not that great, but it should not be supressed. Freedom of speech applies to this film. It demeans the religion of Islam but that's OK for a free country.
Overall, thought it was well within the limits of acceptable film; should not be banned, censored, etc. Having said that, it is clear the film has a point of view and intends to stir up emotion. In this sense, it is obviously a bit one-sided since, for example, it lists only five or so Quranic verses and those verses are all one-sided and presented with no context. Ancient societies (as today?) seemed always to be warring with one another so I would not think the five verses from an ancient text, without any context or potentially counter verses, does much to prove the case. The more damning evidence presented are the tape segments of "modern" Muslims calling for the implementation of this killing and warring against those who don't believe in, or choose to follow, Allah. The Torah has its share of war-like verses that instruct carnage on neighboring tribes; but modern Jewish groups and Christian groups don't contend this applies to today, and generally quickly cleanse themselves of extremists who try to espouse corercive conversion and violence.
Overall, interested people should view this short film and make their own assessment.
The prominent Dutch newspaper NRC Handelsblad has an english-language website devoted to all things Fitna related.
In the second half, it turns to xenophobia by presenting demographic statistics and implying that all Muslims are like the ones presented in the clips of terrorist activity. I wasn't happy with that.
Enough for what?
Why instead is not the message of refutation a like percentage louder and stronger than the small percentage's message?
Voices of moderation are never as obvious or as loud as those of extremism.
The fascists win again.
See Liveleak, who released the following statement:
"Following threats to our staff of a very serious nature, and some ill informed reports from certain corners of the British media that could directly lead to the harm of some of our staff, Liveleak.com has been left with no other choice but to remove Fitna from our servers.
This is a sad day for freedom of speech on the net but we have to place the safety and well being of our staff above all else. We would like to thank the thousands of people, from all backgrounds and religions, who gave us their support. They realised LiveLeak.com is a vehicle for many opinions and not just for the support of one.
Perhaps there is still hope that this situation may produce a discussion that could benefit and educate all of us as to how we can accept one anothers culture.
We stood for what we believe in, the ability to be heard, but in the end the price was too high."
You purposely miss my point. The 'voices of moderation' outnumber those for violence by 9 to 1, supposedly. Nine calm voices are still louder than one shrill voice.
I only hear perhaps one calm voice for each ten shrill ones. Why? The one of ten has no problem finding a way to communicate their hate. Let the nine of ten learn by their example and become the predominant message. It is incumbent upon them to denounce their own evil people, just as it is incumbent upon us to denounce ours.
Moderates often stay out of public debate entirely, lacking the motivation to vilify which animates so much extremist activity. Also, it wouldn't surprise me if they grow weary of people gratuitously impugning their motives for simply answering a question, never having claimed to dispose of the whole controversy.
Why do you think that a "motivation to vilify" is needed when one is dealing with actual villains?
toI'm generally in his same camp - meaning, while I differentiate in my mind between Islam and Islamicism, one being the general mass religion and the other the much smaller, fanatical, evil growing-scourge-of-the-world cult, I don't see many muslims standing in the Islamicists' way - but frankly, I've seen pretty much all of this short film four hundred times on many fellow-traveler blog. It was the same images and the same sound bites and the same texts and Koran quotes and . . . .
When I was finished watching it, I thought, did I get the wrong site? Did I just watch someone's homemade patched-together "Tribute To Fitna"?
Maybe the noteworthiness just stems from those same images and themes making it out onto media that will be seen by more than those who already believe as he believes. Dunno. I do know that it can't stem from the novel approach, or the new points of proof, or the more persuasive composition.
It was like a re-run of the past three years of blogging.
You are probably right for a good many bloggers and blog consumers.
There is, it sometimes seems surprising to think, a larger world which will see the movie.
Propaganda, even the mildest sort, is effective by repetition. While there's nothing new in Fitna, it does come as an ice-water enema to those who've been lulled by the cumulative effect of the cumulative effect of the mush in the MSM and from many politicians.