RubySoho
Winston
'FITNA' fits-up Islam
April 30th 2008 08:47
This is my article on the Dutch anti-Islam film Fitna which was published in onlineopinion.com.au in early April. Yeah, it's a little long so you'll have to pay attention. I received quite a bit of hate mail after this was published with people accusing me of everything from being an 'Islamist" to vilifying Christianity to anti-Semitism. One person even threatened to sue me. Feedback welcome. Enjoy.
(By RubySoho)
Dutch MP Geert Wilders’s controversial short film Fitna briefly aired on online video site LiveLeak on Friday 28 March. In less ess than 24 hours, LiveLeak pulled the film and replaced it with the following statement:
That the film was pulled due to death threats is indeed a sad state of affairs, yet many — including the UN Secretary General have slammed the film, saying it is little more than an incitement to violence and that with “freedom of speech comes responsibility”.
It is not my intention to discuss whether or not the removal of the film is contrary to freedom of speech. Rather, I wish to critique it as both a political commentary and as a film.
Fitna, which takes its name from an Arabic term loosely defined as “trouble”, is ostensibly concerned with what it calls the growing “Islamisation” of Europe. Wilders maintains that his intention is to raise awareness of the threat that Islam poses to modern Western civilisation.
Whilst the Cronulla Riots proved that Australia is not immune to ethnic tension, there is another level of anti-Muslim hysteria in Europe and America altogether. Literally hundreds of websites and blogs claim to be dedicated to “fighting world terror”, (with ‘terror’ apparently being a synonym for Islam). Europe, in particular is viewed as being on the threshold of ‘dhimmitude’ and it is is not the first time a conservative Dutch MP has been embroiled in a controversy over the making of an anti-Islam film. The Somali-born (and former Muslim), female MP Ayaan Hirsi Ali went into hiding in 2004 following the assassination of Dutch filmmaker Theo Van Gogh by a Muslim extremist on the streets of The Netherlands. Hirsi Ali had written the script for Van Gogh’s short film entitled Submission, which featured semi-naked women praying, with verses from the Qu’ran written on their bodies. The verses were those which Hirsi Ali felt condoned the oppression of women. With a dagger to the heart, the murderer, Mohamed B, attached a letter to Van Gogh’s body that called for the death of Hirsi Ali.
Fitna is a 15-minute montage, with a classical soundtrack (featuring Tchaikovsky’s The Arabian Dance). It features pages of the Qur’an being turned and highlights certain passages, or Surahs. The Surahs it chooses are invariably ones featuring violence or the incitement of devotees to violence; the film then cuts to images of terror attacks committed by Muslim extremists, such as 9/11 and the Madrid train bombings. The obvious message is that the Qur’an leads to terrorism.
The film also features an interview with an unrepentant Mohammed B, various Muslim clerics giving rhetorical speeches denouncing the West, an interview with a three-year-old Muslim girl who claims the Qur’an says that all Jews are “pigs” and images of stonings, beheadings and hangings in Muslim countries. Wilders’ stance is firm and unflinching: Islam hates freedom and the West and wishes to see it destroyed, for no other reason than that it exists.
Is this an accurate portrayal of Islam? There is no doubt that the terror attacks featured in the film were perpetrated by Muslims. However, Fitna does not take into consideration any of the political and social motivations behind the attacks.
It is well known that the young British Muslims behind the July 2005 train bombings in London were recruited after being shown graphic images of Muslim victims of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. They were told that the West hates Islam and that their attack would be retaliatory. The Madrid train bombings too were a revenge attack, this time against Spain’s involvement in Iraq.
At the 9/11 Commission hearing, FBI special agent James Fitzgerald stated that the motivation behind the attacks was because the perpetrators felt “a sense of outrage at the United States. They identify with the Palestinian problem.” The 9/11 Commission Report notes that, “By his own account, [9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed’s] animus toward the United States stemmed not from his experiences [in the US] as a student, but rather from his violent disagreement with US foreign policy favoring Israel.”
In Wilders’s determination to place the blame squarely on Islam, he has completely overlooked the recent political history of the Middle East. The hijackers of the planes quite likely believed that there would be a heavenly reward for their actions, but the masterminds have admitted to being motivated by politics. The truth is the volatile situation in the Middle East is a deadly mix of religious devotion fuelled into fanaticism by political goals. It is not Islam itself which is to blame. Wilder’s tactic of intercutting footage of the Qur’an’s pages with footage of death and destruction is omitting vital information.
It may well be that Arab Muslims have more reasons to “hate us” than most Westerners are willing to admit. When questioned in 1996 on the US program 60 Minutes about the death of over 500,000 Muslim Iraqi children due to the sanctions against Iraq during Clinton’s Presidency, then US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright responded “it’s worth it”. That’s 500,000 reasons just there.
Wilders has taken the easy route. Yes, many atrocious acts have been committed in the name of religion but Muslims are not alone in this regard. In 2002 the Reverend Paul Hill was executed in Florida for the 1994 murder of abortion doctor John Britton. Like Mohammed B, Hill showed no remorse and believed “what he did was right”. Hill was praised by other religious leaders, who did not consider his actions murder.
Whilst it is doubtful that Bin Laden and other terror masterminds would be able to recruit their suicide attackers were it not for the promised reward in the afterlife- after all they would not be receiving any in this one –what this means is that religion is being used as an excuse for attacking the West. It is a tool. It is not the reason in itself.
Propaganda is defined as information and/or images used to influence the opinions or actions of large groups of people. That is exactly what Fitna is. In its own context, this film gives us no other recourse but to believe its premise. That makes it good propaganda. It does not, however, make it a good film. Fitna has no story arc; we are not taken on a journey of any kind. We are simply fed image after image of slaughter and hatred.
The film offers only a superficial treatment of Islam. There are just as many passages in the Bible that call its followers to wage war against non-believers. The Old Testament frequently instructs the Israelites to murder and rape other tribes, but no one seriously blames the Bible every time an Israeli kills a Palestinian.
A good film also has some level of critical analysis and context. Fitna has neither of these. The images we see of Muslim clerics preaching hatred are not explained. Just who are these men? Who are they speaking to? In which country? Do they have terrorist links? Are they mainstream preachers or they are the Muslim equivalent of Fred Phelps of the Westboro Baptist Church? There are over 1.5 billion Muslims in the world. Do they all subscribe to this point of view? Fitna makes no distinction between suicide bombers, extreme Muslim clerics and the Muslim women wearing hijabs it depicts strolling through the streets of The Netherlands.
Particularly guiling is the ‘interview’ with the small Muslim girl who is asked what she thinks of Jews. She calls them “pigs”, claiming that is what is stated in the Qur’an. But again, who is this girl? As a three-year-old, she obviously has not read this for herself. Someone has been feeding her this information. She could be reciting from a script, for all we know. Where is her family from? What is their history? A good film introduces us to its characters, and gives us a little back-story as to why the characters behave the way they do. It then assumes we have enough intelligence to form our own opinions about them. Again, Fitna does not do this.
The only interesting cinematic device employed is the final sequence where there is a blank screen with the audio of pages been torn from a book. We are led to believe that it is the Qur’an but titles inform us that the pages are actually being torn from a phone book — it is up to Islam itself to remove the hate from its pages.
But even here Fitna fails, as it is clearly contradicting itself. Throughout the film, the viewer is being told to fear Islam, to hate Islam, to “stop Islamisation” — in short to curb the immigration of Muslims to the West — then it turns around and places the ball squarely back in Islam’s corner by offering no real solutions to the questions its raises. It is up to Islam to reform itself. Don’t expect help from us, we hate you, just stay out of our countries.
A quick look at some right-wing websites and blogs reveals that Fitna is being hailed as one of the most important documentaries of our time. The film is even bookended with one of the infamous Danish cartoons featuring the prophet Mohammed wearing a bomb in his turban and the sound of a ticking clock. In the end, of course, the bomb detonates. There is no other possible outcome: Islam is intent on destroying the world.
Fitna is a call to arms for those who hate Muslims, but unlike a real documentary, it does not analyse its subject, it does not defend its premise with more than the most superficial evidence, it does not offer any alternative points of view, and it does not offer any solutions to the questions it raises. In fact, Fitna raises far more questions than it answers. In this respect, it is not part of the solution, merely another flame added to the anti-Muslim fire that is raging in the West.
(By RubySoho)
Title card for 'Fitna'
Dutch MP Geert Wilders’s controversial short film Fitna briefly aired on online video site LiveLeak on Friday 28 March. In less ess than 24 hours, LiveLeak pulled the film and replaced it with 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 … We stood for what we believe in, the ability to be heard, but in the end the price was too high.”
“This is a sad day for freedom of speech on the net … We stood for what we believe in, the ability to be heard, but in the end the price was too high.”
That the film was pulled due to death threats is indeed a sad state of affairs, yet many — including the UN Secretary General have slammed the film, saying it is little more than an incitement to violence and that with “freedom of speech comes responsibility”.
It is not my intention to discuss whether or not the removal of the film is contrary to freedom of speech. Rather, I wish to critique it as both a political commentary and as a film.
Fitna, which takes its name from an Arabic term loosely defined as “trouble”, is ostensibly concerned with what it calls the growing “Islamisation” of Europe. Wilders maintains that his intention is to raise awareness of the threat that Islam poses to modern Western civilisation.
Whilst the Cronulla Riots proved that Australia is not immune to ethnic tension, there is another level of anti-Muslim hysteria in Europe and America altogether. Literally hundreds of websites and blogs claim to be dedicated to “fighting world terror”, (with ‘terror’ apparently being a synonym for Islam). Europe, in particular is viewed as being on the threshold of ‘dhimmitude’ and it is is not the first time a conservative Dutch MP has been embroiled in a controversy over the making of an anti-Islam film. The Somali-born (and former Muslim), female MP Ayaan Hirsi Ali went into hiding in 2004 following the assassination of Dutch filmmaker Theo Van Gogh by a Muslim extremist on the streets of The Netherlands. Hirsi Ali had written the script for Van Gogh’s short film entitled Submission, which featured semi-naked women praying, with verses from the Qu’ran written on their bodies. The verses were those which Hirsi Ali felt condoned the oppression of women. With a dagger to the heart, the murderer, Mohamed B, attached a letter to Van Gogh’s body that called for the death of Hirsi Ali.
The man himself: Geert Wilders
Fitna is a 15-minute montage, with a classical soundtrack (featuring Tchaikovsky’s The Arabian Dance). It features pages of the Qur’an being turned and highlights certain passages, or Surahs. The Surahs it chooses are invariably ones featuring violence or the incitement of devotees to violence; the film then cuts to images of terror attacks committed by Muslim extremists, such as 9/11 and the Madrid train bombings. The obvious message is that the Qur’an leads to terrorism.
The film also features an interview with an unrepentant Mohammed B, various Muslim clerics giving rhetorical speeches denouncing the West, an interview with a three-year-old Muslim girl who claims the Qur’an says that all Jews are “pigs” and images of stonings, beheadings and hangings in Muslim countries. Wilders’ stance is firm and unflinching: Islam hates freedom and the West and wishes to see it destroyed, for no other reason than that it exists.
Is this an accurate portrayal of Islam? There is no doubt that the terror attacks featured in the film were perpetrated by Muslims. However, Fitna does not take into consideration any of the political and social motivations behind the attacks.
It is well known that the young British Muslims behind the July 2005 train bombings in London were recruited after being shown graphic images of Muslim victims of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. They were told that the West hates Islam and that their attack would be retaliatory. The Madrid train bombings too were a revenge attack, this time against Spain’s involvement in Iraq.
At the 9/11 Commission hearing, FBI special agent James Fitzgerald stated that the motivation behind the attacks was because the perpetrators felt “a sense of outrage at the United States. They identify with the Palestinian problem.” The 9/11 Commission Report notes that, “By his own account, [9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed’s] animus toward the United States stemmed not from his experiences [in the US] as a student, but rather from his violent disagreement with US foreign policy favoring Israel.”
In Wilders’s determination to place the blame squarely on Islam, he has completely overlooked the recent political history of the Middle East. The hijackers of the planes quite likely believed that there would be a heavenly reward for their actions, but the masterminds have admitted to being motivated by politics. The truth is the volatile situation in the Middle East is a deadly mix of religious devotion fuelled into fanaticism by political goals. It is not Islam itself which is to blame. Wilder’s tactic of intercutting footage of the Qur’an’s pages with footage of death and destruction is omitting vital information.
It may well be that Arab Muslims have more reasons to “hate us” than most Westerners are willing to admit. When questioned in 1996 on the US program 60 Minutes about the death of over 500,000 Muslim Iraqi children due to the sanctions against Iraq during Clinton’s Presidency, then US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright responded “it’s worth it”. That’s 500,000 reasons just there.
Wilders has taken the easy route. Yes, many atrocious acts have been committed in the name of religion but Muslims are not alone in this regard. In 2002 the Reverend Paul Hill was executed in Florida for the 1994 murder of abortion doctor John Britton. Like Mohammed B, Hill showed no remorse and believed “what he did was right”. Hill was praised by other religious leaders, who did not consider his actions murder.
Whilst it is doubtful that Bin Laden and other terror masterminds would be able to recruit their suicide attackers were it not for the promised reward in the afterlife- after all they would not be receiving any in this one –what this means is that religion is being used as an excuse for attacking the West. It is a tool. It is not the reason in itself.
Propaganda is defined as information and/or images used to influence the opinions or actions of large groups of people. That is exactly what Fitna is. In its own context, this film gives us no other recourse but to believe its premise. That makes it good propaganda. It does not, however, make it a good film. Fitna has no story arc; we are not taken on a journey of any kind. We are simply fed image after image of slaughter and hatred.
The film offers only a superficial treatment of Islam. There are just as many passages in the Bible that call its followers to wage war against non-believers. The Old Testament frequently instructs the Israelites to murder and rape other tribes, but no one seriously blames the Bible every time an Israeli kills a Palestinian.
A good film also has some level of critical analysis and context. Fitna has neither of these. The images we see of Muslim clerics preaching hatred are not explained. Just who are these men? Who are they speaking to? In which country? Do they have terrorist links? Are they mainstream preachers or they are the Muslim equivalent of Fred Phelps of the Westboro Baptist Church? There are over 1.5 billion Muslims in the world. Do they all subscribe to this point of view? Fitna makes no distinction between suicide bombers, extreme Muslim clerics and the Muslim women wearing hijabs it depicts strolling through the streets of The Netherlands.
Particularly guiling is the ‘interview’ with the small Muslim girl who is asked what she thinks of Jews. She calls them “pigs”, claiming that is what is stated in the Qur’an. But again, who is this girl? As a three-year-old, she obviously has not read this for herself. Someone has been feeding her this information. She could be reciting from a script, for all we know. Where is her family from? What is their history? A good film introduces us to its characters, and gives us a little back-story as to why the characters behave the way they do. It then assumes we have enough intelligence to form our own opinions about them. Again, Fitna does not do this.
The only interesting cinematic device employed is the final sequence where there is a blank screen with the audio of pages been torn from a book. We are led to believe that it is the Qur’an but titles inform us that the pages are actually being torn from a phone book — it is up to Islam itself to remove the hate from its pages.
But even here Fitna fails, as it is clearly contradicting itself. Throughout the film, the viewer is being told to fear Islam, to hate Islam, to “stop Islamisation” — in short to curb the immigration of Muslims to the West — then it turns around and places the ball squarely back in Islam’s corner by offering no real solutions to the questions its raises. It is up to Islam to reform itself. Don’t expect help from us, we hate you, just stay out of our countries.
A quick look at some right-wing websites and blogs reveals that Fitna is being hailed as one of the most important documentaries of our time. The film is even bookended with one of the infamous Danish cartoons featuring the prophet Mohammed wearing a bomb in his turban and the sound of a ticking clock. In the end, of course, the bomb detonates. There is no other possible outcome: Islam is intent on destroying the world.
Fitna is a call to arms for those who hate Muslims, but unlike a real documentary, it does not analyse its subject, it does not defend its premise with more than the most superficial evidence, it does not offer any alternative points of view, and it does not offer any solutions to the questions it raises. In fact, Fitna raises far more questions than it answers. In this respect, it is not part of the solution, merely another flame added to the anti-Muslim fire that is raging in the West.
| 52 |
| Vote |
Subscribe to this blog
Comment by Morgan Bell
Deep Pencil
Current Business News
Movie Train
Artist Quirk
i found this site i think you might get a laugh out of CLICKHERE for The Brick Testament
Comment by Winston
Small Thoughts on Big Questions
–what this means is that religion is being used as an excuse for attacking the West. It is a tool. It is not the reason in itself.
True, but it's a very effective tool. Part of the solution needs to involve Muslims who reject fundamental extremism taking back the religion, and working harder to eliminate the mindset of violence that has become connected to it among some circles. Non-Muslims cannot do this. It needs to happen from within. Yes, the West must be willing to work with Muslims and address some of our own failings, and to try to rebuild our broken relations with them. But in order to really quash the strife, this stranglehold that Islam has over the minds of the faithful (a small but significant percentage, anyway) must be broken. As you said, fewer people may be willing to strap bombs onto themselves if they can be brought to understanding that to do so is immoral and will not be rewarded in heaven.
Just my $0.02.
Comment by RubySoho
Music Zone
Thought Zone
Thanks for the compliments, as you know I'm no fan of religion- any religion, but to blame all the problems in the Middle East and its relationship to the West on Islam is just stupidity and quite dangerous.
Winston- I absolutely agree, especially when you say that change to Islam must come from within. Christianity and the West evolved slowly at its own pace with no outside interference and the same has to happen in Islam. Of course, this is going to be harder for two main reasons:
1. The West cannot help but interfere in Islam, mainly for financial reasons.
2. The interaction with the West via the media and immigration is freaking conservative Muslims out and making them cling to their fundamentalist beliefs for dear life. They see life in the West as morally bankrupt and are determined never to let Islam go down that path and so are resistant to even the slightest change.
Change was able to happen incrimentally in the West because no-one could have foreseen where each small step would get us in the long run.
Would the Church have stopped burning witches at the stake if they knew it would help erode their influence over the masses? Doubtful.
Comment by RubySoho
Music Zone
Thought Zone
Thanks for commenting Winston and your input is worth much more than 2 cents!