« And The Show Trial Begins... | Main | Who Is an Islamist? Who Is a Muslim? And What About Me? »
April 5, 2008
'Fitna' Is Fanatical—But It Deserves a Voice
[Originally published in Turkish Daily News]
I just saw "Fitna," the new controversial film produced by Geert Wilders, head of the Dutch Freedom Party. The 17-minute video shows acts of violence, and expressions of hatred, by Muslims against “infidels.” Heads are cut off, bodies are blown apart, children are taught to denounce Jews as "apes and pigs," imams call for world domination, and protesters hold signs that read, "God Bless Hitler." What makes all this disturbing scenery even more provocative, and, in a sense, more meaningful, is the way they are connected to the Koran. After each instance of ferocity, “Fitna” quotes a passage from the Muslim Scripture which, apparently, presents a justification.
The message of the film is clear: The roots of “Muslim rage,” as Bernard Lewis once defined it, is the very sacred book that these Muslims believe in.
But is that really true?
Koran and the Book of Joshua
No, not really. Things are actually much more complicated. And Wilder’s film presents them in a highly prejudiced, or even a fanatical fashion.
The film actually does not lie or cheat. Such violent or angry Muslims do exist, and so do the belligerent passages in the Koran. What the film does is to cherry-pick them. There are also many messages of tolerance, compassion, and peace in the Koran. Using the same method of purposeful selection, one could also make a movie titled “Islamic Agape,” which would include the scenes of smiling Muslims and benevolent verses.
Moreover, one can use “Fitna”s selective method to propagate against most other religions – such as, say, Judaism. Actually if you focus on the radical groups among the Jewish settlers in Israel, you can find a very similar language of hatred, and even acts of terrorism such as the mosque massacre perpetrated by Baruch Goldstein in Hebron in 1994. It is also remarkable that such fringe Jewish fundamentalists, like the followers of the late radical Rabbi Meir David Kahane, use passages from the Hebrew Bible in order to justify, and even amplify, their fervor.
Actually certain parts of the Old Testament, and most notably the Book of Joshua, would overshadow any sura (chapter) of the Koran in terms of militancy. But the overwhelming majority of the world’s Jews know that the Book of Joshua, which tells the war of the Israelites against the pagan Canaanites, is a historical record which does not address today’s realities. Similarly, when they read Koran’s chapters about Prophet Muhammad’s war with pagan Arabs, most Muslims regard them as historical anecdotes. But a worrying number of Muslims, such as the ones that “Fitna” has captured, think differently. What makes them believe in a scripture-driven militancy is the same thing that influences radical Jewish settlers: They are in a sociopolitical context which radicalizes them. They believe that their values, identities and very lives of their children are in danger – and they conclude they are fighting the same existential war that Joshua or Muhammad fought centuries ago.
Therefore the right thing to do in the face Islamic militancy is not to ask for revision in the Koran – as “Fitna” naively does – but to try to save the Muslims from the idea that they are under attack and humiliation. This idea might be stemming from real troubles – such as wars, conflicts or dictatorships in the Muslim world, or the sense of alienation felt by Muslims in Europe. Or it might be stemming from imaginary ones – beliefs in conspiracy theories about “the Elders of Zion,” or “the global war on Islam.” In any case, the solution is the stabilization and modernization of Muslim societies and communities. If the global jihadist battle cry, “Islam is under attack,” loses its steam, then, in the eyes of Muslims, the passages in the Koran that relate to jihad will become less and less literal.
What Needs to Be Done?
Well, this is what I would like to say about “Fitna,” at least in a nutshell. But there is also another issue, which is what Muslims should do about this film. Should we protest it, ask for its banning, and even threaten Wilders and his team? No, I don’t think so. The fanaticism of a movie would not be a reason to ban or censor it. Moreover, one could even argue that Mr. Wilders has done us a favor by presenting how some non-Muslims in the West perceive Islam. That perception, although highly biased, is a fact that we Muslims have to face and think about.
Angry rantings, let alone violent protests, in the face of “Fitna” would actually be a confirmation of the film’s argument – that Muslims are, by nature, uncivilized people. Quite the contrary, I think this film, and all similar cases of anti-Islamic propaganda, should be countered by Muslims with dignity and civility. We can choose to ignore them, but if we will respond, it should be done politely, reasonably and scholarly.
And, interestingly, that would be response which would find its justification in the Koran. “Repel the bad with something better,” verse 41:34 reads, “and, if there is enmity between you and someone else, he will be like a bosom friend.”
For my part, I would prefer to chat with Mr. Wilders rather than bullying him. If he ever hits Turkey, I will be most glad to buy him coffee — a real Turkish one — and tell him about how I understand Islam as a believer. I could even take him to one of the magnificent mosques of Istanbul, in which men, women and children praise God and find moral inspiration. “Fitna” in the Islamic sense, which means “strife on Earth,” would be the very last thing these people would sympathize with. Quite many of them, unlike Mr. Wilders, even believe in a Europe in which Muslims and others can live together in peace.
Posted by Mustafa Akyol at April 5, 2008 11:58 AM
"No, not really. Things are actually much more complicated. And Wilder’s film presents them in a highly prejudiced, or even a fanatical fashion."
So true.
Excellent and balanced review pf Fitna. Thank you so much.
Your offer to buy Wilders a coffee is indeed gracious. But come to think of it he does require some re-education. I get the feeling that so many of these pundits and politicians who use a big brush when depicting Muslims really don't understand Islam in its many cultural manifestations.
While I believe that Islam in the west needs to adapt to secular democratic societies, I think it is also important for non-Muslims to make the effort to understand Islam beyond the convenient tabloid caricatures.
I refuse to buy into "Eurabia" scenarios, or the view that Islam is intrinsically predatory - more interested in domination and co-existence.
Posted by: change at April 7, 2008 5:08 AM
Absolutely agree with you, Mustafa!
Every person has a right to critically assess an ideology, religion, individual, etc, by analyzing historical facts, arguments and evidences. Then, depending on one’s interpretation & objectivity he/she can come to a conclusion that Islam is/isn't calling for violence, compatible with democracy, market economy, modernity and so on. After that, he/she would listen to opposing views and change one’s mind or decide to disagree & stand by the initial opinion. This process would be an academic/reasonable research (whatever quality of scholarship it may have).
That's why cartoons supposed to be on the Blessed Prophet cannot be justified as an exercise of freedom of speech & freedom of debate. The cartoons were vulgar insults of a person (peace be upon him) highly revered by 1.5 billion people of the planet Earth. It's like calling somebody a "bastard" in the middle of a debate & pretending it is an acceptable behavior during a debate and not a rude insult.
While this film, no matter how upsetting it may be, is a poor quality debate by or point of view of a marginal extremist (shared by millions both in the West & the East). There are myriads of “orientalists” who stick to similar views about Islam. There are billions of "scholarly" books by these "orientalists" being published for centuries. Have we seen any protests against those books? No! We protested against Salman Rushdie's book for exactly the same reason as the cartoons - vulgar insult not an academic research!
So, Muslims response (if any) should be making a film refuting those arguments one by one…
Peace!
Posted by: Behruz Himo at April 7, 2008 9:53 AM
pay attention to the title....
"fitna is fanatical" and not "the contents of fitna are fanatical"
...and this is the high praised level of the Turkish "intelligentzia"?.....uhmmmm
Posted by: echnaton at April 7, 2008 2:20 PM
Mr. Himo. Who says someone isn't allowed to be vulgar? Vulgar people and vulgar opinions are part of life in this world. Religion is supposed to give us the ability to cope with life and hopefully make it better. Religion makes it possible for believers to change for the better part of which is making them more tolerant of the vulgar behavior of non-believers (and errant believers.)
Posted by: Martin Bebow at April 7, 2008 5:47 PM
echnaton,
Between the title at the top and the signature at the bottom, there were long passages that could have dissuaded you from your sarcastic retort, if you had read and understood them properly.
Posted by: Yaşar at April 8, 2008 1:32 AM
Mustafa, I confess to making my earlier post while rather tired, and now I see that I made a typo. Instead of "domination and co-existence" I intended to write "domination than co-existence."
With respect to Mr Himo's interesting comment about the cartoons of the prophet Mohammad, I take a contrary position.
Cartoons are not real. They are illusory made up of dots and lines. The paper can be burned. Ripped up. When Muslims project their religious control-mechanism upon secular society they are in effect acting as cultural tyrants. This is an impossible predicament, because in secular liberal democracies the artist must have the right to criticize anything he/she wants.
When Muslims attempt to control the society around them, in order to compel non-Muslims to a level of respect for the icons of Islam that secular citizens may not in fact feel, or even believe, then they are creating deep problems and divisions.
Really, who cares what some person writes or paints about Mohammad, Buddha, Moses, Jesus, Mary or the Saints. It doesn't matter. If the Prophet Mohammad is real. If he is eternal and truly the Prophet you say he is, how can an illustration hurt him? The same goes for any other religious figure/icon with value that transcends the temporal realm.
Is it not more true that "artistic offenses" aimed at Islam are treated as occasions for political empowerment by those in the Muslim community who seize it as an opportunity to be exploited? At root it is not a religious issue, because if you make some silly cartoon a religious issue, you diminish the stature and the dignity of the Prophet.
Religion is intrinsically a private matter, or should be. The rule of religion in the public square is not what truly progressive societies are interested in. How can peoples of different ethnicities, faiths, and traditions co-exist if one religion (among all others) insists upon instilling terror into artists by dictating what they can or cannot say?
So really I see the need to control artistic expression as more of a political attitude, than one that flows from true religion - unless you regard the excesses of the mob as true Islam - which I do not. I have more respect for Islam than to believe that such trivialities as cartoons can ever make even a scratch on the dignity and power of a religion that can't be in any way diminished by what someone writes or draws.
Posted by: change at April 8, 2008 4:50 AM
Yasar...thank you for your invitation...
“What the film does is to cherry-pick them” (it doesn’t seem to me that they are so rare….imagine, just a stupid example. Have you ever seen and read what is written and what is shown on the KSA flag?....cherry picking?...really funny).
“There are also many messages of tolerance, compassion, and peace in the Koran” (yes, but sadly they are abrogated, and were only in place when Muhammad was weak and without military/political power, but this is a long story about “abrogation” etc etc, that actually puts eveyone that doesn’t accept it outside of the umma, Sorry Mustafa, but these are sharia complaint rules).
“Using the same method of purposeful selection, one could also make a movie titled “Islamic Agape,” (really funny….anyway islamic agape is directed only towards the umma”, Cite me one, just one muslim Mother Teresa of Calcutta, it is a contradiction in terms)
“acts of terrorism such as the mosque massacre perpetrated by Baruch Goldstein in Hebron in 1994” (…it makes me really wonder how such a brillant intellectual can have such big problems of logic…the “tu quoque” fallancy doesn’t absolve you from your sins, moreover he does the same “mistake” he pretends Wilder is doing in his film…is he not cherry picking? ok, give me 5 more examples of indiscriminate killing by jews justified by their sacred text (As rightly cited…for example…Joshua…is an historic book, so forget it), …btw…the act of Golstein have been rejected by all major religious establishments and by the state of Israel, and anyway you cannot compare the jihadist movement with this example of someone that got mad….it is as if after having killed all your family, you get mad and try to kill your aggressors…what muslims are doing is then to find justification in the “normal, human” reaction to such barbarous acts)
“but to try to save the Muslims from the idea that they are under attack and humiliation” (what nonsense….islam is there to dominate, has Muhhamad not be ordained to fight until ther is only Allah? 8:39; 9:51; 9:36; 9:41; B9.84.59, but of course, anyone that is against this idea creates humiliation and sense of counter attack to muslims. It doesn't’ seem to me that islam is reactive…at the opposite).
instead of making generic statements (that I appreciate however about freedom of speech), why doesn’t the umma try to discuss the suras that are cited in Fitna? Even try to put them into their context. You will be very surprised. Try to utilise all tafsirs available to understand the true logic behind….You should try to reopen the gates of ijtihad…try to re-discuss the sunna…muslims should stop always crying about their miserable fates and stop playing victims..it works for a little while, but afterwards people open their eyes. Instead of discussing the topics cited inside muslims forums, universities etc etc…what comes out….oh…”it’s not our faults”…”we are always oppressed”, “give a look to the son of pigs and apes of jews…they are so false and all terrorists, so don’t blame us”…”their books are as fascists as ours”….all this is really ridicolous…
Summa sumamrum...where is the juice? where are the discussions about the items cited in Fitna?..What I've seen around till now are just smokescreens, tu quoque fallancies, victimism, generic own absolutions....
Posted by: echnaton at April 8, 2008 10:03 AM
I have never understood why Muslims are surprised by a Westerner insulting Islam or the blessed prophet Mohamed. Some westerners even insult Christianity and the blessed prophet Jesus.
Nothing is sacred in the Western world. All is game for 'a laugh' or political gain. It is indeed one of the West's flaws. As Muslims, we should understand this.
Posted by: Ceyhan at April 8, 2008 3:26 PM
The following link to the American Conservative Magazine is about an interview with Robert Pape, a political scientist from University of Chicago who's written a book called "Dying to Win." I believe it makes a useful contribution to this discussion.
http://www.amconmag.com/2005_07_18/article.html
Robert Pape himself has written a number of articles on the subject of his book; this one is an op-ed page from the New York TImes:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/18/opinion/18pape.html
The following excerpt from NYT summarizes Pape's findings:
Over the past two years, I have compiled a database of every suicide bombing and attack around the globe from 1980 through 2003 - 315 in all. This includes every episode in which at least one terrorist killed himself or herself while trying to kill others, but excludes attacks authorized by a national government (like those by North Korean agents against South Korea). The data show that there is far less of a connection between suicide terrorism and religious fundamentalism than most people think.
The leading instigator of suicide attacks is the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka, a Marxist-Leninist group whose members are from Hindu families but who are adamantly opposed to religion. This group committed 76 of the 315 incidents, more than Hamas (54) or Islamic Jihad (27). Even among Muslims, secular groups like the Kurdistan Workers' Party, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine and the Al Aksa Martyr Brigades account for more than a third of suicide attacks.
What nearly all suicide terrorist attacks actually have in common is a specific secular and strategic goal: to compel modern democracies to withdraw military forces from territory that the terrorists consider to be their homeland. Religion is often used as a tool by terrorist organizations in recruiting and in seeking aid from abroad, but is rarely the root cause.
The acts of terrorism depicted in Fitna cannot be justified; they should be, and have been, condemned by all Muslims. But it's in most people's interest to understand the real root cause.
Posted by: Yaşar at April 9, 2008 3:07 AM
My dear friend Martin Bebow!
Of course everybody has a right to be vulgar, rude, uneducated and so on. What I meant though is that a vulgar insult of ANYBODY (imagine depicting Queen of The Netherlands as a strip-dancer!) in authoritative European papers cannot be justified as a freedom of speech! So simple!
Since 9/11 there have been millions of articles in newspapers arguing that Islam is a violent religion (upsetting for Muslims, but not an insult) incompatible with democracy & "Western" values. Have you ever seen protests against such publications? Of course not!
Please try to understand this simple difference. We are not calling/requesting that all humanity revere the Blessed Prophet, we agree/accept that anybody scrutinizes his (peace be upon him) life & publish research saying "the Prophet was calling for violence, made up the Koran or copied it from the Bible", etc. We won't protest against such things. We'll try to refute such works by giving our arguments.
So, we are simply asking not to offensively insult a person we revere as the most ideal human being ever created! There can't be a compromise on this!
Peace and blessings be upon the Last Messenger of Allah, his family, his companions and all those who follow him!
Peace be with all those who do not follow and recognize the Prophet, for if Allah wished He, the most High, would create all people Muslims!
Posted by: Behruz Himo at April 9, 2008 7:46 AM
I’m totally upset by the vey very low low discussion level here…either people do the same logical mistake again and again…ie…they apply the ”tu quoque” fallancy (ie: bcs others do the same mistake it doesn’t absolve you), or they don't’ see the big diference in this case…here we are talking about God’s/Allah’s direct words that are written on a golden plate for eternity, that advocates “hatred of Christians, Jews, apostates, non-believers, homosexuals. The verses that Wilders quotes advocating killing of unbelievers were taken by Muslims themselves to develop the theory of jihad (well anchored in the Sunna and the 4 schools of islamic jurisprudence”)
Why are all of you not even trying to answer the items issued by Fitna?
Instead you talk about geo-socio-political studies blablabla…ridicolous!
It’s time to wake up people!
Posted by: echnaton at April 9, 2008 1:46 PM
echnaton,
What are you trying to get? To prove us that we muslims are actually the bloodthirsty rampages? Where do you wanna go? Tell me frankly, so that I could get your point more clearly.
Are you that of evangelical guys or do you have problem with all religions? Or you imagine a world that there is no religion? Or you just wanna show that everybody is stupid except you? Keep up the good work ! Some billions left to be woken up dude :)
Posted by: blue at April 10, 2008 8:19 PM
Echnaton, all you want to hear is Muslims confirm the sterotype you have of them. When they don't confirm what you think, you insult them by accusing them of 'low level discussion'. I suggest you should therefore question your own perception instead of being a self-proclaimed evaluater of others. You are not seeking understanding as you have the arrogance of thinking you already know.
You Wake up Echnaton... Muslims are not going to suddenly bring the Quran in line with your corrupt understanding of it because it suits Mr Echnaton's vision of the world. They will continue to condemn the Muslims who use these verses for their cruel political means, as exemplified in Fitna. These issues are not new to us, maybe to you. Fitna is not bringing anything new to any debate. The issues of Fitna have been covered over and over again. The use of God's words to justify murderous actions has been condemned by Muslims over and over again. Have you been sleeping since 9/11??
Posted by: Ceyhan at April 11, 2008 1:37 PM
quod erat demonstrandum....
Posted by: echnaton at April 11, 2008 3:41 PM