Review of Fitna (2008) by Steve G — 06 May 2008

This anti-Islamic short film is a call to arms -- a plea for the defense of Europe and the Western World against Muslim invasion and conquest.

Initially, the film strings together quotes from the Quran with clips of modern terrorist attacks; scenes of demonstrations against Israel, Jews, the West, Christians, etc.; speeches by (unnamed) Islamofascist leaders, and such.

It's a simplistic, manipulative, unfair, and dangerous approach, with individual quotes wrested from their original context and presented as if their only possible meaning or interpretation is clear, self-evident, and necessarily leads to Muslim terrorism. In fact, one could say that it is the approach of the Islamofascists, themselves.

The problem is not that the film connects Islamic terrorism to radical, fundamentalist Islam; that connection is quite real and direct. The problem is that the film sees Muslims and Islam as monolithic, unchanging, and irredeemably committed to the terrorist agenda of the radicals. There is no hint that Islam can and in some places certainly does coexist with the rule of law, respect for human rights, respect for non-Muslims, etc.

Later, the film focuses on Muslim immigration to Europe in general and the Netherlands in particular. ("Fitna" was made by Dutch right-wing politician Geert Wilders.) We're told that Muslim immigration to the Netherlands in particular and to Europe in general has grown tremendously. No doubt, it has. But then we're shown, with the help of a graph whose final, towering bar literally goes off the screen, the total number of Muslims in Europe -- 54 million. What the film doesn't bother mentioning is that most (about 60%) of this number represents Muslims in (European) Turkey -- not exactly new immigrants, nor a recent change in European demographics.

The filmmaker seems to assume that many of the images and words in this film will shock and surprise his viewers. In this sense, for me, the film doesn't work; I've seen it all, and worse, before. But admittedly, I may not be typical. The filmmaker's audience is clearly those who have not thought much about the threat of radical, extremist Islam. For them, there is value in hearing, first-hand, what its leaders have to say. But they should be able to see it in a fairer, more rational context.

Finally, the film presents various quotes and images purporting to illustrate the Muslim attitude toward gays, children and women, and a series of quotes by and about Muslims and headlines about Muslims and Islam pulled from the Dutch press.

The problems here are many, and I'll mention only one: In terms of the threat that they supposedly represent, the images and quotes are all over the place. Some are truly scary, others are merely offensive, and still others utterly benign. Some describe actual attacks and crimes motivated by Islam, but alongside this is Rev. Wright-style rhetoric and hate and then such earth-shattering headlines as "Free trip to Mecca through Islamic school" and "School closes on Muslim holidays". Oh my, the Vandals and the Visigoths, Saladin, and Genghis Khan are pounding at the gates.

There should be no question that this film is xenophobic propaganda. There is no attempt at balance or fairness or nuance. Nor is there any attempt to understand the history of Muslim immigration to Europe, let alone the development of Islamic extremism. And, let it be clear, I mean understand, not support or excuse. Really, it is hard to say that the film is interested in its viewers thinking at all. It only means to evoke certain feelings and emotions. There is no analysis. No policies or possible solutions are suggested or compared, even for the sake of rejecting them.

Toward the end of the film, we see a hand take a page from the Quran and start to turn it. The screen goes black and we hear a tearing sound. In light of Rushdie's Satanic Verses, the Danish cartoon, the Sudanese teddy bear, etc., one suspects that this "blasphemous" exercise of artistic freedom could cost someone his life. Then we're assured that the sound we heard was the tearing of a phone book. Phew, we all breathe a sigh of relief. The gimmick works.

Then comes the film's only real message: "...it is not up to me, but to Muslims themselves to tear out the hateful verses from the Quran.".

Any intelligent observer of religion should know that this is impossible; it's not going to happen, any more than Jews or Christians are going to tear out parts of the Tana"ch or New Testament that others might find offensive. At least in our time, religions such as these evolve and potentially dangerous messages are ameliorated (or exacerbated) through re-interpretation, not expurgation.