Fitna (updated to discuss the Wilders trial)

[Túrin Turambar]

I’m surprised that this hasn’t come up yet.

Conservative Dutch politician Geert Wilders’ anti-Islamic film, Fitna, was released on the internet a few days ago. He was unable to get it on TV, and despite taking it down at one point due to threats Live Leak is currently hosting it. It goes for about fifteen minutes, and if you’re interested (and not disturbed by some fairly graphic scenes) you can see it here. For those who don’t want to watch it, it basically intersperses readings of some of the more controversial Surahs of the Qur’an with images of terrorism, radical sermons, executions and the like.

My observations:

1. I think the media were expecting another cartoon crisis. As it is, the reaction from the Islamic community has been fairly quiet. It has been condemned by many official sources and a fatwa has been issued against Wilders, but outside that everything is fairly quiet. This might explain why it slipped under the radar. I have to wonder – was the subdued reaction planned deliberately to not draw attention to the film? Or are things settling down between Islam and the West? Or will we have some problems when it spreads more widely? Or, most disturbingly, do many Muslims approve of the film’s content?

2. What is the value of the film itself? It basically damns Islamic extremism through its own words and actions. Conservative commentators have been talking a lot about spreading the images that the mainstream media won’t show. Naturally, Wilders has created a specific and very negative image of Islam through his particular choices of images and videos. Is he likely to be telling anyone anything they don’t already know? Should the film be censored?

3. What is your opinion on Wilders’ message? Is he cherry-picking facts to try and support some sort of conspiracy theory based on bigotry? Or is he giving a warning that shouldn’t be ignored?

It’s also worth noting that Wilders has claimed he will make a similar video about Christianity at some stage. Let’s see what happens.

NB: 'Fitna' is Arabic for strife.

[Jnyusa]

Lord M., I'm unlikely to actually watch the film because I do find graphic violence very disturbing, and I don't like to comment on a film I have not seen. But I have a question: has Wilder offered any commentary about his purpose in making the film?

If he intends to do a film on Christianity, it sounds as if he has a meta-position having to do with religion. Have you any more info about where he is coming from? (intellectually, I mean, not geographically)

[Túrin Turambar]

But I have a question: has Wilder offered any commentary about his purpose in making the film?

From Fox News:

Wilders calls his 10-minute film "a call to shake off the creeping tyranny of Islamicization, " and said it could air as early as this week on Dutch television.

"People who watch the movie will see that the Koran is very much alive today, leading to the destruction of everything we in the Western world stand for, which is respect and tolerance," Wilders, the 41-year-old leader of the right-wing Party for Freedom, said last month in a telephone interview with FOXNews.com.

"The tsunami of Islamicization is coming to Europe. We should come to be far stronger."

See also this interview.

In other words, it's something of a 'wake-up call' to the people of Europe about the danger that he sees the spread of Islam in their countries as posing.

I can find no other reference to Wilders’ proposed film on the Bible and Christianity, so we’ll have to leave that aside for the time being.

[Cerin]

I think this is the most telling portion of your post, Lord M:

As it is, the reaction from the Islamic community has been fairly quiet. It has been condemned by many official sources and a fatwa has been issued against Wilders, but outside that everything is fairly quiet.

That you would so casually mention the fact that this man's life is now in danger because he made a film criticizing Islam (or a particular version of Islam?) is appalling (not meaning to fault you, but what seems to have become a prevailing complacent attitude).

I can remember the shock with which the world learned of the fatwa against Salman Rushdie, but now we don't even blink at the idea that criticizing Islam means forfeiture of one's freedom to live at large. This is what seems to me to set Islam apart from other religions in the world today -- Muslims are the only ones who set out to kill those who offend them religiously, and it seems the rest of the world has accepted this.

There are two important questions I would ask: Does 'fatwa' indicate involvement and support from the larger Muslim community, or does it only refer to the extremists who are at self-proclaimed war with the West and whom we associate with terrorism? Does the film only criticize that radical branch of Islam that is said by the rest of Islam to be a perversion of the religion, or does it take aim at all of Islam (this wasn't clear from your post, as you referred to both extremists and Islam in general; I'm choosing not to watch the film at this point)?

If it is the larger Islamic community (and not just extremists) that supports the idea of fatwas, then that is problematic and unacceptable in my view. It is unreasonable and uncivilized, and based on that alone we would have to view the spread of Islam with some alarm.

[Athrabeth]

From what I understand, a fatwa is any legal declaration made by a qualified mufti (Muslim jurist). Although specific training and qualifications differ between Shia and Sunni sects, traditionally, a mufti has been a clerical scholar who has spent several years studying Islamic law until deemed qualified to interpret it with authority, and, interestingly, has gathered a number of followers who look to him for guidance.

Because Islam has no centralized religious authority, there can be any number of muftis issuing specific fatwas that affect only their followers. The rise of the strictly fundamentalist Wahabi sect and its jihad extremists has challenged the long established tradition of Islamic scholarly law being interpreted only by those with long and rigorous training. When Osama bin Laden declared the infamous fatwa against the "enemies of Islam" in 1998, he did so not as a mufti, but as a leader of al Qaeda, and because of this, it is not recognized as "legal" by the vast majority of Islamic clerics and their followers. Since then, the issuing of fatwas by those traditionally deemed unqualified have increased, creating a huge challenge for the broader Islamic community. These are not only threats against the "far enemy" (the West, Jews, Christians, or pretty much any "outsider"), but also to what the jihadists refer to as "the near enemy" - Muslims who do not hold the same puritanical, fundamentalist view of the world.

The following outlines the issue pretty well, I think:

Battle of the Fatwas
The real jihadist battle is Muslim against Muslim. Can the clerics mobilize to protect Islam?
Published November 16, 2005 in the Los Angeles Times
by Reeza Aslan
ON JULY 6, 170 of the world's leading Muslim clerics and scholars gathered in Amman, Jordan, where, in an unprecedented display of inter-sectarian collaboration, they issued a joint fatwa denouncing all acts of terrorism committed in the name of Islam. Never before had representatives of every major sect and school of law in Islam assembled as a single body, much less addressed issues of mutual concern.

Yet the message of the Amman declaration against terrorism was neither new nor unique. Despite lingering misperceptions in the West, since Sept. 11, 2001, hundreds of fatwas have been issued by Muslim groups and clerical leaders around the world denouncing terrorism in general and Al Qaeda in particular. Needless to say, the fatwas have had no influence on murderous jihadists such as the Jordanian-born Al Qaeda leader Abu Musab Zarqawi. Four months after the July 6 gathering, in what may not be a coincidence of timing, Amman became his group's latest target.

In one way in particular, the Amman fatwa targeted the likes of Zarqawi. Among its many pronouncements against violence and extremism was an all-encompassing statement reaffirming the long- standing principle that no one but a qualified Muslim cleric could issue a fatwa. It was meant as a direct rebuke of Osama bin Laden and Zarqawi, neither of them clerics or scholars, who routinely issue their own -- illegitimate -- fatwas declaring, among other things, jihad on the United States. These fatwas have as much legitimacy for the Muslim clerics as a papal bull issued by a Catholic Church youth leader would for the Vatican.

Moreover, the Amman declaration signaled an implicit, if belated, recognition on the part of the international Muslim clergy of what many scholars of Islam and observers of the region have been saying for decades: The conflicts taking place in many parts of the Arab and Muslim world are not the result of a "clash of civilizations" between Islam and the West but rather are part of an internal conflict among Muslims. In that light, the Amman declaration was, above all, an attempt by Islam's clerical leaders to re-exert some measure of influence in the war to define the faith and practice of more than a billion people.

It didn't work.

The day after the Amman gathering, four young British Muslims obliterated themselves and 52 bus and Tube passengers during the height of rush hour in London. Almost immediately, Muslim clerics in Britain and throughout the world issued another round of fatwas, once again denouncing the use of violence and terrorism in the name of Islam.

Two weeks later, a bomb demolished a hotel in the resort town of Sharm el Sheik, Egypt, killing nearly 100 people -- many of them poor, almost all of them Muslim. Another wave of fatwas were released, followed by another wave of attacks against Muslim targets, this time in Bangladesh. More fatwas; more attacks. In Amman, nearly all of the 57 people killed in the Nov. 9 triple- suicide bombings were Jordanian or Palestinian Muslims.

THE TRUTH IS that the overwhelming majority of recent terrorist attacks launched by Bin Laden and his jihadist allies have killed other Muslims -- in Tunisia, Turkey, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Morocco. That's because the primary target of the jihadist crusade is not the West (what the jihadists term "the far enemy") but those hundreds of millions of moderate Muslims who do not share their fanatical, puritan beliefs ("the near enemy").

Of course, the "far enemy" is still a target of jihadism, as residents of New York, Madrid and London can attest. But even those attacks must be placed in the wider context of the internal battle within Islam. The attacks of 9/11, for example, were by Bin Laden's own admission specifically designed to goad the United States into exaggerated retaliation against the Islamic world so as to galvanize other Muslims to join the jihadist cause. The idea was to mobilize the Muslim world to choose sides in an internal battle over the future of Islam by framing the inevitable U.S. response to 9/11 as a war not against terrorism but against Islam itself.

So far, the plan has worked brilliantly. Since President Bush launched the "war on terror" as a "crusade" against "evildoers," large numbers of Muslims, marshaled by jihadist propaganda, have flocked to Bin Laden's cause. Indeed, what has made Bin Laden so successful is his ability to place himself in direct opposition to the traditional clerical authorities in a bid to appeal to Muslims whose sense of alienation has made them yearn for alternative sources of leadership.

Islam has no equivalent of the Catholic tradition of excommunication, and the authority of the clerics to fight extremism is limited. Nevertheless, in Tunisia, Muslim clerics have been offering imprisoned low-level jihadists the opportunity to repent and denounce violent extremism so as to reenter the worldwide community of faith -- and get out of jail. Many have accepted the offer, and similar programs are being contemplated in other parts of the Arab and Muslim world.

Still, the only way moderate clerics will be able to turn back the tide of jihadism in Islam is by recognizing that, along with most of the world's 1.2 billion Muslims, they are far more threatened by the rise of Islamic terrorism than is the West

BTW, Reza Aslan's book, "No god but God": The Origins, Evolution, and Future of Islam" is a fascinating and insightful read. While it by no means made this complex and multi-faceted religion wholly understandable to me, it definitely gave me, I think, a far more solid foundation of knowledge about Islam.....and with what is happening in the world right now, I felt that was an essential step that I should take.

[Cerin]

Thank you so much, Ath! That was really helpful.

[Jnyusa]

Wow, that was really helpful, Ath.

I understand why fatwas against Salman Rushdie and 'everyone in the Netherlands' would claim more media attention here than would fatwas against other Moslem cleric, but it's a shame that we don't get broader and deeper coverage of Islam in our news, particularly when the stakes right now are so high.

[superwizard]

Amazing post Ath!

From what I understand, a fatwa is any legal declaration made by a qualified mufti (Muslim jurist). Although specific training and qualifications differ between Shia and Sunni sects, traditionally, a mufti has been a clerical scholar who has spent several years studying Islamic law until deemed qualified to interpret it with authority, and, interestingly, has gathered a number of followers who look to him for guidance.

Exactly. The Mufti really doesn't need anyone else to agree with him or to consult anyone else's opinion (though of course it would be wise to do so). Something that is very very common in Islam is having a more than one fatwa from different Muftis that are directly conflicting.

A quick simple example: Gelatin. Some scholars say that gelatin that has pig products in it and hence it is not permissible (in Islam its impermissible to eat pork) whereas others point out that the chemical transformation that happens to make materials gelatin causes them to not be considered pork anymore. Both are very good arguments and both are considered valid opinions but they are directly conflicting fatwas!

This might explain why it slipped under the radar. I have to wonder – was the subdued reaction planned deliberately to not draw attention to the film? Or are things settling down between Islam and the West? Or will we have some problems when it spreads more widely? Or, most disturbingly, do many Muslims approve of the film’s content?

I don't know if this is the main reason for the subdued reaction but there have been some scholars out there who called for Muslims to not respond violently (for example Dr. Tariq Ramadan: http://www.tariqramadan.com/article.php ... 28&lang=en)

Also I think a lot of people are just sort of done protesting. Back in Salman Rushdie's day it was really one of the first of its kind. This time its not really that new of a thing and also the Dutch government has been very clear that the movie does not represent its views.

3. What is your opinion on Wilders’ message? Is he cherry-picking facts to try and support some sort of conspiracy theory based on bigotry? Or is he giving a warning that shouldn’t be ignored?

Personally I think Wilder's main mistake was targeting all of Islam instead of the very extreme radical sects. All the verses of the Quran were taken so out of context that it was quite ridiculous and he really accomplished nothing beneficial in this whole attempt.

What is really frightening in my opinion is the sick sort of relationship that the two extremes have. On one side you have people like Bin Laden who declare that they are waging a war against the 'west' and on the other side you have people like Wilder who claim that all of Islam is waging war on the west. I really strongly believe that there is no clash of civilizations but if these two sides gain more power and popularity I fear that that might cause a clash to truly emerge. That is why I think it is so important for the moderates of this world to come together and make sure that these factions remain unpopular.

[Jnyusa]

[quote="swiz]That is why I think it is so important for the moderates of this world to come together and make sure that these factions remain unpopular.[/quote]

AMEN!

[solicitr]

Wilders was explicitly trying to tar all Islam with the 'terrorist' brush. He is unfortunately an extremist (bigot?) of the Mark Steyn/Robert Spencer school, who believes or at least pushes the position that Islam itself is inherently violent and intolerant, and that bin-Laden and his ilk represent "true" Islam.

His film I imagine is about as fair and balanced as a film with images of the Crusades, Jonestown and the Inquisition interspersed with some of the more bloodyminded passages from the Bible, e.g. "Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass."

[Túrin Turambar]

Well, events in the Netherlands have certainly moved since this thread was active.

As a result of Fitna, Geert Wilders has been formally prosecuted for hate speech and inciting racial hatred against non-western minorities. His trial begins on January 20. Public opinion on the prosecution is almost equally divided, although the last year has seen a surge in support for the Party of Freedom that Wilders leads. On opinion polls taken through 2009, it seems likely that it will become one of the three or four major parties in the Dutch Parliament. It’s not impossible that Wilders could become Prime Minister.

In my view, Wilders is a bit of a nut – he calls for the banning of the Qur’an and a special tax on women who wear the hijab, among other things. But his speech should in no way be illegal. There’s a certain irony to a man who wants to see a major book banned being set up as a champion of free speech, but I’m convinced that this is only fuelling his popularity.

I’m also becoming certain that, in the absence of real debate on issues of immigration and integration, we will see more and more extreme responses (like the rise of Wilders in the Netherlands, or the Swiss minaret ban). It’s a bad situation all around.

[ToshoftheWuffingas]

As superwizard wisely pointed out

On one side you have people like Bin Laden who declare that they are waging a war against the 'west' and on the other side you have people like Wilder who claim that all of Islam is waging war on the west. I really strongly believe that there is no clash of civilizations but if these two sides gain more power and popularity I fear that that might cause a clash to truly emerge. That is why I think it is so important for the moderates of this world to come together and make sure that these factions remain unpopular.

extremists need each other. Wilders needs extreme Islamism in order to legitimate himself. Extreme reactions to him will feed his legitimacy.
That is one of the objects of terrorist action between hitherto peaceful communities. One has to be very careful and intelligent not to play their game but pick your own game.

[Túrin Turambar]

Just updating this again (and I know the last update got a bit lost with the MA special election and US Supreme Court decision on campaign finance) with some more interesting information.

Wilder’s defence will be handled by Afshin Ellian, a prominent Iranian-Dutch professor of law. He fled persecution in Iran while he was seventeen, ended up in the Netherlands via Pakistan and Afghanistan, studied law and is now a well-known lawyer, legal academic and critic of the Iranian regime, theocracy and Islam.

He has given an interview here, of which a translation is available here. This is probably the money quote:

You said that the Wilders Trial reminds you of justice in your country of origin, Iran. Is that not somewhat exaggerated?

“The Netherlands, of course, is not comparable with Iran, it is but about the experience. If you cannot say that the Islam is a backward religion and that Muhammad is a criminal, then you are living in an Islamic country, my friend, because there you also cannot say such things. I may say Christ was a f** and Mary was a w****, but apparently I should stay off of Muhammad.”

Ellian describes the Wilders prosecution as being the most important trial in Europe, and I agree that it is hugely significant.

Khurrum Awan, who took legal action against Maclean’s magazine and columnist Mark Steyn in three Canadian jurisdictions over similar criticisms of Islam, said that winning or losing these actions doesn’t matter.

“The only explanation is that the tribunal rendered a political decision, not a legal one,” said plaintiff Khurrum Awan. “It could just as easily ruled in our favour. Nevertheless, we do not plan to appeal the decision because we attained out strategic objective—to increase the cost of publishing anti-Islamic material.”
Awan said Maclean’s spent $500,000 alone on the B.C. case, but that does not take into account the case in Ontario. The total legal cost to Maclean’s is somewhere around $2 million.

Even if they cannot get Wilders convicted, his opponents (both Muslim and non-Muslim) may be able to make it too difficult for people to make similar comments or publish similar material in the future. It will be interesting to see how this pans out.

[Inanna]

Even if they cannot get Wilders convicted, his opponents (both Muslim and non-Muslim) may be able to make it too difficult for people to make similar comments or publish similar material in the future. It will be interesting to see how this pans out.

I agree - but only if you are considering professional publishing. How about web and/or e-book publishing? I agree it does not seem to be a pervasive form currently for new books, but I expect it soon might be.

[Túrin Turambar]

Even if they cannot get Wilders convicted, his opponents (both Muslim and non-Muslim) may be able to make it too difficult for people to make similar comments or publish similar material in the future. It will be interesting to see how this pans out.

I agree - but only if you are considering professional publishing. How about web and/or e-book publishing? I agree it does not seem to be a pervasive form currently for new books, but I expect it soon might be.

That is true, but Fitna was released on the internet. In addition, Wilders is also being prosecuted for statements that he made that were in no way published.

[Túrin Turambar]

Breaking news: The government of the Netherlands has just fallen, following a dispute between the coalition partners over a proposed extension of the Dutch mission in Afghanistan. It is not yet clear whether Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende will resign, whether a new cabinet can be formed or whether there will be early elections (at least I can’t find anything in English-language sources, and I can’t read Dutch).

If there is going to be an election, then we’re going to see some fireworks.

[Túrin Turambar]

A new cabinet has not been formed, and early elections are scheduled for June 9.

The big question for international observers is obviously how well Geert Wilders and the Party for Freedom (PVV) will do. Opinion polls taken this month place the PVV first or second, without around 25 seats in the 150-member Dutch House of Representatives. It will need coalition partners to form government, though, and they may not be forthcoming. In Belgium, the Flemish nationalist party Vlaams Belang is kept isolated by the cordon sanitaire, an agreement by the other parties not to form coalitions with them, hold debates with their candidates or acknowledge their policies. The cordon seems to be fracturing, though, and its questionable how well such a policy works in the first place.

The last four governments in the Netherlands have been formed by the Christian Democratic Appeal Party (CDA) with various coalition partners and headed by CDA leader Jan Peter Balkenende. Even if the PVV wins the most seats, there are various options for a new CDA-led Coalition and a Fifth Balkenende Government. It remains to be seen whether the Labour Party (PvdA) will be willing to overlook the disagreement over Afghanistan which led to the fall of the Balkenende IV Cabinet in order to keep Wilders out of government.

There are local elections coming up in early March – it’ll be interesting to see how they play out. And the Wilders trial will be reaching its climax around the time of the June election.

[Túrin Turambar]

Updates on Wilders and the June 9 elections.

The ban on Wilders entering the U.K. was overturned, and he has shown Fitna to the House of Lords in a private screening. He also delivered a speech to the house, making the claim that there were “moderate Muslims, but no moderate Islam”.

The Party for Freedom has done exceptionally well in local elections in the Netherlands, coming in first and second in the two municipalities in which in ran. On the latest opinion polls, it is projected to win over 25 seats in the next Parliament, becoming the largest party.

[Túrin Turambar]

Wilders has been acquitted of all charges.