Saturday, March 29, 2008

Fjordman Reviews “Fitna”

The Fjordman Report

I asked Fjordman to write a review of Fitna for Gates of Vienna, and he kindly sent us the brief essay below.

For a complete Fjordman blogography, see The Fjordman Files. There is also a multi-index listing here.

I liked it. It is impressive how much they managed to squeeze into just 15 minutes. I notice several of the comments at Jihad Watch say Geert Wilders could have made it worse. Yes, he could. He left out quite a few things, but what he kept was authentic and bad enough.

We should remember that the people reading websites such as Jihad Watch or Atlas Shrugs or Gates of Vienna are perfectly aware of how bad Islam is. This movie was not made for them. It was made for all those tens of millions or hundreds of millions of people out there who don’t trust the official propaganda about Islam, but still don’t fully understand how bad it is. Being too harsh (even if what is described is true) could put some of them off.

I believe this movie struck a good balance between showing Islam for what it is and still making it possible for the average person to digest the message. It is highly effective.
- - - - - - - - -
But I agree with Hugh Fitzgerald: We want a sequel! What about “Pirates of Muhammad: At Islam’s End,” starring Johnny Depp? Yes, I know, it would be too cute, but at least people would see it. As long as Keira Knightley plays Aisha, I’m happy.

For the comments about Jews, you should read Andrew Bostom’s upcoming The Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism. There is much, much more.

I especially liked the agitated gentleman waving a sword, screaming for Jihad. I thought Jihad was about inner, peaceful struggle against yourself, a bit like yoga? He didn’t seem to enjoy any inner peace, though.

And if Jihad is about better education, as I have heard from my local newspaper, why didn’t he wave a pencil?

Maybe it was a pencil sharpener?


Paul said...

I agree with Fjordman on this one. The film was done as tastefully as could be, given the message that needed to be delivered. If more disturbing images or examples were included, the people who most need to receive the message and be educated could have been put off.

A job well done I say.

John Sobieski said...

I agree that Geert's target audience can only handle so much. We are much further down the learning curve than the vast majority of infidels.

I hope it inspires many other movies to help educate the infidels.

Lombard1985 said...

Spot on by Fjordman.

And it didn't really occur to me that showing more of the gruesome reality of Islam than the film gave us, could actually overwhelm a lot of people.

I have to admit, just the audio from one particularly ghastly scene was enough to make me cringe. I won't give away which scene it was for those who haven't seen it yet, but I think most people who have know which one I am talking about.

The truth, sometimes, has to be acknowledged in a gradual manner. An example would be my own experience. Until 9/11 I had no clue whatsoever of what we were dealing with, much less the magnitude. I too thought we were confronting just a few thousand crazies half a world away, when in reality the danger was much less obvious and much more numerous than I ever expected.

It wasn't until sometime in late '06 or early '07 that I finally came to the conclusion that muslims (as a whole) are the real threat to the West and that there really is no "extreme" or "moderate" Islam. Just like the Matrix (c), as long as there are muslims they will forever be a potential threat. There are probably some individual exceptions but they are few and far between, and trust and patience is already thin.

But I digress. The point is, it took me roughly 5 years to grasp the bigger picture. Some may grasp it faster than I did, but most likely the rest will take longer. But as long as we keep inundating the people with the facts and produce more Fitnas the bigger the counter-jihad will become and the better our chances of ultimately saving Europe, the U.S., and the rest of the West (if not the World) from the spread of the Islamic cancer.

Protestant said...

The movie was very well produced. However, there are some issues with it. I will briefly outline what can be called the patriotic critique to the film:

What sums up the message of the film is the clumsy slogan that crawls across the screen at the end: "In 1945 we defeated the Nazis, in 1989 we defeated Communism, today we must defeat Islam".

"We" in the above clearly means liberal-capitalist-democracy. Not any Nation, People, or even Civilization... but an Ideology/sociopolitical-system. This then implies that it genuinely doesn't matter if future Netherlands is brown (or even liberal-Islamic, in theory), as long as they tolerate gays and love corporations indefinitely into the future... (That seems to be Wilders' idea of Endsieg!).

...What is needed are more genuine patriotic voices, which call for national revival of the People(s) of Europe. Defend our national blood and honor, "God and Country" kind of thing. Do not tacitly defend cultural leftism and liberal capitalist democracy.

Protestant said...

One other somewhat-related issue, is the heavy emphasis on Muslim anti-Judaic'ism in the film. The message shining through in the film is implicitly this: "Those millions of Muslims in Europe are a threat, principally because of terrorism and anti-Semitism"... The film can thus be said to have Jewish Nationalist sympathies undercurrent, yet at the same time it is often passively hostile to European blood-and-honor nationalism(s). Strange? Certainly.

heroyalwhyness said...

Quote: "I especially liked the agitated gentleman waving a sword, screaming for Jihad. I thought Jihad was about inner, peaceful struggle against yourself, a bit like yoga? He didn’t seem to enjoy any inner peace, though." End Quote.

LOL! Excellent points - all. Perhaps any sequel would do well to include the many white wash attempts (i.e. 'inner struggle' dualism of political Islam) juxtaposed between the images of violent jihad and text of qur'an, sira, hadith.

pragensis said...

There is no doubt that Fitna is potent. I found the following reaction on the Yahoo Answers. Someone nicknamed Hot Coco who was until now living under a stone has this to say:

"It was one of the most vile things I have ever seen. I am shaking right now. I can not believe what some people do. I thought that the people in penitentiaries in documentaries on MSNBC were nuts, these individuals have me thinking that Dahmer was normal compared to them. I can not believe what I have just seen, I just can't believe it, and I have seen it with my eyes, just a few minutes ago, I heard about this film on the radio and I can not believe what I have seen. I have seen the magnitued of how far idiots will take the liberty to enforce their ideologies, not only on those they have decided need to die (like the frickin' nazis), but their own children, both from their families and others, other frickin' muslims. I don't want to live in fear, I can't understand the magnitude of the driving hatred these people have, and they want to kill practically everyone. They kill women, they kill gays, they mame their girls and women, they slit throats, they carry severed heads, what the hell kind of people do such things? They are not human, they are vile and loathesome, and I hate them. I hate them with every fiber of my being, and I hope and pray that G-d stops them from doing anymore, anything. It is true what the film ends with, the message that they need to be stopped. I don't know what to think, how to ask for protection, how to keep myself safe, I feel sick to my stomach right now. It scares me to think that this kind of ideology is spreading faster and is gaining in popularity. Why is this type of garbage so appealing? Help me to understand, because I am terribly frightened."

Mother Effingby said...

Also sprach der Fjordman:

"And if Jihad is about better education, as I have heard from my local newspaper, why didn’t he wave a pencil?

Maybe it was a pencil sharpener?"

I'm still waiting for John Esposito or Karen Hughes to pen a book with the title: "Why I am not a Muslim".

Anonymous said...

The movie was not bad (though old news for most of GoV readers, I imagine), but I think Wilders could have dropped the following from the movie:

For it is not up to me, but to Muslims themselves to tear out the hateful verses from the Quran.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

I like Mr. Wilders approach of making Fitna more a report than an editorial opinion. There's not much that can be disputed in Fitna. It's Muslims own words and deeds that are allowed to speak for themselves. Bravo to Mr Wilders.

And an emphatic 'Boo, Hiss!' to the thought police.

Ultra said...

To protestestant I'm all for God and country patriotism but not insane nationalism who brought us two world wars, holocaust, bolshevism and economic, social, moral and politicall decline post WWII. All those bastard children of French revolution: Liberalism, natioanlism and socialism must be oposed becouse they're making us open for external threats like iSSlam. We must support Zionist Jews in Israel and our right wing cousins USA for our own good becouse we made our self corupt and weak; if not for love.

Unknown said...

I watched the movie the other day, and although i have seen this kind of thing before, the movie struck a nerve in me. I think Wilders was smart in keeping the length of the movie down. It was intense and brings the message to you like a bat in the face. However, I think he should have included more stuff from the koran, and more video of these "demonstrating" muslims in western cities.

David M said...

The Thunder Run has linked to this post in the - Web Reconnaissance for 03/30/2008 A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention updated throughout the day…so check back often.

Kiddo said...

Ahh, yet again "how bad Islam is". So hyper-focused.

Regardless, this post knocked the one I just left a comment for PRCalDude in. I left a few links for information on the Smyrna horrors of 1922 that people here might find most helpful. I also did something rarely done by me these days, I dusted off an old article written when I wrote as "Pim's Ghost" on the slaughters of Christians in Asia Minor by the Turks. Oddly, the comments came back when I republished, so there are even kind words there for me from Baron.

The comment is at the post on Asia Minor with the links. Please read, anyone interested in the horrors faced so long ago now by my ancestors in what is now Turkey. I never republish my old essays, but this adds to what was being debated here as I've researched this extensively by reading as well as talking to many elderly Greeks, Assyrians and Armenians who lived through this when I was younger.


VinceP1974 said...

ultra: Insane nationalism is about the ONLY thing that is going to save the world from Islam.

if people dont get "insanely" protective of their nations, their nations are going to vanish.


And by the way Nation does not equate to State. Nation refers to a people, usually connected by ethnicity.

The American nation is a people who are (were?) connected by an idea. That idea has been undermined by vile Leftiist scum by I digress.

There's a Techie blog that reported on this and it's causing a little uproar over there. I'm trying to educate them


Regarding the not-showing-too-much-at-once.

I agree with this. I noticed that occasionally folks at Jihad Watch would attack Glenn Beck because every now and then Glenn Beck would make an appeal to moderate Islam (which I dont believe exists).

The attack on him is based on the notion that he isn't being "pure" enough with his message.

My opinion is .. what more do people want? No one has exposed more about the Jihad on the MSM then Glenn Beck has. I think it's amazing he's been allowed to say as much as he has. Now is it so hard to believe that perhaps he has to water it down a little bit to please the media executives or perhaps to appear "balanced" to crazy emotional retards in the West who more concerned about sensitives then the truth?

Debbie said...

Ultra - well-stated.

I love this blog and I love that everyone is able to speak freely, but I appeal to the Nationalists on this blog, and by "Nationalists" I mean white-supremist/white-purity advocates, to seriously get educated. You do more to hurt the Counterjihad movement than Muslims and liberals combined - seriously.

We will never reach the left-wingers (and it is extremely necessary to reach them, as has been stated in this post) so they can open their minds and realize the threat if you keep pushing your agenda.

As I've stated before, the agenda for the Counterjihad should simply be, stop Islam. If all this blog had were the white-supremist/white-purity advocates, then I (and I imagine most of the readers and commenters and owners) would not stick around. It's a huge turn-off and it's infantile.

If you want to see a stop to the spread of Islam and can't help your white-supremist/white-purity ways, then kindly bow out of the Counterjihad movement and leave those of us who can actually reach the liberal mindset to the task while you shine your steeltoed boots.

USorThem said...


I don't mean to change the entire subject of this thread but I disagree with your call on G Beck. Beck stated recently that "I have read the Koran and find it to be a beautifully written and peaceful book".

Now either he
a) lied and didn't read it;
b) read the "Idiot's Guide to the Koran" (yes, it exists and can be found at your local B&N); or
c) read it, and said this to appear balanced and appease media executives.

On topic, the best thing about FITNA was its reliance on the very text of the Koran and the jihadists' preachings who give those words meaning, and graphic depictions of how jihadists have enforced the Islamic imperative. Of course, outside the film you have Wilder's editorials declaring the Koran as a vile book. But on it's own, without further background, I can see how it would, and should, cause reactions such as that by the Hot Coco fellow mentioned above.

Our hope should be to have as many Hot Cocos as possible viewing FITNA. They may not all have identical reactions but at least the topic can start to be discussed openly and regularly, and not left to the blogosphere.

I wonder if any presidential candidates have seen it and are willing to offer an opinion? Who would even dare ask?

VinceP1974 said...

usorthem: I think our presidential candidates are all useless (and so is Congress).

I also thikn we're going to see a resumption of terror attacks in the West after the US elections are over.

Gaeidhil said...

Be aware that the AEL has distributed a counter video to fitna.

It is important to identify and debunk the propaganda content of that video.

There is a torrent being circulated that contains the fitna movie as well as a rebuttal by the Arab European League.

In that torrent is a text file Info.txt.

Info.txt contains:

For Your Concern:
Al mouftinoun is the answer of the AEL (Arabic European League) to the anti-muslim propaganda movie by Geert Wilders, a Dutch populist.
Fitna is the 16 minute 'movie' Wilders had publiced on GB video-site 'LiveLeak', which was removed through treaths, here you have the original (Dutch) movie and the English translation.
I publice this torrent to contribute to Freedom of Speech only.

Peace and Love to all!
Sri Ali Fatwah

The files in the Torrent are labeled:

Fitna (English).flv
Al mouftinoun(EN).flv

To find the torrent follow this link:

Gaeidhil said...

See also:

YouTube - Almouftinoun
Filter videos that may not be suitable for minors Note: some videos not suitable for minors may still appear in search results. Almouftinoun ...

Al Mouftinoun - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Al Mouftinoun is a short film by the Arab European League. It is a reaction to Fitna, a short film by Geert Wilders in which he offers his views on Islam ...

Protestant said...

deadbambi wrote:
"...the agenda for the Counterjihad should simply be, stop Islam."

With respect, this is childish simplicity. Stop Islam in defense of what? In defense of cultural leftism, corporatism, a nihilistic Zeitgeist, pornography, multiculturalism [so long as Islam is excluded therefrom], environmental degradation..etc.?

I care about the ultimate survival of our nations, not simply watering everything down to be as "big-tent" as possible.

Islam is a threat. In response we need national revivals of our own, and not a poorly-conceived movement to prop up a decaying edifice.

Protestant said...

Ultra wrote:
"To protestestant I'm all for God and country patriotism but not insane nationalism who brought us two world wars, holocaust, bolshevism and economic, social, moral and politicall decline post WWII. All those bastard children of French revolution: Liberalism, natioanlism and socialism must be oposed becouse they're making us open for external threats like iSSlam."

You're saying Islam=Nazism=Enemy-of-the-West. This is a common theme on this and other sites like it [not to mention in Fitna itself], but really makes no sense at all.

This Islamic threat is on a higher level than the foolish and pointless political wars of the European past. This threat is not simply a threatened change in European sociopolitical systems or balance of power. ...The ancient peoples of Europe, bound for millennia by blood ties and folkways, are threatened with being slowly wiped off the European map, replaced by alien Muslims, of alien blood and alien folkways.

Always understand a threat before you entertain thoughts of fighting it.

Kiddo said...

bambi--I must disagree that many on the left (or what here would be considered left-of-center; I see myself as moderate with liberal leanings as well as conservative) have responded to the threat of terrorism quite strongly, as well as to the "counter-jihad blog movement". Several prominent writers are lifelong Democrats and state that publicly, others are fairly liberal but quite fed up and needing to vent at the left (as I did until I got it out of my system). Many see the liberalism they once embraced as having evolved into something damaging and absurd, but want the movement they identify with back. Some of these are just waiting, others just unwilling to embrace conservatism as a movement due to certain stands (abortion, gay rights, etc.).

Meanwhile, others call themselves "conservatives" and "counterjihadis" etc. yet are strongly pro-abortion rights (I myself am pro-life) and merely unwilling to admit it to their readers, or strongly gay rights (or at least think anti-LGBT people are absurd), or can't stand the anti-evolution crowd but would never admit it online. Never forget that much online is smokescreen.

If one goes with the model of politics in the more circular manner with extremes meeting or with the linear theory or with others, some of what you wrote you will find overlap in further to the right as well as the left. Certainly corporatism and environmental degradation, absolutely the feminist far-left regarding pornography, an issue I never see brought up by anyone not in the extreme feminist category. I was surprised to see it in that list.

I do agree with taking a strong stance on assimilation, as this is necessary to even a "melting pot nation" such as the U.S., and many immigrants know that the more they assimilate the more they will be able to succeed.

In short, I think that the extreme self-identification with political movements in the U.S. is one of the biggest problems. I used to be asked in my pro-life activities how on Earth an (then) agnostic puck chick would possibly be against abortion without being a Christian. It's not a difficult thing to use one's brain to work out a belief system, it is sheer laziness to let others decide for you and self-identify. I've written tons on this (much probably deleted now), but the scourge of "two-party thinking" still rages and keeps these "leftists" who you insist we much reach so incredibly turned off by certain key words that they would never get past certain ideas to even see any of your points about jihadis. Does this make sense to you? I mean, had I not spent two years or so under the influence of the Warraqs and Spencers out there writing more from your POV, I'd be shocked to read "so long as Islam is excluded therefrom" or "stop the spread of Islam". Most of the key words upon entering this blog would, in other words, make anyone more to the left merely write everyone off as racists and leave a nasty comment. It comes down to language and presentation. Ya dig?

OK, sorry, wanted to respond to that and if anyone still wants more info on the history of the purging of us Christians from Asia Minor, that link from my earlier post is still there. I wanted to reach PRCal as he seemed interested. I am willing to discuss your thoughts though as well, Bambi, and love the name. You just will NOT like my return to my older stance on Islam, so you may wish to not bother.

dannie chOOng said...

do we see any major violent demonstrated by the (hardcore) Christian when the show "Da Vinci Code" was release two years back ? likewise, i hope the Islam community can practice tolerance and fan any possible detestation with peace. after all, most religion known today does condemn violent right ?

Kiddo said...

dannie--no, and the %age of violent protesters who must be dealt with. This is why, despite my destruction of my old Blogger persona, "Pim's Ghost" I just couldn't take down 2 videos on this at YouTube. One was just about the Pope protests, but the other about the cartoons and Pope. No More Tantrums/Simple Math. Despite returning to my previous pre-blogging stance of not blaming Islam as a whole, I just couldn't take those (on the pimsghost account) down.

Moderate Muslims I know were extremely embarrassed by these protesters as well as of the amount of coverage they got, but I just explained that from our American perspective groups of people freaking out over such things was very deserving of coverage exactly because we see only picket signs at events such as the "DaVinci Code" movie release, not a riot at the theater.

I do see this still as just a %age which must be shunned more by their fellow Muslims, but the more I see Islam attacked online the more I see my more moderate friends becoming reactionary and keep reminding them that they must stay on an even keel and not react by striking out against Christianity (using suras denying the divinity of Christ for example). I work very hard for understanding, but I have no reason to change my position against terrorists. I just no longer accept the "Islam as political ideology not a religion" meme. But that is also why I entered this debate rather than being a "troll" or whatever, this and to share the link on Christians killed by the Turks.

Anonymous said...

(...) but the more I see Islam attacked online the more I see my more moderate friends becoming reactionary (...)

...demonstrating in the process that they actually never were moderates after all.

Kiddo said...

Anon--with all due respect (that I know of, as you're commenting anonymously), I disagree. Once I point out the reactionary nature of this and that I am also a Christian and a Westerner, they apologize and take these things down, insisting that they not sink into a more reactionary stance.

It was also attacks online and radical statements by the more salafi-minded Muslims that caused my reactionary period in which I blogged against Islam before swinging back to my more moderate position, one I've held most of my life. I won't allow myself to be led into identifying with a movement that doesn't originate from my own thought processes, hence my wiping out the things I had done (being propaganda, and quite popular propaganda as well) once I swung back to being myself.

I won't let my moderate Muslim friends do so either, and once reminded they cool down and take back these statements. Like Bambi said above though that the left and moderates need to be reached, no one will ever reach the left nor the moderates by using incendiary language. Rational thought and discussion works when I use it, if others wish not to do so then they will continue to merely preach to the choir.

Regardless, back to the Turks.

Debbie said...

Protestant - Counterjihadism IS that simple. Sometimes things aren't as complicated as people like to make them. With the removal of Islam from the equation, nations and people would go on fighting other fights, deciding whether to have capitalism, socialism, representative republics, democracies, etc... In other words, they'd keep on fighting the same fights that they've always fought. But those fights are not ours, at least not ours in our role as a Counterjihad movement. What people do outside the movement is their own business. But those agendas have no place within this movement. Capisci?

As Lex so eloquently demonstrated, there are many of us here who agree with this one concept - stopping Islam - while we would otherwise have very different views on a variety of topics.

It is not our job to decide what replaces Islam, or if anything replaces Islam. Islam is like a cancerous growth. It doesn't need anything to fill its spot - it just needs to be excised.

Lex, I understand what you're saying and I agree (I'm sure my analogy of Islam and cancer wouldn't go over well at the drum circle). I was simplistic in my description because I'm not sure how else to describe the liberals who haven't yet reached the conclusion that Islam is a threat. I feel that the liberals who have reached this conclusion would have to be classified as moderates for being able to see things rationally and actually researching what's going on instead of assuming that anyone who is anti-Islam is a bigot.

I was a lifelong democrat until recently and I still stand for many of the issues you brought up. I see myself as a humanist and I stand against those who act against humanity. I feel that my views about Islam (after much deliberation) is the conclusion that any reasonable person would come to if they value human life.

I don't know where that leaves us, but those people on the left-end of the political spectrum who don't see Islam as a threat are those we need to convince...and you're right, it has to be made palatable to enable them to move in that direction.

kmn said...

This is an unknown quote that has travelled around, but never actually been given an "owner." After the speaker went to Arabia he said "I saw muslims with no Islam." After he went to Europe he said "I saw Islam with no muslims." This was mainly due to the order,ceanliness, lack of corruption and the seveal other things that Europe has gained that the arab world has lost. I agree that the way the movie was arranged was just pefect especially at the end where the when he says that he rips the page out of the phone book... truly original. Although at he same time it was extrememly biased. I found that it was very emphatic and it was done with strong conviction, but with all do respect I believe it was the wrong message to send out. Ofcourse people are going to love an uneducated simple minded person wave his sword/gun around shouting "kill those infidels." Why didn't you make a video about the peacefulness of Islam, or the Shiekh that actually something worthwhile to say. Everone loves the "dirt" in the tabloids, no one reads about Paris Hilton's charity events they only read about her sex videos. Islam was never a religion led by the sword, but through time and alteration of the perception... it is now believed to be a religion of vilolence. These people are uneducated and they are bound by something called the media. The media affects them greatly, since these people do not have the capabilities to think for themselves they depend on the idea that "Europeans are devils". What should be done is to educate people who wave their sword around. I am against these acts of terrorism, yet as much as Europeans are affected by it- so is the arab world. Personally my friend was a victim of a the Taba bombing in Egypt... Egypt is an arab nation. She had to go through extensive surgery on her arm and chest. Islam never encouraged terrorism... that is a fact. Even though the movie uses verses from the qur'an... the translation is dramatized if not altered it. Words like "roast" and "Allah's enemies" are used... Allah's enemies were never people in the world trade center. Do not use this as the only perception of Islam. I urge you to open your mind for a moment and try to accept the true message- Islam is a religion of peace (aleast in my eyes). Don't worry im not trying to get you to convert... I am asking you to educate yourself,and be more aware and less naive. I am not the same muslim who has a bomb strapped to his chest, I am not the same muslim who will kill his wife/ mother /sister if she sleeps with a man (killing is also forbidden in Islam), I will not shoot you if you insult my religion, I will not slaughter you if you are Jewish/ Christian/ Hindu/ Buddhist and I wish you can see that yuor are misjudging me... why you do that to one person who is not as ignorant as them? As much as muslims are ignorant so are many others; I do not appreciate the fact the every professor that comes to Egypt to teach has a "comming-to-an-arab-country-where-they-blow-themselves-up" story. It is never okay to stereotype... why do that to me? I urge you is to research the topic more. If you do, do not use unreliable sources, because you will find the same outburst againt Islam. Read the holy books as reference, all of them (I am still not trying to get you to convert), compare them understand them and then talk to an EDUCATED muslim with an open mind and rationale. If after all that you still think muslims are the "dirt of this earth." So be it, at least you opened your mind and gained an experience. If anyone wishes to dscuss this further my Email is (please do not send messages where you insult/harass me as this is my personal email - thank you). And don't worry I am not part of a missionary act. My name is Kareem Mahmoud Nada and it was nice addressing you all... Peace be upon you.