Dutch politician Geert Wilders's film Fitna is an alarming new episode in the 'clash of civilisations,' this time fomented in cyberspace, writes Amira Nowaira* A new global war has broken out. But this war is not taking place in any geographical or political location we know of. Instead, the arena is cyberspace. Here, the tools of destruction are not the smart missiles or cluster bombs one might expect to find in modern warfare. In this battle the participants brandish videos and flaunt words in a "holy struggle" against their opponents, using multimedia munitions and the well-known strategies of warfare: cunning, deceit and unapologetic exaggeration. This is certainly the feeling I got the moment I entered the five letters of the Arabic word fitna into a Web browser to search for Dutch politician Geert Wilders's short "documentary" film of the same name. This has not ceased to elicit conflicting responses since its release in March 2008, ranging from angry denunciation and vehement condemnation by Muslims and Muslim supporters, to unquestioning approbation by right-wing factions and sympathisers, as well as by those throughout the western world who are in the grip of holy terror of anything and everything Muslim. A new fighting arena has opened up, and a virtual war is being waged on the Internet. The place of the action? YouTube, a virtual shooting range where conflicting ideologies and views come into headlong collision. The Fitna phenomenon has taken its place in history, though perhaps not for the reasons Wilders bargained for. The film itself is no great work of art. Had it not been for the furor it has created, it would not merit serious consideration. In 15 minutes Wilders has attempted to present a shortcut to Islam. In so doing, he has reduced the rich legacy of 14 centuries of learning, philosophy and human experience to a distorted one-dimensional image. No need for controversies, ambiguities, subtleties, or nuances. No need to burden the viewer with pointless explanation or with arguments that would in any case be misunderstood. No need to tell the audience that the Muslim world is not one monolithic whole, but that it contains many different and often opposing sides. Just make your ideas appear as uncomplicated, categorical and single-minded as possible. No need, either, to point out how controversial Islamic terminology is, including the word fitna itself, which Wilders has chosen as the title of his film. This word is indicative of the huge difficulties involved in grasping words that are specific to Islam outside their contexts. Even in Arabic the word fitna is highly suggestive and nuanced, and it almost defies translation. Its sense may include, though is by no means limited to, a host of meanings such as "discord, contention, temptation, trial, charm, attractiveness, enchantment, captivation, fascination, enticement, infatuation, intrigue, sedition, riot, discord, dissension and civil strife." But the film is not interested in such complexities. Instead, it creates a web of simplistic connections, inferences and messages that are designed for the gullible and play on collective worries and fears. It starts out with verses from the Qur'an calling for various types of violent action to be perpetrated against "unbelievers." Taken out of context, the film intends these verses to function as a condemnation of the faith itself and the rope with which it hangs itself. To drive the point home, footage of blood and disaster from the 9/11 events and the Madrid bombings, as well as other events, are sandwiched between the recited verses, with the explicit suggestion that the Islamic creed is directly responsible for such massacres. After establishing the connection between the "evil" creed and these harrowing events, the film shows footage of an imam giving a sermon at an unspecified mosque and at an equally unspecified time and location. The imam is seen drawing a sword to represent the extent of his fervour and the bloody thrust of his call. Also present in the film is a set of pictures of Muslims holding placards that read, "Freedom go to hell" and "Islam will rule the world." Finally, there is the most crucial point made in the film, which is the threat posed by Muslims now living in Europe. Short as it is, the film has certainly succeeded in increasing already existing fears among European populations to a new pitch, graphically presenting them with an impending threat lurking behind black gowns, disheveled beards and caricatured, bomb-like heads. So what is the subtext of the film? Given the atrocities that are awaiting everybody in the free world, given the rate of Muslim "breeding" (presented in the film in the form of "objective statistics") that threatens to overwhelm and swamp Europe, what should be done with those irksome, annoying, infuriating and potentially murderous Muslims who certainly want not only to kill all Europeans, wholesale, but more importantly want to rob them of their most cherished freedoms? The answer should not come as a surprise to anyone watching the film: "exterminate the brutes." This seems to be the message that triggered off the current war on the Internet over the film and the spark that led to the opening up of a wider battlefront. To counter the lies propagated by Wilders, Islamic enthusiasts decided to produce other films that gave the truth, as they saw it, about Islam, and call them Fitna as well. As a result, the unsuspecting viewer may be led to believe that these counter-films are in fact the original movie. Another version of the same idea, this time called Fitna -- Schism, promises to give the viewer a Biblical version of Fitna, equally offensive, that uses parts of the Bible to show that this is not superior to the Qur'an. Other treatments range from the farcical to the macabre, all sitting side by side, just one click away from you. So instead of one, we have now ended up with many versions of Fitna. Should we worry about a war that is being waged by films in cyberspace? Should we see it as a positive divergence from actual warfare, in which bloodshed and destruction are a daily reality for those living through it and certainly are not to be compared to a war of words or videos? Notwithstanding the vehemence and passions involved, an Internet war probably does not pose a threat to world peace. However, the question is whether this war will remain confined within the boundaries of cyberspace. Might it not spill over into the real world? This, it seems to me, is unfortunately not impossible since the concept of an enemy is a cultural construct. Like love, wars start in the mind. We have to be careful about ensuring that such virtual warfare does not carry within it the unwelcome seeds of a real war. In an indication perhaps that the message of hate the film proclaims has come home to roost, a comment on the film posted on YouTube vehemently proclaims that "Muslims are the cancer of this world." To wipe out this cancer, the argument seems to run, would not only be a duty but also an act of heroism. Should this way of thinking spread, a new form of holocaust may not be far away. * The writer is professor of English language and literature at Alexandria University's Faculty of Arts.
