In recent months, some have rushed to label what is unfolding between Algeria and Morocco as “fitna,” as though merely naming realities, exposing threats, or defending national security were in itself a dangerous deviation worthy of reproach. Yet this accusation is, in truth, the very essence of fitna.
For fitna, in its deepest political and moral sense, does not lie in the word that illuminates, but in the silence that conceals. It is not born from denouncing falsehood, but from normalizing it. It does not grow out of vigilance, but out of deliberate blindness draped in the illusion of wisdom.
Fitna is not the act of speaking the truth, but the act of burying it.
To portray every warning about the threats facing Algeria as an incitement to discord is to criminalize clarity itself. It is to reduce fitna to the realm of speech while absolving conduct—even when that conduct directly destabilizes the region. History, and Algeria’s history in particular, teaches that silence in the face of danger has never shielded nations; it has only paved the way for greater ruptures.
Remaining silent in the name of a manufactured “stability” has never prevented crises; it has merely made them more violent when they eventually erupt.
When National Security Becomes a Forbidden Topic
More troubling still is this attempt to cast national security, borders, regional alliances, or tangible threats as improper subjects—sensitive, excessive, almost indecent. Since when has defending sovereignty become a moral offense? Since when has sounding the alarm on real dangers been equated with sowing discord?
The true fitna lies in demanding silence toward a neighboring regime that:
- openly embraces a strategic alliance with the Zionist entity,
- deepens its military and security cooperation with it,
- and uses this alliance as a regional lever, including against its neighbors and against the fundamental causes of the ummah.
And yet, paradoxically, Algeria is asked—under the guise of “good neighborliness” or illusory appeasement—to look away, to downplay the risks, even to reprimand those who refuse to normalize danger.
Normalization Is Neither a Detail Nor an Opinion
Rejecting the establishment, at Algeria’s doorstep, of an actor whose intentions and methods are well known is neither ideological posturing nor rhetorical excess. It is a basic strategic necessity.
Sovereignty is not a negotiable commodity; security does not rest on declarations of intent; and history is unforgiving toward nations that ignore the signals of impending danger.
The true fitna lies in conditioning public opinion to view this geopolitical shift as ordinary, neutral, or merely “internal,” when it directly affects regional balance and collective security.
Algeria and the Ethics of Clarity
Algeria does not manufacture fitna: it practices clarity. Identifying threats, analyzing them, and bringing them to light is an act of prevention—not provocation. A state that refuses to name danger forfeits its ability to confront it.
The line that separates a strong state from a fragile one lies precisely here:
- the former speaks plainly to its people and grounds its decisions in a lucid reading of its environment;
- the latter lulls its citizens with moralistic rhetoric that conceals either helplessness or dependency.
Conclusion — Where Does the Real Fitna Lie?
The real fitna lies in:
- criminalizing truth,
- beautifying falsehood,
- and demanding silence from the people when their future is at stake.
Comments
Post a Comment