Obit: More Muslim intolerance?

Subject: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 02 Nov 04 - 08:55 AM

Theo van Gogh the Dutch film maker was assassinated today in Holland. It is suspected that this was work of Muslim fanatics, who have threatened to kill him previously. This man apparently died because he made a film, about domestic violence in Muslim marriages. So apparently not only can you beat your wife if you want, but you can kill anybody who criticises you for doing it. Why do these people threaten to kill people who criticise any facet of their religion? Don't they claim to be a great and good religion, that frowns on the taking of life?
Giok

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 02 Nov 04 - 09:11 AM

Violence in marriage is not a facet of Islam or the teachings of the Koran. It is a facet of certain sections of Arab culture. Many people, including some Muslims, unfortunately confuse the two.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: Wilfried Schaum
Date: 02 Nov 04 - 09:14 AM

A facet of certain sections of Arab culture only? It happens all over the world in any culture.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: GUEST
Date: 02 Nov 04 - 09:26 AM

Yes but do you go shooting and stabbing anybody who says it's wrong, then use religion as an excuse?
Giok

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 02 Nov 04 - 09:27 AM

Sorry cookie done gone.
Giok

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 02 Nov 04 - 10:12 AM

The murderer has been caught (injured) and he is a Muslim with Dutch passport and Moroccan ancestry (just in case someone thinks these informations help to understand a murder). The last political murder in the Netherlands was also committed by a man (the other properties being different)

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: CarolC
Date: 02 Nov 04 - 11:48 AM

Yes but do you go shooting and stabbing anybody who says it's wrong, then use religion as an excuse?

Here in the US, people who call themselves Christians murder doctors who perform abortions, and use their religion as an excuse. All religions have extremists who commit reprehensible acts, while the majority people of all religions do not commits such acts.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: Ellenpoly
Date: 02 Nov 04 - 12:49 PM

Fanatics come in every shape and size, religious or otherwise.

Throughout history, people have found reasons to rationalize killing.

To narrow it down to one group is irrational, but a definite sign of the times.

It's what we do-demonize others when they commit fanatical acts of barbarism, but deny the opportunity to examine other cultures...like our own, that have perpetrated enough bloodshed in the name of...well whatever or whoever for millenia.

I do understand your despair, Giok, but it would be wiser to simply despair for the human race, not just one group within it. Until everyone takes responsibility for the actions of our species, this kind of hatred will just richochet from one place, and one group to another.

..xx..e

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: Amos
Date: 02 Nov 04 - 12:59 PM

Psychos will use any group, and any cause, that floats their boat. They will operate alone, or in teams or use no cause or excuse at all.

To condemn any racial or religous group because of individual acts of psychosis is a risky proposition unless you can find some sort of evidence that the group is promoting insane acts.

A

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: DougR
Date: 02 Nov 04 - 01:07 PM

Carol C: In all fairness, you might point out that shooting doctors who perform abortions is NOT an every day occurance here in the U. S. It has happend, perhaps once or twice in my memory, but I think your statement is misleading.

DougR

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 02 Nov 04 - 01:31 PM

You cannot use the sins of one group to excuse the sins of another, remember the old saw, 'Two wrongs don't make a right' There is NO excuse for ANYONE to take the life of another on whatever pretext. Unfortunately for all good peace loving Muslims there is a tranche of their adherents who seem to be intent on establishing a monopoly on justice as they see it. It is not doing their religion any favour, mud sticks, according to news reports today German papers are today bemoaning the English inability to forget the war. This should be an object lesson to those who perpetrate acts of violence, and fanatacism, it was after all 49 years ago that particular war ended.
Giok

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: GUEST,Clint Keller
Date: 02 Nov 04 - 02:21 PM

It's not an everyday occurrence to kill film makers in Holland either.

clint

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: Leadfingers
Date: 02 Nov 04 - 02:54 PM

Extremism in ANY walk of life is the cause of so much of the trouble in the world today !! And that includes Music Extremists as well as the Political and Religious ones !!

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: Peace
Date: 02 Nov 04 - 03:09 PM

The thread title is phrased as a question, not a statement.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: Bill D
Date: 02 Nov 04 - 03:16 PM

DougR...abortion clinics have been bombed, people have been threatened and intimidated, windows have been broken..etc...it does not require a shooting death to document MANY religion-driven harassment events. (And some anti-abortion zealots are just better shots than others..)

violence with religious justification IS common in this country...

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: Justa Picker
Date: 02 Nov 04 - 03:27 PM

For Muslim intolerance I like this site!

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: CarolC
Date: 03 Nov 04 - 12:17 AM

You cannot use the sins of one group to excuse the sins of another, remember the old saw, 'Two wrongs don't make a right'

No you can't. But you also can't use the sins of one or even a handful of individuals within a group to judge the whole group. And you also can't point fingers at other groups for sins that are also committed by members of your own group without being a hypocrite.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: CarolC
Date: 03 Nov 04 - 12:19 AM

...and I agree with Bill D. It's way, way more than one or two murders of people involved with abortions by so called "Christians".

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: GUEST,JFK
Date: 03 Nov 04 - 12:22 AM

It's all Bush's fault.
I can fix it.
I have a plan.

JFK

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: Ooh-Aah2
Date: 03 Nov 04 - 01:19 AM

The real problem is the three monotheistic religions, Islam, Christianity and Judaism. Any lip service to peace and brotherhood they bullshit on about has been more than wiped out by the massive numbers of people killed over the years because of them - I hate the lot of them - utterly worthless wastes of time - before they were spawned religious intolerance was pretty well unknown in Europe. Christianity can take zero credit for being (just barely) more civilised than the Muslims, this is entirely due to the rise of secular humanism, and exists only because (in civilised parts of the world, ie not America) it has more or less had its teeth drawn. It's true we now have Hindu Nationalism (the BJP) but we can thank the others for this mutation of an otherwise undogmatic religion. Be a Pagan like me!

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: GUEST
Date: 03 Nov 04 - 02:12 AM

you are one confused dude

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: GUEST,John O'Lennaine
Date: 03 Nov 04 - 04:39 AM

Although I wouldn't have used exactly those words, I think Ooh-Aah2 has a fair grasp of the problem.

The Abrahamic Discord (as I like to think of it) seems to be the most prolific taker of life on Earth, and the three relevant religions simply blame each other and kill each other, then blame each other again.

There is a new Christian Fundamentalism rising, But I don't think it's restricted to the USA alone.

I don't see any end of it soon either.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 03 Nov 04 - 04:41 AM

Van Gogh (yes, a distant relation to the painter) has had several death threath from within the Muslim community in the Netherlands since his film 'Submission' about male dominance, incest, battery and forced abortions in Muslim families. This film was coauthored with Hirsi Ali, a black woman from Sudan who is now a member of the parliament. Hirsi Ali had fled Sudan to avoid a forced marriage and later has given up her Muslim faith.

She has had death threats since then and is always accompanied by two body guards which she considered unneccessary up to yeasterday. Van Gogh was murdered while making a film about Pim Fortuyn, the politician murdered 2 1/2 years ago.

Van Gogh had declined all offers for body guards saying just last week in an interview he was just a court jester and noone would kill jesters. He was wrong. The murderer has fixed a written paper on his knife before the last stroke so we'll soon read his motives. But his appearance in a Bin Laden lookalike 'uniform' at ther day of the murder leaves little doubt even now.

Van Gogh's fanciful(?) language has not made him friends within the Muslim community when he called the militant wing of the Muslim comunity "medieval goat fuckers".

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 03 Nov 04 - 04:44 AM

Religious intolerence
Ooh-Aah, I suggest you brush up your european history.
Giok

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: greg stephens
Date: 03 Nov 04 - 07:02 AM

OohAah2: you make a remarkably dogmatic statement about European history in the period before the invention of the Jewish faith. You may be right, but for the benefit of those of us without your background knowledge: what is the date you are using for the invention of Judaism, and what European sources are you relying on that date from before that period?

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: freda underhill
Date: 03 Nov 04 - 07:23 AM

There have been 15,087 reported instances of violence and/or harassment against abortion providers in America since 1977, including 7 murders and 17 attempted murders (actual instances are most likely much higher.) In 2000, more than half of all providers experienced anti-choice harassment.

Sources:

-National Abortion Federation Fact Sheet, "Violence and Disruption Statistics," December 2002.

- S.K. Henshaw, "The Accessibility of Abortion Services In the United States, 2001," Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 35:1, January/February 2003.

Statistics compiled June 2003

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 03 Nov 04 - 08:13 AM

before they were spawned religious intolerance was pretty well unknown in Europe.

Errrrrr - Didn't the pagan romans try to wipe out the pagan druids?

Religion isn't the cause of of all problems, Oooh-Aah2. It's people.

Statements like Be a Pagan like me! and I hate the lot of them - utterly worthless wastes of time seem to indicate that hatred does not seem to be the monopoly of the monotheists.

In answer to Giok's original question (more muslem intolerance?) I would say no it isn't. Just more pillocks using religion as an excuse.

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 03 Nov 04 - 08:31 AM

Just to keep a sense of perspective, Doug, the guy in the Netherlands (Van Gogh) was murdered only once. Apart from which, I'm with CarolC, Amos and John O'Lennaine on this. (If that embraces any contradictions, well that's me.)

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: Ellenpoly
Date: 03 Nov 04 - 08:53 AM

"Religion isn't the cause of of all problems, Oooh-Aah2. It's people."

I dunno, it sounds too much to me like "Guns don't shoot people, people shoot people".


If you catch my drift.

..xx..e

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 03 Nov 04 - 09:00 AM

...the guy in the Netherlands (Van Gogh) was murdered only once.

Wolfgang (grin)

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 03 Nov 04 - 09:26 AM

I'm not sure I do catch your drift, e? I would agree with the statement about guns. If all guns in the world disappeared tomorrow we would still murder each other!

It is not just an excuse saying it is people, but a truism. No religion, as far as I am aware, has ever gone for the 'hate your neigbour' doctrine. It is when the religious dogma starts to be interpreted by other people that the problems arise.

Did you ever see Johny Speights (of 'till death do us part' fame) play, 'If there wern't any blacks we'd have to invent them'? Fantastic study in intolerance where a blind man decides that someone he meets is black and, therfore, inferior. Could be equaly applied to religion.

Once the religions are at peace who are the politicians blame for all our ills? Folk singers perhaps? ;-)

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: Ooh-Aah2
Date: 03 Nov 04 - 10:10 PM

The Roman persecution of the druids was political, not religious - the druids were constantly stirring up insurrection against them.

"If all the guns departed the world tomorrow we would still murder each other" - yep, and for the same reasons as ever, a fair chunk of that being the kind of intolerance brought to perfection by the three monotheisms. And before you make the obvious point, it's the intolerance I am intolerant of.

"Once the religions are at peace" - dream on!

Hatred is spread by the monotheisms - hating spreaders of hatred is quite legitimate (the religions themselves I mean, not the poor moderate dupes within them).

It's strange that 'pillocks using religion as an excuse' always seem to be from these three faiths - coincidence? I don't think so.

'Giok' you obviously didn't read my original post very thoroughly - I dislike Christianity just as much as Islam. The old Pagans certainly got stuck into each other but it was the advent of the three monotheisms which provided whole new reason/ excuse/ motivation for bigger, bloodier, bitterer wars than ever. Now we have modern weapons it's only going to get more hideous - medieval minds with missiles.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: NH Dave
Date: 04 Nov 04 - 03:43 AM

Ooh-Aah2, much of the persecution of which you speak was political in nature. The pan Arabic people and the Jews lived together in as much peace as any two peoples with differing beliefs and customs can do. Their lands were, however, conquored by the Romans, who brought and imposed Pax Romana on their subjugated lands, Jewish and Arabic alike.   During the initial rise of Christianity, the Jews delivered Christ to the Romans because he was a troublemaker, and when the Romans had no law with which to charge him, they released hom back into the Jew's tender mercies where he was promptly crucified! End of problem!

Except his words began to convert other Jews, and these converts began to annoy the polytheistic occupying Romans, so they started picking up these new Christians and using them as Gladiator and wild beast fodder in their ampitheaters and circuses, which didn't do the Christians any good at all.

A good 500 years later a man named Mohammed was born and decided that he had been given visions of greatness for his people, which resulted in the birth of Islam, which was a completely new belief set, as had been the Christian one some 500 years earlier. By this time Christianity had pretty much taken over the better part of civiized Europe, and since the Arabs, aka Infidels, were living in and ruling what had become holy sites for the Christians, Christian/Catholic popes encouraged armed expeditions to free these holy sies from the grasp of the infidels.

So now you have both the Jews and Arabs living in what we now call the Holy Lands, and the Christians in much of Europs trying to wrest these lands from the grasp of obvious unbelievers. These affairs went on until the beginnings of the plague years in Europe, when they had much to much on their local plates to worry about or conduct Crusades, and they just tried to keep on living.

From this, Judaism predated both Christianity and Islam by hundreds or even thousands of years, if you condider the original religious belief set that eventually became what we now call Judaism. Christianity and more importantly Islam were really Johnny come latelys to the region, and the damage each meted out to the others was usually politically motivated, and remains so to this day.

Dave

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 04 Nov 04 - 04:19 AM

You can always slay your enemy with 'the jawbone of an ass', they don't have to be Phillistines although there are still a few around.
I see now that a faction of Iraqui Moslems are threatening to kill one member of every christian family in Iraq, because their women go bare headed. Nothing intolerent about that is there?
Giok

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 04 Nov 04 - 04:43 AM

The Roman persecution of the druids was political, not religious

And the situation in Palestine isn't political? Northern Ireland is realy about Catholics and Protestants? Hmmmm. In your own words, Ooh-Aah, dream on.

always seem to be from these three faiths - coincidence? I don't think so. I don't think so either. Considering that out of the worlds population of around 6 billion, 4 billion of them are of the three monotheist faiths there is a 66% chance that all troublemakers come from one of them.

Can I offer some advice? You don't need to take it:-) Think the argument through beyond face value. I am not disagreeing with you - honest! Religion does appear to be a major cause of conflict but things are not always what they seem. I can guarantee that anyone in a position to cause major upheaval in the world is not interested in what god you worship or how. They are only interested in one thing - power. They use religion and any other means at their disposal to stir up people who know no better while keeping their own hands clean. But it is not religion itself that has caused the conflict.

If you must choose to hate anything or anyone don't pick on the tool. Pick on the user. I'd rather you did not hate anyone though. It is far less stressful:-)

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 04 Nov 04 - 04:49 AM

Jawbone of an ass? I thought it was the arsebone of a giraffe? Or was that another version?

:D

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: jaze
Date: 04 Nov 04 - 09:36 AM

I went to a "Christian" church and the Minister said "All gays and Muslims are going to Hell". I nearly fell off the chair. Sadly,this is the kind of thinking that half of America just voted for. God help us.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 04 Nov 04 - 10:56 AM

It becomes more and more obvious that the murderer was not a lone extremists but the one acting for a group of Muslim fanatics planning this murder together since long.

In the Netherlands, like in many other European countries, there are closely cooperating small groups of Islamists ready to use physical force including murder for their aims.

That the murder was committed 911 days after the murder of the outspoken anti-Muslim-fundamentalism Pim Fortuyn may be a coincidence or a planned sign.

The Netherlands are asking now whether they are too tolerant towards militant groups. On the other hand, they have to ask themselves what they have done wrong (or failed to do) in the integration of foreigners: 40 % of the Maroccan youths in the Netherlands have not finished school. Foreigners are 4 times as likely as born Netherlanders to be without job. One third of all people in Amsterdam are not Netherlanders. They live in a parallel world, at best ignoring the liberal Netherland world or at worst fighting militantly against it and against the values liberal Dutch have fought for since decades.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: CarolC
Date: 04 Nov 04 - 01:04 PM

John 'Giok' MacKenzie, Ariel Sharon has been threatened with assasination by many people in Israel as a result of his work toward removing Israeli settlements in Gaza. And as we've seen, when people in Israel make those kinds of threats against their prime minister, on at least one occasion those threats were carried out. In India, Gandhi was assasinated by intolerant Hindi (Hindus?) who didn't like his positions with regard to Muslims. We've already touched on a number of examples of Christian intolerance. It's not just Muslims who sometimes practice intolerance. It's just Muslims who are the target of our scapegoating at this point in history.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: Grab
Date: 04 Nov 04 - 06:50 PM

If we want to talk intolerance, maybe remember that the inhabitants of a godfearing Christian country called Serbia did their level best to wipe out Bosnian Muslims because of their religion. Or even better, think of Northern Ireland and the battle between two factions of Christianity.

As always, the religious thing is just the cover for political nastiness. Only a very few nutters really believe the religious stuff enough to kill, the rest follow for political reasons.

Graham.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: Ooh-Aah2
Date: 05 Nov 04 - 02:47 AM

But you and the Gnome are both forgetting that a great deal of the politics is created by the religions in the first place. The politics in these cases arises because of the hatred and difference fostered by religion. The 'political' struggle in NI, for example - if all of NI was one religion or the other, the 'politics' would not have arisen.

What does it say about these religions anyway if 'political' differences can be so easily be given a religious camoflage? - either they are quite able to cope with the idea of smiting the infidel ('The Quran or the sword!/ Onward Christian soldiers!/ Israel for God's chosen people!)or else we can ditch them anyway as few people apparently believe their surface love'npeace hypocracy enough to resist the temptation to accept their appropriation by 'political' motives.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 05 Nov 04 - 04:19 AM

The 'political' struggle in NI, for example - if all of NI was one religion or the other, the 'politics' would not have arisen

Sorry Ooh-Aah. Not True. There are Protestant republicans and Catholic loyalists. And don't forget, the trouble makers there are all so called Christians! The struggles in Northern Ireland were always about English domination. It would not have mattered two hoots if the Pope ruled England. The republicans would still have wanted a united Ireland. It is the English media that have given the struggles a religious camoflage in this case. It sounds better to have Catholics struggling against Protestants than to have an oppressed people struggling against the English!

And before you ask - No I am not a republican. I am nominaly a Catholic but was brought up Russian Orthodox and now have a religion all to myself:-)

I certainly agree it is odd that the political leaders can get people wound up more easily about religion than they can about anything else but that's human nature for you! Perhaps one of our resident psychologists can let us know why people get so exited about such a vague concept as God while ignoring the more tangible facets of life like music and beer;-)

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 05 Nov 04 - 05:01 AM

The standard analysis of Norn Iron was always that there were too many Catholics, AND too many Protestants, and not enough Christians. This aphorism uses christian in the sense I prefer it to be used.
Giok

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: Ellenpoly
Date: 05 Nov 04 - 06:24 AM

Religion doesn't murder people.

People murder people.

In the name of their religion.


I'm trying hard to think of one war where some kind of "God" wasn't invoked as being on somebody's side, if not both.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: Ooh-Aah2
Date: 05 Nov 04 - 06:59 AM

Precisely.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: jacqui.c
Date: 05 Nov 04 - 07:44 AM

Seems to me that a lot of this discord has two bases. One is the push for power by individuals or groups and the other is the fear of anyone who appears to be 'different'. Put those two together and there really is the formula for violence.

There also seems to be an aggresive streak inherent in humans, which tends to show itself more in young men than elsewhere in the population. Just look at the violence in football and city gangs. While females do get involved this is a predominantly male activity. Maybe a lot of young males need an outlet for whatever hormonal activity might cause this tendency. Most probably get it from hobbies or pursuing a career, but there always seem to be those who channel it into violence, making them a good breeding ground for the power hungry.

I would agree that religion is often used as an excuse to beat the hell out of other people, because it is such an emotive issue, relying so much on the faith of the believer. Is it possible that many of those who perpetrate the worst viloence do so because they are not sure enough of their own faith to tolerate the fact that other people might not agree?

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 05 Nov 04 - 07:55 AM

American Civil War?

(Civil War? Oxymoron surely:-) )

DtG

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: Ellenpoly
Date: 05 Nov 04 - 10:42 AM

Dave, are you answering my question? You couldn't be, because "God" was surely evoked by both sides during the Civil War, and in many political speeches of the day.

"Is it possible that many of those who perpetrate the worst violence do so because they are not sure enough of their own faith to tolerate the fact that other people might not agree? "

Jacqui, I so agree with your last post, but I will only add this; though I do think you may be right in what I quote from you above, one can find portions in many religious texts about violence against others who are unbelievers. The Old Testament goes without saying as being one of the bloodiest books ever written, but I've found statements in the Koran, and the New Testament, where one could easily invoke the "right" to perpetrate violence.

So as far as I'm concerned, the answer to your question is yes, and no-because they are sometimes TOO SURE of their faith as opposed to others.

..xx..e

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 05 Nov 04 - 11:32 AM

Sorry, e - Yes I was but I misunderstood. I thought you meant a war fought in gods name. It is certainly fair to say that in all conflicts gods name will be called upon by all sides so I guess you will never be able to find one that wasn't!

That does not necesarily make it a religious war though does it? Surely to be a religious war it would have to be fought with the primary purpose of damaging another religion in some way? If that is the case I think it would be hard to find one that qualifies, which was my original point. Wars are rarely fought with this primary objective. The cry may be for God or Allah, agreed, but the cause is inevitably for land or power.

Have you read Twains bit on god going into a church and explaining why praying for victory is wrong btw? Wonderful piece of prose posted elsewhere on the Mudcat if I remember rightly! I tried a search but there were too many Twain and Clemens references to look through! perhaps some kind soul will know where it is?

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 08 Nov 04 - 12:09 PM

The murder has been planned for some time by a group of fundamentalist Muslims. The murder has been performed in the ritual slaughter style of the 11th century Muslim assassins together with fixing at the breast of the murdered man a note who will be murdered next: former Muslim and now secularist Hirsi Ali. A death list has been found with van Gogh being the first name. Several people who have been speaking critically of Islam are on that list and, who will be surprised, some prominent Dutch Jews.

This was not just one disturbed man, this is, at least in their perception, a part of a fight between cultures. We should not forget that in central Europe some liberal principles dear to us now are just about a century old or even younger: freedom of speech, equality of women including their right to leave a violent man, trial instead of personal revenge, freedom of (and from) religion, freedom of consensual sexual activity, freedom to criticise beliefs and governments... the list is long, but not very old.

Then people come to us from a culture with traditional values more similar to ours about 100 years ago and are immersed into a culture threatening their values. The power of the family patriarch about all his family is questioned, his wife may legally spend money without asking him, his daughter may date a man from another faith, may even marry without asking his permission, honour killings are not treated as understandable and give a token sentence but are treated as murder, literature critical of Islam is freely available, in School Islam is treated as one religion of many, woman walk about in a way no decent woman should but insist on being treated not as an easy quarry,...

On the other side, the majority society treats these people as second class, gives them bad jobs and little money, bad housing and looks down on them. In this climate, fundamentalist ideas gain support, the traditional religion in its most extreme variant seems to be a shield against the threats of liberal secularism. But for a fanatic fringe, it is not only the aim to live themselves according to the traditional rules but to want everybody around them to follow their rules. A young girl of sixteen grown up in a strict traditional way may start to question why all their friends walk around without head scarf, date young men, or simply go together without a brotherly watchdog to amusements. The patriarch (or a brother) may feel that the old way would be easier to implement if everybody around them would follow their way, the right way. From that, a dangerous mixture of anger, hate and longing for the old values may arise and lead to the conviction that the fight for the old values can and even must be fought with no restrictions whatsoever.

I love to live in our present secular society, with that big amount of personal freedom. I do not mind at all if someone else follows a strange (to me) set of rules as long as it doesn't interfere with what I consider my freedom of expression. Christians, at this time in history and at this place in Europe are no realistic threat to how I wish to live. If I would live on the Outer Hebrides they would be the focus of my critique. Here and now for me, Muslim fundamentalism is the biggest threat for my way of life, and, second to that, the immigrants form Russian with their culture of open violence and the German Neonazis with their ideas of roll back, are. I want these three groups to adapt to our style of living and interacting.

Those who think that giving in to a modest range of demands (oil etc.) are taken in by the Bin Laden front propaganda. The fight is about much more than oil and Israel, the first demands, it is a deep clash of cultures and it will be with us for long.

Those who do not share the fight, will share the defeat (Brecht).

Wolfgang

PS: And, also not surprisingly, the first attacks upon Mosques in the Netherlands are reported.