Netherlands: Fuss over a handshake

"... but out of respect for the MEN who own those women."

That sentence tells you everything you need to know about this Klefbeer character right there.

And of course, Verdonk is a dhimmi. When she tried to tackle the double nationality issue with Moroccan youths in the Netherlands, instead of revoking their Dutch nationality, she traveled to Morocco to grovel and beg the authorities there to have them revoke their Moroccan nationality. How much more dhimmi can you get?
Not to mention that she effectively chased out of the country our only intellectual who dared speak out against Islamofascism.

"The [Ahmadiyya] movement is known as very open and tolerant..."
-- from the article above

Mistakenly as it turns out. Ahmadiyyas are not "very open and tolerant." (see the example of one JW poster, "Naseem," in her candid moments of Muslim triumphalism). Only by comparison with the real thing -- the full-bodied Islam of non-Ahmadiyya Muslims who regard them as practically Infidels, can the Ahmadiyya be described, with a straight face, as "very open" and "tolerant."

Many people who live in the relative security (but for how long?) in the spoiled and complacent West enjoy regarding totalitarian threats as merely a matter of finding the "good" guys among those totalitarians and the "bad" ones. A shadow-play is set up in the minds of those Westerners. Decades ago, Americnas looking at the rulers of Communist China compared Mao with Chou En-Lai, and saw the latter, with his elegant manners, and knowledge of French, and cigarette-holder, as some kind of "moderate" who might well be a brake (in an entirely fictional power-play staged within some imaginary Forbidden City) on Chairman Mao, who was crude, who had no French, who did not use a cigarette-holder.

In Russia, the Politburo was divided into the really stern, dangerous ones -- dour Suslov, the Party theoretician, was always offered up as an example -- and those who, by clear implication, were people one could practically invite home to dinner. It was all nonsense, of one sort or another, but the same nonsense goes on today, with those solemn analayses of who in the line of succession in Saudi Arabia is "more pro-Western" or "pro-reform" and who is less. From the viewpoint of Infidels, it hardly matters. Saudi Arabia is a Muslim state. The Al-Saud are Muslims. They will continue, somehow, to keep spending money to spread and support Islam -- that is, to engage in the Jihad through wieldling the "money weapon." That's the main thing to understand.

And the main thing to understand about the Adhmadiyya is that, because of their embrace of a post-Muhammad Prophet, they are subject to persecution by other Muslims. But this has not made them more inclined to befriend Infidels. Some, indeed, seem inclined to reassure themselves, and orthodox Muslims, of the genuineness of their version of Islam by looking forward to what they describe as the inevitable triumph of Islam (again, see "Naseem" at JW, passim).

"Very open." "Tolerant."

Not enough. Not nearly enough.

"... but out of respect for the MEN who own those women.

That sentence tells you everything you need to know about this Klefbeer character right there."

Dear Kim Hartveld, I imagine for a dutch liberal like you it is a bitter pill to swallow, but that Klefbeer character is spot on..

How ironic.

The Ahmadiyya Muslims are detested throughout the Islamic world, especially in Pakistan, with a passion that almost matches the venom and hatred felt towards Jews. In some respects, it may even be worse.

If you ever get the chance to listen to or read a mainstream Muslim speak about the Ahmadiyya sect pay attention. The intensity of hatred is astonishing. They are seen as the worst kind of human life; people who claim Mohammad was not the last prophet but who still call themselves Muslims. There is no greater heresy possible. They are killed, discriminated against, spat on and considered to be absolute scum. In the light of this, you wonder why the followers of the sect still blink in the daylight of Islam and smile and consider themselves part of the Ummah. Even a donkey will walk away when he has been kicked enough times.

regards

Cisoux

And the date is June 5, 2006
sigh

"Orthodox Jewish men don't shake hands with women, but for very different reasons"

In Judaism, this is because of Jewish laws of modesty. It should have stated more accurately:

"Orthodox Jewish men and women don't shake hands with each other...."

What is the different reason for this being forbidden in Islam? Looking at a number of fatwas on the subject, Islam, too, seems to require this for reasons of modesty.

Why is it assumed otherwise?

Re HM the Queen of the Netherlands, I wouldn't shout "Dhimmi" until a few more bits of evidence came in. After all, it is one thing to respect someone else's religion; quite another to lgive in to it.

I appreciated the comments on the Ahmadiyya by several posters. Perhaps the hostility the Shi'ites, Sunnites, and Ibdis feel towards the Ahmadis comes from the fact that the Ahmadis claim that their founder was the Mahdi. It does make me think a little bit about the events I read about in the New Testament.

Another example of "post-Mahdi" Islam is Bahai. While Bahai syncretism seems almost non-Muslim today, it was grew out of 19th century Iranian Shi'ite yearnings for the appearance of the Mahdi or 12th Imam.

Actually, when I think about the analogy of how even a donkey has the intelligence to walk away when it has been kicked enough, I think it says much for the mental decrepitude that Islam inspires, something similar to the state of fidelity that some slaves on the plantation would feel towards their masters, defending them and refusing to countenance criticism no matter how much they had been whipped.

Indoctrination for your entire life in the superiority of your religion and belief system over all others, and the brainwashed rhetoric of Islamic triumphalism cannot be dispelled easily. An Ahmadiyya who has been part of the mental slavery, Allah-whipping, and Arab bootlicking for so long has no recourse to any other explanation of the Universe, so mangled is their mind. So even though they are killed, spat upon, hated and persecuted by mainstream Muslims, Ahmadiyyas still stand and bleat about the triumph of their creed to the infidel.

I would not say it inspires sympathy, but it certainly arouses curiousity into the psychology of this pathetic spectacle.

regards

Cisoux

"out of respect for the MEN who own those women"

This is an insult to both women and men in the west. To women, because they would be owned like cattle, to men, because they are expected to lower themselves to own women like cattle.

Mind you: This is civilisation, not the House of Islam. If you cant't take it, go away.

If I had known that Mr. Robert Spencer would simply copy-paste my comments on the article from the email, I would have sent him a more 'inspiring' piece of argumentation. Anyway, my mistake, no harm done. I would say the message is clear anyway. ;)

Reactions like the one Kim Hartveld posted above are the main reason that nowadays I only post under a nickname. I wouldn't want my real name to be mentioned in the same breath with the oppression of women. Before you even know it, the views of the people you write about are attributed to you, instead of to those people.

In any case I would like to make it very clear that the abovementioned view on relationships between men and women definitely is NOT my view on those relationships, but (as I understand it) the view of certain Islamic movements. Also, I have no knowledge of the view of orthodox Jewish men on the shaking of hands with women and the difference with Islamic men, but I would love to hear about that from someone who does know.

The status of Verdonk is another, very delicate matter. You could argue that she was wrong to denaturalize Ayaan Hirsi Ali (Magan), and in a sense she was. But the fact of the matter is that Verdonk, as a Dutch Minister, is supposed to carry out the Dutch Law, as it was approved and passed by our Houses of Parliament. And that is exactly what she has done in the case Hirsi Ali, actually against her personal will. By taking this argument further you could argue that our representatives are the real dhimmi's here. And guess who chose them?

Oh, and Carolyn2, before I forget, I don't exactly know what you mean with your post. But this article was published three days ago, on the same day that this visit of our Queen actually took place. I hope it's clear to you now why this news is still relevant.

The Article is not wrong at all, it is the sometimes slightly twisted perception of the reader that can misinterpret it...
Robert Spencer had pointed out that it was a translation from de Volkskrant.

"On the contrary: it's a sign of respect."
It is a sign that women must respect any man because women are not equals with men. In Islam women are lesser beings. They are subsurvient, allowed only half of what a man may inherit, two women having to testify in Sharia court to equal that of a man's testimony. Not allowed out in public without a male chaperone, not allowed to pray alongside the men in the mosque. Never allowed to eat at the same table with men. Seperate, inferior. Never equal.

Women not being the equal of men is a fundamental fact of the socalled "Abrahamic" religions, be they Judaic, Islamic or Christic.

All one has to do is peruse their scriptures.
The Torah (not to mention the TeNACH) has many examples of the lesser (1/2 status) of women, let's take Leviticus 15, as regards the "filth" of women, but wait Levticus 12 When a woman gives birth and bears a male child she is unclean for seven days, as in the days of her menstruation..then she shall remain in the blood of her purification for 33 days, then follows if it is a female child she births she is unclean for 14 days and remains in the blood of her purification for 66 days.. Fast forward to lst Corinthians 1:1:10 especially and lst Corinthians 14 (if a woman wants to learn something let her ask her husband otherwise she keeps silent in church).

I know, I know, the Christians and Jews have their apologia and explanations, but so do the Muslims.. if you condemn one you must condemn the other, take the beam out of thine own eye first. And no this is not a tu quoque...as a rationalist and a secular humanist I roundly condemn all patriarchial ideologies that diminish the other, and exalt themselves or one peoples, (gender, whatever) over the other, that's why I pride myself on being an "Islamophobe".

In what way is the Orthodox Jewish view on relationships in any way similar to that of the Quranic view of relationships? And how does shaking a woman's hand dis-respect her marriage, assuming that she's married?

I'm just asking about Jewish tradition here - no need to even try rationalizing what Islam does.

I could care less what happens in the Netherlands. I came across an interesting discussion the other day in a book store. This lady wrote on the holocaust and she was a survivor herself. She talked about how Nazism came about as a result of leaving Christian tradition and traditional values itself. It was not backed by the Church. Nazism was a combination of socialism and paganism. In fact there was a split amongst german protestants who would not let their dogma be changed by the nazis. Also homoeroticism was promoted by the nazis. So in fact the left today shares far more characteristics with the nazis than do conservative christians. It is this athest darwin dominated ideology today that is leading to horrifying policies in the netherlands such as involunteery euthenasia(sorry for spelling) and now the legalization of pedaphelia. The pedaphelia party in the netherlands is trying to push through a law right now to make pedaphelia legal in the netherlands. Moral relativism is the ultimate evil. As bad as islam is, what the netherlands has to offer is much worse. The hell with the entire country.

'Also homoeroticism was promoted by the nazis.'

Yes, perhaps subliminally, all those lovely uniforms and marching routines. Not unlike a Boradway musical.

But homosexuality was of course outlawed by the Nazis, and was one of the criminal categories that would land you in a concentration camp. You either deliberately chose to overlook that, or you're ignorant of it.

It's a pity people use this website to peddle their own unrelated agenda. Even if we disagree with some aspects of Dutch society, is this really the forum to do it in? Most people are not here to read someone pushing a fundamentalist Christian position. This site is about the threat of jihadism.

In principle men and women don't touch one another if they're not direct family', Hibatunnoer Verhagen says, chairman of the Ahmadiyya movement in the Netherlands. 'So it has nothing to do with inequality. On the contrary: it's a sign of respect.'

I see, now I understand why moslem men routinely rape Danish, Swedish and Norwegian women, it's out of respect! How could my agnostic brain not know that!

The Torah (not to mention the TeNACH) has many examples of the lesser (1/2 status) of women, let's take Leviticus 15, as regards the "filth" of women, but wait Levticus 12 When a woman gives birth and bears a male child she is unclean for seven days, as in the days of her menstruation..then she shall remain in the blood of her purification for 33 days, then follows if it is a female child she births she is unclean for 14 days and remains in the blood of her purification for 66 days.

Now my agnostic brain says, just don't read the words but examine the reason behind the words. Could it be that back when Levticus was written the modern miracle of an epidural was not known? I know from my sisters and my friends wives child birth can be long and painful, how much more painful was it back when Levticus was written? How many women really want sex right after child birth? How many women want a man on top of her when she has a child at her breast? Could it be that Levticus was written NOT to make women lesser than a man but rather to give them time to recuperate and is written in a way that those ignorant superstitious men of that time would understand?
Yet when I apply the same logic to the Qur'an, reason it seems has been tossed out the window.

Nariz, "All one has to do is peruse their scriptures". A casual perusual is not enough, one must do an in-depth exegesis of the scriptures to get the full meaning, not just a cursory examination. The difference is like smelling a delicious soup as opposed to having a big bowl of it.
First, the laws of the Old Testament (Tanach) were not given to perfect men but to show how imperfect man is compared to God.
The laws of the Old testament were fulfilled by Jesus Christ's death on the cross and are therefore no longer valid.
The section in Colosians are Peter's personal views that he expressed because at that time Corinth was famous for its prostitutes. Peter was tryin gto make statemnet that women of virtue should not display themselves as prostitutes; that is not to follow every fashion and fad that comes along. (BTW, I think you meant 1 Corinthians 11:10, not 1 Corinthians 1:1:10.) Corinthian prostitutes would "advertise" by having pearls, gold chains, jems, etc., woven into their hair. This would attract attention and the more wealth a woman displayed was a sign how good she was at her profession. For a woman to have her head uncovered at that time in that society was a sign that she was a prostitute and not a virtuous woman. For a look at how women should be treated, please look at the example of Jesus' treatment of women.

An intentionally denied handshake is just the prologue of all those other inhuman, disgusting things Islam does to women. It seems that’s what frightened people do in the midst of large Muslim populations. First they let a little handshake slide, then long standing traditions disappear, then a few rapes of naïve local girls go unpunished, then large mobs with flames in their eyes roam the night unconfronted, and then, finally, eventually, it’s outright murder of those who try to do anything about it. Rage against it, rage.

Oh, and Carolyn2, before I forget, I don't exactly know what you mean with your post. But this article was published three days ago, on the same day that this visit of our Queen actually took place. I hope it's clear to you now why this news is still relevant.

Posted by: Klefbeer
Sorry my post was not clear, Klefbeer. I meant that you would think by the year 2006 a little enlightenment might have occurred.

"as a rationalist and a secular humanist I roundly condemn all patriarchial ideologies that diminish the other, and exalt themselves or one peoples, (gender, whatever) over the other, that's why I pride myself on being an "Islamophobe"."

Hear, hear. No imposed inequal treatment is acceptable under the guise of 'culture'. Human rights are more important than multiculturalism, and it's about time the west stood up for this.

This nonsense about 'respect' and 'modesty' comes back to one nasty fact: the sexualisation of women - treating everything a woman does, says and is as somehow linked to her sex and sexual function, instead of her basic humanity.

HOWEVER, when jewish and christian cultures pursue unequal treatment these days, it's reasonably harmless and generally not imposed (at least here in NZ) . Therefore I expend no energy against them. When islam does it, it is imposed, violent and dangerous. This is where my energy has to go.

There is one detail one should not miss in this story:

If the Queen is happy not to shake hands with the muslim men this is a statement the muslims woudn't like if they realized the message:

On her own soil, the Queen does not shake hands with selected subjects. She does not greet them. She does not welcome them. She visits the mosque as she visits a zoo.

"I know, I know, the Christians and Jews have their apologia and explanations, but so do the Muslims.. "

What has the Christian and Jewish religion to do with this?
Nariz, the law in these secular states is not, I repeat, not based on the bible, and never will be.
On the other hand, the muslims try to make the Quran & co the basis for the law. That is politics, not religion.

Please do not mix this Islam up with religion.

@FreeSpeech at June 6, 2006 03:10 AM

That's a nice new perspective! I had not yet thought about it in that way. ;)

@pissedoffcanadian at June 5, 2006 07:23 PM

I wouldn't like to go much further into your total misinterpretation of Dutch society. I surely don't blame you for that misinterpretation, with all the lies being spread around by conservative right-wing propagandists in North America, about my nation and its laws. And although I myself do not agree with every controversial Dutch law, I simply think you really should read some more objective material on this matter.

But I am a bit disappointed about your first comment, "I could care less what happens in the Netherlands." I really think we're in this together, "we" being the inhabitants of the so-called democratic Free World. And I, for one, really do care that the people of Canada seem to have similar (or maybe even worse?) problems with the growing power of Islam in your society as we have in the Netherlands.

"Women not being the equal of men is a fundamental fact of the socalled "Abrahamic" religions, be they Judaic, Islamic or Christic."

Really? I can think of no more beautiful description of the wife and husband's love and respect than that described in Proverbs 31 (Judaism) and the righteous focus of a husband toward his wife as described by Paul in Ephesians (Christianity).Women and men are equal in Christ (Galations 3;18) See in the gospels how Jesus treated all women he encountered and compare with Mohammad and his "delightful" rants about women asmwntally spiritual and sociallt deficient esp when menstruating,)plus their being the majority in hell.)
Read about Jesus touching (a person seen as unclean)the woman with her bleeding and healing her, and understand why many follow this man/messiah/word of God/son of man /son of God etc. Women are given a a dignity and respect that is frankly unsurpassed .

Well said, Tommy!

Not only that, but all Jewish and Christian Bibles have the Song of Songs (called the Song of Solomon in some Christian Bibles and called שיר השירים / Shir Hashirim in the Jewish Tanakh).

Although this beautiful writing has a deeper spritual meaning, at its most basic level, it is a love poem expressing the absolute equality of romance and love between a man and woman. Islam has nothing that expresses the dignity of woman and the loving relation between men and women that can compare.

u r way OT but anyway:

The Netherlands has NO, I repeat NO, political party that endorses pedophilia whatsoever.

Several newspapers have written about certain men that would like to establish a party that would like to legalize (voluntary)sex between children and adults and possession of childpornoraphy.

The majority of this country still thinks pedophilia and childpornography are an abomination.