More Dutch dhimmitude: Was it right to publish the letter?

This Expatica piece (thanks to Filtrat) is headed: "The Dutch government said it wanted to prevent the stigmatisation of the country's 1 million Muslims following the murder of filmmaker Theo van Gogh. Why then, Cormac Mac Ruairi asks, did it rush to publish the letter left on the victim's body which links the act to the defence of Islam?"

If the man killed van Gogh in order to defend Islam, the Dutch — and the world — need to know that. Does that fact stigmatize the country's Muslims? Well, they didn't kill van Gogh, but it seems to me to be a fair question to ask whether or not they would have, and whether or not they approve. To ask that question isn't "stigmatization" -- it may be the most important question the Dutch, and Europeans in general, need to ask today. To silence all discussion of the attachment to Sharia among European Muslims, and of their commitment to freedom of speech and pluralism, as "stigmatization" is simply to allow more people like the killer of van Gogh to continue killing. Ultimately, the corpse will be Dutch and European civilization.

The government eventually decided to publish the letter, which was plunged by the murderer with a knife into Van Gogh's chest. The public prosecutor's office (OM) was opposed to its publication, but the government went ahead anyway.

In the rambling five-page document, the author — whoever that might be— offers an open letter to "Hirshi Ali", warning that she can expect death for criticising Islam....

The government has described it as "exceptionally disturbing" and said it "unmistakeably" echoes the philosophy of violent Jihad.

The letter begins by addressing Hirsi Ali in the name of "Allah the merciful" and wishes "peace and blessings on the Emir of the Mujahideen, the laughing killer Mohammed Rasoeloe Allah (Salla Allaho alaihie wa Sallam), his family…"

Cormac doesn't tell you and probably doesn't know, but "Mohammed Roseloe Allah" is none other than the Prophet Muhammad himself: Muhammad the Messenger of Allah. Interesting to see him identified by a Muslim as "the laughing killer."

It rambles on, addressing the "non-believer fundamentalist" Hirsi Ali and explaining:

Since you took your place in the political arena in the Netherlands you have been busy constantly terrorising Muslims and Islam by your statements. You are not the first and you shall also not be the last who join the crusade against Islam.

The letter accused the Somali-born MP of not only turning her back on the truth, but also aligning herself with the forces of evil.

This letter is — insha Allah [Allah willing] — an attempt to impose silence on your evil once and for all.

The letter goes on to accuse Hirsi Ali of serving her "Jewish masters" and being part of a government that supports a State whose ideology advocates genocide.

The punch line appears to be: "Desire death if you are really convinced of your beliefs".

The letter ends with chilling convictions of its own, by paraphrasing Prophet Mohammed's warning to a foe:

I know for sure that you, O America, are going to meet with disaster.
I know for sure that you, O Europe, are going to meet with disaster.
I know for sure that you, O Netherlands, are going to meet with disaster.
I know for sure that you, O Hirshi Ali, are going to meet with disaster.
I know for sure that you, O non believer fundamentalist, are going to meet with disaster.

Justice Minister Piet Hein Donner and Johan Remkes of the Interior Ministry said the government had decided to publish the letter because of the "societal implications of the murder and the contents of the document".

But what are we supposed to make of this letter?

The rambling letter is abusing Islam to justify the unjustifiable, but does the author speak himself alone or for a larger group of people — an organisation perhaps?

"Abusing Islam"? I challenge Cormac Mac Ruairi or anyone else to bring forth any evidence that the penalty for blasphemy in Islam is not death, which is the only Islamic principle involved in this letter. It can be from anything: Qur'an, Hadith, Sira, you name it. Sunnis, Shi'ites, Sufis, Malikis, Hanbalis, Hanafis, Shafi'is, Alawis, Wahhabis, Salafis, Deobandis, step right up. Dyab Abou Jahjah? Tariq Ramadan? Ibrahim Hooper? Anyone? Anyone?

Are we to assume the author is speaking on behalf of all Muslims who were stung by Hirsi Ali's criticism of their faith and by Van Gogh who likened Muslims to "goat fuckers".

No. Why must we assume that the author is speaking on behalf of all Muslims? Some people who identify themselves as Muslims don't care what the penalty for blasphemy is, and understand that in a free society one must put up with some things that one may find offensive. But that, Cormac, is a separate question from that of whether this man was really killing van Gogh to defend Islam, and was really acting in accord with Islamic principles.

Although the investigation into the brutal murder is far from over, the government is tending towards the notion that the author of the letter was speaking for a group.

"On the basis of the letter, the Cabinet is giving consideration to the idea the suspect is part of a movement which is targeting in a violent way not just people and groups, but also the principles and values of our society," the government said....

But neither the letter nor the government's response helps the public understand who the enemy is: an individual, a terrorist group or a broad current within Muslim communities.

The cabinet will hold talks with minority groups to help stem the spread of radicalism and head off the stigmatisation of Muslims and the danger of them being viewed as hostile.

But what if at least some of them are hostile? And if this killer emerged from a "broad current within Muslim communities" because his action was not an abuse, but an exercise, of Islamic teaching? What then? If the Dutch don't allow such questions to be asked even now, they are simply doomed.

Posted by Robert at November 5, 2004 5:43 PM
Print this entry | Email this entry | Digg this | del.icio.us