I have the good fortune to know a Dutch expat at work (in NYC). I have spoken with him at length about the problems in his country. He made it clear that the great majority of indigenous Dutch people are very unhappy with the behavior of the Muslim minority. However, he was not at all aware of the realities of Islam, and from our discussions I gather most Dutch people believe Islam is just like Christianity 1000 years ago, a sad delusion. I have made it my mission to lead him to the truth. We can only enlighten one person at a time.

Posted by: Quijybo at April 20, 2006 8:12 AM

Here we go again, more talk of dialogue.More of this blind faith and hope aganiest all hope, that everything is fine and dandy as far as Islam goes. It is dishearting that so late in the game that this is still what substantial parts of the population in the West believe.
This type of mentality is quickly moving from the merely stupid to being a pernicious evil and criminally negligent.
What more can be said, they will come regret their stupidity.

Posted by: abdulalshirk at April 20, 2006 8:18 AM

Just in time for "4/20" in Amsterdam...

Posted by: Shinoliite at April 20, 2006 9:06 AM

"Instead of exporting democracy to Muslim countries, democratic attempts harmonious with their own traditions and cultures must be supported."
-- from the article above

Islam flatly contradicts every single principle of individual rights enshrinted in the American Constitution and in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. That is why Muslims came up with their own, very different, version of that Universal Declaration -- the "Cairo Declaration of Human Rights." Put the documents side by side. The "universal" one, and then the "Islamic" one. You can track precisely the changes made from one to the other. And then you can study, in the texts of Islam, the reasons for those changes. Every single course given on Islam, or on comparative law, should have this as one of its required exercises for students.

The most complete study of how Islam is incompatible with human rights, as these are understood today in the Western world (and which took two millennia, and more, to achieve), can be found in a book by an Iranian professor in exile, Reza Afshari. His tone is mild. His evidence is massive. His conclusions irrefutable.

As for the statement in the article which is included above, notice that there appear to be only two alternatives: either we, the Western world, continue "exporting democracy to Muslim countries" OR we try to encourage "democratic attempts" (what is a "democratic attempt," exactly?) "harmonious" with "their own traditions and cultures"? And of course we will be treated, despite all the evidence marshalled by Professor Afshari, and despite the clear evidence of the systematic re-writing and gutting, by Muslim legal experts, of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and what that tells us about the Muslim view of such things, we will continue to be assured, always in the abstract of course, never in any deigning to dwell on detail, that Islam is "compatible" with "democracy." See Amartya Sen, now doing his Nobel-Prize-winner-who-becomes-an-expert-on-everything imitation (it didn't work for Linus Pauling or George Wald, and it won't work for Amartya Sen); see Bernard Lewis in one of his overenthusiastic moments, back in the fall of 2003.

Let's agree: Islam can be "compatible" with head-counting, but only, in the end, temporarily, and only by those Muslims who have the most heads to count. That is why the Shi'a in Iraq supported that purple-thumbed Experiment in International Misunderstanding, but not the Sunnis. Not out of principle. The Shi'a Arabs constitute 60-65% of the population; naturally they were all for this kind of "democracy." The Sunni Arabs constitute 19%; they, therefore, were against this kind of "democracy."

And let us further agree that "imposing democracy on Muslim countries" is impossible. But there is another way, a way that the Dutch authors of this report failed even to consider.

And that way is this: leave the Musliim countries to their own devices. Buy what oil you must, but limit all other contacts. No Jizyah of foreign aid -- let the rich Muslims help the poor Muslims, and leave the Infidels (who are getting poorer by the minute, what with the rise in oil prices, and the huge costs associated with monitoring, and then sometimes prosecuting, or jailing members of, the Muslim populations within their own, Infidel lands).

Let them, in other words, with the Infidels removed, be forced -- as Ataturk was forced by circumstances -- to consider carefully the belief-system of Islam, the inshallah-fatalism of Islam, the habit of mental submission of Islam, the limits on artistic expression and scientific inquiry of Islam, the morally unacceptable treatment of women and non-Muslims in Islam -- let them, over many decades, start to wonder about whether or not, just maybe, it is Islam itself that explains their political, economic, social, intellectual, and moral failures.

And in the Infidel lands of the advanced West? Study your own histories. Return to those thrilling days of Spinoza and then Hume, or go back in time, or forwards. Be a bit more grateful, and a bit less interested in the doings of starlets and rock stars -- less interested, even properly contemputous.

That will be good, all way round.

Posted by: Hugh at April 20, 2006 9:24 AM

Hirsi Ali had one or two things to say about this report...

Jan.

Posted by: Jan Vink at April 20, 2006 1:05 PM

Shinolite,

What do you mean...Hitler's birthday?

Posted by: Quijybo at April 20, 2006 1:16 PM

Hugh your idea sounds grand, but realisticly we could never bar people from moving in our countries because of our open policy and democracies. humans are not that logical, unfortunately l believe it be military answer to the problem of muslim terrorist.

Posted by: Lulu at April 20, 2006 1:25 PM

Lulu said

realisticly we could never bar people from moving in our countries because of our open policy and democracies.

But we bar people from entering the country every day, for many different reasons. We have quotas for immigrants. In the past we've had very draconian immigration quotas. During the Cold War, we didn't allow Soviet citizens to come in by droves, and we certainly didn't allow them to come in and teach Government classes in our universities or run parts of our government.

l believe it be military answer to the problem of muslim terrorist

I wouldn't discard the thought of controlling our borders and jump immediately to killing people. There are so many simple things we could/should be doing to protect ourselves that don't involve killing anyone. And then if we find groups of terrorists somewhere, great, kill them, but then don't spend all our time and money in improving the lives of the terrorists' supporters.

Posted by: special_guest at April 20, 2006 2:00 PM

This nonsense comes from a government agency. I can see some scope for reducing state expenditure and clarifying the mental atmosphere at the same time. In other words, sack the bastards without compensation and let us see whether anyone else would be stupid enough to hire them.

Posted by: Paolo at April 20, 2006 2:14 PM

I read the article, but would like to read the actual report. It seems to be full of more requirements for dhimmis:

• avoid using the term "clash of civilization"
• when encouraging democracy, do it with respect to the local culture
• avoid claiming that Islam is incompatible with democracy and human rights
• open up a dialogue of direct communication with Islam
• decrease tension with Islamic nations

But it doesn't seem to require anything of the Islamic nations. How about:

• avoid blowing up falafel stands
• avoid blowing up pizzerias
• avoid blowing up buses
• avoid steering planes into buildings
• avoid beheading unarmed civilians

I know, I know, how can we make such irresponsible and draconian requests of Islam?

Posted by: special_guest at April 20, 2006 2:20 PM

Quijybo

"I have made it my mission to lead him to the truth."

Lucky you. My Dutch friend doesn't even want to discuss the subject of Islam. Gets very defensive every time I bring it up. But then, it may be my own fault not to have taken into account that he's making a very good living as civil servant....

Posted by: ovidius_naso at April 20, 2006 6:11 PM

Quijybo - I had something quite different in mind, but I guess that would work, too.

In years on various college campuses, one absorbs certain bits of trivia:

http://www.snopes.com/language/stories/420.htm

So, I was referring to the coincidence of the date with this ridiculous item from Amsterdam, where, of course, that certain substance is also famously legal.

Posted by: Shinoliite at April 20, 2006 6:54 PM

Islam is "in perfect dynamism" with democracy and human rights.

Sounds awfully complicated!

Posted by: Pass It On at April 24, 2006 8:01 PM