| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Jihad Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
Of course not. After all, it's a Religion of Peace!
So are they at least trying to determine which mosques are openly preaching jihad and Islamic supremacism and which aren't? Why, of course not! What are you, some kind of Islamophobe?
"The Lower House was debating with the government on the controversial Westermoskee mosque, for which Amsterdam municipality provided a loan of 2 million euros. Once the construction had started, the mosque withdrew its signature from a covenant pledging it would send out a liberal message."
"Ministers: Govt Subsidies for Mosques Not Unconstitutional," from NIS News (thanks to Fjordman):
THE HAGUE, 03/11/07 - The government is inquiring whether Milli Gorus is an extremist organisation but will continue to subsidise it. Milli Gorus is also to remain an official discussion partner for cabinet policy regarding Muslims.Separation of church and state means that interference by the State in internal religious issues is not accepted, but it does not mean there can be no common ground between political and religious organisations. Government financial support is possible for organisations and activities that are "affiliated to religious organisations" such as mosques, according to Justice Minister Ernst Hirsch Ballin.
The Lower House was debating with the government on the controversial Westermoskee mosque, for which Amsterdam municipality provided a loan of 2 million euros. Once the construction had started, the mosque withdrew its signature from a covenant pledging it would send out a liberal message. Furthermore, 1.2 million euros has disappeared through presumed fraud. The construction has been halted.
During the debate, conservative (VVD) MP Henk Kamp wondered why the government indirectly subsidises the construction of mosques but not that of churches or houses of worship of other religions. Integration Minister Ella Vogelaar thereupon replied that subsidies could help create a more positive image of certain groups that need this. "Naturally, these are difficult considerations" and "one must look carefully which organisations the government enters into agreements with".
Naturally!
Amsterdam entered into an agreement with envoys of the controversial Turkish organisation Milli Gorus. Vogelaar: "The Westermoskee case illustrates how difficult this choice can sometimes prove and that in hindsight, a different choice should possibly have been made". The actual intention was to promote the integration of Turks by building a mosque, since "mosques can help to reach certain groups".Vogelaar also confirmed there was "a subsidy relationship with Milli Gorus" and her ministry on a national level. She has no wish to end this relationship and would only "consider this if indications should emerge that give cause for suspicion of criminal acts or extremism". The same applies to the position of Milli Gorus in the Contact Body of Muslims and the Government (CMO), with which the government consults on integration policy.
According to Party For Freedom (PVV) MP Sietse Fritsma, such indications are numerous. He exhibited a file of quotes by international Milli Gorus leaders, "such as 'Jews are bacteria'," he stated. Vogelaar however remained adamant that there were no indications of extremism, although Fritsma further attempted that "you know how things go at the European headquarters of Milli Gorus in Germany".
Vogelaar also refused to confirm that Westermoskee leaders were "untrustworthy", as Kamp said they were. He too had "indications that Milli Gorus expressly obstructs the integration of Turks in the Netherlands". With the exception of Christian mini-pary SGP, which also expressed serious concern, the other parties hardly contributed to the debate.
Reluctantly, Vogelaar promised the VVD and PVV an inquiry into Milli Gorus. She did remark that precisely due to the separation of church and state, it is "not for us to judge" the degree of radicalisation of religious organisations.
Of course not!
Posted by Robert at November 5, 2007 7:00 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
"During the debate, conservative (VVD) MP Henk Kamp wondered why the government indirectly subsidises the construction of mosques but not that of churches or houses of worship of other religions."
...hint: Other religions do not threaten to kill everyone in sight .....
....ultimately, appeasement will prove to be a failure...
....the correct course of action is to ban Muslim Immigration...
Posted by: exsgtbrown![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/nav-commenters.gif)
at November 5, 2007 7:20 AM
Of all certified morons in the Dutch government, former communist Ella Vogelaar is the worst. During a session of parliament a few months ago, Geert Wilders explicitely and repeatedly called her 'totally nuts'.
Posted by: Kim Hartveld at November 5, 2007 10:07 AM
Perhaps Robert or anyone with the knowledge can explain something I once heard on an early al Qaeda tape soon after 9/11. The Muslim speaker ( it may have even been bin Laden ) was revelling in describing a certain kind of Muslim magic or Islamic myth that helped the 9/11 hijackers conduct their operation undetected in infidel lands.
Apparently Muslims are told that Allah will make them invisible to their enemies so that their plots and treacheries will remain concealed and undetected to the 'infidels' until it's too late. As I recall, on the tape the speaker was nearly ecstatic in describing the stunning success of the Muslim mass murderers on 9/11, but the speaker was even more thrilled by the fact that these pious Muslims were 'protected by Allah' and made invisible to the 'infidels' during the plotting and planning stage of their atrocity...
In the mind of this Muslim speaker, this interpretation was proof positive of Allah's pleasure, intercession, and guidance during the entire 9/11 enterprise. It magnified for me the nearly infinite psychological and social chasms which exist between our own Western mindset, and that of the primitive pious Muslim. It also seems to explain some of the trenchant arrogance we consistently see among Muslims in the West.
Muslims actually seem to believe that the fact that we haven't really resisted their widespread and treasonous insurgencies in the West nor have we done anything to impede the spread of Islam after repeated and ongoig Islamic betrayals of our trust has nothing to do with our cultural decency, and everything to do with Allah's protection and sanction as Muslims subvert and ultimately destroy our 'infidel' society.
In the end it appears that Muslims have a peculiar psychological lens through which to view the actions of we 'infidels' which will ALWAYS redound to our disadvantage, and to Islam's gain. All actions on our part to achieve peace and comity with Muslims in the West can be viewed by them as proof that Allah is making them and their triumphalist plans of conquest invisible to our eyes. If this bizarre mindset exists, then we are doomed as long as Islam exists in the West. Any actions we take to reach out to Muslims will be viewed by them as weakness on our part, and proof that Allah supports their intentions to destroy us. Any resistance we offer, either to Islam itself or to their endless treacheries and betrayals are viewed as attacks on Islam, and there too Allah only provides that war must be waged until the enemy is subdued or annihilated.
Therefore outreach and gestures of friendship towards Muslims by us fuel their war impulse against us as much as resisting and suppressing them does. In essence -- with Islam and Muslims, infidels will never win or prosper.
at November 5, 2007 10:27 AM
Maybe Hollanders don't like living in the 21st century, and would be happier in the 7th? Easy! Just empower Islam, and you're there, 1400 years back, made in the shade.
"Camel power to the people!"
at November 5, 2007 10:32 AM
So Islam is the newly established religion of the Netherlands?
No wonder the pilgrims left Holland.
I suppose we could say that it can't happen here, but there is that sweetheart deal for the land under the Boston mosque.
Posted by: tanstaafl at November 5, 2007 10:39 AM
Is there a more dhimmified country than the Netherlands?
Seems like all the news coming from there regarding Islamania is always bad or worse.
at November 5, 2007 11:00 AM
My Greatgrandfather Veefkind was a man of great foresight having left Arnhem long before WW1 having decided Europeans were too immoral to raise his family among, and we are grateful!
Posted by: CLL1709 at November 5, 2007 11:01 AM
Time to move to Holland and get them to pay me to start a Reformed Mosque: Everyone welcome!
Taking all violence in the Koran to be a symbolic war within the soul, alone. With its ultimate meaning being a call for love to conquer hate, and having no meaning or reference at all to the external world.
And the Hadiths discarded as irrelevant and flawed human musings, with no Godly basis or weight.
And all of the Biblical sayings of Jesus restored to Islam, since he was a prophet after all.
2 million euros will do.
Posted by: profitsbeard at November 5, 2007 11:28 AM
Battle of Tours,
You're a sly one, slipping that in like that--and here I thought "camel" jokes were verbotten. If we don't reform our ways (apologies to Bosch Fawstin), pretty soon we'll be making anti-Muslim "nose" jokes, then anti-Muslim "watermelon" jokes--Sir, have you no shame?
LOL
Posted by: John C at November 5, 2007 11:39 AM
John C said
You're a sly one, slipping that in like that
Yes, use of the word "camel" is worth pointing out, since using the word "camel" is actually quite racist and Islamophobic. Other verboten words include "sand", "desert", "tribe", "nomadic", "sheep", "oasis", and "raisin". And no matter how sly you are, don't even think about trying to slip in "zumbooruk". Please see George Carlin for the complete set of 12 Islamophobic words that you can't say on JW.
Posted by: special_guest at November 5, 2007 12:34 PM
jsla said
It magnified for me the nearly infinite psychological and social chasms which exist between our own Western mindset, and that of the primitive pious Muslim.
With the exception of the word "primitive" I agree with you. They are very, very different than us. I safely assume that we were both shocked to find that, contrary to what we were told, all people are not alike, all people do not share the same values. As word of this inconvenient truth gets out, much of the PC house of cards is going to come down.
Any actions we take to reach out to Muslims will be viewed by them as weakness on our part [...] [any] resistance we offer ... are viewed as attacks on Islam
Nicely put, and very true. But:
In essence -- with Islam and Muslims, infidels will never win or prosper.
Not at all. Once we understand the differences that exist in our cultures, and the effect that those differences have on the relationship between our cultures, we infidels can easily take the steps that will allow us to win and prosper. It's not a problem of implementation, it is a problem of awareness.
Posted by: special_guest at November 5, 2007 12:46 PM
"I'd walk a mile for a _______!"
Posted by: MP at November 5, 2007 12:55 PM
Warning! The camels are starting to get a little upset!
Posted by: tanstaafl at November 5, 2007 1:19 PM
special_guest -- I agree that we can win, but before that can happen we obviously need to make a huge adjustment in our own mindset with regard to Islam.
Whereas the pluralistic West is based on a notion of "win-win" where disparate groups come together and mutually benefit by the toleration of "the other" in the well established political mechanisms of democracy, Muslims do not have the cultural mindset which permits our pluralistic systems, and they find it tolerable and against Islam. Why else do they flock here, to a region they consider hideous in its un-Islamicness, hideous in its values or lack of values, hideous in all its ways -- why else to they flock here but to benefit from our wealth and opportunities while shunning all things "un-Islamic"?
Whereas we will strive in the West to accommodate a wide range of views and beliefs, including a very wide and impressive spectrum of religions and political views -- the Islamic mono-culture cannot comprehend such a notion. It's anathema to the Muslims to honor "the other" or to believe "the other" has value or merit independent of Islam. That's not to say that Islam truly is a mono-culture in practice -- there are clearly myriad different interpretations and nuances in the practice of Islam -- but ultimately the singular Islamic impulse no matter what strain of Islam is embraced is one of purification under the guiding principal that Allah's unchanging laws in the Koran (and based on the life of Islam's heinous prophet) are the perfect manifestation of everything man need to know or think or believe or be governed by.
There is no "We the People" in Islam. There is "we the ummah" -- that is: we the slaves of Allah's will. I believe we cannot find accommodation with this group -- nearly unique among all groups. Hindus come and don't mass murder us for consuming their Godhead at McDonalds. They too herald from poor nations where want and ignorance prevails -- yet they become doctors, friends, helpful citizens, even when they retain many of their cultural legacies in the West. Buddhists, Taoists, Sikhs too.
It's the Muslims who have no place in their minds for us and our ways. Therefore perhaps we should have no place for them and theirs? But this falls so far outside our model on "how things work" in the West that a major adjustment is needed towards the doctrine of Islam. Is it happening? Can it happen before we too have 700 "no-go zones" like France? Can it happen before we too have little left but polarized metropolises where Muslims take and command real estate and oust all other before them like some conquering army? Can it happen before we're like Paris last summer, or Beirut this summer? Can it happen before it's too late? I hope so.
Posted by: jsla at November 5, 2007 1:29 PM
Tours,
Only now does it dawn on me that "camel power" has a double meaning. As swift an animal as it is, maybe then the Dutch Greens party will champion the camel for alternative transportation and for fuel (methane from dung and flatulence)--to reduce that county's CO2 footprint.
Posted by: John C at November 5, 2007 2:50 PM
The Dutch smoketh too much herb, methinks.
Posted by: RoobartSbunsar at November 5, 2007 3:05 PM
Appeasement,appeasement,appeasement...It never works. Time for the Dutch to 'stick a finger in
the Dyke and stem that Islamic tide'...
at November 5, 2007 3:31 PM
Morgane said
Time for the Dutch to 'stick a finger in the Dyke
Not a disagreement, just an observation: Water does not have the ability to procreate and exponentially increase in volume, even after the dyke has been plugged.
Posted by: special_guest at November 5, 2007 3:46 PM
Only now does it dawn on me that "camel power" has a double meaning. As swift an animal as it is, maybe then the Dutch Greens party will champion the camel for alternative transportation and for fuel (methane from dung and flatulence)--to reduce that county's CO2 footprint.
Posted by: John C
Don’t forget the other benefit, John, that dried camel dung is a good source for cooking fuel, but be sure to make fire outside the tent. It’s not easy being Green!
at November 5, 2007 4:14 PM
"It is easier for a reindeer to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." Matthew 19:24 Is that how it goes?
Posted by: mustang65 at November 6, 2007 3:30 PM
Comments are turned off and archived for this entry.
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)