The '9-11' hijack
Well what to say about ‘9-11’? ‘9-11’ has changed the world in a tremendous way, although some of the changes might have started earlier already. Without ‘9-11’ in the Netherlands Pim Fortuyn’s message wouldn’t have been so powerful. In 1996 Pim Fortuyn released his book ‘Against the islamization of our culture’ in which he elaborated on the issues Bolkestein had addressed earlier. Bolkestein, political leader of the Dutch liberal party (VVD) stated in a lecture and an interview that Islam was incompatible with Western liberal values. He was the first politician to use the minority issue as a political strategy. The only party to have claimed that before him was the Centrumpartij, but they were a marginalized group. Bolkestein called for migrants to adjust to Dutch law and that the multicultural society had its limits because not all cultures were equal. His lecture, held in Luzern, provided an extensive analysis of NATO’s new strategy, where former NATO secretary-general Claes had stated earlier that according to him Islam was as dangerous as communism. Bolkestein was severely criticized for his statements, however this criticism related more to the way he said things than to the content of his message.
According to Muslims, including liberal Muslims, were against the separation of church and state, against equality of men and women, and the main threat for world peace from which he concluded that Islam was a backward culture. Two weeks before ‘9-11’ and the day after ‘9-11’ he pleaded for a ‘Cold War’ against Islam. Although Fortuyn’s discourse was not exclusively ‘Islam-topic’ – he had strong anti-establishment rhetoric as well – his message concerning Islam became the most visible. His popularity caused other politicians to firm up their language on and towards migrants. When he was killed on 6 May 2002 the whole country fell into shock and many people (Muslim and non-Muslim) openly expressed the hope that the perpetrator would not be a Muslim.
In May 2001 an imam from Rotterdam, Khalil El Moumni, spoke out on a Dutch TV-programme against homosexuality (in the context of acts of violence against homosexuals by young Moroccan boys) calling it a contagious disease. The debate that ensued concentrated on whether Dutch tolerance had gone too far in allowing such kinds of intolerant opinions to be publicly expressed. Opinions like El Moumni were considered to be the ultimate proof that the multicultural society was a “drama†and that the main culprit was Islam. That was the first time a traditional Moroccan imam spoke on TV and the question for many people was ‘how many Muslims share the same (clashing) values?’ and ‘what messages were these imams spreading in the mosques?’ Even though El Moumni’s views on homosexuality coincided with those of the Catholic Church nevertheless this nuance was lost in the ensuing debate. This was partly caused by the fact that the same TV programme did not air his full opinion against violence towards homosexuals. His selectively aired words added fuel to the fire of anger surrounding the relation between three fundamental rights: freedom of religion, freedom of expression, and the non-discrimination principle. He also became an example of the problematic relationship between Muslims and non-Muslims. Moreover, the fact that he had made these remarks only a few weeks after the passing of new legislation allowing homosexual marriages made it probably more painful. El Moumni had pointed at an issue that had involved a bitter struggle for several years and that seemed to have been finally resolved.
The attacks on 11 September 2001 were very rapidly considered as attacks on the West, on ‘us’, and on our Western values of democracy and freedom. The Dutch government first asked for thoughtfulness but then also stated that 9-11 was tantamount to a declaration of war. Sylvain Ephimenco (a Dutch writer) pointed to Islam as the fertile ground which produces terrorists; Leon de Winter (a Dutch writer) claimed that the West was in a state of war with Islam; and Frentrop (a Dutch journalist) pleaded for a ban on Islam. The Dutch filmmaker and columnist Van Gogh would declare later that 9-11 was an eye opener for him. One of the main questions raised in many of these reactions was how ‘ordinary’ Muslims related to these extremist Muslims. Several reactions (some intended, some unintended, some distorted) added fuel to the fire: Is Islam compatible with a democracy based on the separation of church and state as well as equal rights for men and women? Though several Muslim opinion leaders tried to contribute to the debate but the scope of their contributions remained limited because they were much divided and none could be considered as truly representative of the Muslim community. Moreover, their hesitation to combine a condemnation of the attacks in support of democracy, together with solidarity with the US, worsened the situation according to many people.
After Fortuyn’s death, Hirsi Ali together with several others became the leading Islam-critic voicing the concern that Islam, as a system, was incompatible with liberal Western culture. The criticism was partly caused by the fear that religion would become a leading factor in the public domain. She stated in the daily Trouw that prophet Mohammed would be considered a perverse man, a tyrant, according to our western standards of these days (she made that in reference to his (alleged) sexual intercourse with Aisha when she was nine). She also stressed her personal belief that Islam can be ‘ill’ used against women and she harshly criticized Islam. Sometimes she qualified her condemnation but the subtleties were lost or seen as irrelevant. Upon declaring her apostasy she started to receive death threats. The same was the case for Theo van Gogh.
Columnist and filmmaker Van Gogh called (radical) Muslims ‘goatfuckers’ and ‘fifth column’ and regularly insulted other groups as well in his daily column in the free daily Metro. Together with Hirsi Ali he made the film Submission I in which they addressed the issue of abuse of women in the name of Islam. He was killed on 2 November 2004 by a Moroccan Dutch young man. This was, according to many people, the definite proof of the intolerance of Islam. The polarization between Muslims (as Muslims) and non-Muslims (as Dutch) increased in the aftermath of his murder, and which resulted, among other things, in the arson of a mosque, an Islamic school, churches and many similar attempts. In the public debate that followed two questions emerged: First, how large was this group of radical Muslims and how could it be controlled? Second, was there a limit to freedom of speech? Muslim organizations were called upon to speak out against this murder and to condemn violence. The fact that many young people on the Internet were more unambiguous in their condemnation became a cause for concern and a sign for many observers that Muslims should increase their capacity to endure criticism. For some politicians the time for dialogue with Muslims was over. The tension rose even more when the so-called Hofstadgroup was apprehended after a siege in The Hague. They were arrested and charged with conspiracy to murder several Dutch politicians such as Hirsi Ali, Cohen, and Aboutaleb, the mayor and an alderman from Amsterdam. Several other incidents such as the one with ‘youth-imam’ Abdul Jabber van de Ven (who publicly acknowledged that he would not mind that Wilders – a radical right wing politician – would die of cancer), the Tilburg imam Salam (who refused to shake hands with minister Verdonk), and the fact that two politicians (Hirsi Ali and Wilders) had to go into hiding, made the situation worse and strengthened the idea that Muslims were the fifth column.
Although the assassination of Van Gogh seems to have taken over the position as the most important landmark of relationships between Muslims and non-Muslims, ‘9-11’ remains important.
It has created a framework for people to understand world (war against terror) and local politics (how to integrate and de-radicalize Muslims). It has caused several juridical and economical issues and so on. It has changed the landscape of politics, law, economics and social affairs. It has created an obsession with the world wide threat of (radical) Islam.
It has caused the Left to be confused about their role in society and the Right the framework to address problems with migrant youth in their own way without being demonized as happened before. Many ‘ordinary’ people were shocked of course by the atrocities of ‘9-11’ and questioned the loyalty of Muslims; declarations of Islam scholars that condemned ‘9-11’ were not heard any more. The world seems to be divided in black and white.