C L O S E R Some personal considerations - 5/6

Sometimes people come up with things that are too bizarre. Crazy, but serious, ideas from politicians or whoever, that we should bury deep in the woods, or in the Nick Cave’s words:

Love is for fools and all fools are lovers
It’s raining on my house and none of the others
Love is for fools and God knows I’m still one
The sidewalks are filled with love’s lonely children
The sidewalk regrets that we had to kill them.

I came up with idea after reading the news on the ‘Allochtonen-playforest’; a project designed to increase the number of migrants visiting woods….the can play, cheer whatever? Great isn’t it? No it isn’t? Who comes up with ideas like that? It is insulting for migrants and if you want the xenohopia among native Dutch people, this ridiculous idea is exactly what is needed (and because of the insulting character of this idea I don’t think migrants will think well that is nice of our native dutch fellow citizens…). So please let’s bring this idea deep in the woods and bury it there.

2 comments.

Protected: C L O S E R – Marokkaanse lieverdjes

Posted on June 11th, 2005 by martijn.
Categories: Multiculti Issues, Some personal considerations.

Enter your password to view comments.

spiked-politics | Article | Guantanamo: truth goes down the toilet

Posted on June 10th, 2005 by martijn.
Categories: International Terrorism, Some personal considerations.

Spiked has an article on the recent ‘Guantanamo-events’ by Brendan O’Neill: Guantanamo: truth goes down the toilet
It puts things in perspective, which seems necessary:

Camp X-Ray is a disgrace – but so are unsubstantiated reports of Koran-abuse and other horror stories.

(more…)

0 comments.

spiked-politics | Article | Guantanamo: truth goes down the toilet

Posted on June 10th, 2005 by .
Categories: International Terrorism, Some personal considerations.

Spiked has an article on the recent ‘Guantanamo-events’ by Brendan O’Neill: Guantanamo: truth goes down the toilet
It puts things in perspective, which seems necessary:

Camp X-Ray is a disgrace – but so are unsubstantiated reports of Koran-abuse and other horror stories.

(more…)

0 comments.

Van waterdruppel tot mens: Moslims, evolutie & intelligent design

Posted on June 5th, 2005 by martijn.
Categories: Internal Debates, Islam in the Netherlands, Multiculti Issues, Religious and Political Radicalization, Some personal considerations, Young Muslims.

Nou ja ik ben iets te jong om de Big Bang meegemaakt te hebben en volgens mijn moeder ook nog eens een wandelend Intelligent Design (…maar hoever ben je nu eigenlijk met je proefschrift?), maar heb toch wel wat te zeggen over het door minister Van der Hoeven aangezwengelde debat.

Van der Hoeven’s pleidooi voor een debat over ID hoeft helemaal niet weggegooid te worden, maar als ze denkt hiermee multiculti spanningen op te lossen, slaat ze de plank mis. Vragen als ‘wat zegt de islam over de evolutietheorie’ of ‘wat zegt de koran over de schepping’ zijn wel interessant voor moslims, maar zijn totaal onbelangrijk als we houding en gedrag van moslims in Nederland willen verklaren. Wanneer we daar iets meer van willen weten, moeten we niet met de Koran beginnen, maar moeten we onderzoeken hoe moslims zelf, binnen de gegeven politieke, juridische, economische en sociale omstandigheden, betekenis geven aan hun leven in Nederland. Dat is ook waar mijn proefschrift en dat van anderen zoals Welmoet Boender van het ISIM en Susan Ketner van de Rijksuniversiteit Groningen over gaat. Misschien moeten we toch maar eens opschieten met dat proefschrift.

(more…)

1 comment.

Van waterdruppel tot mens: Moslims, evolutie & intelligent design

Posted on June 5th, 2005 by .
Categories: Internal Debates, Islam in the Netherlands, Multiculti Issues, Religious and Political Radicalization, Some personal considerations, Young Muslims.

Nou ja ik ben iets te jong om de Big Bang meegemaakt te hebben en volgens mijn moeder ook nog eens een wandelend Intelligent Design (…maar hoever ben je nu eigenlijk met je proefschrift?), maar heb toch wel wat te zeggen over het door minister Van der Hoeven aangezwengelde debat.

Van der Hoeven’s pleidooi voor een debat over ID hoeft helemaal niet weggegooid te worden, maar als ze denkt hiermee multiculti spanningen op te lossen, slaat ze de plank mis. Vragen als ‘wat zegt de islam over de evolutietheorie’ of ‘wat zegt de koran over de schepping’ zijn wel interessant voor moslims, maar zijn totaal onbelangrijk als we houding en gedrag van moslims in Nederland willen verklaren. Wanneer we daar iets meer van willen weten, moeten we niet met de Koran beginnen, maar moeten we onderzoeken hoe moslims zelf, binnen de gegeven politieke, juridische, economische en sociale omstandigheden, betekenis geven aan hun leven in Nederland. Dat is ook waar mijn proefschrift en dat van anderen zoals Welmoet Boender van het ISIM en Susan Ketner van de Rijksuniversiteit Groningen over gaat. Misschien moeten we toch maar eens opschieten met dat proefschrift.

(more…)

1 comment.

Protected: NRC Handelsblad – Sport: Verlies AZ en PSV niet meer dan toeval

Posted on May 7th, 2005 by martijn.
Categories: Misc. News, Some personal considerations.

Enter your password to view comments.

Protected: 21minuten.nl: positief over de toekomst

Posted on April 23rd, 2005 by martijn.
Categories: Important Publications, Religious and Political Radicalization, Some personal considerations, Young Muslims.

Enter your password to view comments.

"Women's Rights" in Islam

Posted on April 17th, 2005 by martijn.
Categories: Gender, Kinship & Marriage Issues, Internal Debates, Some personal considerations, Young Muslims.

Yesterday, see below, i had an entry called “Welles Nietes: de vrouw in de Koran” (It is, it isn’t, women in the Quran) about a Dutch discussion on the place of women in Islam. One female Muslim participant said Islam oppresses women, the other said Islam does not. This in itself is not very interesting and surprising. The same goes for Idiocy of Gender Equality: The Case of the Woman Imam by Yamin Zakaria. What is interesting in all these contributions is how people use ‘Islam’ and ‘the West’ to legitimize their opinions. Zakaria states:

It is only rational and consistent to protect the rights of everyone including women by invoking the Islamic laws instead of resorting to secular arguments that are rooted in feminism. If secular values are the criteria then it makes little sense to interpret Islam to fit into the secular garb but far greater sense to simply abandon it. Why go for secular compatible Islam instead of pure secularism? It simply makes no sense. Unfortunately there are even feminists in Hijab along with their male apologists in leash, many of whom are also disguised as Islamic scholars with their beards and robes, are using Islamic texts to promote non-Islamic ideas like womanï¿½s rights, gender equality as Islamic, wittingly or unwittingly. If a man or a woman has been denied their rights, we invoke the Islamic laws as remedy instead of viewing the problem as though it is rooted in gender differences.

Had Islam and Muslim men been the real oppressors of women, the feminist movement would have arisen from within the Islamic societies. Indeed, the origin of such movements perhaps reflects where the real oppression of women existed and still exists! No one can explain why Islam supposedly anti-Woman continues to attract more women than men. Both, logic and Islamic texts dictates that womanï¿½s rights have no place in Islam, those who speak in its name has the worst track record in violating the rights of womankind. It is a political tool like the UN resolutions, employed selectively against opponents. Otherwise we would have seen it deployed in a consistent manner.

In response to the issue of womenï¿½s equality being pressed into the face of Islam, we as Muslimï¿½s have to set our own agenda and not be baited by mischief makers who have a malignant intent towards Islam and Muslims. With this self inspection we must face truths about the broad experience of Muslimï¿½s across the world and the variable application of the Islamic laws, which is causing problems.

Although he makes a distorted sketch of the West, she certainly has a point. Who decides what women’s rights are, what emancipation is? Musims or secular non-muslims? By asking himself these questions he also shows some inconsistencies in the arguments of Muslims who want to copy the ‘western-style’ feminism into Islam. She did this in another article for example, where she (among other things) criticized Amina Wudud:

Amina Abdul Wadud led a mix congregation of male and female Muslims in a Friday (Jumma) prayer for the first time in the 1500 years of Islamic history. Again the impetus for such acts emanates from the hostile secular environment. After the prayer, she are her clique stated that they were instilling gender equality and womenï¿½s rights. Ironically, Amina Abdul Wadud did that whilst wearing the Islamic headscarf (Hijab) which is considered by many to be at odds with gender equality and a symbol of the oppression of women!

Her claims of reinterpreting the text to establish ï¿½justiceï¿½ for women displays her arrogance. Let us put aside the ï¿½evilï¿½ and impartial men. At the very beginnings of Islam there were the wives of the Prophet (SAW) with many other female personalities, followed by the successive generation of women scholars for centuries. Do we assume that they have all failed in their fundamental duty and hence overlooked their legitimate right to lead the Friday prayer of mix congregation? To the contrary segregation of prayers was established from the onset, as women were instructed to pray behind the men. If that is the case then how women can lead the men in prayer while the rest of the women are behind the men in the first place.

In any case, justice for Amina Abdul Wadud is not from within Islam but a reformed version that is in compliance to her preconceived secular values like gender equality; – the real arbiter. And not surprisingly she also favour homosexual marriages and detests the clear cut penal codes in the Quran. A clear act of apostasy!

Gender equality is only an example of the general drive by the moderate brigades to constantly prove the compatibility of Islam with secular values. If Islam is proven to be compatible to secular notions, what reasons remain than for adhering to Islam? Why not simply adopt the original yard stick of secularism instead of clinging on to the secular-compatible ï¿½Islamï¿½. The exercise is very much an own goal scoring and completely folly. Given the choice between a genuine Rolls Royce and a close imitation it is well-known what most rational people would opt for.

The moderate brigade constantly shout about Womenï¿½s rights in Islam as a means to deflect criticisms emanating from the secular camp without once thinking about the credentials of those who are dispensing the criticisms. Do the critics have the right? To answer this question we need to examine their track record against what they preach. If they pass the test only then it makes sense to entertain their charges. Otherwise it is a pointless exercise to entertain the words of hypocrites.

What he says here is more or less, why should we remain Muslims if it is fully compatible, no even the same, as secularism? It is one of the most heard comments on ‘western-style’ feminism: we want emancipation, but we don’t want to be like you. What we see nowadays among young female Muslims is exactly that standpoint. We want equal rights, we want all the rights, including the right to live our religion the way we want to. And this is seems to be quite confusing for many people; Muslims and non-Muslims. Ow yes, the articles are written by a male Muslim.

You can find both articles of Zakaria below:
(more…)

0 comments.

“Women’s Rights” in Islam

Posted on April 17th, 2005 by .
Categories: Gender, Kinship & Marriage Issues, Internal Debates, Some personal considerations, Young Muslims.

Yesterday, see below, i had an entry called “Welles Nietes: de vrouw in de Koran” (It is, it isn’t, women in the Quran) about a Dutch discussion on the place of women in Islam. One female Muslim participant said Islam oppresses women, the other said Islam does not. This in itself is not very interesting and surprising. The same goes for Idiocy of Gender Equality: The Case of the Woman Imam by Yamin Zakaria. What is interesting in all these contributions is how people use ‘Islam’ and ‘the West’ to legitimize their opinions. Zakaria states:

It is only rational and consistent to protect the rights of everyone including women by invoking the Islamic laws instead of resorting to secular arguments that are rooted in feminism. If secular values are the criteria then it makes little sense to interpret Islam to fit into the secular garb but far greater sense to simply abandon it. Why go for secular compatible Islam instead of pure secularism? It simply makes no sense. Unfortunately there are even feminists in Hijab along with their male apologists in leash, many of whom are also disguised as Islamic scholars with their beards and robes, are using Islamic texts to promote non-Islamic ideas like womanï¿½s rights, gender equality as Islamic, wittingly or unwittingly. If a man or a woman has been denied their rights, we invoke the Islamic laws as remedy instead of viewing the problem as though it is rooted in gender differences.

Had Islam and Muslim men been the real oppressors of women, the feminist movement would have arisen from within the Islamic societies. Indeed, the origin of such movements perhaps reflects where the real oppression of women existed and still exists! No one can explain why Islam supposedly anti-Woman continues to attract more women than men. Both, logic and Islamic texts dictates that womanï¿½s rights have no place in Islam, those who speak in its name has the worst track record in violating the rights of womankind. It is a political tool like the UN resolutions, employed selectively against opponents. Otherwise we would have seen it deployed in a consistent manner.

In response to the issue of womenï¿½s equality being pressed into the face of Islam, we as Muslimï¿½s have to set our own agenda and not be baited by mischief makers who have a malignant intent towards Islam and Muslims. With this self inspection we must face truths about the broad experience of Muslimï¿½s across the world and the variable application of the Islamic laws, which is causing problems.

Although he makes a distorted sketch of the West, she certainly has a point. Who decides what women’s rights are, what emancipation is? Musims or secular non-muslims? By asking himself these questions he also shows some inconsistencies in the arguments of Muslims who want to copy the ‘western-style’ feminism into Islam. She did this in another article for example, where she (among other things) criticized Amina Wudud:

Amina Abdul Wadud led a mix congregation of male and female Muslims in a Friday (Jumma) prayer for the first time in the 1500 years of Islamic history. Again the impetus for such acts emanates from the hostile secular environment. After the prayer, she are her clique stated that they were instilling gender equality and womenï¿½s rights. Ironically, Amina Abdul Wadud did that whilst wearing the Islamic headscarf (Hijab) which is considered by many to be at odds with gender equality and a symbol of the oppression of women!

Her claims of reinterpreting the text to establish ï¿½justiceï¿½ for women displays her arrogance. Let us put aside the ï¿½evilï¿½ and impartial men. At the very beginnings of Islam there were the wives of the Prophet (SAW) with many other female personalities, followed by the successive generation of women scholars for centuries. Do we assume that they have all failed in their fundamental duty and hence overlooked their legitimate right to lead the Friday prayer of mix congregation? To the contrary segregation of prayers was established from the onset, as women were instructed to pray behind the men. If that is the case then how women can lead the men in prayer while the rest of the women are behind the men in the first place.

In any case, justice for Amina Abdul Wadud is not from within Islam but a reformed version that is in compliance to her preconceived secular values like gender equality; – the real arbiter. And not surprisingly she also favour homosexual marriages and detests the clear cut penal codes in the Quran. A clear act of apostasy!

Gender equality is only an example of the general drive by the moderate brigades to constantly prove the compatibility of Islam with secular values. If Islam is proven to be compatible to secular notions, what reasons remain than for adhering to Islam? Why not simply adopt the original yard stick of secularism instead of clinging on to the secular-compatible ï¿½Islamï¿½. The exercise is very much an own goal scoring and completely folly. Given the choice between a genuine Rolls Royce and a close imitation it is well-known what most rational people would opt for.

The moderate brigade constantly shout about Womenï¿½s rights in Islam as a means to deflect criticisms emanating from the secular camp without once thinking about the credentials of those who are dispensing the criticisms. Do the critics have the right? To answer this question we need to examine their track record against what they preach. If they pass the test only then it makes sense to entertain their charges. Otherwise it is a pointless exercise to entertain the words of hypocrites.

What he says here is more or less, why should we remain Muslims if it is fully compatible, no even the same, as secularism? It is one of the most heard comments on ‘western-style’ feminism: we want emancipation, but we don’t want to be like you. What we see nowadays among young female Muslims is exactly that standpoint. We want equal rights, we want all the rights, including the right to live our religion the way we want to. And this is seems to be quite confusing for many people; Muslims and non-Muslims. Ow yes, the articles are written by a male Muslim.

You can find both articles of Zakaria below:
(more…)

0 comments.

Informed Comment: "The Schiavo Case and the Islamization of the Republican Party"

Posted on March 26th, 2005 by martijn.
Categories: Misc. News, Some personal considerations.

I did not expect to write about the Schiavo Case but I came across an interesting entry on Informed Comment: The Schiavo Case and the Islamization of the Republican Party

On his blog Juan Cole states:

The cynical use by the US Republican Party of the Terri Schiavo case repeats, whether deliberately or accidentally, the tactics of Muslim fundamentalists and theocrats in places like Egypt and Pakistan. These tactics involve a disturbing tendency to make private, intimate decisions matters of public interest and then to bring the courts and the legislature to bear on them. President George W. Bush and Republican congressional leaders like Tom Delay have taken us one step closer to theocracy on the Muslim Brotherhood model.

What does he mean by that? Well the following:

The Muslim fundamentalists use a provision of Islamic law called “bringing to account” (hisba). As Al-Ahram weekly notes, “Hisba signifies a case filed by an individual on behalf of society when the plaintiff feels that great harm has been done to religion.” Hisba is a medieval idea that had all but lapsed when the fundamentalists brought it back in the 1970s and 1980s.

He is using the case of Abu Zaid (who is now living with his wife in Leiden, The Netherlands, and teaching there at Leiden University.

In this practice, any individual can use the courts to intervene in the private lives of others. Among the more famous cases of such interference is that of Nasr Hamid Abu Zaid in Egypt. A respected modern scholar of Koranic studies, Abu Zaid argued that, contrary to medieval interpretations of Islamic law, women and men should receive equal inheritance shares. (Medieval Islamic law granted women only half the inheritance shares of their brothers). Abu Zaid was accused of sacrilege. Then the allegation of sacrilege was used as a basis on which the fundamentalists sought to have the courts forcibly divorce him from his wife.

Abu Zaid’s wife loved her husband. She did not want to be divorced. But the fundamentalists went before the court and said, she is a Muslim, and he is an infidel, and no Muslim woman may be married to an infidel. They represented their efforts as being on behalf of the Islamic religion, which had an interest in seeing to it that heretics like Abu Zaid could not remain married to a Muslim woman. In 1995 the hisba court actually found against them. They fled to Europe, and ultimately settled in Holland.

What does this have to do with the Schiavo Case? Cole continues:

One of the most objectionable features of this fundamentalist tactic is that persons without standing can interfere in private affairs. Perfect strangers can file a case about your marriage, because they represent themselves as defending a public interest (the upholding of religion and morality).

And:

But the most frightening thing about the entire affair is that public figures like congressmen inserted themselves into the case in order to uphold religious strictures. The lawyer arguing against the husband let the cat out of the bag, as reported by the NYT: ‘ The lawyer, David Gibbs, also said Ms. Schiavo’s religious beliefs as a Roman Catholic were being infringed because Pope John Paul II has deemed it unacceptable for Catholics to refuse food and water. “We are now in a position where a court has ordered her to disobey her church and even jeopardize her eternal soul,” Mr. Gibbs said. ‘

In other words, the United States Congress acted in part on behalf of the Roman Catholic church. Both of these public bodies interfered in the private affairs of the Schiavos, just as the fundamentalist Egyptian, Nabih El-Wahsh, tried to interfere in the marriage of Nawal El Saadawi.

Like many of his fundamentalist counterparts in the Middle East, Tom Delay [Republican congressional leader, MdK] is rather cynically using this issue to divert attention from his own corruption. Like the Muslim fundamentalist manipulators of Hisba, Delay represents himself as acting on behalf of a higher cause. He said of the case over the weekend, ‘ “This is not a political issue. This is life and death,” ‘

Needless to say that Cole is not happy about this development:

Republican Hisba will have the same effect in the United States that it does in the Middle East. It will reduce the rights of the individual in favor of the rights of religious and political elites to control individuals. Ayatollah Delay isn’t different from his counterparts in Iran.

I’m not sure wether this comparison between islamic fundamentalists and the republicans isn’t a little bit over the top. For example Cole refers to the Catholic Church and states that Congress is acting on behalf of that church. This seems a little bit strange to me because what does this actually mean? That the lawyer of Terry’s parents is appointed by the Catholic Church or that the Catholic Church has ‘hired’ Congress. Perhaps the lawyer, the church and Congress have the same opinions on this case but this does not necessarily mean that they act on behalf of eachother. And is it a problem if they have the same opinions? See also the criticism of Ex Post on this point. Another issue of course is that we have to distinguish between the courts interference and the interference of the Congress. Cole says that the Republicans have embraced the Muslim fundamentalist practice of “using the courts to intervene in the private lives of others.” The courts interference seems to be necessary in this story just like in the Netherlands there has to be some kind of control by the public prosecutor in cases of euthanasia. I don’t think the practice in the US is that much different (or is it?). What Congress has done is expanding the possibilities for the courts to intervene, not deciding what the court has to rule. This is truly different compared to the fundamentalist case in Egypt. See more on this point at PowerLine.

But then again it is remarkable how policitians intervene in this single case. It seems to me that it is remarkable how politicians can intervene in a persons private life. Unless of course, and it is more or less framed like this, the question of life and death isn’t a private issue but a public issue. Like for example among some Muslim groups the reputation of a woman is not a private matter, but a cause for concern for the whole group. The whole group, or American nation, is at stake here. But what is striking then, that these politicians have made a law based on a single case and that they intervene directly in this case. While, i could be wrong, I thought that you made laws about a general development after several cases appeared. This law cannot be attributed to those cases anymore but it can for future cases. This of course, again I could be wrong, has to do with the trias politica: Separation of powers. The idea that the powers of a sovereign government should be split between two or more strongly independent entities, preventing any one person or group from gaining too much power. This adds even more to my confusion because I was taught at school (yes a while ago) that the US was probably the strongest example of this separation of powers. So a possible weakening of the trias politica, an increasing influence of religion on politics (weakening the separation of church and state) and a private issue that is politicized and becoming a group-issue, that indeed sounds a little bit what the fundamentalists among the Muslims want. Maybe the comparison is not that bad at all.

At the same time of course there is a problem because Terry Schiavo hasn’t got anything on writing that states she refuses to live like this. Euthanasia has to be with explicit consent of the person in question and that is not the case here. So what to do?

1 comment.

Informed Comment: “The Schiavo Case and the Islamization of the Republican Party”

Posted on March 26th, 2005 by .
Categories: Misc. News, Some personal considerations.

I did not expect to write about the Schiavo Case but I came across an interesting entry on Informed Comment: The Schiavo Case and the Islamization of the Republican Party

On his blog Juan Cole states:

The cynical use by the US Republican Party of the Terri Schiavo case repeats, whether deliberately or accidentally, the tactics of Muslim fundamentalists and theocrats in places like Egypt and Pakistan. These tactics involve a disturbing tendency to make private, intimate decisions matters of public interest and then to bring the courts and the legislature to bear on them. President George W. Bush and Republican congressional leaders like Tom Delay have taken us one step closer to theocracy on the Muslim Brotherhood model.

What does he mean by that? Well the following:

The Muslim fundamentalists use a provision of Islamic law called “bringing to account” (hisba). As Al-Ahram weekly notes, “Hisba signifies a case filed by an individual on behalf of society when the plaintiff feels that great harm has been done to religion.” Hisba is a medieval idea that had all but lapsed when the fundamentalists brought it back in the 1970s and 1980s.

He is using the case of Abu Zaid (who is now living with his wife in Leiden, The Netherlands, and teaching there at Leiden University.

In this practice, any individual can use the courts to intervene in the private lives of others. Among the more famous cases of such interference is that of Nasr Hamid Abu Zaid in Egypt. A respected modern scholar of Koranic studies, Abu Zaid argued that, contrary to medieval interpretations of Islamic law, women and men should receive equal inheritance shares. (Medieval Islamic law granted women only half the inheritance shares of their brothers). Abu Zaid was accused of sacrilege. Then the allegation of sacrilege was used as a basis on which the fundamentalists sought to have the courts forcibly divorce him from his wife.

Abu Zaid’s wife loved her husband. She did not want to be divorced. But the fundamentalists went before the court and said, she is a Muslim, and he is an infidel, and no Muslim woman may be married to an infidel. They represented their efforts as being on behalf of the Islamic religion, which had an interest in seeing to it that heretics like Abu Zaid could not remain married to a Muslim woman. In 1995 the hisba court actually found against them. They fled to Europe, and ultimately settled in Holland.

What does this have to do with the Schiavo Case? Cole continues:

One of the most objectionable features of this fundamentalist tactic is that persons without standing can interfere in private affairs. Perfect strangers can file a case about your marriage, because they represent themselves as defending a public interest (the upholding of religion and morality).

And:

But the most frightening thing about the entire affair is that public figures like congressmen inserted themselves into the case in order to uphold religious strictures. The lawyer arguing against the husband let the cat out of the bag, as reported by the NYT: ‘ The lawyer, David Gibbs, also said Ms. Schiavo’s religious beliefs as a Roman Catholic were being infringed because Pope John Paul II has deemed it unacceptable for Catholics to refuse food and water. “We are now in a position where a court has ordered her to disobey her church and even jeopardize her eternal soul,” Mr. Gibbs said. ‘

In other words, the United States Congress acted in part on behalf of the Roman Catholic church. Both of these public bodies interfered in the private affairs of the Schiavos, just as the fundamentalist Egyptian, Nabih El-Wahsh, tried to interfere in the marriage of Nawal El Saadawi.

Like many of his fundamentalist counterparts in the Middle East, Tom Delay [Republican congressional leader, MdK] is rather cynically using this issue to divert attention from his own corruption. Like the Muslim fundamentalist manipulators of Hisba, Delay represents himself as acting on behalf of a higher cause. He said of the case over the weekend, ‘ “This is not a political issue. This is life and death,” ‘

Needless to say that Cole is not happy about this development:

Republican Hisba will have the same effect in the United States that it does in the Middle East. It will reduce the rights of the individual in favor of the rights of religious and political elites to control individuals. Ayatollah Delay isn’t different from his counterparts in Iran.

I’m not sure wether this comparison between islamic fundamentalists and the republicans isn’t a little bit over the top. For example Cole refers to the Catholic Church and states that Congress is acting on behalf of that church. This seems a little bit strange to me because what does this actually mean? That the lawyer of Terry’s parents is appointed by the Catholic Church or that the Catholic Church has ‘hired’ Congress. Perhaps the lawyer, the church and Congress have the same opinions on this case but this does not necessarily mean that they act on behalf of eachother. And is it a problem if they have the same opinions? See also the criticism of Ex Post on this point. Another issue of course is that we have to distinguish between the courts interference and the interference of the Congress. Cole says that the Republicans have embraced the Muslim fundamentalist practice of “using the courts to intervene in the private lives of others.” The courts interference seems to be necessary in this story just like in the Netherlands there has to be some kind of control by the public prosecutor in cases of euthanasia. I don’t think the practice in the US is that much different (or is it?). What Congress has done is expanding the possibilities for the courts to intervene, not deciding what the court has to rule. This is truly different compared to the fundamentalist case in Egypt. See more on this point at PowerLine.

But then again it is remarkable how policitians intervene in this single case. It seems to me that it is remarkable how politicians can intervene in a persons private life. Unless of course, and it is more or less framed like this, the question of life and death isn’t a private issue but a public issue. Like for example among some Muslim groups the reputation of a woman is not a private matter, but a cause for concern for the whole group. The whole group, or American nation, is at stake here. But what is striking then, that these politicians have made a law based on a single case and that they intervene directly in this case. While, i could be wrong, I thought that you made laws about a general development after several cases appeared. This law cannot be attributed to those cases anymore but it can for future cases. This of course, again I could be wrong, has to do with the trias politica: Separation of powers. The idea that the powers of a sovereign government should be split between two or more strongly independent entities, preventing any one person or group from gaining too much power. This adds even more to my confusion because I was taught at school (yes a while ago) that the US was probably the strongest example of this separation of powers. So a possible weakening of the trias politica, an increasing influence of religion on politics (weakening the separation of church and state) and a private issue that is politicized and becoming a group-issue, that indeed sounds a little bit what the fundamentalists among the Muslims want. Maybe the comparison is not that bad at all.

At the same time of course there is a problem because Terry Schiavo hasn’t got anything on writing that states she refuses to live like this. Euthanasia has to be with explicit consent of the person in question and that is not the case here. So what to do?

1 comment.

islamicate: PAMF

Posted on March 23rd, 2005 by .
Categories: Some personal considerations.

PAMF looks like one of those words in comics. One superhero hits the superbadguy and according to this textballoon the sounds goes like PAMF! or something. islamicate has an entry on Punk A$$ Mo Fo (does this need any translation into Dutch?) and he refers to my post on hoodlums. For some sort of reason ‘hoodlums’ sounds to me as if it is a word from the era of Charles Dickens. PAMF is more modern of course. In reference to my post on hoodlums Islamicate talks about counteridentity (the post was about the ‘Muslim Boys’) and states that a counteridentity is OBL’s point. It probably is for a large part. The way OBL frames the west (and Islamicate shows this quite good actually) he means he himself is the opposite without explicitly mentioning it. That is smart, this way your own identity remains self-evident. You don’t want to think too much about your own identity of course. It may lead to doubts or even worse…more or less the same is done (but in the opposite manner) by the islam-bashers.

0 comments.

International Crisis Group Indonesia Backgrounder: Why Salafism and Terrorism Mostly Don’t Mix

Posted on February 28th, 2005 by .
Categories: Religious and Political Radicalization, Some personal considerations.

Salafism seems to be the new ‘buzz-word’ in The netherlands these days. Perhaps not completely comparable it might be helpfull to look at salafism in other countries such as Indonesia. On
International Crisis Group (Crisis Group) a report on Conflict prevention and resolution

Salafism may be more of a barrier to the expansion of jihadist activities than a facilitator.

I don’t know about that conclusion but it provides an interesting thinking excercise.
(more…)

0 comments.

International Crisis Group Indonesia Backgrounder: Why Salafism and Terrorism Mostly Don't Mix

Posted on February 28th, 2005 by martijn.
Categories: Religious and Political Radicalization, Some personal considerations.

Salafism seems to be the new ‘buzz-word’ in The netherlands these days. Perhaps not completely comparable it might be helpfull to look at salafism in other countries such as Indonesia. On
International Crisis Group (Crisis Group) a report on Conflict prevention and resolution

Salafism may be more of a barrier to the expansion of jihadist activities than a facilitator.

I don’t know about that conclusion but it provides an interesting thinking excercise.
(more…)

0 comments.

Islamic Blog, Muslims Blog, or…

Posted on February 21st, 2005 by martijn.
Categories: Public Islam, Some personal considerations.

The traceless warrior is quite awake and has noticed that I categorized him as an Islamic Blog.

The Traceless Warrior: Bloggingsphere Update
Well this is not an “Islamic Blog”. While I am a Muslim, I consider a lot of what some people try to pass off as “Islamic” blogs or websites to actually be examples of obsessive-compulsive mono-maniacal religious ideation. It has been my experience that focusing on any one aspect of one’s life to the exclusion of all others produces dangerously unbalanced individuals.

He is right of course.
(more…)

1 comment.

C L O S E R – Zembla over radicale jongeren / 2

Posted on February 10th, 2005 by .
Categories: Internal Debates, Islam in the Netherlands, Religious and Political Radicalization, Some personal considerations, Young Muslims.

C L O S E R
De lokroep van terreur: Zembla over radicale moslimjongeren

Zo dat was dan de uitzending van Zembla, waarover al eerder wat gemeld. Over het geheel een aardige uitzending; er zat niet zo’n duidelijke lijn in vond ik zelf, maar de individuele bijdragen waren wel erg goed zeker van Chahid el Hadouti, jongerenwerker in Gouda en Abdullah Haselhoef.

Er waren ook fragmenten van Marokko.nl te zien en ook de moderators waren in beeld. Ook hun bijdrage was de moeite waard. Op Marokko.nl was het al eerder aangekondigd en er wordt nu volop op gereageerd

De bijdragen bij elkaar maakten het tot, ondanks het ontbreken van een duidelijke lijn, een genuanceerd en ik denk voor de leken onder ons, redelijk verhelderend verhaal.

Over mijn bijdrage in het stuk ben ik wat minder tevreden. En wel om twee redenen. Mijn bijdrage begon met een verhaal over een groep die een keer moskee Nour in Gouda bezocht. De suggestie zou gewekt kunnen worden (ik kan me niet meer de precieze tekst van de commentator herinneren) dat dat een zogenaamde takfir groep was. Dat was het niet bij mijn weten. Het waren wel een soort rondtrekkende predikers. Jongeren in de moskee vonden het inderdaad spannend maar waren ook wel geintimideerd (hoewel dat volgens mij zeker niet de bedoeling van dat groepje was). Vervolgens vroeg de verslaggever (die ik overigens erg goed vond) hoeveel jongeren dit spannend vinden. Tot mijn eigen schrik zei ik op televisie dat dit 50% of zelfs meer was. Dat had niet gemoeten en is mijn eigen schuld. Ik weet namelijk helemaal niet of dat 50% was. Ik weet wel dat er jongeren zijn die het spannend vinden zulke groepjes, maar dat wil zeker niet zeggen dat ze zich er ook toe aangetrokken voelen. Dat zei ik ook wel min of meer, maar dat had duidelijker gemoeten.

Dus mijn bijdrage was wat minder; denk niet dat ik daarvoor Zembla de schuld geef. Ik had zelf maar wat beter op moeten letten en me niet laten verleiden tot dat domme getal van 50%. Ik ben daar altijd huiverig voor omdat dat soort cijfers een eigen leven gaan leden ook al zijn ze nergens op gebaseerd. Dus mensen ga niet met dat cijfer aan de haal want je maakt je belachelijk.

Wat van belang is verder, en dat kwam er ook wel uit denk ik in het programma, is dat we de voedingsbodem moeten aanpakken. Radicaliserende jongeren zijn nog geen terroristische jongeren en er is ook geen sprake van een doortimmerde ideologie maar eerder van wat knip en plak werk. De voedingsbodem zit hem volgens mij onder andere in drie dingen:
1) Jongeren zijn op zoek naar een vorm van zuivere islam zonder de culturele invloeden van hun ouders (wat nog niet betekent dat ze breken met hun ouders)
2) Met hun vragen, wensen en behoeften kunnen ze daarvoor nauwelijks terecht bij de traditionele moslimorganisaties en imams.
3) Die vragen en behoeften zijn grotendeels geent op hun leven hier en bevatten vaak ook een vergelijking met autochtone niet-moslim jongeren. In die zin is hun moslimidentiteit ook een brug naar de Nederlandse samenleving. Ze hebben, op z’n zachtst gezegd, daar weinig positieve respons op.

Resulteert die zoektocht in een zuivere islam in een ontworteling (bij 2) en een vervreemding zelfs gevoel van vernedering (bij 3) dan ligt nog de weg niet open naar radicalisering. Probleem is echter dat jongeren, natuurlijk niet voor ï¿½ï¿½n gat te vangen, op zoek gaan naar alternatieven. En dan is er niet zoveel keus. Gelukkig zijn er sites als Marokko.nl, Maroc.nl, Maghrebonline enz. waar allerlei meningen en belevingen aan bod kunnen komen, maar de meeste islamitische sites zijn van de selefie-soort. Ook nog geen ramp, maar er zijn er ook bij (vooral bij MSN-groepen) die hun selefie opvattingen combineren met een (politieke) takfir ideologie. En dat is wel zorgelijk.

Nou tot zover even. Voel je vrij om hier of per mail vragen te stellen of te reageren.

PS
De herhaling van Zembla is zaterdag zaterdag 15 januari om 12.10 uur bij de VARA/NPS op Nederland 3 (kijk voor de zekerheid even bij zembla zelf op de site http://www.omroep.nl/vara/zembla

4 comments.

Brabants Dagblad – Opinie – Het feest dat mensen spiegel voorhoudt

Posted on February 4th, 2005 by .
Categories: Misc. News, Multiculti Issues, Religion Other, Some personal considerations.

Brabants Dagblad – Opinie – Het feest dat mensen spiegel voorhoudt
Het feest dat mensen spiegel voorhoudt

Donderdag 3 februari 2005 – Het station is weer versierd en overal in de stad wapperen de rood-wit-gele-vlaggen. Dit weekend zijn we weer onbereikbaar voor de rest van Nederland vanwege carnaval. Ieder jaar opnieuw vragen nuchtere buitenstaanders zich af wat die zuiderlingen toch bezielt om vier dagen te feesten om niets.

Wat is eigenlijk het nut van carnaval?
(more…)

0 comments.

Protected: Islam & Jam

Posted on January 30th, 2005 by martijn.
Categories: My Research, Some personal considerations, Young Muslims, Youth culture (as a practice).

Enter your password to view comments.

Protected: Jason W. logged

Posted on January 27th, 2005 by martijn.
Categories: International Terrorism, Religious and Political Radicalization, Some personal considerations, Young Muslims.

Enter your password to view comments.

Not if You’re a Muslim

Posted on January 23rd, 2005 by .
Categories: Internal Debates, Some personal considerations.

Double standards, something which we often attribute to Muslims is of course nothing new for non-Muslims as well. Several issues on double standards such as: America: Land of the Free? Not if You’re a Muslim, by Mary Shaw – Democratic Underground. In this article she shows how Muslims in the US are treated as second rate citizens, and considered to be a threat to national security. A reference to the Jim Crow law’s is made:

Curt Goering, Senior Deputy Executive Director of Amnesty International USA, summed it up well: “Racial profiling is to the 21st century what Jim Crow laws were to the last, turning entire groups of people into second-class citizens and denying them the rights to which we all are due.”

The reason for this article is probably the survey at Cornell University:

A recent Cornell University survey found that almost half of all Americans believe that the U.S. government should restrict the civil liberties of Muslim Americans. This bigoted, racist attitude is quite simply appalling. It essentially favors racial profiling; yet a recent report by Amnesty International presents strong evidence indicating that racial profiling does not work.

This is a survey used by Daniel Pipes one of the major anti-islam/anti radical islam prophets. According to Habib Sidiqui Pipes supports the concept of rounding up millions of Muslim Americans and interning them in concentration camps just as was done with the Japanese during WWII and he defends racial profiling.

To support his sinister proposal on internment of Muslims, Daniel cites a poll, conducted by sophomore students in the Department of Communication at Cornell University.[7] The report was released on Dec. 17, 2004. He writes, ï¿½For years, it has been my position that the threat of radical Islam implies an imperative to focus security measures on Muslims. ï¿½ And so, I was encouraged by a just-released Cornell University opinion survey that finds nearly half the U.S. population agreeing with this proposition. Specifically, 44 percent of Americans believe that government authorities should direct special attention towards Muslims living in the United States, either by registering their whereabouts, profiling them, monitoring them, monitoring their mosques or infiltrating their organizations.ï¿½

Although Sidiqui has a nice analysis he falls into the same trap as a lot of people do with the following statement:

So, rather than shedding crocodile tears for Muslim Americansï¿½ image, Daniel and his ilk should examine at their own culpability and work towards improving the image of Bush and America around the world. That would be more productive and commendable. Otherwise, it wonï¿½t be too long that their honeymoon with Bush would be over. And who knows they might find themselves in the same spots visited by others like Julius Streicher, Hans Frank, Adolf Eichman, Rudolf Hess and Hermann Goering for crimes against humanity!

Now he is attacking the person and as so often not the person’s statement. Does this mean he agrees? His only proposal is that people should know more about Islam; a little bit naieve I think. This is the old contacthypothesis: if you have contact with people of other groups you are probably to like them more than if you don’t have contact. Ah, if things were just that simple…

For a more thorough discussion on these matters go the Asia Times Online Community, or stay here 😉

0 comments.

« Previous Page — Older » « Newer — Next Page »

Some personal considerations

Pages

Categories

General

Dutch [Muslims] Blogs

Non-Dutch Muslims Blogs

General Islam Sites

Islamic Scholars

Social Sciences Scholars

Women's Blogs / Sites

Ritueel en religieuze beleving Nederland

Muslim News

Moslims & Maatschappij

Arts & Culture

Misc.

'Fundamentalism'

Islam & commerce

2

Morocco

[Online] Publications

Religious Movements

Site Meta

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this: