Pieter Dorsman published a very interesting post about the Dutch elections over at Politics Central (Pajamas Media). Pieter carefully describes the tense situation in the Netherlands regarding immigration and integration. Let alone assimilation: which is virtually non-existent. In the Netherlands, there seems to be this strange misconception that those calling for assimilation automatically are racists. Which is, of course, factually inaccurate: a racist is one who believes that people with a different skin color are inferior. Those calling for assimilation are not racists, well perhaps some are but most are not: they do not believe that people from Africa, the Mideast, South Asia, East Asia, &c. are inferior: they believe that Dutch culture is superior.
Anyway, back to Pieter’s article: he explains that while the average Dutchman is greatly concerned about integration (of the lack thereof), Dutch politicians seem to be conveniently ignoring this hot button issue.
The example Pieter uses, to emphasize this ‘tense’ situation, is what Minister of Justice Donner said a while ago about the possibility of legislating Sharia: he – legally correctly – said that if there is a (far) majority that wants to legislate Sharia in the Netherlands, this can be done.
People reacted quite furiously to his words. And in my opinion rightfully so. He should have explained that this is one of the possible weaknesses in our system and that we should try to ensure that this worst-nightmare-scenario will never happen. Or, he should have added that this does not mean that the minority should simply accept it: that it should resists it, if necessary: armed resistance. Again, that is not what he did. As I interpreted his words, he implied that, would that happen, we should all just accept it.
In a society in which many people realize that quite a lot of Muslim immigrants would actually like us all to live by Sharia law, Donner should have chosen his words more carefully. He is a Minister. He should embrace, not just our legal system, but also our values. He did the first, but neglected to, sufficiently, do the second.
Pieter goes on to write that, perhaps, we should give our democracy teeth. To, in one way or another, make sure that before mentioned worst-nightmare-scenario will never become reality (something Donner should have done as well).
Lastly, Pieter finishes by trying to explain why it is that Dutch politicians do not spend a lot of time and attention to the integration problem:
The fact that the storm over Donner’s comments died down as quickly as it started either reflects their highly theoretical nature or the far reaching implications they have for defining the Dutch democracy of tomorrow. It is probably a combination of both, but I am tilting towards the latter.
When the times are relatively good, there usually is little appetite for politicians to wade into these unpredictable waters. It can turn against you, and in the Europe of today it could even kill you. No, it is not the now largely defunct political correctness that is covering up the debate over religion, culture and integration. It is political expediency. The price of which, as always, will have to be paid further down the road.
Let me repeat:
It is political expediency. The price of which, as always, will have to be paid further down the road
Our politicians are selling us out. They choose to ignore the main problem facing us and by doing so, they are letting the problem escalate and escalate, until everybody has had enough and all hell breaks loose.
What we need are more people like Ayaan. People who are willing to speak out. People who address the brutal treatment of women in many immigrants’ homes, people who address the sad reality of honor killings, people who address the problem of oppression: immigrant women are being oppressed by their own families. We have to make absolutely clear that women and men are considered equal in the Netherlands and that beating your wife up, forcing your daughter to marry with some farmer from some backwards area in Morocco who she never met, is not in line with our Constitution, with our way of life, with our values.
We need more people who are willing to point out the connection that exists between this treatment of (for instance) women and the Islam an sich. Muslims are more than welcome to come and live here, but they will have to assimilate. Going back to the “Islam of the Prophet” (as Ayaan calls it in her new book “My Freedom”) is unacceptable and in breach with just about everything we, born Dutchmen, believe in. People can be Muslim, but they cannot go back to the days of the Prophet, marrying 9 year old girls is not normal.
65.4 You can marry (and divorce) little girls who have not yet reached menstruation age.
Our prophet married Ayesha at age 6 to comply with this aya. However due to her tender age he had to restrict himself to thighing before she reached age of 9.
Thighing is defined by Islamic scholar Khomeini in “Tahrirolvasyleh” fourth volume, Darol Elm, Gom, Iran, 1990 as follows:
“Thighing is a means for an adult male to enjoy a young girl who is still in the age of weaning; meaning to place his penis between her thighs, and to kiss her.”
The following is from a committee of muslim ulema answering the question:
“the Prophet, the peace of Allah be upon him, practiced “thighing” of Aisha – the mother of believers – may Allah be pleased with her.”
Killing your daughter because she falls in love with a Caucasian Dutchman is not acceptable either. Beating your wife up because she is not doing what you want her to do (or not well enough) is not acceptable either, no matter what Mohammed thought, said and did.
Circumcising your daughter is a horrible, inhuman crime, it is not relevant whether or not Mohammed thought it was acceptable.
Sunan Abu Dawud Book 41, Number 5251:
Narrated Umm Atiyyah al-Ansariyyah:
A woman used to perform circumcision in Medina. The Prophet (peace be upon him) said to her: Do not cut severely as that is better for a woman and more desirable for a husband.
We need people who are willing to point out that the Islam is more (or less, depending on one’s point of view) than a mere religion. It is also a political system: one that contradicts our own system in just about every possible way.
We need people who are willing to point out that Muslims who beat up their wives, kill their daughters, &c. are not making rules up themselves. They are trying to copy Mohammed’s way of living.
4.34 When a wife misbehaves beat/scourge her.
Islamic way of beating or flogging wives is striking at their padded areas to avoid breaking any bones. Here is an example how considerate our prophet was when he beat his wives on their padded parts.
Muslim Book 004, Number 2127:
Ayesha narrated. “He struck me on the chest which caused me pain. “
We need people who are willing to point out that hatred towards Jews (infidels in general), isn’t anything new either, this also is based on the Koran, on Mohammed’s own words, heck, even on his orders:
Tabari VII:97 “The morning after the murder of Ashraf, the Prophet declared, ‘Kill any Jew who falls under your power.'”
Tabari VIII:38 “The Messenger of Allah commanded that all of the Jewish men and boys who had reached puberty should be beheaded.
8.67 It hath not been [granted] unto any prophet, that he should possess captives, until he had made a great slaughter [of the infidels] in the earth.
Muslim immigrants are more than welcome, but they will have to adapt to our way of life. They will have to embrace our values: even when they collide with the values of the Koran.
Cross posted at Liberty and Justice
PAST CONTRIBUTOR.