You Are Allowing Islam To Be Taken Hostage
washingtonpost.com
Sunday, October 14, 2001; Page B04
[This piece was translated from the Dutch for the Washington Post by a friend of FADG . --fl]
A longer version of columnist Sylvain Ephimenco's "Open Letter to All Muslims in the Netherlands" was published on Oct. 5 in the Trouw newspaper in Amsterdam. Muslims -- mostly Moroccan and Turkish in origin -- make up 5 percent of the Netherlands' population of 16 million. Most arrived during the 1980s. In the major cities of Rotterdam and Amsterdam, they now represent between 15 and 20 percent of the population. Even those who do not hold Dutch citizenship have the right to vote and to be elected at the city government level.
The airliners of Sept. 11 not only bored through steel, glass and, above all, human lives in New York and Washington, but since that day have been serving to bring about a steadily increasing polarization between you, Muslims of the Netherlands, and the greater part of the non-Muslim population. . . .
Many among you have justly remarked that one must not confuse the abhorrent act of terrorists who speak out in the name of their religion with all of Islam. As 40 Moroccan organizations have declared, "The myth wherein Islam is equated with extremism must be numbed.". . .
No, no one denies that you, more than most, wish to live peacefully. But it is also time that your side realize and recognize that within your faith has arisen a new generation of warriors -- fanatical dissidents whose vengeance and determination have made the world shudder. It is unpleasant, but whether you wish it or not, the reprehensible deeds of a minority, calling out in the name of Islam, can lead to misunderstanding and directly or indirectly tarnish the image of the majority. . . . Confusion can lead to generalization. . . .
I am of the opinion that some leading Muslims and religious leaders in the Netherlands have inflicted this confusion upon themselves. The disapproving reactions to the attack are to my taste too often paired with a high "on the one hand . . . on the other hand" relativistic supposition -- on the one hand condemning, on the other hand carefully declaring oneself receptive to the causes of action of the perpetrators by relating them to the politics of Israel and the United States in the Middle East. . . .
For many Dutch, such statements strengthen their growing suspicion of these leading Muslims, whom they suspect of double-talk and equivocation. Because the murder of thousands of innocent civilians and rescue workers in New York and Washington is a crime against humanity, for which there are no justifiable mitigating circumstances -- not even the suffering elsewhere in the world of the repressed Palestinians, for which the [five] thousand in New York bear no responsibility. I do not wish hereby to deny the suffering of the Palestinians, but if this distinction is not introduced into official declarations, then further escalations will inevitably follow. How should we react if tomorrow a terrorist attack destroys the holy places of Islam andChristians ask Muslims for understanding, pointing to the dead of Sept. 11? Indeed, Osama bin Laden's call for Muslims to battle America and to murder her citizens and soldiers has been chiefly justified by pointing to the presence of American troops on the holy ground of Saudi Arabia. . . .
It is also remarkable that some among you refuse to admit the hand of Islamic fundamentalists in the attacks, but that you, in total contradiction to this refusal, nevertheless still bring up the Palestinian question in this discussion. . . .
The danger is real then, that through a lack of decisiveness you unwillingly allow Islam to be taken hostage by extreme elements. Around the corner lurk formidable conflicts sought by these malevolent forces -- those conflicts between religions, cultures and civilizations.
Until recently, these kinds of subjects were meticulously flushed away and deposited into the realm of the taboo. But the climate in the Netherlands has changed. . . . An example . . . is the declaration by Rotterdam Councilman Boezrik, concerning a potential [American] attack on the Taliban: "Then all Hell will break loose here in Rotterdam. There are two worlds here and they shall be laid flat." Shocking words, which to some non-Muslims such as myself come across not only as veiled threats and blackmail, but also as words that implicitly and shamelessly extol the bankruptcy of multicultural societies.
Should I not have written all of this, to avoid this confusion? It sometimes seems that for you the open discussion of painful subjects is tantamount to xenophobia, hatred of "foreigners" or an attempt to exclude. Am I mistaken in this? I do believe that I am correct when I write that we have arrived in a phase of urgency -- a phase in which time is pressing and the need is high.
-- Translated from the Dutch by Olivier L.F. Asser
© 2001 The Washington Post Company |
