Why Theo Van Gogh Was Murdered
XpatriotgamesX
the plight of Muslim women.
The slaughter of filmmaker Theo Van Gogh on the streets of Amsterdam, in broad
daylight, by a young man of Moroccan origin bent on jihad, has at last dented
Dutch confidence that unconditional tolerance can be on its own the unifying
principle of a viable society. For tolerance to work, it must be reciprocal;
tolerance appears to the intolerant jihadist mere weakness and lack of belief
in anything. Unilateral tolerance in a world of intolerance is like unilateral
disarmament in a world of armed camps: it regards hope as a better basis for
policy than reality.
Like most people in Western democracies, Van Gogh, by all accounts a brash and
combative man, took his freedom of expression for granted. Most of us most of
the time do not reflect much on the fact that such freedom is an historical
exception rather than an historical rule, a reversible achievement rather than
a free gift of God. There are still many who would rather kill than brook any
contradiction of their opinions or beliefs, even while they live in the most
tolerant of societies.
But why kill Theo Van Gogh, of all the people who have expressed hostility to
radical Islam? Perhaps it was mere chance, but more likely it resulted from his
work’s exposure of a very raw nerve of Muslim identity in Western Europe: the
abuse of women. This abuse is now essential for people of Muslim descent for
maintaining any sense of separate cultural identity in the homogenizing
solution of modern mass society.
In fact, Islam is as vulnerable in Europe to the forces of secularization as
Christianity has proved to be. The majority of Muslims in Europe, particularly
the young, have a weak and tenuous connection to their ancestral religion.
Their level and intensity of belief is low; pop music interests them more. Far
from being fanatics, they are lukewarm believers at best. Were it not for the
abuse of women, Islam would go the way of the Church of England.
The abuse of women has often, if not always, appealed to men, because it gives
them a sense of power, however humiliated they may feel in other spheres of
their life. And the oppression of women by Muslim men in Western Europe gives
those men at the same time a sexual partner, a domestic servant, and a
gratifying sense of power, while allowing them also to live an otherwise
westernized life. For the men, it is convenient; interestingly, but perhaps not
surprisingly, almost the only openly hostile expressions toward Islam from
British-born Muslims that I hear come from young women, some of whom loathe it
passionately because they blame it for their servitude.
Religious sanction for the oppression of women (whether theologically justified
or not) is hence the main attraction of Islam to young men in an increasingly
secular world. This explains why a divide often opens between brothers and
sisters in the same European Muslim family; the sisters want liberty, but the
brothers enforce the old rules. They have to, or the whole gratifying system
breaks down.
John Berg
point that the reformation of Islam must and will come from Muslim women.
If we accept the message's thesis, Muslim men know it, too.
--
John Berg
"XpatriotgamesX" <xpatrio...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20041118091842...@mb-m13.aol.com...
TR
one of the most appealing, because of it's tolerance and open mindedness,
is Buddhism. But then I remember that Buddists were virtually
annihilated on the India subcontinent by the Muslims when they
arrived there. Despite our desire for tolerance, what sense does
it make to practice extreme tolerance when it only gets you
exterminated and when the result is that control of the earth is
left completely in the hands of the intolerant.
--
http://thereactionary.home.mindspring.com