By Edward
I would hope that I’ve earned enough credibility on the "tolerance for Muslims" front to get away with this, but if not, too bad.
There’s an increasing amount of chatter in the blogosphere about the threat radical Muslims are posing to Western Europe, especially in the form of physical violence against those who they see as a threat to their way of life. In many instances I think it’s merely opportunistic racism looking for any license to voice itself. In others, someone who is the victim of violence begins to see threats everywhere (that’s normal, I guess). But neither is always the case, and it’s time to start a serious respectful dialog about how to address the problem.
The Netherlands is perhaps the best example of a simmering pot about to boil over. The Dutch are notoriously liberal and tolerant. An example of how much so was provided by Bruce Bawer, a conservative literary critic living in Norway, who reportedly knows northern Europe well, on Andrew Sullivan’s site:
[Gay journalist, Chris Crain, who was bashed by Muslim youths last week, for holding hands with his boyfriend on the street] quotes Queen Beatrix on intolerance. I’m sure she meant that ethnic Dutch people are growing more intolerant of Muslims. Some are. My fear has long been that the Dutch liberal establishment’s unwillingness to confront Muslim bigotry would feed the rise of anti-Muslim neo-fascism, resulting in a society split between two extreme rights – one Muslim and one non-Muslim. In any case Beatrix’s handling of these matters has been (shall we say) dismaying. After van Gogh’s murder she refused to attend his funeral or meet with Hirsi Ali; instead, she went to a Moroccan youth center and made friendly chitchat. Compare this to Queen Margrethe of Denmark, who in a new authorized biography addresses these issues head-on, saying ‘there are certain things of which one should not be too tolerant.’
Again, I’ll slam anyone who preaches hatred toward Muslims, but here I want to make my position crystal clear. If a Muslim person commits a crime, that person needs to be punished as fully as any other member of that society. If a Muslim person preaches hate, that person needs to be exposed as immediately and forcefully as any other member of that society. If a Muslim community doesn’t like the way certain members among its neighbors live because of what their religion says about this or that lifestyle, they can work, like anyone else, to bring about changes in the legislature, but to take to the streets and use thuggery to try and bring about change should be met with an overwhelming crackdown and social exposure, and leaders shouldn’t shy away from their responsibility here.
Respect is reserved for law-abiding members of society only. You break the law, preach hate, practice intolerance, etc., etc. etc., you forfeit your right to respect. Bending over backwards to forgive crimes or hate or intolerance is not tolerance…it’s idiocy. It’s an offense toward the victims, and it will only make matters worse.
For Queen Beatrix to have confused her loyalties/duties in the light of van Gogh’s reprehensible murder is depressing. There are certainly gray areas in the overall scheme of the culture clash, but murder is pretty easy to take a stand on. The animals who murdered van Gogh deserve our contempt, not our tolerance. If one’s interpretation of one’s own culture seems this incompatible with the freedom of artistic expression we cherish in the West or certain lifestyles, they should take the first flight back to where they came from. If they go so far as to kill someone for voicing an opinion or bash someone for holding their lover’s hand, they should rot in prison. If crimes like this occur, it’s the country’s leaders’ and average citizens’ duty to loudly and forcefully denounce them. That can be done while respecting all law-abiding members of society, so long as the criminals are treated as individuals.
Not doing so (denouncing crimes or ensuring criminals are treated as individuals) only invites more violence. As Bawer noted: "It ain’t brain surgery."
The Muslim guys that own and operate a liquor store I frequent, say hi to me first and chitchat about things, contrary to some Salafist teachings about how to interact with the infidel. I’d say they’re pretty darn tolerant. I think there is going to be a Muslims for freedom demonstration on May 14 in Washington (Double check: I’m notorious for making my facts up when I’m at home on dial-up and can’t Google things so easily.) Please post the correct date and particulars about this.
You know a very strange thing about this for me is that I lived in Morocco for a few years (best time of my life so far). And I very frequently held hands in public with my close Moroccan friends. It’s an Arab custom to do so, just notice all the sniggering about Bush and the Sa`udi Prince `Abdallah holding hands (and given Bush’s decades-long close connection with the Sa`udis I’m damned sure he didn’t have to be told that by some protocol officer). And that goes doubly for any respected elders, scholars, mystics, etc, that I met. In fact there’d be a lot of hand-kissing (and the ritual pulling away of the hand) and as part of leave-taking even head-kissing.
And even though I’d never do such here, straight guy that I am, I never once felt that it was queer (in both senses of the word.)
Which brings me to this observation: Morocco has a certain reputation with regard to homosexuality. Just google Paul Bowles if you don’t know much about him. And it has always been a part of Moroccan culture, not that it’s totally accepted and embraced, but neither is it singled out for censure or abuse.
So I’ve been wondering for some time now, and it’s something I have discussed with fellow Islamicists (though not the ones who really might have answers here, like Everett Rowson) but my impression as someone who has read widely in the tradition in Arabic and Persian and lived and travelled fairly extensively in the Arab and Muslim world, is that the particular vehemence for which homosexuality is being singled out for attack is largely imported from and influenced by the rhetoric of modern Fundamentalist Christianity. It’s a hunch, and one which is shared by a number of colleagues but it is still tentative. It is very disturbing in any case.
DaveC, you’ve got the date correct. Here’s the website with the details.
Which brings me to this observation: Morocco has a certain reputation with regard to homosexuality. Just google Paul Bowles if you don’t know much about him.
Or Joe Orton or Jean Genet. Morocco is infamous for selling its youth to European or American pedophiles. But I think it’s a rise in Islamic fundamentalism there and elsewhere, and not (just) Christian fundamentalism rhetoric causing this.
Edward, yes a litany of names, but as for selling its youth I must correct. Among Moroccans there is one group known for such activity. They are one of the three major Berber (Amazigh) groups in Morocco. In the Rif mountains of the north, the Berbers have a reputation, well-earned, for banditry and growing hashish- they also have a very healthy look, rosy puffy cheeks on many of the women, and it’s not unusual for one to see a red-haired and freckle-face among them.
To the south, in the region known as the Sus (or Souss) there are the Shilha (Tashilheit, Soussis, etc,) They are fine featured, olive complexioned, and have a reputation for piety (true piety, not a put-on show) and for being very tight-fisted businessmen (someone who lived there for decades once said to me that they are the “Scotsmen of Morocco”).
The Berbers of the Middle Atlas are the ones with the reputation for selling their children into prostitution. (I have no idea if this is true, I spent a lot of time in the Rif, and areas adjacent to it and a fair amount of time in the south, but I only really traversed the Middle Atlas to go from one region to the other). Only it is their daughters that I’ve only ever heard tell are sold into prostitution.
Another note, is that what you said doesn’t really address what I raised. I’m seeing this as a fairly recent phenomenon within Islamic Fundamentalism (itself a fairly recent phenomenon) and knowing Muslim and Arab culture and history as I do it strikes me as odd, as it does some others I know with extensive knowledge and experience of that world.
Calling Dutchmarbel…
I’ll go out on a limb here, and suggest that though the Netherlands is “tolerant”, because this tolerance is originally based on a policy of pillarization (where groups are thought to occupy separate niches in the country), toleration is not something that universally permeates Dutch society. This leads me to suggest that it is not simply the end product that is important, it is the path by which one reaches the goal.
Even though I sometimes think that multiculturalism is often a covert way for the white majority (becoming a minority) to make differences more palatable, I believe it is important to consider it as a first choice for a process of how to move to tolerance.
Of course, tolerance has a strange double meaning, one is the ‘tolerance is good’ sort of meme that implies respect of others and the notion of tolerance as the ability to withstand increasing levels of pain/distaste, whatever. That duality is part of the problem, I think.
I also think one should also be very careful in regarding what Sullivan chooses to highlight. I personally don’t think he is a very honest writer/thinker, which I suppose is verging on ad hominem, but having seem Sullivan leave out context on various occasions, I would bring my salt shaker for anything that appears on his blog.
In the Philippines, which is 90-some percent Roman Catholic, 5 percent Muslim, and the rest Animist, holding hands in public among members of the same sex is the way its done. Holding hands among members of the opposite sex is a matter, in the countryside, for watchful chaperones.
Further, homosexuality seems tolerated and understood. And, transvestism is right out in the open, especially among young men. Filipino men make for stunningly attractive women, even after you find out, which is not a personal outing, but merely an observation, he felt compelled to say.
John Thullen’s post reminded me that transvestism is also out in the open in Morocco. Though it always seemed the ex-pat women were far better at picking them out than I was (if you know about djellabas, that’s a large reason why.)
holding hands in public among members of the same sex is the way its done
Slight correction:
Women can hold hands without comment, but not men.
But men can put their arms on each others shoulders, or link arms, without comment. (And women can do the same as well).
In the Philippines, which is 90-some percent Roman Catholic, 5 percent Muslim, and the rest Animist, holding hands in public among members of the same sex is the way its done. Holding hands among members of the opposite sex is a matter, in the countryside, for watchful chaperones.
My favorite are same-sex bicycle or motorcycle riding, common throughout SE Asia. Anyone riding like that in the US would automatically assumed to be gay; there, it just means you’re not upper class (and hence can only afford the one bike).
NOTE: Comment edited slightly after first posting because…well, because I can.
Another note, is that what you said doesn’t really address what I raised. I’m seeing this as a fairly recent phenomenon within Islamic Fundamentalism (itself a fairly recent phenomenon) and knowing Muslim and Arab culture and history as I do it strikes me as odd, as it does some others I know with extensive knowledge and experience of that world.
OK, I understand better what you mean, but what in particular is “it” here, Barry? Violent opposition to open homosexuality? There really is no way to measure that because the sort of open homosexuality one sees in Amsterdam certainly has no parallel anywhere in the world, no?
votermom: I stand slightly corrected. Thanks.
John Thullen: actually, I retract that. It’s true of most of Luzon, but someone reminded me that in the Visayas it’s different. Men do hold hands platonically.
On tolerance: What helps me is to remember that no one ever gets to choose what family/nation/race they’re born into.
After birth, though, we do get chances to make some choices — always limited, granted, but choices nonetheless.
Toleration may be overrated. What we don’t get enough of is love of the diverse and complex nature of mankind.
Caveat: I have basically zero expertise in Islam except for a weird fondness for Ibn Sina’s philosophy of mind. That said…
It seems to me that what’s going on in ghettos of western Europe is a weird kind of hybrid in which young men who grow up in an environment that is influenced by the European/North American “ghetto” youth culture that valorizes predation and a sort of hyper-masculinity, but also are trying to define their identity in terms of Islam. I am, after all, fairly certain that there aren’t any schools of Islamic jurisprudence that say that unveiled women should be gang-raped. But it seems to me that you have guys whose environment idealizes aggression in all of its forms looking to construct their identities in terms of Islam. The result is the phenomenon of some young men deciding that gang-rape is the best way to punish women who are behaving immodestly.
I think it’s a similar thing with gay-bashing. There is, as far as I know, an undercurrent of homophobia that goes with any culture that places an emphasis on extreme masculinity. As such, you have guys taking gay bashing and then trying to shoe-horn it in with their own interpretations of their faith.
I tend to think that it’s not Islam driving badness in the Netherlands; rather, it’s people trying to put a pious gloss on criminality and thuggery.
It’s been two and a half decades, but IIRC, the Saudis had some strange dichotomy about homosexuality.
Not sure how to phrase it, but being on top did not detract from a man’s honor. Of course, it was all hidden, so I’m not sure how the distinction was made.
Barry could be right though. I don’t recall hearing anything unless it involved a foreigner, so it might be the overt display that sets off the radicals.
Jack,
The whole “not gay if you’re driving” thing has been a part of Mediterranean culture since long before Islam. To be on the receiving end, OTOH… Well, Catullus isn’t talking about what we would think of as modern homosexuality when he says, “Pedicabo ego vos et irrumabo”…
Barry could be right though. I don’t recall hearing anything unless it involved a foreigner, so it might be the overt display that sets off the radicals.
I think this is it. It’s the “in your face” aspect of it that sets off a good deal of overreactions, I suspect (which is in no way meant to excuse it, rather explain it).
Even the most accepting straight males will cringe if they see two gay guys getting a bit too intimate in public…it’s partially human nature …although with training it can be overcome…I mean, I hardly ever flinch when I see heteorsexuals engaging in PDAs anymore 😉
What happens in private, though, is much easier to be tolerant about.
Well, Catullus isn’t talking about what we would think of as modern homosexuality when he says, “Pedicabo ego vos et irrumabo”…
Which is always a good time to remind people that the Romans had two words for what we now have one: fellatio and irrumatio, the giver and the receiver, so to speak. Only the fellator was considered “queer” — whatever that might have meant to a Roman; the irrumator was still a proud heterosexual.
In other words, it’s custom. Whether Bush knew through experience (he’s been President for a few years now; probably he’d have been privy to it anyway) or had some protocol officer brief him on it is irrelevant.
On the other hand, male hand-holding is also a custom in China, among friends. I rather doubt Bush held hands with Jiang Zemin, but we have a rather more adversarial relationship with China.
To paraphrase Terry Pratchett, it’s just as racist to assume that Muslims can’t have exactly the same proportion of assholes in their ranks that we white fellas do. At my last count, I figure it’s about 40% on our side, so it’s probably pretty close there too.
I was intrigued by Sullivan’s remark about anti muslim fascism. Will/do the anti muslim fascists believe in the corporate state,gas Ethiopeans,make the trains run on time,and wear Charlie Chaplin military uniforms. Worse,is there a fascist under every bed. Worse still,lurking in the closet,waiting to beat both muslim and gay,assuming they enter the closet together. Is there,or can there,be fascistphobia. Will Vanity Fair do a piece on this?
You and Bawer (“knows Northern Europe well”, suuure) both misunderstand the position the Queen is in, and what she is able to do. In a constitutional monarchy, not only is the queen barred from saying “off with his head!” and having people act on that order, but she’s disallowed from voicing any opinion at all without first clearing it extensively with the rest of the executive. Making chit-chat with people in the community is just about the extent of what she can do in public.
Of course, the Queen could have opted to stay at home. Why didn’t she do that? Might that have something to do with the fact that there were two dozen arson attempts against mosques and Muslim schools in the country in the weeks following the murder? That a large section of society, the vast majority of whom had nothing to do with the murder at all, was in the process of being marginalised and blamed for the murder? Like I wrote at the time of the murder and the , one thing president Bush did right after September 11 was to visit mosques, talk to imams and insist publically that Islam as a religion was not to blame – that Muslim Americans were still part of American society. That’s exactly the message the Queen’s visits were intended to send. But of course, the President’s actions don’t get viewed through the prism of “ha! those libral Europeans, they so naive!”
Meanwhile, the people who actually do the governing in this country did speak out against the likes of Mohammed Bouyeri, van Gogh’s killer. Bouyeri, incidentally, was apprehended immediately after the murder, is undergoing trial, and the unraveling of the network he’s part of continues apace.
Thanks for that clarification Reinder. I think you’re highlighting the perils of quoting anything on Sullivan that liberal japonicus warned about.
I too thought Bush did a spectacular job of preventing a more grotesque backlash against Muslims in the US, and I just hadn’t had enough information about the queen’s role or the initial arson attempts to understand the position she was in. It just goes to show you can’t please everyone, so in the end you should do what you feel is the right thing to do. I do wish, however, she had done something to demonstrate that van Gogh’s murder represented a virus that must be exterminated. From PBS reports and such, I find the rhetoric of radical Muslims in Holland totally unacceptable. One leader was quoted as saying that Muslims would be justified in bombing Dutch military bases in Holland in retaliation for the invasion of Iraq. At a certain point, that sort of treachery should buy you a ticket out of there.
That, at least, we can all agree on. We’re working on it, albeit slowly.
“Muslims can’t have exactly the same proportion of assholes in their ranks that we white fellas do.”
Muslims aren’t “white”? I learn something new about the way people categorize who is and isn’t “white” (other than albinos) all the time.