This item is available on the Militant Islam Monitor website, at http://www.militantislammonitor.org/article/id/1701
March 1, 2006
By Beila Rabinowitz, Director Militant Islam Monitor
March 2, 2006 – Philadelphia, PA – PipeLineNews.org - Theo Van Gogh's murder provides the most eloquent and urgent example of why the Western concept of inter-cultural dialogue should be rejected in the context of Islamism.
Van Gogh's killer, a young Dutch born Muslim, had the benefit of a good education and was even working for a state financed Muslim community youth organization. Ironically, Bouyeri's pursuit of radical Islam and his subsequent calls for jihad on internet websites, were protected by the laws guaranteeing freedom of religion and speech.
In the end, it was van Gogh, whose was brutally deprived of his right to irreverent free speech, by Mohammed Bouyeri who butchered him because he objected to Van Gogh's views on Islam.
To the point, an account of the murder, depicts a wounded Van Gogh pleading with Bouyeri that, "we can still talk about it" - don't do it - don't do it !" before being shot again and then nearly decapitated by his assailant.
A passerby who saw Bouyeri trying to sever Van Gogh's head said, "You just can't do that" - to which the killer replied, "Why not? He was asking for it."
The incredulous passerby repeated his remark, "You just can't do that."
"Yes I can," Bouyeri answered, "and this way you know what's in store for all of you".
The Van Gogh murder should serve as an example of why the Western concept of dialogue is seen as a form of weakness by the Islamists – appeasement – who are then emboldened.
In the words of British writer Douglas Murray - a self described neo-con - our lives and existence are non negotiable, "On this there is no room to give, no compromise, no discussion to be had."
The current wave of murder and mayhem perpetrated by Muslims worldwide under the guise of being offended by the publication of the Mohammed cartoons in the West is another manifestation of Muslims trying to wage a cultural jihad, by imposing Islamic norms on their Western host society which has opted for moral relativism over survival.
Dialogue implies parity, and a shared exchange of ideas. This template has proven useless in the context of dialogue between Muslims and non-Muslims because it inevitably becomes a forum for Muslims to put Westerners on the defensive by confronting them with imagined grievances and calls for conversion.
Addressing a recent European conference on Islam, Douglas Murray said that it was time that the West stopped appeasing Muslims with dialogue, becoming instead, "uncompromising and absolutist" in our affirmation of Western values.
"The point is that the whole deal under which Muslims live in our societies must change. At present we ask, "why do they hate us" and "what did we fail to give them" and suchlike. It's time that the West woke up to the fact that the militants in our midst will never like us…Grievances become ever more pronounced the more they are flattered and paid attention to; so don't flatter them…Dhimmitude arises when people think that the feelings of a threatening minority mean more the cherished native traditions of free speech." - Militant%20Islam%20Monitor%20
" . When fellow Abou Jah radical Islamist Belgium - slaughtered 3,000 Americans World Trade Center attacks first stop for Mayor was a mosque. In schools, mosques everywhere Amsterdam parties were held to celebrate victory over "the Great Satan.? Cohen groveled in front the believers and proclaimed, "You one us!? Instead of asking ?What are you doing here?
Militant Islam Monitor
In his article "May I Say this?" Gogh mocked political correctness by cynically asking this question and pointing out that many liberals would join with Muslims in decrying what they saw as offensive while ignoring Muslim hysteria and aggression.
"…because partly due to people like me this fifth column of goat-fuckers is going issue a desperate cry for "respect", and assault your and my children with poison gas, diseases, and atomic bombs. That's logical, isn't it?"
The murder of Theo Van Gogh's was the logical conclusion to a campaign which had been mounted against him by Muslims who had started a petition to get the government to silence him.
The petition - which debuted on a website which also served as a forum for Van Gogh's killers and other Islamists - was to be presented to Dutch lawmakers and was title "Our Patience Has Ended." This denunciation, contained a threat which offered an inadvertent glimpse into the mindset of Van Gogh's murderer and his supporters.
"…Muslims are in general tolerant and patient, but we cannot continue to allow this man to continue to spread hate and aggression against Muslims and go unpunished".
"Our patience has ended- and ironically claimed that "people cannot expect us to remain silent" - This has gone too far - "We are angry and it is our right to be angry!" - Source Link
When asked about the petition, Van Gogh's comment highlighted that Muslims needed to be forced to "get with the program" and not appeased and courted with dialogue. "This shows that I am even more right about this then anything which I have ever written. The writing ban which they demand is a gift from Allah for me. I still have a lot of developmental aid work to do." - Source Link
Van Gogh had also anticipated the murder of his politically incorrect friend, the prime ministerial candidate Pim Fortuyn. In his article "The Silencing of Theo van Gogh" Ronald Rovers made reference to that.
".On his Web site, the Healthy Smoker, van Gogh had predicted the assassination: "I suspect Fortuyn will be the first in a line of politically incorrect heretics to be eliminated," he wrote. "This is what our multicultural society has brought us: a climate of intimidation in which all sorts of goat fuckers can issue their threats freely." Fortuyn, however, was not shot by a Muslim extremist but by an animal-rights activist for "using Muslims as scapegoats," as the murderer, a quiet, earnest-looking man, later explained in court.
Van Gogh received threats from Diab Abou Jah Jah, the head of the Arab European League, which prompted worries among his friends and supporters that he too could be a target.
"Notably, van Gogh was murdered exactly 911 days after Fortuyn. Anger toward him had certainly been rising to a boiling point all year. In May, he was slated to act as chairman of a public debate called "Happy Chaos" at the Amsterdam City Theatre. Dyab Abou Jahjah, the leader of a relatively small but provocative Belgian Islamic organization, refused to sit at the table with van Gogh. One of the organizers claimed Jahjah said, "We're not taking any more of that pig." When Jahjah left the stage, van Gogh took the microphone and said: "So this is what some Muslims think of democracy!" After Jahjah left, he said to the crowd: "Why would he be afraid to talk to me? After all, he's the prophet's pimp and he has bodyguards." The debate was canceled." - Ronald Rovers, The Silencing of Theo van Gogh
The debate which did not take place was described by Theo van Gogh in one of his columns in which he pointed out that
"…Hundreds of people who were present in the audience that evening expressed their support, a few showed that with some friends one needs no enemies, others surprised me, and I heard time and time again…Be careful!"
While the Dutch are now cowering in fear of their lives, the Muslims have brazenly asserted that they are the one's literally and figuratively calling the shots in Europe.
In the words of Amsterdam Moroccan Muslim councilwomen Fatima Elatik, "We are here to stay and you had better get used to it."
Van Gogh ended his piece with the words, "indeed it is time to emigrate."
The summer before his murder Van Gogh had overcome his deathly fear of flying to come to America and make plans to move from Holland.
He never returned, however.
Meanwhile, the Dutch Integration Minister Rita Verdonk had called for a meeting of Imams in Holland with the aim of telling them to "get with the program" and at that time introduced them to government programs aimed at helping Muslims integrate into Dutch culture.
The futility of the meeting was manifest at the start when one of the leading Imams in the Hague refused to shake Ms. Verdonck's outstretched hand simply, "because she was a woman."
Verdonk told the Imam "I see we will have a lot to talk about."
Indeed, the idea of a two-way dialogue proved to be a non starter – lack of willingness aside – because most of the Imams, who though having been in Holland for almost twenty years, still didn't speak Dutch and had to talk to her via an interpreter.
Since one of the government's new requirements for assimilation stipulated that Imams had to speak Dutch the ludicrous nature of the proceedings were manifestly evident.
For their part, the Muslims responded to the Dutch government's call for assimilation with their own form of die-alogue.
Since then and in response to her efforts, Verdonk received numerous death threats and is required to be under constant guard.
After his murder and in a glaring example of what Van Gogh called "wrongly understood idealism," the Dutch government did not defend Van Gogh's freedom of speech but rather attempted to "reach out to Muslims" to try to minimize the possibility of further attacks.
In his book "Allah Weet Het Beter" - "Allah Knows Best," Theo wrote these prophetic words:
"Since September 11, as you well know , the knives have been sharpened and the Fifth Column of the goat fuckers has been marching relatively unhindered forwards. I can't put it otherwise. We live in a nightmare of good intentions and wrongly understood idealism. I am too old to emigrate to America, that shining beacon in a steadily darkening world."
The Van Gogh murder should have been a wakeup call to the West - Henk Bos, a councilman for Rotterdam - the city which is predicted to be the first majority Muslim city in Europe, understood that defense and not dialogue are our only hope.
" The time for talking is long past.. We want to act."
Closer To Home
In the wake of the Mohammed cartoon controversy, the Philadelphia Inquirer's attempts at 'dialogue' with Muslims who protested outside the newspapers offices after that newspaper published those allegedly sacrilegious images is further proof that any recognition of ginned-up Islamist grievances simply results in the generation of further demands and is seen by them as a sign of weakness and dhimmitude [the status in Islamic law of a conquered people living under the yoke of Islam].
On the first day of the protests, two of the paper's editors tried to discuss with the crowd of about 30 demonstrators why the Inquirer decided to exercise it's First Amendment rights.
The Inquirer's Editor, Amanda Bennett gushed in an interview that "she was proud to see the Muslims ‘exercising their right to free speech.'" Instead of quelling Muslim outrage, the Inquirer's editors' deference resulted in the number of protestors swelling from 30 to over 300 demonstrators on the following day.
The energized crowd vowed to, "keep on protesting until the paper issued an apology."
The Inquirer editors were so busy lauding Muslim demonstrators for utilizing 'free speech' that they ignored the threat made by the one protestor - Iqbal Baqai - the state representative of ICNA [The al-Qaeda linked, Islamic Circle of North America] who told the Christian Science Monitor that:
"Muslims are very angry - the offices of the Inquirer could be attacked."
Indeed no mention was made of this in any of the Inquirer's following editions. Instead the paper gave Muslims groups like CAIR, space in the paper to give 'their view' about the publication of the Mohammed cartoons.
The Inquirer's attempt to assuage Muslim grievances, by publishing an opinion piece by Imam Abdul Mateen, the head of the Philadelphia Muslim Majlis Al Shura [the Islamic law council] and one of the ringleaders of the protests is a textbook example of how Western attempts at dialogue are regarded by Muslims as a de-facto declaration of surrender when faced by a cultural jihad.
Abdulmateen wrote, "We Muslims love the Prophet Muhammad 'upon whom be peace', more than ourselves and more then our parents. This is well known. The Inquirer and every newspaper that published the offensive cartoons did so with the deliberate intention of reviling our beloved prophet and the religion of Islam. It was no mistake. It was no misunderstanding…"
Abdulmateen ended his piece, not with a call to dialogue but by explaining that the only possible way for the Inquirer's staff to make amends to Muslims was to convert to Islam! Instead of heaping childish insults upon Muslims, we invite you to accept Islam and to become Muslims as thousands of American and Europeans have already done."
It remains to be seen whether the staff of the Philadelphia Inquirer will convert en masse, and change the name of their paper to the 'Philadelphia Islamic Inspirer' in order to win back their Muslim subscribers.
The brazen exhortation of Imam Abdulmateen for a newspaper staff to convert to Islam, shows that dialogue with Muslims is synonymous with dhimmitude.
In a speech at a conference honoring the murdered Dutch politician Pim Fortuyn, Douglas Murray gave a speech which was a stirring call to arms for Western civilization and values and a rejection of defeatist concepts like dialogue and appeasement.
"Whatever we, - the free peoples of the West - choose, let us be certain, and let us make it plain- that it will not be submission, it will not be dhimmitude and it will not be dishonor."
"Many people of an older generation tell me that Europe is lost, that there is nothing we can do to save it. It is people of my age who will have to put up with an Islamic or dhimmi Europe. We do not want that and must stop it from coming about. Let us act now so that it does not happen."
This item is available on the Militant Islam Monitor website, at http://www.militantislammonitor.org/article/id/1701