if you did so
would not your life
be on the line,
under the knife so to speak?

just ask ayaan hirsi ali
theo vangogh,
or mohammed bouyeri.

Redacción | Publicado el 5 Octubre, 2008

¿Por qué los políticos franceses, sean liberales, gaullistas o socialistas, tratan a Marruecos con una deferencia que no reciben muchos de sus socios de la Unión Europea, como España, ni, por supuesto, Estados Unidos? El periodista Alí Lmrabet, encarcelado por ultraje al rey, afirma que la respuesta reside en la corrupción

La monarquía marroquí dispone de una legión de políticos, empresarios, diplomáticos, periodistas, universitarios y notables que la defienden en Europa y América. Siempre que se recuerda el carácter despótico del Gobierno, la pobreza del pueblo o la ocupación del Sáhara, esa legión golpea sus escudos para explicar los “esfuerzos modernizadores” de Hasán II y ahora de su hijo Mohamed VI; la diferencia cultural que nos impide aplicar los mismos criterios a Marruecos; el “cortafuegos” que es la persona del rey ante el crecimiento del islamismo; o la peor situación en que se encuentran otros países árabes. En Argelia el periodista marroquí Alí Lmrabet se ha atrevido, por fin, a pronunciar en voz alta lo que muchos susurraban.

En una entrevista publicada por el diario argelino ‘El Watan’ el 11 de noviembre (www.elwatan.com/2004-11-11/2004-11-11-7854), Lmrabet denuncia que la monarquía marroquí goza de tanto prestigio en Francia porque libra sobornos de manera continua a los políticos franceses. “La monarquía marroquí financia de hecho a la democracia francesa”. Así consigue aquélla evitar el ambiente hostil que sufrió, por ejemplo, el régimen de Agusto Pinochet en Chile, mucho menos represivo y atrasado, y, a la vez, obtener ventajas comerciales. Los sindicatos agrarios españoles han repetido que el mayor empresario agrícola de Marruecos es el sultán, por lo que todo aumento del contingente de tomates exento de aranceles que entra en Europa en perjuicio de los productores españoles no beneficia a los pequeños agricultores, que es la excusa bondadosa, sino al dueño de la finca.

Dris Bassri, el ministro del Interior marroquí de Hasán II durante largos años y cuyas funciones eran la eliminación de los oponentes a la monarquía y el amaño de las elecciones, fue destituido por Mohamed VI al poco de ascender al trono, en 1999. Vive refugiado en Francia desde entonces. Lmrabet afirma que el presidente francés Jacques Chirac no expulsará ni extraditará a Bassri, pese a que carece de permiso de residencia y de pasaporte, porque éste “conoce secretos sobre la financiación de los partidos políticos franceses” por parte del reino de Marruecos,

Sobre el verdadero carácter del régimen establecido por la familia real alauita, Lmrabet sostiene que los servicios secretos, la DST, disponen de una prisión secreta en la que encarcelan y torturan a quienes consideran peligrosos. Hasán II, como un sultán cruel, tenía otra prisión para ‘presos especiales’ en Tazmamart, y que se clausuró como muestra de la bondad del nuevo soberano. Uno de los sucesos más siniestros relacionados con la monarquía marroquí fue el asesinato a tiros en un parking de Mijas (Málaga) de Hicham Madari, ocurrido el 4 de agosto pasado. La víctima afirmaba ser hijo de una de las muchas concubinas del harén de Hasán II y, por tanto, hermanastro del actual rey; además, había anunciado su respaldo a la oposición. Lmrabet está convencido “al 85%” de que los autores del crimen son los servicios secretos marroquíes.

Ningún periodista ni político puede criticar los siguientes asuntos: Alá, la monarquía, la anexión del Sáhara Occidental y los negocios del rey, sus amigos y los generales. Si Mrabet fue condenado a cuatro años de cárcel por publicar el presupuesto que asigna el Estado a la Casa Real…. ¿qué le hubiera ocurrido por publicar un libro el que firmó Jesús Cacho en España con el título de “El negocio de la libertad”?. Mrabet, propietario y director de dos publicaciones satíricas, fue encarcelado en 2003. Permaneció siete meses preso y sólo obtuvo la libertad mediante un indulto gracias a una huelga de hambre, a la presión de los periodistas europeos y a unas gestiones realizadas por José María Aznar, entonces presidente del Gobierno español. Cuando Lmrabet visitó España en enero de 2004 por cuenta de ‘El Mundo’, dio las gracias a Aznar por las declaraciones que pronunció en Maraquech en su favor. Sin embargo, Chirac y su Gobierno no hicieron nada, pese a que Lmrabet dispone de la nacionalidad francesa.

En la misma entrevista, Lmrabet desmonta una de las justificaciones favoritas del régimen marroquí y de sus admiradores: su capacidad para detener el islamismo. Recuerda que el atentado del 16 de mayo de 2003 en Casablanca, los atentados del 11 de marzo de 2004 en Madrid y el asesinato del cineasta holandés Theo Van Gogh el 2 de noviembre fueron cometidos por jóvenes marroquíes fanatizados.

La corrupción puede ser el fin de Europa, a la vez que el factor que explica muchas decisiones políticas incomprensibles para los ciudadanos según la lógica y los intereses electorales. Los gobernantes árabes son maestros en el uso del dinero para corromper las conciencias, aunque es cierto que fracasarían si los tentados rechazaran sus cheques.

DIE LINKEN IM WIDERSPRUCH ZU IHREN AHNEN

Seit der Aufklärung konnten die AgnostikerInnen und AtheistInnen, denen die Linken vorrangig angehören, im Westen meist ein ruhiges Leben führen. Sie wurden nur noch belächelt und als Sonderlinge betrachtet, so etwa wie Vegetarier oder Schmetterlingssammler, niemals mehr aber offen angegriffen. Warum auch, sie vertraten etwas, was ohnehin niemandem mehr wehtat.

Keine religiös berufene Amtspersonen oder Autokraten wurden durch sie gefährdet, weil es keine davon mehr gab. AtheistInnen konnten sich in akademische Zirkel zurückziehen und dort unbehelligt die Schriften der einst wirklich verfolgten Atheisten und Aufklärer in aller Ruhe studieren.

Nun aber tritt mit dem in Europa sich immer mehr etablierenden Islam eine für den Westen im eigenen Land neuartige Religion auf den Plan, die sich sehr wohl noch auf religiös berufene Herrscher, Richter, Rechtsgutachter und Moral - Autoritätspersonen stützt. Atheistisch eingestellte Personen gefährden zwangsläufig deren Positionen und Autorität und werden vom Islam deshalb auch als vorrangige Feinde eingestuft.

Während Monotheisten (als "Dhimmi" bezeichnet) mit eingeschränktem Rechtsstatus geduldet und staatlicherseits geschützt werden, werden AtheistInnen als "Harbi" („dem Kriege zugehörig") bezeichnet. Religionskritiker sind also in Europa heute wieder ihrer körperlichen Unversehrtheit bedroht, sie setzen sich wieder Angriffen auf Leib und Leben aus. Durchgeführt werden solche Angriffe zwar oft nur von wenigen Einzeltätern, wie der Mörder von Theo van Gogh es war, diese neigen aber deswegen eher zur Gewalt, weil sie hinter sich den background der überwiegenden Zustimmung der islamischen Welt spüren.

AtheistInnen werden somit heute wieder das Ziel einer offenen Feindschaft und aus ihrem geschützten Elfenbeinturm herausgezerrt. Zurück zu Start. Vergesst 1789, vergesst die Entmachtung der Kirche 1793 in Frankreich und darauffolgend in ganz Europa, vergesst die Säkularisierungen der aufgeklärten Monarchen, vergesst die heutigen westlichen Verfassungen, die sich ausschließlich auf das Volk und keinerlei unverbesserliches "Gottesrecht" berufen, und in denen es durch Novellierungen möglich ist, den Menschrechten immer näher zu kommen.

Vergesst auch die 1968-er Revolution der Linken, die alle Hierarchien abschaffen wollte, ohne Tabu wirklich alles in endlosen Diskussionen zerpflückte, die vollste Gleichberechtigung der Frauen forderte, das Maskuline verachtete und für Barbusigkeit und sogar gänzliche natürliche Nacktheit eintrat. All das wäre doch ein wahrer Gräuel für Islam-Funktionäre gewesen, wenn sie damals schon im Westen gewesen wären.

Für diese gibt es nur predigen und verkünden, was sie, um die Linke weiter zu vereinnahmen, als „diskutieren" bezeichnen. Und die Linken fallen darauf hinein. Nicht mehr für lange Männerhaare und Minirock für Frauen, sondern für Kopftücher und Mantel bis zum Boden setzen sie sich plötzlich ein. Eine wahre Selbstverleugnung. Sogar Marx verleugnen sie, der sagte „Die Kritik der Religion ist Voraussetzung jeder Kritik", indem sie Kritiker der mohammedanischen Religion mit der Punzierung "Rassisten" verunglimpfen.

Auch im nunmehr auch ihrem Europa fühlen sich alle !!! - neben den Islamisten in konvergenter Weise  die "moderaten" und "gemäßigten" - Mohammedaner noch voll und ganz dem Koran und den Hadithen verpflichtet. Beides vor 1400 Jahren erstellt und seitdem nie zugunsten der im Westen immer mehr erweiterten Menschenrechte verändert. Der Rechtsstaat, auf den alle Demokraten so stolz waren, wird von den Linken verächtlich über Bord gekippt. Seit Hitler war der Rechtsstaat noch nie so in Gefahr, wie er heute durch die Allianz  Linke - europäische Mohammedaner - Antiisrael-Faschisten gekommen ist.

Solche befehlsmäßig vorgetragene Behauptungen der Mohammedaner wie: Frauen sind ausschließlich zum Kinderkriegen da, ein Gott macht die Rechtsgrundlagen, ein Gott macht die Moralvorschriften, ein Gott macht die Gesetze, wertet die europäische Linke ernsthaft als „Diskussionsbeitrag".

Das Schlachtfeld, auf dem heute AtheistInnen das Christentum bekämpfen, ist eine Spielwiese im Vergleich zum Schlachtfeld in dem sie sich gegenüber dem  Islam befinden. Denn diese Religion kann sich nur in der Weise verwirklichen, indem sie sich möglichst stark in der Welt breit macht. Bei den Christen und Juden wird der Weg zu ihrem jeweiligen Gott auf sehr intime Weise beschritten. Das Gebet dient in diesen Religionen der persönlichen engen Zwiesprache mit ihrem Gott.

Für Mohammedaner dient das Gebet ausschließlich der Lobpreisung, Bewunderung, Anbetung und Unterwerfung unter ihren Gott. Schon die Körperhaltung beim Gebet - nur auf Knien mit gekrümmtem Rücken- verdeutlicht dies. Der Weg zu ihrem Gott ist nicht intim, er führt nur über eine wenn es leicht geht gewaltlose, erzwungene und wenn es sein muss auch gewalttätige Verbreitung des Islams über die diesseitige Welt.

Wenn diese extreme Weltbezogenheit der islamischen Religion bedacht wird, stellen die islamischen Aussagen: „Mohammed ist das Siegel der Propheten" und „Islam ist die Vollendung der Religionen" eine Verdeutlichung eines erschreckenden Rückschritts zum Recht des Stärkeren auf religiöser Ebene dar.

Leider ist die europäische Linke noch zu selbstverliebt, um sich auf ihre Ahnen zu besinnen, wie es die Attische Demokratie, die bäuerliche Demokratie Thomas Münzers von 1525, die Aufklärung und die bürgerlichen Revolutionen vom 18. und 19. Jh., waren. Und so gerät sie in den Widerspruch, mit den einstmals tödlichen Gegnern ihrer Vorläufer, die aber im Islam in selbstverständlicher Weise heute noch bestimmend sind, gemeinsame Sache zu machen.

Arouet8              2008-09-30

In 2004, Dutch filmmaker Theo Van Gogh (great grandson of Vincent) was murdered in the streets of Amsterdam. He was shot and stabbed, and his throat was slit. His assailant was one Mohammed Bouyeri, a Dutch born citizen, of Moroccan extraction.

Theo Van Gogh had produced a short film written by Dutch Member of Parliament Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who was born in Somalia, and a self professed apostate of Islam. The film was a critique of passages in the Koran that could be interpreted as permitting physical abuse towards women.

The film created controversy within the Netherlands, which has a population of nearly one million people who identify as Muslim. The result was a national dialogue that questioned the lines where freedom of speech and religious tolerance cross.

Both Hirsi Ali and Van Gogh received death threats resulting from the film's broadcast on Dutch television. However Hirsi Ali had been facing harassment well before, in her speaking out against violence towards immigrant women at the hands of their male relatives in the Netherlands. Hirsi Ali was supplied with protection by the Dutch government, but Van Gogh did not take the threats seriously. He was later shot and stabbed in Amsterdam while riding his bike. The assailant left a letter stabbed onto his chest which, written in Dutch, which read can be read here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammed_Bouyeri

Murder is common place anywhere in the world, even in relatively safe cities such as Amsterdam. As are death threats against high profile politicians and public figures. It should be noted that protection for a politician was not common place in the Netherlands until recently. Hirsi Ali was supplied with the same protection as Queen Beatrix, so to speak.  What is of considerable interest in the case of Mohammed Bouyeri was that he was born in the Netherlands, and was schooled there his whole life. When one thinks of those who identify in what one thinks of as a "terrorist martyr," one thinks of those born, raised, and schooled in far flung places well outside of Western secular influence, namely places such as Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Northern Africa. I am not of course suggesting that everyone from these places identifies as a Muslim radicalist, or that in order TO identify as a Muslim radicalist, one must come from one of these countries. What I would like to understand is why exactly a person born and raised in one of the most prosperous, open, and secular nations in the world,  would turn to extremism and murder for the sake of "martyrdom."

What are the social and economic conditions in which Bouyeri lived? Is Bouyeri simply a singular misbegotten case? Or are there other European born Muslims, or even ethnic European converts, who sympathize, or even wish to emulate Bouyeri? What exactly is leading some European Muslims to religious extremism, when they live in liberal democracies that allow freedoms that are unheard of in the many of the oppressive lands that they or their parents, or even their grandparents fled? Also, why are there many new (not all of course) European converts to Islam, who willingly and zealously cling on to fundamentalism? Why do some people of non-European ethnic extraction thrive in Western societies, while others don't? According to an international Pew Poll taken a few years ago, a majority of Muslims living in Canada considered themselves very content and thriving, considerably more so than those in the UK. Why is this the case?

The case of Bouyeri, the murder of Theo Vang Gogh, and the situation of Ayaan Hirsi Ali, is something of a microcosm of a much larger social condition in Europe, and even Canada. What is leading our citizens, though an incredibly small percentile, to extremism?

Over the summer I read two of Hirsi Ali's books, which are included in my tentative reading list: Her biography, "Infidel", and a collection of her essays, "The Caged Virgin." The books were very enlightening, and fascinating. Personally I am a fan of Ayaan Hirsi Ali, however her accounts are a little bit one sided. But she does address the fact that extremism can brew, and is brewing within European communities. She herself has some suggestions as to why these problems have arisen, and she even supplies some answers to which she believes may help these problems.

This is an incredibly touchy subject to broach within a class setting. My intent is most definitely NOT driven by racial or anti-religious prejudice. But it's a question that I, and many others who identify within the various sub-communities of the Western World, whether religious or not, wish to understand: What is leading our citizens to Islamic fundamentalism and extremism?

here are some relevent links:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3974179.stm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayaan_Hirsi_Ali

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hofstad_Network

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammed_Bouyeri

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Submission_(movie)

"Det som borde ha lett till ramaskri och ovillkorliga avståndstaganden vändes i politiska och journalistiska kommentarer, inte minst i Sverige, till motsatsen: mordet på den anstötlige Theo van Gogh var ett tecken på det förtryck muslimerna i Holland led under. Det visade hur intolerant Holland blivit. Inte intolerant såtillvida att en människa hade avrättats på grund av en film han gjort, utan på så sätt att muslimer kände sig otrygga."

"Ett mord som det på Theo van Gogh borde leda till rannsakning av värderingarna som ledde fram till det. Istället rannsakas Theo van Gogh och yttrandefriheten och kritik kallas för intolerans. Resonemanget förklär sig som ”nyansering” och ”postkolonial medvetenhet” men är bara nedlåtande, fegt och lättjefullt. Nu utkommer på svenska Ian Burumas bok om situationen i Holland, Mordet i Amsterdam. Theo van Goghs död och toleransens gränser. Den ansluter till strömningen att något måste vara fel i ett land där detta kunde ske: mördaren har inte tagits emot tillräckligt väl"
Läs mer: Mordet i Amsterdam. Theo van Goghs död och toleransens ­gränser, SvD.

You perhaps wouldn’t think it, but the Dutch painter Vincent van Gogh can offer us a few clues.

When you think of van Gogh (1853–90), you think of an eccentric painter, famous for cutting off chunks of his own facial features and painting stunning pictures of sunflowers.

But did you know he also spent some time living in London?

In 1869, aged just fifteen, Vincent’s uncle (also called Vincent) found him a job in The Hague with the art dealer Goupil & Cie. By mid-1873 he’d completed his training and was sent to work for the London branch of the company on Southampton Street (just off the Strand).

Young Vincent took lodgings in Hackford Road, Brixton. He was earning a decent wage and, of course, managed to get himself into some mischief with local young ladies. But in between all this he was writing regular letters back to Holland, mostly to his brother Theo van Gogh.

Fortunately for us, these letters – and some others from his family archive – have been transcribed and are available online. I spent a merry afternoon reading through the lot and have selected the following extracts pertaining to our local area for enjoyment and amusement.

You’ll see from the quotes below that some things in London never change:

31 May 1873
From Rev van Gogh to Vincent’s brother Theo

Our Vincent wrote that he had bought a top hat; you cannot be in London without one … he has to be economical because of the high cost of living there.

02 July 1873
Vincent to a friend in The Hague about living in Brixton

The neighbourhood where I live is quite beautiful, and so quiet and intimate that you almost forget you are in London. In front of every house there is a small garden with flowers or a few trees, and many houses are built very tastefully in a sort of Gothic style.

20 July 1873
Vincent to brother Theo

I am quite contented here; I walk a lot and the neighbourhood where I live is quiet, pleasant and fresh.

At first English art did not appeal to me; one must get used to it … Constable was a landscape painter who lived about thirty years ago; he is splendid.

07 August 1873
Vincent writing to family friends in Holland

I have visited neither Crystal Palace nor the Tower yet … I am not in a hurry to see everything. For the present I am quite satisfied with the museums, parks, etc; they interest me more.

Last Monday I had a nice day. The first Monday in August is a holiday here. I went with one of the Germans to Dulwich, an hour and a half outside London, to see the museum there, and after that we took about an hour's walk to another village.

The country is so beautiful here. Many people who have their businesses in London live in some village outside London and go to town by train every day; perhaps I shall do the same shortly, if I can find a cheap room somewhere. But moving is so horrible that I shall stop here as long as possible, although everything is not so beautiful as it seemed to me in the beginning. Perhaps it is my own fault, so I shall bear with it a little longer.

So, to answer my question about life in south London in 1873 – people wore top hats; every garden in Brixton had flowers and trees; Dulwich was a commuter-belt with a picture gallery and nobody enjoyed moving house. Now you know.

With thanks to WebExhibits and IDEA, who host the online version of all VanGogh’s personal letters. Translations into English by Vincent's sister Johanna van Gogh-Bonger. Edited by Robert Harrison.

Image: with thanks to wally g (with CCL).

Sebuah metafora sederhana namun menukik untuk memperlihatkan betapa dangkalnya kualitas Wilders yang memberi tafsiran al-Quran dengan cara super ngawur. Formula film Fitna besutan politikus sayap kanan Belanda dari Partai Kebebasan (Partij voor de Vrijheid) ini terlalu simplistis. Ia hanya melakukan teknik kutip-mengutip, comot-menyomot, penggal-memenggal ayat-ayat al-Quran lalu mencerabutnya dari konteks dan membenturkannya dengan adegan kekerasan untuk mendukung tesisnya bahwa al-Quran adalah sumber kekerasan dan kitab anti toleran.

Nukilan al-Quran yang pertama digunakan dalam film Fitna adalah surat al-Anfal ayat 60, yang sengaja dikutip tidak utuh untuk memaksakan interpretasinya yang sangat mentah mengenai hubungan antara al-Quran dan terorisme dengan meminjam tafsir al-Quran versi M.H. Shakir yang banyak mengundang kontroversi karena diduga sebagai karya plagiat. Padahal kalimat yang dikutipnya adalah bagian dari kisah panjang sepuluh halaman tentang kesewenang-wenangan dan ketidakadilan. Nukilan ayat ini diperlihatkan persis setelah pembukaan film dengan materi animatif yang mengambil seri karikatur Nabi Muhammad ciptaan Kurt Westergard yang dimuat pertama kali pada 30 september 2005 di surat kabar Denmark, Jyllans-Posten dan menuai protes keras.

Lantas, Wilders menjahitnya dengan potongan gambar pesawat menghantam menara kembar World Trade Center, New York, dalam tragedi 11 September 2001 lalu. Dengan teknik penyuntingan sama pula, dia meneruskan dengan gambar peristiwa pengeboman kereta api di Madrid, Spanyol, pada 11 Maret 2004. Ia kemudian memainkan teknik sunting penumpukan gambar (dissolve to) dengan memunculkan sosok seorang imam tak dikenal.

Setelah surat al-Anfal, dengan teknik yang sama, Wilders kemudian berlanjut ke dua surat lainnya dalam al-Quran, yaitu an-Nisa ayat 56 dan 89 serta surat Muhammad ayat 4. Dan untuk mengakhiri permainan kutip-mengutip ini, Wilders kembali ke surat al-Anfal dengan menukil ayat 39.

Wilders ternyata tak hanya mentah di persoalan tafsir. Sebagai seorang sutradara, kemawaspadaannya masih setingkat di bawah pemulung. Dan sebagai filmmaker, dia tak ubahnya seorang pencuri. Karenanya, dalam Fitna terdapat salah foto dan materi illegal. Dalam titik inilah, gelora kampanye anti-Islam sebagai agenda politik Wilders tampak lebih terang ketimbang menjaga kredibilitas dan kualitas sebuah karya film.

Kecerobohan berbau kriminal yang dilakukan Wilders terjadi ketika memberi ilustrasi bagi nukilan surat Muhammad ayat 4. Pada potongan gambar yang menghadirkan sosok Theo van Gogh, sutradara film Submission, yang tewas ditikam di sebuah jalan di Amsterdam pada awal November 2004 oleh seorang pemuda Islam, Mohammad Bouyeri. Wilders menggunakan materi obrolan sutradara Belanda lainnya, Robbie Muntz, dengan Van Gogh tanpa izin.

Kemawaspadaan Wilders pun kabur, karena salah mengenali orang. Masih di sekuen yang sama, Wilders salah menempatkan foto Mohammad Bouyeri dengan Salah Edin, rapper warga Belanda keturunan Maroko yang ngetop di negeri itu lewat albumnya, Nederlands Grootste Nachtmerrie, dinobatkan sebagai album terbaik di BNN Urban Awards.

Akibat kecerobohan dan ketidakmawasannya itu, Wilders mendapat serangan yang tak pernah diduga, yaitu soal pencurian dan pelanggaran hak cipta. Salah Edin misalnya melarang Wilders memutar film Fitna karena menggunakan fotonya tanpa permisi kepada manajemen, perusahaan rekaman, dan dirinya sendiri. Robbir Muntz juga menuntut sama, musiknya dipakai tanpa permisi. Protes keras juga datang dari Kurt Westergaard, yang tidak tahu-menahu kalau karya karikaturnya dipakai. Karenanya, Westergaard menuding Wilders tak menghargai hak cipta dan dianggap sebagai bentuk pencurian.Tak hanya itu, stasiun radio dan televise Nederlandse Moslim Ommroep (NMO) mengancam akan menuntut Wilders melalui jalur hukum jika tak memotong gambar yang digunakan tanpa izin dari arsip NMO.

Kesalahan dan pelanggaran ini cukup mencolok. Namun bukan itu yang membuat umat Islam geram. Adalah soal kesucian dan kesakralan al-Quran yang dituduh sebagai sumber kekerasan yang membuat umat Islam berkecamuk. Dalam konteks ini Prof. Multi Ali tampaknya benar, bahwa agama adalah soal yang sensitive dan berdimensi emosional: there is nothing about which people are capable of feeling more strongly than their religion. Kontan, film Fitna yang isinya repetitif itu pun segera menyulut amarah jutaan muslim di pelbagai belahan dunia.

Rupa-rupa Reaksi

Memang, durasi film ini boleh saja pendek, hanya sekitar 15 menitan. Tetapi reaksi yang ditimbulkannya berkepanjangan dan menjalar kemana-mana. Rupa-rupa pula bentuknya, mulai dari larangan, kecaman, hujatan, aksi, sampai seruan boikot produk Belanda –yang kesemuanya dilambari amarah dan kebencian.

Dari Eropa sendiri, Dewan Gereja se-Dunia (WCC) mengecam film buatan Geert Wilders itu sebagai bentuk “Islamophobia”. Dalam pernyataan bersama, para menteri luar negeri Uni Eropa, mengecam film tersebut dan mengekspresikan dukungan mereka untuk Pemerintah Belanda, yang menjauh dari film Wilders.

Di Iran, sebagaimana yang dipaparkan Tempo, juru bicara kementerian luar negeri Mohammad Ali Hosseini menyerukan agar pemerintah Belanda segera menghentikan peredaran film itu. Di Yordania, reaksi muncul lebih keras. Sekitar 53 anggota parlemen mengirim petisi ke pemerintah, meminta pemutusan hubungan diplomatik dengan Negeri Kincir Angin. Protes sama juga terdengar dari Sudan.

Beralih ke Mesir, Menteri Luar Negeri Ahmed Aboul Gheit mengatakan film itu penghinaan atas Islam. Di Jedah, Arab Saudi, Organisasi Konferensi Islam (OKI) menuding film itu ”sengaja menyebar kebencian serta memancing kekacauan, konflik, dan ancaman bagi stabilitas politik dunia”. Di Pakistan, ratusan orang berdemonstrasi mengecam film Fitna.

Kemarahan juga merambat ke Asia Tenggara. Bekas Perdana Menteri Mahathir Mohamad meminta 1,3 miliar penduduk muslim dunia memboikot produk Belanda. Dia menyerukan kaum muslim di seluruh dunia bersatu. ”Kalau kita boikot bersama, ekonomi Belanda akan jatuh,” ujar Mahathir. Akibat seruan itu, sebagaimana dilansir BBC, Selasa (1/4), beberapa perusahaan Belanda sangat khawatir akan pemboikotan produk mereka dan bahkan mengancam akan menggugat Wilders. Sebanyak 40 cabang dari salah satu waralaba pasar swalayan terbesar di Malaysia kini menandai produk-produk Belanda dengan tanda merah, agar konsumen bisa memboikotnya jika menghendakinya.

Indonesia tak kalah kerasnya. Selain mengecam film Fitna, pemerintah Indonesia meminta YouTube, situs video Internet, segera menarik semua tayangan film pembangkit permusuhan itu di sana. Sebelumnya, Presiden Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono melarang film itu ditayangkan di media massa dan internet di Indonesia. Wilders bahkan dilarang datang ke sini. Di Jakarta, saban hari ada aksi di depan Kedutaan Besar Belanda, dari Front Pembela Islam sampai Hizbut Tahrir Indonesia. ”Holland Go to Hell”, tulis satu poster demonstran di sana, beberapa pekan lalu.

Di Medan, Rabu (2/4) puluhan mahasiswa berunjukrasa di depan Kantor Konsulat Jenderal Belanda. Saking kesalnya, mereka kemudian merusak pintu pagar, dan melempari gedung dengan batu dan telur busuk. Mereka juga menurunkan bendera Belanda yang terpasang di depan Gedung Konsulat kemudian membakarnya. Di tiang kemudian dinaikkan bendera Merah Putih.

Nada balasan juga terdengar dari sebuah kelompok Islam di Indonesia yang berencana akan membuat film tandingan untuk Fitna.

Jangan Lupa Introspeksi

Reaksi boleh-boleh saja, tapi jangan lupa introspeksi diri. Wilders memang sengaja menyulut sumbu kebencian. Tapi kebencian tak harus dibalas dengan kebencian, sebab akan kian berbuntut panjang.

Marilah melihat kearifan sikap umat Islam di Belanda dalam merespon fenomena ini. Sehari setelah Wilders mempublikasikan film Fitna yang melecehkan Islam, di Amsterdam, kaum Muslim membagi-bagikan buku tentang islam secara gratis. Mereka memilih buku-buku dai terkenal dari Afrika Selatan, Syekh Ahmad Deedat, yang terkenal kuat argumentasinya menghadapi tuduhan dan fitnah yang dilancarkan musuh-musuh Islam terhadap al-Quran.

“Target kampanye yang kami lakukan terfokus pada bentuk reaksi besar terhadap serangan terhadap al-Quranul Karim. Karena itu, kami melakukan aksi damai ini guna memperbaiki pengertian publik terhadap risalah Islam,” ujar tokoh perbandingan agama asal Saudi, Asham Ahmad yang turut menggagas aksi itu. Cara demikian patut kiranya dicontoh. Sebab dengan itu pula, tuduhan dan prasangka negatif terhadap Islam akan kandas.

Jika umat Islam merespon dengan kebencian dan berujung pada kekerasan, maka Wilders akan menuai dua keuntungan sekaligus: tuduhan Wilders bahwa al-Quran sebagai kitab kekerasan dan anti toleran semakin kuat, dan nama Wilders dalam kancah politik akan semakin berkibar.

Ingat, selama ini Wilders gemar menjual kebencian untuk meraih ambisi politiknya. Tindakan Mohammad Bouyeri yang membunuh Van Gogh mampu dimanfaatkan Wilders dengan baik dengan cara mempromosikan ketakutan dan kebencian. Tak urung, dukungan melimpah ke partai yang dipimpin Wilders. Sebuah jajak pendapat mengindikasikan bahwa partai itu, PVV, bisa memperoleh 29 dari 150 kursi di parlemen seandainya pemilihan umum berlangsung setelah pembunuhan yang mengerikan itu.

Cara murahan untuk mendapat dukungan masyarakat Belanda dengan cara menjual kebencian itu sudah dilakoni sebelum Fitna beredar. Diawali dari sebuah surat terbuka yang isinya membuat luka: “al-Quran adalah buku fasis”. Surat terbuka yang diterbitkan koran De Volkskrant pada 8 Agustus tahun lalu itu menyebut isi al-Quran tak jauh beda dengan Mein Kampf yang ditulis Adolf Hitler dan jadi dasar peristiwa Holocaust.

Tak hanya itu, Geert Wilders, penulis surat itu, kemudian menganjurkan agar seluruh muslim di Belanda sebaiknya merobek separuh dari al-Quran jika ingin tetap tinggal di negeri kincir angin itu.

Ya, Wilders memang salah. Tapi ada hal yang penting untuk kita renungkan bersama, kenapa Wilders bisa sampai begitu membenci Islam? Tentu semuanya tidak berangkat dari ruang kosong.

Untuk itu, ada baiknya kita mendengar ucapan Ahmad Abu Talib (Muslim), menteri muda urusan sosial dan lapangan kerja dianggap salah satu politisi Belanda terbaik. Dalam kontroversi ini dia menyatakan dengan sangat simpatik dan rendah hati; “Kalau orang Belanda non-Muslim takut kepada Islam pasti bukan tanpa alasan, (ini tentu) ada yang tidak beres, bukan saja pada orang Belanda, tapi dengan kita yang membiarkan agama kita menjadi hal yang menakutkan”.

Statemen Ahmad Abu Thalib ini tidak sekedar bernada respon terhadap persoalan ini, tapi ia lebih mengajak pada umat Islam untuk melakukan koreksi diri. Sebab atas sikap kita pulalah yang selama ini masih sering menggunakan cara kekerasan, Wilders akhirnya bisa mempunyai penilaian buruk dan menjadikan dia membenci Islam.

Dalam konteks ini, Goenawan Mohamad memberi penggambaran yang sama dengan mengatakan bahwa Wilders tidak hanya sesat soal tafsir, namun juga salah di tempat yang lebih dasar: ia berasumsi bahwa ayat-ayat itulah yang memproduksi benci, amarah, dan darah. Ia tak melihat kemungkinan bahwa Al-Qaidah yang ganas, Taliban yang geram, imam-imam dengan mulut yang penuh api—mereka itulah yang mengkonstruksikan Quran hingga jadi sehimpun kata yang berbisa. Ajaran tak selamanya membentuk perilaku; perilaku justru yang tak jarang membentuk ajaran.

Tapi dalam hal itu, lanjutnya, Wilders tak sendiri. Kaum ”Islamis” juga yakin, ajaranlah yang mampu membentuk manusia. Dan seperti Wilders, mereka juga memilih ayat-ayat yang cocok untuk agenda kebencian mereka. Dan seperti Wilders, mereka mengacuhkan konteks sejarah ketika sebuah ayat lahir.

Di Indonesia, contoh kasusnya sudah tak terhitung. Kasus Bom Bali (2002 dan 2005), Hotel Marriott (2003), dan Kuningan adalah contoh nyata. Belum lagi kekerasan terhadap agama yang belakangan ini kerap terjadi. Sekelompok massa yang mengatasnamakan agama tertentu menyerang kelompok/aliran/komunitas yang dianggap sesat dengan menggunakan teks suci al-Quran yang kutip begitu saja untuk membenarkan dan melegitimasi tindakan brutalnya.

Atas paradoksal-paradoksal, baik di level pemikiran maupun tindakan inilah, instropeksi dan evaluasi diri menjadi sangat penting. Melawan kebencian tidak harus dengan cara menggali lubang kebencian yang sama, tapi bagaimana memperlihatkan Islam sebagai agama yang mengajarkan kedamaian dan toleransi, tentu dengan perwujudan sikap kita.[]

Tulisan ini telah dimuat di majalah MaJEMUK edisi 32 Mei-Juni 2008 di rubrik Fokus

Ditto.

Wem die Robert De Niro Huldigung im Fernsehen dann doch zu viel ist, hier eine feine Alternative: 25 Statements in Kurzfilmform zur EU-Erweiterung, mit den Themengebieten Einwanderung, Migration, Identitätssuche und Status-Kritik von namhaften Regisseuren wie Peter Greenaway, Fatih Akin und Barbara Albert.

Hier ist der Prolog zu "Visions of Europe" von Béla Tarr zu sehen.

¿Qué hay detrás de la pintura? Detrás de la pintura hay un hombre que muere poco antes de cumplir los treinta y siete años. Detrás de la pintura hay un decenio - de 188o a 1890 - en que la obra dejada por el pintor sobrepasa los 850 cuadros. Detrás de la pintura, de esos 850 cuadros,  hay un solo cuadro vendido por su hermano Theo el mismo año en que Van Gogh se suicida.  Detrás de la pintura - lo que no puede descubrir el haz de rayos X y el acelerador de partículas que han medido la fluorescencia de las capas de esa pintura misma  - existe un apasionado del arte, un buscador incesante del color, un hombre al que un nuevo cuadro le llama cada amanecer. Detrás de la pintura - a donde no ha podido llegar ese procedimiento utilizado que permite indentificar pigmentos de forma individual como acaba de hacerse en la Universidad de Tecnología de Delft (Holanda)- está un hombre solo, autor de las "Cartas a Theo" (Península), uno de los libros más estremecedores en la historia del arte.

" Vincent van Gogh  tiene muchos más motivos –se diría que puede tener todos los motivos– para desalentarse de cuanto hace. Ese único cuadro vendido en vida, esa ausencia total de comunicación del artista con el público (más precisamente en su caso, cuando se ha dicho y repetido cómo naturalezas, casas, muebles, objetos, figuras de sus cuadros están viviendo de tal modo que el espectador se hace partícipe activo y no contemplador pasivo de su obra), una opresión acuciante de los asaltos de la enfermedad y de las preocupaciones por cuantas atenciones económicas le dispensa su hermano Theo y a las que Vincent comprueba que no puede correspon­der vendiendo su pintura¼ Las causas del desaliento, en fin, en este artista pueden ser numerosas. Pues bien: su desánimo va y viene entrelazándose a su ánimo, y sus imprecaciones en momentos de cansancio en la lucha se alternan con declaraciones de fe y de firmeza en sí mismo, en su camino, en su tarea y hasta en su técnica.

          "No renuncio a la idea que tengo sobre el retrato, pues defender esa idea es muy importante, enseñarle a la gente que lleva dentro algo más que lo que la fotografía con su aparato puede sacar", escribe desde Anvers en 1885, para mostrar su atención unas líneas después a qué es lo que se vende: "Los marchands dicen que lo que se venden mejor son las cabezas y las figuras de mujeres. En fin, sea lo que sea, yo quiero a toda costa seguir adelante, quiero ser yo mismo. Y es que siento en mí la obstinación y estoy por encima de lo que la gente pueda decir de mí y de mi obra". Tiene en ese momento treinta y dos años. En enero de 1886 se inscribe en la Academia de Bellas Artes de Anvers, donde tras una corta estancia tormentosa decide abandonarla: "Debo decirte también que, aunque me acostumbre, las críticas de los de la Academia suelen resultar insoportables, porque decididamente siguen siendo desagradables. Sin embargo, busco sistemáticamente evitar las disputas, y prosigo tranquilamente mi camino. Me parece que estoy en vías de encontrar lo que busco" , escribe a punto de irse a París. Desde la capital de Francia confiesa, en el verano de 1887: "Me siento triste de pensar que, aun en caso de éxito, la pintura no compensará los gastos." Y en la misma carta añade con despecho: "Yo siento pasar el anhelo de casamiento y de niños, y en ciertos momentos estoy bastante melancólico de estar como estoy a los treinta y cinco años, cuando me debería sentir completamente distinto. Y algunas veces se lo reprocho a esta sucia pintura. Y me sucede sentirme ya viejo y fracasado y, sin embargo, lo bastante enamorado todavía para no estar entusiasmado por la pintura. Para triunfar se necesita ambición, y la ambición me parece absurda". ("Ánimos y desánimos del artista" en "El artículo literario y periodístico. Paisajes y personajes") (Eiunsa, 2007, págs 295-296)

Detrás de la pintura hay esta frase: "Creo que la vida es muy corta y pasa muy rápidamente; entonces, siendo pintor hay que pintar, por lo tanto". Detrás de la pintura,  en Van Gogh se descubre: "Todavía una vez más, es paciencia lo que me hace falta en este caso, y perseverancia".

Todo eso hay detrás de la pintura.

(Imágenes: "Parche de hierba" (1887), Van Gogh, propiedad del Museo de Kröller-Müller, donde se advierte el retrato descubierto bajo la pintura.-elmundo.es/ Van Gogh, Autorretrato del verano de 1887, con sombrero de fieltro.-Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam.-indexarte.com)

His life, so full of pain and sorrow but also, here and there, full of moments of solar joy and elation, most of them felt during his work as a painter, teach as that creation can be a lifesaver, that art can give a meaning to our life. A meaning that otherwise our lives wouldn't have...

His life and work give us also hope. He was a no good bum, a nobody, a mental case, "un raté" in the opinion of his family (except in Theo's opinion and maybe his sister Wilhelmina; but they too had their moments of doubt...) and in the opinion of 99% of his contemporaries. His paintings almost never sold during his life, and when they sold the price was ridiculous. But then, slowly, his legend (one can say even his myth) began to gain in force and now his paintings are the pride of the most reputable museums and collectors in the whole world.

Of course, he did not lived to enjoy this, as it usually happens... But still, one can hope and dream that maybe...somehow...someday...the paintings he puts his/her soul in could be of some value. Or at least, give a little joy to someone...

In his honor, I will post his last letter and also one of the reproduction I like best.

There is a note at the top in Theo's handwriting on it: “Letter he was carrying on him July 29”'. In fact, it is obviously a rough draught of letter 651].

"My dear brother,

Thanks for your kind letter and for the 50 fr. note it contained

There are many things I should like to write you about, but I feel it is pointless. I hope you have found these gentlemen favorably disposed toward you.

Your reassuring me as to the state of peace of your household was not worth the trouble, I think, having seen the other side of it for myself. And I quite agree with you that rearing a boy on a fourth floor is a hell of a job for you as well as Jo.

Since it is going well, which is the main thing, I should insist on things of less importance. My word, before we have a chance of talking business more calmly, there is probably a long way to go.That is all I want to say, that I noted it with a certain fright and I cannot hide it. But that is all there is to it.

The other painters, whatever they think of it, instinctively keep themselves at a distance from discussions about actual trade.

Well, the truth is, we cannot speak other than by our paintings. But still, my dear brother, there is this that I have always told you, and I repeat it once more with all the earnestness that can be imparted by an effort of a mind diligently fixed on trying to do as well as one can - I tell you again that I shall always consider that you are something other than a simple dealer in Corots, that through my mediation you have your part in the actual production of some canvases, which even in the cataclysm retain their calm.

For this is what we have got to, and this is all or at least the chief thing that I can have to tell you at a moment of comparative crisis. At a moment when things are very strained between dealers in paintings by dead artists, and living artists.

Well, my work to me, I risk my life on it, and my reason has half foundered - all right - but you are not one of those dealers in men, as far as I know, and you can take sides, I find, truly acting with humanity, but what is the use?"

[caption id="" align="aligncenter" width="247" caption="photo: Shirin Neshat"][/caption]

 

 

(Disclaimer: as the title indicates, the following entry discusses the topic of sexual assault. For those who may be adversely affected by discussion of this topic, please proceed with caution, or stop here in your reading. For support, please see this website.)

I recently viewed an interview with Ayaan Hirsi Ali, someone with whom I do not have many shared opinions. Regardless, I don’t believe that she deserves to be threatened for her views, nor do I think she’s a threat to Islam. As a dissident – and often a harsh critic - she regularly has some rather biting things to say about the faith. While I readily acknowledge that we Muslims must work to end the human rights abuses happening under the banner of Islam, I also know that Islam demands humanity, justice, kindness and equity. These aren’t things that can be taken away from a faith – or a person – by a critic. These are things we must work to exemplify, and these are the things that preserve my own faith.

In this interview, Hirsi Ali was discussing the impact of her short film, “Submission”. She was asked about the offense her work had caused in the Muslim world. She proceeded to state that what she views to be truly offensive is this:  the Qur’an permits women to be raped.

I took pause at this statement. She was specifically referring to marital rape. However, the topic of rape itself has spurred much debate about Islam. At the center of this debate, limited voices arise: neoconservatives hell-bent on bashing Islam; and those whose interpretations are so malignant, so destructive –  that they will justify violence “in our name”.

It’s high time reasonable people – especially reasonable Muslims - get heard in debates like these. Why let either party run away with this conversation when, after all, it is the rest of us, particularly young women, who are most impacted by this most crucial issue?

The Qur’an states that “women are your fields: go, then, into your fields whence you please” (2:223, Penguin Classics edition). This is a verse whose meaning has come to be seen as validation for assault.

I acknowledge how the above verse may read to those with ill-intentions toward the women in their lives. However, the Qur’an also contains myriad injunctions against the ill-treatment of women and other human beings in general. It is my view that Islam not only forbids assault, but demands gentility toward our fellow human beings.

From slander, defamation, and abusive language -

“…Do not slander one another, nor give another nick-names. After believing, it is bad to give another a bad name… O you who believe, avoid most suspicions: some suspicions are indeed sins. So do not pry into another’s secrets and do not backbite…” (49:11-12, Ahmed Ali trans.)

- to forbidding harm against one another in general :

“…abandon all harm: whether openly or in secret.” (6:120 – [see also 7:33]),

The Qur’an clearly compels us to decency. On the specific issue of assault, the Qur’an doesn’t relent:

“Oh you who believe: you are forbidden to inherit women against their will.” (4:19).

Nor does the Prophet (pbuh). It is said that he, unlike many claiming to be following his example today -  dealt quite harshly with rapists, and treated their victims with great mercy.

Even Sheikh Muhammad al-Hanooti of the North American Fiqh Council released a fatwa stating that “Intimacy should be a matter of etiquette and courtesy”, and that women are afforded “as many rights as they are duties” under Islam. Finally, even IslamOnline.net – whose “living Shariah fatwa bank” is sometimes considered conservative even by conservative standards – contains advice from scholars who advocate that men do not, in fact, have the right to sex when a woman does not consent.

Obviously, the burden of behavior lies in the hands of Muslims to uphold these principles – and commands. We need more Muslim leaders – like the Emir of Gobir, an agent of change I discussed some months ago – to take a stance on the issue of women’s rights. We, also, however, have the responsibility to take unrelenting stands against injustice in our every day lives - no matter who speaks or acts against us for doing so.

Now it’s your turn to weigh in. How do you think Muslims can ensure that these basic rights are protected? How do you think non-Muslims can help in this cause?

Geert Wilders is surprised: Why he didn't sue him before?

Technorati Tags: Fawaz+Jneid, Geert+Wilders, Fitna, Theo+van+Gogh, Theo+van+Gogh's+murder, Netherlands

Il terrorismo dei kamikaze? bombe caricate a eros.La privazione del sesso può avere un ruolo nell'ondata di violenza suicida scatenata dall'Islam integralista. Un fattore che per lo storico Ian Buruma si aggiunge alla mancanza di lavoro e all'umiliazione sociale nel delineare la pericolosa figura del «perdente radicale»

La masturbazione porta al terrorismo suicida? Sembrerebbe di no. Ma potrebbe esserci un legame tra l'inadeguatezza o la frustrazione sessuale e la spinta verso l'estremismo violento. È il tema di un'interessante novella, Seventeen, del romanziere giapponese Kenzaburo Oe, vincitore del Premio Nobel per la letteratura nel 1994. La storia è ambientata negli anni '60, quando fu scritta.

Il protagonista è un diciassettenne che non riesce a trattenersi dal masturbarsi, in bagno, in camera, tra i cespugli, perfino a scuola. Si vergogna di questa pratica, come di qualunque altra cosa. Non è bravo nello sport, è un fallimento con le ragazze e un bullo a casa, non sopporta nessuno. Ma una sorta di salvezza è a portata di mano. Il ragazzo viene presentato a una banda di giovani estremisti di destra che indossano uniformi e seguono un leader che farnetica a proposito dei traditori comunisti e socialisti e delle glorie dell'impero giapponese. Anche il grande masturbatore viene accettato come guerriero per la causa imperiale. E ha il suo primo vero orgasmo nella nuova uniforme quando, in un centro per massaggi, sogna il potere totale, l'uccisione dei nemici, la violenza sulle loro mogli e figlie e la morte per il glorioso imperatore.

Non è l'opera narrativa più acuta di Oe. Ma la palude sessuale in cui l'estremismo può prosperare è descritta bene e vale la pena di esplorarla. Come intellettuale di sinistra in un certo senso dogmatico, Oe sembra pensare che l'estremismo violento, che nasce da fantasie di onnipotenza, sia tipico dell'estrema destra. Ha spesso espresso la sua ammirazione per il Presidente Mao. Ma anche il Grande Timoniere si scontrava con l'inadeguatezza, come è stato riferito dal suo medico personale. La sua potenza sessuale aveva alti e bassi, sembra, di pari passo con le sue fortune politiche.

La privazione sessuale può avere un ruolo nell'attuale ondata di violenza suicida liberata dalla causa palestinese e dall'islamismo rivoluzionario. La prospettiva allettante di possedere le più incantevoli vergini del paradiso viene fatta balenare di proposito agli occhi dei giovani addestrati per la morte violenta. E anche coloro che non vengono addestrati ad uccidere e morire spesso vivono in società autoritarie in cui il sesso prima del matrimonio è severamente proibito. L'accesso a MTV, a Internet, ai dvd e alla pubblicità globale rinforza la convinzione che gli occidentali vivano in un giardino degenerato di delizie peccaminose. Questo può provocare un misto di rabbia e invidia. Capita che a rabbia esploda in orge di violenza orchestrate con cura. Si dice che Mohammed Atta abbia visitato uno strip-tease bar prima di schiantarsi con un aereo contro le Torri Gemelle.
Forse ha voluto dare un morso al frutto proibito prima della propria estinzione terrena.
Questo non significa che la frustrazione sessuale o la misoginia intransigente portino direttamente all'eccidio. Se così fosse, vivremmo in un mondo decisamente pericoloso. Ma sono fattori che non possono essere esclusi. Per molto tempo si è ritenuto che i giovani privati del sesso fossero i guerrieri migliori, come i cani da combattimento nelle fosse. Tra le barbarie della guerra, nell'antichità come nei conflitti recenti, c'è la promessa a uomini affamati e brutalizzati che, una volta conquistata una città, le sue donne faranno parte del bottino. L'idea che fare sesso con le donne distolga gli uomini dalla lotta è abbastanza comune anche in ambiti meno violenti, come il calcio. Tra i grandi miti del calcio olandese c'è la storia dei Mondiali del 1974. Pare che alcuni calciatori si siano arrangiati con prostitute locali, e abbiano così perso la finale contro la Germania.
Il sesso con gli uomini è un'altra questione. Di norma, le società che promuovono il machismo e l'onore del maschio non vedono bene l'omosessualità. È tollerata, al massimo, ma solo il partner attivo, specialmente se è più vecchio e sposato, può uscire con onore da incontri omosessuali. Il partner passivo è come una donna: remissivo, debole, disprezzabile. Esistono però eccezioni alla regola. Alcune delle società più maschiliste della storia hanno elogiato i rapporti omosessuali. L'esercito di Sparta incoraggiava le relazioni d'amore tra soldati perché si riteneva che promuovessero la lealtà e il coraggio. Nel Giappone feudale il sesso con le donne andava bene, l'onore e la nobiltà si potevano trovare solo nei rapporti tra uomini.

Nel 2004 Johann Hari scrisse a proposito della «sovrapposizione» di omosessualità e fascismo: «Gli uomini gay sono stati al centro di tutti i principali movimenti fascisti». Abbiamo esempi che suffragano questa tesi: le truppe d'assalto naziste, le SA in camicia marrone guidate da Ernst Röhm. Röhm e molti dei suoi compagni erano omosessuali. Röhm era un convinto promotore dell'ideale spartano dell'accoppiamento tra uomini prestanti e combattivi. Come molti soldati tedeschi all'indomani della Prima Guerra Mondiale, si sentiva un perdente. Per lui le SA erano un modo di riguadagnare autostima. Vi vedeva un'élite di uomini superiori, scelti per controllare il mondo intero. Il sesso era un'espressione del potere e il potere veniva erotizzato. Secondo Hari nella natura dell'omosessualità c'era qualcosa che la rendeva particolarmente congeniale al fascismo.

Citando un pornografo gay, Bruce LaBruce, faceva riferimento al «culto del corpo, la venerazione del forte, un fanatismo per la crudeltà e le figure autoritarie». Ma questo presuppone che i desideri omosessuali si possano ridurre a un cartone di Tom of Finland in cui i personaggi vengono maltrattati da poliziotti brutali vestiti di pelle. Tali fantasie esistono, del resto, e il fascismo le ha sfruttate al massimo. Basta vedere le enormi sculture di atleti nudi nel complesso sportivo che portava il nome di Foro Mussolini a Roma, per farsene un'idea. Ma non bisogna dimenticare che gli omosessuali venivano perseguitati nella Germania nazista. Esiste una spiegazione più plausibile per l'attrazione che prova un certo tipo di omosessuale per l'elitarismo violento e le cause politiche estreme ed è il disgusto per la vita borghese.

Questa potrebbe essere la chiave al fascismo gay: l'estremismo è la rivincita del perdente sulla società. Chi siano i perdenti dipende dalla natura della società. Lo scrittore tedesco Hans Magnus Enzensberger ha scritto un brillante saggio sul «perdente radicale», generalmente un giovane, che si sente vittima del mondo intero e odia se stesso almeno quanto le forze che lo opprimono. Questi uomini sono bombe ad orologeria ambulanti. Qualunque cosa può farli esplodere, un'umiliazione sociale, la perdita del lavoro. E di solito l'esplosione uccide sia l'attentatore che i suoi nemici. Le circostanze determinano fino a un certo punto chi sono i nemici, «i soliti sospetti sono gli stranieri, i servizi segreti, i comunisti, gli americani, le grandi aziende, i politici, gli infedeli. E, quasi sempre, gli ebrei». L'unica cosa che manca nell'analisi di Enzensberger è il fattore sessuale, la psicologia del grande masturbatore, del criminale gay, del despota abbattuto. Forse questo elemento si spiega meglio ricordando l'omicidio ad Amsterdam del regista olandese Theo Van Gogh.

Il suo assassino, Mohammed Bouyeri, è nato in Olanda da genitori marocchini. Da ragazzino provò a conformarsi alla cultura della sua città natale. Si ubriacava, fumava marijuana e cercava di sedurre le ragazze olandesi. In fondo, tutto nella cultura, dalla musica pop agli spot pubblicitari, promette sesso. Questo mondo è molto diverso da quello di casa, dove la pia madre e le caste sorelle vanno protette da occhi lascivi. Ma le cose cominciarono a mettersi male per Mohammed. Le ragazze olandesi non erano facili come pensava. Perdeva progressivamente interesse allo studio. Ci furono aspri scontri con la polizia e sua sorella si trovò un ragazzo. Questo lo fece infuriare. Si sentiva disonorato, inutile, escluso. La ragione per cui Van Gogh divenne il bersaglio di Mohammed fu un cortometraggio girato con la politica di origine somala Ayaan Hirsi Ali, che ne scrisse la sceneggiatura. Il film, Submission, mostrava testi coranici proiettati sui corpi seminudi di donne velate che avevano subito maltrattamenti da parte di uomini. Hirsi Ali attacca l'Islam per la sottomissione sessuale delle donne e il maschilismo frustrato e maldestro degli uomini. Il suo approccio alla società europea secolarizzata è opposto a quello di Mohammed. Laddove lei vede liberazione — soprattutto liberazione sessuale — lui vede disonore, decadenza, impurità e confusione. La libertà della vita in Olanda ha permesso a lei di prosperare, mentre lui si è sentito piccolo e pieno di rancore. Ecco perché ha provato il desiderio di distruggerla, e con lei la civiltà che lo ha fatto sentire un perdente radicale.
©IanBuruma

Un film sur les circonstances du meurtre de Théo Van Gogh. Van Gogh et Hirsi Ali ont tous deux reçu des menaces de mort suite à la sortie du film «Soumission». Van Gogh ne s'inquiétait pas de ces menaces. Il ne voulait pas laisser les fous d'Allah l'intimider. Que vous soyez d'accord ou non avec les opinion de Van Gogh, il avait le droit inaliénable de les exprimer.

Beaucoup d'autres qui critiquent l'Islam et appellent à sa réforme vivent dans la peur, sous de constantes menaces de mort. Irshad Manji, dans le cadre de son «Opération Ijtihad» à lancé une pétition en soutien de ces gens et de la liberté d'expression. Je vous invite à la signer.

Ceci est le film écrit par Ayaan Hirsi Ali et réalisé par le cinéaste Théo Van Gogh. Il traite du sort des femmes en Islam. C'est la prière d'une femme, condamnée au fouet pour adultère, après avoir été violée par son oncle. Son témoignage valait seulement la demi de celui qu'elle accusait à la cour. Il en est ainsi partout où règne l'Islam.

Peu après la sortie de ce film, un matin, Théo Van Gogh a pris sa bicyclette pour aller travailler comme à tous les jours. Quelqu'un l'attendait. Mohammed Bouyeri, le tueur, l'a blessé par plusieurs balles avant de l'égorger et ensuite d'épingler une lettre de menaces à l'endroit d'Ayaan Hirsi Ali sur sa poitrine avec un couteau. Les islamistes ne supportent pas la critique...

I islam så har manen rett til å slå konen sin, vis hun ikke gjør som han sier, eller vis han trenger noe fra hun eller at hun skal gjøre noe for han og hun ikke tar ordre fra han så har han rett til å slå hun.

Kvinner innen islam har ikke rett, de er rett å slett ikke verdt, de kan kontrolleres av menn som de vil og når som helst.

Her er en video som ble regissert av Theo Van Gogh og ble skrevet av Ayaat Hirsi Ali ( ex-muslim)

Theo Van Gogh ble mordet av noen muslimsk fundamentalist.

Mer om Theo Van Gogh

Er det dette vi skal ha i Norge, her hvor vi hadde ytringsfrihet, men den er ute nå, den er skrevet på papirer men vi kan ikke bruke ytringsfriheten her nå lenger, vi burde kjempe for å få den tilbake.

Husk at islam ikke har demokrati, de har sharia loven.

Peace be with you

Most of the film is set in Katya's incredible loft apartment. I find it fascinating that the relationship between the characters can hold the audience's attention even though it is mainly two people in one room. Plus it's more or less filmed in real time. But it just works. It is a captivating, amusing and intriguing story.

Steve Buscemi is as brilliant as ever. He is so beautifully eccentric that it is hard not to love him. The stunning Sienna Miller gives a great performance as this spoiled but surprisingly clever starlet and her American accent is excellent.

The film, directed by Buscemi himself, is actually a remake (or tribute) to Theo van Gogh's Dutch version.

(Foto: Straight no chaser/flickr)

27. mars 2008 vart filmen ”Fitna” publisert på internett. Filmen presenterer ein kritikk av islam og såkalla islamisme, det vil seie den type konservativ islamsk tenking som ikkje vil skilje islam ut frå den politiske sfæren. Bak filmen står den nederlandske politikaren Geert Wilders, som står for ein restriktiv politikk med omsyn til innvandring.

Wilders film ”Fitna” (arab. splitting, prøving, anarki) varer i om lag 17 minutt, og filmen opnar med eit bilete av den kanskje mest kjende Muhammedkarikaturen, der Muhammed vert framstilt med eit hovud som ei bombe. Så glir det heile over over i film-, foto-, og lydmateriale frå terrorhandlingar i New York, Madrid og London, samt resitering av vers frå Koranen (8,60; 4,56; 47,4; 4,89 og 8,39). Groteske bilete og desperate røyster som bed om hjelp vert kryssklipt med opptak av islamske imamar som oppfordrar til drap av Allahs fiendar. Det heile vert akkompagnert av ”Åses død” frå Peer Gynt av Edvard Grieg.

Filmen tek også opp Theo van Goghs drap, Koranens fiendebilete av jødar, dødsstraffa for fråfall frå islam, kvinneleg omskjering, homofili, veksande antal muslimar i Europa og islamistiske planar om å overta Nederland. Filmen vert avslutta med ein del korte, kritiske setningar mot islam og islamisering, før vi på nytt får sjå den nemnte Muhammedkarikaturen, men denne gongen med ei klokke som tel ned og ei lunte som er i ferd med å tenne bomba.

Kva ynskjer Wilders å oppnå med denne filmen? Umiddelbart kan ein peike på at filmen ganske sikkert vil føre til eit oppsving for hans politiske oppslutning. Men like fullt må ein understreke at det er heilt legitimt – og rosverdig – at Wilders peikar på mange av dei djupt problematiske sidene ved islamismen slik han har blomstra opp frå og med andre halvdel av det 20. århundre og inn i vårt århundre. At islamismen i mange utgåver er ein ideologi som slett ikkje kan sameinast med vestleg demokrati og trusfridom, er diverre sant.

Wilders har møtt fleire typar av kritikk etter at filmen vart kjent. Ein del av kritikken er det lett å istemme, dette gjeld i særleg grad bruken av karikaturteikning. Sjølv om ein kritiserer tankar innanfor islam, er det unødvendig og lite fruktbart å ty til hån og latterleggjering. Men Wilders har også møtt kritikk for at han ikkje skjelnar mellom islam og islamisme, og for at han heller ikkje skjelnar mellom islam og muslimar. Wilders peikar korrekt nok på at det er Koranen sjølv som oppfordrar til dei ekstreme islamistiske haldningane. Men han burde også i sin film gjeve uttrykk for at på langt nær alle muslimar står for desse haldningane.

Kjelder: Wikipedia, Youtube.

Il numero di telefono è sempre quello da tempo, con il prefisso 0031. Il "The Bulldog", storico coffe shop di Amsterdam, riceve decine di chiamate al giorno dall'Italia da clienti nostri connazionali preoccupati di non trovare più quello che avevano lasciato l'ultima volta: la famosa libertà olandese, l'anticonformismo e l'opposizione a qualsiasi cliché europeo che si rispetti riguardo a droga, sesso e prostituzione. Amsterdam si sta rifacendo il look da tempo e in prossimità dell'estate che sta arrivando si fa il calcolo del business da ricondurre alla voce turismo, con un occhio particolare alle perdite, che rischiano di essere alte quest'anno.

L'Olanda era l'esempio del paese multiculturale per eccellenza. Dopo il tragico omicidio di Theo Van Gogh, nel novembre del 2004, sembra che l'Olanda stia percorrendo un cammino a ritroso in materia di diritti e integrazione.

Diversi provvedimenti messi a punto dal ministro della Giustizia, Ernst Hirsch Ballin, potrebbero far lievitare le cifre del turismo culturale e allo stesso tempo far colare a picco questo magnifico vascello della libertà cui è stata da un paio di decenni la capitale del paese dei tulipani.

Capitolo bordelli. Chiunque sa che ad Amsterdam esiste un quartiere a luci rosse. Nel Wallen, il quartiere dell'eros, si alternano night e vetrine contenenti ammiccanti donne tirate al limite, seminude e pronte a passare la notte o soltanto qualche minuto con chiunque voglia assaggiare il brivido della trasgressione. Il Wallen si chiamerà, dopo un'attenta operazione di marketing, "Red Light Fashion", dove la parola d'ordine è: «portati a casa il vestito anziché la donna». Sono già 350 le vetrine chiuse dalla fine di gennaio nel Red District di Achterburgwal con l'intento di convertire il turismo sessuale in turismo della moda. Apprezzabile sforzo da parte delle autorità che hanno iniziato da tempo a stipulare accordi con diverse case di moda, anche se l'obiettivo sembra piuttosto ambizioso. Ma ecco la contraddizione: una recente legge permette di poter praticare sesso nei parchi, purché dietro alle aiuole e dopo si pulisca tutto senza lasciare traccia. Come avrebbe detto il rocker Johnny Winter: «one step forward and two steps back», un passo avanti e due indietro...

Da marzo inoltre , il ministro della Giustizia ha annunciato anche il divieto della vendita di semi di cannabis e ogni strumento per la coltivazione domestica. Amsterdam città della trasgressione, ma anche delle ambiguità e dei controsensi, come quello di vietare il consumo di tabacco all'interno dei locali pubblici. Amsterdam la città dei coffe shop, dove ogni tre negozi ce n'è uno con un menu a base di hashish e marijuana. Ebbene, sentite a cosa dovranno andare incontro fin dai prossimi mesi: «È da 12 anni che noi siamo aperti, ma è da due anni che il vento è cambiato per i 250 coffee shop di Amsterdam - affermano i gestori italiani del coffee shop The Bush Doctor nella centralissima Rembrandtplein -. Dal 2006 non si possono più somministrare alcolici nei nostri locali e dal primo luglio entrerà in vigore la legge antifumo. Per noi sarà dura. Prima era tutta un'altra vita».

Sia ben chiaro, l'Olanda resta il paese europeo con il più basso tasso di morti per droga, a seguito di una attenta campagna di differenziazione tra le droghe leggere e quelle pesanti, come extasy, cocaina ed eroina, che invece sono perseguite penalmente. Suddetto provvedimento non servirà di certo a fermare il turismo della droga ma certo servirà a diminuirlo drasticamente e potrebbe diventare anche una spinosa spirale. Pensate che non si potranno fumare sigarette nei coffee shop, ma si potrà per esempio fumare un "purino", cioè una canna di sola marijuana o hashish, che "stravolge" chi la fuma almeno tre volte di più di un semplice spinello. Insomma, l'impressione che se ne deduce è che gli olandesi cercano in tutti i modi di adeguarsi a quelli che sono gli standard di salute europei, ma cadono in continuazione nelle contraddizioni volute proprio in passato per distinguersi dal mondo.

Da oggi pensare ad Amsterdam come la città della droga e della prostituzione verrà meno facile, magari si penserà ad altre mete più esotiche come Cuba o l'Indonesia, ma resta pur sempre una delle città più belle d'Europa e del mondo. Con molteplici risorse artistiche e ambientali, dal museo della birra Heineken al museo di Van Gogh, quello degli impressionisti e la casa di Anna Frank.

di Simone Di Stefano

It might come as something of a surprise to realise that just five years ago both the term and concept of ‘Islamophobia’ had little discursive relevance or value across much of Europe. Today however, the same could be no further from the truth. Contemporarily, Islamophobia emerges from some of the most bi-polar extremes across Europe: from those who decry and denounce any criticism whatsoever of Muslims or Islam as being Islamophobic to those who actively and openly espouse the vitriolic hatred of Islam and Muslims founded upon a premise of various ideological justifications. Because of this, neither clear thinking nor expression rarely – if indeed ever - comes into the equation as regards usage or understanding. From the high profile murder of Theo van Gogh in the Netherlands and the backlash against Muslims that ensued through to complaints about irresponsible parking at mosques during Friday prayers, these myriad and disparate events and incidents are – whether rightly or wrongly – regularly and repeatedly incorporated into the discursive landscape of Islamophobia. Islamophobia therefore is at times little more than an indiscriminate and all-encompassing term that is employed to satisfy or appease a vast spectrum of commentators, actors and perpetrators in varying different measures.

This situation has not necessarily been the same in the UK. Here, October 2007 marked the tenth anniversary of the publication of the groundbreaking and possibly most influential document of its kind, the highly influential Runnymede Trust report, Islamophobia: a challenge for us all. Produced by the Commission for British Muslims and Islamophobia, the report stated in its opening pages that, "Islamophobic discourse, sometimes blatant but frequently coded and subtle, is part of everyday life in modern Britain" It went on, "in the last twenty years...the dislike [of Islam and Muslims] has become more explicit, more extreme and more dangerous". Who on the Commission at that time, given subsequent events that have unfolded since the report’s publication would – or indeed could – have predicted the situation today?

Back in 1997, the report spoke of how ‘Islamophobia’ – “the shorthand way of referring to the dread or hatred of Islam – and, therefore, to fear or dislike all or most Muslims” - was necessitated by a new phenomenon that needed naming. Nowadays however, that same term is far from new where it is always seemingly lingering in the murky underbelly of our public and political spaces. Yet despite its wider usage, it remains questionable as to whether the debates concerning Islamophobia today and the way we use the term is any more informed than it was ten years ago. Increasingly the debates about Islamophobia sees one side pitted against an other, where claim and counter-claim, charge and counter-charge dictate what we know and more crucially, how we know and subsequently voice ‘what is’ and ‘what is not’ Islamophobia.

Why then, despite the Runnymede report being so influential, are we still simplistic in the way that we speak about and understand Islamophobia? Why has a more nuanced usage of the term failed to evolve? And why, ultimately, has Islamophobia failed to be addressed let alone begin to go away? With hindsight the answer, it seems, can be found in the Runnymede report itself.

At the heart of the report’s notion of Islamophobia was the recognition of what it set out as ‘closed’ and ‘open’ views. So important were these views that the report changed its definition of what Islamophobia was: soon after the preceding definition, the Runnymede version of Islamophobia became the recurring characteristic of closed views and nothing more. Conceived by the Commission, the closed views of Islamophobia were seeing Islam as monolithic and static; as 'other' and separate from the West; as inferior; as enemy; as manipulative; as discriminated against; as having its criticisms of the West rejected; and where Islamophobia was ultimately becoming increasingly natural. All of which are useful in being able to identify Islamophobia in certain given situations - for example in the media - but how for example might the closed views offer any explanation or even relevance in other equally important situations, in explaining how Muslims are discriminated against in the workplace, in education or in service provision for instance?

In doing so, the Commission failed to offer a clear explanation as to how this might be possible, preferring instead to focus on how say Pakistanis or Bangladeshis were discriminated upon rather than Muslims per se. Not only did this completely overlook the central tenet of what any Islamophobia must surely be, but what with existing equalities legislation rightfully affording protection to those groups such as Pakistanis and Bangladeshis, so the argument for a specific anti-Muslim anti-Islamic phenomenon was weak and any immediate legislative or other response could be deemed somewhat unnecessary. And so whilst those who held the power to make the changes were far from impressed, so a precedent was set that negated the reality of Islamophobia as a very real and dangerous phenomenon. And also as something that was distinctly different from other forms of discrimination and prejudice.

Because of the emphasis upon closed views, so the report established a simple premise from which those who wanted to detract from or dismiss Islamophobia could easily do so by merely suggesting that if ‘closed views’ equalled Islamophobia, so one must presume that ‘open views’ equalled Islamophilia. Those who wanted to argue against Islamophobia therefore suggested that the only solution being put forward by the Commission was an abnormal liking or love of Islam and Muslims (philia). The black and white duality of the love or hate of Muslims and Islam was therefore the only options available thereby ignoring all those grey areas that exist in. Since 1997 then, all that which has fallen within that grey has been given licence to gain momentum and form the basis upon which more indirect forms of Islamophobia have found favour. So for example, to what extent has a ‘grey’ Islamophobia been underlying the more recent debates about the need for better integration, the ‘death’ of multiculturalism, the niqab as barrier to social participation, the need for universities to ‘spy’ on the students and the need to look for the ‘tell-tale’ signs of radicalisation. What extent the establishment and subsequent unfolding of the entire community cohesion programme?

It is these unaccounted for grey areas that have contributed to a climate where those such as the BNP have found favour and gained an increasingly listened to voice. One result of this was that in 2006’s local elections, where the BNP won 11 of the 13 seats they contested in Barking & Dagenham. Making history through being the first time that a far-right political party has ever been the official opposition in any council chamber in Britain, on the evening of the first Barking and Dagenham council meeting attended by the BNP an Afghan man was repeatedly stabbed outside Barking tube station, his body left on the pavement draped in the union flag. How might the ‘closed’ views offer any explanation of this?

Since 2001, the BNP have become increasingly sophisticated and nuanced in the way in which it has spoken about and referred to Islam and Muslims. Unfortunately, the same has failed to occur as regards Islamophobia and so in the Commission’s last report published in 2004 there was little change in evidence, persisting instead with existing notions of Islamophobia, using the same language, ideas and meanings throughout. Continuing to refer to Islamophobia in such simplistic ways is therefore detrimental to understanding. More worryingly, the dualistic ‘either-or’ system of closed and open has reflected how Muslims have increasingly become understood in wider society. Whether ‘mainstream’ or ‘extremist, ‘moderate’ or ‘radical’, as Ziauddin Sardar noted shortly after 9/11, Muslims have since been seen in one of two ways: either as apologetics for Islam or terrorists in the name of Islam. Take this further and the closed and open, apologetics and terrorists easily fall into that simplistic trap of being either ‘good’ or ‘bad’. As such, if you’re not a ‘good’ Muslim – moderate, mainstream and ‘open’ – then you can only be ‘bad’ – radical, extremist and ‘closed’. What is known and understood about Islamophobia therefore rests upon the naïve premise that ‘Islamophobia is bad only because it is’ and nothing more.

As noted at the outset, the Runnymede report’s views of Islamophobia were at their most useful in the media. Despite the report’s apparent usefulness in terms of its ease of identification in the media and its associated recommendations to better the media’s representation of Muslims and Islam, the situation has since the publication of the report dangerously deteriorated. If research published by the GLA in 2007 is anything to go by, the amount of coverage in a ‘normal week’ relating to Muslims and Islam in the British press has increased by almost 270% in the past decade. Of this, just over 90% of this dramatic increase is entirely negative and typically rooted in stories relating to war, terrorism, threat, violence and crisis. If this is where the report was most useful, where then has the Runnymede report achieved its impact?

A decade on from the publication of the Runnymede report and a climate of ever worsening mistrust, misunderstanding and misrepresentation can be easily witnessed. Whilst the Runnymede report stated in 1997 that Islamophobia was becoming ‘more explicit, more extreme and more dangerous’, so in 2008 the same phenomenon has become more natural, more normal and because of this, far more dangerous than ever before. The need for a new approach to tackling Islamophobia is therefore clearly required, as indeed is a new language and greater knowledge to both explain and respond to the subtleties and nuances of Islamophobia that are at present overlooked and subsequently allowed to take root and flourish.

Given that the Commission on British Muslims and Islamophobia is once again in the process of reforming, so the need for a much more radical approach to Islamophobia is required, going beyond the ‘simple and stupid’ approach of its previous reports. If the Commission – and indeed Muslims and wider society alike – fail to do this, then it is highly likely that in another ten years we will be speaking at the end of another decade without having made any advances whatsoever, whether in understanding and defining Islamophobia or indeed, even beginning to tackle it. Now is the time to be much bolder and braver, addressing Islamophobia for what it is now and not what it was then. In doing so, we will become much clearer as to what Islamophobia is and more importantly, what Islamophobia is not.

Underpinning the discourse and rhetoric, exists a highly fluid, protean and largely inconsistent phenomenon that as yet has failed to be adequately captured. As Marcel Maussen critically highlights, ‘“Islamophobia” groups together all kinds of different forms of discourse, speech and acts, by suggesting that they all emanate from an identical ideological core, which is an “irrational fear” (a phobia) of Islam’. With so many disparate events, activities, actions and attitudes either emerging from or being expressed as a consequence of Islamophobia, simplified discourses, definitions and terminologies that even include the term Islamophobia itself fail to properly and adequately provide enough explanation or understanding to a phenomenon – whether real or otherwise – that has had such a dramatic impact on both Muslim and non-Muslim communities here in the UK and beyond across the continent.

Given this recognition, how then do we move towards a better means of defining and conceptualising Islamophobia? How do we stop ‘keeping it simple and stupid’?