Dutch Muslims Counter Govt. Plans to Train Imams

Just curious, but are Dutch rabbis and ministers similarly trained by the govt?

Seymour Paine - Has there been cause for the Dutch to even consider training rabbis and ministers?
The answer is obvious.

As I read this quote . . .

Boujoufi roundly rejected Immigration Minister Rita Verdonk’s plan on imams and immigrants, regarding it as a ruse to interfere into Muslims’ affairs.

it appears to me that this policy came about because Islam is the ruse that interferes with Dutch affairs .

Boujoufi (read: the chicken) is guarding the fox's den (read: the mosques).

Miira is Japanese? May I ask what it means?

Sorry to go off topic but this bit of dhimmitude makes me ashamed to be British, and almost think the French have got some things right. It concerns the dozy bint who wants to wear a sack at school:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/03/02/udress.xml&sSheet=/portal/2005/03/02/ixportaltop.html

"Integration" is a vain hope. In France, the elections led to the victory of the most extreme Muslims; Sarkozy's experiment in "integration" failed, and will continue to fail if, against all the evidence, it is prusued. "Integration" is not only hopeless but helps everyone to continue to miss the larger and terrifying point. Adherents of Islam do not wish to be integrated into European society. They want to change European society, to islamize it. They see this as both their right and their duty. And any attempt to block the spread of Islam is an act of aggression, which in turn can be met with all the weapons of Jihad. Terrorism, the use of wealth, propaganda (including Da'wa), and the demographic weapon, are all weapons of JIhad to spread Islam and weaken its enemies, which means all those who oppose its spread.

Within Europe, the quixotic impulse to "integration" will simply delay the day of reckoning, or of recognition, the dread anagnorisis which one hopes will violate the classical rules, and not come just before the denouement, and the curtain comes down.

"Integration" represents a flailing-about by Western governments for some solution to the problem they all share. That problem is the presence of large numbers of Muslims, bearers of the ideology of Islam, and therefore inculcated with hostility toward all Infidels and the Infidel political and social arrangements, yet living in large and ever-increasing numbers in the heart of the West. And there they settle, and mosqes and madrasas are built for them with OPEC (chiefly Saudi) money, and Western tolerance is used against the West itself, to tie security efforts into knots, to claim victmization, to confuse large numbers of people about the nature of Islam, ranging from those born into Islam, to recent converts who have had a brief and shallow experience of Islam but insist that their "own private Islam" is the real thing, and that anyone who says otherwise is simply a hate-filled obscurantist, rather than a sober and reluctant (for who, in his right mind, really wants to spend time on Islam rather than Shakespeare, or analyzing the mysteries of DNA or studying canvases, or canvas-backed ducks)student of the theory and practice of Islam, who does not make the mistake of generalizing from a most limited experience as do those who keep insisting, without the slightest evidence, that the "whole" problem is one of Wahhabism, when their own brand of Islam is so marginal, so mocked-at-by-Muslims (as, for example, the views of one busy American "revert" for whom embrace of Sufism has permitted him to now present himself asa voluble "expert" on Islam.

The allowing of Muslims into Infidel societies in large numbers, which took place in a fit of criminal negligence by European elites, is a new phenomenon in world history: Infidels are having war made their societies, yet large numbers of those Infidels still refuse to recognizae that war, a other than that of monitoring, and severely restricting, the ability of Muslims to coduct Da'wa, and to migrate to the Lands of the Infidels, and which will certainly have to consider the example of the Czechs (as well as the Poles and others) who, in order to permanently enhance their own security, expelled 3 million ethnic Germans from what had been the Sudetenland, after World War II, and no one then, and no one now, save for German revanchist circles, thinks they were wrong to do so expulsion that the Czechs, without any controversy, employed to end, for all time, the threat posed to their security by the ethnic Germans of the Sudetenland.

And if "Integration" is an illusory "solution" within Europe, "democracy" as promoted, at great expense (men, money, materiel, morale of soldiers, attention) by the American government, is equally illusory as a solution to the problem of Islam. There is no solution. There is only the recognition of what Islam is, and attempts to weaken its hold on those who are already its adherents, and its appeal to those in the Western world who might be tempted by a Total Solution of Everything that Islam offers (and of course, the Nuremberg Rallies of mass prayers and hijra, and the sense of "community" that is an important part of the appeal of Islam, as it was for the Nazis and Fascists and Communists ("we are all in this together, comrade.").

"Integration" within Europe, "Freedom on the March in the MIddle East" -- both are short-term efforts, evasions of reality. It will take time for this to become apparent. One hopes not too much time.

"Dozy bint" above, is a snappy phrase, containing an English borrowing from Arabic -- "bint" formerly being English servicemen's slang for "girl" (taken from the Arabic for "daughter" as in "Asma bint Marwan"), now in wider usage. Arabic words -- "bint" in English, or "toubib" and "smala" now in French, or "salamelecchi" which has long existed in Italian via the Turks -- are welcome. So is zaatar-flecked pita bread. Mosques and madrasas, or those whose sense of self depends on Islam, and who promote it, act as misleading apologists for it, attempt to deflect analysis and study of it, and work to promote it among the psychically and economically marginal, and also to tie in knots those who undertake the mildest of counter-Jihad measures, are quite a different matter.

And "dozy bint" also puts one in mid of Mairzy Doats, a hit song circa 1949, when all the world and love was young, and truth on every shepherd's tongue, and the West had other, in retrospect seemingly far more manageable, worries.

This BS is happening everywhere there is a sufficient critical mass of Muslims. As I keep saying, this is their game plan:

1) first they will use the concepts of cultural relativism and multi-culturalism and our own tolerant values to convince us to give them their taxpayer funded Shariah law courts and taxpayer funded Islamic schools;

2) then, as they gain in numbers, they will claim that they are not being fairly treated within whatever country that they happen to be in and that the only solution is the creation of a separate state for them within the country that they inhabit;

3) once they achieve an autonomous state, establish Shariah law in that land, then they start to work on the remaining territories.

They are like a cancer. They keep spreading. The only solution is to excise the cancer before it can keep metastasizing.

Here, for instance, is an excellent example of the game plan that Islamists have for Canada. This excerpt is from Syed Mumtaz Ali's essay on Apostasy and Blasphemy. He quite literally states how he is going to use Canada's own liberal values and laws in order to establish Shariah courts and even apply Shariah apostasy and blasphemy laws against Canadian Muslims. They just never stop. They keep pushing, searching for weaknesses, buying politicians, buying up media outlets, shutting down any criticism of Islam. The Singapore or Kemalist solution is the only one that works and it must be constantly, unceasingly applied.

http://www.beautifulislam.net/articles/apostacy_blasphemy_islam.htm

Excerpt:

Closer to home, in Canada these are the principles of the Islamic Law which correspond to similar principles in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms which relate to: (1) The Supremacy of God and the Rule of Law (Preamble); (2) Guarantee of Rights and Freedoms (3) Fundamental Freedoms (4) Equality Rights; (5) Multicultural heritage.

In the Context of Canadian law: The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
(1) The preamble in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms clearly states that "Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the Supremacy of God and the Rule of Law."

(2) It "guarantees" the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

(3) Section 2 sets out the Fundamental Freedoms; "everyone has the following freedoms: a) freedom of conscience and religion b) freedom of thought, belief, opinions and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication; c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and d) freedom of association.

(4) Section 15(1) sets out Equality Rights: "Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age, or mental or physical disability."

(5) Section 27 on Multicultural heritage states: "this Charter shall be interpreted in a manner consistent with the preservation and enhancement of the multicultural heritage of CANADIANS"

(1) According to the Preamble of the Charter, "Canada is 'founded upon the principles that recognize the Supremacy of God and the Rule of Law." This "preamble" too must be interpreted in the light of Section 27 which makes it mandatory that "this Charter shall be interpreted in a manner consistent with the preservation and enhancement of the multicultural heritage of Canadians."

Islam is and has been (even going back to the time of Confederation) a part and parcel of multicultural heritage and Muslim adherents have had the privilege of enjoying the status of 'Canadians'.

Because of the recognition of "Supremacy of God," Islamic law, which originates from the Divine Source of the Supreme Legislator, God, deserves to be recognized as a legitimate code under the Rule of which Law Muslims are constitutionally entitled to live and be recognized under Section 2(a): as to freedom of conscience and religion -- in the same way as Islam recognizes the right of non-Muslims to live by their own laws when living as minorities in a Muslim State (as mentioned under "Islamic Law").

As to the recognition of the "Supremacy of God" under the Preamble of the Charter, when interpreted in the context of the "multicultural heritage" provision of Section 27, let us pause here for a moment and ponder on this point: are we in a position to go to the ridiculous extent and say that, yes, we do recognise the Supremacy of the Christian God, or the Jewish God, but not the Muslim God?! Then, what about the de facto context of Canadian secularism. By definition secularism is supposed to be neutral (neither in favour of nor against religion), where does the God of the Preamble fit into this scheme of things?

(2) The Canadian Charter of Rights (Section 1) also requires that any reasonable limits on the guarantees of the Charter have to be demonstrably justified. It is our position that in view of the above arguments that the limits prescribed by Islamic law, with regards to blasphemy/apostasy, do satisfy both the Charter requirements. Namely (i) the Islamic limits are reasonable limits, and are (ii) demonstrably justified within the meaning of Section 1 of the Charter on these grounds: a) The provision of the Preamble regarding the Supremacy of God, b) the constitutional obligation to interpreted in a manner consistent with the preservation and enhancement of the multicultural heritage of Canadians, c) that over one billion people (Muslims) worldwide consider those limits to the freedom of speech/expression to be reasonable, d)(i)that such a large segment of the Canadian minority believes as a precept of their faith/religion ought to be fully recognized if the Charter's provision respecting freedom of religion are to have any real meaning. (ii) Adherence to Islamic principles in this context, ought to be accepted as sufficient enough to satisfy the Charter Requirement of demonstrable justification. Recognition of Islamic standards of reasonable limits on the freedom of speech by the Canadian courts does not necessarily entail any obligation to enforce the Islamic punishment for blasphemy/apostasy within the Canadian jurisdiction. The Muslims themselves (with the exception of the small Shi'ite minority) do not generally believe or insist on any extraterritorial rights to enforce Islamic Hadd punishment in non-Islamic countries. (See footnote 1, under II, Abingdon Dictionary of Living Religions).

Therefore, it seems logical and reasonable that when dealing with situations which involve Islamic Blasphemy, the Canadian courts, in all fairness, must also determine the issue of the reasonableness of the limits on the freedom of speech and the issue of demonstrable justification in accordance with the sensibilities of the whole Muslim Community/Ummah. Muslims adhere to the Islamic religious principles underlying their laws, which according to them, are legislated under the very authority of the Real Sovereign, the 'God', Who is also recognized by the Charter Preamble.

(3) Failing to do so will be a flagrant breach of equality rights under Section 15(1) of the Charter. Because of this failure, Muslims will not be given the equal protection and equal benefit of the law and they will not be treated as equal before and under the law. Indeed, Muslims will thus be discriminated against on the basis of race, national or ethnic origin, colour and especially religion. All such diverse people as those who follow the Islamic religious tradition, despite their various race and ethnic origin are one people.

(4) Failing to interpret the guaranteed rights and freedoms of Muslims, in accordance with the true spirit of multiculturalism results in the effective denial of this fundamental philosophy of the Canadian constitution. This is a tragic departure from that cherished 'tolerance' (the real tolerance) which is the distinguishing quality of a cultured people. The more tolerant a nation, the more cultured its people will be. With this measure of cultural excellence, Canada does hold a place of honour in the nations of the world and indeed we proudly stand head and shoulders above so many other nations. What a sad thing it would be to not appreciate the necessity of inculcating this multicultural philosophy into our daily lives. How else can human beings become civilized enough to be able to claim that they do actually respect other cultures and wish to co-exist with them.

Who's going to pay for these classes? They should make the native countries pay.

Note that they have to make a blanket policy... as if Jews, Hindus, Christians, Buddhists, and atheists need "integration" classes.

In fact, has anyone, anywhere ever needed integration classes? If you don't want to integrate, why would you immigrate?

See you guys. Read Syed Mumtaz Ali. Who says Islamists can't be smart? We keep thinking that we are so smart that we can beat these guys easily. Well, I am sorry. Amongst these fanatics are some very smart people. They have lived amongst long enough to have figured us out. They know what buttons of ours to push. They are figuring out our legal and political processes so as to use them against us. Guys, we will have to be just as fanatical back. The battle is joined; the civilization that you save may be your own.

Gary,

Actually "Miira" is simply a nic. I'm Magyar.. .Hungarian-American, born and raised in USA to refugee parents of the '56 revolution. My folks (dad/gypsy and mom/Jewish)also survived the Holocaust. Upon entering the US they had to identify their religion for papers and to receive assignments to appropriate sponsor families. They, separately, chose "Catholic" as a safe identity and met after they were sponsored in the same Penn. town.

I was raised Catholic. Amazingly, their secret was kept until I was a teen, when my folks spoke of their heritage, discreetly between themselves.

I will be married for twenty five years at the end of this month . . .to a wonderful Jew. Our children have been raised Jewish. I was given the opportunity to choose my faith openly and freely. This is what makes this forum a passion for me.

The Hungarian slogan is "Nem Nem Soha" . . .meaning never again.

TMI?

GARY PLEASE NOTE:

Hugh says that...."Integration" within Europe, "Freedom on the March in the MIddle East" -- both are short-term efforts, evasions of reality. It will take time for this to become apparent. One hopes not too much time.

Comment, Gary?

***********************************************
Alas, Israel has already learned the hard way about trying to integrate memebers of a cult sworn to take over the world.

And so has Holland. Soon all of Europe will feel the effects of what happens when frogs try to deal nicely and humanely with scorpions.

'a hit song circa 1949'??

Hugh, you can't be that old!

I've always liked the word 'bint' since Basil Fawlty called Polly a cloth-eared bint in Fawlty Towers. Fawlty Towers will probably be banned as anti-Islamic in some way.

This schoolgirl jilbab thing is actually more relevant to this thread than I thought. Here is a school which has permitted a uniform both suitable for Muslims and practical, namely the shalwar kamiz. Not only does this not satisfy, but the British courts are stupid enough to back her up on appeal. If her stupid jilbab gets caught in a naked flame in the chemistry lab, whose fault will that be?

I have to admit, Gary. I like this. I really, really like this a lot:

The chicken is guarding the fox's den.

Bravo. You are a turner of phrases quite pleasin'.

Did you make that up? I'm not being sarcastic. That's a good one. I'm glad to find occasion to remind you that you and I are in agreement on some issues.

There was a time -- back in the 60s and 70s -- when Muslim immigrants to the West did integrate and remain, for all intents and purposes, integrated.

If they weren't fleeing the bloodshed that attended the partitioning of Pakistan from India in the post WW II era, they were certainly looking for better economic opportunities outside of Asia Minor. They may attend at the mosque, but have no desire to live under Sharia themselves, let alone see it imposed on their new homes.

Significant portions of the more recent waves have certainly come for other purposes, bringing an "entitlement" attitude of incredible proportions -- tapping into the social safety net built and funded by the very people and civil societies they despise and desire to destroy. But this still isn't true of all Muslim immigrants.

What has fuelled this paradigm shift? Petrodollars that the Saudis and Iranian mullahs have to propagandize through mosques, madrassahs and the media outlets they also fund like Al-Manure.

This comment from
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/300ezrxt.asp

"Wahhabis, Go Home"

"As these were government textbooks, they were deemed unacceptable by the German authorities, who requested materials produced by the local Islamic community. The result, Lewis says, were materials produced by private Muslim institutions--funded by Saudi Arabia. As always, he says, it was "the Wahhabis who had the necessary combination of passion, money, and a complete lack of scruples.

"So the Islam that is taught in Turkish schools is on the whole a modernized, secularized, sanitized version of Islam. The Islam which is taught in German schools is the complete Wahhabi version." And Lewis adds this footnote: "As an interesting result of that, of 12 Turks arrested so far who have active membership of al Qaeda, all 12 were born and brought up in Germany, none in Turkey, which I think is rather remarkable."

INTERESTD
PLEASE NOTE Shabina Begum case which had previously been dismissed by the courts, WON THIS TIME DUE TO BEING DEFENDED BY CHERIE BOOTH/BLAIR, THE PRIME MINISTER'S WIFE!! This is the same Dame who was over this side of the world recently promoting children's charities and getting PAID AN UNDISCLOSED SIX FIGURE SUM EACH TIME SHE SPOKE AT A CONFERENCE. Naturally she was very coy on the subject of getting paid, refusing to answer reporters... Urge all Brits to vote Blair OUT. This Guy and his Missus will do anything to get votes, particularly Muslim votes. I personally regard Tony Blair as a notorious Liar and Hypocrite getting on par with Chirac.

kj~ I made it up right then and there, in fact. In response to your other question: everything in history is temporary. Question is, which view of the future will prove to be correct? Can't help it if I am an optimist.

Miira~ TMI? Unless you mean the power plant, no. *chuckles* Did you say Penn? I am in Canada now, but that be my home region. Gettysburg being one of my favorite stomping grounds.

Morgane:

I noticed that. Ironic, isn't it that Cherie Booth/Blair, a woman who has risen on merit (pre-Tony being PM) is fighting for the right of a girl to wear something that marks her out as subordinate.

Tony Blair a notorious liar an hypocrite? Yes, and the Pope is still a Catholic and bears still shit in the woods.

On a par with Chirac? Well, it pains me to say this, you have no idea how much, but even Chirac was in favour of banning hijabs, and this would not have happened in France. Oooch that hurt, sorry Wellinton, Henry V etc.

kj~ just for the record: I really do think we have a lot in common. Probably the reason we make each other crazy.

*Sniff*

It`s so touching to see you guys getting along.

*Sniff* Group hug?

Geoff

Interested and Morgane
Please do not get me started on Cherie Booth...
I felt a little bit better reading the BBC Have your Say site, where the majority of comments are not in favour, including some from other Moslem girls and one in particular from a former pupil of the same school who has an Indian name. I have heard it said, by someone know who lives local that this girl (I have not heard the phrase "dozy bint" since my Dad died) rejected the salwar kameez, not because it was not modest enough but because it was also worn by Hindu and Sikh girls.
And talking of my Dad he used to sing Mairzy Doats and dozy dotes to me when I was a kid in the 50s (late 50s I hasten to add).

Right. So... Why does Mr. Boujoufi see something wrong with trying to Integrate people? How is that interfering?

Right. So... Why does Mr. Boujoufi see something wrong with trying to Integrate people? How is that interfering?

Gary:

What has logic or rationality got to do with it?

Boujoufi and his ilk believe they have the divine right, nay the divine instruction to impose whatever they deem to be Allah's will on the rest of the planet although almost 80% of it doesn't recognize Mohammed as the greatest thing since Creation.

But they aren't fascists in mufti, they're only misunderstood by ignorant, bumptuous ethnocentric Westerners.

Gary -

Power plant? . . .no, not "Three Mile Island" . . .
LOL! . . .I didn't catch that at first

TMI = Too much info? :)

Yes, Penn, Bethlehem/Allentown area of Pennsylvania during the late '50's.

Miira, glance over to Co-jet when you get a chance *g*

Mentat: So, Canada's preamble speaks of the sovereignty of God and rule of law? Sounds like good, old-fashioned Protestant Christianity. Too bad we post-colonial Yanks couldn't have done the same.

Re the Netherlands and the certification of imams, is there something in Dutch law that has ministers of the Hervormde (as opposed to the Gereformeerde) churches certified by the govenrment? I'd appreciate some enlightenment from Mynheer Arhopla or other Dutch readers--indeed, I'm curious what the relationship between certification of ministers and the state is in any European country with a legally established religion.

In the USA, the certification of any clergy by the state is out of the question due to the constitutional stricture against Congress making laws regarding the establishment of religion or impeding the free exercise thereof (it now gets dicey when the "free exercise" claims a right to murder people).

OK, I have a perfect solution to the entire Dutch issue.

Immigrants to the country should have to write a thousand-word essay on why they want to come to Holland. That's it. Just a thousand-word essay. Explain what, in 1000 words or less, it is that they love sooooo much about Holland that it makes them want to come there to live. That's all. No background checks, no worrying about jihadists. Just write what it is you love about your recipient country. The tulips, or the opportunity, or the religious freaking freedom that Holland offers.

Anyone who can't complete such a simple task gets sent back. (And of course, anyone who writes anything contrary to Dutch law or morality similarly is catapult-mounted and fired off into the sunset. This would include "I wish to kill the Dutch dhimmi scum and the whores that fill this evil country. I would also like a government grant.")

Anyone who plagiarizes gets sent back.

For anyone who later commits a crime against, let's say, a member of another religion - their act is compared with their stated rationale for being there in the first place. If it contradicts their agree reasons, off they go a-walking.

Simple, really. Make people live up to our expectations, and theirs.

Geoff

Wow, I had no idea that Canadians affirmed Christianity or God. That really goes on up there? I thought you guys were all secular or something.

Ask not the "Snowbirds" who flock to Florida, for they art old and crotchety. They knew not of the knowing of God, but Allah knew when ye knew not. Allah is Redeemer, Confuser.

Geoff

I hate to be a pessimist, but the Dutch idea of state-controlling and licensing Imams will not work. In order to do it, the Netherlands would need a whole bureaucracy which is both familiar with Islam and Arabic, and incorruptible. What is likely to find is that, at some point, a fox will place itself to guarding the chicken coop; it will hire other foxes; and then, once the bureaucracy is up and running, it will get rid of those who think differently and enforce its own brand of extremism. And after a few years, the government will begin to wonder why its oversight does not work; but, by then, it will have a stake in its success - or rather, being a bureaucracy, in making it look like a success.

No: the only thing to do is to keep all mosques under permanent police surveillance.

Kepha:

You doth protest too much. I was raised as a Christian and retain many of Christ's teachings as part of my personal value system. The only time I have problems with religion is when religions want to force me how to behave or how to think. That is why I object to Islam, now. And, if I lived in the Middle Ages in Europe, I would have been against the tyranny of the Catholic Church at that time. Sic semper tyrannis!

Paolo:

In this case, I'm sure your pessism isn't misdirected. Haven't the French passed some laws about imams as well regarding education requirements. Seems they did, but they have also backed up their intentions by deporting a few back to Algeria or wherever.