Murder In Amsterdam

Through the lenses of Holland and more specifically Amsterdam, Ian Buruma creates a very interesting portrait of this modern era of globalization and multiculturalism, showing the problems as they pertain to the Netherlands and translating them into a global perspective. A traditionally accepting society, Holland has been the destination for many immigrants from the Middle East and Arab nations, most coming from Turkey and Morocco. These people are poor, don’t know Dutch, and are frequently devout Muslims. However, the biggest problem is that some of these people, typically the children of first generation immigrants, grow up to hate the nation they live in and become extremists Muslims. This was the case Mohammed Bouyeri, the man who killed political commentator Theo van Gogh for his collaboration with Ayaan Hirsi Ali in her anti-Islam movie Submission as well as his own anti-Islam and anti-immigration comments. Bouyeri's next target, if he had not been caught immediately after murdering van Gogh, was Hirsi Ali. He refused to defend himself in court, claiming that if he was released, he would do the same thing again. Bouyeri believes it is his job to do the will of Allah, which, to him, means killing any one considered to be an infidel (and in Takfir terms, I’d say that the word “infidel” encompasses 95% of the world). Thus, as Buruma puts it, there are two ideals that are competing in Holland: the desire for a traditional society (as depicted by Dutch soccer fans) and the Muslim fantasy of a devout, pure world of the Prophet. Both ideals equally stubborn and equally unachievable.

In many ways, this predicament has shown the short-comings of multiculturalism. I have always believed that toleration of other cultures is an important virtue. However, I also live in a town where 95% of the people are white Christians, and it’s quite easy to espouse toleration of differences when you don’t really have to practice it. This tolerance can be quite detrimental, especially when it comes to national identity. We are living in an increasingly global world, and everyone is more interconnected through culture and technology than ever. Similarly, many from the Middle East are moving into Western Europe and the United States. As Buruma points out, 45% of the population of Amsterdam is Muslim immigrants, and soon, white Dutch will be in the minority. Many of these people don’t know Dutch and have very little in common with those whose ancestors have been living in Holland for hundreds of years. And many believe that tolerance of these differences has lead to the breakdown of the Dutch national identity, and I do believe that they have a point. That is why people listen to people like Pim Fortuyn and Theo van Gogh. Through populist rhetoric, they play on the desires of the Dutch who want to see their Holland of clogs and windmills back to the way it was before globalization. They are done with multiculturalism.

However, to abandon multiculturalism entirely is a dangerous proposition. In my mind, this abandonment would be the realization of Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s extremist Enlightenment ideals. Hirsi Ali has spoken out against Islam for what she sees as the mistreatment of women. She sees it as the fault of Islam that women are suppressed, not due to the culture. Thus, she calls for women to tear of their burqas and free themselves from Islam. While I believe that her argument does deserve the time of day in an intellectual debate about what to do about the current global predicament (although I do not agree with it), I believe the way she presents her argument discredits it. For it seems as if she rides upon a high horse, claiming she wants to “save” these people from Islam, but as the same time shows great contempt for these people. Similarly, I also believe that her belief that people should give up Islam is a little ridiculous. Many people who practice Islam find solace in it. They are comforted by it, and do not find it oppressive in the least. These people should be able to practice the religion that makes them happy. Similarly, to tell them that they must give up their religion so that they can embrace the ideals of the Enlightenment would cause much and great resentment. Imagine if someone told the Evangelicals in America that they must give up their religion in order to become secularists. 

Thus, there are a couple of fine lines we must walk. The first is that between this new globalized world and traditional society. The second is that between adhering strictly to Enlightenment ideals and letting people choose whether or not they want to follow Enlightenment ideals. I believe that if we answer the second question, the answer to the first will follow much easier. I myself am not sure what to do. I do believe that regardless of your religion, you should follow the laws set forth by the government. It is dangerous when people such as Mohammed Bouyeri believe that they are only held accountable to Allah’s laws (and I am just using him as an example, I am sure that there are sects in religions other than Islam that view themselves in a similar fashion) and thus cannot bother with the laws of this world, when they forbid to act on the will of Allah. However, to tell be that they have to base all of their assumptions and beliefs on reason doesn’t exactly chide well with me either. For pushing the Enlightenment onto people, in my mind, is just as wrong as trying to force someone into a religion. Thus, there is a line we must draw; I’m just not sure where it is.