The politician and a radical islamic petition
When reading the title, they could very well be the subjects of a new plotline of a thriller by Frederick Forsyth, but these are not.
I’m talking about the current controversy around two mishaps, two local PvdA politicians who have signed a rather dubious petition by an even more dubious and perhaps even mischievous group of radical mulims.
We’re discussing Hizb ut Tahrir, a soenni-islamic political organization, who are ultimately striving for the union of all muslims and muslim countries into a caliphate, or a large confederation of united muslims. This country would be lead by the Caliph who happens to be the leader of the islamic community, called Ummah. He also is the highest spiritual leader of the muslims, and this information combined makes up for a state without a separation between the state and the religion.
Not an ideal situation, in my view.
This organization has put up a petition to fight the calumniation of the Islam, although it is considered to be their fight against the upcoming release of an anti-koran film by Geert Wilders (PVV).
As we live in a free country, both expressions of free speech are tolerated and righteous, but that is not the issue here.
At least two local politicians of foreign descent have signed this petition. The petition itself is fairly moderated, yet it is the group behind it that is concerning. Hizb ut Tahrir is striving for their goals, not only with words but as expressed by one of their leaders, also with violence.
A recent interview with Okay Pala revealed a quote by an anonymous signer of the petition: "Wat jullie nodig hebben is een zware bomaanslag". *source*
Luckily, he did not say he agreed with this statement but warned ‘us’ of the things the signers of the petition could do. A very weak standpoint in my opinion. He added to that: "Wij zijn het niet eens met de vrijheid van meningsuiting, want we verwerpen de democratie! Ons alternatief is de islam. Er is geen tussenweg: wij kiezen voor de absolute waarheid, het woord van Allah."
A polarizing opionion at it’s best, an attempt to undermine our state at it’s worst.
This petition was also signed by some respected PvdA local politicians, of which one already had to put down all duties as ‘it was the last strike in a row‘. The other denied she signed it at first, but now had to admit she signed it after some pressure from within the party. I think it’s a bad thing that the party itself did nothing about it, as her individual standpoints clearly contradict not only the views of her own political party, but the organization behind the petition also has radical ideas.
I’m not sure what action should be taken regarding this subject, although I’m convinced a chosen political leader with affections beyond our knowledge at the time of election should not stay in the position, certainly not if the ideas concerned are of this nature.
But then again: that’s my opinion.
2 thoughts on “The politician and a radical islamic petition”
Hard one. While I tend to see the petition by its own merits rather than those of the organization around it, the case of the politicians supporting it is a different one.
In my opinion, fighting the calumniation (w00t, I learned a new word) of the Islam is not a bad cause in itself and should not carry any consequences. Opposing Wilders’ film is worse, as that’s something of an attempt at limiting free speech. Hiding your own beliefs is not acceptable for a politician – although I suppose we also shouldn’t judge someone on their belief. Argh. Hard issue.
I’m not really sure what to make of it. Abstain.
*also learned a new word*
I second your thoughts on fighting the calumniation, yet I disagree on opposing Wilders’ film. As standing up to someone else’s beliefs is (luckily) legal in our country, it should be allowed to do just that.
I agree however on the fact that petitioning for it to be banned or otherwise prohibited to be shown is wrong. Not letting someone else express their thoughts is primeval and should definitely be fought.
Still a hard issue indeed. Free speech is a long disputed right, and probably will always be.
As it should be.