COMMENT | Documentary "Murder in Amsterdam" |  |
Dutch dilemmas
"Murder in Amsterdam" is a thought-provoking account of the assassination of Theo Van Gogh that makes readers question politically tainted Enlightenment values.
By Rafia Zakaria, November 8, 2006

On November 2, 2004, an ominously murky morning in Amsterdam, a small wiry man wearing a Moroccan djellaba and sneakers rode his bicycle, that ubiquitous symbol of Dutchness, to a building he knew well. Seeing his intended target, a short blonde man dressed in a T-shirt and suspenders, he pulled out his gun and shot the man squarely in the stomach. Pulling out a pencil, he then penned a short note and stuck it to the man's chest with a machete. Thus, in this unceremonious and grisly encounter on the streets of Old Amsterdam, the two faces of Europe collided.
The murder of Theo Van Gogh at the hands of Mohammad Bouyeri has since become a regular remonstrance in the dialectic that pits radical Islam against defenders of the Enlightenment. The most commendable facet of Ian Buruma's book on Theo Van Gogh's murder is its reluctance to lapse into the eulogic veneration characteristic of most writing borne out of this seductively polemical conflict.
Buruma, much to the chagrin of his critics who have committed themselves to one side or the other of the battle, resists the temptation to create the venerable heroes and salacious villains we have come to expect in all such tales. The characters are presented not simply as icons pitched in a larger conflict, their motives pristine in their ideological purity, but rather as symbols of a deeper, more complicated affliction in which neither side can be squarely edified or castigated. Indeed, Buruma's expedition into the morally amorphous world of Dutch politics is fascinating precisely because it refuses to succumb to this very enticing proposition of parsing the story for moral victors and presenting neat and ultimately reductionist solutions to what is repeatedly theorised as a civilisational conundrum.
At the centre of this lurid tale played out on the narrow streets of Amsterdam lies Van Gogh's film Submission written by Ayan Hirsi Ali, the Dutch politician who has since been made to leave Holland for lying on her immigration application. The 10-minute film was shown on Dutch television and depicts verses of the Koran projected on the bodies of naked women. The chosen verses speak of the submission of women to their fathers, husbands and brothers and to Allah. Amid the garishly sensationalised sounds of lashing whips, Koranic verses prescribing the punishment for fornicators and adulterers are read by a quivering female voice as images of women in positions of prayer flit across the screen. In Ayan Hirsi Ali's perspective, the film is the celluloid incantation of a deeply rooted civilisational dilemma, a strategic provocation meant to shock Muslims into thinking about their faith in a way that mimics the Enlightenment's disdain for the sacred.
As is revealed in Buruma's conversations with the Somali-born Hirsi Ali, the deliberately sacrilegious juxtaposition of Koranic text and the female body is for her the revolutionary break from the most stifling constraint facing Muslims: the unquestioned divinity of the Koran and the submission to Allah's will. Interestingly, for all her aspirations towards idolising Voltaire at the expense of Islam, Buruma also tells us that most of Hirsi Ali's iconoclastic derision is shown on media viewed by the Dutch intellectual elite rather than the immigrant-dominated and poverty-stricken "dish cities" surrounding Amsterdam. Buruma refrains from judging Hirsi Ali's film as either heroic or tastelessly provocative; he does tell us, however, that Hirsi Ali can no longer venture into any Dutch Muslim neighbourhood without a bevy of bodyguards.
Violating the sacred was alluring for Van Gogh for rather different reasons. As Buruma tells his readers, Van Gogh's childhood and adulthood were marked by the lethargic post-Enlightenment vacuum in which nothing is sacred and there is pathetically little to fight for. Born into this stolid apathy and predictably conjuring his own rebellion from a life of entitlement, Van Gogh positioned himself amid "the abusive critics" of Dutch literary tradition whose feats included calling Catholics "the filthiest, creepiest most deluded most treacherous part of our nation". Finding objects of desecration was thus an essential component of Van Gogh's public persona, one built on giving a public voice to the virulent fear of Muslims felt by so many Dutch. Van Gogh's defence of the Enlightenment thus took the dubious form of attacking a source of sanctity that still remained exotically controversial. In attacking this remaining bastion of sanctity, Van Gogh's politics represented the lurid equivocation of hatred for Muslims with a defence of the Enlightenment.
Mohammad Bouyeri's crusade of defending Islam by murdering Theo Van Gogh, the blasphemous apostate, is marked by its own pathetic inauthenticity. Bouyeri's search for the sacred, satisfied by second-hand translations of the Koran, bloodthirsty videos of jehadis and ultimately murder cannot be isolated from the self-annihilating humiliation of living in a culture where he would forever be an "allochtoon" or "foreigner".
As Buruma aptly points out, Bouyeri's misgivings fit far more squarely into the qualms of a mistreated underclass forced to live a semi visible existence than into the stalwart defender of Islam driven by ideological fervour that Bouyeri wanted so desperately to become. His killing of the heretical Van Gogh was thus the ultimate act in this all-consuming, self-defining process of becoming authentic, a desperate search of one whose generation is "neither Dutch nor Moroccan" but for whom "Islam remains".
Indeed, not one of the three dominant figures whose characters loom large in the book emerge as the selflessly guided champions of either liberty or faith. Theo Van Gogh, Mohammad Bouyeri and Ayan Hirsi Ali are all presented as complex characters whose intentions cannot be distilled solely to ideological commitments of any sort. Buruma's sparse prose is successfully empty of both cynicism and idealism and thus refreshingly expository in presenting characters that represent a perversion both of Islam and the Enlightenment.
Van Gogh's gruesome and unquestionably undeserved end is presented in all its lurid and bone-chilling detail but so is his repulsive quest for attention and penchant for desecration. Similarly, Ayan Hirsi Ali's deliberate provocations in Submission are portrayed not simply in their adherence to the questioning spirit of the Enlightenment but also in their pathetic inability to actually instigate ideological questioning in the target Muslim audience they are supposedly designed to inspire. Buruma sensitively suggests that the content of the film as well as the venue for its ultimate screening are designed perhaps to garner Hirsi Ali a place among the Dutch intellectual elite under the seemingly worthy but possibly pretextual cause of initiating a revolutionary rethinking of Islamic doctrine. Bouyeri himself appears in Buruma's book as a nobody trying desperately through his act of murder to achieve a sense of belonging and finding respite only in fundamentalist Islam. In his macabre recreation of the murder scene, Buruma illustrates the tragedy of Bouyeri's vengeful attempt to transcend the unmoored destiny imposed on him by a Dutch society that can either hate him or deny his existence.
Moral ambiguity
The motivations and ultimately the actions of the trio are invested with an even more troublesome flavour of moral ambiguity when the reader realises how much more complicated the questions of moral judgment become when faced with these nuances. While it is doubtless true that Bouyeri can be unquestionably condemned for his cold, calculating murder of Theo Van Gogh, does this condemnation excuse Dutch society from the xenophobia that celebrates Islamophobic politicians as national heroes?
Similarly, does Hirsi Ali's call for Dutch Muslims to foster a Muslim Enlightenment by challenging the sanctity invested in religious texts mark little more than childish mimicry of a bygone revolution that does not directly speak to their reality as a racial and religious underclass? Do Internet downloads espousing the brutal killing of apostates and heretics really make wayward immigrant youths into ideologues worthy of being characterised as civilisational warriors for an entire faith? These questions, posed by Buruma without pretence or prescription, collectively present the dilemmas facing the Dutch in particular and Europe in general.
Lurking in the shadows of Theo Van Gogh's murder is the killing of Pim Fortuyn, an openly gay Dutch politician who was also murdered in Amsterdam, at the hands of an animal rights activist. In detailing the connections between the legendary Pim Fortuyn, who was voted the most influential figure in Dutch history, and Theo Van Gogh, Buruma captures an emergent brand of Dutch politics that is based not on any coherent ideology but on vulgar theatrics and the adoption of hatred of Muslims as a basis for political organisation. Both Pim Fortuyn and Theo Van Gogh gave political voice to the Dutch fear of Muslims, legitimising it through the ideology of the Enlightenment. Buruma's parallelisation of the careers of both Fortuyn and Van Gogh and their capitalisation on Islamophobia begs the question of how the Enlightenment virtues of freedom and reason could have been politically perverted to justify hatred for a racial underclass. This crucial question, posed repeatedly, if not directly, by Buruma through his coinage of the term "Enlightenment fundamentalist" represents the most intellectually fascinating aspect of the book.
While it is undoubtedly true that Muslims like Bouyeri with their fundamentalist, misogynistic and murderous interpretation of religious text surely represent a threat to the Enlightenment virtues of freedom and reason, do public personas like Theo Van Gogh indeed represent a personification of those same Enlightenment virtues. This persistent refrain that echoes through the book forces the reader to question the illiberal and often intolerant practices of the Dutch Muslims amid whom Bouyeri was reared as well as the Dutch who have managed to delude themselves into believing that hatred is somehow an Enlightenment virtue.
One conclusion that emerges from Buruma's presentation of Theo Van Gogh's murder is the pessimistic proclamation that the values of the Enlightenment have become so politically tainted with the grotesque associations of imperialism and racism that they can no longer be ideologically expedient in promoting any sort of revolutionary changes. If history and political context no longer influenced the reception of ideas, and if the Enlightenment like Islam had not fallen prey to contemporary political perversions, it would indeed make philosophical and ideological sense to present it as the golden solution to the Dutch dilemma.
In reality however, the ramparts of political polarisation in the Netherlands have been drawn in such a way that even the most oppressive tactics against Muslim women, ones Hirsi Ali rightfully denounces, have become reinterpreted as marks of resistance that must be held onto as a sign of loyalty to faith and culture. When the same voices that enunciate racial taunts reinvent themselves as bearers of the virtues of the Enlightenment, it comes as a scant surprise that the Enlightenment itself is rejected as yet another imperialist tool of subjugation.
As more and more Dutch Muslim women retreat behind claustrophobic black veils and men like Van Gogh are brutally gunned down in the name of misguided faith, the question Europe must confront is the reality of a marred, disfigured Enlightenment denuded of its emancipatory potential by the tainted hands of those who deliver it.
Rafia Zakaria is an attorney and member of the Asian American Network Against Abuse of Women. She teaches courses on constitutional law and political philosophy.
We try to remove any comments that do not conform to our netiquette guidelines. If any comments remain that are in violation, please let us know. The presence of offending comments does not necessarily reflect the views of the editors of altmuslim.
Its difficult to see how to stop the spiral of fear. The worst thing is to try to ignore it exists and not to do anything. The dutch start to fear everyone who might be the same ethnicity or religion as the murderer, and Muslims and immigrants can easily pick up on this, which only reinforces the barriers. World fame and fortune to whomever can devise a policy for both sides to reverse the trend!
- Posted by OmarG on November 9, 2006 at 01:02 AM
>> World fame and fortune to whomever can devise a policy for both sides to reverse the trend!
Ask original native dutch people about their interaction with muslim people and they would say peaceful , friendly and harmonious. Are we always going to accept the politics of the situation over the tacitly expressed political will of the people? There is a lot more kindness and reciprocity than is written about. People fear Islam but not Muslims and our duty is to the amend that fear. Its an easy rift to dissolve if it was backed with the common peoples already exsting will for peace.
- Posted by Ghulam (South Africa) on November 9, 2006 at 04:25 AM
he dutch start to fear everyone who might be the same ethnicity or religion as the murderer, and Muslims and immigrants can easily pick up on this, which only reinforces the barriers.
Perhaps if the Muslim community accepted collective responsibility for the miscreants in their midst and offerred to pay compensation to the relatives of the slain, the "native Dutch" would be relieved: they would know for sure that the Muslim community is on their side, not merely passive observers.
- Posted by Solomon2 (Washington, D.C.) on November 9, 2006 at 11:27 AM
Solomon,
Is it your position that every time a Muslim is killed or maimed by bigots (which happens frequently in the U.S.), that it is the collective responsibility of the non-muslim community to pay compensation to the victims family?
- Posted by peace4all on November 9, 2006 at 12:57 PM
>>and offerred to pay compensation to the relatives of the slain,
Well, such a thing should never be demanded from Muslims. But, if some people in the Muslim community offered to do this as a good will gesture, it would be an incredibly magnamanious gesture. Possibly, it would help, but I also think there is a hardened core of people do genuinely hate Muslims. Now, whether such a gesture would be lost in the glow of the bona fide Muslim haters is something that only experience will show.
- Posted by OmarG on November 9, 2006 at 01:23 PM
>> it would be an incredibly magnamanious gesture.
The muslim community or its values aren't guilty of anything. They don't have to give a gesture here any more than is needed for any other family that is a victim of violence. And that gesture is the collective Dutch one.
- Posted by Ghulam (South Africa) on November 10, 2006 at 02:22 AM
Of course, they don't have to, but I'm talking in PR terms. The publicity (and it would have to massively hyped) could be enough to reverse some people's thinking that all Muslims agree with the murderer...which apparently many think so, given that the links between the average Dutch and the average Muslim are basically nonexistant. Thus, the media is one of the few places where they communicate, even if its on an impersonal level.
- Posted by OmarG on November 10, 2006 at 12:00 PM
p4all: that sort of thing hardly ever happens in the U.S., so the question doesn't come up. That your perception is so out of whack with reality dims much hope that "peace for all" is really possible.
It's what OmarG said: this sort of thing shouldn't be demanded, but I feel it would be a much-appreciated gesture. It might even reduce the ranks of the Muslim-haters.
Face it: when a Muslim slays a non-Muslim and proclaims it is in the cause of Islam, non-Muslims will perceive the Muslim community as at least partly responsible. Silence is acquiescence. The perception that other Muslims endorse the murderer creates hatreds.
How well such a gift is received would depend on the spirit it is given, not just the size of the gift. Recall how the Mayor of New York rejected a $10 million check from a Saudi prince because the fellow tried to blame the 9-11 attacks on the U.S.? That didn't go down well at all.
Finally, the question that's relevant right now isn't whether or not "the muslim community" is guilty of anything. It's whether it can do more to reduce such incidents in the future. By dunning the whole Muslim community for payment, wouldn't it be a statement that future incidents are considered unacceptable by the Muslim community?
- Posted by Solomon2 (Washington, D.C.) on November 10, 2006 at 01:54 PM
Well, I think that part of the problem is Muslim complaceny: "No *good* Muslim would murder such a person!" Most Muslim communities are barely communities in any but the most weakest sense. Thus, a mosque congregation on the East End, for example, has no idea about a small radical mosque on the West End. And, naturally, they have no control over them either. A strong effort by religious leaders can turn people off to perpetuating violence, but in the end, the modern state has to do what its supposed to do and enforce the law to hopefully prevent such radicalism in the first place. But, that's a whole different can of worms, and inevitably, some Muslims do claim that the alienation from thier (European) societies absolves them from the sin of hating the Other.
- Posted by OmarG on November 10, 2006 at 08:36 PM
Page 1 of 1
Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.
|
|
|
altmuslim this week - august 23, 2010 - This week, is there a connection between the heated rhetoric over Park51 and increased hate crimes against Muslims? Also, parallel struggles against anti-Muslim protests in Bradford, England and the innovation (and integration) on display in the 30 Mosques, 30 States and 30 Nights, 30 Grants projects.
|
How Miss USA will push the secret Muslim agenda - A leaked memo confirms a nefarious plot to infiltrate America using the one weapon we can't resist: Total hotness.  (May 17, 2010)
South Park: The controversy continues - In a special for Salon.com, our Associate Editor Wajahat Ali offers his take on the controversy over South Park. If you think South Park's Muslim brouhaha was messy, you should see what's going on in the neighboring town of East Park.  (April 28, 2010)
|
|
|  |
|
altmuslim review 033 - We're baaaaack! We speak about the ongoing controversy over Park51 and what means for the future of lower Manhattan. Also, a discussion with Farhad Chowdhury of the M100 Foundation, which seeks to change the way Muslims pay zakat (August 13, 2010)
altmuslim review 032 - Muslim writers everywhere! We speak about the new wave of Western Muslim literature and interview two authors with recently released books. Our own Irfan Yusuf talks about his memoir, Once Were Radicals and Reza Aslan tells us more about his second book, How to Win a Cosmic War (June 11, 2009)
|
|
Recent and upcoming talks and offsite articles by altmuslim contributors
It's the occupation, stupid, Wajahat Ali, Salon.com, June 4, 2010
Sex and the City 2's stunning Muslim clichés, Wajahat Ali, Salon.com, May 28, 2010
Draw Muhammad Day: Collectively Punishing Muslim Americans, Shahed Amanullah, Huffington Post, May 25, 2010
Shahed will be a guest on the BBC World Service's World, Have Your Say discussing the proposed French ban on niqab (and fines for husbands who compel their wives to wear them) on May 18, 2010.
Even Controversial Views Should Be Protected by Freedom of Speech, Asma Uddin, The Huffington Post, May 7, 2010.
What I understand about Faisal Shahzad, Wajahat Ali, Salon.com, May 6, 2010
No freak out about South Park, Zahed Amanullah, The Guardian, Comment is Free, April 23, 2010.
Shahed will be a guest on the BBC World Service's World, Have Your Say discussing the South Park controversy along with Zarqa Nawaz (Little Mosque on the Prairie) and other guests on April 22, 2010.
Shahed will be a guest on NPR's State of Belief discussing Barack Obama's outreach to the Muslim world, April 17, 2010.
Zahed will be attending a panel discussion entitled " Are Islam and Free Speech Compatible?" in London, England on Friday, March 26, 2010 sponsored by The City Circle. He will be accompanied by Riazat Butt (The Guardian), Hamid Khan (Consultant in Offender and Youth Development), Abu Muntasir (JIMAS), and Dr Usama Hasan.
'Jihad Jane': not the usual suspect, Wajahat Ali, The Guardian, Comment is Free, March 18, 2010.
Al-Awlaki, a new public enemy, Zahed Amanullah, The Guardian, Comment is Free, December 30, 2009.
Islamophonic: Review of the year, Riazat Butt, Zahed Amanullah and David Shariatmadari, Cif Belief (The Guardian), December 18, 2009.
Fort Hood has enough victims already, Wajahat Ali, Comment is Free (The Guardian), November 6, 2009
The pitfalls of filming Muhammad, Shahed Amanullah, The Guardian, Comment is Free, November 4, 2009.
Children of Dust (published by HarperOne, an imprint of HarperCollins), the first book by longtime altmuslim.com contributor Ali Eteraz, is released in the US, Canada, and the UK on October 13, 2009.
Shahed will be attending the m100 Sansoucci Colloquium in Potsdam, Germany, September 14-16, 2009. He will be moderating a panel discussion on the Danish cartoon crisis with Denis MacShane MP, Jasim Al-Azzawi (Al Jazeera English), and Flemming Rose (Jyllands Posten).
Associate Editor Wajahat Ali's play "The Domestic Crusaders" is having its premiere at the Nuyorican Poets Cafe in New York City, NY, September 11, 2009. The play will continue through Sunday, October 11, 2009.
Shahed will be moderating or participating in three panel discussions at the Islamic Society of North America's annual convention, including Muslim Journalists: The View from the Inside, Supporting Social Entrepreneurs and Civic Leaders, and Blogistan: Muslim Americans on the Web in Washington, DC, July 3-6, 2009.
State-sponsored Sufism, Ali Eteraz, Foreign Policy, June 10, 2009.
|
|
Media appearances and analysis featuring altmuslim editors
Helping U.S. reach out to young Muslims worldwide - Soon after Farah Pandith was named last year as the State Department's first special representative to Muslim communities, she sat down with the editor of an independent Muslim website for her first official interview. Altmuslim.com, a forum for opinion and analysis about current issues facing Muslims, was a fitting choice. Pandith has said a strong focus of her work is to reach out to younger Muslims around the world, often those most likely to use the Internet for news and networking. (June 5, 2010)
Censorship is in the ascendant - Zahed Amanullah, associate editor of altmuslim.com, has argued in a national newspaper blog that, since the warning came from an unrepresentative group, the media interest was not justified. As for events of the past – the fatwa on Salman Rushdie, the Danish cartoons, the murder of van Gogh – they were "three incidents over a 20-year period from amongst 1.6 billion people. These things do happen. But we all need a bit of perspective." (April 30, 2010)
Muslims say new security rules unfair, ineffective - ''Muslims are doing their duty. Muslim parents are being attentive. It's the TSA that's not being attentive. It's the TSA that's not doing its duty," said Shahed Amanullah, an editor at the Web site altmuslim.com. "There's nothing more that Muslims can do than turn in their own families." (January 7, 2010)
US Muslims & media… Lost love - "We have a big problem; it’s that other people are shaping the story about us," Shahed Amanullah, editor-in-chief of altmuslim.com, told IslamOnline.net. (December 16, 2009)
Moves to Seize Mosques Spark Outrage - "I'm extremely skeptical that the link between these mosques and this organization is so strong as to merit the seizing of a considerable amount of assets that do a lot of good for the Muslim community," says Shahed Amanullah, a prominent Muslim blogger based in Austin. "The government better be prepared to make a very good case, because this is unprecedented." (November 17, 2009)
|
|