Three More Taqiyya Masters

The video below was excruciating to watch — almost more than I could manage. It’s a segment from a Dutch TV talk show featuring three Muslims — all Salafists, apparently — and a female presenter.

All three Muslims (one of whom is an ethnic Dutch convert) are adept at weaving the usual web of Islamic lies. I can’t tell whether the presenter is simply clueless, or whether she is deliberately abetting her Muslim interlocutors. In any case, she enables twenty minutes of full-bore taqiyya for the benefit of the studio audience and viewers at home.

Many thanks to C for the translation, and to Vlad Tepes for the subtitling:

Video transcript:

07:44   Then you could say, THIS is what people are scared of. Here in the Netherlands
07:48   we now have threat level 4. —This is exactly the kind of question I was talking about.
07:53   There’s another terrorist attack, and then such a large terrorist plot is foiled, and
08:00   again there’s a link with Islam. Then I say, so people are afraid of this, then I’d think…
08:07   there is a great responsibility here for the Salafists. Jihadist Salafists or whatever
08:13   you want to call them. But you lay the blame at the feet of international policy, or…
08:19   Look, the moment you look at the motives behind such attacks,
08:22   in nine out of ten times the motive is made public.
08:25   A letter is found, or a message is left that declares the terrorist’s motives.
08:28   And what you see is that nine out of ten times…
08:31   that no quotes from the Quran are mentioned, or a tale about the prophet
08:35   (pbuh), but about conflicts elsewhere in the world.
08:40   And the fact that it happens elsewhere in the world doesn’t mean we can shield ourselves from that.
08:46   The whole world has become a digital village. We see images from everywhere around the world.
08:52   It is often said that Salafists prevent radicalization. So is that false?
08:57   Yes, that’s why I pose the question, what does this have to do with Salafism?
09:01   This has nothing to do with Salafism?
09:04   This is what I was talking about earlier, the difference between
09:07   the normative and the incidental. For me, this is not the face…
09:10   So you think this is really an incident?
09:13   You called this an exception just now. —I think it’s the first time this year that this happened…
09:17   We had the [stabbing] attack in Amsterdam Central Station recently, of course.
09:23   OK, but… an attack at the level such as has been prevented recently,
09:27   that’s the first time as far as I know.
09:30   That’s true. —So that’s an incident. While, I have contacts with all kinds of people every day.
09:37   Part of my group of friends, you could say — especially according to the definition used in the
09:41   context of the public debate — are adepts of Salafism, some aren’t…
09:45   But just to be clear… —So, because of that, my perception… for me, this is not Salafism.
09:51   Because my perception of Salafism is shaped by the friends I have a good time with.
09:57   Yes. As-Sunnah helps against radicalisation, isn’t that right, Abdelhamid?
10:01   As-Sunnah helps against radicalisation… I think the as-Sunnah mosque, just like
10:05   most mosques, under our umbrella organisation anyway,
10:09   contribute to the fight against radicalisation and extremism,
10:13   in all forms that we don’t want in our society.
10:18   The as-Sunnah mosque also commits itself to this every day. —Yes. But if you see this,
10:22   are you shocked? —Yes, of course I’m shocked. But I think we’re taking hasty steps…
10:26   You were saying people are shocked when they see this,
10:30   yes, and “people” are Muslims and non-Muslims, they’re all shocked…
10:34   then you linked it to Islam, which I think will be shown to be true…
10:40   but then you started talking about Salafism. I think that’s a hasty step…
10:47   Well, we know from [intelligence services] MIVD and AIVD that Salafists are under surveillance,
10:52   and we also know that most who commit a terrorist attack have a Salafist background.
10:57   Those are the facts. —No! Most terrorist…
11:00   Those aren’t the facts? They’re members of Hare Krishna?
11:03   No. If you look at terrorism in Western Europe, then you’ll see
11:07   it’s mostly extreme right, extreme left, separatist movements.
11:12   Not in the Netherlands of course, but our neighboring countries. And, you’ll see that…
11:17   Wait a minute, I’m talking about terrorist attacks committed in the name of Islam.
11:20   Terrorist attacks in the name of Islam are usually committed in the name of Islam, that’s right.
11:25   Yes, and then we’re talking about the school of… Salafism. —I think that’s… what’s your point?
11:33   My point is, the question is, is it correct that terrorists often have a Salafist background?
11:40   Terrorists who commit their acts in the name of Islam.
11:47   Let’s look concretely at the guys who committed the attacks in Paris, Bataclan, Brussels…
11:54   Footage surfaced of one of those guys, three weeks before…
12:01   He was partying with alcohol and drugs in the Paris nightlife, three, four weeks before.
12:09   Three, four weeks later, he grabs a Kalashnikov and sprays away.
12:14   Don’t tell me that has anything to do with Salafism, or that…
12:19   of course something happened in his head, but we’re… —I ask this because…
12:24   We’re doing this episode to make clear what the position of Salafists is,
12:28   because when there’s a terror attack in the name of Islam, many Muslims are upset,
12:33   because they say, “Hey, I want nothing to do with this, this is not my Islam.” We’re doing
12:37   this episode to make clear what the mainstream Muslim’s position is, who the Salafists are…
12:42   But now it’s still not clear, because I think you’re saying, “These guys who commit
12:47   these terror attacks aren’t real Muslims; they know nothing about the Quran…
12:52   Did I understand you correctly? Because you mentioned they drink alcohol… —But a Muslim can
12:55   drink alcohol. —So why do you offer this explanation, then? That’s what I’m trying to understand.
12:59   I’m trying to make clear that the guys who commit these acts of terror have their reasons, and
13:06   of course they do this in the name of Islam, but to focus on one group of Salafists…
13:14   When I look at my daily reality, because we’re talking about Salafists today… Then I don’t know
13:18   any Salafist among my acquaintances who’d be willing to commit such acts [of terror].
13:23   Which Salafists are they, then?
13:26   Give me one name that helps me understand. So there’s jihadi Salafists.
13:29   —One name is Han… Handi. [Iraqi scholar Ahmad ibn Hanbal?]
13:32   No, not a person’s name, but what type of Muslim, Salafist are we talking about?
13:38   If you don’t want people to generalize about Salafists, you’d have to
13:42   make it clear to the viewer what type of Salafist we’re talking about.
13:47   But… this form of discussion is inappropriate. Because we don’t discuss
13:51   other subjects in this way. And it’s very odd that we do it when this subject comes up.
13:56   Look, if I consider several… —Because people are afraid,
13:59   I just explained that. There’s a real risk of…
14:02   You shouldn’t base decisions on fear. That’d be a bad thing,
14:06   and I suspect that’s the way we are going.
14:09   When it concerns most other subjects, we don’t discuss it in this way.
14:13   And it seems we want to capture it with extreme solutions: so it’s either
14:18   “This has nothing to do with Islam”, a claim you hear a lot, and by the way is not my opinion…
14:23   other people say, so this is the [true] face of… it has everything
14:27   to do with it, as a type of causality, “This leads to that”…
14:31   I don’t think that’s true either. The reality, of course, is: there’s a correlation.
14:35   The moment people do this and claim to act in the name of Islam, Islam is involved.
14:40   But if we go and say, “This is the true face of Salafists,” and what “kind of people” —
14:44   so we’re blaming groups and communities — are responsible for these acts…
14:48   seven people were arrested. They did it… well, they didn’t, because an attack was prevented,
14:52   but they are the perpetrators. And, for example, I’m Dutch…
14:55   What I noticed is that when other Dutch people do this, I’m not called out in this way.
14:59   I’m from Utrecht, but if people from Utrecht act like this, I’m not…
15:04   called out in this way. By the way, I’m not called out, anyway, because as I said I’m not a Salafist.
15:08   I find it very odd that in the context of the discussion, it’s framed like this. —OK, that’s clear.
15:13   OK, we won’t come to an agreement on this, I think. Next point,
15:17   Amsterdam Mayor Femke Halsema has said she’ll close Salafist mosques
15:21   if they spread an anti-democratic message. Let’s have a look.
15:26   In Amsterdam the city council has conversations with everybody,
15:30   but not with people who are anti-democratic, or who…
15:33   If they are Salafists, who are anti-democratic,
15:37   who go outside of the limits of the law, well, then you have a problem.
15:42   Umair, what do you think of this? What is anti-democratic?
15:45   Is somebody who doesn’t vote, for example, is he an anti-democrat?
15:48   Look, I think it’s very important that, when we discuss such heavy subjects…
15:54   to make very clear what we’re talking about. So many terms are used…
15:59   that all need their own definition. For example,
16:02   if she talks about Salafist mosques, which mosques are Salafist?
16:05   I circle back to my earlier point: you’ll have to define what Salafism is exactly.
16:10   The same goes for the point we were talking about before:
16:14   on what grounds do we ascribe this terrorist plot to Salafism?
16:18   So, it’s very easy to refer to these terms; she’s also said for example she wants to take action
16:27   against imams who stop short of breaking the law. And then
16:31   she loosely uses terms like jihadism, orthodoxy, fundamentalism.
16:35   It’s very easy to throw such terms around, but she has
16:38   a great responsibility as mayor of Amsterdam.
16:41   And I think that she will exclude a large part of Amsterdam, with predictable consequences.
16:49   Shall we review the statements she was referring to?
16:52   With a female slave, you don’t need a witness. She’s your possession, not your spouse.
16:57   According to the Quran you keep your privates covered,
17:00   except in front of your wife or female slave.
17:03   A slave is your possession, not your wife. If you bought or captured her…
17:08   then she is your possession. Then you don’t have to marry her.
17:12   As we said before, circumcision is an obligation for men,
17:15   genital mutilation is recommended for women.
17:18   It is not an obligation for women. The wisdom behind this is…
17:23   that the penis is cleansed from impurities on the foreskin…
17:30   in case of a woman, her lust is diminished. —Hmm hmm. You just said
17:35   you don’t know what mosque she’s referring to, well, this was the As-Sunnah mosque.
17:39   In the Hague I think, not Amsterdam.
17:42   Correct. But that’s not the point. Abdelhamid, what do you think [of these statements]?
17:47   We see examples of statements that, within Dutch society…
17:53   Dutch context, also the Dutch-Islamic context…
17:59   are not common, and many Muslims find undesirable. Also, for many Muslims find…
18:09   The ministry of public affairs is looking into this, and may prosecute…
18:12   Yes, they are under investigation. I also know that a member
18:16   of the organisation behind as-Sunnah has distanced himself from these statements…
18:20   And I also think that the journalist who found this,
18:24   if he’d looked a little bit further, he’d have found
18:27   material from the mosque itself in which,
18:31   years before these statements were recorded, they opposed FGM…
18:34   so it just depends on what kind of picture you want to paint.
18:37   And I think that the As-Sunnah mosque, but also other Salafist organisations…
18:42   are also learning organisations, and organisations that develop themselves…
18:47   With hand on heart I can say that the as-Sunnah mosque isn’t happy about this,
18:52   and also that this won’t happen at the as-Sunnah mosque.
18:57   But what do you think when this was publicized by an NRC-Nieuwsuur collaboration,
19:01   that as-Sunnah, among other mosques, was financed by Kuwait?
19:06   And dubious organizations that are on the terror list and finance jihadi groups in Syria?
19:14   Which turned out not to be true. —It’s not true?
19:17   It was written in secret lists that were published by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
19:24   True. On these lists were also mosques that submitted requests for funding,
19:28   but journalists found that these were never submitted…
19:32   There are also mosques that requested much larger sums than specified in these lists…
19:39   But… wait… none of these mosques… you all know…
19:44   Wait. If I see these statements… when I see this, here, I’m not happy. —Clear.
19:52   I hope, that from now on, such statements will never be made again in mosques in the Netherlands.
19:59   I’m talking about these two specific examples. When you’re talking in a general sense,
20:03   as you mentioned there’s a criminal investigation…
20:06   what Femke Halsema said, we just focussed on the word “anti-democratic”,
20:09   but she also said, “At odds with the rule of law.”
20:12   I assume that what she means is that the law has been broken.
20:17   My position rather simple, I want to move away from these
20:20   “is so-is not” discussions, and I’m sure we all agree on that…
20:23   I just think that whoever violates the law in the Netherlands,
20:26   whether it’s by word or by deed, you just have to prosecute.
20:29   If it turns out that somebody has broken the law, you go after them.
20:33   If it’s an individual, you go after them, if it’s an organization, you go after them.
20:36   Whether it’s a Muslim, or a Christian, or an unbeliever, I don’t care.
20:40   The moment somebody breaks the law here in the Netherlands, you go after them.
20:43   That also means that if people don’t break the law, that you don’t exclude them by definition,
20:47   or go after them, because we have the law for that…
20:51   The rule of law is our frame of reference, and you just have to enforce it.
20:57   That’s clear. You made your point, but I don’t think that it’s just… It will always
21:03   be a “is so-is not” discussion, because people have different ideas. Because you preach…
21:07   Here, for example, no law was broken. —You just proved my point.
21:11   That’s still the question, that’s what’s being investigated.
21:14   so your opinions diverge on that point. You just have a different perspective.
21:18   No, that’s not true. The moment I want to teach a course on Chinese law,
21:22   you’ll find elements that are at odds with Dutch law…
21:25   FGM is a crime, you do realize that? I understand, but to get back to my example… if I were
21:28   to teach a course on Chinese law, you’d find elements that are at odds with Dutch law, right?
21:35   That’s clear. But I’d be allowed to teach such a course, because it’s informative.
21:39   It’s clear there is such a thing as Islamic law.
21:42   Yes? That foundation is simply there. These are informative courses
21:46   that explain a different set of laws. We don’t call for FGM.
21:49   It’s not information. It’s a call for FGM, which is a felony.
21:53   In what way did he call for it?
21:56   By recommending it, among other things… No, he made clear
22:00   which Islamic law recommends it. —But what’s the difference?
22:03   Do you think whoever attends such a sermon, um…
22:11   I think many people who attend many sermons interpret them differently.
22:14   The thing is, our system of law isn’t based on that.
22:17   Our legal system is based on a judge determining whether something falls inside
22:20   or outside the law. As you just mentioned, they’re looking into this.
22:23   Fine! Please investigate, and if it turns out
22:27   a law has been broken, you act, and if not, then you don’t.
22:32   So, we can look at example after example… I’m not a judge,
22:36   so I don’t know about legal frameworks and how things can be interpreted…
22:41   I’d like to talk about [researcher Mohammad Nazar] Soroush’s research, from Tilburg University…
22:47   Controversial. “Made-up science”, I heard you say.
22:53   Yes, it’s absolutely controversial, especially because it’s full of…
23:00   things that do not reflect reality. It concerns very concrete things,
23:05   in relation to Imam Malik Islamic centre [in Leiden].
23:10   He reports on a lecture, and it’s full of blatant falsehoods…
23:17   A lecture that’s been on YouTube, everybody can… it’s been there for four years…
23:23   and everything what’s being said about that evening in Leiden is incorrect,
23:28   which can be verified by watching the YouTube video.
23:33   Let’s listen to the researcher Soroush for a moment…
23:36   You see in their world… that everything that is different is seen as unclean.
23:43   Other people, other opinions, a different society, everything is unclean.
23:49   They’re against people who think differently.
23:54   And they are ruthless and exceptionally brutal.
24:10   Abdelhamid? —Here we see a gentleman who claims to have researched 24 organisations
24:17   for three years, and on basis of that research he makes these statements.
24:24   Whoever reads his research will find he joined Friday sermons
24:28   in different mosques, where the language is Arabic…
24:31   the good man doesn’t speak Arabic. As we heard, his Dutch isn’t very good either…
24:37   he didn’t bring recording equipment, he didn’t take notes,
24:41   he didn’t out himself to the mosques as a researcher.
24:45   No, later at home or riding the train he wrote his little report,
24:49   and he wrote his PhD thesis on basis of these reports.
24:52   This goes against everything in scientific research, against all protocols regarding integrity,
24:57   how you have to ensure research is high-quality, reliable and valid.
25:03   And he then proceeded to classify mosques according to whether they are Salafist or not…
25:11   and the mosque in Leiden he classifies as Salafist,
25:16   without explaining on what evidence this is based…
25:21   He will now clarify this; the University of Tilburg has announced an inquiry.
25:25   Tilburg University has announced a full inquiry into how this research was carried out.
25:33   So they think there are enough reasons to question how this research was carried out.
25:40   I’d like to ask Nourdeen, should [Mayor] Halsema keep talking
25:43   with Salafists, Salafist organizations and mosques?
25:46   I’m a great fan of talking with many people, especially with people
25:51   with different opinions. You should always talk.
25:57   Another question is, should you also set up collaborative projects?
26:03   I think you shouldn’t do this by default, nor should you not do this by default.
26:09   What I’d find odd would be to say: we exclude people even though they might want to work with us…
26:19   and we do this because we feel they don’t want to associate with us.
26:22   That’s not possible, that’s a paradox.
26:25   You can’t turn your back on somebody because you claim they
26:28   point the finger at you, because he claims he turned his back on you.
26:31   So I find that odd. I wouldn’t exclude conversations with anybody;
26:37   I’d have conversations with anybody, no matter what the subject, by the way…
26:43   and not exclude cooperation a priori, but determine on a case-by-case basis. —Thank you;
26:46   “let’s keep talking”, that’s clear. Unfortunately I have to interrupt you…

8 thoughts on “Three More Taqiyya Masters

  1. This is touched on in the latter part of the video 23.33 onwards to 25.33 ; about a study done about some mosques, undercover.
    28th September 2018
    The link explains more of the controversy.
    4th September 2018
    A little bit more about the dissertation study.

    tundratabloids picks up a good report of the author Mohammad Nazar Soroush and interest mounts as meeting others and conflicts of interest.

  2. Salafism is based on the “salaf”, which are the first three generations after the prophet Mohammed, and consequently disregards the generations of scholars who came after these ‘salaf’ . They more generally rejects the
    authority of the schools of law and supports the idea of “returning to the
    original sources” in which the Quran and the sunna are directly consulted in
    order to draw conclusions about Islam.

    Morroccan mosques which also reach out in Netherlands. Morocco has continuously declared Sufism, the Malikite school of law and Asharite theological tradition as cornerstones of its Islamic and Moroccan identity.

    I got this from a study on pdf

    It does get a bit heavy, but provides background.
    Sufism, has returned to being the official islam for Morrocco, where previously monarchy had dabbled for money with Salafism and Wahabbism in the past 40 years.
    It is not all straight forward, interwoven with politics, economy, money,
    Questions of loyalty or lack of, to which country, Netherland or Morrocco, for king, ethnicity (berber rebel?) or which of islam’s schools etc. …

    Perhaps I am too ‘simple’, at the end of it I figure islam is islam.
    Maybe the Netherlands can divide and rule, but islam will out, as my brother and me against my cousin, then my cousin and me against ……..
    Just as Souresh being Iranian, so possibly being Shia, so those Salafists see his report being a “hit job”.

  3. FYI: The still of the starting position at 7:40 shows a fragment of an interview with the mayor of Amsterdam on the local news channel. She says something on salafism. On this the transcripted discussion follows.

  4. Excruciatingly dull, too!

    That’s a good question about the reporter’s motives. She certainly gives lots verbal and physical cues. I’ve seen this a lot before, and I think old phrase Wilful blindness (with a capital ‘W’) describes it well. Like the fraudster’s accomplice, they are determined to cling to what they know can’t be right, so as to continue to whitewash it for career reasons.

    They calculate that being a complete ignoramus will hurt less than being a calculated liar. And they brass it out with that conscious choice, come what may.

    • I actually thought the interviewer did quite a good job. She brought out contrary information, and followed up. She didn’t take the part of a partisan, but the part of a good, but critical interviewer. You heard the points of view of the Muslims, and got to see a good summary of the charges they were addressing. The program didn’t give you a predigested refutation of the charges, but it didn’t give a whitewash either. You as the viewer have to seek out specific refutations and decide on the logic and likelihood of the presentations.

  5. I think this interview presages a trend I’ve noticed elsewhere: the Muslims are working on their public image. Instead of the flagrant, aggressive street-tactics of the traffic-stopping prayers and obvious crocodile-tears of CAIR press releases after a terror incident, the Muslims are trying to present a rational, tolerant face.

    It doesn’t pay to underestimate the adaptability and intelligence of Muslim leadership.

    For example, the distinction between salafist and non-salafist mosques and Islamic sects is a red herring. As we know, almost all sects of Islam, including the Sufis, have the potential to be violent, aggressive, and intolerant.

    There’s also the question of degree of diversity. A society with .1% (1/1000) Muslims is not going to have many problems and doesn’t need to pay too much attention to doctrinaire differences between sects. Once y0u get to the 1% level, you begin running into identity politics where the subjects of scrutiny participate in the political process. The question of salafist vs non-salafist is a kind of divide-and-conquer, attempting to open a window for real scrutiny of Muslim practices.

    So, the real, unspoken question comes down to “should further Muslim immigration be stopped altogether?”

    • Zero sounds like a really good number. Just as with cancer, one is much better off with zero malignant cells.
      – I genuinely don’t care about these people. I want them to live in their Muslim countries and have a good time enjoying Sharia. Just leave us alone. But do they? No. What is worse is that governments in the West are inviting them with open arms.

  6. Off Topic: I seldom hear Dutch spoken. To my ear, the sound of spoken Dutch, has a fascinating similarity to spoken American English. I could almost imagine Dutch as a distant dialect of English.

Comments are closed.