ZZH coupling : A probe to the origin of EWSB ?
Choudhury, Debajyoti
2003-02-17
Headscarves, Homosexuals, and Imams in the Netherlands 
Creator
Publisher
Date
2001
Description
The wearing of headscarves by three Moroccan girls in a French public school in the autumn of 1989 was considered an affaire d'état, debated up to the highest official level. For most Dutchmen this turmoil was quite amazing. In the Netherlands, earlier that same year, echoes of the Rushdie case did lead to a heated debate, which reached cabinet level. However, public polemics on Islam soon settled down and henceforth the few controversies over the wearing of headscarves in public schools and other similar incidents were usually settled quickly at the level of school or, in the worst cases, municipal administrations. Since a year and a half ago, however, a series of incidents seems to indicate that something has changed in the Netherlands.
Subject
Identifier
Database
Language
Show preview
Hide preview
Regional IssuesI S I M N E W S L E T T E R 8 / 0 1 33
Johan Hendrik Meuleman is a lecturer at Leiden
University in the framework of the Indonesian-
Netherlands Cooperation in Islamic Studies, a
research fellow of the Leiden-based International
Institute for Asian Studies, and a professor of Islamic
History at IAIN Syarif Hidayatullah, Jakarta.
E-mail: j.h.meuleman@let.leidenuniv.nl
We ste rn Euro p e
J O H A N ME U L E M A N
The wearing of headscarves by three Moroccan girls in a French public school in the autumn of 1989 was con- sidered an affaire d’état, debated up to the highest of- ficial level. For most Dutchmen this turmoil was quite amazing. In the Netherlands, earlier that same year, echoes of the Rushdie case did lead to a heated debate, which reached cabinet level. However, public polemics on Islam soon settled down and henceforth the few controversies over the wearing of headscarves in pub- lic schools and other similar incidents were usually set- tled quickly at the level of school or, in the worst cases, municipal administrations. Since a year and a half ago, however, a series of incidents seems to indicate that something has changed in the Netherlands.
H e a d s c a r v e s , H o m o s e x u a l s , a n d I m a m s in the Netherlands
The incidents began with the publication of an essay by Paul Scheffer in the 29 January 2000 issue of the prestigious NRC Handels-
b l a d daily. In his text entitled ‘The Multicul- tural Drama’, this Dutch publicist warned that the integration of immigrants into
Dutch society was threatened with failure and that the development of a class of so- cially marginalized persons, mainly of immi-
grant origin, was imminent. In the ensuing debate, from the observation that most
people concerned are Muslims to the con- clusion that the problem is somehow relat- ed to Islam was but a small step. Next, not
directly connected to Islam or even to Mus- lims, but pertinent to the development of Dutch public debate, came a discussion on
the attitude of registry officials who had conscientious objections to the authoriza- tion of marriages between persons of the
same sex. In November, an alderman of the capital city publicly announced that he would fire any civil servant refusing to apply
the new legislation. One month later, a dis- cussion broke out when the principal of an Amsterdam public school refused Muslim
pupils the use of an empty classroom, dur- ing breaks, to perform the ritual prayer. A lit-
tle afterwards, Dutch media devoted much attention to the cancellation of an opera en- titled Aisha and the Women of Medina, after
Assia Djebar’s novel Loin de Médine, sched- uled as one of the ‘intercultural’ perfor- mances that would offer a special flavour to
Rotterdam as this year’s cultural capital of Europe. The Moroccan artists had with- drawn under the pressure of certain Muslim
circles that considered this play, staged around one of Prophet Muhammad’s wives, unacceptable. One of the local Muslim lead-
ers who, in a subsequent public debate, op- posed the performance was Khalil El Moum- ni, the Moroccan imam of the Al Nasr
mosque in Rotterdam. The declaration of the editor-in-chief of the Dutch feminist
monthly O p z i j , that she would in no case ac-
cept a woman with a headscarf as an editor of her magazine, aroused yet another public debate. The refusal of an applicant of Turk-
ish origin for the position of assistant clerk at the court of the city of Zwolle gave rise to a larger debate, concentrating on the ques-
tion of whether, as a symbol, the headscarf impaired the neutrality of the court.
The El Moumni case The most recent incident originated with
the May 3rd broadcast of Nova, a popular tele- vision programme offering almost daily back- ground information on current news issues.
The attention of the Nova editors had been drawn to the increasing harassment of homo- sexuals by youths of Moroccan origin. They
asked Imam El Moumni for a comment. His opposition to the violence of Moroccan youngsters against homosexuals was not
transmitted. In a short statement that was broadcast, El Moumni declared that homo- sexuality was a dangerous illness that, if not
halted, might contaminate Dutch society as a whole and thus lead to its extinction. These words aroused a wave of indignation in wide
circles of homosexuals and defenders of their rights. For well over a month, they were dis-
cussed in newspaper comments and letters to the editors. Several persons and organiza- tions lodged complaints against El Moumni
and other imams who had voiced similar ideas in later newspaper interviews, accusing them of defamation. The Public Prosecutor
began an investigation to determine whether any penal offence had been committed. Members of parliament commented on the
issue and some demanded El Moumni’s extra- dition.
Apart from the proportions it took, this
most recent debate was interesting because of the transformations the subject underwent in a relatively short period. From the original
question, the harassment of homosexuals by Moroccan youths, the topic shifted to the
opinion of imams, considered persons of
moral influence among the Muslim popula- tion. Some even held the imams responsible for the behaviour of Muslims. This became
clearer at the next stage of the issue, when Imam El Moumni had fallen short of expecta- tions and some considered his declaration of-
fensive to a component of the Dutch popula- tion and indirectly inciting to violence. More generally, the discussion turned to the inca-
pacity of the imams available so far in the Netherlands – almost all of whom have been
trained abroad and practically ignore Dutch society, its institutions, or even its language – to play the prominent role many Dutch politi-
cians wish for them to play in the integration process of the Muslim minorities in Dutch so- ciety. Then the discussion turned to the place
of Islam and Muslims in general in Dutch soci- ety. Finally, the discussion took an unexpect- ed turn when prominent members of both
liberal parties, VVD and D’66, suggested that the attitude of Muslims towards homosexual- ity and the attitude of Christian political par-
ties with respect to this question and such questions as euthanasia were similar. This short metamorphosis of the debate was a re-
hearsal for next year’s general election cam- paign and reveals the broader framework of
the issue. One might begin the analysis of this frame -
work by a comparison with the 1989 Rushdie
case. Mainly because of its origins from vari- ous countries, characterized by sharp politi- cal, social, and ethnic divisions, the Muslim
community of the Netherlands is extremely diversified and divided, and no particular or- ganizations, institutions, or persons can be
considered as its representatives. As in 1989, this circumstance has led to much confusion, repeated misjudgement, and unwarranted
expectations among Dutch cabinet ministers, journalists, and other participants in public policy and debates. The excessive concentra-
tion on ethnicity in their analyses has only di - minished slightly, their ignorance of Islam
hardly at all. The refusal to admit any role of religion in public life has even spread wider. This has to do with one of the main causes for
the fact that controversies relating to Islam and Muslims have recently taken unprece- dented proportions: the tendency of the
Dutch state and society to relinquish its tradi- tional model of verzuiling and move towards the French model of laicité.
Religion and the public sphere Verzuiling, usually translated as ‘pillariza-
tion’, is the unique mechanism through which, during the 19th and 20th centuries, var-
ious Dutch communities, such as the Protes- tants, the Roman Catholics, and the labour class of social-democratic conviction, each
through the development of their particular cultural, labour, and political organizations as well as their own educational institutions,
could achieve a respected place within the Dutch society and state. Avoiding a detailed historical, political, and philosophical discus-
sion of complicated concepts, the French no- tion of laicité may be explained as the total
absence of religion in the public space, even in the form of comparative studies respectful of all denominations and non-religious world-
views in public schools. According to a num- ber of authors, from a situation in which vari- ous communities were sharing the public
space on the basis of respect for certain com- mon rules and principles and diversity in other matters, the Netherlands is moving to-
wards a society in which expressions of cul- tural and particularly religious specificity are
banned from the public sphere. In a very ex- treme form, the latter situation was defended in a letter by a professor of women and law
studies on the Zwolle court case to the editor of the daily newspaper Trouw, stating that people should ‘live and indulge in their own
cultural identity during their own time off.’ A related tendency in contemporary Dutch
society is the development of a dominant cul-
ture and set of opinions, the adherents of which, by imposing their version of tolerance, leave no room for difference. It is they who
determine the standards of ‘political correct- ness’ and the zeal of some of them reminds one of ultra-French Jacobinism. James
Kennedy, historian, has described this trend as the development of a liberal, secular, and
white majority culture, and Bas van der Vlies, a Christian member of parliament, has spoken of a ‘new state religion’. In the El Moumni
case, some of those who took offence at his statement called for the repressive means of prosecution and extradition. Recourse was
also had to curious arguments to defend fun- damental liberties against the ideas of the imam: reference was made to the fact that El
Moumni had been banned from preaching in Hassan II’s Morocco and not only the French, but even the Turkish state were mentioned as
examples worthy of being followed for their attitude towards religion. It was even men- tioned that the historical freedom of religion
guaranteed by the Dutch constitution had only been intended for diverse Christian de-
nominations. Various others who do not share El Moumni’s opinions, Muslims and non-Muslims, rejected excessive reactions.
The growth of the Muslim population in the Netherlands is reason for concern among var-
ious categories of inhabitants. Among them are those groups within the political and so- cial elite who were just rejoicing over the
gradual advance of laicité. Their attitude is a fundamental factor in the recent debates about Islam in the Netherlands, of which a
conflict between the constitutional rights of freedom of religion and speech and a particu-
lar understanding of tolerance is a recurrent ingredient.
Imam el Moumni and representa- tives of Muslim organizations at a meeting with the Minister of Inte- gration Policy.
Johan Hendrik Meuleman is a lecturer at Leiden
University in the framework of the Indonesian-
Netherlands Cooperation in Islamic Studies, a
research fellow of the Leiden-based International
Institute for Asian Studies, and a professor of Islamic
History at IAIN Syarif Hidayatullah, Jakarta.
E-mail: j.h.meuleman@let.leidenuniv.nl
We ste rn Euro p e
J O H A N ME U L E M A N
The wearing of headscarves by three Moroccan girls in a French public school in the autumn of 1989 was con- sidered an affaire d’état, debated up to the highest of- ficial level. For most Dutchmen this turmoil was quite amazing. In the Netherlands, earlier that same year, echoes of the Rushdie case did lead to a heated debate, which reached cabinet level. However, public polemics on Islam soon settled down and henceforth the few controversies over the wearing of headscarves in pub- lic schools and other similar incidents were usually set- tled quickly at the level of school or, in the worst cases, municipal administrations. Since a year and a half ago, however, a series of incidents seems to indicate that something has changed in the Netherlands.
H e a d s c a r v e s , H o m o s e x u a l s , a n d I m a m s in the Netherlands
The incidents began with the publication of an essay by Paul Scheffer in the 29 January 2000 issue of the prestigious NRC Handels-
b l a d daily. In his text entitled ‘The Multicul- tural Drama’, this Dutch publicist warned that the integration of immigrants into
Dutch society was threatened with failure and that the development of a class of so- cially marginalized persons, mainly of immi-
grant origin, was imminent. In the ensuing debate, from the observation that most
people concerned are Muslims to the con- clusion that the problem is somehow relat- ed to Islam was but a small step. Next, not
directly connected to Islam or even to Mus- lims, but pertinent to the development of Dutch public debate, came a discussion on
the attitude of registry officials who had conscientious objections to the authoriza- tion of marriages between persons of the
same sex. In November, an alderman of the capital city publicly announced that he would fire any civil servant refusing to apply
the new legislation. One month later, a dis- cussion broke out when the principal of an Amsterdam public school refused Muslim
pupils the use of an empty classroom, dur- ing breaks, to perform the ritual prayer. A lit-
tle afterwards, Dutch media devoted much attention to the cancellation of an opera en- titled Aisha and the Women of Medina, after
Assia Djebar’s novel Loin de Médine, sched- uled as one of the ‘intercultural’ perfor- mances that would offer a special flavour to
Rotterdam as this year’s cultural capital of Europe. The Moroccan artists had with- drawn under the pressure of certain Muslim
circles that considered this play, staged around one of Prophet Muhammad’s wives, unacceptable. One of the local Muslim lead-
ers who, in a subsequent public debate, op- posed the performance was Khalil El Moum- ni, the Moroccan imam of the Al Nasr
mosque in Rotterdam. The declaration of the editor-in-chief of the Dutch feminist
monthly O p z i j , that she would in no case ac-
cept a woman with a headscarf as an editor of her magazine, aroused yet another public debate. The refusal of an applicant of Turk-
ish origin for the position of assistant clerk at the court of the city of Zwolle gave rise to a larger debate, concentrating on the ques-
tion of whether, as a symbol, the headscarf impaired the neutrality of the court.
The El Moumni case The most recent incident originated with
the May 3rd broadcast of Nova, a popular tele- vision programme offering almost daily back- ground information on current news issues.
The attention of the Nova editors had been drawn to the increasing harassment of homo- sexuals by youths of Moroccan origin. They
asked Imam El Moumni for a comment. His opposition to the violence of Moroccan youngsters against homosexuals was not
transmitted. In a short statement that was broadcast, El Moumni declared that homo- sexuality was a dangerous illness that, if not
halted, might contaminate Dutch society as a whole and thus lead to its extinction. These words aroused a wave of indignation in wide
circles of homosexuals and defenders of their rights. For well over a month, they were dis-
cussed in newspaper comments and letters to the editors. Several persons and organiza- tions lodged complaints against El Moumni
and other imams who had voiced similar ideas in later newspaper interviews, accusing them of defamation. The Public Prosecutor
began an investigation to determine whether any penal offence had been committed. Members of parliament commented on the
issue and some demanded El Moumni’s extra- dition.
Apart from the proportions it took, this
most recent debate was interesting because of the transformations the subject underwent in a relatively short period. From the original
question, the harassment of homosexuals by Moroccan youths, the topic shifted to the
opinion of imams, considered persons of
moral influence among the Muslim popula- tion. Some even held the imams responsible for the behaviour of Muslims. This became
clearer at the next stage of the issue, when Imam El Moumni had fallen short of expecta- tions and some considered his declaration of-
fensive to a component of the Dutch popula- tion and indirectly inciting to violence. More generally, the discussion turned to the inca-
pacity of the imams available so far in the Netherlands – almost all of whom have been
trained abroad and practically ignore Dutch society, its institutions, or even its language – to play the prominent role many Dutch politi-
cians wish for them to play in the integration process of the Muslim minorities in Dutch so- ciety. Then the discussion turned to the place
of Islam and Muslims in general in Dutch soci- ety. Finally, the discussion took an unexpect- ed turn when prominent members of both
liberal parties, VVD and D’66, suggested that the attitude of Muslims towards homosexual- ity and the attitude of Christian political par-
ties with respect to this question and such questions as euthanasia were similar. This short metamorphosis of the debate was a re-
hearsal for next year’s general election cam- paign and reveals the broader framework of
the issue. One might begin the analysis of this frame -
work by a comparison with the 1989 Rushdie
case. Mainly because of its origins from vari- ous countries, characterized by sharp politi- cal, social, and ethnic divisions, the Muslim
community of the Netherlands is extremely diversified and divided, and no particular or- ganizations, institutions, or persons can be
considered as its representatives. As in 1989, this circumstance has led to much confusion, repeated misjudgement, and unwarranted
expectations among Dutch cabinet ministers, journalists, and other participants in public policy and debates. The excessive concentra-
tion on ethnicity in their analyses has only di - minished slightly, their ignorance of Islam
hardly at all. The refusal to admit any role of religion in public life has even spread wider. This has to do with one of the main causes for
the fact that controversies relating to Islam and Muslims have recently taken unprece- dented proportions: the tendency of the
Dutch state and society to relinquish its tradi- tional model of verzuiling and move towards the French model of laicité.
Religion and the public sphere Verzuiling, usually translated as ‘pillariza-
tion’, is the unique mechanism through which, during the 19th and 20th centuries, var-
ious Dutch communities, such as the Protes- tants, the Roman Catholics, and the labour class of social-democratic conviction, each
through the development of their particular cultural, labour, and political organizations as well as their own educational institutions,
could achieve a respected place within the Dutch society and state. Avoiding a detailed historical, political, and philosophical discus-
sion of complicated concepts, the French no- tion of laicité may be explained as the total
absence of religion in the public space, even in the form of comparative studies respectful of all denominations and non-religious world-
views in public schools. According to a num- ber of authors, from a situation in which vari- ous communities were sharing the public
space on the basis of respect for certain com- mon rules and principles and diversity in other matters, the Netherlands is moving to-
wards a society in which expressions of cul- tural and particularly religious specificity are
banned from the public sphere. In a very ex- treme form, the latter situation was defended in a letter by a professor of women and law
studies on the Zwolle court case to the editor of the daily newspaper Trouw, stating that people should ‘live and indulge in their own
cultural identity during their own time off.’ A related tendency in contemporary Dutch
society is the development of a dominant cul-
ture and set of opinions, the adherents of which, by imposing their version of tolerance, leave no room for difference. It is they who
determine the standards of ‘political correct- ness’ and the zeal of some of them reminds one of ultra-French Jacobinism. James
Kennedy, historian, has described this trend as the development of a liberal, secular, and
white majority culture, and Bas van der Vlies, a Christian member of parliament, has spoken of a ‘new state religion’. In the El Moumni
case, some of those who took offence at his statement called for the repressive means of prosecution and extradition. Recourse was
also had to curious arguments to defend fun- damental liberties against the ideas of the imam: reference was made to the fact that El
Moumni had been banned from preaching in Hassan II’s Morocco and not only the French, but even the Turkish state were mentioned as
examples worthy of being followed for their attitude towards religion. It was even men- tioned that the historical freedom of religion
guaranteed by the Dutch constitution had only been intended for diverse Christian de-
nominations. Various others who do not share El Moumni’s opinions, Muslims and non-Muslims, rejected excessive reactions.
The growth of the Muslim population in the Netherlands is reason for concern among var-
ious categories of inhabitants. Among them are those groups within the political and so- cial elite who were just rejoicing over the
gradual advance of laicité. Their attitude is a fundamental factor in the recent debates about Islam in the Netherlands, of which a
conflict between the constitutional rights of freedom of religion and speech and a particu-
lar understanding of tolerance is a recurrent ingredient.
Imam el Moumni and representa- tives of Muslim organizations at a meeting with the Minister of Inte- gration Policy.
Comments
