Sunday, October 22nd | 2 Heshvan 5778


Be in the know!

Get our exclusive daily news briefing.

July 1, 2016 3:12 am

Anger, Honor and Freedom: What European Muslims’ Attack On Speech Is Really About

avatar by Abigail R. Esman

Email a copy of "Anger, Honor and Freedom: What European Muslims’ Attack On Speech Is Really About" to a friend
Ebru Umar. Photo: Wikipedia.

Ebru Umar. Photo: Wikipedia.

“Clash of civilizations,” some say. Others call it the “failure of multiculturalism.” Either way, the cultural conflicts between some Muslims and non-Muslims worldwide continue to play out as Western countries struggle to reconcile their own cultures with the demands of a growing Muslim population.

But herein lies the problem: in many ways, the two cultures are ultimately irreconcilable. There is no middle ground. And hence, the conflicts and the tugs-of-war continue.

Over the past two months, the events surrounding controversial Dutch columnist Ebru Umar have encapsulated that “clash” at its core, a salient metaphor for the tensions, particularly in Europe, between the West’s Muslim populations and its own. Moreover, they illuminate the enormity of the problems we still face.

Umar is no stranger to the spotlight, or to the wrath of Dutch Muslims who read her many columns, most of them published in the free newspaper, Metro. For years, the Dutch-born daughter of secular Turkish immigrants has raged against the failure of other Dutch-born children of immigrants, mostly Moroccan, to assimilate into the culture of their birth. She loudly condemns Dutch-Moroccan families for the shockingly high rates of criminality and violence among Dutch-Moroccan boys — as much as 22 times the rate of Dutch native youth — a phenomenon she ascribes to their Islamic upbringing and their parents’ refusal to allow their children to mingle among the Dutch.

Related coverage

October 20, 2017 1:51 pm

Hamas Supporter to Receive Award From Harvard Student Group

He has publicly endorsed Hamas, and secretly schemed with Hamas' supporters to thwart US-led peace efforts in the Middle East. Now Nihad Awad is preparing for a prestigious...

But her critiques have earned her no converts. Instead, Dutch-Moroccan youth, whom she calls “Mocros,” have regularly taunted her, both online and in the street.

This past April, however, Umar added a new team of enemies to her portfolio: when, in response to Turkish president Recep Tayyip Erodogan’s demand that a German satirist be prosecuted for insulting him on TV, Umar tweeted “f***erdogan,” Dutch Turks turned on her in fury. “How dare you insult our president!” cried these Dutch-born subjects of Holland’s King Willem-Alexander. And while Umar took a brief holiday on the Turkish coast, one such Dutch-Turk turned her in to the police. She was arrested at her vacation home in Kusadasi, and though released the following day, was forbidden to leave the country. The charge: Insulting the Turkish president. It took 17 days before discussions between Holland’s prime minister and Turkish authorities enabled her to return to the Netherlands.

But she could not return home. In her absence, Umar’s home had been burgled and vandalized, the word “whore” scrawled on a stairway wall. Death threats followed her both in Turkey and on her return. When it became clear she could not ever return to the apartment she had lived in for nearly 20 years, she announced on Twitter (Ebru Umar posts constantly on Twitter) that she would be moving out.

Meantime, in Metro and elsewhere, she continued her criticism of Moroccans and, as she herself notes, of Islam overall.

And so it was that on the day Ebru Umar moved out of her apartment in Amsterdam, a group of Dutch-Moroccans in their twenties came to see her off, taunting her with chants: Ebru has to mo-o-ve, nyah nyah.” Though furious, she ignored them – until one of them began to film her loading her belongings into her car. For Umar, being taunted by the very people whose threats had forced her from her home in the first place was bad enough: but this violation of what little privacy remained for her was more than she could take. She grabbed her iPhone and began filming them right back. “Go ahead,” she challenged. “Say it for the camera.”

Scuffles ensued, and soon one of the Moroccans had her iPhone in his hand. The others laughed. Then they ran away. Umar filed a police report and, still smarting, took to Twitter once again: “C**t Moroccans, I hate you,” she posted. “I hate you, I hate you, I hate you, I hate you and I hate your Muslim brothers and sisters, too. F**k you all.” (It is important to note that, however offensive, the expression “c**t Moroccans” is a common epithet in the Netherlands.)

But, hey – she was angry. Her phone had been snatched from her hand in a brutal, aggressive gesture that left her feeling violated and, vulnerable. She had just been forced to leave her home. She had endured prison, a criminal inquiry, and death threats, all at the hands of the same group on whom she now spewed her fury.

Her words may have been harsh or inappropriate, but they were words. She had not struck her tormenters as they filmed her. She did not call for their demise, or strap a bomb around her waist and visit the local mosques.

She took to Twitter and said: I hate you.

“But hate,” she tells me later in an e-mail, “is just an emotion.” And in a column penned more than two years ago, she observed, “Hate me till you’re purple, but keep your claws off me.”

Here is where Ebru Umar’s story becomes the story of the Western world. In response to her words (“I hate you. F*** you”), several Muslims – Moroccans and others – filed charges against her for hate speech. (Though ironically, “I hate you” does not legally qualify as “hate speech.”) Such words are an attack upon their honor, a humiliation: and if there is one thing experts on Arab and Muslim culture will agree on, it is the significance of humiliation and honor in governing their lives. For this, Dutch Moroccan youth threaten Umar on the streets, and have done so, she says, for years: after all, she insults them.

But in truth, it isn’t just the youth. The broader Muslim community stands by, silent: they do not condemn the youth who taunt her, who rip her telephone from her hands, or post things on the Internet like “We hate you, too – can you please kill yourself?” or “Oh, how I hope she ends up like Theo van Gogh.”

Theo van Gogh, also a controversial columnist, was shot and stabbed to death in 2014 by a radical Dutch-Moroccan Muslim.The commenter wishing her the same fate used the name “IzzedinAlQassam,” the founder of modern Palestinian jihad, and an icon of Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal.

For people like this, it doesn’t matter that Umar – or van Gogh – inflicted no violence, any more than it mattered that the editors of Charlie Hebdo were not violent. It was the insult, the humiliation – to them, to Islam, to Mohammed – that mattered: and an insult, a humiliation, deserves a violent response.

Indeed, much of the Muslim violence in Europe is about exactly this: intimidating non-Muslims into a fearful capitulation, where words like “I hate Muslims” and drawings of Mohammed become extinct because the Muslim communities insist that it be so. It is about forcing Westerners to rearrange their lives, their culture, to accommodate the needs and values and culture of Islam. It is about control, and the power over freedom. And it is about creating a culture in which honor is injured by words and restored through violence and terror.

When Umar says “I hate you,” what she hates, really, isn’t the Moroccans who attacked her or their “Muslim brothers and sisters.” What she hates is this – this effort, this battle over honor and speech and freedom, and this clash between violence and expression, guns and conversation.

“I don’t want Muslims to leave,” she tells me, again by e-mail. “I want them to embrace the Enlightenment, Western society, the Netherlands.” And in turn, she calls on the Dutch to “set rules: no violence in any sense. And stop using culture or religion as an excuse for behavior.”

Ebru Umar’s words. More of us should listen.

Abigail R. Esman is an award-winning freelance writer based in New York and Amsterdam, the Netherlands, with more than 20 years of experience writing for national and international magazines including, Vogue, Esquire (Holland), Town & Country, Art & Auction (where she is a contributing editor), The Christian Science Monitor, Foreign Policy, The New Republic, Artnews and others.

The opinions presented by Algemeiner bloggers are solely theirs and do not represent those of The Algemeiner, its publishers or editors. If you would like to share your views with a blog post on The Algemeiner, please be in touch through our Contact page.

Share this Story: Share On Facebook Share On Twitter Email This Article

Let your voice be heard!

Join the Algemeiner
  • Roald Øye

    There are many Europeans who hope your partyleader Gert Wielders(?) will win a landslide in the forthcoming general election. There is still hope for freedom loving People in The Netherlands.

  • Jeff D Opdyke

    Ms Esman makes an incredibly salient point — and then completely skips past the more-important flip-side. She notes that for Muslims attacking the West, “It is about forcing Westerners to rearrange their lives, their culture, to accommodate the needs and values and culture of Islam.” Excuse me, but last I looked the West does not belong to Muslims, and Westerners have no duty to acquiesce to Muslim culture or any pressing necessity to accommodate the needs and values and culture of Islam. Let’s play a little game of What-if … What if I pop up in any Middle Eastern nation (for fun, let’s call it Saudi Arabia) and I begin to proselytize for some Christian mission by handing out bibles. I’m not killing anyone just because he drew of cartoon of Jesus. I’m not fire-bombing media outlets that ridicule Christianity. I’m not forcing my beliefs on any one. No matter, because under Saudi law my “offense” of handing out bibles in an Islamic country brings me a death sentence. So riddle me this, Ms. Esman: Why is that the West must bow to Muslim/Islamic culture, but Muslims and Islam needn’t afford Christianity or Judaism — or any other religions, for that matter — the same respect? If Muslims don’t like the fact that the Western media can lampoon Muhammad and call to task the lunacy of some of Islam’s more-ridiculous tenets (or the inane pronouncements of various mullahs, clerics and imams), then Muslims are free to stay within their own borders. But if they come to the West, they must rearrange their own lives to accept Western culture, just as a California girl arriving in various Islamic countries is expected to rearrange her beliefs and cover herself from head to toe in public (which begs the question: Why is she not allowed to push Muslims to accommodate her culture and her desire to wear a halter top and short-shorts when bopping around the local bazaar, yet France is vilified for banning women from wearing veils?).

    The West belongs to Westerners. Muslims are free to come here. They are free to pray here. They can hand out qurans and tell anyone who will listen why it is that an archaic belief system that promulgates bloodshed as its answer to every verbal/visual slight (real or perceived) is just the bee’s knees. And they can do so freely and without worry that anyone from government will pay them any mind. But they are not free to dictate that Westerners “rearrange their lives and their culture” to accommodate Muslim/Islamic culture and values. We will consider doing so the moment the Middle East opens it arms and says, Hey all you Christians and Jews and Hindus and Rastafarians and Buddhists, come on down, and let’s all sing Kumbaya!

  • Jay Lavine

    For people of many religious backgrounds, total assimilation into the surrounding society is not considered desirable. For example, some would view Western societies as hedonistic and lacking in certain moral values. On the other hand, we have the Jewish principle that one can learn from every person, and one can often find desirable values in other cultures that were perhaps not sufficiently emphasized in one’s own. Therefore, assimilation of the positive while rejecting the negative should be considered the objective.

  • Ronald Sevenster

    Embracing the Enlightenment is impossible for any religion worthy of the name. Neither Orthodox Judaism nor Christianity can embrace Enlightenment ideas like free sex, the gender ideology, abortion and euthanasia, which are forced upon us now in the Western world. The Enlightenment philosophy, now embodied in Secular Humanism, is far from harmless. If unrestrained, it will Jewish life in the EU and the US impossible. It will prohibit Brit Milah and Shechitah, orthodox Jewish and Christian schools, &c, &c.