Holland launches the immigrant quiz

UK Times ^ | 3/12/06 | Nicola Smith

[wagglebee]

TWO MEN kissing in a park and a topless woman bather are featured in a film that will be shown to would-be immigrants to the Netherlands.

The reactions of applicants — including Muslims — will be examined to see whether they are able to accept the country’s liberal attitudes.

From this Wednesday, the DVD — which also shows the often crime-ridden ghettos where poorer immigrants might end up living — will form part of an entrance test, in Dutch, covering the language and culture of Holland.

Those sitting the test will be expected to identify William of Orange and to know which country Crown Princess Maxima comes from (Argentina) and whether hitting women and female circumcision are permitted.

Muslim leaders in Holland say the film is offensive. “It really is a provocation aimed to limit immigration. It has nothing to do with the rights of homosexuals. Even Dutch people don’t want to see that,” said Abdou Menebhi, the Moroccan-born director of Emcemo, an organisation that helps immigrants to settle.

He added: “They are trying to find every pretext to show that people should not come to the Netherlands because they are fundamentalist or not emancipated. They confront people with these things and then judge them afterwards.”

Famile Arslan, 34, an immigration lawyer of Turkish origin, agreed. “I have lived here for 30 years and have never been witness to two men kissing in the park. So why are they confronting people with that?” she said.

She accused the government of preaching tolerance about civil rights while targeting non-westerners with harsh and discriminatory immigration curbs.

The new test — the first of its kind in the world — marks another step in the transformation of Holland from one of Europe’s most liberal countries to the one cracking down hardest on immigration.

Rita Verdonk, the immigration minister known as Iron Rita, has introduced compulsory integration classes, higher age limits for marriage to people from abroad and the removal of residency permits if immigrants commit petty crimes. She has also talked of banning the burqa.

The measures were prompted in part by outrage over the 2004 murder of Theo Van Gogh, who had made a film about the oppression of women in Muslim communities.

Applicants will sit the exam at one of 138 embassies around the world. They will answer 15 minutes of questions and those who pass the first stage will have to complete two “citizenship” tests over five years and swear a pledge of allegiance to Holland and its constitution.

The centre-right government of Jan Peter Balkenende, the prime minister, believes the tests will provide an objective way of assessing the suitability of applicants by gauging how well prepared they are to make the transition to Dutch life and their willingness to integrate.

Critics complain that people living in the mountains of Morocco or rural villages in Pakistan will not be able to make the long journey to cities for Dutch language lessons. According to Instituut Oranje, a Dutch language school, someone with a low level of education would require 250 hours of tuition, costing £1,200, to pass the tests.

The total bill of £1,495 — including £55 for a preparatory test pack and DVD and £240 for the exam — makes the process unaffordable for many.

Dirk Nieuwboer, a Dutch journalist based in Istanbul, said the multiple-choice cultural test included a question about how to behave in a cafe if two men at the next table started kissing. “There was another question about which former Dutch colony a particular spice came from,” said Nieuwboer. “Most Dutch people don’t know these things.”

However, Jeroen Dijsselbloem, a socialist from the parliament’s immigration committee, said the film had been created to help prepare people for “open-minded” attitudes on issues such as homosexuality. “We have lots of homo-discrimination, especially by Muslim youngsters who harass gay men and women on the streets. It is an issue here.”

A spokeswoman for Verdonk said an edited version of the DVD would be available for showing in Middle Eastern countries such as Iran where it would be illegal to possess images of homosexuality.

[Fred Nerks]

There are two Qur’anic verses in particular that condemn Muslims to live in religious, economic, intellectual, and civil poverty. One says: 004.089 “If they turn back from Islam, becoming renegades, seize them and kill them wherever you find them.” The other commands: 005.101 “Believers! Do not ask questions about things which if made plain and declared to you, may vex you, causing you trouble.” 005.102 “A people before you did ask such questions, and on that account they lost their faith and became disbelievers.”

It’s true; the Qur’an is so incomprehensible, so obviously fraudulent, so mean spirited, anyone who even questions it loses their faith. So we need to give Muslims the freedom to ask questions and to make choices.

RS, we understand much better now what islam is and what it isn't. I am not interested in jousting with you, nor quoting verses endlessly. If there's something you need to know about islam you can't get from reading the book yourself, or reading the biography, I suggest you ask an imam. Your defence of the indefensible has become (to me) ridiculous.

[RS]

"Some believe the imam and go on 'puffter bashing' expeditions, some don't."

How about those who don't believe the Imam is correct, because he is not ?

Here's a story from an Australian source about a pufter Imam.

http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2005/s1414598.htm

[RS]

... and of course you don't bother to include the next line -

[4:90] Exempted are those who join people with whom you have signed a peace treaty, and those who come to you wishing not to fight you, nor fight their relatives.

...or perhaps a more understandable translation -
[5:101] O you who believe, do not ask about matters which, if revealed to you prematurely, would hurt you. If you ask about them in light of the Quran, they will become obvious to you.


"It’s true; the Qur’an is so incomprehensible..."

LOL - You seem to be very good at "comprehending" it when it suits YOUR purposes, and I dare say the author of the biography you tout would hopefully claim some comprehension of the book written by his subject.

[Fred Nerks]

It means nothing to me what method any imam may advocate for the punishment of homosexuality. I don't care if he tells his followers the koran wants them beaten to death with a chrysanthymum!

Can't find stoning in the koran? Tell me, WHO PRACTICES STONING? Buddhists? LOL!

I used this example purely to show that what the imam tells the congregation is written in the koran IS AGAINST OUR LAWS! We do not KILL HOMOSEXUALS. (And when we do, it's called MURDER.)

Just as it is against our laws to PREACH THAT APOSTATES MUST BE KILLED.

Now, please try to recall, 'twas not I who persuaded the various German States to challenge the 200 un-Constitutional 'verses' in the koran...I am simply interested in the OUTCOME.

Terrifies you, evidently. Oh, and btw, let me be pre-emptive here, if the defence is to be what the aplication of the same laws might do to the OT, forget it. We can get along quite well without the residual Code of Hammurabi laws in the OT. Managed to live without that barbarity for quite some time, thank you.

[Fred Nerks]

Forget it. I told you, I am not interested in jousting koranic verses. You would feel much happier in the company of an imam, I am sure; whiling away the hours, telling each other what a wonderful, peace loving religion islam is. (And how misunderstood all muslims are.)

[CzarNicky]

The story line sucks

*snicker*

[Fred Nerks]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1594464/posts

Here's the link to the article I referred to about Germany:

(and a snip)

The indictment is against the 200 verses of 114 suras (ED:chapters) of the Quran that are not compatible with the constitution, including demagoguery, incitement to murder, murder and mutilation, war, acceptance of thievery against infidels, meaning all non-Moslems. Verses are also pointed out where the equal rights of men and women are not upheld and where people of different faiths are oppressed.

Example: “The unbelievers among the People of the Book (Jews and Christians): They are the vilest of all creatures.” (Sura 98:6)

According to the indictment that paragraph violates Article 4 of the Constitution and Paragraph 166 of the Penal Code.

[BJungNan]

He he...

[RS]

"I used this example purely to show that what the imam tells the congregation is written in the koran ..."

The only problem is that you did NOT supply a quote from the Koran at all, and the pufter Imam I led you to, says that they do not exist, that it has been interpreted wrong. So it's dueling Imams.

Curiously, you don't seem to want to use this information AGAINST the pufter bashers, so one has to question your true motive.



"Just as it is against our laws to PREACH THAT APOSTATES MUST BE KILLED."

Well, I would think it should be against the law to incite violence, so I suppose that includes killing of apostates or pufters, or even Democrats.

[Fred Nerks]

Here, play with this for a while, I've got better things on my plate than discussing the contradictions in a book that's worth nothing more than a$$wipe.

The Washington Blade, November 16, 2001

"Whenever a male mounts another male, the throne of God trembles," or so argued an early Islamic commentator. The outlook hasn’t gotten much better since then, especially in Afghanistan.

By Paul Varnell

Barely two weeks before the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, the New York Post and Court TV both ran items about punishment meted out by Afghanistan’s Taliban regime on two men convicted of homosexuality.

According to those stories, the Taliban's Islamic jurists knew that homosexuality was reprehensible and the sentence should be execution, but they were genuinely puzzled by conflicting Islamic opinion on exactly how the execution should be carried out.

"We have a dilemma on this," one Taliban leader explained. "One group of scholars believes you should take these people to the top of the highest building in the city, and hurl them to their deaths."

The other group, he said, opted for a different approach. "They recommend you dig a pit near a wall somewhere, put these people in it, then topple the wall so that they are buried alive."

No one thought to point out that these approaches are atavistic survivals of options presented during the earliest days of Islam in the mid-seventh century.

The idea of stoning is derived from the Korans account of the destruction of Sodom by a "rain of stones," apparently due to Mohammed's misunderstanding of the Hebrew legend of "fire and brimstone" (sulfur), and from a supposed hadith ("saying") of Mohammed's urging stoning of both partners found engaging in homosexual sex.

Mohammed's successor, his father-in-law Abu Bakr (reigned 632-34), reportedly ordered a homosexual burned at the stake. The fourth caliph, Mohammed's son-in-law Ali ibn Abi Talib (reigned 656-61) ordered a sodomite thrown from the minaret of a mosque. Others he ordered to be stoned.

One of the earliest and most authoritative commentators on the Koran, Ibn Abbas (died 687) stipulated a two-step execution in which "the sodomite should be thrown from the highest building in the town and then stoned." Later it was decided that if no building were tall enough, the sodomite could be shoved off a cliff.

Subsequent commentators on the Koran denounced homosexuality in what ethnologist Jim Wafer calls "extravagant" terms: "Whenever a male mounts another male, the throne of God trembles; the angels look on in loathing and say, Lord, why do you not command the earth to punish them and the heavens to rain stones on them."

These early doctrines and practices were codified by the influential Hanbalite school of law, the most conservative school of Islamic jurisprudence, named after the theologian Ahmad ibn Hanbal (780-855).

Ibn Hanbal argued that human reasoning was not a reliable guide to truth and that the Koran and the habitual behavior of Mohammed, literally understood, offered sufficient guidance for later practice. As a result, Hanbalites uniformly urged execution, usually by stoning.

There were, to be sure, other schools of thought on the subject. The Hanafites, named for Abu Hanifa (699-767), put greater emphasis on individual reasoning and local circumstances. They taught that homosexuality was wrong but did not merit physical punishment because another supposed hadith of Mohammed said Muslim blood should be spilled only for adultery, apostasy or murder.

But some ambiguity remained. For a married man, homosexuality could be interpreted as adultery, so an individual judge might choose to impose a physical penalty anyway.

Other schools of jurisprudence urged public whipping, usually 100 lashes, so that the pain of the sodomite might serve as an exemplary warning to others.

Reports of these punishments being carried out in early times are not abundant. Some historians think this means Islamic culture was more tolerant in practice than in principle. But more likely most court records have simply not survived, so we have no information.

What may have protected some homosexuals, though, was the insistence by most Islamic jurists that conviction for homosexuality required witnesses, sometimes as many as four. That meant that homosexuality conducted discretely and in private might survive unpunished.

What does all this history have to do with us?

Just this. The strict Hanbalite school of Islamic jurisprudence remains powerful to this day, and is dominant in Saudi Arabia and Syria. The distinguished Islamic scholar Seyyed Hossein Nasr describes the current Hanbalite school as:

"The most strict in its adherence to the Koran and the Sunnah [the original practices] and does not rely as do the other schools of law upon the other principles"—such as the consensus of the learned, the welfare of the community, modern scientific knowledge, or individual human reasoning—"and, in fact, rejects them."

The official Saudi Arabian state religion is a puritanical branch of Islam called "Wahhabism," named for the fundamentalist religious leader named Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab (1703-92), who urged an anti-modern, "restorationist" or "back to the Koran" puritanism fully consistent with the Hanbalite school.

It is hardly necessary to remind anyone that Osama bin Laden is a Saudi Arabian who grew up in the state-supported fundamentalist Wahhabi religion; or that the Saudi government and royal family have channeled hundreds of millions of dollars to fundamentalist Islamic groups worldwide, including hundreds of millions of dollars to promote their particularly homophobic version of Islam among U.S. Muslims.

Paul Varnell is a Chicago-based syndicated writer whose work can be found at the Independent Gay Forum (www.indegayforum.org); he can be reached at Pvarnell@aol.com.

[RS]

"Forget it. I told you, I am not interested in jousting koranic verses."

I have it on good authority that the Koran is incomprehensible, so it's no wonder you can't figure it out correctly.

But don't expect the German case to go anywhere - Just how many religions are there that put the civil authorities above their concept of God ?

[Fred Nerks]

"...We must think deeper than the knee-jerk responses if we wish to truly defend ourselves and our way of life."

That's the comment I was responding to #34 when you jumped in. I'm through with you. I was through with you and your tactics a long long time ago.

I suggest you ask Gondring what he means, and leave me out of it. ISLAM AND FRED NERKS ARE INCOMPATIBLE. End of story.

[RS]

"The official Saudi Arabian state religion is a puritanical branch of Islam called "Wahhabism,"

I'm sure you could find puritanical branches of Christianity that might have almost identical concepts regarding pufters.

[Fred Nerks]

Easy just to ask the imam:

Islam &Homosexualitiy 1. What are the rights of homosexuals in the Muslim world? specially in Pakistan ?
2. According to the way of Islam what are the punishments of homosexuality.
3. Could you please send me the brief about homosexuality in the light of Islam, describing the rights of homosexuals.


Dear Brother, Assalamo Alaikum.
Homosexuality is unlawful in Islam. It is neither accepted by the state nor by the Islamic Society.

Quran clearly states that it is unjust, un-natural, transgression, ignorant,criminal and corrupt.

The people living in the time of prophet LOT (Nephew Of Abraham) near the Dead Sea were involved in this Act and Allah punished them severely and the whole nation was destroyed.

Muslim Jurists agree that, if proven of guilt, both of them should be killed. However jurists differ on the methadology of capital Punishment.

Infact it is a great injustice with women. You must know that in Islam pre-marital hetrosexuality (Dating) is also unlawful.

We advise you to go through the following verses of the Quran:

Verses:
VI --- 86 ; VII -- 80-84 ; XI -- 77-83 ; XV --57-77 ; XXI--74-75 ; XXVI--160-175 ; XXVII--54-58 : XXIX--26-35 ; XXXVII--133-138 ; LI--31-37 ; LIV--33-39 ; XI--81 ; XV--60 ; LXVI--10

In the present time, we are witnessing the wrath of God on these homosexuals in the form of AIDS, which is affecting innocents also.

Sincerely,

Jamaat-e-Islami Pakistan.

[Fred Nerks]

New Dark Ages

This is a letter in response to YekIrani's recent article "Acceptance". Same-sex relationships are currently outlawed in 26 Islamic countries: Afghanistan, Algeria, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Bosnia, Iran, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Malaysia, Mauritania, Morocco, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Syria, Tajikistan, Tunisia, Turkmenistan, the United Arab Emirates and Yemen. Islam is also a significant and growing influence in Senegal, Nigeria, Chad, Somalia, Turkey, and the southern Philippines.

Of the Islamic states that ban lesbian and gay sex, Iran is the most zealously homophobic. Since 1980, when the fundamentalists came to power under the leadership of Ayatollah Khomeini, over 4,000 lesbians and gay men have been executed, according to estimates by the exiled Iranian homosexual rights group, Homan.

In the early 1980's, for example, 70 people were executed after they attempted to set up a lesbian and gay organization. Nearly 100 homosexuals were sentenced to death in 1992 following a raid on a private party.

It is notoriously difficult to be certain about the exact number of lesbians and gays killed because some executions take place in secret, and the relatives of those killed often try to cover up the true reason, due to the strong social stigma associated with homosexuality.

Another factor preventing an accurate estimate is the regime's resort to false allegations of homosexuality against political opponents, in a bid to discredit them. Trumped up charges of homosexuality were levelled against a Sunni Muslim leader, Dr. Ali Mozaffarian, who was executed in Shiraz in 1992.

The methods of killing lesbians and gays in Iran include:

-beheading with a sword

-chopped in two with a sword

-stoning to death

-burning alive at the stake

-being thrown alive from a mountain top or high building

The death penalty applies not only to sodomy, but to repeated offences of lesser sexual acts such as mutual masturbation and body rubbing. The mere act of two people of the same sex lying naked together "without any necessity" is a crime punishable by up to 99 lashes. One man kissing another, even "without lust", merits 60 lashes. These floggings can cause permanent injury to internal organs, severe bleeding and sometimes death.

Read more:

http://www.iranian.com/Letters/1999/September/gay.html

[RS]

"New Dark Ages "

So lets see ... it's the acceptance of homosexuality that gains enlightnment, I suppose...

Tell you the truth, that's just not very high on my priorities as far as my wanting to get rid of fanatical terrorists.

[Fred Nerks]

So lets see ... it's the acceptance of homosexuality that gains enlightnment, I suppose...

Now we are back in The Netherlands, asking the applicant immigrant how he/she feels about a number of things - one of which is homosexual behaviour.

In Australia, as in The Netherlands, we have laws - and we don't drop people from tall buildings, throw them off mountains, chop off their heads, arrange for walls to fall on them, hang them etc...if they lead a homosexual lifestyle. It's not a personal judgement thing. How I feel, or how you feel, about homosexuals has nothing to do with this. Aberrant sexual behaviour does not carry the death penalty.

If islam expects to live in Australia, and The Netherlands, followers of mohammad will simply have to get used to this, and accept our laws. To preach otherwise in the mosque, be it straight from the koran or from hadith or a glorified gild-the-lily bio, I care not, don't give a damn. The Australian imam's relative had already been charged with a criminal offense - he attacked, with others, a young Australian man riding a bicycle through a park...yet, the imam kept on preaching the same.

Now, remember this - the article I posted included the comments from one of the congregation whose son asked him if that was truly in the koran. The father says, he did not want to hear that sort of rubbish.

Yet, IT IS THERE.

And, please note, I am not only speaking of homosexuality. I used it simply as an example, as did the article posted. The German example apparently lists 200 items. Finally, I take it you are a mohammadan. I have come across no one else so impervious to information, logic and reason, but you have not destroyed my sense of humour Sir/Madam:

[RS]

" The German example apparently lists 200 items."

I could say, we'll see, but then again I don't think the German courts will touch the case. According to what I've read, they tried this two years ago and it went nowhere.
I'm sure you'll ping me when (if) something happens.

I am a bit surpirised that they have not released this yet.

Finally, I take it you are a mohammadan.
Thought we went through this - I don't give a rats butt what the Koran says as long as we can dispose of the terrorists. As long as the hundreds of millions of Muslims who are not trying to kill anyone keep not trying to kill anyone, they can pray to a fire hydrant for all I care.

[steve-b]

The western world has to be careful how they respond to islamofacists. A test like this would quickly evolve into list of political correctness without which you can't enter the country.

So what? Entry into the country is a privilege, not a right.

[steve-b]

I'm sure you could find puritanical branches of Christianity that might have almost identical concepts regarding pufters.

And if they can't get into the country either, too bad. Again, it's a privilege, not a right.