Heilige identiteiten

by Machteld Zee

Hoeveel vrijheid kunnen we geven aan het islamitisch fundamentalisme zonder onze eigen vrijheden te verliezen? Op levendige, heldere en vlijmscherpe wijze onderzoekt Machteld Zee deze urgente vraag.
Volgens multiculturele denkers is het een aardig idee om in het Westen voor moslims een alternatief rechtsstelsel toe te staan. Maar wat houdt dat in?
Bij hoge uitzondering kreeg Machteld Zee toegang tot enkele shariaraden in Engeland: rechtbanken waar de wet van de sharia geldt in plaats van de westerse beginselen van vrijheid en gelijkheid voor iedereen. Ze zag daar hoe islamitische vrouwen in een parallel religieus rechtsstelsel afhankelijk worden gehouden.
Moeten we ons hier in het Westen niet juist veel sterker maken voor de rechten van álle vrouwen?
Of zijn we al op weg naar een shariastaat?

Genres: Islam

168 pages, Paperback

First published October 4, 2016

Reviews

[Marc Lamot · Rating 1 out of 5]

"In one corner of the ring (stand) the Islamists and useful infidels, in the other the modern suffragettes (m / v). Which side are you on?", that are the final sentences of this book. It’s clear the Dutch academic Machteld Zee makes no secret of her position. This booklet is the summary of the academic dissertation with which she obtained her Phd in Leiden, under the guidance of Paul Cliteur, a very outspoken voice in the debate on islam, migration and multiculturalism. It is roughly divided into three parts: a brief outline of Islamic fundamentalism, an overview of multiculturalism in Western societies and, finally, her own experiences with Sharia councils in the United Kingdom. That is a dry list, but believe me, Machteld Zee expresses a verdict on almost every page, if only in the form of expressions such as "happily that ..." or "unfortunately ...", and regularly she also makes direct calls to oppose sharia and the further advance of Islam in the West. As a result, this book has become a manifest rather than a reasoned argument.

The tenet of Machteld Zee is clear: Islamists are on the rise worldwide, both violently (with terrorist attacks) and non-violently; they have a plan to gradually become officially recognized in the West through a moderate façade and then seize power and install sharia states. What that means she illustrates with reference to the practices in Saudi Arabia and the Muslim Brotherhood. This fundamentalist advance is supported by the multiculturalists, the "useful idiots" in the West, who argue for tolerance or simply turn away their head, out of shame for what the West has done in the past. A special feature of this booklet is that Zee was one of the few non-Muslims to have attended a few Sharia Council meetings in the United Kingdom, and she reports about that in detail.

This book has evoked a huge storm in the Dutch press and in the social media, with quite a bit of harsh and brutal reactions, both pro and contra. Naturally, this is due to the delicate subject, but it certainly is also related to the polemic style of Zee herself. Of course, Zee absolutely puts her finger on sore spots, such as the reign of terror in countries such as Saudi Arabia and Iran, the reactionary attitude of Muslim fundamentalists who reject the secular rule of law and who especially ignore the rights of women. And of course, it is also true that here in the West too long issues with fundamentalism have been ignored, based on cultural relativism and a too broadly interpreted notion of tolerance.

The main focus of Zee is on sharia, Islamic law, and in particular on the devastating impact of sharia on Muslim women. I know from previous books I read that Sharia is a very broad concept that covers many movements and interpretations. But Zee does not pay attention to these differences: she completely focusses on the sharia-interpretation in Saudi-Arabia and by other fundamentalists. Now, her personal observations in the Sharia-councils in the UK also illustrate these differences: the Council in London was in almost all cases very harsh for women who wanted to divorce, even if they were clearly the victim of violence by their husband or of "marital imprisonment" (a notion apparently registered in the penal code in the Netherlands); but the sharia council in Birmingham was ultra-tolerant to such women and immediately pronounced the divorce, even without checking the story with the husband in question. Still, based on these 2 experiences, the author concludes sharia is an overall negative concept that can't be reconciled with secular law.

The great weakness of Zee's argument is that the proof for her polemic opinions is rather one-sided or too obvious: Saudi Arabia as the model of an Islamic society is a very classic simplification; and indicating the hand of the Muslim Brotherhood behind every Islamic leader or opinion in the West, smells like obstinate conspiracy thinking. Typical is her reference to the notion of "taqiyya", very popular with Islamophobes; it is the notion that muslims without scruples may deceive nonbelievers. Her qualification of the Brussels borough of Molenbeek as an outright "sharia neighbourhood", convinced me that Machteld Zee didn’t do her homework in an academic way, but only uses everything that is corresponding with her view.

I have nothing but respect for Zee's intention improve the fate of Muslim women and to warn against the dangers of advancing fundamentalists, but with this weakly grounded manifest, she certainly did not convince me. That there are issues around Islam and the Western secular culture is an open door, but with such a polemical essay a fruitful discussion is not possible. And it is also questionable for someone who profiles herself as an academic.

[Rutger · Rating 3 out of 5]

Het boek is verdeeld in drie delen. Het eerste deel gaat over de Islam, het tweede deel gaat over het multiculturalisme en het derde deel gaat over de shariarechtbanken in Westerse landen. Wie vaker over de Islam gelezen heeft, of zijn buik vol heeft van de Islam, kan het eerste gedeelte wel overslaan. Het voegt namelijk niet veel toe aan de bestaande kennis. Denk aan een gemiddelde Theodor Holman column, of een Islam-watchblog.

Het tweede gedeelte over het multiculturalisme is interessant en sterk uitgewerkt. Voor de eerste keer lees ik bvb wie de bedenkers achter het idee "multiculturalisme" waren en waarom ze daar voor waren. In dit gedeelte laat Zee zich ook als een felle tegenstander van de status quo zien en ik denk dat dit stuk m.n. kwaad bloed zette bij haar tegenstanders. Haar felheid is opmerkelijk, aangezien ze zichzelf als D66'er en feminist ziet; ik heb nog nooit een D66 feminist tegen het multiculturalisme zijn ageren.

Het laatste stuk over shariarechtbanken vond ik -- eerlijk gezegd -- niet zo interessant. Deprimerend dat mensen zich met deze onzin bezig houden of hier door laten beïnvloeden, maar dit staat ver van mij af. Ik maak uit Zee's boek niet op dat shariarechtbanken tegen de wet zijn, integendeel. Volgens mij is dat precies het problem. Moslims ondergaan shariarechtspraak uit vrije wil en groepsdruk. Om dat te verbieden? Beter is van wel, maar ik denk dat je dan op dezelfde discussie terechtkomt als bij het bijzonder onderwijs en de discussie over scheiding tussen kerk en staat.

[Rinus Ormeling]

Not my style of storytelling: basically boring text, chaotic argumentation and unclear linking of the subjects multicultarism and sharia counsels. Sure both have disadvantages, but blaming the one for the existence and functioning of the other is farfetched.

This book is - in my opinion - not relevant in the study of sharia counsels and their impact on minorities in Western societies. A single issue approach, a chaotic storytelling and missing the point of much needed improvement of regulation of religious counsels; not only those within Islam but all fundamental branches of religions.