This is a fascinating and thorough look at the contemporary social/political scene in Holland, where a massive influx of rural Moroccan immigrants, some of whom practice takfir, a particularly extreme form of Islam, challenges the ulta-liberal government's policies of tolerance and multiculturalism and the country's traditions. This issue came to a head in 2004 with the famous assassination of filmmaker and provocateur Theo Van Gogh.

Buruma is very balanced, examining the issue from many sides and never taking one side as "right" and the other as "wrong." He's uniquely situated to write such a book, as he is Dutch by birth, but has lived abroad for the past three decades. This gives him an insider view with a bit of a detached gaze. The fundamental question of the book -- can a liberal society, one that believes in the value of diversity and of tolerance for other cultures, accept and incorporate a culture that doesn't share certain of its most important beliefs (in this case equality between men and women, acceptance of homosexuality, and separation of church and state) or are there certain things that are non-negotiable? -- seems to be something that must be addressed if we're to understand how Islam is changing Europe.

Indeed, reading this book as an American who's never been to the Netherlands, I felt I was getting half the picture, and a distorted one at that. The American idea of immigration is so different from the Dutch one, especially for this reader, who lives in Los Angeles and takes for granted that Spanish shares nearly equal footing with English in the public sphere. But Holland is different, as it harbors a level of guilt for its relative complacency during the Holocaust (Anne Frank continues to be the ultimate Dutch trump card, her name ending all debate in a moment of shamed silence), and its more recent role as colonial oppressor in Suriname and Indonesia.

This book is a fundamentally European book, just as the author argues, at one point, that Islam is now a European religion. One of the people Buruma profiles in the book, explains that "The heart of Islam is in the Middle East, but its head is in Europe," meaning that liberal European culture has given Muslims the intellectual space to feel out how it will interact with the West, with modernity, and with itself, the freedom to decide whether it will grow to reconcile life in a modern, multicultural society or whether it will ultimately reject it.

The reason I give this book only 3 stars is that it felt repetitive at times, hammering home the same lessons about
the "Dutch character" over and over, and in the end, it offered little in the way of a solution. While it isn't the author's job to find an answer to such an enormous question, I would've liked to have seen more than what he eventually concludes, that giving young Muslim men more economic opportunities to succeed and a chance to feel more accepted in Dutch society will curtail the spread of extremism. This seems like the typical leftist response to social ills, "All political strife and all crime is the result of economic disparity." It's not that I don't believe this to be true (it certainly couldn't hurt to give them greater economic opportunities, for example), but I would've liked to have seen something a bit more forward-thinking from a book that so often surprised me.

On November 2, 2004, son of Moroccan immigrants Mohammed Bouyeri murdered flamboyant Dutch media personality Theo van Gogh. Ian Buruma goes to his native country and interviews many friends of van Gogh, Muslim immigrants to the Netherlands and their children, extravagant ex-Muslim apostate Ayaan Hirsi Ali and her friends. There are many paradoxes having to do with the integration of Muslims into Dutch society, and much hypocrisy; the guilt about the fate of Dutch Jews during World War II hangs over the debates about what to do with the Muslims. I was impressed with this opinion of a second-generation Moroccan immigrant: "No Moroccan respects Mohammed Bouyeri. To commit a murder during Ramadan - that is totally unacceptable.

Lo stile di Buruma é sempre molto piacevole, si fa leggere con molta facilitá. In questo saggio che fa seguito all'omicidio Van Gogh, Buruma ci prende per mano e ci fa esplorare Amsterdam e tutti i personaggi principali che hanno ruotato intorno a Van Gogh, al suo omicida e piú in generale che hanno avuto un ruolo nelle polemiche che hanno seguito l'omicidio. Anche se emerge il pensiero di Buruma, é capace di lasciare al lettore di formare un suo giudizio. Il fatto che Buruma sia olandese gli permette di condividre dettagli anche della sua vita che arricchiscono la lettura. Un bel libro.

The September 2006 novel Murder in Amsterdam introduces an out spoken, and self proclaimed “national villlage idiot” Theo Van Gogh and the story behind his murder.  The novel itself revolves around the death of the Dutch director; detailing the factors leading to death as well as the consequential national implications.  Van Gogh was a public figure who actively promoted his ideas of secularism and national identity. The filmmaker used his ability to publicly criticize Dutch tolerance of Islamic practices that contradicted Western social freedoms in his films. The murderer, Muhammad Boyerai, used Islamic fundamentalism to justify the public shooting and stabbing of Theo van Gogh as a condemnation for his potrayl of Muslim women in his film.

Albeit van Gogh was not the most well liked man, and had a talent for offending all religious and political institutions through his filmmaking. He was candid enough to share his opinions that he “hated Islam just as much as Christianity… [and the belief that] religion itself was the source of all evil”. Van Gogh’s support was for those who rebelled against social and religious constraints, while Bouyeri represented an extremist version of those migrants who clung to a belief and belonging to a religious entity; the men in the same story clearly define the societal divide that stem from a changing social composition without an active governmental integration of values.

While the death of the Dutch filmmaker was the inciting factor for discussion for the book, the many underlying themes go beyond this event. The novel most clearly presents the challenges in balancing freedom of speech in a multicultural liberal democracy. However the roots of the issue itself stem from themes of cultural division, loss of national identity, struggles to appropriately understand power, and class division. All themes in which parallels can be made from this murder to the issues facing contemporary Europe. While never explicitly analyzed by Buruma the grounds for right wing national movements and populism seem to be hinted at throughout the novel.

I recently finished Infidel but I still felt like I wanted to learn more about Dutch tolerance, perhaps from a different angle. Written by Ian Buruma, a Dutchman who spent several years in the UK, this book was perfect for that. It analyses the murder of Theo Van Gogh through various lenses. Peppered with various Dutch interviews, this book provides a lively and well written conversation about the Dutch values of free speech and multiculturalism in the face of immigration. 

Up until a few days ago, I had never heard of Theo Van Gogh, let alone known he was murdered by an immigrant after creating an anti-Islam film. Right now, I feel very invested in Dutch politics of 2004, does anyone want to talk about Pim Fortuyn?  

This book is interesting because it really doesn't show much of an opinion. It's more like a run through of various thoughts and processes in the Dutch society before and after Van Gogh's murder.
 
So what are some of the ideas discussed in this book? 

Belief in the Enlightenment is as absolute as belief in Koran.
I read this sentence and I felt like an actual light bulb appeared above my head. We think the conversation is about our values vs theirs but it's also simply about relativism vs absolutism. Time and time again, can the Dutch force any kind of value on anyone, even if those values are freedom and equality?

And it's interesting to think about this because there's that knee-jerk reaction that Enlightenment values are better for everyone while sexism is not. But perhaps the role of a country isn't to enforce values and therefore, the Dutch are wronging these immigrants by attempting to force them to abandon their values? And on the other side, by immigrating, a person makes a choice to live in that country. Surely they also have a responsibility to try to assimilate?

Islam is a European religion.
I adore this idea because I think it's remarkably true. Muslims are undeniably a part of Europe. The question is, what happens now?

As I see it, once we accept Islam as a European religion, we might be opening the door for Muslims to think critically about their religion as well. They can't do that if they feel under attack by the government but through acceptance, perhaps it's possible to find a middle ground where Muslims can practice and European values don't feel threatened. 

The Dutch are haunted by Anne Frank.
I was surprised by this but Anne Frank shows up again and again in this book and in various contexts. Buruma claims the Holocaust is a moral yardstick for contemporary Netherlands, as a symbol, a lost chance and a ghost at the same time, haunting political discussions. 

It's interesting because as  Jew, I don't think much about the Netherlands in WW2. It doesn't stand out as a country that did much to help the Jews, like Denmark or as a country that failed their Jews, like Poland (and still continues to fail them, like seriously Poland, antisemitism is so 1944, get with the times). 

And yet, the Dutch seem to be scarred by this failure, both the failed resistance and the failed protection of the Jews. It was thought that the Jews were assimilated but when it came to it, it turns out that they weren't because no one did enough to stop their deportation and eventual murder. It's fascinating to realize that just as after the Holocaust the Jews were asking, "How can we make sure this never happens again?", the Dutch were also asking the same thing.  

Now, I don't like it when leftist Europeans compare Islamophobia to antisemitism because Judaism literally discourages conversions. Islam, however, does have a messianic element to it. That's not a bad thing, Christianity also has this element. It just means that a Jew will never ever attempt to tell a non-Jew to eat kosher but a Muslim might encourage others to eat halal. That does impact the politics of this matter.   

There is something very valid about fearing to lose your culture due to an influx of immigration but I also found myself thinking about Cities and Immigration: Political and Moral Dilemmas in the New Era of Migration which argues for "milkshake" cities, where each immigrant adds something of their own. And there's so much that Muslim immigrants can add in that wouldn't harm European values (for example, the Middle Eastern salad culture or Somali poetry).  

And there's something so telling and so ridiculously fascinating about the Provo movement using the word "Jew" as an insult (and also, in general, I've never heard about the Provo movement so this was very neat). Dutch people who use the word Jew as an insult do it to reach maximum edginess, to break the socially acceptable barrier. It's fascinating because Ayaan Hirsi Ali also mentions the word "Jew" being used as an insult in Saudi Arabia and yet, the context is so different but also, it seems both of those groups do not have much contact with actual Jews. It feels like the symbolism is what matters, the context of the word more than the content.

The welfare state isn't built for a large number of foriegn immigrants.
This is a fascinating point because it strikes me that a lot of solid welfare states are homogeneous in the sense they share values. There's a consensus on what a good life means and therefore, it makes sense that when someone loses their job/ their home/ their heath, the government will help them until they get back on their feet. It's assumed that people want to get back on their feet.
 
Immigrants pose a problem when their value of success is different. Muhammad Bouyeri didn't see success as integration into Dutch society. Rather, Hirsi Ali describes that many Somali immigrants don't see a problem with living off welfare like perhaps some Dutch people do. One of my classes mentioned the element of shame when getting help from the country and I wonder how much of an impact that still has in welfare countries. Sure, everyone equally and shamelessly gets certain help (like subsidized university) but it still comes across from this book that specific kinds of help are a cause for shame (like living off welfare without ever trying to get a job).

Yet, in the same breath, I think about the amount of expat communities I met while traveling. It doesn't seem very hard to find an English speaking job in the Netherlands, move there, and create a circle of friends who are all international. And that would be fine because we'd all embrace the Western culture. The mere existence of the word expat vs immigrant already portrays this cultural gap.
  
Who's responsible?  
By letting immigrants in, a country has to be aware that those immigrants might not fit in with the rest of the country. And it comes down to the question- do the immigrants want to fit it? Can they? How do we treat those who are different? And who's ultimately responsible for this? 

When a horrible person climbs out of our society, we say society failed them, with bad mental health care, with bad education, with not enough support. And yet, when an immigrant does something similar, we blame their entire culture when really, once a country decides to take in immigrants, isn't that country also responsible for their assimilation?

When satellite cities exist, when the next generation grows up feeling inferior and missing something they never really had, romanticizing a culture that they don't necessarily know intimately, is the state not responsible?  

And where exactly do we draw the line? It's obvious that someone who immigrated would care about what's going on in their country and we can't expect someone who immigrated to lose everything that they are but maybe the problem begins when they rebel against the values of their new countries? 

Intuitively, I'd assume that by being a more accepting society, we discourage immigrants from attempting to assimilate. If there's a social pressure to speak Dutch, more immigrants will learn Dutch. We want the immigrants to live the best life they can in the country and assume that by learning the language and the culture, we give that chance.  

I'm reminded of Linda Sarsour and Nikki Haley's books which prove that it doesn't matter what your country of origin is, your kids are going to be able to fit in the country if your parents work to assimilate. It would be fascinating to compare between the US and the EU in terms of immigration and see how assimilation works, when we consider that some EU countries put a lot of effort in the assimilation while the US doesn't seem to do that. 

Conclusion
This conversation still seems relevant. This was published in 2006 but it holds up. I think it's fair to say the wave of immigrants of 2015 has made this topic even more prominent. 

I feel that I can easily recommend this book to anyone who would like to learn more about the Netherlands, especially in regards to tolerance and immigration. It's so well written and very interesting. Of course, I'm positive that Dutch people will have much to say about this book and it's obviously going to make much more sense than this very long rambling review.

What I'm Taking With Me
- If I don't do something in my life that has to do with immigration, I'll be disappointed.
- Man, I wish my Identitypolitics in Europe class was longer, like we only had one class about immigration and damn, it was not enough.
- Who knew the Dutch keep talking about Spinoza? It's great because Spinoza isn't really part of the Jewish philosophy canon so I'm just happy someone adopted him into their philosophical history. 
-As an Israeli reading this book, there is a certain sense of smugness- it's terrible but it's there. So many Europeans love to look down on Israeli policies about terror and in some ways, once Europe started to experience terrorism and much of the multicultural love disappeared, it's easy to feel a sense of condescension, like huh, it's easy to have the high moral ground when you never face the dilemmas.

Also, I handed in the exam in Identitypolitics in Europe today so here's hoping I wrote stuff that makes sense. Ahhhh.
---------
I have an exam later today in Identity Politics in Europe. Instead of going over my notes, I read this book. I'd like to think this will be helpful later like hey, I can now talk about Dutch identity in the face of immigration?

Review to come! It's time to go ponder about European identity and what it means to different people.

This is an absolutely phenomenal book that explores the ever-changing political landscape of the Netherlands, and to an extent the changing landscape of Europe as a whole. Buruma provides an in-depth and concise look at the history of the Netherlands and how immigration has had an impact on the culture of it. Intertwined with all of this, Buruma speaks to, and discusses influential political figures in the Netherlands and their views on the subject of immigration and multiculturalism whilst providing his own analysis of the situation. I absolutely loved this and feel like I've learnt a lot while reading this book (especially since I had to google terms every five minutes).

It’s well-written but I struggled to understand it and it wasn’t all that interesting to me. I read it for school so

When tolerance faces the intolerable, society gets sticky.

I thought this book would add clarity to why young Muslims have trouble integrating into their adopted European or North American communities and maybe learn about some solutions. I learned a lot more about the problem, but not much on the solutions. Also learned quite a bit about Dutch culture. Also, Theo was an ass.

Ostensibly a book about the murder of film maker Theo Van Gogh, but actually a deeply fascinating exploration of the ideas and tensions around multiculturalism in the Netherlands and Europe more generally. It's very fair. Unusually balanced you could say, for a book about an issue so politically charged. And weirdly addictive despite (or maybe because of) it's morbid subject matter. I understand the place where I live that bit better now.

This book is mainly about the murder of Theo Van Gogh, its implications towards the tolerance and freedom in Holland and also a few dimensions of the heated conflicts between Islamic values brought by the Muslim Immigrants with the Dutch (Western) ones.

Islam Vs the West is not a new topic for me. I am quite familiar (or rather bored) with each other's claims and accusations. The author wrote it as it is, verbatim quoting harsh words from each side. Not so open-minded readers (from either side) might be offended or taking sides too early on the debate presented. I am trying to read this story in its context, trying to empathize on how those people come to say or behave the way they do.

I also learn from the book about the problems of integration. I have experienced how complex it is (or feels) to integrate in a new society totally different from your origin. I have seen many complications towards individuals dealing with the issues, both from the immigrants and the host people. Taking from my experience and stories in this book, I am tempted to say that it is you who are in charge on how you want to perceive yourself in the new situation. But the "you" here varies greatly and influenced by many factors which may result in extreme cases like Mohamed Bouyeri and Ayaan Hirsi Ali, or even Theo Van Gogh himself being the host people.

Bouyeri, the murderer, showed the same symptoms as, for example, Imam Samudra (the Bali bomber) in his attitudes and utterance. Both did not regret their action and did not submit to the law against which they were being tried. Both said given the circumstances they would do the same thing all over again. Bouyeri believed that the knights of Islam will come from the Netherlands! I would suppose that Imam Samudra would also think that the revival of the Islamic Caliphate would begin in Indonesia (at least I remember this rhetoric being preached when I was in high school). The last point shows that no matter how much global your claim is, local factors (Bouyeri's childhood is in the Netherlands) have some say too. Having read Imam Samudra's handwritten memoir, I also doubt his comprehensive understanding about the West whom he hated so much.

The book ends without conclusion after portraying the murder, Theo, Mohammed B, and several figures related to the issue such as Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Fortuyn, Job Cohen, etc. The portrayal is sharp, although may not complete. It shows the edges that collides between the two sides. Maybe it is just the way it is, the discourse about "Muslim in the West" or "Islam versus the West" is still to be continued.

One thing to note, many references to Indonesia, Dutch colonial era, Moluccas rebels are made when discussing about immigrants and Dutch history. The Dutch apparently refer to the colonial era (Dutch East Indies) as their Golden Era. Hmmm...

3.5/5.