The video below was excruciating to watch — almost more than I could manage. It’s a segment from a Dutch TV talk show featuring three Muslims — all Salafists, apparently — and a female presenter.

All three Muslims (one of whom is an ethnic Dutch convert) are adept at weaving the usual web of Islamic lies. I can’t tell whether the presenter is simply clueless, or whether she is deliberately abetting her Muslim interlocutors. In any case, she enables twenty minutes of full-bore taqiyya for the benefit of the studio audience and viewers at home.

Many thanks to C for the translation, and to Vlad Tepes for the subtitling:

Video transcript:

07:44 Then you could say, THIS is what people are scared of. Here in the Netherlands

07:48 we now have threat level 4. —This is exactly the kind of question I was talking about.

07:53 There’s another terrorist attack, and then such a large terrorist plot is foiled, and

08:00 again there’s a link with Islam. Then I say, so people are afraid of this, then I’d think…

08:07 there is a great responsibility here for the Salafists. Jihadist Salafists or whatever

08:13 you want to call them. But you lay the blame at the feet of international policy, or…

08:19 Look, the moment you look at the motives behind such attacks,

08:22 in nine out of ten times the motive is made public.

08:25 A letter is found, or a message is left that declares the terrorist’s motives.

08:28 And what you see is that nine out of ten times…

08:31 that no quotes from the Quran are mentioned, or a tale about the prophet

08:35 (pbuh), but about conflicts elsewhere in the world.

08:40 And the fact that it happens elsewhere in the world doesn’t mean we can shield ourselves from that.

08:46 The whole world has become a digital village. We see images from everywhere around the world.

08:52 It is often said that Salafists prevent radicalization. So is that false?

08:57 Yes, that’s why I pose the question, what does this have to do with Salafism?

09:01 This has nothing to do with Salafism?

09:04 This is what I was talking about earlier, the difference between

09:07 the normative and the incidental. For me, this is not the face…

09:10 So you think this is really an incident?

09:13 You called this an exception just now. —I think it’s the first time this year that this happened…

09:17 We had the [stabbing] attack in Amsterdam Central Station recently, of course.

09:23 OK, but… an attack at the level such as has been prevented recently,

09:27 that’s the first time as far as I know.

09:30 That’s true. —So that’s an incident. While, I have contacts with all kinds of people every day.

09:37 Part of my group of friends, you could say — especially according to the definition used in the

09:41 context of the public debate — are adepts of Salafism, some aren’t…

09:45 But just to be clear… —So, because of that, my perception… for me, this is not Salafism.

09:51 Because my perception of Salafism is shaped by the friends I have a good time with.

09:57 Yes. As-Sunnah helps against radicalisation, isn’t that right, Abdelhamid?

10:01 As-Sunnah helps against radicalisation… I think the as-Sunnah mosque, just like

10:05 most mosques, under our umbrella organisation anyway,

10:09 contribute to the fight against radicalisation and extremism,

10:13 in all forms that we don’t want in our society.

10:18 The as-Sunnah mosque also commits itself to this every day. —Yes. But if you see this,

10:22 are you shocked? —Yes, of course I’m shocked. But I think we’re taking hasty steps…

10:26 You were saying people are shocked when they see this,

10:30 yes, and “people” are Muslims and non-Muslims, they’re all shocked…

10:34 then you linked it to Islam, which I think will be shown to be true…

10:40 but then you started talking about Salafism. I think that’s a hasty step…

10:47 Well, we know from [intelligence services] MIVD and AIVD that Salafists are under surveillance,

10:52 and we also know that most who commit a terrorist attack have a Salafist background.

10:57 Those are the facts. —No! Most terrorist…

11:00 Those aren’t the facts? They’re members of Hare Krishna?

11:03 No. If you look at terrorism in Western Europe, then you’ll see

11:07 it’s mostly extreme right, extreme left, separatist movements.

11:12 Not in the Netherlands of course, but our neighboring countries. And, you’ll see that…

11:17 Wait a minute, I’m talking about terrorist attacks committed in the name of Islam.

11:20 Terrorist attacks in the name of Islam are usually committed in the name of Islam, that’s right.

11:25 Yes, and then we’re talking about the school of… Salafism. —I think that’s… what’s your point?

11:33 My point is, the question is, is it correct that terrorists often have a Salafist background?

11:40 Terrorists who commit their acts in the name of Islam.

11:47 Let’s look concretely at the guys who committed the attacks in Paris, Bataclan, Brussels…

11:54 Footage surfaced of one of those guys, three weeks before…

12:01 He was partying with alcohol and drugs in the Paris nightlife, three, four weeks before.

12:09 Three, four weeks later, he grabs a Kalashnikov and sprays away.

12:14 Don’t tell me that has anything to do with Salafism, or that…

12:19 of course something happened in his head, but we’re… —I ask this because…

12:24 We’re doing this episode to make clear what the position of Salafists is,

12:28 because when there’s a terror attack in the name of Islam, many Muslims are upset,

12:33 because they say, “Hey, I want nothing to do with this, this is not my Islam.” We’re doing

12:37 this episode to make clear what the mainstream Muslim’s position is, who the Salafists are…

12:42 But now it’s still not clear, because I think you’re saying, “These guys who commit

12:47 these terror attacks aren’t real Muslims; they know nothing about the Quran…

12:52 Did I understand you correctly? Because you mentioned they drink alcohol… —But a Muslim can

12:55 drink alcohol. —So why do you offer this explanation, then? That’s what I’m trying to understand.

12:59 I’m trying to make clear that the guys who commit these acts of terror have their reasons, and

13:06 of course they do this in the name of Islam, but to focus on one group of Salafists…

13:14 When I look at my daily reality, because we’re talking about Salafists today… Then I don’t know

13:18 any Salafist among my acquaintances who’d be willing to commit such acts [of terror].

13:23 Which Salafists are they, then?

13:26 Give me one name that helps me understand. So there’s jihadi Salafists.

13:29 —One name is Han… Handi. [Iraqi scholar Ahmad ibn Hanbal?]

13:32 No, not a person’s name, but what type of Muslim, Salafist are we talking about?

13:38 If you don’t want people to generalize about Salafists, you’d have to

13:42 make it clear to the viewer what type of Salafist we’re talking about.

13:47 But… this form of discussion is inappropriate. Because we don’t discuss

13:51 other subjects in this way. And it’s very odd that we do it when this subject comes up.

13:56 Look, if I consider several… —Because people are afraid,

13:59 I just explained that. There’s a real risk of…

14:02 You shouldn’t base decisions on fear. That’d be a bad thing,

14:06 and I suspect that’s the way we are going.

14:09 When it concerns most other subjects, we don’t discuss it in this way.

14:13 And it seems we want to capture it with extreme solutions: so it’s either

14:18 “This has nothing to do with Islam”, a claim you hear a lot, and by the way is not my opinion…

14:23 other people say, so this is the [true] face of… it has everything

14:27 to do with it, as a type of causality, “This leads to that”…

14:31 I don’t think that’s true either. The reality, of course, is: there’s a correlation.

14:35 The moment people do this and claim to act in the name of Islam, Islam is involved.

14:40 But if we go and say, “This is the true face of Salafists,” and what “kind of people” —

14:44 so we’re blaming groups and communities — are responsible for these acts…

14:48 seven people were arrested. They did it… well, they didn’t, because an attack was prevented,

14:52 but they are the perpetrators. And, for example, I’m Dutch…

14:55 What I noticed is that when other Dutch people do this, I’m not called out in this way.

14:59 I’m from Utrecht, but if people from Utrecht act like this, I’m not…

15:04 called out in this way. By the way, I’m not called out, anyway, because as I said I’m not a Salafist.

15:08 I find it very odd that in the context of the discussion, it’s framed like this. —OK, that’s clear.

15:13 OK, we won’t come to an agreement on this, I think. Next point,

15:17 Amsterdam Mayor Femke Halsema has said she’ll close Salafist mosques

15:21 if they spread an anti-democratic message. Let’s have a look.

15:26 In Amsterdam the city council has conversations with everybody,

15:30 but not with people who are anti-democratic, or who…

15:33 If they are Salafists, who are anti-democratic,

15:37 who go outside of the limits of the law, well, then you have a problem.

15:42 Umair, what do you think of this? What is anti-democratic?

15:45 Is somebody who doesn’t vote, for example, is he an anti-democrat?

15:48 Look, I think it’s very important that, when we discuss such heavy subjects…

15:54 to make very clear what we’re talking about. So many terms are used…

15:59 that all need their own definition. For example,

16:02 if she talks about Salafist mosques, which mosques are Salafist?

16:05 I circle back to my earlier point: you’ll have to define what Salafism is exactly.

16:10 The same goes for the point we were talking about before:

16:14 on what grounds do we ascribe this terrorist plot to Salafism?

16:18 So, it’s very easy to refer to these terms; she’s also said for example she wants to take action

16:27 against imams who stop short of breaking the law. And then

16:31 she loosely uses terms like jihadism, orthodoxy, fundamentalism.

16:35 It’s very easy to throw such terms around, but she has

16:38 a great responsibility as mayor of Amsterdam.

16:41 And I think that she will exclude a large part of Amsterdam, with predictable consequences.

16:49 Shall we review the statements she was referring to?

16:52 With a female slave, you don’t need a witness. She’s your possession, not your spouse.

16:57 According to the Quran you keep your privates covered,

17:00 except in front of your wife or female slave.

17:03 A slave is your possession, not your wife. If you bought or captured her…

17:08 then she is your possession. Then you don’t have to marry her.

17:12 As we said before, circumcision is an obligation for men,

17:15 genital mutilation is recommended for women.

17:18 It is not an obligation for women. The wisdom behind this is…

17:23 that the penis is cleansed from impurities on the foreskin…

17:30 in case of a woman, her lust is diminished. —Hmm hmm. You just said

17:35 you don’t know what mosque she’s referring to, well, this was the As-Sunnah mosque.

17:39 In the Hague I think, not Amsterdam.

17:42 Correct. But that’s not the point. Abdelhamid, what do you think [of these statements]?

17:47 We see examples of statements that, within Dutch society…

17:53 Dutch context, also the Dutch-Islamic context…

17:59 are not common, and many Muslims find undesirable. Also, for many Muslims find…

18:09 The ministry of public affairs is looking into this, and may prosecute…

18:12 Yes, they are under investigation. I also know that a member

18:16 of the organisation behind as-Sunnah has distanced himself from these statements…

18:20 And I also think that the journalist who found this,

18:24 if he’d looked a little bit further, he’d have found

18:27 material from the mosque itself in which,

18:31 years before these statements were recorded, they opposed FGM…

18:34 so it just depends on what kind of picture you want to paint.

18:37 And I think that the As-Sunnah mosque, but also other Salafist organisations…

18:42 are also learning organisations, and organisations that develop themselves…

18:47 With hand on heart I can say that the as-Sunnah mosque isn’t happy about this,

18:52 and also that this won’t happen at the as-Sunnah mosque.

18:57 But what do you think when this was publicized by an NRC-Nieuwsuur collaboration,

19:01 that as-Sunnah, among other mosques, was financed by Kuwait?

19:06 And dubious organizations that are on the terror list and finance jihadi groups in Syria?

19:14 Which turned out not to be true. —It’s not true?

19:17 It was written in secret lists that were published by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

19:24 True. On these lists were also mosques that submitted requests for funding,

19:28 but journalists found that these were never submitted…

19:32 There are also mosques that requested much larger sums than specified in these lists…

19:39 But… wait… none of these mosques… you all know…

19:44 Wait. If I see these statements… when I see this, here, I’m not happy. —Clear.

19:52 I hope, that from now on, such statements will never be made again in mosques in the Netherlands.

19:59 I’m talking about these two specific examples. When you’re talking in a general sense,

20:03 as you mentioned there’s a criminal investigation…

20:06 what Femke Halsema said, we just focussed on the word “anti-democratic”,

20:09 but she also said, “At odds with the rule of law.”

20:12 I assume that what she means is that the law has been broken.

20:17 My position rather simple, I want to move away from these

20:20 “is so-is not” discussions, and I’m sure we all agree on that…

20:23 I just think that whoever violates the law in the Netherlands,

20:26 whether it’s by word or by deed, you just have to prosecute.

20:29 If it turns out that somebody has broken the law, you go after them.

20:33 If it’s an individual, you go after them, if it’s an organization, you go after them.

20:36 Whether it’s a Muslim, or a Christian, or an unbeliever, I don’t care.

20:40 The moment somebody breaks the law here in the Netherlands, you go after them.

20:43 That also means that if people don’t break the law, that you don’t exclude them by definition,

20:47 or go after them, because we have the law for that…

20:51 The rule of law is our frame of reference, and you just have to enforce it.

20:57 That’s clear. You made your point, but I don’t think that it’s just… It will always

21:03 be a “is so-is not” discussion, because people have different ideas. Because you preach…

21:07 Here, for example, no law was broken. —You just proved my point.

21:11 That’s still the question, that’s what’s being investigated.

21:14 so your opinions diverge on that point. You just have a different perspective.

21:18 No, that’s not true. The moment I want to teach a course on Chinese law,

21:22 you’ll find elements that are at odds with Dutch law…

21:25 FGM is a crime, you do realize that? I understand, but to get back to my example… if I were

21:28 to teach a course on Chinese law, you’d find elements that are at odds with Dutch law, right?

21:35 That’s clear. But I’d be allowed to teach such a course, because it’s informative.

21:39 It’s clear there is such a thing as Islamic law.

21:42 Yes? That foundation is simply there. These are informative courses

21:46 that explain a different set of laws. We don’t call for FGM.

21:49 It’s not information. It’s a call for FGM, which is a felony.

21:53 In what way did he call for it?

21:56 By recommending it, among other things… No, he made clear

22:00 which Islamic law recommends it. —But what’s the difference?

22:03 Do you think whoever attends such a sermon, um…

22:11 I think many people who attend many sermons interpret them differently.

22:14 The thing is, our system of law isn’t based on that.

22:17 Our legal system is based on a judge determining whether something falls inside

22:20 or outside the law. As you just mentioned, they’re looking into this.

22:23 Fine! Please investigate, and if it turns out

22:27 a law has been broken, you act, and if not, then you don’t.

22:32 So, we can look at example after example… I’m not a judge,

22:36 so I don’t know about legal frameworks and how things can be interpreted…

22:41 I’d like to talk about [researcher Mohammad Nazar] Soroush’s research, from Tilburg University…

22:47 Controversial. “Made-up science”, I heard you say.

22:53 Yes, it’s absolutely controversial, especially because it’s full of…

23:00 things that do not reflect reality. It concerns very concrete things,

23:05 in relation to Imam Malik Islamic centre [in Leiden].

23:10 He reports on a lecture, and it’s full of blatant falsehoods…

23:17 A lecture that’s been on YouTube, everybody can… it’s been there for four years…

23:23 and everything what’s being said about that evening in Leiden is incorrect,

23:28 which can be verified by watching the YouTube video.

23:33 Let’s listen to the researcher Soroush for a moment…

23:36 You see in their world… that everything that is different is seen as unclean.

23:43 Other people, other opinions, a different society, everything is unclean.

23:49 They’re against people who think differently.

23:54 And they are ruthless and exceptionally brutal.

24:10 Abdelhamid? —Here we see a gentleman who claims to have researched 24 organisations

24:17 for three years, and on basis of that research he makes these statements.

24:24 Whoever reads his research will find he joined Friday sermons

24:28 in different mosques, where the language is Arabic…

24:31 the good man doesn’t speak Arabic. As we heard, his Dutch isn’t very good either…

24:37 he didn’t bring recording equipment, he didn’t take notes,

24:41 he didn’t out himself to the mosques as a researcher.

24:45 No, later at home or riding the train he wrote his little report,

24:49 and he wrote his PhD thesis on basis of these reports.

24:52 This goes against everything in scientific research, against all protocols regarding integrity,

24:57 how you have to ensure research is high-quality, reliable and valid.

25:03 And he then proceeded to classify mosques according to whether they are Salafist or not…

25:11 and the mosque in Leiden he classifies as Salafist,

25:16 without explaining on what evidence this is based…

25:21 He will now clarify this; the University of Tilburg has announced an inquiry.

25:25 Tilburg University has announced a full inquiry into how this research was carried out.

25:33 So they think there are enough reasons to question how this research was carried out.

25:40 I’d like to ask Nourdeen, should [Mayor] Halsema keep talking

25:43 with Salafists, Salafist organizations and mosques?

25:46 I’m a great fan of talking with many people, especially with people

25:51 with different opinions. You should always talk.

25:57 Another question is, should you also set up collaborative projects?

26:03 I think you shouldn’t do this by default, nor should you not do this by default.

26:09 What I’d find odd would be to say: we exclude people even though they might want to work with us…

26:19 and we do this because we feel they don’t want to associate with us.

26:22 That’s not possible, that’s a paradox.

26:25 You can’t turn your back on somebody because you claim they

26:28 point the finger at you, because he claims he turned his back on you.

26:31 So I find that odd. I wouldn’t exclude conversations with anybody;

26:37 I’d have conversations with anybody, no matter what the subject, by the way…

26:43 and not exclude cooperation a priori, but determine on a case-by-case basis. —Thank you;