I have read Mohamed's post several times now.
Just read it.
After that, I would like to ask you to read the following with both eyes. Quietly and calmly. With space around your thoughts, so you do not jump to hasty conclusions.
Are you ready?
OK, here we go.
When I read it, the first thing that appears is not anger. Or outrage. Or indignation.
The first thing is something resembling recognition.
Breathe, I said.
I do not know him, but he is right about more than he himself realises.
One does not die for an Order one does not believe in. If I lived in Iran with full citizenship and papers in order, I would not go to war for the regime either, I would not lift a weapon for something I do not want, do not believe in and absolutely do not wish to see grow. I would say no, exactly as he says no.
Should I fight against Americans, Israelis and Europeans?
For whom? For what? Everything I do not believe in?
I would presumably have my head chopped off if I refused - in that way Iran differs from Denmark - but the principle would be the same. I cannot and will not fight for an Order I do not believe in - so why on earth should Mohamed?
That far I understand him completely, and I do not intend to pretend otherwise.
But then notice what he actually managed to say, while we were nodding.
He has not said that he disagrees with a policy. He has said that his Loyalty is CONDITIONAL, that Denmark must first become another country before it deserves his life.
He has said that the Order he carries within him is not the one he lives in.
He has, quite calmly and quite openly, drawn a line and placed himself on the other side of it.
And it is not me, you, Mette, Frederik, the Constitution or Denmark that has drawn it.
It is him.
And thus it is no longer a question of opinions.
A citizenship has never been a collection of goods one fetches down from a shelf - it has everywhere and at all times been a contract.
One receives access, and in return one carries. One carries, even when it costs. Especially when it costs. And one must sacrifice. That is the entire difference between "belonging" and "renting".
And what Mohamed is saying is that he wants the access without carrying, that he will accept everything this country extends to him, while simultaneously holding his own life back for another cause, another people and another Order.
He should be allowed to do that, in my view. I do not want him thrown out. I do not need to. He has said it all himself.
I just want to ask the one question he has made it impossible to avoid -
If your ENTIRE life belongs to another Order.
What on earth are you doing in ours?
And then, more fundamentally, to the 179 in Parliament and to whichever ministries it may concern
Should the rest of us accept that contract?
Because it is you who have written it so loosely that access can be taken in full, while obligation can be rejected in full, and that a man can say it quite openly, without it changing anything whatsoever.
So rewrite it.
Rewrite how and when one becomes a citizen, when one receives a share in the goods the rest of us carry in common, and what can rightfully be required in return - not according to where people come from, but according to what they are willing to bind themselves to.
Because a contract which only one party is bound by is no contract.
A people that no longer dares to set conditions for belonging has already decided that it does not itself belong to anything.
❤️🔥🪽
...
And besides.
Follow Yaqoub who shares this post.
He is good to learn from.
Buy his new book and read it this summer.
