But there is another possible reading. The whole structure of Islam itself, rather than "Islamophobia", is set up precisely to erect "walls of supposed oppositions" between people. The wall between “Henk and Ingrid” (typical Dutch names) and “Ahmed and Aisha” is not the handiwork of the critics of Islam but of Islam itself. Apart from some superficial features of language and geographical origin, there is essentially little difference between both couples. It is only Islam that condemns the former to disenfranchised subordination (dhimmitude) in this life and afterwards an eternity in hell, while the latter are to inherit the heavens later and the earth now.

This difference is not real, it exists only in the imagination of Islam believers, it's an "alleged opposition”. But Islamic law does lay down that this imaginary opposition gets a very tangible impact, namely all kinds of inequalities between Muslims and non-Muslims. The believers arrogate to themselves rights that they deny to the unbelievers. This self-righteousness, which is the self-proclaimed essence of Islam, erects "walls of supposed oppositions". Would the Queen, speaking on behalf of the Dutch people, have had that analysis in mind?

But there is another possible reading. The whole structure of Islam itself, rather than "Islamophobia", is set up precisely to erect "walls of supposed oppositions" between people. The wall between “Henk and Ingrid” (typical Dutch names) and “Ahmed and Aisha” is not the handiwork of the critics of Islam but of Islam itself. Apart from some superficial features of language and geographical origin, there is essentially little difference between both couples. It is only Islam that condemns the former to disenfranchised subordination (dhimmitude) in this life and afterwards an eternity in hell, while the latter are to inherit the heavens later and the earth now.

This difference is not real, it exists only in the imagination of Islam believers, it's an "alleged opposition”. But Islamic law does lay down that this imaginary opposition gets a very tangible impact, namely all kinds of inequalities between Muslims and non-Muslims. The believers arrogate to themselves rights that they deny to the unbelievers. This self-righteousness, which is the self-proclaimed essence of Islam, erects "walls of supposed oppositions". Would the Queen, speaking on behalf of the Dutch people, have had that analysis in mind?

love is all we have, the only way that each can help the other. (Euripides, Orestes).

Queen Beatrix's message of solidarity with others is similar to Germany's Christian Wulff message to the German people. According to Deutche Welle, Wulff called for more tolerance and engagement in society. Both are sounding and beating on the same drum because both are part of part of the European elite who are attacking Wilders audacity to speak-out against the terrorism and Islamic movement to control Europe and the West. { Queen Beatrix's stated "...we should try to find a good balance between ‘us’ and ‘them’." shows a lack of balance on her part. I would ask her? Who is "us" and who are "them"? If we are going to try to find a good balance, then there should be no "us" and "them" but only "we". If we "all" are ever going to be part of a single society, then we, especially the Queen, needs to see everyone as "We".....As to the queen's statement "The danger exists that what we have in common is ignored while differences and contrasts are exaggerated.", she downplays the differences
as exaggerated. What I hear the queen saying is: "What we have common is very much the same. If, it is exaggerated, then what we have in common is down-played and there is no difffernce between the two. Since, she will not come out and say who "them" are, then Islam practices of whipping and beating women will be used as an example. Question to the queen. Is the beating and whipping of women a common practice between "us" and "them"? If it is not, then is it exaggerated to point out the wrongs and differences of such practices? Is it wrong and exaggerated to point out the crimes committed in the name of Jihadist war against non-believers?.....The queen stated: "We should be ready to recognise our own prejudices and consider the consequences of our behaviour for others and for society as a whole.". I would ask the queen what are those prejududices of "our own"? How can someone recognise prejudices without poiting them out like Wilders does? At least Wilders sees the recognised behaviours and then tells the public......In closing the queen stated " Her majesty said we should treat others the way we’d like them to treat us." She is right and that is why Wilders expects "them" to treat non-believers with respect and not with terrorism. Treating others with respect is a two-sided issue and until then the world will never be "us".