Our Flemish correspondent VH has translated an essay by Bottehond from Het Vrije Volk:
The Wilders Trial is a Legal Jihad
The criminal proceedings against Geert Wilders at first sight seem most of all to be a clash between Islam and Islam critics. But an equally relevant aspect of this prosecution appears to remain hidden from the public, and that is the role of Islamists in the indictment against Wilders. A brief exploration.
In three columns previously published on HVV, I examined those who have made declarations against Wilders [see also Gates of Vienna]. Besides the usual Gutmenschen like Jörgen Raymann (TV presenter), they are mainly Islamists and some ignorant “liberals” (Socialists), who are unwittingly being directed by the Islamists. With the latter I especially point at members and sympathizers of the “International Socialists”. This very activist group is under the direct influence of the mullah regime in Iran, through its sock puppet Peyman Jafari.
Peyman Jafari became known for his fight against Ehsan Jami. Jafari is the head of the International Socialists, and, in cooperation with Islamists such as Mohamed Rabbae and Behnam Taebi, founded a counter-committee for ex-Muslims. Moreover, this fake committee was presented to the press in a mosque. Of course nobody ever heard of this initiative again. That also was not the intention of the committee. The primary aim was to damage Ehsan Jami, “because he deals with Islam without respect”. Jafari and Taebi pretended to be ex-Muslims, but their propaganda publications for the Iranian regime in recent years show a very different picture. Both are Muslim and obviously just agents of the regime in Tehran. Their fanatical support for Hamas and Hezbollah are completely in line with the policy of the mullahs. From their network and flock of followers, several declarations against Wilders were filed.
Obviously that is no coincidence. Under the guise of anti-racism, the cadre of the International Socialists spurred their gullible supporters to file charges against Wilders. But the real motivations are quite different, namely to prohibit criticism of Islam. Also, this battle strategy is applied by openly radical Muslims. We may recall the case of Faizel Enait, who made several attempts to get the Islamic conventions legitimated. In the queue of complainers against Wilders, next to the International Socialists and their band of followers we therefore notice quite a few Islamists, including Fawaz Jneid; the As Sunnah Mosque in The Hague is the most well known. Also, Fawaz Jneid and his Muslim co-filers play the tune of “racism” and “sowing hatred”.
Neither Peyman Jafari and his “misguided” comrades nor the other Islamic complainers have come up with this strategy against Wilders to stifle criticism on Islam with a legal jihad all by themselves. Earlier I have pointed out the strange assumption many people (unconsciously) take comfort from, that the Islamists would not be able and prepared to figure out a strategy to increase the impact of Islam in the Western world. A colossal and dangerous misconception.
As the term “Islamophobia” is conceived by Islamists [OIC] with of the Achilles heel of the Free West in mind, the legal jihad is a also a carefully designed battle-method of the Islamists. The modus operandi is always the same: one files a complaint about an insult, of sowing hatred and Islamophobia, and thereby makes an appeal to fundamental rights that apply in every civilized nation. So they ricochet the legal system against the host country.
– – – – – – – – –
Many Western countries have already encountered the legal jihad. Wherever Islamists appear, sooner or later complaints are filed against one or the other native “Islamophobic”. For example, Mark Steyn and Oriana Fallaci have already been victims of the legal jihad [Wilders is a victim now, and Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff is already in their crosshairs].
In this context the image arises of an indigenous population that is divided to the bone on the Islam, and the two camps fight each other to the death. Both Islam-apologists and Islam critics are finally convinced they have to protect our civilization. And that at first sight seems the most relevant to the criminal case against Wilders. However: whoever compares Wilders’ trial to the worldwide legal jihad will by now understand that deep divisions among the Dutch will be to the sole benefit of the Islamists, and that this is the intention. From this point of view, everyone should also admit that the Islamists are not the stupid desert-sectarians they too often are taken for.
Many are looking ahead to the trial with anxiety. “What if Wilders is actually convicted?” The anger towards politicians and commentators who applaud this political show trial is large, and the growing revulsion against the role of judiciary in the process grows to dangerous proportions.
I believe the fear that the Dutch court will condemn Wilders is justified. Judges often find themselves in circles of Gutmenschen and are far away from the world of the citizen. Any Gutmenschen who were put on the chair of the judges on January 20 in Amsterdam would face a titanic inner struggle to resist the temptation to deal with Wilders. Nothing human is foreign to judges, after all.
However, there is good news. Whether Wilders is convicted or not is of capital importance for the future of our free civilization. But meanwhile Wilders will again prove to be an exceptional political talent. By summoning many, many experts, former Islamists and Muslims, not Geert Wilders, but Islam itself will face trial during the court case of the PVV leader. Geert Wilders will ricochet the legal jihad against Islam, the way the Islamists turn themselves against our civilization.
And that’s the best news in years.
In Dutch by Bottehond: