Hamburg Knife-Jihadi: “I Did it for Religious Reasons”

Posted on by

The following report by Egri Nök was published earlier today at Vlad Tepes in a slightly different form.

This story is very unusual for the German MSM (or any Western MSM, really): It mentions “jihad”, plus the fact that the killer committed his acts for religious reasons.


Hamburg knife attacker Ahmad Alhaw in court

Hamburg Knife Attacker Pleads Guilty: “I Wanted To Kill As Many German Christians As Possible”

by Egri Nök

The trial of the Palestinian “refugee” who went on a stabbing spree in Hamburg, wounding six and killing one, on July 27, 2017, began on Friday.

An original translation from B.Z. (Berliner Zeitung):

Man Pleads Guilty

Knife-Stabber of Hamburg-Barmbek Confesses

January 12, 2018

At the opening of the trial for a knife attack in Hamburg-Barmbek, the accused Palestinian confesses. The deed was religiously motivated: He wanted to kill as many German Christians as possible.

About five months after the knife attack in a supermarket in Hamburg that left one dead and six wounded, the accused Palestinian confessed to the bloody deed.

The attorney for the rejected asylum seeker read out a confession at the opening of the trial at the Senate for the Protection of the State in the Hamburg Higher Regional Court. “He emphatically pleads guilty to all charges,” he explained. “The deeds had, in his view, a religious background”.

Murder as many German Christians as possible

According to the Federal Attorney, the perpetrator acted out of an Islamist mindset. He wanted to kill as many German citizens of Christian faith as possible. The representative of the Federal Attorney said, reading out the indictment: “He made this decision as a contribution to worldwide Jihad.”

[Photo (not shown): The attacker stormed into an Edeka supermarket and lethally wounded one person. On his flight, he wounded four more people.]

The prosecution deem him fully criminally liable and accuse Ahmad A. of murder, attempted murder, and grievous battery in six instances.

His attorney said that his client was under high pressure when he committed the deeds. Ahmad A. further declared that he was not going to answer questions on the details of the deeds.

Instead, he answered questions about his life story. He started studying dental medicine, but quit. His mother was a teacher. He came to Germany to work and to make a living. Also, the Western lifestyle was a reason, in the beginning. But then he didn’t find it suitable. “I had the impression that I wasn’t welcome,” he said, according to an interpreter who was translating from the Arabic.


One person lost his life in the knife attack in Hamburg.

He refused to answer questions regarding the consumption of alcohol or drugs, as well as questions about his turning towards religion and about ISIS. He also refused to comment on his statements in his first interrogations. “In the first three days, I was wounded, and unable to concentrate.”

The rejected asylum seeker stabbed a 50-year-old to death in an Edeka supermarket, and then wounded six more people. A small, self-made ISIS flag was found in his refugee accommodation. But the terror militia did not claim responsibility for the knife attack.

Translator’s note:

This following photo of the “person who lost his life” was not part of the above article. Matthias P., 50 years old, was shopping for groceries in the Edeka store when Ahmad Alhaw randomly attacked him without prior warning:


Matthias P., murdered by the Hamburg knife jihadi on July 27, 2017

15 thoughts on “Hamburg Knife-Jihadi: “I Did it for Religious Reasons””

  1. “According to the Federal Attorney, the perpetrator acted out of an Islamist mindset.”
    Memo to German Police:
    The word “Islamist” does not feature in the Manual of Islamic Law. It was coined for Western consumption to deflect attention away from Islam. The “Islamist” mindset is, in fact, ordinary basic Islam.
    Islam instructs murder.
    https://gatesofvienna.net/2018/01/in-their-own-words/

    • Why not co-opt the word ‘Islamist’? it’s close enough and at least includes the word Islam.
      The left perverts and subverts language so why not we do the same? only unlike the left not to control the narrative and obfuscate uncomfortable facts, instead to expose them.

      For example;
      Islamist- a jihadist in a suit.
      Islamist- a religious fascist over which a veneer of respectability has been bestowed, by hopelessly naive non-Muslims.
      Islamist- a Muslim who espouses violent jihad but is too cowardly, fat or lazy to take direct action.
      Islamist- a follower of the slave-trader, slave-owner, slave-taker and violent bandit, Mohammed.

      etc etc

      Just a thought…………

      • Hi, Itinerant, your definitions actually refer to what they call ‘MODERATE’ Muslims. About 15% of Muslims support an Islamic terror group and over 60% want discriminatory Sharia law and a fascist caliphate.

        • There were merely suggestions but I would say pro-Sharia, pro-terrorist positions and the definitions above, are not mutually exclusive.
          For example:
          Islamist – one of the x% of Muslims who want Sharia law.
          Islamist – a religious fascist and one of the x% of Muslims who support violent jihad (but is too fat, lazy etc)…..see where I’m going?

  2. When the representative of the Federal Attorney said: “He made this decision as a contribution to worldwide Jihad,” it stands out.
    It would seem obvious to many GoV readers I have no doubt, of course it is part of ‘worldwide Jihad’ but the EU doesn’t want you to know that, or rather it wants to remove, what it calls, ‘offensive’ terms from public discourse and official announcements.
    In 2007: ‘Don’t confuse terrorism with Islam, says EU’

    However would we get that idea?

    “Brussels officials have confirmed the existence of a classified handbook which offers “non-offensive” phrases to use when announcing anti-terrorist operations or dealing with terrorist attacks.
    Banned terms are said to include “jihad”, “Islamic” or “fundamentalist”.
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1547133/Dont-confuse-terrorism-with-Islam-says-EU.html
    Ten years on, the EU doubles down, with some ‘advice’ for journalists: Nor, we are told, should we associate “terms such as ‘Muslim’ or ‘Islam’… with particular acts,” because to do that is to “stigmatize.”
    https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/11210/europe-journalists-political-correctness

    Alternatively it is to tell the truth.

    Therein lies the rub, the EU has effectively banned telling the truth about Islamic jihad and its supremacist agenda of conquest and subjugation.

    The liberal concensus of the EU is the political equivalent of the Maginot Line, of which Islamic forces are all too easily out-flanking.
    Although soldiers manning the Maginot Line were as far as I know, not banned from mentioning fascism and Nazis, in case they were offensive to Germans.

  3. Another mohammedan whose 72 raisins in the afterlife are now assured, because he murdered an infidel.

  4. Others have done the Monty Python take off, but it would go like this,

    “I Did it for Religious Reasons”
    “No you didn’t”
    “Yes I did”
    “Com’n out with it. You just got released from hospital”
    “No, no, I feel fine. I did it for the sake of Allah and Islam”
    “Com’n, stop fooling around. Tell us the real reason”

    Just found one,

    “We did this because our holy texts exhort us to to do it.”
    “No you didn’t.”
    “Wait, what? Yes we did…”
    “No, this has nothing to do with religion. You guys are just using religion as a front for social and geopolitical reasons.”
    “WHAT!? Did you even read our official statement? We give explicit Quranic justification. This is jihad, a holy crusade against pagans, blasphemers, and disbelievers.”
    “No, this is definitely not a Muslim thing. You guys are not true Muslims, and you defame a great religion by saying so.”

    “Huh!? Who are you to tell us we’re not true Muslims!? Islam is literally at the core of everything we do, and we have implemented the truest most literal and honest interpretation of its founding texts. It is our very reason for being.”
    “Nope. We created you. We installed a social and economic system that alienates and disenfranchises you, and that’s why you did this. We’re sorry.”

    “What? Why are you apologizing? We just slaughtered you mercilessly in the streets. We targeted unwitting civilians – disenfranchisement doesn’t even enter into it!”
    “Listen, it’s our fault. We don’t blame you for feeling unwelcome and
    lashing out.”
    “Seriously, stop taking credit for this! We worked really hard to pull this off, and we’re not going to let you take it away from us.”
    “No, we nourished your extremism. We accept full blame.”
    “OMG, how many people do we have to kill around here to finally get our message across?”

    http://www.faisalalmutar.com/2015/11/16/i-am-a-jihadist-and-i-am-tired-of-not-being-given-credit/

  5. Well, the important thing is that he gets a suspended sentence and no deportation, which might be dangerous for him.

  6. This is a breakthrough story in my opinion. This is the first time that we see a complete agreement by all parties that the jihadist was NOT insane, but was motivated by the JIHAD IDEOLOGY.

    The German police have recognized that Islam contains a doctrine of WARFARE AGAINST DISBELIEVERS and recognized that Ahmad Alhaw was motivated by it.

    The JIHAD IDEOLOGY allows followers of Islam to commit CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY with a good conscience… just as Nazism did. Surely, the Germans must have an insight into this use of IDEOLOGY? If they don’t, they will not recognize that Islam is intrinsically FASCIST.

  7. Why oh why is this piece of human debris even in Hamburg? She asks hopelessly.

    • He and his many friends are going to ‘solve’ the pension problem.
      They are the saviours of European welfare systems and the surgeons and nuclear physicists of tomorrow.
      Frightening when one thinks this is more or less the official EU position.

      • The fact our elites believe the immivaders are going to ‘solve’ the pension problem gives away how truly worthless our elites are.

        Only someone who never left their windowless ivory tower in Davos could believe something so foolish. The immivaders may have lower IQs, but they are certainly not foolish enough to break their backs supporting luxury retirements for Western pensioners.

Comments are closed.