Islam Can’t Change and Won’t Change

The following essay by H. Numan was originally published in Dutch at E.J. Bron’s website, and has been translated into English by the author.

Islam can’t change and won’t change

by H. Numan

Most of the time I fully agree with Geert Wilders, but not all the time. In this case I think Wilders has very few options. In nearly every interview he points towards ‘bad’ mohammedans, and rightly so. He always says they have to adapt to our values and cultures. That’s where he goes wrong. It doesn’t happen. They don’t do it, and worse: they will not do it. I’m pretty sure Wilders knows that better than anyone else. But what can he say? Even though he is 100% correct, every judge in Holland or Europe would condemn him. For whatever reason they can think of.

Let’s start with the koran and Mr. Mo himself. All religions reason in circles; the worst offender by far is islam. The koran is the word of god, dictated by the angel Gabriel to Mohammed. Who is also appointed to be the last prophet ever. How do we know that? Mo said so. What’s the proof for that? It is written in the koran. In other words, the koran is proof for the veracity of the koran. Mo’s appointment as last prophet is quite important. Because all subsequent prophets, for example Joseph Smith (Mormonism) or Ron Hubbard (Scientology) are automatically false prophets. It’s written in the koran that God himself didn’t want to work with prophets after Mohammed. Therefore anyone claiming to be a prophet must be false.

The entire religion is set up so it cannot be changed. Normal books are mostly written in chronological order. Not the koran. The surahs are ordered by length. Those verses were revealed to Mo over a period of 23 years. Very often in dreams, when Mo was in bad need of divine backup. A great example are the Satanic verses:

Mo had taken Mecca, which at the time already was the Lourdes of Sandland. Allah existed, but wasn’t the one and only god yet. It was one of the many gods that could be worshiped — for a small fee, of course — there. The Meccanos made a handsome dirham out of this business. Mo’s order to abandon the entire business except for Allah didn’t sit very well with them. They politely asked the prophet to really think long about it, perhaps sleep on it. Give his command the next morning, not right now. Supposing tomorrow his command would stand? Well, not a problem. They would behead the prophet, so he could discuss it in person with the great god himself. Sweet dreams! In the night Gabriel appeared and told Mo that the order was false. Allah hadn’t given the order. It was Satan. Therefore, no worries. Business as usual.

We see this happen lot with Mo: Gabriel coming to the rescue in a dream. Polygamy was common in that area, but usually no more than 3-4 women. When questions were asked why Mo kept a whole herd he told them he was given permission. In a dream. Same story when people wondered if Aisha wasn’t a tad too young to marry: “Allah told me I could”. In a dream? “Of course in a dream! You didn’t think the supreme being would bother to visit his humble prophet in the flesh, do you? Oh, before I forget. Allah also gave permission only to me. You can’t marry toddlers. Only prophets can. And I’m the last one. Sorry about that.”

The ordering of the koran is also a mystery. At least to anyone who is not a mohammedan, that is. The ordering is not chronological, but by length of surahs. That’s not a coincidence. The friendly chapters (surahs) were written when Mo lived in Medina and tried to be friendly. He had to; at the time he didn’t hold absolute power. As Mo was anything but friendly, those are the shortest verses. That changed completely when Mo conquered Mecca. Friendliness went out of the window immediately.

It’s a strict rule that earlier verses are overwritten by later verses. Mohammedans always point out the good verses. What they intentionally do not say is that those verses are irrelevant. The later verses overwrite them. So if a surah says ‘be friendly to Jews and Christians’ and a later surah orders them to beheaded, only the later one matters.

It’s not even a lie. If they really want to know how the religion works, simply convert. Otherwise, through luck. With regard to lies: that is fully permissible, as long as it promotes the religion. They even have a word for it: taqiyya.

Let’s continue. “They have to reform their faith.” That’s what you often hear as a solution to our (not their!!!) problem. Interesting. How? You cannot reform the faith. That is impossible. Unlike the torah and the bible, the koran is the literal word of god. It’s not written by or as seen by the prophets; it was dictated by the angel Gabriel at the command of the Almighty. Those are the very words of god himself. Who are you to question god? You think you are better than god? That’s blasphemy! Coincidentally, blasphemy is punishable by death.

Taqiyya demands that mohammedans listen interested and with straight faces when infidels (anyone who is not a mohammedan) twaddle that silly reform nonsense. It’s very rude to laugh out loud and ask them if they are merely bonkers or bat-s**t insane.

“We can do that with our own theological (imam) faculties,” is a very often phrased solution. Nope. We can’t. Supposing the Calvinist University of Kampen were to open a program for lesbian ministers who want to preach Calvinistic Confucianism based on a matriarchal interpretation of the scriptures: that program would be taken a lot more seriously than a Dutch imam course. An imam program is not taken seriously at all by any mohammedan. Not a few, not many — all. Someone who graduates from the cheese (Cheese is the mohammedan slang nickname for the Dutch. It’s not a compliment) theological academy is not taken seriously. He won’t be called to head a mosque. He won’t even be very welcome there.

You probably will see such a man a lot in the media, explaining things as is required by multiculturalism. A cheese imam is not welcome in any mosque. The aforementioned lesbian minister probably finds a parish somewhere to pollute. It’s even worse than that. Do you know who was one of the inventors of the liberation theology so popular in the Roman Catholic church? It was a Argentinean bishop, Jorge Mario Bergoglio. Never heard about him? Sure you have. His current name is Frankie I. He’s the bishop of Rome now.

A ‘moderate’ Dutch (or European or American) imam will not be taken seriously within the mohammedan religion anywhere. Graduates are not going to preach. All they will do is keep the dhimmis dumb. As required by his real religion and his multicultural superiors. Let me phrase it like this: if such an imam on a Friday were to preach what he has been taught in any mosque, he’d be stone dead before he could finish.

Which brings us to the congregation or the ummah. What is the ummah? The community of all mohammedans worldwide. Sounds great, but that is merely a theoretical concept. There isn’t a community of mohammedans as such. There isn’t a supreme leader of the faith. There isn’t an ultimate authority. Even the caliph and the sultan were only rulers over their own subjects. Mohammedanism is more like a protestant church. Every parish has its own interpretation. What the imam says, goes. Provided that imam preaches according to the book. The ummah makes sure he does.

This is how the ummah works. A long time ago I had a Dutch friend who married an Indonesian wife. He was a non-practicing protestant and she a non-practicing mohammedan. He told me that his wife, when he wasn’t home, regularly got visits by muslim women. To check whether they lived according to the rules. If he didn’t try to convert her (never ‘his’ or ‘their’) daughter. That sort of thing. He knew, because his wife told him everything. She didn’t like it either, but what can you do? Better invite them in for a cup of tea. That’s the ummah. Thousands of eyes and ears everywhere. And a couple of strong fists to explain difficult points of faith.

It goes much further than that. During the ’80s I worked at the Saudi Arabian embassy. Long before our current problems started. Pim Fortuyn was teaching at a university and Geert Wilders worked in a kibbutz. Every fortnight the Muslim Information Center of The Hague reported to the ambassador. About what? No idea. You can bet it wasn’t about football.

In order to get a pilgrimage visa for the hajj, one had to have a muslim certificate issued by the MIC. No certificate, no hajj. It functioned as a de facto civil administration. There weren’t that many mosques in the ’80s, and they didn’t have any political power. Nowadays they do. Every country with even a tiny mohammedan population has at least one Muslim Information Center. it’s not so much a center with information about the religion; it’s much more a center with all the information about muslims. Though everybody assumes the first, of course.

You can be absolutely certain, without any shadow of doubt, that there are shadow governments ready to take over governments, should allah be willing and the occasion arise. Everything is there, including long lists with names of people for the religious police.

Contrast this with western governments. I’m pretty certain they don’t have emergency plans what to do in case of civil uprisings — from mohammedans. They have plenty of plans what to do if the yellow vests get out of control. But plans for possible mohammedan uprisings? Not likely, we don’t want to infuriate them even more, do we? Suppose those plans leak out… then we’re really into deep doo-doo! Very much like the Dutch and Belgian neutrality in the period 1935-1939. We did literally anything not to offend the Germans. Look what that policy got us. This is exactly the same.

That’s the ummah. Thousands and thousands of eyes and ears that see everything and report everything. And sometimes act on it. Mohammedans aren’t allowed to drink alcohol, right? Wrong. They can do whatever they want, as long as nobody sees it. Anything goes, as long as the referee doesn’t see it. Should that happen, action it taken.

The same goes for young boys who rent themselves out. Everybody knows they can’t afford those expensive toys and clothing. Nobody asks how they got the money. Because everybody… knows. As long as the lads keep quiet, no big deal. Until they start shaving. That’s the moment the boys stop being whores and become pimps (of dhimmi tarts).

That’s something you probably don’t know either. Within mohammedanism homosexuality is completely different. First of all, it’s no big deal to have sex with young boys and extremely young girls. Pedophilia is a Western, not an islamic concept. It is not a coincidence that young boys in Afghanistan and Pakistan are ‘assistant truck drivers’. Sure, they can help change tires, but their job is something else, mainly being ridden by the driver. Having your way with strange girls is dangerous; there are always owners who might object. With sharp knives.

Also it’s the position that makes someone gay, not his inclination or preference. The man on top is a real man, because he only does what men do. The man or boy below, not so much. That’s the queer, and he’s punishable by death. Because he performs as a women.

How do you want to humanize the religion? God himself ordered the strict segregation of the sexes. God himself orders gays to be executed. Mohammed didn’t order apostates to be killed. That was on direct and explicit orders of god. The koran — god — hates Jews. Antisemitism isn’t an acquired taste; it comes with the faith. From allah himself. An imam preaching that isn’t a hate preacher. He’s just a preacher.

Those ‘moderate’ imams aren’t moderate because they don’t say much about the death penalty for apostasy or gays. They simply are quiet on the topic. That doesn’t mean to say at all that they are against it. Every mohammedan knows that. Even so, the vast majority of imams are outspoken about it, simply because they preach the koran and are less diplomatic.

Those few ‘moderate’ imams are cherished by the left because they really believe those few ‘moderate’ imams are against the death penalty and other direct orders given in the koran. Really? Go on YouTube, and watch them state the very opposite, when pressed. Without shame they will say they hate Jews, because the koran says so. It needs some prodding, but they do. All of them. Even the famous Tariq Ramadan, the bridge builder between east and west. He didn’t want to build a bridge between east and west. His goal was to build a bridge from the east into the west. The reviled ‘hate’ preachers are nothing but regular preachers. It’s just that they are more open about it.

In the west we are appalled by the Westboro Baptists. I’ve got news for you. Our very worst is not even moderate compared with mohammedanism. Westboro activists merely protest. They stand annoyingly with placards at funerals. That’s all. I haven’t heard of Westboro loonies storming into a newspaper and killing the editors because they mock the faith. Or blowing themselves up during a concert. Islamists do. Lots of them.

Our very worst is at best 1%, maybe 3%. Without much political power and very limited funding. Our very worst 3% is far more moderate than moderate mohammedans, and that at least 75%. The rest is far, far worse. With almost unlimited funding, because they know by know how democracy works and how you milk it the best. That is, if for whatever reason benefactors from Saudi Arabia or the Gulf States are less generous with their money.

We are ashamed that people like the Westboro Baptists exist. It doesn’t work that way in mohammedanism. No muslim is ashamed of ISIS or Al Qaeda. At best they will not admit it openly. Most of them are proud of what ISIS and Al Qaeda do and feel ashamed… for not joining and doing the same thing.

Another thing you have to understand is how forgiveness works in mohammedanism. Becoming a muslim comes with a ‘get out of jail free card’. Once you have said the shahada all your sins are forgiven. Doesn’t make any difference what you did in the past. That also applies to not so strict mohammedans who are our most vile and dangerous criminals. Sure, they sell drugs to or rob dhimmis. That’s less offensive, but still forbidden. When they become the muslim equivalent of reborn Christians all their sins are forgiven. It’s not a coincidence our maximum security prisons are breeding grounds for terrorists.

To finish, of course there were debates between hardliners and moderates. Of course people asked for islam with a human face. Live and let live, that sort of thing. But all those debates were lost by the moderates. They didn’t win a single debate over the centuries. Usually they also lost their heads soon after such a debate. Those debates were nearly always held behind closed doors in academic circles. The general public was completely unaware of them. Debates à la Martin Luther never ever happened in mohammedanism. It’s simply impossible. The whole system prevents it. And if somewhere an enlightened period occurred, it is always followed by a much longer period back to our roots. Long live the stone age!

Geert Wilders knows that much better than I do. But he can’t say it. That’s why I do.

— H. Numan

33 thoughts on “Islam Can’t Change and Won’t Change

  1. Very good essay, which sets out the islamic position clearly. It also declares that there is no peaceful solution to the horror that confronts us. First of all, we must replace our Dhimmi politicians who have all been bought and paid for. It is not a case of “we must win.” The issue is, “We dare not lose.”

  2. I cannot refrain myself from wondering: Westerners can only discuss the issue from a theoretical point of view while South-Easterners have an intimate practical knowledge about it. Ask for an opinion of an expert of the Balkans, if you will. You may find out that every problem carries along its own solution.

    • Enlighten me please! I would like to find the solution, time is urging!! I have 2 daughters and 2 grandsons and a lot of very nice dear friends…

      • Well, I said an expert, didn’t I? I can only tell you what was that the mighty Ottoman Empire looted from us for about four centuries and a half: food. Yup, you read it well: FOOD. It’s up to you now to put things together.

  3. I “disagree”: there have been successful reform movements.

    It’s just that they’re no longer considered to be “Islam”: Druze, Bahai, etc., are examples that are completely harmless. Even Ahmadiyya, at the limit (not always the most amazing ideology, but at least they largely leave others alone).

    Of course, all of these are largely viewed as needing to have their heads removed by the more “orthodox” sectors.

    • The problem with Ahmadiyya is that it is sometimes used by mainstream islam as a ‘foot in the door’ to help establish islam in a local area.

      This very thing is occurring in my city here in Canada.
      The local Ahmadiyya group donated to the city a very large sculpture symbolising ‘Peace and Unity’ of all mankind. Some of the local mainstream moslems jumped at the chance to use this to promote the idea that ‘Peace and Unity’ is the message of all islam.

      This sculpture is now referred to by many non-moslems as ‘proof’ that islam truly is peaceful and good. School children are forced to visit it by the busload as they receive speeches by local non-Ahmadiyya moslems who pretend it is they who are responsible for the work of ‘art’.

      • this is happening also with us in Europe, our children are forced to visit mosques and ‘learn’ how to kneel, bow direction mekka and God knows if they havent had those children, who are there with their criminal teachers, speak the shahadah what makes them mslms into their eyes!

    • Let’s take your examples:
      1) The Bah’ai do not consider themselves Muslims and are not considered as Muslims, even though their founder was an imam. That’s not to say the Bah’ai are to be trusted or revered. It is a cult. But, they’re not Muslims.

      2) The Amadiyya are an interesting case. They are considered as apostates, persecuted, and in Pakistan, are often denied the rights of Muslims. They claim to be peaceful, and in general, are. And yet…it was an Amadiyyah, Abdus Salaam, who initiated the nuclear program in Pakistan that resulted in Pakistan’s being able to have nuclear weapons to provide cover to their constant aggression against India. Also, in 1948 when Israel declared independence, the head of the Amadiyyahs called in the UN for jihad against the Israelis.

      In the present, the Amadiyyah maintain cozy relations with Israel.

      You left out the Ismaili cult, which is certainly not dangerous. Looking at the Wikipedia article “Muslim supporters of Israel” shows other Muslim sects well integrated in Israel and completely supportive of its existence.

      I think these “reform” Muslim cults are not dangerous in their present context, as a minority. I would not allow more of them into a country, although I would respect the citizenship rights of those already naturalized or born here. They use the same Koran as the other Muslims, and who knows how the interpretation would go if they became predominate. I actually wouldn’t allow in any more Ba’hai either. It is a dictatorial, top-down cult with a socialist, redistributionist global ideal. Who needs it?

      • The Bah’ai have at least one major centre in Jerusalem; I doubt whether the Israelis would allow this if they saw them as a threat.

        • Yes, I’ve been aware of the Ba’hai center in Israel for many years. I specifically said the Ba’hai were NOT a terror threat. And part of their doctrine is to obey the laws of the country they are in.

          So, why would I not allow more to immigrate?

          The founder had a world vision. If you check it out, it’s redistribution of wealth. The wealthy help the poor. This is a government objective, not just private charity.

          The cult itself has a leader, a council setting policy in murky manners, and a no-discussion policy of ejecting and shunning members who express dissenting views. The members are expected to devote inordinate time to the religion and its activities.

          The Ba’hais appear to be relatively prosperous and certainly nice people. I don’t want to import more people who will support a globalist welfare state and redistribution of wealth. A few definitely add to the diversity of the community in a positive manner. Many of them would be problematic , in my opinion. I do believe you have to look that the political inclinations of people you admit to citizenship, if you import on a large scale.

          • Thanks, RonaldB, and apologies for the delay replying (weekends are mainly spent with my beloved; we don’t live together, and are in our 70s, so time is precious- I catch up with the Internet, even GoV, on Sundays).

            Anyway, I’m better informed about the Ba’hais, thanks. I’m liberal rather than socialist, but a democrat above all- hence my objection to the EU. I’d still prefer Ba’hai immigrants to most others, especially you-know-who!

  4. Outstanding essay. I wonder if it and others like it will make any difference at all?
    In the end, the head choppers always win the “debate.” Kafir heroes are murdered, and kafir cowards will convert.

  5. People like Wilders must be in power first in order to effect change. If he throws the baby out with the bathwater everyone will shriek and call him an extremist or some such.

    Once elected, he can push this very urgent matter upstairs.

  6. “The friendly chapters (surahs) were written when Mo lived in Medina and tried to be friendly. He had to; at the time he didn’t hold absolute power. As Mo was anything but friendly, those are the shortest verses. That changed completely when Mo conquered Mecca.”

    Sorry, you’ve got that the wrong way round. The peaceful verses were written in Mecca. Mo started getting aggressive after he went to Medina. Yes, he then took over Mecca but that wasn’t the turning point.

    The Koran is divided chronologically into the Meccan and the Medinan suras, as shown on the home page here:
    http://www.koran-at-a-glance.com/

    • Wow. Thank you so much for your knowledgeable correction and what looks to be like a very interesting website.

      Is it true that the Muslim Brotherhood theologist, Sayyid Qtub, viewed the Koranic changes not as absolute abrogation, but as milestones in gradually implementing a complete sharia-based society? In other words, a community not familiar with Islam will be introduced to Islam through the religious tolerance verses. As they become more immersed in Islam, they are gradually brought into the proselytizing stages and ultimately the compulsory and dimmification practices?

      • I do not know much about Qutb but presumably that is why his book was called Milestones. The process you describe is no more than what Mo did in Medina.

        I would say this about abrogation though, I read something by an ex-Muslim (can’t remember his name) who thought that we in the West take the idea too literally and logically. A mind that can accept the many absurdities in the Koran is quite capable of believing that apparently mutually contradictory verses are equally true.

        • I have read moslems stating that unbelievers must be subjugated according the later commands within the context of the earlier peaceful verses.

          A culture of desert merchants creates many salesmen.

    • Koran at a glance

      Thank you very much for the correction.

      In Mecca, where he started out, Mo was just this guy with a nice new monotheistic religion competing with “establishment” Christianity, Judaism and paganism. His Meccan suras, verses, were full of sweetness and light – and almost entirely borrowed from Christianity and Judaism. The Meccans, however, didn’t take to his new religion in the hoped for numbers and Mo was very displeased at his failure. So he relocated himself and a small band of followers to Medina, a (relatively) nearby inland city which lay on important Arabian trading routes.

      In Medina, Mo became a brigand, a “highway robber”, to fund his movement (and reward lieutenants) and it was there that he wrote his nasty, violent, supremacist verses of the Koran. These Medinan verses “abrogated”, ie, superseded, the nice Meccan verses. By the time Mo was a powerful and cashed-up warlord with a loyal retinue of gangsters, he returned and conquered Mecca for his ‘religion’.

      The fact that the verses of the Koran are not set down in the chronological order that they were written – Meccan then Medinan – has resulted in the Koran being capable of Islam being disingenuously deployed to the West. It is the only ever the nice Meccan verses which are trotted out for Western consumption to depict Islam as humane and tolerant; while the trotters are conspicuously and very deliberately silent on the supreme doctrine of Koranic abrogation: the later-in-time Medinan verses trump, without exception, the Meccan verses. All Muslims know this.

      • Islam is the devil’s Christianity.
        Islam has many large, different and opposite aspects. Consider what Jesus and the New Testament taught that abrogated Old Testament levitical law. Jesus commanded a far broader mercy yet mohammed commanded an increasingly violent and merciless existence which superceded his earlier compassion.

        I don’t buy the moslem argument that they do not worship mohammed as Christians worship Christ.

        Thomas Jefferson and Churchill referred to moslems as mohammedans and islam as mohammedism.

        God the Father gave us His Son and the devil gave us his.

  7. “Koran at a glance” looks very useful. Thanks for the reference. I agree that Islam cannot be liberalized. But, I hope that I’m not too pollyannish in saying that all kinds of people are “Muslims”. If 50% conform to Islam in both spirit and practice. They are the vigilantes, the enforcers. Most others are prisoners compelled to observe Islam because they live in an Islamic family and community. And some honestly believe that Islam has a liberal space.

    • This ends as it always does where the Devil’s religion of islam is concerned, massive bloodshed, as history has demonstrated time and time again. There is no making peace with the Devil’s disciples, they must be completely utterly defeated to the last muslim. Deo Volente.

  8. The only thing left out was the sharia approved temporary wives; what happens to them when those who bought them run out of money or tire of them can be unpleasant or deadly.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.