The Amsterdam Knife Jihadi Gets 26 Years in Prison

A little over a year ago, an Afghan culture-enricher named Jawed Sultani went on a stabbing rampage at Amsterdam’s Central railway station, seriously wounding two American tourists. Mr. Sultani told police that his attack was intended to avenge the honor of Islam after Geert Wilders announced his Mohammed cartoon contest.

Now the Amsterdam mujahid has been sentenced to 26 years in prison, and will have to pay substantial compensation to his victims. Readers should take note, however, of who will actually end up footing the bill for the indemnity.

Many thanks to FouseSquawk for translating this article from the Dutch public broadcaster NOS:

More than 26 years for the attacker at Amsterdam Central Station, almost three million in compensation

The man who stabbed two American tourists at the Amsterdam Central Station last year has been sentenced to 26 years and 8 months in prison. The court convicted Jawed S. on two counts of attempted murder with a terrorist motive and threats against three police officers. The sentence is longer than that requested by the public prosecutor — 25 years.

In addition, S. must pay compensation of more than €2.8 million to one of the victims. The man is suffering from paralysis, and will probably spend the rest of his life in a wheelchair. The defendant must pay more than €38,000 to the other American.

Watch in the first video what the judge says about the compensation — in the second video, the sentence is announced.

On the question of whether S. can pay the almost €3 million, the victims don’t have to worry. The state pays compensation to the victims of violent crime and sexual offenses, explains NOS justice editor Remco Andringa. “The government then attempts to recover the amount from the perpetrator. But because Jawed S., being an asylum seeker and a detainee, would not have much money, in practice, it will be the government that pays the victims.”

The Afghanistan-born Jawed S. (20), born in Afghanistan, is an asylum seeker who has exhausted all legal remedies in Germany. A year ago, he took the train from Germany to Amsterdam to take revenge for comments by Geert Wilders. With the announcement of a cartoon competition about the prophet Mohammed, Wilders insulted his faith, according to S.

S. was accused of two counts of attempted murder with a terrorist motive. All alleged facts have been proven, according to the court. According to the judge, S. acted with a preconceived plan. “He came to the Netherlands to kill as many people as possible,” she said. “The risk of recidivism is very high. The court must protect society.” Therefore, according to her, only the highest possible penalty is appropriate.

S. himself was not present for the verdict.

Continue reading

The Dilemma of the Wilders Trial

A couple of days ago I posted the latest news from the Netherlands about the show trial of Geert Wilders. Our Dutch correspondent H. Numan sends this summary of the larger context of the case, and the political significance of the railroading of Geert Wilders.

The dilemma of the Wilders trial

by H. Numan

The Baron just beat me to it: I was planning to write about the Wilders trial. Well, I guess he doesn’t need me anymore… (just kidding). There are a few angles you really need to know about concerning the Wilders trial. The elites are digging their graves deeper and deeper.

First of all — and most important — are the legal consequences of that guilty verdict, the jurisprudence. Imagine you have a very large bookshelf, from wall to wall. Only one shelf contains all the books of law, with plenty of space left over. The remainder of that entire bookshelf is filled with jurisprudence. And that actually is the real law.

Lawmakers (parliament) create the law. They set the minimum and maximum requirements. The courts interpret it. Each and every verdict explains how the law should be understood and applied. Verdicts of lower courts can be overruled by higher courts, which creates new jurisprudence.

Wilders is the de facto the leader of the opposition. His important position is the reason for the court’s verdict. Yes, they dearly wanted to sentence him to the maximum possible, and then some more. But they can’t. Geert Wilders is far too important. Supposing they were to have sent him to jail, that would make him immediately a martyr. He would happily go to jail, knowing full well he won’t be staying long and upon release becomes the next prime minister.

So doing jail time was out. Next best option was a fine. The prosecution asked for a fine of €5,000. I wish I had that kind of money, but Wilders makes at least four times that in a month. This would also create an outcry among the electorate. Wilders would pay the fine with a smile, knowing that the cost of this kind of advertising is invaluable. It would be a free advertising campaign worth millions for just €5,000. Again, not a good idea. What was left over?

Guilty without punishment. That’s the court equivalent of take two paracetamol and call me in the morning. Or so it seems. In real life it’s a slow-working deadly poison, especially in this case. Wilders would go free, but only him. Anyone else can be convicted based on that flimsy jurisprudence. What’s more, they will be convicted. And for a lot more than €5,000. Because there is a precedent. The fact that Wilders is convicted will be a precedent. His conviction can and will be used against anyone else. Including the asked for, but not enforced, fine of €5,000. For Wilders that’s a nice investment, well worth it. For you and me it would be financially crippling.

This is a well-tried tactic of letting a big fish swim in order to catch a lot of small fry. As the precedent is there, the big fish will eventually be caught anyway. When I say ‘well-tried’, I mean it literally. The Romans used it a lot, especially during the later part of the Republic. Among others, that is how the inquisition got started. You didn’t think they popped out of nothing did you? ‘Nobody expects the Spanish inquisition’ is a Monty Python sketch. Not real life.

That’s the legal side of the Wilders trial’s dilemma. However, there is more, that being the political side of it. We haven’t got the trias politica for nothing. The separation of power is a cornerstone of democracy. It’s becoming more and more clear that this really is a political show trial, with the outcome not being reached by judges, but by civil servants and Wilders’ political enemies working together before the trial even began.

Continue reading

Geert Wilders on the Corrupt Legal Case Brought Against Him

As H. Numan reported earlier this month, there have been new developments in the show trial against Geert Wilders, the leader of the Party for Freedom (Partij voor de Vrijheid, PVV) in the Netherlands.

Since then there have been additional reports in the media about the improper involvement of the Minister of Justice in the case. The following material has been translated from RTL Nieuws:

Senior government officials demanded a hard approach in the trial against ‘malicious’ Wilders

Top officials of the Justice Department have been involved in the content of the criminal case against Geert Wilders. They urged the Public Prosecution Service (OM) to tackle Wilders as firmly as possible in the case of ‘fewer Moroccans’ statements.

‘Scandalous’

The interference is very sensitive because it is a criminal case against an opposition leader. Until recently, the Justice department and the OM denied any form of substantive consultation and coordination on the Wilders case. The PVV leader reacts with astonishment to the new revelations and calls it ‘outrageous’.

The documents now show that officials fed the OM with arguments against Wilders, who was an opponent of the then-minister, VVD member Ivo Opstelten. They call his statements “malicious” and “racist.” When these officials read a very confidential official message from the Board of Procurators General to Minister Opstelten of 10 September 2014, one of them wondered: “Is the OM convinced of the desirability and feasibility of prosecution?”

No reason for criminal case

They advise the Public Prosecution Service to go into it legally. The reason for this is the discussion within the OM about the case. The Public Prosecutor in The Hague even wanted to dismiss the criminal case concerning the first ‘fewer Moroccans’ ruling on 12 March 2014, as it turned out last week, more than five years later. And the public prosecutor’s own experts, from the National Discrimination Expertise Center, also saw no good reason for a criminal case in the statements on the election evening of 19 March 2014. They found the statements ‘not unnecessarily offensive’.

The top officials thought that Wilders should not only be prosecuted for the election evening statements, but also had to be tackled for the first statement, because otherwise the whole ‘legally substantive’ case would not be sustainable.

“I would leave this to the judge and put as few restrictions as possible in what you submit to the judge.” The officials also provide a series of legal advice, including on how the Public Prosecutor should deal with the likely arguments of the defense. Literally: “I have already discussed a number of points with the colleague of the Pag [public prosecutor, the Public Prosecution Service, ed.] Today.” And: “I will pass on the points that you mention to the colleague of the OM.”

‘Unimaginable’

Wilders announces that he and his lawyer Geert-Jan Knoops will again ask the Court to stop the trial. The appeal will be served again on Tuesday. Wilders: “It is inconceivable that the Ministry of Justice has dealt with my case in detail. It’s a disgrace, a political reckoning by the VVD minister and his department.”

The PVV writes:

Continue reading

New Developments in the Court Case Against Geert Wilders

Our Dutch correspondent H. Numan sends the latest on the show trial of Geert Wilders.

New developments in the court case against Geert Wilders

by H. Numan

In a few days, on the 24th of September, we’ll see if The Netherlands is a banana monarchy or a constitutional monarchy. Why? Because the court then has to issue a verdict about new developments in the case against Geert Wilders. If the country considers itself a true democratic state ruled by law, the court has no other option than to dismiss the case. However, I’m almost certain the court won’t do that. Too much has been invested in the destruction of Geert Wilders and his party, the PVV.

We have seen in the past that the rule of law actually no longer exists in The Netherlands. Let’s take a look at this case, for people who are new to it.

After the municipal elections in March 2014 Geert attended a party in The Hague. He asked his electorate if the wanted more or fewer [criminal] Moroccans in the country. The crowd cheered “minder, minder, minder (fewer, fewer, fewer)!” “Okay”, Wilder said, “we’re going to work on that.”

The progressive part of the country was in uproar. They did everything legally and illegally possible to get him indicted. Illegally, you may ask. Yes. In many cities police stations were open longer than usual, and supplied pre-printed complaint forms. You could mark one or all choices on the multiple choice form why you were offended by Geert Wilders. Just cross what you liked. Signing was not a problem. A thumb mark would do nicely, in case you happen to be illiterate or had a phobia of pork, alcohol and writing. There were many Moroccan volunteers present on those police stations to assist ‘grievously hurt’ people to fill in the form correctly.

The court was, like the first Wilders trial, a kangaroo court with the verdict ready before the trial even began. A complete circus. I have never ever heard about pre-printed complaint forms readily available for the public anywhere. Possibly the North Korean or mainland Chinese justice departments might look into that; it’s very helpful in political trials.

Any idea about the logistics involved? The coordination necessary? We’re not talking about one progressive commissioner who dragooned his unwilling officers to do his bidding. It was nationwide. Thousands of pre-printed forms had to be printed and distributed to most police stations. Those stations had extended opening hours, to accommodate the complainants. That means a lot of officers were doing overtime; those volunteers had to be found and fed — who’s paying for that entire operation? The taxpayer, of course!

This is entirely my opinion, of course. As nobody, not even the defense team, filed complaints with the court about this haphazard filing of legal complaints, I probably am not correct in seeing this as illegal. Though it really seems that way, at least to me.

After a lengthy trial Wilders was convicted, but not as most progressives had hoped for. He wasn’t fined €5,000. Had he been sentenced to jail, he would have been ejected from parliament. The prosecutor tried that, but the court didn’t go along with it. The court judged him guilty, but without penalty. Both Wilders and the prosecutor appealed.

The court wasn’t exactly happy with Wilders spilling the beans. He first tried to object to judge Elianne van Rens, but that was rejected. Mr. (Dutch title for lawyers, she actually is a woman) Elianne is member of D66, a party which considers itself the arch-enemy of Wilders. She said in an TV interview before the trial began that in her opinion Wilders should be convicted. This was not enough to have her removed. I wonder what else she could have done? Knotting nooses during the trial? Grinning at Wilders while slicing with her finger across her throat? The court expressed in her verdict its displeasure of Wilders calling it a kangaroo court and saying that the court had the verdict ready even before the trial began.

But there is more…

Continue reading

Political Correctness Will be the Death of the Rule of Law

In the following television appearance, Geert Wilders, the leader of the Party for Freedom (Partij voor de Vrijheid, PVV) in the Netherlands, discusses what happens when Islam gains a foothold in a Western country. Political correctness demands that Islam be accommodated and nurtured under the rule of law. However, Islam does not respect Western rules, refuses to follow them, and simply exploits Western institutions in order to destroy them and implement sharia:

We Have a Burka Ban — Not

Our Dutch correspondent H. Numan sends this exposition on the recently-enacted burka ban and related matters in The Netherlands.

We have a burka ban — not

by H. Numan

The Dutch government passed a law banning burkas and niqabs in the public space. No, that is not correct. In some public spaces. Not in all. As you can expect, the progressive left and mohammedans are up in arms. The latter for the moment in arms attached to your body. Don’t worry, a burka ban is worthy of a suicide attack. Mohammedans aren’t that broad-minded. Anything that conflicts with the dawah must be eradicated. With blood, preferably.

From the 1st of August women can no longer practice their freedom of religion in public in The Netherlands. They are discriminated against by the evil Dutch. The law has been changed, so that the wearing of burkas and niqabs in (a few) public places is forbidden. The fine is €350 for virtuous women who cover their modesty. From now on, women are expected to dress like harlots as Dutch women ordinarily do. This, of course, is not my viewpoint, rather the mohammedan one. And that of the progressive left.

It’s a silly law. Why? First of all, not that many women dress in tents. According to different sources, about 300-1200 in total. Second and far more important: nobody is going to enforce it. Comrade Femke Halsema, who heads as burkamaster the People’s Republic of Amsterdam, said it will under no circumstances be enforced in her city. For those of you who don’t know: Amsterdam is now effectively a communist commune. During the last elections Green Left (successors of the communist party) took control of the city.

Green Left is what we call in Thailand a watermelon. Dark green on the outside, bright red on the inside. I’ve checked: the only things they changed were the wordings, images and the logo. The party structure itself would be approved by Joseph Stalin himself. That did not change. They fight then and now for a classless society in which the proletariat rules. Class struggle is out, fighting for the environment is in. You can fight your class struggle just as well by pretending to protect the environment.

Comrade Femke is a ‘do as I say, not as I do’ type of leader. She had a hobby: old-timers. She proudly owned and drove an old Mercedes 200 D. I’d be hard pressed to say which pollutes more: a Trabant from East Germany or comrade Femke’s old rust barrel. Given its age, I assume the latter. Nothing wrong with old-timers, but if you are the chairwomen of the party that wants to be environmentally correct, not a good choice. It’s like the chairman of the WWF being an avid hunter. Oops. That was exactly what Prince Bernard von Lippe-Biesterfeld (husband of queen Juliana) did.

Comrade Femke also has children. Two, a boy and a girl. They were send to a ‘black’ school. We don’t have black schools, but for us a black school is a school where the majority of children have an ethnic background. They are also very bad schools. Not the best teachers, huge classes, lots of absentees, etc. So, as soon as the media were finished with the photo ops showing dear comrade mum bringing her kids to the politically correct school, Femke hurried to change them to a 100% ‘white’ school. That’s a school with a high price tag to keep the undesirables out. Lots of ‘blacks’ in those schools: the son of the ambassador for Nigeria, for example. Again, very hypocritical. But then, so is socialism in general. Comrade Femke puts a lot of effort getting ‘white’ children forcibly assigned to ‘black’ schools. “For community cohesion.”

Continue reading

Reality is Showing Its Ugly Face

Our Dutch correspondent H. Numan sends this report on the latest cultural enrichment news from The Netherlands, especially as it concerns public swimming pools.

Reality is showing its ugly face

by H. Numan

Let’s start in the past. When I was a young man, the first cohort of young ‘Dutch’ muslims was growing up in The Netherlands. They were mainly Turkish boys, at that time much more of a problem than Moroccans. Public swimming pools were becoming unsafe for girls, because those muslim boys grabbed them where they shouldn’t. What was done? Why, nothing, of course! Pretty soon after that Moroccans proudly carried the banner of being the most unruly, violent community. Muslims started to realize they could gain political power — for themselves. Pim Fortuyn was murdered and Geert Wilders appeared on the scene.

We had a minister of justice, Piet Hein Donner. He said — or more accurately, lied: “If 75% of the Dutch population wants shariah law, then there is nothing to stop democracy from becoming a shariah society”. Let’s start here. The Dutch population has absolutely no say in it. It’s parliament (Second Kamer or congress and the First Kamer or senate) who decide that. Yes, I’ll grant him that this is next to impossible.

Legally, shariah must be presented as a law. Both houses have to vote on it, and pass it with a 75% majority. After that the government and both chambers resign and new elections are called. The next government will bring the law again in motion. Only if again 75% of both chambers vote ‘aye’ is shariah law valid in The Netherlands. Next to impossible, in other words. If you were do it the democratic way, that is.

Now, how democratic our bearded fiends are? Not at all. It’s a blasphemous concept to them. Erdogan himself said openly ‘democracy is the train we take towards shariah’. How difficult is it to put serious pressure on 150 members of parliament and 75 senators? Their family members? Friends and relatives? Or their party superiors? We as a nation simply haven’t got that many police available for their protection. That’s the first attempt. They won’t rest if the vote were to be ‘no’. That means another round of voting and violence. We have to protect the new MPs and senators and their families and their friends and their party officials as well.

May I remind you of 1572, the start of the Dutch revolt? It started with a bang, with the Beeldenstorm or Great Iconoclasm. Catholic churches were ransacked, and craven idols removed. At that time about 65% of the population was Roman Catholic. Of the remainder, the vast majority were Lutheran. Only 7% were Calvinists. Both Roman Catholic and Lutheran Dutch were open for negations with the king of Spain (Phillip II).

Now, the king was somewhat inflexible. For him, either you were catholic or you were barbecued. No other options. But compromises are usually possible, even with one party being inflexible. It was the 7% Calvinists who started the open revolt, and later gained control of the country. That was with 7% extremists in our population. Currently the inflexibles are at least 9%.

Calvinists aren’t exactly the first thing on your mind when thinking about extremely violent religious zealots. They have mellowed somewhat over the ages. The same goes for Christianity in general: even the Westboro Baptists are well behaved choirboys compared with the average muslim. In the 16th century, however, they were the Al Quackies of the age.

Which brings us to the news from today. The Dutch news is full with stories of young muslim boys raping girls in swimming pools, preferably the ‘tropical swimming resorts’. Not fondling. Not ogling, but raping. Young is relative here. We’re talking about gangs of boys of all ages, up to and including adults.

Continue reading

Are Twitter’s Shareholders the Arbiters of Free Speech in the Netherlands?

That’s what Martin Bosma asks during what seems to be a parliamentary committee hearing (I’m not sure exactly what it was; our Dutch readers can tell us). The incident that prompted the discussion was the suspension of Geert Wilders from Twitter due to his tweet about immigration.

Mr. Bosma is a member of Mr. Wilders’ party, the Party for Freedom (Partij voor de Vrijheid, PVV). However, what is surprising in this instance is that that Jan Middendorp, a representative of a rival party, the VVD, is in broad agreement with the PVV on the issue.

Many thanks to C for the translation, and to Vlad Tepes for the subtitling:

Video transcript:

Continue reading

Geert Wilders, Holocaust Denier

Geert Wilders declined to attend the most recent court session in the latest “hate speech” trial against him — he had better things to do with his time. In his absence, various fruits ’n’ nuts testified on behalf of the prosecution.

The PVV sends this translated report about the latest shenanigans.

Absent Wilders is linked to Holocaust at the ‘fewer Moroccans’ trial

Geert Wilders refused to listen to the “nonsense” of the “victims” of his fewer-Moroccan statements. He stayed away from his trial. And so missed allegations that Wilders “wants to set in motion a Holocaust.”

When the Court of Justice sits down in the courtroom at Schiphol in the morning, the seat of the PVV leader appears empty. The judges have to settle with a tweet from Wilders. “I’m just going to work in the Lower House today.” Because Wilders has no desire to hear ‘the nonsense’of ‘so-called injured parties’.

Who are mainly ‘decent citizens’, rooted Turkish and Moroccan Dutchmen, who were ‘deeply hurt’ by Wilders, watching television in March 2014, their lawyers say.

But the trial has also brought forward declarations with more remarkable motives. Jeroen de Kreek gets the opportunity to speak. He argues that Wilders actually used the word Moroccans ‘euphemistically’. Wilders’ words were, he says, directed against Jews. “It is terrorism-related deception. His great heroes are Jew-haters.” They were ‘behind the Second World War and the Holocaust’. In fact, De Kreek argues, Wilders’ statements could ‘trigger a next Holocaust’.

De Kreek says that he is also a victim because of his Jewish origin. After all, Wilders’ statements are equivalent to ‘Juden raus’, he argues.

The court hears it all unmoved, but the lawyers for the others who claim to be affected sighs. ‘We don’t want to be in the same corner with him,’ one will later say in the corridor.

Jews

After all, De Kreek is no stranger, not even in the Wilders trial. A former lawyer himself, he was already convicted of insulting Jews. He previously denied the Holocaust himself, via his websites, and was even considered completely of unsound mind by the court in Amsterdam after he had threatened Minister Jeanine Hennis at the time. His statements could ‘best be ignored’ because of his narcissistic personality disorder and chronic psychoses.

Continue reading

Twitter Suspends Geert Wilders

Geert Wilders, the leader of the Party for Freedom (Partij voor de Vrijheid, PVV) in the Netherlands, was suspended by Twitter for tweeting impermissible things about immigration. It was only for a day, but still…

There is a longer video in the pipeline that shows the debate in the Dutch parliament about what happened to Mr. Wilders.

Many thanks to C for the translation, and to Vlad Tepes for the subtitling:

Video transcript:

Continue reading

The Political Trial of Geert Wilders

Geert Wilders is on trial, yet again. His “crime” was to ask his supporters whether they wanted more or fewer Moroccans. This is the second time he has been prosecuted for this crime; the first ended in a mistrial.

The announcement below was sent by the PVV (Party for Freedom, Partij voor de Vrijheid).

Political trial against freedom of speech resumes tomorrow morning

Tomorrow morning in the extra-secured court at Schiphol Airport the trial against Geert Wilders resumes.

It is a political trial not only because Geert Wilders is being prosecuted for expressing his opinion, which is not favoured by the political elite. It is a political trial as well because of the political interference in the process.

Earlier this month Geert Wilders called for a parliamentary inquiry into the political interference in his trial.

Wilders’ defense team obtained a notary statement from a former official of the Department of Justice in which the official declares overhearing a conversation between the then Secretary-General and then Minister of Justice Opstelten.

According to this remarkable statement Opstelten explicitly said that the public prosecutor should proceed to prosecute Wilders because ‘he is getting in our way’.

Dutch media reported about contact between Opstelten and the head of the public prosecutor about the case in 2014.

They also mention Opstelten was keen to see Wilders prosecuted.

The Current Minister of Justice Ferd Grapperhaus still refuses to send documents detailing the meetings —which had been officially denied — to parliament.

The documents will remain secret, the minister told MPs.

The original appeal began in May last year, but Wilders’ legal team successfully applied for the judges to be removed after alleging bias.

Both Opstelten and former prosecution chief Herman Bolhaar have recently been heard behind closed doors.

This political interference is unworthy of a Western democracy and this trial must be stopped!

  • Click here to read the RTL Nieuws article (Dutch).
  • Click here to read the Telegraaf newspaper article (Dutch).

Geert Wilders Blocked on Twitter

Twitter uses digital totalitarianism yet again to enforce sharia in the Netherlands:

Dutch anti-Islam lawmaker Wilders says Twitter blocks his account

AMSTERDAM (Reuters) – Dutch far-right politician and anti-Islam campaigner Geert Wilders said on Friday that Twitter had temporarily blocked his account following remarks he made about a political rival.

Wilders, who cannot easily appear in public due to threats against him by Islamists, relies heavily on Twitter to communicate with his supporters. He has 811,000 followers, second only to Prime Minister Mark Rutte among Dutch politicians.

“Twitter often tolerates death threats against me, but not a factual tweet by me about a colleague. Madness!” he said in a statement.

Twitter could not immediately be reached for comment. A spokesman for Wilders’ Freedom Party sent a screenshot of his account showing the ban, which was due to expire in around eight hours.

The tweet that led to Wilders’ block referred to D-66, a progressive center-left party as “suckers… who import ever more Islam and then weep crocodile tears over the consequences, such as honor killings.”

Wilders is currently appealing a 2016 conviction for inciting discrimination for an incident in which he led followers in chanting they wanted “fewer! fewer! fewer” Moroccans in the Netherlands.

Read the rest at Reuters.

Matteo Salvini Stumps for the PVV

Europeans will go to the polls from May 23 through May 26 to vote in the European parliamentary elections. As part of his preparation for the elections, Italian Interior Minister Matteo Salvini is currently travelling all over Europe to meet with the leaders of other “populist” parties — that is, those who support national sovereignty and oppose mass immigration. Today he is in Budapest to consult with Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán.

Mr. Salvini made the following video a few days ago in support of Geert Wilders and the Party for Freedom (Partij voor de Vrijheid, PVV) in the Netherlands:

Hat tip for the Hungarian article: László.

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.

Continue reading