Today the 2nd of November it is exactly five years ago that a Muslim assassinated filmmaker Theo van Gogh. There was a small ceremony at Van Gogh's monument in the Oosterpark. The mother of Theo van Gogh was present and a borough mayor, Achmed Marcouch. A few students from Voorpost, a nationalist group displayed anti-socialist and anti-islamic signs.
That was all.
Showing posts with label Assassination. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Assassination. Show all posts
Monday, November 02, 2009
Thursday, February 28, 2008
Al-Qaida calls on Muslims to kill Geert Wilders
Kleinverzet has the news:
"The international terror network Al-Qaeda calls upon muslims to 'slaughter' the PVV politician Geert Wilders for insulting islam and the prohpet Muhammed."
The call for the assassination of the leader of the Freedom Party was made on alekhlaas.net, an Al-Qaida news conduit.
The alekhlaas.net forum seems to have been taken offline.
Read more on KleinVerzet.
"The international terror network Al-Qaeda calls upon muslims to 'slaughter' the PVV politician Geert Wilders for insulting islam and the prohpet Muhammed."
The call for the assassination of the leader of the Freedom Party was made on alekhlaas.net, an Al-Qaida news conduit.
The alekhlaas.net forum seems to have been taken offline.
Read more on KleinVerzet.
Thursday, March 29, 2007
Collateral damage
This blog has drawn attention to the violent ultra Leftist scene in The Netherlands that is ready to pursue its aims through the use of violence. This scene is often subsidised by the Dutch State. The Leftists set up front organisations which recieve subsidies and which propagandise, gather intelligence and sue for their cause. In their free time the Leftist activists pursue their more underground violent activities on basis of the information gathered in their above ground live. The main cores of this kind of leftist vigilantism are the squatter movement and the animal rights movement. Radical animal rights activists attack farms, farmers and laboratories using test animals. The government does not just use tax payers' money to subsidise the life style and ideology of the radical left, Dutch judges refuses to punish these radicals, public prosecutors and Ministers of Justice refuse to investigate cases. The murderer of Fortuyn, Volkert van der Graaf, was a animal rights/green activist who threatened and possibly killed opponents, who did not follow the course he set out for them. (Read "the van der Werken case")
In November 2005 Louis Sévèkes, a radical of the squatter movement was killed. His comrades from the squatter movement suspected a police infiltrator, who had been uncovered by the radical organiser. Sévèkes was known for purging the movement of people he regarded as suspect.
This blog opinioned:
The assassin was wanted by the Dutch and European authorities for bank robberies. This month the suspicion of murdering Sévèkes was added, after Dutch police raided a garage which served Teges as a stash. Family and friends of Louis Sévèkes are shocked by the fact that the murder was committed by someone who belonged to their crowd. The assassin was living in a squatter building in Barcelona when he was arrested.
This case gives a bit of background on the Pim Fortuyn assassination. The murder on Fortuyn was not an isolated case. Radical leftist have a well-developed infrastructure and they receive tacit support from the State. Now that there is a Right wing countermovement underway the Leftists meet resistance for the first time. It is my prognosis that there will be more political violence in the near future from the Left in addition to the violent actions of Jihadis.
There are two items in the news which are related developments:
Dutch Arabist Hans Jansen, whose son was threatened by Dutch Muslims, has called for the formation of a police special intelligence unit to investigate and follow up on death threats for political and religious purposes.
Significantly, in the border district of Twenthe German and Dutch police (Dutch and German) held an excercise ("Grensenlos") this month. The theme of the exercise was cracking down on rightwing extremists. It seems the authorities are looking the other way hard.
In November 2005 Louis Sévèkes, a radical of the squatter movement was killed. His comrades from the squatter movement suspected a police infiltrator, who had been uncovered by the radical organiser. Sévèkes was known for purging the movement of people he regarded as suspect.
This blog opinioned:
A few days ago a 41 year old leftist activist Louis Sevekes from the radical "squatter" and Extreme Leftist Fringe was murdered in Nijmegen. It is unclear who is responsible for the murderThe police could not find the assassin despite spending 60,000 hours on the investigation. However this week the assassin (Dutch) was arrested in Spain. He admitted guilt and his dairy provides the motive. Assassin Martinus Hendrikus Tega was also a member of the radical Leftist Squatter scene. He was purged by Louis Sévèkes in 1995 on suspicion of being a snitch. He swore revenge and waited for ten years to carry his intention out.
.............
Political violence is the new rage in The Netherlands. This started with subsidised Leftist groups that targetted nationalist groups in the mid 1980s. In 1986 squatters set a hotel on fire in Kedichem where a Dutch Nationalist group CP'86 was having a meeting. The wife of the party leader had to jump from the second floor of the hotel and lost a leg. At the time the thugs (Antifa) were subsidised by the government and shielded from police action.
The assassin was wanted by the Dutch and European authorities for bank robberies. This month the suspicion of murdering Sévèkes was added, after Dutch police raided a garage which served Teges as a stash. Family and friends of Louis Sévèkes are shocked by the fact that the murder was committed by someone who belonged to their crowd. The assassin was living in a squatter building in Barcelona when he was arrested.
This case gives a bit of background on the Pim Fortuyn assassination. The murder on Fortuyn was not an isolated case. Radical leftist have a well-developed infrastructure and they receive tacit support from the State. Now that there is a Right wing countermovement underway the Leftists meet resistance for the first time. It is my prognosis that there will be more political violence in the near future from the Left in addition to the violent actions of Jihadis.
There are two items in the news which are related developments:
Dutch Arabist Hans Jansen, whose son was threatened by Dutch Muslims, has called for the formation of a police special intelligence unit to investigate and follow up on death threats for political and religious purposes.
Significantly, in the border district of Twenthe German and Dutch police (Dutch and German) held an excercise ("Grensenlos") this month. The theme of the exercise was cracking down on rightwing extremists. It seems the authorities are looking the other way hard.
Monday, November 20, 2006
Muslims in the West: implications for democracy
In a discussion on Islam's presence in the West on Amnation I commented that the presence of Muslims is undesireable, due to their habit to kill those who criticise Islam. To back my statement up I translated the commentary of Orientalist Hans Jansen of Leiden University in The Netherlands. The original commentary in Dutch is here. A English translation of the original letter of Mohammed B. is here.
It follows below, starting with a comment on Jansen's text by a Dutch newspaper editor.
First published in “Tijdschrift voor de geschiedenis ”, 118, nr. 3 (2005), p. 483-491, a special on Religion and violence)
[Editor Jan Greven of newspaper Trouw writes on 25 October 2005 regarding my article:
The magazine ends with an analysis by Arabist Hans Jansen of the letter, which Mohammed B. left on the body of Theo van Gogh. Jansen does not reduce to psychological, political, or social factors, but analyses the letter as a religious document. He is the exception. Which disturbs the peace. All articles bring the same message: change the world and religion as a source of violence will automatically disappear.
Mohammed B.’s letter points to something else. According to the introduction the special was meant to add to a better understanding of today’s complex reality through writing history. Is this goal being achieved? Or does the special rather show that the current historical interpretation of religion, no matter how decent and interesting, falls short to understand today’s reality of Mohammed B.? I think it is the latter.
Jan Greven ]
The letter by Mohammed B., attached to the corpse of Theo van Gogh
Hans Jansen
Mohammed B., the man who murdered Theo van Gogh on 2 November 2004 in Amsterdam, assumed that he would pay with his life for this deed. This did not happen, because in the shoot out between the police and the assassin the police managed to take Mohammed B. out without killing him. With hindsight it is questionable whether we should be happy about this, for a living hero in jail may be the object of a macabre cult. This is what happened in Israel with the murderer of Rabin, a certain Yigal Amir. Just having to report the existence of the cult, which the newspapers will have to do for years, will cause adversariality in society that we do not need.
As he assumed that he would not be able to explain or justify himself in person, Mohammed B. has left a five page document illuminating his deed . Actually the document was attached to Theo van Gogh’s body with a knife. Geert Mak calls this document “a note” and has written a book on the aftermath of the assassination, without touching upon the subject of the “note”. It may often be a good tactic to kill an enemy by superior silence, but in this case the enemy is not sufficiently irrelevant to make this tactic work. Moreover it is unclear who the enemy is. Just Mohammed B.? Does he have allies, sympathisers or even accomplices? Without police investigation and reading the “note” we will hardly find out.
From Islamic or radical Islamic circles there have hardly been relevant explanations of the murder on Theo van Gogh, other than the letter itself. Apologies directed at non-Muslim Dutchmen are almost unthinkable; because there is in Dutch society nothing that could be used to justify a murder and certainly not foggy utterances such as “Dutch society refuses to acknowledge Islam with one voice”. After all what is the opposite? For The Netherlands as one to embrace Islam? Or as a form of criticism on the many (usually ineffective) measures by the State to assimilate and integrate Muslim immigrants murdering a filmmaker/columnist is hardly relevant. Those who want to know the motives of Mohammed B. have hardly anything to go on aside from this letter.
Mohammed B. has a Berber surname meaning something like “Short neck”. We should not seek deeper significance in the meaning of the name, but it is interesting that Mohammed B. is a Berber and not an Arab. There are no precise figures, but it seems that Moroccan Berber youth in The Netherlands and elsewhere have all kinds of trouble, perhaps even more than their Moroccan-Arab neighbours. Berber youth sometimes choose radical Islam on their search for identity. On the other hand, Berbers are strongly overrepresented amongst Dutch Moroccans, which may skew the picture.
At home Mohammed B. most likely spoke a Berber language with his parents. Mohammed B. knows Arabic too and the letter shows that he is also capable of inserting Arabic texts into the Dutch text with all the vocal and reading signs which the Arabic language prescribes. That is an achievement which not every Arabic language student at a Dutch university will able to match. He writes Dutch well, although there is sometimes a somewhat stilted quality to his prose, as the original pious Arabic verses, which he knows well, are close to the surface.
The title of the document is ”OPEN LETTER TO HIRSHI ALI”. It is strange that he misspells the name of Member of Parliament Ayaan Hirsi Ali. But indeed almost everybody in the Netherlands pronounces her name “Hirshi”, rather than “Hirsi” possibly under the influence of names like “Hirsch Ballin”. Moreover Moroccans often hear the Dutch “s” as a “sh”, as the Moroccan “s” and “sh” are much further apart than the “s” and “sh” in Dutch and English. This is why many older Moroccans say “shave” rather then “save” . Misspelling Ayaan’s name may well be used as an insult, but that seems farfetched in this case, as the other names in the document are spelled correctly. The spelling error is almost certainly caused by the Dutch mispronunciation of “Hirsi”.
Any letter written by a Muslim, should start with the phrase: “In the name of Allah, the Merciful”, in some translation or other. This letter starts like this as well. In fact every act by a Muslim should start with this phrase, something which is prescribed to the faithful in the New Testament: “start all things in the name of the Lord”. Right after this phrase a well-chosen verse from the Quran could have been inserted, but Mohammed B. chose to omit it. He does keep another convention: a prayer for the prophet Mohammed follows. Peace and blessings over Mohammed are beseeched from God. An author may choose with which honorifics he will honour the prophet offering a preview on the subject matter of the letter. The convention exists in order to forestall confusion as a result of the possibility that the introductory prayer is about anyone else than the prophet Mohammed, (as has been the case).
The Prophet Mohammed (+/- 570-632 AD) is called the “Emir of the Mujahideen” here which can be translated as: “The commander of the Jihadi”. This is in a sense a traditional title. Odd though, is the second title “The Laughing Killer”, which due to the weight of convention on letters must refer to the prophet himself. This lugubrious phrase is not Quranic and almost certainly not from the Tradition (Hadeeth). The Tradition is very voluble and it may be possible that the expression “the laughing killer” may be found somewhere, but the expression is certainly not common. Hadeeth and Quran do not value “laughing”. He who laughs does not mentally clearly establish the seriousness of what he is doing. Quran states at least three times that laughing often kills the heart. At least seven times Hadeeth maintains that the prophet prefers crying over laughing. The phrase “the laughing killer” therefore causes wonderment. It might be interesting to find out where Mohammed encountered this phrase.
What follows is a whole line of Arabic transcribed in Latin script, to be translated as “Mohammed the messenger of God (the protection of God be over him and God giveth him peace)”. The document continues traditionally: these wishes and prayers for salvation are not just made over Mohammed himself, but also over his family, the people he used to associate with during his life and all Muslims following Mohammed until the Last Day. Then follows: “there is no aggression, but against the aggressors”, apparently the Dutch translation of a phrase which can easily be traced back to an Arabic phrase which is not Quranic, but appears often in religious texts.
After these introductory texts follows a short formulae, which in an Arabic letter separates the preamble from the body of the document. This formula has been rendered in Dutch by Mohammed with: “the following”, although usually translators prefer “and further” or something along those lines. Follows another short prayer for peace of those who “follow guidance”. “Guidance” is here a translation of the Arabic “huda”, in Dutch well-known in a word like “Madhi”; “guided [right by God]”. It is according to the conventions of Arabic texts, despite the capitalisation, certainly not a reference to the leadership of a terrorist cell that Mohammed B. was possibly a part of, or something like that. The underlying image is a caravan wandering through the desert, with God as the Guide and under His Guidance.
Mohammed B. comes to the point. He writes an open letter to VVD MP Ayaan Hirsi Ali, whom he calls an “unbelieving fundamentalist”. It is interesting to see that “fundamentalist” has become derogatory in Mohammed B.’s circles too, apparently. The most important feature, by which we recognize fundamentalists, is their willingness on the basis of their ideology to come to deeds . It remains to be seen whether Mohammed B. uses the F-word incorrectly. He further addresses himself to the “Taghouth” party VVD . “Taghout” is the standard Arabic nomenclature for politicians or political parties which are regarded as anti-Islamic. During the Iranian Islamic Revolution of 1979 the USA was the great Satan and the Iranian allies of the USA were the Taghout. The word has been used for all rulers in all capitals of the Islamic world – but only by the fundamentalist opposition. The word appears eight times in the Quran, usually refers to idolatry, but perhaps already in Quran 4:60 to authorities refusing to stand aside and make room for Islam. Mohammed B. argues next that the remarks of Hirsi Ayaan Ali “terrorize Islam” and constitute a “crusade against Islam”. “Terrorizing” is usually used differently in the Dutch language, but we have to understand that the remarks of Ayaan instil fear in the hearts of (some) Muslims in The Netherlands. Only one reason can be found. There are Muslims who are scared that Ayaan indeed finds willing listeners under Dutch Muslims.
In Muslim texts the Crusades are usually represented as the equivalent of Jihad, but this moral equivalence is incorrect. The crusades took place during a short period of time in European history in a limited area (Palestine), Jihad however is universal and of all times. Jihad against Africa, Asia and Europe had been going on for centuries, at the time when the crusades still had to commence. The last crusader has been dead and buried for centuries, while Jihadis are still thick like flies in certain parts of the world. Next Mohammed B. utters the accusation that Ayaan Hirsi Ali has been rewarded for her work against Islam with a seat in Dutch parliament. She is being used to “spui” (“spew forth”) “animosity regarding Islam and the most noble man Mohammed”. “Spui” is a very particular Dutch word referring to the “polder” image . That Ayaan is able to do this, is blamed on the Islamic “Umma”, the community, which “is forsaking its task to resist injustice and evil and is sleeping of its drunken stupor”. This is an allusion to the Islamic duty to order what is good and to prohibit evil, as is written in Quran 3:110. Orders and prohibition have naturally to be enforced, which is that which Mohammed B. does. In a culture in which alcohol is prohibited the second part of the accusation, that a “drunken stupor is being slept off” is rather severe. It does not go too far to state that average Muslims will feel intimidated.
Mohammed B. further states that his letter is an attempt to silence evil. It is a pity he has not stopped at the letter and put his trust in God. In this paragraph he twice uses the phrase “if God wills it”, which is a prescribed formulae for statements concerning the future. Only a real atheist would leave out this phrase, many Muslims believe. Mohammed B. says that he holds it against Ayaan that she has proposed to “screen Muslims on ideology for job applications”. Mohammed B.’s choice of words makes it crystal clear that he himself realises that he is not spreading a religion, but an ideology. Any appeal to the constitutional freedom of religion that he or his lawyers or his companions would like to make is undermined in advance by Mohammed B. himself. There is freedom of religion in The Netherlands, which is widely respected. This is less so for the freedom of ideology. Fascism and Marxism are not well respected, or worse.
Next follows nearly a full page of standard anti-Semitism, including maimed Talmud quotes circulating on the internet. Especially Van Aartsen, leader of the VVD and the mayor of Amsterdam, Job Cohen are mentioned. It is to the legal specialists whether these anti-Semitic statements are a punishable offence according to the Dutch penal code.
Before reaching the end of the second page Mohammed gets a new thought. He reminds readers of a TV-broadcast in which Ayaan Hirsi Ali asks Muslim children on an Islamic school to make “a choice between their creator and the constitution”. This was not exactly what happened. The children were asked whether they should be more obedient to the laws of Islam or the laws of the Kingdom. Ayaan’s phrasing may not have been fine tuned to the children, but this is of course a problem which occurs with every religion with a legalistic structure. It would not be strange if an Islamic school would pay attention to this question. Mohammed passes the seriousness of the question by and shouts that Ayaan has used the answer of these “pure, young souls” have “immediately been abused“ for another “crusade”. Unfortunately he leaves it at that. An expose concerning which laws take precedence according to Mohammed B. would have been appropriate at this junction and have clarified matters. The assassins of Sadat (1981) have dared to address this matter in their self-justification letter. Naturally they choose Islamic law.
Now the atmosphere grows dark. Everything knows its end and dies, writes Mohammed B. “Death … is the common theme of all which exists” reads the text on top of page three of the document. A free paraphrasing of Quranic fragments which describe the Day of the Last Judgement. “Fear will fill the atmosphere that day” is the last sentence of the paraphrase. “Atmosphere” is not a word which fits this idiom. That Mohammed B. uses it anyway shows that his college education has not been in vain . A loose translation of Quran fragments follows, which are printed centre page. It is Quran 81:1-14, but verse 5 is omitted and then Quran 80:34-42. Both fragments deal with the terrors of the Last Judgement painted in what may be called flashing, tacky colours.
Then Mohammed B. follows Quran 2:94-95, daring Ayaan to “chose death” to prove that she is really confident of her own words. After all Mohammed B. requests God to “grant him death”, to “gladden him with martyrdom” (middle page 4). Mohammed B. thinks that if Ayaan does not accept this challenge, she shows herself to be “a committer of injustices”. It seems that logic her is far and wide to be found at face value, and Quran 2:94 and 2:95 are difficult verses indeed.
Quran 2:94 ends with “wish ye then death, if ye are right” – which possibly has to be understood as “Stand ye with your life for what you believe”. Quran 2:95 states: “but they shall not want to on account of their previous deeds”. That the main protagonists, almost certainly the unbelievers, are referred to with “ye” in verse 94 and “they” in verse 95 does not allow for easy understanding either. What the Quran most likely says here, is that the unbelievers do not want to die for their conviction, because they are guilty of unbelief (and will receive heavy retribution after their death).
MP Ayaan Hirsi Ali (or any other MP) is not eager to die for her membership of Parliament. Muslims such as Mohammed B. on the other hand are eager to shed their life for what they view as the good cause, which possibly gives Islam a tactical – strategic advantage in conflicts with others. That those who do not believe in heavenly compensation of martyrdom rather not become martyrs is a true statement and certainly relevant in Islam’s fight against the Non-Muslims. Verses 2:94 and 2:95 may look out of place and the challenge to Ayaan is difficult to comprehend for those without an intimate knowledge of the Quran, but in its own context it is definitely no nonsense and certainly pertains to the struggle that Mohammed B. has picked up for himself.
Mohammed B. now returns to the decline of Islam, judging that this decline has an upside. “Islam is like a dead plant, which through years of pressure and extremely high temperatures is turned into a diamond”. On the hardness of this diamond, according to Mohammed B., Ayaan will batter herself to pieces and “Islam will be victorious through the blood of the martyrs”. Islam will then “with the sword drive evil back to its dark cave”. With all this flowery speech it is a good thing to remember that “evil” here are the Non-Muslims. The present “struggle which has commenced” judges Mohammed B. “is different from all previous struggles”, for “the unbelieving fundamentalists started it”. The text does not give a clear indication what Mohammed B. is referring to. “All previous struggles” can only be understood as a reference to Jihad which took Islam in the centuries after Mohammed’s death from Mecca and Medina to Portugal, the Balkans and Pakistan. It is more difficult to see what Mohammed B. views as the beginning of the “struggle which commenced”. He cannot refer to the assassination of Theo van Gogh, which had not taken place at the time that the document was written. Moreover it must be something that has been initiated by the “unbelieving fundamentalists”. It can almost only be the criticism of Islam, initiated by Hirsi Ayaan Ali. And “unbelieving fundamentalist“ is a choice of words which Mohammed B. has previously used to refer to Hirsi Ayaan Ali in this letter.
In a European context the criticism of Islam is nothing special. Compared to what has been said about Christianity it is not impressive at all. Over the other religions, aside from Islam, which have believers in Europe there has been criticism and ridicule for decades and even centuries, without the faithful getting seriously upset. It happens that people get angry, but people do not take to arms. And in Islamic literature Christianity is attacked in a rude, crude and rough manner. Mohammed B. has a very odd way to use two different yardsticks here. Muslims may criticise and ridicule Christianity and Judaism , but criticising, let alone ridiculing Islam is not allowed. Even the worst enemy of Ayaan has never said she ridiculed Islam, concerned is only her academic criticism of Islam and her freedom to leave Islam like any other religion.
Murderers like Mohammed B. are thusly truly concerning themselves with the freedom of the debate about religions. He turns himself, by addressing his letter to a MP, straight against the Dutch system as it exists. Opening the debate about Islam is regarded by Mohammed B. as fundamentalist aggression. That is promising for academic freedom and the debates on the opinion pages. Truly Mohammed B. continues the somewhat childish sounding “unbelieving fundamentalists started it” with: “no discussions, no demonstrations, no parades, no petitions” only “death will separate Truth from lies”. To comply with this requirement The Netherlands will become a completely different country without discussion, demonstration and petitions, three fundamental rights of democracy.
The last page of the document starts with a Quran quote: Quran 62:8: “Death, for which the unbelievers flee, will overtake them. Then they will be brought back to [God], He who knows what is hidden and what is observable (=He who knows everything ). Oddly enough Mohammed B. misses a word again, he omits the “observable”. If a Non-Muslim would be so careless with a text it would certainly lead to complaints, if not worse.
Mohammed B. continues to quote Moses, the main protagonist of the exodus of the Israelites. To call the Israelite Moses by his name goes too far, it would seem. Mohammed B. mentions “a great prophet”. Quran 17:102 where Moses, in a scene which led to the well-known “let my people go” tells Pharaoh: “I do really believe, o Pharaoh that you are doomed”. “Pharaoh” is in Quran and in present Islam a standard code for an unjust, Anti-Islamic ruler or power. Mohammed B. wants to explain this, so he writes “we will use similar words [synonyms for Pharaoh, HJ]” which he does immediately and four times: I know for sure that you
Oh USA, oh Europe, oh Netherlands, oh Hirsi Ali are doomed. Is it treason for the possessor of a Dutch passport to pronounce the wish that The Netherlands will perish? The legal councils will know the answer.
Follows a fifth time “I know for sure that you, unbelieving fundamentalist will perish”. This cannot refer to Ayaan, for she was mentioned the fourth time and Mohammed uses female addresses when referring to Ayaan in his letter. Could it be that he is referring to Theo van Gogh who has remained unmentioned in this letter? It almost cannot be else.
Follows an Arabic phrase in Latin script which is used as frequently as it is difficult to translate: “God suffices us and good is he as a Carer, good is he as a Master and good is he as a Helper”. The letter closes with a signature, three Arabic words in Latin script: “the sword of the religion, the partisans of Tawhid”. (Arabic: Saifu d-deen al-muwahheed”, though Mohammed spells it differently. Tawhid is the classical term for the “Unity”, the Islamic dogma about the total unity of God. It could be a reference to the Tawhid mosque , but probably it is not.
The last, sixth page contains a poem, which indeed rhymes. In this poem Tawhid is also mentioned spelled this time as Tawheed . This time it is certain to be a reference to the unity of God. Mohammed B. calls his fellows the “knights of DEATH”. Well, it is difficult not to pass judgement on such a qualification. What should we do in this world, which is for the living, with the “Knights of death”? The one-but-last line of the poem is remarkable: “to the hypocrites I say: ”wish ye DEATH of shut up and … sit”. The capitalisation of “death” is still Mohammed B.’s. “Hypocrites” is a translation of the Arabic munafiqun, generally used to indicate saltless fellow warriors of Islam. The line about “hypocrites” is certainly referring to those who are usually called “moderate Muslims” and not to Ayaan or Theo van Gogh. The three dots are in the original. The “sit” is called into being partly by the rules of rhyme, yet there is more. It could be an allusion to Quran 9:45-46, where the Quran praises those who do Jihad and tells the ones who do not feel like it that they should sit at home. But another more Dutch explanation seems better. “Sit” is written in the imperative, it is the command that a macho dog owner gives his dog. For the moderate Muslims it is a good and fitting thing to know that Mohammed thinks about them like that. (As you know, Islam regards dogs as unclean).
That the document closes with a poem, is entirely in style. The murderers of Sadat ended the document in which they explained their theology/ideology with a poem . But as this poem usually appeared on the last page it got lost in many editions. That it belonged to the original document, is certain in the case of the murderers of Sadat. With some exertion of the brain it may be proved that Theo van Gogh is mentioned in the document prepared by his killer, though not by name. But what is the general drift of this document? In the first place that the author categorically opposes the Dutch system in its entirety, regarding it “Taghout” (authority that refuses to recognise the superiority of Islam). In its stead Mohammed B. places the use of religious violence. The letter may contain an allusion to Theo van Gogh, the victim of the murder, but the letter wastes not one word to mention the little film Submission. The letter addresses a MP because Members of Parliament represent and symbolize the existing democratic order. Without the murder this document would have been thrown in a waste paper bin by a staffer of a political party. Now it has been distributed to the editors’ rooms of all Dutch media.
Secondly any debate on the nature of Islam is regarded by the author as a cardinal sin. This goes rather far. Until recently the mainstream teaching was that leaving Islam was a cardinal sin. However that has now been extended to anyone who criticises Islam. This does not entirely go against tradition. The Islamic theologian Ibn Taimiyya (about 1300 AD) of Damascus has written a pamphlet about a Christian who said something about Islam and the title of the book was: “The drawn sword, over those who insult the messenger of God”. The drift of the title is clear: those who insult the prophet must die. This Ibn Taimmiyya is not an obscure theologian of the Middle Ages; he is regarded by Saudi Arabia’s Wahhabis as their great source of inspiration. It is Saudi-Arabia which, wittingly or unwittingly, concretely finances Jihadist Islam. The arrogant way in which Mohammed B. almost unnoticed addresses his fellow Muslims as dogs is also in line with Wahhabist traditions , who (in the days before oil wealth ended financial worries of the Arabians) kept themselves occupied with Jihad against the Muslim occupants of the Arabian peninsula and the South of Iraq, because the movement on the basis of dogmatic considerations thought it was correct to regard these Muslims as Kafir (“unbelievers”). Waging Jihad in this regard means firstly “to rob”, further possibly “kill” and “sell as a slave”.
The traditional Islamic theological nomenclature for “regard as Kafir” is Takfir. Takfir and Tawhid are the two spearheads of Wahhabi ideology. The AIVD is right to state that the assassin of Theo van Gogh and the extremists are coming from the camp of the Takfir movement. This is not the most attractive face of Islam.
The Wahhabists have been compared to the Ku Klux Klan. That comparison was meant as a consolation: “the Wahhabis are not that important”. In a certain way that is true. But we must not forget that the struggle between the Land of the Free and the KKK cost many lives. Also the struggle against “the knights of Death” of Mohammed B. and possibly the Wahhabis will not be for those of squeamish inclination and has already cost one person a life: the life of Theo van Gogh.
Amsterdam, January 2005
It follows below, starting with a comment on Jansen's text by a Dutch newspaper editor.
First published in “Tijdschrift voor de geschiedenis ”, 118, nr. 3 (2005), p. 483-491, a special on Religion and violence)
[Editor Jan Greven of newspaper Trouw writes on 25 October 2005 regarding my article:
The magazine ends with an analysis by Arabist Hans Jansen of the letter, which Mohammed B. left on the body of Theo van Gogh. Jansen does not reduce to psychological, political, or social factors, but analyses the letter as a religious document. He is the exception. Which disturbs the peace. All articles bring the same message: change the world and religion as a source of violence will automatically disappear.
Mohammed B.’s letter points to something else. According to the introduction the special was meant to add to a better understanding of today’s complex reality through writing history. Is this goal being achieved? Or does the special rather show that the current historical interpretation of religion, no matter how decent and interesting, falls short to understand today’s reality of Mohammed B.? I think it is the latter.
Jan Greven ]
The letter by Mohammed B., attached to the corpse of Theo van Gogh
Hans Jansen
Mohammed B., the man who murdered Theo van Gogh on 2 November 2004 in Amsterdam, assumed that he would pay with his life for this deed. This did not happen, because in the shoot out between the police and the assassin the police managed to take Mohammed B. out without killing him. With hindsight it is questionable whether we should be happy about this, for a living hero in jail may be the object of a macabre cult. This is what happened in Israel with the murderer of Rabin, a certain Yigal Amir. Just having to report the existence of the cult, which the newspapers will have to do for years, will cause adversariality in society that we do not need.
As he assumed that he would not be able to explain or justify himself in person, Mohammed B. has left a five page document illuminating his deed . Actually the document was attached to Theo van Gogh’s body with a knife. Geert Mak calls this document “a note” and has written a book on the aftermath of the assassination, without touching upon the subject of the “note”. It may often be a good tactic to kill an enemy by superior silence, but in this case the enemy is not sufficiently irrelevant to make this tactic work. Moreover it is unclear who the enemy is. Just Mohammed B.? Does he have allies, sympathisers or even accomplices? Without police investigation and reading the “note” we will hardly find out.
From Islamic or radical Islamic circles there have hardly been relevant explanations of the murder on Theo van Gogh, other than the letter itself. Apologies directed at non-Muslim Dutchmen are almost unthinkable; because there is in Dutch society nothing that could be used to justify a murder and certainly not foggy utterances such as “Dutch society refuses to acknowledge Islam with one voice”. After all what is the opposite? For The Netherlands as one to embrace Islam? Or as a form of criticism on the many (usually ineffective) measures by the State to assimilate and integrate Muslim immigrants murdering a filmmaker/columnist is hardly relevant. Those who want to know the motives of Mohammed B. have hardly anything to go on aside from this letter.
Mohammed B. has a Berber surname meaning something like “Short neck”. We should not seek deeper significance in the meaning of the name, but it is interesting that Mohammed B. is a Berber and not an Arab. There are no precise figures, but it seems that Moroccan Berber youth in The Netherlands and elsewhere have all kinds of trouble, perhaps even more than their Moroccan-Arab neighbours. Berber youth sometimes choose radical Islam on their search for identity. On the other hand, Berbers are strongly overrepresented amongst Dutch Moroccans, which may skew the picture.
At home Mohammed B. most likely spoke a Berber language with his parents. Mohammed B. knows Arabic too and the letter shows that he is also capable of inserting Arabic texts into the Dutch text with all the vocal and reading signs which the Arabic language prescribes. That is an achievement which not every Arabic language student at a Dutch university will able to match. He writes Dutch well, although there is sometimes a somewhat stilted quality to his prose, as the original pious Arabic verses, which he knows well, are close to the surface.
The title of the document is ”OPEN LETTER TO HIRSHI ALI”. It is strange that he misspells the name of Member of Parliament Ayaan Hirsi Ali. But indeed almost everybody in the Netherlands pronounces her name “Hirshi”, rather than “Hirsi” possibly under the influence of names like “Hirsch Ballin”. Moreover Moroccans often hear the Dutch “s” as a “sh”, as the Moroccan “s” and “sh” are much further apart than the “s” and “sh” in Dutch and English. This is why many older Moroccans say “shave” rather then “save” . Misspelling Ayaan’s name may well be used as an insult, but that seems farfetched in this case, as the other names in the document are spelled correctly. The spelling error is almost certainly caused by the Dutch mispronunciation of “Hirsi”.
Any letter written by a Muslim, should start with the phrase: “In the name of Allah, the Merciful”, in some translation or other. This letter starts like this as well. In fact every act by a Muslim should start with this phrase, something which is prescribed to the faithful in the New Testament: “start all things in the name of the Lord”. Right after this phrase a well-chosen verse from the Quran could have been inserted, but Mohammed B. chose to omit it. He does keep another convention: a prayer for the prophet Mohammed follows. Peace and blessings over Mohammed are beseeched from God. An author may choose with which honorifics he will honour the prophet offering a preview on the subject matter of the letter. The convention exists in order to forestall confusion as a result of the possibility that the introductory prayer is about anyone else than the prophet Mohammed, (as has been the case).
The Prophet Mohammed (+/- 570-632 AD) is called the “Emir of the Mujahideen” here which can be translated as: “The commander of the Jihadi”. This is in a sense a traditional title. Odd though, is the second title “The Laughing Killer”, which due to the weight of convention on letters must refer to the prophet himself. This lugubrious phrase is not Quranic and almost certainly not from the Tradition (Hadeeth). The Tradition is very voluble and it may be possible that the expression “the laughing killer” may be found somewhere, but the expression is certainly not common. Hadeeth and Quran do not value “laughing”. He who laughs does not mentally clearly establish the seriousness of what he is doing. Quran states at least three times that laughing often kills the heart. At least seven times Hadeeth maintains that the prophet prefers crying over laughing. The phrase “the laughing killer” therefore causes wonderment. It might be interesting to find out where Mohammed encountered this phrase.
What follows is a whole line of Arabic transcribed in Latin script, to be translated as “Mohammed the messenger of God (the protection of God be over him and God giveth him peace)”. The document continues traditionally: these wishes and prayers for salvation are not just made over Mohammed himself, but also over his family, the people he used to associate with during his life and all Muslims following Mohammed until the Last Day. Then follows: “there is no aggression, but against the aggressors”, apparently the Dutch translation of a phrase which can easily be traced back to an Arabic phrase which is not Quranic, but appears often in religious texts.
After these introductory texts follows a short formulae, which in an Arabic letter separates the preamble from the body of the document. This formula has been rendered in Dutch by Mohammed with: “the following”, although usually translators prefer “and further” or something along those lines. Follows another short prayer for peace of those who “follow guidance”. “Guidance” is here a translation of the Arabic “huda”, in Dutch well-known in a word like “Madhi”; “guided [right by God]”. It is according to the conventions of Arabic texts, despite the capitalisation, certainly not a reference to the leadership of a terrorist cell that Mohammed B. was possibly a part of, or something like that. The underlying image is a caravan wandering through the desert, with God as the Guide and under His Guidance.
Mohammed B. comes to the point. He writes an open letter to VVD MP Ayaan Hirsi Ali, whom he calls an “unbelieving fundamentalist”. It is interesting to see that “fundamentalist” has become derogatory in Mohammed B.’s circles too, apparently. The most important feature, by which we recognize fundamentalists, is their willingness on the basis of their ideology to come to deeds . It remains to be seen whether Mohammed B. uses the F-word incorrectly. He further addresses himself to the “Taghouth” party VVD . “Taghout” is the standard Arabic nomenclature for politicians or political parties which are regarded as anti-Islamic. During the Iranian Islamic Revolution of 1979 the USA was the great Satan and the Iranian allies of the USA were the Taghout. The word has been used for all rulers in all capitals of the Islamic world – but only by the fundamentalist opposition. The word appears eight times in the Quran, usually refers to idolatry, but perhaps already in Quran 4:60 to authorities refusing to stand aside and make room for Islam. Mohammed B. argues next that the remarks of Hirsi Ayaan Ali “terrorize Islam” and constitute a “crusade against Islam”. “Terrorizing” is usually used differently in the Dutch language, but we have to understand that the remarks of Ayaan instil fear in the hearts of (some) Muslims in The Netherlands. Only one reason can be found. There are Muslims who are scared that Ayaan indeed finds willing listeners under Dutch Muslims.
In Muslim texts the Crusades are usually represented as the equivalent of Jihad, but this moral equivalence is incorrect. The crusades took place during a short period of time in European history in a limited area (Palestine), Jihad however is universal and of all times. Jihad against Africa, Asia and Europe had been going on for centuries, at the time when the crusades still had to commence. The last crusader has been dead and buried for centuries, while Jihadis are still thick like flies in certain parts of the world. Next Mohammed B. utters the accusation that Ayaan Hirsi Ali has been rewarded for her work against Islam with a seat in Dutch parliament. She is being used to “spui” (“spew forth”) “animosity regarding Islam and the most noble man Mohammed”. “Spui” is a very particular Dutch word referring to the “polder” image . That Ayaan is able to do this, is blamed on the Islamic “Umma”, the community, which “is forsaking its task to resist injustice and evil and is sleeping of its drunken stupor”. This is an allusion to the Islamic duty to order what is good and to prohibit evil, as is written in Quran 3:110. Orders and prohibition have naturally to be enforced, which is that which Mohammed B. does. In a culture in which alcohol is prohibited the second part of the accusation, that a “drunken stupor is being slept off” is rather severe. It does not go too far to state that average Muslims will feel intimidated.
Mohammed B. further states that his letter is an attempt to silence evil. It is a pity he has not stopped at the letter and put his trust in God. In this paragraph he twice uses the phrase “if God wills it”, which is a prescribed formulae for statements concerning the future. Only a real atheist would leave out this phrase, many Muslims believe. Mohammed B. says that he holds it against Ayaan that she has proposed to “screen Muslims on ideology for job applications”. Mohammed B.’s choice of words makes it crystal clear that he himself realises that he is not spreading a religion, but an ideology. Any appeal to the constitutional freedom of religion that he or his lawyers or his companions would like to make is undermined in advance by Mohammed B. himself. There is freedom of religion in The Netherlands, which is widely respected. This is less so for the freedom of ideology. Fascism and Marxism are not well respected, or worse.
Next follows nearly a full page of standard anti-Semitism, including maimed Talmud quotes circulating on the internet. Especially Van Aartsen, leader of the VVD and the mayor of Amsterdam, Job Cohen are mentioned. It is to the legal specialists whether these anti-Semitic statements are a punishable offence according to the Dutch penal code.
Before reaching the end of the second page Mohammed gets a new thought. He reminds readers of a TV-broadcast in which Ayaan Hirsi Ali asks Muslim children on an Islamic school to make “a choice between their creator and the constitution”. This was not exactly what happened. The children were asked whether they should be more obedient to the laws of Islam or the laws of the Kingdom. Ayaan’s phrasing may not have been fine tuned to the children, but this is of course a problem which occurs with every religion with a legalistic structure. It would not be strange if an Islamic school would pay attention to this question. Mohammed passes the seriousness of the question by and shouts that Ayaan has used the answer of these “pure, young souls” have “immediately been abused“ for another “crusade”. Unfortunately he leaves it at that. An expose concerning which laws take precedence according to Mohammed B. would have been appropriate at this junction and have clarified matters. The assassins of Sadat (1981) have dared to address this matter in their self-justification letter. Naturally they choose Islamic law.
Now the atmosphere grows dark. Everything knows its end and dies, writes Mohammed B. “Death … is the common theme of all which exists” reads the text on top of page three of the document. A free paraphrasing of Quranic fragments which describe the Day of the Last Judgement. “Fear will fill the atmosphere that day” is the last sentence of the paraphrase. “Atmosphere” is not a word which fits this idiom. That Mohammed B. uses it anyway shows that his college education has not been in vain . A loose translation of Quran fragments follows, which are printed centre page. It is Quran 81:1-14, but verse 5 is omitted and then Quran 80:34-42. Both fragments deal with the terrors of the Last Judgement painted in what may be called flashing, tacky colours.
Then Mohammed B. follows Quran 2:94-95, daring Ayaan to “chose death” to prove that she is really confident of her own words. After all Mohammed B. requests God to “grant him death”, to “gladden him with martyrdom” (middle page 4). Mohammed B. thinks that if Ayaan does not accept this challenge, she shows herself to be “a committer of injustices”. It seems that logic her is far and wide to be found at face value, and Quran 2:94 and 2:95 are difficult verses indeed.
Quran 2:94 ends with “wish ye then death, if ye are right” – which possibly has to be understood as “Stand ye with your life for what you believe”. Quran 2:95 states: “but they shall not want to on account of their previous deeds”. That the main protagonists, almost certainly the unbelievers, are referred to with “ye” in verse 94 and “they” in verse 95 does not allow for easy understanding either. What the Quran most likely says here, is that the unbelievers do not want to die for their conviction, because they are guilty of unbelief (and will receive heavy retribution after their death).
MP Ayaan Hirsi Ali (or any other MP) is not eager to die for her membership of Parliament. Muslims such as Mohammed B. on the other hand are eager to shed their life for what they view as the good cause, which possibly gives Islam a tactical – strategic advantage in conflicts with others. That those who do not believe in heavenly compensation of martyrdom rather not become martyrs is a true statement and certainly relevant in Islam’s fight against the Non-Muslims. Verses 2:94 and 2:95 may look out of place and the challenge to Ayaan is difficult to comprehend for those without an intimate knowledge of the Quran, but in its own context it is definitely no nonsense and certainly pertains to the struggle that Mohammed B. has picked up for himself.
Mohammed B. now returns to the decline of Islam, judging that this decline has an upside. “Islam is like a dead plant, which through years of pressure and extremely high temperatures is turned into a diamond”. On the hardness of this diamond, according to Mohammed B., Ayaan will batter herself to pieces and “Islam will be victorious through the blood of the martyrs”. Islam will then “with the sword drive evil back to its dark cave”. With all this flowery speech it is a good thing to remember that “evil” here are the Non-Muslims. The present “struggle which has commenced” judges Mohammed B. “is different from all previous struggles”, for “the unbelieving fundamentalists started it”. The text does not give a clear indication what Mohammed B. is referring to. “All previous struggles” can only be understood as a reference to Jihad which took Islam in the centuries after Mohammed’s death from Mecca and Medina to Portugal, the Balkans and Pakistan. It is more difficult to see what Mohammed B. views as the beginning of the “struggle which commenced”. He cannot refer to the assassination of Theo van Gogh, which had not taken place at the time that the document was written. Moreover it must be something that has been initiated by the “unbelieving fundamentalists”. It can almost only be the criticism of Islam, initiated by Hirsi Ayaan Ali. And “unbelieving fundamentalist“ is a choice of words which Mohammed B. has previously used to refer to Hirsi Ayaan Ali in this letter.
In a European context the criticism of Islam is nothing special. Compared to what has been said about Christianity it is not impressive at all. Over the other religions, aside from Islam, which have believers in Europe there has been criticism and ridicule for decades and even centuries, without the faithful getting seriously upset. It happens that people get angry, but people do not take to arms. And in Islamic literature Christianity is attacked in a rude, crude and rough manner. Mohammed B. has a very odd way to use two different yardsticks here. Muslims may criticise and ridicule Christianity and Judaism , but criticising, let alone ridiculing Islam is not allowed. Even the worst enemy of Ayaan has never said she ridiculed Islam, concerned is only her academic criticism of Islam and her freedom to leave Islam like any other religion.
Murderers like Mohammed B. are thusly truly concerning themselves with the freedom of the debate about religions. He turns himself, by addressing his letter to a MP, straight against the Dutch system as it exists. Opening the debate about Islam is regarded by Mohammed B. as fundamentalist aggression. That is promising for academic freedom and the debates on the opinion pages. Truly Mohammed B. continues the somewhat childish sounding “unbelieving fundamentalists started it” with: “no discussions, no demonstrations, no parades, no petitions” only “death will separate Truth from lies”. To comply with this requirement The Netherlands will become a completely different country without discussion, demonstration and petitions, three fundamental rights of democracy.
The last page of the document starts with a Quran quote: Quran 62:8: “Death, for which the unbelievers flee, will overtake them. Then they will be brought back to [God], He who knows what is hidden and what is observable (=He who knows everything ). Oddly enough Mohammed B. misses a word again, he omits the “observable”. If a Non-Muslim would be so careless with a text it would certainly lead to complaints, if not worse.
Mohammed B. continues to quote Moses, the main protagonist of the exodus of the Israelites. To call the Israelite Moses by his name goes too far, it would seem. Mohammed B. mentions “a great prophet”. Quran 17:102 where Moses, in a scene which led to the well-known “let my people go” tells Pharaoh: “I do really believe, o Pharaoh that you are doomed”. “Pharaoh” is in Quran and in present Islam a standard code for an unjust, Anti-Islamic ruler or power. Mohammed B. wants to explain this, so he writes “we will use similar words [synonyms for Pharaoh, HJ]” which he does immediately and four times: I know for sure that you
Oh USA, oh Europe, oh Netherlands, oh Hirsi Ali are doomed. Is it treason for the possessor of a Dutch passport to pronounce the wish that The Netherlands will perish? The legal councils will know the answer.
Follows a fifth time “I know for sure that you, unbelieving fundamentalist will perish”. This cannot refer to Ayaan, for she was mentioned the fourth time and Mohammed uses female addresses when referring to Ayaan in his letter. Could it be that he is referring to Theo van Gogh who has remained unmentioned in this letter? It almost cannot be else.
Follows an Arabic phrase in Latin script which is used as frequently as it is difficult to translate: “God suffices us and good is he as a Carer, good is he as a Master and good is he as a Helper”. The letter closes with a signature, three Arabic words in Latin script: “the sword of the religion, the partisans of Tawhid”. (Arabic: Saifu d-deen al-muwahheed”, though Mohammed spells it differently. Tawhid is the classical term for the “Unity”, the Islamic dogma about the total unity of God. It could be a reference to the Tawhid mosque , but probably it is not.
The last, sixth page contains a poem, which indeed rhymes. In this poem Tawhid is also mentioned spelled this time as Tawheed . This time it is certain to be a reference to the unity of God. Mohammed B. calls his fellows the “knights of DEATH”. Well, it is difficult not to pass judgement on such a qualification. What should we do in this world, which is for the living, with the “Knights of death”? The one-but-last line of the poem is remarkable: “to the hypocrites I say: ”wish ye DEATH of shut up and … sit”. The capitalisation of “death” is still Mohammed B.’s. “Hypocrites” is a translation of the Arabic munafiqun, generally used to indicate saltless fellow warriors of Islam. The line about “hypocrites” is certainly referring to those who are usually called “moderate Muslims” and not to Ayaan or Theo van Gogh. The three dots are in the original. The “sit” is called into being partly by the rules of rhyme, yet there is more. It could be an allusion to Quran 9:45-46, where the Quran praises those who do Jihad and tells the ones who do not feel like it that they should sit at home. But another more Dutch explanation seems better. “Sit” is written in the imperative, it is the command that a macho dog owner gives his dog. For the moderate Muslims it is a good and fitting thing to know that Mohammed thinks about them like that. (As you know, Islam regards dogs as unclean).
That the document closes with a poem, is entirely in style. The murderers of Sadat ended the document in which they explained their theology/ideology with a poem . But as this poem usually appeared on the last page it got lost in many editions. That it belonged to the original document, is certain in the case of the murderers of Sadat. With some exertion of the brain it may be proved that Theo van Gogh is mentioned in the document prepared by his killer, though not by name. But what is the general drift of this document? In the first place that the author categorically opposes the Dutch system in its entirety, regarding it “Taghout” (authority that refuses to recognise the superiority of Islam). In its stead Mohammed B. places the use of religious violence. The letter may contain an allusion to Theo van Gogh, the victim of the murder, but the letter wastes not one word to mention the little film Submission. The letter addresses a MP because Members of Parliament represent and symbolize the existing democratic order. Without the murder this document would have been thrown in a waste paper bin by a staffer of a political party. Now it has been distributed to the editors’ rooms of all Dutch media.
Secondly any debate on the nature of Islam is regarded by the author as a cardinal sin. This goes rather far. Until recently the mainstream teaching was that leaving Islam was a cardinal sin. However that has now been extended to anyone who criticises Islam. This does not entirely go against tradition. The Islamic theologian Ibn Taimiyya (about 1300 AD) of Damascus has written a pamphlet about a Christian who said something about Islam and the title of the book was: “The drawn sword, over those who insult the messenger of God”. The drift of the title is clear: those who insult the prophet must die. This Ibn Taimmiyya is not an obscure theologian of the Middle Ages; he is regarded by Saudi Arabia’s Wahhabis as their great source of inspiration. It is Saudi-Arabia which, wittingly or unwittingly, concretely finances Jihadist Islam. The arrogant way in which Mohammed B. almost unnoticed addresses his fellow Muslims as dogs is also in line with Wahhabist traditions , who (in the days before oil wealth ended financial worries of the Arabians) kept themselves occupied with Jihad against the Muslim occupants of the Arabian peninsula and the South of Iraq, because the movement on the basis of dogmatic considerations thought it was correct to regard these Muslims as Kafir (“unbelievers”). Waging Jihad in this regard means firstly “to rob”, further possibly “kill” and “sell as a slave”.
The traditional Islamic theological nomenclature for “regard as Kafir” is Takfir. Takfir and Tawhid are the two spearheads of Wahhabi ideology. The AIVD is right to state that the assassin of Theo van Gogh and the extremists are coming from the camp of the Takfir movement. This is not the most attractive face of Islam.
The Wahhabists have been compared to the Ku Klux Klan. That comparison was meant as a consolation: “the Wahhabis are not that important”. In a certain way that is true. But we must not forget that the struggle between the Land of the Free and the KKK cost many lives. Also the struggle against “the knights of Death” of Mohammed B. and possibly the Wahhabis will not be for those of squeamish inclination and has already cost one person a life: the life of Theo van Gogh.
Amsterdam, January 2005
Saturday, July 15, 2006
Dutch police finds murderous connections to Fortuyn's assassin
Volkert van der Graaf, ideological killer
Dutch daily "De Telegraaf" published exerpts of a confidential police investigation report (Dutch), in which clues are put together adding up to a picture of Volkert van der Graaf's extra-legal activities as a animal rights activist. The report is remarkable because it is one of the very few police reports into the violent animal rights activists in The Netherlands. This report was composed by the Investigative Branch of the National Police (Nationale Recherche, Korps Landelijke Politie Diensten).
Volkert is the assassin of populist Fortuyn. He shot Fortuyn on 6 May 2002, at 18:00 hours in Hilversum, The Netherlands. Hilversum is a town near Amsterdam where most of the media have their national offices and their studios.
Not the first assasination
There have been suspicions that it is not the first killing Volkert carried out for a long time.
Chris van der Werken, a civil servant responsible for environmental policy in the North Veluwe, an agricultural part of the country, where both Volkert and van der Werken used to live and work. Volkert as an animal's rights and environmental activist subsidized by quasi-governmental organisations ("Postcodeloterij" and "Actie Kinderpostzegels").
Chris van der Werken was shot in the back when he was taking a stroll in a forest in 1996.
Volkert and Chris van der Werken had a conflict about a plan both their organisations were collaborating on. A plan to reduce the ammonia emissions of pig breeders. This was in 1995 and 1996. Chris van der Werken was a moderate.
The animal rights network, an infrastructure of the left
A bit of background: Volkert was working for the Environmental Offensive Foundation or VMO ("Vereniging Milieu Offensief"), a foundation he had founded himself and of which he was a administrator and paid employee. The organisation was funded by subsidies, alotted by sympathetic politicians. The organisation was a part of administrative bodies and councils that deal with environmental policy. A lot of his work consisted of lobbying provincial and municipal polities, in addition to starting up environmental complaint procedures against farmers who wanted to change or enlarge their operations.
Those were his legal activities. Volkert was also a member of a group called the "Furious Potatoes" (De Ziedende Bintjes). This is a group that carries out illigal violent actions against fur breeders, companies that carry out animal tests and firms that operate in a way that is environmentally unsound. These groups are connected to the extreme leftwing squatter movement. Their activities are again often subsidised directly and indirectly by sympathetic politicians. Politicians hinder and disband police units investigating violent activities of animal rights and environmental activists. The activists are known to terrorize police investigators and their families. Biologist Margreet Jonker, a researcher into cancer treatment using test animals, was one of the few who dared to come forward to testify about the violence and threats against her and her family, by these governments sponsored left wing terrorists. Dutch judges are full of sympathy towards the terrorists and let them off with minumum sentences.
The new facts in the police secret file
The Investigative Branch (Nationale Recherche) report mentions:
1. a "Farmer B." who told police that Chris van der Werken had come to his farm in a state of shock because Volkert had threatened to kill him. This was a few weeks before he was killed.
2. witnesses who were walking nearby the liquidation on country estate "Welna" saw a red Opel Kadett, the car Volkert used at the time.
3. Both Fortuyn and Van der Werken were bravely shot in the upper back by multiple shots.
4. The landlord of Volkert of the house where Volkert was living at the time of the murder of the civil servant has declared that he entered the house unannounced during the tenancy of Volkert van der Graaf and found a pistol on the attic were Volkert slept. He identified the pistol as a Walter PPK.
5. Volkert has no alibi for the time of the murder of civil servant Chris van der Werken.
6. A friend of Volkert spoke with Volkert about obtaining a pistol, to commit suicide. Volkert had said that he knew how and with whom to procure pistols.
7. Both murders involved the use of ammunition that does heavy damage to the human body. Both used heavy automatic pistols (in van der Werken's case a Walter PPK and on Fortuyn a Star 9mm) and rapid fire hitting with all bullets fired. Achieving rapid aimed fire takes practise.
International co-operation hardening the Dutch scene
The Dutch animal rights and environmental activists have a working co-operation with like minded extremist British organisations as SHAC (Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty), a violent British organisation.
Again support in high places
One of the most shocking attacks is the abduction of Ferry de Vries, a fur trader. He was bound and gagged and beaten up by 10 masked animal activists. Later during the court case against the abductors the judge shows all kinds of sympathy for the abductors who go off scot free, no jail time, just corvee, maximum 200 hours. A symbolic punishment. The activists got all kinds of possibility to propagandize during the court hearings and even to show a propaganda film about fur breeding.
Volkert van der Graaf is an example of the way these organisations operate. They create legal entities. They do not fund raise or appeal for money from the public, but are funded by chums in the governments, provincial and municipal administrations and bureaucracies. Their activities are encouraged by mainstream environmental organisations as Lekker Dier and Greenpeace. They gather information (maps, registers, notes of meetings) using their legal fronts and use the information for attacks by the underground organisations, such as SHAC and the "Furious Potatoes/De Ziedende Bintjes").
In case of investigations by police they use their contacts in the Leftist parties Greens, Socialist Party and Labour to disband the Investigative Teams. In case of prosecution due to theft, destruction of property and accounting ledgers of firms the judges show their sympathy and give the activists very light sentences.
And so the violent environmentalists scene grew throughout the 70ies, 80ies and 90ies. A hairtrigger gun, just lie-ing about.
The aftermath of Fortuyn's murder
Let us now go to Fortuyn's murder. During the 2002 election campaign Fortuyn challenged the establishment political cartel. He received broad political support for the party he had joined, Livable Netherlands. Three months before the elections the establishment manage to have Fortuyn thrown off the Livable Netherlands party list. The challenge to the cartel has been fended off.
Pushed by Van Gogh Fortuyn starts a new political party. Lijst Pim Fortuyn (LPF). Soon he is again dominating the polls. Support levels are as high as 20-30 percent of the electorate again. Due to the fact that The Netherlands does not have a two party system, this translate in real political power. Municipal elections show a landslide in Rotterdam, home turf of the Left since 1945.
The establishment panics. Especially the Left because their organisations are so dependent on subsidies. Subsidies that Fortuyn says he will end.
A killer from the animal rights organisations network kills Fortuyn. Co-incidentially there is a car nearby with policemen with bulletproof vests and guns. They arrest Volkert within 10 minutes.
But they do not go to his house, to search for clues and a wider involvement.
Cover-up
A politician of the Greens in a nearby town of Wageningen, a hotbed of Green and animal rights activism, an acquaintance of Volkert hears the news that Fortuyn has been assasinated. His name is Jack Bogers and he is a Green Aelderman. He makes a phonecall within minutes after the assasination to a friend of Volkert, Sjoerd van der Wouw, working for the same organisation as Volkert. Sjoerd van der Wouw enters the house of Volkert and erases the hard disk of Volkert's computer.
Obviously Sjoerd and Jack suspect or know that Volkert is the killer of Fortuyn. At the time the identity of the killer is not known and there is widespread speculation that it is a Muslim.
Only the next day the police search the house. They still found some clues, amongst other things plans and blueprints of buildings and premises of targeted firms.
It looks as if Volkert was a tool for other people who knew what he was up to and what he was capable of and did not want him stopped. Fortuyn was threatened and had asked the Ministry of the Interior for protection against assasination. This protection was denied by the Minister himself, Labour politician Klaas de Vries. Fortuyn had also said on TV that if he would be shot the blood would be on the hands of the politicians denying him protection.
In conclusion: Klaas de Vries was in charge of the police, which had the arrest team ready to apprehend Volkert as he killed Fortuyn, but which did not search Volkert's house until at least some of the evidence had dissappeared.
And Sjoerd and Jack, the Green aiders of Volkert were never prosecuted.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)