The Mohammed B. court case part 1 / "Tool of god" or "Tyrannic and agressive"?

When I entered the public room today there were not many people and most of them were journalists. During the day more ‘ordinary’ people came, some of whom are Muslim but most are not. Among the latter group there were some women with a t-shirt with a picture from Pim Fortuyn and Theo van Gogh on it: “The knights of free speech”. Let’s call them ‘The honourable ladies of free speech”. Others were more critical towards Van Gogh and said they would not mourn over him although the condemned the killing by Mohammed B.

Mohammed B. was dressed in a dark djellaba robe with a Palestinian scarf covering his hair when he was brought to the high-security Amsterdam-Osdorp court in the morning. With this appearance he tried to look like the prophet Mohammed who wore the same kind of outfit according to some Islamic traditions.

Well, today is the first day of the trial against Mohammed B. As expected before, he refused to say anything in the beginning and when questions were asked (and the judge did several times) he just referred to the opening statement of his lawyer. It was clear that the judges decided not to let him get away easy with this. The asked Islam-expert Ruud Peters if Mohammed B. was consistent in his behaviour by refusing to say anything. At first Peters said he was because in his writings Mohammed B. denounced democracy, the western (legal) system and the whole idea of Western society. God has made his laws, the shari’a, and following manmade laws is considered a violation of tawheed (divine unity) and therefore shirk (polytheism). But when the judge said that Mohammed B. did profit from social benefits, did use the hospital after the shooting on 2 November and therefore took part in the Western system, and actually said that it was impossible not to take part in it, Peters agreed that you can view this as opportunism as well. Also because, as Peters told, this is not the dominant view among Muslim scholars. He gave the example of a group of Muslims who migrated to a Christian country, Ethiopie, as ordered by the prophet Muhammed himself. They recognised the system in that country; this is considered an important precedence among many scholars.

It is clear that Mohammed B. knew what he was doing on 2 November, he told his brother. He also made clear back then that he wanted to die. His poem, was made on 15 September and changed on 23 September, his open letter to Hirsi Ali (see post below) was made on 22 June and changed on 14 October.

Mohammed B. is quiet and listening without any emotion during the trial. Sometimes he shows some reaction and writes something down. Especcially when in testimonies of several injured policemen he asked why he used them as a tool to go to heaven himself? Testimonies that showed the strange phenomenon that these men and women tried to protect themselves from this person that was shooting them randomly, then they tried to shoot them and when they succeed they gave him first aid. These are very different acts of course, which says something about the difficult task of these policemen and women.

The court could find no evidence (just some leads) that showed that Mohammed B. received help, but perhaps tomorrow the attorney will go into that. He was friends with Mohammed F.B., who worked nearby Van Gogh’s house. This Mohammed F.B. had said that Hirsi Ali was a ‘mortadda’ (an apostate) and also that Muslims who are pro-Western can be killed.

Although Mohammed B. published several texts on the internet, he never mentioned Van Gogh. The text that is most near is “The obligation to kill those who defame the Prophet” but it does not specifically mention Van Gogh. After quoting several texts of Mohammed B., and telling what the video showed that were found in his home (horrific films with amputations, beheading and having sex with a corps) the judge wonders what happened to Mohammed B. for having these hateful thoughts. This was the only time Mohammed B. responded (beginning with a traditional Arab Islamic saying that people use for example before reciting the Koran): “I pray to Lord everyday, that he keeps me from changing my mind”.

Islam-expert Ruud Peters investigated the matter of the ideological and religious development of Mohammed B. He told the court that many young people (not only in the Netherlands but also in France for example) are searching for a true islam. Young people feel they don’t belong anywhere and also have some kind of sense of being humiliated by other people. Radicalization can, partly, be seen as a severe reaction on (alleged) forms of racism and discrimination. Very important is also the generational gap between the Moroccan youth and their parents. (Which is quite similar in cases in the past of for example the Baader-Meinhof group) They feel there parents are unsuccessful and humiliated and also have a wrong (cultural) form of Islam. Especially the radicals have a very strong sense of being involved in an epic war of truth against lies, of light against dark.

Mohammed B. has written about 50 texts that can be divided into four stages according to Peters:
1) Denouncing Western values (February 2003)
2) Denouncing democracy and the constitutional state (October 2003)
3) A general call for jihad (March 2004)
4) A specific call for violence against people (June 2004).

According the shari’a, Peters told, you can not just wage a jihad; there are some criteria that have to be met. Therefore there are several texts to justify the changes in his development. Texts such as “The battlefield is the safest place” “The obligation to kill…” and several Open Letters (to politicians such as Hirsi Ali, Wilders and Aboutaleb, to the Dutch people, to the Islamic youth) and texts that celebrate 9/11 are instrumental in this process.

The prosecutor asked whether the violent texts are typical for Islam. Peters said that that was not the case. Mohammed B. seemed to be obsessed with violence and these texts are very ease to find. What happens after the fight, the prosecutor also asked. That is a problem Peters said. Most of these texts were written for societies in which Muslims are the majority and according to him it is easier to have some kind of Islamic state. Here in the Netherlands it doesn’t make sense. There were also some questions whether are not Mohammed B. is a takfir wal hijra member or supported the ideology. (see text below). Peters said he was not. Takfir is possible according to him, but hijra element is missing (I’m not sure about that…MdK).

Then in June 2004 there are specific calls for violence. It looks like some action needed to suit the word. These calls, according to Peters, can be seen as some kind of educational documents as well. A new text is the constitution of a fundamentalist part 5, which has now several different editions. The last one contained a poem with more or less the entire Dutch integration-debate in it; opinionleaders like Cliteur, minister Verdonk, Aldermen Aboutaleb and rapper Ali B.

Peters story (and also Mohammed B.’s outfit today) makes clear that in some way Mohammed B. sees himself as the instrument of god. But is he also linked to Al Qaeda-ideology. There are several similarities; the right to use violence, his open letters clearly refer to Al Qaeda. One of the questions for Mohammed B. must have been how to apply this here in the Netherlands. His texts are used to legitimize this but they are not shared by 99% of the Muslims, Peters stated. Mohammed B. uses the Koran to legitimize his hatred and bases his knowledge mainly on translated, salafi, texts.

After the last break a psychologist talks about his findings but before that Mohammed B. shows the Koran to the audience after several people in the audience showed him the book ‘Allah knows best’ written by Theo van Gogh. (A)The psychologists story and also the introduction of it by one of the judges is important because it ‘busts’ the myth of an integrated young man. He did ok on schools in the beginning and was very active but he also had several police contacts in which a showed to be a very aggressive (verbal and physical) and extremely insistent especially towards policemen, people from the local town hall and so on. The death of his mother and also the time he already spent in jail, have changed him.

This is if for now. On the internet there is, of course, already some debate about this. Many people, Muslims and non-Muslims, feel that he is coward for not talking in court but others argue that this is his constitutional right like every suspect has. All kinds of opinions are represented of course among Muslims; some who condone acts of violence others who furiously condemn these acts and everything in between. There is clearly some loyalty towards Mohammed B. and some consider him a hero. But more strikingly at this moment is that there is not a very heated debate about this and that on some webfora Muslims are almost completely absent in the debate on the trial. Many Muslims compare this case with the case against the murderer of Pim Fortuyn, which makes this case (in their eyes) some kind of test for equality in the Netherlands (although there are some differences that makes this case a little bit more severe than the other one).

AThere is some confusion about this. Mind that I was not in the court room but in the public room so I did not got this first hand. According to some Mohammed showed the Koran and after that the mother showed the book Allah knows better. That is not what I have heard, but it might be possible.