Saturday, October 16, 2010

Wafa Sultan's Statement at Trial of Geert Wilders

Wafa Sultan was called to testify as an expert witness at the Wilders trial. The judge read her statement. These videos include English subtitles.




Radical Moderate said...

Wow, I honestly can not imagine being on trial for telling the truth. That's like being fired for doing your job.

Now on another note, I have been playing on Yahya Snow's blog. "Stiring up the Natives", drawing the Islam out of the muslims like poison from a wound.

Yahya Snow attacked Theordor Shoebat for using British Slang on ABN. I guess it's a swear word. I didn't know and I'm sure most Americans didn't know either.

But here comes WomanofTruth, in the comment section on another post on Sam Shamoun. She totally drops the F BOMB even if it is in internet short hand.

Thats right people this pious Muslima praises Islam and Allah with the same keyboard she uses to type out universal obscenities towards Christians.

Anonymous said...

We will pray for Mr. Wilders' acquittal! It is so sad, that some people who speak the truth about the world around them, find themselves the victims of a society that wishes to hide that truth. We will also pray for Wafa Sultan. What a brave lady she is!

aussie christian said...

I am hearing on the grape vine that Geert has had all his charges dropped, if this is the case awesome. If not, how disgusting it is to be on trial for telling the truth. kind of makes the "do you swear to tell the TRUTH the whole TRUTH and nothing but the TRUTH? unless it is about islam of course then its "do you swear to LIE LIE LIE and LIE so help you satan"

Lindert said...

It may seem that charges have been dropped, but the actual situation is more complex.

Originally, complaints against Wilders were analyzed by the Dutch public prosecutors, but they concluded that Wilders' statements were not illegal and refused to press charges. However, a judge in Amsterdam later ordered the public prosecutor to prosecute Wilders.

This has led to the peculiar situation that the public prosecutors are forced to prosecute Wilders for something they consider not punishable. After summing up the complaints, they therefore demanded of the judges acquittal on all charges.
(In effect, the defendant and the prosecutor actually agree on all points.)

However, the judges are not bound to this demand and may in principle decide differently. Their verdict is expected on 5 November.

BTW, I am Dutch and the subtitles in these videos are fully accurate.

hugh watt said...


Isn't that what you do in a dictatorship?

Lindert said...

hugh watt:

Well, I don't like my country being compared to a dictatorship (but no offense taken). Maybe I wasn't very clear though. The judges ordering the prosecution are different from those presiding over the trial. The former have however greatly overstepped their boundaries, because in their court order they effectively (though not formally) convicted Wilders before any trial had taken place. Still I am confident that justice will prevail.

But aside from that, contrary to a dictatorship, the judges are completely independent from the government. The Netherlands has a strict Trias Politica. Wilders' lawyer (the best in the country) has also stated that he does not doubt the independence of the judges in this case.

Anyway, it is quite unlikely that Wilders will be convicted, and even in that case, he will win the appeal.

hugh watt said...


Don't matter which country it is. World dictatorship is coming fast. If you're a +ian who reads your Bible, you'll know this, and that the law is slack. Habakkuk 1:4. When people can't speak openly for fear of being convicted, we're heading down a slope which will not be reversed until Messiah returns. Not that this world wants The Answer. I would not be surprised if Wilders is prosecuted somehow. He was banned from entering the U.K, and for what; speaking the truth! We're in a war here. Islam has declared war against the infidel since its birth and things are coming to a head. I read of a case in pakistan where a +ian was accused and convicted of "blasphemy" against Muhammad. The judge, from what I remember, knew the accusation was false, but being Muslim had to prosecute otherwise his life could have been in danger.

Tabz said...

Very interesting comments indeed. I found the most intersting part the fact that she keeps saying 'I think', and 'maybe' and 'probably'- sounds like real hard facts to me. She's obviously done her homework. Not to mention the fact that she doesn't actually quote or reference ANY of her supposed verses from the Quran, other than saying 'this is in the quran'.

Anyone who has actually read the Quran will know that about 60% of her quotes were not from the Quran whatsoever. They seem to have been made up entirely.

Not to mention the many contradictions she makes. eg: she says Syria is a secular state, but then says she couldn't stop harrassment because according to Islamic Law, she needed 4 witnesses. Umm.. You just said Syria was a secular state doctor... How do they apply Islamic Law?

Getting this fool to 'teach' you about Islam is as accurate as getting Hitler to teach you about Jews. I'm sure he would just as 'unbiased' as she is.

Anyone genuinely wanting to learn the reality should study the primary texts themselves, and not rely on hate-mongers.

hugh watt said...


I've found that Muslims aren't the best place to start with your Islamic studies. They tend to put a PC spin on those violent and erroneous texts, which begs the Q; What do they have to hide?