Time To Unmask Muhammad

To know why Islam is a mortal danger one must not only consider the Koran but also the character of Muhammad, who conceived the Koran and the entirety of Islam.

The Koran is not just a book. Muslims believe that Allah himself wrote it and that it was dictated to Muhammad in the original version, the Umm al-Kitab, which is kept on a table in heaven. Consequently one cannot argue with the contents. Who would dare to disagree with what Allah himself has written? This explains much of Muhammadan behaviour, from the violence of jihad to the hatred and persecution of Jews, Christians and other non-Muslims and apostates. What we in the West regard as abnormal, is perfectly normal for Islam.

A second insuperable problem with Islam is the figure of Muhammad. He is not just anyone. He is al-insan al-kamil, the perfect man. To become a Muslim one must pronounce the Shahada (the Muslim creed). By pronouncing the Shahada one testifies that there is no god that can be worshipped except Allah, and one testifies that Muhammad is his servant and messenger.

The Koran, and hence Allah, lays down that Muhammad’s life must be imitated. The consequences of this are horrendous and can be witnessed on a daily basis.

There has been much analysis of Muhammad’s mental sanity. In spite of all the available research, it is rarely mentioned or debated. It is a taboo to discuss the true nature of the man whom one and a half billion Muslims around the world regard as a holy prophet and example to be followed. That taboo must be breached in the West, and here in the Netherlands.

Ali Sina is an Iranian ex-Muslim who established the organisation for apostates of Islam Faith Freedom International. In his latest book he posits that Muhammad is a narcissist, a paedophile, a mass murderer, a terrorist, a misogynist, a lecher, a cult leader, a madman, a rapist, a torturer, an assassin and a looter. Sina has offered 50,000 dollars for the one who can prove otherwise. Nobody has claimed the reward as yet. And no wonder, as the description is based on the Islamic texts themselves, such as the hadiths, the descriptions of Muhammad’s life from testimonies of contemporaries.

The historical Muhammad was the savage leader of a gang of robbers from Medina. Without scruples they looted, raped and murdered. The sources describe orgies of savagery where hundreds of people’s throats were cut, hands and feet chopped off, eyes cut out, entire tribes massacred. An example is the extinction of the jewish Kurayza tribe in Medina in 627. One of those who chopped off their heads was Muhammad. The women and children were sold as slaves. Confronted with the lunacy of Islamic terrorists today, it is not hard to find out where the lunacy comes from.

In Vienna the women’s rights activist Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff was recently sentenced to paying a fine for insulting a religion by calling Muhammad a paedophile. However, that is the truth. Numerous hadiths contain testimonies by Muhammad’s favourite wife, the child wife Aisha. Aisha literally says: “The prophet married me when I was six years old, and had intercourse with me when I was nine.”

According to the historian Theophanes (752-817) Muhammad was an epileptic. Epileptic crises are sometimes accompanied by hallucinations, perspiration form the forehead and foaming at the mouth, the very symptoms which Muhammad displayed during his visions.

In his book “The other Muhammad” (1992) the Flemish psychologist dr. Herman Somers concludes that in his forties the “prophet” began to suffer from acromegaly, a condition caused by a tumor in the pituitary gland, a small organ that is situated just below the brain. When the tumor in the pituitary gland causes too much pressure in the brain, people start to see and hear things that are not there. Somers’s psychopathological diagnosis of Muhammad’s condition is: organic hallucinatory affliction with paranoid characteristics.

The German medical historian Armin Geus speaks of a paranoid hallucinatory schizophrenia. A similar analysis can be found in the book “The Medical Case of Muhammad” by the physician Dede Korkut.

In his book “Psychology of Mohammed: Inside the Brain of a Prophet” Dr. Masud Ansari calls Muhammad “the perfect personification of a psychopath in power.” Muhammad had a unhinged paranoid personality with an inferiority complex and megalomaniac tendencies. In his forties he starts having visions that lead him to believe he has a cosmic mission, and there is no stopping him.

The truth is not always pleasant or politically correct. On the basis of the research referred to above it can be argued that the Islamic creed obliges one and a half billion people around the world, including the one million living in the Netherlands, to take Muhammad as their example. There is no turning back once one has become a Muslim. For even though article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that every person has the right to “change his religion or belief,” in Islam there is a death penalty for leaving the faith.

Anyone who voices criticism of Islam and Muhammad is in grave personal danger – as I have experienced. And whoever attempts to escape from the influence of Islam and Muhammad risks death. We cannot continue to accept this state of affairs. A public debate about the true nature and character of Muhammad can provide insight and support to Muslims all over the world who wish to leave Islam.

Apostates are heroes and more than ever they deserve the support of freedom loving people all over the world. Party politics should not be at play in this matter. It is time for us to help these people by exposing Muhammad.


Geert Wilders is an MP in the Netherlands. He is the Chairman of the Party for Freedom (PVV). This article was published in the Dutch weekly magazine “HP/De Tijd” of March 30, 2011


Thanks for your 'fictional' support. However, I do not withdraw conclusions, my name is not Goldstone.


What Kappert means is that he does "not withdraw conclusions no matter what", i.e. that his mind is made up and not subject to revision under force of new facts or better knowledge.  Indeed, he is no Goldstone...but, then, Goldstone is manifestly much older (and, perhaps, a bit wiser now).

sudden wisdom

Two years later he suddenly gets 'wiser'! That's a nice move of him, isn't it.

Goldstone seemed overwhelmed by recent revelations made in Israel’s investigation of itself. He takes for granted that Israel first rejected the report precisely because it treated Hamas pari passu rather than dismiss it as a terrorist organisation whose annihilation is justified by any means necessary. He suddenly forgot that 26 Israeli soldiers, who participated in the Gaza Operation, confirm that there were no clear rules of engagement and no humanitarian consideration played any role in the army. Four investigations and soldiers’ testimonies, demonstrate an Israeli policy of targeting of civilians and/or negligent behaviour that amounts to the direct targeting of civilians. Israeli Major General Gadi Eiskenot declared: „We will apply disproportionate force on it and cause great damage and destruction there. From our perspective, these are not civilian villages, they are military bases.“ For four days, Israel did not allow access to the Red Cross to reach the civilians.

Suddenly, Goldstone detects a new Israeli investigation which, miraculously, enlightens him! It seems marcfrans likes to create myths, but that's no surprise.


When the day comes, that an angry mob will pass judgment upon you, you may count on me not throwing a stone, because I am not without sin. I will stand there and plead for your life, kappert. I just hope, that you can find it in you to make a distinction, at least once in life.


Murder is a crime under sharia law as well as under any other law. Under sharia law, the penalty for married men and women who commit adultery varies between stoning and a hundred lashes - which is a quite different punishment - and must be met under the scrutiny of judicial authority. To kill a husband/wife is a crime, punished severely, in the U.S. as in Pakistan.

Kappert's Ruling


I believe the behadithed would appeal your ruling, if she could. In this case, it does appear that Sharia Law took precedence over the nominal law of the land.


by the way

By the way, what do you find 'amusing' or 'fictional' regarding the posts?

legal question

The case Capodistria mentions is a case of murder and, as such, prosecuted by the law of the country. It is a notable case of failure of integration and will be ruled by the laws of the country.


Thanks for your effort. The Hadith (translation: report) is a narrative collection on Mohammed's time (7th century). It is one tool to understand Islamic jurisprudence. As you surely know, when Mohammed refers to 'Jews', he meant the Jews living in Mecca at his time. In constant quarrel with Medina (623-630), Mohammed ended the dispute with great benevolence. Stoning was at that time a common execution form, exercised by pagans, Muslims and Jews (you quote Moses), while Christians, many centuries later, preferred to burn women. Today, there are few countries in which Sharia law is applied with these harsh, scripture abiding forms of punishment (Iran, Saudi-Arabia). The discrimination of women, though, is a widespread human and social problem, manifested in any patriarchal society (Islam, orthodox Jews, Catholicism, ...). We should question these masculine suppression mechanisms in any society, and not restrict it as an attack on Islam. The Gospel you quote is far from being applied in 'our' societies.

Drudge Oracle

Nice findings. Yet, many 'ifs' and 'whens', the text must be understood and translated first, and there is surely no lack of 'saviours of Israel', the list of 'messiahs' is quite impressive, in fact, still today a quite common sense, just remember the Obama election.

Responding to Kappert

For Kappert, in whose eyes Jesus is a myth while Mohammed is an historical person, I offer a little exercise in the comparative method.


First from Hadith these inspirational texts: 

[A woman who had conceived in adultery] said: Allah’s Apostle, here is [my child] as I have weaned him and he eats food.  He (the Holy Prophet) entrusted the child to one of the Muslims and then pronounced punishment. And she was put in a ditch up to her chest and he commanded people and they stoned her.

Imran b. Husain reported that a woman from Juhaina came to Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him) and she had become pregnant because of adultery. She said: Allah’s Apostle, I have done something for which (prescribed punishment) must be imposed upon me, so impose that. Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him) called her master and said: Treat her well, and when she delivers bring her to me. He did accordingly. Then Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him) pronounced judgment about her and her clothes were tied around her and then he commanded and she was stoned to death.

Ibn Umar reported that Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) stoned to death the Jews, both male and female, who had committed adultery. The Jews brought them to Allah’s Messenger (may peace he upon him). The rest of the hadith is the same.


Next from the Gospel of John (King James Version, 8: 2 – 11): 

And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto Him a woman taken in adultery…  They [said] unto Him, “Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act.  Now Moses in the Law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest Thou?”

This they said, tempting Him that they might have to accuse Him.

But Jesus stooped down, and with His finger wrote on the ground, as though He heard them not. So when they continued asking Him, He lifted up Himself, and said unto them, “He that is without sin among you let him first cast a stone at her.”


And Jesus said unto her, “Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.”


I vote for Kappert’s fictional character.


forensic (2)

I accept your line of defence. Yet, while descriptions of Muhammad in medieval Christendom and premodern times were largely negative, appraisals in modern history have been quite different. Simultaneously, the appraisal of medieval Popes has greatly changed. Muhammad's life and deeds have been discussed, debated and criticized by followers and opponents over the centuries. While Christian sources condemn Attila the Hun as brutal slaughterer, there are some histories and chronicles describing him as a great and noble king, and Alexander the Great even was hailed as a God, though he apparently was a madman. The Roman Empire in Palestine has no record whatsoever on a Jesus from Nazareth (maybe it was lost over the times), and his 'eyewitnesses' surely did not wrote the gospel. Just like the hadith on Mohammed, the gospels were written centuries later. So I might wonder, what 'forensic psychiatry', which is only an opinion, we might squeeze out of shambles of tales and histories.


Just like the hadith on Mohammed, the gospels were written centuries later.

The current historical consens is that the earliest gospels date from around 70 AD (Gospel of Mark), the others from between 70 and 100 AD. Furthermore, most historians agree that Jesus existed. You may educate yourself starting with the Wiki page about "Historical Jesus".


Thanks for your concern on my 'education'.

There are no contemporaries of Jesus that wrote about him -- stories about him don't pop up until about 35 years after he was supposed to have died -- they were tertiary accounts at best, and mere mentions of having heard of some guy named "Jesus". It is very unlikely that the Gospel were written by the apostles (eyewitness). There are no Roman records of his arrest or crucifixion; Romans were meticulous record keepers. There are no Jewish records of him -- and if it was claimed he were the messiah, or if he were causing the stir he supposedly was causing, it is amazing it wouldn't have been mentioned somewhere. The Jews kept records of false messiahs, many within Jesus' supposed lifetime, he should have been mentioned, even if he was ruled out. There is no physical evidence to date.

As for the Gospel of Mark – probably the first Gospel written, although the author refers to 'scriptures' on the death of Jesus – Mark relates what he heard of Peter in Rome. So he was no eyewitness at all. The other Gospels written (much) later, all base on Mark's, further distortions are probable. Finally, Roman Emperor Constantine determined in 325 which 'version' of Jesus should be published and which not. His council affirmed and defined what it believed to be the teachings of the Apostles regarding who Christ is: that Christ is the one true God in deity with the Father. Since then, Christians believe this version.

What happened to 'Jesus' might as well happened to 'Mohammed'. Stories change over time, to glory or damnation, becoming legends or believes.

Forensic Psychiatry

Forensic psychiatry was done by MDs, not by Geert Wilders, according to symtomps observed.  It's done by comparison to known medical cases, as we can guess.

But to attack GW for his infomation research on Mohammad is out of place.  What Mohammad has done is rather well recorded by his followers and relatives.  Being able to pin down the medical cause for M's abnormal behavior provides more insight by similarity.

The worst part of Islam is to subscribe blindly to its creed and the doctrine that Mo was a perfect man whose criminal behavior is to be imitated, and whose commands to kill Jews and infidels are to be obeyed.  Think about it.  A perfect man whose behavior was historically recorded and proved to be criminal and murderous.  With such a moral yardstick, can much good be expected from Islam?


Mindlessness lives on....

Kappert, perhaps when as many people worship Attila or Alexander as do Mohammed, we may be regaled by analyses befitting their religious stature. Until then, their mental condition has nothing to do with that of Mohammed, who Mr. Wilders chose to write about.

I have friends who've read the Koran in its original Arabic - every despicable word of it. I can easily see mental imbalance in the author, and it's corroborated by historical accounts of that time. What does surprise me is the length to which people will go to make excuses for this "religion." Open your mind and learn something worth knowing.


Well, Attila the Hun was no less of a brutal butcher than Muhammad. Alexander might have been close at their heels too. But Jesus of Nazareth, I am sure you would testify to that, was, according to the scriptures, the complete opposite of the "Last Prophet". Interestingly, only the latter holds much sway over our lives today.

So yes, maybe Mr. Wilders should grace us with a psychogram of Jesus (to illustrate the contrast). I just do not think, that it would add any weight to your opinion, so we might es well just forget that you asked.


What compels you to compare someone the author didn't mention with the subject of the article? Mohammed was nuts - that's the subject of his article. Not "Mohammed was as nuts as Attila."

Perhaps you worship Attila. Fine - go write your own article. It will be much easier to ignore a separate article than to ignore your non sequiturs here. I promise you, by the way, if you choose to write about Attila you need not compare him to Mohammed.


After roughly 1500 years, GW gives us an insight on Mohammad. Now we know more about his medical and psychological life than about Napoleon, Hitler, Stalin or Ronald Reagan. How about analysing Attila the Hun, Alexander the Great or Jesus of Nazareth. I'm sure GW is able to produce a colourful story on each one of them.

We know about Muhammad by

We know about Muhammad by what his own followers wrote of him.  And it isn't good.  In fact, it is deplorable.  I don't think we have the same kind of information about Attila or even Alexander.  But we do of Jesus of Nazareth; we call that information -- given to us by eyewitnesses to His life -- the Gospels.