First published by Aeneas at the International Civil Liberties Alliance.
Ten Questions for Elisabeth Sabaditsch Wolff
By Aeneas • on January 17, 2011
With thanks to: Elisabeth Wolff, AmsterdamPost, Dutch Defence League (DDL), and EJ Bron for German Translation
Together the Dutch Defence League and the redaction of the AmsterdamPost recently started a new initiative: “Ten Questions for ..”. Readers and visitors of the DDL-forum are able to ask questions at someone active within the world of counter-jihadism. The aim of this project is to give the people a better insight of the persons motives and the groups he or she represents. The first questions were asked at Elisabeth Sabadatisch Wolff, here are the results:
1-Stev0 DDL: “I agree that Islam is a political ideology disguised as a religion. Can you remember the moment when you realized this and do you want to share that with us?”
EW: “Like many, I always thought that Islam is a religion. However, when I in 2006 began to study the core contents of Islam, I quickly realized that the quran, the hadith, and the sira contain a blueprint for Islam to be victorious all over the world. Islam is pure power politics, and Mohammed was not so much a prophet, but a warlord and cunning statesman who used terror to force people to submit to his evil ideas.”
2-Jeff DDL: “How can Europe stop the further islamization of Europe according to you, what measures do you envision?”
EW: “I am not a politician and cannot stop further islamization by myself. What I can do, and others should do as well, is educate, educate, educate people about Islam. Knowledge of the quran and the hadith is absolutely essential and should lead people to naturally resist islamization in any form, be it protesting against a new mosque or resisting the installation of special privileges for Muslims.”
3-Shirai DDL: “Austria has had a leading role in stopping islamization from spreading in Europe in the past, do you imagine that Austria can play a similar role now?”
EW: “Unfortunately, Austria has not had a leading role in stopping islamization; rather, its politicians, being staunch advocates of the EU and thus the Euro-Arab Dialogue, have been very active in promoting islamization.”
In addition, Austria is in the unfortunate position of having legally accepted Islam as a religious group and thus providing a legal setting for Islam to operate. This is law of Islam was established in 1912 and contained the provision that “Islam is legally accepted as long as its teachings are not contrary to the Austrian constitution.” Unfortunately, the government so far has not looked into the Islamic teachings and the Islamic side so far has refrained from presenting to the state its teachings. The government thus does not officially know what Islam teaches its followers. No German translation of the Quran has ever been presented for perusal.”
4-Caesar DDL: “Would you approve or oppose the Western world, if plans were made to bomb the nuclear installations of Iran, now that it has not acquired nuclear bombing-capabilities, yet?”
EW: “Again, I am not a politician and thus cannot make these decisions. And I am glad that I am not in this position because bombing Iran means thousands, if not millions, of dead. Life is worth nothing in Islam, so the Iranian government will do everything to make Iranians into human shields. On the other hand, Iran has said over and over that it intends to bomb Israel, so a preemptive strike may be in the Western world’s interest.”
5-Ayo AP: “What future do you envision for the freedom of speech, shall limits towards to the extent of this freedom be implemented and if so in what ways?”
EW: “Freedom of speech is an absolute concept. There should never be any limits whatsoever on the right to say what you believe is the truth. I firmly believe that the US constitution and its First Amendment are what we should aim for. Once we limit freedom of speech we are no longer a democracy. But then again, aren’t we already everything but democracies? See Geert Wilders, see me, see Jussi Halla-aho, see Mark Steyn, see Ezra Levant, see …..”
6-EJ Bron: “How do you see the future of right-wing alliances in Europe?
EW: “I would like to see the right-wing alliances to continue with what they have been up to so far. They are currently on the right track. It would be great if Geert Wilders and the PVV would join on middle-long term to strengthen influence. In the European Parliament these parties should put aside their differences as well and cooperate for the wellbeing of the European people. They should also act strong-mindedly against further islamization. Furthermore, involvement of Canada and the USA is an absolutely necessity.”
7. Martien Pennings: “On the first day of the trial against Geert Wilders, I had a long interview with Els Lucas’ husband. She is one of the main prosecutors of Geert Wilders. He was in total agreement with her and claimed that it does not matter whether Geert Wilders was telling the truth or not, but what matters is whether his statements could be categorized as ‘hate-speech’. It would be too important to maintain or get to a certain truce of gods. In the official indictment this was also stated quite literally. What is your opinion on the matter?”
EW: “And that of all things is the madness: the truth is irrelevant? This creates a dangerous position for us. The truths should always be relevant. The words ‘hate-speech’ are also used in my own trial, but who decides it to be so? And on what grounds? What stimulates hate? Who defines hate and who decides what hate is? The state? A religious community? The words show exactly how vague the law is and why this should be eradicated as soon as possible. This qualifies as a ideological and opinional-justice system which there can be no place for in a democracy.”
8. Van Frikschoten (AP): In a interview that you had in 2009, you say that you would never evoke to a general ban on headscarves like the secretary-general of the FPÖ, Laura Rudas did. Do you think this a too political position on the matter of do you not feel that the headscarf is a form of female oppression and the inequality of men and women, religious and non-religious? Can you explain?
EW: “I evoke to nothing, because I am not a politician. Other have the obligation to do so. I consider it my duty to supply people with information. As such I do think that the headscarf is a pressure to oppress women. The headscarf is purely symbolic: ‘I wear a headscarf and I am a pure muslima, who obeys sharia law. I am considered to belong to the umma. You do not wear a headscarf, thus you are a impure muslima with all associated consequences, or you are a unbeliever that must convert, or you are a dhimmi, or you need to be killed.”
9. Benno Barnard: Do you think Sarazzin was right by stating Germany abolishes itself ?
EW: “Not only Germany abolishes itself ,the entire continent of Europe abolishes itself. For as long as the Eurabia concept has existed, and now the Barcelona litigation, respectively the Euro-Mediterranean process as well, exchange of populations is taking place. Whoever denies that either puts away the truth or wants to keep it a secret.
10. Frans Groenendijk: “Is there a difference in Austria between spreading hate, insulting or inciting to violence, or are they all put into one bucket? And maybe even more important, are you being sued for your purposes?
EW: “I am sorry but I can’t answer that one since I am not a jurist. I am apparently being sued cause they want to accuse me of having certain purposes. That’s the tricky part is this case. They sue me for something I could have done ( which is clearly not right). How I ever are going to prove that?
Thanks to Elisabeth Wolff, the redaction of the AmsterdamPost and EJ Bron (German Translastion)
Link Article Dutch Defence League (Dutch):
Link AmsterdamPost (Dutch):
Link Article PI-News (German):
We Stand with Elisabeth Wolff:
Elisabeth Wolff speaking in Berlin, Germany 03-10-2011:
Support Elisabeth Wolff, In defense of free speech: