Netherlands: William of Orange, a practicing Muslim

A report about a Leiden historian who claims that William of Orange was a practicing Muslim (NL) has spread like wildfire on the (Dutch speaking) internet. "It seems to have struck a sensitive chord," says Jochem van den Berg, who's behind the report.

According to the report historian 'Tjalling Wenselaar' claims that William of Orange should appear in the history books as Yusuf Ibrahim of Orange Nassau.  William's conversion to Islam, occurring in the spring of 1582, was 'strategic'.  "In return for his conversion to Islam and Islamisizing the Dutch provinces, the Moorish khalif Abdul Abu Uzrim promised William military aid in in fight against the Spanish," according to Wenselaar.

Since William was killed shortly afterward and his son loved wine and pork too much, it did not bring about the Islamization of the Netherlands.  The Oranges tried to erase all traces of the conversion of their ancestor.
 
University of Leiden researchers say the claim is obviously untrue and that they don't know of any Tjalling Wenselaar.

The report first appeared on the De Speld website, which at first glance looks like an internet news site.  Jochem van den Berg confirms that it was indeed written by the site.  The historian and the research don't exist.  "We wanted to start off a discussion about Dutch identity.  By way of satirical reflection we wrote the article from a Judeo-Christian and Islamic background."

"We had no idea that this article would spread like wildfire on the internet," beams Van den Berg.  The phones of his colleagues and him have been ringing off the hook.

"Turkish and Moroccan sites copied the article and we were also approached by the Muslim broadcaster and other Muslim organizations.  they all reacted moderately."  He says he got comments from the ethnic Dutch as well - people related to the PVV, Pim Fortuyn and Hirsi Ali.

According to Van den Berg this shows that satire and Islam go rather well together.

Source: AD (Dutch)

12 comments:

Mark Tapson said...

The Muslims who responded "all reacted moderately"? Van den Berg thinks this shows that satire and Islam go rather well together?

Well OF COURSE Muslims responded thusly - because they weren't the target of the satire. We all know what would have happened if the satire had portrayed, say, the prophet Muhammed as having converted to Judaism. The authors would be murdered.

Anonymous said...

Muslims can't handle satire. They can't handle the truth when it indicates tha infidels actually read and therefore know what they're about.

. We all know what would have happened if the satire had portrayed, say, the prophet Muhammed as having converted to Judaism.

We all know what would have happened if Perv Mo had been portrayed as having beheaded 900 men who peacefully surrended in a day, raped his brain-damaged 6-year-old niece, or put a hit out a mother of 5 with a baby at her breast who wrote a poem that hurt his wittew feewings.

FreeSpeech said...

The muslims took it at face value, and they will claim in the future that Willem was muslim, and therefore Holland is theirs, and as the Dutch founded New Amsterdam later rebatized New York, this story will also be the claim the US is theirs.

No, I am not joking.

joe six-pack said...

"Well OF COURSE Muslims responded thusly - because they weren't the target of the satire."

Strange how so many Muslims are so sensitive about 'insults' yet are so insensitive about warfare and killing.

This is just a generalization where many do not fit the pattern, yet it certainly appears that the majority do.

Anonymous said...

FreeSpeech, you're dead right. This constitutes a far more salient claim than they ever had to Kashmir or Jerusalem. Even Muslims recognize that the Jerusalem ahadith is a fairy tale, and Kashmir? They never even made up a story about Perv Mo having been there. Someone put some of his pubes there, so now they're entitled to the land and they get to kill 20,000 Hindus and Christians there every year. Shoot, Muslims never had any claim to Mecca, for God's sake. Even that was made-up b.s. That's why I can't stand the idea of Muslims in Rome. They've always wanted it simply because it's the heart of Christianity, just like they never wanted Israel until it was Jewish land. Now you'd think it was close-out property in NYC the way they clammer for that wall.

And joe-six-pack, it's not a problem with the 'majority.' Narcissism is a prequisite for Islam. You can't divide the world into men/sex slaves and Muslims/infidel apes and pigs to be raped, enslaved, and murdered without being a complete hypocrite through and through, and you can't be a Muslim without adopting that worldview hook, line, and sinker. And if you're a narcissist you're incapable of love, sympathy, and basic humanity. It really is a sickness. Even if you're just a 'cultural Muslim' (i.e., you're playing nice until the intifada) you still pray for the death, enslavement, plunder, rape, torture, and subjugation of the kafirs five times a day. It's not hail Marys they're chanting, you know. It really does concern genocide and unspeakable violence and they take it very seriously.

Phil said...

bro considering that the comments section have about 0 intellectual value how about you perm disable them and run the blog as a semi news blog?

Daphne said...

Muslims are trying to censor the internet. They have had Pat Condell's video banned from Youtube.
The reason muslims dislike free speech is they know their religion cannot withstand objective study of Muhammad.

http://europenews.dk/en/node/14612

Mark Tapson said...

Phil, I think a guy who uses the word "bro," can't use capitalization, can't spell out complete words, and can't properly use punctuation shouldn't be criticizing others for a lack of "intellectual value."

If the comments are beneath your stratospheric intellectual level, "how about you" don't read them?

Phil said...

you jump off a bridge and i'll consider your suggestion, BS.

PS. learn how to write proper English not that Z infested American dialect, before commenting on grammar.

Mark Tapson said...

Phil, I think it's pretty clear which one of us is familiar with proper English. And "jump off a bridge"? Not very "intellectual" of you.

Anonymous said...

Daphne, my man Pat Condell is back, bless his heart. JihadWatch had a post about it yesterday. I knew they couldn't ban him since he has never said anything that could even arguably be construed as being in any way untrue, unfair, uncalled-for, or unjustified.

Daphne said...

jdamn,
He does not say anything that is untrue. His banning was political. Youtube were having problems with internet operators in Pakistan & Turkey and decided it was easier to ban Pat Condell. Glad to see he's back.