Posted on 05/30/2004 12:16:34 AM PDT by Remember_Salamis
Islam’s Nazi Connections By Serge Trifkovic FrontPageMagazine.com | December 5, 2002
An essay adapted by Robert Locke from Dr. Serge Trifkovic’s new book The Sword of the Prophet: A Politically-Incorrect Guide to Islam.
One of the good things one can truthfully say about Islam is that there has never been any love lost between Moslems and Marxists. Sadly, the opposite end of the totalitarian political spectrum is quite another matter. SS chief Heinrich Himmler was known to remark that he regretted that Germany had adopted Christianity, rather than "warlike" Islam, as its religion, and there is a disturbing amount of twisted but very real logic in his remark. Beyond the obvious dislike of a certain other religion, we have the plain fact that both Nazism and Islam both openly aim at world conquest. Both demand the total subordination of the free will of the individual – the very word "Islam" means submission in Arabic. Both are explicitly anti-nationalist and believe in the liquidation of the nation-state in favor of a "higher" community: in Islam the umma or community of all believers; in Nazism the herrenvolk or master race. Both believe in undemocratic leadership by a privileged knower of an absolute, eternal, and ultimately mystical truth: the caliph or führer respectively. To be fair, in strict Nazism Arabs are racial Semites and thus subhumans, but as Robert Locke has written, the Nazis did not really believe in their racial mythology when they found it inconvenient, and they exploited their commonalities with Islam for all they were worth. If the British army had not stopped Rommel in the sands of El Alamein in 1942, preventing him from conquering the Middle East, the consequences for world history might have been dramatic. What did happen was quite ugly enough.
The Nazis began by attempting to exploit Arab resentment of the British and French colonial rule that they were under during the 1930’s, colonial rule which, in light of the subsequent bloody and tyrannical history of the region, it is hard to condemn today as worse than the likely alternative. The promised the Arabs "liberation" from the French and British, a promise which the naïve Arabs, not grasping the character of a Nazi regime that would likely have reduced them to slaves in its own empire, took at face value. This gave rise to a curious Arab ditty rendered in English thus:
"No more monsieur,
No more mister.
In heaven Allah,
On earth Hitler."
Hitler himself was even given an Arabic name: Abu Ali. But Hitler’s Germany went further and sensed the demonic potentialities inherent in the mythology, reliably emotionally satisfying to persons crazed with resentment, of radical anti-Semitism. It made a concerted, and remarkably successful effort to plant modern anti-Semitism in the Arab world.
The founding of Israel helped further this project. As Bernard Lewis has written,
"The struggle for Palestine greatly facilitated the acceptance of the anti-Semitic interpretation of history, and led some to attribute all evil in the Middle East—and, indeed, in the world—to secret Jewish plots."
Thus even before Israel was created the struggle to create it was turned into an existential battle of identity, with the complete denial of the legitimacy of Jewish existence as a central component of Moslem aspiration.
The Nazis managed to recruit some Moslems directly. Several Moslem SS divisions were raised: the Skanderbeg Division from Albania, the Handschar Division from Bosnia, and smaller units from throughout the Moslem world from Chechnya to Uzbekistan were incorporated into the German armed forces in one capacity or another. This was only taking the first step in Heinrich Himmler’s planned grand alliance between Nazi Germany and the Islamic world. One of his closest aides, Obergruppenführer Gottlob Berger, boasted that
"a link is created between Islam and National-Socialism on an open, honest basis. It will be directed in terms of blood and race from the North, and in the ideological-spiritual sphere from the East."
What an image: a Nazi-Moslem alliance to conquer the world! Naturally, totalitarian ideology (as shown by the Sino-Soviet and Iran-Taliban splits, for example) is a notoriously weak glue, so it is questionable how far this could have prospered. But the thought is chilling enough.
Major Nazi sympathizers of this era include Ahmed Shukairi, the first chairman of the PLO; Gamal Abdel Nasser and Anwar Sadat, future presidents of Egypt; and the founders of the Pan-Arab socialist Ba' ath party, currently ruling Syria and Iraq. One Ba'ath leader has since recalled of this time:
"We were racists, admiring Nazism, reading their books and sources of their thought. We were the first who thought of translating Mein Kampf."
Many of the Nazi sympathizers of this era have never repudiated their beliefs; some still openly parade them.
In 1945, one name was missing from the Allies’ list of war criminals, that of Haj Mohammed Amin al-Husseini, the Mufti or supreme religious leader of Jerusalem and the former President of the Supreme Moslem Council of Palestine. In May 1941, the Mufti declared jihad against Britain and made his way to Berlin after the British put down his attempt to establish a pro-Nazi government in Iraq by a coup d’etat. When he met Hitler, on November 21, 1941, he declared that the Arabs are Germany’s natural friends, ready to cooperate with the Reich with all their hearts by the formation of an Arab Legion. Hitler promised that as soon as the German armies pushed into the Southern Caucasus the Arabs would be liberated from the British yoke. The Mufti’s part of the deal was to raise support for Germany among the Moslems in the Soviet Union, the Balkans and the Middle East. He conducted radio propaganda through the network of six stations, set up anti-British espionage and fifth column networks in the Middle East.
In the annual protest against the Balfour Declaration held in 1943 at the Luftwaffe hall in Berlin, the Mufti praised the Germans because they "know how to get rid of the Jews, and that brings us close to the Germans and sets us in their camp is that up to day." Echoing Muhammad after the battle of Badr, on March 1, 1944 the Mufti called in a broadcast from Berlin:
"Arabs! Rise as one and fight for your sacred rights. Kill the Jews wherever you find them. This pleases God, history, and religion. This saves your honor."
In 1941, he had pledged "to solve the question of the Jewish elements in Palestine and in other Arab countries as required by national interests, and in the same way as the Jewish question in the Axis lands is being solved." Bernard Lewis writes that in addition to the old goal of a Jew-free Arabia "he aimed at much vaster purposes, conceived not so much in pan-Arab as in pan-Islamic terms, for a Holy War of Islam in alliance with Germany against World Jewry, to accomplish the Final Solution of the Jewish problem everywhere."
According to German officials who knew him, The Mufti had repeatedly suggested to the various authorities with whom he was maintaining contact, above all to Hitler, Ribbentrop and Himmler, the extermination of European Jewry. He considered this as a comfortable solution of the Palestinian problem. Perhaps "the Nazis needed no persuasion or instigation," as he was later to claim, but the foremost Arab spiritual leader of his time did all he could to ensure that the Germans did not waver in their resolve. He went out of his way to prevent any Jews being allowed to leave Hungary, Romania, and Bulgaria, which were initially willing to let them go: "The Mufti was making protests everywhere — in the Office of the (Foreign) Minister, in the antechamber of the Secretary of State, and in other departments, such as Home Office, Press, Radio, and in the SS headquarters." In the end, Eichmann said, "We have promised him that no European Jew would enter Palestine any more."
The contemporary heirs to the Nazi view of Judentum are not the handful of powerless skinheads and Aryan Nation survivalists. They are schools, religious leaders, and mainstream intellectuals in the Moslem, meaning primarily Arab, world. Quite apart from the ups and downs of the misnamed "peace process" in the Middle East, quite apart from the more or less bellicose posture towards the government of Israel, the crude way they actively demonize all Jews as such is startling.
The most prominent and influential daily newspaper in the Arab world is Al-Ahram, a semi-official organ of the Egyptian government. In June 2001 it carried an op-ed article, "What exactly do the Jews want?"--and the answer was worthy of the Nazi newspaper the Völkische Beobachter six decades earlier:
"The Jews share boundless hatred of the gentiles, they kill women and children and sow destruction… Israel is today populated by people who are not descendants of the Children of Israel, but rather a mixture of slaves, Aryans and the remnants of the Khazars, and they are not Semites. In other words, people without an identity, whose only purpose is blackmails, theft and control over property and land, with the assistance of the Western countries."
The second most influential Egyptian daily is Al-Akhbar, which went a step further on April 18, 2001: "Our thanks go the late Hitler who wrought, in advance, the vengeance of the Palestinians upon the most despicable villains on the face of the earth. However, we rebuke Hitler for the fact that the vengeance was insufficient."
It is hard to imagine hatred more vitriolic than that which reproaches the Nazis for not completing the Final Solution more thoroughly. What is remarkable is not that such sentiments exist, but that they are freely circulated in the mainstream media and internalized by the opinion-making elite throughout the Moslem world. In the same league, we find the claim that the Holocaust in fact never happened and that the Jews and Israelis are the real Nazis is regularly made. The Jewish-Nazi theme is a favorite of Arab caricaturists, some of whom use the swastika interchangeably with the Star of David, or juxtapose them. Graphic depiction of the Jews appear to have been lifted directly from the pages of the notorious old Nazi newspaper Der Stürmer (The Stormtroooper.)
A final tidbit: it is no accident that a number of Nazi war criminals found refuge in Moslem nations. Take the notorious Otto Skorzeny, an SS officer who led the rescue of Mussolini from captivity, was described by the OSS, predecessor to the CIA, as "the most dangerous man in Europe," and later found service under General Nasser in Egypt. There were others.
Thankfully, the Nazis of course lost WWII and the abortive alliance between Islam and Nazism never panned out. Sadly, there exist Moslems today, not on the fringes but in the mainstream of their nations, who still view this as a great lost opportunity based on profound natural affinities.
Moreover, the Koran is a beautiful document. Claiming that the Islamofascists are the true bearers of Islam is like claiming that David Koresh or Jim Jones represented true Christianity.
The problem is Islamic civilization's failure to adjust to modernity, which is the product of historical and cultural processes, not its theology as such. If you mis-diagnose a disease, you will not know the appropriate cure. And this war is too important to base strategy on silly stereotypes.
Saying they had ties to hitler is like saying a Palestinian Christian has ties to hitler because he is selling cucumbers and paying taxes to the PLO.
I dont think FDR would have suffered a Bush family with ties to Hitler during the war. I think these were cutoff once it was officialy known that hitler was a scumbags.
The Bush never rooted for Hitler against America or freedom, let alone begged to them in any way.
But of course scumbags like to mess and to claim they beg less than the Bushs would do.
The same argument can be made for the Apostles and the New Testament. Likewise, the books of the Old Testament are not written by God Himself.
In the old testament, there are multiple prophets, messengers, and historical/mythological authority figures. In the New Testament, there is Jesus, the four cannonic Gospels of four separate disciples, various epistles from various authors, etc... In the Koran and Sunnah, there is ONLY Mohammed. HUGE difference, bud.
Moreover, while both the Old and New Testaments contain unpleasant stuff, they contain NOT ONE equivalent to the ongoing present-tense commandments from On High to temporally fight, slaughter, murder, subjugate, deceive, subvert, and enslave non-believers to be found in the hundredfold throughout all Islamic Writ.
Islam and Judeo-Christianity are NOT equatable.
DEAL WITH IT.
Moreover, the Koran is a beautiful document.
Irrelevant. The denotation is ugly, vicious, violent, implacable, and immutable. That the poetry in which it is couched is pleasing to the aesthetics of some people is utterly irrelevant to the survival of civilization from the cancer that poetry bears.
DEAL WITH IT.
Claiming that the Islamofascists are the true bearers of Islam is like claiming that David Koresh or Jim Jones represented true Christianity.
You miss the point. MOHAMMED HIMSELF sets himself up as both the original islamofascist AND sole true torchbearer of Islam. The central credo of Islam is as follows:
"There is no god but Allah, and Mohammed IS his prophet."
Present tense, ongoing, eternal, infallible, EXCLUSIVE, and ABSOLUTE.
Throughout the Koran and Sunnah are requirements for all who call themselves Muslim to submit to EVERYTHING Mohammed says, to emulate him in ALL ways.
Islamofascists ARE the only "true" Muslims. DEAL WITH IT.
The problem is Islamic civilization's failure to adjust to modernity, which is the product of historical and cultural processes, not its theology as such.
See above: the single greatest factor which has stymied their civilization's advancement out of the seventh century is the THEOLOGICAL PRECEPT that Mohammed is INFALLIBLE IN ALL THINGS, including his many societal pronouncements.
DEAL WITH IT.
And this war is too important to base strategy on silly stereotypes
And what if the "stereotypes" bear a significant resemblance to reality, hrmn?
They DO.
DEAL WITH IT.
Once you deal with all of the above, you might be able to see what is going on with eyes that have shed the scales leftist uberegalitarian nonsense have placed upon them.
At the moment, however, you are blind.
DEAL WITH IT.
Rest assured, if you do not, Islam's true sons WILL ASSUREDLY DEAL WITH YOU.
Yikes. Muhammad was not a holy man. Just read the Haddiths yourself and you will get sick to your stomach if you are a decent human being.
http://www.prophetofdoom.net/
Bukhari:V4B52N270 “Allah’s Messenger said, ‘Who is ready to kill Ashraf? He has said injurious things about Allah and His Apostle.’ Maslama got up saying, ‘Would you like me to kill him?’ The Prophet proclaimed, ‘Yes.’ Maslama said, ‘Then allow me to lie so that I will be able to deceive him.’ Muhammad said, ‘You may do so.’”
Tabari VIII:179 “Abdallah bin Sa’d fled to Uthman, his brother, who after hiding him, finally surrendered him to the Prophet. Uthman asked for clemency. Muhammad did not respond, remaining silent for a long time. Muhammad explained, ‘By Allah, I kept silent so that one of you might go up to him and cut off his head!’ One of the Ansar said, ‘Why didn’t you give me a sign?’ Allah’s Apostle replied, ‘A prophet does not kill by pointing.’”
Tabari VII:101 “The Khazraj asked the Prophet for permission to kill Sallam Huqayq, who was in Khaybar. He granted this.”
Tabari VII:112/Ishaq:372 “When a blind Jew became aware of the presence of the Messenger and the Muslims he rose and threw dust in their faces, saying, ‘Even if you are a prophet, I will not allow you into my garden!’ I was told that he took a handful of dirt and said, ‘If only I knew that I would not hit anyone else, Muhammad, I would throw it in your face.’ Sa’d rushed in and hit him on the head with his bow and split the Jew’s head open
It goes on and on and on ad nauseum.
Here are more spiritually inspirational verses:
Qur’an 8:12 “Your Lord inspired the angels with the message: ‘I will terrorize the unbelievers. Therefore smite them on their necks and every joint and incapacitate them. Strike off their heads and cut off each of their fingers and toes.”
Tabari VII:133/Ishaq:387 “When Muhammad saw Hamzah he said, ‘If Allah gives me victory over the Quraysh at any time, I shall mutilate thirty of their men!’ When the Muslims saw the rage of the Prophet they said, ‘By Allah, if we are victorious over them, we shall mutilate them in a way which no Arab has ever mutilated anybody.”
Tabari VIII:96 “A raiding party led by Zayd set out against Umm in Ramadan. During it, Umm suffered a cruel death. Zyad tied her legs with rope and then tied her between two camels until they split her in two. She was a very old woman. Then they brought Umm’s daughter and Abdallah to the Messenger. Umm’s daughter belonged to Salamah who had captured her. Muhammad asked Salamah for her, and Salamah gave her to him.”
ad nauseam et ad infinitum.
Thank you. I was going to post that, but you beat me to it. You are 100% right. I do not see a whole lot of difference between naziism, communism, and islamism.
The Bible is full of this stuff, and plenty of Crusades, Inquisitions and pogroms remind us that brutality and murder in the name of Christianity is in no short supply. Only willful ignorance could hold otherwise. Yet, Christianity is not a bloodthirsty religion. Allow me to suggest that the same is true of Islam. Selective quote picking from the Koran is pretty unconvincing in light of this reality.
1). Mohammed is bad and the Apostles are good because the Apostles out-number Mohammed. Ergo, if two or more people claim to be describing divine revelation, it must be true.
2). A document which contains exhortations to kill is bad, unless it is the Bible.
3). Mohammed is bad because he is Allah's prophet. Jesus is also considered to be a prophet to Islam, but one must ignore that fact and blame everything on Mohammed.
4). The failure of Islamic civilization comes from Mohammed's pronouncements in the 7th Century, A.D., even though Islamic civilization was one of the world's most progressive and modern until the 16th Century, A.D. It just took 900 years for the Muslims to actually obey Mohammed.
5). Stereotypes of Muslims are just fine, especially in the context of formulating national security policy (thinking takes effort, after all, so why waste energy?). Does your rule of stereotypes also apply to Jews and African-Americans?
6). Mohammed claiming infallibility is bad. The infallibility of the Pope is good.
7). People who have views somewhat different than yours are "blind".
Gee, I'm convinced.
You are changing the subject from Muhammad's character to a criticism of Christianity. Islam is Muhammad; without him and what he was, there is no Islam.
Buddha, Zoroaster, Jesus and other holy men preached love and tolerance. Those who profess to believe in them have no excuse for killing and plunder. However:
Ishaq:510 “We ask Thee for the booty of this town and its people. Forward in the name of Allah.’ He used to say this of every town he raided.”
Ishaq:327 “Allah said, ‘A prophet must slaughter before collecting captives. A slaughtered enemy is driven from the land. Muhammad, you craved the desires of this world, its goods and the ransom captives would bring. But Allah desires killing them to manifest the religion.’”
There are plenty of juicy bits on plunder in the Old Testament. Mohammed also frequently spoke of the need for love. Moreover, your argument is moot because Jesus is considered a prophet in Islam. The Muslims simply do not consider Jesus to have been the son of God.
Again you are changing the subject to Christianity. It should be obvious from reading the life of person that religion is named after that he would not condone such things.
From Apostates of Islam:
"One who claims to be a messenger of God is expected to live a saintly life. He must not be given to lust, he must not be a sexual pervert, and he must not be a rapist, a highway robber, a war criminal, a mass murderer or an assassin. One who claims to be a messenger of God must have a superior character. He must stand above the vices of the people of his time. Yet Muhammad’s life is that of a gangster godfather. He raided merchant caravans, looted innocent people, massacred entire male populations and enslaved the women and children. He raped the women captured in war after killing their husbands and told his followers that it is okay to have sex with their captives and their “right hand possessions” (Quran 33:50) He assassinated those who criticized him and executed them when he came to power and became de facto despot of Arabia. Muhammad was bereft of human compassion. He was an obsessed man with his dreams of grandiosity and could not forgive those who stood in his way. Muhammad was a narcissist like Hitler, Saddam or Stalin. He was astute and knew how to manipulate people, but his emotional intelligence was less evolved than that of a 6-year-old child. He simply could not feel the pain of others. He brutally massacred thousands of innocent people and pillaged their wealth. His ambitions were big and as a narcissist he honestly believed he is entitled to do as he pleased and commit all sorts of crimes and his evil deeds are justified."
http://www.apostatesofislam.com/main.htm
One of those nations fought a loosing insurgency(even equipped with Nazi Aircraft) with Nazi backing during WWII with the Brits. Care to guess which country it was?
It was Iraq.
Sure, the ones who designed the spectacles would have continued, but when the moment of the mesmerizing 3-hour speech came, it would have been lame. Besides that, after 50 years the Reich would have lost its sparkle and gleam anyway when economic reality bit them just like it bit the USSR. The Reich had everything, provided all answers, but it lacked the one thing: God. It was doomed.
You are also ignoring the obvious fact that Christianity went through some bloody and repressive phases, but reformed itself. Why can't Islam do the same?
You are correct that the German special forces (Brandenburgers) incited a revolt against the British. However, there were no German combat aircraft anywhere near Iraq. It was Britain's total air superiority that made their victory possible ( see F. Kurowski's "The Brandenburgers" for more on the operation).
There are still those, (not just Nazis) , who believe this. Some of them are right here on FR in fact.
The Nazi's and Islam have a common hatred for the Jews that is for sure.
Islam can't reform itself because Muhammad was not a holy man, whereas Jesus was. It is like trying to reform Charles Manson's cult.
Since I am not Christian, I can only speculate on your thesis. My understanding is that Jesus brought a new covenant of love and compassion to replace the old covenant of an eye for an eye etc.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.