Islamofascism? Hitler, Muhammad, and Islam
Andrew G. Bostom
Cliff May deserves credit for his recent National Review Online column The New True Believers. May dares to associate however indirectly, and in the end, I am afraid, inadequately those he terms, using layers of prophylactic rhetorical separation from orthodox Islam, either militant jihadists, or Islamists, and their movement as militant Islamism, with Hitler, and his movement, i.e., Nazism.
Mays inchoate effort should be applauded for its attempted illustration of any possible ideological nexus between Hitlers Nazism and Islam. But ultimately, the associations he makes the ability to nurse grievances and stoke ambitions, Germans/Aryans as a master race, and the concordant supremacism of militant Islamism, and, invoking Eric Hoffers The True Believer, generic fanaticism ignore much more intimate, if uncomfortable to acknowledge, doctrinal and historical connections between ancient Islam and modern Nazism, upon which I will elaborate.
Diana West has summarized how the prevailing usage of the term Islamofascism obfuscates critically relevant truths:
Islamofascism is a made-up word that draws a politically correct curtain over mainstream, traditional Islam, in effect shielding the religion and its tenets from scrutiny when considering what drives our jihadist enemies as they are the first to declare.
My discussion introduces a doctrinally and historically relevant context if the currently much abused term Islamofascism is to be understood and employed appropriately, acknowledging the direct nexus between Islam, pre-modern despotism, and modern totalitarian ideologies.
Islam, Nazism, and Totalitarianism
During an interview conducted in the late 1930s (published in 1939), Carl Jung, the Swiss psychiatrist and founder of analytical psychiatry, was asked had he any views on what was likely to be the next step in religious development? Jung replied, in reference to the Nazi fervor that had gripped Germany,
We do not know whether Hitler is going to found a new Islam. He is already on the way; he is like Muhammad. The emotion in Germany is Islamic; warlike and Islamic. They are all drunk with wild god. That can be the historic future.
Albert Speer, who was Hitlers Minister of Armaments and War Production, wrote a contrite memoir of his World War II experiences while serving a 20-year prison sentence imposed by the Nuremberg tribunal. Speers narrative includes this discussion, which captures Hitlers racist views of Arabs on the one hand, and his effusive praise for Islam on the other:
Hitler had been much impressed by a scrap of history he had learned from a delegation of distinguished Arabs. When the Mohammedans attempted to penetrate beyond France into Central Europe during the eighth century, his visitors had told him, they had been driven back at the Battle of Tours. Had the Arabs won this battle, the world would be Mohammedan today. For theirs was a religion that believed in spreading the faith by the sword and subjugating all nations to that faith. Such a creed was perfectly suited to the Germanic temperament. Hitler said that the conquering Arabs, because of their racial inferiority, would in the long run have been unable to contend with the harsher climate and conditions of the country. They could not have kept down the more vigorous natives, so that ultimately not Arabs but Islamized Germans could have stood at the head of this Mohammedan Empire. Hitler usually concluded this historical speculation by remarking, You see, its been our misfortune to have the wrong religion. Why didnt we have the religion of the Japanese, who regard sacrifice for the Fatherland as the highest good? The Mohammedan religion too would have been much more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness?
A similar ambivalence characterized Nazi Germanys support for Arab Muslim causes in the World War II era. For example, in December 1937, Hitler even proposed omitting his racial ladder theory which denigrated the Arabs from a forthcoming Arabic translation of Mein Kampf. And a Berlin Foreign Ministry spokesman, during a November, 1942 press conference reported in the New York Times, took great pains to assure Arabs that Nazi anti-Semitic policies were directed at Jews exclusively. The spokesman elaborated:
The difference between Germanys attitude toward Jews and Arabs has been clearly shown in the exchange of letters between the former Prime Minister of Iraq, Rashid Ali, and the German Institute for Racial Problems. We have never said the Arabs were inferior as a race. On the contrary, we have always pointed out the glorious historic past of the Arab people.
Although now, inexplicably, almost ignored in their entirety, writings produced for 100 years between the mid-19th through mid-20th Centuries, by important scholars and intellectuals, in addition to Carl Jung for example, the historians Jacob Burckhardt, Waldemar Gurian, and Stoyan Pribichevich, philosopher Bertrand Russell, Protestant theologian Karl Barth, sociologist Jules Monnerot, and most notably, the renowned 20th Century scholar of Islamic Law, G.H. Bousquet referred to Islam as a despotic, or in 20th Century parlance, totalitarian ideology.
Being imbued with fanaticism was the ultimate source of Muhammads great strength, and led to his triumph as a despot, according to the 19th Century Swiss historian Burckhardt:
Muhammad is personally very fanatical; that is his basic strength. His fanaticism is that of a radical simplifier and to that extent is quite genuine. It is of the toughest variety, namely doctrinaire passion, and his victory is one of the greatest victories of fanaticism and triviality. All idolatry, everything mythical, everything free in religion, all the multifarious ramifications of the hitherto existing faith, transport him into a real rage, and he hits upon a moment when large strata of his nation were highly receptive to an extreme simplification of the religious.
Burckhardt emphasizes that the Arabs, Muhammads henchmen, were not barbarians and had their own ingenuities, and spiritual traditions. Muhammads successful preaching among them capitalized upon an apparent longing for supra-tribal unification, an extreme simplification. Muhammads genius lies in divining this. Utilizing portions of the most varied existing traditions and taking advantage of the fact that the peoples who were now attacked may also have been somewhat tired of their existing theology and mythology, Muhammad
with the aid of at least ten people, looks over the faiths of the Jews, Christians, and Parsis [Zoroastrians], and steals from them any scraps that he can use, shaping these elements according to his imagination. Thus everyone found in Muhammads sermons some echo of his accustomed faith. The very extraordinary thing is that with all this Muhammad achieved not merely lifetime success, the homage of Arabia, but founded a world religion that is viable to this day and has a tremendously high opinion of itself.
Burckhardt concludes that despite this achievement, Muhammad was not a great man, although he accepts the understandable inclination,
to deduce great causes from great effects, thus, from Muhammads achievement, greatness of the originator. At the very least, one wants to concede in Muhammads case that he was no fraud, was serious about things, etc. However, it is possible to be in error sometime with this deduction regarding greatness and to mistake mere might for greatness. In this instance it is rather the low qualities of human nature that have received a powerful presentation. Islam is a triumph of triviality, and the great majority of mankind is trivial But triviality likes to be tyrannical and is fond of imposing its yoke upon nobler spirits. Islam wanted to deprive distinguished old nations of their myths, the Persians of their Book of Kings, and for 1200 years it has actually prohibited sculpture and painting to tremendously large populations.
University of Notre Dame historian Waldemar Gurian, a refugee, who witnessed first hand the Communist and Fascist totalitarian movements in Europe, concluded (circa 1945) that Hitler, in a manner analogous to the 7th Century precedent of Muhammad as described by Burckhardt, had been the simplifier of German nationalism.
A fanatical simplifier who appeared as the unifier of various German traditions in the service of simple national aims and who was seen by many differing German group even by some people outside Germany as the fulfiller of their wishes and sharer of their beliefs, with some distortions and exaggerations such, as long as he had success, was Adolf Hitler.
Based upon the same clear understandings (and devoid of our eras dulling, politically correct constraints), Karl Barth, like Carl Jung (cited earlier), offered this warning, also published in 1939:
Participation in this life, according to it the only worthy and blessed life, is what National Socialism, as a political experiment, promises to those who will of their own accord share in this experiment. And now it becomes understandable why, at the point where it meets with resistance, it can only crush and kill with the might and right which belongs to Divinity! Islam of old as we know proceeded in this way. It is impossible to understand National Socialism unless we see it in fact as a new Islam [emphasis in original], its myth as a new Allah, and Hitler as this new Allahs Prophet.
Both philosopher Bertrand Russell, in 1920, and sociologist Jules Monnerot three decades later (in 1953), viewed the 20th Centurys other major strain of totalitarianism, emergent Bolshevism and established Soviet-style Communism, as in Monnerots words, The Twentieth-Century Islam. Russell wrote presciently in his 1920, Theory and Practice of Bolshevism, that,
Among religions, Bolshevism is to be reckoned with Mohammedanism rather than with Christianity and Buddhism. Christianity and Buddhism are primarily personal religions, with mystical doctrines and a love of contemplation. Mohammedanism and Bolshevism are practical, social, unspiritual, concerned to win the empire of this world.
By 1953, Monnerot (in his Sociology and Psychology of Communism) saw the absolute tyranny of Soviet Communism as comparable to Islam, for being both a secular religion [emphasis in original] and as a universal State [emphasis in original]. He elaborated, in particular, on this concordance between the triumphal emergence of the Islamic and Soviet empires, as follows:
This merging of religion and politics was a major characteristic of the Islamic world in its victorious period. It allowed the head of State to operate beyond his own frontiers in the capacity of commander of the faithful (Amir-al-muminin); and in this way a Caliph was able to count upon his docile instruments, or captive souls, wherever there were men who recognized his authority. The territorial frontiers which seemed to remove some of his subjects from his jurisdiction were nothing more than material obstacles; armed force might compel him to feign respect for the frontier, but propaganda and subterranenan warfare could continue no less actively beyond it.
Religions of this kind acknowledge no frontiers. Soviet Russia is merely the geographical centre from which communist influence radiates; it is an Islam on the march, and it regards its frontiers at any given moment as purely provisional and temporary. Communism, like victorious Islam, makes no distinction between politics and religion
In a brilliant, dispassionate contemporary analysis, Ibn Warraq describes 14 characteristics of Ur Fascism as enumerated by Umberto Eco, analyzing their potential relationship to the major determinants of Islamic governance and aspirations, through the present. He adduces salient examples which reflect the key attributes discussed by Eco: the unique institution of Jihad war; the establishment of a Caliphate under Allahs vicegerent on earth, the Caliph ruled by Islamic Law, i.e., Sharia, a rigid system of subservience and sacralized discrimination against non-Muslims and Muslim women, devoid of basic freedoms of conscience, and expression. Warraqs assessment confirms what G.H. Bousquet concluded (in 1950) from his career studying the historical development and implementation of Islamic Law:
Islam first came before the world as a doubly totalitarian system. It claimed to impose itself on the whole world and it claimed also, by the divinely appointed Muhammadan law, by the principles of fiqh [jurisprudence], to regulate down to the smallest details the whole life of the Islamic community and of every individual believer the study of Muhammadan Law (dry and forbidding though it may appear) is of great importance to the world of today.
But already in the mid-19th Century, Burckhardt, expanding upon his characterization of Islams founder, Muhammad, as a despot, described the theocratic polity he created as a particularly extreme religious despotism, created (and expanded) via jihad, which sought to invalidate the pre-Islamic past of its new votaries, by shaming that heritage.
All religions are exclusive, but Islam is quite notably so, and immediately it developed into a state which seemed to be all of a piece with the religion. The Koran is its spiritual and secular book of law. Its statutes embrace all areas of life…and remain set and rigid; the very narrow Arab mind imposes this nature on many nationalities and thus remolds them for all time (a profound, extensive spiritual bondage!) This is the power of Islam in itself. At the same time, the form of the world empire as well as of the states gradually detaching themselves from it cannot be anything but a despotic monarchy. The very reason and excuse for existence, the holy war, and the possible world conquest, do not brook any other form.
The strongest proof of real, extremely despotic power in Islam is the fact that it has been able to invalidate, in such large measure, the entire history (customs, religion, previous way of looking at things, earlier imagination) of the peoples converted to it. It accomplished this only by instilling into them a new religious arrogance which was stronger than everything and induced them to be ashamed [emphasis in original] of their past.
Historian Stoyan Pribichevichs 1938 study of the Balkans World Without End demonstrates how Burckhardts conception of Islamic despotism applied to Ottoman rule. Pribichevich provides these illustrations, beginning with his characterization of the Ottoman Sultans:
Each was a blood descendant of Osman [d. 1326, founder of the Ottoman dynasty]; the commander of all armed forces; the Caliph, the religious chief of all Moslems; the Padishah or King of Kings with the power of life and death over even his own cabinet ministers; the indisputable executor of the Prophets will the Shadow of God on Earth
Although the Sultan had a Council composed of ranking dignitaries, headed by an erstwhile Prime Minister, the Grand Vizier who advised him, Pribichevich notes:
But like the Janissaries [military slaves taken from the families of the subjugated Christian populations while adolescents, and forcibly converted to Islam, as part of the Ottoman devshirme levy system] they were Kuls, slaves whose lives and properties belonged to the master. Cases occurred where a Grand Vizier was put to death at a mere whim of the Sultan.
Thus Pribichevich concludes, regarding the Ottoman Sultanate, Of all known dictators the Sultans were the most dictatorial.
And Pribichevich goes on to explain how this dictatorial Ottoman Sultanate operated within the overall context of Islams religio-political totalitarian system, consistent with Bousquets observation (from 1950), based upon the latters analysis of Islamic Law:
Then, Islam was a totalitarian religion. The Koran regulated not only the relationship of man to God, but all aspects of political organization, economics, and private conduct. Although the Sultan was the sole legislator, his laws, the sheri [Sharia], were expected to conform to the sacred text. Now, for the proper interpretation of the Prophets phrases, there was a body of learned priests and jurists, the Ulemas. While no born Moslem could become a member of the Janissaries, no ex-Christian was ever allowed to enter the sacred corporation of the Ulemas. These theologians were not the slaves of the Sultan, but their opinions nevertheless were only advisory. So, the whole exotic structure of the Ottoman state can be summed up this way: the Koran was the empires Constitution; the Sultan, its absolute executor; the Janissaries, the soldiers and administrators; and the thinking Ulemas, a sort of Supreme Court.
Finally, investigative journalist John Roy Carlsons 1948-1950 interviews of Arab Muslim religious and political leaders provide consummate independent validation of these Western assessments. Perhaps most revealing were the candid observations of Aboul Saud, whom Carlson described as a pleasant English-speaking member of the Arab League Office. Aboul Saud explained to Carlson that Islam was an authoritarian religio-political creed which encompassed all of a Muslims spiritual and temporal existence. He stated plainly,
You might describe Mohammedanism as a religious form of State Socialism The Koran give the State the right to nationalize industry, distribute land, or expropriate the right to nationalize industry, distribute land, or expropriate property. It grants the ruler of the State unlimited powers, so long as he does not go against the Koran. The Koran is our personal as well as our political constitution.
And after interviewing Muslim Brotherhood founder Hassan al-Banna himself, who preached the doctrine of the Koran in one hand and the sword in the other, Carlson observed:
It became clear to me why the average Egyptian worshipped the use of force. Terror was synonymous with power! This was one reason why most Egyptians, regardless of class or calling had admired Nazi Germany. It helped explain the sensational growth of the Ikhwan el Muslimin [Muslim Brotherhood]
34 years ago (1974), Bat Yeor published a remarkably foresighted analysis of the Islamic anti-Semitism and resurgent Jihadism in her native Egypt, being packaged for dissemination throughout the Muslim world. The primary, core Antisemitic and Jihadist motifs were Islamic, derived from Islams foundational texts, on to which European, especially Nazi elements were grafted.
The pejorative characteristics of Jews as they are described in Muslim religious texts are applied to modern Jews. Anti-Judaism and anti-Zionism are equivalent due to the inferior status of Jews in Islam, and because divine will dooms Jews to wandering and misery, the Jewish state appears to Muslims as an unbearable affront and a sin against Allah. Therefore it must be destroyed by Jihad.
Here the Pan-Arab and anti-Western theses that consider Israel as an advanced instrument of the West in the Islamic world, come to reinforce religious anti-Judaism. The religious and political fuse in a purely Islamic context onto which are grafted foreign elements. If, on the doctrinal level, Nazi influence is secondary to the Islamic base, the technique with which the Antisemitic material has been reworked, and the political purposes being pursued, present striking similarites with Hitlers Germany. That anti-Jewish opinions have been widely spread in Arab nationalist circles since the 1930s is not in doubt. But their confirmation at [Al] Azhar [University] by the most important authorities of Islam enabled them to be definitively imposed, with the cachet of infallible authenticity, upon illiterate masses that were strongly attached to religious traditions.
Nazi academic and propagandist of extermination Johannes von Leers writings and personal career trajectory as a favored contributor in Goebbels propaganda ministry, to his eventual adoption of Islam (as Omar Amin von Leers) while working as an anti-Western, and anti-Semitic/anti-Zionist propagandist under Nassers regime from the mid-1950s, until his death in 1965 epitomizes this convergence of Jihad, Islamic anti-Semitism, and racist, Nazi anti-Semitism, as described by Bat Yeor.
Leers who was Goebbels favorite Nazi propagandist of annihilation expressed two decades before eventually converting to Islam, in Blut und Rasse in der Gesetzgebung (Blood and Race in Legislation, 1936), his admiration for the imperious and warlike Islam [of the peoples] who still had a clear Nordic racial component, while also extolling in Der Kardinal und die Germanen (The Cardinal and the Germans, 1934) Islams ecumenical tolerance. In subsequent essays published during 1938 and 1942, von Leers produced analyses focused primarily on Muhammads interactions with the Jews of Medina. Collectively, these essays reveal his pious reverence for Islam and its prophet, and a thorough understanding of the sacralized Islamic sources for this narrative, i.e., the Koran, hadith, and sira, which is entirely consistent with standard Muslim apologetics.
Citing (or referring to) the relevant foundational text sources (i.e., Koran 13:36; 8:55-58; 59:1-15; the sira and canonical hadith descriptions of the fate of individual Jews such as Abu Afak and Kab ibn Ashraf, and the Jewish tribes Banu Qaynuqa, Banu Nadir, Banu Qurayzah, as well as the Jews of the Khaybar oasis), von Leers in his 1942 essay Judiasm and Islam as Opposites, chronicles Muhammads successful campaigns which vanquished these Jews, killing and dispersing them, or at most allow[ing] them to remain in certain places if they paid a poll tax. Von Leers further describes the accounts (from the hadith, and more elaborately, the sira) of Muhammads poisoning by a Khaybar Jewess, and also notes the canonical hadith which records Caliph Umars rationale for his putative expulsion from northern Arabia of those remaining Jews who survived Muhammads earlier campaigns:
On his deathbed Mohammed is supposed to have said: There must not be two religions in Arabia. One of his successors, the caliph Omar, resolutely drove the Jews out of Arabia.
And von Leers even invokes the apocalyptic canonical hadith which 46 years later became the keystone of Hamas 1988 charter sanctioning a Jihad genocide against the Jewish State of Israel:
Ibn Huraira even communicates to us the following assertion of the great man of God: Judgment Day will come only when the Moslems have inflicted an annihilating defeat on the Jews, when every stone and every tree behind which a Jew has hidden says to believers: Behind me stands a Jew, smite him.
Von Leers 1942 essay concludes by simultaneously extolling the model of oppression the Jews experienced under Islamic suzerainty, and the nobility of Muhammad, Islam, and the contemporary Muslims of the World War II era, foreshadowing his own conversion to Islam just over a decade later:
They [the Jews] were subjected to a very restrictive and oppressive special regulation that completely crippled Jewish activities. All reporters of the time when the Islamic lands still completely obeyed their own laws agree that the Jews were particularly despised Mohammeds opposition to the Jews undoubtedly had an effect oriental Jewry was completely paralyzed by Islam. Its back was broken. Oriental Jewry has played almost no role in Judaisms massive rise to power over the last two centuries. Scorned, the Jews vegetated in the dirty alleys of the mellah, and were subject to a special regulation that did not allow them to profiteer, as they did in Europe, or even to receive stolen goods, but instead kept them fearful and under pressure. Had the rest of the world adopted a similar method, today we would have no Jewish question and here we must absolutely note that there were also Islamic rulers, among them especially the Spanish caliphs of the House of Muawiyah, who did not adhere to Islams traditional hostility to Jews to their own disadvantage. However, as a religion Islam has performed the immortal service of preventing the Jews from carrying out their threatened conquest of Arabia and of defeating the dreadful doctrine of Jehovah through a pure faith that opened the way to higher culture for many peoples and gave them an education and humane training, so that still today a Moslem who takes his religion seriously is one of the most worthy phenomena in this world in turmoil.
And even earlier, in a 1938 essay, von Leers further sympathized with, the leading role of the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem [Hajj Amin el-Husseini] in the Arabians battles against the Jewish invasion in Palestine. Von Leers observes that to the pious Muslim, the Jew is an enemy, not simply an unbeliever who might perhaps be converted or, despite the fact that he does not belong to Islam, might still be a person of some estimation. Rather, the Jew is the predestined opponent of the Muslim, one who desired to bring down the work of the Prophet.
Leers description of the origins of the Muslim forename (Omar Amin) that he adopted as part of his formal conversion to Islam in a November, 1957 letter to American Nazi H. Keith Thompson, highlights his personal and doctrinal connections to the Mufti, with whom he engaged in a longstanding collaboration:
I myself have embraced Islam and accepted the new forename Omar Amin, Omar according to the great Caliph Omar who was a grim enemy of the Jews, Amin in honor of my friend Hadj Amin el Husseini, the Grand Mufti.
Leers ceaseless efforts as a formal propagandist for the Nasser regime and Arab League were complemented by a staggering array of additional writing activities before and during this last decade of his life, including: translating modern Arabic treatises on Jihad and Islamic financing into German; writing the Foreword to an anti-Zionist analysis of the Arab-Israeli conflict by an Egyptian scholar; and reviewing and promoting the works of neo-Nazi and Fascist ideologues as editor (while in Buenos Aires) of Der Weg (most prominently, his 1951 review of Francis Parker Yockeys Imperium), while maintaining a prolific worldwide correspondence with individual Fascists, designed to garner their support for his global Jihad. Thus he wrote (again, to American Nazi H. Keith Thompson) in 1957 and 1958,
 The Islamic bloc is today the only spiritual power in the world fighting for a real religion and human values and freedom. Besides that, it is a wonderful religion with a great philosophy and enormous richness of wisdom. I think sometime if my nation had got Islam instead of Christianity we should not have had all the traitors we had in World War II, two million women would not have been burnt as witches by the Christian churches, there would have been no Thirty Years War which destroyed Germany and killed more than half our nation.
 One thing is clear more and more patriot Germans join the great Arab revolution against beastly imperialism. In Algeria half a company of German soldiers, dragging with them two French officers and two non-commissioned officers, have cut their throats in the view of the Algerian revolutionaries and have gone on the side of the Algerians and have embraced Islam. That is good! To hell with Christianity, for in Christianitys name Germany has been sold to our oppressors! Our place as an oppressed nation under the execrable Western colonialist Bonn government must be on the side of the Arab nationalist revolt against the West .I hamd ul Allah! (Thanks be to Allah!)
This recently declassified October 1957 U.S. intelligence report on von Leers writings and activities for Egypt and the Arab League independently confirms his complete adoption of the triumphalist Muslim worldview, desirous of nothing less than the destruction of Judeo-Christian civilization by Jihad:
He [Dr. Omar Amin von Leers] is becoming more and more a religious zealot, even to the extent of advocating an expansion of Islam in Europe in order to bring about stronger unity through a common religion. This expansion he believes can come not only from contact with the Arabs in the Near East and Africa but with Islamic elements in the USSR. The results he envisions as the formation of a political bloc against which neither East nor West could prevail.
Leers final vision of an Islamic supremacist hegemony as formulated in the two decades after World War II has had a profound influence on contemporary trends, now robust, from Morocco to Indonesia, and within Muslim communities living in Western, and other non-Muslim societies across the globe. All too prevalent today, numerous examples of this shared vision can be adduced, ranging from the activities and pronouncements of well-known jihad terror organizations (such as al Qaeda, Hezbollah, and Hamas), to the mainstream Organization of the Islamic Conference, and individuals, such as the profoundly influential Muslim cleric (Spiritual adviser to the Muslim Brotherhood, al-Jazeera television personality, and head of the European Fatwa Council) Yusuf al-Qaradawi, and the Mufti-Leers disciple, and Swiss convert to Islam, Ahmed Huber a former manager of Al Taqwa financial institution, alleged to have laundered money for Osama bin Laden.
The extent to which Nazi convert to Islam Omar Amin von Leers ugly vision has been implemented over the past 50 years his successful living legacy supports a simple, profoundly disturbing conception articulated by writer Lawrence Auster. Oblivious to the firmly entrenched politically correct orthodoxy, Auster has termed Muhammad a successful Hitler. Auster argues that Muhammad, whom he also calls one of the great geniuses of history, conceived
a highly flexible and therefore sustainable ideology and program of subversion, conquest, and domination (as well as a sustainable way of life), while Hitler’s ideology and program had no internal brakes. It was pedal to the metal, aiming at the instant and total destruction of other countries and of Western civilization as a whole, and thus making it necessary for other countries utterly to destroy Hitlerism
Whether or not one accepts this overall conception, a crucial aspect of Austers argument regarding Muhammads lingering pernicious influence including upon mentally docile non-Muslims is irrefragable:
getting people, even fourteen centuries after his death, voluntarily to embrace his program of self-abnegation, the willing surrender of their mind and identity…