What's New With Geert Wilders

Tuesday

The Winston Churchill of our time — Geert Wilders — was recently interviewed by Jamie Glazov. Watch the interview below. Among the highlights are these:

1. Wilders is out to create an international organization, a freedom alliance, to stop the Islamization of the free world.

2. Although most politicians are still out of the loop, the general population is beginning to understand the problem of Islam.

3. It's not just politicians on the left who perpetuate ignorance about Islam. Many leaders from both sides of the aisle are clueless about Islam's prime directive, and their lack of understanding is endangering us all.

Read more...

Candy Crush, Highway Safety and Islam

Friday

The following was written by Chase Beckett:

My wife craves enjoys playing the computer game Candy Crush. The game designers repeatedly thwart her achieving a “higher level” and add insult to injury by building a mandatory 20-minute “wait” period before she continues her “quest” to achieve “Candy Queendom.” I was envious the game had more control than I did. I wondered if there was an app I could install on her phone for the purposes of a 20-minute timeout that would apply to dealing with me but so far no such app exists.

Stay with me, I’m getting to the connection with Islam.

After several months I noticed that the “mandatory” breaks were occurring less often and assumed she was finally achieving Candy Crush Paradise. When I inquired she proudly said, “Nope, I just move the date/time on my iPad settings up; I fool the game and play on as if nothing is wrong.”

Wow! I was very proud of my non-IT spouse jury-rigging her iPad to accomplish her end goal. I asked what I thought would be innocuous question, “Do you think by changing the date on the iPad you are cheating?” She replied in a superior manner, “Of course not, don’t be silly. I’m not going to let a game-manufacturer determine when I wish to play this game...are you serious?” Actually, yes and no.

Continuing my shallow defense of Candy Crush I told her that when she downloaded the game she agreed to the standard “terms and conditions” agreement. Didn’t she feel obligated to abide by these rules? I was immediately given the “stink-eye’ every husband fears, fully understanding any further cross-examination would result in some other form of “candy crush” and it wouldn’t be on a computer.

While most US peace-loving, patriotic Muslims are respectful toward non-Muslims, the reality is a significant number voice violent sentiments and see nothing wrong for the enforcement of Shariah law over US law (here and here for US Muslims, worldwide surveys here….1+ billion). While the majority of respondents were peaceful in the US survey (not the case worldwide), the peaceful Muslim is irrelevant, just as the “safe driver” on the road is irrelevant to me when I’m driving.

It is the drunk driver, the distracted driver, the sleep deprived driver that is relevant. They threaten my life or those of my family. Criticism of the drunk driver or the texting soccer mom is never countered with “most drivers are safe and aren’t a threat” argument. Yet with Islamic violence against Muslims and non-Muslims this is the standard argument. Passage of laws against drunk driving or banning cell phone usage is acceptable yet the weapon of political correctness is used to thwart the mere mention of lawful and reasonable actions against those elements of Islam that threaten non-Muslims and other law-abiding Muslims.

A patriotic, friendly, secular Muslim may abide by society’s “terms and conditions” but at a time of their choosing using the logic of Islam/Muhammad’s laws of abrogation and taqiyya, a “peace-loving” Muslim may “reset the game,” ignore the “terms and conditions” of Western values and apply Shariah law. This Islamic lens of the “ends justifies the means” is incomprehensible to Western leaders who fail to understand Islam’s basic tenets.

No wonder the acts of a formerly peaceful Muslim who suddenly commits horrific acts of violence while shouting “Allah Akbar” is written off as being “radicalized.” The underpinnings of political Islam which fully justify the violent actions are left unsaid and substituted with politically correct terms like "lone wolf," "extreme Islam," or "violent extremism."

Being able to reset the rules, laws and acceptable behavior (under Shariah) is a game changer (no pun intended). Why do more Muslims not speak out about this? The price is too high and besides, why attempt to explain away violent behavior as being non-Islamic when there are enough non-Muslim apologists who do it for them?

Getting behind the wheel and determining which of the drivers on the road is unfit to drive parallels the dilemma non-Muslims and even Muslims face when determining which Muslim is likely to be the next terrorist. Who can tell when a peaceful Muslim will “reset their clock” and decide to follow the path Muhammad did while in Medina? Fortunately the majority don’t follow that path but how many of us will turn off our car’s airbags or not fasten their seatbelt because there are no threats on the next trip?

When our political and military leaders show the courage to speak honestly about the root causes of Islamic terrorism, true peace-loving Muslims and non-Muslims will find hope for the future and a way out of the violence attributed to political Islam.

The above was also posted on Inquiry Into Islam here.

Read more...

Using a Briefcase Clock to Feel Out the Enemy

Wednesday

The following was originally published on Understanding the Threat with the title, Jihadi Information Operation in Irving Texas.

The Muslim Brotherhood in America rarely does things willy nilly. The case of the young Muslim arrested in Texas last week by police for bringing a device to school (a device that very closely resembles a detonator) is no exception.

Whether his parents put him up to it on their own, or acted under guidance from their Imam, or did it at the direction of Hamas leaders at the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), this event was an information operation designed to affect the response of law enforcement in the long term, and destroy those who responded reasonably.

In the 2006 case of “The Flying Imams” whose actions challenged airport security and intentionally rattled passengers, most reasonable citizens and leaders sided with law enforcement and airport personnel in the actions taken, despite the fact the Imams involved won their civil court case in the matter. The Muslim leaders involved, as it turns out, are tied to jihadi organizations in America. Yet, American authorities at the federal level learned nothing from this.

These types of incidents are meant to put law enforcement on their heels, soften the community to the will of Islamic leaders, and make everyone pause before they make a decision.

The secondary purpose is to draw out those who respond reasonably and execute a propaganda operation to destroy them in the public eye, thus gaining credibility for organizations and individuals who mean us harm while simultaneously reducing the likelihood others will speak out in the future.

In military terms, this is a part of “Preparation of the Battlefield.” When real jihad comes to town, more people will get killed because the community – law enforcement and leadership – will fail to respond appropriately because they have been conditioned to do so.

So let us dissect the incident in Irving, Texas last Monday in which 14 year old Ahmed Mohamed brought a device to his school that anyone who has served in the military or law enforcement familiar with such things might consider very similar to a detonator.

Mohamed brought the device to school and left it plugged in to a wall outlet inside his classroom. When the device began making noises – like the countdown to an alarm going off – the teacher became concerned. Mohamed responded to the teacher with a flippant and disrespectful tone, which did not provide any comfort to the teacher given the situation. Once the device was examined, it was believed to be something dangerous, and the police were called.

When questioned by police, Mohamed was rude, disrespectful, and – most importantly – failed to tell police about the device or if any other such devices were in the school. The police asked reasonable questions and Mohamed’s attitude gave them more, not less, concern. When police told Mohamed about the seriousness of the situation, he taunted them and continued to evade questioning. So police arrested him in accordance with set policy which treats all suspects over the age of 12 in a similar manner.

At the detention center, as the police were taking his hand cuffs off, Mohamed’s father screamed for police to leave them on and immediately Mohamed’s sister took the photo the world has now seen of him in cuffs. Poor Mohamed. A poor innocent boy arrested because of racism and because he is the only Muslim in his school…right?! Wrong.

Has the media mentioned that only 10% of the students at Mohamed’s school are white? Most of students at MacArthur High School are from ethnic backgrounds other than Caucasian.

The following morning, CAIR delivered its message to the world about the event.

The primary spokesperson for Hamas for this event is Alia Salem (CAIR), who told unquestioning reporters that Mohamed was arrested because he is Muslim. No one in the Dallas or national media has mentioned that CAIR is a Hamas entity created by the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood’s Palestine Committee (Hamas) in 1994. Nor has the Dallas media – where the largest terrorism financing and Hamas trial was successfully prosecuted (US v Holy Land Foundation (HLF), 2008) – mentioned that a massive amount of evidence entered at the HLF trial reveals CAIR has been identified by the Department of Justice, the FBI, Members of Congress, and by the Federal Court as being a part of the Muslim Brotherhood’s Palestine Committee which is Hamas, and the FBI ceased all outreach to CAIR because of their ties to Hamas.

The federal judge in the HLF case stated the “government has produced ample evidence” of CAIR’s ties to Hamas, and the federal appellate court panel unanimously agreed.

The local Islamic Center of Irving also came to the aid of young Ahmed Mohamed. Not surprising, the Islamic Center of Irving is owned by the North American Islamic Trust (NAIT) which is the bank for the Muslim Brotherhood in North America, and a funding entity for Hamas, a designated terrorist organization.

The FBI has internal reports dating back to the 1980’s identifying NAIT as a Muslim Brotherhood entity dedicated to “Islamic Revolution” here in the U.S.

Local Dallas media has not mentioned any of this, and once the story broke, the President of the United States and Hillary Clinton came to Mohamed’s aid by tweeting out support.

For a three minute video on the Islamic Center of Irving, click HERE.

So, what is the result of this Information Operation by the Muslim Brotherhood (MB)? The political left has scrambled to defend young Ahmed Mohamed’s “civil rights” and the political right is questioning the zero-tolerance policy at Texas schools with regards to things that look like bombs or detonators. All of this leaves the courageous Mayor of Irving, Beth Van Duyne, standing alone. Exactly where the jihadis want her.

Since the issue of the Sharia Tribunal in Texas came up in February, and Mayor Van Duyne was identified by the MB as a threat to their efforts, she was targeted. This “clock” incident is an intentional effort by the MB to take her out of the picture.

You can be sure the next phase of this effort will be to ensure Mayor Van Duyne has little credibility with those in the Dallas/Irving area who remain clueless about the jihadi threat.

The global Islamic movement is led by the International Muslim Brotherhood. Their stated doctrine entered into evidence in the largest terrorism financing and Hamas trial in American history calls for a "civilization jihad" against us to overthrow our government and replace it with Sharia. That trial was adjudicated in Dallas, Texas in 2008. Yet, leaders and citizens on both sides of the aisle are embracing the very Islamic organizations which are a part of this hostile jihadi network.

Yet, the purpose of this operation is to ensure law enforcement heel back and respond slowly if something does happen. The intentional outcome of this operation is to put all of us on the defensive about the Islamic threat, and all of this is a part of their stated doctrine. The same doctrine our enemies continue to site in furtherance of what they do all over the world, and our leaders tell us not to worry about.

......

Read more...

The West Misses the Point (and the Lesson) of Buddhist Anti-Muslim Sentiment

Tuesday

The following was written by Raymond Ibrahim, originally published by PJ Media.

Ongoing reports decrying “anti-Muslim” Buddhists seem to miss the point: this antipathy did not appear out of thin air but rather in response to Islamic aggression — the same Islamic aggression the rest of the world is trying to cope with.

A Financial Times editorial titled “Buddhist militancy triggers international concern” opens by describing the “traumatic first-hand view” of a Muslim woman whose home was attacked and possessions plundered by Buddhists in Sri Lanka. Says the woman: “If I could meet those responsible, I would ask: ‘Sir, does your Lord Buddha teach this?’”

Some paragraphs down, readers discover that her home was attacked during the course of “two days of clashes with Muslims,” which were “sparked by a street-corner disagreement between a Buddhist monk and a young Muslim,” and which left three people — religious identity unstated — dead.

So even this centerpiece story meant to demonstrate Buddhist intolerance begins with a quarrelsome “young Muslim” who may have been the one to initiate hostilities (unlike, for example, the habitual and unprovoked persecution millions of Christians and other minorities experience in the Muslim world.) But FT does not allow for that interpretation, arguing instead that the incident “is part of a wider trend: the rise of a new generation of militant anti-Muslim Buddhist organisations.” At no point does the editorial point out that Muslim minorities regularly provoke Buddhist backlashes.

An Al Jazeera report titled “Myanmar’s Buddhist terrorism problem” cites major clashes that erupted in May 2012 and which displaced numerous Muslims. But, as one digs further, one realizes that these clashes were sparked after Muslims raped and slaughtered a Buddhist woman.

And a New York Times article tells of how:

Ashin Wirathu, a Buddhist monk with a rock-star following in Myanmar, sat before an overflowing crowd of thousands of devotees and launched into a rant against what he called “the enemy” — the country’s Muslim minority. “You can be full of kindness and love, but you cannot sleep next to a mad dog,” Ashin Wirathu said, referring to Muslims. “I call them troublemakers, because they are troublemakers.”

While all such reports are meant to highlight Buddhist intolerance, for those who can read between the lines — or who are familiar with Islamic teachings, history, and current events — it is clear that Buddhists are responding to existential threats posed by the Muslims living among and around them.

Consider the words of Fr. Daniel Byantoro, a Muslim convert to Orthodox Christianity:

For thousands of years my country (Indonesia) was a Hindu Buddhist kingdom. The last Hindu king was kind enough to give a tax exempt property for the first Muslim missionary to live and to preach his religion. Slowly the followers of the new religion were growing, and after they became so strong the kingdom was attacked, those who refused to become Muslims had to flee for their life to the neighboring island of Bali or to a high mountain of Tengger, where they have been able to keep their religion until now. Slowly from the Hindu Buddhist Kingdom, Indonesia became the largest Islamic country in the world. If there is any lesson to be learnt by Americans at all, the history of my country is worth pondering upon. We are not hate mongering, bigoted people; rather, we are freedom loving, democracy loving and human loving people. We just don’t want this freedom and democracy to be taken away from us by our ignorance and misguided “political correctness”, and the pretension of tolerance. (Source: Facing Islam, endorsement section).

The fact is, as in other countries where they are minorities, Muslims in Buddhist nations often initiate violence and mayhem. In Buddhist-majority Thailand, where Muslim minorities are concentrated in the south, thousands of Buddhists — men, women, and children — have been slaughtered, beheaded, and raped, as Muslims try to cleanse the region of all “infidel” presence. (Click here for graphic reports and images that shed light on why Buddhists are becoming increasingly anti-Muslim.)

Accordingly, Wirathu, the “radical” Buddhist monk cited by FT, NYT, and Al Jazeera — the latter simply calls him the “Burmese bin Laden” — is on record saying: “If we are weak, our land will become Muslim.” The theme song of his party speaks of people who “live in our land, drink our water, and are ungrateful to us” — a reference to Muslims — and how “We will build a fence with our bones if necessary” to keep them out. His pamphlets say “Myanmar is currently facing a most dangerous and fearful poison that is severe enough to eradicate all civilization.”

To this, the NYT scoffs, pointing out that “Buddhism would seem to have a secure place in Myanmar. Nine in 10 people are Buddhist… Estimates of the Muslim minority range from 4 percent to 8 percent…”

As mentioned, however, in neighboring Thailand, Muslims also make for about 4% but are engaged in a genocide against Buddhists in the south where Muslims are concentrated.

More importantly, history — true history, not the whitewashed versions currently peddled in American schools — demonstrates that for 14 centuries, Islam has, in fact, wiped out entire peoples and identities: what we today nonchalantly refer to as the “Arab World” was neither Arab and almost entirely Christian in the 7th century, when Islam came into being and went on the jihad. Today, Christians remain a persecuted and steadily dwindling minority.

If Buddhists understand that their entire civilization is at stake, the FT, NYT, and of course Al Jazeera editorials carry all the trademarks — moral relativism and pro-Islam bias, and that dangerous mixture of confidence and ignorance — that characterize the Western elites’ inability to acknowledge, let alone respond, to Islamic aggression.

Read more...

On a Clear September Morning

Thursday

The deaths of the innocent victims of 9/11 — without knowing it, without volunteering — woke up the world to a 1400-year process of cultural annihilation by Islamic believers.

May they rest in peace.

Some would say the world has not awakened. But nearly everyone in the counterjihad movement today was jarred awake on that September morning fourteen years ago, and began to climb out of their ignorance because of 9/11. And most of us have helped others understand what happened and why. The knowledge is spreading.

There is, of course, still much to be done. So let us renew our commitment on this day that the sacrifice of the 9/11 victims was not made in vain. Let us find the strength to reach those who still ardently hope Islam means peace but suspect it might not. Let us find the skill to shatter their cracked and crumbling theories. Let us rededicate ourselves to exposing the ideology that motivated the jihadis of 9/11.

Light up the darkness.

The link below is a video shot on September 11th, 2001 from an apartment window facing the Twin Towers. The couple who filmed it lived on the 36th floor so they had an overview of the whole event. They didn't release the video to the public until 2005. It's long, but it's an intimate reliving of that day, with sounds of the couples' reaction to events, and the sound of the television news going in the background. It will bring the day back to you like it happened yesterday. The video is entitled simply, What We Saw.

Read more...

Sharia: The Unifying Ideology Among Modern Terror Groups

Friday

Boko Haram
Brigitte Gabriel, founder of ACT! for America, wrote the following:

Boko Haram and the Islamic State. Lashkar Taibi. Al-Shabab.

We hear these names all the time used synonymously with terrorism. Commentators and political pundits try to draw them into distinct boxes by geography or by their ethnicity.

But in actuality there is a deep connection among all these groups and their barbaric practices — an ideology that is at the very heart of the danger facing Western civilization, and that we are working every day to stop.

We’ve all known about the horrors of ISIS — an English acronym for the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria. In recent months the group has grown beyond the last two letters of its title. The Islamic State is now active in Libya and is expanding its influence rapidly.

In India, Lashkar Taibi is actively working to bring about the fall of the Indian Republic, destroy Hinduism and Judaism, and see the disputed areas of Kashmir and Jammu made part of Pakistan, which would then itself become part of a larger pan-Islamic state.

In the Horn of Africa, Al-Shabab continues to fight to gain a foothold for sharia in the power vacuum that has existed since the early 1990s. And in Nigeria, Boko Haram kidnaps schoolgirls, murders Christians and Jews, and grinds those under its rule into ever-deeper misery and oppression.

The ideology that bonds all these groups together is a strict adherence to sharia law — the all-encompassing legal code of Islam, as practiced during the early days of the original empire that grew from Mohammad’s conquest of the Arabian Peninsula.

Most if not all of these groups talk about the desire to establish sharia rule in their lands. Much of the horror we see on the evening news from the Islamic State comes from their dedication to apply their 7th century views on everything from slavery to women’s rights to every aspect of life.

People unfortunate enough to find themselves under sharia rule find themselves in a place with little to no freedoms at all. Virtually every aspect of their lives is dictated by the omnipresent religious rules. Women are held as little more than property. They can be beaten and in many cases killed with impunity.

Girls have no chance at an education. Indeed, Boko Haram’s very name means “Western education is forbidden.”

In the lands of sharia, those who dare to profess a faith other than Islam are, under the best of circumstances, treated as second-class citizens, and more often than not rounded up for persecution or murder.

Just last year in Mosul, Islamic State fighters went house-to-house, finding Christians and marking their houses with an Arabic character — an abbreviation for “nasrani,” a pejorative term rooted in the word Nazarene. The choice given to those non-Muslims was simple: convert, pay a fine, or face “death by the sword.”

And as in so many other countries ruled by jihadis, the only thing more prevalent than efforts to kill and displace Jews is the perpetual stream of threats against Israel.

What our national security leaders have at best failed to teach the public — or at worst failed to realize themselves — is that these groups are not composed of lunatics, or any group of “lone wolves” that have congregated together in common madness.

These horrors are not the actions of a few malcontents in need of jobs or social programs. Graeme Wood put it very well in his story in this month’s Atlantic:

“The reality is that the Islamic State is Islamic. Very Islamic. Yes, it has attracted psychopaths and adventure seekers, drawn largely from the disaffected populations of the Middle East and Europe. But the religion preached by its most ardent followers derives from coherent and even learned interpretations of Islam.”

Rather than the irrational acts of madmen, the beheadings, kidnappings, and terrorist attacks around the world are the end result of a long-developed reading of Islam and what it requires of its followers.

Under their ideology, the only permissible form of government is that of a theocracy, specifically a revived caliphate, ruled by one man who will follow the will of Allah to rule the entire world.

It is this ideology – that sharia is the only acceptable law, and those who will not accept its rule must be destroyed – that we fight against. Jihadis know no color, they know no national borders, and they cannot be placed into neat boxes.

They only know that those who refuse to accept the rule of their caliph must die.

This is what we’re fighting against. A handful of people can change the world, for good or ill. It’s up to each of us to sound the alarm and be agents for change, to defend the country that we love against this great threat.

- Brigitte Gabriel, founder of ACT! for America.

Read more...

You Can Help the Counterjihad Reach a Bigger Audience — But You Must Act Quickly

Thursday

Next Wednesday in Washington DC a massive Stop Iran Rally will be held, featuring speakers Ted Cruz, Glenn Beck and Donald Trump. We have an opportunity to get Brigitte Gabriel up on that stage too. If enough people nominate her, she'll get the chance.

Gabriel (the President of ACT! for America) is willing to speak about why the deal with Iran is potentially as disastrous as Neville Chamberlain’s deal with Nazi Germany. Her voice should be heard at that rally.

Here’s how to nominate her:

2. Fill in your own information on the first page. (Note that your cell phone number is NOT required.)

3. Check the option “Recommending someone else” and hit the continue button.

4. Fill in the boxes accordingly:
  • “First Name of Recommended Speaker”: Brigitte
  • “Last Name of Recommended Speaker”: Gabriel
  • “Recommended Speaker’s Cell Phone Number”: 757-456-2724“Recommended Speaker’s Email Address”: brigitte@actforamerica.us“Title of Recommended Speaker”: President of ACT for America
  • “Is the recommended speaker a US Senator of US Congressman, or other?”: No, this person is not a Member of Congress
5. Hit the Continue Button

6. Fill in the boxes accordingly:
  • “Recommended Speaker’s Organization”: ACT for America
  • “Recommended Speaker’s Bio or Credentials”: As the founder of the nation’s largest national security grassroots organization, Brigitte Gabriel is uniquely qualified to articulately address the very real dangers facing the U.S. and Israel if the Iran Deal is allowed to stand.
  • “Other Information about the Recommended Speaker”: (In your own words, share what Brigitte’s courageous stand for the nation means to you!)
7. Hit the Submit Button

This event will get good media coverage. Would you like to have the message of our cause heard by more people? Take the time to help Brigitte Gabriel get on that stage.

Read more...

The Fascinating Relationship Between Nazis and the Islamic World During World War Two

Wednesday

In the prestigious magazine, The Wilson Quarterly, David Motadel, a Research Fellow in History at the University of Cambridge, wrote an article well worth reading entitled, The Swastika and the Crescent. You'll find some excerpts below. The photograph here is Haj Amin al-Husseini, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem and a close ally of Hassan al-Banna (founder of the Muslim Brotherhood) reviewing German troops in Berlin, where al-Husseini lived as Hitler's VIP guest from 1941 to 1945, before joining al-Banna in Egypt in 1946.)

We've seen before that one thing both Nazism and Islam have in common is hatred for the Jews. Read more about that here. The information below has also been posted on Inquiry Into Islam and History is Fascinating for sharing purposes.

Here are some excerpts from the article:

In 1941, with German troops fighting in North Africa and advancing toward the Middle East, policymakers in Berlin began considering the strategic role of Islam more systematically. In November, German diplomat Eberhard von Stohrer wrote a memo asserting that the Muslim world would soon become important to the overall war. After the defeat of France, he wrote, Germany had gained an “outstanding position” and won sympathy “in the eyes of the Muslims” by fighting Britain, “the suppressor of wide-reaching Islamic areas.” Convinced that Nazi ideology was aligned with “many Islamic principles,” Stohrer claimed that in the Muslim world, Hitler already held a “a pre-eminent position because of his fight against Judaism.” He suggested that there should be “an extensive Islam program,” including a statement about the “general attitude of the Third Reich toward Islam.”

In the following months, as more and more officials in Berlin became convinced of such a scheme, Nazi Germany made significant attempts to promote an alliance with the ‘Muslim world’ against their alleged common enemies: the British Empire, the Soviet Union, America, and the Jews. This policy was first targeted at the populations in North Africa and the Middle East, but was soon expanded toward Muslims in the Balkans and the Soviet Union. In the end, almost all parts of the regime, from the Foreign Office and the Propaganda Ministry to the Wehrmacht and the SS, became involved in the efforts to promote Germany’s as a patron and liberator of Islam.

.....

After inquiries from the Turkish embassy, which was concerned about legal discrimination against Turks and German citizens of Turkish descent, German authorities issued an internal decree: Turkey was part of Europe; other Middle Eastern countries, including Egypt and Iran, could not claim to be European. This statement soon leaked to the foreign press, and on June 14, 1936, Le Temps reported that Berlin had decided to exempt Turks from the Nuremberg laws, while Iranians, Egyptians, and Iraqis were considered “non-Aryan.” In the coming days, similar articles caused an uproar among Iranian and Egyptian officials.

At once, the German Foreign Office issued a press release stating that the reports were unfounded. The Egyptian and Iranian ambassadors were assured that the Nuremberg laws targeted only Jews. Whereas the Egyptian ambassador had merely requested clarification that Egyptians were not targeted by German racial laws, Tehran’s ambassador demanded a clear statement that Iranians were considered racially related to the Germans. A year earlier, Riza Shah had ordered that his country be called “Iran” instead of “Persia” in international affairs — the name “Iran” is a cognate of “Aryan” and refers to the “Land of the Aryans” — and Iranian officials made no secret that they believed this term useful given that “some countries pride themselves on being Aryan.”

.....

A number of high-ranking Nazis expressed their sympathy for Islam. Perhaps most fascinated with the faith — and enthusiastic about what he believed to be an affinity between Nazism and Islam — was Heinrich Himmler. Recounting a meeting between Himmler and Hitler in Berlin in February 1943, Edmund Glaise von Horstenau, a Wehrmacht general, noted that Himmler had expressed his disdain for Christianity, while finding Islam “very admirable.” A few months later, Himmler would again “speak about the heroic character of the Mohammedan religion, while expressing his disdain for Christianity, and especially Catholicism,” wrote Horstenau.

.....

Himmler, who had left the Catholic Church in 1936, bemoaned that Christianity made no promises to soldiers who died in battle, no reward for bravery. Islam, by contrast, was “a religion of people’s soldiers,” a practical faith that provided believers with guidance for everyday life. Himmler, convinced that Muhammad was one of the greatest men in history, had apparently collected biographies of the Prophet, and hoped to visit Muslim countries and continue his studies after the war was won. In discussions with Haj Amin al-Husayni, the legendary Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, who sided with the Axis and moved to Berlin in 1941, from where he called for holy war against the Allies, Himmler lamented the failed invasions by Islamic forces in centuries past which, he said, “depriv[ed] Europe of the flourishing spiritual light and civilization of Islam.”

Hitler showed himself equally fascinated with Islam. After the war, Eva Braun’s sister, Ilse, remembered his frequent discussions on the topic, repeatedly comparing Islam with Christianity in order to devalue the latter. In contrast to Islam, which he saw as a strong and practical faith, he described Christianity as a soft, artificial, weak religion of suffering. Islam was a religion of the here and now, Hitler told his entourage, while Christianity was a religion of a kingdom yet to come — one that was deeply unattractive, compared to the paradise promised by Islam.

For Hitler, religion was a means of supporting human life on earth practically and not an end in itself. “The precepts ordering people to wash, to avoid certain drinks, to fast at appointed dates, to take exercise, to rise with the sun, to climb to the top of the minaret — all these were obligations invented by intelligent people,” he remarked in October 1941 in the presence of Himmler. “The exhortation to fight courageously is also self-explanatory. Observe, by the way, that, as a corollary, the Mussulman [sic] was promised a paradise peopled with houris, where wine flowed in streams — a real earthly paradise,” he enthused. “The Christians, on the other hand, declare themselves satisfied if after their death they are allowed to sing Hallelujahs!”

.....

Reflecting on history, he (Hitler) described the Islamic reign on the Iberian peninsula as the “most cultured, the most intellectual and in every way best and happiest epoch in Spanish history,” one that was “followed by the period of the persecutions with its unceasing atrocities.”

Hitler expressed this view repeatedly. After the war, Albert Speer remembered that Hitler had been much impressed by a historical interpretation he had learned from some distinguished Muslims:

When the Mohammedans attempted to penetrate beyond France into Central Europe during the eighth century, his visitors had told him [Hitler], 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. The Germanic peoples would have become heirs to that religion. 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 native, so that ultimately not Arabs but Islamized Germans could have stood at the head of this Mohammedan Empire.

While Hitler did not perceive Islam as a “Semitic” religion, the race of its followers remained a silent but persistent problem. To be sure, our knowledge of the ideas about Islam that circulated within the Nazi elite mostly comes from memoirs and postwar testimonies, which must be read with caution. Nonetheless, these accounts draw a remarkably coherent picture of the ideological notions prevalent among the higher echelons of the regime.

Throughout the war years, the Propaganda Ministry repeatedly instructed the press to promote a positive image of Islam. Urging journalists to give credit to the “Islamic world as a cultural factor,” Goebbels in autumn 1942 instructed magazines to discard negative images of Islam, which had been spread by church polemicists for centuries, and instead to promote an alliance with the Islamic world, which was described as both anti-Bolshevik and anti-Jewish. References to similarities between Jews and Muslims, as manifested in the ban of pork and the ritual circumcision, were to be avoided. In the coming months, the Propaganda Ministry decreed that magazines should depict the U.S. as “the enemies of Islam” and stress American and British hostility toward the Muslim religion.

In September 1943, the Nazi Party explicitly stated that it accepted members who were “followers of Islam,” emphasizing that as the party accepted Christians as members, there was no reason to exclude Muslims.

As German troops marched into Muslim-populated war zones in North Africa, the Balkans, and the borderlands of the Soviet Union, German authorities on the ground frequently considered Islam to be of political importance. As early as 1941, the Wehrmacht distributed the military handbook Der Islam to train the troops to behave correctly towards Muslim populations. On the Eastern front, in the Caucasus and in the Crimea, the Germans ordered the rebuilding of mosques and madrasas previously dismantled by Moscow, and the re-establishment of religious rituals and celebrations, with the intention of undermining Soviet rule. German military officials also made extensive efforts to co-opt religious dignitaries in the Eastern territories, the Balkans, and North Africa. Nazi propagandists in these areas tried to use religious rhetoric, vocabulary, and iconography to mobilize Muslims against Germany’s enemies. Perhaps the most important part of this policy was the recruitment of Muslims into the German armies.

In the autumn of 1941, after the failure of Operation Barbarossa and Hitler’s blitzkrieg strategy in the East, Hitler’s military command was confronted with a drastic shortage of manpower. By the end of November 1941, Berlin had registered 743,112 men as dead, wounded, or missing in action — almost a quarter of their entire eastern army. German soldiers, it became clear, could not win the war alone.

In late 1941, the Wehrmacht began recruiting among prisoners of war and the civilian populations in its eastern occupied territories. Azerbaijanis, Turkestanis, Kalmyks, Ukrainians, Georgians, Armenians, and various others fought as part of the Wehrmacht’s so-called Eastern Troops. In mid-1943, the Eastern Troops numbered more than 300,000; a year later, that number had doubled, the vast majority were non-Slavic minorities from the southern fringes of the Soviet empire, and many thousands of them were Muslims from the Caucasus, the Crimea, the Volga-Ural region, and Central Asia. At the same time, Himmler began enlisting non-Germans into the Waffen-SS, first West and North Europeans and later non-Germanic peoples, among them Muslims from Bosnia, Herzegovina, Albania, and from the Soviet Union. It became one of the greatest mobilization campaigns of Muslims led by a non-Muslim power in history.

This recruitment campaign was not the result of long-term strategy, but a consequence of the shift toward short-term planning after the failure of the Barbarossa plan. Most of the recruits were driven by material interests. For many of the Muslim volunteers from the Soviet Union who were recruited in prisoner of war camps, a significant incentive was the prospect of pay and better provisions — fighting for the Germans was an attractive prospect compared to the appalling conditions of the camps. Others, most notably Muslim recruits from the civilian population in the Balkans and the Crimea, hoped to protect their families and villages from partisans. Some were driven into the German ranks by ideology, nationalism, religious hatred, and anti-Bolshevism. Under the banner of the swastika, the volunteers believed that they would be supporting the fight against Bolshevism or British imperialism and for the liberation of their countries from foreign rule. The Germans, for their part, did everything they could to play up the potential ideological motives of their foreign helpers.

In January 1944, Himmler greeted a group of Bosnian Muslim military commanders in Silesia. “What is there to separate the Muslims in Europe and around the world from us Germans? We have common aims. There is no more solid basis for cooperation than common aims and common ideals. For 200 years, Germany has not had the slightest conflict with Islam.” Germany had been friends with Islam, Himmler declared, not just for pragmatic reasons but out of conviction. God — “you say Allah, it is the same” — had sent the Führer, who would first free Europe and then the entire world of the Jews. The head of the SS then evoked alleged common enemies — “the Bolsheviks, England, America, all constantly driven by the Jew.”

German army officials granted their Muslim recruits a wide range of concessions, taking into account the Islamic calendar and religious laws such as ritual slaughter. A prominent role in the units was played by military imams, who were responsible not only for spiritual care but also for political indoctrination. They were educated at special imam courses, which the Wehrmacht and the SS established in Potsdam, Göttingen, Guben, and Dresden.

Initiated primarily to save German blood and balance the drastic shortage of manpower, the commands of the Wehrmacht and the SS also saw a propagandistic value of non-German units, which they hoped would damage the morale in the enemy’s armies and hinterland. German officials insisted that once these units were deployed, they would win over broader Islamic support — showing, in the words of one internal SS report, the “entire Mohammedan world” that the Third Reich was ready to confront the “common enemies of National Socialism and Islam.” This misconception — this notion that Islam was a monolith that need only be activated — dominated the views of the Nazi leadership.

In the end, Muslim units were employed in Stalingrad, Warsaw, and Milan, and in the defense of Berlin.

Read the whole article here: The Swastika and the Crescent.

Read more...

Clarifying the Distinction Between Ideologies and People

Tuesday

I thought of a way we might clarify for our friends how we feel about Islam. It occurred to me that Oskar Schindler (the man portrayed in the movie, Schindler's List) was a member of the Nazi party. He worked as a spy in the Nazi intelligence service in 1936 and joined the Nazi party in 1939. But he clearly had a change of heart and gave his time and all his money (for bribing Nazi officers) to save the lives of 1,200 Jewish people. And he risked his life to do it.

We can say (and most of us would agree) that the Nazi ideology is abhorrent. Bad for the world. It caused suffering and death for millions of human beings. But most of us have no hatred toward Oscar Schindler, even though he was a member of the Nazi party. He wasn't a good Nazi — that is, he didn't adhere to the ideology — but he was a good human being.

In the same way, we can abhor the ideology of Islam (which has caused far more suffering and death than Nazism has), without hating someone just because he calls himself a Muslim. He may be Muslim in name only, not adhering to the ideology. We don't know. What we know for sure is that the ideology itself is dangerous for the world.

What do you think? Would that clarify it for those who don't yet understand?

Read more...

Copyright

All writing on CitizenWarrior.com is copyright © CitizenWarrior.com 2001-2099, all rights reserved.

Article Spotlight

One of the most unusual articles on CitizenWarrior.com is Pleasantville and Islamic Supremacism.

It illustrates the Islamic Supremacist vision by showing the similarity between what happened in the movie, Pleasantville, and what devout fundamentalist Muslims are trying to create in Islamic states like Syria, Pakistan, or Saudi Arabia (and ultimately everywhere in the world).

Click here to read the article.


Citizen Warrior Heroes

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Visit the blog: Citizen Warrior Heroes.

No More Concessions to Islam

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Visit the blog: Concessions to Islam.

  © Free Blogger Templates Columnus by Ourblogtemplates.com 2008

Back to TOP