Is Islam inherently violent? — New blockbuster, ‘Religion of Peace?,’ reveals disturbing facts

Is Islam inherently violent?
New blockbuster, ‘Religion of Peace?,’ reveals disturbing facts


Posted: November 2, 2006
1:00 a.m. Eastern



© 2006 WorldNetDaily.com It’s the secret question in official Washington, D.C., in the Pentagon, and in the White House. It’s the question that is so radioactive that most in government and the press dare not even pose it, let alone answer it:

Is Islam inherently violent and expansionist?

In the days following 9/11, President Bush assured America and the world that Islam was a “religion of peace” and that the violent followers of Osama Bin Laden had twisted the true Muslim faith. Acting on this belief, President Bush and other Western leaders sent troops to the Middle East in an effort to bring freedom and democracy to the Muslim world.

But what if this “understanding” of Islam is based not on fact, but instead on equal parts wishful thinking and Islamic deceit? It would mean that the entire War on Terror is based on a faulty – and increasingly deadly – premise.

(Story continues below)

In a disturbing but thoroughly researched new book, “Religion of Peace? Islam’s War Against the World,” author and filmmaker Gregory M. Davis rebuts the notion that Islam is a great faith in desperate need of a Reformation. Instead, he exposes it as a form of totalitarianism, a belief system that orders its adherents not to baptize all nations, but to conquer and subdue them. Islamic law’s governance of every aspect of religious, political and personal action has far more in common with Nazism than with the tenets of Christianity or Judaism.

Davis details how Islamic thought divides the world into two spheres locked in perpetual combat: There’s dar al-Islam (“House of Islam,” where Islamic law predominates), and dar al-harb (“House of War,” the rest of the world). This concise yet thorough book leaves no doubt as to why most of the world’s modern conflicts are connected to Islam – and calls into question why Western elites refuse to acknowledge Islam’s violent nature.

Virtually every contemporary Western leader has expressed the view that Islam is a peaceful religion and that those who commit violence in its name are fanatics who misinterpret its tenets. This widely circulated claim is false, says Davis.

As the author and filmmaker wrote in WND recently:

The mistake Westerners make when they think about Islam is that they impose their own views of religion onto something decidedly outside Western tradition. Because violence done in the name of God is “extreme” from a Western/Christian point of view, they imagine that it must be so from an Islamic one. But unlike Christianity, which recognizes a separate sphere for secular politics (“Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s and unto God what is God’s”), Islam has never distinguished between faith and power. While Christianity is doctrinally concerned primarily with the salvation of souls, Islam seeks to remake the world in its image. According to orthodox Islam, Sharia law – the codified commandments of the Quran and precedents of the Prophet Muhammad – is the only legitimate basis of government. Islam is in fact an expansionary social and political system more akin to National Socialism and Communism than any “religion” familiar to Westerners. Islamic politics is inevitably an all-or-nothing affair in which the stakes are salvation or damnation and the aim is to not to beat one’s opponent at the polls but to destroy him – literally as well as politically.

Davis received his Ph.D. in political science from Stanford University and is managing director of Quixotic Media and producer of the feature documentary, “Islam: What the West Needs to Know.”

Relying primarily on Islam’s own sources, “Religion of Peace? Islam’s War Against the World” demonstrates that Islam is a violent, expansionary ideology that seeks the subjugation and destruction of other faiths, cultures and systems of government. Further, it shows that the jihadis that Westerners have been indoctrinated to believe are extremists, are actually in the mainstream.

“Religion of Peace? Islam’s War Against the World” is a powerful and jarring wake-up call to all civilized nations – and one they ignore at their peril.

Where’d the Buddhists go?

Where’d the Buddhists go?

capt.6b4fc843b67340b3b836cb9869114b81.pakistan_prince_charles_lon109.jpg

AP’s caption:

Britain’s Prince Charles, the Prince of Wales, and his wife Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, are seen during a visit to the ruins of an ancient Buddhist monastery at Taxila, Pakistan, Tuesday Oct. 31, 2006.

Where did the Buddhists of Taxila go?

Oh yes: they “averted” a “clash of civilizations” by “following the teaching of Islam and Quraan.” Whether they wanted to or not.

EU’s fight against radical Islam — Religious leaders, politician say only if Muslim immigrants accept western values tensions would subside — (DUSSELDORF) – Henrik Broder, a prominent Jewish journalist in Germany, recently published a book titled, “Hooray! We Surrender!” which criticizes what the author refers to as ‘Europe’s weakness in its battle against Islam.’

Gil Yaron Henrik Broder, a prominent Jewish journalist in Germany, recently published a book titled, “Hooray! We Surrender!” which criticizes what the author refers to as ‘Europe’s weakness in its battle against Islam.’“We must define what sets us aside as a society, and what values we must uphold in our struggle against Islam,” Broder tells Ynet. Broder’s remarks come amid the ever-increasing tension in Europe between the traditional values and those of radical Islam, which are beginning to spread throughout the continent. It began with the Madrid terror attack, which was carried out by a cell of immigrants from North Africa and the Middle East and continued with the London bombings, which were carried out by UK-born Muslims, and the attempts to attack airliners in Britain and trains in Germany. In the interim there were the violent riots in response to the prophet Muhammad caricatures, the outrage and threats over Pope Benedict XVI’s accusations and the public outcry following the UK veils affair.
Muslim Europeans protesting Muhammad cartoons (Photo: AFP)With the end of the Cold War 17 years ago, Europe was able to unite around values of democracy, individualism and a free market. But lately the atmosphere ion Europe has begun to change, and tolerant Europe has started to organize against radical Islam (and some say Islam in general), an ideology that is being referred to more and more as ‘an enemy of modern western society’s lifestyle.

Until recently political correctness reigned in Europe, and those who dared point an accusatory finger at minorities were ostracized. When immigrants attacked their host-countries in Europe, the Europeans blamed western society for ‘inadequately absorbing them.’

Dialogue, not confrontation was the solution to the absorption difficulties of immigrants; criticism of the Muslim minority, part of which refused to accept the social ideals of the majority, was dismissed as racist – and so the Muslims in Europe did not integrate with the western population.

Muslim quarter in Brussels (Photo: Roee Nahmias)

But following Madrid and London attacks, as well as the Muslim riots over the Mohammad caricatures, there are more and more signs indicating that the European Union is beginning to view Islam and the Muslim immigrants as an existential threat.

Mission: Intelligence

About 15 million Muslims live In Europe today, which constitute about 3-4 percent of the population in most European countries. In France, Muslims make up and estimated 10 percent. Police forces across Europe have already started to focus efforts on collecting intelligence information among their countries’ Islamic communities.

For German intelligence, for instance, this is virgin territory. German police, who confer regularly with Jewish officials to assess the threat to their safety, admitted to them that they have know idea of the goings-on in Germany’s Muslim communities.

Senior police officials themselves confessed to Ynet that, “There are whole areas in German cities that in our view are ‘out of bounds’, and we don’t enter them anymore. For too long we thought that as long as we let them manage themselves, they won’t bother us. Now this attitude is taking its revenge on us.”

Germany Defense Ministry official Christian Schmidt, a member of the governing Christian Democrats party (CDU), told Ynet that among the Muslim community in his country, “Thousands tend towards extremism and pose a threat to us.”

He said that contrary to absorption processes in other communities, among Muslims future generations become more fanatic, with “the third generation being the most extremist.”

Currently various German states are considering legislation to obligate imams to carry sermons in German, to “increase the transparency of Muslim communities and abate concern and suspicion.” In effect, this reflects the shortage of Turkish and Arabic speakers in the German intelligence community and the difficulties hindering them from collecting crucial information from this sector.

Tensions between communities have been rising since last summer’s thwarted terror attacks in Britain and Germany. Two and a half month ago plans to blow up two trains in Koln failed to materialize due to technical failures in the makeshift bombs hidden in two suitcases.

German authorities nabbed a number of suspects and the mastermind of the attempted attacks, which prompted a debate about whether the government should make it obligatory for transportation operators to install CCTV cameras on trains.

In Britain a plot to blow up a number of US-bound planes using liquid explosives, shook a nation that was still trying to come to terms with the July 7 attacks two years earlier.

Relations between 1.8 British Muslims and the rest of the country suffered another set back as tension grew and a wide-scale arrest raids conducted against Muslim terror suspects across the country only added fuel to the fire.

The government said it is weighing plans to cut public funds to Muslim schools, although no such plans were considered for the 36 Jewish and 7,000 Christian schools in the monarchy.

In another dramatic development, the Ministry of Education announced new regulation to the higher education system which would make it obligatory for British universities to keep track of the activities of Muslim students and report any suspicious behavior to law enforcement authorities.

Many countries did not suffice with discussions: The governments of Germany and Britain launched dialogue with Muslim organizations in the hope that a European form of Islam – one that is pragmatic and pacifist – would emerge.

In Berlin, the home of many Germans of Turkish origins, Turkish kindergartens would be forced to adopt the German language as the only communication tool in the hope to inoculate minority children with the values of democracy and civil rights.

In Switzerland meanwhile, where Muslims constitute less than one percent of the population, referendums held in a number of cantons reflected the will of an overwhelming majority to limit the spread of Islam. More so, strict immigration laws were introduced, and in many areas the construction of new Mosques has been banned.

Debate on values

But for many this is not enough. While individualism has been a supreme value in Europe for many decades, common European values have been subject to intense debate especially to the backdrop of Turkey’s impending membership in the European Union.

“We need to start public discussions about our values, which we have to communicate in a resolute manner,” Michael Geller, a member of the European parliament representing Germany’s CDU told Ynet.

“Islam is not a threat yet, but a challenge that forces us to define our common values. Citizen rights and the status of women especially are things that should be assimilated among Muslim immigrants,” he said.

Henrik Broder however is a skeptic. “I don’t think Europe know to do something besides to surrender. People have no idea what they are fighting for. We can’t set the clock back, and I don’t want Europe to give up on its Muslims. But when the Dutch justice minister says it is possible for Sharia to become the basis for Dutch laws and when in England there are independent Sharia courts – that’s the end of European society as we know it,” he said.

Doubts on Muslim integration rise in Europe — Europe appears to be crossing an invisible line regarding its Muslim minorities: More people in the political mainstream are arguing that Islam cannot be reconciled with European values

Doubts on Muslim integration rise in Europe

By Dan Bilefsky and Ian Fisher International Herald Tribune, The New York Times

BRUSSELS: Europe appears to be crossing an invisible line regarding its Muslim minorities: More people in the political mainstream are arguing that Islam cannot be reconciled with European values. “You saw what happened with the pope,” said Patrick Goeman, 43, the owner of Raga, a funky wine bar in central Antwerp, half an hour outside Brussels. “He said Islam is an aggressive religion. And the next day they kill a nun somewhere and make his point. “Rationality is gone.” Goeman is hardly an extremist. In fact, he organized a protest last week in which 20 bars and restaurants closed on the night when a far-right party with an anti-Muslim message held a rally nearby. His worry is shared by centrists across Europe disturbed that any criticism of Islam or Muslim immigration provokes threats of violence. For years, those who raised their voices were mostly on the far right. Now those normally seen as moderates – ordinary people as well as politicians – are asking whether once unquestioned values of tolerance and multiculturalism should have limits. Jack Straw, the former British foreign secretary and prominent Labour Party politician, seemed to sum up the moment last week when he wrote that he felt uncomfortable addressing women whose faces were covered with a veil. The veil, he wrote, is a “visible statement of separation and difference.” When Pope Benedict XVI made a speech last month that included a quotation calling aspects of Islam “evil and inhuman,” Muslims berated him for stigmatizing their culture, while non- Muslims applauded him for bravely speaking a hard truth. The line between open criticism of another group and bigotry can be a thin one, and many Muslims worry that it is being crossed more and more. Whatever the motivations, “the reality is that views on both sides are becoming more extreme,” said Imam Wahid Pedersen, a prominent Dane who is a convert to Islam. “It has become politically correct to attack Islam, and this is making it hard for moderates on both sides to remain reasonable.” Pedersen fears that onetime moderates are baiting Muslims, the very people they say should integrate into Europe. The worries about extremism are real. A far-right party, Vlaams Belang, took 20.5 percent of the vote in Belgian city elections on Sunday, five percentage points higher than in 2000. But in Antwerp, its base, its performance barely improved, suggesting to some experts that its power might be peaking. In Austria this month, rightist parties also did well, on a campaign promise that had rarely been made openly: that Austria should start to deport its immigrants. Vlaams Belang, too, has suggested “repatriation” for immigrants who do not make greater efforts to integrate. The idea is unthinkable to mainstream leaders, but many Muslims still fear that the day – or at least a debate on the topic – may be one terrorist attack away. “I think the time will come,” said Amir Shafe, 34, a Pakistani who earns a good living selling clothes at a market in Antwerp. He deplores terrorism and says he does not sense hostility in Belgium. But he said, “We are now thinking of going back to our country, before that time comes.” Many experts note the centuries of bloodily defining the boundaries of Christianity and Islam, including the Muslim conquest of Palestine in 635 and the subsequent Crusades and the Moors’ conquest of Spain and Portugal in the eighth century and the Christians’ victory in 1492. A sense of guilt over Europe’s colonial past and then World War II, when intolerance exploded into mass murder, allowed a large migration to occur without any uncomfortable debates over the real differences between migrant and host. Then the terror attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, jolted Europe into new awareness and worry. The subsequent transit bombings in Madrid and London and the murder of the Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh by a Dutch-born Muslim stand as examples of the extreme. But many Europeans – even those who generally support immigration – have begun talking more bluntly about cultural differences, specifically about Muslims’ deep religious beliefs and social values, which are far more conservative than those of most Europeans on issues like women’s rights and homosexuality. “A lot of people, progressive ones – we are not talking about nationalists or the extreme right – are saying, ‘Now we have this religion, it plays a role and it challenges our assumptions about what we learned in the ’60s and ’70s,’” said Joost Lagendijk, a Dutch member of the European Parliament for the Green Left Party who is active on Muslim issues. “So there is this fear,” he said, “that we are being transported back in a time machine where we have to explain to our immigrants that there is equality between men and women, and gays should be treated properly. Now there is the idea we have to do it again.” So strong is the fear that Dutch values of tolerance are under siege that the government introduced a primer on those values last winter for prospective newcomers to Dutch life: a DVD briefly showing topless women and two men kissing. The film does not explicitly mention Muslims, but its target audience is as clear as its message: Embrace our culture or leave. Perhaps most wrenching has been the issue of free speech and expression, and the growing fear that any criticism of Islam could provoke violence. In France last month, a secondary school teacher went into hiding after receiving death threats for writing an article calling the Prophet Muhammad “a merciless warlord, a looter, a mass murderer of Jews and a polygamist.” In Germany, a Mozart opera with an additional scene showing the severed heads of Muhammad, Jesus, Buddha and Poseidon was canceled because of security fears. With each incident, mainstream leaders are speaking more plainly. “Self-censorship does not help us against people who want to practice violence in the name of Islam,” Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany said in criticizing the opera’s cancellation. “It makes no sense to retreat.” The backlash is showing itself in other ways. Last month, the British home secretary, John Reid, called on Muslim parents to keep a close watch on their children. “There’s no nice way of saying this,” he told a Muslim group in East London. “These fanatics are looking to groom and brainwash children, including your children, for suicide bombing, grooming them to kill themselves to murder others.” Many Muslims say this new mood is suddenly imposing expectations that Muslims be exactly like their European hosts. Dyab Abou Jahjah, a Lebanese-born activist in Belgium, said that for years Europeans had emphasized “citizenship and human rights,” the notion that Muslim immigrants had the responsibility to obey the law but could otherwise live with their traditions. “Then someone comes and says it’s different than that,” said Jahjah, who opposes assimilation. “You have to dump your culture and religion. It’s a different deal now.” Dan Bilefsky of the International Herald Tribune reported from Brussels and Ian Fisher of The New York Times from Rome. Contributing reporting from The Times were Alan Cowell from London, Maia de la Baume from Paris, Peter Kiefer from Rome, Mark Landler and Sarah Lyall from Frankfurt, and Renwick McLean from Madrid.

U.S. brings first treason case in over 50 years

 By James Vicini

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – A California-born convert to Islam, accused of making a series of al Qaeda propaganda videos, became on Wednesday the first American charged with treason since the World War Two era, U.S. Justice Department officials said.

Fugitive Adam Gadahn, 28, who is believed to be in Pakistan, was accused of treason, which carries a maximum punishment of death, and providing material support to al Qaeda, they said.

According to the charges, Gadahn appeared in five videos broadcast between October 2004 and September 11, 2006, giving al Qaeda “aid and comfort … with the intent to betray the United States.”

“Gadahn gave himself to our enemies in al Qaeda for the purpose of being a central part of their propaganda machine,” Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty told a news conference.

“By making this choice, we believe Gadahn committed treason — perhaps the most serious offense for which any person can be tried under our Constitution,” he said.

McNulty acknowledged that Gadahn appeared to be involved only in propaganda for the Islamic militant group, not in planning any attacks.

Gadahn converted to Islam from a Jewish-Christian family when he was 17 and a few years later moved to Pakistan. He was previously known as Adam Pearlman and grew up on a goat ranch outside Los Angeles.

The charges were contained in an indictment handed up in a federal court in California by a grand jury. The evidence against him in the indictment consisted entirely of the videos.

The FBI has been seeking to question Gadahn since May 2004. The FBI added him on Wednesday to its list of the most wanted terrorists and a U.S. State Department program offered up to a $1 million reward for information leading to his arrest.

In Los Angeles, Gadahn’s aunt, Nancy Pearlman, declined to comment, saying, “We are not giving any interviews.”

There were a number of treason cases after World War Two, including a trial in 1952, legal experts said. In one of the cases, an American woman, known as “Tokyo Rose,” was convicted of treason and later pardoned. She died in Chicago last month.

Justice Department officials denied the case was timed to deflect attention from the fallout over lewd computer messages sent by a former Republican congressman to young male aides, a scandal that may help Democrats seize control of Congress in the November 7 elections.

BLOOD RUNNING IN THE STREETS

In the first video in October 2004, right before the presidential election, Gadahn announced he had joined al Qaeda and said that “the streets of America shall run red with blood,” according to the indictment.

In another video in September 2005, around the anniversary of the September 11 attacks, Gadahn referred to “the blessed raids on New York and Washington,” the indictment said.

He referred to more recent attacks in London and Madrid and stated, “Tomorrow, Los Angeles and Melbourne, Allah willing,” according to the indictment.

It said he appeared earlier this past summer in a video that also contained statements from the top al Qaeda leaders, Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahri.

In a video broadcast on September 2, Gadahn encouraged American soldiers to “escape from the unbelieving Army and join the winning side.”

In a video released on or about the fifth anniversary of the attacks, he praised the pilots who took control of the planes on September 11 and referred to the United States as “enemy soil,” according to the indictment.

(Additional reporting by Rick Cowan)

Islamic terrorism linked to Nazi fascists

Islamic terrorism linked to Nazi fascists
Despite some weak politically correct attempts, the fact is there is a radical, heretical brand of Islam fostering terrorism that is indeed a by-product of Fascism and a hatred of Jews
 
 

Folks seem to be in a quandary: Should US president George W. Bush have used the terms “Islam” and “Fascists” in the same sentence. The majority of the negative comments have been directed toward the president’s lack of sensitivity toward the vast majority of followers of Islam.

But despite some weak politically correct attempts, the fact is that the press for the most part is guilty of whitewashing one simple fact: There is a radical, heretical brand of Islam fostering terrorism that is indeed a by-product of Fascism and a hatred of Jews. Shahid Nickels, a member between 1998 and 2000 of the group headed by Mohammed Atta who led the 9-11 attacks, said that “Atta’s weltanschauung was based on a National Socialist way of thinking. He was convinced that ‘the Jews’ are determined to achieve world domination. He considered
New York City to be the center of world Jewry which was, in his opinion, Enemy Number One,” according to an article written by Dr. Matthias Küntzel. (1)
Atta’s peculiar “Nationalist Socialist way of thinking,” however, was far from unique. In fact, it was a seed germinating for 80 years among radical Islamists that can be traced to Hassan al-Banna, a 22-year-old school teacher who gathered discontent Muslims to found the Muslim Brotherhood in 1928/1929.

While initial growth of the Muslim Brotherhood was moderate, the organization’s membership rolls – coinciding with rising anti-Semitism in
Europe – by August 1938 had swelled to more than two hundred thousand members. By the end of World War II the Muslim Brotherhood had around half a million members.“Islamism, or fascism with an Islamic face, was born with and of the Muslim Brotherhood. It proved (and improved) its fascist core convictions and practices through collaboration with the Nazis in the run-up to and during World War II. It proved it during the same period through its collaboration with the overtly fascist “Young Egypt” (Misr al-Fatah) movement, founded in October 1933 by lawyer Ahmed Hussein and modeled directly on the Hitler party, complete with paramilitary Green Shirts aping the Nazi Brown Shirts, Nazi salute and literal translations of Nazi slogans. Among its members, Young Egypt counted two promising youngsters and later presidents, Gamal Abdel Nasser and Anwar El-Sadat,” so begins an Asia Times article by Marc Erikson. (2)

“The “Supreme Guide” of the brethren knew that faith, good works and numbers alone do not a political victory make. Thus, modeled on Mussolini’s blackshirts (al-Banna much admired “Il Duce” and soul brother “Fuehrer” Adolf Hitler), he set up a paramilitary wing (slogan: “action, obedience, silence”, quite superior to the blackshirts’ “believe, obey, fight”) and a “secret apparatus” (al-jihaz al-sirri) and intelligence arm of al-Ikhwan to handle the dirtier side – terrorist attacks, assassinations, and so on – of the struggle for power,” writes Erikson elsewhere. (3)According to John Loftus, a former prosecutor with the
US Justice Department,
“Al-Banna formed this nationalist group called the Muslim Brotherhood. Al-Banna was a devout admirer of Adolf Hitler and wrote to him frequently.”

Loftus adds that Al-Banna was so persistent in his “admiration of the new Nazi Party that in the 1930s Al-Banna and the Muslim Brotherhood became a secret arm of Nazi Intelligence. With the goal of the Third Reich to develop the Muslim Brotherhood as an army inside
Egypt.” (4)

So what was Al-Banna teaching?

Well, for one thing Al-Banna idealized death.  

“To a nation that perfects the industry of death and which knows how to die nobly, God gives proud life in this world and eternal grace in the life to come” and “We are not afraid of death, we desire it… Let us die in redemption for Muslims,” Al-Banna once wrote.The Muslim Brotherhood also “used and disseminated a quotation from the Koran that Jews are to be considered ‘the worst enemy of the believers.’ In addition, they evoked old stories of the early history of Islam by pointing to the example set by Mohammed who, as legend has it, succeeded not only in expelling two Jewish tribes from Medina during the 7th century, but killed the entire male population of the third tribe and sold all the women and children into slavery.” (5)Spreading their hate-filled message toward Jews, the Muslim Brotherhood found a soul-mate in Amin el-Husseini, the Mufti of Jerusalem who held the highest political and religious posts in
Palestine from 1921 until after World War II.
Loftus and other authors note that the Muslim Brotherhood and Mufti had common goals with the new Nazi doctrines: a hatred for Western culture, democracy and Jews.The Mufti with the Muslim Brotherhood and Nazi ideology was a dangerous cocktail.“As early as 1929, a Mufti-led pogrom killed 133 autochthonous Jews in Jerusalem and
Hebron. Shortly thereafter, the Mufti declared the relentless fight against the Jews as the most important responsibility of all believers. Those who dared to resist his anti-Jewish orders were publicly denounced and publicly threatened in the mosques during Friday prayers.” (6)
“In a letter to Adolf Hitler, the Mufti emphasized his unflagging and successful efforts to use the “the
Palestine question” in order ‘to coalesce all Arab countries in a common hatred against the British and the Jews.’” (7)
Starting in 1933, the Mufti repeatedly offered to serve the German Nazi government. In the beginning, however, the Mufti’s fight against Jews was only supported in terms of ideology. That soon, however, changed.  

The Palestine’s 1936 “Arab Revolt” was in a large part incited by the Mufti, with cries of “Down with the Jews!” and “Jews get out of Egypt and
Palestine!”

It was not until 1937 that the Mufti’s “Holy War” began to receive substantial financial support and weapons from Nazi Germany, which allowed Hitler’s Islamist agents both in Palestine and the Muslim Brotherhood in
Egypt to spread their anti-Jewish hatred.
Klaus Gensicke writes in his dissertation on the Mufti’s collaboration with the Nazis: “The Mufti himself admitted that it was entirely due to the money contributed by the Germans that allowed him at that time to carry out the uprising in
Palestine.”
 

“The Mufti’s so-called “Arab Revolt” took place against the background of the swastika: Arab leaflets and signs on walls were prominently marked with this Nazi symbol; the youth organization of the Mufti´s political party paraded as “Nazi-scouts”, and Arab children greeted each other with the Nazi salute. Those who had to pass through the rebellious quarters of
Palestine attached a flag bearing the swastika to their vehicles so as to insure protection against assaults by the Mufti’s volunteers.” (8)
 

By 1945 the Nazi Islamist agents were openly spreading terror. “The core of anti-Semitism had thus begun to shift from
Germany to the Arab world. On the anniversary of the Balfour-declaration, demonstrators rampaged the Jewish quarters of
Cairo. They plundered houses and shops, attacked non-Muslims, devastated the synagogues and then set them on fire. Six people were killed, several hundred more were injured.” (9)
Al-Husseini, wrote in his post-WWII memoirs, “Our fundamental condition for cooperating with Germany was a free hand to eradicate every last Jew from
Palestine and the Arab world. I asked Hitler for an explicit undertaking to allow us to solve the Jewish problem in a manner befitting our national and racial aspirations and according to the scientific methods innovated by
Germany in the handling of its Jews. The answer I got was: ‘The Jews are yours.’” (10)

According to an article by David Storobin in Front Page magazine, “Controlling a spectacular sum of money and the right to appoint Palestinian Islamic preachers, al-Husseini built a ‘political machine’ that brought the religious and political establishment under his domination. Through them, he was able to arouse religious fanaticism against Jews and the West. His preachers urged their flock to ‘go out and murder the Jewish infidel in the name of the holy Koran,’ constantly declaring that ‘he who kills a Jew is assured of a place in the next world.’” (11)

Dr. Matthias Küntzel quotes Klaus Gensicke who claims that “The Mufti himself admitted that it was entirely due to the money contributed by the Germans that allowed him at that time to carry out the uprising in
Palestine.” (12)

Storobin notes that al-Husseini was, “officially received by Adolf Hitler on November 28, 1941, who agreed to establish a bureau for al-Husseini which was used to spread propaganda on behalf of Nazi Germany, organize spy rings in Europe and the Middle East, and most importantly, establish Muslim Nazi SS divisions and Wehrmacht units in Bosnia, the Balkans, North Africa and Nazi-occupied parts of the Soviet Union. After the meeting, the Mufti was also named SS Gruppenfuehrer by Heinrich Himmler and referred to as the “Fuhrer of the Arab World” by Adolf Hitler himself.”

”The largest Muslim Nazi SS unit was the 13th division known as “Hanjar.” Husseini also organized smaller, less efficient units, including the 21st Waffen SS division known Skanderbeg (made up predominantly of Croatians) and the 23rd Waffen SS division known as
Kama and made up mostly of Albanian Muslims. Thus, the Hitler’s Mufti organized or helped to organize three out of 27 Waffen SS divisions formed before 1945.” (13)

Loftus too claims that the Mufti “went to
Germany during the war and helped recruit an international SS division of Arab Nazis. They based it in Croatia and called it the Handzar Muslim Division, but it was to become the core of Hitler’s new army of Arab fascists that would conquer the Arabian Peninsula and, from there, on to Africa—grand dreams.” (14)

According to Küntzel, “The powerful collaboration of the Muslim Brothers with the Mufti and the pogroms against Jews a few months after the world learned about
Auschwitz clearly showed that the Brotherhood either ignored or even justified Hitler´s extermination of European Jews.”

Küntzel telling writes that “The consequences of this attitude, however, continue to be far-reaching and characterize the Arabic-Jewish conflict to this day.” (15)  Küntzel notes that this group of Islamists in 1947 explained away the international support of the creation of
Israel and the murder of six million European Jews by Nazi Germany, by reverting to anti-Semitic conspiracy theories.

In this vein, the Muslim Brotherhood considered the UN-decision of 1947 to partition
Palestine to be an “international plot carried out by the Americans, the Russians and the British, under the influence of Zionism,” (16) Küntzel noted. (17)Not surprisingly, given their role in WWII, the Muslim Brotherhood was wanted for War Crimes. However, instead of being brought to justice the Arab Nazis were snapped up by foreign spy agencies. Specifically, John Loftus claims that, almost the entire network was taken in by the British Secret Service. “Then a horrible thing happened. Instead of prosecuting the Nazis—the Muslim Brotherhood—the British Government hired them. They brought all the fugitive Nazi war criminals of Arab and Muslim descent into
Egypt, and for three years trained them on a special mission. The British Secret Service wanted to use the fascists of the Muslim Brotherhood to strike down the infant state of
Israel in 1948. Only a few people in the Mossad know this, but many of the members of the Arab armies and terrorist groups that tried to strangle the infant State of Israel were the Arab Nazis of the Muslim Brotherhood.”


Britain was not alone. The French Intelligence Service cooperated by releasing the Grand Mufti and smuggling him to Egypt, so all of the Arab Nazis came together. So, from 1945 to 1948, the British Secret Service protected every Arab Nazi it could, but failed to quash the State of Israel”, according to Loftus. (18)Despite being now on side of the Allies, the Brotherhood didn’t sit still – nor did their ideology get any tamer. One of the main voices behind the Muslim Brotherhood was Sayed Qutb. With time, Qutb would eventually become the organization’s ambassador in the 1950s in
Syria and Jordon, as well as being the editor of the Brotherhood’s official publication. While in prison following an assassination attempt on Egypt’s
Nasser, Qutb wrote his treatise, Milestones, that advocated overthrowing Arab governments that refused to be run by anything other than the law of Islamic Shariah.
According to a BBC article, “For Qutb, all non-Muslims were infidels – even the so-called ‘people of the book’, the Christians and Jews – and he predicted an eventual clash of civilisations between Islam and the west.” (19) “Having played a large role in Nasser’s power grab, the Muslim Brotherhood, after the 1949 assassination of Hassan al-Banna by government agents under new leadership and (since 1951) under the radical ideological guidance of Sayyid Qutb, demanded its due – imposition of Sharia (Islamic religious) law. When
Nasser demurred, he became a Brotherhood assassination target, but with CIA and the German mercenaries’ help he prevailed. In February 1954, the Brotherhood was banned. An October 1954 assassination attempt failed. Four thousand brothers were arrested, six were executed, and thousands fled to Syria, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and
Lebanon,” notes Erikson. (20)
When Nasser cracked down on the Muslim Brotherhood in 1955 they initially moved headquarters to London and
Geneva. Incidentally, the head of the
Geneva offices was Said Ramadan, the son-in-law of al-Banna. In
Geneva, Ramadan launched the Institute for Islamic Studies – to become the civilized face of the Muslim Brotherhood, even having the distinction of dining with US President Dwight D. Eisenhower in 1953 at the White House. (21)
That fleeing of Muslim Brotherhood members – people who had been radicalized by Qutb, the Mufti and Nazi ideology – and the consequent spreading of their message, is something that the world is still living with.According to that same BBC article, “Qutb and (
Pakistan’s Syed Abul Ala Maududi) inspired a whole generation of Islamists, including Ayatollah Khomeini, who developed a Persian version of their works in the 1970s.

Author and journalist Robert Dreyfuss also claims that the groundwork for the Ayatollah Khomeini was done by an Iranian by the name of Ali Shariat who was influenced by the Brotherhood.

As a sidenote, with respect to Hezbollah, it is widely reported that the organization got its beginnings in
Iran. That is an oversimplification.

“The origins of Shi’i Islamism in Lebanon go back not to Iran, as is commonly thought, but to Iraq in the 1960s where a Shi’i religio-political revival took place in the “circles of learning” (hawzat al-’ilmiya) in Najaf, led by the charismatic Ayatollah Muhammad Baqir as-Sadr,” according to an article in the Middle East Review of International Affairs – Sept. 1997. 

“Hezbollah represented a militant, nonsecular alternative to the Nasserite Fatah, Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and other groups that took their bearing from Pan-Arabism rather than Islam. Hezbollah split the Shiite community in
Lebanon — which was against Sunnis and Christians — but most of all, engaged the Israelis. It made a powerful claim that the Palestinian movement had no future while it remained fundamentally secular and while its religious alternatives derived from the conservative Arab monarchies.” (22)


Iran’s importance only became more noted upon the death of Sadr, and the success of the Iranian Revolution led by Khomeini. By 1984, Iran was financing around 90 percent of Hezbollah’s social works in
Lebanon.

As it stands now, Hezbollah “subscribes to Khomeini’s theory that a religious jurist (wilayat al-faqih) should hold ultimate political power. The authority of this jurist, both spiritual and political, may not be challenged; he must be obeyed. Hezbullah sees itself fulfilling the messianic role of turning Lebanon into a

province of
Islam. In its “open letter” of February 1985, Hizbullah declared that Muslims must “abide by the orders of the sole wise and just command represented by the supreme jurisconsult, who is presently incarnate in the imam_Ayatollah Khomeini. It also called for a battle with vice, meaning foremost the United States, and for the destruction of Israel to make way for
Palestine,” according to that same Middle East Review of International Affairs article.

Eventually, says Loftus the control of the Muslim Brotherhood passed to the
United States and the CIA – or its earlier form – as a counterweight for Arab Communists.

But this still doesn’t explain how we get the current form of Islam Fascists. For that one needs to remember that after Nasser expelled the Muslim Brotherhood from Egypt many of them went to
Saudi Arabia.

According to Loftus, “during the 1950s, the CIA evacuated the Nazis of the Muslim Brotherhood to
Saudi Arabia. Now, when they arrived in
Saudi Arabia, some of the leading lights of the Muslim Brotherhood, like (Dr Abdullah) Azzam, became the teachers in the madrassas, the religious schools. And there they combined the doctrines of Nazism with this weird Islamic cult, Wahhabism.” 

“Everyone thinks that Islam is this fanatical religion, but it is not. They think that Islam—the Saudi version of Islam—is typical, but it’s not. The Wahhabi cult has been condemned as a heresy more than 60 times by the Muslim nations. But when the Saudis got wealthy, they bought a lot of silence. This is a very harsh cult. Wahhabism was only practised by the Taliban and in
Saudi Arabia—that’s how extreme it is. It really has nothing to do with Islam. Islam is a very peaceful and tolerant religion. It always had good relationships with the Jews for the first thousand years of its existence.” (23)

Interestingly, according to a Wikipedia entry on Wahhabism, Al-Banna, is said to have been influenced by the Wahhabis. “The Muslim Brotherhood also claimed to be purifying and restoring original Islam. When the Muslim Brotherhood was banned in various Middle Eastern countries,
Saudi Arabia gave refuge to Brotherhood exiles. This seems to have set the stage for a mingling of Brotherhood and Wahhabi thought under the aegis of the term Salafism. Rebels against the Saudi state found justification in the thought of Sayyed Qutb, a member of the Brotherhood who spent years in Egyptian jails. Some Wahhabis, or Salafis, rejected what they call Qutbism, as a deviation from true Salafism. Thus there is now a considerable spectrum of religious opinion within Saudi Wahhabism/Salafism, to a great extent divided on the question of whether the Saudi state is to be supported, endured patiently, or violently opposed. The modern day Salafis, deny that Hassan al-Banna or Sayid Qutb were followers of the Salaf, since they upheld the view that it is allowed to overthrow the Muslim leader, and to make “Takfeer” (the act of placing a Muslim out of the fold of Islam, making him a disbeliever) on him based on Major Sins. (24)To this last point, Trevor Stanley also writes that today there are “a profusion of self-proclaimed Salafi groups,” where each accuses “the others of deviating from ‘true’ Salafism.”

Stanley notes that “Since the 1970s, the Saudis have wisely stopped funding those Salafis that excommunicate nominally Muslim governments (or at least the Saudi government), condemning al-Qaeda as ‘the deviant sect’. The pro-Saudis correctly trace al-Qaeda’s ideological roots to Qutb and al-Banna. Less accurately, they accuse these groups of insidiously ‘entering’ Salafism. In fact, Salafism was imported into
Saudi Arabia in its Ikhwani and Qutbist forms. This does not mean that the pro-Saudi Salafis are necessarily benign – for example, Abu Mu’aadh as-Salafee’s main criticism of Qutb and Muslim Brotherhood founder Hassan al-Banna is that they claim Islam teaches tolerance of Jews.” (25)

Meanwhile, non-Muslims and mainstream Muslims alike use the ‘Wahhabi-Salafi’ label to denigrate Salafis and even completely unrelated groups such as the Taliban, adds Stanley.

It was in the Saudi Arabian madrassas, or schools, of Abdullah Azzam that Nazi Fascism with religious extremism were married.

And in one of those madrassas, the student Osama bin Laden studied.

“Should it further surprise us that Osama bin Laden accuses ‘the Jews” of “holding America and the West hostage’ given the fact, that the founder of Hamas, the Palestinian Abdullah Azzam, was at the same time the most important teacher and patron of al Qaida’s leader?” asks Dr. Matthias Küntzel (26)

“The origins of Bin Laden’s concept of jihad can be traced back to two early 20th century figures, who started powerful Islamic revivalist movements in response to colonialism and its aftermath,” writes Fiona Symon, a Middle East analyst. “Pakistan and Egypt – both Muslim countries with a strong intellectual tradition – produced the movements and ideology that would transform the concept of jihad in the modern world.”

“They blamed the western idea of the separation of religion and politics for the decline of Muslim societies … This, they believed, could only be corrected through a return to Islam in its traditional form, in which society was governed by a strict code of Islamic law,” Symon writes, adding: “Al-Banna and Maudoudi breathed new life into the concept of jihad as a holy war to end the foreign occupation of Muslim lands.” (27)

Loftus – and many other authors – says that with the Russian invastion of
Afghanistan in 1979, “the CIA decided to take the Arab Nazis out of cold storage.”

“So we told the Saudis that we would fund them if they would bring all of the Arab Nazis together and ship them off to Afghanistan to fight the Russians,” according to Loftus. “We had to rename them. We couldn’t call them the Muslim Brotherhood because that was too sensitive a name. Its Nazi past was too known. So we called them Maktab al-Khadamat al-Mujahidin, the MAK.” (28)

One of those people shipped off to Afghanistan, after being indoctrinated in Azzam’s madrassas, was Osama bin Laden – and who in turn melded the ideas of Hassan al-Al-Banna’s Muslim Brotherhood with those of Pakistan’s Syed Abul Ala Maududi’s Jamaat Islami after being exposed to it while fighting in Afghanistan. 

Their terror has now extended to the entire world. 

While the vast majority of believers in Islam certainly cannot be labeled as Islam Fascists, it remains that there is a group within the Muslim ranks that does have its roots based in National Socialism and Fascist ideologies. In an effort to brand Bush as politically incorrect, anti-Bush politicians and bloggers who are ignorant of history have become unwitting apologists for Islamo-Fascism, a movement within Islam that many Muslims claim is heretical. 

 

Bibliography1)                 Islamic Antisemitism And Its Nazi Roots2)                 Islamism, fascism and terrorism (Part 3)3)                 Islamism, fascism and terrorism (Part 1)4)                 The Muslim Brotherhood, The Nazis and Al-Qa’ida5)                 Islamic Antisemitism And Its Nazi Roots6)                 Ibid.7)                 Ibid.8)                 Der Mufti von Jerusalem Amin el-Husseini, und die Nationalsozialisten, Frankfurt/M. 1988, S. 2349)                 Islamic Antisemitism And Its Nazi Roots10)             Mohammad Amin al-Husayni Wikipedia11)             Nazi Influence on the Middle East During WWII12)             Islamic Antisemitism And Its Nazi Roots 13)             Nazi Influence on the Middle East During WWII14)             The Muslim Brotherhood, The Nazis and Al-Qa’ida15)             Islamic Antisemitism And Its Nazi Roots 16)             Quoted from: Abd Al-Fattah Muhammad El-Awaisi, “The Muslim Brothers and the Palestine Question 1928-1947″,
London 1998, p. 195.
17)             Islamic Antisemitism And Its Nazi Roots18)             The Muslim Brotherhood, The Nazis and Al-Qa’ida

19)             Analysis: The roots of jihad

21)            
America‘s Devil’s Game with Extremist Islam

22)             A closer look at Hezbollah’s motives  23)             The Muslim Brotherhood, The Nazis and Al-Qa’ida24)             Wahhabism25)             Understanding the Origins of Wahhabism and Salafism26)             Islamic Antisemitism And Its Nazi Roots27)             Analysis: The roots of jihad28)             The Muslim Brotherhood, The Nazis and Al-Qa’ida 

Copyright © 2006 Spero

The Muslim/Nazi Connection

The Big Picture ==The view from WWII to Now

The Big Picture

Source:  The author is attorney and writer Raymond S. Kraft, who lives in California.

Sixty-three years ago, Nazi Germany had overrun almost all of Europe and hammered England to the verge of bankruptcy and defeat, and had sunk more than 400 British ships in their convoys between England and America for food and war materials.

The U.S. was in an isolationist, pacifist, mood, and most Americans and Congress wanted nothing to do with the European war, or the Asian war.

Then along came Pearl Harbor, on December 7, 1941, and, in outrage, Congress unanimously declared war on Japan, and the following day on Germany, which had not attacked us. It was a dicey thing. We had few allies.

France was not an ally; the Vichy government of France aligned with its German occupiers. Germany was not an ally; it was an enemy, and Hitler intended to set up a Thousand Year Reich in Europe. Japan was not an ally; it was intent on owning and controlling all of Asia. Japan and Germany had long-term ideas of invading Canada and Mexico, and then the United States over the north and south borders, after they had settled control of Asia and Europe.

America’s allies then were England, Ireland, Scotland, Canada, Australia, and Russia, and that was about it.

All of Europe, from Norway to Italy, except Russia in the east, was already under the Nazi heel.

America was not prepared for war. America had stood down most of its military after WWI and throughout the depression; at the outbreak of WWII, there were army units training with broomsticks over their shoulders because they didn’t have guns, and cars with “tank” painted on the doors because they didn’t have tanks. And a big chunk of our navy had just been sunk and damaged at Pearl Harbor.

Britain had already gone bankrupt, saved only by the donation of $600,000,000 in gold bullion in the Bank of England that was the property of Belgium and was given by Belgium to England to carry on the war when Belgium was overrun by Hitler. Actually, Belgium surrendered one day, because it was unable to oppose the German invasion, and the Germans bombed Brussels into rubble the next day anyway just to prove that they could. Britain had been holding out for two years already in the face of staggering shipping losses and the near-decimation of its air force in the Battle of Britain, and was saved from being overrun by Germany only because Hitler made the mistake of thinking that the Brits were a relatively minor threat that could be dealt with later and turning his attention to Russia, at a time when England was on the verge of collapse in the late summer of 1940.

Russia saved America’s butt by putting up a desperate fight for two years until the U.S. got geared up to begin hammering away at Germany.

Russia lost something like 24,000,000 people in the sieges of Stalingrad and Moscow, 90% of them from cold and starvation, mostly civilians, but also more than 1,000,000 soldiers. More than a million.

Had Russia surrendered, then, Hitler would have been able to focus his entire campaign against the Brits, then America, and the Nazis would have won that war.

I say this to illustrate that turning points in history are often dicey things. And we are at another one.

There is a very dangerous minority in Islam (assisted through complacence by the majority—ed.) that either has, or wants and may soon have, the ability to deliver small nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons, almost anywhere in the world, unless they are prevented from doing so.

The Jihadis, the militant Muslims, are basically Nazis in Kaffiyahs — they believe that Islam, a radically conservative (definitely not liberal!) form of Wahhabi Islam, should own and control the Middle East first, then Europe, then the world, and that all who do not bow to Allah should be killed, enslaved, or subjugated. They want to finish the Holocaust, destroy Israel, and purge the world of Jews. This is what they say.

There is also a civil war raging in the Middle East — for the most part not a hot war, but a war of ideas. Islam is having its Inquisition and its Reformation today, but it is not yet known which will win — the Inquisition, or the Reformation.

If the Inquisition wins, then the Wahhabis, the Jihadis, will control the Middle East, and the OPEC oil, and the U.S., European, and Asian economies, the techno-industrial economies, will be at the mercy of OPEC — not an OPEC dominated by the well-educated and rational Saudis of today, but an OPEC dominated by the Jihadis.

You want gas in your car? You want heating oil next winter? You want jobs.

You want the dollar to be worth anything? You had better hope the Jihad, the Muslim Inquisition, loses, and the Islamic Reformation wins.

If the Reformation movement wins, that is, the moderate Muslims who believe that Islam can respect and tolerate other religions, and live in peace with the rest of the world, and move out of the 10th century into the 21st, then the troubles in the Middle East will eventually fade away, and a moderate and prosperous Middle East will emerge.

We have to help the Reformation win, and to do that we have to fight the Inquisition, i.e., the Wahhabi movement, the Jihad, Al Qaeda, the Islamic terrorist movements. We have to do it somewhere. We cannot do it nowhere.

And we cannot do it everywhere at once. We have created a focal point for the battle now at the time and place of our choosing, in Iraq.

Not in New York, not in London, or Paris, or Berlin, but in Iraq, where we did and are doing two very important things.

(1) We deposed Saddam Hussein. Whether Saddam Hussein was directly involved in 9/11 or not, it is undisputed that Saddam has been actively supporting the terrorist movement for decades. Saddam is a terrorist.

Saddam is, or was, a weapon of mass destruction, who is responsible for the deaths of probably more than 1,000,000 Iraqis and 2,000,000 Iranians.

(2) We created a battle, a confrontation, a flash point, with Islamic terrorism in Iraq. We have focused the battle. We are killing bad guys there, and the ones we get there we won’t have to get here, or anywhere else. We also have a good shot at creating a democratic, peaceful Iraq, which will be a catalyst for democratic change in the rest of the Middle East, and an outpost for a stabilizing American military presence in the Middle East for as long as it is needed.

World War II, the war with the German and Japanese Nazis, really began with a “whimper” in 1928. It did not begin with Pearl Harbor. It began with the Japanese invasion of China. It was a war for 14 years before America joined it. It officially ended in 1945 — a 17 year war — and was followed by another decade of U.S. occupation in Germany and Japan to get those countries reconstructed and running on their own again … a 27-year war. World War II cost the United States an amount equal to approximately a full year’s GDP – adjusted for inflation, equal to about $12,000,000,000,000 dollars, WWII cost America more than 400,000 killed in action, and nearly 100,000 still missing in action.

The Iraq war has, so far, cost the U.S. about $160 billion, which is roughly what 9/11 cost New York. It has also cost about 2,200 American lives, which is roughly 1/2 of the 3,000 lives that the Jihad snuffed out on 9/11. But the cost of not fighting and winning WWII would have been unimaginably greater — a world now dominated by German and Japanese Nazism.

Americans have a short attention span, now, conditioned I suppose by 60-minute TV shows and two-hour movies in which everything comes out okay.

The real world is not like that. It is messy, uncertain, and sometimes bloody and ugly. Always has been, and probably always will be.

The bottom line here is that we will have to deal with Islamic terrorism until we defeat it, whenever that is. It will not go away on its own. It will not go away if we ignore it.

If the U.S. can create a reasonably democratic and stable Iraq, then we have an “England” in the Middle East, a platform, from which we can work to help modernize and moderate the Middle East. The history of the world is the clash between the forces of relative civility and civilization, and the barbarians clamoring at the gates. The Iraq war is merely another battle in this ancient and never-ending war. And now, for the first time ever, the barbarians are about to get nuclear weapons. Unless we prevent them. Or somebody does.

We have four options

1. We can defeat the Jihad now, before it gets nuclear weapons.

2. We can fight the Jihad later, after it gets nuclear weapons (which may be as early as next year, if Iran’s progress on nuclear weapons is what Iran claims it is).

3. We can surrender to the Jihad and accept its dominance in the Middle East, now, in Europe in the next few years or decades, and ultimately in America.

4. Or, we can stand down now, and pick up the fight later when the Jihad is more widespread and better armed, perhaps after the Jihad has dominated France and Germany and maybe most of the rest of Europe. It will be more dangerous, more expensive, and much bloodier then.

Yes, the Jihadis say that they look forward to an Islamic America. If you oppose this war, I hope you like the idea that your children, or grandchildren, may live in an Islamic America under the Mullahs and the Shar’ia, an America that resembles Iran today.

We can be defeatist peace-activists as anti-war types seem to be, and concede, surrender, to the Jihad, or we can do whatever it takes to win this war against them.

The history of the world is the history of civilizational clashes, cultural clashes. All wars are about ideas, ideas about what society and civilization should be like, and the most determined always win.

Those who are willing to be the most ruthless always win. The pacifists always lose, because the anti-pacifists kill them.

In the 20th century, it was Western democracy vs. communism, and before that Western democracy vs. Nazism, and before that Western democracy vs. German Imperialism. Western democracy won, three times, but it wasn’t cheap, fun, nice, easy, or quick. Indeed, the wars against German Imperialism (WWI), Nazi Imperialism (WWII), and communist imperialism (the 40-year Cold War that included the Vietnam Battle, commonly called the Vietnam War, but itself a major battle in a larger war) covered almost the entire century.

The first major war of the 21st Century is the war between Western Judeo/Christian Civilization and Wahhabi Islam. It may last a few more years, or most of this century. It will last until the Wahhabi branch of Islam fades away, or gives up its ambitions for regional and global dominance and Jihad, or until Western Civilization gives in to the Jihad.

It will take time. It will not go with no hitches. This is not TV.

Remember, perspective is everything, and America’s schools teach too little history for perspective to be clear, especially in the young American mind.

The Cold war lasted from about 1947 at least until the Berlin Wall came down in 1989. Forty-two years. Europe spent the first half of the 19th century fighting Napoleon, and from 1870 to 1945 fighting Germany.

World War II began in 1928, lasted 17 years, plus a 10-year occupation and the U.S. still has troops in Germany and Japan. World War II resulted in the death of more than 50,000,000 people, maybe more than 100,000,000 people, depending on which estimates you accept.

The U.S. has taken a little more than 2,000 KIA in Iraq. The US took more than 4,000 Killed in action on the morning of June 6, 1944, the first day of the Normandy Invasion, to rid Europe of Nazi Imperialism. In WWII, the US averaged 2,000 KIA a week for four years. Most of the individual battles of WWII lost more Americans than the entire Iraq war has done so far.

But the stakes are at least as high . . . a world dominated by representative governments with civil rights, human rights, and personal freedoms . . . or a world dominated by a radical Islamic Wahhabi movement, by the Jihad, under the Mullahs and the Shar’ia (Islamic law).

I do not understand why the American Left does not grasp this. They favor human rights, civil rights, liberty, and freedom, but evidently not for Iraqis. In America, absolutely, but nowhere else.

Three hundred thousand Iraqi bodies in mass graves in Iraq are not our problem? The U.S. population is about twelve times that of Iraq, so let’s multiply 300,000 by twelve. What would you think if there were 3,600,000 American bodies in mass graves in America because of George Bush? Would you hope for another country to help liberate America?

“Peace Activists” always seem to demonstrate where it’s safe, in America. Why don’t we see Peace Activist demonstrating in Iran, Syria, Iraq, Sudan, North Korea, in the places in the world that really need peace activism the most?

The liberal mentality is supposed to favor human rights, civil rights, democracy, multiculturalism, diversity, etc., but, if the Jihad wins, wherever the Jihad wins, it is the end of civil rights, human rights, democracy, multiculturalism, diversity, etc. Americans who oppose the liberation of Iraq are coming down on the side of their own worst enemy.

If the Jihad wins, it is the death of Liberalism. Everywhere the Jihad wins, it is the death of Liberalism. And American Liberals just don’t get it.

Raymond S. Kraft is a writer and lawyer living in Northern California.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 55 other followers