New Jerusalem Mufti endorses suicide bombers

New Jerusalem Mufti endorses suicide bombers

A Muslim (named Jihad, incidentally) just called in to the Mark Larson Show and insisted, among other things, that Islam forbids suicide, and thus that suicide bombing was condemned by Islam. Jihad, you might want to have a word with the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem (who was appointed to the post because he was supposed to be a moderate, replacing a much more inflammatory incumbent, Sheikh Ikrima Sabri).

“New J’lem Mufti endorses suicide bombers: New Grand Mufti of Jerusalem hints that Palestinians have right to resist occupation by any means,” by Yaniv Berman in Ynet News, with thanks to the Constantinopolitan Irredentist:

On October 15, The Media Line news agency conducted an exclusive interview with the newly appointed Grand Mufti of Jerusalem and the Palestinian Lands Sheikh Muhammad Ahmad Hussein. During the interview the mufti said he endorsed the phenomenon of the suicide bombers, as it was part of the Palestinian people’s legitimate resistance…. With a Hamas government on the one hand and an angry US on the other, Abbas could not afford an inflammatory figure sitting in the highest religious post. He decided to appoint Sheikh Muhammad Ahmad Hussein, manager and imam of Al-Aqsa Mosque.’A simple man’

An informed Palestinian source told The Media Line that Hussein was “a simple man, born to a family of humble means.” He was chosen by Abbas because of an important quality he had – an ability to avoid controversies. According to the source, Hussein fears to lose all he has gained, and “Abbas knows he will never jeopardize his position.”

For three months the new grand mufti followed Abbas’ expectations. People who came to listen to him preach on Fridays in Al-Aqsa Mosque never heard him inciting against Israel. His fatwas (religious decrees) also avoided such controversial statements.

Hussein explains that the authority of the grand mufti was wide-ranging.

“We discuss worship, personal issues, economic issues, social issues and political issues – everything which is related to Islam.”

Hussein went on to explain that the mufti discusses all aspects of Islam, including politics.

And then he made a surprising comment.

“It is the Palestinian people’s right to engage in resistance until the occupation ends. As long as the resistance is legitimate, everything related to it is also legitimate.”

Asked to express his view with regard to suicide bombing, the mufti answered: “It is legitimate, of course, as long as it plays a role in the resistance.”

U.S. man pleads guilty to supporting Hamas

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

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 12, 2006
–>Published: October 11, 2006

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.

AGENDA OF ISLAM – A WAR BETWEEN CIVILIZATIONS

AGENDA OF ISLAM – A WAR BETWEEN CIVILIZATIONS

By Professor Moshe Sharon

The war has started a long time ago between two civilizations – between the civilization based on the Bible and between the civilization based on the Koran. And this must be clear. There is no fundamental Islam.
“Fundamentalism” is a word that came from the heart of the Christian religion. It means faith that goes by the word of the Bible. Fundamental Christianity, or going with the Bible, does not mean going around and killing people. There is no fundamental Islam. There is only Islam full stop. The question is how the Koran is interpreted.
All of a sudden we see that the greatest interpreters of Islam are politicians in the western world. They know better than all the speakers in the mosques, all those who deliver terrible sermons against anything that is either Christian or Jewish. These western politicians know that there is good Islam and bad Islam. They know even how to differentiate between the two, except that none of them know how to read a word of Arabic.

The Language of Islam
You see, so much is covered by politically correct language that, in fact, the truth has been lost. For example, when we speak about Islam in the west, we try to use our own language and terminology. We speak about Islam in terms of democracy and fundamentalism, in terms of parliamentarism and all kinds of terms, which we take from our own dictionary. One of my professors and one of the greatest orientalists in the world says that doing this is like a cricket reporter describing a cricket game in baseball terms. We cannot use for one culture or civilization the language of another. For Islam, you’ve got to use the language of Islam.

 Driving Principles of Islam
Let me explain the principles that are driving the religion of Islam. Of course, every Moslem has to acknowledge the fact that there is only one God.
But it’s not enough to say that there is only one God. A Moslem has to acknowledge the fact that there is one God and Mohammed is his prophet. These are the fundamentals of the religion that without them, one cannot be a Moslem.
But beyond that, Islam is a civilization. It is a religion that gave first and foremost a wide and unique legal system that engulfs the individual, society and nations with rules of behaviour. If you are Moslem, you have to behave according to the rules of Islam which are set down in the Koran and which are very different than the teachings of the Bible.

The Bible
Let me explain the difference.
The Bible is the creation of the spirit of a nation over a very, very long period, if we talk from the point of view of the scholar, and let me remain scholarly. But there is one thing that is important in the Bible. It leads to salvation. It leads to salvation in two ways.
In Judaism, it leads to national salvation – not just a nation that wants to have a state, but a nation that wants to serve God. That’s the idea behind the Hebrew text of the Bible.
The New Testament that took the Hebrew Bible moves us toward personal salvation. So we have got these two kinds of salvation, which, from time to time, meet each other. But the key word is salvation. Personal salvation means that each individual is looked after by God, Himself, who leads a person through His word to salvation. This is the idea in the Bible, whether we are talking about the Old or the New Testament. All of the laws in the Bible, even to the minutest ones, are, in fact directed toward this fact of salvation. Secondly, there is another point in the Bible, which is highly important. This is the idea that man was created in the image of God. Therefore, you don’t just walk around and obliterate the image of God. Many people, of course, used Biblical rules and turned them upside down. History has seen a lot of massacres in the name of God and in the name of Jesus. But as religions, both Judaism and Christianity in their fundamentals speak about honoring the image of God and the hope of salvation. These are the two basic fundamentals.

The Essence of Islam
Now let’s move to the essence of Islam. Islam was born with the idea that it should rule the world.
Let’s look, then, at the difference between these three religions. Judaism speaks about national salvation – namely that at the end of the story, when the world becomes a better place, Israel will be in its own land, ruled by its own king and serving God. Christianity speaks about the idea that every single person in the world can be saved from his sings, while Islam speaks about ruling the world. I can quote here in Arabic, but there is no point in quoting Arabic, so let me quote a verse in English. “Allah sent Mohammed with the true religion so that it should rule over all the religions.” The idea, then, is not that the whole world would become a Moslem world at this time, but that the whole world would be subdued under the rule of Islam.
When the Islamic empire was established in 634 AD, within seven years – 640 – the core of the empire was created. The rules that were taken from the Koran and from the tradition that was ascribed to the prophet Mohammed, were translated into a real legal system. Jews and Christians could live under Islam provided they paid poll tax and accepted Islamic superiority. Of course, they had to be humiliated. And Jews and Christians living under Islam are humiliated to this very day.

Mohammed Held That All the Biblical Prophets Were Moslems
Mohammed did accept the existence of all the Biblical prophets before him. However he also said that all these prophets were Moslems. Abraham was a Moslem. In fact, Adam himself was the first Moslem. Isaac and Jacob and David and Solomon and Moses and Jesus were all Moslems, and all of them had writings similar to the Koran. Therefore, world history is Islamic history because all the heroes of history were Moslems.
Furthermore, Moslems accept the fact that each of these prophets brought with him some kind of a revelation. Moses, brought the Taurat, which is the Torah, and Jesus brought the Ingeel, which is the Evangelion or Gospel – namely the New Testament.
 

The Bible vs. the Koran
Why then is the Bible not similar to the Koran?
Mohammed explains that the Jews and Christians forged their books. Had they not been changed and forged, they would have been identical to the Koran. But because Christians and Jews do have some truth, Islam concedes that they cannot be completely destroyed by war [for now]. Nevertheless, the laws a very clear – Jews and Christians have no rights whatsoever to independent existence. They can live under Islamic rule provided they keep to the rules that Islam promulgates for them.

Islamic Rule and Jihad
What happens if Jews and Christians don’t want to live under the rules of Islam? Then Islam has to fight them and this fighting is called Jihad. Jihad means war against those people who don’t want to accept the Islamic superior rule. That’s jihad. They may be Jews; they may be Christians; they may be Polytheists. But since we don’t have too many Polytheists left, at least not in the Middle East – their war is against the Jews and Christians.
A few days ago, I received a pamphlet that was distributed in the world by bin Laden. He calls for jihad against America as the leader of the Christian world, not because America is the supporter of Israel, but because Americans are desecrating Arabia with their filthy feet. There are Americans in Arabia were no Christians should be. In this pamphlet there is not a single word about Israel. Only that Americans are desecrating the home of the prophet.

Two Houses
The Koran sees the world as divided into two – one part which has come under Islamic rule and one part which is supposed to come under Islamic rule in the future. There is a division of the world which is very clear. Every single person who starts studying Islam knows it. The world is described as Dar al-Islam (the house of Islam) – that’s the place where Islam rules – and the other part which is called Dar al-Harb – the house of war. Not the “house of non-Muslims,” but the “house of war.” It is this house of war which as to be, at the end of time, conquered. The world will continue to be in the house of war until it comes under Islamic rule.
This is the norm. Why? Because Allah says it’s so in the Koran. God has sent Mohammed with the true religion in order that the truth will overcome all other religions.

Islamic Law
Within the Islamic vision of this world, there are rules that govern the lives of the Moslems themselves, and these rules are very strict. In fundamentals, there are no differences between schools of law.
However, there are four streams of factions within Islam with differences between them concerning the minutiae of the laws. All over the Islamic world, countries have favored one or another of these schools of laws.
The strictest school of law is called Hanbali, mainly coming out of Saudi Arabia. There are no games there, no playing around with the meanings of words. If the Koran speaks about war, then it’s war.
There are various perspectives in Islam with different interpretations over the centuries. There were good people that were very enlightened in Islam that tried to understand things differently. They even brought traditions from the mouth of the prophet that women and children should not be killed in war.These more liberal streams do exist, but there is one thing that is very important for us to remember. The Hanbali school of law is extremely strict, and today this is the school that is behind most of the terrorist powers. Even if we talk about the existence of other schools of Islamic law, when we’re talking about fighting against the Jews, or fighting against the Christian world led by America, it is the Hanbali school of law that is being followed.

 Islam and Territory
This civilization created one very important, fundamental rule about territory. Any territory that comes under Islamic rule cannot be de-Islamized. Even if at one time or another, the [non-Moslem] enemy takes over the territory that was under Islamic rule, it is considered to be perpetually Islamic.This is why whenever you hear about the Arab/Israeli conflict, you hear – territory, territory, territory. There are other aspects to the conflict, but territory is highly important.
The Christian civilization has not only been seen as a religious opponent, but as a dam stopping Islam from achieving its final goal for which it was created. Islam was created to be the army of God, the army of Allah. Every single Moslem is a soldier in this army. Every single Moslem that dies in fighting for the spread of Islam is a shaheed (martyr) no matter how he dies, because – and this is very important – this is an eternal word between the two civilizations. It’s not a war that stops. This was is there because it was created by Allah. Islam must be the ruler. This is a war that will not end.

Islam and Peace
Peace in Islam can exist only within the Islamic world; peace can only be between Moslem and Moslem.
With the non-Moslem world or non-Moslem opponents, there can be only one solution – a cease fire until Moslems can gain more power. It is an eternal war until the end of days. Peace can only come if the Islamic side wins. The two civilizations can only have periods of cease-fires. And this idea of cease-fire is based on a very important historical precedent, which, incidentally, Yasser Arafat referred to when he spoke in Johannesburg after he signed the Oslo agreement with Israel. Let me remind you that the document speaks of peace – you wouldn’t believe what you are reading! You would think that you were reading some science fiction piece. I mean when you read it, you can’t believe that this was signed by Israelis who are actually acquainted with Islamic policies and civilization. A few weeks after the Oslo agreement was signed, Arafat went to Johannesburg, and in a mosque there he made a speech in which he apologized, saying, “Do you think I signed something with the Jews which is contrary to the rules of Islam?” (I have obtained a copy of Arafat’s recorded speech so I heard it from his own mouth.) Arafat continued, “That’s not so. I’m doing exactly what the prophet Mohammed did.” Whatever the prophet is supposed have done becomes a precedent. What Arafat was saying was, “Remember the story of Hudaybiya.” The prophet had made an agreement there with the tribe of Kuraish for 10 years. But then he trained 10,000 soldiers and within two years marched on their city of Mecca. He, of course, found some kind of pretext. Thus, in Islamic jurisdiction, it became a legal precedent which states that you are only allowed to make peace for a maximum of 10 years. Secondly, at the first instance that you are able, you must renew the jihad [thus breaking the "peace" agreement].
In Israel, it has taken over 50 years in this country for our people to understand that they cannot speak about [permanent] peace with Moslems. It will take another 50 years for the western world to understand that they have got a state of war with the Islamic civilization that is virile and strong. This should be understood: When we talk about war and peace, we are not talking in Belgium, French, English, or German terms. We are talking about war and peace in Islamic terms.

Cease-fire as a Tactical Choice
What makes Islam accept cease-fire? Only one thing – when the enemy is too strong. It is a tactical choice.
Sometimes, he may have to agree to a cease-fire in the most humiliating conditions. It’s allowed because Mohammed accepted a cease-fire under humiliating conditions. That’s what Arafat said to them in Johannesburg.
When western policy makers hear these things, they answer, “What are you talking about? You are in the Middle Ages. You don’t understand the mechanisms of politics.”
Which mechanisms of politics? There are no mechanisms of politics where power is. And I want to tell you one thing – we haven’t seen the end of it, because the minute a radical Moslem power has atomic, chemical or biological weapons, they will use it. I have no doubt about that. Now, since we face war and we know that we cannot get more than an impermanent cease-fire, one has to ask himself what is the major component of an Israeli/Arab cease-fire. It is that the Islamic side is weak and your side is strong. The relations between Israel and the Arab world in the last 50 years since the establishment of our State has been based only on this idea, the deterrent power.  

Wherever You Have Islam, You Will Have War
The reason that we have what we have in Yugoslavia and other places is because Islam succeeded into entering these countries. Wherever you have Islam, you will have war. It grows out of the attitude of Islamic civilization.
What are the poor people in the Philippines being killed for? What’s happening between Pakistan and India?

Islamic Infiltration
Furthermore, there is another fact that must be remembered. The Islamic world has not only the attitude of open war, but there’s also war by infiltration.
One of the things which the western world is not paying enough attention to is the tremendous growth of Islamic power in the western world. What happened in America and the Twin Towers is not something that came from the outside. And if America doesn’t wake up, one day the Americans will find themselves in a chemical war and most likely in an atomic war – inside the U.S.

End of Days
It is highly important to understand how a civilization sees the end of days. In Christianity and in Judaism, we know exactly what is the vision of the end of days.
In Judaism, it is going to be as in Isaiah – peace between nations, not just one nation, but between all nations. People will not have any more need for weapons and nature will be changed – a beautiful end of days and the kingdom of God on earth.
Christianity goes as far as Revelation to see a day that Satan himself is obliterated. There are no more powers of evil. That’s the vision.
I’m speaking now as a historian. I try to understand how Islam sees the end of days. In the end of days, Islam sees a world that is totally Moslem, completely Moslem under the rule of Islam. Complete and final victory.
Christians will not exist, because according to many Islamic traditions, the Moslems who are in hell will have to be replaced by somebody and they’ll be replaced by the Christians. The Jews will no longer exist, because before the coming of the end of days, there is going to be a war against the Jews where all Jews should be killed. I’m quoting now from the heart of Islamic tradition, from the books that are read by every child in school. They Jews will all be killed. They’ll be running away and they’ll be hiding behind trees and rocks, and on that day Allah will give mouths to the rocks and trees and they will say, “Oh Moslem come here, there is a Jew behind me, kill him.” Without this, the end of days cannot come. This is a fundamental of Islam. Is

There a Possibility to End This Dance of War?
The question which we in Israel are asking ourselves is what will happen to our country? Is there a possibility to end this dance of war?
The answer is, “No. Not in the foreseeable future.” What we can do is reach a situation where for a few years we may have relative quiet. But for Islam, the establishment of the state of Israel was a reverse of Islamic history. First, Islamic territory was taken away from Islam by Jews. You know by now that this can never be accepted, not even one meter. So everyone who thinks Tel Aviv is safe is making a grave mistake. Territory, which at one time was dominated by Islamic rule, now has become non-Moslem. Non-Moslems are independent of Islamic rule; Jews have created their own independent state. It is anathema. And (this is the worse) Israel, a non-Moslem state, is ruling over Moslems. It is unthinkable that non-Moslems should rule over Moslems.

I believe that Western civilization should hold together and support each other. Whether this will happen or not, I don’t know. Israel finds itself on the front lines of this war. It needs the help of its sister civilization. It needs the help of America and Europe. It needs the help of the Christian world. One thing I am sure about, this help can be given by individual Christians who see this as the road to salvation. 

The Left’s Diplomacy Pays Off

The Left’s Diplomacy Pays Off
By Ben Johnson
FrontPageMagazine.com | October 9, 2006

SCORE ONE FOR BILL CLINTON and Jimmy Carter.

As of this writing in the early morning hours of October 9, President Bush is expected to announce that North Korea has conducted an underground nuclear test. Unlike the abortive launch in July, last night’s explosion netted the Stalinist gulag valuable information and packed a lethal impact. At 9:35 p.m. EST, the U.S. Geological Survey measured a 4.2 magnitude disturbance approximately 240 miles northeast of Pyongyang.

The Left quickly attempted the shopworn tactic of pinning the blame on the Bush administration’s rhetoric or unwillingness to bribe Kim Jong-il. Early this morning, Joseph Cirincione of the George Soros-funded Center for American Progress told CNN, “They had numerous opportunities to negotiate a deal…They did not.” He concluded, “I think the North Koreans came to that conclusion: that there is no deal to be had with this administration, and they decided they had nothing to lose.”

By way of commentary, the popular left-wing blog The Daily Kos quoted Selig S. Harrison from the international edition of Newsweek:

North Korea’s missile tests in July and its threat last week to conduct a nuclear test explosion at an unspecified date “in the future” were directly provoked by the U.S. sanctions. In North Korean eyes, pressure must be met with pressure to maintain national honor and, hopefully, to jump-start new bilateral negotiations with Washington that could ease the financial squeeze. When I warned against a nuclear test, saying that it would only strengthen opponents of negotiations in Washington, several top officials replied that “soft” tactics had not worked and they had nothing to lose.

 The Kos feels no need to explain which U.S. provocation justified the birth of the North Korean nuclear program in 1994 – during Bill Clinton’s presidency – nor that the DPRK’s “‘soft’ tactics” entailed firing a missile over the Japanese mainland and threatening to strike the United States.  Worse yet, Kim Jong-il’s methods have paid off handsomely. Each act of brinksmanship has brought cash, supplies, oil, nuclear reactors, or additional concessions from the West. Within two months of the Taepo Dong missile scraping across Nippon in August 1998, President Clinton sent North Korea a multi-million dollar aid package and reopened bilateral negotiations.  

The Dear Leader’s nuclear test could not have occurred without Bill Clinton’s decade of dalliance. Clinton could have obliterated the Yongbyong reactor with one strike when he first learned of North Korea’s covert nuclear program in 1994. Instead, he allowed Jimmy Carter’s private foreign policy to preempt him. Upon completing the “Agreed Framework” in 1994, Clinton stated, “This agreement will help achieve a vital and long-standing American objective: an end to the threat of nuclear proliferation on the Korean peninsula.” We now know the $4.6 billion bribe gave the Communists the two nuclear reactors they used to create their current arsenal.

If the Left’s policies allowed Stalinists to arm, they left Americans defenseless. The Democratic Party has defined its defense policy in opposition to the concept of defense. For more than two decades, the Democratic Party has worked in concert to block any missile defense program and castigated those who tried to shield the United States from a doomsday device. When President Reagan announced the Strategic Defense Initiative in 1983, Ted Kennedy promptly denounced it as “Star Wars.” The New York Times called it “a projection of fantasy into policy,” and other outlets fretted the abandonment of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) would encourage the United States to pre-emptively attack the Soviet Union. Bill Clinton pledged his support for a missile shield in theory during his 1996 re-election campaign, then withheld critical funds and scheduled deployments in his second term. When George W. Bush pulled out of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty – negotiated in the 1970’s with a nation that no longer exists – the Left branded him a “unilateralist.” During the 2004 campaign, John Kerry adviser Rand Beers said North Korea was able to acquire a nuclear weapon, not because naïve leftists insisted on bribing its playboy despot, but because “Bush and his closest advisers were preoccupied with missile defense.” Twenty-three years after President Reagan’s vision of “rendering these nuclear weapons impotent and obsolete,” the United States remains vulnerable to madmen like Kim Jong-il…or whoever purchases his wares. Ironically, the Left’s got it wrong on SDI twice: the mere idea of missile defense caused the Soviet Union to spend itself into bankruptcy, and the fact that it remains merely an idea emboldens tinhorn dictators to engage in nuclear blackmail.

 The Left has specialized in sidelining those who would conduct a vigorous foreign policy, so impugning this president’s integrity as to render anything he says suspect. When the media dubbed the assessment of every intelligence agency in the world that Saddam Hussein possessed WMDs “wrong,” it could not merely acknowledge that statesmen must act on the best information available to them at the time. Instead, they had to brand the commander-in-chief a “liar” and “fraud.” Ted Kennedy famously thundered, “Week after week after week after week, we were told lie after lie after lie after lie.” Congressional Democrats demanded an investigation into whether President Bush coerced intelligence agents into “sexing up” Iraqi intelligence. (Multiple reports proved he did not.) Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid then shut down the Senate last November 1st to demand investigations into whether the Bush administration twisted intel ex post facto. Sen. Pat Roberts’ Senate Intelligence Committee recently released two documents that exonorated him on that point, as well. Yet the current cover story of Mother Jones magazine is, “Lie by Lie: How Our Leaders Used Fear and Falsehood to Dupe us Into a Mideast Quagmire: A Timeline.” Having claimed Bush “lied” about Iraqi WMDs, he finds himself circumscribed in dealing with other rogue regimes; after all, who would follow a “liar” into war twice? 

Even this has been insufficient for today’s partisans, who demand Bush’s full demonization. Comparisons to Hitler early became ubiquitous. Al Gore bellowed, “He buhtrayeed Amurrucuh”; Howard Dean referred to Bush-43 as “Big Brother”; and Air America, the British Guardian newspaper, and a new motion picture have pined for his assassination. If Kim Jong-il is insane, in the Left’s view, he is not materially worse than our president.

Not all blame can be placed on the Left, though. This administration’s foreign policy has sent an uncertain message in its second term. The Bush team has offered Kim Jong-il bilateral relations, the Dear Leader’s penultimate goal. (The ultimate goal being U.S. aid. Such prominent Democrats as John Kerry and Hillary Clinton also advocate rewarding Korean belligerence with direct talks.) Having dealt with the result of the Clinton-Carter Agreed Framework of 1994, President Bush offered Iran essentially the same deal. At stages, the war in Iraq has been carried out half-heartedly: backing off Fallujah, allowing anti-Americans prominent governing positions, doing little to stop supplies and terrorists from crossing the Syrian and Iranian borders, etc. There are even reports Yemen “will generate power through nuclear energy in cooperation with the United States and Canada.”

And there are troubling signs of a creeping failure of nerve. Chief of Staff Andy Card, brought in to “shake things up,” has publicly advocated firing Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld in favor of James A. Baker III. Jim “F-ck the Jews” Baker’s Iraq Study Group will soon release a study reported to call, in broad strokes, for the president to back down in Iraq, “the central front in the War on Terror.”

Today’s crisis has also raised eyebrows. According to early leaks of today’s UN Security Council proposal, the administration’s requested sanctions would exclude China’s oil trade, which provides some 85 percent of Pyongyang’s fuel.

The Bush administration could present a robust plan of action to the United Nations Security Council today as its needed rebound. China will likely veto any measure to curtail its oil exports, but the U.S. could support Japan’s desires to build an appropriate defense. We could and should do the same for Taiwan, as well. In addition to providing a counterweight to Pyongyang, this would apply long-term geopolitical pressure to Beijing. The president would also be well advised to use the crisis to push through greater funding for missile defense, the only ultimate hope of “rendering these nuclear weapons impotent and obsolete.” 

Or he could acquiesce to Foggy Bottom’s wisdom and issue yet another empty threat or ineffective sanctions package, followed by offers of diplomatic carrots, which would reinforce the growing perception that, rhetoric aside, the United States is too paralyzed by internal debate to prevent apocalyptic madmen from acquiring nuclear weapons. Like a precipitous withdrawal from Iraq, backing down before Kim Jong-il’s pressure will send a clear message to people like Hugo Chavez, Evo Morales, and other aspiring tyrants.

 Before making such a move, President Bush must remember there is something worse than meeting the advance of evil with inaction: that is resisting evil only strenuously enough to give the enemy the thrill of victory.

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

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 55 other followers