A Muslim Manifesto for America?

by Alan Caruba

A Muslim Manifesto for America?

October 30, 2006 02:00 PM EST

It’s always hard to pinpoint when a historic shift takes place. It is rarely as easy as Martin Luther’s posting of his 95 thesis that launched the Reformation and loosed the grip of the Catholic Church on the governance of Europe or when Henry VIII pushed Rome out of England to create the Anglican Church.

When, however, did the tiny Muslim community in America, estimated to be between two and three million—by contrast there are some six million Jews in America—begin to assert its takeover? I am going to mark it from October 19, 2006 when the Star-Ledger, New Jersey’s largest circulation daily, ran an article, “She’s got it covered: Designer seeks to dress the style-conscious Muslim woman” in its feature news section.

“Many Muslim women wear hijab as an expression of the Islamic tradition of modesty,” noted the article about a 27-year old American Muslim fashion designer. Born to a Jewish mother and a Catholic father, she had converted to Islam as a student at New York University after she married her husband, a Muslim.

When the media begin to find ways to offer up a positive image of Islam, you know they have probably decided that the game is over and we in the West have lost. The American media is expert at showing the white flag of surrender. They have been trumpeting the end of the world for decades now.

Wrong about the Soviet Union right up to the day it imploded. Wrong about the predictions that the Earth could not sustain six billion people. Wrong about the availability of mineral and energy resources. Wrong about global warming. Wrong about cutting taxes. Wrong about the current excellent state of the U.S. economy.

And now the surrender-addicts are ready, like our European cousins, to concede that Western civilization should just roll over and give up in the face of the worldwide Islamic jihad.

Europeans stopped attending Europe’s churches and stopped having enough babies to replace themselves in favor of creating totally unsustainable welfare states. Instead, they imported millions Muslims to do the work they became too old or too lazy to do themselves.

The United States, too, has created a cradle-to-grave socialist system that is going broke at an alarming rate even while the economy is thriving. The Bush administration is conspiring with Canada and Mexico to erase our national borders in order to create a North American Union that will throw our national sovereignty down the rat-hole of a vast bureaucracy that will not have to be responsive to those awful American voters.

As Mark Steyn says in his brilliant new book, America Alone, “We are living through a rare moment: the self-extinction of the civilization which, for good or ill, shaped the age we live in.”

The British, part of the European Union, should have paid heed in 1990 when “The Muslim Manifesto: A Strategy for Survival” was promulgated to create the Council of British Muslims to act as “a Muslim parliament” in a nation that gave us the Magna Carta, detailing the rules of property rights and individual freedoms. These days, the nations with the least amount of freedom are predominately Muslim.

Britain’s Muslim Manifesto made it clear that “Political and cultural subservience goes against their grain” because “at its inception Islam created a political platform from which Muslims were to launch themselves on a global role as founders of great states, empires and a world civilization and culture.”

Why should an article in a leading U.S. newspaper mark the beginning of the end? According to the UK’s Muslim Manifesto, “The fact is that a Muslim woman cannot be a western woman.” The problem for Muslims in Great Britain was that “There are laws on the British Statute Book that are in direct conflict with the laws of Allah.”

“We are Muslims first and last.”

“Jihad is a basic requirement of Islam and living in Britain or having British nationality by birth or naturalization does not absolve the Muslim from his or her duty to participate in jihad: this participation can be active service in armed struggle abroad and/or the provision of material and moral support to those engaged in such struggle anywhere in the world.”

“Islam is our guide in all situations.”

Ultimately this became clear to the non-Muslim citizens of England when on July 7, 2005, born-and-bred Muslim British citizens killed some of them in London’s subways and buses. This year in August it scared a lot of people to learn that British Muslims were planning to destroy ten commercial airliners and kill thousands of travelers.

Assimilation, according to the Manifesto, wasn’t even an option. Why need it be? By the early 1990s, there were already about 1,000 mosques in Great Britain, many of them former Anglican churches that had been abandoned and sold to Muslims.

As is the case of France today, the Manifesto recommended that “The Muslim community may have to define ‘no go’ areas where the exercise of ‘freedom of speech’ against Islam will not be tolerated.”

In the now famous words of Pogo, “We have met the enemy and they are us.” If America, the lone superpower, does not hold out against the march of Islam, it will fall into the Dark Ages of Muslim control, a place where born-and-bred Americans like the fashion designer will determine what American women will wear and other Muslims will impose the Sharia law of Islam upon all of us.

The next time you want to mock the “fundamentalist” Christians, famed for their patriotism, think again.

The next time you shrug when you hear your local school system has banned the playing or singing of Christmas carols, think again.

The next time you are inclined to say or think unkind things about American or Israeli Jews, think again.

The next time your neighborhood, community or city yields to some new Islamic demand to conform to their “religious” rules, think again.

The next time you read demands that something not be published or aired in America because it offends Muslim sensibilities, think again.

The next time anyone tells you that Islam preaches tolerance or peace, think again.

This is how nations and ultimately western civilization will slip-slide into a world no American would ever want for their children and grandchildren.

Alan Caruba writes a weekly column, “Warning Signs”, posted on the Internet site of The National Anxiety Center, http://www.anxietycenter.com. His new book, “Right Answers: Separating Fact from Fantasy” has been published by Merril Press.

© Alan Caruba, 2006

Who was the Grand Mufti, Haj Muhammed Amin al-Husseini?

Who was the Grand Mufti, Haj Muhammed Amin al-Husseini?

Grand Mufti with Hitler

Grand Mufti with Hitler

Muhammed Amin al-Husseini [many spelling variations] was born in 1893 (or 1895), the son of the Mufti of Jerusalem and member of an esteemed, aristocratic family. The Husseinis were one of the richest and most powerful of all the rivalling clans in the Ottoman province known as the Judaean part of Palestine.

Amin al-Husseini studied religious law at al-Azhar University, Cairo, and attended the Istanbul School of Administration. In 1913 he went to Mecca on a pilgrimage, earning the honorary title of “Haj”. He voluntarily joined the Ottoman Turkish army in World War I but returned to Jerusalem in 1917 and expediently switched sides to aid the victorious British. He acquired the reputation as a violent, fanatical anti-Zionist zealot and was jailed by the British for instigating a 1920 Arab attack against Jews who were praying at the Western Wall.

The first Palestine High Commissioner. Sir Herbert Samuel arrived in Palestine on July 1, 1920. He was a weak administrator who was too ready to compromise and appease the extremist, nationalistic Arab minority led by Haj Amin al-Husseini. When the existing Arab Mufti of Jerusalem (religious leader) died in 1921, Samuels was influenced by anti-Zionist British officials on his staff. He pardoned al-Husseini and, in January 1922, appointed him as the new Mufti, and even invented a new title of Grand Mufti. He was simultaneously made President of a newly created Supreme Muslim Council. Al-Husseini thereby became the religious and political leader of the Arabs.

The appointment of the young al-Husseini as Mufti was a seminal event. Prior to his rise to power, there were active Arab factions supporting cooperative development of Palestine involving Arabs and Jews. But al-Husseini would have none of that; he was devoted to driving Jews out of Palestine, without compromise, even if it set back the Arabs 1000 years.

William Ziff, in his book “The Rape of Palestine,” summarizes:

  • Implicated in the [1920] disturbances was a political adventurer named Haj Amin al Husseini. Haj Amin, was sentenced by a British court to fifteen years hard labor. Conveniently allowed to escape by the police, he was a fugitive in Syria. Shortly after, the British then allowed him to return to Palestine where, despite the opposition of the muslim High Council who regarded him as a hoodlum, Haj Amin was appointed by the British High Commissioner as Grand Mufti of Jerusalem for life. [P. 22]

Al-Husseini represented newly emerging proponents of militant, Palestinian Arab nationalism, a previously unknown concept. Once he was in power, he began a campaign of terror and intimidation against anyone opposed to his rule and policies. He killed Jews at every opportunity, but also eliminated Arabs who did not support his campaign of violence. Husseini was not willing to negotiate or make any kind of compromise for the sake of peace.

As a young man, al-Husseini worked with a native Jew, Abbady, who documented this comment:

  • Remember, Abbady, this was and will remain an Arab land. We do not mind you natives of the country, but those alien invaders, the Zionists, will be massacred to the last man. We want no progress, no prosperity. Nothing but the sword will decide the fate of this country.

In 1929, major Arab riots were instigated against the Jews of Palestine. They began when al-Husseini falsely accused Jews of defiling and endangering local mosques, including al-Aqsa. The call went out to the Arab masses: “Izbah Al-Yahud!” — “Slaughter the Jews!” After the killing of Jews in Hebron, the Mufti disseminated photographs of slaughtered Jews with the claim that the dead were Arabs killed by Jews.

In April, 1936 six prominent Arab leaders formed the Arab Higher Committee, with the Grand Mufti Haj Amin al-Husseini as head of the organization, joining forces to protest British support of Zionist progress in Palestine. In the same month, riots broke out in Jaffa commencing a three-year period of violence and civil strife in Palestine that is known as the Arab Revolt. The Arab Higher Committee led the campaign of terrorism against Jewish and British targets.

Using the turmoil of the Arab Revolt as cover, al-Husseini consolidated his control over the Palestinian Arabs with a campaign of murder against Jews and non-compliant Arabs, the recruitment of armed militias, and the raising of funds from around the Muslim world using anti-Jewish propaganda. In 1937 the Grand Mufti expressed his solidarity with Germany, asking the Nazi Third Reich to oppose establishment of a Jewish state, stop Jewish immigration to Palestine, and provide arms to the Arab population. Following an assassination attempt on the British Inspector-General of the Palestine Police Force and the murder by Arab extremists of Jews and moderate Arabs, the Arab Higher Committee was declared illegal by the British. The Grand Mufti lost his office of President of the Supreme muslim Council, his membership on the Waqf committee, and was forced into exile in Syria in 1937. The British deported the Arab mayor of Jerusalem along with other members of the Arab Higher Committee.

According to documentation from the Nuremberg and Eichmann trials, the Nazi Germany SS helped finance al-Husseini’s efforts in the 1936-39 revolt in Palestine. Adolf Eichmann actually visited Palestine and met with al-Husseini at that time and subsequently maintained regular contact with him later in Berlin.

In 1940, al-Husseini requested the Axis powers to acknowledge the Arab right:

  • … to settle the question of Jewish elements in Palestine and other Arab countries in accordance with the national and racial interests of the Arabs and along the lines similar to those used to solve the Jewish question in Germany and Italy.

While in Baghdad, Syria al-Husseini aided the pro-Nazi revolt of 1941. He then spent the rest of World War II as Hitler’s special guest in Berlin, advocating the extermination of Jews in radio broadcasts back to the Middle East and recruiting Balkan Muslims for infamous SS “mountain divisions” that tried to wipe out Jewish communities throughout the region.

At the Nuremberg Trials, Eichmann’s deputy Dieter Wisliceny (subsequently executed as a war criminal) testified:

  • The Mufti was one of the initiators of the systematic extermination of European Jewry and had been a collaborator and adviser of Eichmann and Himmler in the execution of this plan. … He was one of Eichmann’s best friends and had constantly incited him to accelerate the extermination measures. I heard him say, accompanied by Eichmann, he had visited incognito the gas chamber of Auschwitz.

With the collapse of Nazi Germany in 1945, the Mufti moved to Egypt where he was received as a national hero. After the war al-Husseini was indicted by Yugoslavia for war crimes, but escaped prosecution. The Mufti was never tried because the Allies were afraid of the storm in the Arab world if the hero of Arab nationalism was treated as a war criminal.

From Egypt al-Husseini was among the sponsors of the 1948 war against the new State of Israel. Spurned by the Jordanian monarch, who gave the position of Grand Mufti of Jerusalem to someone else, Haj Amin al-Husseini arranged King Abdullah’s assassination in 1951, while still living in exile in Egypt. King Tallal followed Abdullah as king of Jordan, and he refused to give permission to Amin al-Husseini to come into Jordanian Jerusalem. After one year, King Tallal was declared incompetent; the new King Hussein also refused to give al-Husseini permission to enter Jerusalem. King Hussein recognized that the former Grand Mufti would only stir up trouble and was a danger to peace in the region.

Haj Amin al-Husseini eventually died in exile in 1974. He never returned to Jerusalem after his 1937 departure. His place as leader of the radical, nationalist Palestinian Arabs was taken by his nephew Mohammed Abdel-Raouf Arafat As Qudwa al-Hussaeini, better known as Yasser Arafat. In August 2002, Arafat gave an interview in which he referred to “our hero al-Husseini” as a symbol of Palestinian Arab resistance.

Sources and additional reading on this topic:

Some of the links are dead but a lot of info in the live ones

The Muslim/Nazi Connection

Flashback: Beginning of the Final World War — Chilling

Flashback: Beginning of the Final World War


The War on Islam – Beginning of the Final World War

By Abid Ullah Jan
Forst Publushed The Frontier Post – Pakistan
**** FLASHBACK **** November 11, 2001The optimists, who await an end to the post September 11 crisis, would end up as much disappointed tomorrow as the pacifists are today. Those who exaggerate the fear of “fundamentalist” Islam but underestimate the resistance in the Muslim world would soon realize that not only the world is not as it was; the war also is not as simple as they perceived it to be.

Out of a multiple fear of American wrath, Indian attack, economic embargo, and international isolation, we let the world feast on our Afghan brothers. However, we forgot that we might not even get enough time to digest the showering dollars for which we have sold our conscience, our dignity and unknowingly our existence as a state? The highly disguised intentions of Blair and Bush have turned our hasty decision to join the “coalition” into a time bomb, ticking to detonate with horrible consequences in the near future. The chickens of our instant surrender are already gradually coming home to roost.

It is now dawning on us that we are the pawns in the anti-Islam coalition. People ask, what other alternatives we had at our disposal? Instead, we must ask about the consequences of our meek surrender, which instantly nullify all the expected benefits. Lets look at a brief list of consequences at national level: democracy has been indefinitely postponed; the US may bomb us but we may not criticize it; dissent and protest have no place in the rewritten human rights; we must stop “terrorism” in Kashmir, or face the consequences (Joe Biden, Chairman Senate Foreign Relations Committee); Washington mulls “neutralizing” Pakistan nuclear facilities (the Statesman October 28); Pakistan’s nuclear weapons at risk from the US and Israeli plans to destroy (The New Yorker Magazine, November 5); US Special Unit ‘Stands by to Steal Pakistan’s Atomic Warheads’ (The Telegraph, October 29); Pakistan is flooded with refugees with no end to the war in sight; instead of its enemies, Pakistan’s war machine is in action against its own citizens; illegal and unconstitutional detentions are on the rise; and “Pakistan is in danger of falling apart,” (William Dalrymple, The Guardian, October, 23).

Some might question, if these are the fruits of cooperation, how could we afford the horrible consequences of defiance? The answer is: with or without cooperation we are the next victim anyway. We have simply given the US a time out to take us one by one. Remember the origins of World War II, when appeasement was based on the illusion that Hitler only wanted to reverse the wrongs, which Germany felt had been done to her. The West assumed that if the German claims were granted, peace in Europe would follow.

We have also wrongly assumed that the US is after Al-Qaida alone. Now it is out to dislodge the Taliban and set a stage for attacking Iraq and “neutralizing” Pakistan. This is just the beginning. To justify our decision made out of fear, we might justify the US terrorism as retribution of the September 11 attacks, but in fact there is no calculus of injustice. If the US is behaving unjustly, it should stop. It does not help its case to contend that others are acting “even more” unjustly. If the September 11 event is a crime, then the principles of justice must be followed in meting out punishment. Inventing another category called war and making it the special province of the US is not the answer. If Bush and Blair postulate that the principles of justice are suspended whenever they are at war, then every state can throw off the shackles of justice and do whatever it wants, including deliberately killing thousands who were not responsible for the initial injustice. Jumping into coalition with the US was a comfortable alternative. However, the unfolding events show that we have to reconsider our options for in this war there is very little room for mistakes and the situation could well lead to the final world war.

The Muslim world’s policy of appeasement is similar to what Britain and France embraced in vain in the 1930s in a bid to reach a peaceful understanding with Germany. Just like the forced retirement of some senior military officials in Pakistan, Anthony Eden, Chamberlain’s foreign secretary, who did not agree to give Hitler a free hand was replaced by Lord Halifax who fully supported the British policy of appeasement. In February 1938, Hitler invited the Austrian Chancellor, Kurt von Schuschnigg, to meet him at Berchtesgarden. Just like the US demands to give Pakistan’s nuclear facilities and fate in the “safe” American hands, Hitler demanded similar concessions from Austria. The then “fundamentalist” Schuschnigg refused and was replaced by Arthur Seyss-Inquart, the leader of the Austrian Nazi Party – “moderate” by the Nazi standards. On 13th March, Seyss-Inquart invited the German Army to occupy Austria.

Just like the present suggestions to transform Afghanistan into a UN run state (UN being an extension of the State Department), Hitler began demanding control of the Sudetenland in Czechoslovakia. In an attempt to solve the crisis, the heads of Germany, Britain, France and Italy met in Munich. On September 29, 1938 the Munich Agreement was signed to transfer to Germany the Sudetenland. Just like Pakistan and other Muslim states’ unwillingness to defend the cause of Afghan brothers, when Eduard Benes, Czechoslovakia’s head of state, protested at this decision, Neville Chamberlain told him that Britain would be unwilling to go to war over the issue of the Sudetenland.

Just like some initial positive response to Musharraf’s quick surrender, some people in Britain also appreciated the Munich Agreement because it appeared to have prevented the German wrath. Just like, the US changing objective from war on terrorism to war on the Taliban, Germany also seized the rest of Czechoslovakia in March 1939 after getting a nod from the Munich Agreement. The policy of most Muslim heads of state on Afghanistan is no different than what Chamberlain expressed in a radio broadcast on September 27, 1938. He said: “How horrible, fantastic, incredible, it is that we should be digging trenches and trying on gas-masks here because of a quarrel in a far-away country.” Churchill had the time to admit in 1948 that for the West “to leave its faithful ally Czechoslovakia to her fate was a melancholy lapse from which flowed terrible consequences.”

The present Muslim governments may not even get sufficient time to admit their folly of not calling a spade a spade when the US began military intervention from Afghanistan and tried to dominate the whole Muslim world. Just like our liberal columnists and Pakistan TV spreading the myth of American might and consequences of provoking American wrath, the Chamberlain government nurtured the fear of war in the British public, so that it will accept the appeasement policy. Like today’s’ twisted reporting by BBC and CNN, after Munich, the British public opinion was the victim of joint Anglo-German propaganda.

Just like the present Anglo-American alliance and our leaders busy in pleasing Uncle Sam, British politicians actively worked before World War II to bring closer their country with Hitler’s Germany. In January 1938, Neville Henderson, Britain’s ambassador to Germany, told Von Ribbentrop, the German Foreign minister: “I would view with dismay another defeat of Germany which would merely serve the purposes of inferior races.” In September 1939, as he spoke in front of a group of Lords, the duke of Westminster, known as an anti-Semite and an admirer of Germany, stated that he opposes the mutual shedding of the Britain and German blood, ” the two races which are the most akin and most disciplined in the world. (See, The Chamberlain-Hitler Deal by Clement Leibovitz, Les Editions Duval, Alberta, Canada, page 283, 496)

In Europe, Islamophobia has replaced Anti-Semitism and American appreciation has taken the place of German admiration. Just like the Muslim states’ missing opportunities to get united and enter into formidable alliances, Chamberlain and the other western heads of Government sabotaged the possibility to reach an agreement with Soviet Union to a common struggle against Hitler. Just like our misconceptions that it is only Iraq or Afghanistan that the US intends to force into submission, even after the invasion of Poland, France and Britain managed “the phoney war”, with the hope that, after Poland, Hitler would turn his troops towards the Soviet Union. Too lately they realised that Hitler’s intention was to conquer all of Europe, if not the entire world.

Documents published in 1969, including the full protocol of the conversations between Chamberlain and Hitler prove that Chamberlain thanked the Fuhrer “for his clear presentation of Germany’s position.” The beginning of the ultimate tragedy of human history is similar to World War II in many ways. The beginning then was best expressed by Chamberlain as an “Anglo-German understanding” for “the two pillars of European peace and buttresses against Communism” (Sept. 13, 1938, in a letter to King George VI). The beginning today is an Anglo-American understanding against Islam, labelled as fundamentalism, extremism and terrorism in a sequence of correlations. We tend to ignore that Hitler’s “final solution” was no different than the US “infinite justice.”

The Muslim leaders’ policy of giving free hand to the US today derives naturally from their collective mindset, concerned above all of what they consider the pre-eminent threat to the security of their personal interests. For the Western leaders, the “green menace” involves as much fundamental threat to the most sacred tenets of capitalism and colonialism as the “red menace” involved. Their giving a free hand to the US for the fear of Islam is similar to the freedom handed out to Hitler as a direct overt choice of fascism over communism, which consistently rejected direct proposals by the Soviet Union to act against Germany’s aggression. Just like the US exploitation of the UN, the free hand to Hitler permitted consistent violations of the Covenant of the League of Nations. Just like the imminent genocide in Afghanistan due to bombing and starvation, the free hand to Hitler did all of this in the full knowledge of the most organized and violent repression of the human rights in history.

The European nations might console themselves with the idea that the US is out there to eradicate the threat posed by Islam, forgetting that the US is out to eradicate every resistance to the kind of domination it wants over the world. If we do not stand to say no to the US injustice now, then when? If appeasement has led to an escalation of disasters in the past, can it do otherwise in the future? Do we wait until its our turn to face the US onslaught? Our struggle now is not a struggle against a country, whose yearning for security could be satisfied or denied. We should refrain from assisting the US in killing innocent people who are not involved in any crime – nor have they been proven guilty. To postpone the ultimate tragedy of human history, we must stop all cooperation with the US, not because we are anti-American, but because such killing is wrong. We should stop it even if it meant there would be no US or Western assistance, or we might be attacked like Afghanistan.