« Another Side of Howard Dean | Main | Let's not be hasty »

January 14, 2004

Comments

"Fascism" is used in this formulation to refer to right-wing totalitarians, as opposed to left-wing totalitarians like Stalin and Mao.

"Islamo" in this formulation is used to distinguish right-wing totalitarianism in the Middle East from the European varieties.

Baathism is secular, and Islamism is fundamentalist. They are very different from each other, but are lumped together using the same word.

This isn't completely arbitrary. Paul Berman in his book Terror and Liberalism traces the roots and alliances of Baathist and Islamist ideology and influence.

The Baath Party was founded in Syria during World War II. Syria, during World War II, was a colony of France. And France was a puppet-state of Nazi Germany. There is a direct ideological line that can be traced (not just geographically) from Hitler's party to Baghdad.

Fundamentalist Islamists also have many direct connections with Hitler. The Green Shirts in Northern Africa (Green is the color of Islam) were quite literally fundamentalist Muslim Arab Nazis in alliance with Hitler's Germany.

Read Berman's book if you want more. (There is a lot more where this came from.) But, no, Islamofascism is not a unified movement. It is just a catch-all phrase for right-wing Middle Eastern totalitarianism.

Thanks!

But, no, Islamofascism is not a unified movement. It is just a catch-all phrase for right-wing Middle Eastern totalitarianism.

And, all too frequently, a catch-all phrase for Middle Eastern countries who aren't unswervingly allied with the US.

Eh, I hate that term. I think the phrase came up first (fascism = bad & anti-western fundamentalism = bad, so a = c), and the pro-war bloggers have tried to support it through descriptions like Michael J.'s above. I don't think it's any more credible than Bush = Hitler.

To my mind, fascism is a specific set of political attributes that define a movement. It must be dicatorial, ultra-nationalistic, militaristic, emphisize a return to past glories of the nation, be populist, be racist, and have a semi-divine leader. Islamic anti-western fundamentalism may have some of these features, but so did my father, and I only occasionally called him a fascist.

Which of those characteristics does Islamic fundamentalism not have, Stu?
Dictatorial? See Taliban and the Iranian mullahs. Check.
Ultra-nationalistic? The "nation" is the Islamic world. Check.
Militaristic? Al Qaida, Iran, the Taliban? Check.
Return to past glory? Appeals to the memory Saladin for example, check.
Populist? they claim the mantle of popular rising against authority. Check.
Racist? Dhimmitude. Check.
Semi-divine leader? See Khomeini. Check.

Dictatorial? Check.

Ultra-nationalistic? Uncheck. The Islamic world is not "a nation", it's a faith, and a faith divided. Read the news today, documents from Hussein post-defeat urging his supporters not to align with fundandalists. Sound like a brotherhood united for the fatherland to you?

Militaristic? Uncheck. Willingness to use force does not make a political movement militaristic. No uniforms, snappy salutes, banners, regimental pride, symbols up on sticks, marches, military parades. C'mon now.

Return to past glory? Uncheck. Aside from the usuual bickering over the history of various branchings faith among the fundamentists, there's almost no devotion to past glories. Are they building statues of medieval heros? Rebuilding palaces? Playing a lot of Wagner? Oh wait, that was someone else.

Populist? Uncheck, it doesn't matter what they claim. If you had concentrated on Iran in the late seventies, you might have had an argument, but now it's not a populist movement.

Racist? Uncheck. The fundamentaists span a number of ethnicities, even caucasian.

Semi-divine leader? Khomeini? Are you kidding? Do you think the Baathists were bowing toward the Ayatollah every day? Big uncheck.

Come on, seriously, why are you guys defending this term so much when it's so obviously bogus? Does it have that much value?

So calling Saddam Hussein a fascist is as bad as calling Bush a fascist? Please. Saddam Hussein's ideology borrows heavily from Hitler and his tactics are lifted directly from Stalin. Read up on the history of the Baath Party sometime. It is very instructive.

"But I think they're two separate things in a nasty symbiotic relationship, not one thing called "Islamofascism."

I guess it depends on what you mean when you say separate. They don't have the same leaders, but they often work together, especially when they are working against the United States (which is the working together that the US cares about). They are opposed to each other in the long term, but they are often willing to work together in the short term to hit us. They are different expressions of Arab/Islamic disatisfaction with their less than dominant position in the world, but they both want to use highly authoritarian and militaristic methods to gain a more dominant position. They are both fed by unrealistic expectations about Western willingness to fight back against them. They both attempt to use our sense of being civilized against us. They aren't interchangeable units, but refering to them as a unit from time to time is no more misleading than talking about the Axis powers even though they were separate entities with somewhat different long term aims. A key feature that they share is that they buy into the myth of the glass-jawed West. The lines you can draw between them don't effect how they treat us. Not all Nazis were blond, but distinguishing between the blond and the non-blond ones wouldn't have helped us in the war. So it is with the Islamo-facists. If acknowledging their differences will somehow make it easier to defeat them, I'm all for it. But so far I haven't seen how drawing such lines helps.

Stu, you are being way too narrow. You think militaristic has something to do with uniforms and salutes? You fail to notice that for fundamentalists Islam is supposed to be both a religion AND a state? No devotion to past glories? Haven't you read Osama's interminable speeches talking about victories in the 15th century and the Levant? And your mention of statues when fundamentalist Islam doesn't even allow such images is kind of odd. Semi-divine leader? You suggest that the Ba'athists don't bow to Ayatollah. But you totally ignore the intentional cult of personality that Saddam raised about himself, complete with tales of magical powers which made him unkillable. They both claim to be populist movements, as do most modern tyrannical systems. And both had quite a bit of popular support, so I don't know why you deny them the populist label. They certainly have as much support as the 'populist' Ralph Nader among their respective communities. The only uncheck I would give you from rvman's list is 'racist'. And that is only because he technically used the wrong term. They hate members of other religions.

P.S. what term would you use? I'm open to suggestions. I try to deal with the problem on my site here back in Novemeber, but I didn't have much luck.

And, all too frequently, a catch-all phrase for Middle Eastern countries who aren't unswervingly allied with the US.

Such as?

Here is an excerpt from Paul Berman's Terror and Liberalism, where he discusses this subject at great length. This is long, but worth it:

The antiliberal movements took root in Europe and in small degree even in the United States. As the years went by, though, those same movements spread to other places and eventually to every remote spot where Western culture had also spread--that is to say, almost everywhere. The antiliberal movements flourished in several different versions, sometimes in versions that seemed utter opposites of one another. The Communist insurgency in Russia, dating from the world war itself, was merely the first. Then came Italian Fascists, German Nazis, the Spanish crusade to re-establish the Reign of Christ the King, and so forth, each country producing movements of its own based on local mythologies and customs. Antiliberal movements of the left and the right saw in one another the worst of enemies (except when they saw one another as allies and brothers, which did happen). Yet each of the movements, in their lush variety, entertained a set of ideas that pointed in the same direction.

The shared ideas were these: There exists a people of good who in a just world ought to enjoy a sound and healthy society. But society's health has been undermined by a hideous infestation from within, something diabolical, which is aided by external agents from elsewhere in the world. The diabolical infestation must be rooted out. Rooting it out will require bloody internal struggles, capped by gigantic massacres. It will require an all-out war against the foreign allies of the inner infestation--an apocalyptic war, perhaps even Apocalyptic with a capital A. (The Book of the Apocalypse, as André Glucksmann has pointed out, does seem to have played a remote inspirational role in generating these twentieth-century doctrines.) But when the inner infestation has at last been rooted out and the external foe has been defeated, the people of good shall enjoy a new society purged of alien elements--a healthy society no longer subject to the vibrations of change and evolution, a society with a single, blocklike structure, solid and eternal.

Each of the twentieth-century antiliberal movements expressed this idea in its own idiosyncratic way. The people of good were described as the Aryans, the proletarians, or the people of Christ. The diabolical infestation was described as the Jews, the bourgeoisie, the kulaks, or the Masons. The bloody internal battle to root out the infestation was described as the "final solution," the "final struggle," or the "Crusade." The impending new society was sometimes pictured as a return to the ancient past and sometimes as a leap into the sci-fi future. It was the Third Reich, the New Rome, communism, the Reign of Christ the King. But the blocklike characteristics of that new society were always the same. And with those ideas firmly in place, each of the antiliberal movements marched into battle.

...

The present conflict seems to me to be following the twentieth-century pattern exactly, with one variation: the antiliberal side right now, instead of Communist, Nazi, Catholic, or Fascist, happens to be radical Arab nationalist and Islamic fundamentalist. Over the last several decades, a variety of movements have arisen in the Arab and Islamic countries--a radical nationalism (Baath socialist, Marxist, pan-Arab, and so forth) and a series of Islamist movements (meaning Islamic fundamentalism in a political version). The movements have varied hugely and have even gone to war with one another--Iran's Shiite Islamists versus Iraq's Baath socialists, like Hitler and Stalin slugging it out. The Islamists give the impression of having wandered into modern life from the 13th century, and the Baathist and Marxist nationalisms have tried to seem modern and even futuristic.

But all of those movements have followed, each in its fashion, the twentieth-century pattern. They are antiliberal insurgencies. They have identified a people of the good, who are the Arabs or Muslims. They believe that their own societies have been infested with a hideous inner corruption, which must be rooted out. They observe that the inner infestation is supported by powerful external forces. And they gird their swords. Their thinking is apocalyptic. They imagine that at the end they, too, will succeed in establishing a blocklike, unchanging society, freed of the inner corruption--a purified society: the victory of good. They are the heirs of the twentieth-century totalitarians.

I see there is another book that I'm going to have to pick up.

"I see there is another book that I'm going to have to pick up."

Not that I exactly object to buying books, mind you, but for a purely electronic form of entertainment this blogging hobby amazingly encourages the acquisition of pounds and pounds of dead tree media.

I do really like the Berman quote.

I think that simply using the term "theocracy" would be more appropriate. "Islamofascism" seems like an effort to describe a certain brand of theocracy. But, as the comments illustrate, (I know I'm being a bit redundant, here) it seems a bit clumsy to describe a wide variety of theocratic systems (albeit based on a single religious text) as a universal, "Islamofascist" doctrine... there certainly is no globally unified system. Whoever coined the term was, of course, counting on the connotations of the word "fascist" to express a certain point of view. (I am master of the obvious.) My point here (I guess) is that current usage of "fascist" has become much too casual. Some examples:

--Janet Reno, "fascist".

--George W. Bush, "fascist".

--Dude, my new manager at Starbuck's is, like, "a total fascist."

...Know what I mean?

Yes, one of the problems with using the word 'fascist' to describe people you merely don't like who have and use police powers (like Reno and Bush) is that the word no longer sounds strong enough to use for actual fascists like Saddam.

Berman's work isn't a book. It's an essay available for free at http://www.prospect.org/print/V12/18/berman-p.html

The part that Totten quoted sounds nice, but on reading the full essay it is clear that Berman is woefully short on facts and makes extensive use bombast. Don't believe everything you read over the internet.

(Well, Berman may have expanded it into a book. Who knows what these bloviators can do?)

Michael J. says:

So calling Saddam Hussein a fascist is as bad as calling Bush a fascist?
Ahem. With all due respect, Michael, read my frigging post, willya? Carefully this time.

Saddam was a garden-variety fascist. Islamo-fascists, to me, would be those who are at war against western culture, seek to impose Islam on the unwilling and desire to install some form of dictatorial sharia if in charge. On a larger scale, al Qaeda is Islamo-fascist. So was the Taliban. Iran would probably fit in, too.

If the term is being applied to a particular group (EG the Baath Party), then the argument can be resolved by examining the features of that group. An argument can certainly made that the Baathists were fascists. But then why prefix it with "Islamo", unless it's a slur. If it's being applied to Iranian fundamentalism in the seventies, that too can be examined to see if it qualifies. While those guys met some of the criteria, so did their predecessor (who no-one ever called a IslamoFascist because, because, um, hey, wasn't he a US ally?)

But that's surely not the point. These aren't being applied to single groups. Hussein is being lumped in with Khomeini, the Shiites with the Sunni, the Saudis with the Iranians, and "IslamoFascists" is a nice, easy-to-swallow term that makes all the conflicting ideologies over there fit into a tight little mental package.

It's a propaganda term, pure and simple. Thank goodness the left hasn't taken to calling the fundamentalists "IslamoRepublicans", because they have been, after all, historically opposed to women's rights and opposed to the seperation of church and state.

And here I thought Islamofascism was in the Keys, right next to Islamorada.

Making sense of the term "Islamo-fascism," which has value. (Somewhat depreciated by promiscuous application.)

I think it was Irving Howe who once defined fascism as "a Marxist heresy." Okay, in what did the heresy consist? It consisted in substituting other groups than class into the "class struggle" concept - nations in fascism pure (Italo-Iberian), races in Nazism.

Mussolini was explicit that the "real struggle" was between classes of countries - overlord countries like the big imperial powers and upstart countries like Italy. The former were the analogs of Capital and the latter stood in for the proletariat. Hitler once told his left-wing supporters (Nazism had a left wing until Hitler killed its proponents around 1934), "I am a socialist. But the only real revolutions are racial ones." (The quote is in Bullock, HITLER AND STALIN: PARALLEL LIVES.)

Add in corporatist social philosophy, the leadership principle, an enthusiasm for technical modernization and militarism and you've got the whole package.

So, if Islamo-fascism exists, there must be a Marxist heresy there too. It's simple - struggle among faith communities replaces class struggle. The oppressed Ummah must unite and throw off the chains of the Jew-Crusaders. This seems a fair characterization of Al Qaeda. Like Katherine, I would not apply it to the Saddams of the Middle East, who seem to fit preexisting models of fascism (Saddam) and bonapartism (Mubarak) as well as any Latin American caudillo.

Hm. The IGC as Mussolini-esque corporatist representative council. Hm.

So, if Islamo-fascism exists, there must be a Marxist heresy there too. It's simple - struggle among faith communities replaces class struggle. The oppressed Ummah must unite and throw off the chains of the Jew-Crusaders.
When you water down the definition by "replace this with that, squeeze this definition here, trim this off, and it almost fits in some cases", the definition becomes diluted to the point where it's useless for anything.

I'm not objecting to the use of the term because I think Sadaam et al would be great guys to have over for coffee. I think that the term "fascist" is a precise definition of a political movement, and it has value. To use it in this way devalues the term. When the Islamic faith unites into a single nation, starts having mass torchlight rallies, and has a single leader in an ornate uniform standing up on a podium enjoying the show while snapping a silly salute, then I think the term will apply.

Stu: Granted I prefer the term "Islamism," but I don't think there's as much "squeezing" going on as you seem to. And I don't get your bringing Saddam into it, since I excluded him from the "Islamo-fascist" designation.

I do commend your desire to keep "fascism" as meaningfully descriptive as possible, though. The term has had a rough go of it, mostly at the hands of the left, but lately from starboard quarters too.

And I don't get your bringing Saddam into it, since I excluded him from the "Islamo-fascist" designation.
Sorry, wasn't just responding to you, Michael J. earlier said:
So calling Saddam Hussein a fascist is as bad as calling Bush a fascist? Please. Saddam Hussein's ideology borrows heavily from Hitler and his tactics are lifted directly from Stalin. Read up on the history of the Baath Party sometime. It is very instructive.
... and I was responding to that as well. My apologies, I realize there different ideas being talked about, and I didn't mean to lump them together.

Islamism? That would be like "Christianism". Too wide a brush.

But I think they're two separate things in a nasty symbiotic relationship, not one thing called "Islamofascism."

Maybe it's that symbiotic relationship that is best named Islamofascism, a compound entity for a compound name.

It's dangerously simplistic to conflate these two phenomena. One is ascendent, one is decaying. The Iraq war dealt a blow to Arab nationalism, in Iraq and throughout the region - look at the reactions in Syria and Libya (although Libya, to be fair, was already nearing a tipping point) - while Islamic fundamentalism is, if anything, stronger now than at any time since the Afghanistan war (see events in Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Saudi Arabia).

Do they have similarities? Certainly, including a common region and common nemeses. But their end goals, methods, and beliefs are radically different. Most importantly, only one has ever been a real threat to the United States - and only one is poised to take control of a nuclear power.

1. I also do think the term "fascism" has been thrown around so much that it has lost nearly all meaning. Fascism was a specific movement/rightist form of government; we've become so enraptured with the aesthetic and propagandistic elements of it that we slap the label everywhere. The idea of applying "Islamofascist" to describe a secular leftist-nationalist government in an Islamic government... it's just too much linguistic damage in one place.

2. I guess what I was trying to say in the earlier post was: the notion of "Islamofascism" and the idea that by hitting Arab nationalists you were hitting Islamic fundamentalists because they were all the same animal is deeply wrong, and has lead to probably *the* strategic and moral blunder of the war on terrorism.

"Islamo" - Of and relating to the Islamic faith, Muslim.

"fascism" - A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism. A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government.
Oppressive, dictatorial control.

"Islamofascist" [noun] - A member of the Muslim faith who expresses radical and or extreme beliefs, especially with regards to subscribing to anti-Semitism, anti-Westernism and hatred for Israel and the USA.

Example: Islamofascist terrorist organizations include Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Al Aqsa Brigades, Hezbollah, Al Qaida, etc.

Islamonazism

Islamonazism and Islamofascism are terms describing the use of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi" title= "Nazi">Nazi and/or fascist terminology, beliefs and propaganda by Islamic religious and political leaders, generally manifesting itself in calls for the destruction of the state of Israel and the genocide of its citizens and "infidels" (non-Muslims) in general.

Contents // 1 Historical Background

1.1 Pre- and during WWII
1.2 Post-WWII

2 Modern Islamonazism

2.1 Quest for world domination
2.2 Palestinian Authority and Hamas

3 Further Reading 4 External Links

Historical Background

Pre- and during WWII

Islamonazism began to develop during the time of the German Third Reich, as evidenced by the close relationship between Adolf Hitler-led Nazis and a number of Arab leaders, most notably, the Jerusalem Grand Mufti Haj Amin al-Husseini who was known as the "Arab Führer".

Dr. Serge Trifkovic documents the similarities between Al Husseini's brand of radical Islam and Nazism in his book The Sword of the Prophet. He noted parallels in both ideologies: anti-Semitism, quest for world dominance, demand for the total subordination of the free will of the individual, belief in the abolishment of the nation-state in favor of a "higher" community (in Islam, the ummah or community of all believers; in Nazism, the herrenvolk or master race), and belief in undemocratic governance by a "divine" leader (an Islamic caliph, or Nazi Führer).

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 in Bosnia-Herzegovina (the Handschar Division) and Albania (Skanderbeg Division) and smaller units from throughout the Muslim world from Chechnya to Uzbekistan as the German army SS units that tried to wipe out Jewish communities throughout the region. His Arab Legions later participated in the massacres of thousands of partisan Serbs, Jews and Gypsies. This was only taking the first step in Heinrich Himmler’s planned grand alliance between Nazi Germany and the Islamic world. One of his closest aides, Obergruppenführer Gottlob Berger, boasted that "a link is created between Islam and National Socialism on an open, honest basis. It will be directed in terms of blood and race from the North, and in the ideological-spiritual sphere from the East."

The Nazis provided Al Husseini with luxurious accommodations in Berlin and a monthly stipend in excess of $10,000. In return, he regularly appeared on German radio touting the Jews as the "most fierce enemies of Muslims," and implored an adoption of the Nazi "final solution" by Arabs. After the Nazi defeat at El Alamein in 1942, al-Husseini broadcast radio messages on Radio Berlin calling for continued Arabic resistance to Allied forces. In time, he came to be known as the "Führer's Mufti" and the "Arab Führer".

In the annual protest against the Balfour Declaration held in 1943 at the Luftwaffe hall in Berlin, the Mufti praised the Germans because they "know how to get rid of the Jews, and that brings us close to the Germans and sets us in their camp is that, up to today."

Echoing Muhammad after the battle of Badr, on March 1, 1944 the Mufti called in a broadcast from Berlin:
"Arabs! Rise as one and fight for your sacred rights. Kill the Jews wherever you find them. This pleases God, history and religion. This saves your honor."

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.

Post-WWII

During the war, Arab Nazi parties were founded throughout the Middle East. The most influential one was Young Egypt which was established in 1933. Young Egypt imitated the German Nazi party in their ideology, slogans, processionals, and anti-Semitic actions. When the war was over, a member of Young Egypt named Gamal Abdul Nasser led the coup in 1952 that overthrew the Egyptian government. He made Egypt a safe haven for Nazi war criminals and, in 1964, he established the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO).

"This will be a war of extermination
and a momentous massacare which
will be spoken of like the Mongolian
massacares and the crusades."

Arab League Secretary General
Azam Pasha, May 15, 1948.

It is no accident that a number of Nazi war criminals found refuge in Muslim nations. Take the notorious Otto Skorzeny, an SS officer who led the rescue of Mussolini from captivity, was described by the OSS, predecessor to the CIA, as "the most dangerous man in Europe," and later found service under General Nasser in Egypt.

Major Nazi sympathizers of this era also include Ahmad Shukeiri, the first chairman of the PLO; Anwar Sadat, future president of Egypt; and the founders of the Pan-Arab socialist Ba'ath party, currently ruling Syria and until recently Iraq. One of the Ba'ath founders, Sami al Jundi, has since recalled of this time: "We were racists, admiring Nazism, reading their books and sources of their thought... We were the first who thought of translating Mein Kampf."

Many of the Nazi sympathizers of this era have never repudiated their beliefs; some still openly parade them.

Eventually the leadership of the PLO was taken over by a man named Rahman Abdul Rauf al-Qudwa al-Husseini. Al-Husseini was a nephew and great admirer of Haj Amin al-Husseini. He was born in Cairo in 1929 and grew up in the Gaza strip. His mother, Hamida, was a cousin of the Grand Mufti. Due to internal Arab strife, his father Abdul Rauf al-Qudwa was forced to flee Gaza where the family took refuge in Egypt.

Al-Husseini's cousin was Faisal al-Husseini who was the grandson of Haj Amin al-Husseini and the PLO representative in Jerusalem who has directed attacks on the Jews praying at the Western Wall.

When Rahman Abdul Rauf al-Qudwa al-Husseini enrolled at the University of Cairo in 1951, he decided to conceal his true identity and registered under the name Yasser Arafat. He would carry on the Mufti’s legacy in his goal of annihilating Israel.

Saddam Hussein was also a protégé of the Mufti through his uncle and father-in-law Khairallah Tulfah, who, along with Gen. Rashid Ali and the so-called "golden square" cabal of pro-Nazi officers, participated in the Mufti-inspired failed coup against the pro-British government of Iraq in 1941. (see "The Nazi Background of Saddam Hussein" (http://newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/2/20/145726.shtml))

Modern Islamonazism

Today, it can be evidenced in the proliferation of Nazi or Judeophobic literature (Mein Kampf and the Protocols of the Elders of Zion remain best-sellers in many Arab nations), propaganda (blaming the Jewish community for events it has no connection to such as the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks) and calls for genocide against the Jewish citizens of Israel and "infidels" (non-Muslims) in general.

Furthermore, many prominent Muslim leaders, whether officially in power or merely influential, have expounded Nazi ideology and used similar tactics to rouse their adherents in their pronouncements that Islam should be the world standard and strict lines of authority with heavy penalties for disobedience remain common. The brightest examples of employing these tactics and belief system is the deposed in the early 2002 Taliban regime in Afghanistan; genocide of non-Muslims in Darfur, Sudan by Janjaweed Islamic militias (see the Darfur Genocide website (http://www.darfurgenocide.org)) with the silent approval of the Sudanese Government; genocide of Christians in then Indonesian East Timor in the 1970s-1990s.

Quest for world domination

Adolf Hitler's Nazi regime is hailed by many in the Arab world, largely because of its genocidal approach to the Jewish community. Palestinians, locked in a decades-long battle with Israel, have even adopted Nazi paraphernalia. The association between today's Palestinians and the Nazi movement dates back to the early days of Hitler's Third Reich, when the Mufti of Jersualem, Haj Amin al-Husseini, forged close and lasting ties with the German Nazis, as described above.

The Arab world does more than just mimic the actions of Adolf Hitler's Nazi regime, as shown here with the "Heil Hitler" salute, their religious and political leaders frequently employ Nazi rhetoric, mixed with radical Islamic fundamentalism, to foster hatred for the Jewish world and, particularly, Israel.

Throughout the western world, many have noted that extreme Islam bears much in common with Nazi ideology and political process. Politicians from major parties throughout Europe become aware of the dangers Islam brings to their countries. In the United States, the Chairman of Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) Omar M. Ahmad told a crowd of California Muslims in July 1998, "Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Koran... should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on earth."

As with the rise of the Nazis, extreme elements have captured the disaffected with familiar themes of placing blame and claiming superiority. Western sensibilities, it is often argued, have played a part - as they did in the rise of the Nazi regime - with many comparisons being made to the appeasement policies of the 1930s to the actions taken by current governments and world bodies.

Shaykh Rashid al Ghanuchi, Head of the Al-Nahda Islamic movement of Tunis, said in 2002 (http://www.ilaam.net/Opinions/IslamicMovements.html): "Many Islamists associate democracy with foreign intervention and non-belief. But democracy is a set of mechanisms to guarantee freedom of thought and assembly and peaceful competition for governmental authority through ballot boxes. The Islamic movement's negative attitude toward democracy is holding it back. We have no modern experience in Islamic activity that can replace democracy. The Islamization of democracy is the closest thing to implementing Shura (consultation). Those who reject this thought have not produced anything different than the one-party system of rule."

Islamic leaders are constantly trying to put a blame for the failure of their economical, political and ideological systems on the West and Israel inciting more violence and hate toward "infidels" or non-believers. The former Malaysian Prime Minister Dr. Mahathir Mohammad in his opening speech at a 57-nation Islamic summit in Malaysia urged Muslims to unite against Jews who, he said, rule the world by "proxy" - comments criticized by Jewish and some of the Western leaders as an invitation to violence.

The Associated Press quoted Rabbi Abraham Cooper, associate dean of the Simon Wiesenthal Center in Los Angeles, California, as saying, "Mahathir's speech today is an absolute invitation for more hate crimes and terrorism against Jews. That's serious."

Palestinian Authority and Hamas

While there is discussion in many circles (political, historical, religious, semantics) over the use of the word "Nazi" in modern day society, with the term being applied frequently and incorrectly to virtually any leader, government or organization based on unpopular policies, the proliferation of genocidal rhetoric and aims of domination amongst some Arab groups argues for its inclusion in this instance.

Former Hamas leader Mahmoud Zahar, who orchestrated attacks against Israel, until his assassination by the IDF, praised a Palestinian bomber and gave insight into Hamas aims, telling followers, "she is not going to be the last (attacker) because the march of resistance will continue until the Islamic flag is raised, not only on the minarets of Jerusalem, but over the whole universe."

This philosophy is also often seen in religious broadcasts, "A young man said to me: 'I am 14 years old, and I have four years left before I blow myself up'... We, the Muslims on this good and blessed land, are all - each one of us - seekers of Martyrdom... The Koran is very clear on this: The greatest enemies of the Islamic nation are the Jews, may Allah fight them... Blessings for whoever assaulted a soldier... Blessings for whoever has raised his sons on the education of Jihad and Martyrdom, blessings for whoever has saved a bullet in order to stick it in a Jew's head..." said Sheikh Ibrahim Madhi on a Palestinian television boradcast in August 2001. Months earlier, he had urged Palestinians to commit suicide bombings to kill Jews in the name of Islam, "Blessings to whoever put a belt of explosives on his body or on his sons' and plunged into the midst of the Jews, crying 'Allahu Akbar, praise to Allah, There is no God but Allah and Muhammad is His messenger."

Too, the Nazis would recognize the philosophy of indoctrinating the young. Palestinian textbooks make it quite clear that Islam is to be accepted by all people. "Islam is Allah's religion for all human beings. It should be proclaimed and invite [people] to join it wisely and through appropriate preaching and friendly discussions. However, such methods may encounter resistance and the preachers may be prevented from accomplishing their duty... then, Jihad and the use of physical force against the enemies become inevitable", proclaimed an 11th grade textbook, Islamic Culture, issued by the Palestinian Authority's Ministry of Education in 2003.

Further Reading
  • Serge Trifkovic, The Sword of the Prophet: History, Theology, Impact on the World, Regina Orthodox Press, 2002, ISBN: 1928653111
  • Antonio J. Munoz, Lions of the Desert: Arab Volunteers in the German Army, 1941-1945, Axis Europa Books, 2002, ISBN: 1891227033
  • Kenneth Timmerman, Arafat's Hitler-loving role model (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/printer-friendly.asp?ARTICLE_ID=35563)

External Links

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad