The Politics of Domination

In 1941, Haj Amin Al Husseini, Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, journeyed to Berlin where he met with the German Chancellor turned Fuhrer, Adolph Hitler. The details of that fateful meeting are well documented in the book "Icon of Evil" by David Dalin and John Rothman, but suffice it to say, the two leaders sniffed eachother's butts and determined they were the same breed of dog. They were both meglomaniacle leaders of similar fascist ideologies who hated everything Jewish and were bent on exterminating the latter and making war on all others.

The story of Husseini should come as no surprised to those who understand Islam and National Socialism. Hitler used deceit to gain the upper hand on his enemies with great skill. His ability to fool the more powerful social and political leaders of the time is now a matter of historic record. The most notorious insident resulted in the declaration by British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain after the Munich Agreement in 1938:

"My good friends, this is the second time in our history that there has come back from Germany to Downing Street peace with honour. I believe it is peace for our time. We thank you from the bottom of our hearts. And now I recommend you to go home and sleep quietly in your beds."

In a his 2008 article in the Canada Free Press, Bruce Walker notes the following;

The Nazis, before the Second World War began, only a few years after they took power, formally adopted anti-Semitism. This historical tidbit startles even sophisticated students of history, but just listen to orders which Goebbels sent to all the German press in 1935: 'Very important! The attention of the press is drawn to the fact that the National Socialist movement may be called ant-Semitic no longer, but only anti-Jewish. We have nothing against Arabs and other Semitics peoples….' Nazism and Islam fit together very well.

It should be noted that The National Socialist movement adopted its Anti-Jewish stance at the same time Adolph Hitler joined it. In Mein Kamph's second chapter, Hitler described Jews as, not only an inferior, disgusting people, but connected them directly to the Communist and Socialist Movements, claiming they could not exist without those same dirty Jews.

I gradually became aware that the Social Democratic (socialist) press was directed predominantly by Jews; yet I did not attribute any special significance to this circumstance, since conditions were exactly the same in the other papers. Yet one fact seemed conspicuous: there was not one paper with Jews working on it which could have been regarded as truly national according to my education and way of thinking.

At the same time, and in the same chapter, Hitler endorsed both their policies, tactics and strategies. In this example, he denounces private charity:

During my struggle for existence in Vienna, it had become clear to me that social activity must never and on no account be directed toward philanthropic flim-flam, but rather toward the elimination of the basic deficiencies in the organization of our economic and cultural life that must-or at all events can-lead to the degeneration of the individual.

Hermann Rauschning, who broke with the Nazi party, wrote the following: "The (Hitler's Nazi) Movement is totally without ideals and lacks even the semblance of a program. It's comitment is entirely to action."

In "Liberal Fascism," Jonah Goldberg elaborates on this: "Saying that Hitler had a pragmatic view of Ideology is not to say he didn't use Ideology. Hitler had many ideologies." (Page 53).

And it is also true that many histories of Nazi Germany portray Adolph Hitler's propaganda as portraying himself as a messianic figure. This includes William Shirer's "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich."

But what has this to do with Islam?


Jizya (Tribute)

Sura 9:29 Fight those who believe not in God and in the last day, and who forbid not what God and His Apostle (Muhammed) have forbidden, and who do not practice the religion of truth from amongst those to whom the Book has been brought (Jews and Christians), until they pay the tribute (Jizya) by their hands and be as little ones.

In 1785, Thomas Jefferson wrote the following:

“it was written in the Koran, that all Nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon whoever they could find and to make Slaves of all they could take as prisoners, and that every Mussulman who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise.”

Jefferson was describing what he had been told by the Ambassador of Tripoli. The Barbary Pirates were demanding tribute from American Shipping in exchange for not attacking American Ships. To be appeased, as it were, for their behavior. Even today, U.S.S. Bainbridge (named, serendipidously, after a Captain who faught the Barbary Pirates) participated in an action only recently to fight Muslim Pirates after that same type of Jizya.

Under Sharia Law, those non-Muslims who have submitted to the ruling culture of Islam shall be dhimmis. That is those who exist with fewer (if any) rights as the ruling Muslims. They shall pay Jizya for their unbelieving practices and shall have restrictions upon those practices. Effectively, in order for a Jew or a Christian or a Hindi to live in an Islamic country, they must appease their rulers with the Jizya tax.

Certainly, we can see this level of segregation in the application of the yellow star of david imposed on Jews under the Nazis. Was this inspired by the Jizya tax? Other scholars may find a concrete connection. Others, such as former muslim Ali Sina, make no bones about it:

Dhimmis, as all familiar with the history of islam know, did NOT have social rights on par with muslims. This is reviewed elsewhere, but constitutes in brief: restrictions on religious worship and continuance of non-muslim faiths (no tolling bells, no high churches, no repairs to existing churches, no construction of new ones), prohibitance of muslim women from marrying non-muslim men, punititve taxation (designed to be as humiliating as possible), the wearing of distinctive dress (what was it - in the shape of a pig for Christians and a donkey for Jews? Not quite a yellow Star of David, but one can see where Hitler got some of his material from this is also covered in 432 as some kind of "benefit" to the oppressed) and so forth.

Certainly one can see by now there that the ideological similarities between Islam and Nazism cannot be denied. How can this be, one might ask, after I had quoted Jonah Goldberg on Hitler's lack of an ideology.

Because, my friends, Islam also lacks an ideology. The statements above by both Jonah Goldberg and Herman Raschning could easily be said about Muhammed and Islam respectively. Muhammed, in reciting god's word in the form of the Koran, condemned Fitna, or Mischief (Sura 5:33). One has only to google Fitna in order to find examples of Fatwas (religious condemnations) against things determined to be mischief.

But the definition of mischief in the Koran is difficult to find, if it can be found at all. Certainly, the Jews are guilty of Mischief (Sura 5:32) for having corrupted the word of god (the Torah). So are the Christians for the same reason. In Sura 19:35, Allah (through Muhammed) denieds Christ is the son of God. In Sura 4:157-159 he also denies Christ was crucified.

Islamic Mischief

As many Islamic Scholars have noted, the Hadith (or aHadith) is second only to the Koran in its importance and holiness to Muslims. As part of the Sunnah (which includes many ahadith, and the Sira, or chronicle of Muhammed's life), many consider these to be an extension of the Koran. In fact, the Koran cannot be understood without the Sunnah according to most Islamic scholars.

In the Shihi Bukhari hadith, Volume 7, Book 67, Number 427:

Muhammed said, "It is Allah Who has given you mounts. By Allah, and Allah willing, if I take an oath and later find something else better than that. then I do what is better and expiate my oath."

Under Islamic (Sharia) Law, this excuses all forms of dishonesty between Muslims and Non-Muslims, especially for the purpose of spreading Islam. Allah has ordained it. In Islam, it is known as Taqiyya.

But is it not considered "Mischief" to lie? Not in the advancement of Islam. In the advancement of Christianity, Judaism, or any other religion, it certainly would be.

Similarly, at the Battle of Trench, the Bani Quratha Jews, with which Muhammed had a treaty, were betrayed by Muhammed, and exterminated after. Was the betrayal mischief?

Certainly, the standards are different for those who are not Muslim and the blessed who are. Similarly, Adolph Hitler set appart Aryans and set different standards for those inferior race, not terribly different fromt he way Muslims treated the Dhimmi.

Both Hitler and Muhammed made war upon their enemies in order to spread their faith. Adolph Hitler did it originally through his SA, proving the Nazi Party the stronger, and attracting more followers. In the battles of Medina and Mecca, Muhammed did the same.

Let me paraphrase the quotes by Rauschning and Goldberg:

"The Islamic Movement is totally without ideals and lacks even the semblance of a program. It's comitment is entirely to action."

"Saying that Muhammed had a pragmatic view of Ideology is not to say he didn't use Ideology. Muhammed had many ideologies."

Though Adolph Hitler may never have studied Muhammed's history, there can be no doubt of the similarities. Perhaps, had the humanity and the world been less lucky, Hitler would have been more familiar with Muhammed's successes...