PDA

View Full Version : Moslem National Socialists? / NS and Islam



Reno
Thursday, April 17th, 2003, 04:05 AM
http://www.srpska-mreza.com/handzar/handzar.htm

A group of Muslim volunteers of "Handzar" division. All wear fez caps. Logos are skull with crossed bones and SS eagle. Fez was worn by the Muslim soldiers and their German officers alike. There were different models of fez in different colors (green, red, with or without the tail). The uniform collars had a curved sword and swastika engraved on them. (http://www.srpska-mreza.com/handzar/han11.jpg)

goidelicwarrior
Thursday, April 17th, 2003, 10:13 AM
Originally posted by Reno
http://www.srpska-mreza.com/handzar/handzar.htm

A group of Muslim volunteers of "Handzar" division. All wear fez caps. Logos are skull with crossed bones and SS eagle. Fez was worn by the Muslim soldiers and their German officers alike. There were different models of fez in different colors (green, red, with or without the tail). The uniform collars had a curved sword and swastika engraved on them. (http://www.srpska-mreza.com/handzar/han11.jpg)

These men where from Bosnia i think.. racially European but they adopted islam during the turkish reign.. Himmler saw them as decendants of Gothic settlers in that area during the " volkewanderungne"

Reno
Thursday, April 17th, 2003, 06:17 PM
Originally posted by triskel
These men where from Bosnia i think.. racially European but they adopted islam during the turkish reign.. Himmler saw them as decendants of Gothic settlers in that area during the " volkewanderungne"

White Muslims, that's pretty wierd.

Jack
Friday, April 18th, 2003, 05:31 PM
Not really. Iran is an example. Besides that, Islam is a universal religion much like Christianity. *shudders*

Islam is Arabic cultural imperialism.

northwind
Sunday, May 4th, 2003, 03:44 PM
Himmler wanted to create a world wide SS,

Here is a picture of a Palestinian SS Man

NatRev
Sunday, May 4th, 2003, 06:19 PM
He doesn't look at all Semitic. Or even Mediteranean looking.

northwind
Sunday, May 4th, 2003, 08:58 PM
very aryan, but the fact is is that the unit reached a known strength
of over 1,000 men and fough against the Russians on the eastern front, and was blessed by the Grand Mufti of Bethlehem.
before they went into battle,

there were also ,

many legions from other area notably 2 entire divisions of French aryan SS who gave their lives in the struggle to defend Berlin from the red hordes.

a flemish unit that reached battalion strength,

a belgian walloon unit led by Leon degrelle,

The Famous Spainish Blue division,

At least 2 Croatioan Units one using the unit Hrvatska designation and one using the designation Kroatien,

Thousands of Ukranian SS with the trident symbol,

thousands of Georgian Russians from stalins home province with a red White black arm sheild,

thousands of North Caucasia volunteers,

there were at least 4 Cossack Units
they were Siberian Cossacks (SB)
Kuban Cossacks(KB)
DON Cossacks (K A)
Terek Cossacks (TB)

Then there were the Russian amry of Liberation , Russkaia Osvoboditel naia armiaa

The were Latvian volunteers with a a diagonal tricolor sheild on their unifroms and the wording LATVIJA

There was an Armenian Unit designated 812th Armenian Battalion which fough in holland and the eastern front,

Azerbaijani volunteers were 804th 807th 817th and 820th Azerbaijan division most likely these were Muslim units as there unit symbol was a horizonta tricolor Blue red green with a crescent moon and 8pointed star

There were thousands of volunteers from the area of Turkestan
again these would have most likely have been muslim units they used a series of 4 different sleeve id badges 2 were sheilds 2 were ovals colors were pink and blue with a bow and arrow,

The Azad Hind unit is Indian soldiers were volunteers Sihks and other Indians fighting on the German side to free their country
the unit designation was infantry 950 they had a distinctive leaping tiger emblem and frequently wore turbans,

The Palesinian Volunteers were a part of the free arab legion
displaying the sacred green red White black Islamic colors,
almost identical to that of the Hasemite Kingdom of Jordan

In addition there were Thousands of Italian SS,

Thousands of Hungarian Volunteers,

Thousands of Non aryan orientals from Russiaand the Ukraine,

Reportedly Himmler had 70 Korean SS, and when the Fuehrer found out he went into a rage saying that ''every son of a bitch in the world is wearing a German Uniform'' perhaps this remark is in fact after war propaganda

when veiwing the alliance with the Japanese one has to be suspect of modern political motives for reinterpeting WW2 History,


Factually Rudel Had told Me that The Fuehrer sickened by the corrupt political system infecting his time viewed national Socialism as a New way of life that each Nation and race could adapt to their way of life.

at any rate we now have this flag available

for the Polish National Rebirth

ogenoct
Friday, June 25th, 2004, 03:02 AM
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=4934


Islam’s Nazi Connections


By Serge Trifkovic (http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/authors.asp?ID=1024)

December 5, 2002


An essay adapted by Robert Locke from Dr. Serge Trifkovic’s new book The Sword of the Prophet: A Politically-Incorrect Guide to Islam (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1928653111/002-5697183-0622440).


One of the good things one can truthfully say about Islam is that there has never been any love lost between Moslems and Marxists. Sadly, the opposite end of the totalitarian political spectrum is quite another matter. SS chief Heinrich Himmler was known to remark that he regretted that Germany had adopted Christianity, rather than "warlike" Islam, as its religion, and there is a disturbing amount of twisted but very real logic in his remark. Beyond the obvious dislike of a certain other religion, we have the plain fact that both Nazism and Islam both openly aim at world conquest. Both demand the total subordination of the free will of the individual – the very word "Islam" means submission in Arabic. Both are explicitly anti-nationalist and believe in the liquidation of the nation-state in favor of a "higher" community: in Islam the umma or community of all believers; in Nazism the herrenvolk or master race. Both believe in undemocratic leadership by a privileged knower of an absolute, eternal, and ultimately mystical truth: the caliph or führer respectively. To be fair, in strict Nazism Arabs are racial Semites and thus subhumans, but as Robert Locke has written (http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=1280), the Nazis did not really believe in their racial mythology when they found it inconvenient, and they exploited their commonalities with Islam for all they were worth. If the British army had not stopped Rommel in the sands of El Alamein in 1942, preventing him from conquering the Middle East, the consequences for world history might have been dramatic. What did happen was quite ugly enough.

The Nazis began by attempting to exploit Arab resentment of the British and French colonial rule that they were under during the 1930’s, colonial rule which, in light of the subsequent bloody and tyrannical history of the region, it is hard to condemn today as worse than the likely alternative. The promised the Arabs "liberation" from the French and British, a promise which the naïve Arabs, not grasping the character of a Nazi regime that would likely have reduced them to slaves in its own empire, took at face value. This gave rise to a curious Arab ditty rendered in English thus:

"No more monsieur,

No more mister.

In heaven Allah,

On earth Hitler."

Hitler himself was even given an Arabic name: Abu Ali. But Hitler’s Germany went further and sensed the demonic potentialities inherent in the mythology, reliably emotionally satisfying to persons crazed with resentment, of radical anti-Semitism. It made a concerted, and remarkably successful effort to plant modern anti-Semitism in the Arab world.

The founding of Israel helped further this project. As Bernard Lewis (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0195144201/ref=pd_sbs_b_1/103-5127569-4167865?v=glance&s=books)has written (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0195144201),

"The struggle for Palestine greatly facilitated the acceptance of the anti-Semitic interpretation of history, and led some to attribute all evil in the Middle East—and, indeed, in the world—to secret Jewish plots."

Thus even before Israel was created the struggle to create it was turned into an existential battle of identity, with the complete denial of the legitimacy of Jewish existence as a central component of Moslem aspiration.

The Nazis managed to recruit some Moslems directly. Several Moslem SS divisions were raised: the Skanderbeg Division from Albania, the Handschar Division from Bosnia, and smaller units from throughout the Moslem world from Chechnya to Uzbekistan were incorporated into the German armed forces in one capacity or another. 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."

What an image: a Nazi-Moslem alliance to conquer the world! Naturally, totalitarian ideology (as shown by the Sino-Soviet and Iran-Taliban splits, for example) is a notoriously weak glue, so it is questionable how far this could have prospered. But the thought is chilling enough.

Major Nazi sympathizers of this era include Ahmed Shukairi, the first chairman of the PLO; Gamal Abdel Nasser and Anwar Sadat, future presidents of Egypt; and the founders of the Pan-Arab socialist Ba' ath party, currently ruling Syria and Iraq. One Ba'ath leader 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.

In 1945, one name was missing from the Allies’ list of war criminals, that of Haj Mohammed Amin al-Husseini, the Mufti or supreme religious leader of Jerusalem and the former President of the Supreme Moslem Council of Palestine. In May 1941, the Mufti declared jihad against Britain and made his way to Berlin after the British put down his attempt to establish a pro-Nazi government in Iraq by a coup d’etat. When he met Hitler, on November 21, 1941, he declared that the Arabs are Germany’s natural friends, ready to cooperate with the Reich with all their hearts by the formation of an Arab Legion. Hitler promised that as soon as the German armies pushed into the Southern Caucasus the Arabs would be liberated from the British yoke. The Mufti’s part of the deal was to raise support for Germany among the Moslems in the Soviet Union, the Balkans and the Middle East. He conducted radio propaganda through the network of six stations, set up anti-British espionage and fifth column networks in the Middle East.

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 day." 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."

In 1941, he had pledged "to solve the question of the Jewish elements in Palestine and in other Arab countries as required by national interests, and in the same way as the Jewish question in the Axis lands is being solved." Bernard Lewis writes that in addition to the old goal of a Jew-free Arabia "he aimed at much vaster purposes, conceived not so much in pan-Arab as in pan-Islamic terms, for a Holy War of Islam in alliance with Germany against World Jewry, to accomplish the Final Solution of the Jewish problem everywhere."

According to German officials who knew him, The Mufti had repeatedly suggested to the various authorities with whom he was maintaining contact, above all to Hitler, Ribbentrop and Himmler, the extermination of European Jewry. He considered this as a comfortable solution of the Palestinian problem. Perhaps "the Nazis needed no persuasion or instigation," as he was later to claim, but the foremost Arab spiritual leader of his time did all he could to ensure that the Germans did not waver in their resolve. He went out of his way to prevent any Jews being allowed to leave Hungary, Romania, and Bulgaria, which were initially willing to let them go: "The Mufti was making protests everywhere — in the Office of the (Foreign) Minister, in the antechamber of the Secretary of State, and in other departments, such as Home Office, Press, Radio, and in the SS headquarters." In the end, Eichmann said, "We have promised him that no European Jew would enter Palestine any more."

The contemporary heirs to the Nazi view of Judentum are not the handful of powerless skinheads and Aryan Nation survivalists. They are schools, religious leaders, and mainstream intellectuals in the Moslem, meaning primarily Arab, world. Quite apart from the ups and downs of the misnamed "peace process" in the Middle East, quite apart from the more or less bellicose posture towards the government of Israel, the crude way they actively demonize all Jews as such is startling.

The most prominent and influential daily newspaper in the Arab world is Al-Ahram, a semi-official organ of the Egyptian government. In June 2001 it carried an op-ed article, "What exactly do the Jews want?"--and the answer was worthy of the Nazi newspaper the Völkische Beobachter six decades earlier:

"The Jews share boundless hatred of the gentiles, they kill women and children and sow destruction… Israel is today populated by people who are not descendants of the Children of Israel, but rather a mixture of slaves, Aryans and the remnants of the Khazars, and they are not Semites. In other words, people without an identity, whose only purpose is blackmails, theft and control over property and land, with the assistance of the Western countries."

The second most influential Egyptian daily is Al-Akhbar, which went a step further on April 18, 2001: "Our thanks go the late Hitler who wrought, in advance, the vengeance of the Palestinians upon the most despicable villains on the face of the earth. However, we rebuke Hitler for the fact that the vengeance was insufficient."

It is hard to imagine hatred more vitriolic than that which reproaches the Nazis for not completing the Final Solution more thoroughly. What is remarkable is not that such sentiments exist, but that they are freely circulated in the mainstream media and internalized by the opinion-making elite throughout the Moslem world. In the same league, we find the claim that the Holocaust in fact never happened and that the Jews and Israelis are the real Nazis is regularly made. The Jewish-Nazi theme is a favorite of Arab caricaturists, some of whom use the swastika interchangeably with the Star of David, or juxtapose them. Graphic depiction of the Jews appear to have been lifted directly from the pages of the notorious old Nazi newspaper Der Stürmer (TheStormtroooper.)

A final tidbit: it is no accident that a number of Nazi war criminals found refuge in Moslem 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. There were others.

Thankfully, the Nazis of course lost WWII and the abortive alliance between Islam and Nazism never panned out. Sadly, there exist Moslems today, not on the fringes but in the mainstream of their nations, who still view this as a great lost opportunity based on profound natural affinities.

Stríbog
Friday, June 25th, 2004, 04:16 AM
LOL it's so typical of neo-con kikes to try and take out their two biggest opponents with one massive smear-job article.

Bushido_Boy
Tuesday, July 6th, 2004, 09:15 AM
That book is brilliant. ;)

Alkman
Thursday, July 22nd, 2004, 01:00 AM
THE MUSLIM NAZIS

After the 1942 Allied victory in El Alamein, Jerusalem's grand mufti, Hajj Amin al Husseini (Yasser Arafat's paternal uncle) began broadcasting in Arabic from Berlin. "Arise, oh sons of Arabia. Fight for your sacred rights. Slaughter Jews wherever you find them. Their spilled blood pleases Allah, our history and religion." Husseini had been appointed the prime minister of the tragicomical Berlin pan-Arab government in exile. The mufti planned a triumphant return to Palestine with the axis forces, and the construction of a death camp outside Nablus for the extermination of Jews. Adolf Eichmann had visited Palestine in 1937 and met with the mufti. He was impressed with him and sang his praises in Berlin. After Husseini escaped the British in 1939, he moved to Berlin where he was welcomed with open arms. In Germany, he became Hitler's personal guest and remained close with Eichmann. At the end of 1942, Eichmann ordered 10,000 Jewish kids to Theresienstadt. The Red Cross offered to trade Germans for them. Husseini was outraged and the exchange was cancelled, just for him.

The Germans regarded Husseini as a good ally to have, because of his potential influence over the Muslims. Even Himmler liked the mufti, despite him being an 'untermensch' and took him for visits to Auschwitz to show off. During one such visit, Husseini scolded the guards for not killing enough Jews. Husseini as an act of gratitude for the hospitality provided to him, made himself useful by scrambling to recruit Bosnian Muslims, who wreaked havoc in Jugoslavia against Serbs and Jews, to the delight of Pavelic and the Nazis. Husseini was declared a war criminal after the war, but fled to France, and escaped to Egypt. In his memoirs he wrote: "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.' "



Hitler's attitude to the Muslims was an odd one. Despite his ramblings about the 'Asiatic Hoards' he had an admiration for Islamic militancy and its prophetic teachings. He thought that he could use the concept of Jihad in order to win the Muslims over to the Nazi cause. He actively recruited Muslims from the Caucasus and central Soviet republics. Arabs from the middle east formed the 'Freies Arabien' units. Hitler even suggested that the Cossacks wear their traditional uniforms instead of the 'ugly German ones'. In fact it was the alleged Turkic racial influence of the Cossacks that led the SS to 'discover' that they weren't Russians after all. It seems that Hitler preferred the Asiatics of Asia to the 'Asiatics' of Europe (i.e., the Slavs and the Jews). Many traditionalist Nazis were mortified. Could it be that Hitler did not believe his own teachings?

http://www.forums.skadi.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=16790&stc=1 http://www.forums.skadi.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=16791&stc=1 http://www.forums.skadi.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=16792&stc=1 http://www.forums.skadi.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=16793&stc=1

Schwarze Sonne
Thursday, July 22nd, 2004, 12:53 PM
Great pics! ;)

http://www.forums.skadi.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=16793&stc=1
A Waffen-SS Division? Which?

CelticofArabia
Sunday, August 8th, 2004, 04:56 PM
My Avatar is the Flag of the Waffen Hangar SS division.

Grimr
Sunday, August 8th, 2004, 07:33 PM
This is all proof that Nazism is deeply, deeply flawed!

ogenoct
Monday, August 9th, 2004, 01:17 AM
This is all proof that Nazism is deeply, deeply flawed!
Is this why you have madman Himmler as your signature? Or is that supposed to be a joke?

Constantin

Saoirse
Monday, August 9th, 2004, 01:23 AM
This is all proof that Nazism is deeply, deeply flawed!

Front Page Mag is owned by a Jew. How can National Socialism be flawed when each specie of Nature is bascially National Socialist?

Socialism = social = organized.

walfiler
Thursday, August 19th, 2004, 02:29 AM
Both are explicitly anti-nationalist
Now that is funny. Last time i talked to a socialist he saied nationalsocialism wasn't socialistic and now you say that nationalsocialism is not nationalistic.

ph33r the unknown... :hitler

Vojvoda
Thursday, August 19th, 2004, 02:52 AM
My Avatar is the Flag of the Waffen Hangar SS division.
Wow (:o most of them joined the communist partisans near the end of the war anyway,typical of them,always switching sides.

Northern Paladin
Thursday, August 19th, 2004, 05:22 AM
I wouldn't trust a guy named Serge Trifkovic to write a decent and truthful review about NS.

Most of the claims he makes are bogus. Like NS is anti-nationalistic. Nationalism is the center of the social focus in NS.

I find the comment by Himmler if he did indeed say Christianity wasn't war like to be Ironic.

Didn't Teutonic knights conquer much of the Baltic in the name of Christianity?
Weren't the Crusades inspired by Christianity?

Yeah Christianity is such a pacifist religion. :angel

Grimr
Thursday, August 19th, 2004, 04:29 PM
Is this why you have madman Himmler as your signature? Or is that supposed to be a joke?

Constantin

Himmler was the only good Nazi, he was insane, loved his family, was a really ungermanic nordicist and enjoyed picking flowers more than making war! Himmler was the perfect Aryan!

ogenoct
Thursday, August 19th, 2004, 06:06 PM
Himmler was the only good Nazi, he was insane, loved his family, was a really ungermanic nordicist and enjoyed picking flowers more than making war! Himmler was the perfect Aryan!
True dat!

Constantin

Saoirse
Thursday, August 19th, 2004, 08:19 PM
Grimr
enjoyed picking flowers more than making war! Himmler was the perfect Aryan!

The Jews, Britain and France declared war on Germany in 1933 and 1939.

lahun-ok
Tuesday, October 5th, 2004, 07:38 PM
Today´s Islam roots are in the ancient India, the Sikh´s (a indian warrior-monks) are a people who´s just on the frontier of both religions: hinduism and islam. Certainly if one read´s the Bhagavad-Gita and the Quran as well,he will see the similarity of the doctrines, both convide to practice the Karma yoga (the goods action ´s yoga), the Bakti yoga (devotion to the Lord), and The jnana Yoga (self domination yoga). Well, in my point of view the islam doctrine its also relationated (for its echos) with the Kalachakra tantra, and evidently the fight against evil (Iblis or Israel like is called by The Quran) or jihad, the sacred war, can be asociated with The Mahabharata´s epic battle, "source" of the bhagavad-gita. Some popular muslims meditations like the "dhirk´s" (remembering the Lord), can be founded and explained as well at Pantajali´s Yoga book. Finally I think that the aryans roots of the hidden Knowledge of the muslim doctrines (In some way relationated also with the Mazdeism) can´t be denied.

I´ve said this because it´s evident the Hitler´s rol as avatar and his connections with the oldest sacred traditions of Tibet (and India as well) and its relation with the jihad or sacred war against the evil.

rhadley
Saturday, November 27th, 2004, 01:29 PM
Got this off JRW's Dave Myatt site. Interesting, or what?



Questions About Islam and National Socialism




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Note by JRW, June 2004 AD: The following is taken from the original text of an Interview Myatt gave, to an American academic, last year - before the invasion of Iraq. The interview is due to be published in a book due out later this year or early next year.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


The far right’s reaction to the September 11 attack seems to have been mixed. Many in the movement expressed feelings of vindication insofar as many of the issues about which they feel strongly (e.g., immigration and American foreign policy in the Middle East), featured prominently in the attack. Others were less sanguine about the current state of affairs and feared that the government’s war on terror could spillover into a witch hunt against domestic extremists as well. What are your thoughts on this issue? Ultimately do you think that 9/11 and its consequences will hinder or improve conditions for the far right in the future?

A:
Bismillah Ar-Rahman Ar-Raheem

The attacks have certainly been used, by ZOG, to increase their tyranny, as witness the surveillance, the new laws, the many arrests and detentions. They have also been used to appeal to a vacuous "patriotism" based upon the abstract, non-folkish, concept of "The State".

In the long-term, this can be to advantage of folkish groups, since such things reveal the real nature and intent of those who wield power, as it reveals the insolent, dishonourable, nature of such governments. In the short-term, it will probably lead to some government suppression of folkish dissent, but given good leadership, and the correct understanding of such things as honour, this will not be much of a problem.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Although white racial nationalism and militant Islam are two seemingly disparate movements, the two seem to share a very similar critique on issues such as American foreign policy, the American media, Zionism, and globalization (i.e., NWO). Thus under certain conditions, there could conceivably be potential for greater collaboration between the movements. What do you think are the prospects for a potential alliance between Islam and the far right? Would you recommend against such an alliance?

A: There is a potential for collaboration, but only if "the movement" understands and acts upon their own Aryan values, their own ethics. The main problem with this nationalist/folkish/NS "movement" at the moment is that it is shallow, concentrating on outer issues: it lacks a real knowledge and understanding of what being Aryan means and implies and what true Aryan culture is. As a result a lot of the attitudes and views of people in "the movement" are wrong, dishonourable, un-Aryan.


These people must know, understand, and act upon their Aryan ethics, which are based upon personal honour. In addition, they must understand that their aim should be to create an Aryan society, governed according to their own Aryan laws, and that this new society can and should co-operate with other societies, other cultures, other races, on the basis of reason and honour. Their honourable aim should be an independent, Aryan, ethnic, society, found upon honour, reason and duty to folk and culture.

Honour demands that we treat people - irrespective of their race, their religion, their beliefs, with respect. I quote what I wrote a while back - before my conversion to Islam - to an imprisoned Comrade:

"As I have endeavoured to explain several times, how we as National-Socialists and Aryans relate to people of other races and other religions is determined by our own National-Socialist, Aryan ethics. Our ethics are based upon personal honour, and honour demands of us that we only ever judge a person on the basis of personal knowledge of them: and moreover, with this personal knowledge of a person extending over a period of time. If we have no personal knowledge of a person, or have only met a person once or a few times briefly, then we cannot in all honour make any judgement about them. The race, the religion, and of course the political views of the person are totally irrelevant. Honour demands that we treat people, regardless of their race, their culture, their religion, their "political views" with fairness and respect. That is, honour demands that we have manners and are polite: that we strive to act with nobility of character; that we judge people by their deeds and in particular by how they act toward us... It really is about time that we who uphold the noble way of life which is National-Socialism lived according to our own ethics and began to explain, openly and in clear words, the noble reality of National-Socialism. No matter how dire our situation may be, or appears to be, and no matter how many non-Aryans may live in what were once our own nations, we must hold fast to our own ethics and not allow ourselves be tricked into accepting the Zionist version of "National Socialism" with its hate-filled, irrational, Hollywood "nazis".

The reality is that we both have the same enemies: the materialistic capitalist system, and the cabal who run the NWO. It is in both our interests to fight and destroy the NWO. If there were a nationalist or National-Socialist revolution in America this would be to the great advantage of the Muslims. One goal of the NWO is to reduce everything to material needs and material concerns, and this attempt to destroy the numinous is hubris: the insolence of the tyrant. Both the authentic Islam of the Jihadi movements, as exemplified by groups such as The Base of Jihad, and genuine National-Socialism - as exemplified in my own NS writings - are numinous alternatives to the insolent, materialistic, dishonourable tyranny of the NWO.

We should be aiming to create a world where there is a nationalist or National-Socialist - society in a country such as America, and where there is a Khilafah in the Muslim world, with these two societies co-operating together for their own mutual advantage. This would mean the end of the messianic dream of the cabal for a so-called Greater Israel.

To quote Sheikh Usama bin Laden (hafidhahullah):

"We tell the Americans as a people, and we tell the mothers of soldiers - and American mothers in general - if they value their lives and those of their children, find a nationalistic government that will look after their interests, and not the interests of the Jews." Usama bin Laden, taken from an interview bin Laden gave on May 28 1998 CE

As Sheikh Usama bin Laden (hafidhahullah) has also stated, it is permissible for Muslims to join forces with, to fight the New World Order, those threatened by that New World Order, and the Sheikh gave this example: "the fighting, which is being waged and which will be waged in the days to come, is similar to the fighting of Muslims against the Byzantine [Empire] in the past. And our convergence of interests, now, is not detrimental. Then, the interests of the Muslims fighting against the Byzantine [Empire] converged with the interests of the Persians, and this was not detrimental to the companions of the Prophet."

However we Muslims can only ally ourselves with those who have a good opinion of us, and of Islam:

"If we truly love Allah, how can we love the enemies of Allah? How can we love people who deny the truth when it is presented before them, and who argue and dispute barrenly against it? How can we love and be deeply attached to a lifestyle that thrives on disobeying Allah? We should treat people based on their position towards Islam. The kuffar, including the Jews and Christians, can never become our intimate friends, confidantes or close allies. This does not mean we isolate ourselves from them and give up hope for them. What it means is that our relationship with them should be fair, kind and equitable, and not rude or arrogant, but we should always be thinking about how to bring them to Islam. If, however, they display open hostility to Islam,, then we should treat them as enemies. Those who seize our lands and oppress, torture and kill our Muslim brothers and sisters cannot be our friends." Sheikh Ahmad al-Ghumari

Yet we Muslims have a duty to present Islam to them: they are free to accept, or decline. I have done this, and achieved Alhamdulillah some little success - making some people in such folkish groups, or who hold folkish beliefs, aware of the truth of Islam, its numinosity (one even converted to Islam, Alhamdulillah). To do this, and the other things necessary, I have sometimes had to use deception, for as the Hadith says:

Narrated Ka'b ibn Malik: When the Prophet (salla Allahu 'alayhi wa sallam) intended to go on an expedition, he always pretended to be going somewhere else, and he would say: War is deception. (Abu Dawud, 14, 2629)

We Muslims are indeed at war, and if I have sometimes to deceive the kuffar to achieve things for Islam, to aid my brothers and sisters, I will, provided I do nothing that is dishonourable, or which Islam forbids. Maybe I was - and am - wrong to do such things, as maybe sometime soon they may not be necessary, but all I can do is trust in Allah Subhanahu wa Ta'ala and strive, InshaAllah, to do what is Islamic.




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


My general impression is that although the far right and militant Islam on occasion share rhetoric, what admiration does exist tends to move in one direction i.e., selected far right activists voice support for militant Islam while the latter rarely voices support for the former. Is this an accurate assessment?

A: Fairly accurate, because what is there to admire in most of the so-called right-wing movement today? If it were composed of people who upheld honour, who understood their own ethics, their own Aryan way of life - for which see my The Complete Guide to the Aryan Way of Life which I wrote before my conversion to Islam - and who thus uphold in their public and private lives the principle of honour, loyalty and duty, then there might be something, other than a few individuals, to admire. I hoped my writings would change this state of affairs, which is one reason I have tried to make to bring these two ways of life together by supporting authentic Islam, by propagating genuine National-Socialism, and writing about Aryan ethics.




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



That said there seems to some issues that would obviously divide the two movements, specifically, immigration and religion. Both North America and Western Europe are experiencing substantial immigration from Muslim countries. Ultimately this could significantly alter both the racial/ethnic and religious textures of these geographic regions. Furthermore, some far right politicians, such as Jean Marie Le Pen, have made political capital by exploiting xenophobia of Muslim migrants. What are your thoughts on this development? Is Islam more a threat or potential ally?

A: The people who make political capital out of such things and who thus strike an anti-Muslim pose - such as the BNP and Le Pen - are in my opinion acting contrary to honour and reason. They fail to understand their own Aryan values, as they fail to comprehend the true global situation, which is of an increasing world-tyranny, the New World Order. In addition, the nationalism they propagate is out-dated, anachronistic, and most damning of all, un-numinous.

In respect of their folk, what is required is an Aryan way of life, a free Aryan homeland and thus the law of personal honour. This means a Destiny created by a numinous perspective. The ethics of such "nationalist" organizations are the ignoble, uncivilized, ethics of The State, just as there is nothing numinous in the policies and goals of such organizations: no rational, cosmic, perspective, no inspiring numinosity, just mundane, political, promises about some sort of " better materialistic life" and stories about so-called past national glories, which, more often than not, were just dishonourable imperialism for the sake of capitalism.

Such political groups, and the people who lead them, are of the past, whereas Folk Culture and National-Socialism are or should be of their future: an expression of what is needed to create civilized, human, numinous societies where honour is the criteria for personal behaviour and social conduct.

Seen in this way, Islam is their ally. They seek an Aryan homeland: this does not mean they need the old nation-States. They need to begin again, with a new way of life, a new society, an entirely new nation. In brief, they must be the founders of a new nation. Once this principle is accepted, the Movement will shed an enormous amount of excessive and unnecessary baggage. In respect of America, for instance, this would mean creating a homeland in one or more States, or even in a part of one State.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



There have been a lot of Internet conspiracy rumors in the wake of 9/11? One in particular that has gained currency in far right circles is that the Israeli Mossad, and possibly the U.S. government, had foreknowledge of the 9/11 attack. Do you have any reason to impugn the official version of the events of 9/11? If so, would you please share your thoughts?


A: I have considered such theories, and reviewed what evidence has been put forward to support them, such as the way the Twin Towers collapsed which may seem to some to indicate it was destroyed as a result of a covert operation by the CIA. This is an interesting theory, but my view is that the attacks were martyrdom operations by Muslims who wanted to show that America, for all its military and economic power, is not invincible. As Sheikh Usama bin Laden (hafidhahullah) said in a recent statement: "We stress the importance of martyrdom operations against the enemy - operations that have inflicted damage both on the United States and on Israel: damage that has been unprecedented in their history, all thanks to Almighty Allah."

As for the US government having forewarning of the attacks and just letting it happen, they might do this as another Pearl Harbour, but it is more likely that they did not know since they have very little intelligence about The Base of Jihad operations, and certainly less then than the little they might have now.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



As I’m sure you know, the war on terror—especially if it includes a war on Iraq—will amount to an enormous fiscal undertaking. Both federal and state governments are experiencing severe budget crises. Furthermore, substantial immigration continues into the West. Could you presage a scenario in which the U.S. government could be militarily winning the war overseas, yet lose control of its Mexican border and by doing so, descend into a spiral of fiscal bankruptcy and civil unrest?

A: We can but hope! In truth, this is the real weakness of America, and one which I am sure Sheikh Usama bin Laden (hafidhahullah) knows, which is why he is using the tactics he is. America has been drawn into a global conflict, and to keep this going, for many years - as it must - will be an enormous drain on its resources. What is needed to tilt the balance toward bringing the NWO to its knees is for there to be increased social and political unrest in America. In this, The Movement must play a part.

All modern Western societies are vulnerable, their infrastructure is fragile. The Movement should target this infrastructure, in an honourable way, which means avoiding civilian casualties in the covert, revolutionary, war which is necessary. The reality of the present is that National-Socialists seem to be doing very little in a practical sense to undermine and destroy the NWO, while Muslims are actively waging a war against it. If National-Socialists are committed, they should be inciting and inspiring revolution in their own lands, and doing practical things to undermine and destroy their ZOG.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



How have the various segments of the far right responded to your conversion to Islam and your overtures to Muslim activists?


A: Some have been critical; some have been skeptical, believing I did not convert at all. Some - obviously failing to understand honour and thus their own Aryan ethics - have condemned attempts to make alliances with Muslims.

Some of the more prejudiced ones have even called me a "traitor" and "mad". Here is an answer:

Abu Huraira narrated that the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu alayhe wa sallam) said: "Islam began as something strange, and it will revert to its former position of being strange, so good tidings for the strangers." (Recorded by Muslim, Attirmidthi, Ibn Majah, and Ahmad)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Do you think Islam could be a viable guiding faith/religion for the West?

A: Most certainly, InshaAllah. The Way of Life which is Al-Islam is certainly far, far superior to what exists in the West. Indeed, Islam is the one thing that can make the West into a civilized society - which can overcome the hubris, the arrogance, of the West, and its rampant, dishonourable, materialism.

The West has lost the sense, the imminence, of the Divine and as result its governments, and a lot of its peoples, are arrogant. They have set themselves up to compete with God, with Allah. They have no real sense of honour anymore, no real manners or dignity. Islam provides honour and dignity and manners - Islam, correctly understood, is a guide to how we can be honourable and how we can create an honourable, rational, fair, society.

To become honourable, the West needs examples: in the Prophet Muhammad (salla Allahu 'alayhi wa sallam) we have the perfect example of the honourable man - he was the archetypal human being, the archetypal honourable and chivalrous man: fair, courteous, just, trustworthy, brave, tolerant, honest, generous, modest and pious. Anyone who studies his life in a reasoned and fair way is impressed - and one of the things we Muslims could do InshaAllah to make significant converts in the modern West is to provide trustworthy and readable accounts, in English, of the life of the Prophet Muhammad, of his honourable Companions and of those honourable warriors - such as Ali Ibn Abu Talib and Salah al-Din - who fought for the cause of Islam.

There is astounding ignorance of Islam in the West, and a immense amount of prejudice. I have found that Westerners are quite ignorant and astoundingly arrogant - for the majority of them blindly assume that the ways of the West, and they themselves, are somehow "superior", and that Islam is "backward" or "uncivilized" whereas the contrary is true.




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


You have written extensively on the spiritual aspects of National Socialism and heathenism. On the surface, it would seem difficult to reconcile these beliefs with Islam, in that the latter is monotheistic, non-racialist, and absolutist. Would you please expound on how you syncretize these seemingly disparate belief systems?

A: There is some common ground, since both ways - when correctly understood - produce civilized, honourable individuals who use reason as a guide. The differences are, first, the perspective of Islam is the the next life, on Jannah, and there is therefore what I have called an acausal ethic, and, second, that the individual is understood in relation to such things as Taqwa, Imaan, for these define them. For Islam, the folk - and the diversity and difference of human culture - is basically irrelevant. For National-Socialism, this diversity and difference should be treasured, and developed, in an honourable, rational way.

In addition, National-Socialism concentrates on the connection to the folk, and thus to Nature and the Cosmos, with Nature and the Cosmos being understood as living beings. That is, individuals are regarded as part of the folk, as Nature made manifest, and that our purpose is to aid Nature, and thus the Cosmos, through our folk: to evolve ourselves, our folk, our culture, and thus our human species. Hence, the perspective of National-Socialism - and the basis for its ethics - is a cosmic, and causal one, of individuals as a nexion, a connexion between our human past and our human future. National-Socialism believes we can and should evolve further: that this is our unique human Destiny, and that this evolution depends on us, on our reason, strength, and so on. In total contrast, the Muslim relies on Allah Subhanahu wa Ta'ala and Allah alone.

In National-Socialism (and Folk Culture, I should add) the individual is defined by honour, loyalty and duty, just as a National-Socialist society is.

Islam is submission to the Will of Allah Subhanahu wa Ta'ala, as revealed in the Quran and Sunnah, and a Muslim is a person who has given an oath of loyalty, bay'ah, to do what Allah Subhanahu wa Ta'ala has commanded - to obey Allah and the Muhammad (salla Allahu 'alayhi wa sallam), the Prophet of Allah Subhanahu wa Ta'ala. Further, the Muslim uses - or should use - only the Quran and Sunnah as their guides, the basis of their judgment, about what is honourable and dishonourable - that is, they refer what is honourable to Allah and His Messenger. In National-Socialism, it is fair to say that it is individuals - or some leader - who decide what is honourable, and this is, to me, a great weakness, for I have come to understand that honour means we accept that there is a God - a Creator, an Eternal Being far more powerful than we mortals. There can be no real honour without this understanding of God, for it is this understanding of God which gives us the cosmic perspective we need to understand ourselves, as humans, and judge ourselves - with such an understanding and judgement being the beginning of morality. It is this understanding alone which prevents us from being insolent - from upsetting the natural balance by 'overstepping the mark'. Furthermore, this understanding of God which is the basis of honour is not a belief, a question of faith, but rather a reasoned apprehension - the result of rational observation and reasoned thought.

One of the glories of Islam is that it expresses this reasoned apprehension of God - for Islam, God is not a question of faith, but the conclusion of us thinking about ourselves, our world, and the cosmos itself. Our very existence, our human nature, the complexity and beauty of life on Earth, the wonders of the cosmos are all Signs - all pointers to the conclusion that there is and must be a Supreme Being, one God and only one God, who is Infinite, Eternal and whom Muslims call Allah [literally, The One (and Only) God].

As for myself, I am a Muslim, Alhamdulillah, and I shall remain a Muslim, InshaAllah.

I spent many months, last year, living alone in a tent in the high hills of Cumbria thinking about Islam, National-Socialism, and Folk Culture, and I admit to having had doubts - again. But it was a return to the desert which, yet again, brought me back to the true simplicity of Islam: alone, fragile, in the vastness of the Western Desert, I let my heart and mind combine in a simple submission to Allah Subhanahu wa Ta'ala. Also, I admit to - yet again - being somewhat overwhelmed by the many Muslims I met on that journey: such simple piety, deriving from Dhikr; such manners; such honour. These truly were good people - made good by Islam.

I do know that we are continually tried and tested, as Allah Subhanahu wa Ta'ala says:

"He [Allah] created life and death that He might put you to the test and find out which of you acquitted himself best." 67: 1-2. (Interpretation of meaning.)

"Every soul shall taste death. We shall try you in good and bad ordeals." 21:35 (Interpretation of meaning.)

I also realize the truth of the Hadith:


"There is no believing servant except that he has a sin which he commits from time to time, or a sin in which he persists in and does not abandon until he leaves this world. Indeed the Believer was created as one who is frequently tried and tested, who often repents (then) forgets. When he is admonished he accepts the admonition." Reported by at-Tabaraanee in al-Mu'jamul Kabeer (no. 11,810); hasan.




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Several Bush administration spokespersons have repeatedly asserted that the attacks visited upon America on September 11, 2001, were because of the democratic values that the country espouses. Do you accept this analysis?


A: No. The attacks were in response to American policy in the Middle East and elsewhere: a consequence of their support for the Zionist entity which has killed and tortured Muslims and which has stolen Muslim land; a consequence of their support for sanctions against Iraq which have resulted in the deaths of nearly one million children; a consequence of their arrogant, bullying, ways in Muslim land and their support of the ignoble, un-Islamic leaders of Muslim countries; a consequence of them defiling - in Muslim eyes - The Land of Two Holy Places. And so on.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


In recent years the proliferation of the Internet and the World Wide Web has enabled people scattered all over the world to communicate with one another and share ideas. Do you see any evidence of a process of cross-fertilization at work whereby seemingly disparate dissidents are increasingly converging on a shared ideology with regard to such issues as globalization, NWO, American foreign policy, etc.?

A: Not really; there is an exchange of information, and some collaboration, but I do not see a new ideology emerging, only refinements of existing ones, such as anti-capitalism, anti-globalization. Or rather, it might be more correct to write and say that there is no new way of life emerging as a result of this communication and collaboration.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



From the perspective of the far right, an overt alliance with militant Islam would seem to entail many perils. My previous research suggests that the various far right movements are monitored very closely by the government (and non-governmental organizations in the U.S.). Thus tactically the far right would not appear to be in a good position to cooperate with militant Islam even if it had the desire to do so. Do you have any thoughts on this?

A: The essence, insofar as effective folkish opposition to the NWO is concerned, is covert action by covert groups and lone-wolf individuals: aiding the destruction of the infrastructure, for instance.

For Islam, the way is Jihad, until Islam is triumphant, as Allah Subhanahu wa Ta'ala says:

"Fight against those who do not believe in Allah, or in The Last Day, and who do not forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, as well as those among the people of the book who do not acknowledge the Deen of Truth, and fight them until they pay the Jizya with willing submission." [ 9:29 interpretation of Meaning]




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Do you have any thoughts on the impending war against Iraq?


A: Yes. America is acting like an arrogant, ignoble bully. It will not be a war: it will be a big, powerful bully picking on someone much smaller. A one-sided conflict, rather like that between the American-equipped Zionist army and the activists of Hamas: helicopter gunships and tanks against rifles; rockets and missiles against stones. It makes me angry to watch the television pictures of American and British troops swaggering around, showing off their hardware while experts talk about powerful American weaponry: it so dishonourable; so against the ethos of the true warrior. There will be no honour in such a conflict, at least not on the part of American and allied troops. You want true warriors in the modern world? Muslims defending Jenin. Mujahideen defending Tora Bora.

America is acting in the interests of the Zionist entity.

It is not a war for oil, and neither is the war in Afghanistan about oil. It is war to tame Islam; to extend the dictat of the NWO to Muslim lands. A war to ensure that Muslim countries do not develope weapons which can challenge the Zionist entity. In addition it is war to ensure that the NWO can control and stifle the growth of holocaust revisionism in Muslim lands, for the truth has begun to be freely told in such lands, and were the myth of the holocaust to be destroyed, the NWO, with its Western ZOG's, would crumble from within. Some such Muslim lands have become - and others have the potential to become - sanctuaries of reason and truth in a world of politically-correct Zionist social engineering, places of exile for those who have fallen foul of the tyrannical laws of the NWO. The NWO wants to be able to get at anyone, anywhere, and put them on trial according to the ignoble, tyrannical, laws of the NWO.

In brief, it is part of the plan to extend the dictat of the NWO to the whole world.

The next target will be places like Iran and possibly Syria.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Inasmuch as the Koran teaches that Allah sent prophets to all of the major civilizations, it is conceivable that the far right could reconcile some of its beliefs with Islam. For example, some Muslim scholars have attempted to show that Socrates, Lao-Tzu, Hammurabi, and Zoroaster were prophets of Allah, and thus acceptable to Islam. In this tradition, it might not be too much of a stretch to include Odin, Thorburn, and other members of the Norse pantheon into the framework of Islam. Do you think that a synthesis is possible between Islam and the various religions popular with the far right, such as Odinism?

A: This is a very interesting question.

According to Islam, Muhammad (salla Allahu 'alayhi wa sallam) was the last Prophet of Allah Subhanahu wa Ta'ala, but before him Allah Subhanahu wa Ta'ala sent a Prophet to every people, every culture, to warn them, to guide them. What these Prophets taught would have been the message of Islam - that is, submission to the one and only God, the belief that we were created by Allah Subhanahu wa Ta'ala , and the belief that we can enter Paradise if we live in the right way. In addition, there is the concept of sin: the belief that God has determined what is right and wrong, and that those committing "sins" will be punished, and go to some horrid place after they die.

These Prophets would have been historical people, that is, real individuals. Some of their reported or assumed sayings, or teachings, may have survived by various means, but - for Muslims - only the Quran is infallible, the literal Word of Allah Subhanahu wa Ta'ala. Thus, if any known historical figure who may have been one of the Prophets is associated with any sayings or teachings, these sayings and teachings may well be corrupted in some way, or otherwise be unreliable in determining what they really said or taught.

The only way Muslims can know the identity of such Prophets for certain is by referring to the Quran and Sunnah, and these sources are silent in respect of the people, and figures, you mentioned.

In respect of Odin, Thorburn and others like them, we need to ask several questions. First, were these real people, whose lives became legend, then myth? [The same applies to other "gods", such as the Homeric ones - was Zeus a powerful chieftain long before the time of people such as Agamemnon?] Second, what did these figures believe, or teach - or, what do the legends, the stories, the myths, about them, tell us? Third, is what we know about them consistent with Islam?

The Norse figures may well have been real people: we simply do not know. What do Norse myths and legends tell us? What is the ethos, the Way of life, of the people who followed and believed in these? It is my understanding that they reveal a basically pagan and warrior ethos, quite similar to that of Ancient Greece. A pagan is an individual who believes or feels that there is a creative force in the natural world (in Nature) which produces, is responsible for, and which changes, all living beings, which includes ourselves. That is, that Nature is manifest, embodied, presenced, or incarnated, in living things.

Furthermore, and of especial importance, the Norse pagan culture - like the Ancient Greek one - was a warrior one. This means that the standards of judgment, what determined whether a deed was good or bad, whether a person was good or bad, were warrior ones, created by strong warriors. It also means that what inspired people to do what they did were these standards. What were these warrior standards? Valour; excellence (arête, in Greek); honour; triumphing over adversity; and a belief that there were limits - that to overstep these limits (to commit hubris) was to invite disaster, a retribution by the gods. As Sophocles wrote well over a two thousand years ago (my translation):

There exists much that is strange, yet nothing
Is more strange than mankind:
For this being crosses the gray sea of Winter
Against the wind, through the howling sea swell,
And the oldest of gods, ageless Earth -
She the inexhaustible -
He wearies, turning the soil year after year
By the plough using the offspring of horses.

He snares and captures the careless race of birds,
The tribes of wild beasts, the natives of the sea,
In the woven coils of his nets -
This thinking warrior: he who by his skill rules over
The wild beasts of the open land and the hills,
And who places a yoke around the hairy neck
Of the horse, taming it - and the vigorous mountain bull.

His voice, his swift thought,
The raising and ordering of towns:
How to build against the ill-winds of the open air
And escape the arrows of storm-rain -
All these things he taught himself,
He the all-resourceful
From whom there is nothing he does not meet
Without resources - except Hades
From which even he cannot contrive an escape
Although from unconquered disease
He plans his refuge.

Beyond his own hopes, his cunning
In inventive arts - he who arrives
Now with dishonour, then with chivalry:
Yet, by fulfilling his duties to the soil,
His oaths to the customs given by the gods,
Noble is his clan although clan-less is he who dares
To dwell where and with whom he please -
Never shall any who do this
Come to my hearth or I share their judgement.....


Judgement is the greater part of good fortune
Just as it is necessary not to be disrespectful to the gods -
For the great words of the excessive boaster
Are repayed by great blows
And this, as one grows old, teaches judgement.



Does all this seem compatible with Islam - with the belief in one God, who is separate from their creation (us, and the world, and Nature), with the very concept of sin? Does this seem compatible with the idea of one supreme God teaching us, guiding us, through revelation, through Prophets?


My view is that it is not compatible at all. It is a very different ethos; and the Way of Life which results from upholding or following this pagan, warrior, ethos is very different from that of Islam. This does not mean that two cannot co-operate for their mutual advantage. There are some similarities, as I have mentioned elsewhere, particularly in respect of using reason, being fair, upholding honour, but the conclusion can really only be that the two belong to different worlds: their respective perspectives are totally different.


It is also my view, as I said, that Islam is the superior Way, as it is my hope that, InshaAllah, the West - the Zionist-Crusader alliance - will be defeated, and its peoples turn toward Islam. Then we will have a truly civilized, noble, way of life - the re-emergence of the Khilafah. As for myself, I shall continue to strive, InshaAllah, to fight for Islam, against the ways of the kuffar.



Abdul-Aziz ibn Myatt
1424

Rollon
Monday, January 17th, 2005, 11:22 PM
There is a book worth reading on the subject, because it is no scholar crap, and it's called 'L'Islam devant le national-socialisme', written in 1942 by Saida Savitri (no connection with Savitri Devi).

A Muslim woman of Indian descent and French education, Saida Savitri wrote her book in French in occupied France during the war. In her book, she advocates German-Muslim relationships, quoting both the Qoran and Hitler to show the similarities between the two.

Part of her argument is indeed based on anti-colonial resentment. Muslim societies have always had an utter contempt for Jews. But colonial powers upsetted the traditional structures to that respect and gave a prominent role to Jews in Muslim societies, like the role Jews have in Western societies. Just to give an idea of their craziness : in Algeria, the French granted citizenship to Jews... excluding the Arabs. The masters thus became slaves in their own countries, not as slaves of the Whites than slaves of the Jews. The Law bears the name of a French Jewish politician.

Saida Savitri considers that Nazism is the attempt made by Germans to be themselves, and in that effort they must be followed by alienated Muslim countries, which also must become themselves again.

It is true that many Nazis found refuge in Muslim countries after the war. Still, they entered the service of regimes that wanted to get rid of Muslim traditions, like Nasser's kind of national-socialist regime in Egypt : Otto Skorzeny, as the article reports, but also former Hitler's bodyguard (can't remember his name just now), who became a security adviser, and Johannes von Leers, former Goebbels' chief of staff for antisemitic propaganda, who become chief of staff for Nasser's propaganda.

Spartacus74
Tuesday, January 18th, 2005, 10:14 PM
interview with Claudio Mutti in German on "Junge Forum"



mit Prof. Claudio Mutti, “Junges Forum” n. 3
http://64.4.55.109/spacer.gif (http://by102fd.bay102.hotmail.msn.com/cgi-bin/HoTMaiL?curmbox=00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000001&a=ec7087f242856a7ea8149dddd03baec2)

In Italien wie auch in anderen europäischen Ländern entwickelt sich eine Zusammenarbeit von Vertretern der rechten Szene mit islamischen Kräften. In Deutschland steht ein großer Teil der Rechten dem Islam eher kritisch bis ablehnend gegenüber. Welche Gründe sind hierfür maßgeblich?

Mutti: In Italien nennen wir jenen Flügel der kollaborationistischen politischen Klasse "rechts" (destra), der in US-Präsident Bush seinen gegenwärtigen Führer sieht, während der "linke" derselben politischen Klasse (die gestern noch in Clintons Diensten stand) darauf wartet, daß Kerry ihr künftiger Führer wird.
Bei den extremen Rechten (das sind die Neofaschisten und die sogenannten Rechtsradikalen) ist der Fall anders gelagert und ebenso wirr wie widersprüchlich. In einem gewissen Bereich dieses formlosen Nebels hat immer eine explizit proislamische Einstellung vorgeherrscht, deren Wurzeln in diesen Faktoren gesucht werden muß: 1.) in der historischen Solidarität von Faschismus sowie Nationalsozialismus mit muslimischen Völkern, 2.) in der Darstellung des Islam, wie sie von traditionalen Denkern, in erster Linie von Julius Evola, vorgegeben wurde, 3.) in dem Auftauchen des Islam in den späten 1970er Jahren als eine spirituelle und politische Kraft im Kampf "gegen unsere eigenen Feinde".
Wir bemerken jedoch innerhalb dieses Nebels eine charakteristische Schizophrenie, die darin besteht, daß eine proislamische (oder proarabische) Haltung in bezug auf Palästina und den Irak eingenommen wird und eine antiislamische (oder antiarabische) Haltung in bezug auf Italien, wo der Immigrantenzustrom als "islamische Invasion" betrachtet wird, und zwar aufgrund einer Wahrnehmung, die eher eine irrationale und emotionale als eine objektive und realistische ist.
Diese Schizophrenie setzt die extreme Rechte und die radikale Rechte natürlich der Gefahr aus, ein objektiver Verbündeter der etablierten Rechten zu werden, die antieuropäisch, proamerikanisch und prozionistisch ist.
?
Die sogenannte multikulturelle Gesellschaft stellt ohne Zweifel eine Gefahr für Europa dar. Welche Rolle könnte oder sollte Ihrer Meinung nach der Islam in Europa spielen, und wie läßt sich hierbei die Gefahr eines "Schmelztiegels" à la USA verhindern?

Mutti: Die Sozialstruktur, die gemeinhin "multikulturell" genannt wird, ist in Wahrheit eine monokulturelle, da sie der Hegemonie oder eher noch der Exklusivexistenz nur einer einzigen Kultur bedarf: der westlichen Kultur, die in Gestalt der USA triumphiert. Die westliche Struktur, die einem Teil Europas 1945 einem anderen 1989 aufgepfropft wurde, betrachtet den Islam als seinen Erzfeind: "Für den Westen", schreibt Samuel P. Huntington, "ist das wahre Problem nicht der islamische Fundamentalismus, sondern der Islam selbst."

Es heißt, der Islam sei eine Religion, die rassische Unterschiede nicht anerkenne. Würde ein islamischer Einfluß in Europa die Rassenmischung vorantreiben?

Mutti: Der Islam bejaht ausdrücklich die Vorherrschaft des spirituellen Faktors über den biologischen. Aber aus dieser Tatsache folgt keineswegs, daß der Islam rassische Unterschiede nicht anerkennt oder sich nicht zunutze macht. Die islamische Lehre in bezug diese Diskussion ist kunstvoll in dem folgenden Koranwort ausgedrückt: "Eines Seiner [= Gottes] Wunderzeichen ist die Schöpfung der Himmel und der Erde und die Verschiedenheit euerer Sprachen und Farben" (XXX, 23, übersetzt von Ludwig Ullmann). Deshalb betrachtet der Islam "Sprachen und Farben", das heißt kulturelle und rassische Identitäten, als göttliche "Wunderzeichen".Der Fall wäre nicht so einfach gelagert, wenn der Islam nicht von Ludwig Ferdinand Clauß, der seine rassenseelische Sicht in Rasse und Charakter (1936) dargelegt hat, und von anderen Theoretikern der Rassefrage, wie Johannes von Lehrs, hochgelobt worden wäre.

Man sagt, der Islam sei eine sehr aggressive Religion, die andere Religionen nicht neben sich duldet. Julius Evola schwebte ein übernationales, überkonfessionelles Reich vor. Toleriert der Islam andere Religionen an seiner Seite?

Mutti: Als der Islam in der Geschichte die Regierungsverantwortung auf sich nahm, hat er andere Religionen angerkannt und ihren Anhängern Schutz und Autonomie gewährt. Im Omayyad-Reich [vielleicht schreibt man Omayyad im Deutschen anders???] wurden die Christen soweit respektiert, daß einer ihrer berühmten Heiligen, Johannes von Damaskus, unter dem Kalifen Finanzminister wurde; im muslimischen Spanien gedieh die Kultur der mozarabischen Christen; im Osmanischen Reich hatte der orthodoxe Patriarch stets den Rang eines Ministers des Sultans, und die christlichen Gemeinden erfreuten sich vollständiger Autonomie; im indischen Teil des Mogulreiches waren Hindus und Buddhisten dem "Volk des Buches" rechtlich gleichgestellt und genossen die hiermit verbundenen Privilegien; in der heutigen Islamischen Republik Iran haben die Christen und die Parsen ihre Abgeordneten im Parlament in Teheran.
Was Julius Evola angeht, so war seine Meinung über den Islam eine ausgesprochen positive. In Erhebung wider die moderne Welt ((dt. 1935); 2., überarb. Aufl.: Revolte gegen die moderne Welt (dt. 1982)) können wir nachlesen, daß der Islam eine "Tradition einer höheren Ebene [ist] als jene Glaubensbekenntnisse, die Europa erobert haben". [xxx Zitat prüfen!]

Die Idee "Eurasien als Bollwerk gegen Amerikanismus, Liberalismus und Materialismus" steht in Italien und anderen europäischen Ländern, soweit wir dies überblicken können, auf der Tagesordnung rechter Denkzirkel. In Deutschland ist die eurasische Idee noch weitgehend unbekannt. Wir haben in der ersten Ausgabe des neuen JUNGEN FORUMS versucht, einen Überblick über die Ideen Alexander Dugins zu geben. Halten Sie das Projekt Eurasien für realisierbar?

Mutti: Bis zum Zweiten Weltkrieg hatten Nationalstaaten wie Deutschland oder Italien oder Frankreich territoriale, demographische, ökonomische Dimensionen, die ausreichten, einen unabhängigen Staat zu bilden; heute jedoch gehört Unabhängigkeit ausschließlich jenen politischen Gebilden, die kontinentale Dimensionen haben. In der ersten Hälfte des 20. Jahrhunderts wurde dies von Karl Haushofer erkannt, der das geopolitische Konzept eines eurasischen Kontinentalblocks von Dublin bis Wladiwostok vorstellte.
Es ist offensichtlich, daß der eurasische Kontinentalblock aus geopolitischer Notwendigkeit heraus geboren werden wird, doch sein tiefstes Fundament ist die spirituelle Einheit Eurasiens, eine Einheit, die die Vielzahl kultuereller Ausprägungen transzendiert.

Ist das nicht ein Konzept das nur von den Regierungen verwirklicht werden kann? Was können wir, die wir keine Entscheidungskompetenz auf Regierungsebene haben, dafür tun?

Mutti: Das pars destruens unseres Handelns besteht darin, dem antieuropäischen Wesen des Begriffes "Westen" die Maske vom Gesicht zu reißen. Dieser "Westen" hat es sich zum Ziel gesetzt, die Unterordnung Europas unter die Vereinigten Staaten von Amerika aufrechtzuerhalten und einen tiefen Graben zwischen Europa und dem Rest des eurasischen Kontinents zu schaffen. Die These vom "Kampf der Kulturen" müssen wir als ein ideologisches Instrument des US-Imperialismus verurteilen, das den Zweck hat, eine Reihe von Bürgerkriegen in Eurasien hervorzurufen, von denen die Vereinigten Staaten profitieren würden. Wenn ein "Kampf der Kulturen" wirklich existiert, dann treten in ihm nicht Islam und Christentum gegeneinander an, sondern die eurasische Kultur und die amerikanische Barbarei.
Als pars construens müssen wir ein eurasisches Bewußtsein schaffen und die Hinweise weiterentwickeln, die in den Schriften jener großen Vordenker enthalten sind, die die spirituelle Einheit Eurasiens aufgezeigt haben. Ich meine nicht nur die traditionalen Autoren wie René Guénon und Julius Evola, sondern auch Gelehrte der Religionsgeschichte wie Mircea Eliade und Giuseppe Tucci, Geschichtswissenschaftler wie Franz Altheim und Lew Gumilew, "klassische" Theoretiker des Eurasismus wie Nikolai Trubetzkoi und Pjotr Sawitzki.

Könnte man beim Projekt Eurasien von der Wiederbelebung des mittelalterlichen Heiligen Römischen Reiches Deutscher Nation sprechen?

Mutti: Unter Karl dem Großen vereinte das Heilige Römische Reich den Raum zwischen Nordsee und Mittelmeer, dem Ebro und dem Adriatischen Meer. Unter Friedrich II. - dem "Genie unter den deutschen Kaisern" (Friedrich Nietzsche), dem Kaiser, der Latein und Deutsch, Griechisch und Arabisch sprach und seine Gedichte auf Italienisch schrieb - machte das Reich seinen ersten Schritt in Richtung auf eine eurasische Synthese: Nachdem er dank eines Programms "Friede, Freundschaft mit dem Islam" (Nietzsche) die Herrschaft über Jerusalem erlangt hatte, vereinte der große Staufer in sich die Charaktere eines römischen Imperators und eines deutschen Königs, eines byzantinischen Basileus' und eines muslimischen Sultans. Es ist keine einfache Angelegenheit, wenn Muslime ihn mit Alexander dem Großen vergleichen, der der erste gewesen war, der Europa und Asien zu einen versucht hatte. Heute, in der Morgendämmerung des dritten Jahrtausends, füllt mit der eurasischen Idee dergleiche Reichsgeist den weiten Raum zwischen Atlantik und Pazifik.

Huzar
Wednesday, January 19th, 2005, 02:59 PM
during 1942 Himmler created a islamic-ss division formed by soldiers from muslim bosnia.

Dr. Solar Wolff
Saturday, January 22nd, 2005, 09:01 AM
This "Islam-Nazi Connections" is a little flawed and near-sighted. The people of the Near East have always had a special connection with Germany. This is because Germany was seen as a counter-balance to Great Britain and, more recently, because German technical assistance did not come with strings as did the British, Ameircan, or Soviets. So, whenever possible, the people of that region and their leaders have turned to the Germans for help. This idea pre-dates World War Two.

But, more recently, it has surfaced again in the East-West Cold War struggle, especially at first. Then, the leaders of that region could get aid from Germany without spys. This was especially true if they called upon one of the former SS self-help groups to act as a consultant to get technical assistance. Finally, both the Americans and the Soviets, when cornered and unable to assist themselves for a variety of purely political reasons, would recommend these former SS organizations, most frequently run out of an engineering firm in Madrid, rather than the opposing East or West Power. This region is not the only one indebted to the Germans, Mexicans would still be living in pueblos, without electricity or running water if German technicians had not come to Mexico after the turn of the 20th Century to show them how to do things.

Today, this is kind of a cultural predjudice on all sides. The Iraqis, for instance, relied heavily on the German engineers to build bunkers for Saddam before the Gulf War. Before the most recent war in Iraq, as the guys in the German language section can verify, reminants of Nazi Germany were said to have bases in Iraq and even to have stationed two very exotic flying machines (Haunebu) somewhere in Iraq.

Andrew Taylor
Monday, February 14th, 2005, 06:29 PM
Great pics! ;)

A Waffen-SS Division? Which?
The picture of the man reading the book "Islam und Judentum" is a member of the all Islamic SS Division. Im thinking it was the 13th divison.

There was a post in the Stormfront.org picture thread that had the pic (hanjar-book.jpg) and a more detailed description of the Division.

Berliners Remember
Tuesday, February 15th, 2005, 12:18 AM
True dat!

Constantin

Wow your words really bring out who you are

Berliners Remember
Tuesday, February 15th, 2005, 12:19 AM
Yes so there was an SS Muslim division however they were Croation and they were white so it doesnt really bother me.

Rollon
Tuesday, February 15th, 2005, 04:32 PM
The following link gives a few name of former SS and Reich officials who went to work for Egypt and Nasser's regime (RAU) after the war.

Egypt under Nasser officially denied the Holocaust of the Jews. This policy, called "State negationism" in the article, was the direct offspring of Johannes von Leers.

Other National Socialists worked for Syria (Hafez el Asad's regime). I'm not sure as to Iraq.

http://www.fantompowa.net/Flame/nazis_postwar_egypt.htm

Rollon
Tuesday, February 15th, 2005, 04:43 PM
OK, von Leers and Egypt official revisionism are from that article (not the other one) :

http://www.phdn.org/negation/rassinier/leers.html

It's in French. For a translation, use altavista.com services.

Draco
Tuesday, February 15th, 2005, 08:24 PM
If it contributes to the discussion, Hitlers view on Islam:


Inside the Third Reich, by Albert Speer

Pg. 96

Hitler had been impressed by a scrap of history he had learned from a delegation of distinguished Arabs. When the Mohammedans attempted to penetrate beyond France into Central Europe during the eight century, his visitors had told him, they had been driven back at the Battle of Tours. Had the Arabs won this battle, the world would be Mohammedan today. For theirs was a religion that believed in spreading the faith by the sword and subjugating all nations to that faith. The Germanic peoples would have become heirs to that religion. Such a creed was perfectly suited to the Germanic temperament. Hitler said that the conquering Arabs, because of their racial inferiority, would in the long run have been unable to contend with the harsher climate and conditions of the country. They could not have kept down the more vigorous natives, so that ultimately not Arabs but Islamized Germans could have stood at the head of this Mohammedan Empire.

Hitler usually concluded this historical speculation by remarking: "You see, it's been our misfortune to have the wrong religion. Why didn't we have the religion of the Japanese, who regard sacrifice to the Fatherland as the highest good? The Mohammedan religion too would have been much more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness?"


I am aware Speer is of dubious value, since much he of what wrote was designed to try and save his own skin, but this is something I doubt he'd have had any reason to lie about, since he was already serving his term.

Fraxinus Excelsior
Tuesday, February 15th, 2005, 09:13 PM
Hitler usually concluded this historical speculation by remarking: "You see, it's been our misfortune to have the wrong religion. Why didn't we have the religion of the Japanese, who regard sacrifice to the Fatherland as the highest good? The Mohammedan religion too would have been much more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness?"I seriously doubt Hitler actually said anything like that; it is illogical to claim that someone like Hitler, with his obsession for anything related to the Teutonic Knights, would claim that we have been practicing the wrong religion.

The Teutonic Knights (and all other knightly orders) certainly weren't exhibiting any "meekness and flabbiness" during their campaigns; and Hitler knew that:

http://www.aetherometry.com/images/AS1-06/hitler_knight.jpg

Draco
Tuesday, February 15th, 2005, 11:10 PM
I seriously doubt Hitler actually said anything like that; it is illogical to claim that someone like Hitler, with his obsession for anything related to the Teutonic Knights, would claim that we have been practicing the wrong religion.

The Teutonic Knights (and all other knightly orders) certainly weren't exhibiting any "meekness and flabbiness" during their campaigns; and Hitler knew that:

http://www.aetherometry.com/images/AS1-06/hitler_knight.jpg


I don't think he was talking about past Christians, but rather present (well, present in the time he lived) Christianity, which was already becoming burgeoned with the Marxist "weakness and meekness" so plainly seen today in most Western Christian denominations.

Sounds like something he would have said, in private Hitler took a far different stance on Christianity than he did in public, as politicans tend to do.

Spartacus74
Wednesday, February 16th, 2005, 01:12 PM
i think that Draco has got the point of the Islamic question, with no doubt. This doesn't mean HItler was anti-european but it simply means that Hitler wasn't narrow minded in fact of religions.

And also if i don't think he would have appreciated Islam in Europe as a whole it's reliable to think he appreciated Islam in general as a religion with possible alliance in his forreing policy agenda.

NO scandal for this.



PS= strange to say but Skadi is much more tolerant and less moronic than other "so called" nationalist forums. It's evident that the more one is reasonable the more is openminded and the less is histeric.

Fraxinus Excelsior
Wednesday, February 16th, 2005, 07:21 PM
i think that Draco has got the point of the Islamic question, with no doubt. This doesn't mean HItler was anti-european but it simply means that Hitler wasn't narrow minded in fact of religions.

And also if i don't think he would have appreciated Islam in Europe as a whole it's reliable to think he appreciated Islam in general as a religion with possible alliance in his forreing policy agenda.

NO scandal for this.I understand, it's the "enemy-of-my-enemy is my friend" mentality.

And, my point: the assertion (as made by Albert Speer) that Hitler preferred Islam to Christianity is flawed because if Hitler had truly favored Islam, and not Christianity, than the painting I posted (in which Hitler is depicted as a Christian Knight), would have been quite different; he would have instead been depicted as some kind of Saladin-ish Mohammedan repulsing the Crusaders, or something as equally retarded.
PS= strange to say but Skadi is much more tolerant and less moronic than other "so called" nationalist forums. It's evident that the more one is reasonable the more is openminded and the less is histeric.Very true. :thumbup

Draco
Thursday, February 17th, 2005, 02:08 AM
I understand, it's the "enemy-of-my-enemy is my friend" mentality.

And, my point: the assertion (as made by Albert Speer) that Hitler preferred Islam to Christianity is flawed because if Hitler had truly favored Islam, and not Christianity, than the painting I posted (in which Hitler is depicted as a Christian Knight), would have been quite different; he would have instead been depicted as some kind of Saladin-ish Mohammedan repulsing the Crusaders, or something as equally retarded.Very true. :thumbup

Did you know Hitler actually didn't care for Lanzinger’s ‘The Flag Bearer’(sometimes called ‘Armoured Adolf’), out of almost 150 annual submissions of portraits of Hitler were submitted to him for the annual "Day of German Art". He picked only one painting of himself for display each year, and in 1938 he chose that one because it was better than the rest. Hitler was extremely picky about which images of himself were released.

Fun fact: All of the paintings submitted were based on photographs. He never personally modelled for any paintings to my knowledge.

I view the painting as wholly secular, I don't see any "Christian Crusader" influence. Just because he is wearing armor he is a Crusader? It's just evocative symbolic imagery; the armor that is. He is the defender of the Fatherland, and every good warrior needs good armor to repel the blows of his enemy.

National Socialism, as represented by the flag he carries, sums up the painting quite well. He is not going into battle dressed in armor with a cross or any other Christian iconography; he is doing it under the swastika. It sums up his correct views on what a man should fight for.

catchmeifyoukhan
Monday, February 21st, 2005, 10:26 PM
There are much more connections between islam and communism than between islam and nazism.

Yes, Hitler and Himmler recognised some value to Islam. This does not meen they would convert to a religion which was even southerner to them than the Christian Religion (If the parents of the Christ found refuge in Egypt, Mohammed found asyleum in Ethiopia during the Egire and many leaders of Islam, such as the Almohaves were black africans) and which did not admit any differences between race (on the contrary to Christianism who recognised the value of Nations : "Go among the Nations ..."). Yes, some nazis found refuge in Syria and Egypt. The greatest majority went in southern America, and another minority served the sovietic regime as well in eastern Germany.

However, structurally and pathologically, islam and communism are much closer. They are both motivated by envy. The understated contract when converting to islam is : "don't touch to the moslem treasury, but the rest (christians, Jews and kafirs) is for you". The extraordinary spread of Islam in the seventh century, during which, in less than three decades, Islam defeated two empires, was the unique sucessful example of Islam as a war like ideology : a coalition of adventurers, disciplinised by a very simple slogan "four fifth for the soldier and the last fifth for the calife". After that time of glory and expansion, Islam owed most of his prosperity to the exploitation of the territories it gained on Persia and Byzantinum. During the 12th century, Islam gained some virility again through the conversion of the turcs and the mongols. This helped them in achieving the conquest of the last territories of Byzantinum. But, reversely, turcs and mongols lost their warlike habits in an Islam which was as hedonistic as looter. Nothing to compare with the German values, and even less to be compared with Nazi values.

More interesting is the massive conversion of far leftists to Islam, such as the Venzuelian terrorist Carlos and the candid sympathy of Gerhard Schröder and Jacques Chirac towards islam. I don't think that Islam needs to be compared to nazism to be definitely discredited. Islam's living observation is already enough.

morfrain_encilgar
Tuesday, February 22nd, 2005, 03:18 AM
Yes, Hitler and Himmler recognised some value to Islam. This does not meen they would convert to a religion which was even southerner to them than the Christian Religion (If the parents of the Christ found refuge in Egypt, Mohammed found asyleum in Ethiopia during the Egire and many leaders of Islam, such as the Almohaves were black africans) and which did not admit any differences between race (on the contrary to Christianism who recognised the value of Nations : "Go among the Nations ...").

The idea of a non-racial Islam is false because of passages in the Koran regarding the Negroids, and Islam originally promoted Mohammed's tribe over other Moslems. If you remember that Bedouin society is a collection of strictly endogamous tribes, where each tribe functions as an ethnic group and outsiders are considreed to be gentiles, then this is Bedouin racialism.


More interesting is the massive conversion of far leftists to Islam, such as the Venzuelian terrorist Carlos and the candid sympathy of Gerhard Schröder and Jacques Chirac towards islam. I don't think that Islam needs to be compared to nazism to be definitely discredited. Islam's living observation is already enough.

The sympathy of open borders immigrationists for Islamic immigrants isnt an admiration of Islam, because they oppose it as conservative in Islamic countries. In my own poinion their support for Moslem immigration is a way for them to attack their own heritage, because when they get the chance the left call for so-called human rights to be accepted in Moslem countries to secularise them, as well as laws to protect Israel like laws against Holocaust denial. And I would argue that far leftists who are Moslem, like Hakim Bey, are actually more conservative than so-called conservatives anyway.

catchmeifyoukhan
Tuesday, February 22nd, 2005, 09:25 PM
The idea of a non-racial Islam is false because of passages in the Koran regarding the Negroids, and Islam originally promoted Mohammed's tribe over other Moslems. If you remember that Bedouin society is a collection of strictly endogamous tribes, where each tribe functions as an ethnic group and outsiders are considreed to be gentiles, then this is Bedouin racialism.You're absolutely true, and, as always, very well documented. I would even add that the real Islam of the origins, the one which is vehicled by the Saoudi Arabians, for example, provides for a strict hierarchy of the believers. Bedouins from Yemen and Hedjaz at he top, then other arabs, then arabicised folks, and only afterwards, non arabic speaking moslems, black ones being, of course, at the very bottom of the ladder. But History has regularly contradicted this hierarchy. Facing the violence of Islam and the exorbitant demands of their conquerors, the defeated populations had no other recourse than claiming for a level playing field among muslims, and advocate for an egalitarian islam. This was, for example, the karedjit islam, that influenced deeply the malekit Islam from North Africa, according to which "even a black water-carrier can access to the dignity of Calife". This was also the fate of the Turkish islam, which promoted enrolled slaves to the rank of Janissaires (egalitarianism and despotism often go along). Reversely, the Christianity of the origins was deeply egalitarian and multiracialist, as the Three Wise Men story suggests. But the "ruse of history", as Hegel and Marx would say, made with this religion, the strongest cement of the European racial consciousness, even though this was against the will and the knowing of most clergymen.




The sympathy of open borders immigrationists for Islamic immigrants isnt an admiration of Islam, because they oppose it as conservative in Islamic countries. In my own poinion their support for Moslem immigration is a way for them to attack their own heritage, because when they get the chance the left call for so-called human rights to be accepted in Moslem countries to secularise them, as well as laws to protect Israel like laws against Holocaust denial. And I would argue that far leftists who are Moslem, like Hakim Bey, are actually more conservative than so-called conservatives anyway.
I agree with you. But again, this is the work of the "ruse of history" and the irony of individual destinies that turns some liberal or leftist addicts into strict conservative muslims. The common denominator between islam and communism being envy. In a way, one could support such conversions, as long as Islam remains less dangerous than marxism and leftism. But, reversely, there are also cases where one wonder whether some of our former nationalist comrades did not turned into some form of mystic liberalism after having converted themselves to Islam (I will not quote any name, because there is still some hope that, one day, they will change their mind, instead of turning weapons against regular nationalists).:|

Rollon
Tuesday, February 22nd, 2005, 11:38 PM
More evidence on some intellectual Islam-NS connections :

- Sebotendorff, founder of the Thule Society, was a Sufi initiate, and the same is true for Haushofer, founder of the Vril Society ;

- Sigrid Hunke, Clauss' (Rassenkunde) student and an employee in Goebbels' Ministry of Propaganda, wrote several books on Islamic civilization after the war, which allows her to be an honorary member of the Supreme Court for Islamic Affairs in Cairo. She is also known for being an advocate of paganism.

morfrain_encilgar
Wednesday, February 23rd, 2005, 02:10 AM
The common denominator between islam and communism being envy.

I dont understand what you mean because the religion of Islam doesnt disorganise an Islamic society, it unifies it. And envy doesnt seem to explain why people believe in leftism if you mean liberalism, which is a belief of the self hating, middle class whites. They do hate anything powerful because they think power is wrong, but they certainly dont feel envious of less fortunate whites.

catchmeifyoukhan
Wednesday, February 23rd, 2005, 05:35 PM
I don’t understand what you mean because the religion of Islam doesn’t disorganise an Islamic society, it unifies it. And envy doesn’t seem to explain why people believe in leftism if you mean liberalism, which is a belief of the self hating, middle class whites. They do hate anything powerful because they think power is wrong, but they certainly don’t feel envious of less fortunate whites.

Yes, on one hand, islam preaches solidarity between believers and grants the right of living to "Dhimis" (Christian, Jews and Zoroastrians) provided that they pay extra taxes and remain submissive on the "dar al Islam" (territory of submission). On the other hand, Islam disorganises the rest of the word, which is seen as an enemy as long as the rest of the world (dar al Arb - territory of war) has not converted to the true faith, or, at least as long as it has not recognised the leadership of Islam. Envy is normally banished among Moslems, and it is very interesting to follow pilgrims on the way to Mekka or to attend to a Ramadan night in Algiers to catch that special spirit of the Umma (I guess this was the same in our former Christian times, before modernism transformed Christmas into a commercial fair) . But on the other hand, Moslems, at least those who believe, can't understand that Christians and other non believers are more prosperous than they are. They resemble to these easterners during the communist times who, when approached by western European tourists, could not believe that westerners had a far better standard of living than theirs. Such dogmatic belief of the superiority of Moslems did not even exist among Christians, when trying to cope with the Arabic or the turkish caliphates, at their time of splendour. Indeed, Mohammed promised to Moslems to conquer the richest regions of the Roman empire. And now, that they occupy these regions for about 14 centuries, the heirs of the Roman empire have achieved a new Christian empire which is even more prosperous than Bysantium. That's where envy begins and that's where a comparison between communism and Islam is possible.


Concerning leftists, self hating can also be connected to envy. Maybe, we should speak about jealousy instead of envy ? One should first distinguish, among left wingers, a minority of opportunists who occupy the best positions in governmental agencies and public companies from the overwhelming majority of true leftists who are stuck to the bottom of the social ladder because of their jealous temperament. Jealousy is a quite natural feeling, as it has been exemplified by Judas. Did Judas betrayed Christ because he needed thirty coins (pecuniary jealousy) or because he was jealous not to be preferred to John or Peter (sentimental jealousy) ? Do leftists envy the jet set way of life of capitalists or do they envy them for being few and beautiful ? The average left wing voter is keener to envy his nearest neighbour than the remote member of the World Economic Forum. For him, a nicer car, a nicer house, a nicer wife can only be explained by a lack of integrity or by a prostitution to capitalist values. There is nothing more funny to him than the daughter of his neighbour having a date with a black man. He generally turns right, when he gets his car rubbed. Some other leftists are more pathologically envious, and a cautious psychoanalysis of the history of his family help to localise the gene of first envy. I know a very prosperous family of left wing tradition who continue to cultivate jealousy against less prosperous right wing families, by self excluding itself from socialising activities and gatherings. Something happened three or four generations ago, that turned them into leftists, but nobody remember why. I also know plenty of French civil servants who are so naturally jealous, that they prefer to ignore that the rest of the world is growing rich while their country sticks at best to a miserable 2% growth of the GDP ("self censored jealousy" can be applied to many other cases). Of course left wingers are not only motivated by jealousy. Very often, voting left is also a vital matter, when social subsidies and jobs are called into question. But jealousy generally explain why the poors remain poor. This is a problem common to Islam.

morfrain_encilgar
Thursday, February 24th, 2005, 04:21 AM
But on the other hand, Moslems, at least those who believe, can't understand that Christians and other non believers are more prosperous than they are. They resemble to these easterners during the communist times who, when approached by western European tourists, could not believe that westerners had a far better standard of living than theirs.

This is material standards only, and Moslems and even Communists didnt envy western morality.


Such dogmatic belief of the superiority of Moslems did not even exist among Christians, when trying to cope with the Arabic or the turkish caliphates, at their time of splendour. Indeed, Mohammed promised to Moslems to conquer the richest regions of the Roman empire. And now, that they occupy these regions for about 14 centuries, the heirs of the Roman empire have achieved a new Christian empire which is even more prosperous than Bysantium. That's where envy begins and that's where a comparison between communism and Islam is possible.

But Europe and the white dominions arent Christian, theyve been anti-Christian at least since the Enlightenment, and Islam respects European Christians more than liberalism does.


Concerning leftists, self hating can also be connected to envy. Maybe, we should speak about jealousy instead of envy ? One should first distinguish, among left wingers, a minority of opportunists who occupy the best positions in governmental agencies and public companies from the overwhelming majority of true leftists who are stuck to the bottom of the social ladder because of their jealous temperament.

Low income people are generally not political except under extreme economic conditions, and when they are the people are stirred up to take action by a few.


But jealousy generally explain why the poors remain poor. This is a problem common to Islam.

The poor remain poor in a capitalist society, because not everyone can be successful. And this is why there is jealousy because people are told to be ambitious, because everyone is supposed to be equal and can equally succeed, and when people fail in their dreams, they start to become spiteful and blame society. This didnt happen when people had a sense of heirarchy, think of the respect of the labourers to the authority of the king, during the Peasant's Revolt because they accepted their status.

catchmeifyoukhan
Thursday, February 24th, 2005, 11:10 PM
But Europe and the white dominions arent Christian, theyve been anti-Christian at least since the Enlightenment, and Islam respects European Christians more than liberalism does
Yes and no. It depends where and when :
- (left wing) liberalism is a common enemy of islam and christians : look at the implicit alliance between Reagan's christian conservatives and Saudi sunnits in the eighties.
- Islam is a common enemy of christians and left wing liberals (in France, for example, where a part of the left has urged in favour of anti islamist legislation).
- christians are a common enemy of left wing liberals and muslems (in France, another part of the left designates christians as the main obstacle to islamic integration, and Islamic leader Tarik Ramadan has made many connections with the head of the French Socialist Party)

Such alliances are interesting only between equals or for the one whoe leads. It might have been a good deal for us in 1941. But in 2005, we, nationalists, whether christians or pagan, are now to weak to seek for an alliance with a growing Islam.

I'm working on a thread on how islam conquered the half of the Roman empire, and I hope that you'll be one of my first readers ;)

herr georg
Tuesday, September 27th, 2005, 03:14 PM
Nationalist Socialism was specifically that place, that time.
Everything was about it (and its the only ns in history) is based in germany, in that place, at that time, with these leaders, with that history up until that point, and the entire political (and I mean strictly political) ideology applying to the current issues in the world. The racial ideology of the nazis if it was what it is made out to be (and even mainstream historians will admit that alot of books that tell of the supposed racial theories of the nazis are apocryphal)
was very flawed and cranky, a rag tag assortment of lunatic fringe anthropology.
How nazism is relevant today, well you tell me. Thats why neo-nazism is distinguished from the actual nazism of germany, because they're basically two different things. If 'nationalist socialists' today are pan-aryanists who are not german and certainly not german chauvinists or chauvinists of any particular country or race instead of white race and the future 'white nation', then of course they are a different breed to the german nazis of the mid 20th century, everything about that political seen was central to germany, hitler, the NSDAP, and the issues of western and european politics of the time.
So if hitler was transported into this day and age, who knows if he would would even be a 'nationalist socialist' or want all these people to be nationalist socialists. He and the nazis probably wouldn't be so pro-muslim if they were here today. But the fact is they aren't here today, they never will be, reality is they are all dead except for the ones still alive who admit to horrific war crimes and who I'm sure are no longer 'nationalist socialists'. The allies one the war, the jews have their israel, and all that jazz.
Unless you are a german very much dwelling in the past, then how is 'nationalist socialism' relevant to you today? Unless you are beleive in an ideology you call 'nationalist socialism' which is applied totally to the issues of today, that concern you (or at least what you see as concerning you), in which case its not going to bare any resemblance to the 'NSDAP' and you may as well not identify with them and assoicate yourselves with what they did and what they didn't do.

And as someone put it well, this article is just another example of a neo-con smearjob that uses the taboo of anti-semitism, the modern hatred of nazis and today's weariness towards muslims to support their cause, or in other words to degrade islam and the arab world, in a nutshell.
Everyone knows that anti-semitism is an unspeakable evil, and the nazis were impossibly evil people, so if islam, muslims and the arab world are anti-semitic and had ties to hitler and the nazus then thats the end of that :-O

Weg
Tuesday, September 27th, 2005, 04:31 PM
It's hard to know what Hitler and NS exactly thought of Islam. Anyway, the situation was a bit different from now. There were not millions of muslims living in Western Europe at that time. And those who look at Islam and muslims as potential allies are just insane. Do not trust Muslims, ever.

Fenris
Tuesday, September 27th, 2005, 06:34 PM
There are modern ties between national socialism and Islam, take for example David W. Myatt, or "Abdul Aziz ibn Myatt" as he's referred to when writing Islamic extremist propaganda for the fundamentalist Islamic group Hamas. He's a long-term "nazi," having been the founder of the British National Socialist movement and is also the originator of the anti-Zionist nazi-Taliban alliance of which Osama bin Laden has spoken before.

Here he is, post-conversion:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:MyattIslam.png


Here is a link to his Islamist writings:
http://website.lineone.net/~davidmyatt/

Fenris
Tuesday, September 27th, 2005, 06:46 PM
Personally my view on an alliance of sorts with muslims is as follows:

Ally with them long enough for them to [fight] as many jews and christians as possible, before sweeping in to clean up the mess of both shattered semite sects (christianity and judaism) and then proceed to lay in the boot upon the now-weakened muslims.

In essence, it's a simple work ethic; you use a tool while it serves a purpose, and once its usefulness is outlived you discard it.

Besides, would you really want a permanent alliance and partnership with a bunch of misogynistic primitives who think using children as shields or insurance is absolutely fine and dandy? I know I wouldn't. These dogs will sit a child in a car rigged up with explosives, drive it up to a checkpoint, knowing the guards can't open fire without risk of hitting the child, then they'll blow the damn vehicle up right in the middle of the checkpoint.

The jews and their slave-dogs use unconventional warfare against us to subvert and destroy our culture, our folkway, our very racial identity and heritage, thus the gloves should come off, the Marquis of Queensbury rules should be discarded, and we should resort to every means necessary to protect ourselves and answer the judenfrage as loudly and finally as is possible.

We're the only ones still playing fair, and it's time we stopped.

Weg
Tuesday, September 27th, 2005, 07:22 PM
I find Americans really kindly to Islam. Certainly because there are not enough muslims there. Maybe you would accept our stocks? Do you think we could make an alliance with those who are living here (Europe)? You don't know them I guess.

Fenris
Tuesday, September 27th, 2005, 09:51 PM
Most Americans I know really don't like arabs or east-indians of any sort, especially after the World Trade Centre incident. The common mans opinion of "rag-heads" as they're most often called by said common men is far more disfavourable now than it was pre-2001.

The events of September 11th 2001 ingrained a deep-seated dislike if not hatred of muslims - primarily, and other indigenous races from that general geographic region stretching from Turkey to India and from Pakistan to Afghanistan - and while bleeding heart liberals may empathise with them, your average Joe Dirt on the street would rather see every muslim ejected from the United States than work with them.

Weg
Tuesday, September 27th, 2005, 10:25 PM
I meant, the ones I happen to read on different "nationalist" boards, not the average American.

Fenris
Tuesday, September 27th, 2005, 10:35 PM
I see, in which case, if they're motivated enough, I suppose at least some would follow suit with the Anti-Zionist Coalition, though I'd surmise that many more would remain opposed to working with muslims.

On the one hand, we know their methods tend to be effective terror tactics, and they've been practicing guerilla and partisan warfare for some time. Further, they have a disgust and ingrained loathing for jews and international jewry and its capitalist, consumerist byproducts that leads them to rebuke Hitler for not being efficient enough in the Final Solution.

Yet on the other hand, any potential alliance - even of convenience - stands little chance of working because those American neo-nationalists who hate jews so vehemently also paradoxically love the USA and see muslims as hating the supposed ideals on which it was founded, rather than the materialistic, capitalist jew-driven culture that is at the same time destroying the culture of the white race.

In short, I think a working relationship between national socialists and muslims IS fundamentally workable, just like communism is fundamentally workable, however when the human factor is introduced, it falls apart.

Siegfried
Wednesday, September 28th, 2005, 12:59 AM
He's a long-term "nazi," having been the founder of the British National Socialist movement and is also the originator of the anti-Zionist nazi-Taliban alliance of which Osama bin Laden has spoken before.

Could you provide a link to the Sheik's statement on this "alliance"?

Fenris
Wednesday, September 28th, 2005, 02:08 AM
Could you provide a link to the Sheik's statement on this "alliance"?

It would seem I erred slightly in what I was stating. I should have double-checked before posting a statement on something I read over a week ago. I've now double-checked into the matter and thusly post the following.

Correction: Myatt is responsible for attempting to bring together fundamentalist islamic groups like Hamas (which print his Islamist works on their website under the name Abdul Aziz ibn Myatt, his replies and discourses may also be found on the usenet group soc.religion.islam, also recorded here (http://www.geocities.com/davidmyatt/myatt_usenet.html)), and Osama refers to the jews and their allies as the Zionist-Crusader Alliance.


On a note regarding bin Laden, here is his declaration of war.
http://www.outpost-of-freedom.com/opf980830a.htm

Fenris
Wednesday, September 28th, 2005, 02:14 AM
Siegfried: Regarding your edit of my earlier post. I was not promoting anything (though I've seen advocacy of similar by others slip by before), simply stating a utilitarian viewpoint based upon a theoretical situation that - due to the nature of man - is highly unlikely. However, to prevent any further divergence from the topic, I'll PM you/


*waves hand* this isn't the post you're looking for.

cloud-dreamer
Friday, November 4th, 2005, 10:36 AM
Correction: Myatt is responsible for attempting to bring together fundamentalist islamic groups like Hamas (which print his Islamist works on their website under the name Abdul Aziz ibn Myatt, True - and I understand he's also responsible for the pro-Islamic stance of kries' Aryan Nations organization, among other things.There's a new book due out which mentions Myatt among others and the relations between National Socialists and Islam."The Enemy of my Enemy: The Alarming Convergence of Militant Islam and the Extreme Right", by Professor George Michael, University Press of Kansas (Forthcoming, March 2006)
BTW, in case anyone's wondering about Myatt's view, he's still a National Socialist, and promoting both his Reichsfolk group and his new folkish philosophy which he calls The Numinous Way. Link - http://www.dwmyatt.info/

Idontlikethis
Friday, November 25th, 2005, 02:14 AM
There is a good answer there about nazi - arab connections. Leave it to the the people who know about history to write ,and not some post-communist new-liberal writer.

Imperator X
Monday, December 5th, 2005, 09:34 PM
The idea of a non-racial Islam is false because of passages in the Koran regarding the Negroids, and Islam originally promoted Mohammed's tribe over other Moslems. If you remember that Bedouin society is a collection of strictly endogamous tribes, where each tribe functions as an ethnic group and outsiders are considreed to be gentiles, then this is Bedouin racialism.

Speak more on Quranic verses in referrence to Blacks. Official history has it that the Arabs of Medina and Mecca looked down upon black people as inferior, but then it is said that in order to make known that all are equal in the eyes of Al'lah, Muhammed had a black African lead the "Call to Prayer."

orriginalyarian
Tuesday, February 7th, 2006, 08:03 PM
Hitler and SS creater Scanderbeg division not because they was muslims but because albanians was considered Arians from him as there are a lot of conncetions between german people and albanians comming from the ancient times most of albanologs are german and they have found a lot of connections about religion is now known that albaninas dont care about it most of them are atheists and maybe no one know but there are still people who belive in old gods of ancient times

Dagna
Monday, April 28th, 2008, 12:12 PM
The Connection between the 3rd Reich and the Muslims

http://www.cdn-friends-icej.ca/images/mufti.jpg

A picture taken in 1943 of the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem Haj Amin el-Husseini reviewing Bosnian-Muslim troops - a unit of the "Hanjar (Saber) Division" of the Waffen SS which he personally recruited for Hitler.

Arab leaders and media outlets have long been addicted to comparing Israel to the Nazi regime, while at the same time demeaning the extent of the Holocaust. This obsession with defaming and antagonizing the Jewish people and state was on full display in recent months and reached a crescendo – or rather nadir – the day before Pope John Paul II visited the Temple Mount during his Holy Land pilgrimage. The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Sheikh Ekrima Sabri, just hours before hosting the Pope, gave a series of press interviews, first telling the AP: "The figure of 6 million Jews killed during the Holocaust is exaggerated and is used by the Israelis to gain international support… It's not my problem. Muslims didn't do anything on this issue. It's the doing of Hitler who hated the Jews," asserted the acid-tongued Mufti – a figure appointed by Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat. "Six million? It was a lot less," Sabri repeated for an Italian newspaper. "It's not my fault if Hitler hated the Jews. Anyway, they hate them just about everywhere." The Mufti finished the day with Reuters, charging, "We denounce all massacres, but I don't see why a certain massacre should be used for political gain and blackmail." However, as a matter of record, there was a well-documented, thriving relationship between the Arab/Muslim world and Nazi Germany, with perhaps the most significant figure linking Hitler to the Middle East being none other Sabri's very own predecessor, Grand Mufti of Jerusalem Haj Amin el-Husseini. Here is a brief review of that dark, overlooked chapter in history.

The Führer's Mufti: After World War I, the Great Powers of Europe jockeyed for influence in the Middle East's oil fields and trade routes, with France and Britain holding mandates throughout most of the region. In the 1930s, the fascist regimes that arose in Italy and Germany sought greater stakes in the area, and began courting Arab leaders to revolt against their British and French custodians. Among their many willing accomplices was Jerusalem Mufti Haj Amin el-Husseini, who fled Palestine after agitating against the British during the Arab Revolt of 1936-39. He found refuge in Iraq – another of Her Majesty's mandates – where he again topped the British most wanted list after helping pull the strings behind the Iraqi coup of 1941. The revolt in Baghdad was orchestrated by Hitler as part of a strategy to squeeze the region between the pincers of Rommel's troops in North Africa, German forces in the Caucuses and pro-Nazi forces in Iraq. However, in June 1941 British troops put down the rebellion and the Mufti escaped via Tehran to Italy and eventually to Berlin.

Once in Berlin, the Mufti received an enthusiastic reception by the "Islamische Zentralinstitut" and the whole Islamic community of Germany, which welcomed him as the "Führer of the Arabic world." In an introductory speech, he called the Jews the "most fierce enemies of the Muslims" and an "ever corruptive element" in the world. Husseini soon became an honored guest of the Nazi leadership and met on several occasions with Hitler. He personally lobbied the Führer against the plan to let Jews leave Hungary, fearing they would immigrate to Palestine. He also strongly intervened when Adolf Eichman tried to cut a deal with the British government to exchange German POWs for 5000 Jewish children who also could have fled to Palestine. The Mufti's protests with the SS were successful, as the children were sent to death camps in Poland instead. One German officer noted in his journals that the Mufti would liked to have seen the Jews "preferably all killed." On a visit to Auschwitz, he reportedly admonished the guards running the gas chambers to work more diligently. Throughout the war, he appeared regularly on German radio broadcasts to the Middle East, preaching his pro-Nazi, anti-Semitic message to the Arab masses back home.

To show gratitude towards his hosts, in 1943 the Mufti travelled several times to Bosnia, where on orders of the SS he recruited the notorious "Hanjar troopers," a special Bosnian Waffen SS company which slaugh-tered 90% of Bosnia's Jews and burned countless Serbian churches and villages. These Bosnian Muslim recruits rapidly found favor with SS chief Heinrich Himmler, who established a special Mullah Military school in Dresden.

The only condition the Mufti set for his help was that after Hitler won the war, the entire Jewish population in Palestine should be liquidated. After the war, Husseini fled to Switzerland and from there escaped via France to Cairo, were he was warmly received. The Mufti used funds received earlier from the Hilter regime to finance the Nazi-inspired Arab Liberation Army that terrorized Jews in Palestine.

The Arab Embrace of Nazism: Husseini represents the prevalent pro-Nazi posture among the Arab/Muslim world before, during and even after the Holocaust. The Nazi-Arab connection existed even when Adolf Hitler first seized power in Germany in 1933. News of the Nazi takeover was welcomed by the Arab masses with great enthusiasm, as the first congratulatory telegrams Hitler received upon being appointed Chancellor came from the German Consul in Jerusalem, followed by those from several Arab capitals. Soon afterwards, parties that imitated the National Socialists were founded in many Arab lands, like the "Hisb-el-qaumi-el-suri" (PPS) or Social Nationalist Party in Syria. Its leader, Anton Sa'ada, styled himself the Führer of the Syrian nation, and Hitler became known as "Abu Ali" (In Egypt his name was "Muhammed Haidar"). The banner of the PPS displayed the swastika on a black-white background. Later, a Lebanese branch of the PPS – which still receives its orders from Damascus – was involved in the assassination of Lebanese President Pierre Gemayel.

The most influential party that emulated the Nazis was "Young Egypt," which was founded in October 1933. They had storm troopers, torch processions, and literal translations of Nazi slogans – like "One folk, One party, One leader." Nazi anti-Semitism was replicated, with calls to boycott Jewish businesses and physical attacks on Jews. Britain had a bitter experience with this pro-German mood in Egypt, when the official Egyptian government failed to declare war on the Wehrmacht as German troops were about to conquer Alexandria.

After the war, a member of Young Egypt named Gamal Abdul Nasser was among the officers who led the July 1952 revolution in Egypt. Their first act – following in Hitler's footsteps – was to outlaw all other parties. Nasser's Egypt became a safe haven for Nazi war criminals, among them the SS General in charge of the murder of Ukrainian Jewry; he became Nasser's bodyguard and close comrade. Alois Brunner, another senior Nazi war criminal, found shelter in Damascus, where he served for many years as senior adviser to the Syrian general staff and still resides today.

Sami al-Joundi, one of the founders of the ruling Syrian Ba'ath Party, recalls: "We were racists. We admired the Nazis. We were immersed in reading Nazi literature and books... We were the first who thought of a translation of Mein Kampf. Anyone who lived in Damascus at that time was witness to the Arab inclination toward Nazism."


http://www.cdn-friends-icej.ca/images/mufti2.jpg

Arab Mufti Greets Nazis, 1944

These leanings never completely ceased. Hitler's Mein Kampf currently ranks sixth on the best-seller list among Palestinian Arabs. Luis Al-Haj, translator of the Arabic edition, writes glowingly in the preface about how Hitler's "ideology" and his "theories of nationalism, dictatorship and race… are advancing especially within our Arabic States." When Palestinian police first greeted Arafat in the self-rule areas, they offered the infamous Nazi salute - the right arm raised straight and upward.

The PLO and notably Arafat himself do not make a secret of their source of inspiration. The Grand Mufti el-Husseini is venerated as a hero by the PLO. It should be noted, that the PLO's top figure in east Jerusalem today, Faisal Husseini, is the grandson to the Führer's Mufti. Arafat also considers the Grand Mufti a respected educator and leader, and in 1985 declared it an honor to follow in his footsteps. Little wonder. In 1951, a close relative of the Mufti named Rahman Abdul Rauf el-Qudwa el-Husseini matriculated to the University of Cairo. The student decided to conceal his true identity and enlisted as "Yasser Arafat."

Writers: Paul Longgrear, Raymond McNemar

Evolved
Monday, April 28th, 2008, 01:48 PM
Governments must have "connections" with everyone, play both sides against one another, and so forth. In any case Muslim people were not any sort of immigration or terrorist threat to Europeans at that time and Haj Amin al-Husseini was a Pan-Arab Nationalist.

Aptrgangr
Monday, April 28th, 2008, 06:39 PM
Today it's the liberals that furiously defend and protect their Islamic bedfellows and make sure those can spread in any of our native homelands.

It should be mentioned most Muslims fought against NS-Germany anyway, they were no way less feared murderers and rapists than their co-religionists fighting in SS uniforms.

SwordOfTheVistula
Thursday, May 1st, 2008, 06:35 AM
It didn't really have anything to do with ideology, it is a common tactic when one country is at war with another, for one country to support minorities which perceive themselves as oppressed by the other.

The Germans also supported Croatians, Slovaks, Indian nationalists, Ukranians, the Baltic countries, and anti-communist Russians&Belorussians.

A similar analogy is the US supporting the Kurds today against other Iraqi forces, or the Northern Alliance against the Taliban in Afganistan.

Boche
Thursday, May 1st, 2008, 09:41 AM
It was very useful to be allied with Muslim Countries and use some of them in Divisions, hence many of them were against the Dominance coming from teh United Kingdom all around the World. Germany was an Enemy who grew too much in Power, which was fatal for the United Kingdom.
So Germany took the Advantage of being allied with Countries who were sick of the English Power controlling Countries such as Egypt and India.

Following are Pictures of either Countries being occupied and exploited by the UK. Or simply Countries who were religious and shared the Battle against Communism.


The Indian Division Freies Indien (Free India):

http://img152.imageshack.us/img152/1637/786ez2.jpg

Bosnian Handschar Division, which was created out of Muslims:

http://img150.imageshack.us/img150/5329/mnzs62203wi3ku2.jpg


A Soldier of the Division Freies Arabien (Free Arabia):

http://img150.imageshack.us/img150/3456/547ut3.jpg




Gruß,
Boche

Dr. Solar Wolff
Friday, May 2nd, 2008, 07:41 AM
Hey, Dagna, finally we agree on something! This Mufti guy sounds kinda neat. Or perhaps you did not know that Nobel Peace Prize winner Anwar Sadat published an open letter to Adolf Hitler after the war in a newspaper before it was determined that Hitler was dead. Sadat expressed a pro-Hitler bias in that letter and an anti-Jewish position. But screw it, he won a Nobel Peace Prize anyway, didn't he? It just goes to prove that there is nothing wrong with disliking Jews and calling a spade a spade when it comes to lies like the holocaust. Or you can pander as Hillary Clinton does. It is all up to individual integrity.

Elysium
Saturday, May 3rd, 2008, 08:35 AM
There is a connection. However, the only reason it is publicised is in order to make people hate Muslims more. Anyone who does something "the West" doesn't like, is a Nazi-Fascist-poo-poo-head.

Catterick
Tuesday, May 3rd, 2016, 01:01 PM
How times change.
Rightly or wrongly, not long ago pro-Islam was the standard NS/WN position no?