Does America Have a Muslim Problem?

[Richard]

RE: Post #14 - simply astounding.

Richard

[T-Rock]

RE: Post #14

There are unintentional similarities between the two, my sources are here, have at it:
http://www.andrewbostom.org/blog/200...-jihad-part-1/

Is Dr. Bostom wrong?


ETA, If Hitler didn’t find Islam appealing, why did he copy something that he discussed with Muhammad `Inayat Allah Khan in 1926 ?

[Raschid]

Originally Posted by Pete

Well, well Raschil

We'll be looking for some informed input from you in the days to come.

Or your time here may be short.

Pete

thanks i cleaned up the words in parantheses wasnt in original!

[alright4u]

Originally Posted by akv

.

Some good points so far in this thread, but before we single out religion, our American freedoms and belief systems have historically clashed with ideologies that don't value what we do. Our issue and conflict with the Nazi's had next to nothing to do with religion, and the Soviets were atheists in theory, yet we found their policies, conduct and ideology repugnant. We don't seem to have a problem with Turkey, they are a NATO ally and if we honor our obligations we must defend them if they are attacked, yet Islam is the majority religion there, the difference is though imperfect, we aren't opposed to Turkey's political ideology as a secular democracy.

My question is do we trust Putin and his thugs more than AQ because in theory Russia like America enjoys a Christian majority? Perhaps this is my prejudice, I am always suspicious of the Russian nation, even if they claim democracy/reform...

Now, Hitler claimed he was working with or on a master race. The Ruskies damn sure killed as many or more as all Nazi's. My old man was in the 42 ID. My sister, who lives in his house, has some/a few Signal Corps photos never released.

Islam is no different in my view. The first thing a muslim army or it's financiers/followers do after after a victory is to build a damn mosque on the site. Make no mistake- 9/11 was a victory to them.

[Richard]

Originally Posted by T-Rock

There are unintentional similarities between the two, my sources are here, have at it:
http://www.andrewbostom.org/blog/200...-jihad-part-1/

Is Dr. Bostom wrong?

Superficial 'unintentional similarities' abound in History - but what of the greater (and more deeply profound) disimilarities? A deeper study of Nazism shows how Hitler's purported 'admiration' of Islam was extremely superficial (at best) as a political expedient and not something Hitler seriously considered as being truly compatible with either his personal or Nazi ideology.

As for Dr Bostom's writings, there is a readily identifiable cultural bias and slant to them, and images of a Hitler-Islam parallel play strongly amongst that culture - ever consider it?

Richard

[T-Rock]

If they were superficial, why did Hitler establish the spade movement he learned of in 1926 ?

Why was Haj Amin al-Husseini in possession of blueprints of Auschwitz and given a radio station ?

Why intermingle the Aryan race with Muslims?

IMO, admiration and similar ideologies brought them together…but I am not a learned scholar…I just hold a einfache weltanschauung


The following is a fascinating link, one of which I plan on researching more:
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/a...tz-blueprints/


ETA, Richard, I’m curious your thoughts, what role “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion” played on Hitlers mind and what role it plays in the Muslim world today ?

[alright4u]

Originally Posted by Raschid

Islam is just The New Kid On The Block or shall we say "The Benjamin "of the World Religions that from it´s inception has been by it´s detractors tried to be thrown down the well to stifle it. But alas THATS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN BROTHER!

Because as The German Poet GOETHE has said:
" Foolish thst everone in his own way
His very own opinion does praise,
If Islam means to submit your will to God´s,
Then we ALL live and die in Islam!"

Goethe and Napoleon were Pro Islam
and Patton called The Koran a very interesting Book

Thomas Carlyle in 'Heroes and Hero Worship and the Heroic in History,' 1840

"The lies which well-meaning zeal has heaped round this man are disgraceful to ourselves only

You need help.

[badshot]

Originally Posted by alright4u

The first thing a muslim army or it's financiers/followers do after after a victory is to build a damn mosque on the site. Make no mistake- 9/11 was a victory to them.

The facts back up the above comment...

I feel sorry for the folks who are so emotionally damaged that they cannot see reality as it is, not what they wish it to be.

And yeah, I grew up in New York, went to school on 59th street, and I have Radical Muslim problem...

[alright4u]

Originally Posted by Thomas Paine

That's what I'm talking about. American patriotism!

This kid needs an education, military, etc.

[Richard]

RE Post #21:

Historically, campaigns in the name of such national political movements as anti-(insert religious or racial belief du jour), anti-bolsehvism, anti-zionism, anti-communism, anti-socialism, etc, have often led to such political expedience and pragmatic necessity, and have made for some strange bedfellows amongst those seeking to carry out their grandiose, hate inspired plans during brief periods of overlapping similarity of purpose.

The Grand Mufti was a stooge whose use by Hitler as a propaganda tool (like Lord HaHa, Axis Sally and others) to enflame the Muslim world against the Jews, Zionists, and bolshevists is well documented.

For anyone familiar with the wide variety of and reasoning behind the Nazi's so-called 'Foreign Legions,' the photos used by the AtlasShrugs blog are of but some of the various ethnic volunteers from the Eastern territories who manned the Russian, Cossack, and Ukrainian volunteer units led by German cadre to fight the communists (bolshevists) on the OstFront - Eastern, yes, but few were actually Muslims. And Germany's long-standing ties with Turkey were a given at the time. Expedient, temporary manpower with an in-grained sense of anti-whateverism was a necessity for the Nazis in their anti-bolshevist (and, as a part of that campaign, anti-zionist) 'crusade' (a term they used frequently and with great nationalistic success) to save the Aryan race. As such, it doesn't take much imagination to understand the implications of where that crusade would have eventually gone if the Axis powers had been successful in their endeavors.

The fez wearing 13th Handschar-Kroatische WSSDiv (Croatians and Bosnian Muslims with German cadre) was formed for a similar reason - their near-term use of the long-standing ethnic hatreds to be found amongst the various Balkans nationalities against their traditional regional enemies for the Nazi cause. What was presented publicly as a united brotherhood of national socialistic membership joined in the common cause of defeating world bolshevism (and zionism) in convoluted Nazi propaganda and what was actually the reality of the situation were two different matters.

As far as a so-called 'spade movement' adopted by the Nazis - such symbolism within the Germanic culture has as much to do with the historical lore of its peasant uprisings (primarily farmers armed with pitchforks, rakes, scythes, shovels) in the 16thC as with anything claimed by a self-aggrandizing Islamic stooge. Such symbolism (visual and historical) was a strong and important part of the Nazi propaganda machine, as well as a way to organize and prepare a nationalized labor force (physically, structurally, mentally) which would later prove itself easily converted to a national military force - drilling with spades and drilling with rifles is an easy transition. In Germany, the myth of the peasant farmer is as powerful a symbol of the common man and his 'salt of the Earth values' as it is here in America (or was in the former Soviet Union, Maoist China, DRVN, etc). As to the value of an organized national labor force, the CCC proved of equal benefit to our needs during the same period of history - although the purpose and goals of our nation's leadership were much different than those of the national socialists.

Auschwitz - much like Dachau and initially very different from the extermination camps located further East along the Bug River - was a show camp and primarily a model for a forced labor/training camp until the war's encroachment began forcing the closure of those singular purpose extermination camps and the Nazi time-line for Die Endlösung being pushed forward. Auschwitz then became the de facto primary (although not sole) organ of systematized mass extermination until it, too, was forced to be abandoned. Giving someone like the Grand Mufti a set of blueprints for Auschwitz, the model of KL efficiency, can mean any number of things depending upon why and how they were presented, and what they contained.

People should read Will Eisner's "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" to understand the question you've presented. Remember - there are Christians who still preach the idea of Judaism as being responsible for the crucifiction of their savior.

Superficial similarities, such as the perception of and an admiration for a group's ability to focus itself on a singularity of purpose, sure, but the deeper disimilarities - for the Nazis, deeply rooted in Nordic myth and Christian ideology, history, and culture - which were not given the opportunity to play themselves out (thank gawd) make the arguments being presented an arguably weaker and recklessly dangerous ploy on the part of anyone looking to understand the matter(s) at hand and seeking a reasonable resolution to the current issues we're facing.

The deck of cards used by politicians of any ilk to gain support of their 'visions' - the race card, the religious card, the good old days card, the blame card, the brighter future if only card, the economic disparity card, the patriotic card, the immigrant card, the cultural identity card, etc - seems a universal reality to me no matter one's ideological upbringing.

However, that is MOO and YMMV - and so it goes...

Richard's $.02

[T-Rock]

Thank you Sir for your well thought out informative reply.

People should read Will Eisner's "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" to understand the question you've presented. Remember - there are Christians who still preach the idea of Judaism as being responsible for the crucifiction of their savior.

Still yet, I’ve never been able to wrap my mind around why they do this, I suppose replacement theology holds the key

I thought “The Lie That Wouldn’t Die: The Protocols of the Elders of Zion” by Hadassa Ben-Itto was a good read as well. It seems they just won’t go away…

I’m a Zionist Co-Conspirator

[NosceHostem]

Yes, America has a Muslim problem. So does the Free World. This problem is rooted in the fundamental tenets of the Islamic ideology and its history, jurisprudence, and scholarly consensus. The truth is that all four major schools of Sunni jurisprudence (Maliki, Shafi’i, Hanbali, Hanafi) agree that violent jihad to convert, kill, or subjugate the non-believer is a foundational obligation of the faith. The scholarly consensus (ijma) of the Islamic community (umma) agrees with this interpretation, and the issue is no longer open for debate (closing of the gates of ijtihad). The unchallenged principal of abrogation is that the violent Medinan Verses of the Sword override and more conciliatory Meccan verses. So while there are many peaceful Muslims, a minority, of perhaps hundreds of millions of fanatic believers, have the text of the Koran and haddith and therefore Islamic law (the Sharia) on their side.

Additionally, in any totalitarian ideology it is those “extremists” with the capacity for violence that often set the direction of the movement. The average German in WWII didn’t want to butcher millions of innocent people. Neither did the average Russian under Stalin. The moderates were irrelevant. The same is true today in the West where “radical” Islamists, spearheaded by the Muslim Brotherhood, are waging an organized campaign of civilizational/non-violent/stealth jihad. They have the same goals as the violent terrorist groups, the establishment of a Caliphate and the global supremacy of Islam, but choose to use non-violent means for now. This is not because they believe that non-violent jihad is preferable to violent jihad but because they feel it is tactically wiser at this time to avoid violent methods until they become stronger. This reasoning is in-line with the Islamic concept of taqiyya.

Furthermore, 80% of the mosques in America are run by the Saudi Wahhabists (see previously linked radio interview of Steve Emerson @ 7:33, Sheik Kabbani’s 1999 State Department statements, and 21-year CIA veteran Robert Taft also here). Many, if not most, mosques in the U.S. preach virulently anti-American/Christian/Jewish propaganda (see Mapping Sharia in America and Freedom House report: Saudi Publications on Hate Ideology Invade American Mosques). Intelligence officer Lt. Col Joseph C. Myers calls this effort a “subversive insurgency” and details the threat in a two part video interview here and here. Watch it all. In addition, many books have been written about the demographic crisis and growing Islamist movement in Europe: Eurabia, Londonistan, America Alone, etc, etc.

In conclusion, after several years of study on Islam and jihad, I’ve come to agree with Winston Churchill and John Adams on the fundamental nature of Islam. The Free World is in big trouble.

[nmap]

I found your thoughts most interesting, NosceHostem. I would very much appreciate any views you had about the timing of more aggressive behavior on the part of Islam.

[Green Light]

Originally Posted by Richard

RE: Post #14 - simply astounding.

Richard

Scratching head. Not sure what to say there.

[Saoirse]

Originally Posted by NosceHostem

Yes, America has a Muslim problem. So does the Free World. This problem is rooted in the fundamental tenets of the Islamic ideology and its history, jurisprudence, and scholarly consensus. The truth is that all four major schools of Sunni jurisprudence (Maliki, Shafi’i, Hanbali, Hanafi) agree that violent jihad to convert, kill, or subjugate the non-believer is a foundational obligation of the faith. The scholarly consensus (ijma) of the Islamic community (umma) agrees with this interpretation, and the issue is no longer open for debate (closing of the gates of ijtihad). The unchallenged principal of abrogation is that the violent Medinan Verses of the Sword override and more conciliatory Meccan verses. So while there are many peaceful Muslims, a minority, of perhaps hundreds of millions of fanatic believers, have the text of the Koran and haddith and therefore Islamic law (the Sharia) on their side.

Additionally, in any totalitarian ideology it is those “extremists” with the capacity for violence that often set the direction of the movement. The average German in WWII didn’t want to butcher millions of innocent people. Neither did the average Russian under Stalin. The moderates were irrelevant. The same is true today in the West where “radical” Islamists, spearheaded by the Muslim Brotherhood, are waging an organized campaign of civilizational/non-violent/stealth jihad. They have the same goals as the violent terrorist groups, the establishment of a Caliphate and the global supremacy of Islam, but choose to use non-violent means for now. This is not because they believe that non-violent jihad is preferable to violent jihad but because they feel it is tactically wiser at this time to avoid violent methods until they become stronger. This reasoning is in-line with the Islamic concept of taqiyya.

Furthermore, 80% of the mosques in America are run by the Saudi Wahhabists (see previously linked radio interview of Steve Emerson @ 7:33, Sheik Kabbani’s 1999 State Department statements, and 21-year CIA veteran Robert Taft also here). Many, if not most, mosques in the U.S. preach virulently anti-American/Christian/Jewish propaganda (see Mapping Sharia in America and Freedom House report: Saudi Publications on Hate Ideology Invade American Mosques). Intelligence officer Lt. Col Joseph C. Myers calls this effort a “subversive insurgency” and details the threat in a two part video interview here and here. Watch it all. In addition, many books have been written about the demographic crisis and growing Islamist movement in Europe: Eurabia, Londonistan, America Alone, etc, etc.

In conclusion, after several years of study on Islam and jihad, I’ve come to agree with Winston Churchill and John Adams on the fundamental nature of Islam. The Free World is in big trouble.

NH, very interesting and well said! Thank you for sharing that. I concur!