Islamic Mein Kampf

By Ted Belman (enlarged from when first posted)

David Horowitz of FrontPageMag, as part of its Terrorism Awareness Project produced this video and pamphlet


A fellow traveller of his, introduces it with a literary essay not to be missed My Kampf: The Islamic Mein Kampf and A Mea Culpa

I go one step further. Mein Kampf, my struggle, has its roots in the Jihad, struggle.

Ami Isseroff has taken exception in a piece titled Bigotry Awareness

However, this presentation, and the article that announces it, are entitled, “Islamic Mein Kampf.” Do the authors really want to imply that all of Islam is Nazi-like? Apparently so. Do we really believe that all of Islam is inherently anti-Semitic? Is this thesis likely to be credible to American university students, or will they instead get the impression that all Zionists are bigots? Is this line of advocacy helpful or harmful to Israel?

I am sure readers of Israpundit have a ready answer “yes” to the first two questions. Anything is credible if told frequently enough and yes it is helpful.

He offers as proof to the contrary,

Before you answer, please consider the following. Israel has peace treaties with Jordan and Egypt, two Muslim Arab countries, and diplomatic relations with other Muslim countries. This week, the Israeli Prime Minister was received with state honors in Turkey, a country with a Muslim majority, where an Islamic party is currently in power. A sizable body of Muslims are concerned about extremism, Holocaust denial and anti-Semitism in Muslim society. They write books and Web logs and speak out against Muslim anti-Semitism. Fuad Ajami, Irfan Khawaja, Walid Salem and many others have made courageous and consistent stands against extremism. Numerous Iranians spoke out courageously against Ahmadinejad’s Holocaust denial farce. There is even a Muslim Zionist Sheikh, Prof. Abdul Hadi Pallazi. These moderate voices are the best hope for reform and progress in the Muslim world, and they are probably Israel’s only hope for long term survival. There are 1.3 billion Muslims. If we insist on making enemies of all of them, forever, we will never be able to survive in the Middle East.

Israpundit, while condemning Islam as a religion of war, recognizes that not all Muslims adhere to the odious doctrines of Islam. But these so-called moderates are really the radicals because they don’t accept Islam as it is. They want to change it.

One of the people Ami mentions is Prof. Abdul Hadi Palazzi who is a true friend of Israel. Israpundit has published many of his letters on our old site. Here’s one of his articles, “ISRAEL SHOULD DECLARE OSLO ‘NULL AND VOID'” written in 1998.

I believe that we should condemn the religion as strongly as we can without fear of alienating this moderate group. In fact we would be helping them to fight the others.

Isseroff particularly argues,

These moderate voices are the best hope for reform and progress in the Muslim world, and they are probably Israel’s only hope for long term survival.

Quite the contrary. If Israel’s survival depends on these people, Israel is doomed. These people have no power and no following. All surveys done of late indicate that Muslims are becoming more religious and more Islamist. No one dares stand in their way. To my mind, there is only one hope for reform and that is the woman’s movement.

February 24, 2007 | 11 Comments »

Subscribe to Israpundit Daily Digest

11 Comments / 11 Comments

  1. … an Islamic state in Europe, which is entirely possible.”

    Not only possible but likely to happen quite soon. An Islamic France will be a nuclear power bent on the destruction of Israel and the rest of Civilization. It is somewhat disturbing that still only a handful of rather unimportant politicians seem to understand. The “war on terrorism” is a misunderstanding, as if the WW2 was a war on goose step.

  2. The enemy is Islam but because the world has come to view Islam as one of the world’s three great religions, it is very difficult to make the case that Islam is not a great religion, the facts notwithstanding. Books have been written that offer a more honest appraisal of Islam and it’s impact on other societies and cultures but their readership is confined mainly to people who already appreciate the threat. Our politicians don’t help matters when they declare, ad nauseum, that we are fighting a war on terror, not even acknowledging that it is a war on Islamic terror. Our religious leaders don’t help either by maintaining that Islam is still a great religion, while they overlook the most threatning aspects of Islam: the claim of the supremacy of Islam over all other faiths and the collusion between church and state, with Allah (Islam) as the final authority.
    It’s the demographics, the continuing immigration of Muslims to the West that pose the greatest threat. Perhaps the “Islamic straw” will be the establishment of an Islamic state in Europe, which is entirely possible.

  3. The foregoing article and the comments engendered, speak to some aspects of truth when it comes to causes and effects of the dangers of Islam and where the West’s salvation lies, but none of the comments are accurate or fair in and of themselves to express complete truths. Perhaps such truths are just too complex to be distilled down to being discerned in some fundamental simply stated context or paradigm.

    Thus far it is obvious that the West’s salvation will not come from Muslim reformers who are too weak or from the women’s movement that is too confused and conflicted and therefore also weak and ineffective.

    It is more likely that some Islamic straw will ultimately break the back of Western apathy to the very deadly Islamic threat and turn the West from submissiveness and appeasement to uniting in an angry massive counter attack. If and when that happens, the West will not be confused and distracted by trying to figure out who are the good Muslims and who are the bad. Rather the West will be singularly focused on unequivocal victory, which means eliminating any and all Muslims and Islamic nations that directly and indirectly pose a threat or who pose the mere possiblity of a threat to the West.

    In war, uncertainty as to who the enemy is, what it will take to destroy that enemy and lack of complete resolve to do whatever it takes to destroy that enemy, virtually assures that victory will not be achieved. So far that uncertainty and less than complete resolve is what keeps the West from becoming fully engaged in the war declared and being carried out in the name of Islam against the West.

    In the result we are witnessing the Islamic enemy, whoever that is or may possibly be, gaining strength and the West thus far losing strength and losing this war. At some point, unless the West gets it together to fight back for unequivocal victory, the ground continuously being given up or lost to radical Islam will ultimately spell Western defeat.

  4. Islam considers those who speak out against it as radicals and has a variety of tortuous solutions to eliminate the apostates. In the West we try to recognize Islam as a religion like others which are (for the most part) based on peace, love and understanding. We refuse to see Islam for what it is, a violent supremacist movement with a captive membership threatened by death if they step out of line.

    In 2007 we have leaders in Iran and Lebanon and Gaza/West Bank who are espousing the same kind of Nazi beliefs as Hitler’s regime and they have become killing machines just like the Nazis. Like the Nazis, their main target is Jews/Israel.

    The difference is that these groups, instead of receiving condemnation and war to eliminate the fascist cancer, receive funding, sympathy and offers of land (always at Israel’s sacrifice) and international aid by the billions. These modern day fascists don’t even need to worry about funding their terror war because we help them to the fullest extent in their war against us.

    To make matters worse, these fascists sit on the biggest pool of oil in the world and so any real action against them will have both negative economic and terrorist implications. It makes the need to reduce, reuse and recycle even more important. Once the oil is gone or becomes much less significant, this cult greased by oil will also become greatly diminished.

  5. Ami Isseroff writes

    “A sizable body of Muslims are concerned about extremism, Holocaust denial and anti-Semitism in Muslim society. They write books and Web logs and speak out against Muslim anti-Semitism. Fuad Ajami, Irfan Khawaja, Walid Salem and many others have made courageous and consistent stands against extremism. Numerous Iranians spoke out courageously against Ahmadinejad’s Holocaust denial farce. There is even a Muslim Zionist Sheikh, Prof. Abdul Hadi Pallazi. These moderate voices are the best hope for reform and progress in the Muslim world, and they are probably Israel’s only hope for long term survival. There are 1.3 billion Muslims. If we insist on making enemies of all of them, forever, we will never be able to survive in the Middle East.”

    Leon Trotsky writing in the 1930s said that he did not see any hope for a Jewish state inside the contect of “rotting capitalism” or words close to that.

    Granted the Jewish people in Israel have tried very hard, and used grerat ingenuity, but I am beginning to be drawn more and more to this position of Trotsky, because inside this definition of “rotting capitalism” I would place the upsurge of Islam , and here I agree with all of the above, Islam in its essence as a political system is fascist.

    The point about Iran above is that the ordinary people, the students who are being oppressed, the homosexuals, the women, are going to have to make a revolution to overthrow these evil people like Ahmadinejad.

    A revolution esentially against Islam.

    Dop not forget either that the logic of the Bush and Blair war in Iraq is not to overthow Islam but to resurrect it under Sharia behind Sistani.

    I would say that Islam will laugh at the “moderates”. Iran needs revolutionaries not moderates, just as does Israel!

  6. Ami Iseroff is a typical Islamic apologist who does not understand Islamic scripture or Muhammad. I would bet that he has never read the Qur’an and Sunnah (Hadith). He sanctimonously criticizes David Horowitz’s efforts to educate the public about Islam.
    This is a case of ‘attacking’ the messenger who wants to present an “unpleasant truth.”
    I have been circulating the message below in order to stimulate debate and set the record straight about Islam. Mr. Iseroff should do his homework before launching into ad hominem attacks against those who are attempting to educate us about Islam and Muhammad. Moreover, I would suggest that he check out the following websites:
    http://www.jihadwatch.org
    http://www.faithfreedom.org
    http://www.islamanazi.com
    http://www.prophetofdoom.net
    http://www.religionofpeace.com

    The term radical Islam (or extreme Islam) is a misnomer. This term implies that only a small number of Muslim Extremists adhere to a form of Islam which we, in the west, consider radical (according to our mores,morals and ethical values). Moreover, it is assumed that those who practice radical Islam are corrupting the message espoused in the Qur’an and Sunnah (sayings and tradtitions of Muhammad). In fact many ‘pundits’ in the media as well as many politicians (including President Bush), clergy and academicians have stated that “… a small number of radicals and extremists have hijacked a peaceful religion…”
    By making such a mendacious proclamation, the implication is that Islam is a peaceful religion.
    Nothing could be further from the truth!

    Keep in mind that Muhammad’s Islam, fundamental Islam is not RADICAL ISLAM.
    Pious Muslims who follow Muhammad’s example, outlined in the Qur’an and Sunnah, are practicing fundamental Islam (Muhammad’s Islam, ie authentic Islam).
    The definition of radical according to Merriam-Webster is:

    marked by a considerable departure from the usual or traditional : extreme b: tending or disposed to make extreme changes in existing views, habits, conditions, or institutions c: of, relating to, or constituting a political group associated with views, practices, and policies of extreme change d: advocating extreme measures to retain or restore a political state of affairs

    Hence, those differing from traditional, fundamental views and who insist upon extreme change can be considered radical.

    Ergo: Those who seek to reform or change Islam by changing the Qur’an/Sunnah or by adding to or subtracting from the Qur’an/Sunnah are radical.
    Therefore, many individuals who label themselves as ‘moderates’ are the true radicals. Those individuals who seek to reform Islam are the true radicals.
    Anyone who seeks to change Muhammad’s version of Islam is a radical.

    All of those well meaning individuals (former Muslims and peaceful Muslims included) are radicals.

    This is why I say – without equivocation – that Islam has to be exposed, rejected and refuted – just as Nazism was. Why would any intelligent human being want to follow a religious/political agenda such as that espoused in the Qur’an/Sunnah?
    The more benign aspects of of Islamic scripture do not constitute a convincing argument to follow Muhammad. Also, keep in mind that the more benign (Meccan) verses of the Qur’an have been “abrogated” in favor of the more belligerent (Medinan) verses.

    The bottom line is this: the Qur’an is a terrorist manifesto and the Sunnah is a declaration of war against mankind.

    Jeff Grill, M.D.

  7. Keelie raises the very significant issue of forced conversions. The history of the expansion of Islam is all about forcing other cultures and races to convert to Islam or live as second class citizens under Islamic rule. I am glad to read that some Iranians and Spaniards are realizing that their ancestors probably did not have much of a choice. But do these Iranians and Spaniards have a choice? Is it safe for them to publicly renounce their faith? According to Islam, it is not. They are now apostates and subject to the death penalty.

    Islam cannot reform because nothing in Islam is open to interpretation.

  8. Any so called moderates as Ami suggested are in reality radicals who aren’t following their religion hoping it can change. But it can’t and they are woefully alone.

  9. “Will Islam and Muslims (other tham Palazzi++) accept Jews and other Infidels as equals…”

    Do you mean as in, “All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others”?

    I don’t know if you see it – not something we “normal” humans can relate to – but there’s an intense psychological imbalance (being unusually polite) behind the “we don’t see you as human (let alone equal)” of the Islamists… or of Islam as a “religion.” So the answer to your question is without doubt, “no”.

  10. Speaking of Political Islam, I think you gave us some interesting guidance a few days ago by presenting the opinions of Bill Warner of the CSPI:
    http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=26769

    I feel that before we continue to discuss whether or not Ami Isseoff’s fears of alienating Moderate Islam are founded on a tenable perception of Islam, and what might be a tactical implication of such alienation, we should perhaps try to draw conclusions on the veracity of the CSPI hypotheses. The personal views of Bill Warner, I must admit, looked rather gloomy.

    Is Moderate Islam a possible future option for the 1,3 billion Muslims, or are they irretrievably sunk into an irrepairable Political Islam? May Imam Palazzi or others succeed in establishing an authoritative and powerful kaliphate to represent and govern them all? Will a final peace agreement between, say, Palazzi and Olmert, silence the guns and bomb belts of the Middle East and turn kassams into ploghshares?

    There were also conspicuous “moderate” elements of the Third Reich, such as Rudolf Hess, who amidst the turmoil of war, voluntarily gave up his promising Nazi career and flew to England on a peace mission. Did Sir Winston miss an opportunity and make a grave historical mistake by putting him in gaol, rather than signing a peace accord with him?

    Did similar comparisons between nazism and communism prolong or shorten the Cold War? Will Islam and Muslims (other tham Palazzi++) accept Jews and other Infidels as equals if we treat them more nicely, recognize more of their needs, give them more money and another state, and stop calling them nazis?

  11. Isseroff is mistaken. Islam as a religion explicity hates the Jews, as well as, of course, the various other types of infidels – which everyone not Muslim. But a special place is reserved for the Jews.

    Is every Muslim a Jew-hater? I doubt it. However, if during polite conversation, the word “Israel” is brought up, the tone usually changes. And this can, although not always, lead to Jew-bashing. Lets say it’s a 50-50 chance.

    Now as I keep on saying, if these “nice” or “moderate” Muslims don’t like the basis of their faith, they can leave that faith; God is One – what difference how He is worshipped. Given that most Muslims today are descended from ancestors of a variety of other faiths, who were coerced into changing over to Islam, this should not be a stretch. Many Spanish people who found out that their ancestors were coerced by the Inquisition are doing just that, as are many Persians.

    THAT’s the kind of propaganda we need. It would certainly separate out the “moderate” Muslims from the bloodletting others.

Comments are closed.