The Nazi Jesus and Hitler CHRISLAM?

“I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so” - Adolph Hitler, to Gen. Gerhard Engel, 1941

“I believe today that I am acting in the sense of the Almighty

Creator. By warding off the Jews I am fighting for the Lord’s work.” - Adolph Hitler, Speech, Reichstag, 1936

Amin Al Husseini Head of SS Muslim Hanzar Division ---MORE Pictures HERE.

YOUTUBE VID: Hitler, The Mufti Of Jerusalem And Modern Islamo Nazism (in Deutse with English Subtitles)

"As David Motadel writes in “Islam and Nazi Germany’s War,” Muslims fought on both sides in World War II. But only Nazis and Islamists had a political-spiritual romance. Both groups hated Jews, Bolsheviks and liberal democracy. Both sought what Michel Foucault, praising the Iranian Revolution in 1979, would later call the spiritual-political “transfiguration of the world” by “combat.” The caliph, the Islamist Zaki Ali explained, was the “führer of the believers.” “Made by Jews, led by Jews—therewith Bolshevism is the natural enemy of Islam,” wrote Mahomed Sabry, a Berlin-based propagandist for the Muslim Brotherhood in “Islam, Judaism, Bolshevism,” a book that the Reich’s propaganda ministry recommended to journalists." - Taken from Why Hitler Wished He Was Muslim. You can read it all HERE.

Muslim recruits of the SS Handzar Division pray in 1943. PHOTO: HARVARD UNIVERSITY PRESS; GERMAN ARCHIVES

Muslim Brotherhood & Hitler

Muslim Brotherhood was founded in Egypt in 1928 by a 22-year old Muslim named Hassan al-Banna, who admired Adolf Hitler's hatred of the Jews and persistently wrote to Hitler to express his admiration for Hitler, as well as his desire for collaboration with Hitler's Nazi Party.

When Hitler rose to power, his Nazis supported al-Banna, a school teacher, to grow the Muslim Brotherhood into its ally in the Middle East; by 1938, the membership of Muslim Brotherhood topped 200,000.

During World War II, members of the Muslim Brotherhood spied for Hitler's Nazis in the Middle East and fought for Hitler as Nazi troops in two specially formed Muslim Waffen-SS Handschar Divisions ('Handschar' is German for scimitar, the curved saber used by the Muslim troops of the Ottoman empire).

Above is Hitler with Haj Amin al-Husseini, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem and a

close ally of al-Banna, in Berlin, where he lived as Hitler's VIP guest from 1941 to 1945, before joining al-Banna in Egypt in 1946. The Muslim Nazi troops of the Waffen-SS Handschar Divisions are being reviewed by Haj Amin al-Husseini (right) and by the SS Reichsfuhrer Heinrich Himmler (below).

Due to the large number of Muslim volunteers, the Handschar Divisions were the largest of Hitler's 38 Waffen-SS divisions.

After World War II, the Muslim Brotherhood continued to grow, supported this time by the West, which saw it as a counterweight to the threat of Soviet-backed communism in the Middle East. By the late 1940s, Muslim Brotherhood numbered 500,000 members.

While some of them built schools and medical clinics, other continued to engage in violence, including bombings, arsons and murders. In 1948, members of the Muslim Brotherhood assassinated the Egyptian Prime Minister Mahmoud Fahmi al-Nuqrashi and participated in the invasion of the newly re-created nation of Israel.

The Muslim Brotherhood's violent conflict with the Egyptian government, which

also included the government's assassination of al-Hanna and two failed Muslim Brotherhood assassination attempts on the Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser, eventually led to many of its leaders being jailed while others fled and established branches abroad, mostly in the other Middle Eastern Arab nations but also in Europe, UK and USA.

Concluding that it did not yet have the muscle to spread Islam by force, Muslim Brotherhood 'officially' renounced violence in the 1970s, and switched to more cunning strategies detailed in its secret internal manifesto: "The Project".

In 1979, Western powers supported the Muslim Brotherhood to form the Mujahedeen army and fight the Soviet army in Afghanistan.

In 1987, Muslim Brotherhood in Israel created Hamas, whose members still use the Nazi salute (above) and read Hitler's Mein Kampf, which the Muslim Brotherhood titled, My Jihad, and translated into Arabic in the 1930s (Mein Kampf remains the #6 best-seller today in the Muslim world and a favorite among the members of Muslim Brotherhood).

In 1989, the Muslim Brotherhood's Mujahedeen army pushed the Soviet army out of Afghanistan and then split. One of the factions became Al Qaeda, led by a Muslim Brotherhood-schooled Saudi named Osama bin Laden. - Extracted from BillionBibles.org - Hitler & Islam.

ISLAMOPHOBIA AND THE ARYAN JESUS

In "Islamophobia," Vanguard correspondent Adam Yamaguchi examines the rising tide of Islamophobia on both sides of the Atlantic. Ten years after 9/11, the fear of future attacks paired with the growing number of Muslims across Europe and America has given birth to an aggressive new network of anti-Muslim alarmists. - Written by Jeffrey Plunkett




"Islamophobia is like a virus that evolves, and inevitably meets a resistance. Racism never goes unchallenged, yet it’s rarely ever destroyed totally. It just adapts a capacity to withstand criticism and opposition and kind of mutates to appropriate those social values that are establish in the first instance as a challenge to racism. How do you simultaneously celebrate values such as equality and justice and rights and at the same time be hostile and discriminatory to Muslims? You claim Muslims are a threat to those values." - WORDS BY ELLENA SAVAGE  AUGUST 5, 2014 - WHAT IS ISLAMOPHOBIA?

"Although the neologism that is Islamophobia dates back to the 1990’s, it was not until after September 11, 2001 that the intolerance was so rampantly widespread that Kofi Annan, former Secretary General of the United Nations, stated that “when the world is compelled to coin a new term to take account of increasingly widespread bigotry, that is a sad and troubling development.” While its definition, and for that matter, existence as a term, is contentious, many agree that Islamophobia is the hatred and fear of Islam and by extension, all Muslims. Though as much as I would like to say that American Islamophobia only emerged after 2001, the unfortunate truth is that it and the driving themes behind it have been around for quite some time; it is only after that cataclysmic day that it reared its ugly head that much higher." - September 11th And The Legacy Of Islamophobia In America

Murderous Islamists or Islamophobia?
"I have a nominee for idiot of the week. I had never heard of him until yesterday, but he is one ‘Andreas Krieg’ who the Daily Mail has referred to as ‘a Middle East security analyst at King’s College London in Qatar.’

Mr Krieg was quoted in a story on the violence in Iraq, Syria, Kenya, Nigeria and elsewhere. This included stories so bloodthirsty that it is hard to look at some of the pictures which accompany the text. It should also be remembered that most of the victims of this violence are Muslim. And so are all of the perpetrators. So how, on being asked for a reaction to all this bloodshed does our noble academic respond? As follows:

‘Andreas Krieg, a Middle East security analyst at King’s College London in Qatar, said he had noticed a rise in extremism in recent weeks and months, but said Islam wasn’t to blame.

He told MailOnline: ‘All the empirical evidence shows that it is on the rise. You’re seeing it in all the headlines, then you’re looking at Iraq, you’re looking at Syria, you’re looking at Nigeria.

‘But in all three cases this has nothing to do with Islam. I think people in the West may think it is because they feel alienated by Islam. There is a lot of Islamophobia.’

You can read the whole sorry thing here.

I suppose we should feel grateful that Mr Krieg has ‘noticed’ the ‘empirical evidence’. But next time Sunni death squads descend on a Shia town or Boko Haram kidnap another hundred schoolgirls and sell them into slavery, just remember, Mr Krieg doesn’t want you to think this is Islamism. No, no. This is ‘Islamophobia’ we are witnessing." - http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2014/06/murderous-islamists-or-islamophobia/

Third Reich Christendom: Church Anti-Semitism and Dejudaizing Jesus
Posted on December 19, 2011 by Dorado

Original guest piece submitted by Benjamin Taghov

As has been highlighted on Loonwatch, the radical anti-muslim vanguard, and specifically Pamela Geller, has been mouthing the idea of an unmistakable joinder between the ideology of National Socialism, coined by Adolf Hitler, and Islam. She has campaigned the notion that Hitler himself was spiritized by Islam and that the Muslim faith was used as an inspirational take-off point for the Nazi extermination program. According to her, the genocidal insanity of Hitler was strategically interlaced with the genocide of the Armenians. And as that may be true, Hitler also said that he was genuinely inspired by and admired the extermination of the Native Americans.

Hitler’s concept of concentration camps as well as the practicality of genocide owed much, so he claimed, to his studies in English and United States history. He admired the camps for Boer prisoners in South Africa and for Native Americans in the wild west; to his inner circle he often praised the efficiency of America’s extermination – by starvation and uneven combat – of the “red savages” who could not be tamed by captivity.[1]

Genocide at the hands of early Christian Americans supposedly stained the mind of Hitler. He had found a palpable source of inspiration for his extirpational plans. As far as Christianity is concerned though, Hitler did not accredit himself any particular Christian denomination. On the contrary, he found himself outside the fold of Christianity.

When Germany officially came under Nazi rule, the church found itself in a desperate need to redefine itself. In 1939, Protestant theologians, clergymen and other influencial characters within the Christian movement, as well as regular old congregants, joined forces to auspicate the grand opening of the Institute for the Study and Eradication of Jewish Influence on German Church Life. The advanced objectives were both political and theological in nature. Prof. Susannah Heschel, in her critically acclaimed work, The Aryan Jesus, says that:

Seeking to create a dejudaized church for Germany that was in the process of ridding Europe of all Jews, it developed new biblical interpretations and liturgical materials. In the six years of its existence, as the Nazi regime carried out its genocide of the Jews, the Institute redefined Christianity as a Germanic religion whose founder, Jesus, was no Jew but rather had fought valiantly to destroy Judaism, falling as victim to that struggle. Germans were now called upon to be the victors in Jesus’s own struggle against the Jews, who were said to be seeking Germany’s destruction.[2]

The institute gained a lot of success in winning support for its radical agenda from a broad spectrum of ecclesiastical representatives and scholars, who shared or came to share, a volition to weed out the very Judaic vertebra of Christian history and origins. The church under Nazi rule was however not homogeneous. Some adherents of Christian faith felt that the Tanakh should be pooh-poohed or completely expunged from the scripture since the Old Testament was regarded as a Jewish book. Others proposed that the opponents had failed at realizing that the Old Testament in all actuality was anti-Jewish in essence; that the prophets were at constant war with Israel’s sinful ways. By unreading the Bible’s Jewish core text, they suggested that it should be preserved as proof that the Jews were a violent enemy.

However serious the intrafaith quarrel seemed, none of them were in opposition to the Nazi regime. They were all outspokenly anti-Semitic and the rivalry was only preferably based on theological issues: on the one side for example, there were Christians who accepted baptism as a way to dejudaize the Jewish community, and the counterpart of the inter-religious fued – a majority assemblage – who did not regard the Jews as spiritually equal and therefore, always, unfit for Christian faith. As a rule, rather than as an exception, this was the status of Germanic Christendom. There were no real schismatic ”bail-outs”. Alternative views and large-scale opposition to the rabid racism of the church were almost unherad of. Gailus, in his Protestantimus und Nationalsozialismus, accentuates this and asseverates the low percentage of withdrawals from the church.

Without any doubt, one main reason for the Nazi regime’s success, was due to anti-Semitism. Other areas were left underachieved. Hitler and his minions did not reach their desiderated goals, neither militarily nor politically. The Nazi regime did nonetheless exploit the church’s prevailing anti-Semitic interpretations of the New Testament. The anti-Semitic resonance found its way through the church. Susannah Heschel explains why:

…its success can be credited in large measure to the unrelenting anti-Jewish Christian theological discourse that linked Nazi propaganda with the traditions and moral authority of the churches. That link was proclaimed with enthusiasm by Nazi Christians: ‘In the Nazi treatment of the Jews and its ideological stance, Luthers intentions, after centuries, are being fulfilled’[3]

As she also notes, Uriel Tal clearly demonstrates that anti-Semitism within Christianity was not a new phenomenon. He argues that it was utterly owing to Christian anti-Judaism for its success. He writes:

…it was not the economic crises that brought about this new political, racial anti-religious antisemitism, but completely the reverse, it was precisely the anti-Christian and antireligious ideology of racial antisemitism which hampered the first antisemitic parties in their efforts to utilize the economic crisis for their political development. . . [because] what still attracted the masses was the classical, traditional Christian anti-Judaism, however adapted it may have become to the new economic conditions.[4]

As a matter of fact, it can be stated that whatever the seriousness of the inter-religious dialogues, they ultimately came together, putting their frictions aside, due to their shared anti-Semitic attitudes. The church’s willingness to steward the neo-pagan Nazi rulers and conversely their adopted and appropriated Nazi rhetoric, combined with their volition to recognize Nazi symbolism, is what finally made Christendom a tolerable contestant from a Nazi standpoint. Hitler knew that he had to appeal to a Christian audience and thus his phraseology was painstakingly calculated. He delicately drew on Christian spirituality and was quoted saying that:

St. Paul transformed a local movement of Aryan opposition to Jewry into a super-temporal religion, which postulates the equality of all men…[causing] the death of the Roman empire. [5]

Christianity could not be rejected. The Nazi ideologists felt that a sudden forfeiture of Christianity would in fact offend the moral of Germans. Since the anti-Semitism of Germanic Christianity was utilized as a tool of propaganda, it became the basis for the Nazi party to lean on when appealing to the masses. Nazi ideologists exploited Christianity by colonizing and usurping its theology and its anti-Semitism, for self-fulfilling purposes. The Nazi party integrated key elements of Christian theology with its own ideology. In that way they figured they could boost the quantity of supporters, but they also argued that they needed to bolster their message with a cohesive resonance of Christian tradition, inasmuch as the teachings of the faith had been shaping European culture and thought for thousands of years.

As for liability, the church maintained their guiltlessness. In the aftermath, those people who participated in propagating an anti-Jewish message by disseminating the Christian outlook, justified it by waving the “non-complicity-card” in the actual mass murders. And here it gets really interesting. Firstly, the church propagated anti-Semitism during a time when Jews were being dissociated from the rest of the population. Secondly, they were being rounded up and killed. That is tantamount to giving the executors the go ahead. By suggesting genocide, or by agitating its exigency, they were compliant in murdering them off from a far. Heschel goes on fitting them with the term ‘desk murderers’, implying that they were culpable in promoting genocide from behind their pulpits.

Paralleling the German church to a contemporary context: this is exactly what Geller and Spencer are doing. The German Christians hid their Nazi anti-Semitism beneath the cloak of religion. Geller and Spencer are doing the same thing when they are hiding their true agendas behind a cloak of “civil rights activism.”

They can disassociate themselves from instigating hate all they want. But the fact of the matter is that they are propagating an ideology of hate. Consider for a moment if Geller went back in time with her desktop computer. She would sit there with a warm cup of tea and a cozy felt wrapped around her legs, indulging in and spreading hate and rationale for the dissociation of the Jewish people. Switch from “Islam and Muslims” to “Judaism and Jews” and she would be part of the the German hate-machinery of intellectuals who metaphrased the Nazi ideology into Christian theology: giving Nazism a religious significance by transforming the message into a seizable spiritual discourse. Like whitewashed tombs on the outside, but putrefactively dead inside. That is the true nature of charismatic hate demagogues.

The church and the Nazi movement envisaged their task as an act of self-defence. The Jews were regarded as violent enemies of the state: their agenda could not allow them to ever assimilate into society and they would never submit fully to German law.

…Institute statements regarding Jews and Judaism were mirrors, in Christianized language, of the official propaganda issued by the Reich during the course of the Holocaust: Jews were the aggressive enemies of Germans and Germany was fighting a defensive war against them. Even as the Nazis carried out the extermination of the European Jews, their propaganda argued that it was the Jews who were plotting to murder the Germans. [6]

The rationalization and the language of the Nazis are comparatively similar to that of the vanguard of Internet Islamophobia. With statements such as “the only good Muslim is a bad Muslim” (meaning that a muslim has to kill or maim, or by the use of creeping Jihad, overthrow the ruling apparatus and it’s majority population) they suggest that the West is in dire need to protect itself. It is, so they claim, an act of self-defence. A minority population in Europe and the United States, supposedly in a state of violent or passive aggressive opposition to the West: a Clash of Civilizations.

Furthermore, in terms of the machination of genocide, several high officials within the church actually furthered the notion of terminating Jewish life. A few months after the Nuremburg Laws were enacted, a group of representatives from German churches gathered in Dresden to discuss the merging of the church body. During this meeting, at that time the head of the Thuringian Ministry of Education, and later in 1939, approximately 3 years after the meeting in Dresden, the figurehead of the Institute, stated the following:

…In Christian life, the heart has to be disposed toward the Jew, and that’s how it has to be. As a Christian, I can, I must, and I ought always to have or to find a bridge to the Jew in my heart. But as a Christian, I also have to follow the laws of the nation [Volk], which are often presented in a very cruel way, so that again I am brought into the harshest of conflicts with ‘Thou shalt not kill the Jew’ because he too is a child of the eternal Father, I am able to know as well that I have to kill him, I have to shoot him, and I can only do that if I am permitted to say: Christ. [7]

Siegfried Leffler not only spoke of killing the Jews as early as in 1936, a few years prior to it actually being done, but the people attending the meeting did not at any time voice any discontent to what was being said. It was as if it had already become a customary discourse within German Christian congregations. The discussion continued as if the murder of Jews in the name of Christ was an acceptable iniquity. In other words, the murder of Jews was considered an option in dealing with the elimination of Jewish influence on German life and church.

Apologetics within the contemporary church downplay the role of the Christian movement, as it is an awkward moment in history, reminiscent of past atrocities committed in the name of Christ. But the documented history of the church’s influence on Nazi Germany and its crucial effect on public opinion, is so articulate that any attempt at brushing it off as an isolated event, or by claiming that the Protestant Christian movement were actually motivated by sectarian currents, in and by itself becomes inofficious. A stillborn attempt at trying to explain away history. The German Christian movement was a faction within the Protestant church, following in the footsteps of its founder, Martin Luther. They always connected their ideology and approach to the ‘Jewish question’ to him and expressly voiced that their agenda was an attempt to pick up where Luther had left off.

This makes Geller and her co-agitators brutally incoherent. They take something, that may very well be true, out of its context: by picking and choosing events in history, that strengthen their pre-determined panorama of hate. In point of fact, by drawing her conclusions, she is trying desperately to downplay or fully hide, the Christian interspersion on Nazi thought.

Hitler may have observed the game-plan of the Young Turks. This does not mean that Hitler was anymore influenced by Islam than he was by Christianity. As was mentioned at the top, Hitler did draw from the Christian American holocaust of Native Americans, and he did reference Christian spirituality in his speeches. Does that mean that he was Christian or that he was motivated by Christian theology? No, it doesn’t. It means that Hitler was looking for a way to streamline his operational murder and slave camps.

He was not ideologically influenced by any of the examples he was drawing on, he was just trying to find a way to advance his efforts. But that is obviously something that eludes Geller’s ratiocination. It does however show that religion, when hijacked, can get ugly. The German Christian movement is surpassingly good at proving this point.

[1]Adolph Hitler: The Definitive Biography, John Toland. p.202

[2]The Aryan Jesus, p6

[3]Ibid p7

[4]Religious and Anti-Religious roots of Modern Antisemitism, p177

[5]The Aryan Jesus, p8

[6]The Aryan Jesus p14

[7] ThHStA A 1400, 239, February 24-25, 1936. Attedning the meeting: Paul Althaus, Martin Doerne, Erich Fascher, Wolf Meyer-Erlach, Dedo Müller, pastors and senior ministers; Leffler, Leutheuser, Hugo Hahn, The Aryan Jesus, p10.

*Disclaimer: We are by no means endorsing the idea that Christianity is an anti-Semitic religion. We are only exploring the Islamophobic claim that Hitler was inspired by Islam, as well as the relationship between the Third Reich and the German Christian Church.

Benjamin Taghiov is the nom de plum of a Swedish author, specializing in the fields of Political Science and Oriental studies.  A long time admirer of Loonwatch, he plans on contributing more articles in the future. SOURCE: Spencer Watch

LUCIFERIAN FRATERNITATEM

YouTube Vid: The Great Deception : The New World Order & Muslim Brotherhood

Obama Bolsters the Brotherhood - by Joseph Klein, Feb. 4, 2015 (See comments by clicking HERE.)

The Obama administration has a soft spot in its heart for the jihadist Muslim Brotherhood.

Just last month, the U.S. State Department went out of its way to insult the president of Egypt, Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, whom the Obama administration should be treating as a valuable ally in the fight against global jihadism, by hosting a delegation of leaders who have been aligned with the Muslim Brotherhood. The State Department’s guests at the meeting, whose visit was arranged and paid for by Georgetown University, included former Freedom and Justice Party members (the Muslim Brotherhood’s political party). One of the State Department officials who met with the delegation was the deputy assistant secretary for democracy, human rights, and labor.

State Department spokesperson Jen Psaki downplayed the importance of the meeting, which she said was “routine at the State Department as they meet political party leaders from across the world.” But the Muslim Brotherhood-aligned guests lost no opportunity to propagandize their grand reception at the State Department. One of them posed for a picture in front of the State Department’s logo, proudly displaying the jihadist group’s notorious four-finger symbol of defiance, known as the R4BIA salute.

Meanwhile, following the State Department meeting, the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt called on its supporters to prepare for “a long, uncompromising jihad.”

Egyptian Foreign Minister Sameh Shokry said that the meeting, far from being routine, was “not understandable as they are not a political party, and according to the Egyptian law they should be treated as a terrorist group.”

Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, which are certainly in a position to know first-hand, have also declared the Muslim Brotherhood to be a terrorist group.

President Obama evidently believes otherwise. His favorable attitude towards the jihadist organization goes back to the earliest days of his first term as president, evidenced by his administration’s invitation to Muslim Brotherhood leaders to attend his speech to the Islamic world in Cairo on June 4, 2009. The administration’s outreach to the Muslim Brotherhood has continued unabated ever since.

Back in 2012, for example, members of Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood met with U.S. officials including White House staffers. “Following Egypt’s revolution, we have broadened our engagement to include new and emerging political parties and actors,” White House spokesman Tommy Vietor told POLITICO at the time.

In 2013, Mohamed Elibiary, a Muslim Brotherhood supporter who served as a member of the Obama administration’s Homeland Security Advisory Panel, tweeted that America is “an Islamic country” with an “Islamically compliant constitution.” He has argued that the Muslim Brotherhood is comparable to Christian evangelicals. He also displayed the “R4BIA” four-finger salute symbol associated with the Muslim Brotherhood on his Twitter profile. Elibiary quit his post a year later after questions were raised about his alleged radical Islamist ties.

In early 2014, a UK-based Muslim Brotherhood leader met with President Obama and Vice President Joe Biden at the White House, accompanying a delegation of the Speaker of the Iraqi Council of Representatives.

In late 2014, the White House issued a statement claiming that “We have not seen credible evidence that the Muslim Brotherhood has renounced its decades-long commitment to non-violence.” Apparently, the Muslim Brotherhood’s active support for Hamas, itself an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood and still recognized by the U.S. government as a terrorist organization, does not constitute “credible evidence” to the Muslim Brotherhood’s boosters in the Obama White House.

Indeed, the Obama administration is convinced to this day that the Muslim Brotherhood’s participation in Egypt’s political process should continue to be recognized as a legitimate path to genuine democracy in Egypt. On the other hand, they apparently question the legitimacy of President al-Sisi, whom they hold responsible for engineering the overthrow of the elected Muslim Brotherhood-supported former President, Mohamed Morsi.

Never mind that Morsi was usurping powers in his single-minded drive towards imposing a strict code of Islamic law on millions of unwilling Egyptian citizens, who rose up against him in a popular rebellion.

Never mind that President al-Sisi, whatever his own flaws may be, has reached out to the Egyptian Christian community and warned Islamic leaders, whom he addressed last month at Al-Azhar University, the oldest and most prestigious Sunni religious school, that “we are in need of a religious revolution.” He exhorted the imams to act because “this umma is being torn, it is being destroyed, it is being lost – and it is being lost by our own hands.”

Obama did not embrace President al-Sisi’s call for Muslim scholars and religious leaders to examine their own “corpus of texts and ideas that we have sacralized over the years” as the dangerous ideological source of the global jihadist scourge. To the contrary, the Obama administration has embraced the embodiment of the jihadist ideology – the Muslim Brotherhood.

“What this shows is that the widespread rejection of the Muslim Brotherhood across the Middle East, particularly the largest protests in recorded human history in Egypt on June 30, 2013, that led to President Morsi’s ouster, is not recognized by the State Department and the Obama administration,” said Patrick Poole, a terrorism expert and national security reporter. “This is a direct insult to our Egyptian allies, who are in an existential struggle against the Muslim Brotherhood, all in the pursuit of the mythical ‘moderate Islamists’ who the D.C. foreign policy elite still believe will bring democracy to the Middle East,” Poole added.

One of the State Department’s guests last month was Mohamed Gamal Heshmat, an exiled member of the Muslim Brotherhood’s shura council and former parliamentarian. Heshmat claimed he also met with “a representative of the White House.” He added that “The voice of the Egyptian revolution must be loud everywhere.” Heshmat has in the past posed with Hamas Chairman Khaled Meshaal.

Even in its non-violent pose, the Muslim Brotherhood engages in stealth jihad. Its document entitled “An Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for the Group in North America,” which was published in 1991, declared: “The Ikhwan [Muslim Brotherhood] must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and ‘sabotaging’ its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.”

That central goal of the Muslim Brotherhood has not changed in the nearly a quarter of a century since it was enunciated. President Obama, meanwhile, is serving as its enabler.

Joseph Klein is a Harvard-trained lawyer and the author of Global Deception: The UN’s Stealth Assault on America’s Freedom and Lethal Engagement: Barack Hussein Obama, the United Nations & Radical Islam.

Source: FrontPage Mag.

RESURRECTING A DEAD "SATANIC CALIPHATE" IS EVERY ISLAMIST DREAM.

And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it. - Colossians 2:15


New caliphate faces an inevitable collapse - Sharif Nashashibi 

Due to limited manpower and resources, as well as the formidable enemies it would face in the process, the Islamic State's "caliphate" stands little chance of expansion

Despite the alarm raised by Sunday's declaration of an Islamic caliphate, it has no chance of long-term survival, let alone significant expansion beyond its current boundaries. The Islamic State (formerly of Iraq and the Levant), stretches from northern Syria to eastern Iraq. Its shortened name is meant to signal that its ambitions are not limited to the territories of its previous title.
However, there is not much more places it can grow - even within Syria and Iraq - due to limited manpower and resources, as well as the formidable enemies it would face in the process. Already covering large swathes of territory, further enlargement would risk classic imperial overstretch.

It cannot expand north into Turkey, or east into Iran, because it would stand no chance against either army. Furthermore, NATO - a political and military alliance of 28 countries - has said it "will not hesitate" to protect Turkey against such a threat.

Encroaching on Iraq's southern neighbours Saudi Arabia and Kuwait would draw in the economic powers of the Gulf Cooperation Council (including the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Oman and Bahrain), as well as the military protection of the US and Britain. A threat to the sizeable Shiite minorities in Saudi Arabia or Kuwait could also draw in Iran. Riyadh has ordered "all necessary measures" against "terrorist organisations".

Militants have taken control of the only legal crossing between Iraq and Jordan. However, Amman has sent reinforcement of tanks and armoured vehicles, and put troops on a state of alert along the border, to stop any encroachment.

Jordan's king has the backing of the US, and Israel has said the international community should support Amman against "Islamic extremism", and make sure it is "able to defend itself". Israel would likely intervene directly to stop its neighbour becoming a base and springboard for militants. In any case, they have not directly threatened Israel from Syria - nor would they - given its military might.

IS has claimed responsibility for a suicide attack in Lebanon, and threatened "the Party of Satan" (Hezbollah) and "its agent, the Lebanese army", with "hundreds" more. However, expanding the caliphate into Lebanon would be resisted by the army and the much more powerful Hezbollah, which would be aided directly by its allies in Damascus and Tehran.

There would also be widespread public opposition from Lebanon's multi-confessional society. Political and sectarian divisions in the country may well be put aside in the face of a looming militant theocracy.

Obstacles in Syria and Iraq

The Islamic State would be hard-pressed to expand further in Syria. Nine rebel groups - including the powerful Islamic Front - and the top body of Syrian Islamic scholars in exile, have issued a statement rejecting the caliphate and urging Muslims to do so.

IS's war with various Syrian opposition groups - including al-Qaeda's affiliate, the Nusra Front - has resulted in 7,000 fatalities since January. Those groups are stepping up their campaign against ISIL, and Washington has asked lawmakers for $500 mn to train and equip vetted Syrian rebels.

In addition, capturing more territory in Syria would eventually lead to full-fledged fighting with the forces of Bashar al-Assad, as well as those of his allies Hezbollah and Iran. So far, ISIL has focused far more on fighting Syrian rebels and consolidating captured territory than taking on the Assad regime. However, the latter did recently bomb ISIL targets along the border with Iraq, to the gratitude of Assad's ally, Prime Minister Nori al-Maliki.

Further enlarging the Islamic State on Iraqi soil would face perhaps even bigger obstacles. While the US is at odds with Russia, China and Iran over Syria, they are all backing Iraq's government and army militarily, financially and politically. They would certainly ramp up their assistance and involvement if the Islamic State made greater gains.

In addition, Maliki has offered to arm civilians willing to fight the Sunni militants. He is also being bolstered by various Shiite militias, as well as a call by the country's top Shiite cleric, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, for Iraqis to join the security forces. Powerful Shiite cleric Moqtada Sadr, although an opponent of Maliki, has threatened to "shake the ground" against the militants.

The result of all this external and internal support is that the lightning militant advance in Iraq has slowed, and the army is fighting back. Any attempt by the Islamic State to advance into Shiite heartlands in southern, eastern and central Iraq - including the capital - would face certain defeat.

Neither could the caliphate expand into Iraqi Kurdistan, given the strength of Kurdish forces (the peshmerga). They have been mobilised in what has been described as "the biggest deployment of peshmerga in recent history". Fighting has already taken place, but it is unlikely that the Islamic State would want a full-blown showdown with the peshmerga, not least because this could draw in Kurdish fighters from neighbouring Syria, Turkey and Iran.

Internal collapse

The Islamic State will not even be able to consolidate its hold on its present territory. Besides being under military pressure from so many states and groups, ISIL has committed numerous atrocities against people under its rule, including Sunnis, whose sect of Islam it claims to champion.

Recent history alone shows that jihadist groups have utterly failed to match their battlefield prowess with effective governance. They have shown no understanding of winning hearts and minds - let alone a desire to do so - and this has consistently proved to be their undoing. Just a few examples are Ansar Dine in Mali, al-Shabab in Somalia and al-Qaeda in Iraq.

The latter lost its strength and influence because it so violated Iraq's Sunni Arabs - the very community from which it drew support - that they rose up against it. The same will happen with ISIL, whose bloodlust has caused even Al Qaeda to disavow it. There are already such stirrings within the caliphate.

Indeed, the militants' swift territorial gains in Iraq were not just down to IS, but to various groups - such as secular Baathists, who have reportedly been instrumental militarily - that do not share its ideology, and would resist living under it.

These groups have fought alongside IS not because they want a caliphate, but because they have had enough of the marginalisation of the Sunni Arab community in Iraq. Saudi Arabia has pledged to use its influence within that community to encourage it to join a new, more inclusive Iraqi government to better combat IS.

Prominent Salafist leaders have condemned the Islamic State. Widening dissent from Islamist and jihadist leaders and groups will hinder a call by the caliph, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, for Muslims worldwide to take up arms and rally to his cause. So too will a clampdown by countries regionally and internationally on those who wish to heed his call.

Given the array of enemies and obstacles it faces - internally and externally - the demise of the Islamic State is a matter of when, not if. This is largely of its own doing.

Sharif Nashashibi is an award-winning journalist and analyst on Arab affairs. He is a regular contributor to Al Arabiya News, Al Jazeera English, The National, and The Middle East magazine. In 2008, he received an award from the International Media Council "for both facilitating and producing consistently balanced reporting" on the Middle East.

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Eye.

Source: Middle East Eye Dot Net

SATANISM IN ISLAM 2

"The Religion of Peace? For everyone who thinks Islam is “just another religion”, and that “Allah is simply another name for God”, let this serve as your much-needed wake up call. Islam is not a religion at all, it is an ideology designed to enslave and control the congregant by bloody, violent means."  -  Obscene Demonic Ashura Cutting Ritual Exposes The Satanic Element Of Islam

ISLAM, LIKE SATAN - WANTS ONLY SLAVES....

"Most Muslims do not realize that Islam allows no freedom.   This alone should make them realize that it is Satan behind Islam, and not an eternal God.   Satan wishes only to enslave Muslims to help him enslave the entire world.  He does this by turning them away from the truth -- that salvation is yours already, if you only have faith in God's Son, Jesus.  Islam is a religion based on intimidation and fear.  The word "Islam" does not mean "peace."  Muslims who tell you that the word “Islam” means “peace” are lying to you. The word "Islam" is an Arabic word. The word for peace in Arabic is “solh,” and not Islam. Islam is derived from the root word “taslim,” which means submission or surrender.  A Muslim is not allowed to leave Islam or else risk his or her life. At birth, a person is branded either Muslim or non-Muslim depending on one's descent. 

Among other things, the religion of Islam is a  brain-washing religion, and that is why so many Muslims turn into crazy mindless zombies. The Muslims are required to pray 5 times a day in Arabic to a God who is not there, from the moment they embrace Islam; and when they do so they touch their head to the floor. That is one reason they get so brain-washed, this repetitive prayer. You can often spot fanatical Muslims by the marks on their foreheads resulting from this repetitive touching their head to the floor, where they may whack their head if they really get into it.  As an example, take a look at the below image (and all others released) of Osama's Al Qaida second in command, Dr. Ayman al-Zawahiri, who always gives an anti-U.S. rant; Dr. Ayman has this tell-tale bruise on his forehead from too much head-whacking.

If you are a Muslim, and not praying the mandatory 5 times a day (in Arabic), which must be preceded by the ritual washing/ablution (Wudu) , according to Muhammad you are in great danger of going to hell.  Muslims may be excused from observing the other pillars of Islam like fasting, almsgiving, pilgrimage to Mecca.  But, no Muslim is ever excused from mandatory 5 times a day prayer.  In Christianity there is no compulsion or mandatory prayer.  The Lord God has given Christians free will.  Christians know they are to honor God every day, and not just on a Sunday.  Muslims should count their "blessings".  During Muhammad's fanciful mystical Night Journey to Heaven, Muhammad said that he was originally told by Allah to command his followers to pray fifty times daily, but later Allah revealed this to be too much of a burden.  What Muhammad probably meant was he soon found out that even he couldn't keep up with fifty mandatory prayer sessions a day.  So like many Sura's you'll see below, miraculously a Surah appeared to help Muhammad out in his personal life.

In Christianity, there is no such compulsion.  Yahweh wants heartfelt prayers.  Not scripted prayers.  Christians know enough to speak with God as their "Abba" (literally - daddy in Aramaic).  Muslims typically never even think of one-on-one, two-way prayers to God.  Muslim prayers resemble a "broadcast"; and no reply from their Allah is usually ever expected." (Extracted from History of
Muhammad & Islam - READ THE WHOLE ARTICLE HERE.)

Preacher who said 'Islam is satanic' is facing police probe over 'hate mongering - READ the STORY HERE.

 "One of the most embarrassing events in Muhammad's life occurred when Satan put his words in Muhammad's mouth. Muhammad spoke Satan's words as the word of God. This event is documented by several early Muslim scholars and referenced in the Hadith and Quran. Later Muslims, ashamed that their self declared prophet spoke Satan's words, denied the event occurred. A myriad of excuses and denials have been put forth by these later Muhammadans to cover up Muhammad's sinful error.

It must be pointed out again that the "Satanic Verses" event is not something made up by non-Muslims. The event is recorded by the earliest Islamic sources available on Muhammad's life. No one should think that it is a story made up by people who are critical of Islam. It is an episode directly found in the early Islamic records.
This topic is one of the most controversial in Islam. Satan caused Muhammad to recite his words as God's words. The background to this event is that Muhammad and his followers were being persecuted for attacking the pagan faiths of Mecca, and he did not want to further offend his Arab tribesmen, and, he wanted them to become his followers, i.e. Muslims. In fact Muhammad wished that God would not reveal anything further to him that would further alienate his fellow Arabs. So when opportunity arose, he spoke what Satan put into his heart and mind as God's word.

In the Old Testament (OT), if someone caused the people to worship other gods he was put to death - Deuteronomy 13:1 - 5:

"If prophets or those who divine by dreams appear among you and promise you omens or portents, and the omens or the portents declared by them take place, and they say, "Let us follow other gods" (whom you have not known) "and let us serve them," you must not heed the words of those prophets or those who divine by dreams; for the Lord your God is testing you, to know whether you indeed love the Lord your God with all your heart and soul. ... But those prophets or those who divine by dreams shall be put to death for having spoken treason against the Lord you God ... So you shall purge the evil from your midst."

This is exactly what Muhammad did - he advocated the worship of pagan deities as intercessors with God. Later, after Muhammad admitted his mistake and took back the words, he had the audacity to say that God made light of the event! God has never made light of sin or false prophets.

Think about it, which of the Old Testament prophets ever spoke the words of Satan? Those prophets loved their people, but they persisted in speaking the truth to them, not compromising the word of God to gain peace and converts as Muhammad did.

James McConnell, the preacher who claims Muslims can not be trusted. The Pastor comes face-to-face with a leading Muslim spokesman Dr Khalid Anis, and George Galloway MP. The Nolan Show, broadcast live 28/05/2014.



MUHAMMAD SPOKE THE SATANIC VERSES - THE EVIDENCE AND PROOF

Muslims frequently use the phrase "bring forth the proof". Well, the proof is presented here.

This event is documented by the four early biographical writers of Muhammad's life: Ibn Ishaq, Wakidi, Ibn Sa'd, and Tabari. The Hadith and Quran also contain direct references. Additionally several other Islamic scholars on Hadith (traditions) support the event's occurrence.

One Islamic book on Muhammad's life provides the following list:

"... many of the traditionalists have recorded it with reference to the chains of its narrators. Among them more commonly known are: al-Tabari, Ibn Abi Hatim, Ibn al-Mundhir, Ibn Mardauyah, Ibn Ishaq, Musa ibn 'Uqba, and Abu Ma'shar. It is all the more strange that Ibn Hajar, a recognized authority on traditions insists on the truth of this report and says, "As we have mentioned above, three of its chains of narrators satisfy the conditions requisite for an authentic report."
I have found four of the early Islamic biographical sources for this story in English. Therefore, prior to a discussion and analysis of the event, their writings should be reviewed. What first follows are the four accounts related from the 4 early sources:

1)  Tabari's "History", published by SUNY, and translated by Watt
2)  the "Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir", (The Book of the Major Classes), translated by S. Moinul Haq
3)  the "Sirat Rasulallah" (The Life of Allah's Prophet) by Ibn Ishaq, translated by A. Guillaume
4)  Wakidi's biographical material on Muhammad also includes the story of Muhammad speaking Satan's words. I have not been able to find Wakidi's entire work in English but Wakidi's work is quoted by W. Muir in "The Life of Mahomet"
5)  A sub source from #3 above is found in "New Light on the Life of Muhammad", by A.. Guillaume This source is from a manuscript containing information from other sources as well as Ibn Ishaq. The writer of the manuscript, Yunus ibn Bukayr, heard Ibn Ishaq's lectures at Kufa (located in modern Iraq), and made notes.
6)  Additional supporting evidence will be provided from the Sahih Hadith of Bukhari
7)  Finally, verses from the Quran will be provided as concurring evidence that Muhammad spoke the Quranic verses" (Extracted from MUHAMMAD AND THE SATANIC VERSES, Answering-Islam.org)

The Muslim Agenda

NBT Films presents 'The Muslim Agenda', a movie which exposes the shocking truth about islam, it's incompatibility with western ideals and it's cult-like ideology. The contents of the film exposes the evil verses and teachings taken directly from the Quran and Hadiths and demonstrates it's sick doctrine of hate, gender inequality, intolerance of homosexuals, anti-semitism, racial discrimination and permission for muslim men to indulge in sex slavery, child rape and molestation.

The Muslim Agenda also exposes other diabolical facet's of the faith, including islam's culture of psychological indoctrination, guilt complex, and mind control which is imposed on young impressionable muslim men to commit jihad. The final end game through acts of jihad, is a worldwide controlled caliphate whereby Sharia law is forced upon all mankind and subjugation of all non-muslims must take place. This is the ultimate desire of all devout muslims who remain faithful to the divisive and destructive religious tenets set by Muhammad, the prophet of islam.

Please help NBT films by donating with Paypal on our channel.

Chapter contents:
1. Introduction
2. Islam 101
3. Sharia Law
4. Jihad
5. Islamic Caliphate
6. Legal enquiry