In his last great battle in a lifetime of dust-ups, the late Christopher Hitchens, in the aftermath of Sept. 11th, coined the term “Islamofascists” to describe and denounce the Muslim world. Linking it to 20th-century fascist movements, Hitchens elaborated:
“The most obvious points of comparison would be these: Both movements are based on a cult of murderous violence that exalts death and destruction and despises the life of the mind. (“Death to the intellect! Long live death!” as Gen. Francisco Franco’s sidekick Gonzalo Queipo de Llano so pithily phrased it.) Both are hostile to modernity (except when it comes to the pursuit of weapons), and both are bitterly nostalgic for past empires and lost glories. Both are obsessed with real and imagined “humiliations” and thirsty for revenge. Both are chronically infected with the toxin of anti-Jewish paranoia (interestingly, also, with its milder cousin, anti-Freemason paranoia). Both are inclined to leader worship and to the exclusive stress on the power of one great book. Both have a strong commitment to sexual repression—especially to the repression of any sexual “deviance”—and to its counterparts the subordination of the female and contempt for the feminine. Both despise art and literature as symptoms of degeneracy and decadence; both burn books and destroy museums and treasures.”
Despite his ties to the Left, Hitchens was predictably pounced on by its politically correct proponents. In a bizarre take on the “special relationship” between Britain and America, critics linked hands across the ocean to denounce the comparison. British historians Nial Ferguson and Tony Judt, American journalist Joseph Sobran (who, in the past, had flirted with anti-Semitism), and Paul Krugman, an op-ed writer for the New York Times, castigated the term as “simplistic propaganda.” An allowance could be made for the journalist section of this group. Sobran, anti-Israel and a not-so-closeted admirer of Hitler, and Krugman, a knee-jerk George W. Bush hater–although strangely silent about American foreign policy now that a Democrat occupies the Oval Office–could be dismissed as mere partisan hacks, enslaved to prejudices.
The same allowance cannot be applied to supposedly “objective” historians such Ferguson and Judt, however, had they studied the historical record they would have discovered a decided ideological and actual military alliance during the 30s, and World War II between the Muslim world and Hitler.
Hitler apparently had a warm opinion of Muslims, once describing Mohammed as a provider of “spiritual sustenance.” He even identified them as much more in kinship with the Reich than with France.
The motivation for Hitler’s support was, of course, his ruling passion of anti-Semitism. He supported them, according to Albert Speer:
“…because we were jointly fighting the Jews. This led him to discuss Palestine and conditions there, and he then stated that he himself would not rest until the last Jew had left Germany. Kalid al Hud observed that the Prophet Mohammed … had acted the same way. He had driven the Jews out of Arabia ….”
He was even willing to transcend his views of Arabs as one of the lower racial orders when he granted Mufti Haj Amin al-Husseini “honorary Aryan” status for his close collaboration with Nazi Germany.
Moreover, he relaxed the racial recruiting standards of the Waffen SS to allow in the murderous Hanjar Troopers, who, whereupon during World War II, annihilated “90% of Bosnia’s Jews and burned countless Serbian churches and villages.”
Nor was Hitler’s admiration for Muslims one-sided. Mufti Haj Amin el-Husseini, who had a long history of terrorism against the British and the Jews, supported Hitler based on the Nazi’s plan to annihilate the Jews. In point of fact, he was at times even more extreme than the Nazis in his hatred of the Jews. He fervently opposed Hitler’s plan to let Jews leave Hungary based on his perception that they would immigrate to Palestine. When Adolf Eichman was negotiating with the British to exchange German POWS for 5,000 Jewish children, the Mufti successfully lobbied against it. The result of his endeavors was that the children were all gassed. Visiting Auschwitz, he chastised the guards in charge of the gas chambers to work harder.
In a validation of Hitchens, Arabs emulated Hitler by founding National Socialist movements in Arab lands. The leader of the Social Nationalist Party in Syria, Anto Sa’ada even called himself “the Fuhrer of the Syrian nation.” Soon afterward, 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. “Young Egypt,” which was founded in October 1933 had storm troopers, torch processions, and literal translations of Nazi slogans such as “One folk, One party, One leader.”
For those who would argue that this was in the past, there is the Lebanese branch of the Social Nationalist Party in Syria who still operate today.
George Orwell, no friend of colonization (indeed, his time as a colonial policeman in the then British colony of Burma moved him decidedly toward socialism, with its anti-colonial elements), once noted that Leftists, so enthralled to what was politically acceptable, often couldn’t see what was in front of their nose. Ferguson and Judt should be ashamed, for the facts of islamo-fascism are indeed in front of their nose. All they have to do is research the record.