Thursday, May 03, 2007

Holocaust, terrorism and violence: a Muslim View
by Abid Ullah Jan
edited version

The following article is compiled from various texts and books written by this author over the past 10 years voicing a consistent message.

Mine is part of the struggle to save Muslims from becoming the victims of a 21st Century Holocaust they are so obviously inching towards, becoming the 21st century Jews in terms of treatment the Jews received in Nazi Germany.

My Views as a Muslim about Holocaust

What is chilling is knowing now how many tens of millions of human beings lost their lives because of Hitler and Mussolini in an almost musical-comedy performance. Shallow stuff can have deep consequences.
See: The Tyranny of Our Democracy, August 1998.

The conclusion of the matter is laid at the feet of the people. The "Master Race" movie exploited duplicity knowing the ignorance of the German people in regards to Hitler and his purposes for world control and the annihilation of certain populations. The modern propaganda machine of the West mentions nothing of its own wilful ignorance.
See: The Rise of the Fourth Reich, The Frontier Post, Nov 09, 1999, last paragraph.

"Non-Muslims too have started feeling the heat: particularly those with an experience of the earlier holocaust. The first willing drop of the rain of exodus happen to be a Jew — a holocaust survivor, who smelled the coming holocaust in the US."
See: The Coming Exodus and the End of Nation States, May 28 2005.

Pakistanis forget that Musharraf alone is not the problem because he alone is not the nation. So was not Hitler. He alone could not kill millions of Jews in death camps or invade country after country for planting false evidence, overpowering their populations with a combination of vicious air strikes and crushing armoured superiority and then installing corrupt or cruel puppet leaders.
Pak-Gulag under the wings of the Fourth Reich, Sep 05, 2004, 7th paragraph.

To address the concerns of some overly optimistic critics, I started collecting evidence on the same page of the web site. Gradually, I am running out of space because news of the way Muslims are discriminated and harassed are increasing with each passing day. Even greater is the realization that the 20th century Jews were very fortunate. They were facing the wrath of Hitler in Germany alone. Muslims in the 21st century are facing multiple problems on a global scale.
Muslims! You ain't seen nothin' yet, March 06, 2006, 8th paragraph.

For pogroms or all that happened in Germany in the 1930s to happen again needs a mindset which the Islamophobes have already prepared to a great extent. The benighted progressives are simply consolidating it to the extent where another holocaust event would not produce any reaction in sympathy of the untouchables from the wider community.
Paving the way for Muslim holocaust, March 23, 2005, 17th last paragraph.

Like the Germans under Hitler, every person on earth must be warned that a dangerous, implacable, invisible, omnipresent and invulnerable enemy threatens their peace. Unlike Hitler, Bush goes global, pleading with public for an expansion of his power to interfere in internal affairs of other states and personal freedoms of every individual.
Bush's Nazi ambitions, Nation, Pakistan, August 22, 2002 , 2nd last paragraph.

Placards saying, “Jews not admitted” and “Jews enter this place at their own risk” began to appear all over civilized Germany in less than five years from their wholesale persecution. In some parts of the country, Jews were banned from public parks, swimming pools, and public transportation. Evidence suggests that history is on the way to repeating itself—this time for Muslims.

Jews were lucky in the sense that they faced Holocaust mainly in Germany and in occupied Europe at the hands of Nazis. Imagine Muslims for whom the whole West might turn into a Nazi bloc!

For Muslims the situation is going from bad to worse. The Jewish Holocaust is a clear example of “civilized” Europe’s previous and unexpected brutality. Differences between Jews and other European citizens were manufactured and used as pretexts to justify crimes against Jews. Jews were accused of “taking over” the world, just as Muslims are accused of planning to take over America and erecting an Islamic empire.

It was not only Hitler who engineered the Holocaust. Anti-Semitism (anti-Jewish and anti-Arabic hatred) was widespread in Christian Europe for centuries prior to Nazi Germany. However, modern anti-Semitism was initiated in 1879 by William Marr, the German who founded the “League for Anti-Semitism.” Marr’s racist views (Europe’s biological racism) were that Jews constituted a distinct racial group that was both physically and morally inferior, and therefore, must be exterminated. The justifications for possible internment of Muslims in the United States today are similar to Marr’s racist views in that they serve to develop a mindset in favor of a holocaust. With the rise of European racism against minorities in the nineteenth century, European Jews were targeted as Muslims are targeted today.

Adolf Hitler’s election on January 30, 1930, was based on his ideology of “one people [‘master race’ or Uebermenschen], one empire, and one leader.” Hitler’s election paved the way for one of the greatest criminal acts in human history, for which the groundwork was laid over a long period of time.

Jews, Gypsies, Czechs, Poles, the mentally and physically handicapped, homosexuals, and others not belonging to the “master race” were targeted for extermination. Jews were specifically targeted. Bombings of synagogues, blasphemous cartoons depicting Jews, and anti-Jewish posters were widespread all over Europe.
21st Century Jews, from Abid Ullah Jan's book, After Fascism, and article January 7, 2004, 4th paragraph.

Like earlier papal bulls, such words from Pope Benedict carry the potential for a new holocaust.
To Hell With Muslim Terrorism, August 24, 2005, Last line 5th paragraph.

Muslims are gradually turning into 21st century Jews.
"Muslims in Russia are not much different from others", Second question, paragraph 4.

The sole offense for which Julius Streicher was ordered put to death was having served as publisher and editor of Der Sturmer in the early 1930s, years before the Nazis actually carried out the genocide. In this capacity he was accused of penning a long series of virulently anti-Jewish editorials and "news" stories, usually accompanied by cartoons and other images graphically depicting Jews in extraordinarily derogatory fashion.

These write ups, the prosecution asserted, had done much to "dehumanize" the Jews in the minds of the German public. In turn, such dehumanization had made it possible - or at least easier - for average Germans to later indulge in the outright liquidation of the Jews.
Countering the Julius Streichers of our age, July 31, 2005, 2nd paragraph.

Undoubtedly, Jews suffered genocide at the hands of Hitler. Irrespective of anyone’s denial or acceptance, holocaust did take place.
Israel! Get in Line, Please, August1, 2005, 4th paragraph.

Fascist Nazi history need not be dwelt on further here. It led to the horrors and destruction of World War II and the Holocaust.
Democratic Fascism, May 04th, 2005, Media Monitors, Paragraph 9.

Neither does the history of fascism need to be dwelt on further here. The ideology of the corporate state led to the horrors and destruction of World War II and the Holocaust.
Fascism in context - III, June 2006, Paragraph 18.

What [Islamophobes] need is a total solution — annihilation of a people. If Hitler could not succeed in this kind of struggle, no one will.
In America: The Enemies Within (Part - III), Pakistan Times 2004, 2nd last para

We need to be more concerned with those who have failed to recognize the true nature of the part the German people played in the implementation of Hitler’s plans.
Wake up America, 2nd paragraph.

At each phase of its development, the major thrust of Nazi policy was to employ the maximum feasible eliminationist options possible given the existing opportunity and constraints. And Hitler very clearly opted for extermination at the first moment that the policy became practical. Wake up America, 5th paragraph.

My Views as a Muslim about Terrorism and Violence

In a few words, neither is Jihad terrorism, nor are the World Trade Centre kind of attacks Jihad.
Demystifying Jihad, May 18, 2004, Page 14, top highlighted text

“The religious leadership failed to realize that using Islam for votes will only intensify sectarian feuds, for each religious party is forced to make its own version of Islam different from that of its rivals.

The biggest misfortune to have befallen modern Islamic movements is that, faced with defeat or suppression in electoral process, they adopted the path of violence. The use of guerrilla warfare and other forms of violence by Islamic revivalists which has proved counterproductive constitutes a major blunder in methodology on their part.

Because of the above-mentioned two deviations from the methodology of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH), 7 modern Islamic revivalism has so far failed to reach its goal. As a result, a genuine Islamic system has not taken root anywhere in today’s Muslim world so far.”
(End of Democracy, 2003, Conclusion: Page 218).

As claimed by 'moderates,' we have yet to hear from any 'extremist' Muslim that military “Jihad is the first option and Ijthihad is not an option at all.”32 The difference is in how we define 'militants.' The problem is not that other Muslims do not reject indiscriminate violence to achieve political ends; it is that they should reject it both from Muslims as well as from the warmongers sitting in Western capitals. Whereas the extremists in Bush and Blair administrations and pseudo-intellectuals, such as Daniel Pipes, expect all 'moderate' Muslims to do only one job: to criticize such elements among Muslims but support and justify US aggression throughout the world, e.g. Far East Asia, South and Central America, Middle East, etc.

The reality is that there are very specific and clear principles for engaging in war for Muslims. A study of these Islamic principles shows that there is no place for the kind of jingoistic policy and murderous acts.
(End of Democracy, 2003, Page 229).

Avoiding violence and bloodshed is the basic principle of the Islamic faith and every Muslim is required to stand firm against repression, violence and terrorism as an Islamic obligation. In practical terms, more Muslims die from terrorist attacks than any other group and unnecessary violence will never lead to the establishment of an Islamic State.
(End of Democracy, Page 232).

Those who perpetrate violence in the name of Islam distort and abuse the texts in the name of their cause. At the same time, we must not forget that the texts themselves have nothing to do with the ongoing chain of violence and therefore, are not to be blamed and should not be the subject of scrutiny by anyone who qualifies himself as a “moderate.”
(End of Democracy, page 232 and 233).

Despite Muslims’ unanimous opposition to terrorism, religious intolerance and the oppression of women, these remain the most prevalent images of the Muslim faith throughout the Western world. Such popular misconceptions about Islam and Islamic movements have made it particularly difficult to challenge the US and its allies’ unjust policies.
(End of Democracy, page 243).

The proposed international 'truth and reconciliation' commissions need to be independent and without any power, with anyone, to veto the truth. There are too many good Muslims and good Americans, that would hate to see an escalation of war between people who should be best partners in peace, except for the acts of a few terrorists, dishonest leaders and broken promises on all sides. Unfortunately, any future acts of terrorism against the people of the United States or the continued unequal treatment, occupation, repression and killing of Muslims around the world will not lead to a greater understanding of the problem or justice for people who do have genuine grievances. The US cannot make the world a better place by cutting down all the laws while crusading against the devil in others. All of us need to honestly face the mirror, no matter how hard it may be and how long it may take.
(War on Islam, Conclusion: page 252).

Here we must keep in mind that the Qur’anic injunctions about Jihad do not mean that Muslims are to drop everything and needlessly engage in fighting with non-Muslims.
(Demystifying Jihad, May 18, 2004, Page 7, column 2, paragraph 3).

There are some conditions for the legality of Jihad. Amongst them, for example, are the following: the other side intends to attack Muslims; it creates a barrier against the call of Islam, meaning that it negates the freedom to make that call.
(Demystifying Jihad, May 18, 2004,Page 8, Column 1, second paragraph).

A full understanding of the requirements of a Muslim leads us to the conclusion that Jihad is not a vague, detached or isolated concept of needless war and violence.

Islam does not give permission to go to war based on conjecture, vengeance, lies and deception as we witness in the present day world. Nor is war, killings and victory on earth the ultimate objectives.

(Demystifying Jihad, May 18, 2004, Page 11, top, highlighted text)

What we have learnt so far is that the Qur’an has fundamentally defined Jihad not as a war of aggression or of superiority or of authority, but of resistance against aggression – for the protection of humanity, not its destruction.
(Demystifying Jihad, May 18, 2004, Page 10, highlighted box on the left).

Permission to fight has been given to those whom others have come to fight. Which means: “OMuslims, now that the polytheist rejecters have come to fight against you, fight them.”In reality this is a state of defense. This permission is given so that the oppressed should defend themselves.
(Demystifying Jihad, May 18, 2004, Page 11, highlighted text on the right.)

Permission to fight has been given to those whom others have come to fight. Which means: “O Muslims, now that the polytheist rejecters have come to fight against you, fight them.” In reality this is a state of defense - a state where believers are made to fight against injustice.
(Demystifying Jihad, May 18, 2004, Page 11, left column, bottom).

What we have learnt so far is that the Qur’an has fundamentally defined Jihad not as a war of aggression or of superiority or of authority, but of resistance against aggression - for the protection of humanity, not its destruction.
(Demystifying Jihad, May 18, 2004, Page 12, left column, first para.)

No one should be obliged to accept the religion of Islam, let alone imposing it on others by force.
(Demystifying Jihad, May 18, 2004, Page 12, left side, highted text).

So Islam does not say that others must be forced into Islam or a way of life should be imposed upon them…Islam says that whoever wants to believe will believe, and whoever does not want to, will not.

There is also this verse: “And if your Rabb willed all the earth would have believed, in total, will you then compel them to be believers.” (10:99) Jihad is, thus, not for forcing non-Muslims into believing Islam or for imposing a way of life on non-Muslims.

Allah told Prophet Muhammad (PBUH):“O Prophet! it is as if you intend to kill yourself because they have not believed as if you want to destroy yourself. Do not be so full of grief for their sakes. We, with Our Power of Creation and Might, if we wanted to force the people to belief we could easily have done so. If we willed it, we could send down from the sky a sign to overshadow their neck, for them to be submissive.” (26:4)
(Demystifying Jihad, May 18, 2004, Page 12, left column).

Leaving this point aside, however, we see that in the basic definition of Jihad, there is no difference of opinion and all the researchers are agreed that Jihad and war must be for the sake of defense. The differences of opinion that do exist are minor ones, and concern the question of what it is that has to be defended.

The sacredness of fighting in defense lies not in defending one’s self, but in defending 'the right.' Defense of the rights of humanity are, thus, holier. For example, freedom is reckoned as one of the sacred values of humanity and not limited to an individual or nation

The Qur’an says, religion cannot be imposed because faith has to enter their hearts. That is what a sword cannot do. To the Bedouin Arabs, who had recently accepted Islam without having perceived the nature of its essence and without Islam having influenced their hearts, who were claiming to have “faith,” the Qur’an gave this reply:

“The Arabs say “we have faith,” tell them: “you do not yet have faith, say “we have accepted Islam” for faith has not yet entered your hearts.” (49:14)

If someone claims that the Qur’an or Sunnah incite violence for imposing Islam, it is absolutely ridiculous because the simple logic mentioned above pales by comparison to the wisdom displayed by the Qur’an and the life of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH).
(Demystifying Jihad, May 18, 2004, Page 14, right column).

Furthermore, Islam does not say Muslims must fight to impose Islam, for Tawheed is something that cannot be imposed because it is faith. Faith is built on discernment and choice, and discernment is not influenced by force. The same applies to choice. “La ikraha fid-din” — there is no compulsion in Deen — means Muslims must not compel anyone for faith is not something that can be forced upon someone.
(Demystifying Jihad, May 18, 2004, Page 15, Conlcusion. second last paragraph).

This book is dedicated to all those who are suffering undermodern day fascism, and believe that both Muslims and non-Muslims are equal human beings with equal rights to freedom, liberty and self-rule. It is for those who reject any way of life imposed upon them by force.
(After Fascism, see Dedication of the Book)

What is the next step for Muslims and non-Muslims who are not interested in wars and domination, and who are helpless before the might of the oppressors, but want change nevertheless?

The truth-tellers’ strategy of exposing the facts rightly began by focusing on the atrocities of the United States and its allies over the last century. Now a longer-term approach is needed, one that will serve human interests and human values, and one that will ensure an equal opportunity for all to freely live their own way of life.
(After Fascism, Page 12 para 1)

Where are the Muslim and non-Muslim majority worlds heading? Does the ultimate tragedy of human history await us, or is there some light at the end of the tunnel?
(After Fascism, Page 13, 2nd para).

The good news is that besides those individuals waging wars to impose a convoluted form of democracy on the Muslim world, there are people—mostly non-Muslims—who are struggling as a counter force. They expose the truth that would provide a viable collective solution for bringing the values of liberty and freedom into the structure of the state. This struggle on the part of reformers in the United States and elsewhere is the way of a future, pregnant with the possibility of Muslim success in their struggle for self-determination and self-rule.
(After Fascism, Page 14 firs para).

Besides, both Muslims and non-Muslims struggling against the fascism of our age need to demystify the myths, which have not only pitted Muslims and non-Muslims against each other, but also Muslims against Muslims and vice versa.
(After Fascism, Page 14 last paragraph).

Muslims and non-Muslims struggling for liberty and freedom, nevertheless, can reduce the impact of all these consequences with their struggle for synthesis rather than giving up or joining the fascists’ struggle for supremacy.
(After Fascism, Page 241, paragraph 1).

Muslims and non-Muslims need a mutual understanding to join in a common struggle to avoid unnecessary losses as the totalitarian forces see power and dominance slip out of their hands and go ever more out of control.
(The Ultimate Tragedy, Preface, second paragraph).

With acknowledgements to Abid Ullah Jan, Director of the Independent Center for Stategic Studies & Analysis.
Abid Ullah Jan is a Journalist, Writer and Social Worker who lives in Canada.


  1. Does anybody think Christian Fasism is anything new?

    Emperor Constantine declares Christianity as the only official religion of the Roman Empire. At Dydima, Asia Minor, he sacks the Oracle of God Apollo and tortures its Pagan priests to death. He also evicts the Gentiles from Mt. Athos and destroys all local Hellenic Temples.

    The Roman empire is alive and well, and has been since the year 324. Remember that the Queen is appointed by "god" to rule over us. We are, in effect, an occupied country.

    Yea, well I don't like the Fascist god Jehovah, and if you don't think Jehovah is a fascist, just pick up a Bible and read the Old Testament. His favourite obsession seems to be killing first born children.

    Christianity was radically altered by Constantine to serve the state and has been serving the state ever since.

  2. Very important comments about the perversion of Constantinian 'christianity'. I was always horrified at the thought of this psychopath they called Yahweh.

    Apparently he was actually an ET called Enlil who made himself into a god and terrorized his followers. Now that I can accept as closer to historical truth.

    Pity Judaism cannot but they're hooked into their nonsensical dogma as are 'Christians' in theirs.

    What to do?

    BTW, Abid Ullah Jan, in his book THE ULTIMATE TRAGEDY, challenges our complacent acceptance of de facto fascist colonialism as 'democracy', a concept that we must reassess anew even as the dark clouds of Mordor envelop the world.