Anti-Semitism in Islam

Dossier: Israel – DIESES DOSSIER AUF DEUTSCH LESEN

– Why I Am a Zionist
– Did Israel violate international law in Gaza?
– UNRWA: An Arsonist Playing Firefighter
– Must We Condemn the Jewish Settlements in the West Bank?
– Anti-Semitism in Islam
– Anti-Semitism from the Left
– Is solidarity with Israel unchristian?
– My Statement on October 7
– Why I’m doing this

Anti-Semitism in Islam

Which form of anti-Semitism is more dangerous: that of the far right—or that of political Islam?

There is no doubt that right-wing anti-Semitism, as practiced by the Nazis, has caused the greatest harm in history. But which form of anti-Semitism poses the greatest threat to Jewish life today? That is another question.

Today, the greatest threat to Jewish life comes from political Islam. Or am I mistaken? Does what the terrorists funded by Iran and Qatar are doing in Israel have nothing at all to do with Islam? That, at any rate, is what Muslims have repeatedly assured me.

What is the reality of the situation? How widespread is anti-Semitism in the Muslim world? To what extent is it religiously motivated? What role do other influences play, including the lingering effects of Nazi propaganda? And to what extent does anti-Semitism from Muslim countries shape public opinion in the West?

A Personal Perspective

As a teacher of German as a second language, I have met many Muslim men and women. In classes for young refugees and in political science courses, we have also discussed antisemitism. I am happy to say that my experiences from these encounters and conversations have been consistently positive.

In 2017, in Wiesbaden, I took part—along with two German classes for young migrants, most of whom were Muslim—in the dedication of a memorial stele commemorating Jewish victims of the Nazis1. Everyone expressed their sympathy by attaching stones bearing the names of those murdered to the stele. My impression was that they did so voluntarily and with sincere compassion.

In the years that followed, I repeatedly heard from Muslim men and women how much they abhor the violence perpetrated by Hamas and other terrorist organizations. Some spoke of the anti-Semitic indoctrination they were subjected to in their home countries. For example, a Syrian boy was forced to line up with his class every day during his entire school career to perform the Hitler salute. Hatred of Jews was thus undeniably instilled in the most abhorrent way. Yet, at least in the case of this student, the method does not seem to have taken root.

Just recently, a Muslim woman implored me not to believe the negative media coverage about Muslims: The vast majority, according to the young Syrian woman, abhor terrorism and want to live in peace with everyone—including, of course, Jews.

My personal experiences as a teacher have therefore been consistently positive. I keep that in mind time and again. For me, it is a significant part of the truth. But it is not the whole truth.

Irritations

If, in the years since 2016, I had dealt with Muslim migrants not as a teacher but as a police officer, I would certainly have gained a different—and equally one-sided—impression.

I have always viewed it positively that Germany has taken in several million refugees since late 20152. And even today, I still find it valuable that we were able to help so many people who fled, for example, the Syrian civil war or the terror of the Taliban. The fact that most refugees before the war in Ukraine were Muslims made no difference to me. And I still believe that most Muslims in Germany pose no threat.

Nevertheless, my attitude toward immigration has since begun to crack.

Two facts have particularly troubled me:

First, there was the violence following a soccer match between Ajax Amsterdam and Maccabi Tel Aviv on November 7, 2024, in Amsterdam. Israeli fans were chased through the streets, kicked, beaten, and forced with brutal violence to say “Free Palestine.” The pogrom had been planned by Islamists with ties to Hamas; those involved were primarily young Arabs3.

On the other hand, I was disturbed to learn that Israeli tourists no longer feel safe in most European countries. One exception is Hungary. Hungary has become a favorite travel destination for Israelis. The reason? In Hungary, there are hardly any Muslim migrants who could threaten Jews.

Apparently, the safety of Israelis is threatened wherever the proportion of Muslim migrants is high.

As for the situation in Germany, I was particularly struck by the experience of an Israeli woman who has visited Germany repeatedly over the years. She told us during an online panel hosted by the German-Israeli Society that the situation had never been as oppressive for her as it was during her last visit. Whereas she had been able to move about freely before October 7, 2023, she was now under police protection and, on the advice of her protectors, had to hide her Star of David time and again.

An eerie phrase comes to mind. I think I heard it from Gad Saad, but I can no longer find the source. Saad is a professor and podcaster who, as a young man, had to flee Lebanon with his family because, as Jews, they were no longer safe there. If I recall correctly, Saad said—drawing on his personal life experience—4: “Muslims are peaceful until they are not, and then you better run.”

As a five-year-old, Saad witnessed—completely unexpectedly for him at the time—a hysterical crowd chanting “Death to the Jews” following the death of Egyptian President Nasser. The family fled to Canada, where, as a young man, Saad played soccer with Arabs, whose language he speaks fluently. As long as they thought he was an Arab, they gave free rein to their hatred of Jews. The way they incited hatred against the Jews—according to Saad, even Hitler and Goebbels would have found it excessive.

I cannot imagine my Muslim students speaking so hostilely about Jews. So how am I supposed to gain a realistic impression of the extent of the threat posed to Jews by the Muslim population? And how am I supposed to find out what this has to do with their religion?

To learn more, I first look at poll results and other statistics. Then I examine Islamic sources—the Quran, the hadiths, and others—to determine their stance on Jews. Since I haven’t read all of these sources myself, I rely on the analysis provided by Abdel-Hakim Ourghi in *The Jews in the Quran*.

One should not expect too much insight from a study of the sources alone. After all, how these sources have been interpreted is also important. For this reason, I also examine, on the one hand, the history of Islamic-Jewish relations since Muhammad. On the other hand, I introduce several particularly influential theologians of the 19th and 20th centuries. And I will explain how their—predominantly anti-Semitic—theology has influenced the powerful Muslim Brotherhood, its terrorist offshoots, and their state-backed supporters.

The fact that I draw on the work of experts does not make me an expert. But even if I were one, you should not rely on me. For this field is teeming with experts who have an ideological agenda that does not serve the pursuit of truth. Even experts can lead people astray.

Anti-Semitism Among Muslims: Some Figures

How widespread is anti-Semitism among Muslims in Germany and worldwide?

Islamic religious educator Mouhanad Khorchide provides some insight in his book *Without Judaism, There Is No Islam: The Denied Source*, published in 2025. I have taken most of the following figures from him.

In predominantly Muslim countries, attitudes toward Jews are negative almost everywhere. In Lebanon, Jordan, Egypt, the West Bank, and Gaza, at least 95% of the population holds negative views toward Jews. Morocco has the lowest rate among Arab countries, though it still stands at 80%. Among Arab Israelis, “only” 35% hold negative views toward Jews.

Among Germany’s Muslims—who number about five and a half million5 —anti-Semitic attitudes are less widespread than in the Arab world, but significantly more common than in the general German population. This does not apply to Muslims from Southeast Europe, but it holds all the more true for Muslims with Arab or Turkish roots. Anti-Semitism is more prevalent among young Muslims than among older ones, and more so among religious Muslims than among secular ones.

But how dangerous is this anti-Semitism? It is assessed based on agreement with statements, not all of which are equally threatening. For example, someone who believes that Jews are more loyal to Israel than to the country where they live does not thereby become a threat.  

So let’s not just ask about anti-Semitic attitudes, but also about the level of danger they pose. Let’s begin by looking at the early sources of Islam: Does taking these sources literally incite one to violence against Jews?

What do the early sources of Islam say about violence against Jews?

First of all: We must not draw direct conclusions about the propensity for violence among Muslims today from the early sources of Islam: What is written in the sources is one thing—how Muslims interpret these sources today is another.

There are also Muslims who are completely unfamiliar with these sources. In some countries, it is common to read the Quran in Arabic without understanding its content. And in German prisons, there are extremists who are willing to kill in the name of Islam without having learned even the bare minimum about it: Mouhanad Khorchide, an Islamic religious educator, spoke with an incarcerated dangerous individual who did not even know that Muhammad had been dead for centuries6.

What has come down to us about Muhammad’s life comes primarily from works written long after his death. Whether everything actually happened as recorded in them is therefore a matter of debate. But be that as it may, many Muslims have no doubt about it. From these sources, then, we at least learn what many Muslims believe.

So let’s ask what a Muslim finds in the early sources of his faith. In addition to the Quran, these include the hadiths, the Sunnah, Sharia, an 8th-century biography of Muhammad, and other early Islamic historical works.

In Abdel-Hakim Ourghi’s *The Jews in the Quran*, you will find ample textual evidence supporting the following account, as well as insights into the scholarly controversies surrounding the history of Islam.

Peace-loving Muslims find many passages in the Quran to which they can refer. For example, in Sura 2, verse 190, we read that wars may be waged only for the purpose of self-defense. Suicide is forbidden—which, for a peace-loving Muslim, naturally also applies to suicide bombings (4:29, 2:195). Killing people is permitted only within narrowly defined limits, for example, as punishment for murder (7). And as for Israel: A passage from the Quran can also be cited in support of Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state (17:104): “And after him We said to the Children of Israel: ‘Dwell in the land (Palestine); and when the time of the second promise comes, We will bring you there as a multitude, gathered together (from among the various peoples).’”

However, the Quran also contains suras with a different orientation, such as: “Kill the idolaters wherever you find them, take them captive, besiege them, and lie in wait for them at every place where you can ambush them” (9:5). Other classical and modern Islamic source texts also view jihad—understood in a military sense—as a duty of the faithful and a defining characteristic of their religion8.

As controversial as jihadists such as the terrorist ideologue Sayyid Qutb may be, they are evidently so much in line with the letter of the early Islamic canon that Muslim clerics find it difficult to condemn them as heretics9.

So what do the early Islamic sources say about Muhammad’s relationship with the Jews?

“You have your religion, and I have mine,” Muhammad is often quoted as saying to demonstrate his religious tolerance (Quran 109:6).

This statement dates from Muhammad’s early days in Mecca, before his migration to Medina. At that time, he had no political power and had to come to terms with his non-Muslim surroundings.

Later, after he had gained political and military power in Medina, his message took on a different tone: God had transformed the Jews into “abominable apes” because of their disobedience (Quran 7:166). They were hypocrites and had killed God’s messengers (Quran 5:51). One should not befriend them (Quran 5:51, among others).

However, as long as Muhammad lived in Mecca—until 622 CE—he engaged in nonviolent dialogue with people of other faiths. Among the Jews and Christians, he found scholars whom he gladly consulted on religious matters (Quran 10:94).

Even after his emigration to Medina, where he was held in high esteem as a prophet, he continued to engage in dialogue with the Jews in his community for some time. He did so as long as he hoped that they would recognize him and convert to Islam. However, when he had to accept that the Jews would not abandon their traditional faith, he changed his stance. In 622, Muhammad had still committed himself to protecting the Jews in the “Constitution of Medina”; yet it soon became worthless—presumably not even worth the material—on which it had been recorded.

A turning point was the Battle of Badr on March 19, 624, in which Muhammad’s army defeated the Meccan polytheists in order to impose his religion on them. Even before that, he had had the Jewish poet Abu ‘Afak beheaded because he had mocked Muhammad in his poems. The Jewish poetess Asma’ bint Marwan and the poet Ka’b b. al-Asraf, who was also Jewish, likewise paid for their mocking verses with their lives.

Islamist terrorists still follow the example of these political murders today when they eliminate unwelcome critics.

After the victory at Badr, Muhammad felt strong enough to attack the three local Jewish tribes. In 624, he gave the Jews of the Banu Qainuqa tribe an ultimatum: Islam or death. Only the intercession of an Arab leader prevented a bloodbath. The Qainuqa were expelled, and their possessions filled Muhammad’s war chest.

The next Jewish tribe was targeted in 625, at a time when Muhammad needed to restore his authority after losing a battle. The Jewish Banu an-Nadir presented themselves as easy prey. They were expelled and were not even allowed to take the yield of their date harvest with them.

When Muhammad finally attacked the last remaining Jewish tribe, the Banu Quraiza, in 627, the matter did not end with expulsion. The Quran recounts inhumane punishments such as crucifixion and the severing of limbs (69:30–37, 5:33–34, 76:4). Between 600 and 900 men were beheaded, and 1,000 children and women were enslaved.  

Afterward, Muhammad continued his campaigns: In 628, he subjugated the Jews of the oasis of Khaybar, about 150 kilometers north of Medina, and forced them to pay half of their annual harvest as tribute from then on. Shortly thereafter, he subjugated three more Jewish settlements.

Khaybar was the first territory to be violently conquered by Muhammad’s community. Anti-Israel agitators worldwide view this as a triumph and chant: “Khaybar, Khaybar, O Jews! Muhammad’s army will soon return!”

Muslims who regard the hadiths as binding find in them a statement—whether alleged or actual—by Muhammad, which Hamas, among others, uses to justify its terrorism10: “The Hour of the Hereafter will not come until the Muslims fight the Jews and kill them, so that the Jews hide behind stones and trees. But the stones and the trees will say: ‘O Muslim! O servant of God, a Jew is hiding behind me. Come and kill him!”

On October 7, 2023, it was not trees but Palestinian civilians who betrayed hidden Israelis to the “servants of God”—as the Hamas terrorists saw themselves—so that they could be shot.

How harmonious were Muslim-Jewish relations in the Middle Ages?

What is the truth behind the widespread notion that during the Middle Ages, Jews lived safely in Muslim-ruled areas and were able to practice their religion unmolested?

In a direct comparison with the situation of Jews in Christian-ruled areas at the time, the Muslim-ruled areas probably did come out significantly better overall. But given the Christian atrocities, that’s hardly a feat.

Even under Muslim rule, Jews were repeatedly subjected to pogroms, persecution, and expulsions11. Despised by those around them, they were allowed to practice their religion only in secret. At times, they were forbidden to build synagogues and were not permitted to repair dilapidated ones. As “protected subjects,” they were required to pay a poll tax. When paying this tax, they had to submit to humiliating rituals, were publicly slapped, and beaten with a stick. Added to this were rules governing behavior and dress, which ultimately served as a model for the Nazis’ “Jewish star.”

It is true that Sephardic Jews found refuge in the Ottoman Empire after the Alhambra Edict of 1492 ordered the expulsion of all Jews from Castile and Aragon. And they were indeed better off there than in the Christian West (Ourghi 28). Nevertheless, historians view the much-vaunted harmony between Muslims and Jews during the “golden age” of Andalusia as little more than “a persistent legend clouded by naïve romanticism” (Weinstock12).

Arab Jews in the 20th Century

The situation of Arab Jews became utterly catastrophic in the 20th century. Since 1948, over 800,000 of them have been expelled from their homeland, where their ancestors had lived for 2,000 years. This represents 99.5% of the population. In Iran, following the 1979 revolution, Jews faced hostility that forced over 70,000 of them to emigrate. Today, approximately 8,000 to 15,000 Jews still live there, constantly threatened by the next wave of anti-Semitism. In the Arab countries, there are now only a few thousand left.

Algeria, considered by postcolonial ideologues to be the model country of the anticolonial liberation struggle, was a country without Jewish citizens after the War of Independence in 1962. The roughly one hundred Jews who may live there again today can do so only because they do not identify themselves as Jews13.

What do the theologians say?

How are early Islamic sources and the history of Islam interpreted today? What does the imam at the mosque have to say about this?

Certainly, research would reveal a wide range of interpretations, many of which pose no threat to Israel or the free West. But I can only speculate on that. In 2017, journalist Constantin Schreiber painted a rather negative picture of Germany based on visits to 13 German mosques: “It was almost always about ‘us’ and ‘them,’” he said in an interview, “us Muslims and the others—the Germans, the infidels. Integration was portrayed more as a threat to pure doctrine14.” Schreiber heard no calls for violence. Nor were there any sermons that contributed anything positive to coexistence with the majority society: “… at worst, life in Germany, democracy, and our society were rejected. I would love to cite a positive example—a sermon that radiates openness to the world, one that builds a bridge to life in Germany. Unfortunately, my visits to mosques did not yield such an example.15”

Let us now focus on the theology of the Muslim Brotherhood. Of all modern jihadist groups, it is the most influential, with connections to jihadists around the world16.

Just how dangerous the Muslim Brotherhood is was demonstrated, among other places, in Sudan. There, the Muslim Brotherhood offshoot NIF17 gained influence over the government in the 1990s and, with its Islamization project, wreaked a terrible bloodbath18.

The Muslim Brotherhood are Sunnis, like about 85% of all Muslims worldwide. However, their ideas have also found resonance among the 15% of Muslims who are Shi’a. For example, Ruhullah Khomeini and the clerics associated with him were strongly influenced by teachers of the Muslim Brotherhood and their predecessors.

Among the most well-known thinkers of the Muslim Brotherhood are the Salafists Jamal al-Din al-Afghani (1839–1897), Muhammad Abduh (1849–1905), and Rašīd Riḍā (1865–1935). Also included are the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, Hassan al-Banna (1906–1949), as well as Sayyid Abū l-Aʿlā Maudūdī (1903–1979) and Sayyid Qutb (1906–1966).

Israeli journalist and analyst Haviv Rettig Gur has traced the sources of these men’s hatred toward Israel. The following account is based on the podcast episode “Why don’t Palestinians have a state?”, in which he was interviewed by Josh Szeps19.

In the 19th century, al-Afghani and Muhammad Abduh reflected on the strength of the European powers and the weakness of the Ottoman Empire as well as the colonized Muslim countries: How could it be that Christians are so much more successful than Muslims, when Islam is the only true revelation, charged with conquering and redeeming all of humanity?

Apparently, they surmised, God had punished the Muslims because they no longer led lives as pure as they had in the early days of Islam. They imagined those times to be more ideal than they likely ever were. Back then, when Muslims were still filled with piety, they were successful conquerors. In the meantime, they have been influenced by the modern way of life. To revive the glorious days of the past, they must return to their original purity.

Viewing matters through the lens of Islam’s weakness, Rida also engaged with Zionism—and at first, he even did so with a certain degree of sympathy. In Zionism, he saw the desire of the oppressed Jews to return to their true nature. That was exactly what he wanted for Muslims as well. Rida viewed it positively that Theodor Herzl wanted to appeal to the sultan to request autonomy for the Jews under Ottoman rule. Autonomy under Muslim rule—Rida had no objection to that.

But then Rida continued to follow the Zionist debates. He read about the despair and fear of the Jews in the face of the looming collapse of old Europe. Empires were crumbling, and nations were developing a national pride in which there was no place for the Jews. Jews were soon being persecuted more severely than they had been in centuries.

That’s when Rida began to understand: What the Jews need is not some form of partial autonomy. They need national self-determination—and on Muslim soil. But that would be a theological catastrophe for Muslims.

A theological catastrophe? Why? Well, the fact that Egypt was under British rule—that was something one could live with temporarily. After all, the British were still the most powerful empire in world history at the time. But the Jews? They were the weakest people on earth. Despised outsiders who had to flee pogroms with nothing but the clothes on their backs.

And Islam was supposed to let itself be pushed back by these pitiful, starving wretches?

In 1898, Rida warned the Arabs of Palestine: “You will allow yourselves to be displaced by the weakest people in all of civilization, who have been driven out of every other country. In your own land, the weakest will be the masters.”

If the Jews can drive back Islam, how weak must Islam be! This humiliation must not be tolerated under any circumstances, Rida believed.

None of this had anything to do with Palestinian nationalism. Even Rida’s student, Hassan al-Banna, had never heard of it. Civil rights, a one-state or two-state solution, military rule—none of that interested him in the least. What preoccupied him was the weakness of Islam and how to overcome it.

That was the intellectual backdrop against which Hassan al-Banna founded the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt in 1928.

What I don’t understand is this:

The region of the world inhabited by Arabs is vast. It spans nearly the entire Near and Middle East, the entire Arabian Peninsula, and all of North Africa. On a map depicting this enormous region, Israel, Gaza, and the West Bank are barely visible—they are so tiny. Why on earth would it be such a terrible humiliation if the Arabs were to cede an even tiniest fraction of this tiny speck of their massive region to the Jews, so that the vast Arab nation and the tiny Jewish people could coexist in peace? Is the pride of Islam supposed to stand or fall on this?

Well, Hamas, a subsidiary of the Muslim Brotherhood founded in 1987, saw it that way. To leave no doubt about its intransigence, it declared Palestine to be sacred Islamic heartland in its 1988 founding charter. No non-Muslim people may declare independence there. In sacred Islamic heartland, nothing other than submission to Islam is out of the question.

Against this backdrop, even the most die-hard “Free Palestine” activist should realize what “freedom” means in the context of Palestine: submission. What al-Banna instructed the Hamas terrorists to do was to “liberate” Palestine from all non-Islamic control. By this, he meant nothing less than the complete subjugation of all people to Sharia law. He explicitly called for the reintroduction of such horrific medieval punishments as flogging, stoning, and the amputation of limbs20.

Influences from Europe

The Hamas charter is not based solely on Islamic sources and Islamic theology. European anti-Semitism is also reflected in it.

One piece of European anti-Semitic propaganda that Hamas also cites is the “Protocols of the Elders of Zion,” a hateful, mendacious pamphlet from the early 20th century that has been circulated in Arabic since the 1920s.

What does the “Protocols of the Elders of Zion” say?

It accuses Jews of deliberately spreading subversive teachings and of fomenting political divisions and social tensions. Envy and hatred, strife and war, famine and epidemics are said to be their doing. They are alleged to control the press, elevate unqualified individuals to high political office, and impose their will on governments through terror and assassinations. Thus weakened, the nations would be ripe for the “King of the Blood of Zion,” who would ultimately seize power in all states simultaneously through a coup d’état. All religions except the Jewish faith would then be banned.

The fact that the London Times exposed this nonsense as a forgery as early as 1921 did nothing to halt the triumphant spread of the “Protocols” in the Arab world. Their authenticity is repeatedly asserted there, as was the case on October 26, 2001, in the Egyptian newspaper Al-Akhbar—citing an anti-Semitic handbook from the Nazi era.

The “Protocols” were not the only anti-Semitic diatribe to poison the atmosphere in the Arab world since the second half of the 19th century. But they were one of the most influential. In 1970, the “Protocols” reached number one on the non-fiction bestseller list in Lebanon. To this day, they remain—alongside Hitler’s “Mein Kampf”—among the most widely read texts in the Arab world.

Hamas is, not least, a diligent student of the Nazis. The Nazis’ hatred of the Jews was spread throughout the region by a Palestinian “chief Nazi” whom the Hamas terrorists also revere: Mohammed Amin al-Husseini (1895/-6/-7–1974), Grand Mufti of Jerusalem from 1921 onward. He was recognized as the leader of the Palestinians by the British and later by the Nazis. His hatred of the Jews knew no bounds. Time and again, he appealed to Muslims: “Kill all Jews wherever you find them!” He mobilized Muslims for the Waffen-SS and attempted to prevent Jews from fleeing the Nazis in Eastern Europe. He likely planned a Holocaust in the Middle East in collaboration with Adolf Eichmann. What is certain is that he was aware of the plan to exterminate all European Jews and lobbied his friend Hitler to extend the Holocaust to Palestine. al-Husseini knew what he was talking about: he had seen several Nazi concentration camps with his own eyes.

After the war, al-Husseini ensured that the Arab states rejected the UN Partition Plan (two-state solution). He had Palestinian Arabs who wanted to negotiate with the Jews assassinated. In 1948, he promoted the war against Israel.

Amin al-Husseini is still revered today as a father figure by the two leading Palestinian terrorist organizations, Hamas and the PLO. The supposedly moderate president of the Palestinian Authority, Mahmoud Abbas, is no exception. As recently as February 15, 2026, the cornerstone was laid in the West Bank for a multipurpose hall under Abbas’s patronage. Its name: Grand Mufti Haj Amin al-Husseini Hall21.

It was this tireless traveler on the subject of the Holocaust who helped the Nazis’ anti-Semitic hate propaganda gain a foothold in Arab countries. For it was al-Husseini who provided the appropriate propaganda soundtrack as an advisor to Radio Zeesen, the Nazi broadcaster for Arab countries. After all, he knew what resonated with the Muslim target audience. And so people throughout the Middle East and North Africa learned musical refrains such as “Allah in heaven, Hitler on earth.”

The success was resounding. On April 26, Goebbels wrote in his diary: “The four hundred million of the Muslim-Arab population are entirely at our disposal.” And the hatred sown back then continues to have an impact to this day. It was carried forward, among others, by such influential listeners as Sayyid Qutb and—Zeesen also broadcast in Farsi—the future revolutionary leader Khomeini22.

What did al-Husseini demand in return for his support of Nazi propaganda? “Our fundamental condition for cooperation with Germany was to have a free hand to exterminate every single Jew from Palestine and the Arab world,” he wrote in his memoirs23.

While hatred of Jews was already present in early Islamic sources and in the theology of the Muslim Brotherhood, under the influence of Nazi propaganda it developed into a ruthlessness that transcends all human bounds.

Anyone who does not wish to expel or murder the Jews of Israel need not even run in elections in Gaza and the West Bank. This applies not only to Hamas but also to the PLO. In its founding charter of 1964, the PLO called for the destruction of Israel, just as it did in the revised version of 1968. Arafat explained what this meant, among other things, in 1972 after the Munich massacre: All Jews are legitimate targets of terrorism24. The tactical acceptance of a two-state solution has done nothing to change this: According to the PLO’s interpretation, this solution would amount to two Palestinian states25. And as for the declarations of intent from the 1990s, according to which the anti-Israel passages were to be removed from the PLO Charter: They were never implemented26.

To this day, the PLO Charter explicitly rejects any peace negotiations. The negotiation and signing of the Oslo Accords do nothing to change this. In Oslo, according to Arafat, the Palestinians succeeded in getting the Israelis to “allow a Trojan horse into their midst”27. And indeed, the number of terror victims tripled in the first ten years following Oslo28.

The other Palestinian terrorist organization in government—Hamas—runs a children’s television channel in which Jews are quite matter-of-factly referred to as “the brothers of monkeys and pigs.” It introduces cute, Mickey Mouse-style characters who, after the children have grown fond of them, are murdered by Israelis. Then a new, cute character appears, conveying messages to the children that are “age-appropriate,” such as “God willing, I will eat all the Jews”29.

For its adult readers, Hamas makes it clear that the murder of all Jews is a religious duty: “The Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace,” the Hamas Charter quotes the al-Bukhari Hadith, “said: ‘The Day of Judgment will not come until the Muslims fight the Jews (and kill them).’”30

In Lebanon, it is the Iran-aligned Hezbollah that vents its boundless hatred of Jews through constant rocket attacks against Israel. Its three goals are: to eradicate what it calls “Western imperialism” in Lebanon; to transform Lebanon into an Islamic state; and to destroy Israel. The fact that it spares no civilians in its terror is part of its agenda. Among the messages broadcast by its television station are such “charming” verses as: “Write in flowing blood: Death! Death! Death to Israel! Bring death with your exploding body! Death! Death! Death to Israel!31“

When Hamas burned, raped, lynched, and kidnapped civilians in southern Israel on October 7, 2023, Hezbollah had already prepared everything for an attack on northern Israel—just as brutal, but on a vastly larger scale. Only the intervention of the Israeli army was able to prevent this nightmare32.

How is it possible that we in the West do not understand what a horrific, utterly irreconcilable enemy Israel is facing? That the slogans on our streets and in our universities are not directed against Israel’s enemies—who also want to destroy us—but against Israel, which stands on our side? That at demonstrations here, the Palestinian flag flies—whose leaders have consistently glorified genocidal terror—but not the flag of Israel, the only democracy in the Middle East?

In part, this may be because we do not listen to Israel’s enemies. That is why the following are quotes containing Islamist hate messages against Jews:33.

Islamist hate messages against Jews

“The more mercilessly you kill, the more mercy you will earn, and the greater your reward will be.”
Hasan al-Banna (1906–1949), founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, from: Five Tracts of Hasan Al-Banna

“Jews, as Jews, were by nature bent on fighting Allah’s truth and causing mischief and confusion.”
Sayyid Qutb (1906–1966), influential ideologue of the Muslim Brotherhood

“Whoever kills a Jew is assured a place in the hereafter.”
“Kill Jews wherever you find them! Their spilled blood pleases Allah!”
Mohammed Amin al-Husseini (1995, -6 or -7 to 1974), Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Nazi, Palestinian leader, father figure of Palestinian nationalism

“Kill the Jews before they kill you … It is the duty of the Egyptians to exterminate the Jews and destroy their property. … The Jews are planning to rape your women, kill your children, and exterminate you. … Your only hope of salvation lies in exterminating the Jews before they exterminate you.”
Rashid Ali al-Gaylani (1892–1965), Iraqi Prime Minister, on July 7, 1942

“We do not want peace. We want war, victory. For us, peace means the destruction of Israel—nothing else.”
Yasser Arafat (1929–2004), Nobel Peace Prize-winning “prince of terror”

“An independent state in the West Bank and Gaza is the beginning of the final solution.”
Abu Iyad, PLO leader (1977)

“Israel is waging war against all Muslims and intends to occupy all Islamic countries.”
Ruhollah Khomeini (1902–1989), revolutionary leader and head of state of Iran, October 31, 1971

“The mere fact of being born a Jew makes one an enemy of Islam.”
Ruhollah Khomeini, December 1985

“Killing Israelis is an act of religious devotion (‘ibada’).”
Motto of Izz ad-Din, the military wing of Hamas

“The only reason for a ceasefire is to prepare for the final battle … It is completely out of the question that true Islam will ever allow a Jewish state to survive in the Muslim Middle East. Israel is an aberration. It is a sacrilege against God.”
Sheikh Nizar Rayyan (1959–2009), professor of Islamic law and a leading religious authority in Hamas

“Jewish children everywhere are legitimate targets.”
Dr. Mahmoud al-Zahar, graduate of Cairo University’s Faculty of Medicine and co-founder of Hamas, January 6, 2009
(So much for the slogan “Israel, the child murderer.” Tell me what you accuse the Jews of, and I’ll tell you what you’re doing.)

“Show no mercy to the Jews, no matter what country they are in. Fight them wherever you are. Wherever you encounter them, kill them.”
Ahmad Abu Halabiya, former director of the Islamic University in Gaza, October 13, 2000

“Not a single Jew shies away from committing every conceivable evil. . . . They are all liars. They all want to distort the truth, but we possess the truth. . . . It is they who must be slaughtered and killed, as Allah the Almighty said: ‘Fight them: Allah will torment them through your hands, humiliate them, and help you defeat them, and He will ease the hearts of the believers.’“
Dr. Ahmad Abu Halabiya, President of the Islamic University of Gaza, 2000

“The Jews will not live in peace and prosperity under our rule. Betrayal will always be their nature throughout history. The day will come when the whole world will rid itself of the Jews.”
Hamas Sheikh Ibrahim Mudeiras

Does Israel have any influence over the hatred of its enemies?

What can Israel do to get its enemies to tone down their hatred?

Given the quotes above, the answer should be self-evident: nothing.

The West likes to indulge in the illusion that Israel can reach an understanding with its enemies by opening this or that border crossing, returning this or that piece of land, evacuating this or that settlement, improving conditions in the West Bank or in the prisons—which is certainly to be desired—or showing goodwill on the refugee issue. It sees the root of the conflict in the Gaza War, the occupation of the West Bank, and the alleged denial of a Palestinian state. If only the Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank could decide for themselves in free elections which terrorists they want to be tyrannized by, then peace would reign.

Unfortunately, none of this would change the hatred of Israel’s enemies in the slightest. For this hatred is ideologically motivated34. Israel’s enemies would not be satisfied until all Jews had disappeared from Israel, alive or—preferably—dead. And even that would not be enough for them: what bothers them is that Jews exist at all.

The Jews want to live; their enemies want to kill them: that is the entire conflict.

To understand this, we need only listen to Israel’s enemies. Take, for example, the Salafist sheikh Muhammad Hussein, who said on January 17, 2009, on the Egyptian television station Al-Rahma35: “If the Jews were to leave Palestine to us, would we then begin to love them? Of course not. We will never love them. Under no circumstances. The Jews are infidels—not because I say so, and not because they kill Muslims, but because … it is Allah who has said that they are infidels. … As for the Jews, your conviction should be that they are infidels. Second, that they are enemies. They are enemies, not because they have occupied Palestine. They would have been enemies even if they hadn’t occupied anything at all. … Our struggle against the Jews is eternal and will not end until the final battle …, until not a single Jew remains on earth.”

And this is not just one person’s opinion. It is the pervasive tone of anti-Semitism in Arab countries. Journalist Kenneth R. Timmerman sums it up: “Hatred of the Jews comes first. Everything else serves only to justify it.36 ”

This hatred has religious roots and was further intensified by hateful Nazi propaganda. At UN conferences against racism, such as the one in Durban on September 8, 2001, the Muslim Brotherhood distributes Arabic translations of *Mein Kampf* and the *Protocols of the Elders of Zion*37. The seeds that Germany sowed during the Nazi years continue to sprout in Arab countries. And the fruits have long since begun to return to us as well.

How Political Islam Has Long Been a Threat to Us, Too

Germany in 2026: The public has grown accustomed to the Muslim headscarf, but no Jew dares to go out on the street wearing a kippah anymore. Young people wearing keffiyehs are a common sight, but solidarity with the persecuted Jews and Israel is hardly visible anymore. Hamas is celebrated at our universities. Pictures of Hamas victims are torn down from the walls. Hate-filled pro-Palestine demonstrations are considered an expression of free speech. But the Jewish female students who no longer dare to set foot on campus are apparently not deemed worthy of protection. “Jew” is a common slur in schools. Yet the criminals who force Jewish kindergartens to rely on police protection are portrayed as honorable resistance fighters.

Is there a plan behind all this? The authors of a recent book titled “Political Islam—A Hybrid Threat to Europe: The Muslim Brotherhood’s ‘Civilization Jihad’”38 have explored this question. I would like to summarize the most important findings below.

There is a plan. It is being pursued by the Muslim Brotherhood. Their ultimate goal is the subjugation of all humanity under Islam. Among their intermediate goals is the reconquest of all formerly Muslim countries, including parts of Spain. Above all, however, the entire land “from the river to the sea”—today’s Israel, all of Gaza, the West Bank, and the Golan Heights—is to come under Muslim rule once again. In other words: Israel is to be destroyed.

It has long been known that many in the Muslim world dream of this. Anyone who frequents Arabic internet forums encounters these ideas constantly. What is less well known is that there is also a plan to achieve this goal, and an organization that is systematically pursuing it.

A plan for the Islamization of all humanity was already drafted by Muslim Brotherhood founder Hasan al-Banna during the Nazi era39. We know that the Muslim Brotherhood continues to proceed systematically today, primarily from two of the organization’s strategy papers.

The first paper outlines the plan to infiltrate European societies40. It was written in 1982 and found in 2001 during a raid in connection with the September 11 attacks. The second paper targets America41 and was written in 1991. It defines the Muslim Brotherhood’s mission as “eliminating and destroying Western civilization from within and ‘sabotaging’ its wretched house through their own hands and the hands of the faithful, so that it may be wiped out and God’s religion may triumph over all other religions.”

If this were merely the plan of a handful of unworldly fanatics, we would have nothing to worry about. But today, the Muslim Brotherhood has a powerful transnational network at its disposal. It influences government institutions, secures funding, shapes public debates, and takes legal action against its opponents. The inextricable web of groups and organizations ranges from a strictly hierarchical leadership structure to front groups and subordinate organizations, all the way to a global mass movement. This includes fundraising organizations that do not necessarily always serve charitable purposes. It is also unlikely that all members of individual organizations are even aware that these organizations belong to the Muslim Brotherhood.

The German branch of the Muslim Brotherhood is the Deutsche Muslimische Gemeinschaft e. V. (DMG). In Europe, the Muslim Brotherhood has established a fatwa council where Muslims can seek pious guidance on all matters of their daily lives42. The council ensures compliance with Sharia law and repeatedly urges Muslims to separate themselves from the surrounding society. This council explicitly defends the right of Islamic states to kill former Muslims.

Among the most powerful partners supporting the Muslim Brotherhood with enormous sums of money43 are Qatar, Kuwait, Turkey, and Iran. Turkey invests primarily in influencing kindergartens and schools, while Qatar has dedicated itself to manipulating Western universities.

The impact that Qatar’s financial injections can have on politics can be observed in France44. There, the economy is already so dependent on Qatar that France can no longer afford to show solidarity with Israel. Germany must be careful not to fall into a similar dependency: its foreign trade volume with Turkey, a partner of Hamas, amounts to 37 billion euros45.

The Muslim Brotherhood has already implemented many points of its plan. Let’s take a look at what they intend to do, what they have already undertaken, and what they have achieved.

Not all of the activities and developments I describe below are carried out with the deliberate intent of undermining our democracy. But the Muslim Brotherhood knows how to use them all to further its goals.

The state and society are to be acclimated to Islamic norms. These include, for example, prayer rooms in schools, accommodating Ramadan in scheduling, headscarves in the civil service, gender-segregated spaces, designated swimming times for Muslim women in municipal swimming pools, and public prayer. All of this already exists. Children and adolescents are also already being prepared for confrontation with society in Muslim youth organizations. In schools and universities, there is a rejection of certain instructional content; Muslim female students refuse to participate in swimming and physical education classes46.

Anything that exacerbates and highlights the division between Muslims and non-Muslims is welcomed by the Muslim Brotherhood. The headscarf also serves this purpose47. Whatever the reason a woman may have for wearing the headscarf—whether under coercion or of her own free will—in the Muslim Brotherhood’s strategy, the headscarf serves to separate Muslim women from non-Muslim women, as well as “good” Muslim women from “bad” ones.

Friendships between Muslims and non-Muslims and joint celebrations are discouraged. Therefore, Muslims are urged not to participate in Christmas and New Year’s Eve celebrations. To keep them from celebrating New Year’s, many mosques mark the “Conquest of Mecca” on that day48.

At the same time, the aim is to sway public opinion in favor of Islamist positions. Consequently, with generous support from Qatar, the Muslim Brotherhood operates numerous television and radio stations, websites, and news portals, and floods social media with their ideological messages.

Qatar has done a remarkable job, particularly with its flagship channel, Al Jazeera. In Arabic, it bluntly promotes the ideology of Hamas. The English-language programming pursues the same goals but is skillfully tailored to the sensitivities of an international audience. Here, anti-Semitism is cloaked in outrage over the suffering of the Palestinians, which is repeatedly highlighted through personal stories. Jews, on the other hand, do not appear as human beings on Al Jazeera. Israel is portrayed impersonally as an overpowering institution that exercises violence against civilians for no reason. The terror of October 7 is ignored. We hear nothing about the suffering of Israelis under fire from Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis, and Iran.

The channel’s influence extends far beyond its own audience: Western media outlets such as the BBC, ARD, and ZDF often reproduce its Hamas-certified coverage of Gaza verbatim.

When a German journalist needs a Muslim perspective on a topic related to Islam and integration on short notice, he will usually turn first to organizations affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood. This is because they have ensured that a spokesperson who adheres to the party line is always immediately available. This makes it easier for the Muslim Brotherhood to portray itself as the sole representative of Islam and to shape the public image of Islam: Muslim women wear headscarves, Muslim men do not drink alcohol, eat only halal food, fast during Ramadan, and so on. The liberal Muslims, whom we should actually be relying on, are left out of the picture.

With their media power, the Islamists repeatedly succeed in steering social discourse in the desired direction49. For example, after the terrorist attack on September 11, 2001, the conversation soon focused almost exclusively on discrimination against Muslims. And after the massacre on October 7, 2023, it took only a few hours for the perpetrators to become victims and the victims to become perpetrators50.

In order to assert their claim to sole representation even vis-à-vis the state, the Muslim Brotherhood takes great care to adhere to the legal framework as much as possible. They communicate their true goals only internally. Externally, they present themselves as staunch democrats51. As a result, they are integrated into prevention and deradicalization programs52, where they can spread their radical messages with state support.

What government agencies overlook is this: The Muslim Brotherhood renounces violence only as long as it seems tactically expedient to do so in a given country. They can revoke this decision at any time53. Those responsible for our security agencies, in particular, should bear this in mind. These agencies, too, are already being infiltrated—not least to sabotage the surveillance of Islamist threats54.

Even today, there is a question mark hanging over the Muslim Brotherhood’s renunciation of violence. After all, they do not entirely disapprove of the violence perpetrated by jihadist groups. Indeed, it gives them the opportunity to present themselves as a moderate alternative.

While jihadists take on the role of terrorists, the Muslim Brotherhood is even establishing itself as a force for order: As early as 2014, Berlin’s municipal swimming pool authority turned to an imam for help due to sexual assaults and riots at outdoor pools perpetrated by young Muslims55.

Other institutions in which the Muslim Brotherhood is gaining influence—as outlined in its 1982 strategy paper—include governments, parliaments, local councils, and political parties56. The Muslim Brotherhood also seeks cooperation with churches, NGOs, and Jewish organizations57.

The Muslim Brotherhood skillfully tailors its message to the respective target audience. Muslims are told that the majority society is Islamophobic and racist58. Postcolonial leftists are fed the fairy tale of Hamas as an ally in the anti-imperialist struggle for freedom and a better world59. To Christian and Jewish communities, they sing the lament of a godless society and threatened conservative values60.

What role does migration from Islamic countries play in the Muslim Brotherhood’s Islamization project?

It certainly has not harmed their project61. In Germany, this applies particularly to the wave of immigration that began in 2015. Many of the migrants came from conservative religious backgrounds with patriarchal gender roles and a hostile attitude toward homosexuals and Jews62.

Meanwhile, Yusuf Abdallah al-Qaradawi, a television preacher very popular in Islamic circles, considered the project of Islamizing European societies to be well advanced as early as 200163. Of the seven phases of the Islamization plan, six had already been achieved: An Islamic identity had emerged (phases 1 and 2), an Islamic movement had taken shape (phases 3 and 4), and the establishment of Islamic institutions such as mosques and schools had begun (phase 5). Furthermore, the non-Islamic majority had become accustomed to the permanent and visible presence of Islam (phase 6).

According to al-Qaradawi, we are currently in Phase 7. This does not mean that he sees the Islamists as being on the verge of seizing power: they have time and view their plan as a multigenerational project. But we are now in the phase in which the values of the Muslim minority are to be generally enforced.  

This is evident, for example, in the struggle for dominance in public discourse. Multifaceted, orchestrated campaigns are being waged against individuals with unpopular opinions. In Germany, those affected include, among others, the liberal religious educators Mouhanad Khorchide and Ednan Aslan, the reformer Abdel-Hakim Ourghi, and the Turkish women’s rights activist Seyran Ateş64. Critics like them are intimidated and marginalized.

The fact that others interpret these verbal attacks as a call to violence is accepted—if not actually intended: It is enough to simply mark the enemy as a target—others will take over the persecution. An example from France is the teacher Samuel Paty, who was first targeted by members of the Muslim Brotherhood on social media and ultimately beheaded by a jihadist.

Just how far the Muslim Brotherhood can go with its methods can be observed in the United Kingdom, France, and the Netherlands. There, political Islamism has long dictated public life in many neighborhoods. Islamists are declaring “Sharia-controlled zones.” In these zones, concerts are no longer allowed; no one dares to sell alcohol; homosexuals are threatened; and women who do not dress in traditional Islamic attire are harassed65. The situation is no better in Berlin-Neukölln. And the pressure is not limited to these neighborhoods. For Jews, the situation has become so threatening that more and more of them are emigrating.  

How, then, do the Muslim Brotherhood envision the takeover of power that all of this is ultimately supposed to lead to66?

No specific plans are known. But based on the writings of key thinkers such as Sayyid Qutb, as well as the experiences of the 1979 Iranian Revolution, the following picture emerges:

If we continue to let the Islamists have their way, the persecution of political opponents will continue to intensify—including postcolonial activists and “Queers for Palestine,” who consider themselves allies. The mullah regime, which seized power in Iran in 1979, has shown where this can lead67. Within a very short time, all of Khomeini’s leftist allies were murdered. The Leninist Tudeh Party was allowed to continue assisting for a few more years, until its members were also killed in 198268.

The postcolonialist and queer leftists who today show solidarity with Hamas in anti-Israel demonstrations should bear this in mind. There would be no place for them in the Muslim Brotherhood’s caliphate. Christians would be second-class citizens. Jews would only survive, if at all, if a more moderate interpretation of the Muslim Brotherhood’s ideology were to prevail—one that refrains from the murder of all Jews—and only for as long as that interpretation held sway. Those without a religion would be outlawed and forced to leave the country.

Will the Muslim Brotherhood ever pull off such a coup? That depends on whether Western democracies continue to let themselves be led by the nose by them. Many have apparently not yet recognized the danger. While our politicians are rightly extremely vigilant toward right-wing extremists, they behave with astonishing carelessness toward the Islamist threat69. Democracies are still constantly shooting themselves in the foot by muzzling their intelligence agencies, creating confusion over jurisdiction, and erecting absurd bureaucratic hurdles70 in their efforts to counter threats.

One source of hope is that by no means do all Muslims approve of the Muslim Brotherhood’s activities. Muslim states are often even more vigilant toward the Muslim Brotherhood than Western democracies: In Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Egypt, and Jordan, the Muslim Brotherhood is banned71. Furthermore, by no means do all Muslim states still seek the destruction of Israel: Egypt made peace with Israel in 1979, and Jordan in 1994. To date, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, and Morocco have joined the Abraham Accords of 2020. Negotiations for a peace agreement with Lebanon are set to begin in 202672.

Here in Germany, Muslims should be faced more clearly than before with the decision of whose side they are on: that of the medieval holy warriors of the Muslim Brotherhood, who also want to impose their interpretation of Islam on them? Or that of the pluralistic, democratic state, which also protects their religious freedom?

Liberal interpretations of Islam that are compatible with democracy, human rights, and Israel’s right to exist certainly exist. For example, Mouhanad Khorchide has presented a liberal theology that resonates even with Saudis who wish to reconcile with Israel73.

Abdel-Hakim Ourghi74 appeals to Muslims to view the Prophet Muhammad as the human figure he is portrayed as in numerous passages of the Quran (e.g., Quran 18:110). This would create room to distinguish between two very different phases in his life: On the one hand, there is the early Muhammad, to whom a humanitarian message of love and peace was revealed. The later Muhammad, on the other hand, found himself in a role where power interests took center stage. Consequently, the early verses of the Quran are characterized by a willingness to engage with people of other faiths, while the later verses sound more uncompromising.

Ourghi now recommends giving preference to the early Quranic verses over the later ones. In this way, Muslims would not have to give up their religion in order to find their place in modern society; on the contrary, they would actually be even closer to the source of their original revelation. However, this is opposed by a powerful theological tradition that demands that the entire Quran be interpreted in light of even later writings—the hadiths and the Sunnah75. And these contain alarmingly hostile statements against the Jews.

So far, reformist ideas such as those of Khorchide or Ourghi have found little resonance in Muslim communities. Instead, interpretive traditions are upheld that can serve as justification for terrorists’ crimes. They find grounds in these traditions to interpret early Islamic sources in such a way that the expulsion of Jews from all Muslim countries appears to be a religious duty76. But since the entire world is eventually supposed to become Muslim, what place would then remain for the Jews?

Who is threatening our freedom?

Right-wing anti-Semitism led to the Holocaust and thus to the worst crime ever committed against Jews. But ever since Nazi Germany lost World War II, the Nazis have had no armies. Today, it is the anti-Semitism of Islamists that has armies, states, a vast reservoir of supporters, and enormous financial resources at its disposal. That is why they pose the greatest danger today. And not just to Jews: the Islamists’ hatred is directed against everything we hold dear in the West.

The Israelis want to live like we do.

The Islamists want to force us to choose: Islam, submission, or death.

It is not Israel, but Israel’s enemies who threaten our freedom. Confusing friend and foe: We can no longer afford to do that. We are too vulnerable for that.

Sources

Please note that many sources are in German language.

Footnotes

Please note that many footnotes refer to resources in German language.

  1. https://www.fls-wiesbaden.de/cdb62727df90 ↩︎
  2. https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/28347/umfrage/zuwanderung-nach-deutschland/ ↩︎
  3. https://nius.de/articles/dc0007c3-5a11-4cc9-8ab1-6d597835b70c (I’m referring to Nius because I couldn’t find any mention of the perpetrators’ nationality in the “mainstream media.”) ↩︎
  4. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-en4VilbHL0,
    https://www.instagram.com/reels/DOWJ97DDXSc/     ↩︎
  5. https://www.bmi.bund.de/DE/themen/demokratie-gesellschaft/gesellschaftlicher-zusammenhalt/staat-und-religion/islam-in-deutschland/islam-in-deutschland-node.html, https://de.statista.com/themen/878/muslime-und-islam/#google_vignette ↩︎
  6. Khourchide reported this on June 16, 2026, at an event at the Cologne Cathedral Forum. ↩︎
  7. Patterson (2011), p. 52 ↩︎
  8. ibid., 51 ↩︎
  9. ibid., 52f, 82 ↩︎
  10. Sahih Muslim 41:6985, cited in Ourghi (2024) 151 ↩︎
  11. Ourghi (2024), pp. 185 ff. ↩︎
  12. Ourghi (2024), note 73 ↩︎
  13. Ourghi (2024) 21f ↩︎
  14. http://www.stern.de/panorama/gesellschaft/constantin-schreiber-in-deutschen-moscheen–vieles–was-er-hoerte–entsetzte-ihn-7391238.html ↩︎
  15. Constantin Schreiber: Inside Islam: Was in Deutschlands Moscheen gepredigt wird. (= What Is Preached in Germany’s Mosques.) Econ, Berlin 2017, p. 245 ↩︎
  16. Heinisch et al. (2026) 65 ↩︎
  17. https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Islamic_Front ↩︎
  18. Patterson (2011), pp. 157 ff. ↩︎
  19. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YgeShIGiI5o&t=2s ↩︎
  20. Patterson (2011) 66f ↩︎
  21. https://mena-watch.com/autonomiebehoerde-grossmufti-husseini-vorbild/ ↩︎
  22. https://www.juedische-allgemeine.de/kultur/kurze-welle-lange-folgen/; Patterson (2011) 85, 131f ↩︎
  23. Patterson (2011) 109 ↩︎
  24. Ibid., 245 ↩︎
  25. Ibid., 238, 244 ↩︎
  26. https://mena-watch.com/plo-der-betrug-mit-der-anerkennung-israels/ ↩︎
  27. Patterson (2011) 250 ↩︎
  28. ibid., 251 ↩︎
  29. ibid., 172f ↩︎
  30. ibid., 176 ↩︎
  31. ibid., p. 206 ↩︎
  32. ibid., p. 203 ↩︎
  33. From Patterson (2011) (re-translated from German by DeepL) ↩︎
  34. Patterson (2011), p. 92 ↩︎
  35. ibid., 3 ↩︎
  36. ibid., 92 ↩︎
  37. ibid., 132 ↩︎
  38. Available for free as a PDF at https://www.inlibra.com/de/document/view/detail/uuid/c76c8b46-1480-3d82-a177-88030381059f (in German) ↩︎
  39. In his 1936 essay “To the Youth” (Heinisch et al. (2026) 36) ↩︎
  40. https://www.investigativeproject.org/documents/misc/687.pdf ↩︎
  41. https://www.investigativeproject.org/documents/20/an-explanatory-memorandum-on-the-general.pdf ↩︎
  42. Heinisch et al. (2026) 30 ↩︎
  43. ibid., 13, 92, 111 ↩︎
  44. ibid., 113 ↩︎
  45. ibid. ↩︎
  46. ibid., 87f ↩︎
  47. ibid., 86 ↩︎
  48. ibid., p. 30 ↩︎
  49. ibid., 105 ↩︎
  50. ibid., 146 ↩︎
  51. ibid., 63 ↩︎
  52. ibid., 32f ↩︎
  53. ibid., 58 ↩︎
  54. ibid., 99 ↩︎
  55. ibid., 143 ↩︎
  56. ibid., 53 ↩︎
  57. ibid., 57 ↩︎
  58. ibid., p. 104 ↩︎
  59. ibid., 104f ↩︎
  60. ibid., 105 ↩︎
  61. ibid. ↩︎
  62. ibid. ↩︎
  63. ibid., 38 ↩︎
  64. ibid., 57 ↩︎
  65. ibid., p. 133 ↩︎
  66. ibid., 162ff ↩︎
  67. ibid., 167 ↩︎
  68. ibid., 169 ↩︎
  69. ibid., 117 ↩︎
  70. ibid., p. 209 ↩︎
  71. ibid., 121 ↩︎
  72. https://www.kas.de/de/laenderberichte/detail/-/content/rahmenabkommen-zwischen-libanon-und-israel ↩︎
  73. Ohne Judentum kein Islam: Die verleugnete Quelle (= No Islam Without Judaism: The Denied Source) (2025) ↩︎
  74. Ourghi (2024), p. 45, et al. ↩︎
  75. Küng (2006) provides a comprehensive historical overview of the theological schools of Islam and their influence on the present day. ↩︎
  76. ibid. 357, 230 ↩︎

Nach oben scrollen