cumcised people. The last attempt in pre-modern times, goingrnthrough the Balkans, took the sultan’s janissaries more thanrnhalf-way from Constantinople to Dover. On both occasions,rnthe tide was checked, but its subsequent rolling back tookrndecades, even centuries.rnFor the millions of Christians and Jews engulfed by the deluge,rnthose were centuries of quiet desperation interrupted byrnthe regular pangs of agony. The materially and culturally richrnChristian civilization of Byzantium and its budding Slavic offspringrnin Serbia and Bulgaria were reduced to dhimmis, “peoplernof the Book,” whose advantage over pagans was that theirrnlife and earthly goods were ostensibly safe for as long as theyrnsubmitted to Islamic rule. That rule rested on the hvo pillars ofrnIslamic ideology and political practice — jihad and Shari’a —rnthat provided the quasi-legal framework for institutionalizedrnoppression of the infidels.rnThe story of the non-Muslims’ experiences under Islamicrnrule is as politically incorrect to tell, and therefore as littlernknown in todav’s America, as the remarkable life of Muhammadrnhimself At first, the choice of the vanquished seemed tornbe not “Islam or death” but “Islam or super-tax,” but over timernShari’a ensured the decline of Eastern Christianity, the sappingrnof the captives’ vitality and capacit}’ for renewal. The practicernof devshirme, the annual “blood levy” of Christian boys to berntrained as janissaries, and the spiking of infidels were among itsrnmore obvious consequences.rnIf any single factor made the Balkans what they are today—torntake a newsworthy example —it was the ordeal of five centuriesrnof Muhammadan misrule. Modern attempts bv somernapologists for Islam in the West —notably, one Noel Malcolmrn—to present the sordid casino of Ottoman overlordship inrnsoutheast Europe as “tolerant,” or even enlightened, are as intellectuallyrndishonest as they are factually insupportable. BatrnYe’or’s The DecUne of Eastern Christianity Under Islam givesrnthe lie to that. To understand Islam’s record with its non-adherents,rnone should compare it not to Judaism nor Christianity,rnbut rather match it against modern totalitarian ideologies, notablyrnBolshevism and National Socialism. Each explicitly deniedrnthe legitimacy of any form of social, political, or culturalrnorganization other than itself Stalin’s forma mentis was differentrnfrom that of Khomeini only in quantity, not in qualit’. Thernlatter’s statement that the Muslims have no choice but to wagern”holy war against profane governments” until the conquest ofrnthe world has been accomplished was Khrushchev’s “We shallrnbury you” wrapped in green instead of red. “Peaceful coexistence”rnwas but jihad under another name. Islam, communism,rnand Nazism sought an eschatological shortcut that would enablernthe initiated to b)pass the predicament of a seemingly aimlessrnexistence, while explicitly replacing Christian grace withrnthe gnostic mantras of “surrender” (“Islam”), “dialectical materialism,”rn”Volksgemeinschaft.”rnNazism was the least coherent of the three; but it was amongrnthe Nazis (most notably with the architect of the holocaust,rnHeinrich Himmler) that Islam found its most willing promotersrnand collaborators in the pre-multicultural Europe. Himmler’srnhatred of “soft” Christianity was equal to his liking for Islam,rnwhich he saw as a masculine, martial religion based on the SSrnqualities of blind obedience and readiness for self-sacrifice, untaintedrnby compassion for one’s enemies. (Wliile Hitler did notrnthink much of Himmler’s neo-pagan mysticism, he was happyrnto let Islam become the “SS religion.”) By creating an SS divisionrncomposed of Bosnian Muslims, Himmler sought to enhancernthe links between Nazi Germany and the Islamic world.rnOne of his closest aides, Obergruppenfiihrer Gottlob Berger,rnstated thatrna link is created beh’een Islam and National-Socialismrnon an open, honest basis. It will be directed in terms ofrnblood and race from the North, and in the ideologicalspiritualrnsphere from the East.rnIn his drive to recruit Muslims, Himmler enlisted the supportrnof the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, El Husseini, who went tornthe Nazi puppet state of Croatia in 1943 to encourage hisrnBosnian Muslim flock to fight for the Reich. More than 20,000rnenlisted in the 13th SS Division, Hanjar (the Turkish curvedrnsword). The number of Bosnian Muslim volunteers in Himmler’srnunits reached 46,000 bv September 1943. This exceededrnthe number of Bosnian Muslims sen’ing with Tito’s Partisansrnand Croatian Ustasas together.rnHalf a century later, post-Christian “liberal democracy” expectsrnto neuter Islam by reducing it to yet another humanisticrnproject in self-celebration. Eoreign policv strategists in Washingtonrnpander to its geopolitical designs, throwing smallerrnChristian nations — Serbs and Greek Cvpriots todav, Bulgarsrnand Greeks tomorrow—to the wolves, hoping to balance thernbooks for half a century of America’s “passionate attachment”rnin the Middle East. They do not seem to realize that suchrnmorsels will only whet flie Islamic appetite, paving the way to arnmajor confrontation in the next century.rnOne w a to avoid tiiis is to open the gates and give up, and Islam’srnproselytizers in the West are learning how to plav therngame. They act as if Islam were just another competitor in thernmarketplace of the secular political system, without giving uprntheir ultimate claims and objectives. Islam enters the new millenniumrnwith a strong hand. Eor starters, it is “non-white,” non-rnEuropean, and non-Christian, which makes it a natural allv ofrnthe ruling Western elites. At the same time, it has an inherentrnadantage over Clinton, Blair, Schroder, and Chirac, who arernunable to generate an emotional response among the hoi polloirnfor their tepid ideolog}’ of multicultural mediocrity. It also hasrnan advantage over most established Christian denominations,rnsince the latter are no longer even “the Tor- Part}’ at Praver”rnbut—at best—”the Social Workers at Therapy.” Richly endowedrnwith petro-dollars, Islam’s public relations front wifl usernthe symbols and vocabular)’ of the Dominant Tendency, andrnwait for its implosion.rnIslam should not be blamed for being what it is, nor shouldrnits adherents be condemned for maintaining their traditions:rnLuther would sa’ that they kann nicht anders. We should notrnhate it, nor ban it. We should, however, blame ourselves for refusingrnto acknowledge the facts of the case, and failing to takernstock of our options. Those who have lost their own faith havernlittle right to point a finger at those who uphold theirs.rnIn the present state of Western weakness, this process mavrnwell lead further millions to the conclusion that we should allrnbecome Muslims, since our goose is cooked anyway, spirituallyrnand demographicall}-. Those of us who do not cherish thatrnprospect should at least demand that our rulers present thatrnoption fairly and squarely. To pretend —as Mr. Clintonrndoes —that Islam is rather like Episcopalianism is plainlvrnstupid or deeply dishonest. In view of the source, it is probablyrnboth. crnFEBRUARY 1999/23rnrnrn