I'm currently reading two books which seem worlds apart - A History of France by Andre Maurois and Between Vision and Reality: Law in the Arab World by Guy Bechor. Besides the fact that the legal system in the Arab world is based on the French system, you wouldn't expect much similarities.
However, reading the books together, I was struck by the similarity in the most basic relationship between ruler and the people, in both the Ancient Germanic and Islamic societies.
Among the Germanic tribes the warriors banded together in what the Romans called comitatus. The relationship between the comitatus and their leader was based on a mutual agreement. The comitatus chose their leader and pledged allegiance to him personally. In turn, the leader was responsible for the safety of his comitatus and for rewarding them.
This was quite different than the Roman system, which expected allegiance to the ruler based on law, and not personal loyalty. The comitatus was later the basis of the European feudal system.
In Islam there's a similar relationship between the ruler and his people.
God is pleased with the believers who pledged allegiance to you under the tree. He knew what was in their hearts and, consequently, He blessed them with contentment, and rewarded them with an immediate victory. (Sura 48, Victory, verse 18)
The contract between the ruler and the people in Islam is called bay'a. The people pledge their allegiance to the ruler personally in return for the ruler agreeing to keep law and order. The mutual pledge was done in a way similar to how contracts were concluded, to show the commitment of each side.
According to Guy Bechor, the bay'a can still be seen in the monarchical countries, such as Morocco and Jordan, but also in the supposedly democratic countries such as Egypt. In this sense, the elections are not seen as a free choice between rulers, but rather as renewing the existing contract between the people and their one chosen ruler.
So, what does all this have to do with Hitler?
Hitler had his people pledge their allegiance to him personally, in what was known as the Hiter Oath. However, unlike the ancient Germans he claimed to represent, he did not see a reason to make this agreement mutual. The people pledged him allegiance, but he did not agree to do anything for them.
I am not going to go into the deep connection between Islam and Nazism. Many Islamics today are drawn to the Nazi ideals, and it is not hard to find online pictures of Islamic groups making the Nazi salute.
For the Muslim leader, I can see the attraction. The idea of personal loyalty and allegiance already exists in Islam, but by the Nazis, it was one-sided. A clear gain over today's (at least official) demand for a two-sided contract.