The Nazi Connection to Islamic Terrorism

[MacHat]

No doubt there would have been many Christians in the Nazi movement. But one major point is that organized religion, including Christianity, wasn't looked upon favourably by the Nazi heirarchy. Clergymen were thrown into concentration camps, there was a special clergymen section of Dachau. Jehovah's Witnesses made up a significant portion of the camp of Ravensbruck, as well as in other camps. They appropriated religious symbols for their own benefit and ended up giving them new meanings (most prominent example being the swastika).




That's all I can think of to say right now, I'll try and find some more info about this cos it can be quite a grey area!

 

[80sU2isBest]

well, then i could argue that terrorists who wage the so-called 'jihad' are not muslims either. would you then refrain from referring to them as muslims? i dont think so.

My point is that anyone who claims to be a Christian and yet has a life that is characterized by actions that are the exact opposite of what Christians are taught to do should have his "Christianity" in doubt.

For the record, I never said that the terrorists are Muslims. However, the Koran teaches different things about how to treat non-Muslims, so which way do you say is the way that Muslims are supposed to treat non-Muslims?

 

[BVS]

BVS, in the post to which I was responding, you said:

"I can't stand those that claim that the hatred spread by Christianity is a manipulated view, yet the hate spread by the Muslim religion is true."

That was in response to my assertion that Hitler had a distorted view of Christianity.

Surely, you won't sit there and tell me that you don't see why I failed to see that you were "agreeing" with me.

What did I say before that?

Here's the ultimate problem with all public religion. It's all distrorted view, some more than others, but it's all distorted.

Separate paragraphs. One being a thought agreeing with you, and then the other an example...

I apologize for bringing in the other thread I should know better.

 

[BVS]

For the record, I never said that the terrorists are Muslims. However, the Koran teaches different things about how to treat non-Muslims, so which way do you say is the way that Muslims are supposed to treat non-Muslims?

See this is exactly what I'm talking about.

You speak this as if you know in absolution.

Expert theologians within Christianity still don't agree 100% on many issues of Christianity. These are people who've devoted their lives to studying the Bible.

So how is that you a non expert of the Muslim religion can make such an absolute statement? The Bible just like the Koran has many statements when taken out of context has teachings of how to treat those non-beilievers...

 

[Irvine511]

"... (3) Sex between men is "frowned upon, but accepted" so long as the participants also marry and have children; and also if they keep quiet about this activity. (4) The key distinction is not hetero vs. homosexual but active vs. passive; men are expected to seek penetration (with wives, prostitutes, other males, animals); the only real shame is attached to serving in the female role. (5) Youths usually serve in the female role and can leave behind this shame by graduating to the male role. (6) The great Muslim emphasis on family life renders homosexuality far less threatening to Muslim societies than to Western ones (Muslim men seeking formally to marry each other remains unimaginable)."

sounds like the Republican Party.

but in all seriousness, very good post. it's nothing to do with homosexuality, let alone a gay identity, and everything to do with power and domination.

 

[MacHat]

Here's a link to an article about Nazism's relationship with Islam and Bosnia:

ISLAM UNDER THE SWASTIKA:
The Grand Mufti and the Nazi Protectorate of Bosnia-Hercegovina, 1941-1945
By Carl K. Savich
Link


I haven't had the chance to read it all yet so it could be biased etc, but from what I've seen it's pretty informative.

Here's the titles of some books about Nazism and Christianity:

The Holy Reich: Nazi Conceptions of Christianity, 1919-1945
By Richard Steigmann-Gall

Nazi Persecution of the Churches, 1933-45
By J S Conway

The Catholic Church and Nazi Germany
By Guenter Lewy

 

[80sU2isBest]

So how is that you a non expert of the Muslim religion can make such an absolute statement? The Bible just like the Koran has many statements when taken out of context has teachings of how to treat those non-beilievers...

Alright, I'll rephrase for you.

"Based on the verses that I have read, the Koran appears to teach different things regarding how to treat non-Muslims."

 

[80sU2isBest]

The Bible just like the Koran has many statements when taken out of context has teachings of how to treat those non-beilievers...

Yes, the Bible does tell Christions how to treat nonChristians. With love, praying for them, etc. There is not a verse in the entire Bible that tells Christians to behave violently toward nonChristians.

In the Old Testament, there are instances in which God tells the Israelites to take over certain lands by violent methods. However, it is always a specific group of people in a specific situation at a specific time. There are no blanket, general "kill unbelievers" type of statement.

 

[melon]

Nazism is a funny quirk of 20th century philosophy, because, unlike what many would think, Hitler was widely adored in the 1930s as a "success story." He was even the darling of many Americans, because he was building a strong economy that was, most importantly, the exact opposite of communism. The fact that he was unabashedly anti-communist made him many friends in those days.

Anti-Semitism in those years before WWII was brushed aside the same way that people today brush aside homophobia. That is, it was so common and an integral part of Western cultural tradition that it was seen as "normal." Of course, it's not that Americans were looking the other way when it came to concentration camps; most people didn't know about them until the end of WWII.

But, really, that pre-war, 1930s Nazi adoration has generally come back to haunt us, in the end. I'm not entirely convinced of the argument that Nazis directly influenced Muslims into their ideology. I say this, because Nazis would have had as much contempt for Muslims as they would have had for other minorities. They're certainly not a group of blond-haired, blue eyed übermensch. But it's easy to see why fascist ideology would appeal to many Muslim extremists today, as it gives them outside justification for their deep seated anti-Semitism. And it's not just Nazism; the infamous book, "The Protocols of Zion," was written during tsarist Russia, and that book has very large sway in the Muslim world.

Melon

 

[deep]

Jesus was definitely a Jew

Jesus may have been born a Jew
but he did not die a Jew

Jews do not believe that Jesus was the Messiah.

If Jesus is a Jew, than he went to hell.

Where all Jews that do not convert to Christ go,
Just ask any Christian.

 

[verte76]

I'm keeping my fingers crossed that there is a class on the Koran in the philosophy department at the local university that I'll be attending in the fall. I haven't seen a list of classes yet. I'd love to take a class on the Koran. I tend to be unfocused when I undertake to study something on my own, that's the main reason I'm going back to school. It takes a professor giving assignments to make me focus.

 

[80sU2isBest]

Jesus may have been born a Jew
but he did not die a Jew

Jews do not believe that Jesus was the Messiah.

If Jesus is a Jew, than he went to hell.

Where all Jews that do not convert to Christ go,
Just ask any Christian.

Yes, Jesus did die as a Jew. Nothing happened in his life that would have changed that. He did not stop being a Jew, just as his disciples did not stop being Jews when they decided to follow him. There were no Christians until after Christ's resurrection.

Also, there are many Jews who are Christians. They are called Messianic Jews.

 

[BVS]

Yes, the Bible does tell Christions how to treat nonChristians. With love, praying for them, etc. There is not a verse in the entire Bible that tells Christians to behave violently toward nonChristians.

This isn't true, there are a handful of verses when just looking at one verse and not context that do encourage violent actions toward non-believers. They've been posted in at least two different threads in here, and honestly don't have time to look them up right now, but they are there.

 

[80sU2isBest]

This isn't true, there are a handful of verses when just looking at one verse and not context that do encourage violent actions toward non-believers. They've been posted in at least two different threads in here, and honestly don't have time to look them up right now, but they are there.

There are verses that tell Christians to behave violently toward nonChristians? Are you sure about that? I would be interested to see that, because I can tell you that as many years as I have been reading the Bible, I have never read those verses. Now remember, I am not talking about the times before Christ in whcih God told Israel to take over lands or conquer their enemies by violent methods. I am specifically talking about commands to Christians, which is of course, the New Testament.

 

[Judah]

For the record, I never said that the terrorists are Muslims. However, the Koran teaches different things about how to treat non-Muslims, so which way do you say is the way that Muslims are supposed to treat non-Muslims?

This topic was covered extensively in a thread couple weeks ago that, i believe, Aeon had started (and we had all so desperately wanted an expert on Islam to provide information on some of the de-contexualized Koranic verses that were being used).

In short, the Koranic sayings against the "unbelievers" are within the context of war: if Moslems are being attacked.

Koran calls Christians and Jews "people of the book"...brothers, though it says their religions have become distorted from what they ought to be (i.e. there's one message from God; Islam is the same...though it hasn't been corrupted; but, of course, every religion says that about itself, so it's all very self-serving).

Koran says Moslems are allowed to marry Christians and Jews and the Christians and Jews don't have to convert to Islam. When i married my white, American, Christian wife (i'm originally from Pakistan; a Moslem...former...now an athiest), the Imam said to her there's no need for conversion. All she can't do is deny Islam as the word of God.

Of course, there's many episodes in history where Moslem rulers have not been tolerant...and many others where they have been.

Whatever...this is a long, complex topic, that we've all visited before. I don't feel like going there right now.

 

[Judah]

I'm not entirely convinced of the argument that Nazis directly influenced Muslims into their ideology. I say this, because Nazis would have had as much contempt for Muslims as they would have had for other minorities. They're certainly not a group of blond-haired, blue eyed übermensch.
Melon

Hey, but some of us ARE Aryan (i.e. those of us from certain parts of India/Pakistan...we're considered of Aryan descent...though, i'm sure, Hitler would disagree)!

Er...not sure why i wanted to brag about being Aryan...never mind.

But it's easy to see why fascist ideology would appeal to many Muslim extremists today, as it gives them outside justification for their deep seated anti-Semitism. And it's not just Nazism; the infamous book, "The Protocols of Zion," was written during tsarist Russia, and that book has very large sway in the Muslim world.Melon

This is very true.

 

[BVS]

There are verses that tell Christians to behave violently toward nonChristians? Are you sure about that? I would be interested to see that, because I can tell you that as many years as I have been reading the Bible, I have never read those verses. Now remember, I am not talking about the times before Christ in whcih God told Israel to take over lands or conquer their enemies by violent methods. I am specifically talking about commands to Christians, which is of course, the New Testament.

Judah touched upon most everything I wanted to say.

There were one or two in the new testament, though.

But, how are we to ask other faiths to ignore the OT? "Christians" still use the OT out of context to justify certain things...

 

[80sU2isBest]

Judah touched upon most everything I wanted to say.

There were one or two in the new testament, though.

Show me.

But, how are we to ask other faiths to ignore the OT? "Christians" still use the OT out of context to justify certain things...

I didn't ask anyone to ignore what was commanded in the OT.

Some of the things God commanded in the OT are hard to reconcile with the picture of Christ presented in the New Testament. I will admit that I do not completely understand why God commanded some of the things he did.

However, when God commanded violent acts against an enemy nation, it was for a specific time and situation. There were no "general" commands to just go out and kill unbelievers.

However, since Judah was a Muslim and he says that the Koran only teaches violence in times of war, I will have to accept that until such time as I discover evidence that leads me to believe otherwise, if that ever does happen.

 

[BVS]

I didn't ask anyone to ignore what was commanded in the OT.

Some of the things God commanded in the OT are hard to reconcile with the picture of Christ presented in the New Testament. I will admit that I do not completely understand why God commanded some of the things he did.

However, when God commanded violent acts against an enemy nation, it was for a specific time and situation. There were no "general" commands to just go out and kill unbelievers.

But this is my point, you have researched and know the context, someone that reads that passage for the first time tomorrow, doesn't. And for them it comes off very different...

 

[AEON]

Nowhere in the New Testament is violent conversion preached. We went over this a few weeks back, and the only thing anyone could come up with was the quote where Jesus says he does come to bring peace, but the sword. (Matthew 10:34)

But if you read the entire chapter it is obvious that Jesus is referring to the consequences to the believer (the exclusion from non-believing families, the community..etc)

 

[80sU2isBest]

Nowhere in the New Testament is violent conversion preached. We went over this a few weeks back, and the only thing anyone could come up with was the quote where Jesus says he does come to bring peace, but the sword. (Matthew 10:34)

And even without context, that isn't even anywhere close to Jesus commanding Christians to act violently toward nonChristians.

 

[80sU2isBest]

But this is my point, you have researched and know the context, someone that reads that passage for the first time tomorrow, doesn't. And for them it comes off very different...

I'm not talking "interpretation" here. I am talking about things written down in black and white.

 

[all_i_want]

Alright, I'll rephrase for you.

"Based on the verses that I have read, the Koran appears to teach different things regarding how to treat non-Muslims."

As Judah mentioned earlier, Jews and Christians are viewed as 'the people of the book', because Islam recognizes the validity of both religions, however sees them as 'outdated'. It views itself as the update. Jews and Christians are not viewed as 'non-believers'. I second Judah's post, as well.

 

[A_Wanderer]

Yes quite right, people of the book can all live as dhimmis enjoying lower status and payment of protection money but able to practice their faith in Islamic empires. Those who don't subscribe to that Abrahamic God however are fair game.

 

[melon]

Hey, but some of us ARE Aryan (i.e. those of us from certain parts of India/Pakistan...we're considered of Aryan descent...though, i'm sure, Hitler would disagree)!

It is very strange. There is the literal definition of "Aryan," which refers to Iranian and Indo-Iranian peoples (which includes many people of India), but then there's the concept of the "Aryan race," which was created in the early 20th century by European racial theorists. Basically, the main distinction was that Aryans were non-Semitic people--basically coming into common usage as a reference to Gentiles.

But that brings me back to my original argument that it makes little sense for Nazis to encourage Muslims, because Arabs are a Semitic people and Arabic is a Semitic language (although I'm sure that they would not want to hear that).

Melon

 

[AEON]

But that brings me back to my original argument that it makes little sense for Nazis to encourage Muslims, because Arabs are a Semitic people and Arabic is a Semitic language (although I'm sure that they would not want to hear that).

Melon

I don't think the Nazis would have had a long term alliance with the Muslims - but I think they most certainly would have used them to help rid the earth of the Jews.

It's not like the Nazi's loved the Japanese race, but they allied with them.

 

[maycocksean]

Nazism had a lot to do with Christianity, as sad as it sounds. And guess what, Christians still are paying a percentage of their salary to the Church. This rule was created when Hitler took the land of the big owners - i.e. the Catholic church - for himself and did a deal with them so they could get the money back by taxing the Christians. This tax is still paid today, while we are speaking-. The church did not care to change this rule. This is a reason for many Christians to leave church, because if you don´t pay, you are breaking the law.

Where on earth did you get this from? Are you talking about tithe? Because that's existed since Biblical times and has nothing to do with the Nazis?

 

[maycocksean]

Secondly, I'll say that you are the one who needs to go back and read that post again. The person was taking issue with what I wrote, not to what was written by the person to whom I was responding.



The person was referring to me, not the person who called Republicans "wacko".

I was the one who used the term "argument free", not the person to whom I was replying.

Also, consider the word "retort", which is defined thusly:

Retort's definition is "To reply, especially to answer in a quick, caustic, or witty manner".

I was the only one doing any "retorting". The comment I was responding to was an insult, not a retort.

Since, I'm the person in question, let me just clarify. 80's is right. I was referring to him.

Though 80's, I didn't feel harshly when I wrote it. Many times I was itching, just itching to comment on some of things people were saying so I sympathized with your doing so though I still maintain that we shouldn't.

 

[maycocksean]

You can pick up this quote from wikipedia:

"My feeling as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter."

—Hitler, on his belief in the non-Jewish, anti-materialistic, 'Ario-heroic' spirit of Jesus, later distorted by exoteric Christianity

Hitler was also a notorious liar. He was willing to go along with alliances of convenience (the pact with Stalin, the alliance with Japan) so long as they were able to move his agenda along.

So his posturing as a Christian for what is most likely a Christian audience can hardly be taken seriously.

 

[80sU2isBest]

Since, I'm the person in question, let me just clarify. 80's is right. I was referring to him.

Though 80's, I didn't feel harshly when I wrote it. Many times I was itching, just itching to comment on some of things people were saying so I sympathized with your doing so though I still maintain that we shouldn't.

Thanks for coming forward.

The thing that got me about that thread is the double-standard that often comes into play in this forum. Certain people with certain views that differ from those held by myself and like-minded individuals are allowed to say things like that without anyone calling them on the carpet. However, if I were to say Liberals are lunatics or something like that, especially in a thread that was expressly intended as a "no-argument zone", there'd be no end to the flack I'd get for it.