Rob and Es about Nazism and Islam
(Pictures: Hitler versus a page of the Quran in Arabic. Translations are welcome.)
The discussion below is a follow-up of my discussion with Roberta about who God really is. This new discussion started because a Muslim from Pakistan said:
"I am sorry Rob, I cannot be associated with a community which hurls swear words at my Prophet. I think I have said this to you many times before: I love my faith, and you love what you believe in. I am proud of being what i am and you are proud of what you are; but since you insult my Prophet. Our ways depart..."
"YOUR PROPHET might be a darling to you, but he is no darling to the people he oppressed. Why can't you understand that???
Nazis also LOVE HITLER!! Will you respect them and love him too???
The Vikings LOVED ERIK THE RED!! He, who pillaged villages, enslaved thousands and built his "peaceful" empire on the corpses of FREE MEN!!!
ENOUGH HYPOCRISY!!!!! I am sick to death of it!!!
Who is standing by evil deeds? Who is standing by false prophetdoom? Please state who you are, so that I can ban you from this community. In this place no more evil shall remain!!!
What matters is that you use Islam for PEACE and NOT evil. DO NOT PROMOTE FAKE IDEOLOGIES. DO NOT ENCOURAGE EVIL PUNISHMENTS TOWARDS YOUR FELLOW HUMANS. And we can all live together."
I replied to that:
"Who says that he doesn't "use" his faith to strive for peace?
You can be critical towards the Islam, but I think that as a moderator you have to be more tolerant to Fahd and others who love their faith. This is an Islam community with many Muslims as its members. How can there ever be peace in this "Islam" community if you don't respect that Muslims love their faith?"
And this was the beginning of a longer discussion between Rob and me, about the differences between Nazism and the Islam - black is said by Roberta, red is said by me, earlier in the discussion, blue is my most recent remarks :
R: I am trying to understand this. Call me insane but I am really trying.I need an explanation to ease my mind:How can a person say that he uses Islam for peace while he loves his prophet? A prophet who caused more pain than life is worth? Think about it.
It is the same as if I say to you that I really admire Nazism because they are very organized, competent, precise and tough. And I love Hitler because ALL HE WANTED was GOOD THINGS FOR GERMANY AND HIS PEOPLE. Does that make sense now? Hitler was a Nazi. He killed and maimed many people! And yet, he was doing it for the good and prosperity of his country!The Germans loved him! Some still do! And even I understand that all he wanted was progress for Germany! He had ambitions!!! But at what price?
So, does that mean that I have to FOLLOW HIS STEPS AND LOVE HIM FOR HIS "INTENTIONS"? Please please.. shed some light on this! I really need to understand this.
E: NAZISM / HITLERISM IS NOT THE SAME AS THE ISLAM
For me there's a big difference between the two.It's clear why Nazism / fascism is very bad and inhuman, I suppose I don't have to explain that (6 million Jews killed).
For me the difference with the Islam is very big. Religions have different sides within them. Ethics are usually strong in a religion, this counts for Christianity, Judaism and the Islam, and also for many other religions. If you read the Torah, the Bible or the Quran you will find many good ethical rules in it that you have to help the poor, that you shouldn't kill each other, that you should respect your parents, etc.
I never read Mein Kampf but I am pretty sure that this kind of rules are not in it.
This doesn't mean that believers always follow the good ethical rules, and holy books often consist of other rules as well. Religious leaders usually want to have a strong position so they don't like it when people don't listen to them. Many bad things happen in the name of a religion, in the name of the Islam just as much as in the name of other religions.How can you be so sure that Mohammed was a "false" prophet? I don't know if he married Aisha when she was very young or not and I don't know if he killed many people in wars. I do know that he strived for peace and social justice (to help the poor and the oppressed) and that he had an open mind to some other religions. But why should you personally judge the Prophet? Isn't it possible that you accept that others follow the Prophet Mohammed, if they in their turn accept that you don't follow him?
R: Thanks for your reply, but I am still in doubt... (Not of you, because you are replying as you see it, but of the whole ideology).
E1: It's clear why Nazism / fascism is very bad and inhuman, I suppose I don't have to explain that (6 million Jews killed).
R: There were MILLIONS killed by Islam too! Starting from its beginning, until today!!
E2: As millions of people have been killed and are still being killed by other religions...
R: Jerusalem was attacked MERCILESSLY by Muslims, trying to desecrate the temples! Muslims killed millions of Persians, Greeks, Anatolians (Byzantines), you anme it....They killed MORE than Hitler! So, in what way are they different on this instance?Their intentions were different perhaps?
R: Hitler wanted to SAVE GERMANY from ECONOMIC COLLAPSE.
E2: No, Hitler wanted to kill all Jews because he considered them as an inferior race.
There are many religions who try to kill non-believers and this is wrong and stupid, but it is morally less wrong to kill people who don’t want to follow your faith than to try to kill a whole race because you consider them as inferior.
R: Muhammad wanted to CONQUER TERRITORY AND OBTAIN SLAVES, RICHES AND START A RELIGION.Which one is worse?
E2: Hitler is much worse
E1: If you read the Torah, the Bible or the Quran you will find many good ethical rules in it that you have to help the poor, that you shouldn't kill each other, that you should respect your parents, etc.
R: Yes, and the NAZIS were also taught in good schools, had very high morals and respected their parents! (AMONGST THEMSELVES). And they certainly should not kill each other (they were taught), only OTHERS (Infidels, as Islam calls us): Jews, Muslims, blacks, Asians of all kinds.
E2: There’s a difference here, Nazi children didn’t learn that they always have to help the poor, no matter who they are, that they should also help poor Jewish children. The Islam has many rules that you also have to help non-believers when they need help. And as I said, a fundamental difference is that Muslims are not one race and non-Muslims neither, so by definition the Islam cannot be as racist as Nazism.
R: They wanted a PURE RACE.And what do Muslims do? ENCOURAGE INTERMARRIAGE.Isn't this also an attempt to have PURE RACE???
E2: No. There is nowhere written in the Quran or where ever that Muslims should be one pure race. The Senegalese are darkly black, they are clearly not the same race as e.g. Palestinians, or Indonesians, how could this ever become one race, and why would that be the aim?
E1: Many bad things happen in the name of a religion, in the name of the Islam just as much as in the name of other religions.
R: True. But WE are doing something about it.
E2: Peaceful Muslims also.
R: And we have been doing for eons. EVEN our churches NOW know that the Bibles were NOT written by G-d and there are many UNTRUE stories in them.
E2: Does the Bible not come from God? I wouldn’t be too fast to say that. How could anyone believe in his faith if he considers the holy book of his religion as nonsense?
A holy book is one of the only ways in which a God can speak to his believers, in my opinion. This doesn’t mean that you should take everything literally what is written there, but the main message, in as much as humans are able to interpret it in the right way, cannot be nonsense for a believer.
R: Why can't Muslims see that from their side too? Why do they keep humiliating themselves believing that Allah wrote a book for them? (We have plenty of evidence this was not so).
E2: It’s impossible to follow the path of Allah if you consider his book, the Quran, as nonsense. You couldn’t be a theosophist if you would consider all the written texts from theosophy sources as nonsense.
R: What evidence do they have to support their claim, I ask?
E2: There is no absolute evidence. Otherwise believers would be knowers, not believers. When you follow a certain faith, you believe in that God and the Prophets of that religion, and in its holy book. You personally think that you are absolutely sure (or not if you are half an agnostic), but it cannot be proven through science.
This is quite a fundamental discussion in my opinion, it's good that it's not too much based on emotions but more a rational dialogue. The person who said to Rob that he had to leave her community has read my discussion with Roberta now, and he said that he was really impressed and that he appreciated my comments a lot. He also said that I understand the Islam better than many Muslims do.
In the beginning I only wanted to post my discussion with Roberta here. But when I looked at Orkut I saw that the post from this boy was a better starting point. I find it beautiful how he expresses his decision in a really tolerant and respectful way. This doesn't count in the same way for Roberta's reply in my view. Roberta doesn't like the Prophet Mohammed, she considers him to have been a violent immoral barbarian. She is entitled to that opinion of course, and she can express that opinion on Orkut. But she should not insult Fahd and threaten to ban him from the community because he follows the Prophet. She should accept that his faith and his views are different from hers. This is how tolerance and acceptance of differences leads to peace, while the opposite leads to conflicts and wars.
This post I would like to end with a U2 tekst about love and peace, which is a clear appeal to stop the fighting:
re: moslimfanatici en nazi's:
de ene groep vermoordt "heidenen" uit geloofsovertuiging, de andere "niet-Ariers" uit racisme (maar homoseksuelen kennelijk uit andere gronden).
Ik ben het met Roberta eens dat hier moreel gezien weinig verschil tussen zit. Volgens mij is het weinig zinvol te zeggen dat moorden uit racisme moreel slechter dan moorden uit geloofswaan. Je kunt inderdaad je ras niet veranderen, en je religie wel (in elk geval het uiterlijk vertoon van je religie), maar is het niet minstens zo laag om mensen te dwingen iets te geloven (en is dit überhaupt serieus mogelijk? telepathie bestaat niet), hun identiteit en hoop op te geven?
Conclusie: men kan godsdienst- en raswaanzinnigen wel degelijk met elkaar vergelijken, als je dat wilt.
Of het echt zinvol is, is een tweede. Je maakt er veel mensen kwaad mee. Ik denk dat wat er hier vooral fout gaat het generaliseren is: de accusaties t.o.v. de islam, zodat alle moslims zich aangesproken voelen (bijv. dat de islam een gewelddadige religie zou zijn), maar ook vanuit moslims zelf, men moet nl. ook beseffen dat niet elke kritiek op een moslim (of dat nu de profeet is, of een terrorist, of burkadragers) betekent dat die kritiek alle moslims aangaat.
Translation of Letty's text:
Re: Muslim fanatics and Nazi’s:
One group kills pagans because of a particular belief, the other kills non-Arians because of a racist view (but homosexuals are seemingly killed for other reasons).
I agree with Roberta that morally seen there is not much difference between these two. In my opinion it doesn’t make much sense to say that murdering through racism is worse than murdering through faith madness [how should I translate that?]. You can’t change your race indeed, and you can change your religion (at least the way you express yourself), but isn’t it just as bad to force people to believe something (And is this seriously possible at all? Telepathics don’t exist), and to give up their identity and hope?
Conclusion: religion and race madness can certainly be compared, if you want to. However, if it really makes sense is a different question. You make many people angry if you do so. I think that the main problem is formed by the generalizations: the accusations towards the Islam, through which all Muslims feel attacked (e.g. the idea that the Islam would be a violent religion), but also by Muslims themselves, for they should realize that not all criticism towards a Muslim (be it to the Prophet, a terrorist or people who wear burqa’s) means that the criticism is directed to all Muslims.
I still think that there is a major moral difference between Nazism and the Islam in general:
There is no approach within Nazism that says that Jews, homosexuals and Roma etc. are also for 100% human beings and that they can’t be killed for who they are, that they have a universal human right to live. But this approach within the Islam is strong, the peaceful side, which says that you can try to enlighten non-believers with the Islam, but that you are never allowed to kill them if they don’t want to listen.
One could say that the approach of Islamic fundamentalist terrorists is fascistic and just as bad as Nazism. But the Islam in general is not like that in my opinion.