Geert Wilders, the bravest man in Europe.


Richard Wiig

Recommended Posts

I'm not sure that the term Nazism is correct Michael.

Nazism was an ideology that believed that the Aryans were a superior race to any other.

LM,

Of course the term is correct, starting with the well-known pictures of the Grand Mufti with his pal Adolf Hitler.

But more on point, the Nazis didn't ONLY believe that the Aryans were a superior race. They believed other things, too. Like the Jews needed to be exterminated.

Just because the majority in the Islamic world don't believe the Jews need to be exterminated (even as they go along with the Zionist versus Jew bait and switch game), that doesn't seem to be the case with many Islamist leaders. Nor does that seem to be the case on countless broadcasts on Palestinian TV. The want the Jews eliminated, period. Do you really need quotes? They are abundant.

As to the superior race thing, the name-change from Persia to Iran is pretty honking obvious.

This stuff is all out in the open for anyone to see. I see no value in ignoring it or pretending it doesn't exist--or using the tactic that "since X, Y or Z in the Islamic world doesn't believe it, this insinuates that nobody in the Islamic world believes it.".

I believe the good Muslims need to distance themselves from the evil Muslims as clearly as possible.

Intellectual clarity is your friend.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 108
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

LM,

Of course the term is correct, starting with the well-known pictures of the Grand Mufti with his pal Adolf Hitler.

I constantly hear you bring up the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem.. As if he is somehow representative of a great portion of Muslims or Palestinians even, that is not the case.. He was not even appointed Grand Mufti by Muslims, he was made Grand Mufti by none other than the British so any such title was the responsibility of the British.

There were four candidates for the leadership and Al Husseini had received the least amount of votes and it was the British High Commissioner Sir Herbert Samuel who appointed him as the Grand Mufti, which ALSO was not a position created by Muslims, rather a position created by the British. He was the one who appointed extremist teachers and preachers and spent the money the British gave which then taught children it was okay to hate Jews and his influence grew. He stoked the flames of hatred and it was all the creation of the British.

The people who were actually elected by the Muslims were the Nashashibis who were more inclined to make peace with the Jews and come to a settlement.. That was the will of the Palestinian Muslims and it was ignored..

But instead the British played the Muslims and Jews against each other like they've done to EVERY group in history to try and create a reason for them to continue their presence in Palestine, of which both the Arabs and the Jews began to resist..

Al-Husseini admired fascism and did approach the Nazis because the Nazis were against the British and sought assistance from the Nazis in fighting the British.. I might also remind you that the Jewish Lehi or Stern Gang ALSO admired fascism and ALSO approached the Nazis for assistance against the British. Later on members of the Stern Gang were also elected into government with one even becoming the Prime Minister.

THAT is the extent of it and it was all a creation and a result of the actions of the British in the area.

But more on point, the Nazis didn't ONLY believe that the Aryans were a superior race. They believed other things, too. Like the Jews needed to be exterminated.

That's not what made them Nazis Michael, hence the reason why I said that using the word Nazi isn't the correct word. You use the word Nazi because it has more shock value to it but the application of the label is not logical nor is it honest.

Just because the majority in the Islamic world don't believe the Jews need to be exterminated (even as they go along with the Zionist versus Jew bait and switch game), that doesn't seem to be the case with many Islamist leaders. Nor does that seem to be the case on countless broadcasts on Palestinian TV. The want the Jews eliminated, period. Do you really need quotes? They are abundant.

The Jews vs Zionist bait and switch game is not the fault of the Arabs, it is instead the fault of the Israelis themselves who identify themselves as the Jewish nation and oftentimes call themselves simply Jews and the Jewish people rather than Israelis and the Israeli people, the Arabs are just stupid and ignorant enough in their acceptance of the word usage which causes this to look as if it's hatred of an ethnicity or religious group rather than a political ideology and military occupation.

If anything else were the case then this type of hatred of Jews would have existed LONG before the influx of European Zionists to Palestine but it didn't.

As to the superior race thing, the name-change from Persia to Iran is pretty honking obvious.

Persia was an empire Michael, they wanted to distance themselves from the Empire so they called themselves Iran, home of the Aryans.. That didn't mean that they thought they were the superior race.

This stuff is all out in the open for anyone to see. I see no value in ignoring it or pretending it doesn't exist--or using the tactic that "since X, Y or Z in the Islamic world doesn't believe it, this insinuates that nobody in the Islamic world believes it.".

No, but you overstate it Michael as if it's much bigger than it is which is dishonest. I challenge you to go to the Middle East and see for yourself how many people believe that people of the Jewish religion need to die.. I came across at the most a handful of people in the almost 2 years I spent in the Middle East in Qatar, Lebanon, Syria, Turkey and the UAE.

I believe the good Muslims need to distance themselves from the evil Muslims as clearly as possible.

And they do. You just don't pay attention to it.

Intellectual clarity is your friend.

I would hope that you can somehow follow your own advice Michael.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"...see for yourself how many people believe that people of the Jewish religion need to die.. I came across at the most a handful of people in the almost 2 years I spent in the Middle East in Qatar, Lebanon, Syria, Turkey and the UAE

LM:

Out of curiosity, when you did travel there, what strata of the social structure did you travel in most of the time?

In other words, did you hang out with students and professionals? Or, were you able to get into the underbelly of those societies?

The internet cafe's off the beaten path where Arab Al Jazeera, hookahs and hashish were common?

Adam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"...see for yourself how many people believe that people of the Jewish religion need to die.. I came across at the most a handful of people in the almost 2 years I spent in the Middle East in Qatar, Lebanon, Syria, Turkey and the UAE

LM:

Out of curiosity, when you did travel there, what strata of the social structure did you travel in most of the time?

In other words, did you hang out with students and professionals? Or, were you able to get into the underbelly of those societies?

The internet cafe's off the beaten path where Arab Al Jazeera, hookahs and hashish were common?

Adam

I'm the type of person who likes to see all walks of life when I visit somewhere.

I spent time with international and local students and also attended different mosques, I spent time with foreign workers and locals as well as international students.. I did the same in any other place I visited.

The great thing is that Arabs and Turks are some of the most hospitable people in the world and will welcome you with open arms at any time.

I find that when visiting such places it's best to have a general idea of where you want to go and to allow yourself a lot of time to be distracted along the way by other people and their lives and to always accept every invitation to someone's house for tea or dinner. I also taught a wide range of students ranging from Priests from the Orthodox Church to Affluent people to refugees and started my own program to teach orphan children at a local school. It was great!

In terms of the underbelly, I did come across it, particularly in Aleppo where I had just arrived, I went wandering around and was invited into a nightclub where I found local officials sitting with Russian prostitutes and spending time with them.

I did come across lots of internet cafes too, oddly enough in Syria, most internet cafes are a place to openly watch porn. Hashish was definitely accessible as were other drugs and any other vice you might like to indulge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LM:

I had a feeling that would be your approach. It is also mine, whether it is a Congressional District in the US, or, St. Thomas in the Virgin Islands. My first goal is to get off the tourist routes or "main drags" and walk directly away from the traffic.

In Charlotte Amalie, the Capital and main port, I walked up into the hills and wound up walking into a political headquarters, much to the surprise of the Rasti's who were there. We got along fine and I found out more about the island in that one afternoon and long night than most Americans found out in their three week "vacation."

Just wanted to trust your perceptions and verify that you at least gave yourself the opportunity to "see" what was occurring.

Thanks.

Adam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, but you overstate it Michael as if it's much bigger than it is which is dishonest.

LM,

I stand up for you so you have the chance to post different views on this site and have them discussed intelligently.

You are free to present those views.

You are not free on OL to question my character and insult me to my face.

I already have one of your critics under moderation for this. I will have no compunction about doing the same with you if you keep this crap up.

Please adhere to the posting guidelines and we will be OK.

If that serves you, fine. And I sincerely hope it does.

As to the content of your post, my research does not bear out your opinions, but does bear out my interpretation. I have referenced this plenty here in the Mideast section. (For example, here's a great link-- for the umteenth time--to a site run by Sheikh Abdul Hadi Palazzi: Tell Children The Truth.)

So I stand by what I wrote.

In total honesty.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trouble is, it is not just Wahhabism that endorse Jihad. Every mainstream of Islamic jurisprudence endorses it.

Jihad means struggle or extra-ordinary effort. There are at least two ways the term is used:

1. Jihad = Holy War

2. Jihad = the struggle an individual must make to overcome his base inclinations. This is regarded by some Muslims as the greater Jihad.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Sure, but there is only one that concerns us. I don't give a damn about someone striving to overcome their drinking problem, or not lust after their neighbours wife. I do give a damn when they are striving to let loose in a London hotel with machineguns and handgrenades.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jihad is not just an Islamic concept, it's a universal concept

No. Jihad is not a universal concept. It is an Islamic concept. Jihad is ultimately the struggle to bring Islam to the world until the world is all for Allah. That is the last thing America is about (at least it was pre-Obama) and thank Gourd for that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I don't agree with all of the stuff by Wilders, I do celebrate the triumph of the right to free speech in Dutch courts.

Dutch Court Acquits Lawmaker of Hate Speech for Anti-Islam Comments

by Jonathon M. Seidl

June 23, 2011

AP reposted on The Blaze

From the article:

A Dutch court acquitted populist politician Geert Wilders of hate speech and discrimination Thursday, ruling that his anti-Islam statements, while offensive to many Muslims, fell within the bounds of legitimate political debate.

Presiding judge Marcel van Oosten said Wilders’ claims that Islam is violent by nature, and his calls to halt Muslim immigration and ban the Muslim holy book, the Quran, must be seen in a wider context of debate over immigration policy.

The court said his public statements could not be directly linked to increased discrimination against Dutch Muslims.

. . .

Groups that filed the complaints against Wilders that ultimately led to his prosecution said they were disappointed with the ruling.

The judge described his statements about a “tsunami” of immigrants overrunning the country and threatening its culture as “crude and denigrating,” but legally legitimate given the wider context and his further statements that he has no objections to Muslims who integrate and accept Dutch values. Wilders, who lives under constant protection due to death threats, has never called for violence or endorsed it.

In speeches and written articles, Wilder said Islam is an inherently violent religion, and he compared the Quran with “Mein Kampf,” Hitler’s tirade against Jews – an especially touchy image because of the large number of Dutch Jews handed over to the Nazis in World War II.

. . .

Last April the same court acquitted Abdoulmouthalib Bouzerda, chairman of the Arab European League, of hate speech charges for publishing a cartoon on its website questioning the reality of the Holocaust.

All this stuff is exactly where it should be--in the court of public opinion, not in the government court of suppressed speech.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One strike for Western freedom of speech and resistance of Islamic law in the West (Only just. That he was even on trial shows that the foot is in the door)

Dutch Court Acquits Lawmaker of Hate Speech for Anti-Islam Comments

And one strike for Islamic law

Man sentenced to death for blasphemy

http://www.dawn.com/2011/06/22/man-sentenced-to-death-for-blasphemy.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LM,

I stand up for you so you have the chance to post different views on this site and have them discussed intelligently.

You are free to present those views.

You are not free on OL to question my character and insult me to my face.

Michael,

Whilst I appreciate the fact that you stand up for my right to post on this forum, please don't assume that I'm going to be quiet when you start leveling out major insults against Muslims by accusing them of being Nazis.

It's an insult when you overstate the role of Nazism within the Muslim world during Amin's time. It's downright sensationalism and misrepresentation when you state that today's extremist groups are Nazis.. As I said, it would be appropriate for you to label some of those groups extremists, takfiris etc but the label of Nazi is inappropriate because they do not follow the Nazi ideology of a superior race nor the extermination of other races etc.

If you think that being called dishonest is insulting, perhaps consider how being called a Nazi would make someone feel?

As to the content of your post, my research does not bear out your opinions, but does bear out my interpretation. I have referenced this plenty here in the Mideast section. (For example, here's a great link-- for the umteenth time--to a site run by Sheikh Abdul Hadi Palazzi: Tell Children The Truth.)

So I stand by what I wrote.

What I have said is also what is stated in the website link that you provided.

1921 Grand Mufti Against The Will of The People

The British, against the local Muslim vote, appoint Amin Al-Husseini as Grand Mufti of Jerusalem. Amin Al-Husseini came in a poor fourth place in the vote [v] . The Muslim community rejected his candidacy because he had not received any credible Islamic education. He was neither a Sheikh (religiously accredited leader) nor an Alim (Islamic scholar). He becomes the pre-eminent Arab power in Palestine. His brutality becomes notorious and is rejected by local Muslim leadership.

1922 Head of Supreme Muslim Council

Amin Al-Husseini is appointed Head of Supreme Muslim Council (1922-1937) [vi] . He is hugely disappointed by the end of the Ottoman Empire under Ataturk. Husseini becomes fanaticized by the idea that he must restore the lost Islamic Empire. He vows to fight all Muslim seculars.

Now in terms of the other groups of Muslims that Amin Al-Husseini organized to join the Nazis, such as the 13th Waffen Mountain Division of the SS Handschar unit from Bosnia, it doesn't actually mention on that website you provided that BEFORE the Bosnian Muslims had joined the Nazis they were being persecuted by both the Serbs and the Communists. In fact the Serbian Cetnik commander Draža Mihailović had issued orders in 1941 to massacre the Muslim and Croat populations and in total around 150,000 Muslims were brutally massacred, not just killed but tortured and mutilated, just like the Serbs did in the 90's and a further 250,000 were expelled. So what were the Muslims to do then? What would you have done if no one else was coming to your aid, if you had the choice of either being massacred or having your rights to practice your beliefs taken away? The Bosnian Muslims didn't start joining the Nazis until 1943, long after they started getting massacred.

I might also remind you also that this phenomenon was not limited to the Bosnian Muslims, it was also occurring in Finland when the people were going to be taken over by the Soviet Union, they had no choice either but to fight for their own survival too.

Furthermore, any siding that populations of Muslims had with the Nazis in places such as Iraq were also due to the fact that the British had reneged on their promises to the Arabs and were occupying Arab lands, they wanted to liberate their lands from occupation. They took the idea that the enemy of my enemy is my friend, just like the Jewish Lehi or Stern Gang did in approaching the Nazis.

Jihad is not just an Islamic concept, it's a universal concept

No. Jihad is not a universal concept. It is an Islamic concept. Jihad is ultimately the struggle to bring Islam to the world until the world is all for Allah. That is the last thing America is about (at least it was pre-Obama) and thank Gourd for that.

Hmmm that's not true at all. Jihad didn't begin with Islam, other religious groups in the region use the term too.. Heck I've even met some Christian Arabs named Jihad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I said, it would be appropriate for you to label some of those groups extremists, takfiris etc but the label of Nazi is inappropriate because they do not follow the Nazi ideology of a superior race nor the extermination of other races etc.

I agree with LM. Nazis were out to wipe out Jewish “blood”, just consider the Nuremberg laws, under which you could have been born to Christian parents but still be classified as a Jew (or maybe a Mischling) if your Grandparents were Jews. Muslims let Jews convert to Islam, Nazis wouldn’t let Jews become Nazis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you think that being called dishonest is insulting...

LM,

Apparently I did not make myself clear. I have very few forum rules, but they are not debatable.

I do think being called dishonest is insulting. You are free to do that all over the Internet. But not in my house.

You don't have to like this condition. You have to obey it.

Further discussion on this will be thrown into the Garbage Pile, then we go from there.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dennis,

I never called Muslims Nazis--although quite a few were back in the day. That is a mis-attribution by LM.

I said, "... all rabidly antisemitic Islamist fundamentalism involves an intellectual mixture of Islam + Nazism."

I stand by that statement.

I don't believe the rabid antisemitism I constantly see by people from these fanatical groups comes directly from Islam. Not when the roots of Nazi influence of the main intellectuals in them are so easy to trace.

One guy, al-Qaradawi, who has a TV show with 40 million viewers is on video saying that his big dream in life is to die shooting Jews from a wheelchair. (I can find a link if you like.) That kind of hatred is not inherently Islamic. But it is inherent in the Nazi worldview. He even praised Hitler in that same speech. These people don't hide their sympathy for parts of the Nazi ideology. Normal people simply refuse to believe it, just like they refused to take Hitler's open statements seriously at the time.

Note that this guy al-Qaradawi is one of the spiritual leaders of the Muslim Brotherhood, but like many things with them, this is cloaked in double-speak. In other words, the guy is and he isn't at the same time, depending on who he is speaking to.

btw - Did you look at the site I linked to? There are plenty more out there, too.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you saying that the teachings of Islam cannot lead to hatred of the Jews?

Richard,

This very question is typical of the mindset I do not share.

You haters always push one way or the other with no correct identification of what someone said. You ask if I agree with A or B. I say neither, but I'm not sure you will ever get me. My position--my very existence--does not fit the class warfare dichotomy mentality of us-against-them hatred.

But to answer, the teachings of any religion--including Islam--can lead to hatred of this or that. But that does not make such hatred a fundamental component of the worldview of the practitioners.

Hatred of the Jews was fundamental to the Nazi worldview.

That is what I said--for the third time now. And that is what I meant.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you saying that the teachings of Islam cannot lead to hatred of the Jews?

Richard,

This very question is typical of the mindset I do not share.

You haters always push one way or the other with no correct identification of what someone said. You ask if I agree with A or B. I say neither, but I'm not sure you will ever get me. My position--my very existence--does not fit the class warfare dichotomy mentality of us-against-them hatred.

But to answer, the teachings of any religion--including Islam--can lead to hatred of this or that. But that does not make such hatred a fundamental component of the worldview of the practitioners.

Hatred of the Jews was fundamental to the Nazi worldview.

That is what I said--for the third time now. And that is what I meant.

Michael

No fair!

Thinking independently has no place on a rational site...er, well, maybe I should rethink that!

Doesn't it fascinate you that folks insist on forcing you into a false dichotomy or a Skinnerian pigeonhole in order to have a discussion, or, argument?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That kind of hatred is not inherently Islamic. But it is inherent in the Nazi worldview.

There’s no doubt in my mind that the worst elements in contemporary Islam see the Nazis as inspirational, and probably root for the Nazis when they watch Schindler’s List. But there is a fundamental ideological difference, as I noted earlier.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That kind of hatred is not inherently Islamic. But it is inherent in the Nazi worldview.

There’s no doubt in my mind that the worst elements in contemporary Islam see the Nazis as inspirational, and probably root for the Nazis when they watch Schindler’s List. But there is a fundamental ideological difference, as I noted earlier.

ND,

I reckon that's about right.

The easiest test is how much Muslim anti-semitism (well, anti-Judaism, to be accurate) was around pre-1930's, and Nazism.

Like 100's of thousands of Jews, my mother was borne and lived in an Arab country. This was Egypt, and fairly benevolent to its Jewish population - but she was aware strongly of a second-class status, and she was one of the fortunates.

My sense now is that as long as Jews lived humbly as inferiors, (they 'knew their place') they were attacked and violated less frequently by their Arab hosts; to see them, presently, as a powerful, independent nation, disturbs many Muslims as a deeply personal affront - so you'll continue hearing the old cliche of :- we are not antisemites, but anti-Zionist.

Yeah, sure.

Tony

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But there is a fundamental ideological difference, as I noted earlier.

Dennis,

I see this as a difference of degree, not kind. See Tony's comment here:

Like 100's of thousands of Jews, my mother was borne and lived in an Arab country. This was Egypt, and fairly benevolent to its Jewish population - but she was aware strongly of a second-class status...

... you'll continue hearing the old cliche of :- we are not antisemites, but anti-Zionist.

Yeah, sure.

In other words, this is antisemitism, pure and simple.

Where is the "fundamental" difference? In the fact that one group (Nazis) wanted to relegate Jews to second-class status, then this morphed into killing them off, while the other group merely relegates Jews to second-class status without the ultimate killing?

I will grant you this. Bigotry is bigotry, no matter what nationality practices it. So, yes, there exists antisemitic bigotry already in the Muslim world. But the Nazi component that is present in violent Islamist mobs is precisely that--the gratuitous violence against Jews with a feeling of total justification for doing that.

Notice that the KKK flourished in places where racism was widespread. It did not flourish elsewhere, like, say, Alaska or Rhode Island. But is there any "fundamental" difference between a member of the KKK and the normal run-of-the-mill racist? I say there is not--the anti-mind philosophical error is the same, but there is a difference in practice. Run-of-the-mill racists are generally not terrorists unless they adopt the ideological package of the KKK.

Ditto for my observations of the fundamentalist Islamists and Nazism. Without the Nazi stuff, they are simple bigots. With the Nazi stuff, they seek genocide of Jews. (I highly sympathize with their revulsion at having their lands controlled by foreigners who help the local tyrants by training their secret police, etc., but I don't mean Israel. Anyway, that is beside the point when discussing bigotry. A bigot with a legitimate grievance is just as much a bigot as one without a legitimate grievance. And bigotry is evil. Period.)

In problem-solving terms, I believe you have to expose the ugly Nazi element within the radical Muslim community and get Muslims to reject it. Then you can try to convince the bigots to not be bigots anymore.

If you try to do the contrary, the Islamist intellectuals who share the influence of the Nazi way will make sure they preach a solid enough backstory within their respective cultures to keep reason from taking hold--and I'm speaking specifically about anti-Jewish bigotry here, not other areas of applying reason.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see this as a difference of degree, not kind.

I gave an example (the Dawkins video) of a Jew who converted to Islam, and now talks like a radical Muslim. I assume he’s accepted in those circles. Nazis wouldn’t let a Jew become a Nazi, even if they’d been raised Christian. Nazis even banned the music of Felix Mendelssohn, even though he was a Lutheran, and technically a first degree Mischling (he had only 2 Jewish Grandparents, and never practiced Judaism). Difference of degree or kind? I guess it depends on how you’re defining the categories.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But there is a fundamental ideological difference, as I noted earlier.

Dennis,

I see this as a difference of degree, not kind. See Tony's comment here:

Like 100's of thousands of Jews, my mother was borne and lived in an Arab country. This was Egypt, and fairly benevolent to its Jewish population - but she was aware strongly of a second-class status...

... you'll continue hearing the old cliche of :- we are not antisemites, but anti-Zionist.

Yeah, sure.

In other words, this is antisemitism, pure and simple.

Where is the "fundamental" difference? In the fact that one group (Nazis) wanted to relegate Jews to second-class status, then this morphed into killing them off, while the other group merely relegates Jews to second-class status without the ultimate killing?

I will grant you this. Bigotry is bigotry, no matter what nationality practices it. So, yes, there exists antisemitic bigotry already in the Muslim world. But the Nazi component that is present in violent Islamist mobs is precisely that--the gratuitous violence against Jews with a feeling of total justification for doing that.

Notice that the KKK flourished in places where racism was widespread. It did not flourish elsewhere, like, say, Alaska or Rhode Island. But is there any "fundamental" difference between a member of the KKK and the normal run-of-the-mill racist? I say there is not--the anti-mind philosophical error is the same, but there is a difference in practice. Run-of-the-mill racists are generally not terrorists unless they adopt the ideological package of the KKK.

Ditto for my observations of the fundamentalist Islamists and Nazism. Without the Nazi stuff, they are simple bigots. With the Nazi stuff, they seek genocide of Jews. (I highly sympathize with their revulsion at having their lands controlled by foreigners who help the local tyrants by training their secret police, etc., but I don't mean Israel. Anyway, that is beside the point when discussing bigotry. A bigot with a legitimate grievance is just as much a bigot as one without a legitimate grievance. And bigotry is evil. Period.)

In problem-solving terms, I believe you have to expose the ugly Nazi element within the radical Muslim community and get Muslims to reject it. Then you can try to convince the bigots to not be bigots anymore.

If you try to do the contrary, the Islamist intellectuals who share the influence of the Nazi way will make sure they preach a solid enough backstory within their respective cultures to keep reason from taking hold--and I'm speaking specifically about anti-Jewish bigotry here, not other areas of applying reason.

Michael

Michael, please, how about you tell us exactly what the definition of Nazism is? Then please explain how you come to the conclusion based on the definition that there is a Nazi element within the radical Muslim community?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stage 2 is on the way: someone is going to request me to provide a quote or source for my view.
Michael, please, how about you tell us exactly what the definition of Nazism is? Then please explain how you come to the conclusion based on the definition that there is a Nazi element within the radical Muslim community?

It took longer than I thought, but it happened.

:)

LM,

I have discussed this long and often in many posts. And I have been very clear about it.

But I will answer. To avoid splitting hairs over minutia (which I have observed is a bad habit you sometimes get into when discussing fundamentals), let's be really simple. I will do the ostensive definition thing of Ayn Rand: I point to the Nazi government with Adolf Hitler at the helm that led to WWII. That and what they practiced is Nazism.

That seems to be clear enough without giving an opening for hairsplitting over non-essentials.

Main Nazi Ideas That Were Integrated By Radical Islamists

The parts of Nazism that I believe are relevant, i.e., the ones that have been absorbed and are currently practiced by radical Islamists are: (1) terrorism of civilians, and (2) rabid "kill the Jews" antisemitism. The reason I believe these attitudes and practices were absorbed from Nazism is that Nazis did these things as normal policy. I don't see these two elements in the rest of the Islamic world--only among the fanatics, and the intellectual pedigree of the fanatic intellectuals always includes a direct line to intellectuals and leaders in the dismantled Nazi Germany. Therefore, it is reasonable to identify the influence. (And I am far from the only one who sees this.)

There are a couple of other things, too, but they have been "translated" so to speak. (1) Fanatical adherence to anti-individualist collectivism with blind obedience to the rule of a dictator, where the Islamic religion-state with a Caliph is in the place of German socialism with a Fuhrer, and (2) the attitude of the fanatics toward the Islamic religion is very similar to how the Nazi fanatics viewed the "master race" concept.

While I do see sharia as an idea widely accepted among most Muslims, I don't see that what I call the "good Muslims" are holding the same state-worship as I see among Islamist fanatics. (I realize that Islamists would never call it "state-worship"--but that's what they practice in practical terms.) In other words, sharia is not fundamentally the same for fanatics as it is for "good Muslims"--even when the writings it is based on are the same.

Same words. Totally different intentions and application. Good Muslims want to live in peace and order, so sharia is just as good as any other law of the land where they live so long as it is reasonable. Radical Islamists want worldwide sharia to legitimize oppression. They want a whip and a saber--with them wielding these things, of course.

As was mentioned above, there is a second-class status accorded to the Jews that is widespread in the Islamic world. That is a form of antisemitism, but the loathing and violence is found only among the fanatics. I believe the second-class idea can be changed in a simple manner--and it will be--although over a long period of time, similar to what is happening with blacks in the USA. I do not feel so optimistic about fanatic Islamists who loathe Jews and want to kill them.

Obviously there was a Caliph before Nazi Germany, but among the Muslims I have known and the literature I have read, I do not detect a deep longing to conquer the world with him as head with an attitude similar to what the German Nazis had. But radical Islamists want to do this. Their attitude is identical to that of the Nazis.

I don't see among good Muslims the wish to sacrifice the individual for the good of the state, yet radical Islamists brainwash their own to become suicide bombers. They say it is for Allah, but it is really for the state.

The attitude I perceive of radical Islamists toward Islam is fundamentally different than the attitude of good Muslims. The good Muslims, even the most devout, believe in "live and let live." Radical Islamists--just like the Germans who believed in a master race--ultimately want to subjugate the part of humanity that is not within their group, then later kill off the part that cannot--or will not--be assimilated.

I could go on, but, idea-wise, these are some of the main broad strokes.

Notice that these are fundamental ideas.

Toxic Intellectual Environment

I have found that it is really difficult to put these ideas on the table--and keep them there for any length of time--so long as one side hates the other so much that arguments always boil down to one statement--one fundamental statement only: Everything would be fine if it were not for them.

Both sides argue this way.

This leads to ignoring and rationalizing inconvenient facts when they paint the home team in a bad light and to demonizing the other team. I have grown very weary of that environment.

The funny thing is that whenever a stalemate occurs, one side or the other will ask the person who has presented oodles of material--clear material--to present material to clarify what he means--as if he had not already presented it. Then time passes and the stalling maneuver loses its effect. The momentary objectivity seeps into the quicksand of mutual hatred of the two sides and the us-against-them whitewashing and demonizing go back into effect.

A Better Way

There is a better way. I am engaged in it. And it starts with a total rejection of the hatred of both sides.

Jews--and, yes, Zionists--are wonderful people. Muslims--and, yes, fundamentalists--are wonderful people.

The haters among them--including their respective cheerleaders from other groups the world over--spoil it all for everyone.

I hold that the attempt to justify the haters just because they are on the side of the person speaking is the evil root that keeps human beings killing each other. Who and what gains when you compromise with hatred? Peace and virtue?

That'll be the day.

Note--I don't hate the haters, but I am intent on firmly neutralizing the poison they always try to spread.

Seriously, can you--you as a person--really feel good about hating--hating on a primary level--in the service of Allah? I don't believe you do. And I see no reason to excuse anyone who practices this. Virtue is anchored in love, not spitting on others. People who like Nazis spit. Bigots spit. Haters spit. Men and women of goodwill love. Sometimes it's tough love, but it's still love. If you notice how I conduct myself, you will see that I, personally, don't give much space for the haters in the groups I fall within.So I don't just combat haters on one side or the other.

I say defeat--i.e., neutralize and/or discredit, or if possible, convince--the haters--all haters. Every time that is done, the peaceful people left over are always quite reasonable to each other.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Sorry for not replying sooner Michael, I've been rather busy preparing for an overseas visitor plus work etc.

Now let's look at what you've written.

1. Terrorism against Civilians

Who doesn't commit terrorism against civilians? The US does it, Israel does it, Russia does it, the extremists do it etc, so does that make them all Nazis? I don't think so.. Terrorism is a tactic of warfare that existed long before the Nazis, the measure of whether it's a legitimate form of warfare is whether it's directed purely at unarmed civilians including women and children, or is it targeting the infrastructure of the nation they're fighting against and civilians are caught in the middle. All groups are guilty of targeting civilians directly.

2. Rabid 'Kill the Jews' Antisemitism

I'm not sure where you get this from Michael, but it is not a goal of any of the extremists groups that I'm aware of to commit genocide against the Jews on the level that the Nazis did, instead, those extremist groups want to either move the Jews out of Palestine or have them live there under an Islamic State.

That makes them very different from the Nazis.

3. Fanatical adherence to anti-individualist collectivism with blind obedience to the rule of a dictator, where the Islamic religion-state with a Caliph is in the place of German socialism with a Fuhrer

See this I disagree with also, the extremists don't have blind obedience to anyone, their nature is similar to that of the Khajarites who would rise up against and if necessary, kill their leaders if they felt their leaders were acting in a way which was inappropriate. It is the Wahhabis that encourage following a leader no matter what, but whilst bin Laden and other groups may agree with some of the Wahhabi teachings, their ideology is separate to the extent where they would have no problem calling a Muslim leader a non Muslim and making Takfir on them, meaning they could kill them.

Also, teachings of bin Laden indicate that he was not a believer in anti-individualist collectivism either, in fact if you read his letters and declarations he condemns the lack of protections of individual rights of those in Saudi Arabia and the abuse of political activists..

The above makes them very different from the Nazis

4. The attitude of the fanatics toward the Islamic religion is very similar to how the Nazi fanatics viewed the "master race" concept.

That is also an unfair idea. I as a Muslim believe my religion is 100% correct, that it is the perfect religion just like many Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists etc believe their religion is 100% Just like Objectivists believe their ideas are 100% correct and in believing that our beliefs are 100% correct, it is only natural to assume that other beliefs are not 100% correct and therefore, our beliefs are superior to others. So long as this doesn't lead to violence or oppression I see no problem with this.

I also don't think that the extremist groups like Al-Qaeda etc want to force Islam onto non Muslims, rather they want to have the lands that were part of the Islamic Caliphate ruled by Shariah law and to have the West stop interfering in these lands. The unfortunate thing about their beliefs is that their idea of what Shariah law is, is not the same as what most Muslims would agree with.

Nevertheless, when talking about a master race, that is excluding others who have no ability to change how they were born and what they were born as.. Such as the Jews who were not hated because of their religion, but because their ethnicity and never would the be accepted in Nazi society no matter what they did. Whereas the Islamists would accept Jews becoming Muslims and treat them as brothers and they'd even accept Jews living in an Islamic State as Dhimmis.

The Islamists don't hate Jews or anyone else at all for their religion nor their ethnicity, they hate Israel and call the Israelis the Jews because the Israelis call themselves that, it's very different from the Nazis who hated the Jews because they were Jews..

This too makes them very different from the Nazis.

This is why I say that there is a huge difference between the Nazis and the Islamists, that to compare them is not a logical link no matter how many times you might claim it.

It is also why I get offended by assertions that such groups are Nazi related, because whilst I don't subscribe to many of their ideology, I can appreciate where they are coming from in a lot of their arguments and can appreciate what has brought them to their thinking. I also get offended because if we start calling everyone Nazis, then we're diluting the memory of real monstrosity that the Nazi nightmare was, of which there is no comparison today and God willing never in the future.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now