lise@utcsstat.UUCP (Lise Manchester) (04/18/84)
Just wanted to point out that the concept of surrendering one's self to God, which Jeff Sargent mentions from time to time, is not unique to Christianity. The very word 'Islam' means "submission to the will of God" and, as I understand it, a Muslim seeks to surrender his or her own will to that of God.
heddaya@harvard.ARPA ( Solom) (07/20/85)
<<Also posted to net.politics, and net.followup>> In the heat of the discussion of the Lebanon hostage crisis, several accusations were directed to Islam as a whole. Being a muslem, I would like to respond to one of these accusations. Maybe my response will help those who want to better understand Muslems and Islam. Mr. Joaquim Martillo (martillo@mit-athena.UUCP) charges that: > Muslims as a matter of religious faith and practise consider themselves > obligated to humiliate and degrade non-Muslims. Imagine my surprise at reading that after all what I have been taught of my religion (Islam) at home, at school, and at the mosque. I was taught that Islam is the religion of tolerance, that violence can only be condoned in self-defense, and even then, God (=Allah in arabic) loves and rewards those who forgive. The rules given by the Koran (our holy book) and Sunna (prophet Mohammad's sayings and actions) regarding treating non-muslems under muslem jurisdiction are very clear and unambiguous: they should be allowed to worship freely; their properties and religious structures are to remain untouched; but they should pay a tax (called "Jiziah" in arabic) which is almost equivalent to the tax paid by muslems ("Zakah"). The two standard principles in Islamic Law ("shari'a") that define the relation with non-muslems are: 1) Let them do what they believe in. (literal translation of the arabic "etrukohom wa ma yadeenoon") 2) For them what is for us, and from them what is from us. ("lahom ma lana, wa alayhom ma alayna") Applying these principles, non-muslems are allowed to have their own laws in marriage, divorce, and the like. What they don't get to choose, though--and have to follow Muslem law in--is the penal code (for crimes) and the laws governing financial transactions. The prophet Muhammad said: * Protect my [contract with non-muslems]. (Muslem law defines the relation with non-muslems as a social contract) * Whoever is unfair to a [non-muslem], or [taxes] him more than he can afford, then I will [argue against him on the day of judgement]. Moreover, Islam grants a special status to Christians and Jews (people of the book), because Islam recognizes and acknowledges both religions as valid in their own times and places. You must see how highly the Koran speaks of Jesus and Moses to understand that no devout muslem is going to hurt a christian or jew just because of the latter's belief. And if he does, then he is simply violating the teachings of Islam as it stands documented. Please, don't prematurely judge a major religion of the world, which is also associated with a major civilization. Also, observe that political groups who are labeled as Muslem do not always operate in the name of Islam, or even under its teachings. The Barbaric Islam, as Mr. Martillo prefers to call it, has maintained and developed the contributions of the ancient egyptian, greek, and persian civilizations while Europe was in the dark ages! Abdelsalam Heddaya Arpa: heddaya@harvard.arpa Internet: heddaya@harvard.HARVARD.EDU UUCP: {seismo,ihnp4,...}!harvard!heddaya Received: by harvard.ARPA; Fri, 19 Jul 85 18:38:54 EDT From: heddaya (A. Heddaya - Solom) To: amr%gvax@cornell.arpa, sweillam@washington.arpa, sab@washington.arpa, aff%duke.CSNET@csnet-relay.ARPA, zaky-a%osu-20%ohio-state.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa, hegazy-w%osu-20%ohio-state.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa, gheith-a%osu-20%ohio-state.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa, khaled@cit-sys.arpa, alberta!ahmed, shafei@mit-athena, ehrady@mit-athena.arpa, heddaya@harvard.arpa, alberta!rashad Subject: Re: Islam (defense) Salam, Here's my actual posting. I did modify it based on the comments I got. You should be able to find it on net.politics within a couple of days. \Solom ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Newsgroups: net.politics Subject: Islam (long but informative) Bcc: heddaya In the heat of the discussion of the Lebanon hostage crisis, several accusations were directed to Islam as a whole. Being a muslem, I would like to respond to one of these accusations. Maybe my response will help those who want to better understand Muslems and Islam. Mr. Joaquim Martillo (martillo@mit-athena.UUCP) charges that: > Muslims as a matter of religious faith and practise consider themselves > obligated to humiliate and degrade non-Muslims. Imagine my surprise at reading that after all what I have been taught of my religion (Islam) at home, at school, and at the mosque. I was taught that Islam is the religion of tolerance, that violence can only be condoned in self-defense, and even then, God (=Allah in arabic) loves and rewards those who forgive. The rules given by the Koran (our holy book) and Sunna (prophet Mohammad's sayings and actions) regarding treating non-muslems under muslem jurisdiction are very clear and unambiguous: they should be allowed to worship freely; their properties and religious structures are to remain untouched; but they should pay a tax (called "Jiziah" in arabic) which is almost equivalent to the tax paid by muslems ("Zakah"). The two standard principles in Islamic Law ("shari'a") that define the relation with non-muslems are: 1) Let them do what they believe in. (literal translation of the arabic "etrukohom wa ma yadeenoon") 2) For them what is for us, and from them what is from us. ("lahom ma lana, wa alayhom ma alayna") Applying these principles, non-muslems are allowed to have their own laws in marriage, divorce, and the like. What they don't get to choose, though--and have to follow Muslem law in--is the penal code (for crimes) and the laws governing financial transactions. The prophet Muhammad said: * Protect my [contract with non-muslems]. (Muslem law defines the relation with non-muslems as a social contract) * Whoever is unfair to a [non-muslem], or [taxes] him more than he can afford, then I will [argue against him on the day of judgement]. Moreover, Islam grants a special status to Christians and Jews (people of the book), because Islam recognizes and acknowledges both religions as valid in their own times and places. You must see how highly the Koran speaks of Jesus and Moses to understand that no devout muslem is going to hurt a christian or jew just because of the latter's belief. And if he does, then he is simply violating the teachings of Islam as it stands documented. Please, don't prematurely judge a major religion of the world, which is also associated with a major civilization. Also, observe that political groups who are labeled as Muslem do not always operate in the name of Islam, or even under its teachings. The Barbaric Islam, as Mr. Martillo prefers to call it, has maintained and developed the contributions of the ancient egyptian, greek, and persian civilizations while Europe was in the dark ages! Abdelsalam Heddaya Arpa: heddaya@harvard.arpa Internet: heddaya@harvard.HARVARD.EDU UUCP: {seismo,ihnp4,...}!harvard!heddaya
martillo@mit-athena.UUCP (Yakim Martillo) (07/30/85)
>In the heat of the discussion of the Lebanon hostage crisis, several >accusations were directed to Islam as a whole. Being a muslem, I would like >to respond to one of these accusations. Maybe my response will help those who >want to better understand Muslems and Islam. >Mr. Joaquim Martillo (martillo@mit-athena.UUCP) charges that: >> Muslims as a matter of religious faith and practise consider themselves >> obligated to humiliate and degrade non-Muslims. >Imagine my surprise at reading that after all what I have been taught of my >religion (Islam) at home, at school, and at the mosque. I was taught that >Islam is the religion of tolerance, that violence can only be condoned in >self-defense, and even then, God (=Allah in arabic) loves and rewards those >who forgive. What bull shit! Tolerance has never been considered a virtue in the major Western religions. The concept of tolerance as a virtue begins with the Enlightenment and really only comes to full expression in the middle 19th century in Western Europe. To claim Islam a religion which came into being in the 7th century by Christian reakoning considers as a virtue an idea which neither Europeans nor Muslims hardly even thought about until 100 years ago is an insult to intelligence. >The rules given by the Koran (our holy book) and Sunna (prophet Mohammad's >sayings and actions) regarding treating non-muslems under muslem jurisdiction >are very clear and unambiguous: they should be allowed to worship freely; >their properties and religious structures are to remain untouched; but they >should pay a tax (called "Jiziah" in arabic) which is almost equivalent to the >tax paid by muslems ("Zakah"). Actually, the jizya and the kharaj were a crushing burden which wiped out the non-muslim peasantry almost everywhere in the Islamic world. The disappearance of the non-muslim peasantry is an easily verifiable fact. The following is the relevant passage on the jizyah from the Qur'an: Fight against those to whom the Scriptures were given, who believe not in Allah nor in the Last Day, who forbid not what Allah and His apostle have forbidden, and follow not the true faith, until they pay the tribute out of hand and are humbled (hatta yu`tu 'l-jizyata `an yadin wa-hum saghirum is somewhat obscure -- I have translated according to later Muslim understanding.) Sura 9:29 The following is from a standard commentary on the Qur'an by Mahmud ibn `Umar al-Zamakshari (1075-1144). The jizya shall be taken from them with belittlement and humiliation. He [the dhimmi] shall come in person, walking not riding. When he pays, he shall stand, while the tax collector sits. The collector shall seize him by the scruff of the neck, shake him, and say: 'Pay the jizya!', and when he pays it he shall be slapped on the nape of the neck. So what is the purpose of this shit -- which my parents and grandparents had to undergo? From the Hanbali jurist Ibn al-Naqqah (1400s) in Belin, "Fetwa relatif a la condition des dhimmis et particulierement des chretiens en pays musulmans depuis l`etablissement de l`Islam jusqu`au milieu du 8e siecle de l'hegire," Journal Asiatique 4th series, 19 (1852): 107-108 -- I believe Heddaya can find this at Widener or at the Library which I believe is in the Semitics Museum building: Perhaps in the end they will come to believe in God and His Prophet, and thus be delivered from this shameful yoke. Therefore, while Muslims are not obligated to convert by force, they are obligated to annihilate gradually the non-Muslim communities by humiliation and degradation. No wonder the Copts in Egypt get rather upset when Sheikh Hafiz Salama calls for the reintroduction of the jizya. > The two standard principles in Islamic Law >("shari'a") that define the relation with non-muslems are: This is pure ignorance. The legal basis of the relationship between Muslims and non-Muslims is the pact of `Umar which gives the non-Muslims permanent second-class status and compels non-Muslims to abase themselves before Muslims. >1) Let them do what they believe in. (literal translation of the arabic > "etrukohom wa ma yadeenoon") >2) For them what is for us, and from them what is from us. ("lahom ma lana, > wa alayhom ma alayna") >Applying these principles, non-muslems are allowed to have their own laws in >marriage, divorce, and the like. What they don't get to choose, though--and >have to follow Muslem law in--is the penal code (for crimes) and the laws >governing financial transactions. Which is a fairly large qualification since Muslim courts invariably accept the testimony of Muslims and reject the testimony of non-Muslims. >The prophet Muhammad said: >* Protect my [contract with non-muslems]. (Muslem law defines the relation > with non-muslems as a social contract) The Qur'an says (Sura 5:51): O you who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians as friends. They are friends to one another. Whoever of you befriends them is one of them. Allah does not guide the people who do evil. Sura 9:30: The Jews say, "Ezra is the son of Allah," and the Christians say, "The Messiah is the son of Allah." Thos are the words of their mouths, conforming to the words of the unbelievers before them. Allah attack them! How perverse they are! >* Whoever is unfair to a [non-muslem], or [taxes] him more than he can > afford, then I will [argue against him on the day of judgement]. The above quotation is from a non-canonical (and therefore of little legal value) hadith (if I recognize it properly). I believe the full context can be found in Abu Yusuf, Kitab al-Kharaj (Cairo, 1382/1962-63) pp 122-25. It has no isnad (chain of transmission). >Moreover, Islam grants a special status to Christians and Jews (people of the >book), because Islam recognizes and acknowledges both religions as valid in >their own times and places. You must see how highly the Koran speaks of >Jesus and Moses to understand that no devout muslem is going to hurt a >christian or jew just because of the latter's belief. And if he does, then >he is simply violating the teachings of Islam as it stands documented. The Qur'an frequently states the Christians and Jews warped and distorted the teachings which Jesus and Moses gave. Such an idea cannot help but inspire Muslim contempt for Christians and Jews. >Please, don't prematurely judge a major religion of the world, which is also >associated with a major civilization. Also, observe that political groups >who are labeled as Muslem do not always operate in the name of Islam, or even >under its teachings. After reading Heddaya's rather ignorant statements about Islam, I am only more convinced that if a Westerner wants to learn about Islam, he should not listen to Westernized propagandists and apologists but rather should read and listen to men like the Ayatollah Khomeini, Sheikh `Umar Abd el-Rahman, `Umar el-Talmassani, Gad el-Hakk, Sheikh Hafiz Salama who are really all right in the mainstream of their tradition. In any case, even if Heddaya were writing truthfully, claiming that the Islamic attitude toward non-Muslims can be determined merely be reading the Qur'an is pure intellectual dishonesty. Analagously, I could prove on the basis of the USA Constitution and Declaration of Independence that Black slavery never existed in the USA. >The Barbaric Islam, as Mr. Martillo prefers to call it, has maintained and >developed the contributions of the ancient egyptian, greek, and persian >civilizations while Europe was in the dark ages! I do not deny that Muslims added a modicum to the classical heritage. I do believe their contribution is often exaggerated, but this is irrelevant to my contention. I contend that Islam qua ideology assigns non-Muslims permanent second-class status and requires the humiliation and degradation of non-Muslims. This can be determined by studying the body of Islamic commentary, jurisprudence, and theology of the last 1300 years. Further, the ideologicaly position of non-Muslims has been steadily declining over at least the past millenium. This is most apparent in the Hanbali school of thought which has tended lately to deny the legitimacy of the dhimma. Fortunately, for most of the last millenium, the rulers and their dependent jurists have taken a slightly more lenient viewpoint than the `ulama and the non-Muslim communities were able to survive to the 19th century when they could get protection from Europe. Unfortunately, nowadays the ruling-elites in most Muslim nations are almost totally Westernized and have lost both legitimacy and the will to resist the `ulama's increasing demands for power which have basically made the ideology of the `ulama equivalent to the ideology of Islam. Several have argued that Muslims are no better Muslims than Christians are good Christians. Therefore, my arguments would be irrelevant. But the fundamental ideology is important. Because Jim Crow conflicted with the fundamental ideology of American society, Jim Crow died in the USA. But in Germany several hundred years ago, Martin Luther said the synagogue should be burned and that the Jews should be gathered and murdered. And the Germans eventually carried out these tasks. Likewise in Islam the fundamental ideology has required the humiliation and degradation of non-Muslims. Muslim attitude toward non-Muslims cannot help but be affected. Consequently over the past millenium non-Muslims have been subjected to ever increasing contempt, harassment and persecution. And the Muslims see nothing wrong with this or like the Germans have refused to see it happening (by the way you should not ask Muslim whether they treat non-Muslims well -- that is like asking the Southern slaveholder whether his slaves were happy). For this reason, until Muslims make a fundamental ideological adjustment and concede that they just might owe non-Muslims for historical and current mistreatment, Muslims cannot be permitted to rule countries and must be returned to colonial status until they get over Islam. In the seventh century, when the Muslims took the Byzantine territories, I am sure that my ancestors who lived in these territories were relieved. The Byzantines were scum. Humiliation and degradation and permanent second-class-status were better than anything the Byzantines offered. But I nowadays do not compare Islam with Byzantinism but rather with truth, justice and the American way. Just as Byzantinism became detritus to be swept away by changing circumstances. Nowadays Islam is the detritus which should be removed to garbage dump of history.
steiny@scc.UUCP (Don Steiny) (08/01/85)
> > Nowadays Islam is the detritus which should be > removed to garbage dump of history. How do you propose to do that? -- scc!steiny Don Steiny @ Don Steiny Software 109 Torrey Pine Terrace Santa Cruz, Calif. 95060
pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) (08/02/85)
One paragraph in Y. Martillo's article reads: >Several have argued that Muslims are no better Muslims than >Christians are good Christians. Therefore, my arguments would be >irrelevant. But the fundamental ideology is important. Because Jim >Crow conflicted with the fundamental ideology of American society, >Jim Crow died in the USA. But in Germany several hundred years ago, >Martin Luther said the synagogue should be burned and that the Jews >should be gathered and murdered. And the Germans eventually carried >out these tasks. I think it's important to note that "eventually" here means "after about 450 years". I think Luther's attitude toward Jews was ugly. But though Luther's influence was strong during the Reformation, his suggestions for the Jews were not really taken seriously. I think this is mainly due to the fact that Luther did not set himself up as an authority (like the Pope). He emphasised *sola scriptura* as the principle authority and put the Scriptures themselves in the hands of the common people by translating them into their language. Your paragraph insinuates that the German persecution of the Jews was a direct fulfillment of Luther's mandate. I agree that "the fundamental ideology is important." But I think you are mistaken in including Luther's attitude toward Jews as part of that. I think it was on the fringe. If it wasn't why did it take so long for the tasks to be carried out? Things were different in Germany 450 years after Luther. In particular, the Church's attitude toward Scripture had deviated considerably from Luther's view. Hitler did use Luther's opinion as part of his rallying call. But the thing that allowed him to get away with it was the change in context. The "fundamental ideology" of the church (not to mention society) had changed considerably since Luther's time. I think that was what either allowed it to accept the fringe as fundamental or made it powerless to oppose such acceptance effectively. Also, I think Luther's opinion played a relatively minor part with Hitler compared to Nietzsche, for example (either directly, or indirectly through men like Albert Camus and Jean Paul Sartre). Also, where do you think Hitler got his ideas about eugenics and social Darwinism? Was that part of Luther's fundemental ideology? It is generally argued that the ideas of people like Nietzsche, Camus, Sartre and Darwin were selectively applied or twisted by Hitler. Indeed, these men did, or probably would have, strongly opposed the Nazi way of doing things. No one (especially those sympathetic to the views of these men) wants to admit that their ideas provided a significant influence for the Nazis. But the effects of ideas often go beyond the intent and foresight of their progenitors. Affixing blame is an irresistable temptation for many, however. And it is so much easier to cut through the complex web of influence in history to draw simple lines of influence that suit the blamers purposes better. If the influence of these men on Nazism was not their intent, or part of their "fundemental ideology", still less is it of Christianity. Yet, the blamers must have a real devil and Christianity makes a nice one in some circles. I really doubt that Mr. Martillo has the intent that I just mentioned, but simplistic, cause-effect statements like this one do have that cumulative, subtile effect on others. Where is the hate going to stop? -- Paul Dubuc cbscc!pmd
steiny@scc.UUCP (Don Steiny) (08/04/85)
> > Also, I think Luther's opinion played a relatively minor part with Hitler > compared to Nietzsche, for example (either directly, or indirectly through > men like Albert Camus and Jean Paul Sartre). > It is generally argued that the ideas of people like Nietzsche, Camus, > Sartre and Darwin were selectively applied or twisted by Hitler. Indeed, > these men did, or probably would have, strongly opposed the Nazi way of > doing things. Nietzche wrote to his sister in 1887 . . . . . . You have committed one of the greatest stupidities--for yourself and for me! Your association with an anti-Semitic cheif expresses a foreignness to my whole way of life which fills me again and again with meloncholy. . . . It is a matter of honor with me to be absolutely clean and unequivical in relation to anti-Semitism, namely *opposed* to it, as I am in my writings. I have recently been persecuted with letters and *Anti-Semitic Correspondence Sheets.* My disgust with this party (wich would like the benefit of my name only too well!) is as pronounced as possible, but the relation to Forster [Nietzche's sister's husband], as well as the afteraffects of my former publisher, the anti-Semitic Schmeitzer, always brings this disagreeable party back to the idea that I must belong to them after all . . . It arouses mistrust against my character, as if publicly I condemmed something which I favored secretly--and that I am unable to do anything against it, that the name Zarathustra is used in every *Anti-Semitic Correspondence Sheet*, has almost made me sick several times. The Portable Nietzche ed. Walter Kaufman p. 456-457 The last thing Nietzche wrote was a letter to his friend Overbeck: To friend Overbeck and wife. Although you have so far demonstrated little faith in my ability to pay, I hope to yet demonstrate that I am someone who pays his debts--for example, to you, I am just having all anti-Semites shot. Dionysus -- scc!steiny Don Steiny @ Don Steiny Software 109 Torrey Pine Terrace Santa Cruz, Calif. 95060
jho@ihu1m.UUCP (Yosi Hoshen) (08/04/85)
In a recent article Yakim Martillo described the persecution of
minorities under Arab/Islamic rule. The forgotten Jewish refugees,
who fled from Arab persecution to Israel, provide a clear example
of what could happen to minorities under Arab rule in the 20th century.
To illustrate my point, I am posting a letter sent to the Ann Arbor News
on 4/13/75 (with the permission of the author) by Aviva Mutchnick.
Aviva came to Israel as an infant refugee from Iraq.
This is her story:
----------------
REFUGEES FROM ARAB STATES
My family can claim continuing residence in Bagdad, Iraq for nearly
2,500 years. In all that time we were considered strangers, people in
exile. We were the Jews of Israel taken into captivity by the Babylonians
some 600 years before the birth of Christ.
The people of Bagdad have referred to their city as the "Tray of
Gold," but a popular Jewish lyric depicts Bagdad as a "Tray of Gold...
with a scorpion in it." The Oriental Jews withstood many persecutions
and endured the periodic decimations of pogroms.
My family recalls the pogrom of 1941 when a massacre of Iraqi Jews
followed the failure of the Arabs to oust out the British from an alliance
with Nazi Germany. The rebels vented their rage on the Jewish Quarter.
Many dozens of Jewish lives were terminated.
The situation of Iraqi Jews deteriorated when Israel was proclaimed
a sovereign state in 1948. Even though Jews were considered second class
non citizens, they were not allowed to emigrate. Those who attempted to
flee were caught and hanged in the public square.
Iraqi Jews were finally allowed to depart in 1951, but were not
premitted to take any possessions except the clothing on their backs.
These hapless 125,000 victims were accepted by Israel with the full
realization the economic hardships would effect the fledgling nation.
Refugees were sheltered in tents and shacks. Food stamps were employed
to distribute the limited quantities of food. As a consequence, rationing
was instituted for the entire country in order to provide the Jewish
refugees from Arab states.
My family, like many others with a large number of children, was
given a tent with canvas sleeping cots. This was to be our home for
eight years.
Pneumonia was common amongst the children as their meager clothing
provided unsuitable for the wet winter weather. Makeshift barracks,
unheated, served as schools. The low protein and high starch diet
lowered resistance to infection....
Within two decades, the situation changed. All refugee camps
disappeared as the former Oriental Jews were assimilated into the fabric
of the new Israeli society. Problems remain, inequities occur, but all
Israelis are geared to sacrifice for the common good.
Not all Jews were fortunate to leave Iraq of for that matter, Syria.
A small number maintained their protestations of loyalty to the Iraqi
governments. Their fate has subsequently proved horrendous as they are
now captives of repressive governments. Loyal, though they might claim
to be, saboteurs and the fifth columnists they have been declared.
Many Jews were under house arrest for years, were condemned in
kangaroo courts for treason and sentenced to death. How ludicrous the
charges, how awful the spectacle of their motionless bodies in the
hangmam's noose in the square of Bagdad....in the presence of jubilant
and cheering Iraqi Arabs.
In Israel the refugees from Arab States now control their own fate.
They are no longer a repressed minority subject to the excesses of
tyrannical Arab governments.
How ironic that Arab refugees from Israel were placed in detention
camps by there brethren. How regrettable that they were denied the basic
human rights of other Arab citizens in the host countries.
Israel has succeeded to well with her refugees as she responded out
of need and deep love. The ingathering of repressed Jews continues.
Aviva Mutchnick
----------------
--
Yosi Hoshen, AT&T Bell Laboratories
Naperville, Illinois, Mail: ihnp4!ihu1m!jhorlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (08/06/85)
> Hitler did use Luther's opinion as part of his rallying call. ... > > I think Luther's opinion played a relatively minor part with Hitler > compared to Nietzsche, for example (either directly, or indirectly through > men like Albert Camus and Jean Paul Sartre). Also, where do you think > Hitler got his ideas about eugenics and social Darwinism? Was that part > of Luther's fundemental ideology? > > It is generally argued that the ideas of people like Nietzsche, Camus, > Sartre and Darwin were selectively applied or twisted by Hitler. Indeed, > these men did, or probably would have, strongly opposed the Nazi way of > doing things. No one (especially those sympathetic to the views of these men) > wants to admit that their ideas provided a significant influence for the > Nazis. But the effects of ideas often go beyond the intent and foresight of > their progenitors. [DUBUC] Thus, by the same reasoning, we should belittle mathematics and science, because THEIR usage leads to heinous weapons in the hands of people who believe in notions like nationalistic superiority, race hatred, etc. Of course, those other notions were just a minor influence on the warmongers. Clearly it was the mathematics and science that was the most evil part of their thinking. > If the influence of these men on Nazism was not their intent, or > part of their "fundemental ideology", still less is it of Christianity. Was this Martin Luther person you quoted, who suggested the burning of the synagogues, doing so out of his "fundamental ideology", and that of today's Christians (many of whom use the name Lutheran [???])? > Yet, the blamers must have a real devil and Christianity makes a nice one > in some circles. Given what Mr. Luther himself said, I can see why. Can you explain why the other side of the coin might be presented similarly as a devil? -- "to be nobody but yourself in a world which is doing its best night and day to make you like everybody else means to fight the hardest battle any human being can fight and never stop fighting." - e. e. cummings Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
rrizzo@bbncca.ARPA (Ron Rizzo) (08/07/85)
Why are Camus & Sartre mentioned as sources of nazi ideology or ideas for hitler's writings or speeches? Simple chronology makes it nearly impossible. hitler's "My Struggle" (Mein Kampf) was published in the 1920s; nazi ideology was fully formed by the time they assumed power. Sartre studied with Heidegger in 1938 for a year or so. Nearly all Sartre's & Camus' writings date from the 1940s on. Only some unpolitical philosophical essays (Sartre) & juvenilia & reviews (Camus) were written in the 1930s. Maybe Heidegger is the source intended: an ex-Jesuit whose works on metaphysics are seminal for 20th century existentialism, Martin Heidegger joined the nazi party in 1933 and was nazi rector of the University of Freiburg from 1933-1936. But Heidegger's abstruse & obscure essays supply no political ideas; only his nazi party affiliation & public pronouncements as a nazi official could have provided any fodder for hitler. Ron Rizzo
pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) (08/08/85)
>Why are Camus & Sartre mentioned as sources of nazi ideology or ideas >for hitler's writings or speeches? Simple chronology makes it nearly >impossible. >hitler's "My Struggle" (Mein Kampf) was published in the 1920s; nazi >ideology was fully formed by the time they assumed power. Sartre >studied with Heidegger in 1938 for a year or so. Nearly all Sartre's >& Camus' writings date from the 1940s on. Only some unpolitical >philosophical essays (Sartre) & juvenilia & reviews (Camus) were >written in the 1930s. >... > Ron Rizzo I mentioned Nietzsche as the primary influence. Camus and Sartre were secondary. It's true that their part as sources is questionable. But the matter of influence isn't only a question of primary sources. There is also the aspect of support: what provided fuel for the fire once it has started or reflected conditions of the time that allowed Nazi ideology to bloom and hold sway? Hitler killed himself in April 1945. I would mark that as the end of the Third Reich. The reason I mentioned Camus and Sartre was because of Nietzsche's influence on them and that some of their philosophical ideas about the meaninglessness, purposelessness and futility of life were in print during the late 30's and early 40's (although they weren't translated into english until after wwII). The extent of help these ideas gave the Nazi's may be debated, but their usefullness as a reflection of the intellectual mood of the times is on more solid ground, I think. Ideas don't have to be expressly political to influence political action. That's part of the "fundamental ideology" thing that Mr. Martillo was talking about. Anyway, some of the works that were "floating around" were: Camus: L'etranger (The Stranger) 1942 Le myth de Sisyphe (The Myth of Sysphus [sp?]) 1943 Caligula (a play, wasn't published until 1945 but was written by Camus in 1938) Sartre: La Nausee (Nausea) 1938 L'Etre et le neant (Being and Nothingness) 1943 It's easy to see where the view of humanity reflected in these works could justify (apart from the authors intentions) the idea that human life is of no more significance than inanimate matter. If you believe that, then how you treat humans is left up to asthetics. For folks like Hitler and Mengele that apparently wasn't as formidable an obstruction as it was for Camus and Sartre themselves. -- Paul Dubuc cbscc!pmd
carnes@gargoyle.UUCP (Richard Carnes) (08/09/85)
In article <5712@cbscc.UUCP> pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) writes: > >The reason I mentioned Camus and Sartre was because of Nietzsche's influence >on them and that some of their philosophical ideas about the meaninglessness, >purposelessness and futility of life were in print during the late 30's and >early 40's (although they weren't translated into english until after wwII). >The extent of help these ideas gave the Nazi's may be debated, but their >usefullness as a reflection of the intellectual mood of the times is on >more solid ground, I think. Ideas don't have to be expressly political >to influence political action. >.... >It's easy to see where the view of humanity reflected in these works >could justify (apart from the authors intentions) the idea that human >life is of no more significance than inanimate matter. This is so far out of whack that it hardly merits a response, but such a slur on these two great writers should be answered. The views expressed above recall the attitude of 18th century traditionalists toward Voltaire, who was blamed for the evils of the French Revolution. Persons who believe that life is meaningless and futile do not expend great energies in political activism and in the writing of literary and philosophical works, as these two men did. Please read *The Plague* (*La Peste* in French) if you think that Camus's writings reflect the idea that human life is insignificant and pointless. Sartre was a moralist above all. The concepts of "bad faith" and moral responsibility play a major role in his philosophical works, and he gave his passionate support to many political causes, which often brought him into conflict with established institutions. In order to avoid too close an identification with the powers that be he rejected membership in the French Academy, the Legion d'Honneur, and the Nobel Prize. For a while he was a supporter (but not a member) of the French Communist Party, but he broke with it later over Hungary, Algeria, and the events of May 1968, after which he became something of a Maoist/libertarian (?). For his views on anti-Semitism see his 1948 work *Portrait of an Anti-Semite*, a psychological study. His funeral in 1980 was attended by tens of thousands of people, while tributes came in from all over the world. Why? Because he revealed the meaninglessness of life? I doubt it. Whatever your opinion of the political and philosophical views of Camus and Sartre, the idea of linking them in any way with the Third Reich is totally absurd. Some of the stuff I read in net.politics these days is just amazin'. Doesn't anyone read books anymore? Richard Carnes, ihnp4!gargoyle!carnes
tonyw@ubvax.UUCP (Tony Wuersch) (08/12/85)
In article <539@scc.UUCP> steiny@scc.UUCP (Don Steiny) writes: >> >> Also, I think Luther's opinion played a relatively minor part with Hitler >> compared to Nietzsche, for example (either directly, or indirectly through >> men like Albert Camus and Jean Paul Sartre). >> It is generally argued that the ideas of people like Nietzsche, Camus, >> Sartre and Darwin were selectively applied or twisted by Hitler. Indeed, >> these men did, or probably would have, strongly opposed the Nazi way of >> doing things. > > Nietzche wrote to his sister in 1887 . . . And then comes lots of liberalish Nietzsche quotes, against Anti-Semitism, German nationalism, etc.. None of these quotes can wipe away that there were enough ambiguities in Nietzsche about supermen and power and dumb cowlike masses to permit fascists to easily abuse Nietzsche whenever they found it convenient. How did Camus and Sartre get on a list of people influencing Hitler? Tony Wuersch {amd,amdcad}!cae780!ubvax!tonyw
azam@ihlpm.UUCP (Azam) (08/15/85)
THE PROPHET MOHAMMED'S (PEACE BE UPON HIM) LAST SERMON ------------------------------------------------------ THIS SERMON WAS DELIVERED ON THE NINTH DAY OF DHUL HIJARAH 10 A.H. IN THE "URANAH VALLEY OF MOUNT ARAFAT: "O PEOPLE LEND ME AN ATTENTIVE EAR, FOR I KNOW NOT WHETHER, AFTER THIS YEAR, I SHALL EVER BE AMONGST YOU AGAIN. THEREFORE LISTEN TO WHAT I AM SAYING VERY CAREFULLY AND TAKE THESE WORDS TO THOSE WHO COULD NOT BE PRESENT HERE TODAY. O PEOPLE, JUST AS YOU REGARD THIS MONTH, THIS DAY, THIS CITY AS SACRED, SO REGARD THE LIFE AND PROPERTY OF EVERY MUSLIM AS A SACRED TRUST. RETURN THE GOODS ENTRUSTED TO YOU TO THEIR RIGHTFUL OWNERS. HURT NO ONE SO THAT NO ONE MAY HURT YOU. REMEMBER THAT YOU WILL INDEED MEET YOUR LORD AND THAT HE WILL INDEED RECKON YOUR DEEDS. ALLAH HAS FORBIDDEN YOU TO TAKE USURY (INTEREST), THEREFORE ALL INTEREST OBLIGATIONS SHALL HENCEFORTH BE WAIVED. BEWARE OF SATAN, FOR THE SAFETY OF YOUR RELIGION. HE HAS LOST ALL HOPE THAT HE WILL EVER BE ABLE TO LEAD YOU ASTRAY IN BIG THINGS, SO BEWARE IN FOLLOWING HIM IN SMALL THINGS. O PEOPLE, IT IS TRUE THAT YOU HAVE CERTAIN RIGHTS WITH REGARDS TO YOUR WOMEN, BUT THEY ALSO HAVE CERTAIN RIGHTS OVER YOU. IF THEY ABIDE BY YOUR RIGHT THEN TO THEM BELONGS THE RIGHT TO BE FED AND CLOTHED IN KINDNESS. DO TREAT YOUR WOMEN WELL AND BE KIND TO THEM FOR THEY ARE YOUR COMMITTED HELPERS. AND IT IS YOUR RIGHT THAT THEY DO NOT MAKE FRIENDS WITH ANY ONE OF WHOM YOU DO NOT APPROVE AS WELL AS NEVER TO COMMIT ADULTERY. O PEOPLE LISTEN TO ME IN EARNEST, WORSHIP ALLAH, SAY YOUR FIVE DAILY PRAYERS, FAST DURING THE MONTH OF RAMADAN, AND GIVE YOUR WEALTH IN ZAKAT. PERFORM HAJ IF YOU CAN AFFORD TO. YOU KNOW THAT EVERY MUSLIM IS THE BROTHER OF ANOTHER MUSLIM. YOU ARE ALL EQUAL. NOBODY HAS SUPERIORITY OVER OTHER EXCEPT BY PIETY AND GOOD ACTION. REMEMBER ONE DAY YOU WILL APPEAR BEFORE ALLAH AND ANSWER FOR YOUR DEEDS. SO BEWARE, DO NOT STRAY FROM THE PATH OF RIGHTEOUSNESS AFTER I AM GONE. O PEOPLE, NO PROPHET OR APOSTLE WILL COME AFTER ME AND NO NEW FAITH WILL BE BORN. REASON WELL, THEREFORE, O PEOPLE, AND UNDERSTAND MY WORDS WHICH I CONVEY TO YOU. I LEAVE BEHIND ME TWO THINGS, THE QURAN AND MY EXAMPLE THE SUNNAH AND IF YOU FOLLOW THESE YOU WILL NEVER GO ASTRAY. ALL THOSE WHO LISTEN TO ME SHALL PASS ON MY WORDS TO OTHERS AND THOSE TO OTHERS AGAIN, AND MAY THE LAST ONES UNDERSTAND MY WORDS BETTER THAN THOSE WHO LISTEN TO ME DIRECTLY. BE MY WITNESS O ALLAH, THAT I CONVEY MY MESSAGE TO YOUR PEOPLE."
rrizzo@bbncca.ARPA (Ron Rizzo) (08/15/85)
Sartre & Camus were active in the anti-nazi resistance. Sartre in his opinions & philosophical views was a rigorous moralist. It's possible to make a case that "existentialism" as exemplified by Sartre, Camus & others is the continuation of European humanism. At any rate, it's bizarre to attribute any atmosphere of inhumanity to these writers in particular. Nietzsche influenced an entire generation or two, including people of all political orientations: eg, Hannah Arendt, the liberal "humanist" historian of totalitarianism, Reinhold Niebuhr, one of the most impor- tant Protestant theologians of this century, etc. Paul Dubuc's claims make no sense in the light of even a rudimentary knowledge of 20th century cultural history. Regards, Ron Rizzo