I'm gonna jump to the conclusion that mattk's gonna come here and copy/paste his same tired old "but, but...the BIBLE says..." dribble, just like he always does. So, I'm gonna do a pre-emptive strike and call him on it before he does. Once again, matt will not point to Christians that are following the OLD TESTAMENT by:

1) Slaughtering sons for the guilt of their fathers

2) Cursing those that do the Lord's work remissly or those that holds back his sword from blood.

3) Slaughtering those that reject the verdict of a judge or priest.

4) Slaughtering those that don't enter a covenant with the Lord......although this is clearly part of a story of something that may or may not have happened in the past.

5) Slaughtering and burning entire towns, never to be rebuilt again. 6) Killing those that don't abide by the rules of the Sabbath day.

7) Killing those that curse their mother or father.

8) Men selling their daughters as slaves.

Pointing the finger elsewhere instead of dealing with what's given will never be logical.

See? What matty boy doesn't understand is that these are 8 friggin' red herrings concerning things that may or may not have happened hundreds of years ago.....things that have nothing to do with what is going on today, except the fact that Islam has not reformed as other religions have done in order to live as peacefully as possible in today's world WITH those other religions and cultures.

That said.....this fatwa is a step in the right direction......IF those issuing it are not following the written word of Allah by lying to the unbelievers. If these scholars are actually "reformed"...then maybe they mean it. However, it's not a binding item. Terrorists and even muslims living under sharia law don't give a shit what scholars in teh West think...terrorists have no intention of reforming, instead they live in the strict interpretation of the Book.....and they'll see any muslim that colludes with the West as the enemy.

Of course, I could just not read the article and just point the finger at the Bible all day....maybe I should become a Christian so I can sell my daughter into slavery.

So, if I understand correctly, the Old Testament is only relevant when condemning gays, right ?

Congratulations Patrick, This post is a clear thesis that explains the murderous and lying nature of the fatwa cult.

Muslims always invent a stupid pretextes to murder, even among themselves... and give even more stupid pretextes to justify their acts.

Examples: - In the early XX century turks massacred millions of armenians and christian lebanese because according to turks, armenians and christians lebanese were "terrorist". Now turks deny they exterminated armenians or christians lebanese. - Muslims in Sudan (with the help of the UN) murder thousands of animists and christians in darfur region. when western countries threatened to use force, the muslims say that westerns are murderers - Muslims commit terrorist acts like NY 9/11, Madrid 3/11 and London's 7/7. murder "enemies" like Theo Van Gogh (not to mention HUNDREDS of attacks in Israel); but feel offended?! with movies like Kingdom of Heaven and books like Satanic Verses. THX for the post Patrick, hope help people realize how serious war on terror must be taken

This was an excellent,though depressing commentary. Alberto, I like your foreign perspective on this. Not enough people here are aware of what went on in Lebanon. I think it is wise to be skeptical of whatever these Muslim groups are saying. I am sorry if they are sincere, but we can't take it at face value, our lives are at stake.

TRF...I wouldn't know, not being a Christian and all...but that's a red herring concerning the 8 things mattk loves to point the finger at that are in the Bible, yet NOT being followed by today's Christians...and NONE of them concern homosexuality. DO I actually have to show you what mattk ALWAYS posts concerning a critical look at the Qu'ran and how it's being literally followed by those doing violence in the world TODAY AND those that support them? Fine, here's mattk's typical non-thinking response that he has ready to copy/paste and then ignore the refutation of, only to copy/paste it the next time and ignore the refutation of, etc...:

Nope - no suggestion of violence in the Bible...

Make ready to slaughter his sons for the guilt of their fathers; Lest they rise and posses the earth, and fill the breadth of the world with tyrants. (Isaiah 14:21 NAB)

Cursed be he who does the Lords work remissly, cursed he who holds back his sword from blood. (Jeremiah 48:10 NAB)

Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death. Such evil must be purged from Israel. (Deuteronomy 17:12 NLT)

They entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul; and everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman. (2 Chronicles 15:12-13 NAB)

Suppose you hear in one of the towns the LORD your God is giving you that some worthless rabble among you have led their fellow citizens astray by encouraging them to worship foreign gods. In such cases, you must examine the facts carefully. If you find it is true and can prove that such a detestable act has occurred among you, you must attack that town and completely destroy all its inhabitants, as well as all the livestock. Then you must pile all the plunder in the middle of the street and burn it. Put the entire town to the torch as a burnt offering to the LORD your God. That town must remain a ruin forever; it may never be rebuilt. Keep none of the plunder that has been set apart for destruction. Then the LORD will turn from his fierce anger and be merciful to you. He will have compassion on you and make you a great nation, just as he solemnly promised your ancestors. "The LORD your God will be merciful only if you obey him and keep all the commands I am giving you today, doing what is pleasing to him." (Deuteronomy 13:13-19 NLT)

The LORD then gave these further instructions to Moses: 'Tell the people of Israel to keep my Sabbath day, for the Sabbath is a sign of the covenant between me and you forever. It helps you to remember that I am the LORD, who makes you holy. Yes, keep the Sabbath day, for it is holy. Anyone who desecrates it must die; anyone who works on that day will be cut off from the community. Work six days only, but the seventh day must be a day of total rest. I repeat: Because the LORD considers it a holy day, anyone who works on the Sabbath must be put to death.' (Exodus 31:12-15 NLT)

All who curse their father or mother must be put to death. They are guilty of a capital offense. (Leviticus 20:9 NLT)

When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment. (Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)

THIS is the same shit he brings up EVERY time someone points to the Qu'ran-roots of terrorism and other bad behaviors occurring TODAY at the hands of muslims, with the back-up of the word of Allah. Yet, he NEVER backs up this shit when people point out the false analogy.

MORE on-topic....how am I supposed to take someone's word when they're taught to not befriend me AND to lie to me...straight out of their book? I'd LIKE to believe them, but not when their God's words essentially tell me not to.

Thanks for your comment Lisa. Personally, and specially for all the reasons Patrick quoted, i don't think they're sincere. I guess this fatwa has the purpose of reducing the preassure on north american muslim communities.

You are welcome Albert. With all the stuff going on in London now, we must be tough.

MJohnson… you said it yourself, there’s quite a bit of history in 400 years, or 600 years if you’re comparing Jesus with Mohammad. I never said Islam was less violent than Christianity. I said the centuries immediately following Mohammad’s life were the most peaceful in Islam’s history. Since it is logical to conclude that these are the years when Mohammad’s teachings would be best understood, it seems kind of telling that Islam accepted other cultures and religions as they did. In fact, the only period of time that I have found when Islam did not exist harmoniously with other cultures and religions was when the Turks first came to power…, keeping in mind that the Turks were nomadic barbarians (Mongols) long before they were exposed to Islam.

I cannot deny that there was war during Mohammad’s life. In fact, Mohammad is considered to have been an apt general. Yet, Mohammad insisted on avoiding war wherever possible and laid out practical guidelines for the conduct of war when it became unavoidable. The Koran is clear that when an enemy lays their weapons down, so should his followers lay their own down. Mohammad preached that killing one man is like killing all of mankind. If you read the Koran, it is clear that Mohammad did not like war, but understood the necessity of it at certain times. If you ask me, this is not an illogical or violent way of thinking. It’s practical. We, as Americans, understand the necessity of going to war to defend our way of life. We understand the necessity of going to war to end terrorism. Yet, none of us likes war…, we just understand that it isn’t practical to eliminate the possibility of war. You will not find one aspect of the Koran that promotes senseless violence. I’ve already explained that the oft critically referenced, “kill the infidels,” has nothing to do with anything except the ONE event in Islamic history that it refers to. For those who choose to criticize Islam, this argument just goes in one ear and out the other. In fact, I’ll probably see it posted in another Patrick article at least once or twice this month. “Kill the infidels,” was spoken as a sort of call to battle, if you will, in reference to the idol worshippers of Mecca, who, at that time, were plotting to massacre Muslims. Muslims attacked Mecca first in order to ensure their own safety.

There are a lot of differences as well as a lot of similarities between the Koran, the Torah and the Bible. The Koran draws a lot of it’s content from the Old Testament. The Torah actually consists of the books, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy… all of the Old Testament. Actually, since the books of the Torah predate Christianity, it’s probably more correct to say the Bible draws the Old Testament from the Torah. You say that the violent passages of the Old Testament do not apply to Christianity today and I have argued the same thing, yet they are a part of Christian history. When Jesus made a new covenant with God, it was not like the covenant man had previously made with God. Jesus goes on to say that he did not come to destroy God’s law, but to teach us a new way. It is therefore accepted by Christians that the New Testament supercedes the old. With the Torah, no such new covenant was made… and presumably those violent passages still have relevance, yet I cannot speak to this for a certainty because I do not understand the Hebrew oral tradition. This is certainly an area that I will have to learn more about. In any case, the violent passages of the Bible are important because they are part of Christian history… and, as I have heard said, if you don’t know where you come from, how can you know where you’re going. Likewise, much of the Koran, including the violent passages oft cited, are part of Islamic history. Yet, none have relevance to the here and now. Something that you choose to blow off, yet is known to be true, is the translation of the Koran. Take this quote from the Wikipedia:

“The language rapidly changed in response to this new situation, losing complexities of case and obscure vocabulary. Several generations after the prophet's death, many words used in the Qur'an had become opaque to ordinary sedentary Arabic-speakers, as Arabic had changed so much, so rapidly. The Bedouin speech changed at a considerably slower rate, however, and early Arabic lexicographers came to seek out Bedouin to explain difficult words or elucidate points of grammar.”

Think about the difficulties some people have reading Shakespeare. The language used by Shakespeare is certainly English, but noticeably more difficult to read than, say, Tom Clancy. Shakespeare wrote his plays around 1600… roughly 400 years ago. Now imagine reading a literary work written in English 1400 years ago. Would much of the language even be recognizable to us? The language of the Koran has not changed since the first day the words were put to paper. Indeed, Muslims revere the written beauty of the Koran so much that it stands as proof, to them, that the Koran was delivered by God’s own hand. However, the disparity in the meaning of the written Koran and modern Arabic can be quite large. This is why most Muslims rely heavily on the guidance of Islamic priests and scholars. Also from the Wikipedia:

“The Qur'an has sparked a huge body of commentary and explication. As discussed earlier, later Muslims did not always understand the Qur'an's Arabic, they did not catch allusions that were clear to early Muslims, and they were extremely concerned to reconcile apparent contradictions and conflicts in the Qur'an. Commentators glossed the Arabic, explained the allusions, and perhaps most importantly, decided which Quranic verses had been revealed early in Muhammad's prophetic career, as being appropriate to the very earliest Muslim community, and which had been revealed later, canceling out or abrogating the earlier text. Memories of the occasion of revelation, the circumstances under which Muhammad had spoken as he did, were also collected, as they were believed to explain some apparent obscurities.”

Now, so far, I’ve only discussed the translation of Old Arabic to New Arabic. Given all the difficulties and lost meanings of Old Arabic to New, it becomes even more complicated when one tries to translate Old Arabic to English. Forget that new Arabic cannot even be translated in it’s entirety to English, it is an impossibility to accurately translate the Koran into English. What we get is a rudimentary translation that we interpret based on our own language and our own culture. This is why, in additon to reading the English version of the Koran, I try to read articles written by Islamic scholars so that I might understand what I’m reading in greater detail. For the record, I believe this is part of the reason so many Muslims have been influenced by Islamic radicals. There is such a reliance on others to understand the Koran and interpret it’s meaning that some followers of Islam are misguided by radicals. This is why the misled believe so strongly that they’re willing to sacrifice their lives in the name of Islam.

MJ – I have to go for today… I’ll try to finish tomorrow. Feel free to comment on what I’ve said so far.

Posted by Johnny New Englander at July 28, 2005 04:56 PM

MJ – There is one very significant problem in comparing Jesus with Mohammad. Jesus is believed to have been the Son of God… the Messiah. Mohammad made no such claims nor do Muslims worship him as such. Mohammad was a prophet… a guide for the Islamic faith. An interesting aside point is that Muslims consider Jesus to have been a prophet as well. The implication is that while Jesus is believed to have been perfect…, even devoid of original sin…, Mohammad was a man who lived as every man lives. He made mistakes. He tried to reconcile being a man with being a prophet of God… certainly not an easy task. It is absolutely impossible for any human being to live a life the way Jesus did… and the Bible acknowledges that. Mankind is born into sin and will ultimately fail. Only through Jesus’ sacrifice may we find salvation. For the Muslim, emulating Mohammad’s lifestyle is a more practical approach. And that brings us to Patrick’s favorite subject… Shari’ah Law.

Referencing Shari’ah Law to condemn Islam is a common anti-Muslim tactic. The problem is that Shari-ah law does not truly represent the religion, nor is it universally accepted by Muslims. So what is Shari’ah Law? Like most religious cultures, Islam has classically drawn little distinction between religious and secular life. Shari’ah was designed to guide Muslims not only in religious customs, but also in day-to-day activities. Pretty simple so far. Well, in application, Shari’ah is far from simple. There is the point that little of what is contained in Shari’ah can be found in the Koran. In fact, the Koran is a relatively minor source for Shari’ah. The primary source for Shari’ah is the Hadiths… yet, none of the major Islamic denominations can agree on which Hadiths are acceptable and which are not. The Hadiths are written accounts of Mohammad’s life that were passed down orally for centuries before being put to paper. Many of the Hadiths directly conflict with one another, which has led Islamic Scholars to try ascertain which Hadiths have credibility and which don’t…and this has created yet another point of contention among scholars as well as the various denominations. Sunni’s have their own list of credible Hadiths from which they formulate Shari’ah, while Shi’a agree on only a few of those Hadiths and include some others that Sunnis don’t find credible and so on an do on depending on the denomination. It’s really quite complicated. Then we have the fact that part of Shari’ah Law stems from a general consensus of what is acceptable and what isn’t. This is another reason why Shari’ah law differs from one nation to another. You see how complicated this is becoming. Now let me thrown in yet another wrench. From the Wikipedia:

“Like Jewish law and Christian canon law, Islamic law means different things to different people in different times and places. In the hands of moderates, religious law can be moderate, even liberal. In the hands of post-Enlightenment readers of philosophy, religious law becomes associated mainly with ritual, theology, or history and no longer regulates society or the state.” “In the hands of fundamentalists, it is legally binding on all people of the faith, and even on all people that come under their control. Islamic law to American Muslims in Dearborn, Boston, or Houston is a very different thing than Islamic law to religious Muslims in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, the Gaza Strip, western China, Nigeria[1], Indonesia or Pakistan. All of them are following Islamic law, yet it varies as much as individual Muslims vary.” “There is tremendous variation in the interpretation and implementation of Islamic laws in Muslim societies today. Some believe that colonialism, which often replaced religious laws with secular ones, has caused this variation. More recently, liberal movements within Islam have questioned the relevance and applicability of sharia from a variety of perspectives. As a result, several of the countries with the largest Muslim populations, including Indonesia, Bangladesh and India, have largely secular constitutions and laws, with only a few Islamic provisions in family law. Turkey has a constitution that is strongly secular.” So what are we learning here. Well, the simple fact that Islam as a whole cannot be defined or judged based on Shari’ah Law because Shari’ah Law is not consistent across the entire religion. One cannot judge Turkey by the application of Shari’ah Law under the Taliban… at least one could not do so fairly. To do so would be like making assumptions about Christian culture by observing an Amish community. There are just too many variabilities aside form the core religion to make a fair assessment. Ok, well… I haven’t finished yet, but again… I have to go for the evening. My daughter’s dance recital is in an hour so I’ll write some more tomorrow.

Posted by Johnny New Englander at July 29, 2005 02:59 PM

In some areas, violation of Shari’ah Law will elicit little more than a frown or a harsh comment and it carries little or no legal weight. In other areas, such violation might carry the weight of death. Another problem with Shari’ah Law is in the burden of proof. Some nations, especially those controlled by religious radicals such as the Taliban, require little in the way of proof in order to support a violation of Shari’ah Law. A simple accusation might be enough to elicit a sentence of death. Certainly such practices are terrible and should be eliminated. And how do we go about doing that? Simple. We encourage a separation of church and state. As previously stated, several of the countries with the largest Muslim populations, such as Indonesia, Bangladesh, India and Turkey, have largely separated church and state… and it seems to have worked quite well. Indeed, when one talks about the problems of Islam, rarely do these nations get mentioned. This is not because Islam is evil, but rather that there is an inherent problem when church and state are combined. The Spanish Inquisition is a good example… not perfect, but good. Let me clarify that. The Spanish Inquisition was not really a combination of church and state, but rather a ruler, Ferdinand of Aragon, manipulating the church to his own ends. The Inquisition was a permanent institution within the Catholic Church charged with the eradication of heresy. For the most part, the Inquisition was relatively fair if a little radical. Galileo was tried and condemned for “grave suspicion of heresy” in 1633. The trial of Jeanne d’Arc (Joan of Arc) is a good example of the Inquisition being used as a political tool. When Ferdinand came to power, he used the Inquisition to strengthen his seat politically and financially. This would later become known as the Spanish Inquisition. Of the reported 125,000 people tried by the Spanish Inquisition, as many as 2,000 were executed. So while the Inquisition is not a perfect example, it is a good example of how religion can be used and manipulated as a political tool. A better example that I won’t discuss in detail can be found if you Google “ancien regime.”

Ok, so back to Islam. Islam has gained notoriety largely because of its manipulation for political purposes. The Taliban used severe Shari’ah Law to subjugate the citizens of Afghanistan. Although I haven’t been able to find supporting articles for this, my thought is that the Taliban was modeled partially off a system instituted by Ayatollah Khomeini. From the Wikipedia:

“During his exile, Khomeini wrote a book titled Guardianship of the Islamic Jurists, which laid out his beliefs as such: that all laws in an Islamic society should be based on the laws of Islam, all laws and activities should be monitored by clerical authorities on Islamic law (guardians), there should be no monarch (that Islamic countries be a republic and not a monarchy). Khomeini believed that the leader of an Islamic Republic should be a Faqih (Islamic Jurist) who should be selected by a group of clerics. This Faqih would have absolute authority and could only be removed from power by that very same group of clerics. The book provides an insight on the eventual political background of the Islamic Republic of Iran.”

“Enter the exiled infamous rabid anti-American Ayatollah Khomeini on 1 February 1979. Then the process of radical Islamization began. He quickly manipulated popular civilian discontent into hatred for anything America and smoothly seized power on 11 February 1979. All signs of western influence were immediately removed. On 5 November 1979 he declared that the United States was the "great Satan." Female and male Islamic dress codes were strictly enforced. He suspended the criminal justice system in favor of religious courts. Any opposition to religious rule or Islam received harsh punishments, even torture. Khomeini's policies set the agenda for a worldwide Islamic revolution. An analysis of his book: "Guardianship of the Islamic Jurists" would give more enlightenment on the current Islamic fundamentalist movement than reading the Koran.” -- Deanna Spingola

What I’m getting at is that Islam is not a violent, evil religion…, however when you combine Islam with government… or any religion with government… you have a recipe for disaster. Can democracy co-exist with Islam? It’s an interesting question. Fundamentalists believe that Islam answers ALL of life’s questions and therefore discussing an issue is pointless. Fundamentalism contradicts democracy in this sense. Yet, fundamentalism is only a segment of the entire Islamic faith. There are liberal movements within Islam…, there are moderates…, there are Koran only movements that reject the use of Hadiths in Shari’ah Law. Shari’ah Law would be decidedly different if based only on the Koran.

There is one Hadith though that could set the stage for all of democracy… this line that was said to have been spoken by Mohammad, “My community will never agree upon an error.”

If the community of Islam agrees, then there can be no error. If the Islamic community can be given the chance to speak out and agree, then isn’t that a democracy?

So, what can we do to correct the problems facing the middle-east. Well, first and foremost, we must encourage a secular government through a separation of church and state. Even in the absence of democracy, secular governments offer the best living conditions for Muslims as has historically been proven. All we have to do is look toward Indonesia, Turkey, Jordan etc. Next, if Middle-Eastern countries are going to “westernize,” then it has to be a gradual process. Part of the reason Komeini was able to assume power in Iran is because the Shah of Iran, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, was trying to “westernize” too rapidly and even the non-fundamentalists feared the rapid change. It’s commonly understood that people fear change… especially the devout religious. Therefore, any change toward “westernization” or modernization needs to be carefully and gradually implemented.

I am going to back up a little bit because I want to discuss something that I left out. One of the things that always disturbed me about middle-eastern culture was the practice of so-called, “honor killings.” Many view this as proof positive that Islam is a disgusting uncivilized religion. Yet, honor killing is not condoned by the Koran. It is a cultural practice used to protect a family’s honor. It’s quite interesting to note that progressive nations like Indonesia as well as fundamentalist nations like Iran have both outlawed the practice of “honor killings.” In Indonesia, the worlds LARGEST Muslim country, the practice of “honor killings” is unheard of. It simply isn’t done. One practice that has resulted in honor killings is divorce, yet divorce is permitted for both men and women according to the Koran. That’s right… women are permitted to seek divorce.

Ok… I’m done. I haven’t covered nearly half of what I’d like to but I have several other things I need to do today and my last posts have taken me several hours to research and write.

Posted by Johnny New Englander at July 30, 2005 01:44 PM

Uhh, Alberto and anyone else who believe Islam was responsible for the Armenian Genocide... read this link in it's entirety.

http://www.unitedhumanrights.org/Genocide/armenian_genocide.htm

I guess Christianity is evil through it's association with Hitler and the Holocaust. Before you comment, be sure to read the post above because the Holocaust and the Armenian Genocide are very similar... including the use of religion to incite hatred.

http://www.nobeliefs.com/hitler.htm

"Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord." -- Adolf Hitler

And still more Adolph Hitler:

"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice... And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people.

-Adolf Hitler, in a speech on 12 April 1922 (Norman H. Baynes, ed. The Speeches of Adolf Hitler, April 1922-August 1939, Vol. 1 of 2, pp. 19-20, Oxford University Press, 1942)

Now why do I point this out? Because I, as a Christian, know that I do not hold the same beliefs as Hitler did nor is this the way of Christianity... yet, Hitler acted in the NAME of Christ. Should we condemn all Muslims because some commit horrible acts in the name of Islam? Shouldn't we condemn the fundamentalism while embracing the peaceful practitioners of the religion? Why is it that we intentionally disassociate Hitler with Christianity yet go to great lengths to associate Islam with terror?

JNE, AS to your post about " I never said that Islam was less violent than Christianity", let me remind you that you did. On another thread, on July 25,3:08, you stated, "historically there has been a lot more war and less tolerance from Christianity and a lot less war and more tolerance from Islam." I believe that means you were saying that Islam WAS less violent than Christianity. No?

Lisa... you didn't have the benefit of reading the thread in it's entirety... MJohnson was referring to the beginning of each religion. He was comparing Jesus's life vs. Mohammad's. In that, I would have to agree with MJohnson that Christianity did have a more peaceful beginning. I posted this in the wrong thread... but it has relevance here. Christianity does have a very violent history... but, as a religion, I don't believe Christianity is violent. I feel the same about Islam.

Please, rather than commenting on some inane aspect of my post, why don't you comment on the subject matter. Obviously a lot of time and thought went into writing it.

I have not read all the posts above, but I want to comment on the last bit before I do, as I might not have time at the moment otherwise.

I don't beleive for 1 second Hitler was Christian, even in his OWN view of himself. Have you ever read Nietzche? I am quite convinced Hitler saw religion in much the same manner.

I'm short on time now so I'm being brief, but if need be I can provide sources later...But Hitler was very active with Islamic rhetoric justifing his cause as well. I have said before, a case can certainly be made that Hitler PREFERED Islam to Christianity because he saw it as a better tool to pervert and use to further his facist rhetoric. Indeed, that is WHERE most of the antisemitic islamic rhetoric today COMES FROM : Hitler!

Theres a good reason these 'islamo facists' are called 'facist'. They are actually facist in form of governance...But this isn't a 'new' thing. The facist movement in the middle east (the ones blowing stuff up today) started in the first half of the 20th century, and many of the governments (such as the facist baaths) were propped into place by the nazi's themselves. Go read up on the Mufti's.

It is perhaps a common conception, that Hitler was a (in his own view) Christian of a perverted sort. Indeed, SOME of his rhetoric was aimed at legitimizing his actions within a Christian beleif set (because he was dealing with a majority-christian German public), but if you really delve into it, the facts I beleive do not support that view at all.

What I'm trying to get at here, JNE, is not that Hitler's actions didn't comply with Christianity. (we all know that, no argument.)

My point is I don't think his MOTIVATION was Christianity. I don't think he believed what he said. That rhetoric was a complete lie.

I'm sure some Islamists are the same as well. How many of them, we can speculate. But I'm sure there are SOME who don't beleive in Allah or 72 virgins, they're just using that image as a way to get others to blow up their political enemies and further their own secular aims at power.

..But Hitler was very active with Islamic rhetoric justifing his cause as well. I have said before, a case can certainly be made that Hitler PREFERED Islam to Christianity because he saw it as a better tool to pervert and use to further his facist rhetoric.

Uh anything whatsoever to back this up?

hey are actually facist in form of governance...But this isn't a 'new' thing.

The word is actually theocratic.

And no thats not new either.

UY....learn the political ideologies BEFORE you talk your bullshit. Islamists are theocrats...Islamofascists are FASCISTS just as MJ said.....but you'd know that if you actually knew what a fascist actually IS instead of incorrectly using the term to slander conservatives. I'll give you a lesson, as always:

Fascists and Islamofascists have a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition. Got that? The thing that separates them from every other tin-pot dictator is particularly the whole "forcible suppression of opposition" part. You know....how they got their name because of the Fascistii that would show up at your house and take yoiu away for being "different"? Ah....forget it....you're too stupid.

Mjohnson… Let me teach you something that most people know almost nothing about. The Holocaust would not have occurred had it not been for Christianity. Here’s how it happened. First, a pact (concordat) was made between Hitler and Pope Pius XI, in which the Vatican legitimized the Third Reich. There is heated controversy as to whether Pope Pius XI was aware of Hitler’s agenda, therefore I won’t go any further with it. The Vatican’s official statement is that the concordat was meant to preserve the Catholic Church in Germany…, however the Vatican had to make several concessions in the process. For further reading, Google “Hitler” and “Concordat.”

Here’s one link:

http://www.americamagazine.org/gettext.cfm?articleTypeID=1&textID=3131&issueID=448

More importantly however was Hitler’s philosophy behind the Holocaust. For that, we turn to a man who Hitler had great respect for… a man who’s writings became the inspiration for Hitler’s doctrine. His name was Martin Luther and he founded the Lutheran Church. Ready for a gut check? Here’s a long excerpt from one of Martin Luther’s writings.

Jews and their Lies – Marin Luther

“What shall we Christians do with this rejected and condemned people, the Jews? Since they live among us, we dare not tolerate their conduct, now that we are aware of their lying and reviling and blaspheming. If we do, we become sharers in their lies, cursing and blasphemy. Thus we cannot extinguish the unquenchable fire of divine wrath, of which the prophets speak, nor can we convert the Jews. With prayer and the fear of God we must practice a sharp mercy to see whether we might save at least a few from the glowing flames. We dare not avenge ourselves. Vengeance a thousand times worse than we could wish them already has them by the throat. I shall give you my sincere advice:

First, to set fire to their synagogues or schools and to bury and cover with dirt whatever will not burn, so that no man will ever again see a stone or cinder of them. This is to be done in honor of our Lord and of Christendom, so that God might see that we are Christians, and do not condone or knowingly tolerate such public lying, cursing, and blaspheming of his Son and of his Christians. For whatever we tolerated in the past unknowingly_and I myself was unaware of it_will be pardoned by God. But if we, now that we are informed, were to protect and shield such a house for the Jews, existing right before our very nose, in which they lie about, blaspheme, curse, vilify, and defame Christ and us (as was heard above), it would be the same as if we were doing all this and even worse ourselves, as we very well know.

In Deuteronomy 13:12 Moses writes that any city that is given to idolatry shall be totally destroyed by fire, and nothing of it shall be preserved. If he were alive today, he would be the first to set fire to the synagogues and houses of the Jews. For in Deuteronomy 4:2 and 12:32 he commanded very explicitly that nothing is to be added to or subtracted from his law. And Samuel says in I Samuel 15:23 that disobedience to God is idolatry. Now the Jews' doctrine at present is nothing but the additions of the rabbis and the idolatry of disobedience, so that Moses has become entirely unknown among them (as we said before), just as the Bible became unknown under the papacy in our day. So also, for Moses' sake, their schools cannot be tolerated; they defame him just as much as they do us. It is not necessary that they have their own free churches for such idolatry.

Second, I advise that their houses also be razed and destroyed. For they pursue in them the same aims as in their synagogues. Instead they might be lodged under a roof or in a barn, like the gypsies. This will bring home to them the fact that they are not masters in our country, as they boast, but that they are living in exile and in captivity, as they incessantly wail and lament about us before God.

Third, I advise that all their prayer books and Talmudic writings, in which such idolatry, lies, cursing, and blasphemy are taught, be taken from them.

Fourth, I advise that their rabbis be forbidden to teach henceforth on pain of loss of life and limb. For they have justly forfeited the right to such an office by holding the poor Jews captive with the saying of Moses (Deuteronomy 17:10) in which he commands them to obey their teachers on penalty of death, although Moses clearly adds: "what they teach you in accord with the law of the Lord." Those villains ignore that. They wantonly employ the poor people's obedience contrary to the law of the Lord and infuse them with this poison, cursing, and blasphemy. In the same way the pope also held us captive with the declaration in Matthew 16:18, "You are Peter," etc., inducing us to believe all the lies and deceptions that issued from his devilish mind. He did not teach in accord with the word of God, and therefore he forfeited the right to teach. Fifth, I advise that safe-conduct on the highways be abolished completely for the Jews. For they have no business in the countryside, since they are not lords, officials, tradesmen, or the like. Let them stay at home. I have heard it said that a rich Jew is now traveling across the country with twelve horses his ambition is to become a Kokhba devouring princes, lords, lands, and people with his usury, so that the great lords view it with jealous eyes. If you great lords and princes will not forbid such usurers the highway legally, some day a troop may gather against them, having learned from this booklet the true nature of the Jews and how one should deal with them and not protect their activities. For you, too, must not and cannot protect them unless you wish to become participants in an their abominations in the sight of God. Consider carefully what good could come from this, and prevent it. Sixth, I advise that usury be prohibited to them, and that all cash and treasure of silver and gold be taken from them and put aside for safekeeping. The reason for such a measure is that, as said above, they have no other means of earning a livelihood than usury, and by it they have stolen and robbed from us an they possess. Such money should now be used in no other way than the following: Whenever a Jew is sincerely converted, he should be handed one hundred, two hundred, or three hundred florins, as personal circumstances may suggest. With this he could set himself up in some occupation for the support of his poor wife and children, and the maintenance of the old or feeble. For such evil gains are cursed if they are not put to use with God's blessing in a good and worthy cause. Seventh, I recommend putting a flail, an ax, a hoe, a spade, a distaff, or a spindle into the hands of young, strong Jews and Jewesses and letting them earn their bread in the sweat of their brow, as was imposed on the children of Adam (Gen. 3 [:19]). For it is not fitting that they should let us accursed Goyim toil in the sweat of our faces while they, the holy people, idle away their time behind the stove, feasting and farting., and on top of all, boasting blasphemously of their lordship over the Christians by means of our sweat. No, one should toss out these lazy rogues by the seat of their pants. But if we are afraid that they might harm us or our wives, children, servants, cattle, etc., if they had to serve and work for us -- for it is reasonable to assume that such noble lords of the world and venomous, bitter worms are not accustomed to working and would be very reluctant to humble themselves so deeply before the accursed Goyim -- then let us emulate the common sense of other nations such as France, Spain, Bohemia, etc., compute with them how much their usury has extorted from us, divide, divide this amicably, but then eject them forever from the country. For, as we have heard, God's anger with them is so intense that gentle mercy will only tend to make them worse and worse, while sharp mercy will reform them but little. Therefore, in any case, away with them! In brief, dear princes and lords, those of you who have Jews under your rule: if my counsel does not please you, find better advice, so that you and we all can be rid of the unbearable, devilish burden of the Jews ... Do not grant them protection, safe-conduct, or communion with us ... so it is not necessary to burden ourselves also with these alien, shameful vices of the Jews ...

And you, my dear gentlemen and friends who are pastors and preachers, I wish to remind very faithfully of your official duty, so that you too may warn your parishioners concerning their eternal harm, as you know how to do, namely, that they be on their guard against the Jews and avoid them so far as possible. When you lay eyes on or think of a Jew you must say to your self: Alas, that mouth which I there behold has cursed and execrated and maligned every Saturday my dear Lord Jesus Christ, who has redeemed me with his precious blood; in addition, it prayed and pleaded before God that I, my wife and children, and all Christians might be stabbed to death and perish miserably. And he himself would gladly do this if he were able, in order to appropriate our goods ... If I were to eat, drink or talk with such a devilish mouth, I would eat or drink myself full of devils by the dish or cupful just as I surely make myself a cohort of all the devils that dwell in the Jews and that deride the precious blood of Christ. May God preserve me from this! Nor dare we make ourselves partners in their devilish ranting and raving by shielding and protecting them, by giving them food, drink, and shelter, or by other neighborly acts, especially since they boast so proudly and despicably when we do help and serve them that God has ordained them as lords and us as servants. For instance, when a Christian kindles their fire for them on a Sabbath, or cooks for them in an inn whatever they want, they curse and defame and revile us for it, supposing this to be something praiseworthy, and yet they live on our wealth, which they have stolen from us. Such a desperate, thoroughly evil poisonous, and devilish lot are these Jews, who for these fourteen hundred years have been and still are our plague, our pestilence, and our misfortune. Especially you pastors who have Jews living in your midst, persist in reminding your lords and rulers to be mindful of their office and of their obligation before God to force the Jews to work, to forbid usury, and to check their blasphemy and cursing. For if they punish thievery, robbery, murder, blasphemy, and other vices among us Christians, why should the devilish Jews be scot-free to commit their crimes among us and against us? We suffer more from them than the Italians do from the Spaniards, who plunder the host's kitchen, cellar, chest, and purse, and, in addition, curse him and threaten him with death. Thus the Jews, our guests, also treat us; for we are their hosts. They rob and fleece us and hang about our necks, these lazy weaklings and indolent bellies; they swill and feast, enjoy good times in our homes ...

But if the authorities are reluctant to use force and restrain the Jews' devilish wantonness, the latter should, as we said, be expelled from the country ... much more leave our Lord the Messiah, our faith, and our church undefiled and uncontaminated with their devilish tyranny and malice. Any privileges that they may plead shall not help them; for no one can grant privileges for practicing such abominations. These cancel and abrogate all privileges.

If you pastors and preachers have followed my example and have faithfully issued such warnings, but neither prince nor subject will do anything about it, let us follow the advice of Christ (Matthew 10:14) and shake the dust from our shoes, and say, "We are innocent of your blood." For I observe and have often experienced how indulgent the perverted world is when it should be strict, and, conversely, how harsh it is when it should be merciful. Such was the case with King Ahab, as we find recorded in I Kings 20. That is the way the prince of this world reigns. I suppose that the princes will now wish to show mercy to the Jews, the bloodthirsty foes of our Christian and human name, in order to earn heaven thereby. But that the Jews enmesh us, harass us, torment and distress us poor Christians in every way with the above mentioned devilish and detestable deeds, this they want us to tolerate, and this is a good Christian deed, especially if there is any money involved (which they have filched and stolen from us). What are we poor preachers to do meanwhile? In the first place, we will believe that our Lord Jesus Christ is truthful when he declares of the Jews who did not accept but crucified him, "You are a brood of vipers and children of the devil [cf. Matt. 12:34]. This is a judgment in which his forerunner John the Baptist concurred, although these people were his kin. Now our authorities and all such merciful saints as wish the Jews well will at least have to let us believe our Lord Jesus Christ, who, I am sure, has a more intimate knowledge of all hearts than do those compassionate saints. He knows that these Jews are a brood of vipers and children of the devil, that is, people who will accord us the same benefits as does their father, the devil, and by now we Christians should have learned from Scripture as well as experience just how much he wishes us well.

I have read and heard many stories about the Jews which agree with this judgment of Christ, namely, how they have poisoned wells, made assassinations, kidnaped children, as related before ... However, it all coincides with the judgment of Christ which declares that they are venomous, bitter, vindictive, tricky serpents, assassins, and children of the devil who sting and work harm stealthily wherever they cannot do it openly ... That is what I had in mind when I said earlier that, next to the devil, a Christian has no more bitter and galling foe than a Jew. There is no other to whom we accord as many benefactions and from whom we suffer as much as we do from these base children of the devil, this brood of vipers.

Now let me commend these Jews sincerely to whoever feels the desire to shelter and feed them, to honor them, to be fleeced, robbed, plundered, defamed, vilified, and cursed by them, and to suffer every evil at their hands -- these venomous serpents and devil's children, who are the most vehement enemies of Christ our Lord and of us all. And if that is not enough, let him stuff them into his mouth, or crawl into their behind and worship this holy object. Then let him boast of his mercy, then let him boast that he has strengthened the devil and his brood for further blaspheming our dear Lord and the precious blood with which we Christians are redeemed. Then he will be a perfect Christian, filled with works of mercy for which Christ will reward him on the day of judgment, together with the Jews in the eternal fire of hell!”

And this was written by the founder of an entire Chrisitan denomination... the Lutheran Church. Do you still want to say Christianity had little part in the Holocaust?

Johnny i hope you understand that there's a big difference between supressing and exterminating a minority. Turks are the prefect example of both, supressors and exterminators. They supress kurds and almost a century ago they almost exterminated armenians (actually western armenian language can be considered a death language).

The difference between both is:

A) Supressing is a matter of dominating a/o subjugating. B) Exterminating is a matter erradicating to replace the former people.

Turks supress Kurds to make them some kind of cerf minority, Extermination does not apply because kurds are muslims too. Armenians were exterminated because they are christians.

If turks could, they'd continue killing armenians. The nice part of the story is that they can't; but the best part of the story will happen in a few decades, when Turkey gets rejected from the E.U. and Armenia gets full membership. ..and know why?

Because armenians are working hard to profress and become a prosperous country while turks, as "pious", progressive, peaceful, and "adorable" muslims, still debate if women commiting adultery should be hanged or beaten.

Fascists and Islamofascists have a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition. Got that?

Yeah and?

What exactly do you think a theocracy entails?

Complete control with religous rhetoric thrown in. Oh and the dicatator usually gets some nice holy sounding title.

Are you that dense?

Alberto... no reason is good reason for genocide, but the last reason Armenians were massacred was because they were Chrisitians. They were massacred, 1st, because they geographically stood in the way of Turkish conquest.

"The traditional historic homeland of Armenia lay right in the path of their plans to expand eastward. And on that land was a large population of Christian Armenians totaling some two million persons, making up about 10 percent of Turkey's overall population."

And 2nd:

"There were also big cultural differences between Armenians and Turks. The Armenians had always been one of the best-educated communities within the old Turkish Empire. Armenians were the professionals in society, the businessmen, lawyers, doctors and skilled craftsmen. And they were more open to new scientific, political and social ideas from the West (Europe and America). Children of wealthy Armenians went to Paris, Geneva or even to America to complete their education.

By contrast, the majority of Turks were illiterate peasant farmers and small shopkeepers. Leaders of the Ottoman Empire had traditionally placed little value on education and not a single institute of higher learning could be found within their old empire. The various autocratic and despotic rulers throughout the empire's history had valued loyalty and blind obedience above all. Their uneducated subjects had never heard of democracy or liberalism and thus had no inclination toward political reform. But this was not the case with the better-educated Armenians who sought political and social reforms that would improve life for themselves and Turkey's other minorities.

The Young Turks decided to glorify the virtues of simple Turkish peasantry at the expense of the Armenians in order to capture peasant loyalty. They exploited the religious, cultural, economic and political differences between Turks and Armenians so that the average Turk came to regard Armenians as strangers among them."

The religious difference was used as propoganda but had nothing to do with why the massacre happened in the first place. At the time there was a dramatic rise in Islamic fundamentalism and the Young Turks used that rise to their advantage. Religion was NOT the reason the Young Turks massacred the Armenians.

And Alberto... I hope you weren't referring to Martin Luther's writings as being different from genocide because Martin Luther's writings are a page by page playbook for the holocaust. Shall we take a look at his writing calling for the outright extermination of the Jews. It exists and I'll be happy to post it for you.

UY....learn about the different types of dictatorships before you open your know-nothing hole.....you just make yourself look to be the ignorant ass you are. One can be a dictator without being a fascist, a fascist without being theocratic, a theocrat without being fascist OR a dictator.

In the real world, YOU don't get to redefine words and ideologies to make your non-points more viable.

Hi JNE,

Blimey, well done!

Thank you Brit. I'm glad at least one person read it all. -- JNE

"The religious difference was used as propoganda but had nothing to do with why the massacre happened in the first place."

You say tomato, I say Hitler.

So Martin Luther was an antisemite, and the Catholic church cowed before Nazi Germany (Most people did in those days).

I know I have seen quotes of Hitler commenting on promoting Islam as eventually, the national religion of the Third Reich. I cannot find any at the moment, however.

I also know from reading Nietchze that he spoke of noble men using religion as a tool to rule (read: oppress) the weak masses. I've not the time to go back through it all and try to find that little part, there's a good bit of writing I've read of his and I've not the slightest memory of which essay that was in.

But for now, these will suffice to argue my point for me.

This is pretty well rounded on Hitler and his Nazi bigwigs

http://www.studytoanswer.net/islam/hitlerislam.html

Islamic Brotherhood had Nazi roots? Nazi's in the Islamic Brotherhood? What?

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05193/536684.stm

http://www.azanderson.org/anderson_report_geo_political_Global_Nazism_Muslim_Brotherhood_filesjuly_11.htm

Waffen-Gebirgs Division der SS?? You mean those expressely MUSLIM divisions of Nazi special forces created by Hitler?

http://emperors-clothes.com/articles/thompson/rootsof.htm

Heres one on radical Islam's nazi roots

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/816232/posts

Above all, one cannot forget that loveable Mufti. A man probably responsible for more ill in the world today then Hitler himself was.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/muftihit.html

This whole site is good, but here's more on the mufti...

http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_mandate_grand_mufti.php

One more for the road

http://www.cdn-friends-icej.ca/medigest/may00/arabnazi.html

By the way Um Yeah, the Ba'aths are facists (whether it be Hussein in Iraq or the Assads in Syria) and the party founders have an odd habit of being ex nazi's and nazi sympathizers. Read links above. They aren't theocratic.

JNE, on the Catholic pope, he may well himself have been an antisemite. As could have been Luther. It didn't all start with Hitler, it goes back further then Luther. And Hitler didn't think it all up on his own, the ideologies and ideas were around, ie Nietzche and others.

But the first half of the century it really picked up steam, and Hitler created a real boom market for it. One still booming today in places like Palestine.

By the way Um Yeah, the Ba'aths are facists (whether it be Hussein in Iraq or the Assads in Syria) and the party founders have an odd habit of being ex nazi's and nazi sympathizers. Read links above. They aren't theocratic.

No shit.

You will also notice they didnt attack us on 9/11.

One can be a dictator without being a fascist, a fascist without being theocratic, a theocrat without being fascist OR a dictator.

You cannot be a theocrat without being a dictator.

You exert far to much control to be anything but.

I know I have seen quotes of Hitler commenting on promoting Islam as eventually, the national religion of the Third Reich.

Where?

They are actually facist in form of governance.

"The word is actually theocratic"

The ba'ath's are facist, they aren't theocratic.

"No shit."

Then, completely off subject,

"You will also notice they didnt attack us on 9/11".

Exactly.......Good disctraction there. Walk into an intellectual corner, then start shouting you see a snipe.

In the end, it all comes back to demonizing Bush anyway, doesn't it? It's only a matter of how you get there. All paths lead to CHIMPYBUSHHILTERNEOCONSPIRACYJEW right?

They are actually facist in form of governance.

"You will also notice they didnt attack us on 9/11".

Well since precision escapes you.

They "they" being discussed for the purposes of the WOT are terrorists.

Maybe next time you should be more clear when you refer to "they".

Since I live in NY and am not a Bush fellater by "they" I mean terrorists.

"The religious difference was used as propoganda but had nothing to do with why the massacre happened in the first place." That quote was in reference to the Turkish massacre of the Armenians. That was World War I... long before Hitler. I say tomato..., you say Hitler... and I say wrong World War.

I know who you were referring to. Point being I would make the same claim about Hitler and the Nazi genocide.

MJ - I actually looked up information about the Mufti when you encouraged me to do so the first time. In fact, I had already read the JewishVirtualLibrary.org link. There is no denying there was a relationship between Nazi Germany and Muslims. There is also no denying that Hitler sympathized with the Muslim cause... namely their fight against the Jews. Yet, none of that supports what motivated Hitler in the first place. Martin Luther might as well have predicted the Holocaust in the early 1500's. His writings were literally an instruction booklet for the Holocaust. Hitler was very outspoken in his admiration for Martin Luther and his personal library contained Martin Luther's works. I will do some more work to try to put together some good references.

Here is a good link from the website of a Holocaust survivor.

http://www.kimel.net/luther.html

JNE, the mufti is only talked of in 2 of the several links I posted. There's much more to the argument then just association.

As far as Martin Luther goes, I will not excuse his antisemitism be he was not a nazi. If Luther had his way, it would look more like the Inquisition then the Holocaust. Martin also made quite a few FAVORABLE quotes about Jews you know. For him, it wasn't racially motivated but religiously motivated. Luther had no problem with a converted Christian Jew, it was the Jews who would not convert to Calvinist Christian he spoke illy of. It does not excuse it, but religion is a different issue then race. Hitler didn't care what religion the jews (and slavs and gypsies)he massacred were.

If you really want to understand the motivations for Hitler, you need to read Nietzsche. Christianity is a despised religion by this type of facist, it represents the clerical morality of the weak and therefor evil. In particular, read Beyond Good and Evil, where Nietzsche discusses the origin of morality, and the seperate forms of morality, the 'noble' morality and the 'clerical'.

Christianity, and in particular the Jews (christ was a jew, Christianity was a Jewish religion)has often throughout history represented the 'clerical' class and the 'clerical' altruistic morality, which replaced the 'noble' (and almost allways pagan) moralities as it spread throughout Europe (and the world).

A large part of anti-semitism (in many cases) is not just about ethnicity, often there is a very particular and special hatred harbored (by the likes of the Nazi's for instance) for the Jews. This is because they represent that 'weak' morality. It is really a hatred of the jewish/christian brand of religiosity, the altruistic, monothesitic, unpermissive concepts of good and evil. Islam, to an extent, is also included in this group. Hitler didnt' seem to equate them however, because Islam didn't seem to him (The facist extremist kind) to hold back the violence (and strength) of society. You really have to understand the ideology to understand the motives. Nietzche talks more about what he sees as the flaws in the 'clerical morality' in Der Antichrist.

Why did Hitler harbor such a special hatred for the Jews? Moreso then slavs or poles? He didn't hate ALL that was German you know, he revered the Japanese, the Indians, and yes, the Mohammedians.

In fact, the "Aryans" are an Indian people. Nazi Germany sent many an archeologist to India to uncoverer the origins of their supposed 'master race'. And the Swastika is a Hindu symbol.

I don't think you can QUITE pin it ALL on a hatred for Jewish ethnicity. You can't attribute it to Luther's views either, since they were strictly dependant on religion not race.

The FIRST link I gave quotes Hitler saying he has no need for the 'jewish fairy tale' of Christianity.

JNE, by the way, sort of a side discussion going on here.

My point about the link between radical Islam and the Nazi's wasn't that the Nazi's got their ideology from radical Islam. Vice versa.

Radical Islam got a good bit of it's ideology from the Nazi's, and it wouldn't be what it is today if it hadn't been for Hitler's help, trying to secure anti-British and anti-French influence in the region.

People like to liken the Jews actions (such as building that wall) to Nazi actions (as if!). This is really turnspeak. (another Nazi trick).

The palestinian terrorist groups of today really are the modern day remnants of Nazism.

MJohnson... if you look at Martin Luther's writings, he was actually very sympathetic to the Jews... in the beginning. He later came to understand what he believed to be the truth of the Jew and that's when his writings started to become darkly anti-Semitic. I don't see how you don't get this... everything that Martin Luther wrote in his three treatises (On the Jews and Their Lies, On the Ineffable Name, and On the Last Words of David.) was implemented by Hitler during the Holocaust. Julius Streicher, one of Hitler's top aides, actually referenced, in his own defense, Martin Luther's work during his trial at Nuremberg:

"Dr. Martin Luther would very probably sit in my place in the defendants' dock today, if this book had been taken into consideration by the Prosecution. In the book 'The Jews and Their Lies,' Dr. Martin Luther writes that the Jews are a serpent's brood and one should burn down their synagogues and destroy them..."

Martin Luther, at the time when he wrote his three treatises, did not believe one could convert the Jew. Indeed, he wrote:

"I cannot convert the Jews. Our Lord Jesus Christ did not succeed in doing it. But I can stop up their mouths so that they will have to lie upon the ground."

A quote from Hitler's Mein Kampf:

"... I am convinced that I am acting as the agent of our Creator. By fighting off the Jews. I am doing the Lord's work."

Years later, when in power, he quoted those same words in a Reichstag speech in 1938.

Three years later, Hitler made this statement:

"I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so."

And I'll repost this quote by Adolph Hitler:

"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice... And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people.

The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America actually acknowledges Martin Luther's part in the Holocaust and issued an apology.

MJohnson... I don't care how much you want to argue that there is a difference between religion and race. With regard to the Jews, Hitler did not recognize the difference. A Jew was a Jew was a Jew. He didn't care, nor did he believe it was important to care. Indeed, if he was following the teachings of Martin Luther, there was nothing morally wrong with his methods:

...let us follow the advice of Christ (Matthew 10:14) and shake the dust from our shoes, and say, "We are innocent of your blood."

In fact, I would recommend you read the entire text of Martin Luther's work "On Jews and Their Lies"

MJohnson... I agree with you about the origins of radical Islam. Everything I've researched says that Al Queda and other radical Islamic organizations are directly tied to the Islamic Brotherhood which, in turn, was born of Hitler and Nazi Germany.

Sorry Johnny but you should check a look at the map once more. Armania lays north of Turkey not eastward. Actually it's Iran (ancient Persia that lays northesat of Turkey. .... and nope, the reason for the genocide was Cultural and religious, not geographic. and i was not referring to Martin Luther, let me give you another example comparing islam with nazis. Nazis invaded Norway, Danemark, and Holland, they didn't killed christian norwayans, danes or the christian dutch, but nazis did try to exterminate jewish dutch, danes and norwayans. Just the same as turks, they "respected" azerbajanis and kurds, but tried to eliminate armenians.

to support my statements of the cultural-religious grounds, let me give you 3 basic notes you should be aware of....

1) In the middle ages Armenians allied with crusaders against muslims, specially turks. Because Armenia as such had been invaded, armenian refugees formed many crusader states: the Kingdom of Lesser Armenia in Silesia, Antioch, Edessa and part of what's nowadays Lebanon. 2) In the early XX century turks /ottomans or whatever you want to call them, feared that Armenians would ally Russians the same way Bulgarians, Romanians and Serbs had done earlier to obtain their independence, so turks/ottomans decided that ethnic cleansing was the "solution" (any similarity with nazis is not mere coincidence) 3)Turks remained neutral during WWII not because they disliked germans but because they feared allied retaliation like in WWI when they lost almost everything they had, including Armenia.

Now, if you analize the quran as Patrick did to deconstruct the Fatwa and compare it with Hegelian's Da sein, and Nietzsche writings (specially Zaratrustra and all the "super man" stuff), you'll find that the term islamofacist is in fact a reality.

JNE, come come now. Just because you quote from a text does not mean you are a devout beleiver in it.

I frequently quote Nietzsche, yet I am not an antisemite or rabbidly anti-christian. He was both. And he was some other things I am not as well.

There are certain things within his writings that I agree with, and I will refer to if I'm discussing those subjects. There are other things in his writings that are despicable and wrong headed.

Merely because Hitler liked some of what Luther said does not make Hitler a Calvinist.

As far as Hitler saying 'I am a Christian', to me that is not NEARLY as compelling as him saying he's not. The Nazi's were propoganda artists, anything available to the German public at that time was only available because it was officially approved. They do not have a reputation of honesty, in other words. You can't take what is said to the public at face value.

I don't care if he played an accoustical guitar and sang 'Jesus liebt mich' with small blonde children, you said it yourself though you now seem to be obtuse to it: "The religious difference was used as propoganda but had nothing to do with why".

Hitler was living in a country full of Christian germans, it was to his direct advantage (and perhaps even NECCESSITY) that he portrayed himself as a Christian. What's more, if one can pervert ANY religious rhetoric to one's own aims, religious or otherwise, it gives you quite a bit of leverage when it comes to creating fanatics for your cause. Hitler understood creating fanaticsm, did he understand the role religion can play in aiding that cause? Many of his subordinates certainly did.

The key here is not his words or actions but his beleifs. My contention is that Hitler USED the Christian religion in propoganda and rhetoric, to try and pervert it into a tool he could use, until such a time that he could get rid of it.

In your attempt to argue this point, you seem wholley too quick to try and accept what he's saying. Remember, my point is that he tried to pervert the religion to his cause, you need something more compelling then 'he said'...of course he said. Doesn't mean he MEANT what he said. Propoganda and rhetoric used to justify and empower to the masses.

Again, if you read the links above, I beleive there is quite a few ACTIONS (and not public at the time but what would be, lets say 'top secret/national security'), and actions speak to beleifs and true intentions. There's also a great deal of material that was not public then but now is, and much of it suggests his view of religion was that of a tool to rule with.

Remember, it wasn't just about genocide with Hitler. That's as far as he really got, but the man had a whole 'utopia' in mind, a whole civilization he was trying to engineer, with a VERY large focus on paleogensis, that is to say getting back to the historical Germany. It fits in line very well with the work of others with like minds who were NOT christian by any standard (but did suggest the religion could be used as a tool, and when the leverage (and trust) over the people was built discarded for something more practical). You've got to look at his larger scheme, the larger picture, and the ideology behind it, and the origins and beleifs and orators of that brand of ideology.

Calvinist...Lutheran...you get the idea. That's the 2nd time I reversed those 2 in this thread.

MJohnson... I don't know how much your read of the articles that you posted links for, but the last four deal quite a bit with the Mufti. In fact, one of your articles supports what I have been saying all along, which is that, historically, Islam has been a peaceful and tolerant religion. I quote from Nazi Roots of Modern Islam.

However, if one examines the history of the Middle East, there is very little evidence of constant warring and animosity between Jews and Arabs.

In fact, when the city of Jerusalem fell to Christian Crusaders in 1099, the defenders of the holy city had been a combined force of Jews and Muslims. After the Crusaders captured the city, they massacred Muslim and Jewish citizens alike and left the survivors to flee Jerusalem. Not until the Muslim hero Saladin defeated the Crusaders in 1187, did the Jewish population even begin to return to Jerusalem.

Jerusalem's Jewish community continued to prosper under the Muslim Nahmanides in 1267. But the community's true renaissance occurred during the 15th and 16th centuries, when a large influx of Jews were welcomed into Jerusalem by the Ottoman Empire after being expelled from Spain.

For four centuries under Ottoman rule, Arab and Jewish neighborhoods peacefully coexisted. After the defeat of the Ottoman Empire in World War I, the region came under British mandate. The early days under the British also saw relatively peaceful coexistence continuing and manifesting itself in the form of Arab and Jewish neighborhoods springing up in the "garden neighborhoods" of Talpiot, Rehavia and Beit Hakerem.

The article then goes on to detail the birth of radical Islam.

However, after over 700 years of peaceful coexistence, the true start of the Arab-Israeli conflict can be dated to 1920 and the rise of one man, Haj Amin Muhammad Al Husseini, the grand mufti of Jerusalem. As grand mufti, al Husseini presided as the Imam of the Al Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem, the highest Muslim authority in the British mandate.

History shows Al Husseini to be a brutal man with aspirations to rule a pan-Arabic empire in the Middle East. He rose to prominence by actively eliminating those Jews and Arabs he considered a threat to his control of Jerusalem's Arab population, and he heavily utilized anti-Jewish propaganda to polarize the two communities.

And then we have the emergence of the radical version of the Jihad. This is the version Patrick would like everyone to believe is the true Islamic Jihad.

In March 1944, Al Husseini broadcast a call for a jihad to "kill the Jews wherever you find them. This pleases God, history, and religion."

And finally, we have the emergence of the terror organizations:

Al Husseini had a strong influence over the founding members of both the Iraqi and Syrian Ba'ath party. Strong evidence exists that al Husseini was instrumental in the arranging of Nazi war criminal Alois Brunner's employment as an advisor to the Syrian general staff.

However, al Husseini's central role in the creation of the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) in 1964 is perhaps his most indelible mark on the Middle East today.

The radical Imam was the spiritual mentor of the first chairman of the PLO, Ahmed Shukairi, and saw that much of his ideology was instilled in the organization. More importantly, Al Husseini used his extensive connections to recruit financial supporters for the PLO throughout the Arab world.

And finally, the article closes:

The divergence from that pattern occurs in 1920 with the rise of a virulent anti-Semitic mufti of Jerusalem whose ideology embodied more similarities to that of Nazi Germany than to the historical Islam of Saladin or the Ottoman Turks.

The wave of extremist Islam that has plagued the world in the latter days of the 20th century and into the opening days of the 21st, h