The Truth! (let the bible speak and the truth be known!): September 2012

Friday, September 28, 2012

Violence, Christianity and Islam

Christians have often presented their religion as a religion of love and peace while presented Islam as a religion of war and sword. In the modern media Muslims and Islam have often been covered in a way which reinforces this old perception. For Muslims who have time to think about such things the Christian and Western perceptions appear as a complete disregard of the most obvious facts. In what follows I discuss this issue from the point of view of the teachings of the two religions as well as the conduct of their adherents through history.

Christian conduct

For centuries now Christian nations have been busy beating up one Muslim nation or another. In the Middle Ages they came as crusaders. Then they colonized many Muslim countries and tried to destroy their cultures and religion. During their struggle for independence some Muslims had to suffer terrible violence. The French killed about a million Muslims in Algeria because they wanted independence. In a way this French war against Islam and Muslims is still continuing through the support of the military dictatorship in Algeria against the Muslim party that was set to win elections and persecutions in France of Muslim men with beards and Muslim women with hijab. The USA and Britain killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis (with the approval of about 90% of their people) without letting the world see the blood, thus practicing a lesson learned during the Vietnam war. Serbs have killed hundreds of thousands of Muslims and raped thousands of women in Bosnia and Kosovo. Although in these lands, a combination of rare circumstances put the West (USA and Western Europe) on the side of the Muslims, this did no good to them because the Western powers did not want to loose any of their own soldiers. Had the West left the Muslim Bosnians and ethnic Albanians to their fate without putting an arms embargo on them, their suffering would not have been any greater.

Israel has been for half a century destroying the Palestinian people with the help of arms and financial and moral support provided by the USA, the very sort of crimes that have been committed by the Serbs against the people of Kosovo and which have been condemned by the West, even though there were no cameras to record the cries of the Palestinians and photograph the pictures of the massacred people and burning homes. In Lebanon when Christians were in the majority there was war, but now that the Muslims are in the majority there is peace except in the south of the country where Christians have been helping a foreign enemy against their own countrymen. When an American president needs to divert his people's attention away from his sex scandal the easiest thing he finds is to bomb Muslim countries -- Afghanistan, Sudan and Iraq -- because he knows that this will be approved by a vast majority of his people. And then there is the media which is ever busy in maligning the Muslims while they do not at this point in time possess the resources to speak up: for every word spoken/written by a Muslim and heard/read by one person, a thousand words from a Christian are received by a thousand persons in the world. At the international level the voices of the Muslims are all but drowned by the Christian voices and those Christian voices are for the most part condemnatory. If a cartoonist was to depict the situation between the Western and Muslim civilizations, he or she will draw a weaker person not able or inclined to stand up or to speak while another stronger person is standing over him with a big stick, now and then beating him, and all the while shouting to him in a loud voice: you are a violent man.

It is important for both Muslims and Christians to ask: What will the Christian be if the tables were turned and their lands were first colonized by Muslims and then bombed or maligned or ethnically cleansed? If the past is any guide, the answer is clear: There will be a vicious reaction and given the chance an attempt at almost total destruction of the Muslims. For in Spain Muslims lived for about 850 years as rulers. They lived with Jews and Christians for the most part in a spirit of tolerance and cooperation in promoting science and culture to the point that their work prepared for the modern scientific revolution with all its benefits for mankind. But the moment Muslims became weaker, the hate in the Catholic heart came out with a vengeance. Muslims were either killed, converted, or forced to leave Spain and their heritage was as fully destroyed as was humanly possible. Before Palestine and Kosovo, there was Spain.

Above, I have mentioned only what the Christian nations have been doing or are doing to the Muslims. But when we look at what they have done to each other or to other people any validity in their claim of being people of love and peace vanishes, at least as far as Western Protestant or Catholic Christians are concerned. The horrible treatment of the heretics and witches in the Middle Ages probably inspired the tyrants of later centuries. The native peoples of the Americas, Australia, and New Zealand bear a tragic witness to what Christian nations can do to other nations and with the blessings and assistance of Christian churches. In this century alone the Western nations have fought two world wars with tens of millions dead and untold misery for the living. For each victory in these two wars the church bells rang in the victorious countries. The first nation to make a weapon of mass destruction and the only one to use it is a Christian nation.

Had not the toll of death mounted too high for the Americans there can be little doubt that the fate of North Vietnam would have been like that of Iraq: it would have been bombed to submission no matter how many Vietnamese lives would have been lost. The lesson learned in North Vietnam was not that there should be no more war but that never again the American casualties would be allowed to mount so high and never again the cameras would be allowed to get so near the horrors of war that a backlash against the war would be created in the public. Often Christian countries have some hand even in the violent conflicts in non-Christian countries in Africa and Asia. The colonial policy of divide and rule sowed seeds of conflicts that later resulted in violence between the groups that the colonial powers turned against one another. Palestinian-Jewish conflict and the Kashmir issue are among the legacy of colonialism. After the colonial period interference by the Western countries continued in the internal affairs of African and Asian countries. More recently, Iran-Iraq war was encouraged by the West so that the Islamic revolution in Iran may not spread to the Arabian peninsula. The military government in Algeria which cancelled the elections that Muslims were poised to win has the support of France and this support is partly responsible for the violence there, which, it seems, is mostly done by the military.

In Rwanda the tribe that perpetuated a holocaust of another tribe follows the Catholic religion. The most cruel tyrant in history came from a Christian country and there has been no shortage of other somewhat less ruthless dictators in Christian countries, especially in South America and Africa.

Even in terrorism, associated in the media mostly with the Muslims, it is the Christians that hold the record when it comes to the number of children and other innocent people killed. The Oklahoma bombing, carried out by people professing to be Christians, claimed more completely innocent victims than any other single act of terrorism. Terrorism in Northern Ireland which is a direct result of a sectarian conflict between Catholics and Protestants and is often supported by the religious leaders, has probably killed more children and innocent people than Middle East terrorism. Moreover, Muslim terrorism is mostly linked to the sort of unjust treatment suffered by the Palestinians whereas the Oklahoma bombing and, to a lesser degree, Irish terrorism is difficult to link in such a way.

Now and then there appear religious sects whose beliefs lead them to violence. David Koreish armed his followers to teeth and led them to their violent death. There seem to exist several Millennium groups who are planning to engage in violence around the year 2000. Several doctors have been murdered by anti-abortionists and some Catholic leaders have not categorically condemned these killings. In some cases the violent impulses in Christian groups turn against the groups themselves. Jim Jones led hundreds of his followers to commit suicide.

Then there is racial violence, by no means dissociated from Christianity. Black churches have been burned in America and recently some Americans tied a black man with a rope and dragged him by their truck until he died. Such acts are often carried out by members of groups who also carry crosses. And in South Africa the inhuman system of apartheid was maintained by the church-going white community with the blessing of the churches and indeed the apartheid was practiced by the churches themselves.

At an individual level, too, most horrible examples of violence are seen in the Western Christian nations. In some American and British cities a car driver may take out his gun and shoot senselessly whoever happens to be passing by. There are many cases of church-going and Christmas-celebrating serial killers who are privately busy sexually attacking young men or women, killing them in the most horrible way, and then burying them in their backyards. Also, prior to the media focus on churches cases of gross sexual and other abuse of orphans by the Catholic priests and brothers were not infrequent. And there are even larger number of examples of church-going parents who torture their children to death or to destroy them mentally by incestuous relations. In one such case, an American father recently killed his son by injecting him with the Aids virus.

One may object that we are concentrating only on the negative, not providing any background analysis, and are not making necessary distinctions between various brands of Christianity and between secular and religious tendencies in the Christian world. But this is precisely what the Christians do to Muslims. They mostly talk and ask about acts of violence taking place in the vast Muslim world without making any distinctions, or analyzing them properly, or balancing them with the positive.

The Bible

In the New Testament there are of course teachings that stress love and mercy. Thus Jesus is reported to have commanded Christians to love their enemies and to turn the other cheek when stricken on one. Also, he is reported to reduce the whole of the Law to loving God and to loving one's neighbor. He also reduces in the fourth gospel his commandments to the single commandment of loving one another. But all this was not able to save the natives of the Americas, Australia or New Zealand, or the Iraqis or Vietnamese or the Bosnians or Albanians, the millions massacred in Rwanda and earlier killed in the world wars or the sad little children who are tortured by their parents or the prisoners suffering tortures at the hands of the dictators. Why? The talk of love and peace in the New Testament, often repeated from the pulpits, is ineffective partly because of human weaknesses and partly because this is only one side of the Biblical message. The other side is seen in Biblical passages such as the following:

When my angel goes in front of you, and brings you to the Amorites ... you shall not bow down to their gods ... but utterly demolish them and break their pillars in pieces.... Little by little I will drive them out from before you, until you have increased and possess the land (Ex 23:23-33; see also Ex 32:25-29, where the sin of making the golden calf by the Israelites leads to the command: "Each of you kill your brother, your friend, and your neighbor").
But as for the towns of these peoples that the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance, you must not let anything that breathes remain alive. You shall annihilate them - the Hittites and the Amorites, the Canaanites ... - just as the Lord your God has commanded (Deut 20:16-17; see also Deut 7:2-16).
And at the seventh time, when the priests had blown the trumpets, Joshua said to the people, "Shout! For the Lord has given you the city [Jericho]. The city and all that is in it shall be devoted to the Lord for destruction. ... Then they devoted to destruction by the edge of the sword all in the city, both men and women, young and old, oxen, sheep, and donkeys (Joshua 6:16-21; cf. Heb 11:30-33, where a New Testament writer condones such passages in the Old Testament).
Thus says the Lord of hosts, "... Now go and attack Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have; do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey" (1 Sam 15:2-3). (Saul did not carry this command fully in that he spared some cattle as booty. For this action God rejected Saul as king of Israel (verses 8-9, 13-15, 26), and gave the kingdom to David, although even David killed only men and women in the conquered lands of other nations and spared the cattle, 1 Sam 27:8-9, cf. 2 Sam 8:2).
They did battle against Midian, as the Lord had commanded Moses, and killed every male (Num 31:7).

These passages relate to the situation when the Israelites had power over some nations. But there are passages which were written about nations against whom they had no power. In these passages annihilation of other nations is of course not commanded but hoped for:

O daughter Babylon, you devastator!Happy shall they be who pay you back
what you have done to us!
Happy shall they be who take your little ones
and dash them against the rock! (Psalms 137:8-9).

Such hopes can at times get associated with the messianic times:

For the nation and kingdom that will not serve you shall perish; those nations shall be utterly laid waste (Isa 60:12). And in the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom [of Israel which] ... shall crush all these kingdoms and bring them to an end, and it shall stand forever (Dan 2:44). Ask of me, and I will make the nations your inheritance, and the ends of the earth your possession. You shall break them with a rod of iron, and dash them in pieces like a potter's vessel (Psalm 2:8-9). Arise and thresh, O daughter Zion, for I will make your horn iron and your hoofs bronze; you shall beat in pieces many nations ... (Micah 4:13). And among the nations the remnant of Jacob [=Israel], surrounded by many peoples, shall be like a lion among the animals of the forest, like the young lion among the flocks of sheep, which, when it goes through, treads down and tears to pieces, with no one to deliver (Micah 5:8).

Related with the above teachings of the Bible is the well-known belief of the Israelites in their being chosen children of God while the other nations are like dogs. Another related belief is that the salvation and revelation almost exclusively belong to the Israelites. All this creates certain insensitivity to other peoples, the goyim.

The Old Testament is not devoid of any reference to love and peace (see Ex 22:21, 34:6-7). But nationalism and exclusivism dominates it and this cannot be conducive to love and peace, as the passages quoted above show.

Christians may say that this is the attitude only of the Old Testament. There is, they will point out, growth and evolution in revelation from the Pentateuch to the psalms, then to the prophets, and finally to the gospels. With the coming of the gospels earlier teachings were replaced by the law of love. There is some truth to this view. Thus in the Pentateuch the possibility is not admitted that people from other nations may become worshippers of Yahweh. The division among people is strictly on national or ethnic lines and Yahweh is a national god who expects to be served by only his people. It is because of this that he commands the annihilation of other peoples and the towns inhabited by them are given only the choice of either submitting to forced labor or annihilation. The third choice of submitting to the worship of Yahweh is not even admitted. Later, in prophets like Isaiah there is an improvement of this conception. Yahweh is seen as the universal god and the possibility is admitted that other nations such as Egyptians and Assyrians may join with Israel in the worship of the God of Israel (Isa 19:18-25), although even then Israel is expected to rule other nations (Isa 60:12). But this idea of evolution does not justify the violence to other nations described in the Pentateuch. For there can be no stage in the evolution of divine revelation when killing "everything that breathes" including infants can be justified. Moreover, the idea that the nation of Israel is a chosen nation to which salvation and revelation exclusively belongs and which is destined to destroy or rule other nations with a rod of iron goes through the Bible, from the Pentateuch to the New Testament, like a thread. The passages quoted above from the Old Testament are from different parts of the Jewish scriptures, including from prophets like Isaiah. The New Testament also expresses similar sentiments.

Thus some stories in the gospels present the Gentiles as dogs, as compared to the Jews who are the children of God (Mark 7:24-30 and par). The exclusivism of the Jewish religion is also inherited by the gospels. The fourth gospel says that the salvation is of the Jews (4:22) and according to Paul the church is formed by grafting Gentiles who are like a wild olive on to the remnant of the Israelites who are like the root which sustains the grafted branches (Rom 11:17-18). Indeed, throughout the New Testament it is assumed that the savior had to come from the Jews because salvation is of the Jews. From this it follows that without this Jewish savior Jesus salvation is not possible. Hence the fourth gospel makes Jesus say that no one goes to the Father but through Jesus who is the way, the life and the truth (John 14:6). According to Paul even a different type of Christianity is not to be tolerated:

As we have said before, so now I repeat, if anyone proclaims to you a gospel contrary to what you received, let that one be cursed! (Galatians 1:9).

If in the New Testament Jesus sometimes appears like a lamb, this is so only during his first coming when he had no power. During his second advent when he will come with power and glory he will be like a lion (Rev 5:5, cf. Micah 5:8). The Old Testament hope of the restored kingdom of Israel, destroying or ruling other nations is transferred in the New Testament to Christians and Christ:

when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, in flaming fire, inflicting vengeance on those who do not know God and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus (2 Thess 1:7-8). [Christ will destroy] every ruler and every authority and power. For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet (1 Cor 15:25).But as for these enemies of mine who did not want me to reign over them -- bring them here and slaughter them in my presence (Luke 19:27, not a saying of Jesus but of a character in a parable).
only hold fast to what you have until I come. To everyone who conquers (temptation to apostasy) and continues to do my works to the end, I will give authority over the nations; to rule them with an iron rod, as when clay pots are shattered -- even as I also received authority from my Father (Rev 2:25-27, cf. Psalm 2:8-9). And she gave birth to a son, a male child, who is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron (Rev 12:5).

It is true that in Christianity the nationalism of the Old Testament and the exclusivism and violence connected with it is considerably toned down but because the New Testament largely affirms the Jewish nationalism, exclusivism, and the messianic hopes and because the Christians accept the Old Testament as word of God and therefore assacred they are to some degree influenced by it. Indeed, it seems that the Christian nations often subconsciously put themselves in the position of the chosen Israelites while putting other nations in the place of the Amelikes, Hittites, Canaanites etc and feel justified in partially or totally destroying them with "a rod of iron" like a potter's vessel. Thus what the Catholics and other Western nations did to the natives in Americas, Australia and New Zealand etc or the way they treated the colonized lands as markets to be exploited with the accompanying attempt at the destruction of their cultures and languages or what they in this century assisted the Jews to do to the Palestinian people or what the Serbs almost did to people of Kosovo or what the Catholics did to the Muslims of Spain is very similar to what the Bible commands the Israelites to do to the Amelikes etc or prophesies that they will do to the other nations in messianic times. Even the Nazi holocaust is not too un-Biblical, for in the holocaust probably the Nazis simply turned the tables around: they put the Jews themselves in the position of the Amelikes while they became the New Israel. Thus the seeds of hatred and intolerance sown like weeds along with the wheat of divine revelation by the editors of the Bible came to bear their poisonous fruit that the Jews themselves were made to eat.

For Christians to act violently and aggressively against other nations under the influence of the Bible it is not required that they should have often read such passages as talk about the killing of men, women and children of nations like Amelikes. Such passages are simply a gross manifestation of nationalism, exclusivism, and a very negative view of other nations that is reflected everywhere in the Bible, which no one exposed to the Bible, either by direct reading or through the sermons of the priests and ministers, could possibly miss.

The best attitude that the Bible can show to other nations is that it allows them the benefits of revelation and salvation, of which they are otherwise deprived, through the Jews or a Jewish Messiah, although even that concession was fiercely opposed by some Jews and early Christians. In recent times the church is more willing to recognize truth and salvation in other traditions. But it is most revealing that many Christians still believe that any truth and salvation found in other traditions is the result of Christ acting anonymously in those traditions. This shows how difficult it is for the readers of the Bible, whether Jewish or Christian, to imagine that God might be loving, guiding and saving remnants of other nations independently of Jews or a Jewish Messiah.

Christians also point out that among them there have always been people who have renounced and denounced violence and spoken against the actions of their fellow Christians when they engage in war and violence. This is true. But such voices are almost always too few and too late. They have not been enough to prevent some of the Christian nations and individuals from becoming the most violent and aggressive in whole of human history. Also, they gain strength only after the destruction of other nations reaches a point of no return, that is, the interests of the Christian nations have been completely served or can no longer be served. Thus, far from opposing the colonial powers, an overwhelming majority of churchmen used colonialism to try to convert the people of the occupied countries. Some voices for the natives of North America, Australia and New Zealand are now heard, but the destruction of these natives is more or less complete now. Palestinians are sometimes supported by the Christians but they have already lost their country and are now in the process of loosing their nationhood.

A positive recent development. In the past thirty to fifty years there has been an unprecedented movement in the Western nations in the direction of a genuine tolerance, and even respect, for other groups and nations and hence towards love and peace. This movement cannot be attributed to the Bible or to Christianity, for it is inconceivable that the Bible and Christianity have started to do now what they could not do for the past two thousand years. The roots of this positive development lie in the interest in science and philosophy kindled in Europe by the Muslims through Spain and other areas of contact between the two civilizations. This interest eventually led to the creation of the institution of the University which provided a challenge and a check to the Church. It needed several centuries for the University to gain the sort of influence that could be compared to the influence of the Church. And in recent decades the University has reached a level of influence where it can make some fundamental changes in the thinking of the Western nations. In particular, there is a considerable rejection of exclusivism and nationalism, for the rational thought moves man towards genuine universalism. The terrible experience of the two world wars has also contributed to reduce nationalism in the West. Finally, increasing global trade and international business ties are helping to create a world culture with universal values. These developments are even forcing the Churches to revise their beliefs and practices. Very little credit, if any, is due to the Bible or to Christianity for the apologies that the popes have made in recent decades for the horrible acts of violence that the Catholic Church has committed since the days of Constantine when it gained power. For the Church is now bowing to the new trends whose source is primarily the University.

Christian ideal

In the above observations we have used the term "Christian" in a loose sense without making any distinction between good or bad Christians. This is partly because of the difficulty of deciding who is good or bad Christian and partly because the fruits of a religion should be visible in the nations, groups, and/or civilizations that it builds or influences despite the fact that every group, nation or civilization is bound to include both good or bad elements. We can do some justice to the distinction between good and bad Christians by looking at not only the conduct of the Christian nations generally but also what Christians often present to be their ideal.

In view of the teaching of love in the Bible, especially the New Testament, this ideal seems to be a renunciation of almost all use of force. This ideal has inspired many individuals and some groups to devote their lives to helping the needy and to denounce and renounce violence. Saint Francis of Assisi, who was greatly influenced by the Muslim mystics (Sufis), the order he founded in 1209 and Jehovah's Witnesses provide examples. But such individuals and groups do not possess any political power and when you are not in a position to use force, it is easy to be non-violent, although violent men do not need much power to show their violence. In one passage, the Qur'an says that God has ordained love and compassion in the hearts of those who follow Jesus but that "most of them are rebellious transgressors" (57:27), a statement which takes into account both the existence of individuals and groups practicing charity and non-violence and the historical fact of the most horrible acts of violence committed by the Christian nations, as also the Christians' holding on to some doctrines in the face of clearest evidence that these doctrines depart from the teaching of Jesus.

The Qur'an

Muslims believe that God has sent his revelation to all nations and during all ages which men have corrupted with their own desires and ignorance and the Qur'anic revelation given through the Prophet Muhammad -- which is preserved without any tampering in its original form -- corrects, perfects and completes all earlier revelations. This is manifested in the balance that characterizes the Qur'anic revelation. For men can come up with all kinds of very good ideas but they cannot keep them in their proper place.

Among the main causes of violence are nationalism and exclusivism. We have seen above that the New Testament tones down the nationalism and exclusivism of the Old Testament but does not completely break free from it. The Qur'an takes this crucial step of breaking free from nationalism and exclusivism. It states clearly that there is no one nation through which revelation and salvation has been made available. Revelation took place among all nations:

And verily We have raised in every nation a messenger, (proclaiming): Serve God and shun at-taghut (evil, rebellious powers, false gods) (16:36; see also, 10:47)

Salvation is based on some universal principles. Anyone who follows those principles can be saved regardless of national or religious affiliation:

And God does not forgive the ascribing of a partner in His Godhead. He forgives other than that (sin) to whom He will (4:48; 4:116).Lo! those who believe (in Muhammad), and those who are Jews, and Christians, and Sabeans - whoever, believes in God and the last day and does good - they have their reward with their Lord and there shall no fear come unto them neither shall they grieve (2:62; 5:69).

The Qur'an rejects explicitly the Jewish and Christian belief that the salvation is of the Jews and that somehow, deliberately or "anonymously," man needs to go through Judeo-Christian tradition to be saved:

And they (i.e., the Jews and Christians) say, "None shall enter paradise unless he be a Jew or a Christian. These are their vain desires. Say, "Produce your proof (from reason or authentic revelation) if you are truthful!" Nay, - whoever surrenders his whole self to God and he is a doer of good, -he shall have his reward with his Lord; they shall have no fear nor shall they grieve (2:112-113).

No nation or race has any superiority. Only individuals can be superior and the criterion for individual superiority is righteousness:

O humankind! We created you from a single pair of a male and a female and made you into nations and tribes that you may know each other. Verily, the most honored among you in the sight of God is the most righteous among you. Verily, God is knowing, well-acquainted (with who each one of you really is) (49:13).

Like the Bible the Qur'an talks of love and also sanctions some use of force but strikes, I believe, a perfect balance between the two. The use of force proceeds from love and takes place with the possibility of love and reconciliation left open.

The Qur'an talks of "loving" one's enemy as follows:

The good deed and the evil deed are not alike. Repel (O man) the evil deed with one which is best, then lo! he, between whom and you there was enmity, becomes as though he was a bosom friend. But none is granted (to practice such forgiveness) save those who are self-restrained and patient, and none is granted it save those who are very fortunate (41:34-35).

This verse differs from the New Testament commandment to love one's enemy in three ways: First, it does not command love. Love is not an act of will but a force in the human heart. It cannot be commanded but inculcated. Second, love is to be expressed in action. The evil deed of the enemy is to be responded by a good deed. Third, the Qur'an recognizes that the genuine ability of responding to evil with goodness comes after a great deal of inner development and therefore should not be imposed before that level of development is reached. For such an imposition only creates pretentious or hypocritical professions and acts of love or suppresses the aggressive and violent impulses into the subconscious where they become more powerful, sustainable and dangerous.

The Qur'an views the coming of the Prophet and the revelation sent down to him as an expression of divine love and grace (rahmah).

We [=God] have indeed brought them a Book which We have expounded with knowledge as guidance and mercy for those who believe (7:52).

O humankind! There has come unto you (in the form of the Qur'an) an exhortation from your Lord and Sustainer, a healing for the (diseases) in the hearts, a guidance and mercy for believers (10:57).We have sent down to you (O Muhammad) the Book as an exposition of all things and as guidance, mercy and good tidings for those who surrender to God (16:89).
Lo! this Qur'an narrates unto the children of Israel most of that concerning which they differ. And lo! it is guidance and mercy for those who believe (27:76-77).

These are revelations of the Book with wisdom, guidance and mercy for those who do good, those who establish regular prayers and practice regular charity and have firm faith in the hereafter (31:2-4)

Unlike the Messiah or Christ of the Bible who comes with destruction for the nations, the Prophet is said in the Qur'an to come as a mercy and love for all the nations:

And We have not sent you (O Muhammad) except as love and mercy to all the nations (lit. worlds) (21:107).

Consequently, nowhere the Arabs are presented as a chosen people who will rule other nations. The essential division between humankind is between those who have faith in God and do good and those who do not believe in God and do not do good, in contrast to the Bible where along with this division another very important and essential division is between the children of Israel and the other nations, a very racial and nationalistic division.

As is well known, the Prophet Muhammad engaged in warfare, often defensive, but sometimes also offensive. This use of force, however, proceeds from love. Before the Prophet, Arabia was inhabited by tribes who were not under any system of law enforced by a legitimate authority. There was no mechanism to settle disputes which often led to feuds that continued for many generations. The Prophet Muhammad united these tribes into a single brotherhood so that there may not be any violence. The Qur'an itself refers to this:

And remember the favor of God on you: how you were enemies and He reconciled your hearts so that you became as brothers by the grace of God; and how you were at the brink of an abyss of fire and He saved you from it (3:103).

This unification, however, could not have taken place without resistance which made some warfare necessary.

During all the battles that the Prophet fought only a few hundred people were killed. And after victory all those who for years fought the Prophet were forgiven. There was nothing like the treatment of the subjugated people that we see in the Bible. When the city of Makkah was conquered, the Qur'an did not tell the Prophet to kill everything that breathes but rather said the following:

When the help of God came along with victory, you (O Prophet) saw the people enter the religion of God in large groups. So glorify God and seek His forgiveness (110).

Warfare requires some consolidation of one's troops and in Sura 60 the Qur'an brings its followers on a war footing. But in the middle of preparing the Muslims for war, the possibility of love and reconciliation with the enemies is held out:

It may be that God will generate love between you and those of them with whom you are now at enmity. God is capable (of all things); God is forgiving and merciful (60:7).

No religious tradition can exist for long without some love just as no tradition can exist without some use of force in disciplining its own adherents and dealing with external enemies. What differentiates various traditions is the way the two are mixed. When the Bible talks of love it forgets the very real need for the use of force in human societies and when it talks of the use of force it forgets about love. The Prophet Muhammad shows how to combine the two.

Some Christians, not too informed about either Islam or Christianity, often contrast Jesus and Muhammad by saying that Jesus was a man of love and peace while Muhammad was a man of war. But Jesus' career was cut short by his departure. Had he succeeded in his first coming to complete his mission there can be no doubt that his career would have involved some use of force. As we have seen, the New Testament says that during his second coming when his mission will be completed he will come with a rod of iron. And there is evidence that even during his first coming, in a lowly and weak position, he was not totally against the use of force. Some gospel traditions suggest that his disciples carried arms which one of them used (Mark 14:47) and he himself initiated the arming of the disciples (Luke 22:35-38), although the gospel writers in various contradictory ways try to minimize the implications of these traditions. He reportedly said that he did not come with peace but with sword (Matt 10:34-39 = Luke 12:51-53, 14:26-27. He turned the tables of traders in the Jerusalem temple (Mark 11:15-19 = Matt 21:12-17 = Luke 19:45-48 = John 2:13-22), an act of physical force. (Some scholars even suggest that Jesus and his disciples were well-armed and they came to Jerusalem to free Palestine from the Romans, but this is highly improbable.)

Had Jesus' mission come to some type of completion during his ministry he would have looked very similar to the Prophet Muhammad. On the other hand, had the Prophet Muhammad been killed during his flight from Makkah, he would have appeared like Jesus. The prophets and messengers of God are all essentially of the same spirit. Any differences among them are due to the scope of their work and the circumstances in which they operate.

Muslim Conduct

In every religious group individuals have to grow to achieve the level of development that the religion requires. One would therefore find individuals in each religious group at different level of development and behaving accordingly. Some will doubtless perform some reprehensible acts. Thanks to the Western media I need not rehearse acts of violence done by the Muslims. But put all the acts of individual and group violence done by Christians and Muslims on the two sides of a balance and no one with the necessary factual information can doubt that the Christian acts of violence far outweigh those by Muslims in their scope, in their senselessness and in their cold-bloodedness and evil. When Muslims were in a dominating position their treatment of non-Muslim minorities and nations under their control, especially Christians and Jews, have been far more kinder than the other way around. In recent decades there have been deplorably some acts of violence against Christian minorities in such Muslim countries as Egypt, Pakistan and Indonesia. This is probably partly due to a reaction of the news of American, British and Serbian violence against Muslim peoples combined with some very local reasons. Even so, they are nothing compared to what Muslims have suffered and are suffering at the hands of Christians.

Muslim Ideal

The Muslim ideal is not to renounce all use of force and retire to a monastic life or to stay away from politics and thus leave the running of the world to those who do not fear God. Rather the Muslim ideal is the proper use of force, a use which is exercised with fear of God and love of fellow human beings and even other creatures. One of the heroes of Muslim history is 'Umar, the second Khalifah. At one point he ruled a great part of the then known world. But he sew his own garments. It is reported that at night he used to roam around in disguise to see if someone is suffering from hunger or injustice because he believed that he will be asked about it on the day of judgment. When he conquered Jerusalem he is said to ride his camel with a servant. For half the journey he was on the camel and for the other half his servant was on the camel. Another hero is the fourth Khalifah, 'Ali. It is said that he overpowered a combatant in a battle and was about to kill him when the combatant spit on him. 'Ali withdrew his sword. The combatant asked why he let him go. 'Ali replied, I was fighting in the way of God, but when you spit at me I was no longer sure that my killing you would have been purely in the way of God.

In Islam, one does not give to God what is God's and to Caesar what is Caesar's. In Islam what is Caesar's must be what is God's. Islam aims to have Caesars like 'Umar and 'Ali who fear God and are moved by compassion, wisdom and justice.

Proper use of force can usually take place within a system of law which is enforced by a legitimate authority. Wars and violence are often the result of a lack of existence of such a system of law and a legitimate authority to enforce it. This was the case in the Arabian Peninsula where different tribes lived without any well-defined system of law and without any recognized authority to enforce it. The world as a whole has also been in a similar situation so far. There are often wars because there is no well-established system of law and no legitimate authority to enforce it. After the world war II such a system is slowly evolving. But this process will not succeed without the principles of faith in God and the hereafter and of the brotherhood/sisterhood of all human beings. It is one of the missions of Islam to establish these principles in the world and to thereby lead it to peace and stability. That is, what the Prophet achieved during his life in Arabia in terms of reconciling the hearts of the various Arab tribes, Islam wants to achieve in the world as a whole by reconciling different nations and groups and to bring them under a single brotherhood/sisterhood serving the one true transcendent God.

Conclusion

In comparing any two great civilizations one should not focus on one land or one decade or century, but rather glance over many centuries and over many lands. If we do that, then it becomes clear that whether one looks at the teachings of the two religions or the conduct of their followers there is no basis in fact in the claim that Christianity is more of a religion of love and peace than Islam. Christians have no doubt talked about love and peace more, but Muslims have practiced these values more.

As a final word, I would say that before preaching love and peace to other nations, Christians will do well to pay heed to the following well-attested words of Jesus:

Or, how can you say to your brother, "Friend, let me take the speck in your eye," when you yourself do not see the log in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log in your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye (Luke 6:42 = Matt 7:4-5 = Thomas, saying 26)

To myself and other Muslims I would say that forever keep reflecting the meaning of the following words of God:

We have not sent you (O Muhammad) except as a mercy and love to all the nations (lit. all the worlds).

Friday, September 21, 2012

Religious views of Adolf Hitler

Adolf Hitler was raised by a Christian Catholic father and a devout Catholic mother; he ceased to participate in the sacraments after childhood. In his book Mein Kampf and in public speeches he often made statements that affirmed a belief in Christianity. Prior toWorld War II Hitler had promoted "positive Christianity", a movement which purged Christianity of its Jewish elements and instilled it with Nazi philosophy. According to thecontroversial collection of transcripts edited by Martin Bormann, titled Hitler's Table Talk, as well as the testimony of some intimates, Hitler had privately negative views of Christianity. Others reported he was a committed believer.

Views as a youth

Hitler's father Alois, though nominally a Catholic, was somewhat religiously skeptical, while his mother Klara was a practicing Catholic. At the Benedictine monastery school which Hitler attended for one school year as a child (1897–1898), Hitler became top of his class, receiving twelve 1s, the highest grade in the final quarter. He was confirmed on 22 May 1904, and also sang in the choir at the monastery. According to historian Michael Rissmann, young Hitler was influenced in school by Pan-Germanism, and began to reject the Catholic Church, receiving Confirmation only unwillingly. Rissmann also relates a story where a boyhood friend^[who?]claimed that after Hitler had left home, he never again attended Mass or received the sacraments.

According to an interview with a British correspondent years after the First World War, Hitler claimed a mysterious voice told him to leave a section of a crowded trench during a minor barrage. Moments after he left the area, a shell fell on that particular spot. Hitler saw this experience as a message that he was a uniquely illuminated individual who had a special task to fulfill. This story did not, however, appear in Mein Kampf.

Views as an adult

Something of Hitler's religious beliefs can be gathered from his public and private statements, however they present a conflicting picture of a man who appears spiritual and yet against organized religion. Some private statements attributed to him remain disputed.

Public statements

In public statements, especially at the beginning of his rule, Hitler frequently spoke positively about the Christian German culture,^[2] and his belief in an Aryan Christ.^[12] Before his ascension to power, Hitler stated before a crowd in Munich: "My feeling as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. 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 against the Jewish poison. Today, 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."^[13]

In a proclamation to the German Nation February 1, 1933 Hitler stated, "The National Government will regard it as its first and foremost duty to revive in the nation the spirit of unity and co-operation. It will preserve and defend those basic principles on which our nation has been built. It regards Christianity as the foundation of our national morality, and the family as the basis of national life."^[14]

Historian Joachim Fest wrote, "Hitler knew, through the constant invocation of the God the Lord (German: Herrgott) or of providence(German: Vorsehung), to make the impression of a godly way of thought."^[15] He used his "ability to simulate, even to potentially critical Church leaders, an image of a leader keen to uphold and protect Christianity," according to biographer Ian Kershaw. Kershaw adds that Hitler's ability also succeeded in appeasing possible Church resistance to anti-Christian Nazi Party radicals.^[16] For example, on March 23, 1933, he addressed the Reichstag: "The National Government regards the two Christian confessions [i.e. Catholicism and Protestantism] as factors essential to the soul of the German people. ... We hold the spiritual forces of Christianity to be indispensable elements in the moral uplift of most of the German people."^[17]

According to Hitler's chief architect Albert Speer, Hitler remained a formal member of the Catholic Church until his death, and even ordered his chief associates to remain members, however it was Speer's opinion that "he had no real attachment to it."^[18] According to biographer John Toland, Hitler was still "a member in good standing of the Church of Rome despite his detestation of its hierarchy, he carried within himself its teaching that the Jew was the killer of God. The extermination, therefore, could be done without a twinge ofconscience since he was merely acting as the avenging hand of God — so long as it was done impersonally, without cruelty."^[19]Hitler's own words from Mein Kampf seem to conflict with the idea that his antisemitism was religiously motivated, stating: "In the Jew I still saw only a man who was of a different religion, and therefore, on grounds of human tolerance, I was against the idea that he should be attacked because he had a different faith."^[20]

In his book Mein Kampf Hitler made numerous religious pronouncements.^[1] In its pages, historian Richard Steigmann-Gall notes, "Hitler gave no indication of being an atheist or agnostic or of believing in only a remote, rationalist divinity. Indeed, he referred continually to a providential, active deity."^[21]

"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."^[22]

In an attempt to justify Nazi aggression, Hitler drew a parallel between militantism and Christianity's rise to power as the Roman Empire's official state religion:

"The individual may establish with pain today that with the appearance of Christianity the first spiritual terror entered into the far freer ancient world, but he will not be able to contest the fact that since then the world has been afflicted and dominated by this coercion, and that coercion is broken only by coercion, and terror only by terror. Only then can a new state of affairs be constructively created. Political parties are inclined to compromises; philosophies never. Political parties even reckon with opponents; philosophies proclaim their infallibility."^[23]

Elsewhere in Mein Kampf Hitler speaks of the "creator of the universe" and "eternal Providence." He also states his belief that the Aryan race was created by God, and that it would be a sin to dilute it through racial intermixing:

"The folkish-minded man, in particular, has the sacred duty, each in his own denomination, of making people stop just talking superficially of God's will, and actually fulfill God's will, and not let God's word be desecrated. For God's will gave men their form, their essence and their abilities. Anyone who destroys His work is declaring war on the Lord's creation, the divine will."^[24]

According to Steigmann-Gall, Hitler's references to Jesus, God as the "Lord of Creation" and the necessity of obeying "His will" reveals that Christianity was fused into his thinking. "What Christianity achieves is not dogma, it does not seek the outward ecclesiastical form, but rather ethical principles.... There is not religion and no philosophy that equals it in its moral content; no philosophical ethics is better able to diffuse the tension between this life and the hereafter, from which Christianity and its ethic were born," Hitler stated.^[25]

Derek Hastings sees Hitler's commitment to Christianity as more tenuous. He considers it "eminently plausible" that Hitler was a believing Catholic as late as his trial in 1924, but writes that "there is little doubt that Hitler was a staunch opponent of Christianity throughout the duration of the Third Reich."^[26]

Private statements

Hitler's private statements about Christianity were often conflicting. Hitler's intimates, such as Joseph Goebbels, Albert Speer, andMartin Bormann suggest that Hitler generally had negative opinions of Christianity, while Gen. Gerhard Engel and Cardinal Michael von Faulhaber report he was a believer.^[4]^[5]

It was Goebbels opinion that Hitler was "deeply religious but entirely anti-Christian."^[27]^[28] In his diary Goebbels reported that Hitler believed Jesus "also wanted to act against the Jewish world domination. Jewry had him crucified. But Paul falsified his doctrine and undermined ancient Rome."^[29] Albert Speer quotes Hitler stating, "You see, it's been our misfortune to have the wrong religion. Why didn't we have the religion of the Japanese, who regard sacrifice for the Fatherland as the highest good? The Mohammedan religion too would have been much more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness?"^[30]

Cardinal Michael von Faulhaber wrote in a confidential report that Hitler "undoubtedly lives in belief in God" and that he "recognizes Christianity as the builder of western culture."^[5] Historian Ian Kershaw believes that Hitler had deceived Faulhaber, noting his "evident ability to simulate, even to potentially critical church leaders, an image of a leader keen to uphold and protect Christianity".^[31] Nazi General Gerhard Engel reported in his diary that in 1941 Hitler stated, "I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so."^[4]

The historical validity of other remarks has been challenged, particularly the English translation of Hitler's Table Talk.^[11] HistorianRichard Carrier states, "It is clear that Picker and Jochmann have the correct [German] text and Trevor-Roper's [English translation] is entirely untrustworthy."^[32] One disputed example includes Hitler's statement that, "Our epoch will certainly see the end of the disease of Christianity."^[33] Which Carrier translates from the original German as:

"I have never found pleasure in maltreating others, even if I know it isn't possible to maintain oneself in the world without force. Life is granted only to those who fight the hardest. It is the law of life: Defend yourself! The time in which we live has the appearance of the collapse of this idea. It can still take 100 or 200 years. I am sorry that, like Moses, I can only see the Promised Land from a distance.

In the Table Talk, Hitler praised Julian the Apostate's Three Books Against the Galilaeans, an anti-Christian tract from AD 362. In the entry dated 21 October 1941 Hitler stated, "When one thinks of the opinions held concerning Christianity by our best minds a hundred, two hundred years ago, one is ashamed to realise how little we have since evolved. I didn't know that Julian the Apostate had passed judgment with such clear-sightedness on Christianity and Christians.... the Galilean, who later was called the Christ, intended something quite different. He must be regarded as a popular leader who took up His position against Jewry... and it's certain that Jesus was not a Jew. The Jews, by the way, regarded Him as the son of a whore—of a whore and a Roman soldier. The decisive falsification of Jesus's doctrine was the work of St. Paul.... Paul of Tarsus (his name was Saul, before the road to Damascus) was one of those who persecuted Jesus most savagely."^[34] And author Konrad Heiden has quoted Hitler as stating, "We do not want any other god than Germany itself. It is essential to have fanatical faith and hope and love in and for Germany."^[35]

Scholarly Opinion

According to Max Domarus Hitler promoted the idea of God as the creator of Germany, but Hitler was not a Christian or conservative.^[36]Domarus also points out that Hitler did not believe in organized religion and did not see himself as a religious reformer.^[36] According to historian Laurence Rees, "Hitler did not believe in the afterlife, but he did believe he would have a life after death because of what he had achieved."^[37] Historian Richard Overy maintains that Hitler was not a "practising Christian," nor was he a "thorough atheist."^[38] Samuel Koehne, a Research Fellow at the Alfred Deakin Research Institute, working on the official Nazi views on religion, answers the questionWas Hitler a Christian? thus: "Emphatically not, if we consider Christianity in its traditional or orthodox form: Jesus as the son of God, dying for the redemption of the sins of all humankind. It is a nonsense to state that Hitler (or any of the Nazis) adhered to Christianity of this form."^[39] Koehne says Hitler was probably not an atheist and refers to the fact that recent works have asserted that he was adeist.^[39] According to Robert S. Wistrich Hitler thought Christianity was finished but he did not want any direct confrontation for strategic reasons.^[40]

Hitler simplified Arthur de Gobineau's elaborate ideas of struggle for survival between the different races, among which the Aryan race, guided by providence, was supposed to be the torchbearers of civilization.^[41] In Hitler's conception, Jews were enemies of all civilization, especially the Volk. Although Hitler has been called a "Social Darwinist, he was not such in the usual sense of the word. Whereas Social Darwinism stressed struggle, change, the survival of the strongest, and a ceaseless battle of competition, Hitler, through the use of modern industrial technology and impersonal bureaucratic methods ended all competition by the ruthless suppression of all opponents."^[42] His understanding of Darwinism was incomplete and based loosely on the theory of "survival of the fittest" in a social context, as popularly misunderstood at the time.^[43]^[44] According to Hitler's personal photographer Heinrich Hoffmann, the Catholic priest Bernhard Stempfle was a prominent member of Hitler's inner circle and frequently advised him on religious issues.^[45]

Positive Christianity

For a time Hitler advocated positive Christianity, a militant, non-denominational form of Christianity which emphasized Christ as an active preacher, organizer, and fighter who opposed the institutionalized Judaism of his day.^[46] Positive Christianity purged or deemphasized the Jewish aspects of Christianity and was infused with aspects of nationalism and racial antisemitism. Hitler never directed his attacks on Jesus himself,^[47] whom Hitler regarded as an Aryan opponent of the Jews.^[48] Hitler viewed traditional Christianity as a corruption of the original ideas of Jesus by the Apostle Paul.^[49] In Mein Kampf Hitler writes that Jesus "made no secret of his attitude toward the Jewish people, and when necessary he even took the whip to drive from the temple of the Lord this adversary of all humanity, who then as always saw in religion nothing but an instrument for his business existence. In return, Christ was nailed to the cross."^[50] In a speech 26 June 1934, Hitler stated:

The National Socialist State professes its allegiance to positive Christianity. It will be its honest endeavour to protect both the great Christian Confessions in their rights, to secure them from interference with their doctrines (Lehren), and in their duties to constitute a harmony with the views and the exigencies of the State of today.^[51]

Former Prime Minister of Bavaria, Count Graf von Lerchenfeld-Köfering stated in a speech before the Landtag of Bavaria, that his beliefs "as a man and a Christian" prevented him from being an anti-Semite or from pursuing anti-Semitic public policies. Hitler while speaking the Bürgerbräukeller turned Lerchenfeld's perspective of Jesus on its head:

I would like here to appeal to a greater than I, Count Lerchenfeld. He said in the last session of the Landtag that his feeling 'as a man and a Christian' prevented him from being an anti-Semite. I say: 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 only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. .. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison.^[52]

Historian Steigmann-Gall argues that Hitler demonstrated a preference for Protestantism over Catholicism, as Protestantism was more liable to reinterpretation and a non-traditional readings, more receptive to positive Christianity, and because some of its liberal branches had held similar views.^[53]^[54] These views were supported by the German Christians movement, but rejected by the Confessing Church. According to Steigmann-Gall, Hitler regretted that "the churches had failed to back him and his movement as he had hoped."^[55] Hitler stated to Albert Speer, "Through me the Protestant Church could become the established church, as in England."^[56]

Not all the Protestant churches submitted to the state,^[57] which Hitler said in Mein Kampf was important in forming a political movement. Hitler supported the appointment of Ludwig Müller as Reichsbischof over the Protestant churches, hoping that he would get them to adhere to Nazi positions. After 1935 Hitler was advised by the newly-appointed Reich Minister for Church Affairs Hans Kerrl. Many Protestants who were not persuaded by argument were arrested and their property and funds confiscated.

By 1940 it was public knowledge that Hitler had abandoned advocating for Germans even the syncretist idea of a positive Christianity.^[58]

Persecution of Christian Churches

In 1999 Julie Seltzer Mandel, while researching documents for the "Nuremberg Project", discovered 150 bound volumes collected by Gen. William Donovan as part of his work on documenting Nazi war crimes. Donovan was a senior member of the U.S. prosecution team and had compiled large amounts of evidence that Nazis persecuted Christian Churches.^[59] In a 108-page outline titled "The Nazi Master Plan" Office of Strategic Services investigators argued that the Nazi regime had a plan to reduce the influence of Christian churches through a campaign of systematic persecutions.^[60]^[61] "Important leaders of the National Socialist party would have liked to meet this situation [of church influence] by complete extirpation of Christianity and the substitution of a purely racial religion," said the report. The most persuasive evidence came from "the systematic nature of the persecution itself."^[62] However "direct evidence" of this plan might possibly be obtained through an examination of the "directives of the Reich Propaganda Ministry" or by the "questioning of Nazi newspapermen and local and regional propagandists".^[62] The O.S.S. outline suggested that the plan to neutralize the Churches was conceived by Hitler and an inner circle even before the Nazis came to power,^[60] however editor and historian Richard Bonneystated this conjecture was an "interesting, but undocumented, assertion."^[61] The report argued that "considerations of expediency made it impossible, however, for the National Socialist movement to adopt this radical anti-Christian policy officially."^[62] Historian Alan Bullock is in agreement with this view, and argues that once the war was over it was Hitler's intention to "root out and destroy the influence of the Christian Churches."^[63] According to its own self-assessment, however, the O.S.S. "document is still seriously lacking in evidence of probative value, and is consequently ill suited to serve as the basis for an international discussion."^[62]

Under the supervision of Alfred Rosenberg and Heinrich Himmler moves were made to reduce Christianity's presence in German traditions, such as replacing Christian elements in Christmas carols with pagan references.^[64]

Statements against atheism

Hitler often associated atheism with bolshevism, communism, and Jewish materialism.^[65] Hitler stated in a speech to the people of Stuttgart on February 15, 1933: "Today they say that Christianity is in danger, that the Catholic faith is threatened. My reply to them is: for the time being, Christians and not international atheists are now standing at Germany’s fore. I am not merely talking about Christianity; I confess that I will never ally myself with the parties which aim to destroy Christianity. Fourteen years they have gone arm in arm with atheism. At no time was greater damage ever done to Christianity than in those years when the Christian parties ruled side by side with those who denied the very existence of God. Germany's entire cultural life was shattered and contaminated in this period. It shall be our task to burn out these manifestations of degeneracy in literature, theater, schools, and the press—that is, in our entire culture—and to eliminate the poison which has been permeating every facet of our lives for these past fourteen years."^[66]

In a radio address October 14, 1933 Hitler stated, "For eight months we have been waging a heroic battle against the Communist threat to our Volk, the decomposition of our culture, the subversion of our art, and the poisoning of our public morality. We have put an end to denial of God and abuse of religion. We owe Providence humble gratitude for not allowing us to lose our battle against the misery of unemployment and for the salvation of the German peasant."^[67]

In a speech delivered in Berlin, October 24, 1933, Hitler stated: "We were convinced that the people needs and requires this faith. We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: we have stamped it out."^[68]

In a speech delivered at Koblenz, August 26, 1934 Hitler states: "There may have been a time when even parties founded on the ecclesiastical basis were a necessity. At that time Liberalism was opposed to the Church, while Marxism was anti-religious. But that time is past. National Socialism neither opposes the Church nor is it anti-religious, but on the contrary, it stands on the ground of a real Christianity. The Church's interests cannot fail to coincide with ours alike in our fight against the symptoms of degeneracy in the world of today, in our fight against the Bolshevist culture, against an atheistic movement, against criminality, and in our struggle for the consciousness of a community in our national life, for the conquest of hatred and disunion between the classes, for the conquest of civil war and unrest, of strife and discord. These are not anti-Christian, these are Christian principles."^[69]

During negotiations leading to the Nazi-Vatican Concordat of April 26, 1933 Hitler argued that "Secular schools can never be tolerated because such schools have no religious instruction, and a general moral instruction without a religious foundation is built on air; consequently, all character training and religion must be derived from faith."^[70]

Islam and eastern religions

Among eastern religions, Hitler described religious leaders such as "Confucius, Buddha, and Mohammed" as providers of "spiritual sustenance".^[71] In this context, Hitler's connection to Mohammad Amin al-Husseini, the Mufti of Jerusalem — which included asylum in 1941, the honorary rank of an SS Major-General, and a "respected racial genealogy" — has been interpreted more as a sign of respect than political expedience.^[72] Hitler expressed admiration for the Muslim military tradition and directed Himmler to initiate Muslim SS Divisions as a matter of policy. However, Nazi-era Minister of Armaments and War Production Albert Speer acknowledged that Hitler was only cooperating with Muslim figures, such as al-Husseini, because he felt the antisemitic views they shared would eventually help him win power and influence over the Middle East in the long run.^[73] According to Speer, Hitler stated in private, "The Mohammedan religion too would have been much more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness?"^[73] Speer also stated that when he was discussing with Hitler events which might have occurred had Islam absorbed Europe:

"Hitler said that the conquering Arabs, because of their racial inferiority, would in the long run have been unable to contend with the harsher climate and conditions of the country. They could not have kept down the more vigorous natives, so that ultimately not Arabs but Islamized Germans could have stood at the head of this Mohammedan Empire."^[73]

Hitler's choice of the Hindu Swastika as the Nazis' main and official symbol, was linked to the belief in the Aryan cultural descent of the German people. They considered the early Aryans of India to be the prototypical white invaders and the sign as a symbol of the Aryanmaster race.^[74] The theory was inspired by the German archaeologist Gustaf Kossinna,^[75] who argued that the ancient Aryans were a superior Nordic race from northern Germany who expanded into the steppes of Eurasia, and from there into India, where they established the Vedic religion, the ancestor of Hindu and Buddhist faiths.^[75]

Role of religion in the Nazi state

Main article: Religion in Nazi Germany

In Hitler's political relations dealing with religion he readily adopted a strategy "that suited his immediate political purposes."^[76]According to Marshall Dill, one of the greatest challenges the Nazi state faced in its effort to "eradicate Christianity in Germany or at least subjugate it to their general world outlook" was that the Nazis could not justifiably connect German faith communities to the corruption of the old regime, Weimar having no close connection to the churches.^[77] Because of the long history of Christianity in Germany, Hitler could not attack Christianity as openly as he did Judaism, communism or other political opponents.^[77] The list of Nazi affronts to and attacks on the Catholic Church is long.^[78] The attacks tended not to be overt, but were still dangerous; believers were made to feel that they were not good Germans and their leaders were painted as treasonous and contemptible.^[78] The state removed crucifixes from the walls of Catholic classrooms and replaced it with a photo of the Führer.^[79]

Hitler issued a statement saying that he wished to avoid factional disputes in Germany's churches.^[80] He feared the political power that the churches had, and did not want to openly antagonize that political base until he had securely gained control of the country. Once in power Hitler showed his contempt for non-Aryan religion and sought to eliminate it from areas under his rule.^[81]^[82] Within Hitler's Nazi Party some atheists were quite vocal, especially Martin Bormann.^[83] During negotiations relating to the Concordat with the Catholic Church and the Nazis state in 1933, Hitler expressed his view on the relationship between race and religion to Bishop Wilhelm Berning:^[84]

I have been attacked because of my handling of the Jewish question. The Catholic Church considered the Jews pestilent for fifteen hundred years, put them in ghettos, etc, because it recognised the Jews for what they were. In the epoch of liberalism the danger was no longer recognised. I am moving back toward the time in which a fifteen-hundred-year-long tradition was implemented. I do not set race over religion, but I recognise the representatives of this race as pestilant for the state and for the church and perhaps I am thereby doing Christianity a great service by pushing them out of schools and public functions

Hitler often used religious speech and symbolism to promote Nazism to those that he feared would be disposed to act against him.^[85]^[86] He also called upon religion as a pretext in diplomacies. The Soviet Union feared that if they commenced a programme of persecution against religion in the western regions, Hitler would use that as a pretext for war.^[87]

In 1985 the Austrian author Wilfried Daim published a photograph of an alleged document signed by Hitler in 1943, which proposed the:

"Immediate and unconditional abolition of all religions after the final victory ('Endsieg') not only for the territory of Greater Germany but also for all released, occupied and annexed countries ..., proclaiming at the same time Hitler as the new messiah. Out of political considerations the Muslim, Buddhist and Shintoist religion will be spared for the present. The 'Führer' has to be presented as an intermediate between a redeemer and a liberator, yet surely as one sent by God, who has to get godly honour. The existing churches, chapels, temples and cult places of the different religions have to be changed into 'Adolf-Hitler-consecration places'. The theological faculties of the universities have to be transformed into the new faith. Special emphasis has to be laid on the education of missionaries and wandering preachers, who have to proclaim the teaching in Greater Germany and in the rest of the world and have to form religious bodies, which can be used as centres for further extension. (With this the problems with the abolition of monogamy will disappear, because polygamy can be included into the new teaching as one of the statements of faith.)"^[88]

In his childhood, Hitler had admired the pomp of Catholic ritual and the hierarchical organisation of the clergy. Later he drew on these elements, organizing his party along hierarchical lines and including liturgical forms into events or using phraseology taken from hymns.^[89] Because of these liturgical elements, Hitler's Messiah-like status and the ideology's all-encompassing nature, the Nazi movement, like communism, is sometimes termed a "political religion".^[90]

God, racism and anti-Semitism

To the extent he believed in a divinity, Hitler did not believe in a "remote, rationalist divinity" but in an "active deity,"^[91] which he frequently referred to as "Creator" or "Providence". In Hitler's belief God created a world in which different races fought each other for survival as depicted by Arthur de Gobineau. The "Aryan race," supposedly the bearer of civilization, is allocated a special place:

"What we must fight for is to safeguard the existence and the reproduction of our race ... so that our people may mature for the fulfilment of the mission allotted it by the creator of the universe. ... Peoples that bastardize themselves, or let themselves be bastardized, sin against the will of eternal Providence."^[91]

In November 1936 the Roman Catholic prelate Cardinal Michael von Faulhaber met Hitler at Berghof for a three hour meeting. He left the meeting convinced that "Hitler was deeply religious" and that "The Reich Chancellor undoubtedly lives in belief in God. He recognises Christianity as the builder of Western culture".^[92]

Hitler viewed the Jews as enemies of all civilization and as materialistic, unspiritual beings, writing in Mein Kampf: "His life is only of this world, and his spirit is inwardly as alien to true Christianity as his nature two thousand years previous was to the great founder of the new doctrine." Hitler described his supposedly divine mandate for his anti-Semitism: "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."^[93]

In his rhetoric Hitler also fed on the old accusation of Jewish Deicide. Because of this it has been speculated that Christian anti-Semitism influenced Hitler's ideas, especially such works as Martin Luther's essay On the Jews and Their Lies and the writings of Paul de Lagarde. Others disagree with this view.^[94] In support of this view, Hitler biographer John Toland opines that Hitler "carried within him its teaching that the Jew was the killer of God. The extermination, therefore, could be done without a twinge of conscience since he was merely acting as the avenging hand of God..." Nevertheless, in Mein Kampf Hitler writes of an upbringing in which no particular anti-Semitic prejudice prevailed.

According to historian Lucy Dawidowicz, anti-Semitism has a long history within Christianity, and that the line of "anti-Semitic descent" from Luther to Hitler is "easy to draw." In her The War Against the Jews, 1933-1945, she writes that Luther and Hitler were obsessed by the "demonologized universe" inhabited by Jews. Dawidowicz states that the similarities between Luther's anti-Jewish writings and modern anti-Semitism are no coincidence, because they derived from a common history of Judenhass, which can be traced to Haman'sadvice to Ahasuerus, although modern German anti-Semitism also has its roots in German nationalism.^[95] Catholic historian José Sánchez argues that Hitler's anti-Semitism was explicitly rooted in Christianity.^[96]

Mysticism and Occultism

Marriage

In the Führerbunker on April 29, 1945, a day before their suicide, Hitler and Eva Braun married in front of a civil servant in a cramped map room without a religious service or blessing ceremony. This was due to the difficulty of finding an official who could conduct the marriage legally. The problem was solved by Goebbels, who knew of a registrar named Walter Wagner who was fighting with the depleted Volkssturm.^[109]