Qutb and Hitler

When reading Qutb’s tirade on jihad, I realized that he was the kind of closed-minded individual that causes the largest problems in the world today. I found his writing particularly offensive because he seems to believe that he is the perfect person and has the right answers for everything. Normally this would not peeve me so much, but he claims that he has his rights because of the God he believes in. At that point, I lost faith in a logical argument coming from his writings. When Hitler persuaded his armies to kill people as they did, he used what the Nazis believed were sound arguments based on somewhat factual observations. Being scientifically minded, it can be hard to refute them with anything but, “its just wrong.” However, in Qutb’s piece he claims to receive permission to kill people from God. This claim is ridiculous. There is some amount of religious violence I can understand. I recently read an article were a missionary had gone to Africa to “spread the word of God” and they were killed for their beliefs early on. While I do not condone it, I can understand a person killing to protect themselves from what they believe is religious treachery. However, Qutb claims that a person does not have to even try to force their views upon you for violence to occur. Qutb believes that it is the right of muslims to be able to kill anyone who does not believe the same things that they do. The part that makes me angry with Qutb is that he does not base his argument in anything solid. He believes that God told him killing was okay and that he wanted every non-muslim dead. At least Hitler attempted to hide and deceive people with vague scientific and economic data.

Qutb

I find this whole idea of fighting for God very interesting. It just seems so different from any views that I have of God. Here in America we are always told that God loves us all and that he’d never really want us to kill any other individual. But in this reading Qutb talks about how the Quran seems to be encouraging it. If someone doesn’t believe the same thing as you, you shouldn’t feel like you have to force them to convert to your views, and then if they don’t accept to go to war with them. I would think that God wouldn’t really want war. Why God want to kill those who could be good people morally, just disagree with your religious views. It is as if Qutb is attempting to force everyone in the entire world to convert to Islam, or risk death. These views that Qutb holds are very dangerous in today’s world. I know that not all Muslims hold these same interpretations of the Quran because I’ve asked my Muslim friend, and it seems when certain Muslims start to interpret the Quran this way there are not many positive outcomes. Clearly it is under these circumstances that things like terrorist attacks occur. I do not think that it would make sense for God take away the lives of innocent people. Even if someone argued that these people were not innocent because they are “non-believers,” it still does not seem just, when these people being attacked are morally good.

One passage Sayyed Qutb wrote reminded me of our discussion we had in class over political cartoons the Muslim’s deemed “offensive” in a Danish newspaper. Qutb explained that a fourth aspect of Islam is that it “provides a legal basis for the relationship of the Muslim community with other groups” (131). Qutb stated, “This legal formulation is based on the principle that Islam- that is, submission to God- is a universal Message which the whole of mankind should accept or make peace with.” Therefore, I believe Qutb would have been one of the Muslim’s that would have taken direct offense to the cartoons. The main reason Qutb would take offense is because he believes the whole of mankind should come to peace with their religion. He is not inflicting every person to be a Muslim, I believe he would have the same belief as Ramadan and think that the Muslim religion just deserves respect. However, I am not sure if Qutb would have had an extremely severe reaction to the cartoons or not. In his article, he stated, “It is not the intention of Islam to force its beliefs on people, but Islam is not merely a belief” (133). By that statement, I believe his reaction could have been very severe because he said that Islam is not merely a belief. I think Qutb would think that the cartoonist was not insulting his religion and his way of life. However, I don’t know if he would have had a light reaction because he does belief that it is not Muslim’s intention to force their beliefs on others; others have a right to view things other ways.

Wait, but I thought you said....

“Thus, wherever an Islamic community exists which is a concrete example of the Divinely-ordained system of life, it has a God-given right to step forward and take control of the political authority so that it may establish the Divine system on earth, while it leaves the matter of belief to individual conscience.” In this quotation, Qutb asserts that usurping a political authority is fine in the name of allowing people have the right to choose what they believe and what they don’t believe. However, Qutb also states throughout his piece that it is acceptable in some cases to shed blood and to use force against those who are Islam’s aggressors and those who are polytheists. However, is this not contradictory to assert that Islam’s central goal is abolishing “the oppressive political systems under which people are prevented from expressing their freedom to choose whatever beliefs they want, and after that it gives them complete freedom to decide whether they will accept Islam or not.” It is clear that those who were polytheists, who chose to not accept Islam, were persecuted for the beliefs Islam claims to be fighting for. In addition, if those that have ‘the God-given right’ take over political authority, are they not now an organization/authority that Qutb preached so vehemently against? He stated that, “This movement [of Islam] uses the methods of preaching and persuasion for reforming ideas and beliefs; and it uses physical power and Jihaad for abolishing the organizations and authorities of the Jahili system which prevents people from reforming their ideas and beliefs but forces them to obey their erroneous ways and make them serve human lords instead of the Almighty Lord.” Again, this statement seems to contradict previous claims made concerning the formation of an organization, and the right of people to hold their own beliefs. Who decides how one should live within Islam? Qutb claims there is no Muslim clergy; so then does each individual decide how one should live through the reading of Muslim texts? This also doesn’t seem practical, as there are an infinite number of interpretations one can get from reading one text. Also, if this was how things should be done, why would it be necessary to persecute those who are Islam’s aggressors? Perhaps those said aggressors read the same text and got a completely different meaning out of them. In addition, why would it be necessary to usurp political authority?

I think there is something admirable in Q. The author of this passage makes pretty bold declarations. My other classmates think this is extremely narrow-minded, based on my impression of their blogs. I think this quality deserves applause, however. The author continually refers to the Islamic faith as the True Faith, the True Religion. His view of the world is thus: there is only one possible explanation of the origin of the universe, of the origin of mankind, and of mankind’s purpose in life. In short, there is only one truth. There is one creed, and the others are false. Now, I am not Muslim, but I like this way of thinking. In Liberal society today, especially in Ursinus College, Pluralism runs rampant. Most people would say that Islam is good for some, Christianity is good for others, and Buddhism is good for some others, etc, BUT there is no religion that has any superiority over another. I refuse to accept this ideology. Q made it pretty clear that there is one religion that is superior to the others, and it happens to be Islam. People can accept it or not, but it is still the only religion that originates from God. As the class has talked before, there was controversy over whether the United States truly uses religion as a guide, or whether we are “running off the fumes of a Judeo-Christian heritage.” If this is true, if we embrace Pluralism and deny our heritage, the Muslim countries have one up on us. Religion is the backbone of most Islamic countries, and this gives them their strength. Now, Islam is becoming the largest religion in the world. Q’s view of religion is part of a very strong foundation for the Islamic nations. Sometimes I wonder if our society will degenerate and fall because we lack this quality. As far as Jihad is concerned, I like this quality as well. If one group of people feels very strongly that what they believe is the Truth, then they would try as hard as possible to make sure that the Truth is available to everyone. I know that in the Christian tradition, when one is confirmed, the person is referred as a “soldier of Christ.” This title means that we should fight for good, for the Truth, and be prepared to spread this Truth for others. For the longest time, Christianity had its own “jihad” of sorts. Now, many Christians have lost the motivation to “fight the good fight.” Religion is not, in my view, simply personal. For many, and for many Muslims, it applies to all people.

One thing I found interesting in Sayyid Qutb’s “Milestones” was the passage about man’s rule on earth. He stated that, “To establish God’s rule means that His laws be enforced and that the final decision in all affairs be according to these laws” (132). He pretty much says that man should not have any dominion on earth and that all humans should abide by the laws of God, and only by God. It makes sense that we should listen to the laws that God gave us, but I disagree with the fact that he thinks humans shouldn’t have any kind of rule on earth. If God had intended the world to only listen to his laws, he probably would have mentioned that bit of information at some point. He claims that the Muslim world has relapsed into “Jahiliyyah”, saying that the Muslims have failed to abide by the laws of God. But really, there’s only so much humans can do by only following God’s laws; it is unlikely that it is even possible to live in a world with zero government. It’s a nice thought, if the world was peaceful and didn’t even need government- I guess this is what Qutb is striving for. But in all seriousness and in reality, that’s not going to happen. Humans have an innate tendency to not get along well with everyone, and that is not going to change overnight. I think Qutb needs to open his eyes and get rational about life.

Qutb points out in his piece that Islam "gives [people] complete freedom to accept or not to accept it beliefs. However, this freedom does not mean that they can make their desires their gods, or that they can choose to remain in the servitude of other human beings, making some men lords over others" (133). Qutb explains that in the religion of Islam, there is only one God to worship. Who's to say that there even is a God and if so that there is only one? Qutb disregards the fact that other people believe different things. He believes that there is only his God and that everyone should worship him. Qutb also writes, "obedience to laws and judgement is a sort of worship, and anyone who does this is considered out of this religion" (133). Isn't Qutb in a way judging those who do not believe in his God and only his God. This can be seen as hypocritical of Qutb. I also find it interesting that he mentions in the beginning of the chapter the uses of violence towards those who did not believe in the religion. He writes, "It was also explained that war should be declared against those from among the 'People of the Book' (Christians and Jews) who declare open enmity, until they agree to pay Jizyah or accept Islam" (130). How does this fact give people complete freedom to accept or not accept the beliefs of Islam? Knowing that violent measures will be taken towards a person who does not accept Islam will definitely sway a person into accepting Islam. Qutb says that it is a person's choice to accept or disregard Islam, but really it is not.

Qutb's Assumptions and Interpretations

Qutb states that “this religion (Islam) is really a universal declaration of the freedom of man from servitude to other men and from servitude to his own desires, which is also a form of human servitude; it is a declaration that sovereignty belongs to God alone and that He is the Lord of all worlds” (131-132). First off, Qutb automatically assumes that there is a God, and that we should all worship the same God, specifically his. He allows for no variations in religion and definitely rules out the possibility of someone not believing in God at all. Qutb wants to remove all oppressive governments so that everyone can follow his God’s rule. Yet, how would they be sure that God’s word was followed without some sort of government? Moreover, that particular government that enforces the rule of God would be oppressive in some ways as well. So ultimately, people will be oppressed in some way or another. Of course, there is the possibility of not having any government, but that is neither plausible nor practicable. It does not make sense to me why each individual cannot choose to worship whatever he wants. Why is Qutb’s god the best god? Qutb makes some outrageous statements such as “Islam that is the submission to God-is a universal message which the whole of mankind should accept or make peace with” (131). Later Qutb even goes as far to say, “If someone does this, then it is the duty of Islam to fight him until either he is killed or until he declares his submission” (131). Qutb recognizes that the Quran says you should be peaceful but he automatically dismisses that claim. His basic response to those, who respond to him with statements from the Quran, is that they are in a sorry state of the present Muslim generation. Ultimately, he says those who are peaceful toward others and are not Islamic will be defeated. Instead of Qutb recognizing that other cultures have different beliefs, he simply rejects them. He assumes that his beliefs are true, not even taking into consideration others from his own religion that do believe and live by his God’s rule.

QutbbtuQ

As I was reading I found it interesting that Qutb states, "This legal formulation is based on the principle that Islam--that is, submission to God--is a universal Message which the whole of mankind should accept or make peace with"(131). He defines Islam as the submission to God and he claims that we should only follow the rule of God. He also says that "every individual [should be] free to accept or reject [Islam]"(131). Qutb follows that statement by saying that it is "the duty of Islam" to enact violence against anyone who does not accept or tries to prevent people from accepting Islam. Qutb says that Islam wants peace but in order to get peace they must use violence and Jihaad. How can there really be peace if people are forced to a religion? The ideal of Islam (according to Qutb) is that God is the only ruler, but what Qutb fails to see is that there will need to be some form of interpreters of God's word. Any form of law be it God's or man's cannot be enforced without some ruling power. These interpreters will naturally gain power and will be able to enforce God's word however they please.
I do understand that sometimes with violence comes peace, but when the violence is imposing beliefs onto people peace does not often occur. The whole concept of God's laws being enforced without anyone to enforce them just does not make sense to me. It is not clear how someone can think that everyone will interpret the laws the same without someone telling them how to interpret God's word.

On Islam

In this article, Qutb seems to be justifying the act of Jihaad, or striving to be a good Islamic follower. Qutb seems to be troubled by the current image Islamic Jihaad has. He acknowledges that today that image is a violent one; that those who seek Jihaad are violent and hostile. But Qutb argues the opposite: Jihaad and the Islamic religion is one that promotes freedom and respect for all beliefs, so long as all believe in God. Any Islamic fighting, according to Qutb, should be in the pursuit of freedom from any oppressive force. Men who claim to be authorities that we follow stay us from religion; stray us from God. So God must be instated as the supreme ruler, so all other forms of power must be done away with. Jihaad is not just a movement of belief, but one of action, says Qutb. Qutb thinks its practical to remove all forms of government to instate God as ruler. But is this really practical? It is hard to determine, because for those who believe in God, it is really hard to see how much he actually influences our world, and those who don't will not agree to letting something that doesn't exist take control. Also, our governments today really do a lot to protect us from harm, so is it practical to remove such a valuable resource? The best way to look at it is this way: what would happen if tomorrow, all government in our world was done away with? I'm sure the outcome would be pretty bad. The problem is a lot of people don't believe in God or Islam, and would not simply abide to Jihaad. But Qutb does show that the idea of total freedom is a nice one. The one thing he does by showing that Jihaad is freedom-loving is show that Jihaad is not a bad thing. In a sense, Jihaad embraces liberalism, and the idea of equality of beliefs should be defended. But Qutb falls short by thinking total eradication of government is where we should head next.

Islam Readings

This articles discuss the ideas of jihaad.  After the attacks on the World Trade Center on September 11th, that word was throw around a lot in everyday conversation.  As a sixth grader, I could only go off of short, crude explanations of what a jihaad was: a suicide that involved political/social/religious/moral reasons and if successful, the person would go to heaven because of their brave actions.  This article describes something a little different.  Saying that a jihaad is a "defensive war" that has nothing to do with modern day warfare, the main idea behind jihaad type actions is heavily associated with freedom.  There are several reasons the readings give for performing a jihaad: "to establish God's authority in the earth, to arrange human affairs according to the true guidance provided by God, to abolish all the Satanic forces and Satanic systems of life, to end the lordship of one man over others" (138).  I'm sure the attackers and planners involved in 9/11 could easily say that some if not all of these reasons were involved in their actions.  But maybe I'm misunderstanding the readings.  The point of a jihaad is to fight for freedom.  If this fight involves the mass murder of innocent people that are not in the military and are not directly involved in the oppression, then how can we justify their killings?  It's quite possible that I'm looking through Islamic glass with American eyes, but I'm failing to understand the extent of their actions in association with the readings.  What freedom came about after the "jihaad of 9/11"?  I would argue none; if anything, more oppression came in the aftermath of 9/11.  To me, jihaad seems to be a more sacred and values task than those performs on September 11th (and I have to say that my middle school explanation of jihaad makes more sense in this situation that Qutb's definition).  I do not think that jihaad is an acceptable, reasonable and logical explanation for what happened a few years ago.  By putting aside this silly excuse, we might be able to recognize that this has nothing to do with Islamic and Christian differences.  Being scared of Muslims on the streets because some newspaper claimed that 9/11 was a massive jihaad is nonsensical.  It all seems ridiculous, but then again, I'm just an American trying to figure out the Muslim world.

hmmmmmmm..........

I found Milestones to be almost confusing as it tried to justify Jihaad. Qutb repeatedly writes that “Islam is a declaration of freedom of men from the servitude of other men,” for which Jihaad is condoned by God to create this freedom (133). Islam’s goal is to rid the earth of all governments that oppress the practice of Islam; the religion that is to be followed by the whole world. First, what confuses me is that Islam wants to get rid of all other governments to establish another government that derives its laws from only God. However, wouldn’t this government need people to take an authority position to make sure God’s laws are adhered to? And if that is so, then there would still be men in an authority position over other men. Furthermore, Qutb says that under a government run by Islam that people would be free to choose whether or not they want to follow Islam. Yet, if it is a government run by Islam, with laws established that are directly from the Islamic god; doesn’t that defeat the purpose of the freedom Islam is working toward? Islam would then be creating a government that is oppressing a different religion to follow the laws of their religion, removing that freedom of choice. Now, I understand the Muslims believe that Islam is the only correct religion in the world, like most religions, but they would still be violating the spiritual freedom they think is so important. And if this freedom is only the freedom to try the practice of Islam, then it is not truly freedom at all. Lastly, I was in no way convinced that Jihaad is acceptable, even as I tried to read this article objectively. I understand that God gave Muslims steps to follow in order to spread the word of Islam, and that war and violence was a part of these steps (side note: I also feel that these step sounded more like the strategy created by a man on how to take religious control, not God, who should only want those whole heartedly believe to worship him and not those who are forced). However, I personally do not think a war for religion is appropriate, as it usually contradicts the religion’s teachings. I have never been able to understand why we can’t just let people worship they way they wish to. Why is one way correct? Why must other people believe what we do? And why is it ever worth killing another human over?

Really?

I get extremely frustrated when reading Qutb’s rant on aggressive jihad and his ‘offensive’ justification. But to begin, his entire argument rests on the claim that God exists, that he is the ruler of all things and that he deserves to be worshipped and praised even if he does exist. Qutb makes the fatal mistake of treating this as a descriptive claim, while there is no evidence for this claim presented whatsoever. He treats this conditional claim, a mere possibility, as if this is how the world is truly run. Going off this, he believes he should be allowed to maim and kill people for no other reason than that they not only do not follow this belief, but even those who follow it incorrectly. To go to such extremes over a theory, one which has relatively no evidence in these times, is inhumane, disgusting and just plain wrong. It goes against every gift this god would have given us: logic, reason, the ability to communicate. And let’s grant that god does exist and he is this amazing being who deserves to be praised as Qutb describes, how does forcefully killing or converting respect god? Did god not give man free will? And since he gave man the freedom to choose what he believes, should not other men be obliged to respect these choices, as it is simply an exercise of god’s gift? Not to mention that the Prophet Muhammad, who spoke directly with God according to Islam, never says anything about harming those who do not believe the Muslim way. In fact, Muhammad was extremely respectful to all other religious sects and merely wished for people who held the same beliefs as himself were not persecuted. So, even when looking upon the life of Muhammad, the model to the most pious human being, with all these presumptions, would never advocate such a blatant and unfounded aggressive behavior.

More Problems than Solutions....

     This piece, written by Qutb, reminds me of Mein Kampf.  Throughout Qutb’s piece, he makes many generalizations and normative claims without evidence substantial evidence from the Qur’an.  It seems as though Qutb is reading the Qur’an and providing quotes that he can manipulate in his favor.  When he discusses worshipping God, he emphasizes the power of God and says that one should only worship God and listen to his commands.  Qutb is also preaching violence which directly conflicts with a lot of Muhammad’s teachings.   He talks about over throwing governments that do not follow the basic principles he describes.  Like Hitler’s Mein Kampf, Qutb’s Milestones is very narrow minded.  He leaves a lot of holes in his arguments such as Hitler did.  He attempts to make Islam look superior to all other religions by saying that it is God’s religion for the whole world.  It seems a bit contradictory that he constantly says that men are free but then he also says that men are subservient to God; this does not strike me as “free.”  He tries to talk up a Jihaad and make it look very attractive.  He states that it is the objective of Islamic worshippers to “establish the Divine system on earth.”  If God it is God’s will for everyone to worship him, then why doesn’t Qutb and his followers need to do anything about it? Shouldn’t God be able to take care of it himself?  If it hasn’t already happened, maybe God’s will is to let people have a free choice between worship and non worship.  If God forced them to worship him, it would be considered unmeaningful worship and therefore people would not take it seriously.  Instead of being apathetic to God they would hate God; this is even further away from where Qutb desired.  In the end, Qutb may be making more problems for himself and God than he intended.    

Blog Assn #20: Qutb

Please post to the blog by Sunday, April 19th, 8:00 PM, on Qutb chapter 4.

The topic is open.

In Tariq Ramadan’s At the crossroad of Islam, the West I agree with his claim about how citizens should exercise their right to freedom of expression responsibly and take into account the diverse sensitivities that compose societies today. I have never seen the political cartoon Ramadan is referring to however, from what I can tell the Muslim’s have a right to feel disrespected. A political cartoon is made to draw attention to a current political or social issue. A political cartoon should not be derogatory or disrespectful in any way. Using a cartoon to insult or offend a culture, race, or society is an improper use of freedom of expression. It is okay for a person to express their feelings on a pressing issue in government or politics; every person is entitled to their own opinion in that aspect. I understand a person may argue that every person has their own feelings about a race, society, etc. However, using a political cartoon to demean a group of people is inconsiderate and disrespectful. A person cannot be held accountable for their race, religion, or culture. Therefore, demeaning or disrespecting a person’s race religion or cultural is unacceptable because there are numerous beliefs throughout the world

Ramadan

I agree and disagree with the arguments that Ramadan is making in these readings. I agree that Muslims can indeed try to ease the tensions between that ethnic group and western cultures. I also agree that Muslims can coexist with western society. However, there are certain things that I disagree with from Ramadan’s writings. Throughout his writings, at least to me, it seems that he is making it seem as if it is Muslims who need to try and find a way to change who they are so that can integrate into western society. However, shouldn’t our western society in particular the United States be much more accepting of these people, and all people in general. Especially since our country and society was all created of immigrants who were all new to this country. Why can’t we as Americans be more accepting of a different group of people, our whole society boasts that we are the land of the free, and we accept everyone no matter where they come from. But clearly this is not as true as everyone seems to claim it is, or else Ramadan wouldn’t even have to write as much about these types of issues. Muslims of our society shouldn’t feel like they need to change anything about who they are so that we as Americans will appreciate them more or become more existing of them. Both cultures have an influence on each other and more people need to realize this. However, we come off as hypocrites by not accepting these people.

UC Baseball 16-8!

I agree with Tariq Ramadan that this is a determination whether or not different parties or people "Have the capacity to be free, rational (believer or atheist), and, at the same time, reasonable." I feel that it is important that the Muslim nation be able to express their disapproval toward the cartoons that were published, however, I feel that it is also important how they express themselves. If they were to form a non violent protest or be critical of the author that that would be okay, but if their form of protest were to be a mass shooting of people I would obviously be against this. The should be different levels of reaction to different actions and that it is possible to relate this to everyday life. If you have a friend that is making fun of you and you want to show him you do not appreciate it, the appropriate response would not to take a two by four and smack it across his face when a simple that's enough would do. I also feel that Traiq brings up a good point when he says "Also excessive and irresponsible is the invoking of the "right of freedom of expression"-- to give oneself the right to say anything, in any way, against anybody." There are ways that are appropriate to express oneself and you do not have absolute freedom of expression. There are certain lines that government set up and if crossed punishments are invoked. People should not be able to express themselves by intimidating a particularly person or group of people. Traiq brings up many interesting arguments about how different cultures need to understand how to express themselves to each other and need to set up a general standard.

blog

I have to be honest, Professor Sorensen, after coming home today I found out that I did not have the CIE readings book with me. I did not want to take another trip to school in this weather. Anyhow, I am basing all of my opinions off of the other blog posts. I get the impression that the author was discussing how we, the United States should make efforts to understand and mingle our culture with the Islamic culture. I also understand that there was an offensive cartoon up for some debate. I do not agree that we should have such restrictions on free speech as mentioned by some of my other classmates. I do not like the idea that we only have free speech if it builds up another group of people. This is a bunch of bs. If this was true, no political cartoons would be in existence, and there would be a very uniform way of thought conveyed in the media (it still is, but it should not be so). The only restriction on free speech should be not to place someone in danger. You do not want to scream “fire” in a hallway full of people. You do not want to make bomb threats that are not really there. Other than this one restriction on free speech, we have the right to say anything. Well, the objection I am going to get is that it offends other people, a large group of people. Well, do we not have a right to offend people? If the US did not speak out against Great Britain during the times of the Revolutionary War, then we would still be living under its rule. I also understand that these offensive remarks are based off of ignorance, and have no merit. Touché, but I cannot tell you how many times I have heard jokes discriminating against Catholics, Jews, Gays, Blondes, etc! I believe that it would be better to have the Muslims just ignore the offensive remarks than tell everyone to stop saying them. I would not want to tell anyone that they should do this or that. Personally, I want to learn more about the Islamic culture for my own benefit. I do not enjoy hurting others, but I do not think I should tell everyone to behave the same way. I have the right to tell everyone to treat everyone with equality (the right to free speech), but then again, they have the right to disobey that mandate.

Tolerance and Respect= Peace Among Societies

Ramadan states “We are at the crossroad. The time has come for women and men who reject the dangerous divisions into two worlds to start building bridges between two universes that share common values” (156). I agree completely with Ramadan. In order for the world to find some peace, the Islamic community and western communities must learn to at least tolerate one another. Clearly, the current solutions (the war, the cartoons, the protests) are not helping the situation. The two societies cannot function among the presence of one another, if the western culture does not understand that the Muslim presence is valuable to the western society. Ramadan says “People must begin to learn once again that Muslim thought, ever since the Middle Ages, has been an integral part of the construction of Western development” (171). At the same time, the Muslim community needs to make adjustments as well and realize that western culture is important too. Both cultures need to appreciate the other.
Currently the situation is polarized and continually getting worse. The Danish cartoon is an example of the ignorance, and intolerant behavior that polarizes the two societies from one another. We must respect one another and not see the other side as “them”. Every person involved in this situation is a human. Therefore, each person deserves not to be categorized and disrespected by the other. I agree with Ramadan that legislation will not cure the problems between the two communities. As humans we should be able to restrain ourselves from being malicious, prejudice, and narrow-minded behaviors. We all have multiple identities as Ramadan explains. These multiple identities learn to coincide with one another despite the fact they may conflict. Just like the case of individual identities, the communities must cooperate and cope with one another. For the good of both societies, mutual respect and tolerance must be established. Together, the societies have to agree to make changes, and as Ramadan says “It is up to us to choose” (156).

I agree with a point Tariq Ramadan makes in “At the crossroad of Islam, the West”. He brings up the issue about freedom of speech. I agree that it is not necessary to evoke that law in certain circumstances such as the issue about the cartoons. It’s one thing to speak your mind, but it is another thing to publish racial and religious insults, especially if it is against a culture’s beliefs to represent their God or profits so they don’t create any kind of idolatry. Although societies have different views on how people should represent their thoughts and ideas, the societies should also respect the wishes of other cultures that do not have similar opinions. And those societies should certainly not continue to publish or even increase the amount of published cartoons if the cultures that do not agree with the cartoons tell them that they are hurtful. Also, the editors of the paper should have taken a hint when many of the journalists from the paper were not comfortable with the cartoons that were supposed to be published.
Yes, one might think that- hey, no matter what we do, someone’s feelings will always be hurt. Although this might be true, people should just learn to respect other cultures beliefs and traditions, and don’t continue to say the mean things when others are obviously hurt by it. That is just cruel if one chooses to not respect someone’s beliefs. So, in the issue dealing with the Danish cartoon and the Muslims, I agree with Ramadan that freedom of speech should not have to apply when pertaining to racial and religious insults.

Muslim Cartoon

In his piece, “At the Crossroad of Islam, the West,” Tariq Ramadan portrays how freedom of speech and a difference in cultural views can easily cause uncomfortable feelings between two races. This was shown in the example of the cartoon. On one hand, you have a race that developed a cartoon with what they say as trivial humor. They did not see this as “crossing the line” on the views or beliefs of the Muslims. However, on the other hand, the Muslim race felt that the cartoon was making fun of them and saw the cartoon as offensive and “out of line.” Ramadan writes, “Freedom of expression is not absolute” (156). I have to agree with him. Freedom of speech and expression should not be free from restrictions. People should not be allowed to just go around saying hateful things about another race just because they can. We need to learn to respect the different beliefs and opinions of different races, cultures, and religions, even if they are not what we agree with. We as Americans would not like it if another culture bashed our culture; just as others cultures do not like it when we make fun of theirs. A simple resolution to this is the Golden Rule – treat others the way you want to be treated and respect the ideas of different cultures.

The Self-Critical Approach

Tariq Ramadan introduces the Danish cartoon controversy in his article, “At the crossroad of Islam, the West.” The main problem lies in having the right of freedom of speech vs. freedom of religion. I agree with Ramadan when he says citizens should be called upon to, “exercise their right to freedom of expression responsibly and take into account the diverse sensitivities that compose our pluralistic contemporary societies.” I agree that this, as opposed to legislation, would be the solution. Censorship is certainly not the answer, and as Ramadan stated, the Muslim citizens aren’t looking for censorship, just more respect. The self-critical approach definitely seems to be the best option. As Ramadan states in his second article, “What the West can Learn from Islam”, “We must turn our backs on a vision that posits us against them and understand that our shared citizenship is the key factor in building the society of the future together.” As Ramadan states, there is much that we can learn from the Muslim culture and in order to make the most out of this there should be a self-governed level of respect and tolerance for this culture that may be very different from what one is used to. We must look for shared values such as social justice, which the Quran mentions and commands of Muslims. At the end of his second article Ramadan states; “learning how to respect the feelings, the loves, and the complexities of those who do not share our faith, nor our entire memory, but with whom we must build our future together” [is essential]. Basically, I agree with Ramadan in his belief that instead of legislation/laws we must be self-governed and be more respectful of those who we might not have shared the past with, but whom we inevitably will be sharing a future with.

On not so Free Freedome

One privileged we have in the West is the freedom of speech; the freedom to express ourselves however we want. Or really? Can we really say whatever we want on anything? Tariq Ramadan doesn't think so. In his short essay on the controversial Danish cartoons, he makes a claim on freedom of speech: it is not absolute; it is something that must be practiced with restraint. But then he goes on to say that we must do it through education of respect for others, and not out of reasonless censorship. We should restrain ourselves out of respect, rather then out of necessity. Ramadan thinks that it is easier and more effective to teach and enforce respect rather then making it a arbitrary law.
Now, Ramadan is completely right about our concept of freedom of speech. Our freedom given by the First should not be a go ahead to verbally trash anyone and everyone. Rather, it is a right to be able to say anything so long as it is supported by reason, respect, and responsibility for what one says. We should practice our freedom of speech as an opportunity to strengthen our ties with others, not to put them down. But I believe, in contrast to Ramadan, that we can use the law to promote it by using it as a deterrence from abusing free speech. Educating and informing people is good, but the law can also serve as a tool to promote respect as well. And not only would it promote the good practice of free speech, it would protect from those who choose to talk without respect, acting as a safeguard from those who choose not to show respect on their own. By this we can protect everyone's rights and promote healthier relationships among all people through both education and the power of the law.

R-E-S-P-E-C-T

I agree with Tariq Ramadan’s belief that it is completely possible for the West and Islam to coexist if we do attempt to solve the conflict rationally. In his article, “At the crossroad of Islam, West,” Ramadan argues that both sides, Islam and the West, are failing to approach this conflict reasonably. He sees the need for both sides to cut each other some slack and attempt to view the conflict from the other’s perspective. In regards to the comic that Danish Muslims found to be offensive, Ramadan feels that the newspaper should have been sensitive to Islam’s tenant of never depicting God or a prophet. Yet, the Muslims should not express their anger too vehemently because Western culture finds it acceptable to criticize their own religious icons, thus not realizing the offensiveness of the comic. He preaches trying to understand both sides of the conflict; that “learning to keep an intellectual critical distance” is important to keeping the conflict from ending horribly (155). In conjunction with the rationality advocated by Ramadan is the idea of respect. If we are to be considerate of each other’s beliefs, we are essentially respecting each other’s back grounds. As he wrote, “the Muslim citizens are not asking for more censorship but for more respect” (156). I agree with Tariq Ramadan’s argument. We need to have more tolerance for people who are different than ourselves in all aspects, not only those with religious differences. At the end of the day, we should respect each other, despite our differences, because we all share a common humanity. Humans are not only linked biologically, but also linked in our ability to rationalize, our higher intellect, and our emotions. We should then treat everyone as people that are really not so different, even when we do not share our beliefs. I feel that in this situation communication, compromise and keeping an open mind are essential to ending this conflict without some form of war. War would not solve this issue; rather, it would create a world in which a set of beliefs is suppressed by the victor, creating more animosity between the religions. As Ramadan said, “the worst can be possible between two universities of reference when they become deaf to each other and are seduced by defining themselves against the other” (156). Rationality and respect are the keys to concluding this conflict, if only both sides are willing to stop and compromise.

Free Speech

In the article about the Danish cartoon in the newspaper, Ramadan brings up an important point: free speech should be self legislated. I agree with Ramadan's point, it is hard to put laws about what can be said under free speech. It is not hard, however, for a person to put moral boundaries on what they choose to call free speech. When it comes to the actually cartoon, the newspaper should have realized that the cartoon was wrong, especially by the amount of journalists who were uncomfortable with the whole issue. Freedom of speech is a great thing but it should not be used to insult other cultures, especially by going against a religions rule about the image of god. It's not just that the Muslim's were insulted, it's that the newspaper broke a rule of their religion. Just because it is okay to draw Jesus and God does not mean it is okay to draw Muhammad or other Islamic prophets. It is understandable that the Muslim people were offended by this cartoon. If I were to start using my free speech to actively insult everyone's mother, people would be offended and would think I should stop. This is the same thing, by publishing a caricature of Muhammad in the newspaper they may as well have insulted every Muslim's mother (of course the cartoon is more insulting and extreme than insulting mother's but the same concept still applies).

Ramadan Readings

I agree with the claim put forth by Tariq Ramadan in his article "What the West Can Learn From Islam" when he says, "We all possess multiple identities, and we must...put forward the values we share" (169).  Even though this claim is rather basic and general, I think it is an essential point to Romadan's argument concerning ethnic cooperation.  I will use myself as an example.  I'm an American, but I'm also Swiss-German and Hungarian and Roman Catholic.  I have several different identities that all make up a significant piece of who I am as a person.  Sure, I do have some traditions from each that I strictly adhere to, but the mixing of these traditions is also an important aspect of my life.  Also, the similarities between the traditions and cultures are more numerous than one could imagine.  I think this is the point Ramadan is trying to prove.  Westerners have blended and mixed many of their traditions while still retaining some individual authenticity.  From what it sounds, Muslims have a fairly difficult time doing this.  They strictly maintain their traditional customs and do not mix well with new ideals.  This is definitely an area that Ramadan thinks Muslims need to work on (and I might also agree with this point as well).  However, Ramadan does say that Westerners should ease off a little on the satire because the Islamic culture does not appreciate it.  They have a hard time understanding the joke in many of their seeming controversial statements.  But getting back to the main claim that I agree with, the central idea of multiple identities is important to western culture and should be incorporated more in Muslim and Islamic culture.  With the blending of these traditions, we can seem more similarities between the cultures than we could have ever imagined.  Perhaps (and it's more of an "I know") there exists basic similarities that could unite and tie the different western and Islamic cultures together and form a firm relationship between the two halves of the same coin.  I most certainly agree that there are separate identities that have similarities that have the potential to unite us all.

Hurumph

In this blog I will play a role. I just wanted to state this so I did not come off as a bigot regarding this subject matter. Logically though, this position is extremely valid. In every exaggeration there is a grain of truth. We, the people of the West, should not have to curb our lifestyle and the way we express ourselves to meet the demand of any group, be it political or religious. Regarding the Danish cartoon, the editors should not have to apologize to anyone out of principal, only if they want to salvage a few Muslim subscriptions. We would not ask the Muslims who were offended by this cartoon to shut up and stop believing that it is wrong to represent Muhammad in a drawing or image, so why should they seek to impose their beliefs on us? Why should we not be allowed to take a pencil that is rightfully ours and a sheet of paper that is rightfully ours and express an idea that is rightfully ours, no matter what it is? It would be different if the Muslim population was forced to buy this newspaper and forced to look at this cartoon, but they are not. If they are offended, they should not look at it. I am offended by racism, so I refuse to subscribe to “Ku Klux Klan Monthly” because I will be offended by its content. But at the same time, no matter how low I feel about the people who would publish such garbage, I do not make them apologize to me, or try to hurt them or change their mind, they have the right to believe and say whatever they wish. So I decline Ramadan’s notion that we should not reproduce the image of Muhammad to respect the beliefs of others (beliefs that do not cause physical harm, unlike “Murder is bad”) as this is instilling those beliefs onto us unfairly and tramples on our freedom to think the way we like. Instead, it imposes religious beliefs of others upon us, jeopardizing our rights.

Embracing Islamic Culture

 

I agree with Tariq when he claims that the West runs a risk of “seeing itself as a monolithic whole, as a civilization based exclusively on Greco-Roman and Judeo-Christian tradition, to whose specific nature Islam is an outsider.”  I feel that today, many people feel superior toward Islam.  Likewise, many people association it with terrorism and other negative connotations.  If we strive to blend in some elements of Islam into our culture which is fundamentally based on the foundations he discusses, this will in turn eliminate many of the fears and negative aspects of Islam.  We need to slowly introduce Islam into our culture.  Tariq also states that Islam is based on love; Judaism and Christianity are also based on this general concept.  Tariq also follows that claim with the statement, “the upshot is that Muslims, even though they are citizens, are seen as a problem rather than as partners in a solution.”  In the end we can see that the Islamic religion is not that far off from Judaism and Christianity.  Christianity is an evolutionary doctrine based on many Judeo-Christian principles.  It seems as though Islam follows the trend in borrowing ideals from the past doctrine in that Islam contains Christian elements as well as other elements pertaining solely to Islam preached by the prophet Muhammad.  To reiterate again, Islam is not as divergent as many people like to presume.  Of course, there are going to be perversions, but there are Christians and Jews who interpret their respective religions in negative ways as well solely to benefit themselves.  I just feel as though Islam has been dealt an enormous set back with the tragedy of September 11^th, Whabbistists and Islamic Fundamentalism.  Christianity has been associated with many negative historical situations: inquisitions, burning at the stake etc.  I feel as though in time we may slowly learn to embrace Islam and slowly incorporate its fundamentals into our society.  Who knows, maybe we have already welcomed Islamic ideals into our patchwork of spiritual views that we call religion today in the West.  

Blog Assn #19: Ramadan

Please post to the blog by Tuesday, April 14th, 8:00 PM, on the following topic.

Offer arguments for or against one of Tariq Ramadan's claims.

The Browning reading made me come to the conclusion that these men did not kill the Jews because of anti-Semitism. These men “were from the lower orders of German society…very few were economically independent…virtually none had any education after leaving school at age 14 or 15” (122). This shows that these men were dependant on the military for jobs, and the military was a great solution for living a good life. I believe this is the main reason these men became killers, they felt obligated to for their job, to support themselves and their families.
A less significant reason for these people to become killers is because they felt like they would be cowards if they did not complete their assignment. In the reading, Browning stated, “One said that he had not wanted to be considered a coward by his comrades. Another- more aware of what truly required courage- said quite simply: “I was cowardly.” These men wanted to live up to their jobs, and they felt like if they did not live up to them, they would be considered a coward- one thing many men would never want to be called in that era. Mainly, I believe these men wanted to maintain what they felt, was their dignity. Yes, it can be argued that by becoming a killer a person has no dignity. However, by having “success” in their jobs, being promoted, etc. These men felt like they had courage and dignity.

I believe that these people became killer not because of the hatred for the Jewish people but because of their low status. These people were not good enough to be able to join the German army, so they were dispersed amongst ghettos to help transport people into camps. It was said in that "These orders were not to his liking, either, but they came from above" which means that they did not really want to do it but they had to. It was like being given an assignment from a boss, if you didn't perform the given task then you would be punished, but in this instance death probably would occur due to their insubordination. However, when the task was given the option was given that if anyone wanted to step down they could do to the grotesque task. When one man stepped out and didn't want to participate in the orders he was berated by one of the soldiers. It seems that some of these men didn't want to be looked as weak and cowards. The people that Browning talked about, seemed to kill because it was an order given to them and was apart of their job, along with the fact they didn't want to be looked upon as cowards.

blog assignment

The irony of Browning’s story is that the battalion became killers for the same reason that the death camp prisoners refused to fight. The people that did the killing were dehumanized to the extent that they did not have a will or a choice over their actions. The killers proceeded with robotic efficiency because that is what the Nazi regime made them into—robots. Their own identity was stripped, and instead they were simply part of a cause. This is a perfect example of how defining oneself by an organization can get out of hand. When a person sees his or herself as a follower of Nazism, one’s own personal opinions are suppressed. This tendency is ever common in society today. Our own military does not question orders given by superiors for the same reason. One can say that it is different in Browning’s case, that these men had a choice. I am willing to assert that these men lost their sense of self, and therefore their ability to choose. They only could do what they are told to do. Dr. Sorensen, you once asked me, when we were talking about the river between, if there was any evidence to support that personal choice is better than relying on the community for identification. This is one of the best examples to support that the answer is yes! The prisoners in the death camps also lost their own identity, they were dehumanized. This is what made the prisoners able to take orders from SS officers so easily. Human nature has such an incredible down side, an evil side. For the sake of conformity, we are all able to turn so quickly. Even in the film we saw today, the Holocaust survivors were surprised and saddened at how their own neighbors and friends mocked them as they left for the death camp. Group conformity blurs absolutes. As a kid, I was always told, “what is popular is not always right, what is right is not always popular.” I am beginning to think that this phase is much more difficult to follow than meets the eye. How does one know what is right? Is there such an absolute? The Battalion that did the killings held no such clear-cut right and wrong. It was extinguished by the group.

Browning

Browning talks about a certain group of men who were responsible for “clearing ghettos and massacring Jews outright during the blitzkrieg against Polish Jewry” (123). These men were basically in charge of shooting and killing the Jews. But what made them become killers? Browning explains that these men had the idea that they had to do this drilled into their heads. They did not agree with the fact that they had to shoot innocent people, but they knew “orders were orders and had to be carried out” (124). Ironically; however, Browning gives examples of men not feeling comfortable with the task they were commanded to do. These men would ask their comrades for a different task (not having to actually shoot the Jews), and most of the time they would be granted permission. Also, these men became killers because many of them felt like they had no choice but to do what they were told. If they did not perform their duty, then they would be looked down upon by their comrades. Browning writes, “One said that he had not wanted to be considered a coward by his comrades” (127). Many times the men would drink alcohol to help make the job seem easier. These men did not want to be shooting these Jews, and very often they would either intentionally miss their targets or blame it on the alcohol. They just had to make it seem like they wanted to in fear of losing their life.

A Scary Thought

It wasn’t because they had grown up under a Nazi regime. These men were mostly in their thirties and forties and had other political norms to check their behavior against. It wasn’t even because they had received inescapable orders. These men were given the option to back out of this assignment. “The battalion in general was under orders...but each individual man was not.” It wasn’t because they had been specially selected to do this “job”. These men didn’t take pride in “achieving this mission,” most of them were apolitical. It wasn’t because the killing was depersonalized. These men stood in front of their victims and killed them in cold blood. So than what could possibly have been the motive behind the men in Reserve Police Battalion 101 who so brutally executed over 1,500 Jewish people? Some men when questioned claimed, they had no choice and that they hadn’t heard the part of Trapp’s speech telling them any differently. However, plenty of other men remember clearly hearing Trapp give them this choice. What then could have made them not choose to opt out of murdering 1,500 Jews? One man admitted that he “had not wanted to be considered a coward by his comrades.” Another frankly stated, “I was cowardly.” In both cases it seems the main impetus was fear, fear of appearance. The first man was afraid to appear a coward to his comrades and the second man admitted his cowardice; however, like the first, gave in because it was easier than going against the grain and appearing different to his comrades. Is fear of appearances truly enough to keep a person from being different and, in this case, being a part of the murder of over 1,500 Jewish people? This is a very frightening thought.

Tom Cruise lost an eye for his cause, what did you lose?

At the end of the reading, Browning questions the actions of the men at the historical event at Jozefow. After all, these men “were not from a generation that had been reared and educated solely under the Nazi regime and thus had no other political norms or standards by which to measure their behavior” (127). Because of this, I don’t believe that the Reserve Police Battalion 101 mass murdered the Jews because of anti-Semitism. Many of the men worked alongside Jews at one point and did not see the reason in killing them. It is thought that the younger men and career policemen did not want to ruin their chance of a future career by backing out of the job and taking Major Trapp’s offer to not take part in the killing. But the older men who had another career and knew what they were doing is wrong, why did they kill? Many of them denied that they had known about Trapp’s offer, or they claimed they did not hear that part of the speech. Others believed they did not have a choice in the matter, while some did not want to be considered a coward. On the other hand, some men said quite frankly that they were cowards; they did not have the courage to stand up for what was right.
By reading this I was kind of reminded of the movie “Valkyrie” with Tom Cruise. The plot is basically about a group of traitors in the Nazi party conspire to assassinate Hitler so that they can save Germany. I don’t think their motives were to save the Jews at the same time, but I just connected this movie to Browning in the way that there were men in Germany who did not agree with everything Hitler was doing, and they had the courage to attempt to stop it- unlike many of the men at Jozefow who proceeded to kill when they didn’t even have to.
In the last paragraphs of Browning’s work, he mentions that he knows of no other case in which a commander offered the nonparticipation in mass murder. Although, the offer did not matter in any way, because, like every other unit during the Holocaust, the battalion killed the Jews they were told to kill. I think the main reason why those men killed is that they eventually would forget. Whether they drank away the memories or refused to talk or think about it so that it never happened in their minds, they forgot. But, like Browning stated, “One is tempted to wonder if the silence speaks louder than words, but in the end—the silence is still silence, and the question remains unanswered” (128).

One Terrible Day in the History of Mankind.

In the beginning of Browning’s piece, he explains how most of the men involved in the Police Battalion 101 were typical. Most of the men were older working class, mildly educated, the typical Hamburg men, who had not been involved in the Nazi party very long. Browning points out that the majority of these men presumably had been Communists, Socialists, or Labor union members before 1933. Also, members of the Police Battalion had known many Jews prior to Hilter’s rise. Certainly, anti-semitism is not the reason for the members of Police Battalion 101 mass murdering the Jews in Jozefow. Browning clearly states “They were mainly apolitical, and even the officers were only partly hard-core Nazi” (127). So the question still remains: Why did the members of the Police Battalion willingly kill thousands of Jews? Some of the members responded that they thought it was an order. Yet, some of the same men witnessed other men stepping out and telling the Major they could not perform this task. The Major assigned the men another designated task. Unlike the typical mass murder in the Holocaust, the battalion members had a choice not to kill another. Some said they did not want to look like a coward to the other members of the battalion. While others blamed the alcohol, that the authorities kept providing to quench their thirst. Finally, others expressed the need for money, they were economically dependent upon this job. Without performing the task at hand, which was shooting Jewish women, children, and the elderly at a point blank situation, their careers would not prosper. The men who participated in the mass murdering, never questioned the authority figures, even though they clearly knew that the action was wrong. Obviously, the reasons for the members of Police Battalion 101 participating in this horrid happening are broad. However, each of these reasons are immature, juvenile, self-centered, and cowardly. Regardless that the Major offered to relieve the men of their duty, the majority of the men still participated in the mass murder simply because they were told to.

Wow...

There are a few reasons for Battalion 101 killing the Jews in Józefów. One is that they never talked about what happened. The men in the battalion kept everything they did to themselves and never spoke of killing. If there is no talking about what is going on, how can anything be done to stop it. Another reason is that after every killing the men were given alcohol. I am sure that some, if not most of the men drank so much that they forgot what they had done. Also, while intoxicated it could be easier to convince the people to do the killings. A few of the men gave the reason that they did not want to be looked at as a coward. They saw the killings as a military order and did not want to be the one who backed down from an order. They viewed the men who did back down as cowards and lesser men. I do not think anti-Semitism had anything to do with any of these killings; the men were too distraught from killing Jews to be anti-Semitic. Some men also became desensitized to the violence after a few kills. The men in Battalion 101 are still guilty of mass murder but they killed more because of a military order than personal hate.

On Cowardice

When we think of the Holocaust, we often think of the slaughter at the concentration camps. But many Jewish towns were attacked as well. In the case of Battalion 101,they were sent to kill all the women and children and capture the men in order to make them work. Now, in probably most cases, the men ordered to carry out such a task would be forced to do it without question. But in this particular case, their commanding officer, a Major Trapp, gave all the men the option to back out from such a task. Many would later on admit that they did not want to have anything to do with this, but surprisingly few men actually backed out with such an option put on the table. Why would men who were given such a choice choose the apparently more humane route? When asked, many admitted to what can only be described as cowardice. Some admit to simply not hearing the offer, but for those who admit to hearing it, they said they did it for reasons like not looking afraid in front of their comrades, to ruin their careers as military men, or admitting to just being a plain coward. Fear of their own well being could become compromised got the best of the men of Battalion 101. Although many didn't want to kill the men (which can be derived from a pitiful performance when executing their orders) they still went along with the killing. They must of felt some shame for killing these men, but the men were obviously too selfish to do anything about it.

Browning Reading

After reading Browning's article, I can say that the reason to kill innocent Jews was not because of anti-Semitism.  The author says that years after the incidents, soldiers would name other reasons before anti-Semitism, if anti-Semitism at all.  Also, we can say that these killings did not come from "special selection, indoctrination, and ideological motivation" (127) because the men involved in these mass murders were none of those things.  They were middle-aged, mildly educated, humble men who joined the military for (most likely) economic reasons.  Most would say the killing stemmed from strict military orders.  Most of these men seem to understand the strong adherence to orders and commends.  When their superiors told them to perform a task, they did just that (unless they were physically unable to perform that task).  Major Trapp does seemed to offer additional mental reasons that might make the killing easier (bombs were falling on Germans, Jews supported partisans, they instigated boycotts against Germany, etc.).  But there seems to be other personal reasons as well (Browning does say that "the battalion in general was under orders to kill the Jews of Józefów, but each individual man was not" 127).  Some say they weren't really given a choice or they refused to accept that choice.  Others say they didn't want to seem cowardly or were acting like cowards or they simply weren't thinking about what was occurring.  So the reason why they killed seems to be a combination of reasons seemingly juvenile and blind.

I'm Afraid of Fear

I feel that nothing “made” the men participate in the killing, but, in the end, fear is the reason that those men killed in Józefów. As Browning said, the men of the Reserve Police Battalion 101 were not of the generation born and bred in the Nazi regime, thus extreme anti-Semitism and Nazi ideology is most likely not a major reason why these men killed. Each reason given by the men of Battalion 101 for their murderous acts can be founded in the emotion of fear. Most site that they had no choice in the matter of participating in the massacre at Józefów, although they were clearly given the choice to back out by Major Trapp and several times throughout the massacre. Despite the fact that Browning stated that the consequences were not severe, fear of the consequences for refusing orders may have held back certain men at that time. Even Major Trapp did not want to go through with the massacre at all, to the point where he did not show up for it; however, he still gave the commands because “‘orders were orders’ and had to be carried out” (124). Once again a fear of the authority and the consequences of disobedience hung over the heads of Battalion 101. Furthermore, fear is also the underlying factor in the actual reasons given by the couple men who chose to participate in the killings. One stated that he did not want “to be considered a coward by his comrades” (127). Not wanting to be considered a coward is essentially the same being afraid to be seen as a coward. The fear of what others think was thus an underlying reason for their decision. More to the point, “another—more aware of what truly required courage—said quite simply: “I was cowardly” (128). Once again, the fear kept the men from defying their orders. Lastly, Browing states that most of these men felt "bitterness about what they had been asked to do" (127). If there was not some fear of repercussion for their decision to disobey, why would the men have choosen to commit an act they would not be proud of? I am by no means exempting the men who decided to kill from the horror of their actions; I still believe that the choice was their’s to make. However, in my opinion, the driving force behind their decision was fear.

Post

Near the end of the reading, Browning reveals how perplexed he is by these seemingly normal people and how they became killers. He revealed that the vast majority of “soldiers” in Police Battalion 101 had the opportunity to escape having to systematically murdering the Jews in the ghetto of Northern Poland described in the reading, they even saw men step out of line and be excused from their orders. So they were not coerced by unbreakable orders. Neither were they indoctrinated, as they were older men, or hiding behind a desk, using that as an excuse. Browning brings up that the motivation was perhaps anti Semitism, though very few of the perpetrators spoke of it at all. Browning suggests that this could have either been because it was not the reason the slaughter happened, or that it was so “pervasive” that it never even entered their minds. Despite this suggestion, Browning leaves these men’s reasons obscure in the end, leaving the reader to decide for himself. Though it is suggested that one cannot judge these Germans for their actions in our current state of mind, I will anyway because I do not believe these people deserve the benefit of the doubt. These men who committed these atrocities, those who ended the life of even one innocent person, are arguably some of the most reprehensible and vile humans to have ever existed. I may even give those who killed one person and couldn’t take it anymore the benefit of the doubt, but those who stood there all day, firing away at women, children and the elderly stooped to a level of humanity that I cannot even fathom. To me this event could possibly represent a complete lack of character on the parts of these men, yet I cannot believe that these everyday men just happened to coincidently lack character in astonishing degrees. Rather I believe the statement made by this reading is one about human nature, that the unthinking man (as Browning brings up mildly), one without a credo, standards of grandeur, or the ability or will to question authority, is a weapon of mass destruction, especially when in the hands of a madman. The reason these men became killers is nihilism, the lack of caring, of feeling, and most dangerously the refusal to question what one is asked to do. Some may claim this is not true, as these men became psychologically disturbed and were deeply affected by their actions. Yet they still acted, they refused to say no and refused to stop after killing so many. If they did care, they did not care enough to stop doing anything, even though there were very minor repercussions for doing so. Acting mindlessly, without care or mercy, for a cause one clearly does not agree with (as Browning spoke of the weeping and reluctance of the men to obey orders) is the greatest definition of nihilism I have ever seen. So Nietzsche’s greatest fear was realized in Hitler’s triumph of his will and creation of his version of the ubermench. While Hitler may have created his own value and system of morals, he created a generation of German nihilists in doing so.

Blog Assn #18: Browning

Please post to the blog by Tuesday, April 7th, 8:00 PM, on the following topic.

What made the people Browning talks about become killers?

Levi feels that the worst crime that the Nazi's committed was the fact that they were separated into special squads and were forced to fight upon themselves in order to survive the camps. They were ordered to help organize people to be put to death, were forced to search for valuables from the remaining ashes in the Crematoria and this was all done without any of them knowing what what actually going on. If they were opposed do doing the tasks asked of them they were either replaced by other people that would do the job or they were killed. The Nazi's forced people into helping commit the same crimes that they were committing and some people even went crazy performing the tasks asked of them. Levi felt that the worst crime that he Nazi's committed in the concentration camps would have been forcing innocent people into committing the crimes they were doing.

forced labor

In the middle of The Gray Zone, Primo Levi addresses the worst crime committed by the Nazis. In death camps such as Auschwitz, prisoners were made to work in “special squad” where they sorted trains of incoming people. While this was advantageous since they were not being sent to the gas chambers, they were duped into committing horrible crimes to their fellow man often without knowing it. Often, these special “SS” squads were made to herd people into the showers and sort their clothing and shoes without ever knowing what was actually going to happen with them. Part of these squads were also used to staff the crematoria. They were told to remove items such as gold teeth and sort the valuables from luggage. While the very act of systematically killing other human beings may seem like the most heinous crime described by Levi, it remains second to the use of these special squads. Making a person terminate the lives of others in order to preserve their own lives is one of the worst crimes. Being forced to clean the ashes of friends, family, and acquaintances from ovens is something no person should never have to face. In the same strain, Levi mentions a supreme doctor who was made to work for Mengele. The act of forcing a person to kill others and help their enemies in order to preserve their own life qualifies as the most heinous crime of the Holocaust.

The Drowned and the Saved

On page 53 of Primo Levi’s The Drowned and the Saved he stated, “Conceiving and organizing the squads was National Socialism’s most demonic crime.” Levi referring to the squads as Special Squads; they were predominately made up of Jewish people that were hand-picked based upon physical strength but also by a deep study of physiognomies (51). When the convoys arrived, the SS would pick new members for their squad, and would not hesitate to eliminate any person who refused or showed resistance to perform those duties. The special squad was in charge of removing corpses from gas chambers and making sure order was maintained on the platforms. Levi said, “From another point of view, one is stunned by this paroxysm of perfidy and hatred: it must be the Jews that put the Jews in the ovens; it must be shown that the Jews, the subrace, the submen, bow to any and all humiliation, even to destroying themselves (52).I believe Levi felt the worst of this demonic crime was that, “this institution represented an attempt to shift unto others- specifically, the victims- the burden of guilt, so they were deprived of even the solace of innocence” (53). Not only were the Jews being subjected to these awful hate crimes, but they were also asked to commit them to other members of their “race.” Besides killing the Jews in mass numbers, the Nazi’s demoralized them one step further, causing them to commit those crimes. Not only was the killing a treacherous thing to do, subjecting these people to do this treacherous work caused their crime to go to another level.

Levi

Levi identifies the most demonic thing done as the “Special Squads” that were established at the various concentration camps. Levi talks about how it was obviously very difficult to be able to survive these through these concentration camps before the “final solution” and that prisoners would often seek ways to make their lives a little easier at these camps. They wanted to receive preferential treatments from the Nazis and they attempted to do this by joining these squads. These special squads were in charge of running the crematoriums at the camps. They had to salvage certain items from their fellow dead Jews and turn over certain things to the Nazis. Levi attempts to explain the Nazis’ motives in making such groups by stating, “We, the master race, are your destroyers, but you are no better than we are; if we wish so, and we do wish so, we can destroy not only your bodies but also your souls, just as we have destroyed ours.” (pg. 53- 54) Levi is explaining that the worst thing that the Nazis did was not only have all of these Jews killed but then have all of their own people get rid of the bodies and covering up their own people’s murders’ crime. The people who became part of this group did not even truly gain anything from it. They only obtained enough food to live off of for a couple of months and in the end had to suffer the same fate as all the other people in the camp. Levi mentions that the way to inherit this position was cremating the bodies of the former members of the squad. I agree with Levi that is one of the most demonic things that Nazis did. It most have clearly broken this people in every way possible.

Body and Soul

As Levi states, on page 53, “Conceiving and organizing the squads was National Socialism’s most demonic crime.” The squads he is referring to here are those that were referred to as the Special Squads. These Special Squads were predominately Jewish people who were in charge of maintaining order among arrivals, removing corpses from the gas chambers, cutting women’s hair, pulling gold teeth, sorting and classifying clothes and luggage. The fact that these people were being forced to inadvertently have a hand in the death of others is terrifying. As Levi says on page 52, “One is stunned by this paroxysm of perfidy and hatred: it must be the Jews who put the Jews into ovens ; it must be shown that the Jews, the subrace, the submen, bow to any and all humiliation even to destroying themselves. It is horrifying to see this extent of Nazi terror imposed upon people inside of the concentration camps. To force a Jewish person to destroy another Jewish person is one of the most humiliating orders Hitler’s regime could give. The Nazis were trying to break every person who was put into the concentration camps. The Nazis were not ‘merely’ content with physically destroying people; no they had to destroy their souls as well. One of the most vivid quotes in this chapter was what Levi deemed to be the message of the squads. He quoted the message as being, “We, the master race are your destroyers, but you are no better than we are; if we so wish, and we do so wish, we can destroy not only your bodies but also your souls, just as we have destroyed ours.” This quotation speaks miles in terms of outlining the purpose of the Nazi creation of the special squads. Again it speaks to the Nazi’s complete and utter absolute power over these people. So great was it that they could, and did destroy both body and soul of these victims.

SS groups

In the second chapter of the book, “The Drowned and the Saved,” Primo Levi talks about the existence of a group known as SS in concentration camps. The “Special Squad” had the task of maintaining order among the new arrivals at the camps. They determined, “who were to be sent into the gas chambers, to extract the corpses from the chambers, to pull gold teeth from jaws, to cut women’s hair, to sort and classify clothes, shoes, and the contents of luggage, to transport the bodies to the crematoria, to oversee the operation of the ovens, and to extract and eliminate the ashes” (50). The SS group consisted of German and Polish prisoners, Russian prisoners of war, and most disturbing, other Jews. The fact that Jews were forced to punish other Jews in these concentration camps and knowing what was in store for them was the most demonic crime the Nazis committed. Levi writes, “Conceiving and organizing the squads was National Socialism’s most demonic crime” (53). Levi explains that there was a message behind the Nazis setting up these squads. He writes, “We, the master race, are your destroyers, but you are no better than we are; if we so wish, and we do so wish, we can destroy not only your bodies but also your souls, just as we have destroyed ours” (53). Not only was this uncomfortable for the Jews that were apart of these SS groups, but it was also demoralizing knowing that they had to inflict punishment on people of the very same race and religion as themselves. I agree with Levi because there is a difference between the Germans killing the mass population of Jews (not saying that this is nearly ok), as opposed to forcing other Jews to take part in the action.

Primo Levi believed that, “Conceiving and organizing the squads was National Socialism’s most demonic crime” (53). The most horrifying part of the Holocaust was the fact that the Nazis forced their prisoners to join in on the crimes they were committing. The Special Squads (SS) were responsible for most of the crimes against humanity, and the worst ones. The SS was made up of German, Polish and Russian prisoners, but the most demonic aspect of the squads was that the Jewish were a large part of them too. It’s one thing to mass murder an entire race, but it’s another thing when you make that race kill their own people and then kill them too. I suppose that the Nazis thought that if they were going to hell, they might as well make their prisoners go with them. Levi stated that, “…it must be the Jews who put the Jews into the ovens; it must be shown that the Jews, the subrace, the submen, bow to any and all humiliation, even to destroying themselves” (52). It was known that by doing the work the Jews were forced to do, one either went crazy the first day or got accustomed to it. I don’t know how anyone could get used to committing such awful crimes, but that just adds to the horrors of the concentration camps and what went on there.

On The Special Squad

It goes without saying that the Nazi Special Squads were the most horrifying example of idiocy and evil committed by Nazi Germany. With the aid of SS "psychologist" as Levi puts it, prisoners seen as weary and desperate from their journey over were placed in squads to do all the "dirty work" of the Germans. Dirty work may be putting lightly, for the Special Squad had to do all the horrible things like working the gas chambers and incinerators, shave woman's hair off, and retrieve and sort any valuables found on prisoners. It was a horrifying position to be in, for these prisoners really didn't have a choice in the matter other then accept death. The Nazi's having no upper limit on their power, would most likely kill anyone who refused. It is a situation where there is no real good choice in the matter: either die right now, or die later after committing a horrible array of crimes to your friends and families. And not only are the crimes bad, but the message Levi says it sends is horrifying: "We, the master race, are your destroyers, but you are no better than we are; if we so wish, and we do so wish, we can destroy not only your bodies but also your souls, just as we have destroyed ours" (53-54). It is a crime that is demoralizing, degrading, horrifying, and a long list of really nasty words. It's a crime for not only posing a decision that has no good outcome for a person regardless of what they choose, but for putting them in a demoralizing position, and in addition to do horrific things to men and women that are in just a bad position for the same reason of being Jewish.

blog assignment #17

Levi makes a couple interesting points about the topic of a “moral armature.” One of the first comments that pertains to this topic is the idea that the newcomers were the only ones who really even conceived fighting back. Other than these, there were only a few instances of rebellions, all of which had a consolidated group making the rebellion. The majority of the people in the camps broke down. They lost all will to resist and instead did anything and everything that they were told to do. What makes those who fought back different than those who obeyed? The answer is tied in with the fact that those who rebelled did not lose their self worth and identity. Levi, when talking about the “rookies,” mentions that they are the only ones who would conceive of fighting back because they did not lose their dignity yet. The camps were masterful in the process of dehumanization. They stripped people from their own identities. Once they lost this, they simply became robots, serving tasks without any desire to rebel. The moral armature that Levi suggests must incorporate the keeping of identity. If one refuses to allow outside sources to dictate one’s worth, it is easy to make decisions based on personal opinion---such as rebelling. But how does one keep this? What line of defense does one have in order to make sure that he or she does not become dehumanized? On page 58 there are a couple of occasions that suggest an answer. Once there was a rebellion of 400 Jews. The fact that the people came together to fight the enemy increased their chances of keeping identity and self worth. One can be dehumanized much easier if he or she sees oppression from every angle, even from fellow prisoners. When one unites with the others, it is likened to a herd of zebras in opposition to a lion. There is strength in numbers. It is for this reason that the SS tried so hard to make the prisoners turn against themselves.

Extremely Upsetting

Levi’s describes the “most demonic crime” to be the transfer of guilt from those in power to their victims. The SS was capable of imposing the guilt they felt for their crimes against humanity onto the prisoners of war, and especially the Jews, by forcing them to participate in the dirty work of the Lagers. Known as “crematorium ravens,” these victims ran the gas chambers; they were to kill and dispose of their fellow victims. By transferring these jobs to the victims, the SS did not have to take as much of a part in the murdering of thousands upon thousands of people, thus feeling less guilty about their role in mass extermination. Not only did this process absolve them from guilt, but it proved their power over the victims that much more. “We, the master race, are your destroyers, but you are no better than we are; if we so wish, and we do so wish, we can destroy not only your bodies but also your souls, just as we have destroyed ours” (53-54). By far that is perhaps one of the most disturbing statements I have ever read. The purposeful and forced degradation of a person’s soul is the “most demonic crime.” The fact that the SS knew the crimes they were committing were despicable and still decided to drag more people down with them is horrible. It is the most extreme corruption of power. And what is more disgusting is that the SS basically embraced those prisoner and Jews who were forced to murder their own kind. Once they had become as “inhuman” as the SS, they were equals, as exemplified by the soccer match described by Levi. One’s debasement of another’s soul, just to justify his lack of one, is deplorable, in that he is removing one’s choice to protect the soul that most find to be sacred. Even if one does not believe in a heaven, how can he live with himself on earth when he is force to commit acts of terror on his own kind?

Manipulation

Levi establishes that the most demonic crime the Nazi’s commit is being able to manipulate Jews to serve in the Special Squad. Instead of taking the typical approach and stating that the mass murdering is the worst crime commit, he chooses a different route. Levi says that the Nazi party attempted to shift the burden of guilt onto the victims instead of themselves, the killers. Therefore the Nazi party could say “it must be the Jews who put the Jews into the ovens; it must be shown that the Jews, the subrace, the submen, bow to any and all humiliation, even to destroying themselves” (52). Not only did the Jews participate in the extermination of their own people, but other prisoners (German, non-Jews, Russian, and Polish) as well joined in. These Special Squad members were kept away from the other prisoner, and received better treatment then the traditional prisoners despite the fact they were prisoners. Later on some made excuses saying they were not monsters it was either a life or death choice. That the special squad members were just as unhappy or unhappy than the traditional prisoner. Levi does not judge or blame the prisoners for choosing this path. He proposes “I would invite anyone who dares pass judgment to carry out upon himself, with sincerity, a conceptual experiment” (59). He goes on to explain the situation of living in a ghetto starving, fatigued, discriminated against, and continually humiliated. And they sanction you to be the special squad, telling you it is a better life. What would you do? I understand the reasons why Levi choose the manipulation of certain prisoner to go against their own people. Yet, I do not agree that the prisoners who were choose to be a part of the Special Squad did was morally right. Some prisoners did rebel, while others conformed. Although I do not agree that what they did was morally right, I did not experience the situation. I know that humans naturally conform, just as Milgram has demonstrated. And I also understand that we must do what we have to survive, and as people say desperate times come with desperate measures. However, it disgusts me to think that the Nazi’s were this persuasive.

Echoes

Levi forwards the claim that the most demonic crime the Nazis committed was not their acts of mass murder but their ability to take some of the Jewish prisoners and transmit the guilt their heinous crimes upon them as well. Rather they are taking this select group of innocents to hell with them by forcing them to disregard their humanity as well. This reading contained the most chilling statement I have ever read: “We, the master race, are your destroyers, but you are no better than we are; if we so wish, and we do so wish, we can destroy not only your bodies but also your souls, just as we have destroyed ours.” (53-54) Levi’s thinking is that while the Nazis could destroy their victims’ bodies but their victims will always be superior to them, as they are still human and they die human, unlike the monsters that put them to death. But in making them lie to their own kind, to send them to their death then to throw them into a furnace as if they were burning spoiled crops, they strip that innocence and steal the victims’ souls. They turn the innocents into the monsters that they are. Levi described the state of such men after weeks of working with the SS, these people were in a constant daze, in a delicate balance between life and death, sanity and insanity, existence and obscurity. In doing this they also brought out the worst of man, some men will sell their soul to merely grasp to life for a few more months. Clearly this is the greatest crime the Nazis perpetrated. It is one to steal the life of another, but it is a completely different thing to not only take that but to turn them into some twisted monster, capable of even the most heinous acts. The quote above still echoes in my mind and perhaps stands out to me as the most tragic statement coupled with action in human history.

The Drowned and the Saved

"MORAL ARMATURE"

Levi comments that the SS not only took the Jews into captivity physically, but they degraded them while "they are available, blank, and lacking a political or moral armature" (40).  This idea of moral armature is rather interesting.  The author does not directly define what "moral armature" means (or at least, I missed this definition).  But I can maybe come up with a reasonable definition from inferring a few things from his stories and moral statements.  Having a moral armature means having some type of basic structure that holds together one's behavior, beliefs, and so on in association with morality.  This is showed in Levi's examples of people who rebelled and didn't accept the orders they were given, even though death was inevitable (Jews in Corfu 1944).  These people followed their moral armature, their basic structure of behavior and believe, and acted on this.  Another interesting comment that Levi makes in association with moral armature is that "Every human being possesses a reserve of strength whose extent is unknown to him...and only through extreme adversity can we evaluate it" (60).  This moral armature is only strength-tested in harsh and extreme conditions.  In everyday activity, we can see the general form of the armature.  But true adversity shows us strength by pushing on different components or all the parts of the armature.  We can see if the armature breaks or stands tall.  And within every person's armature is made of different strength because every person can withstand different adversities at different strengths.

Wait...I'm the first post?!

The demonic crime Levi talks about is the SS being made up of not just Aryans. The SS had Russian, Polish, and German prisoners of war. Worst of all, Jews were a part of the SS as well. Levi feels that to make someone kill and destroy their own people is one of the worst things that someone could do. He claims that this was done because it shifted “the burden of guilt, so that they were deprived of even the solace of innocence” (53). For the Nazi’s to do this shows how evil they are. He also says that the SS had a meaning behind them. He said they meant that they are the master race and they can destroy whomever they want, but those people are no better than they are; they can destroy not only your body but your soul as well, just as we destroyed ours. Levi’s tone while he describes this crime feels like he is appalled, shocked, scared, and angry enough to kill a few Nazis himself. He portrays this act, and I agree, as one of the worst things the Nazis did to the Jews. It would be better if they just killed the Jews themselves, but making Jews kill Jews just is not right.

Blog Assn #17: Levi chapter 2

Please post to the blog by Sunday, April 5th, 8:00 PM, on ONE the following topics.

(A) What does Levi think is the "most demonic crime" the Nazis committed? Is he correct?

(B) At the end of the chapter, Levi asks what "moral armature" can protect us against what happened in the Holocaust. What's the answer?