Tuesday, June 21, 2016

Hitler’s Darwinian Motive for Mass Murder

By Keith Thompson

In this essay the myth that Christianity was the driving force behind the mass murder committed by Hitler and the Nazis will be refuted. Not only will it be demonstrated Hitler and the Nazis were not Christian, but it will be shown the driving force behind their slaughter of the Jews, Poles, Gypsies, Russians, and Czechs etc., was Darwinian, evolutionary teaching.

Evidence of the Darwinian Basis for Nazi Mass Murder

In a 1933 Nuremberg Speech Adolf Hitler voiced his acceptance of Darwinism: “The gulf between the lowest creature which can still be styled man and our highest races is greater than that between the lowest type of man and the highest ape. . . . Thus there results the subjection of a number of people under the will often of only a few persons, a subjection based simply on the right of the stronger, a right which, as we see it in Nature, can be regarded as the sole conceivable right”(1).

Historians of Nazi Germany such as Richard Weikart and others note the title of Hitler’s principle book Mein Kampf which means “my struggle” echoes Darwin’s often repeated phrase “struggle for existence.”(2) Moreover, in the book Mein Kampf Hitler stated stronger races must dominate and not blend with weaker ones, otherwise “any conceivable higher evolution of organic living beings would be unthinkable.”(3) In the same work he explicitly wrote, “The first step which outwardly and visibly removed man from animal was that of intention.”(4) In the same work Hitler explained humans must “see to it that the blood is preserved pure and, by preserving the best humanity, to create the possibility of nobler evolution of these beings.”(5)

In Hitler’s long-unpublished sequel to Mein Kampf, known today simply as Hitler’s Second Book, he wrote: “the struggle for survival, in turn, contains the precondition for evolution. . . . nature, out of the multitude of creatures that are born, spares the few healthiest and most robust in the struggle for survival.”(6) Such statements thoroughly refute the Darwinian apologists(7) who claim all Hitler advocated was cultural, political, industrial and military evolution as opposed to biological evolution. We have shown Hitler’s clear statements on biological evolution.

Moreover, the fact Hitler also often based his view of war and conquest on evolutionary ideas concerning the survival of the fittest and the struggle for survival shows evolutionary ideas were behind his savagery, not Christianity. In a 1939 speech given to his generals prior to the attack against Poland, Hitler’s remarks show the evolutionary basis for the bloodshed in terms of the continued existence of the stronger over the weaker. He said, “close your hearts to pity . . . [and] act brutally . . . [so that the German people would] obtain what is their right. Their existence must be secured. The stronger is right.”(8) Likewise in a 1927 speech on “The Essence and Goal of National Socialism” Hitler mentioned “the struggle for existence of the nation . . . making it possible to feed itself and reproduce. . . [Nazism upholds a] world view of the natural powers of evolution.”(9)

Thus, it is unhelpful when certain Darwinian apologists of today falsely claim Hitler was not an evolutionist. Serious historians, based on the evidence, agree he was. For example, professor of history at California State University Richard Weikart observes, “Hitler spoke and wrote incessantly about evolution, natural selection, and the struggle for existence, especially the struggle between races. It should be patently obvious from these discussions that he believed in human evolution.”(10) Even the evolutionist writer contemporary with Hitler, Sir Arthur Keith, conceded, “The German Führer, as I have consistently maintained, is an evolutionist; he has consistently sought to make the practice of Germany conform to the theory of evolution.”(11) Professor William J. Duiker notes, “Virulent German nationalism, anti-Semitism, and anticommunism were linked together by a social Darwinian theory of struggle that stressed the right of superior nations to lebensraum (‘living space’) through expansion and the right of superior individuals to secure authoritarian leadership over the masses.”(12)

In regards to Nazism as a whole, a 1937 propaganda film created by them demonstrates their Darwinism. In the film it is said, “All that is non-viable in nature invariably fails. We humans have transgressed the law of natural selection in the last decades. Not only have we supported inferior life forms, we have encouraged their propagation. The offspring of these sick people. . . .  would affect our valuable race.”(13) Also, Darwin’s spokesman in Germany, the fraud Ernst Haeckel, is well known to be the great ancestor of Nazi biological theoreticians.(14) Nazism’s Darwinism is also confirmed by a speech given by the German commander of occupied Ukraine, Erick Koch, who declared “We are the master race, which must remember that the lowliest German worker is racially and biologically a thousand times more valuable than the population here [in Ukraine].(15)

Miklós Nyiszli was an eyewitness doctor who worked at the Auschwitz concentration camp under the supervision of the notorious “criminal doctor” Josef Mengele. He wrote that Mengele “sent millions of people to death merely because, according to racial theory, they were inferior beings and therefore detrimental to mankind.”(16) Racial theory was taught by Darwin’s pre-Hitler students Ernst Haeckel and Thomas Huxley.(17) It was also taught by Darwin himself. Racial theory states, through Darwinian natural selection and survival of the fittest, superior races of more evolved humans compete against inferior ones for dominance. Darwin said “the civilized races have extended, and are now everywhere extending their range, so as to take the place of the lower races.”(18) Darwin also said civilized humans “will most certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time, the anthropomorphous apes . . . will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla.”(19) It is thus no wonder where Hitler and the Nazis acquired their idea of superior and inferior races competing for dominance through survival of the fittest. 

It was because of these Darwinian ideas concerning human evolution of races that Hitler and the Nazis went to war against and murdered “lower races” or “biologically inferior” Jews, Russians, Gypsies, Poles, Czechs, and many others so that the allegedly superior German, Aryan race could rule the world through survival of the fittest. Nyiszli notes he spent long hours with Mengele and that according to him “The immediate objective was the increased reproduction of pure Germans in numbers sufficient to replace the Czechs, Hungarians, Poles, all of whom were condemned to be destroyed.”(20) Historian Robert Payne likewise notes according to Nazis: “Jews, Poles, and Russians were subhuman and did not deserve to live.”(21)

The final outcome of the Darwinism of the Nazis was the holocaust of around 6 million Jews whom Hitler especially hated and deemed biologically inferior. As history proves, Darwinism clearly played a key role in the evil decision making of the Nazis. The work World War II in Europe: An Encyclopedia notes according Hitler and the Nazis “the Jews were biologically ‘inferior.’ A solution had to be found to the ‘Jewish problem’ because the very presence of Jews threatened the ‘purity’ of the German population.”(22)

Nazis only Practiced Pre-Darwinian Eugenics?

One response Darwinian apologists offer is the false assertion that Hitler and the Nazis only employed pre-Darwinian eugenics and not Darwinian, evolutionary ideas of human evolution of races when it came to their mass murders. Darwinian apologists make this assertion to try to get Darwinism off the hook.

However, the above information clearly refutes such an erroneous claim. Pre-Darwinian eugenics concerned ridding a nation’s population of negative traits by preventing the sick, deformed, and feeble minded from breeding through sterilization, etc.(23) However, what we observe in Nazism goes well beyond that. The Nazis instead wanted to eliminate entire races of humans on the basis that they were subhuman, less evolved, lower races. This is Darwinian. The comments from Hitler, the Nazis, eyewitnesses of the Nazis, and historians which we supplied demonstrate this. Again, this Nazi view of lower races being dominated by superior ones we documented is called “racial theory” and, as we showed, it goes right back to Darwin’s pre-Hitler students Haeckel and Huxley.(24) Again, as even Darwin himself taught:

“the civilized races have extended, and are now everywhere extending their range, so as to take the place of the lower races.”(25)


“[Civilized races] will most certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time, the anthropomorphous apes . . . will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla.”(26)

This is not the same as mere pre-Darwinian eugenics. Thus, we can get rid of this canard. The basis of Nazi wars and mass murder was this Darwinian theory of human evolution of races – higher and lower races – the fittest or superior races surviving and the unfit ones being eliminated to progress human evolution. 

Hitler was a Creationist who Denied Macro-evolution?

Out of desperation some Darwinists take one of Hitler’s quotes out of context to claim he was a creationist who denied macro-evolution. However, when the quote is closely examined it is clear he believed nothing of the sort. It reads:

"Even the most superficial observation shows that Nature's restricted form of propagation and increase is an almost rigid basic law of all the innumerable forms of expression of her vital urge. Every animal mates only with a member of the same species. The titmouse seeks the titmouse, the finch the finch, the stork the stork, the field mouse the field mouse, the dormouse the dormouse, the wolf the she-wolf, etc. Only unusual circumstances can change this, primarily the compulsion of captivity or any other cause that makes it impossible to mate within the same species. But then Nature begins to resist this with all possible means, and her most visible protest consists either in refusing further capacity for propagation to bastards or in limiting the fertility of later offspring; in most cases, however, she takes away the power of resistance to disease or hostile attacks. This is only too natural. Any crossing of two beings not at exactly the same level produces a medium between the level of the two parents. This means: the offspring will probably stand higher than the racially lower parent, but not as high as the higher one. Consequently, it will later succumb in the struggle against the higher level. Such mating is contrary to the will of Nature for a higher breeding of all life. . . . The stronger must dominate and not blend with the weaker, thus sacrificing his own greatness. Only the born weakling can view this as cruel, but he after all is only a weak and limited man; for if this law did not prevail, any conceivable higher evolution of organic living beings would be unthinkable. The consequence of this racial purity, universally valid in Nature, is not only the sharp outward delimitation of the various races, but their uniform character in themselves. The fox is always a fox, the goose a goose, the tiger a tiger, etc., and the difference can lie at most in the varying measure of force, strength, intelligence, dexterity, endurance, etc., of the individual specimens. But you will never find a fox who in his inner attitude might, for example, show humanitarian tendencies toward geese, as similarly there is no cat with a friendly inclination toward mice. Therefore, here, too, the struggle among themselves arises less from inner aversion than from hunger and love. In both cases, Nature looks on calmly, with satisfaction, in fact. In the struggle for daily bread all those who are weak and sickly or less determined succumb, while the struggle of the males for the female grants the right or opportunity to propagate only to the healthiest. . . . By this one example, we can clearly and distinctly recognize the effect of racial mixture. The Germanic inhabitant of the American continent, who has remained racially pure and unmixed, rose to be master of the continent; he will remain the master as long as he does not fall a victim to defilement of the blood. The result of all racial crossing is therefore in brief always the following: Lowering of the level of the higher race; Physical and intellectual regression and hence the beginning of a slowly but surely progressing sickness. To bring about such a development is, then, nothing else but to sin against the will of the eternal creator."(27)

The parts Darwinists bring up as supposedly proving Hitler denied macro-evolution are in black bold. However, anyone with basic reading comprehension skills can clearly see here Hitler is combating the idea of interbreeding among different human races by appealing to nature and noting when two different species interbreed their offspring is unfit. How is that a rejection of macro-evolution? He also notes a single instance of reproduction among two of the same species (“racial purity”), leads to offspring that remain the same species as their parents (for example foxes) without acquiring things like “humanitarian tendencies toward geese.” What evolutionist disagrees with that? Darwinism teaches macro-evolution or the change from one kind to another takes a very long time, not that it happens with one instance of reproduction and leads to things like foxes showing “humanitarian tendencies toward geese.” Again, no evolutionist believes such a thing. So Hitler was not denying macro-evolution here. That is a total misreading of this quote. And although some Darwinian apologists claim at the end of the quote Hitler was saying it is a sin to believe in macro-evolution, what he clearly said was a sin is “racial crossing,” or a single case of interbreeding with an unfit offspring which he stated lowered the level of the higher race. Thus, he was not saying believing macro-evolution was a sin. These pitiful and deceptive arguments were made by youtube Darwinian apologist AronRa.(28)

But note the curious words in bold red. They show Hitler believed Darwinian evolution: “The stronger must dominate and not blend with the weaker. . . [otherwise] any conceivable higher evolution of organic living beings would be unthinkable.” This is Darwinism. Thus, in the very quote Darwinists misuse to try to prove Hitler denied evolution, he actually ends up affirming evolution!

Hitler was a Roman Catholic “Christian”?

Various Darwinian apologists(29) will ignore all of the above evidence of Hitler’s Darwinism and claim the actual basis for Nazi mass murder of “lower races” was instead Roman Catholic “Christianity”! They point to things like the German civil servant oath people had to take saying “I will be faithful and obedient to . . . Hitler . . . so help me God,” the S. S. Loyalty oath also saying “so help me God,” Nazi belt buckles saying “God with us,” and Hitler publicly writing “I believe day-to-day that my conduct is in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator. In standing guard against the Jew I am defending the handiwork of the Lord.”(30) One could also mention various public speeches of Hitler in which God or Christianity are positively mentioned. This information seems quite persuasive to the Darwinist looking for a way to defend Darwinism. However, there are a number of difficulties with viewing such material as decisive evidence Hitler and the Nazis were Christian.

Firstly, there is a large number of historians of Nazi Germany who maintain Hitler and the Nazi party only outwardly claimed to be Christian, or tolerated Christianity, in order get the vote of the people, avoid destroying the unity of Germany, as well as to have a temporary Christian ally against neighboring atheistic, Stalinist communism. Thus, one of Hitler's close associates and Reich minister of propaganda wrote in his personal April 8, 1941 diary entry: "He [Hitler] hates Christianity, because it has crippled all that is noble in humanity" (The Goebbels Diaries, trans. Fred Taylor, [Hamish Hamilton Ltd, 1982], pp. 304-305). After his study, historian Richard Evans concluded Hitler only had positive, public comments towards religion because he did not want to cause a quarrel with the churches that might undermine the unity of Germany.(31) Likewise, historian Robert Wistrich concluded Hitler believed Christianity’s demise was imminent but he did not want a confrontation between the church and Nazism for strategic reasons.(32) Historian Geoffrey Blainey concluded when Nazism became the main opponent of Stalinist communism in Germany, Hitler saw Christianity as a temporary ally.(33) The historian Laurence Rees notes “Hitler did not believe in the afterlife, but he did believe he would have a life after death because of what he achieved.”(34) The historian Max Domarus notes in November 1937, speaking to his propaganda leaders, Hitler stated he divorced himself from religious convictions: “As late as 1933, he [Hitler] still described himself as a Catholic. Only the spreading poison of his lust for power and self idolatry finally crowded out the memories of childhood beliefs and in 1937 he jettisoned the last of his personal religious convictions, declaring to comrades, ‘Now I feel as fresh as a colt in the pasture.”(35). Domarus also notes by 1937 Hitler fully discarded belief in the Judeo-Christian God but continued to use the word ‘God’ in speeches for strategic reasons.(36) The historian Ian Kershaw notes that behind Hitler’s pro-Christian public rhetoric was actually the placation of potential criticism from the churches.(37) In regards to Hitler’s positive comments about God and Christianity, historian Laurence Rees notes, “the most persuasive explanation of these sentiments is that Hitler, as a politician, simply recognized the practical reality of the world he inhabited. In conversation with Ludendorff years before he had said, ‘I need Bavarian Catholics as well as Prussian Protestants to build up a great political movement. The rest comes later.’ Had Hitler distanced himself or his movement too much from Christianity it is all but impossible to see how he could ever have been successful in a free election. Thus his relationship in public to Christianity – indeed his relationship to ‘religion’ in general – was opportunistic. There is no evidence that Hitler, in his personal life, ever expressed any individual belief in the basic tenets of the Christian church.”(38) This explains the Nazi loyalty oaths mentioning God, Hitler’s public mentions of God in writings and speeches, and Nazi belt buckles saying “God with us,” etc. In the work World Fascism: A Historical Encyclopedia we read, “Fascism promotes a fundamentally secular world-view. It postulates a supra-individual realm, but one that does not extend beyond the strictly this-worldly transcendence afforded by the epic history of the ‘organic’ nation, rather than a metaphysical eternity made possible in a superterrestrial spiritual, divine dimension. As Hitler declared in a moment of lucidity, ‘To the Christian doctrine of the infinite significance of the individual human soul . . . I oppose with icy clarity the saving doctrine of the nothingness and insignificance of the individual human being, and of his continued existence in the visible immortality of the nation.’”(39) In fact, in a 1938 speech Hitler replaced the Christian God and Christian concepts with his socialist party and the German people in regards to crediting Nazism’s success, “The creative bearer of this rebirth is the National Socialist Workers party . . . It had to cleanse Germany of all parasites for whom the distress of the Fatherland and of the people was a source of personal enrichment. It had to recognize the eternal value of blood and soil and raise them to the level of the governing laws of our life.”(40)

Secondly, Hitler’s anti-Christian Nazi affiliations and policies contradict the idea he was actually a Christian. Historian and professor at the University of Wisconsin Edward Peterson noted Hitler encouraged the persecution of the German churches: “Goebbels . . . arranged the campaign to discredit priests as smugglers and homosexuals, and . . . Bormann . . . worked to close church schools and other church activities. . . . the powerful of the party . . . had Hitler’s tacit agreement to persecute religion.”(41). Would a Christian engage in such behavior? Indeed, Hitler’s leading Nazi advisors Himmler, Goebbels, and Bormann were all radical atheists who hated religion and wanted to destroy its influence on Germany.(42) In 1937 Reich Leader of the SS of the Nazi party Heinrich Himmler wrote “We live in an era of the ultimate conflict with Christianity. It is part of the mission of the SS to give the German people in the next half-century the non-Christian ideological foundations on which to lead and shape their lives.”(43). Moreover, the Historical Encyclopaedia of World War II notes in 1941 the party minister of the Nazi party Martin Bormann closed many church convents and even wrote a letter which “ordered the Gauleiter [Nazi leaders] to strip the church and its priests of their last means of influencing their parishioners. ‘Then,’ it said, ‘the existence of only the people and the Reich will be assured for the future.”(44) If Hitler was actually a Christian he would not have agreed to this persecution of Christian churches the way he did, or appoint such Christianity-hating radical atheists to these high levels of Nazi leadership. Instead, he would have taken seriously 2 Corinthians 6:14 which says, “Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers.” Hitler appointed Adolf Wagner as the Nazi minister of state. In 1935 Wagner declared, “In the days that lie immediately ahead of us the fight will not be either against Communists or Marxists, but against Catholicism. Everyone will find himself faced with a serious question: German or Catholic.”(45).

Thirdly, Hitler’s well-known belief in occultism and astrology contradicts Christianity. Such things are forbidden by the Christian scriptures. There is evidence during a period in his adult life Hitler believed astrology and the occult, at least temporarily. We know this because, as professor of history at the University of South Carolina, Arthur Mitchell notes, Hitler’s personal library was full of books on occult, magic, and spiritualism, he was part of a group in Munich that believed in astrology, he accepted prophecies from astrological calendars, and his close friend and leading Nazi leader Rudolf Hess firmly believed astrology. Finally, he notes Hitler liked to talk about astrology until an astrologer he visited not only predicted his political rise but also his collapse. Hitler did not appreciate that prediction and thus ceased to talk about astrology.(46) The problem for Darwinian apologists is that astrology, occultism, magic and spiritualism are all forbidden in the Christian Scriptures which actual Christians believe in (Leviticus 19:26, 31; Exodus 9:11; 2 Kings 21:6; Isaiah 47:13-14; Acts 13:6, 8). Thus, if Hitler was actually a believing Christian he would not dare practice or believe such things.

Fourthly, Hitler’s actions of mass murder against various races of people is condemned by Christian scripture. Although there are various historical accounts of descriptive wars in Old Testament (I address unbelieving misunderstandings of these wars here), the prescriptive command for Christians today from Jesus and the apostles forbids murder. For example, Jesus said “You know the commandments: 'Do not murder” (Mark 10:19). Jesus also said, “Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you” (Matthew 5:44, 46). Similarly Jesus taught, “And as you wish that others would do to you, do so to them” (Luke 6:31). Since Jesus is the Prince of Peace (Isaiah 9:6) He said “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God” (Matthew 5:9). When Peter momentarily went against Christ’s teachings of peace and struck a man’s ear off trying to defend Jesus, Christ corrected him and said, “Put your sword back into its place. For all who take the sword will perish by the sword” (Matthew 26:52). Jesus also said, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself” (Matthew 19:19). Moreover, instead of slaying people, the Apostle Paul said “And the Lord's servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil, correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth” (2 Timothy 2:24-25). If Hitler was a Christian he would have taken heed to such scriptures and kindly and patiently evangelized the world instead of trying to conquer countries and mass-murder entire races! 1 Peter 2:17 says to “honor everyone.” In Galatians 3:28 Paul wrote, "There is neither Jew nor Gentile . . . for you are all one in Christ Jesus." The Apostle James commanded, “If you really fulfill the royal law according to the Scripture, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself,’ you are doing well” (James 2:8). The Apostle Peter taught, “Do not repay evil for evil or reviling for reviling, but on the contrary, bless, for to this you were called, that you may obtain a blessing” (1 Peter 3:9). Thus, Hitler’s wicked actions clearly reveal he was not a Christian following the teaching of Jesus and the apostles.


In conclusion it must be stated that in their bigoted haste, Darwinists have not been able to understand the nefarious reasoning behind Hitler’s public favour towards Catholic Christianity. As we have shown, this was entirely strategic and Hitler was not actually a Christian. Instead, as we demonstrated in the beginning our essay, Hitler was a firm believer in Darwinian evolutionary ideas of human evolution of races. The Nazi idea of “racial theory” taught by Darwin, Haeckel and Huxley, persuaded Hitler and the Nazis to attempt to mass murder entire races of people the Nazis deemed racially and biologically inferior – lower races. They wanted to dominate and replace such races through the survival of the fittest thereby, according to them, helping human evolution progress.

We showed many of Hitler’s statements in favour of Darwinian evolution and the dominance of the greater over the lesser. We quoted Nazis like Koch affirming certain races were biologically inferior to Germans, as well as a Nazi propaganda film affirming natural selection and other Darwinian ideas. We quoted eyewitnesses of Nazis like Nyiszli testifying to Mengele’s evolutionary ideas of inferior human races needing to be eliminated and replaced by the Germans. And we quoted numerous historians affirming Hitler believed evolution and that the Nazis and he viewed “lower races” as less evolved and subhuman in accordance with Darwin’s writings on the subject. The canard that all the Nazis practiced was pre-Darwinian eugenics was refuted since we showed the Nazis wanted to mass murder entire races to progress evolution, not just stop the sick, mentally ill or deformed from breeding in their nation. We also exposed the erroneous nature of the claim Hitler was a creationist who denied macro-evolution which is popular among some Darwinian apologists. The quote Darwinists appeal to says nothing of the sort.

What we are left with is the fact Hitler, much like Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot mass murdered large amounts of people on the basis of evolutionary ideas. One could think of other mass murderers and terrorists such as the Columbine killers, Pekka Auvinen and James Jay Lee who likewise mass-murdered, or in the case of Lee, were prepared to murder, on the basis of their Darwinian, evolutionary ideas. Or one could mention the serial killer Jeffrey Dahmer who murdered and dismembered numerous people on the basis that there was no objective value to human life since, as he believed, humans just evolved from slime, and that when one dies there is nothing. Although Darwinists may not like it, the fact is Darwinism is very dangerous to society and history very clearly bears this out. When one views humans as nothing but beasts and buys into the ideas of survival of the fittest, the propagation of the fit, and the notion that certain races are lower or less evolved than others, then the taking of precious human life on a mass scale not only becomes justifiable, but also a necessity for the progress of human evolution. We can learn much from the effects on society Darwinism has had. But, sadly, wild-eyed Darwinists of our day are persistent in defending Darwinism and attacking religion at all costs, even if it means denying and distorting history.  


1) Adolf Hitler, Nuremberg Speech, 1933, ed. Norman Baynes, The Speeches of Adolf Hitler, April 1922-August 1939, Oxford University Press, 1942
Richard Weikart, Hitler’s Ethic: The Nazi Persuit of Evolutionary Progress, [Palgrave Macmillan, 2009], p. 33
3) Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Vol. 1, Ch. XI Race and People
4) Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Vol. 2, Ch. III Personality and the Ideal of the People’s State
5) Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Vol. 2, Ch. II, The State
6) Adolf Hitler, Hitler’s Second Book, [Enigma Books, 2006], pp. 8, 19
7) AronRa, Racial Darwinism, youtube.com
8) Adolf Hitler Speech to Generals, August 1939, quoted in Richard Weikart, Hitler’s Ethic, [Palgrave Macmillan, 2009], p. 26
9) Hitler Speech on The Essence and Goal of National Socialism, 1927 quoted in Richard Weikart, Hitler’s Ethic, [Palgrave Macmillan, 2009], p. 38
10) Richard Weikart, Hitler’s Ethic, [Palgrave Macmillan, 2009], p. 46
11) Arthur Keith, Evolution and Ethics, [G.P. Putnam's Sons, 1947], p. 230
12) William J. Duiker, Contemporary World History, [Cengage Learning, 2007], p. 123
13) 1937 Nazi Propaganda Film, youtube.com
14) Leon Poliakov, The Aryan Myth, [Basic Books, 1974], p. 284
15) Erick Koch quoted in Tadeusz Piotrowski, Poland’s Holocaust, [McFarland & Company, Inc., 1998], p. 30 italics and brackets mine
16) Miklós Nyiszli, Auschwitz, [Arcade Publishing, 1960], p. 60
17) Niall Ferguson, Introduction to Virtual History, [Basic Books, 1999], pp. 41-42; Jan-Erik Lane, Svante Ersson, Culture and Politics, [Routledge, 2016], II.III
18) Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man, [D. Appleton and Company, 1896], p. 135
19) Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man, [D. Appleton and Company, 1896], p. 156
20) Miklós Nyiszli, Auschwitz, [Arcade Publishing, 1960], p. 60
21) Robert Payne, The Life and Death of Adolf Hitler, [1973], p. 67
22) World War II in Europe: An Encyclopedia, ed. David T. Zabecki, [Routledge, 1999], p. 123
23) Dictionary of the History of Science, ed. William F. Bynum et al., [Princeton University Press, 1981], p. 131
24) Niall Ferguson, Introduction to Virtual History, [Basic Books, 1999], pp. 41-42; Jan-Erik Lane, Svante Ersson, Culture and Politics, [Routledge, 2016], II.III
25) Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man, [D. Appleton and Company, 1896], p. 135
26) Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man, [D. Appleton and Company, 1896], p. 156
27) Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Vol. 1, Ch. XI, Nation and Race
28) AronRa, Racial Darwinism, youtube.com
29) Thunderf00t, Did Hitler Worship God or Evolution?, youtube.com; AronRa, Racial Darwinism, youtube.com
30) Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Vol. 1, Ch. II Years of Studying and Suffering in Vienna
31) Richard Evans, The Third Reich at War, [Penguin, 2008], pp. 547–548
32) Robert Wistrich, Laboratory for World Destruction, [University of Nebraska Press, 2007], pp. 375  
33) Geoffrey Blainey; A Short History of Christianity [Viking, 2011], pp. 495–496
34) Jon Kelly, "Osama Bin Laden: The power of shrines" BBC News Magazine May 4, 2001
35) Max Domarus, The Essential Hitler: Speeches and Commentary. [Bolchazy-Carducci, 2007], p. 21
36) Ibid.
37) Ian Kershaw, The Hitler Myth, [Oxford University Press, 1987], p. 109
38) Laurence Rees, The Dark Charisma of Adolf Hitler, [Ebury Press, 2012], p 101
39) World Fascism: A Historical Encyclopedia, Vol. 1, ed. Cyprian Blamires, [ABC-CLIO, 2006], p. 10; Hitler quote from Hermann Rauschning, The Voice of Destruction, [G. P. Putnam’s Son’s, 1940], p. 25
40) Adolf Hitler, Speech of 6 September 1938, in: Baynes, The Speeches of Hitler, p. 242
41) Edward Peterson, The Limit’s of Hitler’s Power, [Princeton University Press, 1969], p. 55
42) Peter Longerich, Heinrich Himmler, [Oxford University Press, 2012], pp. 220-221; Toby Thacker, Joseph Goebbels, [Palgrave Macmillan, 2009], pp. 30-31
43) Heincrich Himmler, 1937 quoted in Peter Longerich, Heinrich Himmler, [Oxford University Press, 2012], p. 270
44) Historical Encyclopaedia of World War II, ed. Marcel Baudot, et al., [Facts on File, 1980], p. 92
45) Adolf Wagner, At an Education Day of the SA Leaders in Erding, July 13th, 1935
46) Arthur Mitchell, Hitler’s Mountain, [McFarland & Company, 2007], p. 30        

Sunday, June 19, 2016

The Prophet of Chaos and Idolatry Pt. 3

By Sam Shamoun

We arrive at the final part of our analysis of Muhammad’s teaching regarding the issue of supplication.

As we saw, the Islamic sources transmit two different and contradictory teachings from Muhammad concerning the permissibility of invoking someone other than Allah for help. On the one hand, there are clear statements where Muhammad taught his followers to pray to him and ask for his help with Allah. At the same time, however, Muhammad explicitly affirmed that supplication is the very heart of worship, and that all help and is to be sought from Allah alone. The Quran even warns that calling upon any one other than Allah in prayer and their service to him is to commit the unpardonable sin of shirk.

The contradictory nature of the Islamic sources over this issue has led to a major rift among those Muslims that self-identify as Sunnis. For instance, there are Sunni Muslims who argue that it is permissible to pray to Muhammad and ask for his help precisely because there are sound narrations attributed to their prophet, which say that they can do so. On the other hand, there are other Sunnis who condemn such a practice as idolatry on the basis of other so-called authentic reports and Quranic texts, which emphatically condemn invoking anyone other than Allah. The following debate perfectly illustrates the major problems that these contradictory traditions pose for Sunni Muslims: “Is seeking help from the Prophet Shirk?”

It is rather unfortunate that neither one of these Muslim groups are able to see that they are both absolutely correct in their respective positions, since the fault lay with their sources of authority, which happen to teach that it is both permissible and impermissible to call upon someone besides or alongside Allah.      

These irreconcilable contradictions establish two main facts. First and foremost, they prove that Muhammad was not a prophet, and therefore did not speak by divine inspiration, and that the Quran is not the word of God according to its own criterion. Recall that Q. 4:82 plainly states that finding contradictions and mistakes within the Islamic scripture would automatically falsify it from being a revelation of God. And this is precisely what we find in both the Quran and so-called authentic sunna of Muhammad, namely, gross mistakes that cannot be explained away.   

Secondly, by exhorting his followers to pray to him even after his death and burial, Muhammad ended up replacing the idols worshiped by the Arab pagans, since he basically assumed the very role and status that these so-called gods held in the minds of their followers. 

The Quran testifies that the reason why the pagans invoked their idols is because they were hoping that they would be a means of getting them closer to Allah:

And they worship besides Allah things that hurt them not, nor profit them, and they say: "These are our intercessors with Allah." Say: "Do you inform Allah of that which He knows not in the heavens and on the earth?" Glorified and Exalted be He above all that which they associate as partners with Him! S. 10:18 Hilali-Khan

Beware! Faith (and religion) made exclusively for Allah is His right. Those who accept patrons other than Allah say, “We do not worship them. But they serve to bring us closer to (and let us concentrate on) Allah.” Allah will settle all matters of dispute between people. Indeed, Allah does not guide any ungrateful liar. S. 39:3 Dr. Munir Munshey

The Islamic sources further claim that the pagans of Mecca would approach the Kabah crying out to Allah, acknowledging both their service to him and his sovereignty over the intermediaries whom they prayed to:

They say that the beginning of stone worship among the sons of Ishmael was when Mecca became too small for them and they wanted more room in the country. Everyone who left the town took with him a stone from the sacred area to do honour to it. Whenever they settled they set it up and walked round it as they went round the Ka‘ba. This led them to worship what stones they pleased and those which made an impression on them. Thus as generations passed they forgot their primitive faith and adopted another religion for that of Abraham and Ishmael. They worshiped idols and adopted the same errors as the peoples before them. Yet they retained and held fast practices going back to the time of Abraham, such as honouring the temple and going round it, the great and little pilgrimage, and the standing on ‘Arafa and Muzdalifa, sacrificing the victims, and the pilgrim cry at the great and little pilgrimage, while introducing elements which had no place in the religion of Abraham. Thus, Kinana and Quraysh used the pilgrim cry: ‘At Thy service, O God [Allahumma], at Thy service!’ At Thy service, Thou without an associate but the associate that Thou hast. Thou ownest him and what he owns.’ They used to acknowledge his unity in their cry and then include their idols with God, putting the ownership of them in His hand. God said to Muhammad: ‘Most of them do not believe in God without associating others with Him,’ i.e. they do not acknowledge My oneness with knowledge of My reality, but they associate with Me one of My creatures. (The Life of Muhammad: A Translation of Ibn Ishaq’s Sirat Rasul Allah, with introduction and notes by Alfred Guillaume [Oxford University Press, Karachi, Tenth impression 1995], pp. 35-36; bold and underline emphasis ours)


7. The Jahiliyyah Arabs cry during Hajj. Ibn ‘Abbas reported that the mushrikun would say (during Hajj): ‘I respond to your call, O Allah, I respond to your call. There is no partner that you have…’ at this, the Prophet would interject and say, ‘Woe to you! Stop (here), stop (here),’ but they would proceed, ‘…except a partner that belongs to you. You control him, and all that he controls.’ They would say this while performing tawaf around the Ka‘bah. In this narration, Ibn ‘Abbas mentions the Prophet’s stance towards their acts of worship during the early days of Makkah. The mushrikun would affirm that Allah has no partners, and the Prophet would try to stop them at this point. However, they would proceed with their cry, and affirm partners who were under the complete control of Allah. So they would affirm the complete Lordship of Allah, and claim that these partners were under Allah’s total control, yet direct acts of worship to these partners. This narration is also explicit in that they ascribed total Rububiyyah to Allah, and believed that these idols did not have any power in and of themselves. Rather, any power that they had, according to them, was derived from Allah’s permission. (An Explanation of Muhammad ibn ‘Abdul Wahhab’s Kashf al-Shubuhat - Critical Study of Shirk, translation and commentary by Abu Ammaar Yasir Qadhi [Al-Hidaayah Publishing & Distribution, Birmingham, UK], 13. An Explanation of Kashf al-Shubuhat, The Clearing of Doubts, p. 88; bold emphasis ours) 

At the same time they would also cry out to some of the other gods that they worshiped, such as Manat:

[Azr. i. 73. ‘Amr b. Lu’ayy set up Manat on the sea-shore near Qudayd. Azd and Ghassan went on pilgrimage to it and revered it. When they had made the compass of the Ka‘ba and hastened from ‘Arafat and completed the rites at Mina they did not shave their hair until they got to Manat, to whom they would cry Labbayki… (The Life of Muhammad, p. 39; bold emphasis ours)

Now how is this any different from what Muhammad did in allowing his followers to make him an intermediary between them and their god? After all, don’t Muslims affirm that Allah is sovereign over Muhammad, who completely owns Muhammad and everything he owns? Don’t they also believe that any power Muhammad has to help or benefit them comes directly from Allah, since Muhammad has absolutely no power in and of himself? And isn’t true that the reason why they call upon him now that he is dead in his grave is because they hope that he might be able to bring them closer to Allah?  

The fact is that Muhammad’s teachings regarding the (im)permissibility of supplicating him together with Allah have not only brought about such great chaos and confusion to his followers, but his instructions have also led Muslims into committing idolatry. After all, what could be more idolatrous than praying to a dead man, and crying out to him along with God for help?  

Related Articles

Muslims Who Worship/Pray to Muhammad Pt. 1, Pt. 2