When he once had captured a fortress inhabited by a tribe of Jews, his judgment was, “The men shall be put to death, the women and children sold into slavery, and the spoil divided amongst the army.” Then, trenches were dug, some seven hundred men were marched out, forced to seat themselves in rows along the top of the trenches, beheaded, and then tumbled into a long gaping grave. Meanwhile, he looked on until, tiring of the monotonous spectacle, he departed to amuse himself with a Jewess whose husband had just perished.

Can you guess to which historical figure the above acts have been attributed? Who “he” in the above modified excerpt is? Clue: it is not Hitler.

Those who still could not figure out and are curious can know that with some clever use of Google. If your impatience is troubling you, then the excerpt has been taken from pages 66 to 67 of this book – The Necessity of Atheism (click). Those who find religions and/or such violence fascinating can download the above book legally for free at Free Cellphone eBooks (click), where you will find the history of religions full of such and worse gore and violence. [The ‘RTF’ format can be used to download the file to be read on a PC using software like Notepad, Word or Wordpad. To read it on cellphone you can download the ‘JAR’ version to your PC and transfer it to your cellphone, or instead directly download it from your cellphone. The book takes about 10 hours to read.]

While, it might be further claimed that D. M. Brooks must have lied, it seems that the above excerpt is a translation from the accounts of an historian (click) who was in a position much better than us to know the truth. This can be sort of confirmed by what is written here (click) [search for “Bostom” to reach the relevant portion].

Now, some might wonder why would I want to dig so much into history, and point out such disturbing things. The only reason is that it is nauseating to repeatedly come across assertions to the effect of:

Religions basically teach the path of truth, peace, love and justice [add as many virtues you want to, here]. Some followers misunderstand religion; they misinterpret verses. They are bad people who do bad things in the ‘name’ of religion. So, religions are actually ‘good’ for us, but only if we follow them faithfully. That’s all! We must learn, not from the manipulative religious leaders of the modern era, but from the words and deeds of the wise founders of the religion…

Okay. Alright…

Go, learn!

24 thoughts on “Nazism?

    • iBeingMe

      Perhaps, it is happening more so with Islam. Though such denial exists in Christianity, Judaism, and back home even in India with regard to certain aspects of Indic civilization, in case of the former two, at least there is a significant ‘turn over rate’ of atheists. Significant fraction of Christians and Jews is turning away from organized religion. They find the untruth and violence in religions indefensible. Such things are unfortunately not happening in the Islamic world, or at least we’re not coming to know of them.


  1. Muslims defend these despicable act by invoking erstwhile morality of Arabia. My counter question always is if a reformer a prophet had to be judged by the existing morality of certain time and place then what sort of bloody prophet he is. There is no need for these sort of reformers at all. I always hear deafening silence after this.
    Buddha didn’t hide behind such despicable morality of time why sud some1 claiming prophethood thousand years down the line invoke such nonsense to defend his acts.

    This man on his death-bed goaded his henchmen to drive Kafirs out of arabia. He promised all muslims who conquer constantipole heavely abode; as a result for 900 years oner after another islamic army ketp attacking Constantinopole.

    My point is he kept shedding blood even long after he was dead.

    • AnilAArush,

      Yes, you’ve raised very valid points. If a religious leader widely respected did not make efforts to make a switch to more accommodative environment,then what’s the point proclaiming that the religion he had propounded was one of peace?

      Also, what people do not openly concede is that the reason behind all this blood-shed was political ambition. It makes things further worse.

      It takes incredible amount of dishonesty to believe that whatever is written in the Quran is the unquestionable word of the God.

      It is this kind of closemindedness to rational scrutiny that I find most dangerous.

      Thanks for reading and commenting!

  2. Pingback: Tweets that mention Nazism? « Neglected Serendipity --

  3. Blood and gore have been glorified and accepted in Islam.

    Somehow the positives of this religion are not coming to the fore. Acts of it followers are primarily responsible,secondly more the media tries to portray Muslims as victims, greater the abhorrence for the religion and its followers, even when we know it is a minuscule portion of the followers who are indulging in act of senseless violence.

    Finally the tendency among the Muslims to identify themselves with the community world wide ahead of their national identity is not helping their cause.

    • Anil Kohli

      Welcome to my new blog!

      Yes, you’ve put all the problems so well, there’s nothing I could disagree with. While I’m not a great fan of nationalism, at least it makes much better practical sense than a pan-religionism, say e.g., pan-Islamism. Pan-Islamism is indeed a problem. It transforms it into an ambitious political movement.

      Thanks for your time!

      • Dear Ketan,

        When I refer to religious identity over national, I am not speaking about nationalism at all.

        This world is divided along many lines and one them happens to be the geographical boundaries called countries. Individuals living within the confines of a particular country carry Passports of that country and this is the nationality I was alluding to.

        I had touched upon the subject Religion or Nation first in a blog back in 2009 below is the link please do read it.“Religion or Nation First”

        While I am here I will take this opportuinty to higlight another couple of points.

        Islam does not subscribe to oneness of God, instead it project Allaha as the supreme God, nothing before and nothing after.

        While the followers of Islam do say Allaha O Akbar they ignore his message of equal respect for all religions.

        The changes if any will have to come from within the followers of Islam, cannot be imposed as they will be unacceptable and non durable.

        • Anil Kohli,

          I’m not sure if Islam states anything explicitly about the equality of all religions. And of course, perhaps none do. But what is worrying is the amount of intolerance and hatred that seems to have been spewed against the nonbelievers in the Quran.

  4. I am not shocked at all. I know the hit of misconception while reading any holy book is very frequent. What I am shocked at is why the man cannot have wise combination of Science and Religion.

    I firmly believe, the only application of any religion is to boost one’s mind positively, to make orient one for good deeds, to educate one to know the differentiate the duty and save one from temptation to follow easy (but misleading) path.

    If you use religion in the right way, you get peace of mind, you succeed in your duty. Look at Krishna, he worked as a catalyst in the great war in Kurukshetra. Now a days psychiatry does this only. Some govern the situation by drug, some by counselling but after the situation is worsened. Dharma is supposed to do that by shaping the character (the personality) of everyone following it and hence, making the society morally strong, free of fear and level the society when needed.

    • Dinesh Karia,

      Welcome to the new blog!

      I do not agree with the role you feel religion plays/ought to play. See a comment (click) I just posted today.

      I feel to be good humans, conscience, common sense and honest thinking are sufficient. And none of these require God to exist. So, religion’s role is pretty much curtailed there.

      There are a few benefits of religion, no doubt, but I think even without religion, but those benefits are not exclusive.

      You gave the example of Krishna. I usually wouldn’t have problems with giving examples. But I would start having problems when Krishna or any other God/historical figure’s action would be taken as template to be followed without critical inquiry. We have to keep our minds open to the idea that Krishna or for that matter any Prophet or interlocutor between humans and ‘God’ could have been wrong. We need not do something simply because they had also done or asked us to do something. If we’re able to develop this much confidence in our ability to think and that of the current generation, then we would see most of the religious teaching becoming redundant.

      I do not know what you exactly meant by ‘Dharma’. If you meant “ethics”, then yes I agree – everyone must study and think over issues of ethics. They must try to think in their mind why certain action in a certain condition would be right or wrong. If we can do that then the amount of insecurity in the society would certainly decrease.

      Thanks for your views and for voting!

      Take care.

      • “And none of these require God to exist.” Very true; and yes “those benefits are not exclusive”

        It is just like: For fever, PCM helps a lot but to take care of fever, one does not require PCM, nor is PCM exclusive. But that does not mean we should rule out PCM just because it is not inevitable and not exclusive.

        Now about Krishna: I used his name as a general example and highlighted only the incident to impress upon that Religion’s role (Holy books, Prophets, Deities, Messengers and all included) is simply to work as a catalyst. Just like the counselling by psychologists, marriage counselors etc. the above entities do not have to carry out anything in reality, they have to prepare the people to take proper (and not a particular) stand in every situation that arises in the life. (Of course I do not mind your use of the word interlocutor but interlocutor comes into scene only after the problem takes place, where as the above entities have to prepare the society just like a teacher has to prepare students beforehand)

        “We need not do something simply because they had also done or asked us to do something.”

        Oh no, not at all. I would be the last to follow anyone (could it be even the god himself/herself) blindly. Why even to follow any one. I have not seen any tree following anyone, no cat/rat/dog following anyone, then why me? Of course, we should analyse what the leaders (Ram/Krishna/Prophet/Jesus/…) said/did and decide our own stand at every moment on each issue of our life, including ethics. What I say ethics, may not have any values according to others, theirs might be a different situation, even in the same situation they might have different analysis. If one goes to doctor in these days with fever, the clinical diagnosis will be different and the same doctor would have other clinical views in different season (also in other countries). But the guiding factors would be the books of medicines and the reports of the current News and Trends.

        One clarification, I feel, is inevitable here.
        In a year I hardly go to temple/mosque/Gurudwara/church about 5 to 10 times and most of the time accompanying family members. Besides, I hate to go (and so do not go) to him when he is busy, especially on festivals like New Year Day, Janmashthami and all other such. We mutually follow the understanding that he will silently come to me when he is bored of crowd (LOL!). For me HE is all the time with me (you may call him god, you may call him messenger or whatever) in the form of my thoughts. Yes, I have monologue (rather dialogue with him when he represents my thoughts and I make counter arguments to understand him).

        It is these dialogues that decide how should I behave with my students, how should I teach, and above all why (and how) should I register my oppose to the actions, disapproved by me, of my elders/bosses/friends.

        NB:- When I was stuck on some point while replying your mail, I diverted to this blog and started writing here. I hope I have covered majority of the points of your above reply. And yes, I do love the exchange of thoughts as it makes me clarity about me to myself.

        • Dinesh Karia,

          Thank you, very much sir for an elaborate comment!

          You might be surprised, but when I used to be e believer, I used to have such dialogs with myself, but later realized it was just myself having arguments and counter-arguments with myself. And what I said about blind following does not apply to you, but it does to those people who are able to muster enough courage to blow themselves up or to fly planes into buildings.

          Take care.

  5. sir,as i as reading i wished the post was really long it was in good terms with reality.
    always thought that a religion formed by prophets might have validity in their time or era(may be some of them had a bigger political agenda)but not fully applicable to this point in time.and i dont believe commanising the misinterpretaion factor to all religions makes certain religion devine.cross question is why people follow?imagine a political leader of today say lalu(i conider him to be the most corrupt politician in the universe)even he can win elections,with all the crime and falsehood,he has followers in lakhs!why cant people,great media minds,analysts come clear wid his real agenda,no one personality or power,blind faith,cult figure matters.if u see the arab world how it changes after the 6th century with the rise of islam and the conquering of the whole arab world right under the nose of prophet mohammad one would really doubt the original saying of peace and harmony..blah blah.
    so its not always the misconception its the true raw faith.on the contrary if u divert from the original prophetic teaching things might change for good!
    thank you.

    • gdeepy,

      Welcome to the blog! I must really commend you for your honesty. Your analysis is very accurate.

      I find it very worrying to see people get so politically correct to preempt criticism of their own religion, to which end they end up with nonsensical platitudes like “all religions teach path of love and peace”.


    • Sourav,

      Thanks for reading! It is your personal choice to speak or not speak about religions, but I did not get the relation between not believing in religions and not speaking about them. 🙂

    • Sir,

      I don’t know if you know this or not, but ‘Akbar’ roughly translates as ‘great’. So, “Allah o’ Akbar, Akbar o’ Allah” roughly translates as “Allah is great, (and) great is Allah”. So, that saying has nothing to do with emperor Akbar as far as I know. Akbar’s original name was Jalal-ud-Din, and he was called ‘Jalal-ud-Din Akbar’ meaning “Akbar the Great”, just like “Ashoka the Great” and “Alexander the Great”.

      • Manas,

        Thanks! The article is very long; I haven’t gone through it till now. Might go through. Yes, V. S. Naipaul had also spoken eloquently on such white-washing of history.

  6. Pingback: 2010 in review – Courtesy: WordPress | Neglected Serendipity

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s