fredag, marts 14, 2008

Jung (1939): Hitler er en ny Muhammed

Den schweitziske psykoanalytiker Carl Jung blev i et interview i slutningen af 30´erne spurgt, hvilken religiøs retning Europa bevægede sig i. Han svarede:

"We do not know whether Hitler is going to found a new Islam. He is already on the way; he is like Muhammad. The emotion in Germany is Islamic; warlike and Islamic. They are all drunk with wild god. That can be the historic future" (Andrew Bostom).

Albert Speer, Nazitysklands rustningsminister, skrev i sine erindringer:

"When the Mohammedans attempted to penetrate beyond France into Central Europe during the eighth century, his visitors had told him, they had been driven back at the Battle of Tours. Had the Arabs won this battle, the world would be Mohammedan today. For theirs was a religion that believed in spreading the faith by the sword and subjugating all nations to that faith. Such a creed was perfectly suited to the Germanic temperament" (ibid).

Speer citerer Hitler for at sige:

You see, it’s been our misfortune to have the wrong religion. Why didn’t we have the religion of the Japanese, who regard sacrifice for the Fatherland as the highest good? The Mohammedan religion too would have been much more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness?” (ibid)

Den schweitziske teolog Karl Barth skrev i 1939:

"It is impossible to understand National Socialism unless we see it in fact as a new Islam, its myth as a new Allah, and Hitler as this new Allah’s Prophet" (ibid).

5 kommentarer:

Ulla Nørtoft Thomsen sagde ...

Ovennævnte kilde viser også, hvor anderledes frit tidligere tiders historikere har karakteriseret ham I ved nok:

"Being imbued with fanaticism was the ultimate source of Muhammad’s great strength, and lead to his triumph as a despot, according to the 19th century Swiss historian Burckhardt:

Muhammad is personally very fanatical; that is his basic strength. His fanaticism is that of a radical simplifier and to that extent is quite genuine. It is of the toughest variety, namely doctrinaire passion, and his victory is one of the greatest victories of fanaticism and triviality. All idolatry, everything mythical, everything free in religion, all the multifarious ramifications of the hitherto existing faith, transport him into a real rage, and he hits upon a moment when large strata of his nation were highly receptive to an extreme simplification of the religious.

The Arabs, Burckhardt emphasizes, Muhammad’s henchmen, were not barbarians and had their own ingenuities, and spiritual traditions. Muhammad’s successful preaching among them capitalized upon an apparent longing for supra-tribal unification, “an extreme simplification.” Muhammad’s genius, “lies in divining this.” Utilizing portions of the most varied existing traditions, and taking advantage of the fact that “the peoples who were now attacked may also have been somewhat tired of their existing theology and mythology,” Muhammad

…with the aid of at least ten people, looks over the faiths of the Jews, Christians, and Parsis [Zoroastrians], and steals from them any scraps that he can use, shaping these elements according to his imagination. Thus everyone found in Muhammad’s sermons some echo of his accustomed faith. The very extraordinary thing is that with all this Muhammad achieved not merely lifetime success, the homage of Arabia, but founded a world religion that is viable to this day and has a tremendously high opinion of itself.

Burckhardt concludes that despite this achievement, Muhammad was not a great man, although he accepts the understandable inclination,

…to deduce great causes from great effects, thus, from Muhammad’s achievement, greatness of the originator. At the very least, one wants to concede in Muhammad’s case that he was no fraud, was serious about things, etc. However, it is possible to be in error sometime with this deduction regarding greatness and to mistake mere might for greatness. In this instance it is rather the low qualities of human nature that have received a powerful presentation. Islam is a triumph of triviality, and the great majority of mankind is trivial…But triviality likes to be tyrannical and is fond of imposing its yoke upon nobler spirits. Islam wanted to deprive distinguished old nations of their myths, the Persians of their Book of Kings, and for 1200 years it has actually prohibited sculpture and painting to tremendously large populations".

Anonym sagde ...

Hehe - når situationen kræver det, springer Ulla Abdullah ud som jungianer.

Jeg er enig i, at Jung på mange måder var en viis mand, men knap så meget på det politiske som på det psykologiske og 'symbolske'.

Lad mig også minde om, at Jung skrev et essay med titlen 'Wotan', hvor de to koryfæer Odin og hitler blev sammenlignet. Hvormed du pludselig kan legitimere en analogi mellem nordisk identitet og en nazistisk.

I det hele taget kan du nok ikke bruge Jung til så meget i din islam-bashing, i hvert fald ikke før du graver lidt dybere i både Jung og tiden og omstændighederne for hans virke.

Ulla Nørtoft Thomsen sagde ...

Ja, du er vel jungianer også, Raapil. For hunnen da, menneske.

Anonym sagde ...

Sådan Ulla: Ad hominem. Flot!

Ulla Nørtoft Thomsen sagde ...


Tilføj en kommentar