text: User:Qwerty~enwikibooks/Beg eo

title: User:Qwerty~enwikibooks/Beg eo


text:
Adventist Youth Honors Answer Book/Camping/Food storage

The most important thing you must remember about storing food on a campout is that it should never be stored in a tent where people will sleep. Animals will smell your food, and if it's in your tent, they will find a way in. Instead, store the food outside the tent.

If you have a vehicle available at your campsite, you may store the food inside, but be sure to seal it tightly. A determined bear can get inside a locked vehicle, and if he decides that's what he wants to do, the car will sustain heavy damage. On the other end of the animal spectrum, are mice, which can also enter a locked car - even the trunk. It is therefore important to seal the food tightly so that the aroma does not draw unwanted attention from unwanted visitors.

If you do not have a vehicle or a trailer in which to store your food, you may place it in a bag and suspend it at least 15 feet (4.5 meters) above the ground by tying the bag to a rope and hanging it over a tree branch. Black bears can and do climb trees, so make sure the bag is well out of their reach - away from the trunk, and at least 4 feet (1.2 m) below the branch from which it is suspended.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
Adventist Youth Honors Answer Book/Camping/Clean utensils

Make sure you clean your cooking utensils thoroughly as soon as your meal is over. Raccoons will sneak into a camp full of people distracted by tending their campfire and carry away your utensils so they may lick your ladles clean. The only problem is that they almost never return them. Ants an other insects may not abscound with your gear, but you do not want them crawling all over your spatulas either.

|


text: Category:Book:Writing Effective Songs

title: Category:Book:Writing Effective Songs


text: Category:Book:Writing Effective Songs/Redirects


text:
Adventist Youth Honors Answer Book/Camping/Bread on a stick

First you will need a bed of coals. If you attempt to bake your bread over a flame, it will be burned on the outside and raw on the inside. Make the bread dough or bring a frozen tube of pre-made dough. Get a straight stick long and clean the end of it off. You can do this by removing the bark or by washing it in clean water. Wrap the dough in a thin layer around the stick, spiralling it as you go. The dough should cover the top of the stick. Once the dough is secured to the stick, jam the other end of the stick into the ground or support it with rocks or large pieces of firewood, so that the bread is held over the coals. The bread dough should be held at a distance from the coals where it is uncomfortably hot to hold your hand. Turn the stick every couple of minutes until the outside is golden brown (this is why you need a straight stick). You can eat the bread right off the stick. This is an excellent early morning activity while everyone is tying to warm up around the fire. It works equally well at night.

/Overlapping requirements


text: Category:Book:Sound Recording

title: Category:Book:Sound Recording


text:
User:Whiteknight/myskin.js

//interface scripts import_script('User:Whiteknight/links.js'); import_script('User:Whiteknight/switcher.js');

//Gadget Scripts

import_script('User:Whiteknight/gadgetscore.js'); import_script('User:Whiteknight/designer3.js'); import_script('User:Whiteknight/printversion.js'); import_script('User:Whiteknight/categorize.js'); import_script('User:Whiteknight/remotetalk.js'); import_script('User:Whiteknight/editinsert.js');

title: User:Whiteknight/myskin.js


text: Category:Book:Sound Recording/Redirects

title: Category:Book:Sound Recording/Redirects


text:
MediaWiki:Common.js

/** * Redirect User:Name/skin.js and skin.css to the current skin's pages * (unless the 'skin' page really exists). * * Dependencies: mediawiki.util * * @source https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Snippets/Redirect_skin.js * @revision 2016-04-13 */ if ( mw.config.get( 'wgArticleId' ) === 0 && mw.config.get( 'wgNamespaceNumber' ) === 2 ) { mw.loader.using( 'mediawiki.util', function {		var titleParts = mw.config.get( 'wgPageName' ).split( '/' );		// Make sure there was a part before and after the slash		// And that the latter is 'skin.js' or 'skin.css'		if ( titleParts.length == 2 ) {			var userSkinPage = titleParts[0] + '/' + mw.config.get( 'skin' );			if ( titleParts[1] === 'skin.js' ) {				location.href = mw.util.getUrl( userSkinPage + '.js' );			} else if ( titleParts[1] === 'skin.css' ) {				location.href = mw.util.getUrl( userSkinPage + '.css' );			}		}	} ); }

// Book specific mw.config.set( 'wgBookName', ( mw.config.get( 'wgPageName' ).split( '/', 1 )[0] || '' ).split( ':', 2 ).join( ':' ) );

if ( mw.config.get( 'wgCanonicalSpecialPageName' ) === 'Watchlist' ) { importStylesheet( 'MediaWiki:Common.css/Watchlist.css' ); importScript('MediaWiki:Common.js/WatchlistNotice.js'); } else if ( mw.config.get( 'wgCanonicalSpecialPageName' ) === 'Recentchanges' ) { importStylesheet( 'MediaWiki:Common.css/Recentchanges.css' ); } else if ( $.inArray( mw.config.get( 'wgAction' ), ['edit', 'submit', 'upload'] ) !== -1 ) { importScript('MediaWiki:Common.js/Toolbox.js'); }

/* * Use Gadgets whenever possible to minimize loading for all users for every page. * Wait for mediawiki.util to be ready because some things assume its availability. */ mw.loader.using( 'mediawiki.util', function {		// Page specific - lynchpin for dialog 	importScript( 'MediaWiki:Common.js/w/' + mw.config.get( 'wgPageName' ) );

// Imported scripts importScript('MediaWiki:Common.js/Relics.js'); importScript('MediaWiki:Common.js/ExtraTools.js'); importScript('MediaWiki:Common.js/CollapseElements.js'); importScript('MediaWiki:Common.js/NavigationTabs.js'); importScript('MediaWiki:Common.js/Displaytitle.js'); // importScript('MediaWiki:Common.js/RandomBook.js'); importScript('MediaWiki:Common.js/Perbook.js'); importScript('MediaWiki:Common.js/tabs.js'); importScript('MediaWiki:Common.js/top.js'); importScript('MediaWiki:Common.js/review.js'); importScript('MediaWiki:Common.js/Categories.js'); importScript('MediaWiki:Common.js/use.js'); importScript('MediaWiki:Common.js/Slideshows.js'); // DO NOT ADD CODE BELOW THIS LINE });

title: MediaWiki:Common.js


text:
User talk:194.7.217.5

Welcome!
Welcome to Wikibooks, a collection of open-content textbooks! You don't have to log in to read or edit articles on Wikibooks, but creating an account is quick, free and non-intrusive, requires no personal information, and gives you many benefits, including:
 * The use of a username of your choice
 * The ability to view all your contributions via a "My contributions" link
 * Your own user page
 * Your own talk page which, if you choose, also allows users to send you messages without knowing your e-mail address
 * The use of your own personal watchlist to which you can add articles that interest you
 * The ability to rename pages.
 * The ability to upload images
 * The ability to customize the appearance and behavior of the website
 * The eligibility to become an administrator
 * The right to be heard in votes and elections
 * Your IP address will no longer be visible to other users.

We hope that you choose to become a Wikibookian and create an account. Feel free to ask me any questions you may have on my talk page. By the way, make sure to sign your posts and comments with four tildes (~~~~), which will let others know who left it.

-- Herby talk thyme 10:15, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Naming
The page you are working Islam:Way of Life on is not named in accordance with policy here. Corrent naming would be either Islam/Way of Life with Way of life as a sub page or Islam Way of Life without any punctuations. Please let me know which would be best & I will rename it. It really would be better if you created an account -- Herby talk thyme 10:15, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Dear Herby, I am fully aware of the Naming policy. But, as far I know, "Islam" is a namespace and a namespace precede a wikibook title with colon (":"). A good example is Wikibooks:Naming Policy.

That is my preferred choice. This is because in real world, "Islam" has many factions. And I don't they will not collaborate to create one wikibook called "Islam" with several pages, such as "Islam/Way of Life"

So, you can rename the page anytime to conform the Naming policy. Here my preferences, from the best to the worst:
 * 1) Islam:Way of Life
 * 2) Islam/Way of Life
 * 3) Islam Way of Life

If you choose the preference number 2, please rename as well the following books.
 * Islam:Law of Nature
 * Islam:Spirituality
 * Islam:Legislation
 * Islam:Civilization

I wish you keep the preference 1. But if not, I am fully support of enforcing policies anyway.

Aburizal 10:42, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

title: User talk:194.7.217.5


text:
User talk:AledJames

Hello and welcome to Wikibooks!

Here are some tips to help you get started:
 * You should sign your name on Talk and vote pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~.
 * Remember to conduct any editing experiments in the sandbox.
 * If you're a Wikipedian, see Wikibooks for Wikipedians for a primer on how things work here (it's a little different).
 * If you want to base your work here on materials from Wikipedia, please use WB:RFI to bring the material over in compliance with the GFDL.
 * If you're an instructor and plan on using wikibooks for a class project, see Guidelines for class projects
 * Please say hello at the Staff Lounge with any questions or ideas.
 * Eventually, you might want to read the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines.
 * Please take a look at Naming policy before starting a new book.
 * Remember to maintain a Neutral point of view.
 * Explore, be bold in editing pages, and have fun!

You will find more resources in Community Portal. If you want to ask a question, visit the Study help desk, the Staff lounge, IRC channel or ask me personally on my talk page. For site news, see the Bulletin board. It might be an idea if you add this page to your "watchlist" so that you can see when any new information is posted there.

Good luck! -- Herby talk thyme 10:38, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikibooks Newsletter, Volume 1
(Wikibooks gazette home | Discuss | Bulletin board | Subscription list)

This is a short newsletter that is being distributed to all active wikibookians. You are getting this message because you are recognized as an established contributor to the project. This newsletter will be distributed on a regular basis to help share news, information, and tips. It comes from a bot account, User:The Staff. User:The Staff is currently operated by a team of wikibooks admins, the complete list of which is available on the user page of the bot. If you would like to not receive this newletter anymore, please remove your name from the list at Active wikibookians.

The work you do at Wikibooks is greatly appreciated. However there are plenty of other opportunities for you to get involved and help us to create a thriving Wikibooks community. We are sure that there are things we can do to help you and your understanding of Wikibooks and similarly there are certainly things you could do to help Wikibooks become a better place.

We would like to ask all wikibookians to add the Bulletin Board to your watchlists. The Bulletin Board is a fast and easy way for wikibookians to communicate important news and events to the entire community. If you have important news to share with the community, you can feel free to add your own entry to that page.

If you have general questions or comments about Wikibooks, you are welcome to post a message on The Staff Lounge, a free discussion area. Your input would also be welcomed in the Votes for Deletion and Requests for Adminship discussion pages. These pages are all active discussion areas that help to shape the Wikibooks community as a whole.

Sometimes it is easy to forget that the Wikibooks community is much larger and more diverse then the people who work in a single book, or on a single bookshelf. Hopefully, together we can all make Wikibooks a better place, and a more valuable educational resource.

The Staff 04:16, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

=Welsh=

Hi AledJames, it's Kijog here, thanks for your edits on mutations and the rest etc... it would have taken me ages to have done all that! I'm only a learner, whereas you're a native speaker so please look out for poor Welsh on my part... My wish list is to have a series of lessons as well as the grammar section we already have. I'm going to put what I think is a rough lessonplan on the Welsh Talk page in the near future, so we can discuss what should go in or not before we start writing them. Anything in particular you want to see? Kijog 10:24, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

--- Perhaps for each lesson:

1) Some simple phrases 2) Vocabulary 3) Some grammar, ie sentence structures 4) Some exercises

That's roughly how "Teach yourself" did it (the 1970's editions)

AledJames 10:36, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

title: User talk:AledJames


text:
User talk:Jess0501

Hello and welcome to Wikibooks!

Here are some tips to help you get started:
 * You should sign your name on Talk and vote pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~.
 * Remember to conduct any editing experiments in the sandbox.
 * If you're a Wikipedian, see Wikibooks for Wikipedians for a primer on how things work here (it's a little different).
 * If you want to base your work here on materials from Wikipedia, please use WB:RFI to bring the material over in compliance with the GFDL.
 * If you're an instructor and plan on using wikibooks for a class project, see Guidelines for class projects
 * Please say hello at the Staff Lounge with any questions or ideas.
 * Eventually, you might want to read the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines.
 * Please take a look at Naming policy before starting a new book.
 * Remember to maintain a Neutral point of view.
 * Explore, be bold in editing pages, and have fun!

You will find more resources in Community Portal. If you want to ask a question, visit the Study help desk, the Staff lounge, IRC channel or ask me personally on my talk page. For site news, see the Bulletin board. It might be an idea if you add this page to your "watchlist" so that you can see when any new information is posted there.

Good luck! -- Herby talk thyme 10:41, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

title: User talk:Jess0501


text:
User talk:Perlmonger42

Hello and welcome to Wikibooks!

Here are some tips to help you get started:
 * You should sign your name on Talk and vote pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~.
 * Remember to conduct any editing experiments in the sandbox.
 * If you're a Wikipedian, see Wikibooks for Wikipedians for a primer on how things work here (it's a little different).
 * If you want to base your work here on materials from Wikipedia, please use WB:RFI to bring the material over in compliance with the GFDL.
 * If you're an instructor and plan on using wikibooks for a class project, see Guidelines for class projects
 * Please say hello at the Staff Lounge with any questions or ideas.
 * Eventually, you might want to read the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines.
 * Please take a look at Naming policy before starting a new book.
 * Remember to maintain a Neutral point of view.
 * Explore, be bold in editing pages, and have fun!

You will find more resources in Community Portal. If you want to ask a question, visit the Study help desk, the Staff lounge, IRC channel or ask me personally on my talk page. For site news, see the Bulletin board. It might be an idea if you add this page to your "watchlist" so that you can see when any new information is posted there.

Good luck! -- Herby talk thyme 10:41, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Your account will be renamed
Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Perlmonger42. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Perlmonger42~enwikibooks that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours, Keegan Peterzell Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation 23:34, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Perlmonger42


text:
User talk:Aburizal

Hello and welcome to Wikibooks!

Here are some tips to help you get started:
 * You should sign your name on Talk and vote pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~.
 * Remember to conduct any editing experiments in the sandbox.
 * If you're a Wikipedian, see Wikibooks for Wikipedians for a primer on how things work here (it's a little different).
 * If you want to base your work here on materials from Wikipedia, please use WB:RFI to bring the material over in compliance with the GFDL.
 * If you're an instructor and plan on using wikibooks for a class project, see Guidelines for class projects
 * Please say hello at the Staff Lounge with any questions or ideas.
 * Eventually, you might want to read the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines.
 * Please take a look at Naming policy before starting a new book.
 * Remember to maintain a Neutral point of view.
 * Explore, be bold in editing pages, and have fun!

You will find more resources in Community Portal. If you want to ask a question, visit the Study help desk, the Staff lounge, IRC channel or ask me personally on my talk page. For site news, see the Bulletin board. It might be an idea if you add this page to your "watchlist" so that you can see when any new information is posted there.

Good luck! -- Herby talk thyme 10:45, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Naming
OK - I was not aware that Islam was a namespace in its own right. I'll run than past more experienced folk. Thanks and genuinely welcome -- Herby talk thyme 10:45, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

 * It does not have a namespace. The only project with a full namespace right now is the Cookbook (though Wikijunior has a pseudo-namespace). Your book should be in the main namespace, following normal conventions. -- SB_Johnny | talk 11:20, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

 * Hi All, please read my reasoning here. But, on top of that, I fully support efforts to enforce policy. Aburizal 11:30, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

 * Ah I see... I agree with your resaoning there... Islam should probably just be a bookshelf page with a list of all the books on the subject... I'll work on that this evening. If I could suggest a title, maybe "The Islamic Way of Life"? -- SB_Johnny | talk 12:07, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

 * Bookshelf for Islam? May be a good idea, as long as there is another religion has already a bookshelf.

 * The title you suggested is truly grammatically correct. But, unfortunately being grammatically correct is not the major purpose of the title. The main purpose for this particular book are:
 * 1. Short, familiar and descriptive
 * 2. Strong relation with another book "Islam:Law of Nature"

 * How about "Islamic Way of Life" and "Islamic Law of Nature"?
 * The runner-up are "Koranic Way of Life" and "Koranic Law of Nature".

 * I have made similar mistake with Islam:Way of Life:Keywords, please rename it to "Whatever we chose above/Keywords"
 * Aburizal 12:26, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

 * They all look good... however you want to do it (you're the author, not me). We can move the other one to the regular naming policy.
 * As for other religions having pseufo-bookshelves: I don't see any, but there should be. The book Christianity, for example, should probably be broken into different books for the many sects of Christianity. Books on Hinduism and Buddhism would have the same issues, since they also have radically differing sects. The thing is we haven't had all that many books on religion yet, because it's hard to find people who are both interested in contributing and willing or able to write NPOV books on the subject (which is understandable, of course). But, wikibooks is still young, and I have no doubt that this section will be more developed over time. -- SB_Johnny | talk 12:46, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikibooks Newsletter, Volume 1
(Wikibooks gazette home | Discuss | Bulletin board | Subscription list)

This is a short newsletter that is being distributed to all active wikibookians. You are getting this message because you are recognized as an established contributor to the project. This newsletter will be distributed on a regular basis to help share news, information, and tips. It comes from a bot account, User:The Staff. User:The Staff is currently operated by a team of wikibooks admins, the complete list of which is available on the user page of the bot. If you would like to not receive this newletter anymore, please remove your name from the list at Active wikibookians.

The work you do at Wikibooks is greatly appreciated. However there are plenty of other opportunities for you to get involved and help us to create a thriving Wikibooks community. We are sure that there are things we can do to help you and your understanding of Wikibooks and similarly there are certainly things you could do to help Wikibooks become a better place.

We would like to ask all wikibookians to add the Bulletin Board to your watchlists. The Bulletin Board is a fast and easy way for wikibookians to communicate important news and events to the entire community. If you have important news to share with the community, you can feel free to add your own entry to that page.

If you have general questions or comments about Wikibooks, you are welcome to post a message on The Staff Lounge, a free discussion area. Your input would also be welcomed in the Votes for Deletion and Requests for Adminship discussion pages. These pages are all active discussion areas that help to shape the Wikibooks community as a whole.

Sometimes it is easy to forget that the Wikibooks community is much larger and more diverse then the people who work in a single book, or on a single bookshelf. Hopefully, together we can all make Wikibooks a better place, and a more valuable educational resource.

The Staff 04:16, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

title: User talk:Aburizal


text:
The Holocaust/Anti-Semitism/Untermensch

Untermensch (German for under man, sub-man, sub-human; plural: Untermenschen) is a term from Nazi racial ideology used to describe supposedly inferior people, especially "the masses from the East," that is Eastern European Jews and Soviet Bolshevists (with the two groups often described as being less or more congruent in Nazi propaganda).

The origins of the term "Untermensch"
Although usually considered to have been coined by the Nazis themselves, the term "under man" in (less or more) the above mentioned sense was actually first used by American author Lothrop Stoddard in the title of his 1922 pamphlet The Revolt Against Civilization: The Menace of the Under Man. It was later adopted by the Nazis from that book's German version Der Kulturumsturz: Die Drohung des Untermenschen (1925). The German word "Untermensch" itself had been used earlier (not in a racial sense), e.g. in a 1899 novel by Theodor Fontane. Since most writers who employ the term do not address the question of when and how the word entered the German language (and therefore do not seem to be aware of Stoddard's original term "under man"), "Untermensch" is usually back-translated into English as "sub-human." A leading Nazi attributing the concept of the East-European "under man" to Stoddard is Alfred Rosenberg who, referring to Russian communists, wrote in his ''Der Mythus des 20. Jahrhunderts (1930) that "this is the kind of human being that Lothrop Stoddard has called the 'under man.'" ["...den Lothrop Stoddard als 'Untermenschen' bezeichnete."] Quoting Stoddard: "The Under-Man -- the man who measures under the standards of capacity and adaptability imposed by the social order in which he lives''.

However, it is possible that Stoddard constructed his "under man" as an antipode to Friedrich Nietzsche's Übermensch (or superman) concept. Stoddard doesn't say so explicitly, but he refers critically to the "superman" idea at the end of his book (p.262). Wordplays with Nietzsche's term seem to have been used repeatedly as early as the 19th century and, due to the German linguistic trait of being able to combine prefixes and roots almost at will in order to create new words, this development was even somewhat logical. For instance, German author Theodor Fontane contrasts the Übermensch/Untermensch word pair in his novel Der Stechlin (1898, see Chapter 33). As a matter of fact, even Nietzsche himself used "Untermensch" at least once in contrast to "Übermensch" (Die fröhliche Wissenschaft [1882], 3rd book, Chapter 143) but this bears no resemblance to the Untermensch in later thought. Earlier examples of "Untermensch" include Romanticist Jean Paul using the term in his novel Hesperus  (1795) in reference to an Orangutan (Chapter "8. Hundposttag").

Stoddard's book-long diatribe dealt with the recent takeover of power by the Bolsheviks in Russia, arguing that that country was now ruled by the most degenerate people on the Earth. He thought that the combination of the alleged inherent racial inferiority of Russian Slavs, the idiocy of a political creed that appealed to the vilest human instincts (e.g. jealousy towards the more gifted and the more affluent) and the supposed fact that the Communist Party's rank and file consisted of "born criminals" in the most conventional sense of the word necessitated a completely new term to describe this phenomenon: "the under man." In this sense, for Stoddard, the October Revolution was the battle cry for an upcoming, unavoidable clash of the civilized nations with the "masses of the east." If the white race was intent upon winning that confrontation with the "under man," so the message went, it had to turn away from ill-conceived liberal ideas and adopt drastic changes of policy instead, e.g. by introducing far-ranging eugenics programmes.

The available literature on Nazi Germany would not support the claim that Stoddard's writings were more to the Nazis than a neat summary of racial, social, and political theories that already were or would soon become part and parcel of the Nazis' ideology.

The "Untermensch" in Nazi propaganda and policy
Nazis believed that Jews, Slavs, Gypsies, Altaic peoples or Africans, and asocial element, as well as the mentally or physically disabled, homosexuals, criminals, prostitutes, beggars, tramps, liberals, political dissidents, Jehovah's Witnesses and so-called morally degenerates were subhuman.

The term "Untermensch" was utilized repeatedly in writings and speeches directed against the Jews, the most notorious example being a 1935 SS publication with the title "Der Untermensch" which contains an antisemitic tirade sometimes considered to be an extract from a speech held by Heinrich Himmler. In the pamphlet The SS as an Anti-bolshevist Fighting Organization, Himmler wrote in 1936: We shall take care that never again in Germany, the heart of Europe, will the Jewish-Bolshevistic revolution of subhumans be able to be kindled either from within or through emissaries from without.

One more example for using the term "Untermensch," this time in connection with anti-Soviet propaganda, is another brochure, again titled "Der Untermensch" and edited by Himmler. Published in 1942 after the start of Operation Barbarossa, it is around fifty pages long and consists for the most part of photos casting an extremely negative light on the enemy (see link below for the title page). Historian Robert Jan van Pelt writes that for the Nazis, "it was only a small step to a rhetoric pitting the European Mensch against the Soviet Untermensch, which had come to mean a Russian in the clutches of Judeo-Bolshevism."

The concept of the Soviet "Untermensch" in particular served the Nazis as justification for their genocidal policies and especially their aggression against the Soviet Union in 1941 in order to conquer Lebensraum. Early plans of the Nazi Reich (summarized as Generalplan Ost) envisaged the displacement, enslavement, and elimination of no less than 50 million people who were not considered fit for Germanization from territories it wanted to conquer in Eastern Europe. .See also Genocides in Nazi Germany and occupied Europe.

title: The Holocaust/Anti-Semitism/Untermensch


text:
The Holocaust/Holocaust denial

Holocaust denial or Holocaust revisionism as referred to by its supporters, is the belief that the history of the Holocaust as is commonly told is not correct or complete, more specifically some of the points defended are: that far fewer than around six million Jews were killed by the Nazis (numbers below one million, most often around 30,000 are typically cited); that there never was a centrally-planned Nazi attempt to exterminate the Jews; and/or that there were not mass killings at the extermination camps.

As the Holocaust is generally considered by historians to be one of the most documented events in recent history, these views are not accepted as credible by scholars, with organizations such as the American Historical Association, the largest society of historians in the United States, stating that Holocaust denial is "at best, a form of academic fraud"[49], nevertheless it would be naive to rely only on the "victors" recount of history and dismiss the long effect of war propaganda and indeed some more extremist movements, especially those that defend Zionism in using the event to promote their views and goals.

Holocaust deniers almost always prefer to be called Holocaust revisionists. Historical revisionism, in the original sense of the word, is a well-accepted and mainstream part of the study of history; it is the reexamination of accepted history, with an eye towards updating it with newly discovered, more accurate, and/or less biased information, or viewing known information from a new perspective. Claiming that revisionists deny the Holocaust is misleading, it puts all views against the status quo in a single label and simplifies it to the absurdity of negating the event.

Holocaust revisionists often further claim that Jews and/or Zionists know that the Holocaust never occurred as is commonly described, yet that they are engaged in a massive conspiracy to maintain the illusion of a Holocaust to further their political agenda. Claiming that the Holocaust is only about the capture and the genocide of Jews is an extremely partial view of the event, since it included millions of people in other groups, including Romani, Soviet prisoners of war, Polish and Soviet civilians, homosexuals, people with disabilities, Jehovah's Witnesses and other political and religious opponents, which occurred regardless of whether they were of German or non-German ethnic origin.

Methods used by "Negationists"/"Revisionists"
Much of the controversy surrounding the claims of "Holocaust deniers" centers upon the methods used to present arguments that the Holocaust allegedly never happened. Numerous accounts have been given (including evidence presented in court cases) of claimed "facts" and "evidence"; however, independent research has shown these claims to be based upon flawed research, biased statements, and even deliberately falsified evidence. Opponents of "Holocaust denial" have compiled detailed accounts of numerous instances where this evidence has been altered or manufactured (see below, also see Nizkor Project). Evidence presented by Holocaust deniers has also failed to stand up to scrutiny in courts of law (see Fred A. Leuchter and David Irving), as well as never meeting the standards of independent peer-reviewed journals.

Ken McVay, an activist who works to counter such claims on the Internet, described the modus operandi of "Holocaust deniers" in a 1994 interview:

"'They'll cite a historical text: 'K.K. Campbell says on page 82 of his famous book that nobody died at Auschwitz.' Then you go to the Library of Congress and look up K.K. Campbell, page 82, and what you find he really said was, 'It was a nice day at Dachau.' They get away with this because they know goddamn well most people don't have time to rush off to the Library of Congress. But people read that and say to themselves, 'Who would lie about such a thing when it's so easy to prove them wrong? They must be telling the truth.'' -- Eye magazine (online Web-based magazine), November 10, 1994"

In some cases, while some facts presented are sound, the application of those facts to specific arguments is meaningless or distorted. For example, a plaque placed by the Soviet authorities at Auschwitz read that 4 million people had been killed at the death camp. Western historians never believed that figure, as estimates of the number of people killed at Auschwitz were consistently estimated at 1-1.5 million people. After the fall of the Communist government of Poland, the plaque was changed to 1.1 million victims. Holocaust deniers frequently argue that this proves that the numbers of the Holocaust were exaggerated, when the plaque was never part of any historian's calculations of victims at Auschwitz.

In other cases it appears as though the conflation of facts is used to mislead. A frequently-used photo shows a fairly flimsy gas chamber door. The intent is to confuse the inept reader into believing that gas chambers could not be practically used for extermination, because the victims would break down the door rather than be executed. While the photo is a real gas chamber door, it is not a door that was known to be used on an extermination gas chamber; it is a door likely used on a de-lousing gas chamber.

"Negationism" as anti-Semitism
Many publications and statements by Holocaust deniers have been marked by anti-Semitism. Critics of Holocaust denial have cited many examples where the arguments and proffered evidence have moved from neutral, scholarly presentations to blatant promotion of anti-Semitic ideas and conspiracy theories. As a brief search of the Internet for such terms will reveal, Holocaust deniers have frequently used terms such as "Zionist Collaborator" or "Jew-lover" to describe their opponents. On some internet forums, such as the comments page on YouTube, users claiming to be "revisionists" are so blatantly anti-Semitic that they use terms such as "Zionist liars." On the comments page for a YouTube video titled 'Auschwitz II - The Birkenau Experience: Journey into Hell,' one such user went as far as saying: "Behind every misery, war, lie, deception, bank, greed, and war crime, there is a motherfucking sub-human Jewish retard."

The continuing, persistent efforts by Holocaust deniers to portray mass killings as a mere fiction in the face of overwhelming evidence has led scholars and authorities to question their motives. "Why," it has been asked, "do people deny the Holocaust?" On July 24, 1996, a missive by Harold Covington (the leader of the National Socialist White People's Party) was sent via email to a number of neo-Nazi supporters (many of whom were Holocaust deniers). In this message, Covington explained Holocaust denial in a manner that has been used by its opponents and critics as a definitive answer to the question of why:

"'Take away the Holocaust and what do you have left? Without their precious Holocaust, what are the Jews? Just a grubby little bunch of international bandits and assassins and squatters who have perpetrated the most massive, cynical fraud in human history...I recall seeing a television program on revisionism a few years ago which closed with Deborah Lipstadt making some statement to the effect that: the real purpose of Holocaust revisionism is to make National Socialism an acceptable political alternative again. I normally don't agree with anything a Jew says, but I recall exclaiming, 'Bingo! Got it in one! Give that lady a cigar!'' -- 'On Revisionism' by Harold Covington (writing under the pseudonym Winston Smith), NSNet Bulletin #5, July 24, 1996"

Burden of proof
"Holocaust denial" is widely viewed as unreasonable because it has been observed many times that "Holocaust denial," or "negationism," fails to adhere to rules for the treatment of evidence, rules that are recognized as basic to rational inquiry.

To support a proposition or allegation, a claimant must offer evidence. The merits of this evidence, and the conclusion it can support, will depend on its nature; for example, hearsay would not normally be considered good evidence, but an eyewitness account would be. A second-hand story would not, but an official, dated and signed document testifying to the alleged incident would be. After evidence has been adduced, the claimant's case is then considered to have been made, and the evidence can be evaluated. The claimant's burden of proof has been carried. If an interlocutor would then like to call the claimant's evidence into question, that interlocutor will have to make a claim of his own -- for example, that this or that piece of evidence is a forgery. The burden of proof then shifts to the interlocutor, and the standard of proof will be commensurate with the surety with which the original claim was established. The claimant's evidence has, prima facie, whatever force it has in virtue of its merit as evidence. The interlocutor can't simply continue demanding more proof to answer any conceivable skeptical conjecture or hypothetical possibility he can invent to challenge the claimant; this raises the claimant's burden of proof to an unreasonable level.

In the case of the Holocaust, the survivors, eye witnesses, and historians may collectively be considered the claimants. The prevailing consensus among the informed is that their evidence is overwhelming, and that it proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the Holocaust occurred, and that it occurred as they say it occurred. It is unreasonable to ask the claimants to prove that their evidence is "really real" any more than they already have, unless there is some particular demonstrably credible reason for thinking that it is suspect. If "negationists" would like to cast doubt on this evidence, the burden of proof shifts to them, and they will have a very high standard to meet. They would have to prove, at least with a balance of probabilities, that the greater part of the entire body of evidence attesting to the Holocaust has been fabricated, misrepresented, or misconstrued by thousands upon thousands of critical evaluators. Until they can do that, they have not satisfied the rules for the treatment of evidence recognized to be integral to reason. In the meantime, "Holocaust denial" will continue to be recognized as an unreasonable position.

All of this makes "negationism" different from conspiracy theories generally speaking, since the latter aspire to play by the rules of evidence, but the evidence they adduce is judged poor. Holocaust deniers attempt to set unreasonable standards for evidence, so that they can judge the historian's evidence as poor. This is why "negationists" portray Holocaust scholarship as a conspiracy theory. Still, Holocaust denial is often accompanied by a conspiracy theory of a different sort, namely that Holocaust scholars are conspiring to depict what they allege to be a fictional event as if it were fact.

Evidence of the Holocaust
Evidence of the existence of the Holocaust was well documented by the heavily bureaucratic German government itself. It was further well documented by the Allied forces who entered Germany and its associated Axis states towards the end of World War II. Among the evidence produced was film and stills of the existence of prisoner camps, as well as the testimony of those freed when the camps were entered.

The Holocaust was a massive undertaking that lasted for years across several countries, with its own command and control infrastructure. Although the Nazis made attempts to destroy the evidence of the Holocaust when they could see that their defeat was imminent, they left many tons of documents relating to the Holocaust. Due to the extremely rapid collapse of the Nazi forces at the end of the war, attempts to destroy evidence in Germany were for the most part unsuccessful.

After their defeat, many tons of documents were recovered, and many thousands of bodies were found not yet completely decomposed, in mass graves near many concentration camps. The physical evidence and the documentary proof included records of train shipments of Jews to the camps, orders for tons of cyanide and other poisons, and the remaining concentration camp structures. Interviews with survivors completed the picture.

As a result of the records produced, all mainstream historians agree that Holocaust denial is contrary to the facts of history.

Evidence for Hitler's complicity in the Holocaust

 * Argument: There was no specific order by Adolf Hitler or other top Nazi officials to exterminate the Jews.

Holocaust deniers often cite the fact that there was never a blatant, unquestionable order written or signed by Adolf Hitler that specifically ordered the death of the Jewish populations of Germany or Poland. Critics counter this argument by noting that very few Nazi documents used such obvious terms as "murder" or "death" when addressing their actions. Almost always, they spoke and wrote with suggestive phrases such as "the final solution to the Jewish question" rather than "the destruction of the Jewish people." The most often-cited quotation from Hitler regarding the intention to eliminate the European Jewry comes from his January 30, 1939 speech to the Reichstag, where he is quoted as saying:
 * "Today I want to be a prophet once more: If international Jewish financiers inside and outside Europe again succeed in plunging the nations into a world war, the result will not be the Bolshevization of the earth and with it the victory of Jewry, but the annihilation of the Jewish race in Europe." (Source: )

Provided here is a photographic image of a report from Himmler to Hitler regarding the executions of 363,211 Jewish prisoners in Nazi-occupied Białystok, Poland. This was presented as evidence during the Trials of War Criminals Before the Nürnberg Military Tribunals, of Hitler's knowledge and approval of the executions of Jews and other targeted groups. A translation of the report can be found by clicking on the image.

Evidence that gas chambers were used for killing

 * Argument: Nazis did not use gas chambers to mass murder Jews. Small chambers did exist for delousing and Zyklon-B was used in this process.

There have been claims by Holocaust deniers that the gas chambers built to massacre civilians never existed, and the structures identified as gas chambers actually served other purposes.

One such claim, is that the "alleged" gas chambers at Auschwitz where actually morgues. However, much evidence contradicts the assertion that these chambers where in fact morgues. An inventory discovered after the liberation of the Auschwitz camp, revealed fourteen shower heads and one gas-tight door listed for the cellar in Krema III. On top of all of this, a memo prepared by the Auschwitz construction office on March 31, 1943 is available which reads:

"We take this occasion to refer to another order of March 6, 1943, for the delivery of a gas door 100/192 for Leichenkeller 1 of Krema III, Bw 30a, which is to be built in the manner and according to the same measure as the cellar door of the opposite Krema II, with peep hole of double 8 millimeter glass encased in rubber. This order is to be viewed as especially urgent."

"Revisionists" have yet to offer any credible explanation as to why a morgue would have an "urgent" need for 14 shower heads and one gas-tight door equipt with rubber encased peepholes made out of a double layer of 8 millimeter thick glass, especially in a room that is not connected to running water (as pointed out by Jean Claude Pressac.)

To add to this, another document, a memo from the Auschwitz construction office, dated January 29, 1943, explicitly refers to the cellar of Krema II as a "Vergasungskeller," or "gassing cellar," which most likely refers to an underground gas chamber. Holocaust denier Arthur Butz once claimed that "Vergasung" cannot refer to killing people with gas, but only to the process of converting a solid or liquid into gas. Therefore, he says the "Vergasungskeller," must have been a special room where the fuel for the Auschwitz ovens was converted into gas -- a "gasification cellar." However, this is invalid, given the fact that the Auschwitz ovens where fueled using solid fuel, specifically coke, and therefore did not require any gasification processes what so ever.

Due to the fact that this argument has fallen under intense scrutiny and failed to withstand, "revisionists" have started to alter their story. The majority of "revisionists" now claim that gas was not used to murder Jews and other victims, and that many gas chambers were also built after the war just for show. An often-quoted document advancing this theory is the "Leuchter Report" by Fred A. Leuchter, a paper stating that no traces of cyanide were found when he examined samples taken from one of the Auschwitz gas chambers in 1988. This paper is used to further a common debating tactic, namely the suggestion that because no traces of cyanide were found in 1988, then no cyanide was used at all in Auschwitz, over forty years earlier. Even with the difficulty of finding traces of this material 50 years later, in February of 1990, Professor Jan Markiewicz, Director of the Institute of Forensic Research in Kraków, redid the analysis. Markiewicz and his team used microdiffusion techniques to test for cyanide in samples from the suspected gas chambers, from delousing chambers, and from control areas elsewhere within Auschwitz. The control samples tested negative, while cyanide residue was found in both the delousing chambers and the gas chambers. The amount of cyanide found had a great variability (possibly due to 50 years of exposure to the elements to varying degrees), but even so, the categorical results were that cyanide was found where expected, and not in the control samples.

The cyanide used in Auschwitz and other extermination camps was created through activation of the pesticide Zyklon B, which was used to exterminate prisoners by the thousands. Further investigation into the death camps revealed that the most difficult part of the operation was the disposal of thousands of corpses after the executions had taken place; this required the construction of huge ovens to cremate the corpses.

Another claim made by Holocaust deniers is that there were no vents in the gas chambers through which Zyklon B could be inserted, in the words of Leuchter, "No holes - no Holocaust." The BBC offers a response showing that this requires disregard of much documentation: Deniers have said for years that physical evidence is lacking because they have seen no holes in the roof of the Birkenau gas chamber where the Zyklon was poured in. (In some of the gas chambers the Zyklon B was poured in through the roof, while in others it was thrown in through the windows.) The roof was dynamited at war's end, and today lies broken in pieces, but three of the four original holes were positively identified in a recent paper. Their location in the concrete matches with eyewitness testimony, aerial photos from 1944, and a ground photo from 1943. The physical evidence shows unmistakably that the Zyklon holes were cast into the concrete when the building was constructed.

Another piece of evidence Holocaust deniers frequently question is what happened to the ash after the bodies were cremated (see, for example the IHR's list of questions about the Holocaust). The amount of ash produced in the cremation of a person is about a shoebox full, and disposing of it was not difficult. Aerial photographs of Auschwitz indicate that some ash was piled into the nearby river and marsh, and there is well-documented evidence that other ash was used as fertilizer in nearby fields. Photographs of Treblinka taken by the camp commandant show ash piles being distributed by steam shovels.

A number of other common Holocaust denial claims about gas chambers rely on misdirection, similar to the Auschwitz plaque example given above. For example, the Institute for Historical Review has claimed that Holocaust testimony on gas chambers is unreliable, because, in the words of the IHR: "Hoss said in his confession that his men would smoke cigarettes as they pulled the dead Jews out of the gas chambers ten minutes after gassing. Isn't Zyklon-B explosive? Highly so. The Hoss confession is obviously false." This claim is clearly false, as the Nizkor Project and other sources has pointed out, the minimal concentration of Zyklon-B to be explosive is 56,000 parts per million, while the amount used to kill a human is 300 parts per million, as is evidenced in any common reference guide to chemicals, such as "The Merck Index" and the "CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics". In fact, the Nazis' own documentation stated "Danger of explosion: 75 grams of HCN in 1 cubic meter of air. Normal application approx. 8-10 grams per cubic meter, therefore not explosive." (Nuremberg document NI-9912)

Another example is the claim that "at Birkenau (part of Auschwitz), on the site of the so-called gas chamber and incinerator, there is not nearly enough rubble to represent the remains of a building that size." Historians point out that after liberation the local Polish farming population returned, and, needing materials to rebuild houses before winter, removed large amounts of re-usable bricks from the ruins. There is by the crematorium site a big pile of waste that the salvagers threw aside as they searched for usable bricks.

The Institute for Historical Review publicly offered a reward of $50,000 for verifiable "proof that gas chambers for the purpose of killing human beings existed at or in Auschwitz." Mel Mermelstein, a survivor of Auschwitz, submitted proof, which was then ignored. He then sued IHR and won the $50,000 reward, plus $40,000 in damages for personal suffering as well as having the court declare the occurrence of the Holocaust a legally indisputable fact.

 * External Link: Gassing as a "remedy" for Jews
 * External Link: A detailed refutation of the Leuchter-Report

Evidence for the death toll
Argument: The figure of six million Jewish deaths is an irresponsible exaggeration, and many Jews who actually emigrated to Russia, Britain, Israel and the United States are included in the number.

Six million figure
The figure "six million" (which refers only to Jewish victims, and is larger when counting the other ethnic, religious, and minority groups targeted for extinction) is often downgraded by claims to a figure of only one million deaths, or only three hundred thousand "casualties." Numerous documents archived and discovered after the war gave meticulous accounts of the exterminations that took place at the "death camps" (such as Auschwitz and Treblinka). Deniers claim that these documents are based on Soviet propaganda, primarily from Ilya Ehrenburg's Jewish Anti-Fascist Committee, and are therefore unreliable.

Complicating the matter is that various instances have been reported where the death tolls of particular death camps were claimed to be overstated. Any possible ambiguity in death toll figures has been seized upon by deniers as evidence for their position. Deniers make the mistake of trying to show that debate on the exact number of deaths is somehow evidence that no one died at all. Nevertheless, the evidence for the large death figures quoted by mainstream sources is overwhelming.

A much-quoted instance of disputing the toll is the "Breitbard Document" (actually a paper by Aaron Breitbart), which describes a commemorative plaque at Auschwitz to the victims that died there, which read, Four million people suffered and died here at the hands of the Nazi murderers between the years 1940 and 1945. In 1990, a new plaque replaced the old one. It now says, May this place where the Nazis assassinated 1,500,000 men, women and children, a majority of them Jews from diverse European countries, be forever for mankind a cry of despair and of warning. The lower numbers are due to the fact that the Soviets "purposely overstated the number of non-Jewish casualties at Auschwitz-Birkenau," according to the Simon Wiesenthal Center. Holocaust deniers seize on this discrepancy and insist that the number of Jews killed must be immediately brought down at least 2.5 million. If their presumption that historians had used this statistic to reach their overall estimate was correct and that all demographical statistics where inaccurate they would be partly right, however, they ignore the facts that
 * The 4,000,000 figure of the Soviets included almost 2,000,000 non-Jews.
 * Historians rarely if at all used the 4,000,000 figure in calculating the total number of Jews killed.
 * The widely quoted figure of "six million" was actually achieved through the use of demographical statistics, rather than by tallying the number of casualties per camp.

Jewish population
Deniers consider one of their stronger arguments to be the population of Jews before and after the Holocaust. They claim that the 1940 World Almanac gives the world Jewish population as 15,319,359, while the 1949 World Almanac gives the world Jewish population as 15,713,638. In their view this makes it impossible that 6 million Jews died, even given an extremely high birth rate. They therefore claim that either the figures are wrong, or the Holocaust, meaning the deliberate extermination of millions of Jews, cannot have happened.

In fact, the 1949 World Almanac gives two estimates for the world Jewish population: 11,266,600, sourced to the American Jewish Committe; and, in a separate table, the number that the deniers cite - which is, however, unsourced, and thus cannot be used to prove anything. Moreover, it revises its estimate of the World Jewish population in 1939 upwards, to 16,643,120. Thus, according to the 1949 World Almanac numbers based on the AJC's data the difference between the pre and post war populations is approximately 5,376,520.

In addition, rather than using more accurate census figures and other records, Holocaust deniers rely on a popular compendium whose methodology of assessment is unknown, and whose estimates have varied significantly. For example, the 1982 World Almanac gives the world Jewish population as 14,318,000, while the 1990 World Almanac gives the world Jewish population as 18,169,000, and the 1996 World Almanac gives the world Jewish population as 13,451,000. Either 3.7 million Jews appeared unnoticed between 1982 and 1990, and then 4.5 million Jews disappeared equally unnoticed between 1990 and 1996, or the World Almanac is not a particularly reliable source for accurate estimates of worldwide Jewish population.

Finally, Holocaust deniers are often very subjective when citing sources; other sources give very different figures for the Jewish population before and after the war. For example, the 1932 American Jewish yearbook estimate the total number of Jews in the world at 15,192,218, of whom 9,418,248 resided in Europe. However, the 1947 yearbook states: "Estimates of the world Jewish population have been assembled by the American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee (except for the United States and Canada) and are probably the most authentic available at the present time. The figures reveal that the total Jewish population of the world has decreased by one-third from about 16,600,000 in 1939 to about 11,000,000 in 1946 as the result of the annihilation by the Nazis of more than five and a half million European Jews. In Europe only an estimated 3,642,000 remain of the total Jewish pre-war population of approximately 9,740,000."

This subjectivity, commonly stemming from biases or selectivity of available sources, usually means that Holocaust deniers often ignore the documents produced by the Nazis themselves, who used figures of between 9 and 11 million for the Jewish population of Europe, as evidenced in the notes of the Wannsee Conference. In fact, the Nazis methodically recorded the ongoing reduction of the Jewish population, as in the Korherr Report, which gave the status of the Final Solution through December, 1942:

"The total number of Jews in the world in 1937 is generally estimated at around 17 million, thereof more than 10 million in Europe... From 1937 to the beginning of 1943 the number of Jews, partially due to the excess mortality of the Jews in Central and Western Europe, partially due to the evacuations especially in the more strongly populated Eastern Territories which are here counted as off-going, should have diminished by an estimated 4 million. It must not be overlooked in this respect that of the deaths of Soviet Russian Jews in the occupied Eastern territories only a part was recorded, whereas deaths in the rest of European Russia and at the front are not included at all.... On the whole European Jewry should since 1933, i.e. in the first decade of National Socialist German power, have lost almost half of its population."

Nazi documentation
The Nazis themselves documented many of their crimes. For example, the Höfle Telegram sent by SS-Sturmbannführer Hermann Höfle on January 11, 1943 to SS-Obersturmbannführer Adolf Eichmann in Berlin listed 1,274,166 Jews killed in the four camps of Aktion Reinhard during 1942 alone, while the Korherr Report compiled by an SS statistician, gave a conservative total of 2,454,000 Jews deported to extermination camps or killed by the Einsatzgruppen. The complete status reports of the Einsatzgruppen death squads were found in the archives of the Gestapo when it was searched by the U.S. Army, and the accuracy attested to by the former Einsatzgruppen members who testified during war crime trials and at other times. These reports alone list an additional 1,500,000 or so murders during mass shootings, the vast majority of these victims were Jews. Further, surviving Nazi documentation spells out their plans to murder the Jews of Europe (see the Wannsee Conference), recorded the trains arriving at various death camps, and included photographs and films of many atrocities.

Testimonies
The most telling evidence is the testimony of thousands of survivors of the Holocaust, as well as the testimony of captured Nazi officers at the Nuremberg Trials and other times. Holocaust deniers discount these testimonies claiming that these witnesses were tortured, or that Rudolf Hoess allegedly signed a "blood stained confession" written in a language he did not understand (English) or that the Nuremberg Trial did not follow proper judicial procedures. This argument again ignores publicly available material, including the fact that Hoess's testimony did not consist of merely a signed confession; he also wrote two volumes of memoirs before being brought to trial and gave extensive testimony outside of the Nuremberg proceedings. Further, his testimony agrees with that of other contemporary written accounts by Auschwitz officials, such as Pery Broad, an SS man stationed at Auschwitz while Hoess was the commandant and the diary kept by SS physician at Auschwitz Johann Kremer, as well as the testimony of hundreds of camp guards and victims. The result is that Holocaust deniers have needed to construct an elaborate conspiracy theory involving a massive "Jewish plan" to plant forged documents across the continent of Europe, aided by the torture and forced confession of every captured Nazi officer, soldier, and worker who testified at the war crimes tribunal.

Sonderkommandos provide another key piece of testimony. There were Jewish prisoners who helped march Jews to the gas chambers, and later dragged the bodies to the crematoria. Since they witnessed the entire process, their testimony is vital in confirming that the gas chambers were used for murderous purposes and the scale to which they were used.

Body Disposal at Auschwitz

 * Argument: The facility at Auschwitz II (Birkenau) did not have the means to dispose of the remains of the 1,100,000 alleged victims.

It is commonly claimed by Holocaust deniers that Auschwitz was incapable of disposing of the corpses of the estimated 1.1 million killed at the camp during its operation, so therefore the bodycount needs to be lowered considerably. This argument seldom stands to scrutiny, and is one of the more frequently disputed assertions made by holocaust deniers.

Robert Faurisson propagated a number of similar arguments, beginning in the late 1970s and early 1980s. Many of these arguments would be incorporated by Fred Leuchter, in The Leuchter Report. However, The Leuchter Report stood to little scrutiny, and Holocaust deniers turned to body disposal arguments and theories.

It is well known by most historians, that the Auschwitz Construction Agency, known as the Bauleitung, began to upgrade its body disposal system as to increase the camp's body disposal capabilities. In the summer of 1942, the Bauleitung started to build four new crematoria in the Birkenau area of the camp, also known as Auschwitz II. These four crematoria housed 46 coke fired ovens. Kremas II and III each had five triple muffle furnaces (15 ovens in each) while Kremas IV and V each had a single eight muffle furnace (eight ovens in each). Like the six ovens in the Auschwitz main camp, the 46 new ovens were built by the firm of Topf and Sons and used coke as fuel. None of these facts are disputed by deniers or their critics. These 46 new ovens, coupled with the 6 original ovens at Auschwitz I (main camp), made for a total of 52 ovens for Auschwitz-Birkenau, plus the burning pits which would later be employed during the camp's operation. In June of 1943, after the ovens had been in use for several months, a report was prepared by the Bauleitung on the capacity of the crematorium. The report placed the total capacity of all 52 Auschwitz ovens at 4,756 bodies per 24 hour day.

What is largely disputed by deniers is that the Bauleitung expanded the camp's body disposal capacity as to facilitate the industrial mass murder of hundreds of thousands of civilians, mainly Jews, and that the total capacity of all furnaces was as great as the Bauleitung suggested in the June 1943 report. Well known "revisionists" Carlo Mattogno and Arthur Butz give figures of around 1,000 bodies per day as the capacity of the Auschwitz furnaces.

"Revisionists" often theorize that factors other than mass murder account for the expansion of the body disposal facilities. One common theory, first proposed by Carlo Mattogno in 1994, is that typhus epidemics at the camp led to an abnormal death rate among the prisoners, and plans to expand the camps prisoner capacity to 200,000 accounted for the massive upgrades undertaken by the Bauleitung. Although Mattogno and other deniers often argue that a planned expansion of the camp to 200,000 was the main rationale behind the new crematoria, the Bauleitung began negotiating with firms for construction of the four crematoria in July 1942, while the first evidence of the planned expansion, is on August 15.

Obviously a plan to extend the camp's population to 200,000 would not have called for the construction of 46 additional ovens. During the first planned expansion of the Auschwitz camp in the summer of 1941, which called for 130,000 prisoners, there were only two double muffle furnaces, or four ovens in Auschwitz. The only plan for the installation of ovens coinciding with the camp's expansion, was to order another double muffle furnace in September 1941. This may give a true picture of the real cremation needs of the camp.

In 1944, the Mauthausen-Gusen Concentration Camp in Austria underwent a similar expansion to the one proposed at Auschwitz, which denier Carlo Mattogno cites as being the catalyst behind the Bauleitung's expansion of the cremation facilities. This expansion made at Mauthausen allowed for the prisoner population to expand from 17,000 to 90,000. The only additions made to camp's crematorium deemed necessary by Mauthausen staff to facilitate this influx of prisoners, included the installation of two ovens to the additional one. Similarly in 1944, the Mauthausen-Gusen Complex expanded from two camps to three camps, and no additional ovens where installed.

A brief examination of the evidence would suggest that typhus would not have been a likely catalyst either. Less than 2.9915% of the deaths registered in the Auschwitz death lists between 1941 and 1945 where attributed to typhus. This is likely attributed to the fact that measures where taken on the part of the Auschwitz staff, to quell the epidemic, including massive delousing operations.

It can be inferred by examining the evidence, that neither the typhus epidemic nor the proposed expansion of the camp where likely catalysts for the new crematorium, contrary to deniers claims. It is also most probable given the evidence, that that the Auschwitz staff was infact preparing for the cremation of several hundred thousand corpses at the very least. This is backed up by various documents, including a letter dated October 13, 1942 from the head of the Bauleitung that reads: "As regards the construction of the new crematorium buildings, it was necessary to start immediately in July 1942 because of the situation caused by the special actions."

It is argued by deniers that "special actions" referred to anti-typhus operations. This is hardly valid, considering that effective measures against typhus would have been available to Auschwitz staff, which would imply that "special actions" involving the expansion of the crematorium would have hardly been necessary. As demonstrated by the available information, an expansion of the camp's prisoner capacity to 200,000 would hardly require the installation of 46 additional ovens in the name of "special actions." The expansion of the crematorium would imply that body disposal problems arose. Considering that body disposal problems where attributed to "the situation caused by the special actions," it can be inferred that "special actions" carried out by Auschwitz staff must have involved mass death on such a scale that it would be necessary to incinerate between 1,000 and 4,756 bodies per 24 hour day, which must imply mass killings.

title: The Holocaust/Holocaust denial


text:
User talk:62.171.194.11

Thanks for experimenting with Wikibooks. Your test worked, and has now been removed. Please use Sandbox for any other tests you want to do, since testing material in modules will normally be removed quickly. Please see the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our project. Thanks. -- Herby talk thyme 12:23, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

title: User talk:62.171.194.11


text:
User talk:62.171.194.10

Thanks for experimenting with Wikibooks. Your test worked, and has now been removed. Please use Sandbox for any other tests you want to do, since testing material in modules will normally be removed quickly. Please see the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our project. Thanks. -- Herby talk thyme 12:23, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

title: User talk:62.171.194.10


text:
Talk:This Quantum World

Will this book be at university level? If so, should it be linked into the Modern Physics section and integrated with the Quantum Mechanics book? (See how the Special Relativity book is linked in the Modern Physics section) RobinH 12:44, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

As I said here, I teach an introductory course of contemporary physics to high-school students (grades 11-12) and undergraduates at the SAICE in Puducherry, India. As I am in the process of preparing my handouts for the next term (starting tomorrow), I thought it might be a good idea to make them more widely available. While our students enjoy an unusual freedom to choose their projects and courses, we teachers are free to offer subjects of our own choosing and are encouraged to explore new methods of teaching. My course is therefore optional and to some extent experimental. (I do understand that there is no such thing as "my Wikibook", though.) To the bona fide student of physics it offers a perspective that is complementary to those of many excellent textbooks, but this Wikibook aims to be more widely accessible, and it is not meant as a substitute for or to compete with standard texts. Its orientation is more philosophical. While it covers the necessary math and explains its use, the aim is not to impart the technical skills of a physicist. Integration into the Quantum Mechanics book is therefore not advisable; the approaches have different goals and (as I said) are complementary. --Koantum 14:38, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

 * Many parts of your treatment are excellent and not idiosyncratic except in clarity. For the present I have put a link to this book in the Modern Physics QM section. RobinH 10:08, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations. This looks like a promising beginning of a very fine textbook on the topic (at least as far as I can tell from my limited knowldge): all changes are well-motivated, formulae form the back of the reasoning, while not pushing themselves too much in front. Small annotations on history are intermangled with the main text in a sensble way. As a beginner in quantum mechanics, I believe your text is didactically great. The only point of criticism I want to add here is your introduction of "the two rules", wich seem to come somewhat "out of the blue". All in all, I think this is the (beginning of) a great book, and I'm thinking about translating it to german. Just as an indication how developed your book already is: what topics do you intend to cover? Sorry, the above unsigned post was by me --Tom Bachmann 14:36, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your encouragement! This year I have two batches of very young students, even some bright ones from grade 10, so at present I concentrate on preliminaries, which in this book go into the appendix. I have just added something on probability, and next on the list is the math that we will need. With the college students whom I have taught in the past few years I have covered quite a lot of subjects, up to the basics of relativistic quantum field theory. As for those two rules: they are essentially the fundamental postulates of Feynman's approach — see my blog entry on the subject. They make it possible to discuss many experimental situations with very little mathematical ado. I have, however, added a clause saying that later we will think about where they come from. In fact, we are going to derive them. You can get a sneak preview in my paper preposterously entitled Quantum Mechanics Explained.--Koantum 02:45, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * This sounds like your book will get interesting and understandable. Do you think it is sane to translate it simultaneously to you writing it? --Tom Bachmann 14:07, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Nothing insane about it. Only one caveat: pages won't be added in their final order but rather haphazardly. Quantum jumps!--Koantum 08:22, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Printable / PDF version
I'd love to see a printable / PDF version made. I see it's been duly marked. Anyone willing to take the time? 134.129.68.7 16:42, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

 * I will happily make a printable version and maybe a pdf version --Anonymous101 (talk) 19:26, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

 * I think I've finished the printable version. Beginning work on PDF. Glich (talk) 23:54, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * well?--217.76.95.24 (talk) 23:29, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

 * haha ok ok I'll do some more on it. The actual book needs to be sorted before a pdf is made. Glich (talk) 18:52, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * ok, this is going quite well right now. I want to try to get a odt file of the book up so that people can improve the style themselves. This can then be used as a template for other books. Does such a template exist already? It would be nice to standardise this. Glich (talk) 13:36, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

 * The first version of the pdf has been completed. I don't know how to upload it to wikicommons. The version can be found here for now: https://sites.google.com/site/glichglich/home/files

Please upload this pdf. An odt file is also included. Glich (talk) 18:24, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Title?
Should this be moved to This Quantum World? Geoff Plourde (talk) 16:20, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

What is meant by "Serious illnesses require drastic remedies"?
? This is a great book btw, thank you!Popish Plot (discuss • contribs) 18:36, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

title: Talk:This Quantum World


text:
Islam Way of Life/Glossary

The purpose of this chapter is to isolate terminology and controversial topics covered in this book.

To ensure fluent reading, there are as few Arabic technical terms as possible in this book. The following is the Arabic equivalence of English technical terms used. Please note that this doesn't include any Arabic technical terms that were invented outside the Koran or inherited from pre-Koranic Arab traditions. An exception to this rule is when a sociological study is used to explain what is actually practiced in the Moslem World today.

Keywords

 * Acceptable (by Legislation): al-maAAroof
 * Acceptance (from God) : rida
 * Assent (system) : Islam
 * Assenter (person) : muslim
 * Administrator (of Community) : ulil amr
 * Believers : mu/min; real believer=mu/min haq
 * Bigot: mushrik
 * Charity : sadaqa
 * Charter : Meethaaq
 * Creed of Abraham : Millat Ibrahim
 * Criminal : zalim
 * Consultation : shura
 * Contact-method : salaa
 * Criterion, The (Moral) : al-furqaan
 * Development : zakat
 * Dissenter : kafir
 * Experts : utul ilm
 * Example (of Law, Rituals, Moral or Wisdom) : uswah
 * Handicap : masakin
 * Hypocrite : munafiq
 * God : Allah
 * Koran : alqur-ani, a.k.a : Quran, Al-Qur'an
 * Law of Nature : sunnatullah
 * Legislation : al-maAAroof + al-munkar
 * Limit, (Law) : Hudud
 * Remembering (God) : Thikr
 * Sacred (Prohibition) : Haraam
 * Self-restraint : assiyam
 * Spending : anfaq
 * Straight Path, The : al-Sirat almustaqeem, a.k.a: My Path, a Straight one (siratee mustaqimaan in 6:153)
 * System : deen
 * Unacceptable (by Legislation) : al-munkar
 * Visit, the : al-hajj
 * Way of Life (Path) : alssirat
 * Wicked : fasiq
 * Wisdom : al-Hikmah

About The Straight Path
Islam Way of Life or The Straight Path is a set of universal, timeless, complete and fully detailed moral and wisdom values for the benefit of humankind. It is part of a voluntary charter or mutual contract between The Creator and His creation. One should maintain morality and faith on the ultimate justice and in return, he will receive salvation from his Creator. We can easily find this set of values in God's Book by hunting down terms like 'Sacred Prohibitions' or 'My Path, the Straight One'.

If we count from 6:145 to  6:154, there are 14 sacred prohibitions with 4 food-related and 10 crime-related. The sacred prohibition of usury might have been included implicitly in one of those 14 sacred prohibitions. At the end of our counts to 14, God names the 10 sacred prohibitions as The Straight Path and then gives Moses the Scripture saying that it is complete and fully detailed.

It is complete and fully detailed because we will learn on the next chapters that The Straight Path forms the backbone of the entire God's message to humankind. We will see that all rituals were designed specifically to achieve many goals leading to The Straight Path. Also we will find that all law limits was designed specifically to defend The Straight Path from every type of attacks against its values.

Further study
Please note that this book tries to refer to the Koran in its purest form and free from man-made innovation. But this section is an exception to this book. This section contains sociological study that tries to explain religion-neutral part of Islam at work in various part of the world today. You have been warned.

If you still have doubts on the existence of God, actually you are surrounded by His sign. You just need to be aware of it. There many books about it, such as the one from Harun Yahya series. If you like this book, you may want to read our other book, Koranic Law of Nature.

Nation leaders who rules a multi-ethnic Moslem-majority countries always has some sort of sectarian-neutral moral codes and wisdom. As a rule of thumb, every Islamic leader who refers to Constitution of Medina are the supporter of the Ancient Islam Charter. Likewise, Islamic leaders who publicly denied the relevancy of Constitution of Medina for the 21st century also denied the relevancy of the Ancient Islam Charter. You can learn further from those leaders, such as the one from Jordan and Asian Countries.

Constitution of Medina is the first religion-neutral charter in history between Believers, Jews, Christian and Others since the Ancient Islam Charter. In fact, Prophet Muhammad use the Ancient Islam Charter as the ideological base for the Medina Charter. You can witness this by the similar usage of term believer in both charters. You will notice as well that the term abider, and both prophethood or messengership of Muhammad are missing on both charters indicating the religion-neutrality of them.

You can learn similar moral codes and wisdom from the forum of inter-faith dialoque and religions-of-the-world studies in the primary school. One of such forum is The International Forum of Islamic Dialoque (IFID), where intellectuals such as Dr. Mohammad Shahrour and Dr. Mahathir Mohammad gathers.

After learning from those sources, you will appreciate that the religion-neutral part of Islam is 100% for the benefits of humankind.

Inviting Friends
Moral and wisdom works like habits and tradition that may take years to master, let alone to teach. The good news is, it is contangible. It means that to be successful you have to teach it by example and persuasion. If you have a very close relationship with the target, your chances are even higher. The younger the target is better. The best time to teach moral and wisdom is as soon as a child start to learn speaking.

While it might takes times, patience and consistency, your job is actually simple. It is simple, because moral and wisdom are religion-neutral and if you feel that something is a good deeds, chances are it is. Therefore, you does not need to be very well versed in a religious doctrine nor need a high level of formal education to teach moral and wisdom.

Even if you failed, you still have hopes. Some of moral codes are related to criminal offence. For example murdering one person equals to murdering the entire humankind. Therefore, you can always bring your community to bring justice to the perpretrator. Just keep in mind that your community should do that within God's Limits. See Chapter 3 for more detail on God's Limits. The worst case scenario is if your community is so badly inflicted in a certain crime. Even then you still have your Creator to protect you from any fears and regrets.

Controversies
For those who believes that moral code and wisdom is not enough for higher spiritual development, please proceed to Chapter 2. For those who believes that Islam should regulate public policies as well, please proceed to Chapter 3. This chapter only covers the basic and religion-neutral part of Islam. Islam has many faces, therefore this chapter is not trying to re-define Islam nor proofing that a certain definition of Islam is wrong.

The Ancient Islam
This book defines Ancient Islam as a period starting by the first human on earth and ended by the dead of the Last Prophet of Islam. In this period, abider a is religion-neutral term, while believer is a religion-specific term. The last prophet tried to established a Civil State with the constitution of Medina.

When the last prophet dies, so does his Civil State. The political system later is replaced by a Caliph State, starting with four elected Caliphes and ended with several Monarch Caliphes. During this period, the term abider and believer blurs to each other into a religion-specific term known as Moslem. We call this period as Modern Islam.

The Post-Modern Islam is the movement to return to the Prophet's example of Civil State and the universality of Islam. This book is written in this mind-set. However, It is not a closed mind-set, but instead an open one. For example, the spiritual aspect of this book tries to embrace as many as possible of the mystical-Islam, known as Sufism. Another example, this book allows Arabian-flavor of Islamic Jurisprudence, such as covering the face of Moslim women as well as Asian-flavor that does not require it. The Arabian-flavor of Islamic Jurisprudence, known as Salafism has place in this Post-Modern Islam.

Obsolote Charter
A word of caution though, some Moslems believes that this Ancient Islam charter is no longer practical. They argue that Jewish and Christianity teachings are too far corrupted, so the only way to get salvation is to leave Judaism and Christianity and join the Believers. Some of them goes even further by saying that not only this charter is no longer practical, but also abrogated by God. While it is likely that the content of a newer book abrogates an older book, it is highly unlikely that contents of a single book abrogates each others. We call the latter inconsistency.

The following diagram illustrates the current Islam charter according to some Moslem who rejects the Ancient Islam Charter. We can clearly see that in their charter, the believers can do no wrong and the rest can do no right.

We can witness that their charter is purely faith based, such as believing in Muhammad or not. While the Ancient Islam Charter is mostly effort based, such as doing good to each others. The Ancient Islam Charter also based on faith but in a religion-neutral way, such as believing in The Creator and the Final Justice and not on any particular human prophet or saint.

Most of the anti-religious beliefs are still compatible with the Ancient Islam Charter. The exception is the pure Darwinism that totally rejects the existence of The Creator. One example is Agnostic people. They may believe in some kind of Inteligent Design and some kind of Final Justice system. Therefore, we can see that the Ancient Islam Charter is mostly effort-based instead of faith-based.

About impracticality of following Jewish or Christianity teachings, it is up to the reader to decide. For example, accusing God of being disguised as a certain human is an act of rejecters according to the Koran. The Koran also prohibits accusing God of having genetical childrens.

This explains why in Modern Islam, those who are not "believers" are all treated as "infidels". This includes the Jewish, Christians and others. But in Ancient Islam, some of those people are considered as a normal law-abiding human being, as long as they trust in God and practice the moral code. In Modern Islam, somebody can be considered "Moslem" by blood, even if he is not practicing his religion. In Ancient Islam, some of these so-called "Moslems" are considered as the rejecters if they pretend as God's partners. Assuming partnership with God is the highest violation possible against the moral code. Lesser violators are considered as either a criminal or a wicked person.

Readers can learn more about theological debate about this subject in Dr. Mohammad Shahrour book, The Book and Quran. Unfortunately, Shahrour's books have no English translation. We will not cover this theoretical debate further in this book, as this book will only cover its practical implications.

With these controversies in mind, people who practice Islam Way of Life might try to avoid wasting any time in controversies by choosing their words. For example, instead of mentioning "Moslem", they will use "believer" term to refer the follower of Muhammad or "law-abider" or "normal human being" to refers to people who honor the Ancient Islam charter. It is also possible to add adjectives to be specific, such as "modern Moslem" to refer to people who are proud of the Modern Islam Civilization but not necessarily the Ancient Islam morals and wisdom. Also instead of mentioning "The Ten Sacred Prohibitions", they choose to be more specific by mentioning Equality, Family, Humanity, Fairness and Integrity instead. In some cases, they avoid the use of the word "sin", and mention it as "crime" instead.

Charismatic Path
Some of Modern Moslem believes that "My Path, a Straight One" in 6:151-153 has nothing to do with "The Straight Path" in  1:6-7. They prefer a less direct method.

 * 1) They use "God's Favor"  1:6-7 in as the identifying tools for "The Straight Path", instead of 10 sacred prohibitions in  6:151-153.
 * 2) They pick a group of people as the only one who receives "God's Favor". In this case, they choose Muhammad and His Companions, based on one of inspirational verses. Unfortunately, their opponent choose Muhammad and His Families as the only one who receives "God's Favor" also based on another inspirational verses.
 * 3) They set up a certification hierarchy, where a Modern Moslem cannot be a true Moslem unless he/she learns Islam from a teacher who was certified by his teacher who was also cerfified by his grand-teacher. They believes that this certification process has no broken links from one of Muhammad's companions or families.

We recognize this as an alternative reasoning and has some truth. But, again we consider this as not the whole truth, because even if your grand-grand-grand-grand teacher is Muhammad himself, you are still not allowed to violate any of the moral code mentioned as "My Path, a Straight One" in 6:151-153.

Priority Shuffle
This book put equality, family, humanity, fairness and integrity moral codes in its very first chapter. Other books about Islam includes those 10 sacred prohibitions only in later chapters if they include it at all. Interesting to note that the Koran itself includes "the Straight Path" in its very first page.

While it may not be the intention, it leaves the impression that rituals and beliefs has more priority than protecting humanity and fairness. We can clearly witness this when churches can be burned down after an allegation of Koran or Prophet desacration in a certain Islamic State. We can clearly witness this when a man kill his daughter or sister when he believes that she dishonors the family. In this book, honor or ranks is the second priority after humanity and fairness.

There are many interpretation of Islam. One interpretation is full of hatred, murderous and totally divorced from humanity, and let alone Islam. The other interpretation is humans and civilized. We put the 10 sacred prohibitions in the first chapter because we believe that they are the backbone of Islam. The beliefs, rituals and law are merely tools and explanation about them.

Pork Meat
The Old Testament prohibits eating pork meat, so does Koran. Therefore Jews, Moslem and certain Christians prohibits pork meat. One of the favorite explanation about the sacred probitions are three words, "We are brothers". The DNA of Human, Pig and Monkey are similar to each others differs only 2% percentage. This can be witnessed by the proliferation of retro-virus such as HIV from the monkey and the allegation that "bird-flu" virus use pigs as step-stone into human body.

In 5:60, the Koran does mention an event when God turn some people into pig and monkey as punishment. Whether this verse support the explanation is out of scope of this book. Modern Muslims sometimes turn to genetics to explain divine laws. For example incest is prohibited because of producing genetic defects.

Synchretism
Some groups do take religion-neutrality too far by setting up a common beliefs and practices. We regards this a synchretism and this book condemn it and does not promote it. This book also condemn and does not promote relativism nor apostasy. Read Chapter 2 for more information.

Another group do try to set up a religion-neutral Law and Jurisprudence. While this book recognizes that God's Law Limits is religion-neutral, but the actual Law and Jurisprudence is not always the case because it differs from region to region based on cultur and history they experienced. Read Chapter 3 for more information.

About Remembering God
Some people in Modern Islam, believes that remembering God is a set of special arabic words that recited over and over. This special words is recited during special time, such as during after the contact-method. It is a valid understanding, but it is not a complete understanding as Remembering God also includes remembering His Commandments such as maintaining the moral codes continuously and not on a specific time.

Abbrogation
Some scholar, however, views law variant in the Koran as abrogation system. They believes that some variant were allowed in the past and it is no longer allowed now. For example is the variant in the punishment of theft. Another example that they believes that in the past, usury was allowed as long as it is not more than double the capital. Variant also applies to alcohol ruling.

This book does not follow this way of thinking. We see variants as variants. We see them as ranges and limits. This will allow different flavors of law to better serve local needs and history or certain conditions.

Treaties
Islamic Jurisprudence or Islamic Law are collections of legislation and treaties made by the Islamic lawmakers and rulers since the beginning of Modern Islam. The example of treaties are the willingness of certain non-Moslem in certain region to pay regularly certain amount of money in return of security protection from a certain Moslem ruler on a certain period of history.

This special payment is part of treaties of Arabian rulers with other communities. We can easily witness it that none of Asian rulers has such treaties of special payment. Asian rulers does has his own treaties. For example a Malay will lose his ethnicity if he leaves his Islam religion.

Other Classification
Islamic Jurisprudence has its own levels of good and bad things.

In this book, they are actually two different classifications.
 * 1) Closed Classification of Rituals. All religious rituals should be either Prescribed or Recommended, otherwise it will be classified as innovation (bad rituals). It is closed because only small fraction of regulated matters is allowed.
 * 2) Open Classification of Public Policies. All day-to-day action are allowed, except the Unlawful or Disliked. It is open because only small fraction of regulated matters is prohibited. The Unlawful roughly equivalent to God's Limit (hudud) and Sacred Prohibition (haram). The Disliked is roughly equivalent to the Unacceptable (munkar).

Some Modern Moslem believes that moslem can only obey this Jurisprudence under an Islamic Government or Kingdom. In practice, most Moslems do not live under Islamic Government or Kingdom. This Moslem has two choice, try to replace his government with Islamic Government or try to live within God's Limits and obey the local legislation. Most Moslems choose the later, including Moslems from the biggest Moslem-majority Country in the world (1/5 of world Moslem population in a single country). But some moslems do choose the first, for example in Iran Revolution where people replace the Secular Monarchy with a Religious Constitutional Government. In fact, in each Moslem country there is always people who wants to replace their government peacefully or forcefully.

This book only concern on how to implement 100% Islam whenever and wherever you are and receives Salvation in return. This book has no interest on Islam Jurisprudence that depends on wherever you successfully topple your government or not. But this book does recommend you to follow commonly accepted Islamic Jurisprudence as much as possible, starting with rituals, civil law and commerce law if possible. The criminal law, political law and international law of the Islamic Jurisprudence only if you are under an Islamic Government or Kingdom. But, don't be so sad, because you still can implements God's Criminal, Political and Milatry Limits on such country.

Even if you can implement every single Islamic Jurisprudence because you are under Islamic Government or Kingdom, this book cannot stressed enough that God's Sacred Prohibitions and God's Limits should have the highest priority over all human legislation including the so-called Islamic Jurisprudence. For example, if honor-killing or instant-divorce is a legal Islamic Jurisprudence in a certain Islamic state, but you believe it violates God's Limits, you still have a choice not to do it.

title: Islam Way of Life/Glossary


text:
User:Lockleong93

Hello! I am lockleong93 and my place of origin is Singapore. I am currently developing the Department of Southeast Asian History in the School of History. Visit the School today!

title: User:Lockleong93


text:
User talk:70.153.248.73

Thanks for experimenting with Wikibooks. Your test worked, and has now been removed. Please use Sandbox for any other tests you want to do, since testing material in modules will normally be removed quickly. Please see the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our project. Thanks. -- Herby talk thyme 15:24, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

title: User talk:70.153.248.73


text:
User talk:165.139.169.188

Thanks for experimenting with Wikibooks. Your test worked, and has now been removed. Please use Sandbox for any other tests you want to do, since testing material in modules will normally be removed quickly. Please see the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our project. Thanks. -- Herby talk thyme 15:53, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

title: User talk:165.139.169.188