This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Nishidani (talk | contribs) at 08:57, 16 November 2015. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 08:57, 16 November 2015 by Nishidani (talk | contribs)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Amin al-Husseini article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21Auto-archiving period: 30 days  |
 | Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.
|
 | The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
 | This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:
|
 | Text and/or other creative content from Amin al-Husseini was copied or moved into Haj Amin al-Husseini. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
 | This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Amin al-Husseini article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21Auto-archiving period: 30 days |
Recruitment draft work in progress
Himmler had a romantic vision of Islam as a faith ‘fostering fearless soldiers’, and this probably played a significant role in his decision to raise three Muslim divisions under German leadership in the Balkans from Bosnian Muslims and Albanians . : the 13th Waffen SS Mountain Division Handschar, the 21st Skanderbeg, and the 23rd Kama (Shepherd's dagger). Riven by interethnic conflict, the region's Jewish, Croat, Roma, Serb and Muslim communities suffered huge losses of life, Bosnian Muslims losing around 85,000 from a genocidal Četnik ethnic cleansing operations alone.. The Muslims had three options: to join the Croatian Ustaše, or the Serbian partisans, or to create local defense units. Following a tradition of service in the old Bosnian regiments of the former Austro-Hungarian army, they chose an alliance with Germany, which promised them autonomy. Husseini, having been petitioned by the Bosnian Muslim leaders, was well informed of their plight. Dissatisfied with low enlistenment, Himmler asked the mufti to intervene. Husseini negotiated, made several requests, mostly ignored by the SS, and conducted several visits to the area. His speeches and charismatic authority proved instrumental in improving enlistment notably. In one speech he declared that:
Those lands suffering under the British and Bolshevist yoke impatiently await the moment when the Axis (powers) will emerge victorious. We must dedicate ourselves to unceasing struggle against Britain -that dungeon of peoples - and to the complete destruction of the British Empire.We must dedicate ourselves to unceasing struggle against Bolshevist Russia because communism is incompatible with Islam.'
One SS officer reporting on impresssions from the mufti's Sarajevo speech said Husseini was reserved about fighting Bolshevism, his main enemies being Jewish settlers in Palestine and the English.
In an agreement signed by Husseini and Himmler on May 19,1943, it was specified that no synthesis of Islam and Nationalism was to take place.Husseini asked that Muslim divisional operations to be restricted to the defense of the Moslem heartland of Bosnia and Herzegovina; that partisans be amnestied if they laid down their arms; that the civilian population not be subject to vexations by troops;that assistance be offered to innocents injured by operations; and that harsh measures like deportations, confiscations of goods, or executions be governed in accordance with the rule of law. The Handschar earned a repute for brutality in ridding north-eastern Bosnia of Serbs and partisans: many local Muslims, observing the violence, were driven to go over to the communist partisans. Once redeployed outside Bosnia, and as the fortunes of war turned, mass defections and desertions took place, and Volksdeutsche were drafted to replace the losses. The mufti blamed the mass desertions on German support for the Četniks. Many Bosnians in these divisions who survived the war sought asylum in Western and Arab countries, and of those settling in the Middle East, many fought in Palestine against the new state of Israel.
- Tomasevich 2001, p. 496 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFTomasevich2001 (help)
- Lepre 1997, pp. 12, 310 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFLepre1997 (help)
- Stein 1984, pp. 184–5 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFStein1984 (help).
- Lepre 1997, p. 228, n.28 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFLepre1997 (help).
- Lepre 1997, p. 47 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFLepre1997 (help) named from the word for a Turkish policeman's sword (or fighting knife:handžar from Turkish hancerTomasevich 2001, p. 497 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFTomasevich2001 (help)), which had figured as an emblem on the Bosnian coat-of-arms.
- Mojzes 2011, p. 78 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFMojzes2011 (help)
- Lepre & 1997 313 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFLepre1997313 (help):'Overall, it is fairest to say that the Yugoslavian insurgency was a racial - national - ideological - religious struggle that was unique in its barbarity and excesses were perpetrated by all of the warring sides against both combatants and the civilian population.'
- Mojzes 1984, pp. 97–98 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFMojzes1984 (help): ‘a scorched-earth practice commenced . .”During the operation, we carried out the complete annihilation of the Moslem inhabitants, without regard to their sex and age . .The whole population has been annihilated.'
- Lepre 1997, p. 31 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFLepre1997 (help):'The hearts of all Muslims must today go out to our Islamic brothers in Bosnia, who are forced to endure a tragic fate. They are being persecuted by the Serbian and communist bandits, who receive support from England and the Soviet Union.... They are being murdered, their possessions are robbed, and their villages are burned. England and its allies bear a great accountability before history for mishandling and murdering Europe's Muslims, just as they have done in the Arabic lands and in India.'
- Lepre 1997, pp. 26–28 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFLepre1997 (help)
- Lepre 1997, p. 34 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFLepre1997 (help).
- Lepre 1997, p. 313 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFLepre1997 (help).
- Lepre 1997, p. 33 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFLepre1997 (help).
- Tomasevich 2001, p. 497 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFTomasevich2001 (help):'the objective was not to synthesize National Socialism and Islam, nor to convert the Bosnian Muslims (who, it said, though racially Germanic, were ideologically part of the Arab world) to National Socialism. . .though distinctm the two ideologies would act togfether against their common enemies-Jews, Anglo-Americans, Communists, Freemasons, and the Catholic Church.'
- Lepre 1997, p. 67 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFLepre1997 (help):'Husseini and the Germans opted against forming any synopsis between Islam and national socialism. . .The Idea of Family (Familiengedanke) - the strong family sense possessed by the German and Muslim peoples.The Idea of Order (Ordnungsgedanke) - the idea of the New Order in Europe. The Idea of the Fũhrer (Fũhrergedanke) - The idea that a people should be led by one leader. The Idea of Faith (Glaubensgedanke) - That Islam (for Muslims) and national socialism (for Germans) would serve as educational tools to create order, discipline, and loyalty.’
- Lepre 1997, p. 135 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFLepre1997 (help).
- Tomasevich 2001, p. 499 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFTomasevich2001 (help)
- Hoare 2014, pp. 194–195 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFHoare2014 (help).
- Lepre 1997, pp. 247ff. harvnb error: no target: CITEREFLepre1997 (help).
- Lepre 1997, p. 257 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFLepre1997 (help)
- Lepre 1997, p. 303 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFLepre1997 (help).
Encyclopedia of the Holocaust
I noticed that in his recent revert, Nishidani restored text from Peter Novik that says "This did not prevent the editors of the four-volume Encyclopedia of the Holocaust from giving him a starring role. The article on the Mufti is more than twice as long as the articles on Goebbels and Göring, longer than the articles on Himmler and Heydrich combined, longer than the article on Eichmann..."
I was wondering why this was notable. Please note that in this encyclopedia, Husseini also has an article (~193kb) twice as long as the articles on Goebbels (~82kb) and Göring (~78kb), longer than the articles on Himmler (~100kb) and Heydrich (~73k) combined, longer than the article on Eichmann (~75kb).
Why are we making this seem like something unusual? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:59, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
- It has been a part of the text for years. Why is it not notable?Nishidani (talk) 20:17, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
- Because it seems pretty normal, eg it happens in Misplaced Pages as well, as I show above. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:21, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
- It has been a part of the text for years. Why is it not notable?Nishidani (talk) 20:17, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
- I'd prefer that Novick be named (not "according to Novick", since the fact is easily checked, but something like "Novick has observed"). It is notable because several authors have repeated it. It is normal, yes, but that's because Novick is correct: the opportunity for associating Arabs with Nazis is too tempting for many authors to resist. It is a valid notable point to make with attribution. Zero 03:58, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
- I deleted some excess text and Nishidani restored it. Is this text contributing anything to the article? e.g.
- Robert Fisk paragraph ?
- (Novick) "has argued that the post-war historiographical depiction of al-Husseini reflected complex geopolitical interests that distorted the record." Instead of this long sentence I wrote just "says". The proposed "Novick has observed" is fine too.
- (Novick says ) " a pre-World War II Palestinian nationalist leader who, to escape imprisonment by the British".
- Encyclopedia of the Holocaust. The Article already quote Bernard Lewis that "called Wisliceny's testimony into doubt: 'There is no independent documentary confirmation of Wisliceny's statements, and it seems unlikely that the Nazis needed any such additional encouragement from the outside". Lewis words transmit the right message, and make the Encyclopedia of the Holocaust paragraph redundant. So I propose either to delete this paragraph, or to move one of those 2 statements near the other one.
- -"The opportunity for associating Arabs with Nazis is too tempting for many authors to resist". Those authors are probably politicians or extreme rightists. They do not need real facts for those observations, and there is no way to block them. The same goes with "Clinton's Middle East tour has been overshadowed by anti-Israeli rhetoric from Soha Arafat, the wife of Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat. Mrs Arafat used the occasion of Clinton's visit to accuse Israel of contaminating Palestinian lands with poison gas " Ykantor (talk) 15:04, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
- I deleted some excess text and Nishidani restored it. Is this text contributing anything to the article? e.g.
- I'd prefer that Novick be named (not "according to Novick", since the fact is easily checked, but something like "Novick has observed"). It is notable because several authors have repeated it. It is normal, yes, but that's because Novick is correct: the opportunity for associating Arabs with Nazis is too tempting for many authors to resist. It is a valid notable point to make with attribution. Zero 03:58, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
- What has all that got to do with the price of fish? other than reminding me of David Dean Shulman's tragic account of how the systematic seeding of poisoned barley by Maon settlers to destroy the hardscrabble pastoralists' livelihood in the South Hebron hills and drive them by leaving the grazing hills so contaminated that not only Palestinian sheep, but magnificent wild animals like the samur and the ghazal were regularly found at dawn, along with poisoned flocks, all dead from the toxicity. Anyone can pass his time feeding a fervid imagination on the infinitre number of stories in all countries' histories like that, and get toxically prejudiced, be it here, Arab, Israeli, or whoever, so please, just drop it.Nishidani (talk) 15:46, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
- @Zero0000: I was talking specifically about the text relating to the Encyclopedia of the Holocaust. As it stands now, it seems to be implying that a longer article for Husseini than for high ranking Nazi officials means something about the intent of those who wrote the encyclopedia. Considering the same situation appears in Misplaced Pages, that seems misleading. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:44, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
- The intent of the massive number of accounts coming from, and editing about, Israel and Palestine, is questionable. Perhaps a topic ban for those with a connection is in order, similar to the scientology ban.76.70.6.43 (talk) 02:24, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
- Some of the best editors I've seen in my 11 years in Misplaced Pages were Israeli or Arab. Some of the worst too, admittedly. We can't judge by such a crude criterion. Zero 03:09, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
- Novick believes that the longer entry for the mufti does show something about the intent of its writers. He explicitly connects it with the theme of associating Palestinian with Nazis. The comparison with Misplaced Pages is shaky since Misplaced Pages grows in ways that no paper encyclopedia ever did, but still I personally believe that the desire to associate Palestinians with Nazis is one of the main reasons our article gets so much attention. Actually I think that is blindingly obvious. So I don't accept your analysis here, which is in any case OR. The fact is that a well known historian made this observation and other well known historians thought it worth quoting. So it satisfies both sourcing and weight requirements. Zero 03:09, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
- The intent of the massive number of accounts coming from, and editing about, Israel and Palestine, is questionable. Perhaps a topic ban for those with a connection is in order, similar to the scientology ban.76.70.6.43 (talk) 02:24, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
- - Is it OK to delete the redundant text as in my points 1,2 3 ?
- - Is it OK to move one of those sentences to the location of the other one? see my previous point 4.
- - @Nishidani: Suha Araft falsely accused the state of Israel and not some criminals from the Maon settlement. Ykantor (talk) 20:19, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
- I see no redundancy here, though there is a certain amount of redundancy in the WW2 sections for example in the text above. No one mentions that. This section has long been stable. Suha Arafat's idiotic remarks have no more relevance here than several dozen remarks I could cite from senior Israeli figures regarding the whole Palestinian people exemplifying similar obtusity. Nishidani (talk) 20:28, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
wrong Haram link
the sentence "Al-Husseini's vigorous efforts to transform the Haram into a symbol of pan-Arabic and Palestinian nationalism" links Haram to the "sinful" meaning; methinks it should go somewhere else or not be a link in that context. 71.190.240.122 (talk) 20:15, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
Recruitment section is ridiculous, should be eliminated as its own section, basic info included elsewhere in article, rest in Bosniak SS article
It goes into great detail about Bosniak SS units when they had, at most, a tangental relationship to the Mufti. If worth mentioning at all in this article, a short paragraph, or even a sentence, would suffice with a link to the article about the Bosniak SS units. Why anyone thought it a good idea to include so much information about this topic in a biography of someone who played a very small role in it is beyond me, unless they have an axe to grind against Muslims and want spend lots of time linking Nazism with Islam on any Misplaced Pages article related to the topic. It's well-sourced and interesting material no doubt, and does have some relationship to the subject of this entry, but it belongs primarily in the Bosniak SS article, not here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.175.54.140 (talk) 03:06, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
- Stating an existing section is ridiculous should not motivate those who wrote this to have an eye on it.
- This said, I disagree with you. It is important to clarify what was this SS unit because a standard reader would extrapolate out of it. Pluto2012 (talk) 03:10, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
In the news
I´m not sure it´s of any use for the article, but at least it´s CNN. . Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:01, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
- The article has 3 references to the statement, which is enough.Nishidani (talk) 09:19, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
- Fair enough. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:36, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
architect of the holocaust
The sentence "Some scholars, such as Schwanitz and Rubin, have argued that Husseini was an architect of the Holocaust." is cited only to S&R's book, with no page number. This is unsatisfactory and in fact the book does not make that claim. What the book argues is "By closing this escape route and discouraging any alternative strategy al-Husseini helped make the 'Final Solution' inevitable." (p160) It is a much weaker statement. Zero 21:07, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks. That is Mikics's interpretation of what Schwanitz and Rubin were arguing, not, as you show, what they wrote. (Of course, their thesis is stupid: the British White Paper of 1939 closed off the numbers, and the Nazis weren't in control of immigration to Palestine in any case. How 5,300,000 Jews could have been, had the mufti not objected, shipped in wartime to Palestine is any man's guess. And of course (it's understandable Rubin got things wrong, but not Schwanitz), since the consensus is that the Holocaust was well underway long before the Mufti's November visit, he can hardly be said to have helped make inevitable something that was, in practical terms, already decided and in execution). No wonder the book got, like several others we accept here on this, indifferent reviews.Nishidani (talk) 21:35, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, the sentence relies on the Zionist axiom that Palestine was the only place Jews could go. The piss-weak words "discouraging any alternative strategy" show that Rubin is well aware of this gaping hole in his argument. Zero 21:41, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
- Here's some more information on this subject. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:43, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
- That's sad. Also uncitable (no author given and not in reliable website). Zero 21:48, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
- Why would it be uncitable? It's a press release, so you wouldn't expect an author. The MEF consists of several experts (who I know you don't like, but still) and apparently Schwanitz is a member. Not that there's much there that you couldn't find in the book, but on general principle, I think this can be used. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:02, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
- Middle East Forum is not a news organization. It is an activist website. Claims appearing on activist websites are not reliable. That article is not in Schwanitz's words, but is a carefully worded bit of propaganda that claims him as authority. Zero 05:59, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- One could write a wiki article on Netanyahu's mufti speech for the huge volume of comment it has, unusually, drawn from the most competent scholars in Holocaust studies. Schwanitz is way out on a limb, on the fringe here.
- Christopher Browning writes:
Netanyahu’s latest lie is part of a persistent campaign to portray the grand mufti as a major Holocaust perpetrator. It’s not true. During the 1930s, the Nazis ignored him entirely, as they gave priority to the emigration of German Jews to Palestine over the objections of Husseini or concerns about the Palestinians. During the war, the mufti was a useful but minor collaborator in disseminating Nazi propaganda in the Arab world. Late in the war, when he was no longer of any use, some in the Nazi regime wanted to cut off the subsidy that the mufti’s entourage in Berlin had been receiving for years. They were deterred from that by a Foreign Office expert who advised that open disregard of their Arab ally would signal defeatism by acknowledging that Germany had given up any hope of affecting Middle Eastern affairs.There were many thousands of Holocaust perpetrators more historically significant than the grand mufti of Jerusalem, but for Netanyahu they have no useful political significance — which is to say they were not Palestinian.
- Wolfgang G. Schwanitz writes:
It is a historical fact that the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem al-Hajj Amin al-Husaini was an accomplice whose collaboration with Adolf Hitler played an important role in the Holocaust. He was the foremost extra-European adviser in the process to destroy the Jews of Europe.
- It's not a difference of opinion, arguably, as much as a divergence in professional abilities to do first class historical research. Check their respective academic careers.Nishidani (talk) 22:10, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
- I'm not following you re their respective academic careers. What do you mean? They both seem like accomplished academics.
- Schwanitz notes that invitations to the Wannsee Conference were sent out a day after the Mufti and Hitler met. Here's another source with information relevant to this article, which I think you may not like. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:21, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
- I have used this review of Schwanitz by Robert Fisk at another place: . He describes what in Schwanitz thesis make him conclude the Mufti was responsible of the Holocaust and answers to this. Pluto2012 (talk) 00:41, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- In the vast scholarly literature on the Wannsee conference, there is barely a squeak about it being anything to do with Husseini. The idea that he was somehow responsible is as WP:FRINGE as it gets. The invitation sent to the attendees even states the background: "On July 31, 1941, I was ordered by the Reich Marshal of the Greater German Reich, to prepare with the participation of the other relevant central bodies, all the necessary preparations with regard to organizational, practical and financial aspects for an overall solution of the Jewish Question in Europe...". Nor is Husseini mentioned in the Protocol, nor in the testimonies of anyone who was present. The whole idea is preposterous, as the leading Holocaust historians are now lining up to testify. In fact (not sure why nobody mentions this) the only evidence of serious involvement of Husseini in the Holocaust is a claim made by Dieter Wisliceny while he was sitting in prison trying in vain to save his own neck by making himself valuable to the all-powerful World Jewry that he still fervently believed in. Zero 06:15, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- @Zero: I am not sure to understand your point...
- We know that this thesis is false but Schwanitz and Herf promote this and they are WP:RS. We cannot do anything against this and they are notorious enough so that this thesis has to be introduced and explained. What is interesting with what Netanyahou did is that we now have several historians (WP:RS too) who explained why this thesis is absurd. So we have material to explain the controversy.
- Don't you think it is better to explain the polemic in details whether than to reject this as a "fringe" one ? I feel it would on the bad side of WP:OR line... Pluto2012 (talk) 10:30, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- In the vast scholarly literature on the Wannsee conference, there is barely a squeak about it being anything to do with Husseini. The idea that he was somehow responsible is as WP:FRINGE as it gets. The invitation sent to the attendees even states the background: "On July 31, 1941, I was ordered by the Reich Marshal of the Greater German Reich, to prepare with the participation of the other relevant central bodies, all the necessary preparations with regard to organizational, practical and financial aspects for an overall solution of the Jewish Question in Europe...". Nor is Husseini mentioned in the Protocol, nor in the testimonies of anyone who was present. The whole idea is preposterous, as the leading Holocaust historians are now lining up to testify. In fact (not sure why nobody mentions this) the only evidence of serious involvement of Husseini in the Holocaust is a claim made by Dieter Wisliceny while he was sitting in prison trying in vain to save his own neck by making himself valuable to the all-powerful World Jewry that he still fervently believed in. Zero 06:15, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- I have used this review of Schwanitz by Robert Fisk at another place: . He describes what in Schwanitz thesis make him conclude the Mufti was responsible of the Holocaust and answers to this. Pluto2012 (talk) 00:41, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- If the thesis is false, as you say, then to give it more attention than it is already given would be WP:Undue. If there is some important detail in Schwanitz Rubin not in other sources, then of course, we should consider adding it. So far we've given a relatively fringe suspicion, coming for Wisleceny's single, almost unanimously dismissed piece of assertion, considerable space.Nishidani (talk) 11:23, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- Politically, successive Israeli governments never once acted on the idea that they had a genocidal monster, deeply implicated in the architecture of the Holocaust, right on their doorstep. Had they thought him really complicit, they would have raided his villa a mere 80 odd miles from Haifa and either assassinated him, or whipped him off for a show-trial in Jerusalem, as with Eichmann. Or simply smithereened him with a bombing raid. They never did. Finkelstein made the point a few days ago.Nishidani (talk) 10:20, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- He is not guilty because if he was, Israel would have assassinated him... Finkelstein has really a particular mode of reasonning. Interesting. Brilliant brain. But I think such reasonning is a little bit too much fringe to be used. (@Nishidani: I could not find the source in googling... Could you give me a link ?) Pluto2012 (talk) 10:30, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- Had the Nashashibis won out against the Husseinis (as led by the Haj) we probably would have as different a world as had Great Britain backed the Rashidi dynasty, instead of throwing their weight behind the Saudi fundamentalists. In both cases, GB backed or promoted political or religious extremists, securing the defeat of an intelligent Palestinian nationalism on the one hand, and the victory of a fiercely sectarian Wahhabite fundamentalism on the other. I don't think Finkelstein's reasoning unusual, except in the fact that he, like Zero, is an austere empiricist, data factually verified and controlled are what prepossess him, as well as the humongous dissonance between the facts and the rhetorical tsunamis that surge over them. As to his specific remark, if you cannot find it in an off-the-cuff remark late into this otherwise stupid debate, let me know, and I'll check back through other things I read recently from him. As to Finkelstein being usable, all of his books while he had tenure are RS. He maintains the same abilities and qualifications, but the several books issued since are from a publisher which probably fails a stringent reading of RS (which his scholarship meets however admirably). That mainstream publishers will not publish him reflects more on the pressures of politics than of Finkelstein's qualities as a pernickety 'forensic analyst'.Nishidani (talk) 10:50, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you for the link! :-)
- Regarding Finkelstein and his publications, I share your mind. Pluto2012 (talk) 06:26, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
- Had the Nashashibis won out against the Husseinis (as led by the Haj) we probably would have as different a world as had Great Britain backed the Rashidi dynasty, instead of throwing their weight behind the Saudi fundamentalists. In both cases, GB backed or promoted political or religious extremists, securing the defeat of an intelligent Palestinian nationalism on the one hand, and the victory of a fiercely sectarian Wahhabite fundamentalism on the other. I don't think Finkelstein's reasoning unusual, except in the fact that he, like Zero, is an austere empiricist, data factually verified and controlled are what prepossess him, as well as the humongous dissonance between the facts and the rhetorical tsunamis that surge over them. As to his specific remark, if you cannot find it in an off-the-cuff remark late into this otherwise stupid debate, let me know, and I'll check back through other things I read recently from him. As to Finkelstein being usable, all of his books while he had tenure are RS. He maintains the same abilities and qualifications, but the several books issued since are from a publisher which probably fails a stringent reading of RS (which his scholarship meets however admirably). That mainstream publishers will not publish him reflects more on the pressures of politics than of Finkelstein's qualities as a pernickety 'forensic analyst'.Nishidani (talk) 10:50, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- He is not guilty because if he was, Israel would have assassinated him... Finkelstein has really a particular mode of reasonning. Interesting. Brilliant brain. But I think such reasonning is a little bit too much fringe to be used. (@Nishidani: I could not find the source in googling... Could you give me a link ?) Pluto2012 (talk) 10:30, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- Finkelstein did not say he was not guilty: of course Husseini was deeply culpable of many grievous errors and was an incompetent, devastatingtly stupid arsehole (so are several modern and much esteemed political heads of state in the West, who have, as Fink himself repeatedly notes, continued a programmatic devastation of the Arab world with total impunity, bringing about the murderous pathologies we have now). NF said that if Husseini had been implicated as deeply as Moshe Pearlman, Joseph Schechtman and the postwar Zionist hasbara lobbyists had painted him, then the only moral and logical step would have been to have killed him or put him on trial. He served Israel's interests alive, perhaps.Nishidani (talk) 11:04, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- Murderous pathologies indeed. Thank you for your opinion about Finkelstein's opinion and your further opinion about what brings about murderous pathologies. Reading your opinions, I get the impression that there is no Jew hatred in the Qur'an nor in Muslim Palestinian education or media that could also contribute to murderous pathologies. (See Islam_and_antisemitism and Antisemitism in the Arab world for starters. Also MEMRI Antisemitism Documentation Project .) But maybe that's just my opinion, and that until Zionism came along Muslims loved Jews, as they have loved all infidels throughout the long, peaceful history of Islam. —Blanchette (talk) 19:12, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
- Why would it be uncitable? It's a press release, so you wouldn't expect an author. The MEF consists of several experts (who I know you don't like, but still) and apparently Schwanitz is a member. Not that there's much there that you couldn't find in the book, but on general principle, I think this can be used. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:02, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
- That's sad. Also uncitable (no author given and not in reliable website). Zero 21:48, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Michael Sells
Michael A. Sells is "John Henry Barrows Professor of Islamic History and Literature; also in the Department of Comparative Literature" in the Chicago University Divinity School. How is he such a reliable source on contemporary history or the Holocaust or Husseini, that he can be used here at all, not to mention unattributed?
This is a ridiculous POV push trying to whitewash Husseini's well known and well documented collaboration with the Nazis, using something published in "Journal of Religious Ethics"? Are you people serious? Where's Zero, who demands only the very best sources for historical articles? This has to be some kind of joke. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 01:23, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
- What I actually found more interesting is how this source is used, or rather, cherry-picked. The first section of the article is a scathing criticism of Husseini as a vile antisemite ; Husseini "spoke on radio programs broadcast to Arab nations, calling on his listeners to support the Axis in defeating common enemies: Britain, communists, and Zionists or Jews (two groups he conflated as often as not)."; "The judeophobia of the Memoirs is robust."; " admired Himmler in particular and Nazism in general, shared or came to share Himmler’s hatred and fear of Jews, and did everything in his power to promote the Axis cause among Arabs and Muslims. "; He "complained to ] about the perfidy of Jews " etc... This did not find its way into the article, of course. Instead, where Sells says the Hussieni's Memoirs employed " the selective use of the Qur’an, hadith, and sira, as well as the Bible and Talmudic literature, to portray Jews as enemies of God and humanity" (i.e -Husseini manipulated these texts to reflect his own antisemitism), the editor responsible for this tripe has made our article read that "Husseini became robustly judeophobic and thought, on the basis of Biblical, Talmudic, and Quranic passages, that Jews were enemies of God, " - i.e - that he was merely reading what these texts say. When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) 02:48, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
- The tendentious editing and POV pushing doesn't surprise me in the least. The Misplaced Pages powers that be are not interested in dealing with that sort of stuff. The thing with the kapos he added was really just the icing on the cake - the moral Nazis punishing the deficient Jews for behaving badly to other Jews - note the source calls that embracing these Nazi professions of moral outrage at the purportedly unchivalrous behavior of the people they were in the process of destroying, but that somehow didn't make it into the article.
- The use of a professor of Islamic literature publishing in the Journal of Religious Ethics as a source for Much of the case against Husseini's ostensible key role in the Holocaust emerged in the immediate aftermath of WW2, with those collecting evidence working for the Jewish Agency in the context of an intensive public relations exercise to establish a Jewish state in British (let's ignore for a second the source does not say this) or In 1947 Simon Wiesenthal alleged that Eichmann had accompanied Husseini on an inspection tour of both Auschwitz and Majdanek, and that the mufti had praised the hardest workers at the crematoria. His claim was unsourced. are easy and obvious RS violations. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 03:25, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
- @Zero0000 @Nishidani: maybe it is high time you open an ArbCom case.
- One of his speciality is religious violence. He has numerous scholarly publications on the topic: and is widely quoted by his peers . The only question would be to see if he is controversial nor not (such as eg Pappé).
- Pluto2012 (talk) 07:14, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
- What nonsense. The guy is a professor of Islamic literature. None of his publications shows he has any expertise in the Holocaust or Husseini.
- We have dozens of high quality reliable sources here, and the professor of Islamic literature is the first one to discover Husseini suggested Arab units in the German army to mirror the Jewish units in the British army? Are you serious?
- By all means, open an ArbCom case. I'd like to see you explain why you restored information from a source that has been questioned (the onus is on you to find consensus that it's reliable) with material that isn't even in the source (now it's you who put it in the article), ignoring BRD and as part of your tendency to revert my edits without a reasonable explanation, like you did here and elsewhere, not to mention your various statements against other editors (you know which I mean, I'm sure). Do it. I dare you. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 07:25, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
- This is pointless haranguing, desperate barrel-scraping for exclusionist pretexts. Unlike Sells, Bernard Lewis was not a Holocaust historian, neither is Philip Mattar, Henry Laurens, Shai Lachman, Benny Morris, Benjamin Netanyahu, Moshe Pearlman, Joseph Schechtman, Avi Shlaim, Michael Bar-Zohar, Eitan Haber etc.etc., all used here, without nitpicking objections from you or anyone else. The same goes for Klaus-Michael Mallmann though his expertise is in Weimar period Communism.You accept without the blinking of an eyelid, defend even, Wolfgang G. Schwanitz (no chair, no academic position), i.e. an Islamic scholar's views in a highly politicized non-RS outlet Middle East Forum but baulk at the infinitely more recognized and qualified Sells? There is no substance therefore to the objections, unless the idea that one of the most gifted historians of his era cannot write on a Muslim's putative role in the Holocaust, because profound expertise on Islam, the crucible in which Husseini was born, raised and militated, is a disqualification. Laughably absurd. Expertise on Islam is not a grounds for excluding relevant scholarship on the Holocaust.
- This curriculum is as strong a testament to the high repute and quality of Sells' scholarship as you could get from any specialist quoted on Misplaced Pages.
- It includes a monograph, The Bridge Betrayed: Religion and Genocide in Bosnia. University of California Press, 1996,
- which is, precisely, a book on Genocide, Islam in Bosnia which is part of the meat of accusations against Husseini covered in our article. That alone means all the objections above are fiddledfaddle. The case for Sells as an authority is watertight, and it is only as a formality that one replies to silly challenges on this. If you wish to pursue this ridiculous claim, take it to RS/N and try an convince someone. Nishidani (talk) 08:37, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages controversial topics
- Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press
- All unassessed articles
- B-Class biography articles
- WikiProject Biography articles
- Start-Class Religion articles
- Mid-importance Religion articles
- WikiProject Religion articles
- B-Class Palestine-related articles
- Top-importance Palestine-related articles
- WikiProject Palestine articles
- C-Class politics articles
- Low-importance politics articles
- WikiProject Politics articles