Talk:Haj Amin al-Husseini

The grand Mufti of NO WHERE According to the JVLs sources, the Jewish Agency for Israel and The World Zionist Organization

No more Mr Nice Guy re your reversion.... The Jewish virtual library's sources are ... the Jewish Agency for Israel and The World Zionist Organization.talknic (talk) 21:39, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

As was explained to you on another talk page [1], an unsigned essay on JVL is not a reliable source. Not to mention that it doesn't say anywhere that Husayni was "no longer holding any official position representing the Palestinians", or anything of the sort. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:54, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

No more Mr Nice Guy --- "Oh well. Nobody can accuse me of not trying" The Middle East maze: Israel and her neighbors David A. Rausch - Page 33The British finally dismissed this Grand Mufti in October 1937

BTW what official position can a person hold when they've been dismiss from their official positions? Seems logic has somehow been washed away talknic (talk) 07:15, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

He was dismissed by British and fled Jerusalem, but he and his assossiates have never aknowledged the British authority, so he kept carrying the "Mufti" title and was recognized as such by most of the Arab world (i.e. in Iraq, Lebanon). It is a question of recognition.Greyshark09 (talk) 13:49, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Greyshark09 --- Interesting...

Two questions for No more Mr Nice Guy/Greyshark09 et al 1) Did the Jewish Agency officially or un-officially recognize him as the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem after he'd been officially dismissed from his position of Grand Mufti of Jerusalem prior to Declaration? 2) Did Israel officially or un-officially recognize him as the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem after he'd been officially dismissed from his position of Grand Mufti of Jerusalem? If not, isn't it rather odd to be still calling him the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem? talknic (talk) 15:38, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Do you have access to the full text of Rausch? If so, please copy out the whole paragraph for us to consider. If not, then we can't consider it at all until someone has access to the full text. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:45, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Talknic -- Maybe you should consider the possibility that it wasn't of any particular interest to anybody (including the Jews themselves) whether or not Jewish/Israeli authorities "recognized" anybody as Grand Mufti before June 1967 (the date when Israel first exercised any effective control over the Temple Mount platform holy sites), at which time Husseini was a decrepit broken-down Nazi collaborator in Beirut, and not really fit to fill any responsible position (though this didn't prevent him from still having many fervently adoring admirers and active sympathizers, from Yasser Arafat on down...) -- AnonMoos (talk) 10:22, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

AnonMoos --- Reminder another discussion --- "If someone met..........I really don't see why we can't say that that person "collaborated with Nazis" "..........talknic -- Me either. If Hajj Amin al-Husseini met personally with Adolf Nazi and Heinrich Himmler and connived with high Nazi officials to make sure that Jews did not escape, then he collaborated with Nazis. You may quote me verbatim.

Itsmejudith -- It is not up to me to disprove. It is up to the authoring editor to prove al-Husayni was officially the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem when the incidents occurred.

No More Mr Nice Guy --- As was explained to you on another talk page [2], an unsigned essay on JVL is not a reliable source." Irrelevant. It is up to you to prove, not for me to disprove.

BTW the JPost link, which you inserted without discussion or it being submitted for scrutiny on that particular case, is due for reversion.

I am not required to provide secondary sources here in talk to show he was not grand Mufti when the incidents occurred. To that end...

HC Deb 21 October 1937 vol 327 cc23-8 55. Colonel Wedgwood -- asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to the comments made by the Royal Commission upon the conduct and position of the Mufti of Jerusalem; and whether any action has been or will be taken to remedy the state of affairs commented upon by the Royal Commission?

§ Mr. Ormsby-Gore -- The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part, regulations were issued on ist October depriving the Mufti of Jerusalem of his office of President of the Supreme Moslem Council and his membership of the General Wakf Committee, of which he was chairman. The Arab Higher Committee, of which he was also chairman, was at the same time declared an illegal body."

Hansard HC Deb 16 March 1938 vol 333 cc396-7 396§ 27. Mr. Mander -- "asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the present position with regard to the case of the ex-Mufti of Jerusalem, near Beyrout; whether he is aware that the ex-Mufti is receiving a substantial monthly subsidy from foreign sources and is now directing terrorist operations from French Syria; and what representations have been made to the French Government on the subject?"

Simply citing secondary sources calling him the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, citing a labeled a photo saying he was the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem when he met Hitler, citing references where he was called the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, simply do not prove he officially held the office of Grand Mufti of Jerusalem at the time. All they prove is that some folk still believed he was or perhaps they're propagandistas

A verifiable secondary source is required that says he actually held the official position of Grand Mufti of Jerusalem when those incidents took place. Got one? talknic (talk) 12:27, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

You are mistaken. It's up to you to prove your source is reliable, not for me to disprove it. Consensus on this talk page is that it is not reliable. You can take it to WP:RSN and try to find a wider consensus saying that it is.

Here are three sources that say that al-Husayni was replaced as Mufti in 1948. [3] 3rd paragraph, [4], [5]. Apparently the Muslim community didn't care if the British dismissed him or not. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 13:39, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

No More Mr Nice Guy --- WP:RSN is relative to what goes in the article. This is the talk page, it is not the article. In the article it is up to the authoring editor to prove their assertions.

Your first link, the quotes conveniently end before the author writes Mufti of Jerusalem. I doesn't cite a source after Mufti of Jerusalem, doesn't say "al-Husayni was replaced as Mufti in 1948".

The second link doesn't say al-Husayni was replaced as Mufti in 1948. The third says "appointed new Mufti to Jeruslem". None confirm he was officially the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem in 1948. The British Parliamentary record at the time and they were the officials in control at the time, removed him from office. talknic (talk) 02:27, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ So you're saying that the sources you posted above were not something you wanted to use to change the article? Please make that clearer next time so I won't waste time reading them.

The first source I provided above says "Meanwhile, King Abdullah made Sheikh Husam al-Din Jarallah, a former official of the Palestine Government, Mufti of Jerusalem in place of Hajj Amin Al-Huseyni". It really can't get much clearer than that.

The second source says "Hajj Amin al-Husayni, the Mufti of Jerusalem", which also seems quite clear.

The third might be a bit ambiguous, so let's drop that one. The other two are quite enough. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 08:44, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

No More Mr Nice Guy -- Here is were things are discussed. It says Discussion oddly enough. I've used the British Parliamentary record in order that folk know what information to look for when searching for secondary sources in regards to his dismissal. It's quite a different starting point. For example

The British appointed him. The British dismissed him. Your first source is not quoting from a source. "It really can't get much clearer than that." Well yes it can get 'much clearer than that'. In place of someone no longer holding that position since he was dismissed from that position by the British in 1937.

Your second source is the author, not quoting, not giving a reference in particular for the mufti, but for a decree. talknic (talk) 11:51, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Since we have established that your understanding of the guidelines regarding reliable sources is poor, and that you are not interested in learning how to apply them properly, I see no point in pursuing this further. The sources I provided above are good, as any experienced editor will tell you. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 12:57, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

No More Mr Nice Guy A) tch tch tch ... B) Your sources didn't think to search the Parliamentary records of the actual authority over Palestine till may 14th 1948? Rather points to poor research. talknic (talk) 14:50, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

You should consider writing them a letter letting them know your conclusion about the quality of their research. After all, you've read, what, a whole paragraph of each book? And your qualifications and expertise used to critique the books are of the highest quality, I'm sure.

Please read WP:RS again and try to understand that your opinion on a book's quality of research is not relevant here. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:53, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

No More Mr Nice Guy -- Uh? Try this Page 35 and this and this and this and this talknic (talk) 23:40, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Did you notice that two of those talk about times after Abdullah replaced him (1949 and 1951), or did you just google for "ex-mufti +parliament" in google books and copied the first 5 results? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:13, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

How I find information is quite irrelevant to the information eventually presented, except perhaps in terms of accuracy. Yes I did notice. al-Husayni, the ex-'Grand Mufti of Jerusalem', is still being accused in some quarters after 1949/50 as the 'Grand Mufti of Jerusalem', even though the position was filled by someone else, after his dismissal in 1937. Unlike the president of the USA, forever called Mr President.. BTW 'replaced' or filled the vacant position? talknic (talk) 01:12, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ If he was being called Mufi even after he was replaced, all the more reason to call him Mufti in the article. One of the books you listed is called "the Mufti and the Fuhrer". Shouldn't that be "the ex-Mufti and the Fuhrer" according to your POV? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 10:04, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

"...according to your POV?" ? My POV is irrelevant. After Oct 1937, according to the records of the British Parliament, call him Mufti, call him whatever you wish, he was not the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem or the Mufti of Jerusalem.

BTW Whatever he did, whenever he did it, it has no thing what so ever to do with the Palestinians of today. Non voted him into position when he held positions (nor did their parents or grandparents for that matter). None served in the Balkans, had anything to do with Hitler, fought any war in 1948, dispossessed any Jewish folk from Arab States (neither did their parents or grandparents None voted any of the regimes in the Arab States in 1948 into power (nor did their parents or grandparents)

2011 - 1948 = 63...Life expectancy of Palestine refugee 74 - 2010 average [6] (probably far lower in 1948)....74 - 63 = 11 years old .... They were ALL children in 1948, if they were born at all ... They don't teach you simple maths? talknic (talk) 11:44, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually, elections were held. Husam al-Din Jarallah won but was convinced to step down by the British. But that's beside the point.

Not sure what your little rant has to do with this article. It's about Amin al-Husayni, not about the average life expectancy of Palestinians No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 14:42, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

No More Mr Nice Guy ..."Not sure what your little rant has to do with.." It was a BTW...

The Palestinians did not elect Hajj Amin al-Husayni to the position of Grand Mufti of Jerusalem. He was appointed by Herbert Samuel. Not sure what your little rant has to do with al-Husayni, the subject is not Husam al-Din Jarallah. talknic (talk) 16:03, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

It would really help if you had some clue what you were talking about [7], but thanks for showing why getting all your information from an unsigned essay on JVL is problematic. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:21, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

No More Mr Nice Guy -- The preceding posts and sources I've provided, both primary and secondary aside from JVL, show your personal attack & your assertion to be completely false. They also confirm that JVL via the Jewish Agency for Israel and The World Zionist Organization, would seem to be, in fact, correct.

Your secondary 'story' cites no source whatsoever. That you presented it, after all your fine tuition on the matter of secondary sources, seems nothing short of desperation talknic (talk) 01:41, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

It's a shame you refuse to learn anything. A. Secondary sources don't need to cite sources for everything. B. It's a historical fact that they had elections for candidates out of which Samuel selected the Mufti and that initially al-Huseyni didn't qualify. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 09:55, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

No More Mr Nice Guy -- A. How odd it is now reading through all your demands . B. "They", being a college of notables. Selected for the appointment by Samuel, from candidates elected by a college of notables. Not elected by the Palestinian population. Please read your own sources. talknic (talk) 11:50, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

A. Read the guidelines and policy. You not only don't get it, you deliberately refuse to get it. I never said or implied that a secondary source needs to cite every little detail. I didn't do that because I understand policy and know it's unnecessary. What defines the reliability of a secondary source is who wrote it and who published it. If you'd have spent some more time trying to understand and less time arguing and being a WP:DICK, you might have picked that up by now. B. "They" are Palestinians, who you said had nothing to do with him becoming Mufti. I'm glad you read a little bit and learned something despite your efforts not to.

Feel free to get your last word in. I'm done. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 12:36, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

No More Mr Nice Guy -- The record shows your unprincipled demands and now your insults.

The Palestinian people were not a college of notables. The Palestinian people were not Herbert Samuel

"...his appointment by British High Commissioner Herbert Samuel"Muslim, Christian, and Jew: Finding a Path to Peace Our Faiths Can Share By David Liepert Page 216 ...

He was dismissed in 1937 Antisemitism: a historical encyclopedia of prejudice and persecution, Volume 1 By Richard S. Levy page 336

talknic (talk) 16:12, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

"In 1937 after the murder of two British officials by the Arabs, he was stripped of his titles.." American Hebrew and Jewish messenger Volume 143, Issue 24 . Page 5 talknic (talk) 08:33, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Put your attention that the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem title predates the British Mandate, and continued after the departure of the British forces. Hence, your absolute reliance on British over Mufti's appointment and dismissal might not be that crucial.Greyshark09 (talk) 17:07, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Greyshark09 It's absolutely crucial. Next you'll be telling us Olmert or Sharon still lead Israel.talknic (talk) 23:40, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

NachshonR It's all quite irrelevant, actually. A common sense reading of the above discussion shows it is at cross-purposes. After being stripped of the title and replaced, people referred to him as "the Mufti" as Jimmy Carter is sometimes referred to by Americans as President Carter or the President. And most times, yes, as the former-President or ex-President; No longer officially filling the position, but still credited with a certain regard for _having_ served the public. He wasn't _the_ representative for the Palestinian people, & they didn't send him to meet with Hitler, but certainly his former position was invoked and the reason for his presence in Europe during his collaboration. No longer Grand, certainly he was not Mufti of "NO WHERE". Best to refer to him here as "Mufti of Jerusalem," "former Grand Mufti of Jerusalem," or, "the Mufti". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.65.105.214 (talk) 13:59, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree. As only the incumbent President is referred to as the President of the USA. Mufti or ex Grand Mufti of Jerusalem would be appropriate. To that end dismissed in 1937 Antisemitism: a historical encyclopedia of prejudice and persecution, Volume 1 By Richard S. Levy page 336 and "In 1937 after the murder of two British officials by the Arabs, he was stripped of his titles.." American Hebrew and Jewish messenger Volume 143, Issue 24 . Page 5 talknic (talk) 16:57, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

"the former Jerusalem Mufti" The Middle East today - By Don Peretz - Greenwood Publishing Group, 1994 - Page 347

"the former Jerusalem Mufti" The Arab-Israeli conflict: the Palestine War 1948 - By Efraim Karsh - Osprey Publishing, 2002 - Page 29

"the former Jerusalem Mufti's propaganda broadcasts" Hitler, the Allies, and the Jews - By Shlomo Aronson - Cambridge University Press, 2004 - Page 83

"despite the former Jerusaelm Mufti's connection with Hitler" Zionism at the UN: a diary of the first days - Eliahu Elath - Jewish Publication Society of America, 1976 - Page 97

"as seen in the activities of Husseini, the former Jerusalem Mufti" Handbook of world history: concepts and issues - Joseph Dunner - Philosophical Library, 1967 - Page 59

"Support of the former Jerusalem Mufti received by Saudi Arabia aroused antagonism to him by President Nasser who charged him with being a reactionary" The Palestine State: a rational approach - Richard Joseph Ward, Don Peretz, Evan M. Wilson - Kennikat Press, 1977 - Page 41

Shall we move on to the "ex Mufti of Jerusalem"? (About 916 Results) OR perhaps just the "ex Mufti"? (About 359 results) Maybe the "former Mufti of Jerusalem"? (About 629 results ) ..... talknic (talk) 18:26, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

How nice of you to restart this old argument that you already lost on another page. As you know, by searching without the "ex-" you can find tons of good sources still calling him mufti after his alleged dismissal. The explanation you give for this apparent discrepancy is your original research, since you did not provide any source that explicitly addresses the discrepancy. It would make just as much sense to suggest that many people called him "ex-mufti" because he had been exiled from Palestine and was unable to carry out his mufti duties. But we don't have to trade guesses, we can determine the truth easily enough. If the British government may or may not have dismissed him as mufti, then the official position of the British government is what actually matters.

1. When the British government announced Husseini's dismissal as President of the Supreme Moslem Council and member of the General Wakf Committee, it did not mention his role as mufti. Statement by Secretary of State for the Colonies. Also widely quoted in secondary sources, such as Palestine Post, Oct 3, 1937, page 1, and The Times, Oct 02, 1937, page 12.
2. The next Secretary of State for the Colonies, who we must remember was the highest British minister with Palestine responsibility, repeatedly referred to him as "the present mufti of Jerusalem", for example on 10 November 1938, 23 November 1938, and 17 May 1939. (He might have called him"mufti" on account of a former status, but "present mufti" does not allow that possibility.)
3. However, the evidence that makes all others redundant is that the British government was asked about this issue in 1943 and made an official response. An answer in the Commons to a question on notice, given by the Secretary of State for the Colonies, is the most official statement it is possible for the British government to make:

Mr. Hammersley asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies why no appointment has yet been made to fill the posts of Mufti of Jerusalem and President of the Moslem Supreme Council?
Colonel Stanley. An important distinction must be drawn between the two offices referred to by my hon. Friend. The post of Mufti of Jerusalem is a purely religious office with no powers or administrative functions, and was held by Haj Amin before he was given the secular appointment of President of the Supreme Moslem Council. In 1937 Haj Amin was deprived of his secular appointment and administrative functions, but no action was taken regarding the religious office of Mufti, as no legal machinery in fact exists for the formal deposition of the holder, nor is there any known precedent for such deposition. Haj Amin is thus technically still Mufti of Jerusalem, but the fact that there is no intention of allowing Haj Amin, who has openly joined the enemy, to return to Palestine in any circumstances clearly reduces the importance of the technical point.

1. Given as we consider it good to support primary sources with secondary sources, it is worth noting that the most respected biography of Husseini, Zvi Elpeleg's "The Grand Mufti", page 48, agrees: "officially he now retained only the title of Mufti (following the Ottoman practice, this had been granted for life)".

Zero^talk 10:48, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Zero0000 -- A) The discussion is still up, I've 'lost' nothing. B) "The explanation you give for this apparent discrepancy is your original research," 1) They are all secondary sources and; 2) How one eventually finds sources is irrelevant to the information they contain 3) I'd agree except where ex-mufti is followed by "of Jerusalem" C) As I said in the title of the discussion. The "grand Mufti of nowhere", which doesn't preclude him being called Mufti. talknic (talk) 12:45, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

---

As of circa 1937 the Ex-Mufti - Palestine Post Wednesday, June 29, 1938 Page 3 ... [8] ... [9] ... [10] ... [11] ... [12] ... [13] ... [14] ... [15] ... [16] ... [17] ... [18] There are many more entries ... talknic (talk) 08:13, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

You mean the 150–200 entries that call him the Mufti of Jerusalem without qualification? Zero^talk 08:55, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Zero - The opposite would be 'with qualification'. The sources presently in the article are repetition of primary sources with un-qualified statements. To simply say he was the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem without qualification doesn't quite 'qualify'. The onus is on the editor making the claim in the article ... talknic (talk) 10:45, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Grammar

'he was pleased by Nazi's solution' or words to that effect. This is sourced to Elpeleg 1993, p. 72.

Since this is not grammatical (he was pleased by the Nazis' solution') could someone check Elpeleg? Nishidani (talk) 18:24, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Reasoning behind the edit apropos the Schechtman/Grobba contradiction

The text ran:

A separate record of the meeting was made by Fritz Grobba, who until recently had been the German ambassor to Iraq. His version of the crucial words reads 'when the hour of Arab liberation comes, Germany has no interest there other than the destruction of the power protecting the Jews".(ref={harvnb|Yisraeli|1974|p=310}:denn die Stunde der Befreieung der Araber habe dann geschlagen, Deutschland habe dort keine anderen Interessen als die Vernichtung der das Judentum protegierenden Macht.ref) Al-Husseini's own account of this point, as recorded in his diary, is very similar to Grobba's.(refSchechtman 1965, pp. 307–308:'Germany has no ambitions in this area but cares only to annihilate the power which produces the Jews'.ref> Al-Husseini's own diary, seized after the war, recalls the encounter in slightly different terms.<refLaurens 2002, pp. 664–666 n.47cites the source from the archives of the Simon Wiesenthal Center:'It is clear that the Jews have accomplished nothing in Palestine and their claims are lies. Everything that has been achieved in Palestine is due to the Arabs and not the Jews. I (Hitler) have decided to find a solution to the Jewish problem, approaching it step by step without holding back. In this regard, I am about to make a just and indispensable appeal, firstly to all the European countries and, later, to countries outside of Europe'.ref>

• Grobba is cited for the crucial words: when the hour of Arab liberation comes, Germany has no interest there other than the destruction of the power protecting the Jews.
• Schechtman is cited for the view Husseini's diary account is similar to Grobba:Germany has no ambitions in this area but cares only to annihilate the power which produces the Jews'.'
• I presume that Schechtman's citation is supposed to be from the Mufti's diary. According to the way this was written before my edit, the Mufti's diary cites exactly the words used by Grobba.
• As far as I can see, these words are not in the relevant section of the Mufti's diary as amply excerpted by Laurens.
• The Mufti's diary account overlaps at points with the official Nazi account and Grobba's, of course, but not, so far, on the issue Schechtman is cited for.
• Your edit now is saying Schechtman is citing words, and attributing them to the Mufti, which, as one can verify, are almost (given small differences in translation) identical to those Grobba wrote. In philological terms, Grobba and the Mufti recalled, independently, according to Schechtman, almost the same phrasing from Hitler which, however the official minutes do not justify. This is little short of miraculous. All the more so since Grobba heard what Hitler said in German, whereas the Mufti addressed Hitler in French, and presumably listened to him via a French-language interpreter.
• It is well worth then grabbing Schechtman pp.307f. to see if this is an editorial misprision, or if Schechtman attributes to the Mufti an almost word perfect version of the phrasing used by Grobba in his account of the meeting.Nishidani (talk) 15:36, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I consulted Schechtman pp. 306–308 before editing. Those three pages are called "The Mufti's Diary on his Meeting with Hitler". Schechtman's paragraph #3 is nearly identical with what was quoted from Laurens (only the differences you would expect from separate translations), so I have no doubt they are looking at the same document. However, I don't have access to Laurens. That paragraph is not especially interesting, in fact the main controversy that exists concerns the third of Hitler's list of points (Schechtmans' paragraph #10), which some authors translate from Schmidt as that Hitler promised to kill the Jews of Palestine. I also have Grobba's report as printed by Yisraeli (pp. 308–311; I'll send you that by email shortly). Grobba's report of Hitler's list of points is quite similar to the Mufti's according to Schechtman, and the third point is more or less identical. I don't find that miraculous, rather it adds confidence that that version is correct. It would be a much bigger miracle if Hitler told an Arab of his genocidal plans months before the other top Nazis knew about it. Zero^talk 01:51, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Btw, the text in Appendix F of Morse's awful book [19] seems to be taken from Schechtman. Zero^talk 02:07, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Ah, confirming, as also Noisetier often does with his comments, one of my favorite dictums (dicta) from Marc Bloch:'Le bon historien, lui, ressemble à l'ogre de la légende. Là où il flaire la chair humaine, il sait que là est son gibier.'! I still think it miraculous, but that is because the case was typical of the sort of things a philologist is trained to be suspicious of in second-hand reportage. (The text in Morse (Shechtman) is not the complete passage, because it leaves out stuff in the Mufti's diary, like al-Husseini's annotations of Hitler's speech style, the especial emphasis in his pronunciation of 'Juden' etc. Still, with the emailed material, I'll review. Thanks indeed in the meantime for catching me on that edit - I was using the instincts of textcritical suspicion, rather than actually comparing the original documents. I needed the warning.Nishidani (talk) 09:45, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Re revert of Chesdovi

Re this and this. Since the beginning, Dalin has been discussed, taken to RS, etc. He is notoriously bad as a reliable source. (2) He is not needed since Amin is exhaustively studied by fine historians. (3) the link to his book you provided shows he's writing a narrative of what he, Dalin, imagines is going through Amin's mind, after he is described as being at Auschwitz and egging the stokers on (all sourced to Wis) whom no one trusts. Keep this in mind. You may not like the author, but no one has caught him out using unreliable sources, unlike the many authors he criticizes, precisely, for fabricating or twisting sources.Nishidani (talk) 12:36, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Uh, brewcrewer, experienced editors don't go around mechanically reverting things already contested on the talk page, as you just did here. To engage in this is tantamount to edit-warring, since no rationale is provided, and consensus is visibly lacking. Just a reminder.Nishidani (talk) 14:43, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

The claim is recorded in so many books, we should also include it here:

There have been claims that the mufti visited the death camps in German occupied-Poland. In July 1946, Joseph Kalmer writing in The Central European Observer, talks of the existence of an "intercepted letter" which attested to the muftis presence in Auschwitz. In 1947, after apparently studying material from the Nuremberg war crimes tribunal, Simon Wiesenthal wrote that the mufti had visited Auschwitz and Majdanek to study the functioning of the crematoria. Other sources attribute the claim directly to the Nazi Dieter Wisliceny, who confirmed earlier reports by Rudolf Kasztner, that he had heard that the mufti had accompanied Eichmann on a visit to the gas chambers at Auschwitz. In 1961, the mufti denied ever being in the camps or that he knew Eichmann. The alleged incognito visit has not been verified by any other sources and is of unreliable authenticity..

Chesdovi (talk) 15:07, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Come on! Kalmer is cited unverifiably, in a primary source; you write that Dieter Wisliceny, confirmed earlier reports by Rudolf Kasztner, citing Bosworth, who says no such thing. You've got it arse-about. He says that Kasztner said the notoriously unreliable Wislisceny told him the Mufti played a key role in the Holocaust, (which is patent nonsense), and in any case skewing the source, a POV-WP:OR violation there. Segev repeats what Rafael Medoff and Bernard Lewis state. In short, you've given a primary source that is unverifiable, a secondary source you misinterpret, and a secondary source which confirms what authorities on the page already say. Sure there's a lot of work to be done there, but not in this scrappy fashion. (and please read Segev's review of Dalin's motherlode of. . Nishidani (talk) 15:52, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I am aware that Kastner heard the report from Wisliceny himself, and am sorry this was not clear. The article already covers (and debunks) the “friendship” claim, but the Aushwitz claim is missing. Even thou Bosworth states this report must “be questioned”, The Encyclopaedia of Islam nevertheless mentions it twice in the mufti’s entry. We should too. (It is interesting how Bosworth has used italics for “According to my opinion” and “I heard say” to emphasise the weakness of the claim.) The mufti denied knowing who Eichman was in 1961, yet his 9/11/44 diary entry under the name “Eichmann” calls him “very rare diamond, the best saviour of the Arabs”. Contrary to sources I have seen which state that Eichman only said he met Amin once, Saul S. Friedman writes that Eichman did not only meet Amin once at a cocktail party: He “admitted at his trial in Jerusalem in 1961 that he had met the Grand Mufti on several occasions. Their first meeting took place in 1937…” Eichman also said they met again in 1942…. So if the mufti lied about knowing who Eichman was, should we also take his word about his visit to the camps? Chesdovi (talk) 16:50, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Seems like some people throw away their usual caution when the Mufti is the subject. There was no meeting in 1937, this is proved and not disputed. Eichmann spent one day near Haifa while al-Hussieni was unable to leave the Haram in Jerusalem due to a British arrest warrant being out on him. In any case the primary purpose of Eichmann's visit was to talk to Zionists, and the internal report he wrote after returning to Germany was published decades ago. As for the Eichmann trial, he absolutely did not admit at his trial to meeting al-Husseini more than once. From District Court session 80: Question: "Were you in touch with the Mufti? Did you co-operate with him? Would you care to give the Court information on the matter?" Accused: "Yes. As far as I know I saw the Mufti just once. This was during an evening hosted by Department VI in the Security Service guesthouse, to which most of the Specialist Officers of the Head Office for Reich Security had been invited. Each Specialist Officer, including myself, was presented to the Mufti. At that time there was an agreement between the Mufti and Himmler, according to which - I know of only three people - but in any case several people had to go through the Head Office for Reich Security as intelligence agents. In this case it was three Iraqi Majors. According to orders, these three Iraqi Majors came to work in my Section for their information for a day or two - I cannot quite remember now. Subsequently, neither I, not any officer of IVB4, had anything at all to do with either the Mufti or any of the three Iraqi Majors." He might have been lying, but he sure did not admit it. Zero^talk 15:05, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

If the Auschwitz claim is missing, of course it should be edited in, presumably in the Wisliceny postwar section. But look for the better sources. Even fine sources copy at times. I trust secondary books written by scholars who actually read the archives. I'm not here to defend the mufti, but when I came to this page 4 years ago, the sheer volume of bad reportage that turned out to distort issues was impressive. Perhaps he planned a deathcamp at Nablus, who knows. But you simply can't put that in because crummy writers repeat the meme. Exceptional claims require exceptionally good sources- that is one of our wiki rules (that sort of thing is in breach of Islamic law by the way: Khomeini, oddly enough, dismantled the Shah's nuclear programme on that very ground, atom bombs were forbidden, he ruled). Aside from WP:NPOV, when we are dealing with a character whose biography is notoriously inflected by POV pseudo-scholarship, and one who has been intensely and extensively studied by competent area scholars, I think the sensible thing to do is to raise the bar of relevant secondary source commentary high. As Novick remarks at the bottom of our page, his entry in an encyclopedia is 4 times longer than that of the major Holocaust executors, and the reasons are connected with geopolitics. I won't edit this section until I have mastered several new sources emerging in the last decade in German scholarship, quite a lot of it negative, some dubious. Nishidani (talk) 17:43, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

A recent high-quality source on this is Gilbert Achar, The Arabs and the Holocaust. Achar is extremely critical of al-Husayni, including the best argument I've seen that al-Husayni knew (by 1943 at least) what the Germans were up to. However, on the Auschwitz visit he writes "based on highly dubious evidence given by a single person". We know that person was Wisliceny, or more correctly what someone else claimed that Wisliceny said. In any case, since we have Kasztner's account of what Wisliceny claimed, and it does not have anything about what al-Husayni said during this alleged visit, we know for a fact that the story as told by Dalin is an invention. Zero^talk 07:50, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually I think this story about al-Husseini saying something at Auschwitz originates with Simon Wiesenthal. Wiesenthal was famous for making things up, even about himself, as Tom Segev's recent exhaustive biography demonstrates repeatedly. Despite the great things that Wiesenthal achieved, it would be a sad day for Wikipedia if we took his writing as reliable. Zero^talk 07:57, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Fully agree. I had not yet read this when I wrote my suggestion here below. 87.65.253.233 (talk) 17:57, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

The claim about planning death camps in Palestine is ridiculous on its face. The Germans did plan to occupy Palestine, and probably would have been genocidal maniacs there like in Europe, but the documentary evidence of specific plans to build camps doesn't seem to exist (and I say that because the polemic authors who would very much like to present such evidence don't seem to be able to). Connection to the Mufti is an absurd second level of conjecture which is obviously politically motivated. Why on earth would the Nazis need a Muslim religious leader, who never built anything in his life, to help build a camp? Once the Germans were in control they could do whatever they liked. Zero^talk 00:00, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, chief. My feeling is that some of these memes should be listed, eventually from RS however that mention them just to dismiss their flimsiness, if only because quite a few people come to this page and think there's a cover-up because they don't read the feverish 'facts' they encounter all over the web. But it would be a pretty weird passage. I.e. that he was engaged in a homosexual triangle with senior British administrators which explains why Zionism ran into difficulties in the early 20s; that he authored the holocaust, and the poor Germans weren't really to blame for everything; that he rebrushed up on sapper mechanics to set up a death camp in Nablus; that he was Arafat's distant uncle, and hence the PLO/PNA was the long hand of the holocaust-engineer, and the Palestinian project for homerule essentially a dream of rerunning the Nazi project etc, etc.etc. That he urged the stokers, on his non-existent (so far) visit to Auschwitz, burn or gas the huge lines of people he saw there with more vim. Or perhaps that could be ordered in a section that deals with meme-recycling sources, if we can get articles by scholars reviewing this practice. Those who view him as the Moriarty of Middle Eastern madness have, no far, plummeted, locked in a lethal embrace with the spectre their paranoia, over the Reichenbach Falls of fantasy. It deserves a story somewhere.Nishidani (talk) 08:28, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

A section called "propaganda" would be interesting. We just need a wp:rs sources that gather some of these. I wonder if Gilbert Achcar's last book could be used for this... 87.65.253.233 (talk) 17:55, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

As a general reminder, WP policy prohibits the removal of reliably sourced content because "it is not true." I see lots of chitchat, but one fundamental policy seems to be ignored. I agree with Chesdovi.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:53, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Since you appear to either not have read the diffs cited at the top of this section, or forgotten them, for your convenience I will repeat them here to save time wasted in scrolling.

this and this.

They broke a fundamental policy by reporting in wiki's narrative neutral voice, i.e., as 'facts' memes from the early post-war rumour mill, and did so by recourse to a notoriously unreliable source. So there were 2 violations, one of WP:NPOV, and the other of WP:RS, something you haven't noted. The 'chitchat' clarified this, and even canvassed ways of retaining the crap. I've read several times that Hitler was prey to cacophilia, and that a dogbite left his wiener looking a bit like Goofy's ear, but I don't think that kind of stuff is included in Hitler. Biographical articles are not, optimally, playgrounds for tabloid prurience or hearsay sensationalism.Nishidani (talk) 09:13, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

The mufti's bio in the Encyclopaedia of Islam mentions the "camps" twice. If there are so many sources reporting this dubious claim, why should it not be reported here? Correct, until now, the truth has been beyond verification, but that does not negate that this widely publicized claim should be mentioned here. He was either there or he was not. If he went "incognito", bedecked in a SS uniform instead of his dashing white turban (he traveled to Paris with dyed hair and a shaven beard) - it would naturally be more difficult for onlookers and witnesses to ascertain his presence there. I suppose Segev and Achar, who both say the claim is merely hearsay, are not aware of the Kalmer claim of an “intercepted letter” and I am awaiting both their views on the matter. Chesdovi (talk) 09:46, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

For the record, the report in Encyclopedia of Islam concludes with "These reports coming only from Wisliceny must be questioned until substantiated from other sources." Zero^talk 03:15, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the Kalmer reference, I will get that article for my collection. However, the lack of any credentials of Kalmer as a historian, together with the lack of any other mention of this "intercepted letter" by experts on the Mufti, make it altogether too fringe for inclusion. We must also note that writings of the 1946-7 period deserve special caution as the move towards a Jewish state was gathering momentum and the propagandists for all sides were working shifts. Zero^talk 11:39, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

In the meantime please review the thread. The point is not that these flimsy rumours cannot be mentioned, but that you require excellent sources for extraordinary claims. And they will be forthcoming in duke horse. What we are best advised to do here is not rush perfervidly to plunk in memes from crappy books, as has long been the practice.Nishidani (talk) 10:39, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Achlar may suffice. Chesdovi (talk) 10:43, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Chesdovi, you seem to be in an awful haste to plunk the junk. That remark by a Rabbi in 1978, cited by Jakobovitz (I presume) is interesting as a version of the meme we have discussed, but it is simply not going to pass any stringent test for RS on the idiotic thesis that the Mufti triggered the Final Solution. If you ain't familiar with the details of that, which indicate that planning began long before the Mufti put foot into Germany, and if you think that meeting Hitler in late November seeded the idea and inspiration for the deliberations at the Wannsee Conference two months later, look up Wannsee Conference. I've left it in, though eliding that 'frenzied' adjective, even if I've allowed the weaselly 'some' to remain. But the edit is a waste of your time. The meme the learned gentleman recirculates is best explained historically by looking at who said what and when, followed by what the best scholarship says about these rumours. And this is what several of us are working on. I've also relocated it. Given the junk scholarship on these years, I think it is generally agreed that we give the factual record in detail, as that has been established by the consensus of experts, while relegating the motherlode of postwar innuendoes to a separate section.Nishidani (talk) 13:53, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't know what is in discussion here exactly, but I know the academic literature on the Holocaust very well and there is barely a single historian who believes the decision to kill the Jews was made after the Mufti arrived in Germany. It is plausible (though not proved) that he visited Auschwitz, and even plausible (though apparently with zero evidence) that he wanted to build camps in Palestine. But it is not plausible that he is responsible for the Holocaust, because that has been proved wrong. As the pre-eminent Holocaust historian Medoff who is extremely hostile to the Mufti writes, "Actually, there is no evidence that the Mufti's presence was a factor at all; the Wisliceny hearsay is not merely uncorroborated, but conflicts with everything else that is known about the origins of the Final Solution." Zero^talk 14:42, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Tom Segev's recent book "Simon Wiesenthal" confirms that Wiesenthal originated the story of Eichmann visiting the gas chambers and praising the operators. Segev writes "He was evidently the first to disseminate this story, which was to be repeated innumerable times by others. Some attributed it to Eichmann's aide Wisliceny, but there is no reliable evidence for its veracity". (p. 87) Given that Segev had unrestricted access to Wiesenthal's files, this is strong statement. Another interesting thing in Segev's book is that Wiesenthal accused Maurice (Moshe) Pearlman of stealing his information about the mufti and publishing it with the help of "Asher Ben Natan and others". Asher Ben Natan (Arthur Piernikraz) was a leading Zionist activist who later became "one of the heads of the Israeli defense establishment, and the Jewish state's first ambassador to Germany". (pp. 87, 14) This is the first confirmation I have seen of the obvious fact that Pearlman's book was a Zionist production. Zero^talk 08:39, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

There's probably a similar connection behind the May 47 (French version) and 1948 (English) submission to the UN put out by Nation Associates (The Arab Higher Committee: Its Origins, Personnel and Purposes.) I keep seeing it cited, and have yet to come across (but this is ot my field) a detailed study of who these were, and why the timeliness. But the stash of material from it appears to have formed the basis of much that was later, even to this day, circulated about the Mufti.(?)Nishidani (talk) 12:51, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Incidentally, Nation Associates still exists. In 1946-8 it was generously funded by the American branch of the Jewish Agency (something I must get around to adding to The Nation). Their 1948 dossier consists of some text plus a bunch of documents. I have the text, but not the documents. I might try again to get the lot. Zero^talk 14:42, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Now I have it all (English original dated May 1947, 74 pages). The translation of the Mufti's diary appearing in Schechtman is word for word identical with what is given in this source. However they also give photographs of what they claim is the original diary (handwritten Arabic). Zero^talk 03:36, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

There's a very interesting article for an historian in all that. Who held the diary, how was it consulted, who did the 47 paper, who translated. Not quite for this article, perhaps, but it will be interesting to read the background, if these details do eventually emerge. It won't alter anything, but will throw light on the preparations for 47/48.Nishidani (talk) 17:11, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Rabbi Yitzchak Hutner

Why is Rabbi Yitzchak Hutner deserving of citation? There is nothing in his article to suggest he has any knowledge of the subject or any relevant expertise. This clearly fails WP:WEIGHT. Zero^talk 20:11, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

He appears to be cited in a scholarly book on the subject. Am I missing something?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:47, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

It's not a scholarly book, it's a scholarly journal. But anyway, why does being cited make the case? Scholarly articles cite lots of people from ignoramuses to geniuses, it doesn't automatically mean we can extract the citation from its context and present it here. In this case there is another problem, maybe worse. The quoted sentence without its context does not properly convey Hutner's position. Here is a longer explanation of Hutner's position from the same source (quoting Jonathan Sacks): "The Mufti himself was not an avowed enemy of the Jews until pressure began to be applied for the creation of a Jewish state. Hence Zionism brought about for the first time a collaboration between the Christian West and the Moslem East to destroy the Jewish people. Zionism was the cause of the Holocaust. It is reported that his view now prevails in mainstream yeshivah circles in America." If we want to include Hutner's claim that the Mufti initiated the Holocaust somehow (regardless of historical fact), we should also mention Hutner's belief that Zionism was to blame for the Mufti's actions and that this belief is commonplace in some circles. I'm still happy to leave Hutner out of this article, though the Haredi response to the Holocaust is something that ought to be covered properly somewhere in this encyclopedia. Zero^talk 21:26, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

If his position is cited positively by a scholar in a RS it is no worse than if the scholar himself had taken the same position. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 23:39, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Utterly inappropriate here, and if retained, as Zero argues, relevant only for a wiki page on rabbinical views on the Holocaust (caused by Zionism, caused by the impact of the haskalah, caused by lack of attachment to the Torah, caused by YHWH to punish his wayward flock etc.etc.etc.). In summing up these sectarian opinions, Lord Jacobovits called views like Hutner's ‘isolated’... ‘props to the faithful rather than as stabs directed at the wayward’(Religious Responses to the Holocaust. p.33) The views are not cited 'positively'.

Your argument, Brewcrewer, is outlandish. Darwin’s mechanism of natural selection was, Arthur Koestler once argued, one of the four pillars of unwisdom of the modern science of man (The Ghost in the Machine (1967) Pan Books 1970 pp.15-16. Koestler, though erudite and widely read in science, was not competent to judge. His opinion has been cited by a specialist in embryological development, Wallace Arthur, in his recent, Biased embryos and evolution, Cambridge University Press 2004 p.71, but that does not put Koestler's opinion, as your outlandish premise suggests, on the same level as Wallace Arthur's.Nishidani (talk) 10:07, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

First, without identifying Hutner as a Haredi rabbi, his inclusion is entirely meaningless. It is only his status as a rabbi that makes his opinion notable, as he was neither a historian nor a witness. Second, as I pointed out, the given sentence is misleading without the anti-Zionist aspect of it. Third, quoting the full sentence from the source isn't much use as it adds only the phrase "from those quarters" which means nothing if we don't know what quarters those were. Fourth, Jakobovits did not cite it "positively" but only descriptively. Fifth, it misrepresents the views of Hutner's peer group, as Jakobovits lists several opinions from them differing from Hutner's. Zero^talk 10:17, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

This is not about the Holocaust and I have no idea why it is being brought up. It is about Haj Amin al-Husseini and an opinion regarding Haj Amin al-Husseini is cited by a reliable scholarly source. If this opinion is disagreed with, that proffer the disagreeing opinion.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 14:54, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Correct your syntax, which makes for a garbled, meaningless sentence, and you might get a reply.Nishidani (talk) 15:03, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Brewcrewer, you added a sentence about the Holocaust and then you say "this is not about the Holocaust". You really need a better argument than that. Zero^talk 19:17, 16 February 2012 (UTC)