Talk:Amin al-Husseini

Archives

Talk:Amin al-Husayni/Archive 1

---

Suggested addition to the article

So, while waiting for Zero's response, I revised my suggestion once again to accomodate his objections.

A statement describing conversations between Eichmann and Wisliceny, himself a convicted war criminal, was presented on the Eichmann trial in Jerusalem. This statement was written down by German architec fellow (given name) Steiner, after Wisliceny told him about the conversations with Eichmann. Wisliceny signed this statement with to minor reserevations. [1]. This statement suggested that Amin al-Husayni knew a great deal about the Holocaust and how it was carried out:

"The Mufti was one of the initiators of the systematic extermination of European Jewry and had been a collaborator and adviser of Eichmann and Himmler in the execution of this plan... He was one of Eichmann's best friends and had constantly incited him to accelerate the extermination measures. I heard him say, accompanied by Eichmann, he had visited incognito the gas chamber of Auschwitz." [2]

Mufti's role in Holocaust is still controversial. As Arendt said in Eichmann in Jerusalem: "The trial revealed only that all rumors about Eichmann's connection with Haj Amin El Husseini, the former Mufti of Jerusalem, were unfounded". (Arendt, 1994, p. 13)

Looking forward to Zero's comments. --Heptor 15:59, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Juicifer, could you please find where Zvi Elpeleg published the mufti's diaries, so it too could be included in the artice? --Heptor 16:05, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Ya I saw it recently i'll go through my history when I get a minute. I'll send him an email instead perhaps. The first paragraph up there is OK by NOR NPOV and WP:V. The second one should perhaps be:

The extent of the Mufti's role in Holocaust is contested by a few historians. According to Arent in Eichmann in Jerusalem: "The trial revealed only that all rumors about Eichmann's connection with Haj Amin El Husseini, the former Mufti of Jerusalem, were unfounded". (Arendt, 1994, p. 13)

Hmm. actually that quote is problematic, as the evidence from the trial clearly shows that there was some connection. So to use the quote we would have to point out that it is ermmm.. kinda wrong. (Which is not suprising given the approach that revisionist historians take to primary sources.) I am not saying that we can't quote this guy or Zurtal at all because they made a few errors, but let's find quotes which are:

• a)not in contradiction with accepted sources
• b)more than just a statement of their own POV

I personally hting, given the minority position of this perspective that merely stating the POV and one or two protagonists would suffice. jucifer 22:11, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I have Elpeleg's biography of the Mufti (a book) and have gone through the long chapter on the Mufti's war-time activity several times. I do not believe that the alleged "quotation" from the Mufti's diary is there, nor is any similar quotation. Given that Elpeleg is no friend of the Mufti (actually, he is very hostile), this reinforces my suspicion that the quotation is bogus. My guess is that Jucifer found it close to a mention of Elpeleg's book and assumed it was from that source. The quotation also does not appear in the Carpi's article in Studies in Zionism. I also looked in an even more hostile source (a long article published years ago in American Zionist) and it wasn't there either. --Zero 23:22, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

The Eichmann trial did not establish a significant connection between Eichmann and the Mufti. It only established that the Nazi Wisliceny had claimed there was a connection. I repeat: there are buildings full of German archives that document the activities of Eichmann and his department day by day and nobody has found any evidence of close collaboration between Eichmann and the Mufti. Actually this is a useless lead to take. Hostile historians like Elpeleg who seek to show the Mufti's complicity in the Holocaust ignore Eichmann and look at connections between the Mufti and Himmler. --Zero 23:22, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

So what we have now, is that Wisliceny had claimed there was a connection, but no further evidence exist. The fact that Wisliceny had claimed there was a connection, is certainly notable enough to be included in the article. You will of course need to provide a source for the claim that nobody has found any more evidence of close collaboration between Eichmann and the Mufti, but I think we are actually going somewhere.

In any case, we should give jucifer time to find mufti's diaries. --Heptor 23:47, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

The removal of content concerning Handschar division

FYI. The contribs of the editor who removed the content concerning Handschar division so far don't show that it has been pasted somewhere. While I agree that most of the text does belong there (somewhere), I wouldn't want us to lose it. I'm returning Haj Amin's Vienna Illustrated cover because I don't see a reason for its removal. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 07:30, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

File:Grossmufti-inspecting-ss-recruits.jpg

Al-Husayni inspects Waffen SS recruits

Humus, I think it was you who uploaded this image. I wonder about the accuracy of the legend. These people look too old to be recruits and they aren't wearing Handschar uniforms (I think). --Zero 09:55, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I did it, and supplied the book and page number. That's about all I know about it. Maybe they were not too picky... ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 10:41, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

"Pro-Nazi"

This is an important aspecy of this person life and work and should be in the opening paragraph.

If there are objection I would like to opem mediation on this subject.

You should ask yourself:

If it gets to ArbCom will they have enough scholarly sources saying he was Pro-Nazi ? Is there evidence for that fact. I think you know the answer so don't remove what you know is true.

Zeq 05:29, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

It should be more than evident to you by now that consensus is entirely against your position. WWII German connections and dealings are fully put forth in the article. Inserting "Pro-Nazi" labels is NOT accurate, it is in fact a blatant POV. The man supported the German war effort in order to get rid of the Brits, he didn't care a fig for National Socialist ideology.--AladdinSE 11:24, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Two Questions to Zero

About this diff [3]

Why have reverted ?

1. Do you think he was NOT pro-Nazi ?

2. You have replaced a link to the Nazi to a link about German which leads to the ederal republic of Germany - a country that did not exist at the time the Mufti helped the Nzai germany army. So do you claim that the Mufti helped an army of a country that did not exist in the 1940s (when he helped them ?) or are you just trying to use Wikipedia for propeganda (although ArbCom have told you two years ago not to do it)

Zeq 13:16, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

On your second point, don't be silly. Germany has existed as an entity since 1871. Germany certainly existed in the years 1933-45. The article on Germany certainly deals with German history from before the Bundesrepublik. --Cybbe 18:34, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Just click on the link you just added. While the Mufti helped the nazi army you placed a link to germany. Zeq 21:27, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I suspect Zeq is attempting to hide the fact that he's re-added the Nazi reference. When I looked at his changes, I noted that he deliberately re-spelled a word that had been spelled correctly in a later paragraph. Once an editor spots the error (as I did) and corrects it, Zeq's previous edits won't appear under the (diff) view, and the new edit won't have his/her name on it. It's just a suspicion, however, and I apologize in advance if I've mischaracterized Zeq's edits. Personally, I think the issue of the Mufti's ties with Nazi Germany should be fully explored and mediated. Given his ancestry, I doubt al-Husayni sympathized with Nazi ideology. Instead, he probably saw the Nazis as a tool he could use. However, all of this deserves research, sources, and scholarly analysis and not the shallow treatment provided thus far. Rklawton 16:07, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

• Whoo ! that was profound. but wrong. The issue was that the Mufti did not had ties with Germany as the link lead you to think but with Nazi Germany. Wikipedia has two different article for those two entities. If you wish to merge them i suggest you will run into some resitence. So don'y tru to do it here. Zeq 12:36, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I suspect Zeg is simply on war trail here. What regards the term Nazi: it is quite well defined and should not expand to label everything what existed in 1933-45. Pavel Vozenilek 17:21, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

In general, and I don't mean any editor here, I suspect that this article works as a magnet and many Pro-Nazi people will read it. So it is important to label correctly who di the Mufti helped. Zeq 12:38, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Disruptive editing

The Nazi past of the Palestinian ufti is well knowm. Why do you try to water it down ?

Are there other people who's anti-semite feeling you wish to hide ?

Zeq 12:34, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

How long do we have to put up with you? --Zero 12:40, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I will not be here for long but nither will you. Zeq 12:46, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

some historians disagree

I removed the sentence, "Al-Husayni's actual role is disputed: although Zionist historians and the Mufti's own supporters agree that he was a major instigator of the violence, some historians disagree." Not to be too critical of whoever added it, but it really doesn't say much without descriptions of the views of particular historians. I'm also a little concerned with characterizations like 'Zionist' historian. If a scholar is reputable enough to be quoted, it might be better to just quote him as a historian. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:06, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Nazi stuff

Articles to be compared to would be Andrey_Vlasov, and of course Quisling. They both are consequently using "German" and not "Nazi". It is natural this article would use German too. -- Heptor _talk 20:26, 18 February 2006 (UTC)