Alan Dershowitz in FrontPage:
In his speeches, most especially the one at Columbia University, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad repeats two myths about the Holocaust. The first every reasonable person knows is a total lie: namely that the Holocaust did not occur. The second myth, however, is one that escapes critical attention for the most part, because many people are not aware of its falsity. The myth is that the Palestinian people and their leadership had absolutely nothing to do with the Holocaust. The conclusion that is supposed to follow from this “fact” is that the establishment of Israel in the wake of the Nazi genocide of the Jewish people was unfair to the Palestinians. This is the way Ahmadinejad put it in his Columbia talk.“…[G]iven this historical event [the Holocaust], if it is a reality, we need to question whether the Palestinian people should be paying for it… “The Palestinian people didn’t commit any crime. They had no role to play in World War II.”
These statements about the role of the Palestinians are demonstrably false. The truth is that the Palestinian leadership, supported by the Palestinian masses, played a significant role in Hitler’s Holocaust. The Palestinian leader at the time was Hajj Amin Al-Husseini, the Grand Mufit of Jerusalem. As Professor Edward Said has acknowledged:
“Hajj Amin al-Husseini represented the Palestinian Arab national consensus, had the backing of the Palestinian political parties that functioned in Palestine, and was recognized in some form by Arab governments as the voice of the Palestinian people.”
Husseini was “Palestine’s national leader” and it was in that capacity that he made his notorious alliance with Hitler and played an active role in promoting the Holocaust. Here is the true story that Ahmadinejad tried to mythologize.
Read it all.
And his grandson carried on the family tradition. So in fact the Jordanians (or as some want to call them 'Palestinians' are Islamonzai supporters today. This family has played a great role in the jihad that we continue to face worldwide today. Alan, you have brought up a good point, and I agree with you on this.
The mufti and his zombies were Nazi supporters to the extent their aims were parallel to the Nazis, but it can also be said had Hitler succeeded, there is no doubt that the Arabs would have been next on the hit list, given the image of the Master race. Or do you really imagine Hitler bowing down 5X a day towards Mecca?
Andrew Bostom's forthcoming The Legacy of Islamic Anti-Semitism will include coverage of this topic. Bostom has written on this topic further here.
Had German won WW2( and despite current myths, it was a very near run thing) Hitler would have been deified and national socialism would have evolved into an ideology with a religion as its core principle.
If you look at Nazi indoctrination, it was very close to the hero-worship in which islam indulges it its "pefect man" myth. The only difference is that it would be Hitler and not Muhammad who was the perfect man.
I often wonder just how relevant god was to Muhammad. If he was initially as terrified as the myths make out, then somewhere along the line he noticed that it made no difference what he thought god had said to him, as his own opinion was already good enough. I guess that Muhammad's untilitarian teachings turned Islam into a ideology of convenience ( for the perfect man) as it evolved and after his death incumbents simply reinforced their perfection. So what perhaps started out as a stolid religious creed evolved into a very political ideology with God being the hammer of persuasion while violence was the holder.
Nazism would have evolved into a parallel ideology but from the opposite direction: from an atheistic/pagan politio-racial ideology into a similiarly violence levered ideology with a hero worship based religion at its core.
Superficially Nazism and Islam were worlds apart with only antisemitism in common. But given a century or so, you would have been hard pressed to tell the difference had the Nazis won WW2.
Mislamist,
Hitler was not superman. He did not have blond hair and blue eyes. That was the contradiction. Totalitarianism of this kind was based purely on racial purity. Sure there are differences at least in structure...
It's that pesky Western history. If Mahmoud could just replace it with Islamic "history" then everything would be okay.
Where's George Orwell when you need him?
There are a number of photographs in the public domain of the Grand Mufti visiting with Hitler at public events in Germany. Evidently, Hitler also related to Islam on some level, the obvious one of anti-Semitism but also as a "religion".
It's revealing of the strange twists of the Arab mind that the Soviets used the term "Nazi" as an anti-Israel rant, and the the Arabs accepted this (even though the Grand Mufti was a favorite pet of the real Nazis). To this day, Arabs refer to Israelis as "Nazis" without a bit of irony.
I've read in a number of places that "Mein Kampf" remains a popular volume in the Middle East, and read on MEMRI that some Muslims consider Hitler to be "of blessed memory" and that he "nearly finished the job".
Apologies to those who are well acquainted with this; this info is for the unaware.
Lonewolf
Hitler had nothing to do with the detailed ideals of racial purity. He certainly initialised them in Mein Kampf, but once he came to power he delegated the responsibility to others, although the initial mindset was the one that he had and which he purloined from the pagan mythseekers.
The details of racial purity were mostly the preserve of Rosenberg and Himmler. What Hitler did was to set up an ideological system which differentiated everyone into 2 groups. Initially this was a strict dichotomy with no overlap. But as the war progressed, it became a spectrum, as many Jewish grandparents successfully survived the sweeps because they had nazi party relatives.
Had the war continued, you would have seen an acceptance of blonde jews also eventually(blood will tell). I have known not a few aryan looking Poles who accepted reich nationality as they looked the part although they were definitely slavonic in origins, So the system became quite flexible in time.
This was very much like what Muhammad did although as he "matured" he also allowed the spectrum by recognising conversion as acceptable.
To myself there is no difference between the 2 ideologies exepts in the fact that they came to thye same parallel paths via different ways: one from atheistic totalitarianism to an eventual supremacist religion based ideology; the other from a religion to a supremacist totalitarian ideology.
Had Hitler won we would all be praying towards the direction of a little town in Austria. It is not god that does or does not bind them but a righteous tendency towards violence and a supremacist creedd of target differentiation.
Dershowitz makes an important point. It is vital to challenge A'jad on that particular issue, which he seems to consider a propaganda trump card. However, I disagree with Dershowitz on his anachronistic use of the term "palestinian" for the 1930s and 1940s. The Mufti Haj Amin el-Husseini [al-Husayni] was actually a pan-Arabist and pan-Islamist, if we judge him by his words and activities in pan-Arab politics.
There is a lot of info --including documents on pdf-- on the Internet. Here are some links:
http://aval31.free.fr/
This site has pdf type files with photos of Husseini reviewing the Bosnian Muslim SS troops, plus several relevant books, articles, etc., in both French & English.
http://www.think-israel.org/green.nazis.html
This article is helpful as a general summary.
Here is a link to info on how the jihad concept influenced hitler:
http://ziontruth.blogspot.com/2006/01/islamic-influence-on-hitler-can-it-be.html
Again, A-jad thinks that the claim of Arab innocence in the Holocaust is a winning argument for him. Of course, it is a lie.
This is from The History Channel via YouTube:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=JtNAcCXYK6M
It shows the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem meeting with von Ribbintrop, Himmler, and Hitler. It also shows the Muslim SS division that he helped recruit.
Watch it!
Does TIC now claim that Palestine was never called Judea.