The Medina Precedent for Holocaust and Genocide

An article by Alyssa Lappen in World Net Daily reviewing Andrew Bostom's book "The Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism: From Sacred Texts to Solemn History" shot back into memory the matter of our as yet unsubstantiated theory on the origins of antisemitism.

The figure linking Islam, Nazism and mass murder is Haj Amin al Husseini, who was an uncle of Yassir Arafat and Grand Mufti of Jerusalem until 1974.

Pearls of Wisdom has done a great job in compiling a biography which we have reproduced here in a separate post for fear is losing it.

Like so many the blogger subscribes to the line that Nazism introduced antisemitism and anti-Western Jihadism into Islam. Rather, given the sequence of events it must have been the other way around. Bostom's book also aims at repudiating that claim. The historical perspective needs adjustment beyond the last century.

- Caption: The infamous cover of the "Wiener Illustrierte" Magazine, of Al Husseini inspecting a division of Bosnian Storm Troopers , known as the Handzar -

It would seem that the Jews of Medina's rejection of Islam and their subsequent slaughter at the hand of Mohamed was used as a fateful precedent. The actions by Mohamed may well have been invoked by Al Husseini to justify the Ottoman genocidal persecution of Greeks and Armenians in the aftermath of World War I.

Also it may have inspired the Nazi Holocaust during World War II. The common denominator on the scene is Al Husseini, and the Muslim view how proper dhimmis are expected to behave: either die, convert, or pay under the condition of strict loyalty to the master religion.

An important part of Adolf Hitler's justification of the persecution of Jews was his accusation of treasonous behavior during World War I, the so-called Dolchstoss Legend which has as much reality status as the Russian Czarist "Protocols of the Elders of Zion," both having the status of Sorelian myths (see posting "At it again: Political Myths - God nor Reason", of which Leonard Peikoff writes in "The Ominous Parallels": "A 'myth,' in the Sorelian-Fascist-Nazi sense, is not a deliberate falsehood; it is an ideology concocted for the purposes of action (...) it is addressed not to man's capacity for reason, but to a mob's lust for faith, not to the fact-seeking intellect, but to the feeling-ridden, action-craving 'will.' [p. 58]).

The Greeks, Armenians and Assyrians were likewise accused of acts unbecoming their dhimmi status in the Ottoman Empire, during World War I when the Turks fought on the side of Germany, Austria-Hungary and Bulgaria.

Here's Lappen on Bostom:

World Net Daily: "Exposed: Innate Islamic loathing for Jews," by Alyssa Lappen

(...) several Middle East and Islamic scholars have repeatedly asserted that 20th and 21st century Islamic anti-Semitism sprang solely from Nazi and European Christian influence. Even now, Islamophiles like Bernard Lewis preach (as it were) that virulent Jew-hatred is not inherent to Islam – but rather, anti-Semitism migrated to the Middle East with European colonialism. The Quran uses "hard words ... about the Jews," even Lewis admits. Yet under Islamic rule, he claims they were "only rarely subject to persecution" and "their situation was never as bad as in Christendom at its worst. ..." (...)

Dr. Andrew G. Bostom's extensive, scientific and largely unprecedented new book, "The Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism: From Sacred Texts to Solemn History," definitively disproves such claims. (...) they can no longer shamelessly blame Christianity as the sole source of anti-Semitism – or more importantly, that Islam does not and never had its own innate brand of loathing for the Jewish people. Islam detests non-Muslims generally – whom sharia laws institutionally oppress and tax as underclass "dhimmis" – but inveighs especially intense odium against Jews. (...) >>>


- Filed on Articles in "The Unholy Alliance" -

Review: "Farewell Israel: Bush, Iran and The Revolt of Islam"

The political video documentary"Farewell Israel: Bush, Iran and The Revolt of Islam", written and directed by Joel Gilbert is - on the whole - a beautifully produced opus that delves into the origins of the confrontation between Islam and the Jews at the time of the Prophet Mohammed and is insightful in that respect, to say the least.

It is introduced as "a historic journey from the birth of Islam, through its 1,200 year reign over the civilized world, to the last 300 years is Islamic decline, overtaken and dominated by the West - then humiliated by a Jewish state. Islam's historic trials with Jews, and its relationship with conquered non believers, help illustrate the Islamic world view - all through the eyes of Muslims."

And this is exactly where the problem with this effort lies, resulting in part omission, part subjectivism, part revisionism. While it is appreciated that Judeo-Christian history is not part of this 'narrative', it is a serious objection to completely ignore the scene in which Islam from its inception, found itself. History begins with Mohammed, the measure of everything, so is the message.

The suggestion is made, that Christendom emerged from 'the obscurantism of the Dark Ages with the discovery of the Americas', ignoring centuries of social, cultural, religious, scientific and philosophical development under the influence of the Roman Church, and everything else for that matter, that has taken place before AD 610. The suggestion is ludicrous.

The author also missed the opportunity to stress the emergence and conquests of the Turkish tribes in the twelth and thirteeth centory, which could have clarified the Christian origins of the Levant and Asia Minor. Likewise, that the Crusades were as much a reconquest as the Spanish Reconquista.

The rich roots of pre Christian Greco-Roman culture, of which Islam was the custodian during the often praised 'Golden Age of Islam', is ignored altogether, as is Middle Eastern paganism. Islam, apparently, is an island. In that respect Gilbert indeed paints an accurate ' version of reality' .

On the other hand, an important insight is provided by describing more recent history. During the course of the last century Amin Al Husseini, Grand Mufti of Jerusalem between 1921 and 1948 and uncle to Yassir Arafat, is correctly identified as the link between the precedent of the massacre of the Jewish tribes at M'dina at the hand of Mohammed for failing to accept Dhimmitude, and the justification of the Turkish genocides of Armenians, Greeks and Assyrians in the aftermath of World War I, as well as the Nazi Holocaust (recommended video) during World War II.

The last two occasions of genocide and alleged genocide were encouraged and sanctified by Amin al Husseini on the grounds of the M'dina precedent: Dhimmis behaving in a manner unbecoming of their status. The M'dina Jews refused conversion as well as taxation, resulting in their 'justified' annihilation.

As Mohammed is the measure of everything in Islam, the less than loyal attitude of the Dhimmi groups that were subjugated and unwillingly integrated into the Turkish (Ottoman) Empire, likewise resulted in their mass murder.

Strikingly Adolf Hitler came up with the so-called Dolchstoss legend against the Jews, 'treason' resulting in the loss of World War I on the part of the German-Turko side - a similar justification for Holocaust. (More on the Unholy Alliance between (National) Socialism and Islam on files, Part I and Part II.)

Interesting is the suggestion that Anwar Sadat's 1977 Camp David Accords with Israel actually constituted not an offer of peace, but an attempt at destroying Israel by diplomatic efforts. The question is such case is, why was he assassinated by Al Zawahiri c.s. Apparently the effort was wasted on the Muslim Brotherhood.

The document' s central assertion is that - contrary to what is suggested by the title - the Islamic world doesn't seek as much the destruction of the state of Israel, as the wish to reduce it to Dhimmi status - tributaries under Islamic rule - the natural and solely acceptable status of infidels under Islamic rule. This suggestion is a fresh attempt at literally playing dice with Evil at the price of a second Holocaust. The very notion is despicable and worthy of denunciation as a irresponsible, Postmodern piece of amorality!

Nonsensical is the idea that the Bush administration played into Al Qaeda's hands after 9/11 by attacking Islamic lands. The suggestion is, that this would so much outrage Muslims that they'd dispose of their despotic rulers on a mass scale. In effect, the only changes of regime that have occurred have taken place in the countries thus liberated by the Coalition.

Gilbert further suggests that the establishment of democracy will merely result in radical Islamist regimes being voted in all over the Middle East. Indeed, the Hamas regime in Palestine has nothing to do with Fatah corruption and mismanagement, and everything with spiting the West.

Artistically "Farewell Israel: Bush, Iran and The Revolt of Islam" is a fine piece of work. Historically it is insuffient, it is politically wanting, and moraly irrelevant.

- Filed on Articles in "The Unholy Alliance", Part II -