Talk:Amin al-Husseini/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Auto archiving

I've boldly added auto archiving for stale threads; a minimum of 7 threads will be left so the page doesn't empty. -- Banjeboi 13:41, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Waqf Funds vs

In 1922, al-Husayni was elected President of the Supreme Muslim Council which had been created by Samuel in 1921.[29][30] The Council controlled the Waqf funds, worth annually tens of thousands of pounds[31] and the orphan funds, worth annually about £50,000, as compared to the £600,000 in the Jewish Agency's annual budget.[32] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaytee1818 (talk • contribs) 05:25, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

In order not to editwar as I am being invited to do.

Please note that (a) Al-Husayni's opposition to Zionism had violent, and non-violent aspects from 1921-1948 and therefore the adjective 'violent' is inappropriate. Throughout much of that period he collaborated with the British Mandatory authorities. The adjective, used to describe the whole period, is therefore POV, and also constructs a historical false image.Nishidani (talk) 15:50, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

(b) In the edits to Bols, re puppeteering. The distinction between the Arab belief that the British were puppets, and the military administrator's belief that Zionist were meddling or reduplicating his administration, has been blurred. There are no 'accusations'. There are two things, Arab perceptions, and British reports on conflicts with the Zionist Commission (therefore the latter excludes puppeteering)

The Palin report talks of the apprehensions of the Arabs, and to a brief by Sir Louis Bols that detailed the way the Zionist Commission was reduplication in autonomous form every function of the civil administration.'It is not to be wondered at that the Arab population complained on bias on the part of the Administration in favour of the Jews. They see the Administration repeatedly overruled by the Zionist Commission; they see the Zionist Commission intermeddling in every department of Government,m in Justice, Public Health, Legislation, Public Works, and forcing the Administration . .to interefere in their favour, in a purely business transaction. They see Jews excluded from the operations of the Puiblic Custodian with regard to enemy property: they have seen the introduction of the Hebrew language on an equality with Arabic and English; they have seen considerable immigration not effectively controlled: they see Zionist stamps on letters and Zionist yuoung men drilling publicly in open spaces inof the town. Finally they have seen them proceeding to the election of a Constituent Assembly.' Huneidi pp.37-8Nishidani (talk) 16:49, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Bols was not 'removed from his post'. He handed over the administration of the country, under military rule to then, to Sir Herbert Samuels. 'Removal from one's post' implies wrongdoing.Nishidani (talk) 16:54, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

   Let me preface by saying that this whole item is irrelevant to the entry about Husayni, highly tendentious and POV. Neither the
   Arab accusations of Zionist puppeteering, nor the British reports of those accusations, nor even the expressions of sympathy
   with those accusations by anti-Zionist British officials are relevant.
   If I had my way, the whole item would be eliminated. But you appear to feel it is important to retain it.
   That said, if you insist upon including this information, the only way to have it NPOV is by editing it so it doesn't provide
   only one side of a highly contentious side of a two-sided debate. Context must be provided in order to show that everything here 
   is in contention: there were accusations that British officials were excessively influenced by Arab violence, just as much as 
   there were accusations that British officials were Zionist puppets.
   The items here about the Palin report are themselves highly one-sided. If one wanted to get a full flavor of the Palin report, 
   one would have to include the description of Arab attacks as "of a cowardly and treacherous description, mostly against old men, 
   women and children -- frequently in the back." But this too would be adding more POV, which is already the problem here. 
   So, it seems to me the best thing, if you really insist on keeping this tendentious and irrelevant information, is to include 
   the information on Bols' sympathy for the anti-Zionist Arab cause and some indication of the facts that the Arab accusations
   were unproven and that there were accusations of British anti-Jewish bias in even reporting the accusations sympathetically. 
   Stating that Bols left his post seems to me the mildest possible way of indicating that, but I am open to suggestions.
    Knowitall639 (talk) 19:52, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I've reverted some of these unproductive and highly POV edits, really, quite reminiscent of the sockpuppet assault from a month or so back. Tarc (talk) 17:06, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Throughout the period his opposition was violent, and this was the source of his tension with British authorities. The controversial feature of his activities was their violent component, and the appropriate term is therefore violent opposition. All violent campaigns are accompanied by non-violent political activities, but to refer to his opposition without reference to the violence is POV, and constructs a false historical image. I think anyone reading about "violent opposition" would understand the accompanying political activity. the reverse is not true. But if you really think there is ambiguity, I have no objection to "often violent opposition" or "frequently violent opposition." Knowitall639 (talk) 18:44, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

If you can find a modern reliable source that says his career from 1921 to 1948 was characterised by violence, the word may be retained. Many testimonies from the British authorities to 1935 say the opposite. If you cannot, it is your singular interpretation, and must be removed.Nishidani (talk) 19:05, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I will be happy to provide the source. In the meantime, I will restore again the edits that Tarc has erased twice without explanation. If you (Tarc) have any substantive objections, I would be happy to hear them. Describing this highly problematic entry as "superb" and therefore immune from editing is plainly silly, and the end result of your edits is POV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Knowitall639 (talk • contribs) 19:56, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

PS. Since my edit about Husayni's antisemitic activities against European Jews was taken almost verbatim from Nishidani's objection to my earlier edit, I'd appreciate his comment on Tarc's insistence upon deleting it as "POV." Knowitall639 (talk) 20:02, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

One source on Husayni's violence: Morris' "Righteous Victims," p. 103: "Husseini was often to oppose the government and, indeed to instigate, if not actually organize, anti-Zionist and antigovernment violence." Knowitall639 (talk) 20:07, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Please tell me if this source suffices, or if you want more. Knowitall639 (talk) 20:23, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

On method. At the top of this talk page you may read the following words, not put there by me:-

This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please discuss substantial changes here before making them, making sure to supply full citations when adding information, and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information.

You jumped into the page to make substantial edits (leads require consensus above all) ignoring the advice. Indeed you immediately declared this was 'hagiography'.

You edited with no prior comment, no proposal, no discussion.

(2)Leads in old articles have a long history of negotiation behind them. What you found was a provisory draft, not wholly satisfactory, but reached by extensive negotiation. The last line particularly required considerable effort. You have in short a consensual text. You were under obligation therefore to make your personal proposals before editors on the talk page, as per the advice at the top of the page. The mess you have created, in despite of standard procedure, invites reverting precisely because you were acting unilaterally, against consensus.

(a)From 1921 to 1948, he was the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, and played a key role in violent opposition to Zionism.

He also played a key role, according to many British authorities (Wauchope's 1935 testimony comes to mind), in negotiating with Zionists via the British authorities for some 15 years. He played, among several, a role in the 1920 riot, he was strongly suspected of being behind the 1929 riots, but no proof exists he was. He was deeply involved in the strikes, and then the civil war of the Arab revolt. But you cannot write as you wrote that the period from 1921 to 1948 was one in which nothing of his institutional role is recognized, and were he is simply characterized for what, basically, are charges laid against him for the period 1936-1948. The citation from Morris is useless. It's not his period, is a non-specialized book, and its language, and occasionally data, is notably slipshod.

(b)'During the years of World War II he was involved in recruiting Arab support for Nazi Germany.'

True, but had you wished to be correct historically instead of focusing on Nazism, you would have done better to suggest we have written: 'involved in recruited Arab support for the Axis Powers'.

(c)'At times, he was a Palestinian nationalist, seeking the establishment of an independence Arab state in Palestine, while at others, he supported Syrian claims to rule Palestine as part of a larger Syrian Arab state.'

The proposal of this in the lead, as an expansion, is dubious on several grounds. First, as per the advice at the head of the page, you should have provided a RS for us, secondly, as written it suggests he swung manically from one position to another in an alternating current. THese two elements must be distinguished in their phases, and in the body of the text, not in the lead, where it is wholly unnecessary.

(d)Where the earlier text had:

'He asked Germany to oppose, as part of the Arab struggle for independence, the establishment of a Jewish national home in Palestine.'

you wrote, fortunately with a source as required, but still without prior consultation on this lead,

'Husayni received pledges from Nazi Germany to oppose the establishment of a Jewish national home in Palestine and support Arab independence, and in exchange, he called on Arabs to begin a jihad against the British.

Once more, expansion in the lead, presumably because 'jihad is sexy'. That is for the body of the text, not for the lead, otherwise one invites cramming it with many other things he is said to have asked the Germans to do.

(e)'expanding Transjordan (formerly the eastern part of the Palestine mandate) by incorporating captured western Palestinian territory.'

Transjordan is correct. But in your conflict with me over this you appear not to know that both in 1946, and 1948 Britain established relations with the sovereign state of the Hashemite Kingdom of Transjordan. Every time I corrected this to Hashemite, you reverted it, and your explanation has you confusing the declaration of the Hashemite Kingdom of Transjordan in 1948 with the declaration of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan in 1950. This does not inspire confidence, and it showed that you prefer to revert with an edit summary rather than propose, discuss and justify your edits.

Secondly, the gloss, in parentheses, on Transjordan, being a link, to the effect that it was formerly the eastern part of Palestine is supererogatory. I know why editors everywhere keep harping on this, but parenthetic glosses, when there is a link, are useless, and not appropriate to leads.

Thirdly, in writing 'incorporating captured western Palestinian territory', you give your POV away. For this makes sense only if you believe that Jordan being once the eastern part of Palestine (until 1923), in claiming a slice of Palestine in 1948 was claiming, as though it thought of itself as still part of Palestine, land that lay to its west which it had lost. But Jordan while claiming land to its West in 1948, was claiming in that year not 'captured western Palestinian territory', but an eastern area of Palestine as it was constituted in 1948.

Fourthly, to use the word capture is incorrect. Jordan 'occupied' on the 15th of May 1948 the land which its Arab Legion was delegated to police by the British mandatory authorities. Its all but last units left two days before in a technical withdrawal, and then moved back on the 15th to positions they held earlier. This is not 'capture', it is 'occupy'. They were 'securing' a part of the land designed for a future Palestinian state by the UN partition plan. In one sentence three mistakes, and all in the lead.

(f) In changing the strenuously argued and consensual wording concluding the lead,

Historians debate to what extent his fierce opposition to Zionism was grounded in nationalism or antisemitism or a combination of both.

into

Historians agree that Husayni engaged in antisemitic activities against Jews in Europe but dispute the extent to which his activities against Zionism were grounded in nationalism or antisemitism or a combination of both.

a change you tampered with twice, and in the last instance justifying its remodulation by a remark I made in my summary revert (Historians agree that Husayni engaged in antisemitic activities against Jews in Europe ), you've messed it up. For in citing my reason for reverting you, you are making my remark in an edit summary a reliable source. And that is patently absurd. You throw me, as a reliable source, for a formulation Tarc challenges.

It's worse than bad, it's clumsy. Now Husayni's wartime collaboration with the Axis powers in Europe is made to look as though he had been engaged in antisemitic activities in Europe tout court (1921-1974?).

To conclude, you made one useful correction to the lead, 'Jordan' to 'Transjordan'. You have edited throughout first, in the consensually stabilized lead, without a note of warning, in violation of the specific warning given at the top of the page, and without, save in one instance, one RS, even troubling to ground your edits in sources.

Given that you are new to wikipedia, I suggest you have to courtesy to revert to the page as it was beforehand (except for the Jordan to Transjordan edit) and kindly post your proposals for the lead on this page, for discussion, instead of editing unilaterally on the premise this is 'hagiography' that requires drastic one-handed surgery. It has caused considerable confusion, shows confusion, and only tends to provoke an atmosphere of edit warring this page took some 2 years to emerge from. Thank you. Nishidani (talk) 22:53, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the detailed comments.

I am sorry that due to their length, I will be responding piecemeal (and out of order). I hope you will understand.

I apologize if you found the edits a breach of etiquette. Both the ones in the introduction and later in the text are intended to improve what is a highly problematic entry at the moment due to POV (and excessive length). Incidentally, my reading of the note at the top – that neutrality is disputed – to say that there is NOT consensus on the piece. I don’t see how you can describe it as consensus and stabilized.

I am not attempting to do drastic surgery. On the contrary, I am attempting to do some very light edits in order to provide a modicum of balance to a very seriously POV-compromised entry.

I will begin with the edits of the intro.

I was not aware of a previous discussion of the intro in which any consensus had been reached – this is probably due to the fact that as I am new here (as you observed), I did not notice until just a few hours ago that there are extensive archives of the talk pages. I will examine these and try to get up to speed.

Nonetheless, I would not expect the edits of the intro to be controversial as they simply recap information already in the entry. The problem with the intro as it previously stood was that by selective omissions of the most controversial aspects of Husayni’s career as discussed later in the entry, the intro created a POV hagiography rather than a fair reflection of the items in the entry. In addition, there were a few significant historic errors in the intro as it stood.

Notwithstanding these flaws, I did not rewrite the intro. Instead, I simply added the most salient facts already mentioned later in the entry, and corrected the historical errors.

Let me address your points one by one, beginning at the end. Again, I hope you will understand that I will have to do this piecemeal.

(e) you are right that to refer to what was later called the West Bank as "captured western Palestinian territory" reflects the Transjordanian view. To refer to it as "Eastern" territory, however, reflects the Husayni view. In other words, the problem here is not that I am inserting POV. The problem is that either geographic description reflects one view or another, and the difficulty is to balance the expressions in order to achieve NPOV. The previous version was POV as it clearly omitted the Transjordanian view. I believe the current version represents both views and is therefore as close as possible to NPOV. The only way to make it more NPOV that I can see would be to talk about “captured Palestinian territories in the eastern part of western Palestine,” which is incredibly clumsy. Perhaps “occupied Cisjordanian Palestinian territories”? But this seems to me too obscure.

Your historical reference appears to have a typo. I believe that you wish to accuse me of being unaware of the Anglo-Transjordanian treaty of 1946 in which Britain recognized the independence of Transjordan. As you can see, you are in error, and I am aware of the treaty. Of course, I have no objection to calling it the Hashemite Kingdom of Transjordan rather than Transjordan, although this is rather clumsy: we refer to the states today as Egypt and Jordan rather than the Arab Republic of Egypt and the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. Your focus on the word Hashemite appears to stem from the misapprehension that Transjordan was only called Hashemite after 1946, which was certainly not the case. Transjordan was set up in 1922 under Hashemite rule (subordinate to overall British rule of the Palestine Mandate).

Your criticism makes several other errors. Contrary to your claims, Transjordan was a separate division of the Palestine Mandate until 1946, not 1923 as you claim. In 1948, the independence of Transjordan from the Mandate of Palestine was still not generally accepted (it had been refused UN membership for this reason). You are right, of course, that to describe the Transjordan as eastern Palestine is a point of view. It is also a point of view to refer to it as independent and separate from Palestine. My version, inclusive of parenthesis, includes both views and is therefore NPOV. Your version is POV, and includes only one version.

I agree with you that “occupied” is better than “captured.”

(f) The wording as it existed prior to the edits did not reflect the facts as they appear in the rest of the entry. Quite simply, it failed to reflect the actual anti-Jewish (qua Jewish) activity reflected in the rest of the entry and gave the false impression that the question of whether Husayni acted against Jews qua Jews was in dispute. It also gave a false impression of the nature of the historic debate, which -- as the rest of the article demonstrates -- is about the degree to which his activities against Jews were motivated by antisemitic animus or overzealous nationalism. I think that the clearest NPOV way of stating this is to say: Historians debate to which his activity against Jews was grounded in nationalism or antisemitism or a combination of both. To elide the issue by claiming that the debate concerns primarily "opposition to Zionism" is POV: it leads the reader to the view that the activity against Jews is equivalent to fierce opposition to Zionism, and the motive was therefore nationalism.

I rewrote this to the current version (Historians agree that Husayni engaged in antisemitic activities against Jews in Europe but dispute the extent to which his activities against Zionism were grounded in nationalism or antisemitism or a combination of both) to reflect your interpretation of the facts in the entry. I was not citing you as a source -- the introduction, after all, is merely a summary of the salient facts in the rest of the entry. I am surprised, however, at your inconsistency. Your first objection was that the entry demonstrates historical consensus on antisemitic animus in European anti-Jewish activities but not in anti-Zionist activities. Now you contradict yourself and say that your early summary is wrong. Your changing views create the unfortunate impression that rejecting edits, irrespective of their content, is more important than accuracy.

My original version is both correct and not clumsy. The version you prefer is POV and misleading.

I should add: the really important information for the intro is the anti-Jewish activities in Europe – this is the controversial and noteworthy part of Husayni’s career. The historical controversy about motives (and the degree to which Husayni was effective) is important to provide context and maintain NPOV. But it is not the central issue. Including the context without including the central item is quite misleading and POV.

I don’t think you are correct in claiming that the casual reader would think that Husayni’s anti-Jewish activities in Europe took place from 1921-1974, but, if you are so concerned, the obvious solution is to say, “Historians debate to which his activity against Jews in Europe during World War II was grounded in nationalism or antisemitism or a combination of both.”

(g) The items in the lead are summaries of the material in the entry and were not previously sourced separately. I have no objection to adding sources, if you think they are necessary but you are being unfair in complaining at my lack of adding new sources when there were no sources beforehand.

Knowitall639 (talk) 12:32, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

The top of the page asks that edits to the page be discussed beforehand. It is not my personal impression.

The lead has a long history to it. It should not be edited without consensus. It is provisory. I have only edited the first half of the page, to 1939.

You repeat the word 'hagiography' which means you are saying I and other editors wrote the lead treating Husseini as a saint. Now this, apart from its absurdity, should be shown. Where in the original lead is there hagiolatry?

You repeat the charge of hagiography in the lead

'you are right that to refer to what was later called the West Bank as "captured western Palestinian territory" reflects the Transjordanian view. To refer to it as "Eastern" territory, however, reflects the Husayni view. In other words'

What source says cisjordan as western Palestinian territory is the Transjordanian view? What source says that Cisjordan as 'eastern' represents the Husayni view? Whatever the case, leads do not give a national or individual viewpoint, they use NPOV language, so in either case the point you raise is misplaced. The current text as you edited it, has an extreme confusion of language that, I am willing to wager, can be found in no reliable source. You have a personal opinion about a Husayni view of Palestinian land, a Transjordian perspective of the same land. In all wiki articles, we simply follow the language of toponymic designation employed by standard academic reliable sources.

In short you perceive a POV problem, and are suggesting your own personal terminological inventions to cover it. One doesn't do that.

On the Hashemite kingdom I cannot understand what you are talking about. You elided 'Hashemite' as applied to Transjordan and spoke of events after 1948. The two dates 1946 (as I corrected),1948 refer to britain's recognition and terms used to designate the Transjordan. Technically this occurred even earlier, in the constitution of 1947 it named itself the Hashemite Kingdom of Transjordan, long before the outbreak of the Israeli-Palestinian civil war in Palestine, or the UN partition. Yet your edits refused Hashemite, unaccountably. Your remark that it was Hashemite back in 1922 is confused. The official naming of the kingdom took place after 1946, in the constitution of 1947, and was ratified by international treaty in early 1948. That before this the rule was Hashemite has nothing whatsoever to do with naming conventions in articles, which follow time-bound usage.

You write:'Contrary to your claims, Transjordan was a separate division of the Palestine Mandate until 1946, not 1923 as you claim.'

You are misinterpreting this

'For this makes sense only if you believe that Jordan being once the eastern part of Palestine (until 1923)'

which refers to the fact that when the League of Nations ratified the British mandate for Palestine late the previous year,Transjordan was excluded from all Zionist-related clauses in that mandate regarding a home for the Jewish people in Palestine. It lay under the Palestinian mandate, but was no longer, as the London accords of 1923 show, considered part of Palestine. Wiki puts it thus

In August 1922, the British government presented a memorandum to the League of Nations stating that Transjordan would be excluded from all the provisions dealing with Jewish settlement, and this memorandum was approved by the League on 12 August. From that point onwards, Britain administered the part west of the Jordan as Palestine, and the part east of the Jordan as Transjordan.[2] Technically they remained one mandate, but most official documents referred to them as if they were two separate mandates. In May 1923 Transjordan was granted a degree of independence with Abdullah as ruler and Harry St. John Philby as chief representative. It became nominally independent in 1928, and an independent kingdom in 1946.

No history book I know of talks of Transjordan as 'eastern Palestine' after 1923. You do.

'gave the false impression that the question of whether Husayni acted against Jews qua Jews was in dispute.' (b)'it leads the reader to the view that the activity against Jews is equivalent to fierce opposition to Zionism, and the motive was therefore nationalism.'

That you regard this as false is a personal opinion. If you are familiar with the whole page (Roux, Idith Zertal), the discussions and modern historiography, the distinction you challenge and made in the last line of the lead is accepted as standard, and replaces the Zionist POV you appear to wish to reintroduce, which has been deconstructed over the last two decades. Husayni's life shows different phases. You cannot say he was a born and bred antisemite and hew to the record. His teacher and friend Antébi was Jewish and in good part antiZionist at the time he taught al Husayni.

To recap. You are new in here. You ignored the request at the top of the page to discuss substantial edits, and add cites for new information, and starting revising on your own, without talk page proposals. You admit you haven't read the archives, where much of what you are proposing has been mulled over, debated, considered and discarded.

In reply to my objections on substance, you insist what I say is POV, and what you edit is NPOV. What is POV and NPOV does not reside in individual editors. It emerges from consensual editing which you have not displayed.

Your edits, and replies to remarks on errors in them, suggest a failure to understand the subject in its variegated historical details.

I do appreciate your responses, but would ask you to restart your contributions by simply reverting back, with the single exception of Jordan = Transjordan, and of course, while retaining Smith's introduction of that invaluable newsreal from Nazi archives. Take it as a gesture of respect for the method outlined at the top of the page. That done, I am sure you will find a readyness to look at any, and many suggestions by editors new and old, that will improve the article.Nishidani (talk) 16:10, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of restoring a version of the article before this WP:SPA arrived on-scene. Having a bit more time to read through the edits, much of it was garbage, frankly...links to youtube, changing neutral wording to biased, POV junk, and the like. It'll be easier to work from a good copy and look through the contribs and see if anything is redeemable, rather than leave a gutted article in place and pick out the bad edits piecemeal. Tarc (talk) 13:05, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Sources

A lot of this page is based on very dubious sources. We should remember that the creation of Israel involved a propaganda war as well as a shooting war. Each side produced a large literature defaming the other and we should not be dredging it up and quoting it as the truth. The Mufti was an obvious easy target. We should stick to the work of serious scholars, since there is quite a lot of it. We don't need the rubbish sources.

The book of Maurice (Moshe) Pearlman is an obvious example. He published it in 1947 right at the critical time for the propaganda war. He was an official propagandist for the Zionist movement and his book contains lots of nonsense. This is easy to prove; I'll give one example. He is referring to the Shaw commission of enquiry into the 1929 riots in Palestine.

• Pearlman (page 17): "There was unanimity in the findings of the commission that the attacks were planned"
• The Commission report (verbatim from the conclusions): "The outbreak was not premeditated."

In order words, he lied. Unfortunately later authors copied his lies, often without saying where they came from. (For example, the alleged "Kill the Jews wherever you find them" radio speech.) Another dubious source is Schechtman, who was the paid mouthpiece of the Revisionist Zionist movement in America. Zero^talk 10:37, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

The web page which is amateur history writing obviously doesn't meet the required standards. Anyone who writes "He is reputed to have met Adolf Eichmann in Palestine" just can't be taken seriously. Zero^talk 12:07, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Fraudulent claim

The article (and some other articles I will track down) had this claim:

During his testimony before the Shaw Commission two months later (the commission interviewed him in his offices) on December 4, 1929, al-Husayni was apparently described as holding a copy of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion in his hand. Palestine Commission on the Disturbances of August 1929, Minutes of Evidence, (London 1930), Vol 2 page 539 paragraph 13,430, page 527 paragraph 13,107.

This claim stank so high that I went to the source. Here is the real story (pages 527-528). Mr. W.H. Stoker K.C., who was a British lawyer accredited to the Commission, brought a copy of the Protocols to ask the Mufti about it. The Commission wanted to know about some quotations from the Protocols which had been published in the newspaper Al Jamia al Arabia. The Mufti said that he had seen the Protocols a few years earlier but didn't own a copy himself. Regarding Al Jamia, the British High Commissioner had personally drawn his attention to the quotations and asked him to use his influence to advise the newspaper to desist. Even though had no connection with Al Jamia, he spoke to the editor and the newspaper stopped publishing extracts. Nobody at the interview disputed this account.
<rant>And so we see yet again why for this topic, more than for most, nothing except the most solid sources should be accepted!</rant>. Zero^talk 07:06, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I wrote this. I read the minutes in about 2004 as part of my MA studies. Where did you get the minutes from? Telaviv1 (talk) 15:20, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I have the minutes as part of this microform collection. Zero^talk 23:33, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I think we should move the information to the talk page.

Zero0000, did you try to "trace" the source of the fake information. Is it Schetchman ?

We are in a difficult context because many wp:rs sources report this. I am sure reading the story several times (Morris, Sachar ?).

If true, I think that would deserve a "small" paper to be published in a profesionnal review on the topic because the "image of antisemitism about the Mufti" is also built around this "fact". Ceedjee (talk) 06:12, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Maybe an answer in this publication. The author of this website may be of some help : [1] Ceedjee (talk) 06:32, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

There seems to be an extensive bibliography on that site http://www.antisemittisme.no/engl/mufti/index.htm#Bibliography. -- Avi (talk) 06:40, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I have most of those sources and lots more (which doesn't mean I can remember what is said where). I can't find the specific claim about him holding the Protocols during his testimony so I suggest that Telaviv1 tells us where he got it from. I can't check Schechtman easily, but it is not in Pearlman or Elpeleg or a dozen or so papers I checked. However, I found two sources (a recent book and a 1978 article in American Zionist) which claim that the Mufti (at the same enquiry) even cited the Protocols as evidence of a Jewish Conspiracy. Both these give the same source: a 1947 book by the Esco Foundation. I will check that probably tomorrow. I'll also check Mattar's paper that Ceedjee located, and Mattar's book. Zero^talk 08:16, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Just a side note. If you have the sources saying that, then it should be acceptable in wiki as long as we cite those sources. Unfortunately, your checking to see the original is actually WP:OR, as crazy as that sounds. If you /do/ find a discrepancy, I think the wiki way to handle it would be to cite the secondary source and then add a note saying"cf source". But we have to be careful as that really is original research/synthesis. -- Avi (talk) 15:13, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Now if you can get a reliable source that documents any possible fraud or misrepresentation, that would be the best. Or, if you write it up and get it published in a reliable third-party journal or something like that, we could quote you :) -- Avi (talk) 15:18, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

If we accept anything claimed by a published source then every paragraph will be full of contradictions and completely ridiculous wild claims will be everywhere. The resulting article will be useless trash. The rules about sources describe which sources can be accepted, not which must be accepted. On the matter of WWII, I have published sources that claim he personally convinced the Germans to kill all the Jews and advised them how to do it, and other published sources that claim he loved Jews and had nothing to do with the Nazis at all. Similarly, I was just reading some Serb propaganda against Bosnia that makes claims about the Handschar for a time before it even existed. We should of course mention differences of opinion between scholars, but we should weed out the arrant nonsense altogether. Zero^talk 23:21, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

All I am saying, Zero, is to be careful of using original research to add or remove sources that in and of themselves are reliable. I believe the proper thing to do is to bring the reliable sources, with citations, and let the readers make their own decision--just as you have done. But unless there is a verifiability or reliability issue with the source itself, your (or anyone's) coming to their own decision should not then affect others from coming to their own decisions. You disagree? -- Avi (talk) 03:35, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

OR refers to what we put in the article, not what we keep out of it. There's no real rule against using OR to keep garbage out. So if some "RS" has material that anyone can see is false, for an even more extreme hypothetical example, say an interview with al-Husayni about his views on Hamas, we are entitled to not use it for the article, and in such a flagrant case, to cast doubt on the wikipedia reliability of the source document, publication and author. Usually real cases will be less extreme and require more judgment, but Zero0000 has a good argument here. It is easy to forget that sources are not clearly marked as "reliable" and "unreliable" , and that since the WP:RS rule is concocted by us wikipedians, ultimately we are the ones who decide what is reliable and unreliable, and for what purposes, on general principles informed by understanding particular examples like this one.John Z (talk) 06:46, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Benny Morris, in Victims, refers to Bernard Wasserstein to state that the Mufti refered to the Protocols of the Elders of Zion to put the responsibility of the events on the Jews.

Ceedjee (talk) 03:03,Wasserstein 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Now I think I "got to the bottom of it" (like I have nothing else to do today). Wasserstein and Esco Foundation both refer to a different page (499) of the Minutes, but there the Mufti himself says nothing at all about the Protocols! Esco has an egregious misquotation, which Wasserstein may have fallen for. I'll write more here when I scan the relevant pages so that everyone can see them. Incidentally these minutes were published by the British government in 1930 so I am not trawling through any dusty archives here. Zero^talk 06:57, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Here (6.5MB PDF) is a scan of all the relevant pages of Palestine Commission on the Disturbances of August, 1929. Evidence heard by the Commission in open sittings and a selection from the exhibits put in during those sittings. (British Government, London, 1930).

One thing I didn't notice before is that Mr. Stoker was appearing for the Palestine Arab Executive. Also in the excerpt is Sir Boyd Merriman, a lawyer appearing for the Palestine Zionist Executive and the Zionist Organization.

Several sources refer to Esco Foundation, Palestine, A Study of Jewish, Arab and British Policies; Yale University Press (New Haven) 1947 (chapter author Isaac Levitats). Here is what this source claims:

During cross-examination, it was brought out that an Arabic translation of Protocols of the Elders of Zion had been spread in Palestine and the Mufti asserted that he as well as others had been influenced by the charges made therein. He said: "I understood from this book that the Jews intend to possess this country, Trans-Jordan and other parts of Palestine then the work will increase, and that they want to take possession of the Burak and to make it a place of public gathering and meetings, and then to take possession of the Haram area and then restore the Temple. This is the gist of what I understand the book to mean." [footnote: Evidence, p.499.]

Turning to page 499, we find no such statement. However, on page 498 we find:

Q. You read Mr. Bentwich's book and other Moslems have read Mr. Bentwich's book?
A. I did not read it personally, because I do not read English, but parts of it were translated to me.
Q. And those that were translated to you—what was the idea that they conveyed to your mind as a Moslem?
A. I understood from this that the Jews intend to possess this country, Trans Jordan and other parts of the Arab countries. They will start by making a National Home for the Jews in Palestine and then the work will increase, and that they want to take possession of the Burak and to make it a place of public gathering or meeting, and then to take possession of the Haram area and there restore the Temple. This is the gist of what I understand the book to mean.

So the Mufti's statement was made in regard to a different book and Esco's claim is a falsehood. On an earlier page (p326) the book is identified as Norman Bentwich, Palestine of the Jews, Past, Present, and Future, with an appendix The Redemption of Judaea; Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner (London) 1919. Its content can be judged from its title. Amazingly, at the time of the enquiry Norman Bentwich was the Attorney-General of Palestine.

A marginally more arguable claim is made by Bernard Wasserstein, The British in Palestine, Royal Historical Society (London) 1978, page 234 (cited by Morris in Righteous Victims):

In his own evidence to the Commission, Haj Amin presented an interpretation that the Jews had been the aggressors against the Arabs - in proof of which he adduced a copy of an Arabic version of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, accompanied by the opinion that the book was genuine. [footnote: 1929 Palestine Commission Minutes, vol. I, p. 499.]

We can see from the Minutes that the lawyer Stoker wished to introduce the Protocols as "something that affected the mind of the Arabs", and Stoker did say that he thought it was genuine. But nobody, including Merriman in his cross-examination (pp 527-528), managed to extract any personal opinion from the Mufti about it.

Another Question for the Editors

Why is the fact that he is the uncle of Yassir Arafat never mentioned in the article? JW (talk) 23:53, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Maybe because it isn't true. It is pure myth. Zero^talk 04:28, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

from his mothers side he is but it makes no difference AminHusseini (talk) 15:33, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Author of USHMM page

We have this citation:

Nicosia, Francis R. "Hajj Amin al-Husayni: The Mufti of Jerusalem." United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. 20 May 2008. 17 June 2008.

How can I verify that Francis Nicosia is the author of that page? I don't see his name on it. Zero^talk 15:41, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

To answer my own question, there used to be an article there by Nicosia (who is a fine historian) (archive) but at some point it was replaced by a much more hostile and polemic anonymous article. I bet Nicosia isn't happy. Zero^talk 15:49, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

more dubious passages

The article has this with no source: "After the Second World War, al-Husayni fled to Switzerland, was detained and expelled back to Germany, was captured by the French and put under house arrest in France after he was sentenced by the Yugoslav Supreme Military Court to three years imprisonment and two years of deprivation of civil rights as convicted war criminal." The first part is probably right (I'll check the details) but I question the last part. I can only find this claim in lots of web pages obviously copied from Wikipedia. On the other hand, the exact phrase "sentenced by the Yugoslav Supreme Military Court to three years imprisonment and two years of deprivation of civil rights" appears in multiple articles referring to Alija Izetbegovic, for example here. Since Izetbegovic and Husseini are mentioned together in many places, I expect that someone has made an error of reading. On the other hand:

1. "Originally named by Jugoslavia as a war criminal for organizing Moslem storm-troopers, the charge was withdrawn" Gelber, The Palestine Mandate: Story of a Fumble, International Journal, Vol 1 (1946) 302-316.
2. "In late 1945, the Yugoslav government withdrew its extradition request for al-Husayni." US Holocaust Museum website.

Zero^talk 03:07, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

And we have this: "While in Egypt, Al-Husayni was hired by British intelligence as a propagandist for the Arab News Agency." It is perfectly plausible, but the source seems to be a common sort of conspiracy-theory book. Can we take it as reliable? Zero^talk 03:07, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

The Holocaust museum has this passage:

He labeled the Jews as the enemy of Islam, and used crude racist terminology to depict Jews and Jewish behavior, particularly as he forged a closer relationship with the SS in 1943 and 1944. He described Jews as having immutable characteristics and behaviors. On occasion, he would compare Jewishness to infectious disease and Jews to microbes or bacilli. In at least one speech attributed to him, he advocated killing Jews wherever Arabs found them. He consistently advocated "removing" the Jewish homeland from Palestine and, on occasion, driving every Jew out of Palestine and other Arab lands.

They use "attributed" for the killing Jews wherever they are found, but state as fact the racial slurs and comparisons to infectious diseases, for what it is worth. There are some other rather disturbing statements that are listed as factual quotations or synopses:

• Although his preference that the children be killed in Poland rather than transported to Palestine appears to have been explicit, the impact of the letters was nil.
• Al-Husayni stressed in his speeches and writings the common interests of Germany and Italy with those of Arabs and Muslims. Nazi Germany was the natural ally of the Arab and Muslim world. Not only had Germany never imposed colonial rule on an Arab state, Germany and the Arab world also shared the same enemies: the Jews, Great Britain, and the Soviet Union. Al-Husayni pointed out that Germany alone recognized the global threat of the "Jewish problem" and took steps to "solve" it globally.
• Al-Husayni sent Himmler birthday greetings on October 6, and expressed the hope that "the coming year would make our cooperation even closer and bring us closer to our common goals."

Regarding the Yugoslav issue, you may be right about the confusion, the USHMM just has the Switzerland and France information. -- Avi (talk) 03:51, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

February 6th

Zero,

• The NYpost link I'm adding confirms the series of countries he fled to, as you suspected was accurate in section 7.1.
• Yugoslavia. Note the rest of what USHMM says: "Moreover, both Britain and France, seeking to reestablish their influence in the Arab world, saw serious liabilities in holding al-Husayni in custody. In late 1945, the Yugoslav government withdrew its extradition request for al-Husayni." Okay, so if he 'fled' and under a false passport: was he already convicted of XYZ outside of Yugoslavia, or convicted by Yugo in absentia so that's why they stopped trying to extradite him? Was he arrested & convicted of nothing yet: France just waiting to see if UK would press charges as (alleged in the article) UK was being pressured to do, e.g. did France respect UK's rights to prosecute (and/or to jail him humanely), but didn't trust Yugo?
  

I have one link saying he was convicted with a death-sentence in Yugoslavia (never extradited), but that this ruling came AFTER he gained asylum in Egypt, 1946 (http://web.israelinsider.com/Articles/AntiSemi/11165.htm). I found another couple of sources, not even worth naming, that don't say whether or not he was convicted in Yugo, only that he was wanted. I have one saying he was convicted in 1948. :-( (MANY other sources say 1946... so almost no chance '48 is right.) The most believable & credentialed source (competent-looking: professional, author of 30 books, i.e. which source would I trust more to check their facts?) that I found was: catholic.com/thisrock/2009/0901fea3.asp , but I don't like that it's a contrary religious source. (And maybe this source is incorrect on the timing and the source-less addition that you're challenging is incorrect on the severity of the sentence?!? ;-P OR, he got convicted @ 2 different Yugoslav trials, as Yugoslavia discovered worse crimes?!?). This paragraph is at least a little more reliable than when I discovered that paragraph.

• "unsuccessfully petitioned the British to indict him for further war-crimes" makes sense in relation to what I discovered (see the paragraph I added after that) and in relation to catholic.com, the quote of USHMM I gave above: "seeking to reestablish their influence in the Arab world, saw serious liabilities in holding al-Husayni in custody" --and many other sites, which were more vague than my NYpost and The Nation links, so I only used NYpost & TheNation in the article-- but sources agree that someone was holding the Western nations "over the barrel," and essentially UK & USA (maybe others?) agreed to let the Mufti off easy in the name of preserving International Relations. ...but let's be sure (i.e. ) EXACTLY WHO was petitioning the UK to come down hard on the Mufti.

The info sourced to Robert Dreyfuss (last sentence of 1st paragraph): 1. Dreyfuss works for major magazines (one of which has already been cited in this article, and I cite them a 3rd time in the paragraph that I added to Arrest and trial). I'd trust that he cares about his name/credibility, he's not a fly-by-nighter. But Dreyfuss usually works for biased magazines, but the opposite bias of what would make him a potentially untrustworthy source here: politically-correct magazines that you'd expect to NOT try and make a Liberal Democrat POTUS (Truman, FDR's former veep) look evil enough to have helped a mass-murderer escape...it's a case where they'd need to put their liberal bias aside TO criticize Truman as they do. 2. What Dreyfuss says about "the Brits hired the Mufti to be a secret agent after the war" is one item (not added by me) that corroborates my added paragraph; another thing that corroborates it is the "seeking to reestablish..." quote, in my last asterisked item, above. That's when I thought "ah, it's not likely to be a coincidence that the various ideologies aren't bickering over history." :-) ...or "there are no sects in geometry" as Voltaire put it. 3. Like you (Zero), I was skeptical about the last thing you pointed out; at first it sounded like a hokey conspiracy-theory ...but it's not from fringe SOURCES like most theories are: we've got 3 well-known sources (a 4th source if you consider that one source is citing another...), one source even plausibly would have correspondence with a POTUS (Truman), as claimed, and 2 leftwingers (from the same mag, tho) agreeing with 2 rightwingers (rather than e.g. 3 fringe bloggers who share the same ideology and they each cite each other, as they often play that game), one leftist and one rightwinger are period sources (1940's), the 2nd leftist & 2nd rightwinger are modern sources. So first consider... Wikipedia says you add material based on the source-quality, not on whether you think it's true, so hey...I'm still not comfortable putting an 'encyclopedic' voice on that section and instead I'll say "[insert Respected journalist's name here] who founded [insert this well-known institution/magazine/newspaper here] CLAIMS...." 4. When I got sources that gave more details on exactly what they think the USA & UK governments didn't want publicized, it made more sense: Though I'm skeptical about conspiracy theories, it's a conspiracy _fact_ that countries often "make a deal with the devil": e.g. US propping up Saddam Hussein, SVA dictator, LatAm dictators (because "our dictator is better than those commie dictators"?), so Western powers letting the Mufti get away seems _plausible_. It would only be consistent with the way we know the gov't will compromise, even with fugitives from war-crime charges. So does it seem that crazy? 5. I think if that second paragraph gets deleted (NYpost & TheNation explaining their alleged discoveries), when people read the last sentence of the first paragraph, "Husayni was hired by British intelligence as a propagandist for the Arab News Agency" will leave the reader saying, "Huh?? WHY? Maybe there are reasons...but WHY?" and leave the reader feeling like "someone didn't complete this section, so it left me confused." :-) (see signature below zero's & my next posts)

I have examined at least 5 book-length biographies of al-Husayni and many journal articles. None of them suggest that he was actually convicted of war crimes by a court. Since these sources are authoritative and some are very hostile and record every negative aspect, it is reasonable to conclude that no such conviction occurred. This conclusion is unchanged if some tertiary sources copy each others' undocumented assertions. Zero^talk 06:02, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

"Within 2 months after his appointment, he released an Arabic translation of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" = complete nonsense (and not supported by the given source). "... and killed 90% of Bosnia's Jews" = complete nonsense that is chronologically impossible, see discussion in archives of this page. (In fact almost all the Bosnian Jews were dead or in Nazi camps well before the Handschar (not Hanjar) was formed, as is very easy to check.) Both these claims are sourced to the same article, thereby showing that we can't trust it. Zero^talk 07:27, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Six issues with Zero's last edit & the lack-of-evidence that he gave to justify it:

1. A Professor at a US accredited university (PhD was from one of USA's top-50 universities as well) is not a "dubious" source(nor tertiary; academics typ are 2ndary sources, as they go to the primary sources). You've provided no alternative sources, to PROVE the professor's 90% is somehow insane (or "dubious").

In the chaos of war, it's reasonable to expect that different sources will come to different estimates of numbers killed; it's perfectly reasonable for two perfectly credible sources to come to different conclusions on an issue like war fatalities, in which case it's WP's policy (WP:due) to note both sources. It's common knowledge that even today, estimates of overall WWII dead from CREDIBLE sources (meeting WP criteria, as shown in WP's WWII articles) vary more wildly than this:

a. Estimate of 75% of Bosnian Jews murdered, with citation: Bosnian_Jews#Deportation_and_murder

b. Professor Dalin estimates 90%

c. Here's a source that says a bit more than Prof Dalin's 90%: [2]

d. You're free to modify it with a 4th (or more) estimates if they're credibly-sourced (again, let's all play by the same rules, starting with: WP's criteria). But what you're not allowed to do in Wikipedia is delete content sourced from an academic professional, and unilaterally judge him "dubious" when WP's own content policies make it clear that his credentials make his work suitable for WP -- unless you present an overwhelming amount of evidence against his veracity, as you do not, so far.

2. You followed-up with the claim that: "In fact almost all the Bosnian Jews were dead or in Nazi camps well before the Handschar (not Hanjar) was formed, as is very easy to check" First a minor point: Google gives 66,700 results for Hanjar, and only 2,700 for Handschar; regardless that your preferred spelling is only in the minority, neither spelling is incorrect (as you falsely claim), because both are English translations -- poor translations of the word Handžar; please, don't presume to (mis)educate me on the Slavic languages & how they translate to English. Now the more important part that you got wrong in the last bit that I quoted of you...

The Hanchar were formed in July 1941 (includes citation); BOSNIA'S Jews weren't deported until Sept 1941 (includes citation of when deportations "began") (here's a 2nd source as confirmation, from Carl Kosta Savich: [3], and the Wannsee Conference (decision to kill Jews en masse, not just intern them, wasn't until 1942), so why would you say "almost all ... were dead or in Nazi camps well before (emphasis added) the Handschar ... was formed" (July 1941)? None were in Nazi camps until AFTER the Handžar were formed, and very few were killed before then, so ya seem to be chronologically confused... (then calling the Professor 'wrong' based on baseless accusations that you, again, provide no evidence for; if it's so "easy" for you to prove this, like you claim, then go ahead and prove your claim. ;-) Otherwise a Professor's word is good enough for me, and meets WP guidelines).

3. "I have examined at least 5 book-length biographies of al-Husayni" Please name them. Have any of them noted that the Yugoslav government ever pursued Husseni at all? (This is the only one where we might only have tertiary sources, but it's helpful if you answer this before I do more research.) Based on the last paragraph, maybe you just forgot their mentions of his criminal trial (and forgot the chronology of the Handžar relative to when "nearly all" Jews were exported or killed)? ;-)

4. Despite that Prof. Dalin writes

"Only two months after his appointment, his propaganda, including a new translation into Arabic of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, precipitated a second anti-Jewish riot in Palestine,"

you claim that

"Within 2 months after his appointment, he released an Arabic translation of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion"

is "not supported by the given source"; I wonder if you can elaborate, or suggest how you would word what Dalin says? Yeah, I could be adding _very_ minor details that I've gotten from sources other than Dalin.

5. You also called Prof Dalin's last assertion, regarding the Protocols, "nonsense"; Wikipedia policy is that even if an editor thinks something is untrue, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." (let alone that you never gave any evidence, let alone compelling evidence, for why this is 'nonsense'. By 'nonsense' I'll have to presume you meant 'untrue,' as Dalin's statement is nowhere near how WP guidelines define 'nonsense'.)

6. You also deleted info sourced to the New York Post article from 1948; was their staff, in 1948, "dubious" as well? (or did you just take the lazy way out by making an 'undo' without even reading the entire 'diff' first, and separating [what you think is] the wheat from the chaff? ;-) [what you think is the wheat and the chaff [good versus dubious sources]: I've just shown a few examples that what WP's core-content policies say are in contrast to what you claim to be good versus dubious sources: please state your specific reason(s) that you don't accept Professor Dalin (and yes, I will drive home that he's a credentialed professional... :-) ), and please _prove_ the rest of the things you're claiming.])

Therefore: Re-added info, pending _one shred of proof_ that Professor & other contested sources don't meet WP:Core Content Policies or proof that their claims are "wrong". BTW, on this Talk page, today a bot has removed your disagreement with someone else, where you claim Arafat is not related to Husayni by blood (again without a shred of proof): the Mideast Encyclopedia AND the biography (from separate scholars) on this page both contradict your claim: [4] I'm sure glad you're here to lecture and straighten out everyone on "teh twuth(c)(tm, all rights reserved by Prof. Zero)". Maybe I'd be half as sure of your varacity, as you seem to be of yourself, if you provided one shred of evidence for any claim that I've seen you make so far.

Regards, 24.155.209.101 (talk) 14:25, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

(1) The New York Post is not a reliable source for controversial history, especially if it contradicts the work of eminent historians. The article you cite is just one of hundreds of political agitation articles that appeared at the time of Israel's formation. (2) The Handschar division was recruited in 1943 and first saw action when it returned from France in 1944. This is all stated quite clearly in the Wikipedia article that you are misquoting above. (3) [5] is a Wikipedia mirror and therefore not permitted as a source. (4) The Protocols story remains rubbish. The first Arabic edition of the Protocols appeared in 1921 in Egypt and nobody has suggested it had anything to do with Husseini. (5) The distant blood relationship between Husseini and Arafat is trivia and only ever gets mentioned by people who think it smears Arafat; we don't play such games here. (6) I quoted (eminent Israeli historian) Yoav Gelber on the Yugoslavian charges above. They were withdrawn, there was no trial. (6) Books about Husseini: I have my own copies of the books of Elpeleg (negative but scholarly), Mattar (positive but scholarly), Perlman (strong negative propaganda) and Schechtman (negative propaganda but much better than Perlman), and my library has the book of Jabarah (positive propaganda). I've read all of them. I also have a lot of articles about him published in academic journals. There is no trial of Husseini in any of them. That's because there never was one. Zero^talk 22:25, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

---

Things Zero hasn't brought up, but important: TO DO: I think Abdullah's rivalry against the Mufti really should be expanded in section 5 (just don't have time today; made lotsa edits already); there are some fascinating details in that little niche of history. I think people will find that it's commonly-agreed by historians & period sources that Abdullah was the Mufti's greatest 1940's Arab rival if you Google around a bit (so I was shocked to see no mention of Abdullah in section 5), basically Abdullah to this day is more moderate, but I can expand upon that... OTOH it's always more fun if someone out there just wants to learn Abdullah vs Mufti, then share whatever they find from reliable sources -- rather than me re-reading what I've already read years ago.

war-crimes in the lede: It's a MAJOR EVENT (thus put in lede) in anyone's life to be convicted of war crimes.

Smaller edits for grammar, more accuracy re: Mufti in Iran/Iraq/Africa, etc. 24.155.209.101 (talk) 19:36, 6 February 2010 (UTC)