Holocaust Denial Undermines Islam (By Shaykh Hamza Yusuf) at HAhmed.com
This is a brilliant article ma sha Allah on Holocaust denial, to which I've noticed a lot of Muslims are susceptible, and the Islamic notion of tawatur, of an event being known of through a multitude of witnesses, so it is proven to have happened beyond reasonable doubt:
In the case of the Holocaust, the facts are clear and transmitted from multiple sources. Tens of thousands of Jewish and other individuals who survived the death camps and other horrors of Nazi Germany lived to tell of it. Nazis were brought to trial, evidence was presented in court, and they were convicted. Mass graves were found, and gas chambers were discovered, which were clearly not delicing rooms as some callously claimed. The ovens exist and cannot be reduced to an efficient way of preventing cholera outbreaks or disposing of victims of starvation. I have personally met many Holocaust survivors and their children. I have seen tattoos. I have also heard firsthand accounts of the horrific events. The numbers and details of such events may be legitimate areas of research and inquiry for scholars, but questioning whether the events took place at all undermines the epistemological basis of our collective knowledge. Muslims, of all people, should be conscious of this as their religion is predicated on the same epistemological premises as many major events in history, such as the Holocaust. To deny such things is to undermine Islam as an historical event. That a “conference” examining the historicity of the Holocaust should take place in a Muslim country hosted by a Muslim head of state is particularly tragic and, in my estimation, undermines the historicity of the faith of the people of that state.
I should add that, with what I know of the society I grew up in, I do not believe that the entirety of western society could have chosen to believe a lie for sixty or more years, such that it becomes established as fact without any serious questioning. The only people who have questioned it are those with an axe to grind, usually relating to continuing racism against Jews or relating to the exploitation of the Holocaust in advocacy for Israel, and their alternative explanations are almost as damning of the Nazis as the Holocaust itself (they do not address the issue of why Jews were in camps at all, or else they justify it). I also don't believe that the conference in Iran to which Shaikh Hamza refers was intended as a serious piece of honest debate, even if Ahmadinejad really does believe that the Holocaust was not real or was seriously exaggerated; it was intended merely to cause shock and outrage in the west in response to the Danish cartoon affair. In reality, it made him look ridiculous and made him a greater embarrassment for the Muslims than he already was.
salaam aleikum,
the problem is not simply of acknowledging the holocaust, but putting it in context. It was/is used as a political weapon to silence all opposition to the state of Israel and it's policies. This was highlighted by a critical Jewish writer himself, Norman Finkelstein. Here is a link to his book:
http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/content.php?pg=3
Assalamualaikum,
I agree with you and Shakh Hamza that Holocaust denial is illogical and wrong. What I and I think a lot of other muslims feel is that it is also wrong to deal with it with such reverence to the exculsion of other humanitarian outrages in the world. And while I would agree that genocides like the Rwandan genocide was not as large as the holocaust - when is it large enough for there to be a 'memorial day'. It would be much better if there was a day of action against all acts of oppression and genocide and the Holocaust remembered in there as well.
Wassalam
I think that we as an Ummah have moved out of Holocaust Denial decades ago as a way of protesting against Murderous Israel.
The Iranian perspective makes sense from a political angle seen in the light of the "Iran War" debate and the Israeli push for the war.
The rest of the Ummah, as far as I can see from following postings on blogs and forums do not deny the Holocaust at all.
What they want to acknowledge is that the selective remembrance of the Holocaust over all the other Holocausts is unfair as it rewards a caucasian viewpoint of history that only the deaths of caucasians were important or at least the only ones important enough to be remembered with a "day".
That is hardly Holocaust Denial.
You'd better look up the meanings of Caucasian and Jew, Judge Dredd; indeed, insofar as the term Caucasian has a meaning at all, Iranians are Caucasians.
Could Ahmadinejad have actually been egging the US on to invade Iran, in the hope that it would lead to a guerrilla quagmire dwarfing that in Iraq?
Thersites,
It is not the true definition of a word that is used in politics.
For example I don't want to start a thread here about race but there is absolutely no definition, especially biological definition of race.
Yet the word race is used wherever the "caucasian" victors want to use it.
I definately won't start a debate about the Caucasus mountains and where exactly they run from and to.
So, what do you mean when you say Jew or Race?
You would be better off standing on a high street and asking a hundred random passers by, what race they thought Iranians were and what they thought "race" meant.
It is their caucasian victorious definition that means more than even the definition that you allude to on Google.
Thersites, you could also call them 'Aryans' inasmuch as that term is one from race theory, popular in the early 20th century, particularly popularized by the Nazis.
as Cheikh Anta Diop (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheikh_Anta_Diop ) pointed out, evolutionary theory requires the idea of racial differentiation and necessarily that one is `superior` to another in intelligence, strength, industry or other `quantifiables`... and that while there are differences, if one chooses to perceive 'race' through faith, one sees as the Quran says: "we have created you in different tribes (branches) and nations, that you might know one another, not that you might despise one another"
Who are the 'them' you could also call aryans, Dawud?
The problem with race and evolutionary theory is that race as an biological term and race as used to describe different groups of humans have very different meanings. Humans haven't been separated from one another for long enough for biological races to develop among them.
Since "denial" is being discussed, haven't you noticed how zionists and their supporters deny everything about the Nakba, including the presence of Palestinians?
It was/is used as a political weapon to silence all opposition to the state of Israel and it's policies.
Actually, the pro-Palestinian spin on the Holocaust has been the favorite rhetorical device of Israel's critics for decades, for much longer than the Apartheid smear has been in circulation. The Israelis are the "true Nazis," the Palestinians are suffering a "Holocaust," blah, blah, blah. People impressed by Finkelstein never mention this.
Thersites,
What is the definition of a biological race and cultural race?
Are these universal definitions.
I recently read somewhere that some Israelis have Genetic variations that are the same as Palestinians and yet different to other Jewish groups eg. Ashkenazi.
Does this mean that the Middle eastern Jews are the same biological race as the Palestinians?
And if they are culturally different then what that does that make both of the groups?
There is no such thing as a cultural race, Judge Dredd. Racism- the assumption that physical differences between groups of people are so great that they maKe them separate races- is cultural, however.
Biologically a race is a subgroup of a species that because of isolation has changed genetically to a point where it cannot interbreed with other members of the same species from other races- two groups of mice that have been separated by a river are obvious examples. Paradoxically the differences in appearances between humans are much more superficial than the differences between outwardly identical races of the same species. Humans haven't been around long enough and no human groups have been isolated long enough for such large differences to appear. Some human groups have similaries among themselves and with other human groups, but there is more difference within any given human group than between any human groups.
Thersites, sorry I think that I misread your sentence because of the “…as an….”. in “…that race as an biological term…..”
So I think your recent posting and my last posting say pretty much the same thing.
I.e. there is no real definition or even classification of race.
I think that in your recent posting, the biological definition of race is probably “strain” and even strains can interbreed. Only species cannot generally interbreed. So mice that are separated by a river, like Humans separated by a geographical phenomenon, would surely be able to mate even after long periods, unless of course you are alluding to evolutionary timescales in which case we are back to supposition based on dots.
Obviously then Human beings do not have “strains” or “races”. I guess the closest that an evolutionary biologist could argue the case for human strains or races would be by using Neanderthal man as a different strain rather than species.
Humans only have cultural differences and differences in skin colour and other traits. The “race” word is only used by those with a political or other agenda by highlighting skin colour.
Thus, it brings me back to the “Semitic” race. I find it difficult to accept that this is infact a race by any definition and I believe that if anything it is a claimed lineage.
If it is a lineage then that is fine, but to base laws around the “Semitic” race is not helpful. Based on this definition or race, individual families in India could claim to be races and distinct from other Indian families or races and claim discrimination against each other.
But then perhaps that is what the Caste system is.
So race is a silly concept really. I think there may be agreement on that.
Semites are popularly known to be of the Jewish Religion which comes from the family or tribe of Judah (or Levite Moses) as is understood in the light of the Anti-Semitic race law. In reality of course it is claimed to be from the lineage or family of Shem in which case Arab Muslims and some Black Muslims could theoretically also claim Anti-Semitism in Austria against the Islamophobes and have them imprisoned for upto 10 years. But an Austrian court of law would probably not allow this in Austria.
I believe that we originally started discussing the concept of unfairness at treating the Jewish or Semitic group preferentially as a “white” “coloured” “race” to the exclusion of all other groups and unfairly assigning only them a commemoration day called the “Holocaust Day”.
This is especially unfair as it selectively rewards a “white” “Caucasian” “European” group viewpoint of history by commemorating the mass murder of only a “white” “Caucasian” “race” and no other group or “colour” or “race” or “lineage”.
I hope you can see why the Muslims protest at the selective commemoration of the Semitic Jews and not all the Millions and Millions of other “races” and groups who have been murdered in one or another holocaust.
You will find that the Muslim protest of Holocaust Day makes more sense in the light of the creation of Israel in the Middle East especially as the creation has led to conflict in the area. But we definitely need to protect Jews against atrocities like those in Nazi Germany. The best way would be to change the Anti-Semitic law to protect Jews so that it should be an Anti-Jewish Law based on Religion. After all Religion is recognised universally whereas Race is not. As somebody can be born in to a religious Jewish family and then later become atheist, the Jewish atheist can also be afforded protection under the new anti-Jewish law.
The Iranian President is a politician and like Bush, Blair Fahd, Musharraf and ALL the other politicians, is using the stupid denial conspiracy to dig at Israel for their input into the Iran War debate.
The point I was making, Judge Dredd is that you were mistaken in your claim that " a caucasian viewpoint of history that only the deaths of caucasians were important or at least the only ones important enough to be remembered with a "day"."
According to racist set defintions, jews are not caucasian.
Theresites,
"Racist Set Definitions"?
I am sure that would be giving too much importance to Racists as the policy makers.
But if we do for a second look at the racist definitions; I am sure that the Nazi's viewed their fellow European Jews as similar looking European (caucasian) people - only with a different divisive evil ideology that made them a dangerous threat to the Nazis. You know a bit like all groups view Muslims today in Europe.
Also, if there is no definition for Race then there is no definition for the racist "set" definitions. One wrong cannot be perpetuated by another wrong.
Thus, I would argue that it is true to say that it is indeed a reward to the European "caucasian" "white" jews to the exclusion of all other groups.
Sorry; should read "racist-set definitions" meaning [invalid] definitions set by racists. However, you are wrong if you are "sure that the Nazi's viewed their fellow European Jews as similar looking European (caucasian) people - only with a different divisive evil ideology that made them a dangerous threat to the Nazis" The nazis viewed the jews as a particular and inferior race; it had nothing to do with ideology except that jews invented false ideologies to subvert the true races. They were convinced that jews could be distinguished from other races by physiologogical features and that any apparent originality shown by any jews was the result of plagiarism of the skills of others and they did not believe that caucasians or- more -aryans- who nazis thought the best of mankind- were uniquely European. They spent a lot of time trying to get in touch with nordic super-minds that they believed existed in Tibet.
I think that we are getting too much into the definition of Race and Racism by the racists. I am sure that the Nazi's saw the Jews as the same colour but tried to use their evil thinking to classify the Jewish Ideology as a race using their "scientific" methods. It doesn't make the European Jews less white just because the Nazi's wanted to find other differentiators.
Do you believe the European Jews not to be as white as the ruling elite in White Europe?
I would argue that they cannot be a separate grouping in terms of their skin colour. It is that very same skin colour that is rewarded with its own Holocaust Day.
It is that very same skin colour that is rewarded with its own Holocaust Day.
You are missing the particular relevance of the Holocaust for Europeans where Jews have been a long-standing and prominent minority for centuries upon centuries. Since Xianity itself is derived from Judaism, a major strand of European culture is derived from Judaism. England in particular was the site of blood libels and expulsions and it gave the world Shylock. In the Holocaust, one might say, Europe turned on an essential part of itself. It is silly to attribute the commemoration to the whiteness of Jews. In America the crimes of slavery and Jim Crow get a lot of attention because that is where they happened, but the Armenian Genocide, for example, is less well-known.
Judge Dredd as it: was "the definition of Race and Racism by the racists" that inspired mass murder, how can we get too much into it? Race as defined by the nazis was not only or exclusively a matter of skin colour. They murdered every jew they could, regardless of their skin colour.
Thersites,
You may have missed my question in the earlier posting:
"Do you believe the European Jews not to be as white as the ruling elite in White Europe?"
Also, does your last post mean that you would be happy to accept definitions by Racists?