Freedomvrights.com
Writings and Publications by Joseph B. H. McMillan
Part 3 of "Free Speech, The War on Terror and Islam" by Joseph B.H. McMillan:
The Problem Identified; Debate or Debacle; Arabs, Islam and the Nazis; Islam and the Dark Ages; Civilization and Tolerance under Islam; Conservatives "calling it as it is"?; Free Speech and Debate; The Consequences; A Solution?; Footnotes
Arabs, Islam and the Nazis
Let me start with Mr Bunglawala’s reference to the Nazis. He asserts that "responsible governments" curtail free speech to avoid Nazi type demonization of peoples. He simply ignores, or is ignorant of, Arab and Muslim support for the Nazis' policy towards the Jews.
On the 28 April 1942 the Nazi Ribbentrop wrote to The Mufti Amin El Husseini to assure him of the Nazis’ support for the Arab countries' national aim “for the destruction of the Jewish National Home in Palestine.”(15)
On the 25 July 1944 the Mufti wrote an angry letter to Ribbentrop regarding Jews who were to be released by the Nazis in 1944 thus: “[I have previously] asked your Excellency to undertake the necessary steps so as to prevent the Jews from emigrating” [from Germany].(16) A similar protest in May 1944 resulted in 900 Jewish children being sent to Nazi extermination camps.(17)
A Fatwa was issued by Haj Amin Al Husseini in May 1941 calling for all Muslims to wage Holy War against Britain.(18)
Haj Amin Al Husseini recorded his “objectives” in his meeting with Hitler on the 21 November 1941 as “fighting the Jews without respite, and this fight includes the fight against the so-called Jewish National Home in Palestine…”(19)
To describe the Arab countries as fence sitters in WW II would be generous. None declared war on Germany until shortly before the end of the war. That was because only those countries which had ‘fought’ against the Axis were entitled to automatic entry to the new United Nations.
Mohammad’s successor, Caliph Omar, set out twelve laws for “nonbelievers” living amongst “believers”. It codified the conditions for Jews living under Islam (the Charter of Omar). Amongst other “laws”, the Jews were forbidden to touch the Koran, the Jews were forced to wear a distinctive habit with sash and to wear a yellow piece of cloth as a badge. If they broke any of these laws they were put to death.(20) Readers should be reminded that this was nearly one thousand four hundred years before the Nazis adopted the same practices. Stoning Jews to death was a common tradition, even at the time of the exodus of the Jews from Yemen in 1948.(21) Jews also had to pay a tax, simply for being Jews, derived from the Koran.(22) In all Muslim countries, especially Arab countries, Jews were also confined to ghettos, an early form of apartheid.(23)
Britain was granted the Mandate for Palestine by the League of Nations in 1917 to establish a “Jewish National Home east and west of the Jordan River”, that is, including the present Jordan. Britain was entrusted with facilitating Jewish immigration to this designated homeland for the Jews.(24)
The British Government, in breach of that mandate, gave what is now Jordan to a friendly Arab sheikh.(25) Britain, under a device created by Winston Churchill no less, restricted Jewish entry to their “National Home” under the concept of “absorptive capacity”.(26) That ‘principle’ enabled the British, under Arab pressure, to restrict entry of Jews into their National Home during the period of the Mandate. At the same time the British facilitated the entry of illegal Arab in-migration into a land that has been consistently and reliably described as barren and uninhabited, except for Jewish peasants and some Nomads.(27)
In evidence to the Palestine Royal Commission in 1936 (one of those ‘Inquiries’ so favoured by British Governments, not least the present one, to turn facts on their head to give ‘legitimacy’ to political ‘agendas’), the District Commissioner of Galilee, in obvious frustration at the Commission’s refusal to accept the fact of negligible “displacement” of indigenous ‘Palestinians’ replied, “the only answer I can give is that there were not so many people displaced as we imagined.”(28) As well as the absorptive capacity argument, the British were using the ‘displacement theory’ to restrict entry of Jews to their National Home.(29) That little deceit has unfortunately bestowed on the world an ugly legacy, the so-called "Palestinian problem".
Why would Britain so flagrantly breach the trust placed in it by the League of Nations? Comments from the time may shed some light on it. Anthony Eden wrote in his diaries that “[]f we must have preferences, let me murmur in your ear that I prefer Arabs to Jews.”(30) Or as Eden’s secretary noted in his own diary, “unfortunately AE (Eden) is immovable on the subject of Palestine. He loves Arabs and hates Jews.”(31) This may remind some of the recent diary of the ex-British Foreign Secretary Robin Cook who noted with satisfaction the Cabinet’s response of “hear, hear” when someone mentioned that Arab governments would say Israel is the real problem in the Middle East, not Saddam Hussein.
The British Government refused to take any of the Austrian Jews suffering Nazi persecution at the Evian Conference in 1937. The British could not find a single space for one Jew in any of its Colonies, even although Santo Domingo could find space for 100,000. The British did not want to offend their Arab ‘friends’. To that end it also found the “National Jewish Home” at virtual capacity.(32)
During WW II the British Government implemented the “absorptive capacity” principle to severely restrict Jewish immigration to the Mandated Jewish National Home, or what was left of it (less than 25%). Britain forcibly removed “illegal Jews” from their own Home and sent them to camps in Mauritius(33), or simply let them drown, as in the case of the 750 men, women and children on the ship Struma.(34) The Americans despaired at British attitudes to the Jews. The view of the US State Department of British attitudes in WW II was “in simple terms, the British were apparently prepared to accept the probable death of thousands of Jews in enemy territory because of ‘the difficulties of disposing of any considerable number of Jews should they be rescued’”(35)
All of this was to appease Arab sentiments against the Jews and in-bred British anti-Semitism. When the US was insisting that the British honour their obligations under the Mandate by admitting Jewish refugees from persecution by the Nazis, the British deferred to the Arabs. A Foreign Office Memo of 21 January 1946 states that any further quota of Jews to be allowed into the Jewish National Home would require a “reply from the Arab States”.(36)
So yes, it is highly convenient that “responsible governments” inhibit freedom of speech. But it is not to “forbid incitement of racial hatred”, as Mr Bunglawala would have us believe. It is to further a hideous anti-Semitism deeply rooted in Europe and openly advocated in virtually every Muslim country, especially in Arab countries.
But it goes much further. Islam is the only religion that openly preaches anti-Semitism and denigrates other religions. Yet our conveniently curbed right to freedom of speech precludes comment, never mind debate, on this invidious religious and racial hatred, assuming of course, that the general populace knew the facts and possessed the tools to participate in such a debate.
Our 'restricted' right to freedom of speech also precludes any objective analysis of the alleged contribution made by Islam to civilization. We are compelled to simply ‘take the Islamic word for it’ that the contribution was in fact made, backed by such notable ‘scholars and historians’ as Blair.
Click here for Part 4 of this article, "Islam and the Dark Ages".
Copyright © Joseph BH McMillan 2002 - 2007 All Rights Reserved
Click here to purchase Freedom v. A Tyranny of Rights from Amazon.com.
Home | Articles | Books | Biography | Contact
Copyright©Escaping Books, S.L. and Joseph B.H. McMillan,2007