Indiana Jones meets the Da Vinci Code

[bemildred]

I don't normally post Spengler, but this is too juicy to pass up.

---

"The whole period after 1945 was poisoned by the Nazis," says Gunter Luling, a scholar who was drummed out of his university in the 1970s after he put forward heterodox theories about the Koran's origins. His doctoral thesis argued that the Koran was lifted in part from Christian hymns. Blackballed by Spitaler, Luling lost his teaching job and launched a fruitless six-year court battle to be reinstated. Feuding over the Koran, he says, "ruined my life".

He wrote books and articles at home, funded by his wife, who took a job in a pharmacy. Asked by a French journal to write a paper on German Arabists, Luling went to Berlin to examine wartime records. Germany's prominent postwar Arabic scholars, he says, "were all connected to the Nazis".

Why were the Nazis so eager to suppress Koranic criticism? Most likely, the answer lies in their alliance with Islamist leaders, who shared their hatred of the Jews and also sought leverage against the British in the Middle East. The most recent of many books on this subject, Matthias Kuntzel's Jihad and Jew-Hatred, was reviewed January 13 in the New York Times by Jeffrey Goldberg, who reports

Kuntzel makes a bold and consequential argument: the dissemination of European models of anti-Semitism among Muslims was not haphazard, but an actual project of the Nazi Party, meant to turn Muslims against Jews and Zionism. He says that in the years before World War II, two Muslim leaders in particular willingly and knowingly carried Nazi ideology directly to the Muslim masses. They were Haj Amin al-Husseini, the mufti of Jerusalem, and the Egyptian proto-Islamist Hassan al-Banna, the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/JA15Ak03.html

[donsu]

1. kick

nt

[ProgressiveMuslim]

2. I'm curious as to

what you find "juicy" about that?

[bemildred]

3. I consider that all religious texts, without exception, are the work of

self-serving humans. This has been clear for a long time with the sacred texts of the Christian and Jewish religions, based on the sort of critical studies being considered here with regard to the Koran. So I consider that critical studies of the Koran are a positive thing in terms of debunking religious authoritarianism. Of course, people will believe what they want to anyway.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

8. Bemildred!

That is so cynical.

Have you read many religious texts?

[bemildred]

10. Yes, I am quite cynical. Yes, I have read various religious texts.

How many do I have to read before I'm allowed to form opinions?

If it helps any, I am not against religion as such, I'm just against religious authoritarianism. I think humility is the only sensible religious position, and something sadly lacking in people who claim that the deity is exclusively on their side and shares only their opinions.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

11. Sorry that this forum doesn't allow for tone of voice...

I am truly not attacking. I know what you mean. I'm not a firm practioner of religion, and I share you belief that self-serving humans have really subverted religion, but ...

At the center of it, I find the texts to be fabulous expressions of humanity's centuries-old grappling with the meaning of it all. When I think about things like the Gospel of Mark, or the book of Isaiah, I don't see much self-serving there at all, rather the world being turned on its head on the side of the poor. And I certainly see that impetus at the center of Islam.

Anyway, sorry if you took offense at my question -- it wasn't intended.

[bemildred]

13. That's OK.

I consider cynicism to be a positive trait, but lots of people don't seem to. If you call it "critical thinking" then people will think it's a good thing, as long as you don't apply it too stuff they consider settled.

I share your view that some religious writings are worthwhile. I wasn't out to bash religion as such, and I'm not a militant atheist or the like.

[bemildred]

4. Spengler is a weasel of the Wm Kristol sort, and usually wrong.

Wrong on his facts, and wrong on his predictions, so one ought to keep that in mind here.

[theredpen]

5. It worth being aware of the Nazi influence on Arab anti-Semitism

Prior to 1947, there was relatively little anti-Jewish sentiment in the Arab world, but there certainly was some. There was considerable anti-British sentiment, and the Nazi's used that to attract allies in the Arab world.

Of particular note was the "Golden Corner" group in Iraq, who attempted to stage a pro-Nazi coup, including an Iraqi version of Kristalnacht. The coup failed and Muslims rallied to protect their Jewish neighbors. The Sunnis were in control of the government at that time, and the substantial community of Iraqi Jews was second to them. The Sunnis preferred working with the Jews who were general well-educated; they considered the Shi'a to be a bunch of yokels who lived in a swamp (prejudiced, but based in truth, as we see from the state of Iraq today). I've read that there was even a Jewish vice president in Iraq at one point although I can't find a reference for that :(.

When Israel was formed, many Arabs saw this as the Jews selling out their Arab brothers in order to get a huge favor from the hated British and reacted badly. I don't think I need to go into that much more detail about THAT, but the Jewish population of Iraq ended up going from an estimated 350,000 to about 20,000 in just a couple of years. Later, when the Ba'ath party too power, newly-installed chief of security, Saddam Hussein, began persecuting Iraqi Jews in order to use anti-Israel fervor to rally support for the new party.

Even in the best of circumstance, the Arabs would likely have reacted badly to the way in which Israel came into existence (and it is debatable whether ANY way would have avoided the backlash). Still, the seeds planted by the Nazis World War II, may have had an effect. There is a rumor that Saddam Hussein's father displayed a portrait of Adolph Hitler in his living room. Certainly Saddam's cynical use of the Jews as a scapegoat is reminiscent of Nazi Germany.

Also worth noting is that after the leader of the Golden Corner coup (the name escapes me right now) was forced to flee Iraq, he went to German and became head of the Arab outreach and Arab-language propaganda for the Nazis.

[Vegasaurus]

6. It is positively disingenuous to suggest

that there was no Arab anti-semitism before 1947.

For example, there were the riots of the 1920s organized by Hajj Amin El Husseini and Aref el Aref such as the Nebi musa riots, Riots and Massacres (Hebron) of 1929 and the so called "Arab Revolt" of 1936-9 were directed at Jews, not Zionists. The riots of 1929 in particular, were not touched off by Jewish immigration, but rather by hysterical rumors that "the Jews" were planning to build a synagogue near the wailing wall, a traditional place of Jewish worship. The crowds screamed itbach al yahood (murder the Jews) and nashrab dam al yahood (we will drink the blood of the Jews) rather than anti-Zionist slogans.

There were events even in the late 1800's.

Anti-semitism of Arabs towards Jews preceded the state of Israel by many decades. Get your facts straight.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

7. Since we're getting facts straight, note that it did NOT precede the zionist influx.

[Name removed]

9. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Lithos]

17. I will bite

You are strongly suggesting there was no such thing as anti-Semitism in the Arab World prior to the immigration of Jews to Israel starting circa 1890. The Oriental World was absolutely no different in its treatment of Jews than the Occidental World. There is a bit of a false myth out there that things were almost idyllically peaceful prior to the first Aliyah and the association of Zionist immigration with British Colonization. Most certainly, like Europe, many Arabs lived in peace with their Jewish neighbors, but the overall relationship of Jews inside of Arab culture was hardly one of an equal.

Institutionalized bigotry, second class citizenship, ghettoization, expulsion, and pogroms were common in both Europe and the Middle East long before the rise of Hitler. What I think is important was beginning about 1936, the language and ideas being used to justify hate started increasingly to borrow from the anti-Semitism of the Nazi's.

Racism and hate are nothing more than attempts by one group to empower itself over another through the use of stereotypes and dehumanization. No culture is immune, or has ever proven immune.

L-

[ProgressiveMuslim]

18. I'm doing no such thing. I pointed out that the 2 events cited came well after

large influxes of zionist settlers.

The poster insinuated that the only "reason" for local arabs to have a legitimate beef with zionists would have been the establishment of the state of Israel (and therefore the locals in 1929 and 1936 were brainless anti-semites).

I'm not saying there were never any incidences between the groups in the preceding 2000 years, but that the problems between the 2 populations began in earnest after large influxes of Zionists.

Do you dispute that?

[Vegasaurus]

20. There weren't only "two events"

and the fact that they came after "large influxes of zionist settlers" (as opposed to legal immigrants, which is what they were?) somehow justifies even these two events?

Pogroms and ethnic cleansing were part of the Arab mantra well before Israel achieved statehood. There is commentary from Arabs from the 1800's.

And my further point was that many countries have had "large influxes" of immigrants. And again I ask, what about large influxes of immigrants in any way justifies violence against them?

[Douglas Carpenter]

23. I quote the great Israeli historian Avi Shlaim of Oxford University

I'm not trying to justify any particular acts of violence some of which where atrocious. But attempting to look at the context.

(I might add Avi Shlaim is definitely a Zionist. He was actually born in Baghdad, Iraq in 1945 and immigrated to Israel with his family as a small child of five years in 1950. He makes it quite clear in his books that he strongly believes establishing the Jewish state was a historic necessity and a great accomplishment. However he also acknowledge the grave injustice this project brought upon the Palestinian people):

link:

http://users.ox.ac.uk/~ssfc0005/It%20Can%20Be%20Done.html

"The history of Zionism, from the earliest days to the present, is replete with manifestations of deep hostility and contempt toward the indigenous population. On the other hand, there have always been brave and outspoken critics of such attitudes. Foremost among them was Ahad Ha'am (Asher Zvi Ginsberg), a liberal Russian Jewish thinker who visited Palestine in 1891 and published a series of articles that were sharply critical of the aggressive behaviour and political ethnocentrism of the Zionist settlers. They believed, wrote Ahad Ha'am, that "the only language that the Arabs understand is that of force." And they "behave towards the Arabs with hostility and cruelty, trespass unjustly upon their boundaries, beat them shamefully without reason and even brag about it, and nobody stands to check this contemptible and dangerous tendency." Little seems to have changed since Ahad Ha'am penned these words a century ago.

That most Zionist leaders wanted the largest possible Jewish state in Palestine with as few Arabs as possible inside their state is hardly open to question. As early as 1919, at the Paris peace conference, Chaim Weizmann called for a Palestine "as Jewish as England is English." And Chaim Weizmann, the uncle of Israel's current President, was one of the moderates. "

snip:"Zangwill's slogan about "a land without a people for a people without a land" was useful for propaganda purposes, but from the outset the leaders of the Zionist movement realized that their aim of establishing a Jewish state in a territory inhabited by an Arab community could not be achieved without inducing, by one means or another, a large number of Arabs to leave Palestine. In their public utterances the Zionist leaders avoided as far as possible any mention of transfer, but in private discussions they could be brutally frank. "

link to full article:

http://users.ox.ac.uk/~ssfc0005/It%20Can%20Be%20Done.html

.

[Lithos]

25. See my comment below

This was not a case where it was "one or the other".

L-

[Lithos]

24. Yes, I do dispute this.

What I dispute is the mutually exclusive "OR" being bandied about which is trying to idealize one party or another as some hapless victim. What we are talking about is a rise in Nationalism and ethnic consciousness on both sides, which is an extremely easy energy for bigots and opportunists to take over the edge and which happened to some degree on both sides.

The reactions in Palestine follow VERY closely the similarly scaled reactions of other Arab societies such as Morocco, Algeria, Iraq, Yemen and Tunisia during the 19th and 20th centuries, that did NOT see any influx of Jewish settlers. Yet, in these countries, the ostensibly pro-Arab reaction did, when the focus turned specifically towards the native Jewish quarter, become anti-Semitic and featured pogroms, ghettoization and the destruction of synagogues.

As a result to dispute the problems in Palestine were, as you are strongly suggesting in your latter comment, WHOLLY the result of resistance to Jewish immigration especially when there were specific cases in Palestine (Safed 1834) which strongly parallel the reactions in other Arab societies is naive. However, I also think it naive to suggest the primary reactions of the Palestinians was the result of anti-Semitism and not that of Nationalism.

In terms of the conflict today, there seems to be a rise in the self-identification as an anti-thesis of other groups. This is bound to create a rise in bigotry, not a lessening.

L-

[ProgressiveMuslim]

26. I'm not talking about Morocco, Algeria or Iraq.

I'm talking about events in Palestine.

Your response doesn't make much sense, Lithos.

"As a result to dispute the problems in Palestine were, as you are strongly suggesting in your latter comment, WHOLLY the result of resistance to Jewish immigration especially when there were specific cases in Palestine (Safed 1834) which strongly parallel the reactions in other Arab societies is naive. However, I also think it naive to suggest the primary reactions of the Palestinians was the result of anti-Semitism and not that of Nationalism."

What does that even MEAN? The violence in 1926 and 1936 wasn't wholly related to Jewish immigration because there was violence 100 years before?

That's kind of stretch, don't you think?

--------------------------------------------------------------


I'm not paiting anyone as a hapless victim. I'm simply saying there was plenty of tension in Palestine PRIOR to the creation of the Jewish State.

I am not clear why you choose to attack *that* statement of fact when there is plenty of garbage that stands uncorrected on this forum.

[Lithos]

29. Nothing exists in a vacuum

Prior to the influx of Jewish settlers, the specific discontent was against the European Consuls and the Christian Churches in the area. For instance, one of the main early areas where anti-Muslim sentiments were expressed, sometimes violently, was the Nabi Musa (Moses) processions which were used at the end of the 19th Century as a means of expressing anti-Muslim sentiment. The targets were the Christian and Foreign Consuls who were prevalent at the time.

The uprisings and revolts of 1929 and 1936-1939 were part of this long continuation of uprisings and demonstrations that had started a hundred years earlier and were part of the continuing rise of Palestinian and Muslim self-identification and Nationalism. The main difference was the extreme degree of machination by Hussayni to capitalize on the situation. Most of the specific incidences against Jewish settlers and long-standing inhabitants, I personally believe, were the reflection of the personal ideology and political machinations of al-Husayni in his attempt to make himself leader of Palestine and a power of greater Pan Arabia. He essentially played on the fears of people, blamed the Jews for the severe economic downturn the world faced following the Great Depression and appealed to the rising Nationalism in his attempt to gain power. To be perfectly frank, 1936 was a Coup attempt, nothing more. The main casualties during the first part of the Uprising weren't Jews or British, but rather those moderate Palestinians who stood in the way of Hussayni.


L-

[theredpen]

12. It's a good thing that I didn't suggest that.

I said, "relatively little anti-Jewish sentiment in the Arab world," which I believe is supported by the fact — even the facts that you listed. Furthermore, the specifics details I spoke about were in Iraq where Jews and Arabs had lived peacefully together for 2700 years.

Obviously, there has been a long history of tribal conflict in the area and that certainly included the Jews and the other tribes with which they interacted.

I also believe that you are intent on starting a fight by putting words in my and others' mouths. Cut it out.
:hi:

[Violet_Crumble]

14. Did you read the post yr replying to?

How is it you get a suggestion that there was no antisemitism out of this: 'Prior to 1947, there was relatively little anti-Jewish sentiment in the Arab world, but there certainly was some.'

Try sticking with what people say....

[rayofreason]

15. Back to the original post...

...If this pans out and there is real physical evidence of Koranic evolution, it would be huge.

Textual criticism of the Bible is well advanced, and traditional views (Moses wrote the first 5 books of the Bible!) have been debunked. The discovery of the epic of Gilgamesh and the flood story was a watershed in understanding the evolution of what became the Bible over time. The discovery of the Nag Hamadi library and the Dead Sea scrolls have made it clear how just heterogeneous both second temple Judaism and early Christianity really were.

But the vast majority of the Islamic world views the Koran as the unaltered word of God, delivered directly to Mohammed. Direct evidence of the contrary is likely to lead to some violent reaction, much more than was produced by some cartoons. Anyone working on this better do it undercover in a witness protection program.

[bemildred]

16. Yep, it will cause a fuss.

It is already clear in a scholarly way the the Deity told the Prophet a lot of things that were already in use elsewhere. I don't believe muslims dispute that in general, the Koran admits that the people's of the book had a lot right too, they just didn't have it perfect. But if you have variant editions of the Koran, you have introduced the problem of human error into the situation, and one is no longer necessarily arguing with the Deity when one questions the Koran. (Or I suppose you could admit that the Deity had different opinions at different times. But then he is not perfect, eh?) The point in the other thread ("Why they hate us") about the role of the Koran in Islam corresponding to the role of Jesus in Christianity - the direct manifestation of the Deity - is relevant here. Christians don't like it when you say Christ was just a man too.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

19. OTOH...

The mere existence of textual variants (and I'm not clear what exactly those are) could also mean simply that somewhere along the line, a group of apostates got it wrong.

I'm not clear how this finding would necessarily "prove" that the original revelation to Mohammad in fake.

The bottom line is that people believe what they want to believe. Biblical scholars have clearly shown the timeline of the creation of the hebrew and christian scriptures, yet many christians staunchly believe those writings to be the Word of God. The wide acceptance of combined narratives in the Pentateuch hasn't diminished the authoritative and sacred nature of the Torah for believing Jews. I'm sure Muslims will display equally unshakeable faith.

The interesting thing will be: will the debunkers rub their hands in glee as they go about up-ending the primary claim of Islam?

[bemildred]

21. Well you can make too much of it.

It is not like Islam does not already have variants and schisms like other religions. The unity of the muslim peoples and religion has been more notional than real for a long time.

But:

The mere existence of textual variants (and I'm not clear what exactly those are) could also mean simply that somewhere along the line, a group of apostates got it wrong.

Well, it means one of them is "wrong". Then you get to argue about which one it is. That is the problem with making absolutist claims about things, you don't have any wiggle room.

As for the textual variants, all that seems to be clear is that they exist and that certain parties don't want to allow critical examination of them. Or anyway, that is what Spengler is asserting. He is something of a muslim basher.

I'm not clear how this finding would necessarily "prove" that the original revelation to Mohammad in fake.

Well, it wouldn't. You are not going to prove that Jesus did not rise from the dead on the third day either. But it calls it into question.

The bottom line is that people believe what they want to believe. Biblical scholars have clearly shown the timeline of the creation of the hebrew and christian scriptures, yet many christians staunchly believe those writings to be the Word of God. The wide acceptance of combined narratives in the Pentateuch hasn't diminished the authoritative and sacred nature of the Torah for believing Jews. I'm sure Muslims will display equally unshakeable faith.

Indeed. "People believe what they want to believe"

The interesting thing will be: will the debunkers rub their hands in glee as they go about up-ending the primary claim of Islam?

Well, some will, and some won't. I think there is something to be said for historical accuracy, and one is not automatically a muslim basher for pursuing that, any more than one is automatically a Christian basher for pursuing the "historical Jesus".

[ProgressiveMuslim]

27. I love the literary, historical and textual criticism of religion.

But on this one, given today's political climate, it will be very interesting.

I'm sure the bashers will be out in all their glory.

[bemildred]

28. Maybe. I'll be surprised if they make much of it.

It's too complicated for TV.

[bemildred]

22. Addendum:

The thing is that the Koran was theoretically written by one man in the course of his lifetime. This is completely unlike the Bible which was written by many people, and in particular unlike the New Testament where we know it was not written down until centuries and generations after the events described, and we know that it was written down by various people who do not entirely agree about what happened. Thus it is really impossible to assert that the entire Bible is the infallible word of the Deity, unless the Deity is an indecisive mumbler. But as you point out, people do assert that anyway. Faith has little to do with reason.

The thing that attracted my attention about the Koran here was the possibility that there are variant texts, evidence that later theologians - as in the Christian religion - have meddled with the texts, and that primarily interests me because I dislike religious absolutism, so I like things that show the hand of man and not god at work.