31 posts categorized "ANDREW BOSTOM: EXCLUSIVE "

Thursday, June 04, 2009

Obama's Koranic Quotes

Dr. Andrew Bostom wrote to me to enlighten us on Obama's selective Koranic cherry picking:

Immediately following the murderous acts of jihad terrorism committed on September 11, 2001, Ibn Warraq highlighted the tragic irony of many apologists quoting selectively from Qur’an 5:32-“whoso slays a soul . . . shall be as if he had slain mankind altogether; and whoso gives life to a soul, shall be as if he has given life to mankind altogether”- attempting to demonstrate that the Qur’ran disapproved of violence and killing.

 Firstly, these wonderful sounding words come from a preexisting Jewish text (Mishnah, IV Division 5), “Thus was created a single man, to teach us that every person who loses a single soul, it shall be written about him as if he has lost the entire world, and every person who sustains a single soul, it shall be written about him as if he has sustained the entire world.”

And apologists for Islam-just like President Obama-quote the Koranic words out of context. For the very next verse offers quite a different meaning from that of 5:32, which was “laid…down for the Israelites,” as stated in verse, 5:33, continuing:

“…Our apostles brought them [the Jews] veritable proofs: yet it was not long before many of them committed great evils in the land. Those that make war against Allah and His apostle [Muhammad] and spread disorder shall be put to death or crucified or have their hands and feet cut off on alternate sides, or be banished from the country. (Qur’an 5:33)”

Thursday, December 11, 2008

How a Real “War Within Islam” Would Look

Andrew Bostom wrote me, "This piece lays bare much of what I believe to be the sheerest sophistry (if not deliberate deceit, and hypocrisy) emanating form those who argue there is a so-called "War Within Islam."  The absurd and offensive pronouncements by Muslim apologists (most notably, the OIC itself) and their useful idiot abettors in the aftermath of Mumbai made clear to me that this  "paradigm" had to be tested against  reality."

How a Real “War Within Islam” Would Look December 11th, 2008

Will “Elkie” Ihsanoglu Lead the OIC Lodge Against “Anti-Islamic Terrorists” in Pakistan’s “Lawless Tribal Belt”?

[...]

“Cynicism” and “calculated misuse,” versus attacks entirely consistent with the uniquely Islamic institution of jihad war (including jihad terrorism) across a 13-century continuum, notwithstanding, I agree with Ganor’s admonition that it is “primarily” the responsibility of “the Muslim world itself” to confront jihadism. But it was documentary filmmaker Sean Langan’s harrowing account (just reported in the NY Daily News 12/6/08) of his three-month captivity by a resurgent Taliban/Al Qaeda within Pakistan (in the so-called “lawless tribal belt”), along the Afghanistan border, that clarified how a moral, intellectually honest, and concrete “war within Islam” should be waged, without delay. Langan has identified—once again—those who must be the obvious targets of a campaign by Muslims to “reclaim Islam” from radical, barbaric “hijackers” of their faith.

Jailed in the cramped, dark room of a house, Langan heard the constant sound of machine guns, mortars and grenades, accompanied by the steady hum of U.S. Predator drones overhead. “I was in a valley surrounded by training camps, bases and caves. Arabs were having meetings there—Al Qaeda—making plans,” Langan told NY Daily News reporter James Meek. One of Langan’s captors explained, bluntly “We are meeting and discussing global jihad issues.” The captured filmmaker recalled listening to an ex-Pakistani minister on the BBC one day denying Al Qaeda operated camps inside the country. “I had to turn up the radio to hear his denial over the sound of gunfire from all the training camps,” Langan, smiling, told the Daily News reporter. “The world’s leading terrorists are there –safe, and with the time to plot and plan attacks,” Langan asserted. During his captivity Langan also became convinced of the jihadists utterly depraved indifference to human life. He was shown the photograph of a bomb-laden young child blowing up a U.S. Humvee, and just prior to escaping, Langan was forced to view jihadist sniper and beheading videos with the toddler son of a jihadist.

Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari, in the wake of the Mumbai massacre wrote a December 9, 2008 New York Times Op-Ed entitled, “The Terrorists Want to Destroy Pakistan, Too.” Zardari at least acknowledged the significant presence of Al Qaeda in his country, claimed to be committed to the fight against this jihad terrorist organization—perhaps even more so than NATO—and sought worldwide support for his efforts:

The challenge of confronting terrorists who have a vast support network is huge; Pakistan’s fledgling democracy needs help from the rest of the world. We are on the frontlines of the war on terrorism. We have 150,000 soldiers fighting Al Qaeda, the Taliban and their extremist allies along the border with Afghanistan — far more troops than NATO has in Afghanistan.

Ignoring serious concerns about the dubious use of some $5 billion in US military aid to Pakistan (via Coalition Support Funds) since 2002—ostensibly to combat Al Qaeda and its allies in the tribal areas—I maintain that Zardari’s plaintive appeal for assistance—military and financial—be heeded primarily, if not exclusively by Muslim nations from the now 57 member Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC).

After all, the OIC Dakar Declaration of March 13-14, 2008 from the 11th Session of the Islamic Summit Conference has sworn the 57 Muslim nations to combat terrorism. The OIC statement even highlights a convention assembled for this purpose, along with “other international initiatives by the Islamic geographical sphere,” citing this involvement as proof of its unequivocal willingness “…to fight against the heinous phenomenon [of terrorism],” and the global Muslim organization’s “total rejection of it [terrorism].” However, in a statement issued 12/2/08 (“Islam, the religion of peace, tolerance and compassion”), shortly after the murderous attacks in Mumbai, the OIC, while mentioning, “…the multiplicity of terrorist attacks perpetrated recently by deviant and fanatic individuals,” decried the

…tendency of a section of the media, to interpose the word ‘Islam’ in reporting these incidences.. maliciously trying to establish conceptual link between such evil and wicked practices and Islam, the religion that condemns, scorns and outlaws them…Those who refer to the perpetrators, as acting on behalf of Islam, help them by offering them justification, anchor and premise that they don’t have or deserve. On the other hand, the generalization of the guilt of a few aberrant misguided individuals, to engulf the adherents of a religion of 1.5 billion followers is an outrageous judgment and amounts to an illegal collective punishment on a global scale. Moreover, any attempt to implicate all Muslims in such a wicked and wanton acts goes contrary to the well established principles of international law. It is therefore hoped that media will avoid resorting to any reference to Islam when narrating such events in order not to disseminate erroneous information that might jeopardize the basic human rights of Muslims, the world over.

But the 12/2/08 OIC statement also insisted,

Islam, the religion of peace, tolerance and compassion, that sanctifies the human soul, and whose universal message is one of mutual peaceful coexistence among all the peoples of the world, regardless of their ethnicities, race, religions or languages, and which calls for kind reasoning and dialogue with all their fellow human beings, abhors and despises all such criminal acts and had enacted the utmost severe punishment for their perpetrators [emphasis added]

I argue that the OIC—currently headed by its Turkish representative Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu—is uniquely suited to marshall the military and economic might to “enact the utmost severe punishment” for Al Qaeda and Taliban “perpetrators” of “anti-Islamic” acts of terrorism. Turkey and Egypt—key OIC member states—have large, modern, well-equipped armed forces (here; here; here), including air forces (here; here), and both nations are believed to have been victimized by Al Qaeda attacks (here; here; here; and here). These Muslim nations—with formal, enthusiastic sanctioning by the OIC—should send large military contingents to reinforce the “150,000” of their Pakistani Muslim brethren under President Zadari already doggedly engaged in combating the “anti-Islamic” terrorists of Al Qaeda and the Taliban on the Pakistan-Afghanistan border.

Read it all. Learn everything.

Thursday, November 20, 2008

Jihad? Nah, it's all Lenin's fault!

The only Marxist philosopher I admire—i.e., Groucho—is credited with this joke which casts Murawiec’s pretentious gobbledygook in the appropriate light:

“Q: What do you get when you cross an insomniac, an agnostic, and a dyslexic?

A: Someone who stays up all night wondering if there is a Dog.”

Bostom comes out blasting and rightly so. Bostom's eviscerates Laurent Murawie's latest apology for Islam, The Mind of Jihad (what mind? you are not allowed to have a mind). This neurosis amongst the pseudo intellectual crowd to blame anyone, anything, (and they love to blame the messenger) -emasculates the West and obstructs counter jihad efforts . They shake in their boots before they dare speak of  the real culprit - Islam. Invariably they perform an indispensible service to Islam. Sick.

Lenin Osama Groucho2520marx1_2

The Marx Brothers of Jihadism?

This brief review of “The Mind of Jihad” by Laurent Murawiec, Cambridge University Press, 2008, 342 pp., will also be appearing in print in the December issue of OUTPOST. ***

Ibn Hudayl a 14th century Granadan Muslim author of an important treatise on jihad war, elucidated the allowable tactics which facilitated the violent, chaotic Islamic conquest of the Iberian peninsula, and other parts of Europe:

It is permissible to set fire to the lands of the enemy, his stores of grain, his beasts of burden – if it is not possible for the Muslims to take possession of them – as well as to cut down his trees, to raze his cities, in a word, to do everything that might ruin and discourage him…[being] suited to hastening the Islamization of that enemy or to weakening him.  Indeed, all this contributes to a military triumph over him or to forcing him to capitulate.

And these repeated attacks, indistinguishable in motivation from modern acts of jihad terrorism, like the horrific 9/11/01 attacks in New York and Washington, DC, and the Madrid bombings on 3/11/04, or those in London on 7/7/05, were in fact designed to sow terror. The 17th century Muslim historian al-Maqqari explained that the panic created by the Arab jihadist horsemen and sailors, at the time of the Muslim expansion in the regions subjected to those raids and landings, facilitated their later conquest,

Allah thus instilled such fear among the infidels that they did not dare to go and fight the conquerors; they only approached them as suppliants, to beg for peace.

Contemporary validation of this principle of jihad as described by Ibn Hudayl, and al-Maqqari—rooted in the Koran—(for example, verses 8:12, 8:60, and 33:26)—i.e., to terrorize the enemies of the Muslims as a prelude to their conquest—has been provided in the mainstream Pakistani text on jihad warfare by Brigadier S.K. Malik, originally published in Lahore, in 1979. Malik’s treatise was endorsed in a laudatory Foreword to the book by his patron, then Pakistani President Zia-ul-Haq, as well as a more extended Preface by Allah Buksh K. Brohi, a former Advocate-General of Pakistan. This text—widely studied in Islamic countries, and available in English, Urdu, and Arabic—has been recovered from the bodies of slain jihadists in Kashmir. Brigadier Malik emphasizes how instilling terror is essential to waging successful jihad campaigns:

Terror struck into the hearts of the enemies is not only a means, it is the end in itself. Once a condition of terror into the opponent’s heart is obtained, hardly anything is left to be achieved. It is the point where the means and the end meet and merge. Terror is not a means of imposing decision upon the enemy (sic); it is the decision we wish to impose upon him…

“Jihad,” the Koranic concept of total strategy…[d]emands the preparation and application of total national power and military instrument is one of its elements. As a component of the total strategy, the military strategy aims at striking terror into the hearts of the enemy from the preparatory stage of war…Under ideal conditions, Jihad can produce a direct decision and force its will upon the enemy. Where that does not happen, military strategy should take over and aim at producing the decision from the military stage. Should that chance be missed, terror should be struck into the enemy during the actual fighting.

…the Book [Koran] does not visualize war being waged with “kid gloves.” It gives us a distinctive concept of total war. It wants both, the nation and the individual, to be at war “in toto,” that is, with all their spiritual, moral, and physical resources. The Holy Koran lays the highest emphasis on the preparation for war. It wants us to prepare ourselves for war to the utmost. The test of utmost preparation lies in our capability to instill terror into the hearts of the enemies.

Laurent Murawiec, in a chapter entitled, “Jihad as Terror,” concludes his recently published meditation on contemporary jihadism, The Mind of Jihad, with a discussion of this same treatise by Brigadier Malik. Murawiec reiterates the obvious—Malik’s profound, overriding indebtedness to classical jihad theory and practice, including jihad terrorism. But in the end, Murawiec is betrayed by his book’s preceding shoddily constructed, and illogical narrativeDespite the inclusion of some fascinating texts, letters, speeches, and anecdotes, Murawiec’s study—a rather discursive amalgam—ignores classical (and still omnipresent) doctrines and practices of jihad war, such as the licit taking of infidel “harbi” (from dar al harb, the unvanquished non-Muslims “lands of war”) non-combatant life and property, or even more fundamentally, the goal of submitting the world to Islamic Law. In addition, he clumsily grafts “millenarian Gnostic” motifs on to the unrelated, uniquely Islamic institution of jihad war, and confuses transient, tactical alliances between (primarily) Bolsheviks/Communists, and jihadists, for some “shared vision”—as if the stark differences between the goals of creating Shari’a-based governments (and ultimately, a global Caliphate), versus a centralized, international system of atheistic, Communist bureaucracies, were immaterial. Thus Mailk’s modern primer on Islamic jihadism becomes for Murawiec, a treatise written,

…in pure Gnostic fashion, with a strong dose of Leninist voluntarism, or Nietzschean Wille zur Macht. [Will to Power]

Moreover, central to Murawiec’s overall construct, is the orthodox Pakistani Muslim ideologue Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi, influential friend of Ayatollah Khomeini and Sayyid Qutb (the latter, also being Osama bin Laden’s hero). Maududi was a prolific Koranic commentator, and essayist, whose ideas were firmly rooted in classical Islamic formulations of jihad, and the creation of traditional Muslim societies, culminating in his full rendition of how a contemporary Islamic State should appear and function, under the Shari’a.  Pace Murawiec, however, Maududi—a pious, traditional Muslim, whose espoused doctrines are entirely consistent with those of a multitude of prototypical Islamic revivalists who have surfaced throughout the history of the creed—must have been nurtured on Lenin, in the author’s words,  “as if Lenin’s ‘The State and Revolution’ had become [his, i.e. Maududi’s] bedtime reading.”

From his sober perspective, J.B. Kelly, the great modern historian of the Arabian Gulf—contra Murawiec—viewed (writing in 1980) the aroused spirit of jihad in the Gulf during the 1960s and 1970s—fomented by Faisal b. Abdul Azziz’s implacable hatred for Israel, and the complementary doctrines of the jihadist Muslim Brotherhood—as merely a return to the region’s deep Islamic roots and values, following a brief dalliance with “revolutionary” ideologies:             

Yet for all the anathematizing of Arab revolutionary movements by Muslim conservatives, it is extremely doubtful whether these movements are au fond anti-Islamic or irreligious. Marxist dogma sits very lightly and uncomfortably upon the few semi-educated peninsular Arabs who have ostensibly adopted it. Their thoughts and their lives are still shaped by Islam, they themselves are fundamentally Muslim. Nor could it be otherwise, since…Islam is the only real source of moral and intellectual guidance available to Arabs of the peninsula. The present evidence of Islamic revivalism, therefore, may be a more significant indication of the drift of events in the Gulf than sporadic troublemaking by self-styled Marxist revolutionaries

Please read it all. Bostom is uniquely brilliant and unfraid of the slings and arrows of cowards.

Monday, July 14, 2008

A Really BIG SHOO: ANDREW BOSTOM AND JACKIE MASON

This ought to be really good.  Reader Eretz capture this for us ) It kicks at 6:05 pm

Andrew is doing the Jackie Mason show.

Also try this online for 6 bucks:
 

 

Jackie Mason tells it like it is on his nationally syndicated show and as usual, he's not holding anything back. The same gutsy, "no holds barred" delivery that won him his Tony and Emmy Awards can now be heard on Sunday nights from 7:00 pm to 9:00 pm EST. Leave it to Jackie to tell it to you straight, everything else is just talk!!

 
 
   
 

July 13- Author and syndicated columnist Ralph Peters and author and professor Dr. Andrew Bostom

 
 
http://www.talkradionetwork.com/charts/productchart.jsp?dispid=808 LISTEN to Live Show
http://www.jackiemason.com/edits/jackiemason.mp3 DOWNLOAD Last Show
http://www.jackiemason.com/showarchive/feed/ SUBSCRIBE to Podcast
 
 

Jackie on Obama (the vlog) hat tip rice

Sunday, July 13, 2008

Bostom at the Heritage

The magnificent Andrew Bostom at the Heritage. Much thanks to Nech for putting this altogether.

DR. ANDREW BOSTOM
"THE LEGACY OF ISLAMIC ANTISEMITISM"
Book TV Appearance
May 21, 2008

Launch in external player

Click here to watch the video. Nech created a great page.

Continue reading "Bostom at the Heritage" »

Sunday, June 22, 2008

"A Modern Maimonides"

Scott Johnson has a moving tribute to Dr. Andrew Bostom today. Kol Hakavod!

A Modern Maimonides Powerline

Moses Maimonides is the great medieval Jewish sage.  "From Moses to Moses, there was none like Moses" is the epitaph on his tomb. He was a physician, a philosopher and a profound religious scholar. Maimonides had an abiding concern for the survival of the Jewish people. His reputation was such that Jews throughout the world turned to him for advice.

In his "Epistle to Yemen" (1172), Maimonides advises the Jews of Yemen living under Muslim subjugation how to conduct themselves. The "Epistle" is an extraordinarily eye-opening work. Maimonides observes that "none has matched [the nation of Ishmael] in debasing and humiliating us." I learned from Ralph Lerner's Maimonides' Empire of Light, which includes both a translation and interpretation of the "Epistle," that some manuscripts show Maimonides in the "Epistle" to be referring to the prophet Muhammad as "the Madman."

Like Maimonides, Andrew Bostom is a physician and scholar. He seems, like Maimonides, to be driven by a passion for the survival of the Jewish people in the face of irrational hatred. He is in any event driven to convey historical truth on the subject of Islam. In The Legacy of Jihad: Islamic Holy War and the Fate of Non-Muslims (2005), Bostom compiles and explores Islamic texts on the subject of jihad. 

Saturday, June 21, 2008

THE FJORDMAN REVIEW:
The Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism

Over at Jihadwatch, the definitive Bostom review:

Fjordman reviews The Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism

Dr. Andrew G. Bostom asked me earlier to write a review of his latest book, The Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism: From Sacred Texts to Solemn History, which I am more than happy to do. I consider his previous book The Legacy of Jihad to be the most complete book published to date regarding the history of 1400 years of Islamic Jihad, from Indonesia to France.

Islam is hostile to everybody, but Jews are singled out for particular hatred. If you believe the prominent historian Bernard Lewis in his book What Went Wrong?, "The earliest specifically anti-Semitic statements in the Middle East occurred among the Christian minorities, and can usually be traced back to European originals." In other words, everything bad in the Islamic world is imported from Europe. This view fits well with the general anti-European bias of modern media and academia.

It is true that anti-Semitism exists elsewhere, too. I discuss this in my essay The Causes of Anti-Semitism at the website Atlas Shrugs. But according to Robert Spencer in Religion of Peace?: Why Christianity Is and Islam Isn't, "While Christian anti-Semitism has been minimized, it still exists, particularly in the Middle East where some Christians have absorbed the anti-Semitism of the Islamic culture which surrounds them."

As Ibn Warraq – be sure to read his latest book, Defending the West: A Critique of Edward Said's Orientalism – says in the forward to The Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism:

"During the last fifteen years, certain Western scholars have tried to argue that, first, Islamic antisemitism—that is, hatred of Jews—is only a recent phenomenon learned from the Nazis during and after the 1940s, and, second, that Jews lived safely under Muslim rule for centuries, especially during the Golden Age of Muslim Spain. Both assertions are unsupported by the evidence. Islam 1, that is, the Islam of the texts, as found in the Qur'an and hadith (the sayings and deeds of the Prophet and his companions) and in the sira (the biography of Muhammad, which obviously overlaps with the hadith), and Islam 2—that is, the Islam developed or elaborated from those texts early on by the Qur'anic commentators and jurisconsults, and then set in stone more than a millennium ago—and even Islam 3, in the sense of Islamic civilization—that is, what Muslims actually did historically— have all been deeply antisemitic. That is, all have been anti-infidel, so that Christians too are regarded with disdain and contempt and hatred, but the Jews have been served, or been seen to have merited, a special animus."

The myth of the tolerance of Muslim Spain lives on, as my text Refuting God's Crucible demonstrates. The connection between Nazism and Islam has been made by many observers before, but usually with the emphasis that Nazism was like Islam, not the other way around:

"We do not know whether Hitler is going to found a new Islam. (He is already on the way; he is like Mohammad. The emotion in Germany is Islamic; warlike and Islamic. They are all drunk with wild god). That can be the historic future." - Karl Jung, The Collected Works Volume 18, The Symbolic Life (1939)

"Here was the new Koran of faith and war: turgid, verbose, shapeless, but pregnant with its message." - Winston Churchill on Adolf Hitler's autobiography Mein Kampf, in The Second World War, Vol. I (The Gathering Storm).

Oh and it gets better. Here.

Friday, June 13, 2008

DIANA REVIEWS BOSTOM, THE MAN

Diana West's review of Dr Bostom's latest ground breaking work does one better than most, she reviews the man and in that lies the magnificence of Bostom's brilliance - meticulous attention to detail and unrelenting pursuit of empirical evidence.

I had the distinct pleasure to join West with Bostom at the AEI event, and it was a memorable afternoon of crackling wit, excellent analysis and ........ a lot of laughs.

Islam's Legacy of Anti-Semitism Diana West

On Sept. 11, 2001, Andrew Bostom, an academic research physician at Rhode Island Hospital, did what many outraged and shocked Americans did. On his way home from work, he stopped at a bookstore and bought a book about Islam.

As he recalls, it was something by Karen Armstrong, who, he didn't know at the time, is famous -- infamous -- for being a serial apologist for Islam. Reading parts of the book aloud that same night to his wife, also an academic, as they went about accounting for friends and family in their native New York City, he found the book "treacley" and superficial, lacking not only the scholarly heft he was used to in scientific research, but also a connection to unfolding events. Even a more extensive survey of readily available works on Islam yielded similar platitudes rooted less in Islamic theology and history than in the contemporary political dictates of multiculturalism. The scientist in him wanted to know more.

Thus marked the unexpected beginning of a rigorous and illuminating academic odyssey deep into the study of Islam -- "this depressing obsession of mine," as Bostom calls it. It has also acquainted the medical researcher with a global fraternity of Islamic scholars, which includes the two he calls his mentors: the Egyptian-born historian of dhimmitude, Bat Ye'or, and the Pakistani-born scholar of Islam and the West, Ibn Warraq.

So far, his studies have resulted in two meticulously researched and trail-blazing tomes of his own: "The Legacy of Jihad," published in 2005, and "The Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism," which has just come out, garnering enthusiastic advance comment from academics ("a ground breaking event" said Steven T. Katz, director of the Elie Wiesel Center for Judaic Studies, Boston University), historians ("It is magnificent," said Martin Gilbert, official biographer of Winston Churchill), and experts ("One of the most important books of our time," said Ayaan Hirsi Ali, author, "Infidel").

The obvious question is: How does a medical researcher studying homocysteine's effect on cardiovascular disease in patients suffering from chronic kidney problems shift his focus to the study of jihad and anti-Semitism in Islam?

Answer: He doesn't. That is, while embarked on his Islamic studies, Bostom -- a lifelong Democrat, by the way -- has remained the Principle Investigator in a $40 million, decade-long National Institutes of Health renal study involving more than 4,000 patients in the United States, Canada and Brazil. Not only that (and this is something that has impressed me, both as what you might call a confrere in Islamic inquiry and also as a friend), he has applied essentially the same scientific principles he uses in medical research to the study of Islam.

"We are used to analyzing things very critically and taking almost everything with a grain of salt," Bostom explained recently, discussing his work as a medical researcher at Rhode Island Hospital, the major teaching hospital affiliated with Brown University. Such analysis includes, for example, monthly gatherings known as morbidity and mortality reviews where errors and oversights in medical treatment are critically examined. "We are trained to think the stakes are never higher because we are dealing with life and death. If you get something wrong, you kill people."

Bringing such skepticism and urgency to the study of Islam (where, he maintains, "getting something wrong" can kill even more people), Bostom soon found himself butting up against consensus teachings contradicted by the voluminous evidence he was gathering. Take anti-Semitism in Islam, the subject of his new book. The view that Islamic anti-Semitism is a relatively recent import into Islam from Christian Europe and Nazi Germany is declared as settled fact by historians such as Bernard Lewis and popular authors such as Lawrence Wright ("The Looming Tower"). Bostom's conclusions, based on an array of religious texts and commentaries, historical analyses and eyewitness accounts, which he presents in "The Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism," suggest otherwise.

Both the anti-Semitism book and the jihad book before it are constructed similarly. They open with long introductory essays by Bostom, comparable, he says, to scientific grant proposals. In these essays, he presents his hypothesis based on his interpretation of the evidence and data reproduced in the rest of the book. In both books, such "raw material" includes key works from both Muslim and non-Muslim sources that have never before been translated into English. Such materials serve "as a reality check," Bostom says, "for people to read for themselves" in order to test his hypothesis.

After all, in history, as in science, the truth lies in the evidence.

Tuesday, May 27, 2008

Lappen Reviews Bostom
Innate Islamic loathing for Jews

Alyssa Lappen in today's World Net Daily reviews Bostom's brilliant tome. I will be covering Bostom at The American Enterprise Institute on Thursday and he will be appearing on my show on June 11th at noon. Atlas never sleeps!

Exposed: Innate Islamic loathing for Jews
Exclusive: Alyssa A. Lappen affirms book reveals naked truth on Muslim anti-Semitism

Particularly since the late, lifelong Muslim Brother, Yasser Arafat, shifted anti-Israel jihad into fifth gear in September 2000, several Middle East and Islamic scholars have repeatedly asserted that 20th and 21st century Islamic anti-Semitism sprang solely from Nazi and European Christian influence.

Even now, Islamophiles like Bernard Lewis preach (as it were) that virulent Jew-hatredLegacy2 is not inherent to Islam – but rather, anti-Semitism migrated to the Middle East with European colonialism. The Quran uses "hard words ... about the Jews," even Lewis admits. Yet under Islamic rule, he claims they were "only rarely subject to persecution" and "their situation was never as bad as in Christendom at its worst. ..."

Dr. Andrew G. Bostom's extensive, scientific and largely unprecedented new book, The Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism: From Sacred Texts to Solemn History," definitively disproves such claims. (Full disclosure: I copy-edited several of these first-time English translations, and proofread many chapters.)

Publication of this landmark book informs self-respecting scholars, they can no longer shamelessly blame Christianity as the sole source of anti-Semitism – or more importantly, that Islam does not and never had its own innate brand of loathing for the Jewish people.

Islam detests non-Muslims generally – whom sharia laws institutionally oppress and tax as underclass "dhimmis" – but inveighs especially intense odium against Jews.

Indeed, Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism, a sort of continuum from Bostom's ground-breaking "Legacy of Jihad: Islamic Holy War and the Fate of Non-Muslims," conclusively proves that profound Islamic hatred for the Jewish people originated with the religion's founder, Muhammad. Moreover, his companions, successor "rightly guided" Caliphs and Islamic jurists over the next 1,400 years maintained that hateful overarching passion.

Bostom's evidence is impossible to ignore, waive off or attribute to anti-Islamic bias. Most of the book's double-columned 766 pages contain primary source material: excerpts from Islamic sacred texts, jurisprudence and historical accounts (by Muslims and non-Muslims alike) across the span of Islamic history.

The opening 171-page review (and 962 citations) breathtakingly maps the roots of Islamic anti-Semitism – within the religion's unique theological and judicial traditions, and its historical record.

This alone should convince even skeptics that Islamic anti-Semitism began in the 7th century.

The Quran refers to Jews as apes and swine (2:65, 7:166, 5:60), themes that were repeatedly exploited in incitements to murder, including a 1066 "anti-Jewish ode containing the line, 'Many a pious Muslim is in awe of the vilest infidel ape.'" Letters from the Cairo Geniza, from up to one millennium ago, further explode "the common assumption" that a unique Islamic strain of anti-Semitism was "absent" at that time (950-1250 C.E.). S.D. Goitein's "A Mediterranean Society" reports two special words coined and much-used in the geniza era to describe Islamic hatred of Jews: "sin'úth, 'hatred,' [and] a Jew-baiter being called sóné, 'a hater.'"

Read it all.

Wednesday, April 09, 2008

Jihad Jimmy: CARTER, HAMAS TOOL

There are no words for this rat bastard. Is this not sedition? Is he not a traitor? I would not let him back in the country.

Report: Jimmy Carter to Meet With Hamas Leader in Syria

NEW YORK CITY —  Former President Jimmy Carter is reportedly preparing an unprecedented meeting with the leader of Hamas, an organization that the U.S. government considers one of the leading terrorist threats in the world.

Thursday, April 03, 2008

STAND UP FOR OUR GREATEST SCHOLARS!

People on our side have no balls! They are so afraid to buck the herd they remain silent against attacks on our greatest scholars. Rosenthal lied about Bostom. It's unbelievable. I blogged about this here. Lappen gets it!

Flash: Moon Is Not Green Cheese Alyssa Lappen

So extensive is current misuse of English that even George Orwell, I think, would be flabbergasted by its prevalence—and its chief source: not the government, after all, but pseudo scholars and unprincipled journalists who might as well contend the moon is made of green cheese, and have all but convinced the world with their reams of false propaganda.

To sensible critics, these malfeasants can only respond with scurrilous, vindictive personal attacks—and never facts—since they apparently have none at their disposal.

Take the verbal assault on Dr. Andrew Bostom by Trans-Atlantic “Un-Intelligencer” journalist John Rosenthal in his “review” of a book on the Mufti of Jerusalem and Nazism. One leading intellectual replies, Rosenthal attributes to Bostom a thesis he never put forth, and then ridicules him for publishing it. He tries to make people think that Bostom attacked Matthias Kuntzel’s Jihad and Jew-Hatred thesis, and then made

the ‘extravagant proposition’ that the Nazis discovered anti-Semitism by perusing the Koran or by exchanging letters with the mufti.

I have read two of [Bostom’s] books, and most of [his] articles, and nowhere do I remember [him] trying to blame Nazi anti-Semitism on Islam, which would be clearly absurd. …

Rosenthal … implies that the attack on Kuntzel … could not have been motivated by the fact that it is glaringly wrong. You do not have to be a ’self styled expert in Islam’ to see the fallacy in Kuntzel’s thesis any more than you have to be a self-styled expert in astronomy to know that the moon is not made of green cheese.

There is a concept in economics called anti-work. That happens when people who pretend to be doing productive labor are in fact doing destructive labor—an auto mechanic who, upon examining someone’s car, breaks a part in order that he can charge for fixing it. Kuntzel represents anti-scholarship. He spends a great deal of intellectual labor in order to argue a thesis that no one thought of before. Then he gets a great deal of attention to his thesis, and soon people are wasting their intellectual energies debating it over and over. …

I heartily recommend Bostom’s own rebuttal to Rosenthal’s convoluted and idiotic attack. Read, and learn.

More from Lappen:

Remarkably, Rosenthal actually libels Bostom—twice: First, he falsely and maliciously accuses certain “self-professed Islamophobes,” by which he clearly means Bostom, of writing that Islam “was…the source or inspiration of the anti-Semitism of the National Socialists!” Secondly, he falsely and maliciously states that Bostom suppressed a quotation from Adolph Hitler concerning Arabs—simply to lambaste Matthias Kuntzel’s Jihad and Jew-Hatred thesis—when Bostom did no such thing.

Having read both of Bostom’s books in their entirety, and all of his essays, I can attest that he has never suggested Islam as “the source or inspiration of the anti-Semitism of the National Socialists!”

What’s more astounding: Rosenthal subsequently added a footnote to his second libelous passage—admitting that Bostom after all hadn’t omitted Hitler’s quotation on Arabs, concerning their “racial inferiority.” As Bostom has explained, it was irrelevant to his essay’s point on Hitler’s effusive, alternative praise for Islamic aggression, and his profound dual regrets: that Islam had neither prevailed at the 8th century Battle of Tours, nor had “Islamized Germans” stood “at the head of this Mohammedan Empire.” Moreover, Bostom included the full quotation in his forthcoming Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism, as I do below, with notes. [1] Yet, Rosenthal neither corrects his two libels in his text—nor troubles to properly apologize in print. 

Wednesday, April 02, 2008

The Unbearable Lightness of Being Right

Dr. Bostom is once again under attack by small, petty  Lilliputian minds attempting to scale the heights of Bostom's  monumental scholarly arguments. Sort of like a banana republic taking on a ferocious USA. Nonsensical, I tell ya.  Read it all.

The Un-Intelligencer’s Malicious Ignorance Dr Andrew Bostom

“You do not have to be a “self styled expert in Islam”  to see the fallacy in Kuntzel’s thesis any more than you have to be a self-styled expert in astronomy to know that the moon is not made of green cheese.”

One of our leading public intellectuals weighs in on the unhinged calumnies leveled at me in [2] Policy Review  by The Trans-Atlantic Un-Intelligencer, [3] journalist John Rosenthal. My own reply follows these comments: 

I have read the relevant paragraphs several times over. Rosenthal is trying to make people think that you have not only attacked Kuntzel’s thesis, but that you have gone on to make the “extravagant proposition” that the Nazis discovered anti-Semitism by perusing the Koran or by exchanging letters with the mufti.

I have read two of your books, and most of your articles, and nowhere do I remember you trying to blame Nazi anti-Semitism on Islam, which would be clearly absurd. In short, he is attributing to you a thesis you never put forth, and then ridiculing you for publishing it.

Rosenthal is also puzzled why “self-proclaimed Islamophobes” did not rush to embrace Kuntzel’s thesis, and implies that the attack on Kuntzel by you, among others, could not have been motivated by the fact that it is glaringly wrong. You do not have to be a “self styled expert in Islam”  to see the fallacy in Kuntzel’s thesis any more than you have to be a self-styled expert in astronomy to know that the moon is not made of green cheese.   

There is a concept in economics called anti-work. That happens when people who pretend to be doing productive labor are in fact doing destructive labor—an auto mechanic who, upon examining someone’s car, breaks a part in order that he can charge for fixing it. Kuntzel represents anti-scholarship. He spends a great deal of intellectual labor in order to argue a thesis that no one thought of before. Then he gets a great deal of attention to his thesis, and soon people are wasting their intellectual energies debating it over and over. Finally, at long last, there is a general recognition, among other scholars, that there is a good reason why no one ever thought of the thesis before—it is flat wrong. But by that time the thesis has drifted out into public space where everyone takes it as a self-evident truth. Sometimes I think Henry Ford was right: History is bunk. (Did he get his anti-Semitism from the Nazis, by the way?)      

My Reply to John Rosenthal

[4] John Rosenthal, while ostensibly reviewing, Der Mufti von Jerusalem und die Nationalsozialisten, by Klaus Gensicke, makes a shrill detour, unleashing a non-sequitur diatribe attacking my research, and even my integrity.

The apparent source of Rosenthal’s unhinged rage is a lengthy [5] book review/essay  I wrote about a second book (not the book Mr. Rosenthal was purportedly reviewing) by Matthias Kuntzel.

As if this basic scenario were not awkward enough, Rosenthal, in his fury, then proceeds to ignore, fails, entirely, to comprehend, and deliberately misconstrues my arguments regarding Mr. Kuntzel’s book (Again, not the book Rosenthal was assigned to review.)

For the record, my basic criticisms of Mr. Kuntzel’s book, and his central theses about jihad and Jew hatred (as discussed at length, initially [6] here, and [7] then here, with Mr. Kuntzel’s full participation) are summarized, below.

·        Kuntzel’s quintessential argument is that Hassan al-Banna and the Muslim Brotherhood (and associated 20th century ideologues such as Sayyid Qutb) “invented” jihad war as a sui generis phenomenon, “catalyzed” by Nazism, inexplicably divorcing these “Muslim Brothers of invention” from the sacralized Islamic institution of jihad war, with its clearly demonstrable doctrine and history [8]spanning a nearly 14 century continuum. A corollary argument is made with regard to the “invention” of Islamic Jew hatred by the same movement and ideologues, under even more “profound” Nazi influences. 

·        Kuntzel’s conception of Islamic Jew hatred provides only the barest, glaringly deficient outline of [9] ] the theology and historical practice of this unique form of antisemitism confined as it is to a mere four pages of discussion, and accompanying footnotes. As per Kuntzel, only in Christian “mythology” (not its Islamic equivalent—whatever is meant by his term “mythology—a term, curiously, he does not apply here to Islam) were Jews depicted “constantly” as a “dark and demonic force,” leading (again, only in Christendom) to “anti-Jewish pogroms.” (No such “Medieval pogroms” in Islamdom are mentioned by the author in the context of this discussion, leaving the reader to assume, incorrectly, that none occurred.) Kuntzel ascribes these as uniquely Christian phenomena (i.e., implicitly, both the theological, or “mythological” Jew hatred of Christianity, and resultant pogroms) to “simple” origins, which he cannot find (or more aptly, bother to research with any degree of seriousness) in Islam.

·        And, despite Kuntzel’s repeated use of the phrase “the anti-Jewish passages in the Koran” he barely characterizes two verses, alone, i.e., Koran 5:60, and (correctly noted) 5:82 (the latter of which is cited by Kuntzel [p.66] with the wrong enumeration as 5:85, the standard reference being 5:82). Thus a central anti-Jewish motif in the Koran—verse 2:61, and its reiteration at 3:112—is ignored altogether, as are a litany of other important anti-Jewish verses (many intimately related to this central motif, as described below), their exegeses in the Koran, and elaboration in the hadith, sira, and corpus of juridical and anti-Jewish polemical writings by Muslim luminaries from classical Islam, through the present era. 

·        Kuntzel’s woefully inadequate “presentation” of Islam’s doctrinal anti-Jewish (and overlapping anti-dhimmi) hatred is accompanied, not surprisingly, by a complete failure to illustrate any of the historical consequences of these sacralized hatreds. In the end, Kuntzel demonstrates a complete ignorance of how Islamic jihad, dhimmitude, and Jew hatred operate within a coherent theology-jurisprudence, expressed continuously during 14 centuries of history. 

·        Moreover, although ignored in their entirety by Kuntzel, writings produced for 100 years between the mid-19th through mid-20th centuries, by important scholars and intellectuals—for example, the historians Jacob Burckhardt and Waldemar Gurian, philosopher Bertrand Russell, Carl Jung, the founder of modern analytical psychiatry, Protestant theologian Karl Barth, and sociologist Jules Monnerot—referred to Islam as a despotic, or in 20th century parlance, totalitarian ideology. 

·        The yawning gap of omissions aside, perhaps more unsettling is Kuntzel’s selective citation, and excerpting. The worst example is his completely misleading “analysis” of Sheikh Tantawi’s important treatise rationalizing and extolling Jew hatred in the Koran and Sunna. Kuntzel’s discussion of current Al Azhar Grand Imam Tantawi and his 700 page treatise rationalizing Muslim Jew hatred, Banu Isra’il fi al-Koran wa al-Sunna [Jews in the Koran and the Traditions], originally published in the late 1960s/ early1970s, and then re-issued in 1986/87, can only be described as disingenuous. [Note: Major extracts of this work translated into English for the first time, appear in my [10] The Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism]. Kuntzel reduces this detailed, scholarly examination of the numerous anti-Jewish motifs in the Koran, which includes extensive discussion of materials from the Koranic commentaries, the hadith, and sira, to a random quote from Hitler, and Tantawi’s mention of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, along with other modern boilerplate Muslim conspiratorial allegations against Jews, excerpted from introductory, or passing remarks by Tantawi. However, an extract such as the following, which is a legitimate representation of the major themes addressed ad nauseum throughout this lengthy treatise, is not provided.

[The] Koran describes the Jews with their own particular degenerate characteristics, i.e. killing the prophets of Allah, corrupting His words by putting them in the wrong places, consuming the people’s wealth frivolously, refusal to distance themselves from the evil they do, and other ugly characteristics caused by their deep-rooted lasciviousness…only a minority of the Jews keep their word….[A]ll Jews are not the same. The good ones become Muslims, the bad ones do not. (Koran 3:113)

Tantawi was apparently rewarded for this scholarly effort by being named Grand Imam of Al-Azhar University in 1996, a position he still holds. These are the expressed, “carefully researched” views on Jews held by the nearest Muslim equivalent to a Pope—the head of the most prestigious center of Muslim learning in Sunni Islam, Sunnis representing some 85% to 90% of the world’s Muslims. And Sheikh Tantawi has not mollified such hatemongering beliefs since becoming the Grand Imam of Al-Azhar as his statements on the Jews as “enemies of Allah, descendants of apes and pigs,” the legitimacy of homicide bombing of Jews, or “dialogue” with Jews (just below), make clear.

…anyone who avoids meeting with the enemies in order to counter their dubious claims and stick fingers into their eyes, is a coward.  My stance stems from Allah’s book [the Koran], more than one-third of which deals with the Jews…[I] wrote a dissertation dealing with them [the Jews], all their false claims and their punishment by Allah.  I still believe in everything written in that dissertation. [i.e., from above, in Banu Isra’il fi al-Koran wa al-Sunna] 

Tantawi’s case illustrates the prevalence and depth of sacralized, “normative” Jew hatred in the contemporary Muslim world. Even if all non-Muslim Judeophobic themes were to disappear miraculously overnight from the Islamic world, the living legacy of anti-Jewish hatred, and violence rooted in Islam’s sacred texts—Koran, hadith, and sira—would remain intact. The assessment and understanding of Islamic antisemitism must begin with a comprehensive and unapologetic analysis of the anti-Jewish motifs contained in these foundational texts of Islam. Kuntzel’s analysis—as epitomized by his highly selective discussion of Tantawi’s major work—fails, miserably, to advance this process.   

[11] John Rosenthal’s most egregiously false and defamatory charge against me—leveled with rage, melded to self-fulfilling ignorance—is stated thusly:

The eccentricity of such a procedure, moreover, appears less innocent when one considers that Bostom himself — in a 10,000-word screed replete with lengthy citations — has taken the trouble to suppress the following words from the very middle of his own Speer passage: “Hitler said that the conquering Arabs, because of their racial inferiority, would in the long run have been unable to contend with the harsher climate and conditions of the country. They could not have kept down the more vigorous natives. . . .” 

Rosenthal’s malicious implication—which as I will demonstrate is also illogical—is that I deliberately omitted Hitler’s well-known racial antipathy to Arabs to bolster, deceitfully, my contentions about the Nazi leader’s views on Islam. But no rational person reading the full Speer quote could come to that conclusion, unless they, like Rosenthal, willfully, or out of ignorance, are incapable of distinguishing between Hitler’s divergent views on Islam, and Arabs. Although I did not in fact make this irrefragable argument in the review/essay Rosenthal attacks, in the appropriate context for this fuller discussion (which includes the Speer quote in its entirety, reproduced, below), i.e., within my forthcoming book, “[12] The Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism,” (footnotes, included) there can be no mistaking my analysis of this matter: 

Albert Speer, who was Hitler’s Minister of Armaments and War Production, wrote a contrite 808 memoir of his World War II experiences while serving a 20-year prison sentence imposed by the Nuremberg tribunal. 808a Speer’s narrative includes this discussion which captures Hitler’s racist views of Arabs on the one hand, and his effusive praise for Islam on the other: 809 

Hitler had been much impressed by a scrap of history he had learned from a delegation of distinguished Arabs. When the Mohammedans attempted to penetrate beyond France into Central Europe during the eighth century, his visitors had told him, they had been driven back at the Battle of Tours. Had the Arabs won this battle, the world would be Mohammedan today. 810 For theirs was a religion that believed in spreading the faith by the sword and subjugating all nations to that faith. Such a creed was perfectly suited to the Germanic temperament. [emphasis added] Hitler said that the conquering Arabs, because of their racial inferiority, would in the long run have been unable to contend with the harsher climate and conditions of the country. They could not have kept down the more vigorous natives, so that ultimately not Arabs but Islamized Germans could have stood at the head of this Mohammedan Empire. [emphasis added] Hitler usually concluded this historical speculation by remarking, “You see, it’s been our misfortune to have the wrong religion. Why didn’t we have the religion of the Japanese, who regard sacrifice for the Fatherland as the highest good? The Mohammedan religion too would have been much more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness?”

A similar ambivalence characterized Nazi Germany’s support for Arab Muslim causes in the World War II era. 811 Hitler for example, in December 1937, even proposed omitting his “racial ladder” theory—which denigrated the Arabs—from a forthcoming Arabic translation of Mein Kampf. 811a Moreover, it is a tragic irony that despite the “very low rung” occupied by Arabs in Hitler’s racial ladder design, 812 the convergence between Nazi racist antisemitism and theological Muslim Jew hatred 813 still resonates across the Arab Muslim, and larger non-Arab Muslim world, to this day.   

What has engendered Rosenthal’s mean-spirited (“Self-professed Islamophobes,”—I am neither;  “hysterical reactions”), and crude misrepresentation of my work (“a 10,000-word screed”; suggesting “…that it is not, after all, National Socialism that is the source of rampant anti-Semitism in the Muslim World, but rather Islam that was perhaps the source or inspiration of the anti-Semitism of the National Socialists!” I have never written, or implied this, any where, nor do I harbor such an opinion.)?

I believe there are at least two fundamental sources: deliberately ignoring my own recognized expertise, while failing to acknowledge his personal lack of relevant study, let alone independently confirmed “scholarship.” Despite Rosenthal’s derogatory characterization (“self-styled experts in Islam”), my research on the jihad—published in The Legacy of Jihad—has been widely praised, including a review/meditation published in Policy Review ([13] October/November, 2006) itself, by Lee Harris. Professor Johannes J.G. Jansen, one of The Netherland’s leading contemporary scholars of Islam-whose The Neglected Duty: The Creed of Sadat’s Assassins and Islamic Resurgence in the Middle East (New York: Macmillan, 1986), and The Dual Nature of Islamic Fundamentalism (London: Hurst & Company, 1997) remain defining works on the Islamic movements that gave rise to Al Qaeda., wrote in his blurb for the book, “Bostom manages…to upset the conventional view in this fascinating and well-documented clinical study of jihad.” In a subsequent review of this book by Dr. Jansen published in The Middle East Quarterly (available [14] here), he observed, 

Bostom’s book amply documents the systematic and destructive character of Islamic jihad, refuting the much-repeated argument that jihad is a “rich” concept that has many meanings and that jihad first of all signifies “inner struggle.”…Bostom not only presents us with classical mainstream Islamic sources and their justifications for jihad, plus witness reports from victims that survived by accident, etc., but he also quotes contemporary Muslim clerics… Jihad is first of all war, bloodshed, subjugation, and expansion of the faith by violence. The book implicitly devastates the fashionable but uninformed opinion that all religions are elaborations of the Golden Rule.   

Based upon his reading of the final manuscript version of my (imminently) forthcoming book, The Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism, The Hoover Institution’s own Dr. Victor Davis Hanson, wrote,

The antisemitism of the Muslim Middle East that we hear, see, and experience daily-from the racist cartoons to the constant chorus of “pigs and apes”-is often attributed to European origins, as if the radical Muslim world learned this endemic hatred through the tragedy of imperialism and colonialism. In fact, a deep suspicion and frequent loathing of Jews is deeply rooted in the Middle East, antedating European rule and sometimes evidenced in passages in the Koran and early holy Islamic texts, the systematic Jewish dhimmitude under the Ottomans, and, since the 7th century, a Muslim popular culture of envy and oppression fueled by religious leaders. Andrew Bostom produces a vast literature of Middle Eastern Islamic antisemitism, and critics may be as surprised at his conclusions as they are unable to refute his carefully compiled corpus of evidence.

Dr. Hanson’s sentiments were echoed by renowned Holocaust scholar, Dr. Steven Katz, Director, Elie Wiesel Center for Judaic Studies, Boston University, and Professor Efraim Karsh, Head of Mediterranean Studies, University of London: 

The publication of the present anthology of primary sources and secondary studies on the theme of Muslim antisemitism is a ground breaking event of major scholarly, cultural, and political significance.  Editor Andrew Bostom has mined the relevant literature to produce the fullest record on this subject in existence.  After the publication of his, work all the oft-repeated, but erroneous misunderstandings of a tolerant Islam, and of a medieval Jewish-Muslim “golden age” will need to be permanently retired.  Everyone interested in Jewish and Islamic history, as well as current events in the Middle East should read this book—and soon. [Dr. Katz]

It has long been a staple of anti-Israel propaganda that Muslims have never had anything against Judaism or Jews but only against Zionism and Zionists, since the Islamic world has traditionally been free of the virus of antisemitism which is essentially a European phenomenon. In this masterful collection of documents and commentaries by Muslim jurists, theologians, and historians throughout the ages, as well as by prominent scholars of Islam, Andrew G. Bostom debunks this spurious claim by exposing a deep and pervasive anti-Jewish bigotry dating to Islam’s earliest days, and indeed to the Prophet Muhammad himself. Small wonder that some of the hoariest and most bizarre themes of European antisemitism should have struck a responsive chord when they made their way into the Islamic and Arab worlds over the course of the centuries, turning them into the most prolific producers of antisemitic ideas and attitudes in today’s world.{Dr. Karsh]

In stark contrast, Mr. Rosenthal is devoid of any recognized expertise on either the jihad, or the theological doctrine, and intimately related living history of Islamic Antisemitism. Caveat emptor, for those willing to accept uncritically Rosenthal’s poorly reasoned, ad hominem attack on me.

Please read all of Bostom's respnse here.
 

Sunday, March 09, 2008

Bernard Lewis's Islamic Alzheimers

Andrew Bostom pleads, "Please. I’ll pay for the condo in Boca Raton, and ample supplies of plaid pants, white shoes, and early bird dinner special coupons, if you will stop giving interviews which affirm ahistorical notions like these, and your mindless acolytes then propagate as corrosive “truths from on high.” Deal?"

Funny, but seriously?  Not. Bernard Lewis, singularly, does more damage in our ability to fight the forces of Islamic jihad when he misleads, misinforms, and glosses over the violent truths about Islam. Because of his standing as leading the "Islamic scholar" in the world and the almost reverential  regard in which he is held, he is seen as almost untouchable but he is often wrong.  When he speaks ......... everyone wannabe scholar cribs his narrative. As if we didn't have enough problems.

Bernard Lewis on Jihad: Egregiously Misleading New Statements

From This Interview with Ruthie Blum, published in The Jerusalem Post, March 6, 2008: 

Lewis’s Claim (1):

What we are seeing now in much of the Islamic world could only be described as a monstrous perversion of Islam. The things that are now being done in the name of Islam are totally anti-Islamic. Take suicide, for example. The whole Islamic theology and law is totally opposed to suicide. Even if one has led a totally virtuous life, if he dies by his own hand he forfeits paradise and is condemned to eternal damnation. The eternal punishment for suicide is the endless repetition of the act of suicide. That’s what it says in the books. So these people who blow themselves up, according to their own religion - which they don’t seem to be well-acquainted with - are condemning themselves to an eternity of exploding bombs. 

Doctrinal and Historical Reality (1): 

But Lewis deceitfully conflates “suicide”—as the tragic outcome for example, in modern parlance, of clinical psychiatric depression, which is impermissible in Islam—with “martyrdom,” which is extolled.

“Martyrdom operations” have always been intimately associated with the institution of jihad. Professor Franz Rosenthal, in a seminal 1946 essay (entitled, “On Suicide in Islam”), observed that Islam’s foundational texts sanctioned such acts of jihad martyrdom, and held them in the highest esteem:

..death as the result of “suicidal” missions and of the desire of martyrdom occurs not infrequently, since[such] death is considered highly commendable according to Muslim religious concepts. 

Unequivocal, celebratory invocations for acts of martyrdom during jihad are found in the Koran, and even more explicitly, in the canonical hadith. Prominent examples include: 

[Koran 9:111] “Lo! Allah hath bought from the believers their lives and their wealth because the Garden will be theirs: they shall fight in the way of Allah and shall slay and be slain.”

[Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 52, Number 53] Narrated Anas bin Malik: “The Prophet said, “Nobody who dies and finds good from Allah (in the Hereafter) would wish to come back to this world even if he were given the whole world and whatever is in it, except the martyr who, on seeing the superiority of martyrdom, would like to come back to the world and get killed again (in Allah’s Cause).”

[Sahih Bukhari: Volume 4, Book 52, Number 54] Narrated Abu Huraira: “The Prophet said, ‘By Him in Whose Hands my life is! Were it not for some men amongst the believers who dislike to be left behind me and whom I cannot provide with means of conveyance, I would certainly never remain behind any Sariya’ (army-unit) setting out in Allah’s Cause. By Him in Whose Hands my life is! I would love to be martyred in Allah’s Cause and then get resurrected and then get martyred, and then get resurrected again and then get martyred and then get resurrected again and then get martyred.”

The American Revolutionary War hero John Paul Jones, in a letter to Prince Potemkin dated June 20, 1788 while Jones commanded Russian naval ships, wrote about a naval engagement with the Turkish fleet (outside Kimbourn) involving an unsuccessful martyrdom operation planned by the Muslim sailors:

…for it was the intention of the Turks to attack us and board us, and if we had been only three versts further the attempt would have been made on the 16th [June 1788] (before the vessel of the Captain Pacha [Pasha] ran aground in advancing before the wind with all his forces to attack us,), God only knows what would have been the result…The Turks had a very large force, and we have been informed by our prisoners that they were resolved to destroy us, even by burning themselves, (in setting fire to their own vessels after having grappled with ours.) [note added by Jones]: Before their departure from Constantinople, they swore by the beard of the Sultan to execute this horrible plan…if Providence had not caused its failure from two circumstances which no man could forsee.]

How tragic that the bigoted Muslim Brotherhood “spiritual advisor” Yusuf al-Qaradawi writes with more intellectual honesty about this awful subject than does Mr. Lewis. For example, at the July 2003 meeting (in Stockholm) of the European Council for Fatwa and Research (which he heads), Qaradawi emphasized the orthodox Islamic basis for martyrdom operations to be directed against all Israeli citizens, whom he further described as classic harbis (see discussion below), licit targets in the Dar al Harb:

Those who oppose martyrdom operations and claim that they are suicide are making a great mistake. the one who carries out a martyrdom operation does not think of himself. He sacrifices himself for the sake of a higher goal, for which all sacrifices become meaningless. He sells himself to Allah in order to buy Paradise in exchange. Allah said: ‘Allah has bought from the believers their souls and their properties for they shall inherit Paradise… the one who carries out a martyrdom operation has a clear goal, and that is to please Allah

It has been determined by Islamic law that the blood and property of people of Dar Al—Harb [the Domain of Disbelief where the battle for the domination of Islam should be waged] is not protected. Because they fight against and are hostile towards the Muslims, they annulled the protection of his blood and his property… in modern war, all of society, with all its classes and ethnic groups, is mobilized to participate in the war, to aid its continuation, and to provide it with the material and human fuel required for it to assure the victory of the state fighting its enemies. Every citizen in society must take upon himself a role in the effort to provide for the battle. The entire domestic front, including professionals, laborers, and industrialists, stands behind the fighting army, even if it does not bear arms. Therefore the experts say that the Zionist entity, in truth, is one army.   

Lewis’s Claim (2): GO HERE FOR THE REST. It is a must reead

Saturday, February 02, 2008

You say Sharia, I say Sayonara

Dr. Bostom has an eye opening post here on Japan, religion and WWII and how it relates to the war on the jihad. It 's discouraging that we have learned nothing from the triumphant win of the West in WWII. We clearly understood how to handle religious dogma and how it must be eradicated from mortal enemies. Read it all.

Japanshinto

Sayonara Shari’a: Japanese Lessons, Lost?

A United States War Department poster highlighting the wrenching reforms of Japan’s state religion, Shintoism (i.e., eliminating Shinto State militarism, and its indoctrination within Japanese schools)—and the guarantee of true religious freedom (including Shintosim as a private, personal faith), under the Supreme Commander of the Allied Powers (SCAP), primarily, General Douglas MacArthur.

Professor John David Lewis, in a recent analysis dedicated to the late General Paul Tibbets (d. 11/1/07), commander of the B-29 Enola Gay which bombed Hiroshima, analyzes how the defeated Japanese reformed their nation, dramatically, “under stern American guidance.” 

Central to this process was a complete delegitimization and disenfranchisement of Japan’s religio-political state religion, post Meiji Restoration (1868) Shintoism. These wrenching reforms of Japanese Shintoism included eliminating Shinto State militarism, and its indoctrination within Japanese schools, concurrent with the guarantee of true religious freedom—including the practice of Shintoism as a private, de-militarized, and de-politicized personal faith—under the Supreme Commander of the Allied Powers (SCAP—see poster, illustrated above), primarily, General Douglas MacArthur. 

State Department chief of the Division of Far Eastern Affairs, John Carter Vincent, elucidated this policy—ever cognizant of the dangers of State Shinto—which nevertheless guaranteed the private practice of Shinto. Vincent’s’ views were quoted in this October,1945 telegram  sent by the U.S. Secretary of State James Byrnes to General Douglas MacArthur, establishing basic U.S. policy goals towards Shintoism, while clarifying for MacArthur and his subordinates, the fundamental principles to attain those goal:

: Shintoism, insofar as it is a religion of individual Japanese, is not to be interfered with. Shintoism, however, insofar as it is directed by the Japanese government, and as a measure enforced from above by the government, is to be done away with. People would not be taxed to support National Shinto and there will be no place for Shintoism in the schools. Shintoism as a state religion—National Shinto, that is—will go . . . Our policy on this goes beyond Shinto . . . The dissemination of Japanese militaristic and ultra-nationalistic ideology in any form will be completely suppressed. And the Japanese Government will be required to cease financial and other support of Shinto establishments.

Immediately thereafter directives were issued which terminated various educational platforms for the indoctrination of students into Shintoism, and fired their purveyors. Textbooks were re-written, and student education re-tooled to emphasize“the importance of challenging dogma, and of forming their own opinions.”   As John Lewis observes, when Theodore Geisel—Dr. Seuss—visited Japan a mere 8-years after the Japanese surrender, and initiation of these educational reform programs, asking students to draw pictures of what they desired to be when they grew up,

The children drew hundreds of pictures of doctors, statesmen, teachers, nurses, and even wrestlers. Only one student wanted to be a soldier—and he wanted to be General MacArthur. The values of these children were already far different from those of their parents a decade earlier, when the Japanese dreamed of dying on the battlefield for an Emperor-god.

Sixty years later the lessons from the era of Japanese reconstruction have been ignored entirely following the US-led military interventions in Afghanistan, now under the post-Taliban Karzai regime, and Iraq, after the toppling of Saddam Hussein. Indeed the post-World War II paradigm of neutralizing Japan’s bellicose, religio-political creed of Shintoism, has been turned on its head with regard to Islam, and the theocratic Islamic legal code, Shari’a—imbued with jihad, and completely antithetical to modern human rights constructs.

Writing in 1955, Joseph Schacht, arguably the greatest 20th century scholar of Islamic Law, identified the still unresolved problems with modern, inchoate Islamic reform efforts. Schacht noted  how,

The idea of religious law—the concept that law, as well as the other human relationships, must be ruled by religion—has become an essential part of the Islamic outlook. The same, incidentally, is true of politics, and even economics; it explains the recent attempt to hold an Islamic economic congress in Pakistan. Because they cannot face the problem, because they lack historical understanding of the formation of Mohammedan religious law, because they cannot make up their minds, any more than their predecessors could in the early Abbasid period [which began 750 C.E.], on what is legislation, the modernists cannot get away from a timid, halfhearted, and essentially self-contradictory position.

And Schacht concludes, “The real problem poses itself at the religious and not at the technically legal level.”

[...] Perhaps the earliest, most disturbing sign of things going awry in Iraq’s march toward “freedom” was already evident in February 2004: the refusal of the interim Iraqi government to allow its ancient, historically oppressed (often brutally so) Jews to return  in the wake of the 2003 liberation. Singling out the Jews was agreed upon absent any objection, except for the dissent of one lone Assyrian Christian representative in the interim government, who knew well what such bigotry foreshadowed: the oppression and resultant exodus of the Assyrian community – which has transpired.

Although much lionized, Iraq’s Grand Ayatollah Sistani remains an irredentist Shi’ite cleric who believes in najis—one of the more despicable belief systems in all of Islam—which imposes ugly restrictions on non-Muslim “infidels” due to their supposed physical and spiritual “impurity” [I have written about najis here, here, and here. Sistani also "wishes” for Shari’a to be implemented in Iraq. As a result, Sistani-supporting women in the Iraqi Parliament are putting forth his repressive agenda.  (From the Times of London, “Iraq’s women of power who tolerate wife-beating and promote polygamy”):

As a devout Shia Muslim and one of eighty-nine women sitting in the new parliament, she knows what her first priority there is: to implement Islamic law. When Dr Ubaedey took her seat at last week’s [March, 2005]  assembly opening, she found herself among an increasingly powerful group of religious women politicians who are seeking to repeal old laws giving women some of the same rights as men and replace them with Sharia, Islam’s divine law. 

And when  Sistani posted this fatwa about gays  on his website (see below), he precipitated a surge in homophobic killings  by state security services and Shi’ite religious militias. 

Q: What is the judgment on sodomy and lesbianism?

A: “Forbidden. Those involved in the act should be punished. In fact, sodomites should be killed in the worst manner possible,” [emphasis added]   

Conservative political scientist, and former University President John Agresto, wrote a poignant, and sympathetic, yet brutally honest memoir of  the 9-months (September 2003 to June 2004) he spent in Iraq working as then Ambassador Paul Bremer’s senior advisor to the Iraqi Ministry of Higher Education and Scientific Research. Agresto, who had direct dealings with Sistani, has remained  “more skeptical of the Ayatollah al-Sistani and his partisans than so many of my colleagues in the Coalition.” He highlights one astonishing fact about Sistani that has received scant attention, let alone comment, in light of legitimate concerns over undue Iranian influence on Iraqi affairs: 

The Ayatollah Sistani is…Iranian by birth, Iranian by religious training–he still retains his Iranian citizenship in preference to accepting Iraqi citizenship.

Read it all.

 

Saturday, January 12, 2008

SUPERHEROS: BAT, BOSTOM, BOB (SPENCER)

Earlier this week, I sighed heavily when yet another high minded intellectual, David Frum,  following in Dinesh's footsteps, had switched gears and gone on to attack the very people that will lead us to victory in the war on the Jihad. The greatest historians of our time, once again getting nailed to the cross, for telling the truth. Kill the messenger. As if the counter jihad movement wasn't small enough!

The links (at Jihad Watch) and full texts to the eviscerating rebuttals of Frum’s self-righteous juvenilia by Bat Ye’or, and Robert Spencer, are provided below. 

When I ran Robert's rebuttal, I wrote here, " David Frum has entered the jihad fray hoping to project his Western thinking onto what he would like the  Koran to be. Isn't that special? And tiresome. This is not Frum's milieu and it shows. I have been studying and covering this single subject intensively for 3 years now after coming to it after 9/11/01. I won't pretend to know as much as Spencer, Yeor, Bostom, Warraq, but I do know that they provide empirical evidence. They do the work to substantiate their deductions. It's not theory. It's fact and they back it up."

I blame Bernard Lewis for a lot of bad information, bogus intel and  fallacious deductions. Considered the world's leading scholar on Islam, he is an apologist and in many cases confused,dithering even,  if not  a liar.  His historical inaccuracies are well documented but his positions are enormously influential to world leaders and opinion makers so the harm he does is incalculable.

Over at Jihadwatch Bat Yeor comes out swinging and Bostom's response  follows. Yes, Bat, Bostom, Bob, this post is a grand slam.

Bat Ye’or: Rejoinder to David Frum

David Frum's piece is here; my response is here. And now the great historian Bat Ye’or has kindly sent me this response:

In his latest article, “Ancient Holy Books, Modern Dilemmas” (posted January 8, 2008), David Frum poses as a referee in a disputation, pretending there are two alleged extremes, whereas he ignores the rules and the meaning of the subject itself. This hoax has often been used by Sages who pontificate: “As usual, the truth is in the middle.” But often this scenario of two opposed extremisms allows the Sages to pride themselves on what is only the appearance of wisdom. Moreover, this catch-phrase is meaningless, because truth is not found at a linear distance between two extremes. Between the Nazi genocidal policy toward the Jews and the victims’ affirmation of their right to live there is no middle-way solution. Would we discuss how many Jews it would be right for the Nazis to exterminate? Between slavery and human equality, there is no middle position. Between the dehumanization of dhimmitude and the inalienable right to freedom, dignity and equality, there is no meeting in the middle. Would one haggle over the amount due for protecting one’s life and rights?

David Frum describes my work as a study of Islam, whereas it is research into a neglected and specific domain involving Islamic theology, jurisprudence and history in relation to non-Muslims. Within this particular field, I only examined the Jewish and Christian aspect, not that of the Zoroastrians and other religious denominations. It is therefore not an assessment of Islam in general. Even more, in none of my writing is there the implication that Islam must disappear for the sake of peace. Maybe Frum has hidden his own thought, which he unconsciously projects on Robert Spencer and myself, while contrasting our alleged somber designs with his own generous wisdom -- which is not, in the least, very original. It hangs on the usual love paradigm of interfaith dialogue, dhimmi biased vision, and subvention of billions of dollars, while waiting with humble timidity for a powerful Muslim majority to reinterpret the Koran as a book of universal love and peace. I do not object to that, except that meanwhile, Muslim reformers even in Europe must hide to save their lives, while terrorism claims countless innocent victims throughout the globe, and tomorrow we might be facing a global nuclear jihad.

Here Bostom comes tearing out of the gate over FPG:

David Frum’s Axilla of Ignorance* January 11th, 2008 (25 minutes ago) by Andrew Bostom

*(“Axilla of Ignorance,” coined by Ruth King)

Inexplicably David Frum of the American Enterprise Institute—hardly an authority on Islamic doctrine, or history—has nevertheless lashed out——albeit inaccurately, and within the constraints of his own crude understanding—at two contemporary scholars, Bat Ye’or and Robert Spencer. A serious, respected writer/essayist on jihad terrorism sent me this assessment:

I don’t know why I should be surprised at this kind of thing any more, but I am. Frum really should have known better.

His criticism makes it sound as if you [AB] and Bat Ye’or and Spencer simply read the Koran and the Life of Mohammad, and inferred the nature of Islam from these isolated texts. As I said in my book—I would have no problem if Muslims decided to go back and read jihad out of the Koran; it would be okay if they pretended jihad had never played any important role in the expansion of Islam. I would rejoice if Muslims really behaved as Frum thinks he would behave if he were a Muslim! But it ain’t gonna happen.

Secularized Westerner intellectuals like Frum simply cannot imagine what it is like to be possessed by a living faith that commands its faithful to expand the community of the faithful by violent methods. This kind of fanaticism, as I argue in my book, is outside their imaginative scope. So whenever contemporary scholars like you, Bat Ye’or, or Spencer point out what every schoolboy once knew about Islam, you are the ones who are treated like extremists. When your first book came out I was astonished that anyone thought it was controversial. You didn’t make up the idea of jihad—you simply documented the historical Muslim theory and practice of it. And yet that is considered as “going too far.” The same thing can be said of Bat Ye’or work. If the two of you were merely investigating a historically transcended and outmoded form of Islam, I suppose you could be blamed for failing to let the dead bury the dead. But today people are still dying and killing in the name of Islam—but we are forbidden even to see the truth, let alone speak it.

The links (at Jihad Watch) and full texts to the eviscerating rebuttals of Frum’s self-righteous juvenilia byBat Ye’or, and Robert Spencer, , are provided below.

Bostom couldn't resist the medical terminology pun on Frum's supposed formulation "Axis of Evil" 

Saturday, January 05, 2008

Bostom on Pentagon Firing Coughlin

My fine and brilliant friend, Dr. Andrew Bostom, knows Steve Coughlin, the brilliant internet specialist fired by the Pentagon.  Emphasis mine.

Eaton Agonistes, Redux? Andrew Bostom

Bill Gertz, Washington Times national security columnist, reports (1/4/08) that the Pentagon has fired Stephen Coughlin, its most knowledgeable specialist on Islamic Law, and jihad terrorism. As Gertz observed aptly, the Pentagon thus ended the career of its most effective analyst attempting to prepare the military to wage ideological war against jihadism.

This past September, 2007, I lectured with Mr. Coughlin, a US Army Reserves Major, at The Naval War College, and witnessed his brilliant, tour de force presentation which elucidated the reliance of contemporary jihadism on Islamic Law. Coughlin demonstrated meticulously that “Jihad fi Sabil Allah”—“Jihad in the cause of Allah,” is the animating principle which underlies the threat of global jihad terrorism, and how this understanding should form the basis for rational, effective threat development assessment, and war planning.

That Coughlin’s analyses would even be considered “controversial,” or worse still lead eventually to his firing—perhaps, as Gertz strongly suggests, at the behest of a Muslim aide, Hesham Islam, within the office of Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England—is pathognomonic of the intellectual and moral rot plaguing our efforts to combat global jihadism.

There is no evidence that Mr. Islam—distinctly unlike Mr. Coughlin—has any specific expertise on the theory or historical practice of jihad; indeed Gordon England’s Egyptian Muslim aide is touted for his public relations skills—a sort of English-speaking Muslim Dragoman to the global Islamic umma. According to Deputy Secretary England,

Hesham [Islam] helps me understand people’s different perspectives and how they see things. He has a cultural background that’s very helpful, but he also works at it very hard to get a better understanding of people and how they think.

Coughlin’s reasoned conclusions simply update and complement, exquisitely, what serious scholars of jihad have long argued about revivalist movements throughout Islamic history. For example, forty years ago (in 1967), John Ralph Willis observed regarding the 19th century jihadist movements in West Africa, specifically, and such historical movements in general,

The jihad…is essentially an instrument of revival, employed for the purpose of extending the frontiers of Islam and leading the faithful back to roots. And it is not insignificant that the faithful, being in essence conservative, have been as susceptible to the summons of revivalists as they have been insensitive to the activity of reformists.

Stephen Coughlin’s modern predicament is eerily similar to what befell another courageous, unabashed American patriot, William Eaton, two hundred years ago, during our nation’s first encounter with jihad terrorism. “Victory in Tripoli ,” Joshua London’s compelling narrative of America's initial conflict with jihadists—the Barbary wars—highlights, appositely, William Eaton’s experiences. Eaton’s triumphs and travails during his tenure as consul toTunis  (1799-1803), and later U.S. naval agent to the Barbary states, mirrored those of the young American nation he served. (continued here).

Clip_image002

It's happened before - same bat time, came bat channel. Read it all.

Monday, December 31, 2007

The Wrath of CON
Bostom TKO's Kuntzel

Muhammad has been the major inspiration for jihadism, past and present.

Bostom literally destroys Kuntzel's argument inspired no doubt, by the fallacious arguments of a somewhat dithering Bernard Lewis. This is why Bernard Lewis's pandering and apologizing to Islam is so dangerous. Kunztzel is a mental midget next to Bostom and to insist that Nazism fueled Islamism (when in fact it is just the opposite) is intellectually dishonest and historically inaccurate. Islamic Jew hatred and violent goes back centuries. It's their dogma - read the Koran.

The battle began with Bosotm's November column

Brothers of Invention?

Andrew G. Bostom Front Page Magazine.com
November 30, 2007

Matthias Kuntzel has argued cogently in a series of essays about the unique dangers posed by Iran’s fusion of a martyrdom mentality with nuclear weapons capability and Holocaust denial. He maintains, “It is precisely this suicidal outlook that distinguishes the Iranian nuclear weapons program from those of all other countries and makes it uniquely dangerous.”

Kuntzel’s recently released book Jihad and Jew Hatred, in contrast, is a very problematic work. Kuntzel concludes this rather brief (~ 60,000 word) analysis of what he terms the “ideological roots of Islamism,” by calling for the West to challenge those putative “roots.” But his noble admonition—of vital importance—is thoroughly undermined by the author’s failure to provide a coherent assessment of these ideological roots consistent with a sound doctrinal and historical understanding of the permanent Islamic institution of jihad, Islam’s foundational, continuously expressed Jew-hatred, and their nexus with the modern totalitarianism and Jew-hatred of the Nazi movement.

Kuntzel’s presentation in Jihad and Jew Hatred is limited intractably by basic misunderstandings, and critical, at times selective omissions, which cannot be excused by its brevity. His quintessential argument is that Hassan al-Banna and the Muslim Brotherhood (and associated 20th century ideologues such as Sayyid Qutb) “invented” jihad war as a sui generis phenomenon, “catalyzed” by Nazism, inexplicably divorcing these “Muslim Brothers of invention” from the sacralized Islamic institution of jihad war, with its clearly demonstrable doctrine and history spanning a nearly 14 century continuum. A corollary argument is made with regard to the “invention” of Islamic Jew hatred by the same movement and ideologues, under even more “profound” Nazi influences.

Meet the “New” Jihad, Same as the “Old” Jihad

Kuntzel apparently misunderstands (and regardless, misrepresents) the basics of jihad, ignoring classical theory and practice. He then proceeds to describe the Muslim Brotherhood’s jihad ideology as a sui generis phenomenon divorced entirely from its intimate connection to a nearly 1400 year old Islamic institution, a salient characteristic of which was, and remains, its continuity. According to Kuntzel (from p. 13),

The [Muslim] Brotherhood's most significant innovation was their concept of jihad as holy war, which significantly differed from other contemporary doctrines and, associated with that, the passionately pursued goal of dying a martyr's death in the war with the unbeliever.

Before the founding of the Brotherhood, Islamic currents of modern times had understood jihad (derived from a root signifying "effort") as the individual striving for belief or the missionary task of disseminating Islam. Only when this missionary work was hindered were they allowed to use force to defend themselves against the unbelievers resistance. The starting point of Islamism is the new interpretation of jihad espoused with uncompromising militancy by Hassan al-Bana, the first to preach this kind of jihad in modern times.

This untenable thesis ignores copious doctrinal and historical evidence (compiled and presented in great detail here), summarized in the discussion that follows.

There is just one historically relevant meaning of jihad despite contemporary apologetics. Jahada, the root of the word jihad, appears 40 times in the Koran—under a variety of grammatical forms. With 4 exceptions, all the other 36 usages (in specific Koranic verses) are variations of the third form of the verb, i.e. jahida. Jahida in the Koran and in subsequent Islamic understanding to both Muslim luminaries—from the greatest jurists and scholars of classical Islam (including Abu Yusuf, Averroes, Ibn Khaldun, and Al Ghazzali), to ordinary people—meant and means “he fought, warred or waged war against unbelievers and the like,” as described by the seminal Arabic lexicographer E.W Lane. Indeed, Lane’s, An Arabic English Lexicon (6 volumes, London, 1865) is still used to this day by Muslim and non-Muslim scholars for definitive Arabic to English translation. Thus Lane, who studied both the etymology and usage of the term jihad, observed, “Jihad came to be used by the Muslims to signify wag[ing] war, against unbelievers”. Not surprisingly, there is unanimity between all major Sunni schools of jurisprudence (Hanafi, Hanbali, Shafi'i, and Maliki), as well as the Shi'ite jurisprudence regarding the permanent. aggressive nature of jihad war.

The Muslim prophet Muhammad himself waged a series of proto-jihad campaigns to subdue the Jews, Christians and pagans of Arabia. Islamic historian Arthur Jeffery in a 1942 essay belittled as “the sheerest sophistry” contemporary efforts

..made in some circles in modern days to explain away all the Prophet’s warlike expeditions as defensive wars or to interpret the doctrine of Jihad as merely a bloodless striving in missionary zeal for the spread of Islam…The early Arabic sources quite plainly and frankly describe the expeditions as military expeditions…Muhammad, as the head of the community of those who served Allah, taking the sword to extend the kingdom of Allah, and taking measures to insure the subjection of all who lived within the borders of what he made the kingdom of Allah

And as numerous modern day pronouncements by leading Muslim theologians confirm (see for example, Yusuf Al-Qaradawi’s, “The Prophet Muhammad as a Jihad Model”), Muhammad has been the major inspiration for jihadism, past and present.

Jihad was pursued century after century because jihad embodied an ideology and a jurisdiction. Both were formally conceived by Muslim jurisconsults and theologians from the 8th to 9th centuries onward, based on their interpretation of Koranic verses and long chapters in the “hadith”, or acts and sayings of Muhammad, especially those recorded by al-Bukhari [d. 869] and Muslim [d. 874][...]

Whither Islamic Jew Hatred?

Kuntzel’s conception of Islamic Jew hatred suffers from the same severe limitations described for his analysis of jihad. He provides only the barest, glaringly deficient outline of the theology and historical practice of this unique form of antisemitism, confined as it is to a mere four pages of discussion (pp. 33; 64-66), and accompanying footnotes. As per Kuntzel, only in Christian “mythology” (not its Islamic equivalent—whatever is meant by his term “mythology—a term, curiously, he does not apply here to Islam) were Jews depicted “constantly” as a “dark and demonic force,” leading (again, only in Christendom) to “anti-Jewish pogroms.” (No such “Medieval pogroms” in Islamdom are mentioned by the author in the context of this discussion, leaving the reader to assume, incorrectly, that none occurred.) Kuntzel ascribes these uniquely Christian phenomena (i.e., implicitly, both the theological, or “mythological” Jew hatred of Christianity, and resultant pogroms) to “simple” origins, which he cannot find (or more aptly, bother to research with any degree of seriousness) in Islam:

…since the Jews had been able to murder even the Son of God, nothing else in the filed of cosmic malice was beyond them. All the fairy tales about the deadly and powerful Jewish force derive from this Christian original. Muslim anti-Jewish prejudice on the other hand stems from a wholly different story, that of Muhammad’s experiences with the Jews of Medina. In this case it was not the Jews who defeated the Son of God, but the Prophet who emerged the clear victor.

Moreover, despite the author’s repeated use of the phrase “the anti-Jewish passages in the Koran” he barely characterizes two verses, alone, i.e., Koran 5:60, and (correctly noted) 5:82 (the latter of which is cited by Kuntzel [p.66] with the wrong enumeration as 5:85, the standard reference being 5:82). Thus a central anti-Jewish motif in the Koran—verse 2:61, and its reiteration at 3:112—is ignored altogether, as are a litany of other important anti-Jewish verses (many intimately related to this central motif, as described below), their exegeses in the Koran, and elaboration in the hadith, sira, and corpus of juridical and anti-Jewish polemical writings by Muslim luminaries from classical Islam, through the present era.

Apparently unknown to Kuntzel, more than four decades ago (in 1964), Moshe Perlmann the pre-eminent scholar of Islam’s ancient anti-Jewish polemical literature, observed appositely,

The Koran, of course became a mine of anti-Jewish passages. The hadith did not lag behind. Popular preachers used and embellished such material.

Salient examples of Jew hatred from these foundational Islamic sources, ignored by Kuntzel, include:

  • How as a central anti-Jewish motif, the Koran decrees an eternal curse upon the Jews (Koran 2:61/ 3:112) for slaying the prophets and transgressing against the will of Allah. This motif is coupled to Koranic verses 5:60 and 5:78 which describe the Jews transformation into apes and swine (5:60), having been “…cursed by the tongue of David, and Jesus, Mary’s son” (5:78). The related verse, 5:64, accuses the Jews—as Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas did in a January 2007 speech, citing Koran 5:64—of being “spreaders of war and corruption,” a sort of ancient Koranic antecedent of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. The Koranic curse (verses 2:61/3:112) upon the Jews for (primarily) rejecting, even slaying Allah’s prophets, including Isa/Jesus (or at least his “body double”), is updated with perfect archetypal logic in the canonical hadith: following the Muslims’ initial conquest of the Jewish farming oasis of Khaybar, one of the vanquished Jewesses reportedly served Muhammad poisoned mutton (or goat), which resulted, ultimately, in his protracted, agonizing death. And Ibn Saad’s sira account maintains that Muhammad’s poisoning resulted from a well-coordinated Jewish conspiracy
  • How the Koran’s overall discussion of the Jews is marked by a litany of their sins and punishments, as if part of a divine indictment, conviction, and punishment process. Specifically—the Jews wronged themselves (16:118) by losing faith (7:168) and breaking their covenant (5:13). The Jews (echoing an ante-Nicaean, Marcionite polemic) are a nation that has passed away (2:134; repeated in 2:141). Twice Allah sent his instruments (the Assyrians/or Babylonians, and Romans) to punish this perverse people (17:4-5)—their dispersal over the earth is proof of Allah’s rejection (7:168). The Jews are further warned about both their arrogant claim that they remain Allah’s chosen people (62:6), and continued disobedience and “corruption” (5:32-33) Other sins, some repeated, are enumerated: abuse, even killing of prophets (4:155; 2:91), including Isa [Jesus] (3:55; 4:157), is a consistent theme. The Jews ridiculed Muhammad as Ra’ina (the evil one, in 2:104; 4:46), and they are also accused of lack of faith, taking words out of context, disobedience, and distortion (4:46). Precious few of them are believers (also 4:46). These “perverse” creatures also claim that Ezra is the messiah and they worship rabbis who defraud men of their possessions (9:30). Additional sins are described: the Jews are typified as an “envious” people (2:109), whose hearts are as hardened as rocks (2:74). They are further accused of confounding the truth (2:42), deliberately perverting scripture (2:75), and being liars (2:78). Ill-informed people of little faith (2:89), they pursue vague and wishful fancies (2:111). Other sins have contributed to their being stamped (see 2:61/ 3:112 above) with “wretchedness /abasement and humiliation,” including—usury (2:275), sorcery (2:102), hedonism (2:96), and idol worship (2:53). More (and repeat) sins, are described still: the Jews’ idol worship is again mentioned (4:51), then linked and followed by charges of other (often repeat) iniquities—the “tremendous calumny” against Mary (4:156), as well as usury and cheating (4:161). Most Jews are accused of being “evil-livers” /“transgressors” /“ungodly” (3:110), who, deceived by their own lies (3:24), try to turn Muslims from Islam (3:99). Jews are blind and deaf to the truth (5:71), and what they have not forgotten they have perverted—they mislead (3:69), confound the truth (3:71), twist tongues (3:79), and cheat Gentiles without remorse (3:75). Muslims are advised not to take the Jews as friends (5:51), and to beware of the inveterate hatred that Jews bear towards them (5:82).
  • How the Jews’ ultimate sins and punishments are made clear in the Koran—they are the devil’s minions (4:60) cursed by Allah, their faces will be obliterated (4:47), and if they do not accept the true faith of Islam—the Jews who understand their faith become Muslims (3:113)—they will be made into apes (2:65/ 7:166), or apes and swine (5:60), and burn in the Hellfires (4:55, 5:29, 98:6, and 58:14-19).
  • How Muslim eschatology, as depicted in the hadith, highlights the Jews’ supreme hostility to Islam. Jews are described as adherents of the Dajjâl—the Muslim equivalent of the Anti-Christ—or according to another tradition, the Dajjâl is himself Jewish. At his appearance, other traditions maintain that the Dajjâl will be accompanied by 70,000 Jews from Isfahan wrapped in their robes, and armed with polished sabers, their heads covered with a sort of veil. When the Dajjâl is defeated, his Jewish companions will be slaughtered— everything will deliver them up except for the so-called gharkad tree, as per the canonical hadith included in the 1988 Hamas Charter (in article 7). Another hadith variant, which takes place in Jerusalem, has Isa (the Muslim Jesus) leading the Arabs in a rout of the Dajjâl and his company of 70,000 armed Jews. And the notion of jihad “ransom” extends even into Islamic eschatology—on the day of resurrection the vanquished Jews will be consigned to Hellfire, and this will expiate Muslims who have sinned, sparing them from this fate.
  • How, also according to the hadith, stubborn malevolence is the Jews defining worldly characteristic: rejecting Muhammad and refusing to convert to Islam out of jealousy, envy and even selfish personal interest, lead them to acts of treachery, in keeping with their inveterate nature: “...sorcery, poisoning, assassination held no scruples for them.” These archetypes sanction Muslim hatred towards the Jews, and the admonition to at best, “subject [the Jews] to Muslim domination,” as dhimmis, treated “with contempt,” under certain “humiliating arrangements.”
  • How a profoundly anti-Jewish motif occurring after the events recorded in the hadith and sira, put forth in early Muslim historiography (for example, by Tabari), is most assuredly a part of “the birth pangs” of Islam: the story of Abd Allah b. Saba, an alleged renegade Yemenite Jew, and founder of the heterodox Shi’ite sect. He is held responsible—identified as a Jew—for promoting the Shi’ite heresy and fomenting the rebellion and internal strife associated with this primary breach in Islam’s “political innocence”, culminating in the assassination of the third Rightly Guided Caliph Uthman, and the bitter, lasting legacy of Sunni-Shi’ite sectarian strife.

“Generosity” For “Appropriate Humility”—Or Dhimmitude?

You have got to read it all. ALL. There is a lot more.

Kuntzel’s conceptions of both jihad and Islamic Jew hatred are mere simulacra of these phenomena. Neither will do as history, independently, or worse still clumsily and disingenuously melded together with an excessive bolus of Nazism, into a purported explanatory “narrative.” G.H. Bousquet (d. 1978), one of the most widely acclaimed 20th century scholars of Islamic Law, wrote the following in 1950, unfettered by our current mind numbing, politically correct cultural relativism:

Islam first came before the world as a doubly totalitarian system. It claimed to impose itself on the whole world and it claimed also, by the divinely appointed Muhammadan law, by the principles of fiqh [jurisprudence], to regulate down to the smallest details the whole life of the Islamic community and of every individual believer... the study of Muhammadan Law (dry and forbidding though it may appear)… is of great importance to the world of today.

By actively ignoring these basic doctrinal and historical truths, Kuntzel failed to examine and address the most compelling if uncomfortable questions about the ideological nexus between Islam, jihad, Islamic antisemitism, and modern totalitarianism, particularly Nazism.

To which Kuntzel replied here today  at Front Page Magazine;

Bostom Misses the Islamist-Nazi Connection
by Matthias Küntzel

On 30 November 2007 FrontPage Magazine published a lengthy and hostile article by Andrew G. Bostom on my book Jihad and Jew-Hatred: Islamism, Nazism and the Roots of 9/11, entitled “Brothers of Invention?”. I say “hostile” rather than “critical” since even the most negative critique of a book assumes that the reader gets to find out what the work in question is actually about.

Not so in this case.

ndeed, in the course of his 22-pages Bostom never once mentions my book’s subtitle, “Islamism, Nazism and the roots of 9/11”, which explains the purpose of the work. That purpose is to show how Islamism arose in the 1920s and 30s, what role National Socialism played in this development, and how there emerged that specifically Islamic antisemitism, drawing on both Koranic and modern European sources, which has characterized Islamist ideology from its inception to today.

Instead of dealing with the point I am making and assessing whether my analysis is right, Bostom is chiefly exercised by the fact that I failed to write a totally different book. The bulk of his piece consists of comments about the early centuries of Islam, a subject that clearly interests the reviewer much more than the topic of my work. In fact, I frequently refer to this early history[1], but the focus is on the historical period in which the most important Islamist organization – the Muslim Brotherhood - and the associated Islamic antisemitism were born.

It is true and well known that the separation from and hatred of the Jews began with Muhammad’s activities in Medina and is a constitutive element of Islam. Anti-Judaism as laid down in the Koran, however, is not the same as antisemitism as laid down in “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion“. Mediaeval Jew-hatred considered everything Jewish to be evil. Modern antisemitism, on the other hand, deems all “evil” to be Jewish. In the former case the Jew could save his life through acceptance of the rules of dhimmitude or conversion to Christianity (or Islam). In the latter case, what is involved is not just oppression or conversion, but an irrational belief that the salvation of the world depends on the destruction of the Jews. My particular topic is not the root cause of dhimmitude but the root cause of modern antisemitism within the Islamic world.

What was the importance of Koranic Jew-hatred for the subsequent adoption of Nazi antisemitism in the Islamic world? Conversely, what role did this Nazi antisemitism play in the revival of Islamically motivated Jew-hatred? These questions have yet to find a definitive answer. They require a serious and scientific debate.

Take the example of the especially hate-filled hadith of al-Bukhari which comes closest to anticipating the rhetoric of modern antisemitism and for this very reason appears in the 1988 Hamas Charter: “The hour of judgement shall not come” it reads, “until the Muslims fight the Jews and kill them, so that the Jews hide behind trees and stones, and each tree and stone will say: ‘Oh Muslim, oh servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him’.” According to one of Israel’s leading Arabists, Yehoshua Porath, no mention of this hadith can be found anywhere in Arabic literature after at least 1870.[2] It had fallen into oblivion until its reappearance in 1937 in a statement by the Mufti of Jerusalem. In 1938 it was publicized in German by the Nazis and then disseminated in the Arabic world via the Arabic-language short-wave radio transmitter set up by the Nazis in the vicinity of Berlin.

So the mere existence of a hate-filled text tells us nothing about social reality and the uses that may or may not be made of that text. My concern, however, is precisely with this reality in all its complexity.

There's more ...go and read his read thin argument then read Bostom's full rebuttal here;

Wrath of Con?
By Andrew Bostom

Matthias Kuntzel complains that my review largely ignored his book, and its thesis. What he actually laments is that I took his thesis seriously, and found it seriously wanting. Nothing Kuntzel now presents in reply, or what he wrote in his book, addresses my original criticisms:

"Kuntzel apparently misunderstands (and regardless, misrepresents) the basics of jihad, ignoring classical theory and practice. He then proceeds to describe the Muslim Brotherhood’s jihad ideology as a sui generis phenomenon divorced entirely from its intimate connection to a nearly 1400 year old Islamic institution, a salient characteristic of which was, and remains, its continuity. According to Kuntzel (from p. 13),

The [Muslim] Brotherhood's most significant innovation was their concept of jihad as holy war, which significantly differed from other contemporary doctrines and, associated with that, the passionately pursued goal of dying a martyr's death in the war with the unbeliever.

Before the founding of the Brotherhood, Islamic currents of modern times had understood jihad (derived from a root signifying "effort") as the individual striving for belief or the missionary task of disseminating Islam. Only when this missionary work was hindered were they allowed to use force to defend themselves against the unbelievers resistance. The starting point of Islamism is the new interpretation of jihad espoused with uncompromising militancy by Hassan al-Bana, the first to preach this kind of jihad in modern times.

…Kuntzel also asserts (on p. 79) that Muslim Brotherhood founder Hasan al-Banna, and his contemporary “Islamist” heirs developed the “principle of [Islamic] dominance,” or more specifically, the concepts of Dar al Islam and Dar al Harb (Arabic for, “The House of Islam and the House of War”). In reality, al-Banna merely reiterated what classical Islamic jurists had formulated, and Islamic dynasties (major and minor alike) had practiced continually, for over a millennium.

…(in 1916), the great Dutch Orientalist Hurgronje noted the wide rank and file support among the Muslim masses for a restored Caliphate even at the very nadir of Islam's political power. And here is an extract from an article that appeared in the Calcutta Guardian in 1924 which linked the Pan-Islamic Indian Khilafat (Caliphate) Movement to trends that developed, and intensified following the Russo-Turkish War of 1876-78, fifty years prior to the advent of the Muslim Brotherhood in 1928:

The Islamic World was aroused to the fact that the area of Islamic independence was steadily narrowing, and the Qur’anic theory that Islam should dominate over every other religion was giving way to the contrary system. It was felt that the only Muslim power which could deal with those of Europe as an equal was Turkey; and pan-Islamism everywhere inculcated the doctrine that Turkey should be strengthened and supported. The Sultan was urged to advance through Persia into India and make common cause with the Sudanese Mehdi, and restore Egypt to an Islamic Sovereign.

… Kuntzel’s conception of Islamic Jew hatred suffers from the same severe limitations described for his analysis of jihad. He provides only the barest, glaringly deficient outline of the theology and historical practice of this unique form of antisemitism, confined as it is to a mere four pages of discussion (pp. 33; 64-66), and accompanying footnotes. As per Kuntzel, only in Christian “mythology” (not its Islamic equivalent—whatever is meant by his term “mythology—a term, curiously, he does not apply here to Islam) were Jews depicted “constantly” as a “dark and demonic force,” leading (again, only in Christendom) to “anti-Jewish pogroms.” (No such “Medieval pogroms” in Islamdom are mentioned by the author in the context of this discussion, leaving the reader to assume, incorrectly, that none occurred.) Kuntzel ascribes these uniquely Christian phenomena (i.e., implicitly, both the theological, or “mythological” Jew hatred of Christianity, and resultant pogroms) to “simple” origins, which he cannot find (or more aptly, bother to research with any degree of seriousness) in Islam…"

My review included but a few salient examples of the vast array (see here, and here) of doctrinal and historical evidence Kuntzel’s untenable thesis ignores, or misconstrues, whether out of ignorance, or by design.. The yawning gap of omissions (and significant self-contradictions) aside, perhaps more unsettling is Kuntzel’s selective citation, and excerpting. I provide two egregious examples: the redacted discussion of Albert Speer’s memoirs which omits Hiter’s effusive praise for Islam, including the Nazi leader’s resentment that Germany had not been Islamized during the 8th (through 11th) century Muslim jihadist forays throughout Europe; and the disingenuous misrepresentation of Sheikh Tantawi’s 700 pp. scholarly treatise elaborating (and extolling) Jew hatred in the Koran, and Sunna, which is reduced, pace Kuntzel, to a few passing remarks on Nazism and the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, completely obfuscating its actual Islamic contents, and Islamic “thesis.”

Kuntzel’s reply (and book) ignore another important aspect of my review as well. I included a discussion of the fact that writings produced for 100 years between the mid-19th through mid-20th centuries, by major scholars and intellectuals—for example, the historians Jacob Burckhardt and Waldemar Gurian, philosopher Bertrand Russell, Carl Jung, the founder of modern analytical psychiatry, Protestant theologian Karl Barth, sociologist Jules Monnerot, and most notably, the renowned 20th century scholar of Islamic Law, G.H. Bousquet—all referred to Islam as a despotic, or in 20th century parlance, totalitarian ideology. Kuntzel further chose to ignore a brilliant, dispassionate contemporary analysis by Ibn Warraq which describes 14 characteristics of “Ur Fascism” as enumerated by Umberto Eco, and analyzes their potential relationship to the major determinants of Islamic governance and aspirations, through the present. Warraq adduces salient examples which reflect the key attributes discussed by Eco: the unique institution of jihad war; the establishment of a Caliphate under “Allah’s vicegerent on earth,” the Caliph—ruled by Islamic Law, i.e., Shari’a, a rigid system of subservience and sacralized discrimination against non-Muslims and Muslim women, devoid of basic freedoms of conscience, and expression. And Kuntzel even chose to ignore Nazi academic and propagandist of extermination Johannes von Leers. Leers, whose pious writings on Islam (which antedated his conversion to Islam by two decades!) and personal career trajectory—as a favored contributor in Goebbel’s propaganda ministry, to his eventual adoption of the Muslim religion (as “Omar Amin” von Leers—Omar, for Caliph Omar; Amin, for Hajj Amin el-Husseini) while working as an anti-Western, and antisemitic/anti-Zionist propagandist under Nasser’s regime from the mid-1950s, until his death in 1965—epitomizes the convergence of jihad, Islamic antisemitism, and racist, Nazi anti-Semitism. Simply put, Kuntzel decided to ignore all these seamless doctrinal, and historical connections between ancient Islam, and modern totalitarianism, especially Nazism.

Bostom kicks ass .................... but there's so much more. Go here

Historian Saul S. Friedman, also citing the emergence of Zionism (as an ideology anathema to the Islamic system of dhimmitude for Jews), concluded that this modern movement, and the creation of the Jewish State of Israel has, not surprisingly, unleashed a torrent of annihilationist Islamic antisemitism, “the brew of thirteen centuries of intolerance”:

Since 1896, the development of modern, political Zionism has placed new tension on, and even destroyed, the traditional master-serf relationship that existed between Arab and Jew in the Middle East. An Arab world that could not tolerate the presence of a single, “arrogant” Jewish vizier in its history was now confronted by a modern state staffed with self-confident Jewish ministers.

This is exactly the Islamic context—completely ignored by Kuntzel—in which the widespread, “resurgent” use of Jew annihilationist apocalyptic motifs would be an expected occurrence, regardless of general European, or specific “Nazi” influences.

Tuesday, December 25, 2007

Bostom is Blogging

And he's good ........... and funny. Smart and funny. You know how Atlas loves that.

Maimonides and the “Meshugga” Prophet

Moe

(This essay is based upon materials from my forthcoming, The Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism”, 2008, on Prometheus Books.)

December 13th marked the 804th anniversary of the death of Maimonides (d. 1203, in Cairo), renowned Talmudist, philosopher, astronomer, and physician. The biography of this “second Moses,” is often cited by those who would extol the purported Muslim ecumenism of the high Middle Ages—particularly in “Andalusia,” or Muslim Spain, invariably accompanied by a denunciation of the fanatical intolerance of Christian Western Europe, during the same era.

A particularly egregious example of this genre of loaded comparisons was made byAmartya Sen, the Nobel laureate economist, in his recent book Identity and Violence. Sen has the temerity to proclaim, “…the Jewish Philosopher Maimonides was forced to emigrate from an intolerant Europe in the twelfth century, he found a tolerant refuge in the Arab world.”[Read more →]

Wednesday, October 10, 2007

Bostom Rocks the Kabaa!

The mightay mightay Bostom.The Brain explains all on those krazy Kashmir protests against a NY bar.

ROCKIN THE KABAA - SHARIFS DON'T LIKE IT! Andrew Bostom, New England Review

One year ago, on October 10, 2006 an Islamic website alerted Muslims to yet another of the seemingly endless litany of “insults to Islam.” The message claimed a cube-shaped building under construction in New York City, on Fifth Avenue between 58th  and 59th  Streets in midtown Manhattan, bore a deliberate resemblance to the sacred Meccan “Kabaa”, and as such was meant to provoke Muslims.  After taking liberties to contrive a resemblance between Apple’s (as in Macintosh computers) “Mecca,” and the actual Meccan Kabaa (see here), the Islamic website maintained the New York structure intended to be open 24 hours a day (alas, like the Kabaa), and moreover, contained bars selling alcoholic beverages—both blatant “insults to Islam.” The message further urged Muslims to disseminate this “alarming” information, in the hope that “Muslims will be able to stop the project.” As Robert Spencer observed aptly, at the time, “The only problem is that the project is finished, and the actual building doesn't look like the Kabaa at all, unless all cube-shaped structures are forbidden to infidels.”

Fast forward almost exactly one year, and a strangely delayed outpouring of “Kabaa outrage” was expressed on October 6, 2007—in Kashmir! As reported by the Iranian (Islamic Republic) News Agency,, hundreds of Muslim college students in the Northern Kashmir city of Baramulla took to the streets in demonstrations, “to decry a bar built in the shape of the holy Kaaba in New York.” Proclaiming anti-American and pro-Islamic slogans, the students insisted that the putative construction of a wine-shop or a bar like the Kaaba was tantamount to the desecration of the holy sites of Islam. “Muslims all over the world should protest at this,” they stated. They also demanded that the “bar” be closed down immediately, accompanied by a “US apology” to the Muslim world for creating the Kaaba replica.

final constructed appearance of Apple’s New York City cube,, and the fact that alcohol was never served there,  what is the Kabaa, and why might any perceived insult to this Meccan structure arouse the ire, once again, of pious votaries of Islam?

The Kabaa is a black-gray, cube-like building located in the center of the mosque at Mecca which contains the black stone (the Hajaru ’l-Aswad).

Go. Read it all

Tuesday, August 21, 2007

Bostom on West: Jihad and Dhimmitude

Diana West, courageous, sagacious (up there with Sowell) Washington Times columnist, latest book is a blistering warning of the dire consequences of the mainstreaming of countercultural behavior. Meticulously researched, West delivers a blow by blow account of America's descent into a cultural sewer void of morality.

Julien Benda, in his 1928 classic "La Trahison de Clercs," decried with prophetic accuracy how the abandonment of objective truths abetted totalitarian ideologies, which led to the cataclysmic destruction of World War II. The author identifies the "Trahison de Clercs" of our time: The complete failure of Western intellectuals to acknowledge the heinous consequences of the living Islamic institutions of jihad war and dhimmitude.

Andrew Bostom describes West's latest book, "brilliantly argued ......'The Death of the Grown-up: How America's Arrested Development Is Bringing Down Western Civilization' demonstrates how this successful modern "Children's Crusade" was perhaps more of a disaster, given its lingering pernicious effects, than the notorious ill-fated 1212 campaign under Stephen of Cloyes and Nicholas of the Rhineland."

Jihad and Dhimmitude Andrew Bostom, Washington Times

Ominously, the writer asks, has the worst-case scenario projected by Tocqueville in the 19th century — a country inhabited by an "innumerable multitude of men, alike and equal, constantly circling around in pursuit of the petty and banal pleasures with which they glut their souls," governed by a state of "immense protective power... [resembling]Westdeath_of_grownup parental authority... [trying] to prepare its charges for a man's life, but on the contrary, it only tries to keep them in perpetual childhood" — materialized?

The author's witty, evocative phrasemaking — "hair-trigger moderate [Muslims]," "mash of civilizations," "far from realpolitik, this is dreampolitik," "in denial there is defeat" — elucidates an infantilized American (and Western) culture, further immobilized by the pervasive fanaticism of the new "secular religion" of multiculturalism, to the point where it appears incapable of identifying, let alone adequately defending against, the resurgence of jihadist Islam.

Accurately portraying the central, uniquely Islamic institutions of jihad, and its corollary, dhimmitude, the author eschews the dominant, politically correct but ahistorical characterizations.

Tuesday, August 14, 2007

Bostom on Spencer

Dr. Bostom directs his laser like analysis  to Spencer's new book, Religion of Peace?—Why Christianity Is and Islam Isn’tSpencer's book is a scathing indictment on the RoP. The truth about Islam.

Robert Spencer will join me on Atlas on the Air next Tuesday, August 21  at 12 noon (note time change.)

Sword Swallowing to Oblivion Dr Andrew Bostom, New English Review

Robert Spencer’s sobering new book, “Religion of Peace?” reveals how the prevailing multicultural orthodoxy in the West—rooted in self-hatred, uncritical, blanket pacifism, and complacency—negates the profound differences between Judeo-Christian and Islamic civilization, obfuscating the existential threat posed by Islam’s enduring, central institution: the jihad. This corrosive mentality is disseminated by the avatars of immoral equivalence, “elite” sword swallowers for jihadism who have foisted their own self-destructive desensitization to this genocidal institution upon a general public, sadly ill-informed about Islamic doctrine and history.

Throughout the first four chapters, Spencer analyzes a spate of books that appeared in 2006—whose authors were oblivious to reams of daily, concrete evidence, and reason—which warned not about the real global progress of Shari’a (both violently and non-violently imposed), but the supposed imminent threat of Christian theocracy in the United States, and the export overseas of this religious zealotry by a modern “Crusading” military adventurism. Kevin Phillips’ American Theocracy was prototypical of this genre, which by waves of the hand, dismissed obvious foreign and domestic threats of jihad terrorism, while ignoring altogether cultural jihadism—the aggressive, if transiently “peaceful” methods of Islamic dawa—and their long term implications for truly theocratic, i.e., Islamic rule, including, within the West. Phillips insists that the post 9/11 incursions into Afghanistan and Iraq, “the war whoops of militant Protestantism…,” the apotheosis of a “biblically stirred foreign policy,” willing to use force to achieve its ultimate end: broader Christian missionary activity in the Islamic Middle East, another shameful Crusade. Spencer eviscerates Phillips’ “analysis” of George Bush’s October 2001 speech (outlining the President’s proposed military response to the cataclysmic attacks of 9/11), which epitomizes the counterfactual, and bizarre, if not frankly paranoid argumentation of the “Christian-ist conspiracy” mongering authors. Despite the fact that Bush had refrained from invoking religious language—in stark contrast to Osama bin Laden—Phillips,

Thursday, February 08, 2007

BOSTOM: Jung on Hitler and Islam

Over at The American Thinker, Andrew Bostom has an extraordinary article up here. BTW, Bostom has a new book coming out, I strongly recommend you pre-order.

Jung on Hitler and Islam Andrew Bostom

Karl Jung, The Collected Works Volume 18, The Symbolic Life (1939), Princeton University Press, p. 281. The chapter is itself called "The Symbolic Life", and Jung was asked two questions, the first of which is the most relevant:

First, had he any views on what was likely to be the next step in religious development? "We do not know whether Hitler is going to found a new Islam. (He is already on the way; he is like Mohammad. The emotion in Germany is Islamic; warlike and Islamic. They are all drunk with wild god). That can be the historic future."

Sunday, October 15, 2006

BOSTOM ON SPENCER:
The Truth About Muhammad

Dr. Andrew Bostom, preeminent scholar on Islam, reviews Robert Spencer's latest work,  The Truth About Muhammad: Founder of the World's Most Intolerant Religion. Regular Atlas readers know how often I read, quote, and cite Bostom and Robert Spencer is an extraordinary truth teller despite the the risk that poses. Read the review and then buy the book.

Scrutinizing Muhammad's example and teachings Washington Times

Ayaan Hirsi Ali, the former Dutch Parliamentarian and secular Muslim reformer, has courageously identified the taboo discussion which must take place to understand, and defuse, the scourge of modern jihad terrorism:
    "In their thinking about radical Muslim terrorism most politicians, journalists, intellectuals, and other commentators have avoided the core issue of the debate, which is Muhammad's example."
    This taboo is all the more puzzling, and dangerously delusional, given the public pronouncements of Muslim Brotherhood "spiritual" leader, Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, one of the most influential contemporary Muslim thinkers. Spencer_mohammad_1
    The immensely popular Qaradawi reaches an audience of tens of millions of Muslim sympathizers across the globe with his regular appearances on Al-Jazeera television. During a June 19, 2001 broadcast, Qaradawi delivered a sermon entitled, "The Prophet Muhammad as a Jihad Model," proclaiming: " . . . Allah has . . . made the prophet Muhammad into an epitome for religious warriors [Mujahideen] since he ordered Muhammed to fight for religion . . . "
    Consistent with the hadith (words and deeds of Muhammad recorded by pious followers), and earliest Muslim biographies of Muhammad, Qaradawi further acknowledged that Muhammad launched aggressive jihad campaigns, and also maintained that there is in fact a "jihad which you seek," i.e., invading other countries in order to spread the word of Islam and to remove, by force of arms, "obstacles" standing in the way of this coercive Islamization.
    More ominously, Qaradawi has made specific unabashed appeals for Muslims to wage a "jihad re-conquest" of Europe, recalling the millennial legacy of jihad wars waged by Arab, Berber and Ottoman Muslim conquerors and colonizers.
    Disregarding murderous threats, and the prospect of social ostracism, the intrepid author Robert Spencer -- a serious independent scholar of Islam for the past two decades -- has taken up Hirsi Ali's challenge in his compelling new book, "The Truth About Muhammad."
[...]
The final chapter is a brilliant analysis of Muhammad's disturbing modern legacy. Mr. Spencer provides understated, scrupulous documentation of the consequences of Muhammad's status as "an excellent example of conduct" (Koran 33:21), invoked by contemporary Muslim clerics, governments, journalists and jihadists alike: exploited child brides and general misogyny, sanctioned by law; Draconian, mutilating punishments such as stoning for adultery and amputation for theft; jihad violence against non-Muslims and Shari'a (Islamic Law)-sanctioned oppression of non-Muslims under Muslim rule.
    He concludes with a series of logical, unflinching recommendations for non-Muslim governments, all of which hinge, ultimately, upon an honest recognition of Muhammad's bellicose example: Stop insisting that Islam is a religion of peace; initiate a full-scale Manhattan Project to find new energy sources; make Western aid contingent upon renunciation of the jihad ideology; call upon American Muslim advocacy groups to work against the jihad ideology; revise immigration policies with the jihad ideology in view.

Read it all.

Sunday, September 17, 2006

Bostom: The Pope and the Jihad

I had the distinct pleasure of having Andrew Bostom on my show here on Thursday. Here he elucidates as only Bostom can on the current jihad:   The Pope, Jihad, and “Dialogue”

The most important address commemorating 9/11/01 was delivered on 9/12/06, a day after the fifth anniversary of this cataclysmic act of jihad terrorism. It was not delivered by President Bush, and was not even pronounced in the United States. On September 12, 2006 at the University of Regensburg, Pope Benedict XVI delivered a lecture (“adding some allusions of the moment) entitled, “Faith, Reason and the University.

Despite his critique of modern reason, Benedict argued that he did not intend to promote a retrogression,

…back to the time before the Enlightenment and reject[ing] the insights of the modern age. The positive aspects of modernity are to be acknowledged unreservedly: We are all grateful for the marvelous possibilities that it has opened up for mankind and for the progress in humanity that has been granted to us. The scientific ethos, moreover, is the will to be obedient to the truth, and, as such, it embodies an attitude which reflects one of the basic tenets of Christianity.

Christianity, the Pope maintained, was indelibly linked to reason and he contrasted this view with those who believe in spreading their faith by the sword. Benedict developed this argument by recounting the late 14th century  “Dialogue Held With A Certain Persian, the Worthy Mouterizes, in Anakara of Galatia” between the Byzantine ruler Manuel II Paleologus, and a well-educated Muslim  interlocutor. The crux of this part of his presentation, was the following:

Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul. ‘God’, he [the Byzantine ruler] says, ‘is not pleased by blood – and not acting reasonably is contrary to God’s nature. Faith is born of the soul, not the body. Whoever would lead someone to faith needs the ability to speak well and to reason properly, without violence and threats… To convince a reasonable soul, one does not need a strong arm, or weapons of any kind, or any other means of threatening a person with death’....

However, it is Benedict’s discussion of the Byzantine ruler’s allusions to  “…the theme of the jihad (holy war)”—Koran 2:256, “There is no compulsion in religion”, notwithstanding—that has unleashed a firestorm of condemnation and violence from Muslims across the world. Here are the words deemed so incendiary by both Muslim leaders, and the masses:

Without descending to details, such as the difference in treatment accorded to those who have the ‘Book’ and the ‘infidels’, he [Manuel II Paleologus] turns to his interlocutor somewhat brusquely with the central question on the relationship between religion and violence in general, in these words: ‘Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.’

The historical context for these words—which were likely written by Manuel II Paleologus between 1391 and 1394—turns out be much more banal, albeit unknown to fulminating Muslims (here; here),and Islamic apologists of all ilks, especially the disingenuous Muslim (here; here) and hand-wringing non-Muslim promoters of empty “civilizational dialogue”.

Read it all.

Digg! 

Thursday, September 14, 2006

ATLAS AND BOSTOM TONIGHT 9PM EST

                                              LISTEN HERE NOW
*****TONIGHT****TONIGHT******TONIGHT****TONIGHT*****
                      ***DR. ANDREW BOSTOM  SPECIAL GUEST
***
                                   LIVE CALL IN:(347) 996-3944

Listen Live

ANDREW BOSTOM WILL BE LIVE ON MY RADIO SHOW TONIGHT  TO ANSWER PETERS' IRRESPONSIBLE INSINUATIONS. ATLAS ON THE AIR 9pm EST- 10pm EST Listen live here. Bostom's book, The Legacy of Jihad, provides a comprehensive, meticulously documented corrective to the genre of ahistorical assessments decried by Ellul.

Israpundit will be joining us to weigh in on the Peters punking out.

Next week's special guest: Nidra Poller! Did you miss me and Brigitte Gabriel go at it last week? Go here to listen, the podcast is archived!

UPDATE: Listen to the podcast here and read Jerry at Israpundit's take on crashing  radioblogging

Friday, September 08, 2006

ANDREW BOSTOM LIVE! ATLAS ON THE AIR

The mightay mightay Bostom will appear on the next Atlas on the Air  Thursday, September 14th,  9PM 10 PM EST. Write it down! And yes you can call in:(347) 996-3444

Bostom's book, The Legacy of Jihad, provides a comprehensive, meticulously documented corrective to the genre of ahistorical assessments decried by Ellul. This unique, extensive compilation includes Muslim theological and juridical texts,Legacy_of_jihad_4 eyewitness historical accounts by both Muslim and non-Muslim chroniclers, and essays by preeminent scholars analyzing jihad war and the ruling conditions imposed upon the non-Muslim peoples conquered by jihad campaigns. The Legacy of Jihad reveals how, for well over a millennium, across three continents—Asia, Africa, and Europe—non-Muslims who were vanquished by jihad wars, became forced tributaries (called dhimmi in Arabic), in lieu of being slain. Under the dhimmi religious caste system, non-Muslims were subjected to legal and financial oppression, as well as social isolation. Extensive primary and secondary source materials, many translated here for the first time into English, are presented, making clear that jihad conquests were brutal, imperialist advances, which spurred waves of Muslims to expropriate a vast expanse of lands and subdue millions of indigenous peoples. Finally, the book examines how jihad war, as a permanent and uniquely Islamic institution, ultimately regulates the relations of Muslims with non-Muslims to this day. Scholars, educators, and interested lay readers will find this collection an invaluable resource.

About the Author
Andrew G. Bostom, M.D., M.S. (Providence, RI), is associate professor of medicine in the Division of Renal Diseases of Rhode Island Hospital. He has published articles and commentary on Islam in the Washington Times, National Review, Revue Politique, FrontPage Magazine.com and other print and online publications.

If you missed last night's show with Brigitte Gabriel,  she was great, .....listen to the podcast of the show, click on the little  green icon and treat yourself to a copy of her book Because They Hate: A Survivor of Islamic Terror Warns America, 

Continue reading "ANDREW BOSTOM LIVE! ATLAS ON THE AIR" »

Thursday, September 07, 2006

Europe: Hating the Jews

The antisemitism has been ratcheted up. I have been monitoring  global affairs on a daily basis for a couple of years now and I can tell you the Jew hate is coming fast and furious. Israel is a code word for Jew...........the modern argument to an age old hate. Photo: LGF

Ban Israel, British architects urge

LONDON - A British architects' association is calling on the 10th International Architecture Biennale in Venice to consider keeping an Israeli pavilion from British_jewhate_london_bus_1 participating in this year's exhibition, which opens Sunday.

"We request that the Biennale Committee consider withdrawing the Israeli entry as being provocative and counterproductive to the aims of this Biennale, and particularly distasteful in the context of the aftermath of an ugly, unnecessary war and wanton destruction of neighboring Lebanon, and a continuing one-sided war in Gaza," the group Architects and Planners for Justice in Palestine wrote in a petition to exhibition organizers.

The British organization also requested a contribution from the Palestinians, saying: "Whatever you do about the Israeli participation, we would like the organizers to consider asking for a Palestinian contribution, highlighting the historic and ongoing displacement of the Palestinian people."

Meanwhile, the Palestinian Society of Architects has sent a similar letter to Biennale organizers, asking for the cancellation of the Israeli display. One of the reasons the group cites is that Israeli architects are "fully engaged" in a "system of oppression and control."

As of press time, Biennale officials had not responded to the call to keep the Israelis out. The architecture exhibition - part of the Venice Biennale, which also includes other art forms - is the leading event in the architecture world, and lasts until November 19.

The British group argues that the Israeli display serves propaganda purposes, and ignores the Palestinians' role as the primary victim of the conflict with Israel. The exhibit, called "Life Saver: Typology of Commemoration in Israel," focuses on the phenomenon of memorialization in Israel, and depicts 15 structures established in the memory of those who died in Israeli wars and the Holocaust.

Israeli architect Tula Amir, who curated the project, writes: "Justification of Israel's wars provides legitimization of the blood that has been spilled and is liable to be spilled in the future."

The might-ay might-ay Bostom's helps us to understand (!) how and why Jew hate is on a tear, over at The American Thinker;

The Islamization of European Anti-Semitism

On Thursday, September 7, 2006, as first reported by the Times of London   this past Saturday (9/2/06), an All-Party Parliamentary Enquiry into Antisemitism is expected to issue its finding that anti-Jewish violence has become endemic in Britain, both on the streets and university campuses. A major surge of attacks has accompanied—and followed—the recent conflict between Hezb’allah and Israel. According to the Times,

“The report will call for urgent action from the Government, the police and educational establishments.”

However, in referring to the preponderance of the actual attackers, the Times provided only this vague allusion, “Muslims are over-represented,” seemingly oblivious to its own  earlier poll whose results were published on February 7, 2006. These data revealed the twisted justification for such violent bigotry: 37 per cent of British Muslims believe the Jewish community in Britain is a legitimate target “as part of the ongoing struggle for ‘justice’ in the Middle East.”

A subsequent (9/5/06) report on the Parliamentary Enquiry in the Jerusalem Post was more forthcoming, and stated explicitly that “Islamic extremists” were responsible for “inciting hatred towards Jews”. As the Jerusalem Post also noted, the Parliamentary Enquiry’s results are consistent with data recently published in The Journal of Conflict Resolution by Yale University biostatistician Dr. Edward H. Kaplan, and Dr. Charles A. Small of the Yale Institute for the Study of Global Antisemitism.

Drs. Kaplan and Small examined the views of 5004 Europeans, roughly 500 individuals sampled from each of 10 European Union countries (Austria, Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, The Netherlands, Spain, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom). The authors’ main publicized results confirmed their (rather commonsensical) a priori hypothesis: anti-Israel sentiments strongly and independently predicted the likelihood that an individual was anti-Semitic in a graded manner, i.e., the more anti-Israel (on a scale of zero to 4), the more a person was likely to be anti-Semitic.

But perhaps an even more striking finding in light of the burgeoning Jew hatred now evident in Europe’s Muslim communities, has until now received much less attention. In a controlled comparison to European Christians (as the “referent” group), European Muslims were nearly eightfold (i.e., 800%) more likely to be overtly anti-Semitic. Furthermore, in light of the Pew Global Attitudes Project data on Muslim attitudes toward Jews in Islamic countries, the Yale study likely underestimated the extent of anti-Semitism amongst Europe’s Muslim communities. Had more poorly educated, less acclimated European Muslims been sampled, the results would probably have been even worse. Pew’s survey previously indicated,

In the Muslim world, attitudes toward Jews remain starkly negative, including virtually unanimous unfavorable ratings of 98% in Jordan and 97% in Egypt. Muslims living in Western countries have a more moderate view of Jews – still more negative than positive, but not nearly by the lopsided margins that prevail in Muslim countries.

What is to account for the clear “Islamization” of European Antisemitism?  Might this phenomenon be related to the much-maligned descriptive term “Eurabia”?  Indeed, the use of the term “Eurabia,” as noted by Bat Ye’or in her seminal 2005 study, “Eurabia-The Euro-Arab Axis”, was first introduced, triumphally, in the mid-1970s, as the title of a journal produced by the Association for Franco-Arab Solidarity, and published in Geneva, Paris, and London.

The articles and editorials in this publication called for common Euro-Arab positions, at every level – social, economic, and commercial – and were contingent upon the fundamental political condition of European support for the Arab (and non-Arab) Muslim umma’s jihad against Israel. These concrete proposals were not the musings of isolated theorists – they in fact represented policy decisions conceived in conjunction with, and actualized by, European state leaders, their ministers of foreign affairs, and European Parliamentarians.

Nearly 2 ½ years ago, Bat Ye’or summarized the bitter harvest Western Europe was reaping from the sociopolitical and cultural changes it had sown by implementing this Eurabian vision:

Read it all

Friday, August 11, 2006

Bernard Lewis: Apologist for Islam

Ironic that Bernard Lewis should be the one to call attention to August 22nd is ironic. Especially since Robert Spencer wrote  of August 22nd, Iran's day of terror, back on July 27 (I wrote of it back on July 9 as did Villagers with Torches.)

Lewis' work is full of half truths and apologies for Islam.  His conclusions are always ridiculous.  No common sense about these things. It is astounding.

Lewis describes the series of political, legal, financial, social, sumptuary, and other disablities placed on dhimmis in quite brisk terms, usually limiting himself to a word or two about the jizya and "other disabilities." He does not stop to really go into the whole monstrous system, or to quizzically ask what that phrase "protected peoples" might mean, or how it was that everywhere that Islam conquered, the treatment of dhimmis, whether they were Christians or Jews or Zoroastrians or even Hindus or Buddhists -- was remarkably the same, and in all cases the post-conquest (i.e. post-Jihad) institution of dhimmitude led to the enforced status of degradation, humiliation, and permanent insecurity (including intermittent massacres that Lewis hardly ever refers to) on all of these non-Muslim peoples.

Lewis himself must, more and more, have come to see -- especially as his beloved Turkey slides away from Kemalism -- that in certain essentials he got it wrong. He actually got Islam wrong. He underestimated its malevolence. He underestimated the difficulty of reform. He took as representative men the scholars, or the well-educated exiles, who came out of that world but were about as representative of it as Stravinsky, Balanchine, and Nabokov could have been said to represent Soviet Russia. He was wrong; he was wrong on the Oslo Accords; he was wrong in his political advertisement (written with James Woolsey) to promote Prince Hassan to be a new king for Iraq; he remains wrong if he thinks that the United States should continue to be preoccupied with Iraq, when there are so many other ways to expose the political, economic, moral, and intellectual failures of Islam -- which in the long run, is the only thing which will cause, from within, the engendering of lots of local Ataturks, who may work to constrain or limit Islam, as its sacred texts, including the authoritative recensions of hadith, are immutable.

Lewis was asked some years ago by the TLS to review Ibn Warraq's "Why I Am Not a Muslim." He dawdled and dithered; by the time he told them he just could not do it, it was too late, in the opinion of the TLS, to run any review. Contrast that with how the lefist, even Marxist French scholar of Islam, Maxine Rodinson, treated the same book. He was given it to review by Le Monde, which assumed that Rodinson, known for his tiersmondiste sympathies (which probably explains why Edward Said gave an enthusiastic blurb to Rodinson's quite crticial book on Muhammad -- but then Said was known to provide enthusastic blurbs for hundreds of books he never opened, but just guessed as to their general direction; his endorsements were spread around like confetti, and even cheaper). But Rodinson produced a favorable review, much to the chagrin of the editors at Le Monde -- and they, acting true to Stalinist form, simply refused to print the review (it can be found in Rodinson's other publications).

But how could Lewis, after all, praise Ibn Warraq publicly? And he could not publicly deny that the book had great merit, either. So best to finesse; delay like Kutuzov; the mere passage of time will solve the problem; solve it, Time did, and consequently that book, one of the most important in recent decades, never received a review in the TLS.

It is fascinating to compare the behavior of Lewis with two other scholars of roughly the same age and status. S. D. Goitein wrote his celebrated "A Mediterranean Society" based on his detailed study of the papers found in the Cairo Geniza -- a record of the Jewish community in Cairo, and not only in Cairo, that extended over many centuries. Goitein, who earlier had had a kind of sympathetic, almost sentimental interest in promoting the idea of the natural sympathies and similarities of Muslims and Jews, was severely chastened by his last decades of scholarship. If there was one thing, he wrote, about which he had to revise his opinion, it was about the severity of the jizyah. He now realized what a terrible burden it was, especially on the poor non-Muslims. Just before he died, Goitein was preparing a favorable review of Bat Ye'or.

Even at their advanced ages, both Rodinson and Goitein were willing to break, in pat, with their own pasts, to declare that new evidence, and final summings-up, had led them to conclusions that were not nearly as favorable to Islam as they might once have hoped.

Bat Ye'or managed both to create a work of scholarship and analysis, much of which was original to her, as well as a synthesis of a large amount of scholarly literature -- by French, German, Armenian, Greek, Bulgarian, Romanian, and other scholars -- scholarship which does not paint quite the picture of the Ottomans as that which Lewis has favored
. Not that he has ever been an openm apologist for Islam, but he has failed to convey, in book after book, the real nature and horror of dhimmitude. To describe, for example, the forced levy of Christian children by the Turks, as a "recruitment" (which to the modern mind evokes mental images of college or army recruiters dangling inducements), which was often envied by the Muslim parents, is to ignore the scholarship, by scholars from parts of Europe once under Ottoman rule, detailing the fear and horror of such events as the devshirme levy. The subject of dhimmitude has not been part of Lewis' main bailiwick.Read it all at Campus Watch here

Over at Jihad Watch , Andrew Bostom outlines what is wrong with Lewis' argument. Read it all here.

Andrew Bostom contributes these considerations about some recent statements by the renowned Islamic scholar Bernard Lewis:

As noted earlier at Jihad Watch, Bernard Lewis in Tuesday’s Wall Street Journal rehashes some of the same points Robert Spencer made on July 27th regarding the significance of August 22, 2006, which, as Lewis notes (again), marks “…27th day of the month of Rajab of the year 1427… when many Muslims commemorate the night flight of the prophet Muhammad on the winged horse Buraq”.

Unfortunately, the essay epitomizes two tendencies that have become distressingly common from Lewis: omission and equivocation. Despite his elegant statement of some of the problems stemming from Muslim eschatology, his analysis is marred by the complete absence of any discussion of the Jew-hatred which is central to that eschatology. Given the raw Jew-hatred permeating the contemporary Muslim world, Lewis squanders this teachable moment.

In stark contrast, George Vajda’s landmark research demonstrated how Muslim eschatology emphasizes the Jews' supreme hostility to Islam. Jews are described as adherents of the Dajjâl -— the Muslim equivalent of the Anti-Christ -— and as per another tradition, the Dajjâl is in fact Jewish. At his appearance, other traditions state that the Dajjâl will be accompanied by 70,000 Jews from Isfahan wrapped in their robes, and armed with polished sabers, their heads covered with a sort of veil. When the Dajjâl is defeated, his Jewish companions will be slaughtered -— everything will deliver them up except for the so-called gharkad tree. Thus, according to a canonical hadith (Sahih Muslim, Book 40, Number 6985, featured prominently in the Hamas Charter), if a Jew seeks refuge under a tree or a stone, these objects will be able to speak to tell a Muslim: “There is a Jew behind me; come and kill him!”

As Vajda observes,

Not only are the Jews vanquished in the eschatological war, but they will serve as ransom for the Muslims in the fires of hell. The sins of certain Muslims will weigh on them like mountains, but on the day of resurrection, these sins will be lifted and laid upon the Jews...

Lewis omits any discussion of these critically relevant anti-Jewish themes.

After an allusion to the modern cult of Islamic martyrdom, Lewis concludes:

How then can one confront such an enemy, with such a view of life and death? Some immediate precautions are obviously possible and necessary. In the long term, it would seem that the best, perhaps the only hope is to appeal to those Muslims, Iranians, Arabs and others who do not share these apocalyptic perceptions and aspirations, and feel as much threatened, indeed even more threatened, than we are. There must be many such, probably even a majority in the lands of Islam. Now is the time for them to save their countries, their societies and their religion from the madness of MAD (mutually assured destruction).

"Some immediate precautions"?

Why not just state: Iran cannot be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons, and this must be prevented by a pre-emptive strike at their nuclear facilities, if necessary?

"There must be many such, probably even a majority in the lands of Islam."

Even if this were true, what difference does it make if they, like the good Germans of Nazi Germany, do nothing -— a point Dr. Laurent Murawiec made without equivocation, here?

The omissions regarding eschatology fail to explain the Muslim masses’ crazed obsession with Jews. His wishful thinking about “many such peaceful Muslims” who supposedly abhor the jihadists, yet do nothing to stop them, could undermine the only viable short term solution: taking out Iran's nuclear facilities ala the Israeli attack on Osirak.

UPDATE: ANDREW BOSTOM IS ON THE MICHAEL GRAHAM SHOW AT 5:45PM EST TODAY, FRIDAY LISTEN LIVE, HERE'S THE LINK

Saturday, August 05, 2006

BOSTOM: THE JIHAD TO DESTROY ISRAEL

Bostom writes me: Writing in the midst of the 1976 Islamic jihad against the Christians of Lebanon—spearheaded by the Palestinian Liberation Organization under Yasir Arafat—Bernard Lewis observed then,

We are prepared to allow religiously defined conflicts to religious eccentrics...but to admit that an entire civilization can have religion as its primary loyalty is too much...This is reflected in the present inability, political, journalistic, and scholarly alike, to recognize the importance of the factor of religion in the current affairs of the Muslim world...

If our political, journalistic, and scholarly “elites” ever arrive at this understanding, perhaps they will grasp the accompanying vocabulary of the Muslim combatants and their spokespersons, in the context of the jihad against Israel. “Resistance” means a genocidal jihad, whose “justice” amounts to the violent restoration and forcible maintenance of dhimmitude for those surviving Jews (and Christians) in a vanquished Israel.

Understanding the Jihad to Destroy Israel by Andrew Bostom (Aug. 2006)

As the conflagration in southern Lebanon rages on, open calls for an annihilationist jihad to eradicate the State of Israel are once again echoing across the Muslim world. There is no confusing the intent expressed in such brazen statements:[Iranian Revolutionary Guard’s Commander] There is a need to topple the phony Zionist regime, this cancerous growth [called] Israel, which was founded in order to plunder the Muslims' resources and wealth[Iranian President Ahmadinejad at an “emergency” meeting of the 57 Muslim member states of the Organization of the Islamic Conference in Malaysia] …the main solution is for the elimination of the Zionist regimeThese pronouncements from Iran’s Shi’ite regime and President Ahmadinejad, complemented by an independent statement from the immensely popular Sunni cleric, and “spiritual” leader of the Muslim Brotherhood Yusuf Qaradawi, make clear that this jihad transcends the sectarian Shi’ite-Sunni divide within Islam.  “The Lebanese resistance is a Jihad (holy war). It is being waged by Shiites, who are also part of the Islamic Ummah [global community]” Qaradawi maintained. He further stated, “Shiites agree with almost all the fundamental principles of Islam, and the differences [between Sunni-Shi’ite] are only in supplementary matters.”

It's Bostom, so read it all.

UPDATE: Joining the jihad against Israel;

Indonesian jihadis vow to attack Israeli targets

Al-Qaeda second in command Ayman al-Zawahiri announced that a string of key players from Egypt's Jamaa Islamiya militant group were joining the global terror network,

UPDATE: Andrew Bostom on Bauer and Rose  today at 11:40 AM discussing this essay  "Understanding the Jihad to Destroy Israel"

Saturday, July 29, 2006

JEW HATRED FROM THE MUSLIM POPE
ATLAS EXCLUSIVE: ANDREW BOSTOM

This is not Osama Bin Laden or some" radical extremist."  Muhammad Sayyid Tantawi is the head of Grand Imam of Al-Azhar University  - as close to a Pope of Islam as you are going to get. Think about that.

Jew Hatred from the “Muslim Pope”

Andrew G. Bostom, MD, MS

Imagine the following (thankfully unimaginable) scenario: Some twenty years prior to being elected Pope Benedict, then Cardinal Ratzinger wrote a 700 page treatise detailing and rationalizing for present (and all) times the most virulent anti-Jewish motifs extant in Christian theology. Sadly, what is unimaginable in Christendom, has not only occurred, but passes virtually without recognition in the Islamic world of today.

Muhammad Sayyid Tantawi wrote these words in his 700 page dissertation rationalizing Muslim Jew hatred, Banu Isra’il fi al-Qur’an wa al-Sunna [Jews in the Koran and the Traditions], originally published in the 1970s, and then re-issued in 1986:

[The] Koran describes the Jews with their own particular degenerate characteristics, i.e. killing the prophets of Allah, corrupting His words by putting them in the wrong places, consuming the people’s wealth frivolously, refusal to distance themselves from the evil they do, and other ugly characteristics caused by their deep-rooted lasciviousness…only a minority of the Jews keep their word….[A]ll Jews are not the same. The good ones become Muslims, the bad ones do not.

Tantawi was apparently rewarded for this scholarly effort by being named Grand Imam of Al-Azhar University in 1996, a position he still holds. These are the expressed, “carefully researched” views on Jews held by the nearest Muslim equivalent to a Pope—the head of the most prestigious center of Muslim learning in Sunni Islam, which represents 90% of the world’s Muslims. And Sheikh Tantawi has not mollified such hatemongering beliefs since becoming the Grand Imam of Al-Azhar as his statements on the Jews as “enemies of Allah, descendants of apes and pigs”, the legitimacy of homicide bombings of Jews, or “dialogue” with Jews (excerpted just below), make clear.

…anyone who avoids meeting with the enemies in order to counter their dubious claims and stick fingers into their eyes, is a coward.  My stance stems from Allah’s book [the Koran], more than one-third of which deals with the Jews…[I] wrote a dissertation dealing with them [the Jews], all their false claims and their punishment by Allah. I still believe in everything written in that dissertation.

Unfortunately, the orthodox Islamic archetypes of Jew hatred promulgated by Hizbollah and Hamas, are also being disseminated by the most respected, mainstream Islamic institutions. Tantawi’s case illustrates the prevalence and depth of sacralized, “normative” Jew hatred in the contemporary Muslim world which can no longer be ignored.

Dr. Bostom, www.andrewbostom.org is the author of “The Legacy of Jihad”, from Prometheus Books

UPDATE: Andrew Bostom will be on History TV tomorrow;

History on Book TV
A look at non-fiction history books. >On Sunday, July 30 at 1:30 pm

The Legacy of Jihad: Islamic Holy War and the Fate of Non-Muslims
Andrew Bostom

Description: Andrew Bostom discusses the history of Islamic fundamentalism throughout the Middle East, a subject he takes up in his new book, "The Legacy of Jihad." Dr. Bostom also talks about the treatment of non-Muslims living in Islamic countries, the threat to Israel posed by fundamentalists in the region, and the war on terror. Commentary is provided by Laurent Murawiec of the Hudson Institute and Ariel Cohen of the Heritage Foundation.

Author Bio: Andrew Bostom is an associate professor of medicine at Brown University Medical School and a contributor to Frontpage magazine (www.frontpagemag.com). For more information on Dr. Bostom and his work, visit www.andrewbostom.org

ATLAS EXCLUSIVE: ANDREW BOSTOM Hezbollah’s Creed: Jihadism and Jew Hatred

Atlas Exclusive: Andrew Bostom explains the malevolent motivation behind the current world war. Get Educated. Now.

Hezbollah’s Creed: Jihadism and Jew Hatred,

Andrew G. Bostom, MD, MS

What prompted Hezbollah’s aggressive actions across Israel’s internationally recognized northern border with Lebanon—sporadic katyusha rocket attacks on Israeli civilian populations since last fall, and then the dramatic kidnapping of Israeli soldiers—precipitating the present conflagration?

Jihad terrorism expert Dr. Walid Phares has suggested three short-term motivations reflecting Hezbollah's own concerns, and those of its patrons, Iran and Syria:  the call for disarming Hezbollah's militias in Lebanon, and distracting attention from the looming Iranian nuclear crisis, as well as the results of the Hariri murder investigation. Phares argues that Hezbollah’s strategic solution was, not surprisingly, open resumption of the jihad  against Israel. Ultimately, however, Hezbollah's chronic, annihilationist jihad against Israel reflects a rigid adherence to both classical jihad theory, and the ugliest elements of Islamic theology regarding Jews.

The distinguished Shi’ite theologian al-Amili (d.1622) wrote the following (p.213) about jihad war in the Jami-i-Abbasi, his seminal Persian manual of Shi’a Law:

“Islamic Holy war [jihad] against followers of other religions, such as Jews, is required unless they convert to Islam or pay the poll tax.”

And the Jews stubborn malevolence—portrayed in the darkest colors by Islam’s sacred texts—is their defining worldly characteristic. Examples of this archetypal Jew hatred from the Koran, and hadith (traditions of the Muslim prophet Muhammad), amplified by the early Muslim biographies of Muhammad, include:

  • Koranic verses labeling Jews as malevolent enemies of Islam (5:82); disobedient slayers of their own prophets who suffered justifiable abasement (2:61), including, for some, transformation into apes and swine (5:60);
  • the canonical hadith (Sahih Muslim Book 026, Number 5431), and accounts provided by early Muslim biographers of Muhammad (such as Ibn Sa’d, below), that the Jews caused Muhammad’s protracted, excruciating death  from poisoning:

“The Jews discussed about poisons and became united in one poison. She [a Khaybar Jewess, Zaynab Bint al-Harith] poisoned the goat putting more poison in the forelegs.. Allah’s Apostle took the foreleg, a piece of which he put into his mouth…Allah’s Apostle sent for Zaynab [and]…handed her over to [those] who put her to death…Allah’s Apostle lived after this three years, till in consequence of his pain he passed away. During his illness he used to say: I did not cease to find the effect of the poisoned morsel I took at Khaybar…”

Hezbollah’s name, “The Party of Allah”  derives from  Koran 5:56:

“And whoever takes Allah and His messenger and those who believe for a guardian, then surely the party of Allah are they that shall be triumphant.”

In a public statement issued February 15, 1986, Hezbollah conceived of itself as a “nation” linked to Muslims worldwide by “…a strong ideological and political bond, namely Islam.” Expressed in the political language of the Koran, Hezbollah’s ideology encompasses, triumphally (as per the slogan adorning the party emblem, “The Party of Allah is Sure to Triumph”) at least three major objectives:

  • transforming Lebanon into an Islamic Shari’a state, in the oppressive mode of Ayatollah Khomeini's Iran
  • destroying Israel
  • establishing regional, followed by international Islamic hegemony, i.e., bringing the region, then the world under stultifying Shari’a law.

Demonizing Israel and Jews—via motifs in the Koran and hadith—Hezbollah views the jihad against the “Zionist entity” as an annihilationist war intrinsic to broader conflicts: the struggle between the Islamic world and the non-Muslim world, and the historical struggle between Islam and Judaism. The most senior clerical authority for Hezbollah, Husayn Fadlallah has stated,

“We find in the Koran that the Jews are the most aggressive towards the Muslims…because of their aggressive resistance to the unity of the faith.”

Fadlallah repeatedly refers to anti-Jewish archetypes in the Koran and the hadith: the corrupt, treacherous, and aggressive nature of the Jews; their reputation as killers of prophets, who spread corruption on earth; and the notion that the Jews engaged in conspiratorial efforts against the Muslim prophet Muhammad. Fadlallah concludes:

“Either we destroy Israel or Israel destroys us.”

Hezbollah is viscerally opposed to Judaism and the existence of Israel, stressing the eternal conflict between the Jews and Islam. But eradicating Israel represents only an early stage of Hezbollah’s global Islamic ambitions: a jihad against the rest of the non-Muslim world, including the United States.

Dr. Bostom, www.andrewbostom.org is the author of “The Legacy of Jihad”, from Prometheus Books

Palin 2012!

SUBSCRIBE TO ATLAS
DAILY UPDATES!

ADVERTISE!

ADVERTISE HERE!

Advertise on Atlas


  • Contact Atlas: Email Me

    blog advertising is good for you

    blog advertising is good for you

    HELP YOUR FAVORITE BLOGRESS! BUY YOUR AMAZON STUFF HERE!


  • Facing_jihad_3

Atlas Shops!


  • Atlas shops

WEBLOG AWARDS

GRANDE CONSERVATIVE BLOGRESS DIVA

Sitemeter


Atlas Speaks At Your Next Event

Search me





  • Add to Technorati Favorites
  • BANNED ON GOOGLE: FORBIDDEN
    Google

    SEARCH HERE

FITNA

Counter Jihad

Follow me on FACEBOOK & TWITTER

  • FOLLOW ME

SUPPORT ATLAS!



  • Wikio - Top of the Blogs - Politics
My Photo

Categories

My Photo

July 2009

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
      1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30 31  

Quotables from Notables


  • Well, I read Atlas Shrugs, Power Line, National Review blogs ...... ... Ambassador John Bolton

    I'm a fan! - Mark Steyn

    Fearless, intelligent, beautiful -- Pamela Geller wears her Supergirl costume well. Pamela Geller is a dynamo of energy and a paragon of courage and fearlessness. -- Robert Spencer, JihadWatch in his book Stealth Jihad

    You do great work with your blog. -- Geert Wilders

    "Courageous insights from a pulchritudinous pundit!!" Dr. Andrew Bostom, Leading Scholar on Islam

    "Great site," Dick Morris

    "Indeed, some of Israel's best friends and most articulate defenders can be found in the blogosphere .... Atlas Shrugs, [et al] all provide a refreshing alternative to the moral relativism and politically correct anti-Israel blather of the media. Michael Freund, Jerusalem Post

    "The best there is," Beryl Wajsman, President Institute of Public Affairs

Your email address:


Powered by FeedBlitz

Atlas on TV!

Ayn Rand at 100: "Yours is the Glory"

  • Aynrandstamp_1

  • Speaking to the unnamed, unchampioned, beating heart of her new land, Ayn was to say: 'Yours is the glory.'"
    A man whose ability and independence leads others to reject him, but who perseveres nevertheless to achieve his values. Man as an individual, as a creator. What's the most depraved type of human being? Not a sadist or a murderer or a sex maniac or a dictator; "The man without a purpose." Yet most people seem to go through their lives without a clearly defined purpose.


Barter


  • Life has Loveliness to sell,
    All beautiful and splendid things,
    Blue waves whitened on a cliff,
    Soaring fires that sways and swing,
    And children's faces looking up,
    Holding wonder like a cup

    Life has Loveliness to sell,
    Music like a curve of Gold,
    Scent of pinetrees in the rain,
    Eyes that love you, arms that hold,
    And for your spirit's still delight,
    Holy stars that star the night.

    Spend all you have for loveliness,
    Buy it and never count the cost;
    For one white singing hour of Peace
    Count many a year of strife well lost
    And for a breath of ecstasy
    Give all you have been, or could be.
  • Loyalist Party

BBBlogging

Fauxtography