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

Andrew G Bostom, the author of The Legacy of Jihad and The Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism, now reviews Mathew Kuntzel’s newly published,

Jihad and Jew-Hatred—Islam, Nazism, and the Roots of 9/11,

    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.

It is a long and worthwhile review.

November 30, 2007 | 13 Comments »

13 Comments / 13 Comments

  2. Bibi, like Sharon and Olmert before him, is owned by the Attorney General and Supreme Court. Absent any change in the status quo of the power of those two institutions, it is they who will ultimately decide Israel’s fate.

  4. Bibi’s strategy:

    The polls say the elections will go: one third to the right, one third to Likud, and one third to Kadima/Labor, with Bibi as kingmaker who can choose which third he wants as partner.

    He seems free to ally with Kadima/Labor and carry on the Sharon/Olmert/Barak policies. Everything he says and does points in that direction.

    If he initially allies with the right wing, he can always threaten to leave them and join the left if they do no do his bidding.

    Netanyahu may be the new Rabin, and the rightist turned post-Zionist who finally manages to surrender Israel to the muslim savages in the holy name of “jewish and democratic”.

  5. There is a dissonance with BB’s positions. He is said to have promised the DM to:Barak, Yaalon, Steinitz, Peled, and even Mofaz and leiberman. There is going to be a whole bevy of disgruntled campers. Not a good start. BB can only decrease the influence of loyalist likud MK’s by reducing their numbers, therefore he does not seem to want more than 32or 33 mandates so as to exclude additional opposition within the likud and thereby forcing him to add additional parties in coalition like Labor and kadima. Then we get an extended Kadima party in all but name, thereby isolating those within the likud who are against land compromises.

    Jerusalem? you have to be kidding Ted he has already divided Hebron why not Jerusalem as well? A Jew who would give the holy city of Hebron to Arabs, endanger every Jews in Hebron and surrounding area can not be trusted or believed, when he says he will not divide Jerusalem. He will given a chance.

  6. Ya’alon is on recent record being against a Palestinian state. I can’t, however, find what he’s for. Anyone?

    Netanyahu, on the other hand, has stated that there can be a Pal state if some acceptable status of peace can be reached?

    So why are these 2 best of political chums?

    Ya’alon for PM? Enough with these generals who change their minds overnight and have no a single clue as to what we’re doing here in the first place.

  7. can we get yaalon for pm?

    No! while he has become more honest and more realistic in his approach than most here he still views Y& S, Golan as a matter of security, and if convinced our security would not too much be compromised would give them up in a wink.

  10. BB can’t please the world and most Israelis at the same time: That cannot be compatible. He will have to choose in the end which side he is on and that again will bring him down. We know he is not on our side.

  11. Meanwhile we should start by carrying out planned assassinations of Hamas and Jihad heads.

    Comment by Ed D — December 21, 2008 @ 3:11 pm

    Would that be the royal “we”?

  12. We need to wait and see what Bibi’s plans are. Meanwhile we should start by carrying out planned assassinations of Hamas and Jihad heads.

  13. Shalom Ted,

    The “coherent assessment of these ideological roots…” were already assessed by US President Thomas Jefferson.

    The first foreign policy challenges of the embryonic United States were offered by the Barbary states (not the pirates; the states. The pirates were recipients of 72 virgins curtesy of US Marines using Tennessee elevation and Kentucky windage).

    President Jefferson was no Napolean or Alexander I or Pitt. He lead a new nation younger than the current Israel.

    The Jefferson assessment led to the Jefferson administeration commissioning 6 vessels;

    -The UNITED STATES with 44 guns

    -The CONSTITUTION with 44 guns

    -The PRESIDENT with 44 guns

    -The CONSTALLATION with 36 guns

    -The CHEASAPEAKE with 36 guns

    -The CONGRESS with 36 guns

    After these vessels’ cruises, the Barbary states sought peace with the new nation.

    The rest, as they say, is why Commodore Uriah P. Levy, America’s first Jewish admiral, purchased and donated Jefferson’s home to the people of America.

    As soon as the sun crosses Greenwich, it’s time for a beer………….

    I’m runnig late.

    Kol tuv,

Comments are closed.