| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Jihad Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
Not long ago I commented here on an article by Caroline Glick in which she attributed to scholar Matthias Küntzel the idea that "the notion of a violent holy war or jihad against non-Muslims was not a part of any active Islamic doctrine until the 1930s." I remarked: "If Küntzel means that violent jihad was invented in the 1930s, he betrays his ignorance of Muhammad's own career, and of Islamic history."
Yesterday Matthias Küntzel kindly sent me this clarification, indicating that his views on this matter are in fact entirely correct:
Caroline Glick’s essay “The beginning of the reckoning” deserves indeed much praise. The tiny correction I want to add does not reduce her merit at all. I did not write that “the notion of a violent holy war or jihad against non-Muslims was not a part of any active Islamic doctrine until the 1930s.” My essay states: “The Moslem Brotherhood was the organization which first developed the concept of a belligerent jihad FOR OUR MODERN TIMES and which turned the longing for death into an Islamic ideal. … Whenever their bataillons marched down the boulevards of Cairo in semi-fascist formation, they sang: ‘We are not afraid of death, we desire it. Let us die in redemption for Muslims.’ THIS PARTICULAR INTERPRETATION OF THE MEANING OF JIHAD did not arise until the 1930s.” (See www.matthiaskuentzel.de or Antisemitism International, An Annual Reseach Journal of the Vidal Sassoon International Center for the Study of Antisemitism, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem 2004, pp.44-52)In my book “Djihad und Judenhass” (Jihad and Jew-hatred) the English
version of which will be published soon, I refer to El-Awaisi’s
important book about “The Muslim Brothers and the Palestine Question
1928-1947” (London-New York: Tauris Academic Studie, 1998):
“Al-Banna called the Muslim Brothers’ concept of Islam ,the Islam of
Muslim Brothers’, as it represented a new understanding of Islam at the time. What concerns us here about this new understanding is the concept of jihad, which has been almost absent from Islamic education before the foundation of the Muslim Brothers. Muslim groups of the time paid no attention to it. Political parties were involved with political struggles and mosque Imams and preachers treated jihad as irrelevant to their religious brief. “ (p.124)
This is accurate, but it describes a quite temporary condition in the history of the Islamic world.
In analyzing the roots of Islamism a modern mass movement which came into being during the same decade as Fascism and National Socialism I am concentrating on the particular. This does not mean to excuse or ignore Mohammed’s wars or the anti-Jewish suras of the Koran which I cite in my writings.
However, anti-Judaism as laid down in the Koran, is not the same as
antisemitism as laid down in the “Protokolls of the Elders of Zion”. My particular topic is not the root cause of dhimmitude but the root cause of modern antisemitism within the Islamic world which has resulted in the desire not to oppress but to annihilate Jews.
My most recent paper on “National Socialism and anti-Semitism in the
Arab World” discusses in detail why and how the decisive transfer of a Nazi-like antisemitism to the Muslim world took place between 1937 and 1945. See “Jewish Political Studies Review” 17:1 (Spring 2005), pp. 99-118 or: http://www.jcpa.org/phas/phas-kuntzel-s05.htm
Posted by Robert at July 25, 2005 11:41 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
More than in the detail of historical interpretation of the Islamic past, I find it interesting that a scholar such as Dr.Kuntzel would respond to what he regards as a misunderstanding by writing directly to you. This is a compliment: he regards you and your website as sources in good standing, not as fringe lunatics. And I see this as a sign of progress. Keep up the good work.
Posted by: Paolo![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/nav-commenters.gif)
at July 25, 2005 12:46 PM
I find it very interesting and, perhaps, telling that the Muslim Brotherhood isn't mentioned more than it has been in MSM and by terrorism "experts" and anyalists for its connections to present day jihadi and support of terrorism.
Posted by: bj at July 25, 2005 1:23 PM
"This is a compliment: he regards you and your website as sources in good standing, not as fringe lunatics.."
-- from a posting above
Robert, I promise that no matter what others may say, I will always regard you as a fringe lunatic -- not a mainstream lunatic, but a fringe lunatic.
Posted by: Hugh at July 25, 2005 1:33 PM
Why, Hugh, you're getting me all choked up....
Yrs
RS
at July 25, 2005 2:03 PM
The only thing different between the 'new' jihad and the 'old' jihad is the expansion of taqiyya methods in a modern communications/'sound bite' world, the use of wealth to buy influence and infrastructure in the dar al-harb, and a vast refinement of the immigration/demographic 'cuckoo' strategy (funded primarily by Saudis via mosque building and financing 'pioneers' to concentrate in targeted settlements throughout the Dar al-Harb. Of course, the sword is now explosives you make in a tub and will soon be WMDs.
Reset
Posted by: reset at July 25, 2005 4:11 PM
Thank you for the link to this impressive article.
There is little dobt in my mind that modern Jihad can be traced bsck to Al banna and the grant mufti.
The alliance with Nazism is however also one than transcends the common Jew hatred and thwarting the establishment of Israel. There are strong similarities between the nazi ideology of Aryan Supremacy and the Ideology Of the supremacy of the Muslim.
Also we know that many muslims are only respectful of totalitarian regimes. regimes that threaten them directly.
The present soft democracy of the west is merely a sign of weakness and degeneration, which can be readily exploited when the time comes.
Better to make an alliance with those who are powerful and threatening than those who are weak and can be dealt with easily.
At the time does it not seem reasonable to expect such a bond between the Muslim Brotherhood, El Husseini and the German Nazis.
The common hatred of Jews was simply the cement that bonded that alliance together.]
And today we see the results.
Only totalitarian regimes such as China, the fascist South American regimes of the fifties and sicties, have managed to thwart the onslaught of islam.
Posted by: chevalier de st george
at July 25, 2005 8:06 PM
Chevalier,
South Korea and Japan have kept Islam out (except for several thousand in Korea) by simply not allowing Muslim immigration. It is quite easy for any democracy to do IF they have the political will to recognize Muslims as undesirable and detract from the continued unity of the people (i.e., they do not assimilate and have a negative contribution to society.) Because of multiculturalism and PC'ness in democracy, this obvious step to protect the people is considered 'rude.' Go figure.
Buck
Posted by: reset at July 25, 2005 8:20 PM
"However, anti-Judaism as laid down in the Koran, is not the same as
antisemitism as laid down in the “Protokolls of the Elders of Zion”. My particular topic is not the root cause of dhimmitude but the root cause of modern antisemitism within the Islamic world which has resulted in the desire not to oppress but to annihilate Jews."
Not the same who says so?
Some differences and simmilarities between Nazis and islam.
1. In the persuit of the logic of terror Himmler made several studies, one of which being islam. Much of islamic doctrine actually finds its way into Nazi thinking and ideology long before 1937.
2. The Nazis destroyed a small proportion of German (and other European societies, ie French).
Utimately islam sets out to destroy all infidel societies in their entirity.
3. Nazi destruction of Poles (policies in Goverment General, Karl Frank) mirror the muslim policy toward 'their' conquered peoples. The former simply, takes place more quickly simply due to means at their disposal.
4. Nazi philosophy of untermenschen is similar to notions of kafirs. It doesn't make an iota of difference philosophically that one is the objective and the other is the subjective.
5. Nazi industrialised destruction of Jews (and political prisoners, who incidentally were treated worse than Jews, since the Jews were the objective evil and the political prisoner was the subjective evil), is quite probably a precursor to a wider scheme. The ultimate destruction of Christianity was one of the Nazis long-term aims (the destruction of the Jews being a 'stepping stone' to this end). In this since he lacked the immediate werewithal to achieve this quickly a more long term solution was sought (one can't simply make war against one's own people, you need to create and promote the 'other'). This mirrors islam in its methods neatly summed up as - place a frog in boiling water, it will jump out. Put it in warm water and turn the heat up it will cook slowly.
5. Both are the logic of terror, islam being different in that it is codified for all eternity. It is debatable whether Nazism would have endured for more than several generations.
Antisemitism in the muslim world existed long before 1937, it has always existed, and islamic doctrine in the form of the Qu'ran, Sira, Hadith are the earliest recorded form of antisemitic doctrine.
The biggest factor is that 'border' muslim (those that reside on the interface between the dar' al islam and dar' al harb, and within the dar' al ahd) is always the most islamic. Once subjugated and the populations put into ever warmer water the need for jihad (and hence indoctrination) dies out. It also dies due to geographical considerations. In Algeria in the 17c. as an example, it was impossible to go on jihad (bar in a southerly direction and piracy). Hence indoctrination of hate would take place in Bosnia, India, Sudan, etc. The presence of the infidels as occupiers changed this. The orginisation of the jihad against them took time (and all that this requires, propagating and repropagating islam - preaching to the converted, only then can you have mobilisation). This is one reason why hatred of Jews was less prominent. It is a fallacy to attribute 'a reverse outflow of anti-semitism' to a contributary factor to 'modern' islamicism.
The desire to annihilate Jews today also stems from the fact that islam can never accept non muslims controlling their own destiny in the dar' al islam. They will tolerate Jews as scattered peoples at the mercy of muslims, not as a congregation controlling their own destiny. The prophecy of islam has failed, Israel has shown this and this cannot be allowed. Accept dhimmitude or die. This has always been the case in the seventh century right up today. The main difference is that post 45 (in fact earlier) some Jews were not dhimmis. No chance of getting Israelis to accept dhimmitude, therefore death. It has never changed and it never will change.
"It is always more difficult to fight against faith than against knowledge"
- Adolf Hitler
JV
at July 25, 2005 8:37 PM
There is a tendency to believe that the anti-Jewish attitude within Islam is, somehow, an import from Europe. Not true. There were Jews slaughtered (as Christians were) throughout the history of Muslim conquest -- in Granada in 1066, and throughout the Almohad domains in North Africa (tens of thousands were killed, in Hirshberg's estimation). Of course, there may be some consolation in the fact that unlike the antisemitism in Western Christendom, the anti-Jewish beliefs that come out of Qur'an and Hadith and Sira (in particular one might note the Hadith that claims a certain "Jewess" attempted to poison Muhammad) were part of a general inculcated hostility or hatred of other non-Muslims. Therefore, in a kind of optical illusion, the treatment of the Jews has been seen, by some, to be not as bad as in fact it was.
The slavery of the Jews of Yemen was noted, rather too coldly, by the English scholar R. S. Serjeant, who observed that when a Jew belonging to Arab Tribe A was killed by a member of Arab Tribe B, a member of Arab Tribe A was then permitted, by way of proper vengeance, to kill a Jew belonging to Arab Tribe B. And Serjeant was writing about the mid-20th century.
Conditions were sometimes better -- as in Baghdad under the British and then for about a decade after (at a time when Jews made up 1/3 of the population of Baghdad, which was the second Jewish city in Asia, after Jerusalem), until the "Farhud" of June 1-2, 1941, and the final pogroms in 1948-59, and confiscation of all Jewish-owned property in 1951.
The same was true in Egypt, where the British under Lord Cromer had introduced a semblance of efficiency, and also forced the old regime to conform to European standards in the treatment of non-Muslims -- or at least tried to with some success. That ended just as soon as King Farouk was deposed by the colonels, and Nasser seized the property of Jews, Greeks, Italians, Armenians, and others whom he called "foreigners" though their families had lived in Egypt for centuries.
In the 1930s, as Andrew Bostom points out in his forthcoming "The Legacy of Jihad," the Muslims of Cairo often intoned a prayer of malediction against Jews and Christians.
It does not do, as Bernard Lewis does, to pretend that the Jews were well-treated under Islam (and Lewis scants the treatment of Eastern Christians altogether, and has never displayed any sympathetic interest in their treatment and fate, unlike Bat Ye'or). They weren't.
Posted by: Hugh at July 25, 2005 9:30 PM
Everyone, PLEASE GOOGLE David Wood The two faces of Islam
It's one of the best pieces of writing about Islam that I have ever read.
Posted by: Voltaire at July 26, 2005 2:44 AM
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)