Jihad Genocide, Casuistry, Landes, &…Peggy Lee

peggylee.jpg

Is That (Causistry and Selective “Tonal” Discomfiture) All There Is?”

Only at the end of his rambling riposte, does Richard Landes concede my main point (posed in a question to him: “…what would have happened, say in late 1922the Muslim Brothers were not formed until 1928; the Nazis do not come to power until 1933with regard to Islamic jihad and Islamic Jew hatred, specifically, if the British had created some rump state Jewish homeland, actually governed by Jews, and rapidly departed, bearing in mind both the fate of other dhimmi nationalisms in the 19th and early 20th centuries (Serb, Greek, Bulgarian, Armenian), and the special place occupied by dhimmi Jews in Islamic eschatology?):

[Landes] “Yes. They would have been slaughtered, possibly to the last man, woman and child.

But throughout, and even to this very definitive concession at the conclusion, Landes insists on adopting (speaking of “tone”) a tone of obnoxious condescension, redolent with what I now appreciate to be his data-poor, stock in trade casuistry, including this howler,

[Landes] That’s [i.e., the conceded jihad genocide of the Jews of Israel, above !] not the issue.”

Yes it is the issue. It is the only issue. The desired modern jihad genocide of Israel’s present Jews, not merely the hypothetical tragedy Landes acknowledged—is fueled by precisely the same jihad animus apparent in 1922. And an already resurgent global jihad movement that such a cataclysm would further ignite, of its own momentum—no Nazi invocations or “innovations” needed—could indeed threaten Diaspora, i.e., global Jewry, as well.

Please see these additional minor points of clarification obfuscated by Landes’ condescending casuistry, and selective (and obsessive) discomfiture with my “tone” while his self-professed colleague, the buffoonish John Rosenthal, who engaged in frank calumny, continues to get a Landes pass:

· Simply put, David Cook whose work I have read, is no Georges Vajda when it comes to the study of the central role of the Jews in Islamic eschatology, particularly given obvious present “exacerbating” conditions—i.e., the existence of a Jewish State of Israel—unimaginable in the Middle Ages.

· Kuntzel’s assessment of the “sui generis” Muslim Brotherhood jihad remains as ahistorical and absurd as his own words describe it—decontextualized from basic, living jihad concepts like Dar al Harb—regardless of Landes’ empty speculations

· Antisemitism=Jew hatred. Robert Wistrich, has emphasized the problematic nature of the term ‘antisemitism’, derived from a group of cognate ‘Semitic’ (i.e., stemming from the Biblical Shem, one of Noah’s three sons) languages—Hebrew, Aramaic, Arabic, Babylonian, Assyrian, and Ethiopic—and applied, inappropriately, to a pseudo-scientific racial designation by the German journalist Wilhelm Marr, in the 1870s. Regardless, for the past century, as Wistrich notes, “…the illogical term ‘antisemitism’…[w]hich never really meant hatred of ‘Semites’ (for example, Arabs) at all, but rather hatred of Jews, has come to be accepted in general usage as denoting all forms of hostility towards Jews and Judaism throughout history.

Also, please see my blog from this February 19th on Australian jihadist David Hicks’ Antisemitism for a rehash of additional points of relevance:

From the February 19, 2007 blog: Yet another “misunderstander” of the dictum*, “Love of the prophet requires hatred of the Jews?” (*From a verse by the inveterate Jew hating Moroccan jurist al-Maghili [d. 1505], whose widely read treatises on the dhimmi Jews influenced Muslim attitudes towards them in the North African Maghreb, through at least the early 20th century)

Deep (Islamic) thoughts from Australian Muslim convert and erstwhile jihad terrorist David Hicks’s handwritten diary, according to this story (hat tip Jihad Watch) provide, “…new insight into the sophisticated terrorism training he underwent, exploding claims that he was an innocent abroad.”

Somehow, despite the putative absence of theological Antisemitism in the Jew-friendly Koran (and other core Islamic texts,) he also acquired a rather virulent Islamic Jew hatred, which manifested itself by Hicks—lo and behold—quoting an ecumenical passage from orthodox Islamic eschatology, specifically the same canonical hadith one finds in (section 7) of the genocidal Hamas Charter: Sahih Muslim, Book 041, Number 6985: Abu Huraira reported Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: “The last hour would not come unless the Muslims will fight against the Jews and the Muslims would kill them until the Jews would hide themselves behind a stone or a tree and a stone or a tree would say: Muslim, or the servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me; come and kill him; but the tree Gharqad would not say, for it is the tree of the Jews.”

Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 52, Number 177:Narrated Abu Huraira: Allah’s Apostle said, “The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say. “O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him.”

Even the allusion in Hicks’s diary to Satan as being aligned with Western society (in opposition to Islam), which was “full of poison” introduced by Jews, has its own independent Islamic origins, and one need not seek European influences to explain this worldview.

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 seminal Qur’anic commentator Suyuti—referring to 5:60—claims that this apes/swine transformation is punishment for the Jews moral depravity, even Satan worship, resulting in their ultimate damnation to Hellfire.

And historian Walter Fischel has described the severe hardships imposed upon the Jews of 17th century Iran because of their image as sorcerers and practitioners of black magic, which was “as deeply embedded in the minds of the [Muslim] masses as it had been in medieval Europe.” The consequences of these bigoted superstitions were predictable:

It was therefore easy to arouse their [the Muslim masses] fears and suspicions at the slightest provocation, and to accuse them [the Jews] of possessing cabalistic Hebrew writings, amulets, talismans, segulot, goralot, and refu’ot, which they [the Jews] were using against the Islamic authorities. Encouraged by another Jewish renegade, Siman Tob Mumin from Isfahan, who denounced his co-religionists to the authorities, the Grand Vizier was quick in ordering the confiscation of all Hebrew cabalistic writings and having them thrown into the river.

Georges Vajda’s magisterial analyses of Muslim eschatology, as depicted in the hadith, highlight 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, cited above). 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.

Finally, Ibn Kathir’s commentary on Koran 4:155-159 also discusses Isa’s (the Muslim Jesus’) role in defeating the Dajjal, and his Jewish minions, invoking the apocalyptic canonical hadith of Jew annihilation. The invocation of Sahih Muslim Book 041, Number 6985, by Ibn Kathir—a seminal 14th century Qur’anic exegete, and Muslim historian—debunks the recently espoused, spurious contention that this prominent apocalyptic motif from the canonical hadith somehow received “no mention” in Arabic literature until “after at least 1870.”

Andrew G. Bostom is the author of The Legacy of Jihad (Prometheus, 2005) and The Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism " (Prometheus, November, 2008) You can contact Dr. Bostom at @andrewbostom.org

3 responses to “Jihad Genocide, Casuistry, Landes, &…Peggy Lee

  1. It’s simply unfair to suggest Landes is guilty of casuistry. I disagree with some of his emphases and in general one can agree or disagree, but he presents an argument that is, absolute bare minimum, coherent and capable of being fully apprehended.

  2. It’s all very strange, Landes seems stuck on the “honor-shame paradigm” and at least to me doesn’t seem to apprehend that Muslims believe in Allah and his messenger Muhammad and thus act pursuant to the words given to Muhammad as well as to the example of Muhammad. He just has to impute to them the honor-shame motive, rather than recognize the possibility that maybe they are just trying to be faithful to their religion and the imperialism required of it by their texts, that they just hate Jews because they were indoctrinated to see them a certain way. Maybe it’s just me, but it seems like Landes and Kuntzel are into less than 1/2 truth academic novelties to the neglect of the real problem that needs to be dealt with–the actual (real “root”) ideological basis for jihad and antisemitism as found in the Islamic texts.

    I don’t hear ex-Muslims making much of Nazism or honor-shame as the real motivator for killing Jews; instead I hear them all citing the Qur’an and sunnah. If people start to appreciate this rather than adopt pet gimmicky theories, then we could get on to informing, and thus mobilizing, the populace as to the real nature of the war on terror.

  3. Dear Michael,

    When someone concedes your central argument only at the end of a series of bloviations on rehashed non-sequiturs that focus on meaningless semantics and continue to ignore hard data, that to me is casuistry, or specious argument