This is a radio program, so you don’t need to watch, just listen should you be interested.
Dr. Bostom speaks to variants and what they mean.
This, like other presentations of Dr. Bostom’s I have seen, is excellent as a presentation and as scholarship. It deals not just with the scriptural Islamic antisemitism but also how that has been accurately echoed down the centuries by Islamic leaders since the time of Mohammad right to today’s head of Al-Azhar University.
This is really very good. He covers the history of antisemitism as a central dogma of islam from Mohammad to present day with such perfect scholarship that never again will you have to endure a dhimmi or muslim attempt to explain that its just “extremists” or some perversion or hijacked form of islam.
Please give it a listen. Large files like this sometimes do not play non stop on D tube but the more who try, the better it should work. If it doesn’t play well, please leave a comment and I will try another upload tomorrow hoping it will work better.
Perusing the Conservative Political Action Committee (CPAC) conference schedulefor this week, I noticed a session entitled, “Why Anti-Zionism is a Form of Anti-Semitism and a Threat to National Security.” Unfortunately, this rather glaring truth remains obfuscated by many as a socially and politically acceptable form of Jew-hatred, hence the panel.
Ironically, purveyor of the most virulent and widespread global Jew-hatred—authoritative, institutional Islam—is quite candid that Zionists/Zionism, are to be equated with Jews/Judaism. None other than the Papal equivalent of Sunni Islam’s Vatican, Ahmed al-Tayeb, Grand Imam of Al-Azhar University, has made these connections explicit, and moreover, rooted in the Koran’s central verse defining “Muslim-Jewish relations.”
During an interview which aired on Channel 1, Egyptian TV, October 25, 2013, al-Tayeb publicly reiterated Islam’s sacralized, Jew-hating bigotry, with deliberate and equal reference of Zionists/Zionism, and Jews/Judaism, to Koran 5:82. He gave a brief analysis of the ongoing relevance of Koran 5:82, which as the good Grand Imam put it, “explains Muslims’ relations with Jews,” and has been invoked—successfully—to inspire Muslim hatred of Jews since the advent of Islam.
I havent followed this quite as closely as I should have. So I may have some of the subtleties wrong in terms of what Mr. Pipes is selling.
As far as I can tell, he has two basic points he wishes people to accept.
1. Antisemitism is not inherently islamic but the province of some modern post-state-of-Israel variant of islam and is a consequence of the creation of this state.
2. The horror we see everywhere from muslims operating on scripture and instructions from various islamic authorities and scripture, are not really the religion of islam so much as that variant and perhaps certain organizations such as the muslim brotherhood etc.
Not wishing to get into the ‘True Scotsman’ logical fallacy, here are some info bits that may or may not help the uncertain make up their own minds.
Remember, The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem was operating for decades before the creation of the modern state of Israel by the U.N.
An excerpt from Daniel Pipes article on his own website:
PIPES: My view is that anti-Semitism of this sort is historically a Christian phenomenon, but, in the course of the past two generations, as a result of propaganda coming out of the Egyptian government, the Iranian government, the Iraqi government, the Saudi government of this sort, it has become pervasive.
Now here is an article from Andrew Bostom:
And below, an excellent documentary from German/French TV on Islamic-Nazi alliances
There seems to be a vestigial debate taking place about the motive for islamic terror and islamic action for manifest destiny. The notion that there is an islam which is miscible with other ideologies and then a hijacked and modern version which is supremacist and violent. I say vestigial because as islam ramps up its full on attack on the rest of the world it really seems to matter less and less whether its islam or just the hundred million or so we see trying to take down world governments and implementing sharia as directed through pretty much all the mosques in the world.
Last night, Ottawa’s Free Thinking Film Society brought in probably the most important speaker for the first position, Daniel Pipes. The FTFS also brought in the main speaker for the other position in 2010, Geert Wilders. So whatever else one may think certainly the Free Thinking Film Society is doing excellent work no matter which side of the debate you may be on.
Interestingly and by coincidence Andrew Bostom published an article today where he directly takes on the position of Mr. Pipes, a segment of which is below.
Said and Pipes: An “Essentialist” Harmonic Convergence?
Most of his essay re-affirms (but never establishes by dint of hard doctrinal and historical facts) the same glib, tired arguments Pipes has discussed before: Islam’s prophet Muhammad was not an “Islamist,” and was not responsible for “Islamism,” which is a “modern extremist variant” of Islam; an “unbearable” discordance between “pre-modern accomplishment and modern failure” caused the (mass?) “psychic trauma” which engendered “Islamism” in the 1920s; and a mere 10-15% of Muslims support what Pipes terms “Islamism.”
Pipes concludes his latest iteration of “Islam Versus Islamism” by attacking those (such as Ali, Sultan, and Wilders) who reject its shoddy premises for their ostensibly uninformed “succumbing” to what he terms “a simplistic and essentialist illusion” of the Muslim creed. Ironically, Pipes’ latter claim of “essentialism” re-packages the post-modern incoherence of Edward Said, as demonstrated brilliantly by Philosophy Professor Irfan Khawaja. As Khawaja observed in 2007:
If Said thinks that Islam is different from other abstract nouns, he needs to tell us why… And yet, as we have seen, he often treats abstract nouns in an essentialist fashion. So it should follow that Islam can be treated the same way. And yet that is precisely what he takes to be the cardinal sin.
I welcome the comments of those who have something to say on this sideshow debate on the issue of Islam Vs. Islamistism extremism. Or communism Vs. Communistismlamist extremists etc.
COMMENT by TRUTHIOCITY:
1. Islamists use islam to validate their stance and to inspire jihadism and supremicism. The core ideology is a tool for them and as such should be delegitimized – thus made a less effective tool.
2. The modernist changes that Mr. Pipes talks about come from fudging the original rules. It’s common sense and pragmatic but the core beliefs remain in place to be returned to in future. That’s just what the various fundamentalists have already done.
So if islamists are vanquished, the core beliefs are still there for future islamists to utilize again and jihadism can reemerge at any time in the future.
3. Furthermore even Islamic states that are motivated by state power rather than religion can still utilize islam’s core as a lever to inspire violence for the benifit of the state. This is pretty much what Iran does.
4. I recognize that it’s not nice but one part of warfare is to attack the enemies belief systems that are connected to it’s capacity to wage war. Islam is exactly that kind of belief system. By not attacking it as we would a weapons factory, we allow the enemy unhindered access to a weapon they use against us.
The Islamists KNOW this and their psychological attacks on our own belief systems (and personal psychology) is an integral part of their jihad. Attacking our belief systems that stand in the way of their conquest. That’s what all that muslim bitching about the flag of st George is really about. It’s psychological warfare meant to reduce resistance by making people feel neurotic about patriotism.
What’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the heathen, pagan, devil worshiping, primitive, animal sacrificing, gander.
And no it’s not nice but not as mean as we are lead to believe. It doesn’t hurt peoples feelings- that’s a lie. It’s islamist bullshit meant to prevent us from doing to them what they are knowingly doing to us. It’s intellectual warfare strategy meant to help them win in the war of ideas. The analogy in kinetic warfare is when you fire at an enemy in order to hinder their ability to fire on your advance.
In a profoundly symbolic gesture (hat tip Tundra Tabloids), which epitomizes the Catholic Church’s abject dhimmitude, high-profile Muslim convert to Christianity Magdi Christiano Allam, has renounced his Catholicism because of what he terms the Church’s weakness toward, and legitimation of, Islam.
Allam, who will remain a Christian, reiterated his belief that Islam is inherently violent, to both its own votaries, and non-Muslims, and criticized The Church for lacking “the vision and courage to denounce the incompatibility of Islam with our [Western] civilization and fundamental rights of the person.”
When Benedict XVI himself oversaw Magdi Allam’s public Easter 2008 conversion from Islam to Christianity, in St. Peter’s Basilica, the intrepid Mr. Allam clearly enunciated Islam’s defining bellicose intolerance, while extolling the Pope’s moral courage:
“Danish Critic of Islam Attacked, and Muslims Defend His Right to Speak” (with links from the NYT original)
By Andrew Higgins (photo above):
COPENHAGEN — When a would-be assassin disguised as a postman shot at — and just missed — the head of Lars Hedegaard, an anti-Islam polemicist and former newspaper editor, this month, a cloud of suspicion immediately fell on Denmark’s Muslim minority.
This isn’t a newspaper lede, it’s a framework of Leftist attitude through which the pre-enlightened Timesreader is to view the event.
As such, it’s worth a closer look. Note how the emotional seesaw touches down, first, at the head of Lars Hedegaard — “just missed” by a “would-be” (hapless) assassin– before lifting again as if burnt by the heat emanating from the “anti-Islam polemicist” (bad) and “former newspaper editor” (what good is he now?). It falls again through a troubling “cloud of suspicion” (cliche evokes *prejudice*) to land, thud, at “Denmark’s Muslim minority.”
Reporting “worthy” of this man, Walter Duranty
Andrew Higgins’ “inspirational” muse must be the ignoble New York Times reporter Walter Duranty, who deliberately concealed Stalin’s campaign of mass starvation and murder (or “dekulakization”) of 14.5 million in the Ukraine, from 1930-1937 (see Robert Conquest’s magisterial Harvest of Sorrow, pp. 299-307). This travesty was compounded when Duranty was awarded a 1932 Pulitzer prize for his despicably whitewashed, agitprop “reporting”.
Eight decades later, ostensibly reporting on the recent failed assassination attempt against Danish journalist and historian Lars Hedegaard for the New York Times (or more appositely, the New Duranty Times, since the “paper of record” has never denounced Duranty’s illegitimate receipt of the Pulitzer), Higgins demonizes Hedegaard as a purveyor of “ anti-Muslim bile and conspiracy-laden forecasts,” while lionizing Copenhagen’s Islamic Society, in particular, its current leader, Imran Shah.
Please click headlines for whole articles