Academics Andrew Bostom Islam Islamism Nazism

Andrew Bostom Downs Kuntzel in The Second Round…….

Matthias Kuntzel, a German political scientist and writer is certainly no lightweight, when it comes to defining the Nazi-Islam connection, no one does it better. The problems began when Mr.Kuntzel thought that his expertise extended into the realm of Islamic history, which covers much more distance than the brief period dating from the 30’s to the present time. Matthias Kuntzel is out of his depth when he took on the likes of Dr.Andrew Bostom, concerning the subject of Islamic anti-Semitism. Andrew Bostom is one of the premier authoritative voices on the subject of Islamic Jew hatred, and Kuntzel is being handed his own arse on a platter.

Bostom delivers: “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.”

Pamela Geller at Atlas Shrugs offers a few compelling arguments why Kuntzel’s assertions are as false as they are dangerous:

“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 reason for Pamela claiming that Islamism fueled Nazism and not the other way around, is that Hitler himself was overly impressed with Islam, and its war like nature, in comparison to the perceived meek and mild natured Christian philosophy. Bostom Explains:

“…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…”

The truth is, some of Islam’s characteristics that Hitler deemed of value, imperialism and absolute rule, gave that religion a very large measure of respectability and significance from the head Nazi. This is something that completely eludes the thinking of Kuntzel. More here. *L* KGS

Update: Bostom sends me his latest post on the Kuntzel affair,… Wrath of Con?. What a treat, Andrew Bostom masterfully handles Kuntzel in the very same way Jamie Glazov took care of Dinesh D’souza in “Did the Cultural Left Cause 9/11?”.
So I must ask the following logical question, is Matthias Kunztel as much a public masochist as Dinesh D’souza, and do they keep a running tally on how much abuse they plan to dish up for themselves? Just asking. *L* KGS

5 Responses

  1. The fact that Hitler and the Muslims were quite adequate in their genocidal Jew hatred, even that the Mufti might have influenced Hitler more than vice versa, is quite well documented. This blog entry contains a lot of information and further sources.

    I am amazed that Küntzel’s political affiliation wasn’t discussed much, so far. Küntzel is a member of the “Anti-German” political left. The Anti-Germans appeared as a distinct political group in the early Nineties as a response to the racist attacks on foreigners and general chauvinism following German reunification. The basic creed of the Anti-Germans includes solidarity with Israel and American foreign policy and a critique of mainstream left anti-capitalist views, specifically the anti-globalisation movement, which are (rightfully, I believe) thought to be structurally antisemitic. Antisemitism is considered to be deeply rooted within the German culture and thus all their political views are focused on the struggle against this phenomenon. To put it simplistic, they believe that capital and labour overcame their antagonism and focused their mutual efforts on destroying the group historically identified with the “greedy side of capitalism” (“raffender Kapitalismus”) — i.e. the Jews. By destroying them they allowed capitalism to survive. And because capitalism is by definition in a permanent state of crisis, it is trying to save itself through antisemitism and antisemitism is thus a permanent given.

    This means, of course, that the working classes can’t be trusted anymore and the Anti-Germans close that gap by early Marxist theory, whereby first more capitalism is needed until we can get to communism, specifically in underdeveloped Arab/Islamic/fascist regimes, which resolves the problem of “Western imperialism”: More of it is needed because antisemitism emerges primarily under conditions of stunted capitalist development and Western capitalism (i.e. the USA and their allies in their “war against terrorism”) therefore deserve support.

    My own take on that is, that, while some of the historical analysis of the Anti-Germans has merit, for example that antisemitism is an integral part of German (and European) culture, their conclusions are extremely weird and speak of a self-hatred I find disturbing. As an example, while it is true that, as the Anti-Germans say, mourning for the dead of WWII in Germany is only too often turned into revision of history and relativism of German guilt, mourning itself is natural and legitimate and should not be, as the Anti-Germans do, denounced. A look at this will maybe illustrate what I mean.

    Of course, “Anti-Germanism” is an ideology with a lot of allure for those Germans who are decent enough to see antisemitism for the evil it is, yet who can not face giving up their leftist positions. However, it should not be overlooked that here we have a totally fixed world-view, almost bordering on the cult-like, and if Küntzel blames, in that spirit, the age-old Arab antisemitism on the Germans and gets acclaim for it, historians have a credibility problem.

    Like you, I am not saying that a lot of Küntzel’s work does NOT have merit. It most certainly has. I am just saying that his political stance should be taken into consideration.

  2. Hi T-E,

    I am in agreement that Kuntzel’s political stances should be taken into consideration, it most certainly explains his determination in whitewashing historical Islam of its anti-Semitism.

    I am puzzled by what you wrote here: “To put it simplistic, they believe that capital and labour overcame their antagonism and focused their mutual efforts on destroying the group historically identified with the “greedy side of capitalism” (“raffender Kapitalismus”) — i.e. the Jews. By destroying them they allowed capitalism to survive. And because capitalism is by definition in a permanent state of crisis, it is trying to save itself through antisemitism and antisemitism is thus a permanent given.”

    Could you please restate your thought in a different way? I reread that portion a number of times, but couldn’t get an idea on who is “they” and “them”.

  3. You are absolutely right. Much too many pronouns. My apologies!

    “To put it simplistic, the Anti-Germans believe that capital and labour overcame their (capital’s and labour’s) antagonism and focused their (capital’s and labour’s) mutual efforts on destroying the group historically identified with the “greedy side of capitalism” (“raffender Kapitalismus”) — i.e. the Jews. By destroying them (the Jews) they (capital and labour) allowed capitalism to survive. And because capitalism is by definition in a permanent state of crisis, it is trying to save itself through antisemitism and antisemitism is thus a permanent given.”

    Does that make more sense now? Not the “Anti-German” creed, but my attempt at explaining it.

  4. Much more clear now! Thanks for taking the time to do that for me.

    *L* KGS

  5. Thank you for being so kind about it. I just thought what an idiotic thing it was to start a sentence with: “To put it simplistic…” and then to make an unintelligible mess of it. 🙂

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *