Andrew Bostom Islam 101 Islamic anti-Semitism islamic concepts Muslim liars Sinem Tezyapar



Miss smarty pants dug herself a deep hole that she knows she can’t dig herself out from, my guess is that she’ll refuse to debate Bostom. Sinem Tezyapar made a series of statements in an article published on the 9th of April 2013, that she has absolutely no hope in defending, especially when she’s got Dr.Andrew Bostom on the other side slamming one fact upon top of another that removes any doubt how deeply ingrained the infamous Jew-hating hadith is in Islamic texts and understanding.


Sinem unknowingly provides an excellent platform for Andy’s rebuttal argumentation. She states in her op-ed concerning the recitation of the Jew-hating hadith by Egyptian Minister of Religious Endowments, Ali Afifi :

“If a Muslim claims to be sincere, he should embrace the teachings of the Qur’an as a whole, because the verses explain one another; they have to be considered in a holistic fashion.”

Well Dr.Andrew Bostom does exactly that for us, and in amazing detail, and with plenty of Islamic first source material, in explaining how that hadith of Jew-hatred is consistent with the Koran in its entirety. We owe a major debt of gratitude to Dr.Bostom, for without such knowledgeable people we would be held to the mercies of these apologetic spin-meisters.

bostom- jew hating hadith in context 17.4.2013

While such hatemongering statements appear utterly bizarre to Jews devoid of any understanding of Islam’s foundational texts, and notwithstanding Sinem Tezyapar’s attempt to negate this reality inThe Jewish Press, Egyptian cleric Ali Afifi, and earlier, Saudi cleric Al-Arifi’s inflammatory references to Jews, have sacralized origins immediately apparent to Muslim audiences. The crux of their remarks, in fact, merely reiterate verbatim, a canonical hadith, specificallySahih Muslim, Book 41, Number 6985, which is also featured prominently in the Hamas Covenant, article 7.

Briefly (see 1234 for an in depth 4-part discussion), what are the hadith, and which specific antisemitic motifs do they contain? Hadith, which means “story” (“narrative”), refers to any report of what the Muslim prophet Muhammad said or did, or his tacit assent to something said or done in his presence. (Hadith is also used as the technical term for the “science” of such “traditions”). As a result of a lengthy process which continued for centuries after Muhammad’s death (in 632), the hadith emerged for Muslims as second in authority to the Koran itself. Sunna, which means “path” refers to a normative custom of Muhammad or of the early Islamic community. The hadith “justify and confirm” the Sunna. Henri Lammens, a seminal early 20th century scholar of Islam, highlighted the importance of the Sunna (and, by extension, the hadith):

As early as the first century A.H. [the 7th century] the following aphorism was pronounced: “The Sunna can dispense with the Koran but not the Koran with the Sunna.” Proceeding to still further lengths, some Muslims assert that “in controversial matters, the Sunna overrules the authority of the Koran, but not vice versa”…all admit the Sunna completes and explains it [the Koran].

The hadith compiled by al-Bukhari (d. 870) and Muslim b. al-Hajjaj (d. 875) are considered, respectively, to be the most important authoritative collections. The titles Sahih (“sound”) or Jami, indicating their comprehensiveness, signify the high esteem in which they are held. Their comprehensive content includes information regarding religious duties, law and everyday practice (down to the most mundane, or intimate details), in addition to a considerable amount of biographical and other material. Four other compilations, called Sunan works, which indicates that they are limited to matters of religious and social practice, and law, also became authoritative. Abu Dawud (d. 888), al-Tirmidhi (d. 892), Ibn Maja (d. 896), and al-Nasi (d. 915) compiled these works. By the beginning of the 12th century, Ibn Maja’s collection became the last of these compilations of hadith to be recognized as “canonical.”

More here.

6 Responses

  1. Dr. Bostom contradicts himself.
    In the beginning he writes:
    “… and notwithstanding Sinem Tezyapar’s attempt to negate this reality in The Jewish Press …”
    Then, in the end he demands:
    “As a pre-condition to real dialogue … Jews … must demand … acknowledgment and wrenching reform of the sacralized Islamic Jew hatred …”
    But when Ms. Tezyapar writes against radicals who preach hatred, he is not willing to accept it as an honest call for change!
    Does he really want dialogue and reconciliation, or is he so deeply invested in his research of the conflict that he rejects any sign of a positive change?
    Despite his scholarly proofs, should he not encourage the positive approach and interpretation of devout Muslims like Ms. Sinem Tezyapar?

    1. The problem is that Tezyapar is not just giving an ”interpretation”, she is falsifying the historical record, that would never do for a Christian writing apologetics, nor should it be the same for a Muslim, despite the intentions. Also, Tezyapar’s and Adnan Oktar’s ties to the ruling AKP are worrisome as well. Erdogan, th edefacto ruler of the party, is an antisemite by choice. Where does she stand on that?

  2. “should he not encourage the positive approach and interpretation of devout Muslims like Ms. Sinem Tezyapar?”

    The ‘interpretation’ of a lowly female overrides scholarly research and obvious facts?


Leave a Reply to sheik yer'mami Cancel reply

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

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.