Matthias Küntzel, who had a lecture at Leeds University cancelled back in March after complaints from Muslim students, was invited back after the resultant furore, and spoke on Wednesday. Basically, he’s updated and expanded his original essay in the Weekly Standard, on the Nazi roots of Islamism, for a British audience. The text is here, under the heading “Hitler’s Legacy: Islamic antisemitism and the impact of the Muslim Brotherhood ” (via). In this section he looks at the difficulties of putting together a determined opposition to Islamism:

Why- however – is it proving so difficult to mount such an effort – especially, but not only, here in Britain? Three suggestions as to why this might be: firstly, this struggle – at least for the time being – has to be waged in opposition to a political left which has totally lost its moral compass and political bearings. It is, true that Osama bin Laden has embedded his strategic goal of talibanizing America and the world in a language that seeks to connect with Western protest movements and, beyond that, put Islam in the place of the former Communist system. Thus, in Bin Laden’s latest message of September 11, 2007, the fight against global warming is emphasized in order to attract the support of environmentalists, the anti-capitalist drum is banged (“You should liberate yourselves from the deception, shackles and attrition of the capitalist system”) and, lastly, Noam Chomsky, the guru of the leftist anti-globalization struggle, is applauded…

The naivety or malice with which the political left has nevertheless yielded to the siren songs of Islamism is therefore frightening. Thus, in May 2006 Noam Chomsky met the leader of Hezbollah, Hassan Nasrallah, and defended and praised Hezbollah’s insistence on keeping its arms, in defiance of United Nations decisions; Tariq Ramadan, an eloquent Islamist, has been given star treatment at European anti-globalization events; the Muslim Brotherhood’s TV preacher, Sheikh Qaradawi gets invitations from the left-wing Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone; while the Socialist Workers Party have made the strategic decision to ally with a British offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood – the Muslim Association of Britain – in building the Stop the War Coalition. Last summer thousands of people were mobilised by this alliance to march through central London chanting “we are all Hezbollah now”.

Of course, a left which brands Israel as abstractly “evil” is not going to take Islamic antisemitism seriously. Demonising Israel entails becoming deaf to antisemitism. Or, as Sigmund Freud put it, “a participant in a delusion will not of course recognise it as such”.

2. Many Europeans assume that to draw attention to Islamic antisemitism is to play into the hands of racists. In Britain, multiculturalism has been the official civic religion for so long that any criticism of any minority group seems to have become the equivalent of profanity. Obviously, racism, discriminating against people on the grounds of their origin or skin colour, must be combated. You can’t be, however, multicultural and preach murderous loathing of Jews. In my opinion, we mustn’t defend Jew-hatred on spurious “anti-racist” grounds; we should rather distinguish between antisemites and non-antisemites within the Muslim communities. We mustn’t advocate a crude “top” and “bottom” dichotomy, in which the antisemitism of people from Muslim countries is excused as a kind of “anti-imperialism of fools”. We should rather insist that the struggle against discrimination is a universal one.

3. Islamic antisemitism is a taboo subject even in some parts of academia: a story of intellectual betrayal and the corrupting influence of political commitment. Professor Pieter von der Horst from the University of Utrecht in the Netherlands found this out when he proposed to give a lecture on the topic of the anti-Jewish blood libel. The head of the university asked him to excise the section of his lecture dealing with Islamic antisemitism. When he refused to do so, he was invited to appear before a panel of four professors who insisted he remove these passages. A lecture on Islamic antisemitism, so the argument went, might lead to violent reactions from well-organized Muslim student groups.

Posted in

4 responses to “Hitler’s Legacy”

  1. IanCroydon Avatar
    IanCroydon

    I was going to write this is response to the “Pope-Islam convergence” joke below, as I find the tired leftist argument of “all religions are equally dire” as irrelevent in recent times, because it ain’t necessarily so.
    The left seem happy to chum up with the headchoppers on their glorious mission of ridding the world of America and capitalism, in their minds they can return to getting pseudo-communist values established under the global caliphate (yeah, right).
    So why shouldn’t to rest of us more muscular liberals be happy to get in bed with Christians ? After all, it is more like mother and daughter sleeping together, dontcha know that western liberal free thinking evolved from modern enlightened Christianity, if not, where did it come from ?
    Not all religions are alike, because you aren’t going to establish a free thinking liberal world under any other religion except Christianity, so drop the old “all religions are equal” crap and get on with some serious work. Pope Benny might not be keen on letting gays don a priestly frock, get “married” or adopt kids, but he’s not going to propose stringing them up before they’ve even reached the age of confirmation, like the current contender for the caliphate seems apt to do.
    Antisemitism might be a worthy cause to oppose seeing as it normally involves killing Jews, but what about the same rationale that treats Christians as sub-human (and killing them randomly too), isn’t that something worth defending too ? Aren’t we going to end up standing shoulder to shoulder with the Pope as well as the Chief Rabbi on that one ?

    Like

  2. Dom Avatar
    Dom

    “Not all religions are alike, because you aren’t going to establish a free thinking liberal world under any other religion except Christianity”
    Well, there is really no free thinking liberal world UNDER Christianity. After all, the Vatican is not exactly free thinking. You mean historically Christian countries, or countries in which Christianity is not taken too seriously.

    Like

  3. DaninVan Avatar
    DaninVan

    Dom; if you changed “Christianity” to Catholicism you’d have a strong case. I’d certainly consider Scandinavia (for example) both Christian and free thinking/liberal. Contrasted to South American, conservative, Catholic culture it’s no contest.

    Like

  4. IanCroydon Avatar
    IanCroydon

    Well, my point refers to historically Christian countries, if they turned into free-thinking liberal democracies once, they can again.
    Many strongly majority Catholic countries today are shining examples of liberal democracies, if any anti-freedom legislation exists, they are normally due to authoritarian government, not the theocracy.
    Neverthless, my point still stands, under any form of enlightened Christianity, because of the nature of the religion, there will always be an option for free thought, it is encouraged rather than surpressed by the religious tenets themselves.

    Like

Leave a reply to DaninVan Cancel reply