Hating Jews: A Global Study

alvin“The study of antisemitism,” admits Bruno Chaouat, a professor of French in Minnesota, “can be tedious.” This admirably candid confession appears relatively early in the pages of Resurgent Antisemitism: Global Perspectives, a collection of nineteen new essays edited by Alvin H. Rosenfeld, the distinguished director of Indiana University’s Institute for the Study of Contemporary Antisemitism and author of several major books about the Holocaust. Chaouat is right, of course: while a single anecdote about irrational hate can breed sorrow, anger, and/or shock, a thick book consisting entirely of such material is more likely to be, quite simply, numbing. It is Rosenfeld’s accomplishment to have assembled a volume that, rather than seeming to repeat the same points over and over again, feels consistently fresh as it moves from region to region, approaches its topic from one angle after another, and serves up new historical information and cultural insights at every turn.

Most of the essays illuminate the current situation for Jews in a specific corner of the world: Alejandro Baer sums up antisemitism in today’s Spain; Zvi Gitelman does the same for the former Communist countries of Eastern Europe; Szilvia Peremiczky focuses on Hungary and Romania; Rifat N. Bali, on Turkey. And Paul Bogdanor proffers an account of antisemitism in modern Britain, as expressed in a thoroughly ugly-sounding play, “Seven Jewish Children,” by Caryl Churchill, and an equally horrid little poem about “the Zionist SS,” written by the well-known poet (and Oxford professor) Tom Paulin and published a few months before 9/11 in The Observer.

Anna Sommer Schneider, for her part, takes on Poland, noting that while Pope John Paul II was vividly aware of Polish antisemitism and addressed it publicly on many occasions, other church leaders have not been so sensitive to the problem, the result of which is that the years since his papacy have yielded first-class examples of ecclesiastical Jew-hatred. Schneider quotes the observation of one Polish priest that “the Jews are not needed to perpetuate antisemitism. A sick Christianity is sufficient. And Polish Christinaity – and more precisely, what dominates in Polish Catholicism – is sick and infected with anti-Judaism.” Schneider also cites a Polish archbishop’s explanation of the affliction, rife in his country, known as “the antagonism of suffering”: while both Jews and Catholics in Poland were victims of the Nazis, he explains, the Jews were of course the greater victims; yet Polish Catholics are offended when they feel that their victimization is being overshadowed by that of the Jews, and the consequences of this feeling of offense are, shall we say, not always salutary.

I was especially taken by Eirik Eiglad’s essay on antisemitism in Norway, not just because I live in the land of the fjords but because Eiglad does a splendid job of elucidating just how a nation with so few Jews came to be infected with such a virulent strain of Jew-hatred in the years after World War II. It all began, he tells us, when Maoists acquired a “disproportionate influence” on Norwegian society in the 1960s. A significant part of their hideous contribution to postwar Norwegian thought, alas, was a fierce enmity toward Jews and the Jewish state. For these Norwegian Maoists, writes Eiglad, “Palestine was the new Vietnam, and the Israeli state was…a lackey for U.S. imperialism” – its objective, in the words of one of them, being “to conquer land for ‘European culture.’” The views on Israel and Palestine that, a half century ago, were held by virtually no one in Norway except for its small cadre of Maoists are now a key component of the cultural elite’s orthodoxy in that country, where, Eiglad notes, “explicit calls for the destruction of Israel are accepted as ‘criticisms of Israeli policies,’ and anti-Zionist hatred is discreetly tolerated as legitimate frustration over alleged acts of Israeli inhumanity.”

The one criticism I might make of Eiglad’s piece is that, even though he does make the important point that many of those former Norwegian Maoists are now Muslims, he doesn’t place sufficient emphasis on the way in which Islam factors into antisemitism in today’s Norway. Still, his relative inattention to this subject is nothing alongside the approach of Gunther Jikeli, who in an essay entitled “Antisemitism among Young European Muslims,” makes the mindboggling statement that “issues such as terrorism plots by young European Muslims, public approval of the Shari’a, clashes in reaction to cartoons mocking the prophet Muhammad, public discussions about Muslim women wearing a veil or about outlawing the burkha, forced marriages, and ‘honor killings’ mostly concern a minority of Muslims and do not lead to a general alienation of Muslims from mainstream society.” Jikeli, author of a book (in German) on the topic of his essay, insists that the real problems involving Europe’s Muslim communities are anti-Muslim “discrimination,” “racism,” “xenophobia,” and “negative stereotypes.” As if this weren’t baffling enough, Jikeli, after supplying a quick overview of European Muslim attitudes toward Jews as expressed in man-in-the-street interviews, concludes that the interviewees’ overwhelmingly hostile attitudes “are fragmented and multifaceted” and “can neither be reduced solely to hatred of Israel nor to references to Islam or Muslim identity.” For Jikeli, apparently, the fact that not all of those surveyed explicitly mentioned Allah, Muhammed, or the Koran while raging violently against Jews and Israel is reason enough to question the religious roots of their hatred.

Then there’s Matthias Küntzel, who, writing about antisemitism in the Middle East, quite properly rejects the argument, advanced by many, that that antisemitism is the result of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict – but also embraces the ridiculous claim that there wasn’t any appreciable level of anti-Semitism among Muslims in the Middle East before they were touched by the influence of Hitler. In other words, “the roots of Arab antisemitism” lie in Nazism – not in the Koran. (Küntzel, it should be noted, is the author of a 2007 book entitled Jihad and Jew-Hatred: Islamism, Nazism, and the Roots of 9/11 – which Andrew Bostom, writing at this website shortly after its publication, criticized at length for absurdly underemphasizing the Koranic origins of both jihad and Islamic Jew-hatred.) Another view of the Islamic world is provided by Jamsheed K. Choksy, who, in an essay on Iran, recalls that 2500 years ago, Cyrus the Great practiced “civility” toward Jews, and that during World War II the Pahlavi dynasty, resisting Nazi pressure, made clear that it regarded Iranian Jews as full and equal citizens of the kingdom. Indeed, Choksy points out, “Iran even became a transit point for approximately 2,000 Jews escaping Europe,” and retained “vibrant” ties with Israel right up until Khomeini’s revolution – all of which makes Choksy hopeful for Muslim-Jewish relations in a post-sharia Iran.

Less encouraging is the essay by Tel Aviv University’s Ilan Avisar, who, pondering the especially depressing topic of Israeli antisemitism, declares: “Anti-Zionist argumentation has become a major phenomenon in Israeli intellectual life.” Emanuele Ottolenghi, who also probes Jewish antisemitism, is particularly interested in the history of the self-hating Jew, a type exemplified by “Jewish converts, like Pablo Cristiani, who led the medieval trials against the Talmud, and Alfonso de Valladolid, who wrote ferocious anti-Jewish polemics in the fourteenth century.” Dina Porat explores Holocaust denial; Tammi Rossman-Benjamin examines the way in which victim-group studies at U.S. colleges have intensified antisemitism on campus; and then there’s Chaouat’s piece, in which, among much else, he tells us about a colleague at the University of Minnesota who ranted at a faculty party that Caouat’s department, with a total of two Jewish professors out of twelve, was a “Jewish enclave” with a “Jewish agenda,” and so forth. “What we have here,” Chaouat observes, is “a textbook case: postcolonial, anti-Israeli ideology directly inspired by Edward Said, coupled with a traditional antisemitism.” Welcome to the American academy, A.D. 2013.

One of this collection’s most eminent contributors is Robert S. Wistrich, who heads up the antisemitism center at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and has written several books on the subject. Here, in addition to outlining the role of the USSR in turning the UN against Israel and in shaping its post-1967 image “as a racist, Nazi state,” Wistrich explains how Soviet rhetoric about Israel was picked up “by Arab intellectuals, nationalists, Islamists, and Marxists” – and, reaching across the Atlantic (as these essays otherwise seldom do), how antisemitism in Venezuela surged under the Hugo Chávez regime. Finally, Rosenfeld himself winds up the anthology with an essay asking, apropos of antisemitism around the world today: “How bad is it likely to get?” The pages that follow, in which he ticks off gloomy predictions by one respected observer of current events after another, are sobering indeed. (Here’s Ron Rosenbaum in 2004: “The second Holocaust. It’s a phrase we may have to begin thinking about. A possibility we may have to contemplate. A reality we may have to witness.”)

This is a serious book – an important book. Yet it is also a book, alas, in which several of the contributors seem to shy away from spelling out the role of Islamic theology itself – of, most fundamentally, the actual contents of the Koran – in Islamic antisemitism. Yes, the Nazi-Muslim connections are important; but the reason why Nazi attitudes toward Jews took root so swiftly in the dry sand of the Muslim world, and flowered so lushly, is that they differed very little, in substance, from attitudes that are articulated repeatedly throughout Islam’s holiest of books. I can understand, to be sure, why authors on the subject of Jew-hatred might want to take extra pains to avoid saying anything that might expose them to charges of Muslim-hatred; but let’s face it, those charges will be leveled anyway. What matters is the truth: and the truth is that Islam, from its very beginnings, has demonized Jews, and that this demonization is not a peripheral but a central element of the Muslim faith. Unless and until we recognize this fact, and address it head-on, we will not get very far at all in our effort to challenge the toxic Jew-hatred that is on the rise everywhere on the planet where the followers of Muhammed make their homes.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.  

  • http://www.facebook.com/melvin.polatnick Melvin Polatnick

    Anger at the
    Jew can be expected from the Muslim but the more dangerous kind is the hatred
    expressed from others in verbal silence. Bad service is given by those who hate
    Jews and fear verbalizing it because of political incorrectness. Spoiled milk
    will be given with a smile from an angry clerk. In extreme cases a hate filled
    surgeon will perform an unneeded operation on a trusting Jew.

  • monostor

    I read twice the last paragraph of the article to convince myself that i have no particular reason to read the book. Thanks, Mr. Bawer.

  • logdon

    Is Catherine Ashton the new Irma Grese?

    And do we in Britain want to be part of the EU, an organisation which in plain
    sight is willing the destruction of Israel and with it, the Jews?

    Our history in Palestine is shameful enough but we
    never indulged in the round-ups, deportations, torture, slavery, open
    humiliation, degradation and willing aid to slaughter condoned and
    actioned by Europe during World War Two and before.

    We, as an island nation were more civilised and
    above this barbarity and even at the height of fashionable Thirties
    anti-semitism where Jew derision amongst the demi monde was quite
    acceptable, systematic and institutional oppression under the imprimatur
    of government did not happen.

    That it did in Europe is their dirty not so secret
    little secret and whether France, Italy, Poland, Latvia, Romania et al,
    the Jews were the official scapegoats to be robbed, plundered and
    ultimately slaughtered, all in open view.

    Going further back, Britain never was subject to the
    excesses of the Continent across the English Channel. The massive
    political polarisation, rioting and violence was not part of our psyche
    and, in our modern era, our green and pleasant land never ran red with
    the blood of fellow Britons.

    Europe is yet again cascading into the chaos of
    pre-war and so the old prejudices blossom and flower to end up as
    gravestone wreaths.

    Their financial and demographic demise is a huge sign written on a massive wall, yet they carry on as if its all a mere blip.

    We Brits are promised a referendum in 2014. Despite the frantic scheming, dire threats and false promises we will vote out.

    They are to all intents and purposes fascist thugs who cling to power for its own sake and we should have no part in it.

    If more evidence is needed about this spiral into demagogery nothing can say more than the blatant upending the truth and scapegoating the only functioning democracy in the Middle East.

    PS: When we do depart, a wreath or two placed on Lord Reiths legacy wouldn’t be out of place either.

    PPS: Paulin is a third rate Irish Marxist hack poet who whilst hating England makes a tidy living living here. (There are similar parallels with our Pakistani ingrate bretheren but that’s another tale.)

    He inhabits a interior world of permanent psychosis where Londonderry’s Bloody Sunday isn’t a shameful thing of the past but a living breathing aide memoire of English oppression to be milked mercilessly.

    As for Carol Churchill, apart from the miniscule theatrical circles she inhabits who the hell has even heard of her?

  • jackdiamond

    Seeing Nazism as the “root” of Arab antisemitism (Matthias Kuntzel) is another fallback position to avoid the necessary discussion of Islam, as if the Grand Mufti al-Husseini or Hassan al-Banna learned at the feet of Hitler and not Muhammad. Mr. Bawer is entirely correct that enmity towards the Jews, all Jews for all time, is foundational and comes from the primary Islamic sources. This is an inescapable truth. It has to be part of any understanding of the Muslim problem with Israel, as well. This enmity is emphasized five time daily in the prayers a Muslim makes which curse the Jews for earning Allah’s wrath (and Christians for going astray). In the Qur’anic principle of Al Wala Wal Baraa, Loyalty & Enmity–loyalty to fellow Muslims, hate & enmity (the actual wording) for the kaffir, the unbelievers and those who reject Islam. First and foremost the Jews, the worst, most venomous enemy of the Muslims (Qur’an 5:82).

    Jews are called polytheists (9:30), calf(idol)-worshipers (7:138), in rebellion against Allah (5:64; 3:181), prophet-killers (2:87; 5:70), corrupters (changers) of the words of the scriptures (2:75; 4:46) , liars (3:183-184), practitioners of sorcery and witchcraft (4:51-52), cowards (2:93-96), those responsible for igniting wars (5:64), treasonous covenant breakers (2:100; 5:13) irredeemable in character (2:145; 7:132; 2:74,88), people Allah has cursed (1:7; 4:51; 7:152), who deserve “wrath and humiliation” (58:14), who were cursed and transformed into apes and swine (2:65; 5:60; 7:166), the worst of Allah’s creation (98:6, 8:55-56). Muhammad was the beginning of the end of the Jewish life in Arabia. His physical treatment of them matched his verbal treatment. It’s not far from this to the infamous hadith promising the end of the Jews, when the rocks and trees call out Muslims to kill the last Jews hiding behind them. This is referenced continually today by Muslim clerics. In the Sira Muhammad calls Jews “a treacherous, lying and evil people.” On his deathbed he said, “Allah’s curse be on the Jews and Christians, as they took the graves of their prophets as places of worship.” These are the roots of Muslim enmity to the Jews.

    • Ameer

      Liar! Jew are not named in the prayer al-Fatiha recited in every prayer but we ask to be guided own the straight path, the path of those with whom God is pleased with, not the path of those who earn the wrath of God nor that of those who are astray.
      Jews chose to fight militarily with pagan idol worshippers in preference to the monotheistic believers in Islam and Kaaba bin Ashraf a Jew lining in Medina made poetry insulting the Prophet and was assassinated as the first Islamophobe and a Jewish tribe committed treachery and a decision by an arbiter allowed the men to be executed. Zionist Jews continue their vile propaganda and Muslims are accused of antisemitism based of on the Qur’an rather than blaming themselves!

      • jackdiamond

        You don’t find the Qur’anic verses above insulting and hateful to Jews? Have you ever even seen anything like it, the venom and hate, for the very character of all Jews?

        You think it is okay to kill someone for writing poetry. You think it is okay to kill someone for insulting Muhammad. That’s all we need to know about you. Jews are named by most every Islamic scholar as being those who earned the wrath and Christians as having gone astray. That’s not my opinion. Tafsir Ibn Kathir (one of many many scholars who say the same thing) “These two paths are the paths of the Christians and the Jews, a fact that the believer should be aware of so that he avoids them…the Jews abandoned practicing the true religion, while the Christians lost the true knowledge. This is why ‘anger’ descended upon the Jews, while being described as ‘led astray’ is more appropriate of the Christians. Allah said about the Jews (those Jews) who incurred the curse of Allah and His wrath (5:60) just as Allah said about Christians who went stray and who misled many and strayed from the right path (5:77)”

        The verse was written in “code” to conceal it’s intention during the Hijra to Medina. Since the Qur’an absolutely confirms this judgment on both in numerous places, I don’t see why it’s a problem for you to acknowledge the obvious.

        The ultimate source of this enmity is Muhammad and Muhammad only. Muhammad made the claim to the source of Monotheism and claimed the roots of Judeo Christian monotheism for himself and Islam. His enmity comes from that.

        • KT Shamim

          FYI, yeah. I think I acknowledged it before but it is fact that the last two paths of Surah Fatihah refer to Jews (on whom wrath was bestowed) and Christians (those who went astray). Though as stated God’s curse on a people who went astray does not translate to command to kill them … that inference is a huge longshot. Christians believe disbelievers in Christ are cursed but don’t go killing them as a result (Crusades had nothing to do with Christianity).

          And yeah nothing to hide about. Surah Kahf and Surah Maryum which are about Jews and Christians were both revealed in Mecca. So would you but stop with the “code”?

          As for punishment of blasphemy:

          [Qur'an 3:187] “… you shall surely hear many hurtful things from those who were given the Book before you and from those who set up equals to God. But if you show fortitude and act righteously, that indeed is a matter of strong determination.”

          i.e. no punishment. (Chapter 3 is a Medinite chapter in case you were gonna point out the abrogation argument).

      • KT Shamim

        People like you give people like jackdiamond ammunition to insult Islam. There is no punishment for blasphemy. In fact Qur’an says:

        [Qur'an 3:187] “… you shall surely hear many hurtful things from those who were given the Book before you and from those who set up equals to God. But if you show fortitude and act righteously, that indeed is a matter of strong determination.”

        Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) was insulted verbally during all his Prophethood. How can you think he retaliated physically to verbal abuse on his own self?

        • jackdiamond

          I must tell those folks awaiting death for blasphemy, like Asia Bibi, that there is no punishment for blasphemy in Islam. It will be a big relief. There certainly is a penalty for Muslims, as in the Shaf’i legal manual Umdat al-Salik ‘Acts that entail Leaving Islam’ –to revile Allah or His Messenger; to be sarcastic about Allah’s name” There blasphemy is the same as apostasy. There certainly was a penalty for non-Muslim dhimmis who could lose their “protected” status by offending Muslims or insulting Allah, the Qur’an or Muhammad. 33:57 :those who abuse Allah & His Messenger–Allah has cursed them.” 5:33 describes the penalty for “waging war” against Allah & His Messenger. Waging war is not primarily physical aggression, it is opposition, criticism, fitnah, mischief, or just rejecting the invitation to Islam. That’s how Islam looks at criticism and “blasphemy.”

          Did Muhammad shrug off mockery and criticism?
          When he heard of the poetry of the woman Asma bint Marwan which called him a murdering bandit, he called for her murder (“Will no one rid me of this woman?”) The woman was knifed in her sleep surrounded by her young children. Muhammad’s response? “Killing her was as meaningless as two goats butting heads.”
          The poet Ka’b bin Ashraf was murdered for his anti-Islamic poems, he was decapitated to the prophet’s delight. This might be the reason fatwas are everywhere in our times calling for death of those who criticize, belittle, mock Muhammad. Salman Rushdie, Danish cartoonists, Molly Norris, Theo Van Gogh. Why the OIC at the UN wants to criminalize free speech that “defames” religion. Because there is punishment for blasphemy. Lethal threats of punishment.

          • KT Shamim

            [5:33] explicitly states this for those who “strive to create disorder in the land” … how can you just forget to include that part of the verse in your comment? You really don’t think under a secular government “strive to create disorder in the land” doesn’t deserve punishment? Or expulsion? Really, please tell me how did you miss that crucial part? Or did i miss that part in your post?

            Rest of your comments are either medieval scholarly interpretations (which I have shown were certainly not unanimous and which I have explained were only interpretations of the original) or Hadith (which, for the n-teenth time suffer from the weakness of Chinese whispers).

            Your complaints and condemnation of current-day orthodox Muslim stances are all valid and well-founded.

            After 20 years of mockery and persecution and killing the Meccans put Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) and his companions through he granted them general amnesty. Isn’t that enough anti-blasphemy-law?

          • jackdiamond

            Here are the punishments for “disorder in the land”…”they should be murdered or crucified or their hands & feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned.” No I don’t think “striving to create disorder” calls for death and dismemberment. Now, what does the Qur’an mean? “who slays a soul not to retaliate for a soul slain, nor for corruption in the land…” is also translated as “manslaughter or mischief in the
            land.” It is also used synonymously with “waging war against Allah” as in Ibn Kathir’s tafsir on 5:33: “the punishment of those who wage war against Allah & His Apostle & strive to make mischief (fasadan)* in the
            land” and the scholar Aga Mahdi Puya “Waging war against Allah and his Prophet means hostility against his chosen representatives, or deviation from his laws
            by overstepping the boundaries laid down by Him… or attempts to undermine the cause of Islam and the overall interests of the Muslims.” He does not say physical attack.

            Just as in 8:39 “Fight them until there is no more fitna (disbelief, persecution) and religion will be for Allah alone (in the whole world).” Ibn Kathir, comments: “(it is) the order to eradicate Shirk & Kufr. Fight them until there is no more fitna (trial in religion) & the religion will be for Allah alone (so that there is no more “Kufr”, disbelief)…Rebellion against God’s will is termed as ‘fitna”. . Fitna refers us to misconduct on the part of a man who establishes his own norms & expects obedience from others, thereby usurping God’s authority, who alone is sovereign.” This is not talking about physical aggression against Muslims. It is about beliefs which Islam considers causing disorder, making mischief, spreading corruption. This constitutes war against Islam and merits the cruelest punishments.

            The real aggressors are always the unbelievers who reject Allah & his apostle (a rejection led foremost by the Jews, who require ultimate elimination). The rejection itself constitutes fitna, a crime. 8:39: fight until there is no more fitna. 9:29: Fight (qital–kill, slaughter)
            those who believe not in Allah, the Last Day, his Messenger, the Religion of Truth.
            Fight against them for their beliefs. No compulsion in religion? What a joke.

            The Muslims who left Arabia to conquer their neighbors gave them 3 choices only, based on the example of Muhammad. The invitation to Islam, convert. The choice to live as subjugated people, humbled and subdued. Or the sword without mercy. To reject the invitation to Islam was regarded as in itself an act of war against Islam. Therefore, Islam is never the aggressor and always acts in self-defense! It is opposing, it is rejecting the Call, the invitation to Islam Muslims make before attacking, that is war and 22:39 “to those against whom war is made,
            permission is given to fight.” This does not mean physical aggression. It means any opposition or criticism, perceived insults, or influence of non-Muslims in a Muslim society. Muhammad dealt brutally with his
            mockers and critics and declared Jihad on disbelieving mankind. His followers look to his example.

          • KT Shamim

            Meccan general amnesty argument – no comments from you

            Why you give so much importance to non-unanimous medieval interpretations that were written decades if not centuries after Islam was revealed – no comments from you

            Why you forgot to quote “disorder in the land” – weak comment from you that you mistranslated it based also, again, on medieval interpretations

            And not to mention your repeated out-of-context-ualization of Qur’anic verses. For example:

            I can’t believe you quoted 22:39 and again forgot to quote 22:40 which clearly outlines all those conditions that I have repeatedly stated and makes it completely clear that “war” means not any physical aggression but very harsh physical aggression:

            [Qur'an 22:40-41] “Permission to fight is given to those against whom war is made, because they have been wronged — and Allah indeed has power to help them —

            Those who have been driven out from their homes unjustly only because they said, ‘Our Lord is Allah’ — And if Allah did not repel some men by means of others, there would surely have been pulled down cloisters and churches and synagogues and mosques, wherein the name of Allah is oft commemorated. And Allah will surely help one who helps Him. Allah is indeed Powerful, Mighty —”

            Condition 1: Wronged
            Condition 2: Driven out from homes
            Condition 3: Because they said ‘Our Lord is Allah’

            How many questions will you ignore?

          • jackdiamond

            Listen, you delusional little stalker. I’m not here to be dictated to by you what I’ll discuss. Your routine that nothing I say is Islam because you, little you with an Islam of your own invention, say so, has worn out its welcome. You have nothing, nothing to refute what I have presented concerning either the mission of Islam, it’s view of Jews and Christians, its view of apostasy, it’s notion of warfare, it’s principle of loyalty and enmity, its inherent cruelty and hatred. The hate that burns at the core of your Qur’an and your prophet. With 15 centuries of experience to back that up and all the headlines of today to add an exclamation point. Your dismissal of Islam’s most revered scholars is like your extremely poor knowledge of history. You don’t own up to anything, not the history of Islam, the rivers of blood, the tyranny, the destruction–no you just go on and on that there is no compulsion and Islam spread with love, you have no response to its vile conquest by the sword, you just go on about Indonesia, as if you win the argument. I prove that Hijra (migration) is just another form of Jihad initiated by Muhammad, and you have no response. You don’t own up to the genocidal Jihad (hundreds of millions of lives taken), to the despotism of Shari’a, to the apartheid of the Islamic State, to the status and treatment of non-Muslims in Muslim lands (the human misery engendered by Islam), to the centuries of punishment for apostasy and blasphemy which originate with your prophet and his “rightly guided companions.” To the abrogation by Islam of Judaism and and Christianity, of the Bible by the Qur’an, of Jesus and the Jewish patriarchs by Muhammad, to the very claim of Jews or Christians to the holy land itself or their own scriptures. Muhammad began his career as a thief and only continued it. Islam is a thief.

            You’re a knave. All you can do is repeat dumbly, this is not Islam, this is not Islam. “Look at this verse from the Qur’an!” ignoring a hundred others that say something different. After ignoring 90% of what I’ve written on these threads you dare accuse me of ignoring some point you think you’ve made. Let me sum it up: Muhammad initiated the hostilities with the Meccans and the Jews. They rejected him as the prophet he thought he was. For the Meccans he began raiding their caravans, like a brigand. They depended on the caravans for their lives, attacking them was a serious matter. The Jews rejected his (absurd) claim to be their prophet. They even mocked him. For this they earned his (and therefore all Muslims’) eternal hatred. His record with the Jews is one of murder, treachery, rape, and stolen plunder. There is even a chapter of the Qur’an called “Spoils of War.” Booty, raids, and dealing in slaves, that’s how the prophet of God funded his army. These are cold hard facts.
            Consider yourself ignored from here on out.

          • KT Shamim

            [Qur'an 109:1-7]
            In the name of Allah, the Gracious, the Merciful.
            Say, ‘O ye disbelievers!
            ‘I worship not that which you worship;
            ‘Nor worship you what I worship.
            ‘And I am not going to worship that which you worship;
            ‘Nor will you worship what I worship.
            ‘For you your religion, and for me my religion.’

            I’ll keep responding to you as far as Discus is concerned. Your choice not to respond is your choice. And yes, still no answer to my pinpoint queries.

            Thank you for your time.

            “Love for All; Hatred for None” – Official Motto of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community

          • aquataine

            Again, the later verses of the Sword supercede these earlier verses and you know it. This is a simple fact supported by all renown Islamic scholars.

          • KT Shamim

            No, actually I don’t believe that at all. There is no abrogation between the Qur’anic verses.

            Here is the verse that is used to support the abrogation argument:

            [Qur'an 2:107] “Whatever Sign We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, We bring one better than that or the like thereof. Dost thou not know that Allah has the power to do all that He wills?”

            Some scholars say this refers to the Quranic verses. But that is not true simply by looking at the verse before:

            [Qur'an 2:106] “They who disbelieve from among the People of the Book, or from among those who associate gods with Allah, desire not that any good should be sent down to you from your Lord; but Allah chooses for His mercy whomsoever He pleases; and Allah is of exceeding bounty.”

            Clearly then the verse 107 refers to the earlier books and how Quranic verses abrogate the earlier books. On the other hand it is clearly written:

            [Qur'an 15:10] “Verily, We Ourself have sent down this Exhortation, and most surely We will be its Guardian.”

          • jackdiamond

            Listen, you delusional little stalker. I’m not here to be dictated to by you what I’ll discuss. Your routine that nothing I say is Islam because you, little you with an Islam of your own invention, say so, has worn out its welcome. You have nothing, nothing to refute what I have presented concerning either the mission of Islam, it’s view of Jews and Christians, its view of apostasy, it’s notion of warfare, it’s principle of loyalty and enmity, its inherent cruelty and hatred. The hate that burns at the core of your Qur’an and your prophet. With 15 centuries of experience to back that up and all the headlines of today to add an exclamation point. Your dismissal of Islam’s most revered scholars is like your extremely poor knowledge of history. You don’t own up to anything, not the history of Islam, the rivers of blood, the tyranny, the destruction–no you just go on and on that there is no compulsion and Islam spread with love, you have no response to vile conquest by the sword, you just went on about Indonesia, as if you win the argument. I prove that Hijra (migration) is just another form of Jihad initiated by Muhammad, and you have no response. You don’t own up to the genocidal Jihad, to the despotism of Shari’a, to the apartheid of the Islamic State, to the status and treatment of non-Muslims in Muslim lands, to the centuries of punishment for apostasy and blasphemy which originate with your prophet and his “rightly guided companions.” To the abrogation by Islam of Judaism and Christianity, of the Bible by the Qur’an, of Jesus and the Jewish patriarchs by Muhammad, to the claim of Jews or Christians to the holy land or even their own scriptures. Muhammad began his career as a thief and only continued it. Islam is a theft.
            You’re a knave. All you can do is repeat dumbly, this is not Islam, this is not Islam. Look at my verse from the Qur’an. Ignore a hundred others that say something different. After ignoring 90% of what I’ve written on these threads you dare accuse me of ignoring some point you think you’ve made. Let me sum it up: Muhammad initiated the hostilities with the Meccans and the Jews. They rejected him as the prophet he thought he was. For the Meccans he began raiding their caravans, like a brigand. They depended on the caravans for their lives, attacking them was a serious matter. The Jews rejected his (absurd) claim to be their prophet. They even mocked him. For this they earned his (and therefore all Muslims’) eternal hatred. His record with the Jews is one of murder, treachery, rape, and stolen plunder. There is even a chapter of the Qur’an called “Spoils of War.” Booty, raids, and dealing in slaves, that’s how the prophet of God funded his army. These are cold hard facts.
            Consider yourself ignored from here on out.,

        • aquataine

          The later verses supersede the earlier ones; your claim is bogus.

  • Elizabeth capecod

    I find this very confusing. Jews do not wage terror around the world. They do not subjugate, beat and abuse women, deny gays the right to exist or other religions to be practiced, yet THEY are the world’s pariahs???

    • UCSPanther

      Even in areas where the Jews either never lived or have left long ago, there are still idiots who insist on blaming them for all of their failures and problems.

      Some of the stuff that a lot of antisemites believe is so off the wall, willfully ignorant and pathetic that one would think that they would be embarrassed to even be associated with the rot that used to only be believed by superstitious medieval peasants…

    • tokoloshiman

      15 million jews are an easy target. 1,5 billion muslims are not.

    • Bert

      With all the so-called experts no one seems to even ask the root question of why Jews have been hated, despised and persecuted by so many in the world for so long? I find all the explanations less than convincing. Dare I suggest that our esteemed scholars turn to the last place in the world where the intellectual elites would ever think of searching for the answer. That ignored source is called the bible. There is a saying: “When all else fails try reading the instructions.” In this case read Deuteronomy chapter 28 and see what Moses had to say.

  • Chez

    Another great article by the esteemed Mr Bawer.

    Meanwhile, how utterly sad and disappointing that apologia for Islam is so culturally pervasive today that it would reside in a book documenting facets of Muslim antisemitism.

  • UCSPanther

    Antisemitism in general is a bizarre chimera consisting of religious hatred, racial hatred and conspiracy theories, and is practiced by a wide variety of creeds and ideology. There are even a number of Jews who betrayed their own race by giving in to self-loathing and throwing their lot in with ideologies that have historically been enemies of their race and more or less openly declare war on it.

  • Raymond_in_DC

    “Yet it is also a book, alas, in which several of the contributors seem to shy away from spelling out the role of Islamic theology itself – of, most fundamentally, the actual contents of the Koran – in Islamic antisemitism.”

    This is truly disappointing, but hardly surprising. Most of these scholars are of European and American background, with little familiarity with the Arab and Muslim worlds. They don’t believe in the tooth fairy, but they believe in a “Golden Age” of mutual respect and tolerance in Muslim Spain. It takes an Egyptian exile like Bat Ye’or or Nonie Darwish, or an ex-Muslim like Wafa Sultan from Syria to provide a more accurate portrayal of attitudes toward Jews in such countries.

    As to Chosky’s take on the positive treatment of Jews in Persia, what he doesn’t recognize is that Iran is of two cultures – Persian and Islamic. When the former prevails, Jews have it better; when the latter prevails, the Jews have it worse. Two examples from the 19th century, when it was more “Islamic”. Many then believed that water conveyed impurity, so Jews in many locales were prohibited from going out in the rain, lest water bounce off them and make Muslims impure (Jew cooties?). There was also intense pressure to convert to Islam, to the extent that thousands of Jews fled to what today is Afghanistan.

  • jzsnake

    Let’s face it if you are an academic it’s ok to speak about white right wing anti-semitism but not Muslim anti-semitism.

    • UCSPanther

      Or leftist antisemitism for that matter…

      • jzsnake

        What, leftist are anti-semites? Good point.

  • georgejochnowitz

    Antisemitism is what holds the Marxist-Islamic Alliance together.

    http://www.jochnowitz.net/Essays/ChavezIran.html

  • herb benty

    Anti- semitism…Anti-Christian, and so virulent to boot in this world. The Jewish people have always only wanted to LIVE, survive and thrive, what a crime. Christians,(not Roman), also were anxious to LOVE everybody, Oh, how aweful! there really is only ONE explanation for this misplaced hatred. After thousands of years of this evil, we must admit that this weird hatred is Satan and he hates God’s people- there is no getting around it.

    • Gary Dickson

      Herb, I agree with your conclusion. If you haven’t already seen this, here’s a commentary by Dr. Michael L. Brown (a Messianic Jew) that provides exactly the same conclusion:
      http://www.realmessiah.com/watch/anti-semitism

      As for myself, a Messianic Gentile, I conclude that the most hated people in the world are Messianic Jews.

      I bless them daily and plead with God for their safety and effectiveness in bringing God’s blessings and righteousness to the world.

      • herb benty

        Thanks Gary! Ya……just had Enough of “anti-semitism”, want the world to be “anti-” something that is actually a threat. Anti-muslim fanatic, anti- murderer, anti- marxist professor. Will look into the video, Luv in Jesus.

  • danshanteal

    Today, truth is relative versus being absolute. Humanity is full of misfits calling for Israel’s demise. In America we have our share of useful idiots/misfits.

  • antioli

    Maybe the Euro countries imported so many Islamic emigrants in order to fight Jewish influence because the Political Rulers do not like Jews.

    Or maybe the Rulers just want to punish their citizens

  • Dave Eboch

    Muslims really are the victims.

  • Dave Eboch

    The Jews were treated poorly in WW2 but so were poles, gypsies, Catholics, many people but it just seems Jews profited off of it. Why didn’t all the victims?

  • Dave Eboch

    It is hard to ignore that Zionism is a threat to the possible destruction of the entire world. Especially the way they control the US army. All it will take is for the Americans to make a mistake and vote in a NEOCON and the world can be destroyed in WW3. All the republicans are controlled by the Israel lobby to. I hope that countries like Russia are keeping an eye on this. I believe the only leader in the world who can stand up to the Zionist in America and Israel is Vladmir Putin.

    • aquataine

      I am not registered with any party, am a Deist and Zionist. We are not controlled by Jews. I am so sick of this foolish bs. Read the VALID facts about who owns what in the USA!

  • TALIA

    I think it is spiritual.
    It doesnt matter where we are or what are, our life conditions what we do or dont do….even in nations that have no jews at all….jews always get blamed for the worlds problems.
    So it is supernatural. It is something that is engraved in the psyche of all nations-and all nations get the chance in their turn …..
    The real question is why??
    What is humanity waiting for from the Jews that they are not getting?
    Besides monotheism which was giving by the Jews there are also numerous contributions to all fields and walks of life and still it is not enough or not what the world needs from us.
    So for me the real question as a jew and israeli is what is it? what is it that we are supposed to do? what exactly it means? chosen people…chosen to do what?
    Personally i think we are maybe supposed to have the answer , the way to help the world..how do we as humanity succeed in living together ?
    The world is coming undone everywhere and i think the turning point -what ever it might be- will include if not start even in Israel.