After we published our article on The Connection Between Zionism and Organized Islamophobia — The Facts, we had some knee jerk responses by people who obviously hadn’t read the article claiming that we were dabbling in anti-Semitism. This was of course a wrong headed and false charge as many have since admitted and now a leading Jewish magazine has opined as much.
Some Zionist Groups Stoke Fear Of Islam for Political Profit
Opinion
By Matthew Duss
After the last several months, it should be clear that the controversy over the Park 51 Islamic cultural center near Ground Zero is about more than sensitivity to the families of the 9/11 victims and the sacredness of the site where their loved ones were murdered. In places as far from Lower Manhattan as Murfreesboro, Tenn., and Temecula, Calif., Muslim houses of worship, and the people who pray in them, have come under attack by conservative activists as representing an American beachhead for Muslim extremism.
Whether it’s Newt Gingrich peddling false stories of “creeping sharia” (strict Islamic law) to an audience of very serious people at the American Enterprise Institute, or the Washington Times running endless editorials and op-eds from conspiracy theorists like Frank Gaffney warning that President Obama “may actually still be a Muslim,” or Bill Kristol and Liz Cheney shamelessly and falsely asserting that Park 51 leader Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf has “terror-related connections,” it’s clear that quite a few conservative elites see political profit in stoking Americans’ fear of Islam.
Such hostility toward Muslims is unfortunately not marginal in the pro-Israel community — unless one is prepared to define the huge annual policy conference of one of Washington’s foremost lobbies as “marginal.” At an AIPAC conference in March 2009, to take just one example, terrorism expert Steve Emerson spent 40 minutes stoking the worst fears of the mostly elderly attendees with a talk called “Tentacles of Terror: The Global Reach of Islamic Radicalism.” It could just as easily have been called “Scaring the Living Crap Out of Bubbe and Zayde.” As long as Jews are encouraged to believe that scary Muslims are hiding under every American bed, the idea is perpetuated that support for the Jewish state is a zero-sum contest between favoring Israel and favoring Arabs and Muslims. For too many American Jews, smearing Islam is seen as a legitimate expression of Zionism.
Groups like The Israel Project, the Middle East Media Research Institute and Middle East Forum seem to exist for no other reason than to spotlight the very worst aspects of Muslim societies. Magazines like Commentary and the Weekly Standard regularly traffic in the crudest stereotypes of Arabs and Muslims, and promote the harshest measures for dealing with them. Musing over the appropriateness of targeting Palestinian civilians during the Gaza conflict, Standard contributing editor Michael Goldfarb wrote approvingly, “To wipe out a man’s entire family, it’s hard to imagine that doesn’t give his colleagues at least a moment’s pause.”
Martin Kramer, a fellow at the Washington Institute of Near East Policy, president of the Shalem Center in Jerusalem and frequent AIPAC panelist, took things even further, suggesting that Israel’s siege on Gaza, could, by depressing population growth, “crack the culture of martyrdom, which demands a constant supply of superfluous young men.”
In 2007, in what could be seen as a precursor to the current uproar over the Park 51 Islamic cultural center, Middle East Forum Director Daniel Pipes played a key role in flaming controversy over the Khalil Gibran International Academy, a planned New York City public school emphasizing the study of Arabic language and culture. Pipes asserted that such a school represented a potential threat simply by virtue of teaching Arabic.
It would be wrong, however, to pretend that these sorts of smears have been the work solely of conservatives. Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz, a liberal who promotes himself as Israel’s leading public defender, regularly rehearses the most clownish calumnies against Israel’s adversaries, real and perceived. Citing the Grand Mufti Amin al-Husseini’s collaboration with the Nazis, Dershowitz wrote, “the Palestinian leadership, supported by the Palestinian masses, played a significant role in Hitler’s Holocaust.” The obviously ahistorical stupidity of that claim aside, it hardly needs pointing out that a similar attempt to lay collective blame upon Jews would be immediately — and rightly — condemned, by Dershowitz and others.
Hatred of Arabs has also had a home in one of America’s oldest and best-respected liberal magazines, The New Republic, for over three decades, courtesy of owner and editor-in-chief Marty Peretz, who never seems to tire of identifying ways in which Arab society is “hidebound and backward,” as he wrote in 2007. Observing the devastation in Iraq, Peretz wrote: “I actually believe that Arabs are feigning outrage when they protest what they call American (or Israeli) ‘atrocities.’ They are not shocked at all by what in truth must seem to them not atrocious at all. It is routine in their cultures.” Peretz reiterated that view in September of this year. “Frankly, Muslim life is cheap, especially for Muslims,” he wrote. “This is a statement of fact, not value.”
While it’s tempting to dismiss Peretz as a racist old kook, he does serve as editor-in-chief of a major magazine, and he has been able to help define the boundaries of acceptable liberal discourse for 30 years. And he has chosen through those years to place the most retrograde anti-Arab, anti-Muslim bigotry — including constant denials of Palestinian nationhood — within those boundaries.
It wasn’t so long ago that Jews in America were targets of similar slander and knee-jerk opposition. Liberal American Jews have been at the forefront of all of America’s struggles against bigotry, but they need to do a better job of calling out the hate in their own communities. Moderate Muslims are often called upon to condemn the extreme rhetoric of their co-religionists. It is not too much, at long last, to call upon moderate Zionists to do the same.
Matthew Duss is National Security Editor at the Center for American Progress.
September 24th, 2010 at 3:50 pm
Poltician have always used fear to get votes-it’s how it works sadly
September 24th, 2010 at 4:04 pm
What’s puzzling is that these people aren’t politicians, rather private citizens and non-governmental advocacy groups.
September 24th, 2010 at 4:21 pm
What I don’t understand is why religious Jews and Christians so blindly and hawkishly support Israel despite the fact that the Talmud says that the Messiah will return to establish Israel, not secular nationalist Jews.
Empty promised land
September 24th, 2010 at 4:56 pm
Why does a country with more gay bars and brothels than synagogues call itself the Holy Land?
Israelis have at many times tried to make it seem as if Muslims are uncivilised just so they can justify their killings.
The Zionists have realised that if they pool their money and bigotry together they could defeat Islam, make the Palestinian resistance weak and then they can oppress Muslims like there’s no tomorrow.
September 24th, 2010 at 5:46 pm
Anti Semitism slurs!, H’mmm, that means you’re doing well, when you get accused of this, you’re hitting nerves! Well done!
this is an old trick that the far right Zionists in the USA use to intimidate their enemies, criticising the far right agenda for Israel is not anti semitism. An end to the occupation is US policy. They can’t openly say they oppose that, so they use the anti semitic slur.
Remember Walt and Mearsheimer, had to go to England to have their “Israel Lobby” book published. They were wrongly labelled anti semitic, though Meirsheirmer himself is a Jew. Times have changed since then, and more and more Americans are speaking out against the occupation, at the same time Christian Zionism ( a major factor in propping up this problem) is declining.
Also another Jewish magazine reported that J Street is almost as influential as AIPAC now another sign, that the Likud Lobby (AIPAC) is losing steam. Good riddance to bad rubbish!
Exposing the likes of Chernick is not Anti Semitism, it’s a good public deed. These groups, should not have charitable status in the first place if they are propping up an occupation, and fund Kahanists, extreme Likudniks, and Armeggedonites.
September 24th, 2010 at 5:58 pm
Love this article! Thank you Mr. Duss!
September 24th, 2010 at 6:25 pm
Unfortunately antiSemitism and Islamophobia are two sides of the same coin. Just because yesterdays anti-Semites are the new Islamophobes doesn’t mean that they have lost the hate. If the ‘zionists’ keep at it, they will eventually find things as bad for them as they try to make it for the Muslims.
The link below is for an article on Haretz about the Swedish elections and it makes the interesting read. http://www.haaretz.com/jewish-world/it-won-t-be-long-before-sweden-democrats-show-true-anti-semitic-nature-1.314951
September 24th, 2010 at 7:11 pm
Syed is totally correct when he says “yesterdays anti-Semites are the new Islamophobes”.
A literal example being Theo van Gogh, a man lionized by Islamophobes like Robert Spencer.
It seems that Islamophobes think criticizing Israel is anti-Semitic while making fun of Jews for remembering the Holocaust (which is what van Gogh did) isn’t .
September 24th, 2010 at 9:28 pm
that’s what i was wondering. didn’t theo van gogh make many anti-semitic remarks? i heard years ago that before jumped on the islamophobe bandwagon, he had been in trouble for making anti-semitic remarks.
September 25th, 2010 at 10:54 am
What’s sad is that whenever you read something rational and level-headed by one Jew, just scroll down to the comments; you’re bound to find the rantings of hundreds of other Jews clamouring for the annihilation of all Muslims. When are moderate Jews going to stand up and speak out against this rabid Islamophobia that permiates their society?
September 25th, 2010 at 11:44 am
Moorishamerican,
do you have specific examples? how do you know the commentators are Jews? Most American far right Zionists are Messianic (southern baptists pretending to be Jews) or Evangelicals, The fans of the loons we expose here are not in the Jewish community, Geller, Pipes, and all the loons above, have their largest fan base amongst the Christin Right, Why do you think Geller is calling for Palin or Allen West (Christian Zionists) to be President?
http://www.christianhegemony.org/christian-zionism
More recently Christian Zionists in the U.S. have undermined peace talks by supporting Israel’s “right” to all of the West Bank and Gaza. Christian Zionists have also been very successful at maintaining on-going, large-scale public support for Israel’s occupation of Palestine through sermons, tours, exhibits, amusement parks, books, and radio and TV broadcasts.
Perhaps most disturbing, Christian Zionists have popularized Islamophobia and anti-Arab oppression through the media (such as the “Left Behind” books) and through their lobbying efforts. They have also supported belligerent U.S. foreign policy options directed towards Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Syria because of these countries’ “threats” to Israel.
Focusing mainly on the Jewish lobby, the mainstream media has provided little coverage of the role of Christian Zionists in undermining peace efforts in Israel/Palestine. This film, With God on Our Side, is a useful resource for breaking that silence by highlighting the voices of Palestinian Christians. Although it does not challenge Christian dominance and claims that Christians can provide solutions to the conflict, it can help Christians reexamine their uncritical support for aggression, expansion, and inflexibility
September 25th, 2010 at 11:55 am
Moorish American, the below two links are for you.
Loon Watch,
So many people (amongst Muslims) equate Islamophobia and Zionism (which is certainly linked) as being Jewish only, in fact it’s the Christian Zionism that is the problem.
It may be an idea if you devoted a section specifically to Christian Zionism Islamophobia, so that people can learn where the poison is coming from and why. Muslim bloggers that understand this problem are few, they concentrate on the Israel Lobby, and Jewish extremists, but none realise the Christian Zionists are bedrock that props them up.
It doesn’t help that Muslim bloggers and writers who are obsessed with Zionism havn’t a clue about it really, and just blindly blame the “jewish lobby” for it.
It would be fantastic if Loon Watch had a few journalists who concentrated soley on Hagee, Tim La Haye, Joel Rosenberg, and their millions of lunatic followers. Inconnu does a good job but we need a specialist. Someone who goes straight for the jugular, like Max Blumenthal does. I’ve yet to see a good Muslim writer who understands the Christian Zionist role in Islamophobia.
Meet the Evangelical Zionists
justworldnews.org/archives/002592.html
I think it’s been the case for a while now that the Christian Zionists– who have very, very long roots in this country– have been a stronger base of support for Israel here than the Jewish-American Zionists. And of course, given that the beliefs of many of these Evangelical Zionists are that at the time of “Armageddon” all the Jews will either become converted to Christianity or get consumed by fire, there are many Jewish Americans who are still fairly wary about the Evangelicals’ strong support for Israel.
The game plan for these Evangelicals (as also laid out lovingly in their extremely well-selling though in practice almost unreadable novels about “the End Time”) is that first, the Jewish people all need to be “ingathered” into Israel, and then soon after there will be “Armageddon” and the “Second Coming.” And along the way there, there’ll be great fighting against “Babylon” (or Baghdad) and perhaps even some nuclear war…
————–
Christian Zionism: The Root of All Evil?
http://palestinechronicle.com/view_article_details.php?id=16204
Christian Zionism justifies the killing and ethnic cleansing of Palestinians to this day. Plymouth Brethren minister John Nelson Darby (1800-1882) popularized the doctrine under the name “dispensationalism,” which was further spread by the Scofield Reference Bible published in 1909. That edition contained copious footnotes instructing readers how to interpret Bible verses and prophecy centered around the re-establishment of Israel as a modern nation-state.
Thus the Zionist heresy was mass marketed to a largely ignorant populace who are convinced they do not have enough sense to read the Bible for themselves. Today, support for Israel has gained momentum through apocalyptic preaching by televangelists who make large profits for supporting Israel. They have co-opted Christian laypeople into thinking they can bring about Christ’s return, ending suffering on earth.
It would be scary enough if such ideas were confined to churches, but Zionist Christians have organized political lobbies such as Christians United for Israel (CUFI). Arguably, they have considerable influence over US foreign policy, particularly effective with neo-conservatives as witnessed during the George W. Bush administration. Numerous Christian groups encourage Jewish immigration to what is now called Israel through financial contributions while assisting ultra-orthodox Jewish groups to promote settlement expansion on Palestinian land.
September 25th, 2010 at 1:37 pm
A literal example being Theo van Gogh, a man lionized by Islamophobes like Robert Spencer.
No doubt he was murdered by religious Jews for his provocative comments regarding on Jews and Judaism.
No wait…..
But yes, that is a good example, just not in the way first thought.
September 25th, 2010 at 2:16 pm
asalaamu alaykum.. how do we send a tip to you guys. the “send a tip” link has no way to submit a tip and I cant find any emial addresses anywhere on this website..
The bloggers here should look into this event being hosted at fort bragg “rock the fort”
http://www.christianpost.com/article/20100924/army-post-to-host-christian-outreach-despite-protests/
The military is having a Christian outreach festival.. Quite disturbing, our military is evolving into an evangelical army..
much love.. mike
September 25th, 2010 at 2:46 pm
JihadBob
“No doubt he was murdered by religious Jews for his provocative comments regarding on Jews and Judaism. No wait…”
Theo had every right to insult Muslims or anyone else because of freedom of speech. As for your implication that Jews don’t kill due to a thought crime do you know Robert Faurisson? He was beaten up by Jews for being a holocaust denier. What happened to freedom of speech? Oh wait holocaust revisionism is actually illegal in 16 countries. So much for freedom speech and the lovely quote “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”
How about Baruch Goldstein who killed 29 Muslims wounding 125 at a Mosque in Hebron…was he even provoked by a thought crime? Oh right he wasn’t…he just hated Arabs and Muslims…maybe their existence was the provocation.
His grave site is actually a memorial to celebrate this massacre by many Israeli Jews.
How about Yitzhak Rabin who was one of the assassins of Swedish U.N. diplomat Folke Bernadotte…what was his provocation? Bernodette was the U.N. Security Council mediator of the Arab-Israeli conflict. We know that peace talks is a sign of provocation to Israelis. Oh and Yitzshak Rabin became Prime Minister of Israel later on. Could you imagine if a Muslim country elected a terrorist as their Prime Minister. Face it Israel get away with everything.
How about the King David Hotel bombing where Jews who dressed up as Arabs killed 91 and hurt 46. What was the provocation?
September 25th, 2010 at 3:14 pm
Political Correctness is irritating. Loonwatch don’t succumb to that “anti-Semite” card. Here is Shulamit Aloni, Israeli politician, saying how they use the “Antisemitism” card to silence you.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jUGVPBO9_cA
I don’t understand people get away with saying “I don’t hate Muslims, I hate the extremist Muslims, the terrorist Muslims, the theocratic Muslim countries where intolerant Muslims live in the Middle East” all the time.
Why can’t people say “I’m not an anti-Semite, I’m opposed to Zionist Jews, Zionists in general, the elite Jews, and the lunatic country called Israel”?
Islamophobia is not only beneficial to the Zionist cause(beneficial also to delegitimize the Palestinian cause) but also to justify the 3 current unjust wars. All of these wars just happen to be in Muslim countries. Israel, Zionists and Neocons have been trying to get America to invade Iran, another Muslim country. Neocons(which is synonymous with Zionist) are the ones who advised and have planning the invasion of Iraq and calling for a regime change there for a long time. Neocons David Frum and Richard Perle wrote about regime changes in Iran and Syria in their book “An End To Evil: How To Win The War Against Terror” in 2004. Islamophobia is a very good propaganda tool to brainwash Americans and Europeans to think “See Muslims are crazy, their countries should be invaded…and Israel is the victim while the Palestinians are just terrorists”.
And moorishamerican don’t mind Christian Zionism Exposed, his main purpose is to deflect blame away from the Zionists in charge and Israel and make you believe Christian Zionists(who are just useful to Zionist Jews) are the actual perpetrators of Israeli crimes lol.
Jews have spoken out, just like Muslims have spoken out against terrorism, but you won’t see that in the Zionist run mainstream media. Unfortunately majority of Jews are Zionists, very liberal except when it comes to Israel. Look at these Anti Zionist Jews:
http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/
http://www.jewsnotzionists.org/
http://www.nkusa.org/
September 25th, 2010 at 4:02 pm
@ moorish American:
“When are moderate Jews going to stand up and speak out against this rabid Islamophobia that permiates their society?”
Just like “when are moderate Muslims going to stand up and speak out against this rabid terrorism that premieres their society”? Don’t say irrational things
September 25th, 2010 at 5:36 pm
I’m glad JihadBob (Spencer) is now limited to making the snide comments of a playground bully. He must’ve realized that he can’t justify his bigotry on a factual basis.
September 25th, 2010 at 6:11 pm
@Imad
Those two statements are rational and doable
September 25th, 2010 at 10:04 pm
Respect to Imad for injecting a little common sense into this thread.
It was starting to sound like the typical far left echo chamber where border line ‘antisemitic’ remarks are peppered in with the paranoid black helicopter conspiracy theories.
September 25th, 2010 at 10:14 pm
@Jihadbob
Don’t think I support your position either. I’m just don’t know much so I don’t debate u, and frankly I don’t have time to waste.
September 25th, 2010 at 10:17 pm
@ moorishamerican
http://jfjfp.com/
Here’s a great site of British Jews who speak against Israeli policy. Very enlightening.
September 26th, 2010 at 1:04 am
@ Imad, here’s a great site for you as well. Next time someone asks you to find Muslims speaking out against terrorism show them this:
http://www.muhajabah.com/otherscondemn.php
Just because they aren’t given coverage on mainstream media, doesn’t mean it isn’t widespread.
September 26th, 2010 at 1:48 am
“As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,—as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen,—and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.”
The Treaty of Tripoli flushes several Islamophobic fantasies down the toilet.
September 26th, 2010 at 10:09 am
@JihadBob
How is this a far left thread?
Are you a ‘leftist’ if you don’t demonize Muslims?
September 26th, 2010 at 10:35 am
@ Islamophobia-phobic,
No, that would make you a Leftist/Dhimmi-Jihad-enabler/sympathizer. Apparently not your run-of-the-mill “leftist”.
September 26th, 2010 at 12:38 pm
I’ve seen Islamophobes call Eric Margolis a “Marxist” even though his politics are quite conservative — someone like him (he identifies as “Eisenhower Republican”) would probably be more at home in the Democratic Party these days because of the loony-right teabaggers…
September 26th, 2010 at 12:39 pm
JihadBob said…
“It was starting to sound like the typical far left echo chamber where border line ‘antisemitic’ remarks are peppered in with the paranoid black helicopter conspiracy theories.”
Um…no. This blog isn’t full of truthers, etc.
In contrast Jihadwatch/ Atlas shrugs is full of stealth Jihad, Reza Aslan & Fareed Zakariya are taqiyya artists, Obama might be a Mooslim, Mooslim charities are malevolent, and other conspiracy theories.
I find it bizarre that the American right needs to group its percieved enemies, falafel merchants and socialists, into one group–despite that fact that Islamists and Leftists are diametrically opposed on many issues.
Muslims, before 9/11 and rapid anti-Muslim sentiment among neocons, mostly voted Republican (at least my parents did). Indeed, Bush probably would not have won in 2000 if Muslims did not vote for him overwhelmingly.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0817/p09s01-codc.html
according to the article…
“Polls in 2000 showed Muslims favored Bush over Mr. Gore by a wide margin – some showed support in the 90 percent range – and some groups argued that some 60,000 Muslim votes put Bush over the top in Florida.”
Both Muslims (in America) and Democrats in America are more educated than the average Republican. People like JihadBob need to simplify complex conflicts, as they will react with hostility to the facts, as facts don’t make the world black and white.
September 26th, 2010 at 12:58 pm
The Obama is a muslim conspiracy is idiotic.. He sent 30,000 troops to Afghanistan and gives large amounts of money to Israel (7 million dollars a day in 2009).
September 26th, 2010 at 1:13 pm
NassirH
In a secular society, Muslim American’s don’t need to vote Republicans or even need a conservative government. Thankfully, 90% voted Obama. That’s great, they’re waking up to the GOP threat. The Christian Right are no friend of Islam, hence the GOP is not our party. one can be a conservative even under the most liberal government, if you have the freedom to practice what you want.
You’re right that liberals and Muslims may differ on lots of things, but that’s OK, so long as they can be what they want, and we can be what we want. There is a mutual respect for each other, so as long as that prevails, it’s fine. Unlike the Christian Right, the liberals don’t seek to force others to become like them. Facism in all forms should be opposed, and i cannot think of bigger fascists than the tea party, the GOP right wing, call them what you want. They’re Islamophobic and i see them as our stauncehest enemies.
My point is, as long as all have the right to do what we believe is right, it doesn’t really matter what our allies do.
At this point in history, liberals are our friends, It wouldn’t hurt for Muslims to form firm bonds with our left wing allies and concentrate on that which we have in common. In these difficult times we need to all stick together and help each other.
To put it simply, you can be a good Muslim if you want, even in the most secular liberal society, because faith comes from the heart. Not what surrounds you.
Good points you make, i enjoy your posts, and thank you for being tolerant to Jihad Bobs nonsense. It’s more than he deserves. I’m certain he has a crush on Danios, he has developed Stockholm Syndrome:)
September 26th, 2010 at 3:32 pm
@ BMD: I’m sorry to disagree with you so much my sister, but I’m not entirely sure that ‘liberals’ are our ‘friends’ either. I guess I should back up and start from the beginning. I think there are issues which we American Muslims are going to agree with the Republicans and other issues which were are going to agree with the Democrats on. Historically, as Nassir said, we’ve generally voted Republican. And unfortunately, that has come back to bite us on the ass this time around.
Now, there are Conservative Muslims, Liberal Muslims, Moderate Muslims… the whole political spectrum. I don’t really know where I fall. I observe my religion by choice, but I don’t want religiously conservative politics in my country be they Muslim, Christian or whatever. I find the Wahhabis to be idiots quite frankly. So socially I’m a pretty liberal, open-minded guy. I’m all for free speech, but I also figure personal responsibility and accountability figures into it. And, financially, I tend to be a little more conservative. I suppose that you could put me with the Libertarians more than anything else (though I’ll also admit to having a soft spot for animals and the environment).
I think the problem is that the Republicans have drifted away from us. For a while the religious right had been growing in power in this country; after 9-11 we Muslims became the popular scapegoat in the ‘culture wars’. The Republican party has chosen to pander to white evangelical Christians at the expense of pretty much everyone else. They play to their fears. They tell them that America is a ‘Christian nation’ and that the shrinking white majority is somehow special. That’s why we Muslims find ourselves targeted alongside Latinos. We are too ‘foreign’.
What the Republicans should really do is kick out the people like Tom Tancredo and get back to basics. I don’t mind Christians. I don’t mind Christian politicians. I just don’t want anyone shoving their religion (or anything else) down my throat. I’m quite proud to be a Muslim. If the Republicans would stop trying to alienate everyone who isn’t white, Christian or male, they would be alot better off. Give me some decent fiscal conservatives instead of people who whine about immigration and gay marriage.
Of course the flip side here is that the Democrats haven’t been much better. Yes, I can’t think of many Democrats who have been running around spouting anti-Muslim rhetoric, but they haven’t exactly done much to counter it either! Most Democrats come from the same political class as Republicans; spoiled rich white snobs from politically connected families. Sure, SOME might be decent, but they aren’t exactly reflective of America’s demographics either. I can’t name too many prominent politicians who are Muslim or descendant from recent immigrants.
And, of course, there’s the problem that there ARE pushy Liberals. Again, this is a far greater problem in Europe than in America, but it does rear it’s ugly head from time to time. Right-wing Islamophobes tend to be anti-Muslim because they see us as being in opposition to Christianity and ‘western culture.’ Leftist Islamophobes tend to be anti-Islam and anti-Arab because they see western culture as the ideal which all people should emulate and aspire to. It’s a subtle distinction, but it is important. Its essentially the 19th idea of cultural progression in which an atheist, secular and ultimately uniform culture is propagated by the elites, while we ignorant masses are supposed to be directed towards it.
For the Liberals, our culture should simply be relegated to the background. They don’t like the idea of cultural differences. Sure, they’ll celebrate them, but they don’t want these differences shoved in their face every day. ‘Ethnic’ foods and dress are reserved for the elites. Holidays are forced to link up with Christian holidays. And of course there’s the gay issue. Theo van Gogh and his hero Pim Fortuyn claimed they were against Islam because it would ‘forbid gay marriage’ or some such. There are several other prominent gay Islamophobes, especially in Europe. Now I don’t have anything against homosexuals, but I will say it bothers me that Pim Fortuyn used to have sex with 16 year old immigrant boys…
I think that the most important thing for us American Muslims to do is stand up for what we believe in, whether it be ‘conservative’ or ‘liberal’. And we also need to be more vocal and aggressive in asserting ourselves. Call out racism and prejudice when we see it. If ANYONE said half the shit they do about us about blacks, Jews or Latinos instead, they would be sued, fired and protested by half a dozen major organizations. We Muslims don’t have anything comparable to Al Sharpton or Jessie Jackson. We don’t have any real special interest groups with the power to shut people up. For too long, we’ve simply accepted the Islamophobes and look where that has gotten us! No, we need to protect ourselves and assert ourselves. That is the whole point of a representative republic.
September 26th, 2010 at 3:42 pm
REFUTING THE IDEA THAT MOHAMMAD KILLED JEWS BECAUSE THEY REFUTED TO CONVERT:
First of all, it wasn’t even Muhammad who ordered the killing of the Jews who committed treason by violating their agreement of not to aid the enemies of the muslims when they were being beseiged in the Battle of the Trench(where an army 10,000 non-muslims seiged Medina and the few thousand muslims in there). The Jews of the Banu Qurayza tribe eventually surrendered and the Prophet deputized Sa’d ibn Mua’dh, chief of the Banu Aus (a former ally of the Banu Qurayza) who ordered all the men beheaded and buried en masse in trenches in the market square in accordance with rule of war in JEWISH LAW in Deuteronomy 20-bible :
10 When thou drawest nigh unto a city to fight against it, then proclaim peace unto it. 11 And it shall be, if it make thee answer of peace, and open unto thee, then it shall be, that all the people that are found therein shall become tributary unto thee, and shall serve thee. 12 And if it will make no peace with thee, but will make war against thee, then thou shalt besiege it:
13 and when the LORD thy God delivereth it into thy hand, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword:
14 but the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take for a prey unto thyself; and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the LORD thy God hath given thee.
Moreover, more Jews, in fact at least 3 times as many, were KILLED BY MOSES, especially when they were caught worshiping the Golden Calf. Aftrer Moses, received the Ten Commandments, Moses then descended from the mountain with intent to deliver the commandments to the people, but upon his arrival he saw that the people were involved in the sin of the Golden Calf. In terrible anger, Moses broke the commandment tablets and ordered his own tribe (the Levites) to go through the camp and kill everyone, including family and friends, upon which the Levites killed about 3000 people:
EXODUS 32:27 And he said unto them: ‘Thus saith the LORD, the God of Israel: Put ye every man his sword upon his thigh, and go to and fro from gate to gate throughout the camp, and slay every man his brother, and every man his companion, and every man his neighbour.’28 And the sons of Levi did according to the word of Moses; and there fell of the people that day about three thousand men.
SO WAS MOSES AN ANTI-SEMETIC MASS MURDERER OF JEWS OR IS THAT JUST RESERVED TO MUHAMMAD, YOU HYPOCRITES???
September 27th, 2010 at 2:08 am
Zak
When someone confuses “Christians” with the word “Christian Right” it means they usually do not know about the Dominionists, Dispensionalist, Christian Zionism and how their theolgoical beliefs affect foreign policy, the Muslim world, and their plans for America and by extension the Muslim world.
I don’t disagree with asserting ourselves and fighting Islamophobia, and I don’t mind a Christian President either. The point I was making was to join forces with allies (liberals which include the mainstream Christians) on common grounds.
I wasn’t talking about Christians, I was talking about the Christian Right, a problem in America that doesn’t exist in any developed country. You’re talking about Chrisitanity as if it is a monolith in America. It is not. There are far greater schisms between say Evangelical and Catholic than there is between Shia and Sunni.
No G8 country has this unique problem. Even McCain, (non Evangelical) had to bring in Sarah Palin because she could mobilise the voting base he was left with, the Christian Right, even though he described the Christian Right as being “a serious problem”. The point being here, that the GOP cannot afford to ignore this large group with the all the baggage they bring with them.
I wouldn’t compare Europe with America, they have little in common. The Islamophoba in Europe is mainly from the far right, and it’s not based on theology. Europe doesn’t have the problem that America does of a large ignorant underclass (which the Christian Right are)
The Islamophobia in the USA is rooted in theology mainly. True, there is racist based Islamophobia too, but in America it’s way bigger than that.
Whilst there are racists who are Islamophobes, and Islamophboes who are racist the two are not the same thing. Nor is this soley about immigration. Those who motivated by their theology, don’t care if Muslims are white, black, brown or yellow.
The reason we cannot fight it effectively, is because so many Muslims who are immigrants or second or third generation immigrants think this is soley about skin colour. It’s not. That’s why we cannot fight it effectively. That’s not to say that racism against immigrants who are Muslims doens’t exist, it does but that is a separate problem. I’m not concerned with that, because there are laws in place to deal with that, and racists who are Islamophobes are usually anti every other minority as you pointed out.
As regards racism, there are laws in place to fight that. There are no laws against Islamophobia in the USA.
The Islamophobis coming from the Christian Right, has SOME to do with racism, but that was there even before 20 years ago, and we won’t totally get rid of racism in any society, it will exist in any place, due to human nature. Just like crime will always exist no matter how many laws we have.
The Islamophobia that is the problem today, and coming mainly from the US, is coming mainly from the Christian Right. The Zionist facists active in Islamophobia today, are mainly from this crowd, the Christian Right, even though the most visible ones are Jewish.
in a democracy like the USA, it’s the numbers that count (voters), and an Islamophobic cult with millions of followers with their hatred rooted in theology is a far greater threat than all the racists in the world put together.
In a nutshell, if they get in power, they will have the US military at their disposal to put the Armeggedon into action. When they invaded Iraq, they thought Jesus would come riding back, Blackwater was from this crowd of f***heads.
That is why we need to join forces with liberals until this problem is totally defeated. They’re out, and are not likely to get in power again, but we cannot take that chance. The liberals can keep them out of power, and that’s whom we should support.
September 27th, 2010 at 2:36 am
George Carty
“I’ve seen Islamophobes call Eric Margolis a “Marxist” even though his politics are quite conservative — someone like him (he identifies as “Eisenhower Republican”) would probably be more at home in the Democratic Party these days because of the loony-right teabaggers…”
I’m sure there are Islamophobes in the Democrat party too, who are liberals, marxist, secular, athiest..
BUT
There is no organised group that is Islamophobic with a common belief (bound together by “left behind” theology as Joel Rosenberg and Hagee and other Christian Zionist preachers followers ) that can pose a threat to Muslims or to the US.
There is no organised Marxist group that is a threat unlike the dispensionists and dominionists. They did control the US military during Bush’s years.
September 27th, 2010 at 6:39 am
@BMD: “I’m sure there are Islamophobes in the Democrat party too, who are liberals, marxist, secular, athiest.”
True, but my point is that some right-wing Islamophobes believe that Islamophobia is a prerequisite for right-wing politics, such that a non-Islamophobic conservative is mislabelled as a leftist.
September 27th, 2010 at 6:41 am
What are the similarities and differences when it comes to comparing effective techniques for defeating Islamist terrorism, to effective techniques for defeating the US Christian Right?
September 27th, 2010 at 11:06 am
First of all, it wasn’t even Muhammad who ordered the killing of the Jews who committed treason by violating their agreement of not to aid the enemies
Sure, Muhammad was the one who hand picked Sa’d as the judge, jury and executioner of the Jews.
I’m sure Muhammad decision in choosing Sa’d had nothing to do with Sa’d's previous desire to see the B. Qurayza tribe ‘punished’ or that Sa’d was mortally wounded during the siege of the tribe.
As usual, the fact that Muhammad fully intended for the two other Jewish tribes to be executed doesn’t enter in your analysis of the B. Qurayza atrocity.
Selective citation of facts, as always.
September 27th, 2010 at 12:54 pm
@ Tarig thanks ill keep that in mind and i know moderate muslims condemn terrorism and i have a great deal of respect for islam and muslims im sorry if my comments seemed harsh
September 27th, 2010 at 1:15 pm
What
“And moorishamerican don’t mind Christian Zionism Exposed, his main purpose is to deflect blame away from the Zionists in charge and Israel and make you believe Christian Zionists(who are just useful to Zionist Jews) are the actual perpetrators of Israeli crimes lol.”
Christian Zionism Exposed is not deflecting attention of Israeli crimes. Those crimes cannot happen if the Likud and settler extremists are propped up by the AMERICAN Messianic, Baptist, Evangleical (all these are Christian Zionists who are against peace, and breed heifers, and want Palestinians out, and want to expand Israels borders by force)
and regarding the “useful to Jews” comment, it’s just an alliance of convenience. Neither group like or trust each other, but each support the other for mutual use reasons.
“Jews have spoken out, just like Muslims have spoken out against terrorism, but you won’t see that in the Zionist run mainstream media. Unfortunately majority of Jews are Zionists, very liberal except when it comes to Israel. Look at these Anti Zionist Jews:
http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/
http://www.jewsnotzionists.org/
http://www.nkusa.org/”
Again you show your ignorance, neither the Neturai Karti nor the Jews you mention above are anti Zionists. Go and ask any Rabbi and he will tell you.
They are all Zionists in that they believe that the Messiah should lead Jews to Israel. They only oppose the current state of Israel because it is secular and the Messiah didn’t lead the Jews there.
There are several different schools of thought in Judaism regarding this. Some Jewish sects believe that the Messiah will lead them (the ones you mention above) others believe that Israel will become a theocracy first and the Messiah will return once they’re gathered there, and yet others believe the Messiah’s coming is not a necessity nor will happen.
Your selectively picking out those Jewish religious opinions that tally with your own beliefs and using them as a tool against Jews who believe in a different religious interpretation, doens’t do your credibily any good, expecially since they’re all Zionists.
September 27th, 2010 at 1:32 pm
Actually, JihadBob it was the Jews of Banu Qaruzah who picked Sad. Epic Fail. Moreover, according to these Jewish tribes own rules of war, treason was to be punished by death of the entire family of the individual who committed it, Muslims actually spared their families and some Jews were also spared and they didn’t convert to Islam because of the intervention of some muslims.
September 27th, 2010 at 1:37 pm
JihadBob is one to talk of Muhammad (PBUH). He completely dismisses things like Muhammad’s forgiveness of Mecca.
September 27th, 2010 at 1:40 pm
The Qurayza tribe committed high treason against the state, violently refused to abide by their own agreement with the state, and surrendered only on the condition that the chief from the Aus tribe; Sa’d bin Muaz, be the judge, on account of his tribe’s previous alliance with them. Sa’d subsequently judged that their warriors should be killed, and that their women and children should be take as captives. This judgment was based on their own laws (Deuteronomy 20:12) so it’s justified. Only those who abided by the pact were spared.
The Qurayza tribe weren’t “victims”, just traitors that got their comeuppance.
September 27th, 2010 at 1:49 pm
Guys n Gals
Jihad Bob is fully aware of what the truth is, regarding the Banu Qurayzah, and Saad who was from that Jewish tribe himself was selected by them because they were hoping he would wrongly use his influence (nepotism)
Saad however was hurt and humilated when his own minions were reproving him with “look what your tribe did”
The truth is that he passed the sentence on his tribe because they stupid enough to choose him to judge them. Had they selected the Prophet to judge them, he would have probably expelled them. Jihad Bob is fully aware that the Banu Qurayza had already been expelled once, and given a chance which they didn’t deserve. By choosing Saad they put him in a difficult position.
JihadBob is fully aware that sentence for treason in any country is death.
Why do you guys feed this troll? More to the point why does Loon Watch tolerate this?
Jihad Bob, get lost, you have your own website, and you refuse to debate Danios on radio. Take your ugly face out of here.
September 27th, 2010 at 2:46 pm
BMD
The point is to make Robert Spencer look like a paid for hack who really doesnt know what he is talking about . For all the other readers out there in the world.
Now lets just keep it a secret between us
September 27th, 2010 at 4:49 pm
Actually, JihadBob it was the Jews of Banu Qaruzah who picked Sad.
The Jews went with someone who wasn’t Muhammad to act as arbiter.
Muhammad was the one who picked Sa’d.
If you have evidence that Muhammad did not choose Sa’d, then please present it, because I have already read Ibn Ishaq to confirm this fact for myself.
according to these Jewish tribes own rules of war
A Jewish tribe did not have their own rules of war. Their rules of war were the rules of war of their surrounding culture. Proof texting to justify mass murder would be no different than beheading Muslims and pointing to the Koran and saying ‘aha! I was only carrying out a punishment in accord with Muslim law! Passage 9:5 says to behead!’.
It’s beyond stupid. But I guess I sometimes forget the types of people I am talking to.
The Qurayza tribe committed high treason against the state
Which country executes an entire tribe over the alleged actions of a few?
violently refused to abide by their own agreement with the state
What’s your evidence that the B. Qurayza were the first to use violence?
Or that they ‘violently refused to abide by their own agreement’?
Sa’d bin Muaz, be the judge, on account of his tribe’s previous alliance with them.
Sa’d was picked by Muhammad because of his intense hatred for the B. Qurayza tribe. The fact that he was mortally wounded from an earlier engagement against the people whose fate now rested on his judgment should have disqualified him from being able to decide their fate.
This is just common sense you’re not getting.
It’s frightening.
September 27th, 2010 at 5:20 pm
> “Which country executes an entire tribe over the alleged actions of a few?”
“Alleged actions”. Naughty JihadBob, are you trying to use groundless speculation? Their betrayal of Muslims was recorded by Ibn Ishaq.
> “The Jews went with someone who wasn’t Muhammad to act as arbiter.
Muhammad was the one who picked Sa’d.
If you have evidence that Muhammad did not choose Sa’d, then please present it, because I have already read Ibn Ishaq to confirm this fact for myself.”
Actually the Jews agreed to have Sa’d judge them. These three books are sources.
[3.^ Mohammed Abu-Nimer (2000-2001). "A Framework for Nonviolence and Peacebuilding in Islam". Journal of Law and Religion 15 (1-2): 247.
4.^ Hashmi, Sohail H.; Buchanan, Allen E; Moore, Margaret (2003). States, Nations, and Borders: The Ethics of Making Boundaries. Cambridge University Press.
5.^ Khadduri, Majid (1955). War And Peace in the Law of Islam]
I’m starting to doubt that you actually read Ibn Ishaq (whose authenticity is questioned by Muslims)
> “Sa’d was picked by Muhammad because of his intense hatred for the B. Qurayza tribe. The fact that he was mortally wounded from an earlier engagement against the people whose fate now rested on his judgment should have disqualified him from being able to decide their fate.”
Any proof that Sa’d had an “intense hatred”? Again, you’re just speculating.
JihadBob, please use facts when trying to justify your bigotry
September 27th, 2010 at 9:34 pm
Ibn Ishaq’s account is questionable, as his 900 figure is doubtful. The entire Qurayzah tribe was no executed, only the warriors of that tribe, that broke the treaty, and refused to surrender, were executed. That’s hardly the “entire tribe”. Furthermore, the members of the tribe that did not break the treaty, were allowed to go free.
The fact that Sa’d bin Muaz was chosen by the traitors themselves to pass judgment over them (hoping for leniency), is documented in Ibn Hisham among others, as well as in “The Sealed Nectar” biography of the Prophet: http://www.witness-pioneer.org/vil/Books/SM_tsn/index.htm
I also never said that they were the first to use violence, only that they violently refused to abide by the pact that they made with the Muslims, hence the siege. Their violence was their resistance to the Muslims (after their treachery) when they were besieged, instead of surrendering peacefully.
September 27th, 2010 at 11:21 pm
Actually the Jews agreed to have Sa’d judge them. These three books are sources.
The Jews chose someone who wasn’t Muhammad to judge them. It was Muhammad, however, to initially pick Sa’d to pass judgment on the tribe if the Jews did not opt for Muhammad to pass judgment on them (he had previously fully intended to execute to previous Jewish tribes and would later massacre remnants of the B. Nadir tribe at Khaybar).
These three books are sources
You have to use the primary sources since no new information has come down to us in the past 1,100 years.
So you’re stuck with Ibn Ishaq (the earliest biographer) or a few other later hadith collectors/historians after Ishaq.
Which ones say that Muhammad did not hand pick Sa’d to pass judgment on the Jews?
Any proof that Sa’d had an “intense hatred”?
Yes, check out any number of websites available that quote from Ibn Ishaq or other early historians.
You can also address the fact that man Muhammad hand selected was mortally wounded after just previously engaging in a siege against a tribe he would now choose the fate of.
September 27th, 2010 at 11:30 pm
The entire Qurayzah tribe was no executed, only the warriors of that tribe, that broke the treaty
All the sources I read agree that all the males, starting with teenage boys with arm pit hair, were massacred.
Of course, back then children were considered adults, hence the prophet’s marriage to a seven year old and consummation of the marriage when his child bride was only nine years of age. The justification for the union is also conveniently sent down to us in the eternal Koran.
I couldn’t find the B. Qurayza slaughter in the link you provided, but no matter.
Again, you should only cite the primary sources regarding this event rather than relying on second hand spin.
September 28th, 2010 at 12:04 am
Go on then JihadBob, if you insist on only using “primary sources”, why not post the original Arabic of the relevant sections of the sira/maghazi literature (there is more than just that of Ibn Ishaq) and then discuss it?
The fact is that you are as reliant on modern scholarship to access, translate and understand the sources as anyone else, so denying serious academic scholarship due to it not being “primary sources” is ludicrous! At least engage their arguments and prove your opinion is stronger – simply asserting that they are not valid as sources does little to prove your point – it only proves that you do not seem to accept peer review as an accurate way of gauging scholarly contribution.
September 28th, 2010 at 12:14 am
It’s funny how he doesn’t recognize Al Raheeq-ul Makhtum (The Sealed Nectar), yet wants to lecture people about using “primary sources”. Talk about irony!
September 28th, 2010 at 5:14 am
@JihadBob
Those three books have the Qurayzah incident in them and say that the Jews agreed to have Sa’d judge them.
I don’t have the books with me and thus can’t find out the exact Hadith.
Try again and next time don’t try to throw away inconvenient evidence.
September 28th, 2010 at 8:30 am
Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri:
The people of (Banu) Quraiza agreed to accept the verdict of Sad bin Mu’adh. So the Prophet sent for Sad, and the latter came (riding) a donkey and when he approached the Mosque, the Prophet said to the Ansar, “Get up for your chief or for the best among you.” Then the Prophet said (to Sad).” These (i.e. Banu Quraiza) have agreed to accept your verdict.” Sad said, “Kill their (men) warriors and take their offspring as captives,” On that the Prophet said, “You have judged according to Allah’s Judgment,” or said, “according to the King’s judgment.” – (Sahih Bukhari Vol. 5, Book 59, No. 447)
“The siege continued for twenty-five days, during which the Muslims allowed the Jews who had refused to betray the Prophet (peace be upon him) during the Battle of the Ditch to leave and go wherever they wished as a reward for their faithfulness.” – (Muhammad Al Ghazali, Fiqh-Us-Seerah: Understanding the Life of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH), International Islamic Publishing House, p346)
So, obviously, those among the Qurayza that didn’t break their pact, were let go. Therefore, that implies that only the traitors remained at the end of the siege, and whatever judgment was handed out, would’ve only, by defintion, been applied to the traitors.
Also, “The Sealed Nectar” IS a primary source.
Furthermore, Ibn Ishaq’s account is questionable, since some of his sources weren’t considered reliable.
September 28th, 2010 at 8:55 am
Why this constanting arguing over Banu Qurazayh? So what? Who cares? The only people who seem to take offense with it are the muslim bashers and hypocritically, the zionists, inspite of the huge number of massacres their own books record they did, and yet they bitch about the evil muslims and their anti-semetism.
Muslims have nothing to justify or apologise about. They violated the treaty by helpin those that sought to kill the muslims. People have been executed on lesser crimes.
Quit your bitching and piss off.
September 28th, 2010 at 9:24 am
@ marco,
I think of it more as an opportunity to educate those who don’t know about it, but are genuinely interested in knowing about it, just so those who are intelligent enough to listen, don’t walk away with only JihadBob’s spin.
If issues are going to be brought up, I think it’s a good idea to provide the most accurate information about it that’s possible.
September 28th, 2010 at 10:30 am
Let me know when you are able to show that Muhammad did not select Sa’d.
The hadith quoted above says that the Jews agreed to accept Sa’d's verdict (as if they had a choice by that point), Sa’d had already been selected by Muhammad to render judgment.
Thank you for quoting a hadith that agrees with me.
As far as not accepting modern scholarship, no one has actually directly quoted from the sources, only provide their citation.
September 28th, 2010 at 11:05 am
Actually, as we note in the hadith, the Prophet only appointed Sa’ad to be their judge after they had agreed to it. That the traitors of Qurayza had agreed to it, means they did have a choice, and they chose Sa’d to be their judge, in hopes of leniency. Whether the Prophet suggested him or not, is irrelevant to that point, since the Prophet only told them to choose from among the chiefs of their allies. They could’ve chosen any of them.
September 28th, 2010 at 11:10 am
The hadith doesn’t provide that much information to arrive at that conclusion.
That’s why we need to refer back to the biographies to fill in these gaps.
Muhamamd picked Sa’d.
Completely factual.
September 28th, 2010 at 11:53 am
Actually, Prophet Muhammad didn’t “pick” Sa’d. What is said, is that he SUGGESTED Sa’d.
In terms of facts, based on the variety of sources used:
- We know that members of the Qurayza tribe not guilty of treachery were let go during the siege (hence only the traitors would’ve remained to surrender after the siege)
- We know that the traitors, after being besieged for 1-3 weeks, eventually surrendered
- We know that the Prophet told these traitors to choose an individual from among their allies, who they trusted to be their judge
- We know that the Prophet, at most, suggested Sa’d to be their judge
- We know the traitors agreed to have Sa’d be the judge on their fate
- We know that Sa’d ordered the warriors to be executed, and that all the others were to be taken as captives.
September 28th, 2010 at 2:13 pm
Jihadbob said, “Again, you should only cite the primary sources regarding this event rather than relying on second hand spin.”
LOL … Here is a bunch of primary sources (Muslims) telling you it ain’t so, but you rely on second hand spin (Spencer) to tell you it is? But the fact is that the only source you will accept is one that fits your own bigoted concepts. That’s not scholarship – its called quackery.
September 28th, 2010 at 2:24 pm
First hand (primary source) account of the massacre of Jews by Christians:
Breaking the bolts and doors, they killed the Jews, about seven hundred in number, who in vain resisted the force and attack of so many thousands. They killed the women, also, and with their swords pierced tender children of whatever age and sex. The Jews, seeing that their Christian enemies were attacking them and their children, and that they were sparing no age, likewise fell upon one another, brother, children, wives, and sisters, and thus they perished at each other’s hands. Horrible to say, mothers cut the throats of nursing children with knives and stabbed others, preferring them to perish thus by their own hands rather than to be killed by the weapons of the uncircumcised. — Albert of Aix
August. C. Krey, The First Crusade: The Accounts of Eyewitnesses and Participants, (Princeton: 1921), 54-56
Let Jihadbob now cry, tu quoque tu quoque … But if you want Muslims to justify what did or did not happen, you’d better start by explaining your own side first (from primary sources please)!
September 28th, 2010 at 2:25 pm
Perhaps JihadBob should do some research on Antisemitism in Chritianity.
I suggest “The Jews and Their Lies” by Christian “reformer” Martin Luther.
He was the founder of Protestantism.
September 28th, 2010 at 3:09 pm
“And moorishamerican don’t mind Christian Zionism Exposed, his main purpose is to deflect blame away from the Zionists in charge and Israel and make you believe Christian Zionists(who are just useful to Zionist Jews) are the actual perpetrators of Israeli crimes lol.”
The Christian Zionists are not led by anyone. That is their own theology.They have a mutual use contract, and in fact many liberal Jewish Zionists like Max Blumenthal speak out against them. You are the one deflecting blame and in any case, how does that differ from what you’re doing? You an atheist, who cares little for Islam only turn up here to bash Israel. The comments that the poster above was making was about Jews speaking out against Islamophobia, not against Zionism. An opportunist like you cannot tell the difference. You come here looking for a chance to bash Zionism not to fight Islamophobia.
“Jews have spoken out, just like Muslims have spoken out against terrorism, but you won’t see that in the Zionist run mainstream media.”
There are liberal American Jewish Zionists who speak out against Israeli ocucpation and Islamopbhobia. Do not pretend otherwise, just so that you can legitimise your agenda. The best rebuttal against “obsession with hate” was written by Rabbi Dov Beliak, a liberal Zionist. Richard Silverstein, Glenn Greenwalt, Jeff Halper, Max Blumenthal, Jim Lobe, and countless other liberal Jewish Zionists who genuinlley care about the Palestinians speak out against the occupation.
“Unfortunately majority of Jews are Zionists, very liberal except when it comes to Israel. “
Why shouldn’t they be? Pro Israel doesn’t mean anti Palestine or anti Islam. In any case, Moorishamerican wasn’t talking about Israel’s occupation. She was talking of Islamophobia. Islamophobia is rife in the Democrat party?
“Look at these Anti Zionist Jews:”
Those 3 links are not of anti Zionist Jews. Their religious interpretation (from the Talmud, not the Torah by the way) is that the Messiah will lead them them there. They do believe that the land belongs to Jews. That is the only difference and do believe that eventually Jews will end up there.
September 28th, 2010 at 3:09 pm
above post is for “What”
September 28th, 2010 at 3:37 pm
More of your misinformation debunked, “What”
“in charge and Israel and make you believe Christian Zionists(who are just useful to Zionist Jews) are the actual perpetrators of Israeli crimes lol”
That’s a big contradiction! You said above that Iraq was invaded for or by Israel.
“Israel, Zionists and Neocons have been trying to get America to invade Iran, another Muslim country.”
Yes and the majority of those Zionists were/are Evangelicals. They now want to go into Iran because of the Amreggedon, fire and brimstone.
But the crimes of the US army specifically Blackwater were carried by Blackwater (Christian zionists) who believed that God gave them a mandate to invade Iraq for the Armeggedon, (Evangelicals were the biggest supporters of the Iraq war)Blackwater wasn’t made in Israel, it was made in America and it’s not Jewish Zionist, it’s Christian Zionist.
——————–
Conservative Christians Biggest Backers of Iraq War
by Jim Lobe
commondreams.org/headlines02/1010-02.htm
——–
Blackwater is a corporation that provides mercenary soldiers and supporting security personnel to the US government.
globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=16878
Erik Prince, the founder and owner of the now infamous US corporation, Blackwater, hails from Holland, Michigan where his family was both powerful and prominent in two institutions – (1) the Republican Party and (2) the evangelical Christian Church. After scandals hit his large and lucrative firm, Prince ordered a curious rebranding that changed its name to Xe.
———-
As Bush’s War Strategy Shifts to Iran, Christian Zionists Gear Up for the Apocalypse
alternet.org/world/46753
———–
Christian Zionists Eye Iran
talk2action.org/story/2009/10/2/113751/231
September 28th, 2010 at 4:10 pm
Ok, Awe, when you have evidence that Muhammad did not pick Sa’d, please post it.
@Syed, if you’re looking for first hand accounts, I can also help you out by quoting a survivor of the Muslim massacre of Christians in Thessaloniki (904 c.e.):
The Thessalonians tried to escape through the streets, pursued by the Saracens, who were unleashed like wild beasts. In their panic, men. women, the elderly, and children, ?fell into each other?s arms to give each other one last kiss.? The enemy hit with no mercy. Parents were killed while trying to defend their children. No one was spared: women, children, the elderly, all were immediately pierced by the sword. The poor wretches ran through the town, or tried to hide inside the caves; some of them, believing they could find refuge inside a church, would seek shelter inside, while others tried to scale the walls of the ramparts, from where they jumped into the void and crashed to the ground. Nuns, petrified with fear, with their hair disheveled, tried to escape, and ended up by the thousands in the hands of the barbarians, who killed the older ones, and sent the younger and more attractive ones into captivity and dishonor? The Saracens also massacred the unfortunate people who had sought refuge inside churches.”
“The church [of Saint George] was full of wretches who had sought safety within it. There were about three hundred of them, as we learned later. A great number of murderous enemies came in. Immediately their leader bounced onto the holy altar, where the divine offices are held by the priests: there, crouching down with his legs crossed, in the manner of the barbarians, he sat, full of rage and arrogance, looking at the crowd of those people, full of the evil spirit of what he intended to commit. After grabbing my father and my brother with his hands, and after ordering that we be guarded in an area near the entrance by some of his men whom he had chosen, he gave a sign to his men to do away with the crowd. Like wild wolves when they meet their prey, they began to massacre the poor creatures quickly and mercilessly, and, overflowing with rage, they inquired with their eyes as to what the terrible judge wished to do with us: but he stopped them from doing anything against us, for the moment? After the end of the massacre of those poor people, the entire floor was covered with bodies, with a lake of blood in the middle. Then, as the murderer could not get out, he ordered that they pile up the bodies one on top of the other, on the two sides of the church; then he quickly jumped down from the altar, came up to us, and grabbed my father and my brother with his hands.
Syed wrote: “Let Jihadbob now cry, tu quoque tu quoque … But if you want Muslims to justify what did or did not happen, you’d better start by explaining your own side first (from primary sources please)!”
@Nassir: Perhaps JihadBob should do some research on Antisemitism in Chritianity.
I suggest “The Jews and Their Lies” by Christian “reformer” Martin Luther.
He was the founder of Protestantism.
Good point, Muhammad had much in common with crusaders. No argument there.
I’m happy to what the Koran says about Jews first.
September 28th, 2010 at 4:20 pm
Some interesting academic research has been done on this very issue, comparing the two major sira-maghazi sources available – that of Ibn Ishaq and al-Waqidi. Relevant sections are quoted below for interest.
—————————-
September 28th, 2010 at 4:20 pm
Okay, the comments here don’t accept html tags, so I hope it’s still readable.
September 28th, 2010 at 4:28 pm
Blackwater: the rise of the world’s most powerful mercenary army
books.google.com/books?id=_6f_3DobpdwC&pg=PA84&lpg=PA84&dq=blackwater+evangelicals&source=bl&ots=WOGqbYxzd2&sig=m6RWl1rfxkZJHQegHi4LKq9M7Mw&hl=en&ei=Q1yiTPbOHs2TjAfe8qiEAw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10&ved=0CEEQ6AEwCQ
The Evangelical Christian Takeover of the Military
http://www.alternet.org/asoldierspeaks/67385/?page=entire
September 28th, 2010 at 4:34 pm
And JihadBob, the literature shows that Muhammad suggested Sa`d as a mediator – with which the tribe of Aws agreed (whom the Jewish tribes, especially the Banu Qurayza were closely associated with) – and then he passed his verdict. See Fazier, p. 477.
But also interestingly, Fazier’s study of al-Waqidi’s text also shows that both the Sa`d’s of the Ansar [i.e. including the mediator Sa'd ibn Mu'adh!] had pleaded with the Banu Qurayza to uphold the treaty instead of following the plan of Huyayy which made them reneg on their duties as contained in the treaty and led to their punishment. See Fazier, p. 475
September 28th, 2010 at 4:48 pm
What,
Did you say Israeli’s were lobbying for Iran? and Christian Zionists are just useful to them?
Explain this then, and there is plenty more at Talk 2 Action,
Holocaust For Zion : CUFI’s Christian Zionism Made Simple
Bruce Wilson
http://www.talk2action.org/story/2007/3/2/172519/7931
Pastor John Hagee, from a September 18, 2006 interview in WHYY’s “Fresh Air” with Terry Gross
Russia with Arab allies will plot and plan Israel’s destruction. That’s happening right now. It has been happening for 10 years. Iran’s nuclear weapons have been produced with Russian scientists. The Islamic Arabs are using the Roadmap to Peace to get all of the land of Israel they can get. And when Israel finally says, `Enough!’ you’re going to see the beginning of the implementation of Ezekial’s war in 38:39. The critical point is the church is raptured before this war begins. I am telling you that makes this message one of the most thrilling prophetic messages you’ve ever heard in your life. You could get raptured out of this building before I get through finished preaching. We are that close to the coming of the Son of Man. –
————–
In a recent Charisma Magazine issue John Hagee, in a piece entitled “The Coming Holy War,” wrote : “Israel and America must confront Iran’s nuclear ability and willingness to destroy Israel with nuclear weapons.”
On July 19, 2006, at a CUFI sponsored Washington DC event called “A Night to Honor Israel,” with GOP Party head Ken Mehlman and US GOP Senators Sam Brownback, Rick Santorum, John Cornyn, and Kay Bailey-Hutchinson ( President George W. Bush sent recorded greetings to the event ) , Pastor John Hagee declared:
“The United States must join Israel in a pre-emptive military strike against Iran to fulfill God’s plan for both Israel and the West… a biblically prophesied end-time confrontation with Iran, which will lead to the Rapture, Tribulation [...] and [the] Second Coming of Christ.”
When talking to many Jews and Israelis, Hagee seems stress the need to protect Israel and promises his group’s unwavering support for what Hagee calls God’s historic covenant with Jews to whom, Hagee believes, God gave the historical lands of Israel for perpetuity.
When talking to the Christian Zionists of CUFI, however, Hagee speaks of other matters : the need for an apocalyptic war in the Mideast that will trigger the “Rapture” of fundamentalist Christians into Heaven but also kill, Hagee believes, most Jews now living. That “necessary” war ( necessary to trigger the “Rapture”: of Christians, that is )
September 28th, 2010 at 5:26 pm
@ JihadBob,
I think you are the one that needs to demonstrate that the Prophet actually picked him, instead of just suggested him.
September 28th, 2010 at 9:36 pm
It’s funny because JihadBob never mentions that the B.Qurayzah were actually somewhat enthusiastic in agreeing to Sa’d, hoping that they would get a lenient verdict.
September 29th, 2010 at 11:31 am
The following passage seems pretty clear to me:
In the morning they [the B.Quraiza] submitted to the apostle’s judgement and al-Aus lept up and said, ‘O Apostle, they are our allies, not allies of Khazraj, and you know how you recently treated the allies of our brethren.’ Now the apostle had besieged B. Qaynuqa` who were allies of al-Khazraj and when they submitted to his judgement `Abdullah b. Ubayy b. Salul had asked him for them and he gave them to him; so when al-Aus spoke thus the apostle said: ‘Will you be satisfied, O Aus, if one of your own number pronounces judgement on them ?’ When they agreed he said that Sa`d b. Mu`adh was the man. [page 463]
Muhammad fully intended to pass judgment on the Qurayza just as he had wanted to do for the B. Qanuqa and B. Nadir tribes – both tribes Muhammad had fully intended to massacre.
It was pleading from a tribe formerly allied to the B. Qurayza tribe that intervened on behalf of their former allies to get Muhammad appoint someone from their own clan to decide the fate of the B. Qurayza instead of Muhammad.
Now, the next question is: why?
Did the Aws feel a genuine concern for their former allies that if Muhammad did judge the B. Qurayza he would execute them? Does the passage lean towards that understanding?
To me, it does. The Aws clearly believed that Muhammad had the mind to wipe the tribe out, just as he intended to massacre two previous tribes.
So, Muhammad consents. *But* this time, Muhammad is able to pick a man who he knows would rule in the same manner that Muhammad would have.
How do we know this? Ibn Ishaq tells us in a prior passage:
The mortally wounded Sa’d Muadh:
“O God, seeing that you have appointed war between us and them grant me martyrdom and do not let me die until I have seen my desire upon B. Qurayza.” [page 459]
Key words: ‘Do not let me die until I have seen my desire upon the B. Qurayza’
The man Muhammad appoints after the Aws tribe intercedes on behalf of the B. Qurayza is a mortally wounded, devout follower and bodyguard of Muhammad, who has already made a death bed confession to ‘punish’ the B. Qurayza tribe. Yeah, some impartial and completely innocent decision on Muhammad’s part.
BTW, I’ve now just shown that Muhammad appointed Sa’d – the Jews didn’t,
and it was the Aws tribe who were behind Muhammad’s decision to appoint someone else if the Jews did not want Muhammad’s counsel. (as if they had a choice by the time they were outside their compound and disarmed, but the whole incident was all for show for their former allies)
I’ll await your sources and for you to address the quotes presented.
September 29th, 2010 at 1:01 pm
I’ve already stated the facts, and quoting Ibn Ishaq won’t change that. Ibn Ishaq is not the only source of information on this issue.
Furthermore, based on the hadith I quoted, the traitors did have a choice, as it says they “agreed” to it. Sa’d wasn’t imposed on them, as they agreed to accept whatever his judgment was going to be. This, therefore, makes the Prophet choice of Sa’d, no more than a suggestion.
How Sa’d felt towards them and the punishment he meted out to them, was more than justified, given their treachery. All those that were captured were traitors.
As for the other Jewish tribes, expulsion was always the plan for both of them, after the violation of the treaty. The tribe of An-Nadir after their attempt on the Prophet’s life, while the tribe of Qainuqua’, on their breach of their pact, were given an ultimatum to comply with the treaty they agreed to of mutual peace and security or face the same thing as the Quraysh did. Since they were so gung-ho about fighting the Muslims, they chose the latter, and that’s what they got.
With the tribe of Qainuqua’, upon their surrender to the forces of the Prophet, following a 15 day siege of their strongholds, ‘Abdullah bin Ubai interceded on their behalf, on the grounds of their former alliance to his tribe of Khazraj. The Prophet granted his request, and all of their wealth and war equipage was handed over, while they were expelled.
With the tribe of An-Nadir, upon the Prophet knowing of their intentions against him (in addition to all the other stuff they did) supposedly giving them an ultimatum to leave or be beheaded. The An-Nadir tribe chose the latter, and were besieged for a short period, and eventually surrendered, offering to willingly comply with the Prophet’s order to leave Medina. They were allowed to carry as much as they wanted, but their armory was confiscated.
Of course, the only thing JihadBob cares about, is the fact that these traitors were from Jewish tribes. Had these traitors been from any other tribe, his approach would be very different.
JihadBob is a little too partial to people who happen to be Jewish, as if Jews can do no wrong.
JihadBob,
How many other insidious traitors bent on massacring their compatriots whom they betrayed, do you intend to sympathize with? Or do you reserve that sympathy only for the ones who happen to be your brand of Jewish or Christian?
September 29th, 2010 at 2:03 pm
JihadBob – which source was your citation from [page 463]? It definitely was not from the article I cited above, which is one of the most sustained discussions of the topic in academia to date.
Again, just because someone wrote a narrative of the story and used the word “submitted” does not prove your hypothesis; all your talk of using primary sources and yet you seem unable to prove your point definitively from them: where does it say so in the sira-maghazi literature? I guess innocence until proven guilty simply does not apply to Muslims? You posit that he was the orchestrator, so the burden of proof is on proving that, not the other way around.
Besides now proving that Muhammad definitively chose Sa’d rather than merely suggesting him and receiving approval for it, you also now have to prove that the Bani Aws (who were not all Muslim, by the way) had it in for their long-term allies the Bani Qurayza, and as a whole did not wish leniency for them. Why else would Sa’d ibn Muadh himself, who was chief of the Aws at the time and before the Qurayza even committed their treason and were merely thinking of it, implore them to return to following the treaty agreement they had with Muhammad and the Muslims? Read up on the Battle of Bu’adh to see the cementing of the relationship between the Aws and the Qurayza – they were victors in a decisive battle before the Hijra, so why would their relationship suddenly cease?
September 29th, 2010 at 2:23 pm
@Jihadbob
I notice you frequently put something along the lines of “I’m happy to what do discuss what the Quran says about so and so” but you continually ignore all requests to debate Danios live.
If you are really that interested in discussing what the Quran says then why not discuss it, but discuss it live???
And whether you are Bob Spencer or not doesnt matter. If you want to discuss it and Rob Spencer doesnt want to discuss it then why not accept a debate w/ Danios?
September 29th, 2010 at 2:55 pm
We know you have nothing else to do as demonstrated by the fact that all you do is jump from forum to forum and copy and paste your nonsense.
September 29th, 2010 at 3:53 pm
Bani Aws (who were not all Muslim, by the way) had it in for their long-term allies the Bani Qurayza
Apologies if you misunderstood me.
I said that the Aws tribe, as a whole, were against massacring the B. Qurayza. That’s why they pleaded with Muhammad that they should decide on the fate of the B. Qurayza – it worked in the past when the two previous Jewish tribes escaped certain death Muhammad had planned for them when their allies pestered Muhammad enough to spare the Jews.
Muhammad agreed to this by picking one from amongst the tribe (instead of having a number of leaders decide together) who would pass judgment on the B. Qurayza.
This worked out well for Muhammad because the man he chose from the Aws tribe happened to have been mortally wounded in fighting against the B. Qurayza and had already made a death bed confession to punish the B. Qurayza in some way (he was also a bodyguard of Muhammad and a devoted follower). He got his wish/way when Muhammad ‘just happened’ to choose him, a mortally wounded man (of all people), to decide the fate of the B. Qurayza.
September 29th, 2010 at 3:55 pm
Also, the quotes from Ibn Ishaq’s biography which I copy/pasted from AnsweringIslam.
I don’t have a copy of Ishaq beside me now, but I can confirm the quotes are accurate since I’ve read Ishaq before.
September 29th, 2010 at 3:58 pm
Of course, the only thing JihadBob cares about, is the fact that these traitors were from Jewish tribes.
Of course I don’t.
I think the ethnic cleansing of the two other tribes (and Muhammad’s intentions to massacre them, though later massacring the B. Nadir tribe at Khaybar) are worth mentioning – especially if we are to properly understand the historical context of this latest round of mass murder the early Muslims engaged in.
September 29th, 2010 at 4:29 pm
> “Also, the quotes from Ibn Ishaq’s biography which I copy/pasted from AnsweringIslam.”
Yes, the highest authority when it comes to Islam.
(sarcasm)
So much for JihadBob rejecting our sources (my books by the way, were written by scholars, not hate sites)
> “You have to use the primary sources since no new information has come down to us in the past 1,100 years.”
September 29th, 2010 at 4:49 pm
I could have lifted the quotes from any website.
It makes no difference, I didn’t copy/paste the opinions or comments of the authors from the website, only the quotes provided by the author of the article.
September 29th, 2010 at 4:53 pm
So basically anytime anyone brings up a topic, you go see what answeringislam has to say about it then copy and paste what they say.
Real original.
September 29th, 2010 at 4:57 pm
If you really want when you debate Danios we can provide a laptop w/ internet access so you can go on answeringislam.com during the debate.
Just to make it easier for you. I know it would be hard to print every page on that website and bring it w/ you.
September 29th, 2010 at 5:06 pm
> “I could have lifted the quotes from any website.”
Yes, you’ve done that before and it turned out that your information was fallacious.
You simply ended up embarrasing yourself and leaving thread.
September 29th, 2010 at 5:19 pm
Executing traitors is not “mass murder”, “ethnic cleansing”, etc., it’s just executing traitors.
There is no evidence that Prophet Muhammad intended to massacre entire tribes, nor did he even intend to expel all of them, since the only ones that were targeted, were those who were bent on not abiding by the treaty.
In all those battles, there was not a single innocent person that was targeted or executed by the Prophet and his army.
September 29th, 2010 at 10:09 pm
JihadBob: Nice to see you are keeping up your common practice of not actually referring to any of the previous points raised or credible academic sources cited in order to disprove counter-arguments to your thesis, thereby strengthening your own. Instead you like to copy/paste from a well-known anti-Islamic website with a known agenda and dubious reliance on long out of date academic sources (and also often partial at that). Good job! It really strengthens your case…
September 29th, 2010 at 10:16 pm
Also, the quotes from Ibn Ishaq’s biography which I copy/pasted from AnsweringIslam.
I wouldn’t have expected any less of you.
September 30th, 2010 at 6:57 am
“But hey, if you can find Ibn Ishaq online, then link it here so I can go ahead and take the exact same quotes off of that website and re-paste them here.
LoL.”
I don’t know wtf you’re laughing at because I never said anything about the credibility of the quotes. Look at you going off on a tangent, posting bullshit about Ibn Warraq and skepticsanotatedbibles.com when all I said was:
I wouldn’t have expected any less of you.
I wouldn’t expect any less of you than being so familiar with that joke of a site that you know that it has the exact quotes of Ibn Ishaq that you wanted. I’m willing to bet that their argument was also the same (read: half-assed).
September 30th, 2010 at 7:41 am
Actually, the the tribe of Qainuqua’, on their breach of the pact, were given an ultimatum to comply with the treaty they agreed to of mutual peace and security or face the same thing as the Quraysh did. Since they were so gung-ho about fighting the Muslims, they chose the latter, and that’s what they got.
Therefore, “plan A” was for them to comply with the pact they agreed to, and everyone’s happy.
In case they refused “plan A”, then “plan B” was to “do to them what was done to the Quraysh”. The Qainuqua’ tribe themselves chose “plan B”, and that’s what they got.
You seem to have missed that part, Bob, namely, that the Qainuqua’ tribe were also guilty of breaching the pact, as were the An-Nadir tribe.
When talking about an event in the past, it is important to review the WHOLE situation surrounding it, not just nitpicking certain details that you want to sensationalize.
September 30th, 2010 at 8:04 am
“When talking about an event in the past, it is important to review the WHOLE situation surrounding it, not just nitpicking certain details that you want to sensationalize.
^THIS.
September 30th, 2010 at 2:15 pm
^ Wise words for the Loons to live by.
Let me know when you can address the quotes provided:
1) Muhammad selected Sa’d at the insistence of the Aws tribe
2) Sa’d had prior known intentions of ‘punishing’ the tribe he was mortally wounded fighting against before Muhammad picked him to decide on the tribe’s fate.
3) What do the Quraish have to do with Muhammad’s ethnic cleansing of three Jewish tribes?
September 30th, 2010 at 2:36 pm
Remember JihadBob, if your post is last–even if it is a simple regurtitation of discredited things you already said several times–then you win!
> “Wise words for the Loons to live by.” [a rseponse to Cynic's quote]
He’s calling us loons for not perverting history for hateful purposes.
September 30th, 2010 at 2:41 pm
4) The Quraiyza tribe agreed to Sa’d being the judge on what to do with them.
5) Prophet Muhammad did not cleanse others by their ethnicity, but by their criminality. It just so happens that the Jewish tribes became criminals, and therefore, had to go.
6) After the Qainuqua’ tribe breached their pact, the Prophet gave them an ultimatium to either comply with the treaty, or be dealt with the same way the Quraysh were in the Battle of Badr. The Qainuqua’ responded to this by basically saying:
“O Muhammad, you seem to think that we are your people. Do not deceive yourself because you vanquished a contingent of Quraysh having no knowledge of war and got the better of them; for, by God, if we fight you, you will find that we are real men, and that you have not met the like of us”
This basically amounted to a declaration of war, and resulted in the Qainuqua’ tribe of criminals being besieged, where they eventually surrendered, and were made to leave.
September 30th, 2010 at 3:19 pm
“O Muhammad, you seem to think that we are your people. Do not deceive yourself because you vanquished a contingent of Quraysh having no knowledge of war and got the better of them; for, by God, if we fight you, you will find that we are real men, and that you have not met the like of us”
This basically amounted to a declaration of war, and resulted in the Qainuqua’ tribe of criminals being besieged, where they eventually surrendered, and were made to leave.
Please refer back to what Cynic said above:
When talking about an event in the past, it is important to review the WHOLE situation surrounding it, not just nitpicking certain details that you want to sensationalize.
I’m STILL waiting for anyone to address the quotes I produced.
It seems beyond all the initial bluster, no one is really ready to respond to the fact that I was right all along.
’nuff said.
September 30th, 2010 at 3:50 pm
Well, no, you weren’t “right all along”, as everything you’ve presented, has already been responded to.
You still haven’t addressed the fact that, regardless of whether or not Prophet Muhammad suggested Sa’d or not, the traitors from the Quraiyza tribe still agreed to accept whatever judgment he gave.
Furthermore, the fact that they were traitors, you also haven’t addressed.
September 30th, 2010 at 7:27 pm
JihadBob: You are citing Ibn Warraq as a credible academic source? JihadBob: You have got to be kidding me! How is Warraq a credible academic source? Show me where his work has been accepted through a method of academic peer review? Yet you say I am attacking the messenger and not the message? If attacking your choice of “sources” is attacking “you”, then I guess that makes sense. But okay, lets go to the “message”.
[I apologise for the length in advance all, and hope this makes it through the comment filter intact and is useful].
For a start, Sa’d ibn Mu’adh was injured by an arrow in the Battle of the Trench, not fighting against the Bani Qurayza as Warraq states (see the Encyclopaedia of Islam 1st ed. published by Brill, which means this point has been known for at least a hundred years!). As I noted above, the Maghazi text of al-Waqidi gives more details where Ibn Ishaq was silent, mentioning clearly that Sa’d and other allies of the Banu Qurayza implored them to not break the treaty they had with the Muslims by the actions they were planning. How do you deal with that if you think Sa’d was simply out for revenge on them? I would honestly like to hear you even attempt to do this, because it paints a much more complex picture of Sa’d and the whole situation than you are implying; and these are from the earliest sources we have on the sira and various battles during that period. You have refused to address this at all and simply moved the goalposts.
Anyway, back to the issue of sources. If you actually look at the Sira of Ibn Ishaq as transmitted by Ibn Hisham (linked online for ease of use only), which I will use solely and specifically because you have referred to it repeatedly, it states quite clearly that the delegates from the Aws went to Muhammad and said “يا رسول الله، إنهم موالينا [Oh Prophet of God, they are our clients (mawali)]“. Now, that immediately contextualises why the Aws intervened, why they were unhappy at the situation, and also why Muhammad saught their approval in order to maintain justice amongst all of the parties in Medina, especially after an invasion had almost threatened their collective extinction until it was routed. In response, he naturally suggested “ألا ترضون يا معشر الأوس أن يحكم فيهم رجل منكم؟ [Wouldn't you be satisfied that a man from among you pronounces jugement on them?]“. They then applied in the affirmative. Muhammad then named Sa’d ibn Mu’adh as a possible judge, to which they approved. He was their tribal chief anyway, so was ultimately responsible for his tribes clients (mawali), the Banu Qurayza. That’s simply how the clientage system worked at the time.
And assertions from the likes of Ibn Warraq and Ali Sina notwithstanding, there is no proof that his attitude towards the Banu Qurayza had changed substantially at all before or after he became Muslim – especially when we bring al-Waqidi into the equation who gives us much more documented details regarding the whole situation. And this is a source you have repeatedly not engaged although it provides an alternative account to Ibn Ishaq’s rendition of early Muslim history; there are others out there.
Now from this, the onus is on you to prove that a) Muhammad had planned this all along, and b) that Muhammad knew what Sa’d had planned to judge all along. It’s simply not there at all in the sources, especially considering the following points:
As Sa’d was being taken to the assembled group to pass his judgement, it reports that some of those carrying him said: ” يا أبا عمرو ، أحسن في مواليك ، فإن رسول الله – صلى الله عليه وسلم – إنما ولاك ذلك لتحسن فيهم [Oh Abu 'Amr (Sa'd): do the utmost/best for your clients (mawali - the Banu Qurayza); for truly the Prophet delegated this to you to do your best for them]” Now, you would need to prove that “to do your utmost/best” means something other than the obvious here, which simply doesn’t exist in the Arabic as it is from a root word meaning what is good and beautiful (husn)!
When there at the assembly, it is said to Sa’d: “يا أبا عمرو ، إن رسول الله – صلى الله عليه وسلم – قد ولاك أمر مواليك لتحكم فيهم [Oh Abu 'Amr (Sa'd) the Prophet delegated to you the authority over your clients (mawali - the Banu Qurayza), in order that you pronounce judgement on them]“. Now, this is where it gets interesting. Sa’d says: “عليكم بذلك عهد الله وميثاقه، أن الحكم فيهم لما حكمت. [Upon you all in this is the covenant of God that the judgement upon them is solely whatever I judge?]“, to which all in attendance, including those from the Muhajirun, Ansar and the Qurayza answer “Yes”. He then says something very interesting, as recorded in the sources – which no one has mentioned in this discussion. Quoting the exact Arabic in Sirat Ibn Ishaq, it is said: “وعلى من هاهنا؟ في الناحية التي فيها رسول الله – صلى الله عليه وسلم – وهو معرض عن رسول الله – صلى الله عليه وسلم – إجلالا له [(Sa'd says:) "And on the one who is here?" It was the Prophet's place indicated in the terms used, in reverance to him]” to which the Prophet says yes.
It is only after all that is recorded that Sa’d pronounces his judgement.
Now, JihadBob, in order for you to even prove your argument is even remotely possible, you have to do the following:
i) Prove that Muhammad had planned all along for Sa’d to be the judge in this instance, even though he a) didn’t know the Aws would come to him for sure until they did, and b), that the delegates from the Aws could simply have deemed Sa’d unsuitable and asked for another person to be named as judge. Never mind that c) the Qurayza could have simply rejected Sa’d as a judge when he asked everyone to affirm that he had decisive control of the matter. In other words, there were at least three points where the direction could have changed in this entire issue.
ii) Prove that Muhammad knew what Sa’d would pronounce, and that this was Muhammad’s aim all along. But, a) How do you reconcile the statements quoted above in verbatim Arabic from the primary source you keep talking about going to regarding the various stages mentioned above which could have led to a different trajectory? And b) the fact that Sa’d made sure that absolutely no one – not even Muhammad himself – could interfere with him pronouncing the judgement before he even opened his mouth.
I would sincerely like to hear your response to these points if you are truly interested in discussion instead of simply spamming Loonwatch and Spencerwatch, and also for you to engage the texts I quoted previously above from Fazier, who deals with the much older and outdated academic sources cited by Ibn Warraq, Bostom and others regarding this incident thoroughly. Fazier critiques their views and use (or lack thereof) of source material in detail due to his deep research and substantial quoting of texts in this genre from the earliest period.
September 30th, 2010 at 8:07 pm
I haven’t cited Ibn Warraq, I quoted Ibn Ishaq. My last post was a typo, even Cynic seemed to have grasped that.
To him, I say he should wear a sticker on his forehead so everyone else can be as proud of him as I am.
September 30th, 2010 at 8:35 pm
JihadBob: Stop shifting the goalposts and avoiding the issues raised by myself and other commentators on this thread. I can’t believe that out of all the points I raised in the last comment (never mind those by anyone else), you decide to pick on my mention of Ibn Warraq alone. I have quoted Ibn Ishaq in as ‘original’ a source possible as per your request – the Arabic. Now deal with the points raised in my comment which clearly do not conform to your thesis. Once again, the burden of proof is on those who are making a claim – in this case it is yourself.
Just to show your own lack of clarity regarding your previous comments:
It is you who would rather attack the messenger than consider the quotes from Ibn Warraq – that’s like arguing with me if I took quotes from skepticsannotatedbible.com because, somehow, the Bible passages must have somehow been magically tampered with.
The quotes from the Bible or Ibn Ishaq are the same regardless of what source I get them from.
This, especially your inclusion of the sceptics annotated bible reference implies that you took your rendition of Ibn Ishaq from Ibn Warraq (a ‘sceptic’ of Islam) and your at least tacit admittance of such. Regardless of if that is the case or not, as I have shown above, Ibn Warraq’s reading of the sira does not account for the many nuances present in the original Arabic text of Ibn Ishaq, never mind other sira texts such as those of al-Waqidi which no one seems to have dealt with. Considering he is meant to have studied Arabic under the great Montgomery Watt, that is very disappointing as even a cursory reading of the text shows these nuances are present.
The sira texts are not simply history books with lists of facts and chronologies, they have a very different style and purpose, as Fazier’s excellent study shows clearly.
As I said, I am interested in your response to the points raised by myself and others.
September 30th, 2010 at 8:37 pm
i) Prove that Muhammad had planned all along for Sa’d to be the judge in this instance
The prophet fully intended to massacre/expel the B. Qurayza all along on the slightest pretext.
Appointing Sa’d as judge was a timely and convenient opportunity to appease the Aws tribe. Obviously, Muhammad never intended prior to the Aws leaders approaching him to delegate the task of punishing the B. Qurayza to anyone else.
I will acknowledge one mistake you corrected me on, however, Sa’d was indeed injured at the battle of the Trench and not in attacking the besieged B. Qurayza tribe. On a notable aside, one of the female defenders of the tribe was later put to death along with the rest of the men after she dropped a millstone on a Muslim attacker.
that the delegates from the Aws could simply have deemed Sa’d unsuitable and asked for another person to be named as judge. Never mind that
Who knows why? But we do see the rest of the delegates pleading with Sa’d to treat the B. Qurayza leniently.
the Qurayza could have simply rejected Sa’d as a judge when he asked everyone to affirm that he had decisive control of the matter.
I’m not sure what universe you’re living on, but the B. Qurayza had no choice at this point. They had surrendered, were disarmed (perhaps bound by this time) and, needless to say, outside their compound. It’s a bit silly to play games with common sense to claim that the B. Qurayza ever had any choice the moment they surrendered.
BTW, if you want to discuss intentions, why not mention Abu Lahab’s (I believe that’s his name) gesture to the Jewish tribe that they would be massacred by Muhammad if they ever surrendered. Unfortunately for them, Muhammad was not the Israelis and did not allow food supplies to be delivered to the ‘civilian’ population of the besieged compound – Muhammad starved them out, just as he starved the two other Jewish tribes into surrendering.
Prove that Muhammad knew what Sa’d would pronounce
Oh geez, do I need to re-quote Sa’d's death bed wish to see the B. Qurayza tribe punished? Just check out the articles on Sa’d over at answeringislam if you want more of an explanation and a number of other quotes straight from the horse’s mouth, so to speak.
and that this was Muhammad’s aim all along.
Been there, done that, have the t-shirt.
There are any number of websites – though answeringislam is a great source to start off with – to show that Muhammad fully intended to massacre the B. Qurayza tribe.
From Muhammad’s previous dealings with the two other Jewish tribes, to Abu Lahab’s reaction in letting the B. Qurayza tribe that they would be killed if they surrendered, to Muhammad’s praise of Sa’d's decision to execute the tribe and enslave the women and surviving women. The evidence is so obvious it should hit you in the face.
b) the fact that Sa’d made sure that absolutely no one – not even Muhammad himself – could interfere with him pronouncing the judgement before he even opened his mouth.
A bit of a winky-dink argument since Sa’d knew his judgment would be compatible to Muhammad before he made sure Muhammad could not interfere with it. And, of course, Muhammad knew how Sa’d would judge based on Sa’d's enmity towards the B. Qurayza tribe and his fanatical adherence to Muhammad.
September 30th, 2010 at 8:49 pm
Anyways, it obviously wasn’t Abu Lahab (it’s been a while since I’ve read a biography on Muhammad, the names are like alphabet soup to me now) who approached the besieged tribe in their compound and warned them of their execution if they surrendered.
I couldn’t be bothered to find out, but the story is that the man, I’ll call him Abu BooBoo, went to talk to the B. Qurayza whilst they were being besieged by Muslims who cut off all supplies going into the compound – effectively ‘smoking’ the Jews out as it were (a war crime in modern days and ironic given the Israel-Palestinian conflict).
Somehow the discussion went to what would happen to the Jews if they surrendered, and Abu BooBoo indicated that they would be executed by gesturing with hands that their throats would be cut.
After talking with the Jews and going back to the Muslim side, Abu Booboo felt he had betrayed Muhammad by giving up information and making the Jews resist surrendering at an earlier date (the two other Jewish tribes were merely ethnically cleansed with forced expulsion).
So, to punish himself, Abu Booboo tied himself up/lashed himself/went on a hunger strike as atonement for his sin in revealing Muhammad’s intention of massacring the Jews.
September 30th, 2010 at 9:03 pm
Jihadbob did cry, “tu quoque! tu quoque!” … LOL
September 30th, 2010 at 9:56 pm
And so, the fact that that the traitors of the Qurayza tribe agreed to let Sa’d judge them, still remains unaddressed.
Plus, the fact that there were only traitors in the compound also remains unaddressed.
These two facts alone are enough to trump JihadBob’s entire argument.
September 30th, 2010 at 10:04 pm
“^ Wise words for the Loons to live by.
I wonder why you think that I just randomly pulled a quote from my ass. If you had any debating integrity you would know that I was agreeing with the last two lines of Awesome’s post, directly above mine. *facepalm*
September 30th, 2010 at 10:07 pm
It’s Abu Lubaba, if it’s been a while since you’ve read in this genre, then perhaps you should revisit it instead of arguing in circles with no evidence.
The prophet fully intended to massacre/expel the B. Qurayza all along on the slightest pretext.
Again, show us the proof of this. You are effectively implying that you, 1400 years later, can discern Muhammad’s most intimate thoughts when there is absolutely no record of them in any surviving source – the same sources everyone must rely on to even know that this event took place at all. All the sources report is the exterior of the events that occurred; there is no discussion of motives or anything of the sort. You keep repeating this statement over and over but cannot bring any proof.
Oh geez, do I need to re-quote Sa’d’s death bed wish to see the B. Qurayza tribe punished?
If you had actually taken the time to read the citations from Fazier I quoted above, as well as his work more generally if you were actually at all serious about this issue, he shows that another early sira biographer – al-Waqidi – does not place this saying in the same context as Ibn Ishaq; he actually places this statement after Sa’d has given his judgement! How do you reconcile this difference in the two earliest sources of sira?
Al-Waqidi’s text reiterates over and over again that the Banu Qurayza broke a clearly negotiated contract (negotiated separately and different to the “Constitution of Medina” Ibn Ishaq reports) which included a clause regarding their coming to the defence of the Muslims (and vice versa) as part of its terms. In other words, it was treason pure and simple that they were guilty of. So, again, how do you reconcile this with your thesis? Never mind the fact that Sa’d himself is recorded going to the Banu Qurayza and imploring them to keep to the treaty. Why would someone so full of hate towards a people do such a thing? The historical sources are clear that he did this, and so did others who were trying to keep the Medinan society united together against their aggressors.
Just check out the articles on Sa’d over at answeringislam
Their use of the translation of Ibn Ishaq by Guillaume is horrendously out of date, and the fact that they make no reference to other sira literature besides Ibn Ishaq is entirely telling. Again, if they had consulted al-Waqidi’s work, they would have had a clearer picture, but they did not.
As Cynic quoted: “When talking about an event in the past, it is important to review the WHOLE situation surrounding it, not just nitpicking certain details that you want to sensationalize.” This is about evidence from the sources, and relying on one record to the detriment of at least one other major source, does not create a whole picture of the events that were recorded by early Muslim chroniclers.
Also, they make a number of weak arguments which clearly show that they did not go to the Arabic and relied solely on the summarised translation. For example, they said:
“Carefully look at the question posed by Sa’d. He asks “Do YOU accept my judgment on THEM?’ This means, the Banu Qurayza were NOT asked, but this question was addressed to the Muslims, especially the tribe of Aus and to Muhammad.”
But this is simply not the case: Sa’d states: “عليكم بذلك عهد الله وميثاقه، أن الحكم فيهم لما حكمت [Upon you all in this is the covenant of God that the judgement upon them is solely whatever I judge?]” In other words, the very beginning “on you” (عليكم), is in the plural form, i.e. “on you all”, which includes all of those present without specification. The specification would come after in Arabic if it was so. The “judgement on them” part is simply the nature of the language; when using a verbal noun (‘judgement’), the target is also specified. It’s just the nature of the language in giving specificity (or lack thereof as we saw in “you all”) so a moot point.
A bit of a winky-dink argument since Sa’d knew his judgment would be compatible to Muhammad before he made sure Muhammad could not interfere with it
Again, where is your proof of this? You have a “death bed wish” which different sources place in different contexts to support your claim; one before during the Battle and one after he had already pronounced the judgement. The same sources show that Sa’d actively encouraged the Qurayza to maintain their terms of their contract with the rest of the Medinan society and not be treasonous – even going so far as using the term implored, and that he, as the head of the Aws tribe had responsibility for the charge of looking after the clients (mawali) of his tribe, the Qurayza.
This is early, not-very-well-documented history, not binary sound-byte pictures we are dealing with here, and your assertions do not find much support in the available sources.
September 30th, 2010 at 10:13 pm
My last post was a typo, even Cynic seemed to have grasped that.
Excuse me? Your entire post was a typo? I would never have known; seems like the usual drivel you vomit on Loon Watch.
September 30th, 2010 at 10:54 pm
Cynic: Touche!
September 30th, 2010 at 11:47 pm
I love how JihadBob thinks he’s a psychic. But not your run-of-the-mill phychics, mind you. He’s the type who can read a passage and know exactly what somebody was thinking and feeling 1400 years ago…while always using the phrases “obviously”, or “it’s quite clear”; as if everybody here has the same superpowers as him.
October 1st, 2010 at 6:18 am
Well Jihadbob would love to discuss what the Quran says and the meaning of the passages….
As long as its anonymously through a forum where he can cut and paste from answeringislam and not a live debate where he actually has to demonstrate some knowledge and integrity.
October 1st, 2010 at 6:30 am
You never know he might get to discuss it with the author one day . Although there is the slightest chance he may be somewhere a tad warmer and not have the chance.
( warning this post contain Irony)
October 1st, 2010 at 7:23 am
And so, the fact that that the traitors of the Qurayza tribe agreed to let Sa’d judge them, still remains unaddressed.
Plus, the fact that there were only traitors in the compound also remains unaddressed.
These two facts alone are enough to trump JihadBob’s entire argument.
Yes, the entire tribe was besieged.
I can only wonder if you would justify the same actions if American settlers massacred an entire tribe of Native Americans because the Chieftain was accused of holding talks with his former neighbor and ally.
October 1st, 2010 at 7:33 am
Dawud, until I get my own copy of Waqidi for yourself, you are going to have to quote the specific passages from him that you are referring to.
So far your argument says that we should believe Waqidi over Ishaq where the two conflict and to ignore my comment concerning Abu Lubaba.
If you want to know what I am basing my claim that Muhammad wished to get rid of the three largest Jewish tribes, then see M. Watt’s biography of the prophet in Medina where he makes a similar statement concerning the events behind the expulsion of either the B. Nadir tribe or the B. Qaynuqa tribe.
Logically, one could extend this to the B. Qurayza tribe since to Muhammad all three tribes were the same threat to his dominance. It’s also interesting that Muhammad did not attack the B. Qurayza tribe until the next day when he was resting and an angel appeared before him instructing him to attack the tribe.
Also, if memory serves me correctly, I seem to recall a female relative of Muhammad who killed a Jew in cold blood during the battle of the Trench. If the even took place as I remembered, then that would certainly constitute a break in the treaty because Muhammad did not punish her nor pay blood money to the Jews.
October 1st, 2010 at 8:22 am
Robert you said
“I can only wonder if you would justify the same actions if American settlers massacred an entire tribe of Native Americans because the Chieftain was accused of holding talks with his former neighbor and ally.”
If my memory serves me well ,from my school history books , lots of Native Americans were killed ,massacred for being well, Native Americans or other trivial reasons or because there home were on land with mineral deposits even if they had valid treaties with the United States Govt.Seems to me that the early Islamic nation comes out of this as well as the USA Govt
If you are going to try to change the subject at least you could pick an example that I ,not even an american ,a none expert could shoot down.
By the way I love the way to say if I remember well . Like you were there! I am sure you were not and since you pretend to be a historian and be taken seriously as such you should have learned to quote your sources. Most historians learn this in their first term at university . Where you sick that day?
October 1st, 2010 at 9:29 am
“Yes, the entire tribe was besieged.”
- The tribe’s stronghold was besieged, not the entire tribe, as those not guilty of treason were let go.
“I can only wonder if you would justify the same actions if American settlers massacred an entire tribe of Native Americans because the Chieftain was accused of holding talks with his former neighbor and ally.”
- The situation isn’t even similar to that. With the confederates marching against the Muslims, a delegation was sent to Qurayza, which asked them to fulfill their pact, to which their response was:
“Who is Mohammed, and who is the Apostle of God that we should obey him? There is no bond or compact between us and him!”
That’s treachery, pure and simple. They, together with the Quraysh, also took Medina by surprise from their side, hoping to lure the Muslims to be massacred.
October 1st, 2010 at 11:11 am
lots of Native Americans were killed ,massacred for being well, Native Americans or other trivial reasons or because there home were on land with mineral deposits even if they had valid treaties with the United States Govt.Seems to me that the early Islamic nation comes out of this as well as the USA Govt
David, why don’t you find any actual instances of NA’s being massacred and see if I can find the same excuses for their slaughter/ethnic cleansing that members here have provided justifying Muhammad’s little game of mass murder and forced expulsion he dished out on the Jews.
I can even raise the stakes and compare the so-called ‘forced’ expulsion of Arabs by Jews to see out of the total amount of villages that were expelled by the Jews (actually expelled, not imagined), how many villages out of this total were expelled for similar reasons Muslims justify for Prophetic ethnic cleansing.
You go do that and report back to me with what you find.
October 1st, 2010 at 11:17 am
- The tribe’s stronghold was besieged, not the entire tribe, as those not guilty of treason were let go.
I believe a total of eight Jews were ‘let go’ for various reasons – four converted to Islam to save their lives and the other four were spared after Muslims/other Medinans personally pleaded to Muhammad for their lives.
Eight out of a total of well over one thousand. (600-900 men and adolescent boys were beheaded)
Who is Mohammed, and who is the Apostle of God that we should obey him? There is no bond or compact between us and him!”
Yeah, sure. Muhammad had a tape recorder and everything.
(Oh wait, this alleged conversation was transmitted to us by a survivor – pull the other one, it has bells on it)
That’s treachery, pure and simple. They, together with the Quraysh, also took Medina by surprise from their side, hoping to lure the Muslims to be massacred.
What was treachery? Muhammad was told to attack the tribe by an angel who appeared before him whilst he was bathing after the battle of the Trench.
October 1st, 2010 at 11:19 am
“Who is Mohammed, and who is the Apostle of God that we should obey him? There is no bond or compact between us and him!”
That’s treachery, pure and simple. They, together with the Quraysh, also took Medina by surprise from their side, hoping to lure the Muslims to be massacred.
So that’s your justification for the slaughter and mass enslavement of an entire tribe?
Really?
Do you really want to go there?