In recent years, French Jews have been repeatedly attacked by Muslim assailants motivated by religiously based hatred of Jews. France has persistently ignored the significance of this.

On an open microphone, he was overheard condemning as “crazy” the EU’s insistence on resolving the Israel-Palestinian conflict as a precondition for closer trade ties. European links with Israel, he said, would determine whether the EU would “live and thrive or shrivel and disappear.”

The situation is surely even broader and starker than that. European leaders don’t realize their fate is wrapped up not only with Israel but with Judaism itself.

They don’t grasp that prejudice against the Jews is a major driver of Islamist attacks not just against Israel but also against the West. And they don’t understand how their own orthodoxies are aiding that malign process.

Last April Sarah Halimi, a 67-year-old French Jewish woman, was murdered by her 27-year-old neighbor, Malian immigrant Kobili Traore, who beat and tortured her before throwing her alive out of the third floor window of her Paris apartment. During the attack he shouted “Allahu akbar” and “you sheitan!” (devil). He had previously taunted her repeatedly with anti-Jewish remarks.

The police, who had failed to respond to the pleas by Halimi’s family to do something about Traore because they feared being accused of anti-Muslim prejudice, have refused to acknowledge this was an anti-Jewish crime.

In recent years, French Jews have been repeatedly attacked by Muslim assailants motivated by religiously based hatred of Jews. France has persistently ignored the significance of this.

When Islamists murdered French Jews in the Hyper Cacher kosher supermarket in Paris in 2015, the Jewish community observed bitterly that this atrocity was only properly acknowledged because it happened two days after the slaughter at Charlie Hebdo.

What the Hyper Cacher atrocity actually showed, along with other attacks on French Jewish targets around the same time, was what Europeans have denied for so long: that Muslims kill Jews because they are Jews.

In 2003 Sébastien Selam was killed in Paris by Adel Amastaïbou who screamed: “I’ll go to heaven, I killed my Jew!” In 2014 in Lyon a man armed with a hammer and an iron stick charged at his neighbor, a woman and her child, yelling “Dirty Jew, go back to your country!” The same month a young man was beaten up in Paris by two men crying: “Dirty Jew, we don’t like Jews here, this is no Israel, this is Palestine!” In Britain, there is an ongoing furor over antisemitism in the Labour Party. This is being blamed on the party’s far-left leader, Jeremy Corbyn. But anti-Jewish attitudes, expressed principally through attacks on Israel, are now the default position throughout the Left.

The usual alibi that such views are anti-Israel but not anti-Jew doesn’t wash. Although those expressing them may have no personal animosity against Jews, their Israel-bashing has precisely the same characteristics as Jew-baiting: singling out Jews or the Jewish state alone for double standards, demonization and systematic lying used against no other people.

During Netanyahu’s visit to Paris last Sunday, the French president Emmanuel Macron helpfully observed that anti-Zionism was a “new type of antisemitism.” He also issued a welcome call for “total clarity” on the Halimi murder and admitted: “We were silent because we did not want to see.”

Alas, Macron himself doesn’t want to see what needs to be seen. He has persistently failed to acknowledge the real cause of Islamist terrorism, blaming it on things like joblessness, grievances or – most fatuously – global warming.

Islamist terrorism is caused by a fanatical interpretation of Islam. Intrinsic to that is hatred and fear of the Jews deriving from Islamic sacred texts. Islamists further believe that modernity has to be stopped, the Jews are behind modernity and all other evil and so the Jews have to be eradicated.

The Islamists’ key insight is that progressive views have hollowed out Western societies, particularly in Europe, so that they no longer know what values they need to defend against the Islamic jihad.

What secularists fail to grasp is that the values they most prize, such as the power of reason or belief in human rights, were created by Judaism and expressed in the West through Christianity.

Human rights rest on the belief that all are created equal in the image of God. The power of reason rests on the revolutionary concept in the book of Genesis that there is an intelligible universe.

Secular ideologies, however, are positively anti-Judaism.

Moral relativism denies the moral codes of Mosaic law. Deep green environmentalism repudiates the belief embodied in the creation that mankind is superior to the natural world. Scientific materialism dethrones God and puts man in his place.

Judaism is an obstacle both to the unconstrained individualism of Western libertines and also to the Islamist attack on reason, equality and freedom. Small wonder Western progressives make common cause with Islamists against the Jewish people.

Macron is a universalist who doesn’t believe in defending Western national identity. Nor does he believe in France. He said last February: “French culture does not exist; there is a culture in France and it is diverse…

French art? I never met it!” Anyone who believes Macron will defend the Jewish people, the free world or France itself is in for a rude awakening. As are the rest of Europe and the West, while they continue to misjudge the central importance of Israel and the Jewish people to their battle to survive.

The writer is a columnist for The Times (UK).

Did Allah transform Jews into apes and pigs?

Did Allah transform Jews into apes and pigs?

Were your forefathers apes and pigs?

James M. Arlandson

It has been bandied about in the media that Islamic fanatics shriek that Allah turned certain Jews into apes and pigs. Where does this harsh polemics come from? Do they get it from the hadith (Muhammad’s sayings and deeds outside of the Quran)? From later traditions? From thin air?

MEMRI TV provides a translated video clip and a transcript of an Egyptian cleric singing about Allah’s punishment of the “apes and pigs” in the Last Day.

Sadly, fanatics get it from the Quran itself, in three different verses: 7:166, 2:65, and 5:60.

To show how, we follow a specific method of exegesis (detailed analysis of a text), where relevant. First, the historical context of the three verses is explained, so their meaning can be made clear. Second, the literary context of each one is described, so we do not take them out of context—a frequent reflexive reaction from Muslims. Third, we quote them from a reputable Muslim translator, not a Western one, so that the Muslims speak for themselves in their sacred book. Fourth, we explain the content of the verses itself, such as key words. Fifth, we compare them with a passage or two from the New Testament, so we can put Islam into a clear perspective. And finally we look at how fanatics use the verses.


Originally posted 2017-01-13 23:33:04. Republished by Blog Post Promoter



Campaign Against Antisemitism’s analysis of and response to polling of British Muslims on their attitudes towards Jews and antisemitism.


For at least twenty years, the British Jewish community has been out in front when it comes to interfaith work. As Britain’s Muslim population has grown, British Jews assumed that interfaith models that led to huge advances in relations with British Christians, could apply just as well to relations with British Muslims. Indeed building bridges with British Muslims has become the focus of outreach work by British Jews.

Today, our analysis of the ICM survey of British Muslims for Channel 4 and Juniper Television shows that the gradual buildup of understanding and friendship between Britain’s Jews and Muslims has been utterly eclipsed by growing antisemitism amongst British Muslims.

On every single count, British Muslims were more likely by far than the general British population to hold deeply antisemitic views. It is clear that many British Muslims reserve a special hatred for British Jews, rating Jews much less favourably than people of other religions or no religion, yet astonishingly British Muslims largely do not recognise antisemitism as a major problem.

It has long been suspected that sections of the British Muslim population harboured hatred towards British Jews. This survey goes some way to identifying pockets of prejudice, but it also shows that the prejudice is horrifyingly widespread.

From the ICM survey data made available by Channel 4 and Juniper Television, we have been able to identify some of the worst pockets of prejudice. Antisemitic British Muslims are more likely to be men, to be older than 35, to be social renters, to be in employment, to have been born outside Britain, to live south of the Midlands in England, or in Scotland, and they are overwhelmingly likely to sympathise with terrorism, violence and extremism.

The data is frustratingly limited in one some respects, and one in particular: it does not delve into the various political and religious movements that comprise the British Muslim population.

This data shows that Jews remain the ‘canary in the coal mine’, as they have been throughout history: those who harbour hatred of Jews also hate British society and sympathise with our most deadly enemies. Britain must confront rampant antisemitism within its Muslim population, but also amongst the general population, whose shocking views should be no less concerning simply because the views of British Muslims are worse.

Find the full report here

Antisemitism – International Official Definition

Antisemitism – International Official Definition


In 2005, the EU Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC), now the EU Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA), adopted a “working definition of antisemitism” which has become the standard definition used around the world, including by the European Parliament, the UK College of Policing, the US Department of State, the US Senate, and the 31 countries comprising the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance. In 2016, the powerful House of Commons Home Affairs Committee joined Campaign Against Antisemitism’s longstanding call for the British government and its agencies, as well as all political parties, to formally adopt the International Definition of Antisemitism, following which the British government formally adopted the definition.


Educating John Kerry and Barack Obama on Islam’s Denial of Israel’s Right to Exist, in One Minute

Educating John Kerry and Barack Obama on Islam’s Denial of Israel’s Right to Exist, in One Minute


John Kerry, and Lame Duck POTUS Barack Obama, who have shamefully rationalized U.S. failure to veto an odious U.N. resolution condemning Israel’s legal right to build settlements in its ancestral homeland should consider two complementary fatwas, one written January 5, 1956, by then grand mufti of Egypt, Sheikh Hasan Ma’moun, and another January 9, 1956, signed by the leading members of the Fatwa Committee of Al Azhar University—Sunni Islam’s Vatican—and the major representatives of all four Sunni Islamic schools of jurisprudence. I elucidated the gist of those simultaneous fatwas in a one minute clip from a December 27, 2016 interview with Tom Trento, embedded below:

These rulings elaborated the following key initial point: that all of historical Palestine—modern Jordan, Israel, and the disputed territories of Judea and Samaria, as well as Gaza—having been conquered by jihad, was a permanent possession of the global Muslim umma (community), “fay territory”—booty or spoils—to be governed eternally by Islamic law.

Muslims cannot conclude peace with those Jews who have usurped the ter­ritory of Palestine and attacked its people and their property in any manner which allows the Jews to continue as a state in that sacred Muslim territory. [As] Jews have taken a part of Palestine and there established their non-Islamic government and have also evacuated from that part most of its Muslim inhabitants. . . . Jihad . . . to restore the country to its people . . . is the duty of all Muslims, not just those who can undertake it. And since all Islamic countries constitute the abode of every Muslim, the Jihad is impera­tive for both the Muslims inhabiting the territory attacked, and Muslims everywhere else because even though some sections have not been attacked directly, the attack nevertheless took place on a part of the Muslim territory which is a legitimate residence for any Muslim… Everyone knows that from the early days of Islam to the present day the Jews have been plotting against Islam and Muslims and the Islamic homeland. They do not propose to be content with the attack they made on Palestine and Al Aqsa Mosque, but they plan for the possession of all Islamic territories from the Nile to the Euphrates.

Although free of eschatological references, i.e., that Jews, per the prophet of Islam, Muhammad’s diktat in the “traditions” of the creed (Sahih Muslim, Book 41, Number 6985), must be annihilated to usher in Islam’s “messianic age,” the January 1956 Al Azhar fatwas’ language and arguments—pronounced from Sunni Islam’s most esteemed religious teaching institution—are otherwise indistinguishable from those employed just over three decades later by Hamas (in its 1988 covenant), revealing the same conjoined motiva­tions of jihad, and conspiratorial Islamic Jew-hatred.

Recent polling data indicate that these traditionalist Islamic views—espoused, in our era, across a continuum of 61 years by Al Azhar University, and Hamas—resonate with the Palestinian Muslim population. American pollster Stanley Greenberg performed what was described as an “intensive, face-to-face survey in Arabic of 1,010 Palestinian adults in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.” As reported in July, 2011 these data revealed that seventy-three percent of Palestinian Muslims agreed with the dictates of the apocalyptic hadith (Sahih Muslim, Book 41, Number 6985; included in the 1988 Hamas Covenant, and repeated in 2012 by the “moderate” Palestinian Authority Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, who serves under “moderate” PA “President” [For Life?]Mahmoud Abbas) calling for the annihilation of the Jews, to bring on the messianic age. Eighty percent supported the destruction of Israel by jihad, and the need to recruit the entire global Muslim community, or “umma” in this quintessential Islamic cause.

Israel re-settling its ancient homelands in Judea-Samaria, in full accord with the post-World War I League of Nations Mandate for Palestine—all of it—being a recognized homeland for the Jews, is no “obstacle” to a “peace” never obtained despite two existing Sharia states in 80% of that Mandate, i.e., Jordan (78% of it), and Gaza/Hamastan (another 2% of it). The annihilationist jihadism and conjoined Islamic Jew-hatred of so-called Palestinian Muslims, and the global Muslim umma, sanctioned by Islam’s highest religious authorities, including the Al-Azhar “spiritual” leaders of Sunni Islam, remain the true obstacle to just peace.

Originally posted 2017-01-01 23:31:42. Republished by Blog Post Promoter

Myths of Muhammad – Muhammad Lived at  Peace with the Jews   Part 3:  The Banu Qurayza

Myths of Muhammad – Muhammad Lived at Peace with the Jews Part 3: The Banu Qurayza

The Truth:

Verses 5:45-48 of the Quran affirm the Old Testament rule of “an eye for an eye,” but also add the Christian principle that forgiveness is more noble than retaliation.  If ever there was proof that these words do not necessarily apply to the treatment of non-Muslims, however, it is in Muhammad’s conduct toward the Jews in general and the Qurayza tribe in particular.

Muhammad and his band of immigrants arrived in Medina in 622 completely dependent on the hospitality of the three Jewish tribes that lived there alongside the Arabs.  In less than two years, two of the tribes that had welcomed him, the Banu Qaynuqa and the Banu Nadir would be evicted, losing their land and their wealth to the Muslims as soon as their guests gained the power to conquer and confiscate.  Muhammad accomplished this by deftly exploiting his opponents divisions.

The prophet of Islam chose the order of the doomed tribes carefully.  He knew that the other two tribes would not come to the assistance of the first, for example, since they had been aligned against one another in a recent conflict.  He also knew that the third would not assist the second – due to a dispute over “blood money.”

The last tribe to remain was the Banu Qurayza.  Like the others, the Qurayza were a peaceful community of farmers and tradesmen who eventually surrendered to Muhammad without a fight.  Although the prophet of Islam had been wise enough not to order the wholesale slaughter of the first two tribes following their defeat (which certainly would have stiffened the resistance of the Qurayza), there was no practical reason for Muhammad to repress his genocidal urges once the last tribe had surrendered their wealth and power.

Over 800 surrendered men and boys (and at least one woman) from the Qurayza tribe were beheaded by the prophet of Islam in a bloodbath that is of acute embarrassment to today’s Muslim apologists.  It is an episode that is not only completely at odds with the idea that Islam is a peaceful religion, but also the claim that it is the heir to Christianity, since even that religion’s most dedicated critics could hardly imagine Jesus and his disciples doing such a thing.

It is only in modern times (as Islam finds itself having to compete with morally mature religions in open debate) that the story of the massacre has become controversial.  Some Muslims deny the episode, largely on the basis of mere inconvenience.  Others are unaware of it altogether.  But, not only is the incident well documented in the Hadith and Sira (biography of Muhammad), there is even a brief reference to it in the Quran (verse 33:26).

Since Islam makes no apologies, particularly for anything that Muhammad personally did, contemporary Muslims generally try to convince themselves that the victims of Qurayza deserved their fate.  They must have turned on the Muslims in battle and inflicted many deaths, forcing Muhammad to yield to the wishes of his people and respond in kind.

Unfortunately, the accounts of what happened, as related to early Muslim historians by eyewitnesses, do not support this myth.  In fact, it was the Qurayza who were caught in an impossible situation at the time, between the Muslims and their Meccan adversaries.

Shortly after arriving in Medina in 622, Muhammad began raiding the merchant caravans traveling to and from neighboring Mecca.  He would steal their property and kill anyone who defended it (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 424-425).  The Jews of Qurayza had nothing to do with this.  Much like the Meccans, the Jews were also traders, and they appreciated the value of doing business securely in a crime-free climate.  They neither encouraged Muhammad’s raids nor shared in his ill-gotten gain.

After a few years of this, the Meccans eventually realized that they would have to try and capture Medina, since it was being used as a base of piracy operations by Muhammad’s gang.  In 627, they sent an army to the outskirts of the city and appeared poised to take it in what has been called the Battle of the Trench (the Muslims dug a trench around the exposed northern and western parts of the city to stop the Meccan military advance).

The Qurayza, who lived to the east of Medina, away from the battle, were caught in a bad situation. Not responsible for Muhammad’s war, they were nonetheless drawn into it, particularly when they were approached by a Meccan emissary and asked not to assist Muhammad in his defense against the siege (to that point, the Qurayza had contributed digging tools to the Muslims, but not fighters).

The chief of the Qurayza did not wish even to entertain the Meccan envoy, but he was tricked into allowing him into his home (Ishaq/Hisham 674).  Once there, the Meccan began making the case that the battle was going against Muhammad and that his fall was imminent.  The anguish of the Qurayza chief over the trying circumstances of the position that he felt forced into is noted even by Muslim historians:

When Ka’b heard of Huyayy’s coming he shut the door of his fort in his face, and when he asked permission to enter he refused to see him, saying that he was a man of ill omen… Then Huyayy accused him of [being inhospitable]… This so enraged Ka’b that he threw open his door. [Huyayy] said to him, “Good heavens, Ka’b, I have brought you immortal fame and a great army… They have made a firm agreement and promised me that they will not depart until we have made an end of Muhammad and his men. “Ka’b said, “By God, you have brought me immortal shame and an empty cloud while it thunders and lightenings with nothing in it. Woe to you Huyayy, leave me as I am.” (Ishaq/Hisham 674)

After much “wheedling” by the Meccans, however, the Qurayza leader finally gave in and agreed to remain neutral in the conflict.  He would neither contribute troops to the city’s defense nor assist its impending capture at the hands of an army with superior numbers.  The Muslims would be left on their own to deal with the conflict they had provoked with the Meccans.

The first twenty days of the conflict passed “without fighting” (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 676) other than a few exchanges of arrows across the trench.  A half-hearted effort on that day to breach the defenses proved fatal to the Meccan tribe, thus convincing their leader that they could not win unless the Qurayza joined the battle from the other side.  However, the Qurayza refused, ironically enough, thus prompting the Meccans to abandon the siege.

A grand total of just six Muslims had been killed at the Battle of the Trench.  Each of their names were carefully recorded (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 699) – none were killed by the Qurayza or by anything done by the Qurayza.

With the battle over, however, Muhammad surprised his army by turning them against the Qurayza fortress, claiming that the neutrality of the leader was a breach of the original constitution of Medina which the prophet of Islam had personally drawn up for the tribes five years earlier.  The original language of this ‘treaty’ is not known, however, and later guesses as to what it might have said seem suspiciously tailored.

It is unlikely, for example, that the tribes of Medina would have given Muslims the right to slaughter them for merely speaking out against him, yet several prominent Jewish leaders and poets had been assassinated on Muhammad’s order prior to the Qurayza affair.  At least one innocent merchant was slain by his Muslim business partner following Muhammad’s order in 624 for his men to “kill any Jew who falls into your power” (al-Tabari 7:97).  Muhammad had also attacked the two other Jewish tribes – parties to the same agreement – looting their property and then evicting them from their land.

It is likely that the troubles Muhammad brought on Medina, through his mistreatment of the Jews and his relentless pursuit of hostilities against the Meccans, were part of the sales pitch made by the Meccans to the Qurayza leader to win his neutrality – along with the implicit threat of slaughter if the city were taken by the Meccans.  From Kab’s perspective, it would only be a matter of time before Muhammad found an excuse to attack and plunder his tribe as well.

Contrary to popular misconceptions, however, the Qurayza had not attacked the Muslims.  In fact, had they attacked, then it surely would have been the end of Muhammad and his band of pirates since the southern end of the city was completely exposed to the Qurayza.  In a terrible irony, it was the decision not to engage in violence that later sealed the fate of the Jews, who were only the first in a very long line of victims to horribly overestimate the value that Islam places on the lives of unbelievers.

According to Muhammad, it was the angel Gabriel (seen only by himself, of course) who ordered the siege on the Qurayza.  After twenty-five days of blockade, the Jews gave in and surrendered to the prophet of Islam.  As Ibn Ishaq/Hisham puts it, they “submitted themselves to the Apostle’s judgment” (Ishaq/Hisham 688).

Another misconception is that Muhammad did not render the death sentence against the Qurayza and was therefore not responsible for it.  There is a partial truth in this, in that Muhammad clearly attempted to offload responsibility onto another party.  However, from the narrative, it is obvious that Muhammad clearly approved of the subsequent massacre – a fact further verified both by his choice of “arbitrator” and his subsequent reaction.

First, the prophet of Islam tricked the Qurayza by getting them to agree to put their fate in the hands of “one of their own.”  In fact, this was a convert to Islam, a Muslim who had fought in the Battle of the Trench.  Unbeknownst to the Qurayza, Sa’d bin Muadh had also been one of the few Muslims fatally injured in the battle (Ishaq/Hisham 689), which one can reasonably assume to have influenced his judgment.  According to the Hadith, he was quite eager to continue slaying “unbelievers” even as he lay dying in his tent (Bukhari 59:448).

Secondly, when Sa’d did render his decree that the men of Qurayza should be killed and their women and children pressed into slavery, Muhammad did not express the slightest bit of disapproval.  In fact, the prophet of Islam confirmed this barbaric sentence to be Allah’s judgment as well (Bukhari 58:148).

Consider the contrast between the historical Muhammad and the man of “peace and forgiveness” that today’s Muslims often assure us he was.  In light of the fact that the Qurayza had not killed anyone, wouldn’t a true man of peace have simply sought dialogue with them to try and determine their grievance, find common ground and then resolve the matter with dignity to both parties?

Instead, the prophet of Islam had the men bound with rope.  He dug trenches and then began beheading the captives in batches.  In a scene that must have resembled footage of Hitler’s death squads, small groups of helpless Jews, who had done no harm to anyone, were brought out and forced to kneel, staring down at the bodies of others before their own heads were lopped off and their bodies were pushed down into the ditch.

There is some evidence that Muhammad personally engaged in the slaughter.  Not only does the earliest narrative bluntly say that the apostle “sent for them” and “made an end of them,” but there is also support for this in the Quran. Verse 33:26 says of the Qurayza, “some you slew, some you took captive.”  The Arabic “you: is in the plural, but the Quran is supposed to be Allah’s conversation with Muhammad, so it makes no sense that he would be excluded.

In any event, there is no denying that Muhammad found pleasure in the slaughter, particularly after acquiring a pretty young Jewish girl (freshly “widowed” and thus available to him for sexual servitude) (Ishaq/Hisham 693).

Other women were not quite as compliant.  The historians record the reaction of one woman who literally lost her mind as her family was being killed. The executioners apparently found her maniacal laughter annoying and beheaded her as well. As Aisha later recounted:

“I will not forget that she was laughing extremely although she knew that she would be killed” (Abu Dawud 2665)

(One can forgive Aisha’s obtuseness. At the time that she and her husband sat observing the carnage together, the wife of Muhammad was only 12-years-old).

Boys as young as 13 or 14 were executed as well, provided that they had reached puberty.  The Muslims ordered the boys to drop their clothes.  Those with pubic hair then had their throats cut (Abu Dawud 4390).  There was no point in trying to determine whether or not they were actual combatants because there were none.  There had been no combat!

Muhammad parceled out the widows and surviving children as slaves to his men for sexual servitude and labor. The wealth accumulated by the Qurayza was also divided.  Since the tribe had been a peaceful farming and trading community, there were not enough weapons and horses taken to suit Muhammad’s tastes, so he obtained more of these by trading off some of the Qurayza women in a distant slave market (Ishaq 693).

In addition to the main question as to why people who had not killed anyone were put to death and enslaved, there are several others raised by Muhammad’s massacre of the Qurayza.  For example, the Quran says that no bearer of burdens can bear the burden of another” (Quran53:38) yet every member of the tribe was punished for a decision pressed on one reluctant member.

And what of the places in the Qur’an where violent passages are sometimes mitigated by the occasional admonishment to cease killing those who stop fighting?  The surrendered Qurayza had never even fought in the first place.

While Muslim apologists grapple with the challenges posed by this episode, the fate of the Qurayza is only the first of many such massacres that the Religion of Peace has provided the world.  Whether it be the 4,000 Jews at Granada in 1066, the 100,000 Hindus on a single day in 1399, or the million or so Christian Armenians in the early 1900’s, untold tens of millions of innocents have perished in mass executions at the hands of Islam’s dedicated disciples…

Yet, there has never been, nor will there ever be in the future, an apology from those who follow Muhammad, since the massacre of infidels was the example personally set by their prophet at Qurayza.

Further Reading:

Muhammad’s Atrocity Against the Qurayza Jews (Answering Islam)

Myths of Muhammad – Muhammad Lived at  Peace with the Jews   Part 2:  The Banu Nadir

Myths of Muhammad – Muhammad Lived at Peace with the Jews Part 2: The Banu Nadir

The Truth:

Muhammad evicted the second Jewish tribe, the Banu Nadir, less than a year after evicting the first.  The circumstances under which this occurred are a strong testimony to the double-standards by which the early Muslims treated others (as laid out in the Quran: 48:29).

In 625, one of Muhammad’s soldiers murdered two men in their sleep who were from a tribe that had “an agreement of friendship” with him (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 650).  It was decided that blood-money would be offered to satisfy this debt (although Muhammad held non-Muslims to the highest standards, he never put his own men to death for killing non-Muslims).

Rather than take care of this debt himself from the substantial wealth that he acquired from raiding Meccan caravans and confiscating Jewish property, Muhammad went to a Jewish tribe, the Banu Nadir, to request their contribution, even though the tribe had nothing to do with the murder (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 652).

Once he showed up with his men, Muhammad made his demands and then waited outside the wall of their house for the money.  Later, he claimed that Allah spoke to him during this time and told him that the Jews were going to assassinate him by dropping a rock from the roof of the house onto his head:

As the apostle was with a number of this companions… news came to him from heaven about what these people intended (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 652)

Muhammad left, then returned with an army and laid siege to the entire community, forcing them to surrender without a fight.

As with the Qaynuqa (the Jewish tribe before them), the people were evicted with the clothes on their back and what they could pack on their camels.   Another revelation from Allah (relayed through Muhammad, of course) allowed the prophet of Islam to personally confiscate all of the remaining property for himself (Bukhari 52:153).

For the skeptic, there are a couple of problems with Muhammad’s justification for evicting an entire tribe of people, even within the boundaries of the account.  In the first place, it is suspicious that he demanded that another tribe pay for what his own men had done – and that he went personally to collect the money.  Given what Allah supposedly knew, one wonders why Allah didn’t just save His “messenger” the trip.

As for Muhammad’s assertion that his god spoke in his ear, thus enabling him to confiscate the wealth of an entire community for his personal gain… well, let’s just say that it is curious at best.

Revelations of convenience were quite common in Muhammad’s life, providing him with wealth from Muslims and non-Muslims alike, along with eleven wives and unlimited sex with female slaves.  He operated with the impunity of a cult leader.

But the largest problem is that Muhammad justified his attack on the Banu Nadir by saying that they had planned to assassinate him.  By this standard, the Jews would have been acting entirely within their rights, given that the prophet of Islam had carried out several assassinations against their own community by that time!

A Banu Nadir Jew named Ka’b al-Ashraf was actually murdered on Muhammad’s order just a few months before the entire tribe was attacked.  The excuse was that he had lamented the killing of the Meccans at the Battle of Badr and responded by composing crude poems about the Muslim women:

Then he composed amatory verses of an insulting nature about the Muslim women. The apostle said…”Who will rid me of al-Ashraf?” [Another Muslim} said, “I will deal with him for you O apostle of Allah. I will kill him.” He said, “Do so if you can.” (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 550)

Muhammad gave the man permission to take any measures necessary to murder the poet, including lying.  The assassin gathered a group of Muslims and tricked al-Ashraf to come out of his house, alone and unarmed, by pretending to be interested in obtaining a loan.

The murder took place in the dark and was a messy affair.  al-Ashraf began screaming as he was being stabbed:

Meanwhile the enemy of Allah had made such a noise that every fort around us was showing a light. I thrust [the dagger] into the lower part of his body, then I bore down upon it until I reached his genitals, and the enemy of Allah fell to the ground. (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 552)

These two events demonstrate that the Muslims of Medina operated under a different standard than what they held to those around them.  Muslims were allowed to kill others when they felt insulted or in danger, but others were not allowed to even defend themselves.

Muhammad was in a position to deny others the same sympathy and tolerance that he demanded for himself because of the control that he managed to establishe within his first two years of arriving in Medina.  He used his newfound power to order assassinations and evictions, thus putting dissenters in fear.

Keep in mind that when Muhammad was in Mecca, he told the elders there that he would bring them “slaughter” (Tabari Vol 6, 102) and they subsequently evicted him.  Yet, instead of recognizing their justification, Muhammad complained incessantly about his ignominious ouster and eventually returned with a conquering army.  He also behaved with extreme hypocrisy toward those who spoke out against him, regardless of what sort of threat they actually posed.

For today’s Muslims, who prefer to believe that Muhammad was an unselfish man of perfect character, the fate of the Banu Nadir is but a minor inconvenience.  It does not bother them that an entire tribe of Jews was evicted on the basis of a hypothetical assassination plot following the very real assassination of one of their leaders.  Jews are not Muslims.  Hence they are not entitled to be treated with the same respect.

Islam is the ultimate supremacist ideology.

Further Reading:

Muhammad Lived at Peace with the Jews, Part1: The Banu Qaynuqa
Muhammad Lived at Peace with the Jews, Part3: The Banu Qurayza

Myths of Muhammad – Muhammad Lived at  Peace with the Jews  Part 1:  The Banu Qaynuqa

Myths of Muhammad – Muhammad Lived at Peace with the Jews Part 1: The Banu Qaynuqa

The Truth:

The early part of the Quran was written while Muhammad lived in Mecca, a town with very few Jews and no Jewish tribes.  At the time, he presented himself to the Meccans as a Jewish prophet based on the stories that he learned from those Jews whom he met on his travels – and from his cousin Waraqa, a convert from Judaism (the Quran actually addresses this accusation, as “Allah” denies it).

When Muhammad relocated to Medina, there were three Jewish tribes living there already whose good graces he needed to stay in (initially) since he and his small band of Muslim immigrants were in a position of relative weakness.  He tried to convince these Jews that he was the last in the succession of their own prophets and even changed the Qibla (direction of prayer) toward Jerusalem, the center of the Jewish world.

The Jews at Medina were not impressed with Muhammad’s esoteric claims, particularly since there were obvious discrepancies between their Torah and his version of the same stories.  (In the Quran, history from the Bible is presented immaturely, and sounds more like a series of fairy tales with the same redundant moral – believe in Muhammad’s claims about himself or face earthly destruction and eternal torment).

When asked why he didn’t provide proof of his prophethood by performing some sort of miracle, as the prophets of the past had done, Muhammad came up with a clever excuse by saying that there was no point in doing so since the Jews had “rejected” past prophets anyway (Quran 3:183-184).  Thus, Muhammad had nothing to offer but his own testimony.

The prophet of Islam did not handle the Jewish rejection well, particularly since his people had been relying heavily on his many claims of being a prophet in the same mode as Moses, Abraham and Jesus.  Muhammad “resolved” his dilemma by claiming that the Jews of Medina were heretics and he arbitrarily dismissed their version of the Torah by claiming that they had corrupted it and “hidden” the verses that supported his claims of being a prophet.  (Interestingly, despite the many Jews who converted to Islam, either out of compulsion or free will, no one ever produced the “uncorrupted” Torah that was supposed to have existed).

Following Muhammad’s victory against the Meccans at Badr, his wealth and power had increased to the point of being able to take care of his “Jew problem.”  The words of the Quran become noticeably harsher toward the “People of the Book” in the Medina portion of the text, and his actions become confrontational.

Although much is made of the “Constitution” of Medina, the treaty that Muhammad created for all of the local tribes on his arrival, contemporary Muslims are often reluctant to admit the injunction that cancelled out this treaty less than two years later:

“While we were in the Mosque, the Prophet came out and said, “Let us go to the Jews” We went out till we reached Bait-ul-Midras. He said to them, “If you embrace Islam, you will be safe. You should know that the earth belongs to Allah and His Apostle, and I want to expel you from this land. So, if anyone amongst you owns some property, he is permitted to sell it, otherwise you should know that the Earth belongs to Allah and His Apostle.” (Bukhari 53:392)

Having announced his intentions, Muhammad looked for an excuse to take land from those Jews who refused to convert to Islam.  His first target was a tribe that had recently been aligned in a conflict against the other two.  Muhammad guessed correctly that the other Jewish tribes would not come to the assistance of the Banu Qaynuqa if he laid siege to them.

Muhammad’s excuse is said to be an incident in which a Muslim was killed by an angry Jewish mob.  That the mob was angry because the Muslim in question had just murdered a Jewish merchant over a woman’s honor is sometimes conveniently forgotten by contemporary apologists, who nonetheless admit that Muhammad chose to lay siege to the Qaynuqa stronghold rather than mediate a peaceful resolution to the agitation.

This point is important.  According to Muslim historians, the first blood shed was when a Jew was murdered by a Muslim for playing a prank on a Muslim woman (by lifting her dress).  The Muslim was killed in retaliation by those who had just witnessed the murder.

On what basis is physical violence – much less murder – justified by a prank of this sort?  Moreover, if Muhammad believed in the Old Testament law of “an eye for an eye,” why did he not recognize the legitimacy of the second killing against the disparity of the first?

In any event, the self-proclaimed prophet of God responded with self-serving force against a people that had welcomed him to their community less than two years earlier.  Unprepared for battle, the Qaynuqa surrendered to their former guest without a fight.

Muhammad wished to slay the entire tribe outright, but was talked out of it by a mutual Arab friend, who was horrified by his intentions:

Abdullah b. Ubayy b. Salul went to him when God had put them in his power and said, “O Muhammad, deal kindly with my clients” (now they were allies of Khazraj), but the apostle put him off.  He repeated the words, and the apostle turned away from him, whereupon he thrust his hand into the collar of the apostle’s robe; the apostle was so angry that his face became almost black.  He said, “Confound you, let me go.”  He answered, “No, by God, I will not let you go until you deal kindly with my clients.  Four hundred men without mail and three hundred mailed protected me from all mine enemies; would you cut them down in one morning?  By God, I am a man who fears that circumstances may change”’  The apostle said, “You can have them.” (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 546)

Muhammad was thus talked into allowing the Jews of Qaynuqa to escape only with a few tools and the clothes on their back.  He confiscated their wealth and land, taking a fifth for himself and giving the rest to the other Muslims.  (According to the Qur’an, this was their punishment for not believing in Muhammad 3:10-12).

The man who had saved the lives of the Jews was later called a hypocrite by Muhammad, and it is evident that he deeply regretted his decision not to slay the Qaynuqa.  One of the nine Quranic verses that prohibit Muslims from taking Jews and Christians as friends was “revealed” at this time.

Thus was Muhammad able to fulfill his own promise that “those who resist Allah and his Messenger will be humiliated” (Quran 58:20), further solidifying his credibility with the Muslims – and inspiring fourteen centuries of relentless Jihad in the name of following his example.

Islam is the ultimate supremacist ideology.

Further Reading:

Muhammad Lived at Peace with the Jews, Part2: The Banu Nadir
Muhammad Lived at Peace with the Jews, Part3: The Banu Qurayza

British Labour party antisemitism mirrored in the Democrat Party

British Labour party antisemitism mirrored in the Democrat Party

Labour’s blatant cover-up of its antisemitism

For there is nothing hidden that will not be disclosed and nothing concealed that will not be known or brought out into the open.  For me, this describes the Democratic party under Obama and the Labour Party under Corbyn.  Weak public statements are not reflected by the reality within each party.

Lies and corruption

Douglas Murray’s article A Tale of Two Inquiries lays bare the hypocrisy and duplicity of the Labour Party.   He deals with the recently leaked Royall report which shows that students at the Oxford University Labour club who were Jewish were subjected to frequent anti-Semitism.  Murray deals with this report and how Labour tried to conceal the findings and the whole thing reeks of hypocrisy and duplicity. It mirrors what is happening on the left across the pond in America and how the democratic parties nominee for president is turning her own lying into a virtue.

So we have a failed attempt to suppress an internal report and lie about its findings, then we have what seems to be outright corruption where the author of another report, Shami Chakrabarti, gets a peerage for her sterling work as a purviewer of the truth.  Yet all this is not surprising, as Douglas points out since the leader of the Labour party is steeped in antisemitism and has been for decades.

Every time anyone thinks Britain’s Labour party has reached a new low of anti-Semitism, entirely new depths seems to open. In September, I wrote here about how the election of Jeremy Corbyn to the leadership of the Labour party constituted a “mainstreaming” of racism in the UK. Although Mr Corbyn claims he does not have any tolerance for any hatred of anyone, he is a man who has spent his political life cosying up to anti-Semites and terrorist groups that express genocidal intent against the Jewish people. He has worked closely with Holocaust deniers, praised anti-Semitic extremists and described Hamas and Hezbollah as his friends.

See also Douglas’s Britain’s New Mainstream Racists?  and One Law for All’s report Siding with the Oppressor: The Pro-Islamist Left.  This clearly shows the left’s close links with Islam and explains the antisemitism within the Labour Party.

The left’s alliance with Islam

What strikes I as an observer of American politics is the similarities between the British Labour party and the left wing organisations (including parts of the Democratic Party) party when it comes to Israel.  We have had an American president that has been decidedly unfriendly to Israel and we have a growing support for the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement which is definitely antisemitic.   Its main supporters are left-wing and Muslim organisations in the States (no surprises there).  For example, we have The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) who are at the forefront of the BDS movement.

This short video on CAIR by Robert Spencer is very informative.

Although we see some Democrats supporting BDS, Hillary Clinton is moving the Democratic away from this movement.  Score one for pro-Israel Democrats reports Clinton leading the Democrats back to support for Israel arguing that she was not Obama when it came to Israel.  It is hardly surprising that Obama does not support Israel with his open love affair with Islam.

What the Labour Party and the Democratic Party’s recent experience tells us is that the left have an inherent attraction to support Islam and thus Islam’s antisemitism.  The left is willing to turn a blind eye to the barbaric and antisemitic nature and actions of Political Islam because an alliance is beneficial to both groups.  Americans should take a lesson from Labour’s experience (especially the Jewish community) the longer the Democratic party continues its love affair with organisations like CAIR, antisemitic sentiment will grow stronger and stronger in America.

Originally posted 2016-08-06 16:22:46. Republished by Blog Post Promoter

Trump and the New Anti-Semitism

Trump and the New Anti-Semitism

Has the definition of anti-Semitic changed to being too pro-Israel?

You would think so, given the continuing assertions by liberals, progressives, and the media that Trump and/or his new administration and/or Steve Bannon are anti-Semites.

Meanwhile Donald Trump is emerging as the most pro-Israel (prospective) president ever, even more than Harry Truman, who, although he recognized the fledgling Jewish state, harbored ambivalence.

No such thing from Trump. Just this Wednesday he supported Israel at a moment of crisis when Egypt’s al-Sisi put a surprise resolution for immediate action before the UN Security Council, highly critical of Israel for its West Bank settlements. No sooner had Netanyahu tweeted his dismay to his putative ally, asking the Egyptian leader to pull back, than Trump jumped to the Israeli PM’s defense, posting on Twitter and Facebook:

The resolution being considered in the United Nations Security Council regarding Israel should be vetoed. Peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians will only come through direct negotiations between the parties, and not through the imposition of terms by the United Nations. This puts Israel in a very poor negotiating position and is extremely unfair to all Israelis.

Clearly not anxious to cross the incoming American president, al-Sisi shelved the resolution posthaste.

It’s hard to imagine Obama doing anything like what Trump did (though I certainly can imagine him doing the reverse — and he may still). On top of that, Trump just nominated David Friedman as ambassador to Israel, a selection that foreshadows a radical turnaround in U.S. policy from pursuing the endlessly failing Oslo process. It also signals that Trump, unlike so many presidents and candidates before him, really will move the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem, an act that can only add a sense of permanence to the always-embattled Jewish state.

Despite all this — and despite there being considerably more Jews in and around Trump, including members of his cabinet, advisers, lawyers, and his immediate family (daughter, son-in-law, daughter-in-law, several grandchildren) than any other president in our history — the mind-boggling “anti-Semitic” meme persists.

It appears as accepted truth in Maureen Dowd’s most recent New York Times column (“Monsieur Vogue Is Leaving Trumpland“).  She quotes Monsieur Vogue (aka former Vogue editor André Leon Talley) as saying,  “In the end, why pick on her [Melania] when they should be picking on her husband’s billionaire cabinet and his seeming readiness to turn the country back towards oppression, anti-Semitism, anti-culturalism, etc.”


Now I’m not sure where this supposed anti-Semitism is coming from (Bannon again?), but I’m rather certain that fashionista Talley — who had come out sorta, kinda for Trump in the Daily Mail — was taking a lot of incoming from his threatened cohorts for his tiny act of bravery. How could a man of that “importance” in the arts, if that’s what it is, wander off the reservation?  Terrified of ostracism, loss of status, etc., he reached for the ever-ready meme of anti-Semitism, without any real knowledge of the subject or deliberately ignoring whatever small amount he might have.

No surprise there. For these people, real knowledge is not applicable. What is going on is something beyond what Andrew McCarthy called in his book “Willful Blindness.” It’s “Willful Distortion.” The facts be damned. The truth doesn’t matter, as long as the “essence” of truth, their version of it anyway, even if it’s a total lie, is there.

In her article, Dowd is essentially piggy-backing on Talley’s pathetic cowardice and dishonesty — going along with the anti-Semitic meme and the rest of the bilge (anti-culturalism???) — without having to say so explicitly. She too has a cohort to appease, which she does regularly, making most of her cloying columns nauseatingly disingenuous.

What is really going on here is a manifestation of panic. What if Trump is right? What if he’s a good, or even great,  president and goes on to be reelected? Then what do we do? Everything we ever stood for is called into question. Personality disintegration is imminent.

Well, sorry.  That’s how things go in the world of the New Anti-Semitism. Those who perpetrate it we could call the New Reactionaries. Many liberals and progressives fit easily in that category, living, as they do, so deeply in the past. And if you live in the past, seeing what’s in front of your face now is difficult, maybe even impossible, as is acknowledging the changes that naturally occur over time

Indeed, a fair amount of this New Anti-Semitism is perpetuated by liberal Jews whose world views are stuck in the 1960s and ’70s, when more anti-Semitism was on the right.  No longer.  Backfield in motion, as they say.  These days, with only minor outliers, a fair portion provocateurs, almost all the anti-Semitism is from the left.  From the international BDS movement to the coddling of the Jew-hating jihadists to the Democratic Convention of 2012, if you’re on the left, the anti-Semitism is on you, baby.

Pin It on Pinterest