It's that time of year: Iran launches new dress code crackdown for "moral security"

Hot on the heels of last year's program's smashing success at making the Iranian government look busy while doing nothing about issues of corruption and domestic economics. "Iran launches new crackdown on dress code offenders," from Reuters:

TEHRAN (Reuters) - Iranian police will launch a crackdown next month on small companies which fail to enforce strict religious dress codes, Mehr News Agency reported on Wednesday.

The move indicates an expansion of a clampdown on "immoral" conduct launched last year against women flouting rules to cover their heads and disguise the shape of their bodies in public, in line with Iran's Islamic system.

"In the first stage, police will only confront companies ... that are active in small buildings or complexes," the head of the moral security police, Ahmad Rouzbehani, was quoted as saying.

Mehr said the move was "to prevent social damage" and the hijab, or veil, "should be respected". It said the campaign would start from around May 4.

Iran's religious codes require women to cover their hair and wear long, loose clothing to disguise their bodies in public, including offices where they may work with male colleagues.

Police sometimes check offices to ensure the codes are upheld and can shut them down. Some coffee shops have been closed after police said workers or customers were not meeting standards.

Restaurants and other public places often have signs asking customers to respect the Islamic Republic's dress requirements.

The enforcement of "hijab" has been a cornerstone of the Islamic system introduced after the 1979 revolution.

The crackdown against what clerics see as "corrupt" Western influence coincides with rising pressure on Iran by the West over its nuclear program. The United States and its allies say Iran wants to build an atomic bomb, which Tehran denies.

"Everybody, both women and men, just as they want financial and physical security, like to have moral security," Rouzbehani said, adding that police had urged people "to come forward with their reports".

In the past, crackdowns tended to be launched at the start of Iran's hot summers and petered out soon after. But last year's extended into winter and included a drive against tight women's trousers and even men with spiky "Western" hairstyles.

Those who violate dress codes are usually cautioned on a first offence, sometimes after a brief visit to a police station. But they can be held for longer, taken to court and required to have "guidance classes" after repeat offences.

Dress codes are most often flouted in wealthier, urban areas. Conservative dress is the norm in poorer, rural areas.

United Nations vs. Human Rights: World Church Congress, Augsburg

Every man should think what he likes and say what he thinks – Spinoza

Report by David G. Littman:

On April 13, I was given the floor at the KIRCHE IN NOT – CHURCH IN DISTRESS
3rd International Congress of the World Church Meeting (Augsburg Germany, 11-13 April).
Theme: Europe’s Heritage, Europe’s Future / Where do we come from; where do we want to go?

An unfortunate mishap took place on this specific occasion – generating many complaints then and after. As the speaker has been asked by many persons for his full text, and also by the organisers – who were not responsible for what happened and expressed sincere regrets – he feels that it would be appropriate to provide a factual explanation which will permit readers to understand what actually occurred just before the closing panel at this distinguished Congress that was attended by over 1,000 persons. To present an exact record, the official video recording has been used, including moments of applause from the audience and the two interruptions by the moderator, including brief comments. See also note (*)

[The passages that were actually pronounced in full are in bold type. Those that could not be stated as a result of the interruptions – manifestly against the will of the vast majority of the audience – are in normal type. Passages in square brackets are those which the speaker did not intend to say, but were put in his edited text for documentation, and eventual publication. It was only prepared the day before, adapted from a text he delivered on 13 March 2008 at the European University in Rome: (Title: “Impact of Shariah-based Human Rights at the United Nations” in a Conference held on: Identity Crisis: Can European Civilization Survive); and for the Association for World Education at the Seventh Session of the UN Human Rights Council at the Palais des Nations, Geneva on 26 March 2008.

* * * * *

The United Nations versus Human Rights is my subject today.

“Will 2008 be the year when the United Nations celebrates the 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and simultaneously destroys its own principles? There is, indeed, cause for great concern because the institution has lost its own way in recent years, becoming a caricature of itself?”

I am quoting from a statement by the Paris-based LICRA, the International League against Racism and Antisemitism, signed by thousands [including many eminent personalities such as Nobel Peace Laureate Elie Wiesel] that was published in the world press last month in Le Monde [Paris] and Le Temps [Geneva], and elsewhere.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ General applause from an audience of about 700 persons in the Congress Hall ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Let me provide two recent examples of shameful attempts to stifle freedom of expression by ludicrous challenges at last month’s 7th Session of the UN Human Rights Council, in Geneva – which is in Europe.

On 25 March there were 20 interventions by the Chinese delegate to disrupt any criticism about Tibet by Western States and NGOs (non-governmental organizations). This farce was backed by the usual dictatorial regimes on the Council, including Pakistan, speaking on behalf of 57 Muslim countries, all members of the OIC – the Organization of the Islamic Conference.

The next day I took the floor for the Association for World Education under item 9 – covering Racism and related forms of intolerance. There were five attempts to stop me delivering my three minutes NGO statement: three times by Egypt, once by the Palestinian delegate, and once by Iran – who complained that I was “focusing on Islam and some Islamic countries by insulting them.” Allow me to read those opening comments which I made on the 26th March that were considered so insulting:

“Regarding the Report [A/HRC/7/19] of the Special Rapporteur on Racism, Doudou Diène, and his comments on defamation of religion, we note that once again he has failed to mention the greatest of all defamations of religion – when chapter and verse of holy texts are cited to justify calls to kill in the name of God or Allah. On 9 August 2007, we made an Appeal to the UN Secretary-General and the High Commissioner – and later to the Council [in a joint written statement to the 6th Session, A/HRC/6/NGO/5: Appeal to Condemn Calls to Kill in the name of God. We concluded: “In face of this cult of hate, death and destruction against ‘the other’, we are appealing to you]
“to condemn all calls to kill in the name of God or religion – any religion.”
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sustained applause that grew even louder after the translation into German
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

“This taboo subject is consistently ignored within the UN system, despite the fact that a policy of silence on the part of the international community, of Muslim spiritual and secular leaders, the OIC and the Arab League, is tantamount to condoning this great evil. Calls to kill in the name of Allah should be unequivocally condemned by senior Muslim theologians as a “defamation of Islam.”

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
More sustained applause, which became much louder and longer after the German translation
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Yet these calls have been justified by Al-Azhar Grand Sheik Muhammad Sayyed Tantawi, by Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradhawi, and by many others, including Osama bin Laden. The Special Rapporteur makes no clear reference to this global plague of our time, other than by a side reference to: “the stereotyped association of Islam with violence and terrorism – an association which is bolstered by intellectual constructs, used by political rhetoric and exaggerated in the media…” (§57)]

I also pointed out that “the Special Rapporteur refers to‘the writing and teaching of history’ and ‘the importance of fostering education in multiculturalism in schools, in the media and in the home’ Yet Judeophobia / Antisemitism – under the guise of ‘anti-Zionism’ – is now widely recognised as endemic in the Muslim world, being nourished by a general ‘culture of hate’ that is creeping into “Eurabia” and beyond. Clearly, many of the States [, the 47 countries of the OIC, ] that, since 1999, have sponsored the resolution combating ‘defamation of religions’ – adopted on 18 December 2007 by the UN General Assembly – do not believe it applies to them!”

[A recognised expert on racism, Director of Research at the CNRS, Pierre-André Taguieff has described all this in detail in two recent books – La Nouvelle Judéophobia (Paris, 2002) and a 1000 page volume, Prêcheurs de haine: Traversée de la judéophobie planétaire (Paris, 2004].

In 2005 we analysed in 3 NGO written statements to the United Nations what is being taught to Arab schoolchildren in Egypt and Saudi Arabia, and the same hatred is also being taught in Palestinian, Syrian and Iranian schools and elsewhere.

[E/CN.4/Sub.2/ 2005/NGO/2: The culture of ‘Jihad & Martyrdom’ in Egyptian school textbooks; E/CN.4/Sub.2 /2005/NGO/3: The culture of hate in Saudi Arabian textbooks and growing Arab reactions; and E/CN.4/Sub.2 /2005/ NGO/4: Arab Criticism of Muslim Extremist Activities in the West; also: “A Culture of Hate Based ‘Jihad and Martyrdom’: Saudi and Egyptian Schoolbooks Today” (Midstream, March-April 2005). In his conclusion: “The Special Rapporteur recommends that the Council draw the attention of member States to the importance of developing an intellectual front against racism and, consequently combating – through education, scientific research and information – ideas, concepts and images likely to incite or legitimize racism, racial discrimination or xenophobia.” This should be heeded by all.]

Nothing of this outrageous Judeophobia [being taught to children in the Arab/Muslim world, especially in what is to be a future Palestinian State] has been covered in the Reports of the Special Rapporteur on Racism or by any UN bodies or UNESCO, yet the proof of this endemic hate-mongering is easily available in original texts & translations by consulting the websites of MEMRI [Middle East Media Research Institute], PMW [Palestinian Media Watch] and CMIP [Center for Monitoring the Impact of Peace].

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE SPEAKER WAS STOPPED HERE BY THE MODERATOR WHO STATED, INTER ALIA,
“I am sorry to interrupt, but we must close soon.” (English & German). He replied that he could not just end there. This ‘cut’ occurred exactly here, only 12½ minutes after he had begun, although the moderator was informed the evening before that 10 minutes had been agreed for his text in English, and as much or more for the German translation. He therefore continued to read his text – unstopped.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I concluded with a simple appeal: “Is this Human Rights Council now ready to condemn calls to kill in the name of God, and the preaching of hate, or will it remain silent on such major issues for humanity?”

Needless to say, the Council remained silent, as it did on so many occasions, such as the genocide in Southern Sudan against Christians and animists – where Christian Solidarity International freed over 80,000 slaves – and for the last four years in Darfur, on which I spoke regularly for CSI and other NGOs. Even now as I speak to you, African Muslims are being killed and ethnically cleansed from their homeland – Darfur – in a genocide by the Arab-Islamist NIF regime of Khartoum.

Four months ago, on 10 December 2007 – “Human Rights Day” – Pakistan Ambassador Massoud Khan addressed the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva on behalf of the 57 countries of the Organization of the Islamic Conference. While speaking glowingly of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the positive contribution to its creation by many Muslim countries, he declared that the 1990 Cairo Declaration [on Human Rights in Islam]:
“is not an alternative, competing worldview on human rights. It complements the Universal Declaration as it addresses religious and cultural specificity of the Muslim countries”.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE SPEAKER WAS STOPPED AGAIN BY THE MODERATOR DESPITE CALLS AND MUCH APPLAUSE FROM THE AUDIENCE FOR HIM TO CONTINUE
This 2nd call to stop came after 4 minutes (total: 16½ minutes, with two minutes for interruptions). The moderator stated that she had controlled her watch carefully, but the speaker insisted he be allowed the 10 minutes granted – as at the United Nations. As this was not accepted – despite a vibrant appeal by a man going up to the podium – he was forced to conclude. (see bold below).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yet, the Cairo Declaration cannot be, in any sense, considered complementary to the Universal Declaration, as it makes no reference to it – while its Art. 24 and 25 explicitly state the contrary:

“All the rights and freedoms stipulated in this Declaration are subject to the Islamic Shari'ah” and

“The Islamic Shari'ah is the only source of reference for the explanation or clarification to any of the articles of this Declaration.” Many clauses in this Islamic Declaration limit the rights contained in the Universal Declaration, with references to Sharia’h, especially Articles 2, 7, 12, 16, 19, 22, 23.

As is well-known, under Shari’ah law Muslim women and non-Muslims are not accorded equal treatment with Muslim men. The Shari’ah, therefore, fails to honour the right to equality guaranteed under the Universal Declaration the international covenants, and thus denies the full enjoyment of their human rights to those living in States which follow Shari’ah law. By limiting rights to those permitted by the Shari’ah, the Cairo Declaration – rather than complementing the Universal Declaration undermines many of the rights they are supposed to guarantee.

When it comes to freedom of expression, the Cairo Declaration makes this freedom subject to the Shari’ah. Under its Article 22, a person may only express their opinion in a manner “as would not be contrary to the principles of the Shariah”, and freedom of expression may not be used to “weaken faith”. A resolution, “Combating Defamation of Religions” was adopted at the General Assembly on 18 December by 108 votes to 51 with 25 abstentions. Similar resolutions have been adopted automatically since 1999 at the Commission on Human Rights and by the new Human Rights Council, but this was the first time that such a resolution had been passed by the UN General Assembly. The resolution expresses once again “deep concern about the negative stereotyping of religions and manifestations of intolerance and discrimination in matters of religion or belief”. But the only religion mentioned by name is Islam. The resolution emphasizes that while everyone has the right to freedom of expression, this should be exercised with responsibility – and may therefore be subject to limitations, inter alia, “for respect for religions and beliefs”.

The implications of all such UN resolutions against freedom to criticise religious laws and practices are obvious. Armed with UN approval for their actions, States may now legislate against any show of disrespect for religion – however they may choose to define this “disrespect”. Islamic States see human rights exclusively in Islamic terms, and by sheer weight of numbers, or of oil, this view is becoming dominant within the system, but there are signs of resistance. On the same occasion on 10 December 2007, four months ago, German Ambassador Gunter Nooke expressed his regrets at:
“the tendency within some parts of the international community to roll back the principle of universality in order to make the enjoyment of fundamental rights dependent on factors such as tradition, culture, religion or the level of development.”

Yet, it is a sign of the times that the OIC’s ‘rules of the game’are slowly being accepted. The implications for the universality of human rights are ominous. The OIC is attempting to limit religious freedom by consistently promoting the Shari’ah-based Cairo Declaration, and also by rejecting wording in the Council resolution on the elimination of discrimination based on religion or belief that would permit individuals, including Muslims, to change their religion.

Creeping dhimmitude at the Council and other UN bodies should be denounced for what it is. Both States and human rights defenders worldwide should remain vigilant and actively resist any attempt by the OIC to give equal status to the Cairo Declaration or to any future Islamic Charter on Human Rights that limits the Rights enshrined since 1948 in the Universal Declaration.

* * * * *

I shall conclude by quoting from the renowned Jewish-born philosopher, Sir Karl Popper [best known for his philosophy of critical rationalism and his emphasis on the way in which we learn through the making and correcting of mistakes]. In his analysis of Plato’s criticism of democracy, he refers to a so-called “paradox of freedom” and “a paradox of tolerance”. His words shall be my conclusion today at the KIRCHE IN NOT Conference, in Augsburg:

“Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed and tolerance with them … We should therefore claim in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade.” [David Miller (ed.), A Pocket Popper (Fontana Paperbacks, GB, 1983), chapter 25: The Paradoxes of Sovereignty (1945), pp. 319-325; pp. 445-46 (note 4, Plato, Republic, 564 A (Popper: “Less well known is the paradox of tolerance. Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of .…”)]

Let us meditate the words of Sir Karl Popper – NOW before it is too late! And I do regret that I was unable to explain to you the reasons – the very profound reasons – for that conclusion.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sustained applause expressing approval for the speaker and disagreement with his being silenced

* * * * *

TOTAL TIME: 19 MINUTES (LESS INTERRUPTIONS = ABOUT 17 MINUTES). THE WHOLE TEXT COULD HAVE BEEN COMPLETED (WITH GERMAN TRANSLATION) IN AGREED 21 MINUTES

(*) I feel that the public has a right to know exactly what took place – and not rely on hearsay – and am thus providing the necessary ‘facts’ that cannot be contested by anyone who was present then.

On Friday evening I learned from one of the organisers that there had been three cancellations out of the seven speakers for the 1st panel on Sunday morning (9:00-10:15) on Europe. I offered to prepare a text in regard to the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva. This was accepted, and I was told to keep to 10 minutes (with a German translation to follow). Subsequently, two others persons joined the panel, bringing the total to six. The friendly moderator was informed by me in detail the night before, that I had taken considerable time to prepare my text and would need the 10 minutes for my English presentation that had been mutually agreed (with a German translation to follow). I informed her that many panels had started late and most finished late – some over half an hour and more – but she expressed a desire to start on time and wished to finish at 9:15. Knowing that this was impossible, I asked her not to put me as the last speaker.

As usual, the panel began a little late and the moderator introduced the speakers until 9:13 a.m. The 1st and 2nd speaker spoke for roughly 9 and 10 minutes each. Then a Muslim Russian delegate spoke and was translated into German paragraph by paragraph (a total of 15 minutes). I was then given the floor at roughly 9:48 and was stopped for the 1st time by the moderator at about 10:00, and for a 2nd time at 10:04, concluding at 10:06 – a total of 19 minutes – of which two were taken by the interruptions and my replies. The two last spiritual speakers were very brief and everything ended almost on time without any Q & A. As usual, the last panel of the Congress – with bishops and clerics – started after 10:45, more than quarter of an hour later than scheduled. Everyone waited patiently for nearly ½ an hour, while over 20 persons came to the podium for my statement. There would have been no difficulty for the 1st panel ending at 10:30, instead of at 10:15 sharp.

Despite the ‘politically incorrect’ passages in my statement when the 2 interruptions occurred, I do not think that this was intentional – as has been suggested – rather, it might have been simply an unfortunate coincidence, and the reason was merely the desire of the moderator to finish on time.

Originally, I had been asked to read my statement in English, to be followed by the translation. However just before I was due to speak the efficient translator explained to me that it would be easier for her, and for the audience, if the German translation proceeded paragraph by paragraph. In accepting her suggestion, out of courtesy, I erred as the moderator could not have interrupted my 10 minute address, nor considered cutting the translation into German – a total of 21 minutes.

The organisers sincerely regretted this unusual incident, which caused general consternation toward the end of the Congress,. This was especially so, as I was the only speaker (from the twenty panels) to be abruptly interrupted, whereas many speakers had exceeded their time without such a drastic reaction from the moderator.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *

David G. Littman is a historian, who published Arab Theologians under Jews and Israel in 1971 (Geneva, Editions de l’Avenir) under the pen-name: D.F. Green (with Yehoshafat Harkabi). He has published several articles on Jews and Christians (dhimmis) under Islam, mainly in the 1970s and 1980s. Since 1986 he has been
a human rights defender for several NGOs at the United Nations in Geneva, and a representative for the last 10 years of the Association for World Education and since 2001 for the World Union for Progressive Judaism (WUPJ), for whom he was main representative from 1986-1991. Nearly 100 of his earlier oral and written statements to the Commission and Sub-Commission on Human Rights were published in “Human Rights and Human Wrongs at the United Nation” (WUPJ, 1986-1991, N° 1 to N°11). He has edited articles on comparative and current human rights themes, which were published with more recent oral and written NGO statements – in “Human Rights and Human Wrongs at the United Nations,” Part 5 (pp. 305-472), edited by Robert Spencer, The Myth of Islamic Tolerance: How Islamic Law Treats Non-Muslims (New York: Prometheus Books, 2005, p.593).

Valencia: Immigrants must "respect the laws, the principles and the customs of Spain and Valencia"

Not that much of anything will happen if they don't: the contract "will have no consequences from a legal point of view." And the principles and customs are not clearly defined. Still, this is a small step in the right direction.

"Spain: Valencia To Adopt Contract For Immigrants Integration, " from ANSAmed (thanks to Insubria):

(ANSAmed) - MADRID, APRIL 29 - The municipality of Valencia will impose an "integration contract" to the immigrants, inspired by the one proposed by Peoplés Party leader Mariano Rajoy in the latest election campaign, which however will have no consequences from a legal point of view. Announcing the initiative, published today by the media, sources from the regional government, headed by Francisco Camps from the Peoplés Party, admitted that in case of violation of the "chapters" of the contract there will be no consequences on the immigrants given the fact that the autonomous municipalities have no authority in ordering deportations or other types of coercive measures. By signing the contract, which will be part of a law on immigration that is being drafted by the regional government, the immigrant pledges "to respect the laws, the principles and the customs of Spain and Valencia", which are not specified any further. The announcement made by Rajoy during the election campaign triggered harsh criticism for the difficulties to identify the Spanish customs, which could include the bullfighting, the afternoon siesta or the flamenco. (ANSAmed).

Punishment for flirting: a haircut

"The decision doesn't include men who spend their free time in public places without hurting anyone." Oh. All right, then.

"Saudi governor orders haircuts for men who hit on women," from AP (thanks to the Constantinopolitan Irredentist):

RIYADH, Saudi Arabia - A governor in northern Saudi Arabia has ordered authorities to punish men who flirt with women in public places by cutting their hair, local media said Tuesday.

Prince Fahd bin Badr, governor of the northern al-Jof region, ordered police to carry out the punishment after seeing a group of men with long hair pestering female students as they left school in the northern al-Qurayat province, Al-Hayat newspaper said.

It said the prince told a gathering at his palace in the northern town of Skaka on Sunday he has instructed police to apply the punishment to all youths guilty of flirting, including "the sons of senior military and civil officials."

"The decision doesn't include men who spend their free time in public places without hurting anyone," the paper quoted the prince as saying.

Saudi Arabia has long imposed a strict Islamic lifestyle in which men and women are segregated in public. That lifestyle is enforced by the Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice, a government body that runs the country's powerful religious police.

Its members patrol public places to make sure women are covered and not wearing make up, the sexes don't mingle, shops close five times a day for Muslim prayers and men go to the mosque and worship.

Many clergymen in this conservative Gulf country say men should not have long hair because Islam prohibits the sexes from emulating each other....

"They should not turn me into a Salman Rushdie"

Malaysian opposition leader gets death threats for saying that Malaysia should not become an Islamic state. "‘Killing me not going to solve problems,’" from ExpressIndia (thanks to Nicolei):

Kuala Lumpur, April 27: An ethnic-Indian Opposition leader has claimed that he has received a death threat for resisting calls to declare multi-ethnic Malaysia an Islamic state.

Karpal Singh, Democratic Action Party (DAP) national chairman, said he has not insulted Islam and he should not be ‘turned into a Salman Rushdie’.

Singh, who on Saturday filed a police complaint in Penang state against a death threat made against him on a web site, said he was just standing up for what was stated in the country's Constitution-- that Malaysia was a secular state.

"The person who made the threat had alleged that it was permissible under Islam to kill Singh because he allegedly opposed Malaysia being turned into an Islamic state," Bernama news agency reported.

"They should not turn me into a Salman Rushdie," Singh, who has been criticised in blogs, said....

"Killing me is not going to solve the problems faced by PAS," Singh said referring to the Islamic party.

"What I have been against and will continue to be against is attempts by Islamic party PAS to turn this country into an Islamic state," he was quoted as saying by local media....

BBC censors criticism of jihad-linked group

"There is...evidence that Tablighi Jamaat directly recruits for terrorist organizations." How dare you imply they're not moderate!

"BBC ‘censored Christian party broadcast,’" by Andrew Norfolk for the Times (thanks to all who sent this in):

The BBC is facing a High Court challenge over its decision to censor a party political broadcast in the run-up to Thursday’s local elections.

A Christian party has begun legal action after the corporation insisted on changes to a short film in which the party voiced opposition to the building of Europe’s biggest mosque next to the site of the 2012 Olympics.

Tablighi Jamaat, the Islamic missionary group behind the £75 million Abbey Mills mosque, opposes inter-faith dialogue and preaches that non-Muslims are an evil and corrupting influence. One of its British advocates has said that it aims to rescue Muslims from the culture and civilisation of Jews and Christians by creating “such hatred for their ways as human beings have for urine and excreta”.

The Christian Choice election broadcast would have described Tablighi Jamaat as “a separatist Islamic group” before welcoming that some “moderate Muslims” were opposed to the mosque complex.

Alan Craig, the party’s candidate in the London mayoral election, also on Thursday, said that he was forced to change the wording at the insistence of lawyers at the BBC and ITV, which will also feature in the court action.

The BBC refused to accept “separatist” — the corporation asked for “controversial” instead — and barred the use of “moderate Muslims” because the phrase implied that Tablighi Jamaat was less than moderate.

ITV went a step farther, demanding that the adjective “controversial” be used merely to describe the planned mosque and not the group itself....

Iranian official warns of "Westoxication" and "destructive cultural and social consequences" of Barbie, Batman, Spiderman, and Harry Potter

It's not difficult to see where Barbie and Harry Potter would be verboten in Iran. And Batman is the Caped Crusader, after all. But what about Spiderman? At any rate, he's an infidel. "Iran official sees 'destructive' Barbie influence," from Reuters:

TEHRAN - Imports of Barbie dolls and other Western toys will have destructive cultural and social consequences in Iran, the Islamic Republic's top prosecutor was quoted as saying on Monday.

Iran's conservative clerical establishment often rails against the perceived dangers of U.S.-inspired culture and consumerism, branding it "Westoxication."

But young Iranians are often keen consumers of such music, films and other goods from the West. Iconic toy brands can be bought in children's shops in the capital Tehran and elsewhere.

"The appearance of personalities such as Barbie, Batman, Spiderman and Harry Potter and ... computer games and movies are all a danger warning to the officials in the cultural arena," said Prosecutor General Ghorban Ali Dori Najafabadi in a letter to Vice President Parviz Davoudi published in the Mardom Salari daily.

Najafabadi, a high-ranking cleric, said Iran was the world's third biggest importer of toys and suggested this posed a threat to the "personality and identity" of the new generation.

"The unrestrained entry of this sort of imported toys ... will bring destructive cultural and social consequences in their wake," he wrote.

He added many toys were smuggled into Iran and accused importers of concentrating on profits at the expense of cultural values.

Bruce Bawer: "We need to recognize that the cultural jihadists hate our freedoms because those freedoms defy sharia, which they’re determined to impose on us"

Bruce Bawer, author of the essential While Europe Slept, has written an equally essential piece at City Journal (thanks to all who sent this in), "An Anatomy of Surrender": a comprehensive overview of the ongoing voluntary and self-imposed reduction of the West to dhimmi status.

Islam divides the world into two parts. The part governed by sharia, or Islamic law, is called the Dar al-Islam, or House of Submission. Everything else is the Dar al-Harb, or House of War, so called because it will take war—holy war, jihad—to bring it into the House of Submission. Over the centuries, this jihad has taken a variety of forms. Two centuries ago, for instance, Muslim pirates from North Africa captured ships and enslaved their crews, leading the U.S. to fight the Barbary Wars of 1801–05 and 1815. In recent decades, the jihadists’ weapon of choice has usually been the terrorist’s bomb; the use of planes as missiles on 9/11 was a variant of this method.

What has not been widely recognized is that the Ayatollah Khomeini’s 1989 fatwa against Satanic Verses author Salman Rushdie introduced a new kind of jihad. Instead of assaulting Western ships or buildings, Kho­meini took aim at a fundamental Western freedom: freedom of speech. In recent years, other Islamists have joined this crusade, seeking to undermine Western societies’ basic liberties and extend sharia within those societies.

The cultural jihadists have enjoyed disturbing success. Two events in particular—the 2004 assassination in Amsterdam of Theo van Gogh in retaliation for his film about Islam’s oppression of women, and the global wave of riots, murders, and vandalism that followed a Danish newspaper’s 2005 publication of cartoons satirizing Mohammed—have had a massive ripple effect throughout the West. Motivated variously, and doubtless sometimes simultaneously, by fear, misguided sympathy, and multicultural ideology—which teaches us to belittle our freedoms and to genuflect to non-Western cultures, however repressive—people at every level of Western society, but especially elites, have allowed concerns about what fundamentalist Muslims will feel, think, or do to influence their actions and expressions. These Westerners have begun, in other words, to internalize the strictures of sharia, and thus implicitly to accept the deferential status of dhimmis—infidels living in Muslim societies.

Call it a cultural surrender. The House of War is slowly—or not so slowly, in Europe’s case—being absorbed into the House of Submission.

The Western media are in the driver’s seat on this road to sharia. Often their approach is to argue that we’re the bad guys. After the late Dutch sociologist-turned-politician Pim Fortuyn sounded the alarm about the danger that Europe’s Islamization posed to democracy, elite journalists labeled him a threat. A New York Times headline described him as marching the dutch to the right. Dutch newspapers Het Parool and De Volkskrant compared him with Mussolini; Trouw likened him to Hitler. The man (a multiculturalist, not a Muslim) who murdered him in May 2002 seemed to echo such verdicts when explaining his motive: Fortuyn’s views on Islam, the killer insisted, were “dangerous.”

Perhaps no Western media outlet has exhibited this habit of moral inversion more regularly than the BBC. In 2006, to take a typical example, Manchester’s top imam told psychotherapist John Casson that he supported the death penalty for homosexuality. Casson expressed shock—and the BBC, in a dispatch headlined imam accused of “gay death” slur, spun the controversy as an effort by Casson to discredit Islam. The BBC concluded its story with comments from an Islamic Human Rights Commission spokesman, who equated Muslim attitudes toward homosexuality with those of “other orthodox religions, such as Catholicism” and complained that focusing on the issue was “part of demonizing Muslims.”

In June 2005, the BBC aired the documentary Don’t Panic, I’m Islamic, which sought to portray concerns about Islamic radicalism as overblown. This “stunning whitewash of radical Islam,” as Little Green Footballs blogger Charles Johnson put it, “helped keep the British public fast asleep, a few weeks before the bombs went off in London subways and buses” in July 2005. In December 2007, it emerged that five of the documentary’s subjects, served up on the show as examples of innocuous Muslims-next-door, had been charged in those terrorist attacks—and that BBC producers, though aware of their involvement after the attacks took place, had not reported important information about them to the police.

Press acquiescence to Muslim demands and threats is endemic. When the Mohammed cartoons—published in September 2005 by the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten to defy rising self-censorship after van Gogh’s murder—were answered by worldwide violence, only one major American newspaper, the Philadelphia Inquirer, joined such European dailies as Die Welt and El País in reprinting them as a gesture of free-speech solidarity. Editors who refused to run the images claimed that their motive was multicultural respect for Islam. Critic Christopher Hitchens believed otherwise, writing that he “knew quite a number of the editors concerned and can say for a certainty that the chief motive for ‘restraint’ was simple fear.” Exemplifying the new dhimmitude, whatever its motivation, was Norway’s leading cartoonist, Finn Graff, who had often depicted Israelis as Nazis, but who now vowed not to draw anything that might provoke Muslim wrath. (On a positive note, this February, over a dozen Danish newspapers, joined by a number of other papers around the world, reprinted one of the original cartoons as a free-speech gesture after the arrest of three people accused of plotting to kill the artist.)

Last year brought another cartoon crisis—this time over Swedish artist Lars Vilks’s drawings of Mohammed as a dog, which ambassadors from Muslim countries used as an excuse to demand speech limits in Sweden. CNN reporter Paula Newton suggested that perhaps “Vilks should have known better” because of the Jyllands-Posten incident—as if people who make art should naturally take their marching orders from people who make death threats. Meanwhile, The Economist depicted Vilks as an eccentric who shouldn’t be taken “too seriously” and noted approvingly that Sweden’s prime minister, unlike Denmark’s, invited the ambassadors “in for a chat.”

The elite media regularly underreport fundamentalist Muslim misbehavior or obfuscate its true nature. After the knighting of Rushdie in 2007 unleashed yet another wave of international Islamist mayhem, Tim Rutten wrote in the Los Angeles Times: “If you’re wondering why you haven’t been able to follow all the columns and editorials in the American press denouncing all this homicidal nonsense, it’s because there haven’t been any.” Or consider the riots that gripped immigrant suburbs in France in the autumn of 2005. These uprisings were largely assertions of Muslim authority over Muslim neighborhoods, and thus clearly jihadist in character. Yet weeks passed before many American press outlets mentioned them—and when they did, they de-emphasized the rioters’ Muslim identity (few cited the cries of “Allahu akbar,” for instance). Instead, they described the violence as an outburst of frustration over economic injustice.

When polls and studies of Muslims appear, the media often spin the results absurdly or drop them down the memory hole after a single news cycle. Journalists celebrated the results of a 2007 Pew poll showing that 80 percent of American Muslims aged 18 to 29 said that they opposed suicide bombing—even though the flip side, and the real story, was that a double-digit percentage of young American Muslims admitted that they supported it. u.s. muslims assimilated, opposed to extremism, the Washington Post rejoiced, echoing USA Today’s american muslims reject extremes. A 2006 Daily Telegraph survey showed that 40 percent of British Muslims wanted sharia in Britain—yet British reporters often write as though only a minuscule minority embraced such views.

After each major terrorist act since 9/11, the press has dutifully published stories about Western Muslims fearing an “anti-Muslim backlash”—thus neatly shifting the focus from Islamists’ real acts of violence to non-Muslims’ imaginary ones. (These backlashes, of course, never materialize.) While books by Islam experts like Bat Ye’or and Robert Spencer, who tell difficult truths about jihad and sharia, go unreviewed in newspapers like the New York Times, the elite press legitimizes thinkers like Karen Armstrong and John Esposito, whose sugarcoated representations of Islam should have been discredited for all time by 9/11. The Times described Armstrong’s hagiography of Mohammed as “a good place to start” learning about Islam; in July 2007, the Washington Post headlined a piece by Esposito "Want to understand Islam? Start here."

Don't fail to read it all.

"I know I have done wrong by marrying many wives and begetting many children but I think I deserve help from the government"

A glimpse into the future -- and, in many areas, the present reality -- of Europe: polygamists living off the government dole, so that the demographic jihad proceeds at the expense of the government the jihadists hope to topple, and the taxpayers they hope to subjugate.

"'Polygamy doesn't work' says father of 77," by Aislinn Simpson for the Telegraph (thanks to Isabella the Crusader):

An Ethiopian man who has 77 children by 11 wives has urged others not to get married and has taken to dispensing advice on family planning to his neighbours.

Ayattu Nure, 56, says he used to be a wealthy man and married out of a desire to share his money around but claims he is now peniless because of the competing demands of his brood.

"I want my children to be farmers but I have no land, I want them to go to school but I have no money," he says.

Seven of Mr Ayattu's wives live in run-down huts around the compound while the other four live on the other side of the valley in Giwe Abossa village, 300 kilometres from the capital Addis Ababa.

In total, they have given birth to more than 100 children but 23 have died.

Mr Ayattu says he tries to share his time equally between his wives and children but is at a loss to keep them happy and often cannot feed them all.

"I feel like killing myself when I see my hungry children whom I cannot help," he says.

"People see me as a funny man, but there is no fun in my condition. I am a desperate man struggling to survive," he says.

He blames Ethiopia's government for failing to support him and his children.

The local authority of the school which 40 of his children attend is requesting photographs of each one for their files but Mr Attayu says he has not got the money.

"I know I have done wrong by marrying many wives and begetting many children but I think I deserve help from the government."...

UK: Convert from Islam to Christianity threatened -- police tell him to "stop being a crusader"

And they did nothing, while the house next door to the convert's was burned down. What kind of protection is Hussein receiving now, if any? British authorities should see the protection of this man and his family as a matter of national identity and national survival. But of course, they do not, and given the enveloping multiculturalist fog, they will not.

"British Muslim 'bullied' for converting to Christianity," by Ruth Gledhill for the Times (thanks to MFM):

A British citizen who converted to Christianity from Islam and then complained to police when locals threatened to burn his house down was told by officers to “stop being a crusader”, according to a new report.

Nissar Hussein, 43, from Bradford, West Yorkshire, who was born and raised in Britain, converted from Islam to Christianity with his wife, Qubra, in 1996. The report says that he was subjected to a number of attacks and, after being told that his house would be burnt down if he did not repent and return to Islam, reported the threat to the police. It says he was told that such threats were rarely carried out and the police officer told him to “stop being a crusader and move to another place”. A few days later the unoccupied house next door was set on fire.

Christian Solidarity Worldwide, a British human rights organisation whose president is the former Cabinet minister Jonathan Aitken, is calling on the UN and the international community to take action against nations and communities that punish apostasy.

Its report, No Place to Call Home, claims that apostates from Islam are subject to “gross and wideranging human rights abuses”. It adds that in countries such as Britain, with large Muslim populations in a Westernised culture, the demand to maintain a Muslim identity is intense. “When identities are precarious, their enforcement will take an aggressive form.”

"Uncovered meat" Sheikh: Christian women should wear veils

They will, too, once Sharia is in place.

"Hilali tells Christian women to wear veils," by Natalie O'Brien for The Australian (thanks to all who sent this in):

OUTSPOKEN Muslim cleric Taj al-Din al-Hilali says the Bible "mandates" the wearing of the veil by Christian women.

Writing in a new book, Sheik Hilali, who lost his job as mufti of Australia after comparing scantily clad women to uncovered meat, argues that the Bible and the Koran make similar demands of a woman's modesty.

Sheik Hilali, who remains the head of Australia's largest mosque, in the southwestern Sydney suburb of Lakemba, says the purpose of the book is to show the commonalities of Islam with the Jewish and Christian faiths when it comes to women's modesty and clothing.

In the soon to be published The Legitimacy of the Veil for Women of the Scripture - Evidence of the Veil in the Bible, the cleric points to references in the Old and New Testaments to women wearing a veil.

"Through this I hope to raise awareness and understanding and eliminate apprehensions and misunderstandings about the veil," he writes.

No, it won't, except among the terminally multicultural. Why is it that no Christian groups are calling upon women to wear a veil? They just haven't noticed this in the Bible until the Uncovered Meat Man came along to explain it all for them?

State Department gives grant to unindicted co-conspirator in jihad terror funding case

From the Islamic Society of North America website:

Through a US State Department grant the Islamic Society of North America and the National Peace Foundation have co-sponsored a citizen exchange project between the United States and the Middle East. This program brings young professionals from the Middle East, specifically from Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates, to the United States. The goal of this project is to explore Islam, the functions of Islamic institutions in the United States, and the activities of interfaith work. In return American professionals from the three Abrahamic faiths; Christianity, Judaism and Islam, will visit these countries in the Middle East to explore Islam and interfaith work as it is done in the respective countries. This program will run through 2009, with several upcoming exchanges in progress.

From "Islamic Groups Named in Hamas Funding Case," by Josh Gerstein in the New York Sun, June 4, 2007:

Federal prosecutors have named three prominent Islamic organizations in America as participants in an alleged criminal conspiracy to support a Palestinian Arab terrorist group, Hamas.

Prosecutors applied the label of "unindicted co-conspirator" to the Council on American-Islamic Relations, the Islamic Society of North America, and the North American Islamic Trust in connection with a trial planned in Texas next month for five officials of a defunct charity, the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development.

While the foundation was charged in the case, which was filed in 2004, none of the other groups was. However, the co-conspirator designation could be a blow to the credibility of the national Islamic organizations, which often work hand-in-hand with government officials engaged in outreach to the Muslim community.

Apparently it isn't a blow to ISNA's credibility at all.

Madness.

Pipeline News and Andy McCarthy have more.

Honor killing in Australia: "The decision to kill her was made by a council of male relatives"

"I haven't heard any statement from clergy in the region to say honour killing is wrong."

"Honour killing's Aussie link," by Sian Powell in The Australian (thanks to all who sent this in):

MORTALLY wounded and bleeding profusely, Pela Atroshi covered her head with her hands, pleading "please don't shoot me, please don't shoot me". As her sister and her mother screamed, her uncle Rezkar Atroshi raised his gun and killed her. The family's honour had been cleansed.

Rezkar had already shot Pela twice in the back in the upstairs room. Helped downstairs by her mother and her younger sister, the 19-year-old Kurdish Swede was confronted by four resolute men - her father and his three brothers. The men pulled the women apart. Her youngest uncle then finished the job, shooting Pela in the head. The bullet went through one of her fingers and into her brain.

The decision to kill her was made by a council of male relatives, led by Pela's grandfather, Abdulmajid Atroshi - a Kurd who lived in Australia.

One of his sons, Shivan Atroshi, helped pull the women away from Pela so his younger brother could get a clean shot. Shivan, too, lived in Australia.

It is the first time an officially confirmed honour killing with a connection to Australia has ever publicly come to light, but it is likely there have been other Australian-connected honour crimes that have been kept hidden within the tight-lipped Australian Kurdish community. [...]

In Australia, Muhammad Kamal, a lecturer in philosophy at Melbourne University, remembers Pela's grandfather, Abdulmajid Atroshi - the patriarch.

In the early 1990s, Dr Kamal had been broadcasting a Kurdish program on SBS radio, and Atroshi was behind a campaign to have the program taken off air because he believed it was preaching immorality.

"He was a practising Muslim and a tribal man," Dr Kamal said, adding that religious leaders in Kurdistan never condemned honour crimes because they believed it was an essential bulwark against immorality. "I haven't heard any statement from clergy in the region to say honour killing is wrong," he said....

Honor killing in Iraq: Father murders 17-year-old girl for loving British soldier

"You are in a Muslim society and women should live under religious laws. The father has very good contacts inside the Basra government and it wasn't hard for him to be released and what he did to be forgotten."

"Girl, 17, killed in Iraq for loving a British soldier," by Sadie Gray in The Independent (thanks to Morgaan Sinclair):

A 17-year-old Iraqi girl was murdered by her father in an honour killing after falling in love with a British soldier she met while working on an aid programme in Basra, it has been claimed.

Rand Abdel-Qader was stamped upon, suffocated and stabbed by her father, then given an unceremonious burial to emphasise her disgrace. Police released her father without charge two hours after his arrest.

"Not much can be done when we have an honour killing case," said Sergeant Ali Jabbar of Basra police. "You are in a Muslim society and women should live under religious laws. The father has very good contacts inside the Basra government and it wasn't hard for him to be released and what he did to be forgotten."

A total of 47 young women died in honour killings in the city last year, Basra Security Committee told an investigation into Ms Abdel-Qader's case by The Observer. This is believed to be the only case of an honour killing involving a British soldier.

The MoD had no official advice for troops on how to behave with Iraqi women. The serviceman involved would not have been told that any relationship with her could put her life at risk, the paper said.

Ms Abdel-Qader, a student of English at Basra University, had struck up a friendship with a 22-year-old British infantryman known only as Paul five months before her murder in March.

She was believed to have last seen him in January, and the pair, whose relationship was innocent, only ever met while working at the aid station. The soldier was helping deliver relief to displaced families as part of his regimental duties. Ms Abdel-Qader was a volunteer worker....

Fjordman: Socratic Dialogue vs. Islamic Dialogue

The European essayist Fjordman, whose work we have featured many times here, contributes this new Jihad Watch exclusive essay exploring more of the differences between Western and Islamic culture:

First of all I'd like to encourage people to republish the essay The Funny Side of Islam: Muhammad and the Hadith, which I have published at the Gates of Vienna blog. As for this topic, I will start with quoting a book called Eccentric Culture: A Theory of Western Civilization by the French writer Rémi Brague.

According to Brague, Muslims did translate many Greek, Sanskrit and pre-Islamic Persian scientific works. However, one crucial difference between Muslims and Christian Europeans was that Muslims usually didn't preserve the original texts afterwards, since these were now seen as unnecessary. Here is how Ibn Khaldun explains this mentality in his Muqaddimah:

"(The Muslims) desired to learn the sciences of the (foreign) nations. They made them their own through translations. They pressed them into the mold of their own views. They peeled off these strange tongues [and made them pass] into their [own] idiom, and surpassed the achievements of (the non-Arabs) in them. The manuscripts in the non-Arabic languages were forgotten, abandoned, and scattered. All the sciences came to exist in Arabic. The systematic works on them were written in (Arabic) writing. Thus, students of the sciences needed a knowledge of the meaning of (Arabic) words and (Arabic) writing. They could dispense with all other languages, because they had been wiped out and there was no longer any interest in them."

As Brague says, the consequence of this disappearance of the original texts and the neglect of the original languages was that the Muslim world has not been able to return to what it translated and deepen their examination. "In doing this, the Islamized world made the phenomena of 'renaissances' impossible – that is, of a return to the original texts against the traditions that claimed to follow them." In European history, "one witnesses a constant effort to go back up toward the classical sources. One can thus describe the intellectual history of Europe as an almost uninterrupted train of renaissances."

Another crucial difference was that the Islamic world, in sharp contrast to Europe, hardly dreamed of using its knowledge of the foreign as an instrument that would permit it to understand itself better and more critically. According to Rémi Brague:

"It may be that its geographers made a eulogy of India and of China in order to address a discreet critique of the Islamic civilization of their time, often compensated in the last instance by an affirmation of the religious superiority of the latter. The examples that one could find of such a vision 'reflected' in the mirror are exceptional and come from marginal or heretical thinkers. Thus, the contact with the Brahmin Hindu thinkers whose religion does quite well without prophecy (which the Islamic religion declares on the contrary necessary to the happiness of man and to a good social order) posed a problem for the Muslim thinkers; the real or fictitious dialogue with the Brahmins was able to serve to mask a critique of the Islamic religion in a free thinker like Ibn al-Rawandi. The only incontestable exception is without doubt the astonishing work of Al-Biruni on India. This universal scholar (973-1048), astronomer, geographer, historian, mineralogist, pharmacologist etc., had taken the trouble to learn enough Sanskrit to be able to translate in both directions between this language and Arabic (for him also a learned language). He presented a tableau of Hindu society and beliefs with perfect impartiality."

John Keay in his book India: A History states that al-Biruni (Alberuni) owed much of his scientific celebrity in the Arab world to his mastery of Sanskrit and access to Indian scholarship. He also notes that in India, Muslims were initially viewed as just another group of foreigners, sometimes annoying, but essentially marginal: "There is no evidence of an Indian appreciation of the global threat which they represented; and the peculiar nature of their mission – to impose a new monotheist orthodoxy by military conquest and political dominion – was so alien to Indian tradition that it went uncomprehended."

Parts of northern India had been invaded by outsiders before, but Muslims represented a very different breed of conquerors. Keay again:

"Unlike Alexander's Greeks, Muslim invaders were well aware of India's immensity, and mightily excited by its resources. As well as exotic produce like spices, peacocks, pearls, diamonds, ivory and ebony, the 'Hindu country' was renowned for its skilled manufactures and its bustling commerce. India's economy was probably one of the most sophisticated in the world. Guilds regulated production and provided credit; the roads were safe, ports and markets carefully supervised, and tariffs low. Moreover capital was both plentiful and conspicuous. Since at least Roman times the subcontinent seems to have enjoyed a favourable balance of payments. Gold and silver had been accumulating long before the 'golden Guptas,' and they continued to do so. Figures in the Mamallapuram sculptures and the Ajanta frescoes are as strung about with jewellery as those in the Sanchi and Amaravati reliefs. Divine images of solid gold are well attested and royal temples were rapidly becoming royal treasuries as successful dynasts endowed them with the fruits of their conquests. The devout Muslim, although
ostensibly bent on converting the infidel, would find his zeal handsomely rewarded."

In his book Technology in World Civilization: A Thousand-Year History, Arnold Pacey writes that after Baghdad fell to the Mongols in 1258, Delhi became a haven for many Middle Eastern scholars who took refuge there and taught Greek mathematics. According to Irfan Habib, a historian of Indian technology, new techniques spread into the region, including the magnetic compass, which was probably used on Indian ships at this time. Centres for paper-making also developed, but it should be remembered that these inventions were Chinese.

Paper-like fabrics, some made from mulberry bark, were used for clothing and as wrapping material in East Asia, Southeast Asia and the Pacific islands (which were settled by people from Southeast Asia), and in this form paper may have originated as early as 200 BC in China. When it comes to paper used for writing, it definitely existed in China at about AD 100, and was used in Tibet by AD 650 and introduced into the Indian subcontinent by Buddhists at around AD 670, possibly imported from Tibet. However, apparently paper never did come into widespread use there before the Islamic conquests and the Delhi Sultanate. According to Arnold Pacey:

"Indian documents written on paper survive from before this time, but the number is much greater from the thirteenth century onwards. While Islamic domination of North India may have had these positive aspects, the initial conquest by Turkish–speaking armies in the 1190s did great damage to Indian learning, both technical and general. The conquest was particularly destructive in Bihar and Bengal, where Buddhist monasteries were sacked and many monks were killed. One consequence was the virtual elimination of Buddhism in the region, which is where it had originated seventeen centuries earlier. In 1194, the great centre of Indian learning at Benares was attacked, and numerous monuments as well as books, records and probably an astronomical observatory were destroyed. The scale of this vandalism was probably a
lasting setback for Indian science, and astronomy was not again seriously studied until the fifteenth century. The last celebrated Indian astronomer for a long time was Bhaskara, who was working in the 1150s, and whose writing had some influence in the West."

The knowledge of paper-making also spread west via the Middle East and North Africa and eventually reached the madrasas of Morocco. A paper mill was operating in southern Spain by 1151. Pacey again:

"Paper-making also came to Europe via Spain at this time. The paper was made from the same vegetable fibres as linen cloth, (and usually from linen rags), which first had to be pounded in water until a pulp was formed. The process had been invented in China long before, where it replaced an even older method of making paper-like material from mulberry bark. Knowledge of the technique entered the Islamic world in AD 751 after a battle in Central Asia between Chinese forces and an Arab-led army. Chinese prisoners-of-war skilled in paper-making set up a workshop in Samarqand, and from there other workmen went to Baghdad.

However, paper made by the Chinese method for scribes to write on with brushes was not so good for people who used pens. Thus paper-makers supplying the Baghdad market began sizing their product with starch to achieve a parchment-like surface. The manufacture of paper meant that books became more widely available."

According to Irving Fang in A History of Mass Communication, "If paper made printing effective, it was printing that introduced paper to most Europeans. Ultimately, the printing press won the day for paper. Parchment was too expensive for mass production. It was also not porous enough to absorb printing ink very well."

Paper was thus necessary for the invention of Gutenberg's printing press in Europe. Although it is probably historically accurate to say that Muslims helped spread the use of paper in Europe and India, it is highly doubtful whether this makes up for the lasting destruction they brought to the lands they conquered. It is also likely that this Chinese invention would eventually have been adopted anyway, and it should be mentioned that Islam slowed down the adoption of printing for more than a thousand years after it was initially invented in China, despite the fact that Persians and Arabs were in regular
contact with East Asia through trade.

I would personally rank paper as one of China's greatest gifts to mankind. When the Chinese created the Great Wall of China, they spent enormous financial resources on something that was, in the end, not very effective. When the Chinese created paper and later the printing of books, they changed the course of human history.

I am generally sceptical of using the free online encyclopaedia Wikipedia as a source, especially when it comes to politically sensitive matters, but it can be more accurate when it comes to other subjects. Their entry on paper in the English edition is reasonably accurate, so I will quote it here:

"During the Shang (1600 BC-1050 BC) and Zhou (1050 BC-256 BC) dynasties of ancient China, documents were ordinarily written on bone or bamboo (on tablets or on bamboo strips sewn and rolled together into scrolls), making them very heavy and awkward to transport. The light material of silk was sometimes used, but was normally too expensive to consider. While the Han Dynasty Chinese court official Cai Lun is widely regarded to have invented the modern method of papermaking (inspired from wasps and bees) from wood pulp in AD 105, the discovery of specimens bearing written Chinese characters in 2006 at north-east China's Gansu province suggest that paper was in use by the ancient Chinese military more than 100 years before Cai in 8 BC. Archeologically however, true paper without writing has been excavated in China dating to the reign of Emperor Wu of Han from the 2nd century BC, used for purposes of wrapping or padding protection for delicate bronze mirrors. It was also used for safety, such as the padding of poisonous 'medicine' as mentioned in the official history of the
period."

When Muslims conquered the Middle East, they conquered some of the greatest centers of learning from the ancient world. As David C. Lindberg writes in The Beginnings of Western Science, second edition:

"The Greeks themselves believed that mathematics originated in Egypt and Mesopotamia. Herodotus (fifth century B.C.) reported that Pythagoras traveled to Egypt, where he was introduced by priests to the mysteries of Egyptian mathematics. From there, according to ancient tradition, he was carried captive to Babylon, where he came into contact with Babylonian mathematics. Eventually he made his way home to the island of Samos, bearing gifts of Egyptian and Babylonian mathematical treasure to the Greeks. Whether this and similar tales regarding other mathematicians are historically accurate or legendary is less important than the larger truth they convey – namely, that the Greeks were (and knew they were) the beneficiaries of Egyptian and Babylonian mathematical knowledge."

Moreover, "The contemporary mathematical achievement in Mesopotamia was an order of magnitude superior to that of the Egyptians. Clay tablets recovered in large quantities reveal a Babylonian number system, fully developed by about 2000 B.C., that was simultaneously decimal (based on the number 10) and sexagesimal (based on the number 60). We retain sexagesimal numbers today in our system for measuring time (60 minutes to an hour) and angles (60 minutes in a degree and 360 degrees in a circle)."

I disagree with Lindberg's use of the word "Babylonian" here, and would prefer the term "Mesopotamian." The sexagesimal numeral system originated with the ancient Sumerians in the 3rd millennium BC. Like many other Sumerian inventions, it was eventually adopted by the succeeding rulers of Mesopotamia. Nicholas Ostler describes in Empires of the Word: A Language History of the World how Sumerian, the world's first written language, also became the world's first "classical language." In the 2nd millennium BC, although it was no longer spoken, it continued to be studied (like Latin in medieval Europe) as a vehicle of learning. The Sumerian cuneiform script was adapted for writing by the Akkadians, Babylonians, Assyrians and others down to the Persians, which helped European scholars in deciphering cuneiforms in the nineteenth century AD.

Although the Greeks clearly learned much from Egyptians, Mesopotamians, Phoenicians and others, they did some things that no other ancient civilizations in the world achieved. According to Science and Technology in World History, second edition, by James E. McClellan, Harold Dorn, "Several features characterize Hellenic science. The most remarkable was the Greek invention of scientific theory – 'natural philosophy' or the philosophy of nature. Early Greek speculations on the cosmos and the disinterested Hellenic quest for abstract knowledge were unprecedented endeavors. They added a fundamental new element to the definition of science and shifted the direction of its history."

In A History of Mathematics, second edition, Victor J. Katz explains how the development of geometric proof by logical argument was a unique Greek achievement:

"It was Aristotle, however, who took the ideas developed over the centuries and first codified the principles of logical argument. Aristotle believed that logical arguments should be built out of syllogisms, where 'a syllogism is discourse in which, certain things stated, something other than what is stated follows of necessity from their being so.' In other words, a syllogism consists of certain statements that are taken as true and certain other statements that are then necessarily true. For example, the argument 'if all monkeys are primates, and all primates are mammals, then it follows that all monkeys are mammals' exemplifies one type of syllogism, while the argument 'if all Catholics are Christians and no Christians are Moslem, then it follows that no Catholic is Moslem' exemplifies a second type. After clarifying the principles of dealing with syllogisms, Aristotle notes that syllogistic reasoning enables one to use 'old knowledge' to impart new. If one accepts the premises of a syllogism as true, then one must also accept the conclusion."

"One cannot, however, obtain every piece of knowledge as the conclusion of a syllogism. One has to begin somewhere with truths that are accepted without argument. Aristotle distinguishes between the basic truths that are peculiar to each particular science and the ones that are common to all. The former are often called postulates, and the latter are known as axioms."

"Aristotle's rules of attaining knowledge by beginning with axioms and using demonstrations to gain new results have become the model for mathematicians to the present day. Although Aristotle emphasized the use of syllogisms as the building blocks of logical arguments, Greek mathematicians apparently never used them. They used other forms, as have most mathematicians down to the present. Why Aristotle insisted on syllogisms is not clear. The basic forms of argument actually used in mathematical proof were analyzed in some detail in the third century B.C.E. by the Stoics, of whom the most prominent was Chrysippus (280-206 B.C.E.). This form of logic is based on propositions, statements that can be either true or false, rather than on the Aristotelian syllogisms."

According to Katz, "even though Western civilization owes a great debt to the Greeks for their achievements in literature, art, and architecture, it is to Greek mathematics that we owe the idea of mathematical proof, an idea at the basis of modern mathematics and, by extension, at the foundation of our modern technological civilization."

It is easy to underestimate this achievement, but as Toby E. Huff says in The Rise of Early Modern Science: Islam, China and the West, "Geometry as a systematic deductive system of proofs and demonstrations was virtually nonexistent in China, as was trigonometry."

The Greeks' basic political organization was the polis, or city-state. Victor J. Katz links their political system to their science, as "citizens were motivated to learn the skills of argument and debate. It was perhaps this atmosphere that promoted the necessity for proof in mathematics." This idea is shared by G.E.R Lloyd in his book The Ambitions of Curiosity: Understanding the World in Ancient Greece and China (Ideas in Context). According to Lloyd, the common, though far from universal, Greek preoccupation with axiomatic-deductive demonstration was indeed linked to the political and ideological atmosphere:

"The great strength of the model was that, given self-evident axioms and valid inferences, it yielded incontrovertible results. That may seem reason enough for the Greeks to have developed it. But when we reflect that neither the Chinese nor any other ancient mathematical tradition did so, there would appear to be more to it than mere intellectual attractiveness. What more may be answered in part, I suggest, by the negative models provided by the styles of argument cultivated in those other peculiarly Greek institutions of the law-courts (dikasteria) and political assemblies. It was dissatisfaction with the merely persuasive arguments used there that led some philosophers and mathematicians to develop their alternative."

"It was success in argument with rivals that secured a reputation, essential not least if you were to make a living as a teacher. In these respects, the tradition of debate itself stands out as the key institution (of a different kind from those of bureaux or courts) in the situation within which most Greek intellectuals operated." G.E.R Lloyd contrasts this with other ancient civilizations, for instance China in the pre-imperial and early imperial age:

"Criticism of your own teacher – rare, if not quite unknown in China – was common in Greece, sometimes as a prelude to the pupil setting up a rival school of his own. The case of Aristotle is just the most famous of many that can be cited. To be sure, the role of text-books in Greece eventually came to be considerable, even though none, not even Euclid's Elements, achieved quite the cachet of a Chinese major canon, at least not in Greco-Roman antiquity. Of course, on the Chinese side, not all instruction was mediated through such texts. In the Lunyu[Analects], Confucius, for instance, is described in dialogue with his pupils in an open situation that might seem reminiscent of the fictional conversations of Socrates in Plato. Yet two differences remain: first Confucius' authority is never challenged by his pupils in the way Socrates is contradicted by some of his interlocutors (however much Plato stacks the cards in Socrates' favour in their eventual refutation). Secondly, Confucius' pupils were not his sole, nor maybe even prime, preoccupation, which was rather, we said, to find a ruler worthy to advise."

The classicist Bruce S. Thornton, author of books such as Greek Ways: How the Greeks Created Western Civilization, places this tradition at the very heart of Western civilization, from ancient to modern times. He defines philosophy as "critical consciousness systematized," and states that "Of all the Greek philosophers, the spirit of critical consciousness is best embodied in the late 5th century BC philosopher Socrates," who was executed in Athens in 399 BC. According to Thornton:

"Socrates's famous method was the 'dialectic,' from the Greek word that suggests both 'discussion' and 'analytical sorting.' The purpose of dialectic was to strip away the false knowledge and incoherent opinion that most people inherit from their societies and unthinkingly depend on to manage their lives. Although Socrates claimed to doubt that he or anyone else could acquire true knowledge about the good and virtue and the beautiful, he nonetheless believed that what he called 'examination,' critical consciousness applied to questions of virtue and the good, could eliminate false knowledge and muddled opinion.

Most important, Socrates saw this activity of rational examination and pursuit of truth and virtue as the essence of what a human being is and the highest expression of human nature. That is why he chose to die rather than to give it up: 'The unexamined life,' he said in his defense speech, 'is no life worth living for a human being.'" This legacy of critical – and self-critical – rational thought is important. Thornton again:

"Western culture has been defined by critical consciousness, the willingness to examine and challenge traditional wisdom and answers in the pursuit of truth, and to stand in opposition to the political and social powers whose authority and legitimacy rest on the unexamined acceptance of received dogma. Science obviously has progressed in this fashion, but even in literature we find an impatience with tradition and a restless searching for ever greater and more finely nuanced explorations of the human condition. A whole genre, the aptly named novel, was invented partly as a vehicle for examining the fluid complexities of human psychology and social relations, a complexity ignored in the stock characters and plots of traditional story-telling. In this sense, Western literature has been the creation of what Lionel Trilling called 'opposing sel[ves],' all those dissidents who, like Socrates, are driven to examine the human condition and probe beyond the traditional answers. The spirit of Western civilization, then, is, as Alan Bloom has suggested, 'Socratic,' a process of raising important questions and examining critically the tradition of answers, as this examination is embodied in works of enduring excellence, starting of course with those of the ancient Greeks."

The Islamic world, too, encountered Greek philosophers and found much to admire in them, especially in Aristotle. Yet the concept of "Socratic method" or "Socratic dialogue" ultimately found little room for growth in the Islamic world. Muslims still understand the term "dialogue" in a way that differs sharply from that of Westerners. For them, "dialogue" does not mean an attempt to rationally debate a topic in order to arrive at the truth. Truth is already given. It's called Islamic sharia, and the only "dialogue" that is acceptable is one that will eventually lead to the implementation of sharia.

Poul E. Andersen, former dean of the church of Odense, Denmark, warns against false hopes of dialogue with Muslims. During a debate at the University of Aarhus, Ahmad Akkari, one of the Muslim participants, stated: "Islam has waged war where this was necessary and dialogue where this was possible. A dialogue can thus only be viewed as part of a missionary objective." When Mr. Andersen raised the issue of dialogue with the Muslim World League in Denmark, the answer was: "To a Muslim, it is artificial to discuss Islam. In fact, you view any discussion as an expression of Western thinking." Also in Denmark, city council member Ali Nuur complained that one of the challenges certain immigrant groups face in the education system is that they are unfamiliar with tests rooted in a rational, critical and analytical way of thinking.

In Science and Religion, 400 B.C. to A.D. 1550: From Aristotle to Copernicus, Edward Grant states that:

"Not long after the beginnings of science and natural philosophy in Greece, the first known clash between science and religion in the pre-Christian Greek world occurred, producing the first known victim of religious persecution. In the time of Pericles, Anaxagoras of Clazomenae (c.500-428 B.C.), the last of the Ionian pre-Socratic philosophers and a friend of Pericles, was apparently persecuted for impiety because he believed the sun was a mass of red-hot metal and therefore, presumably not a divine celestial object. The charge of impiety was probably brought by Pericles' enemies, who apparently saw a good opportunity to attack him, using the pretext of his friendship with the atheistic natural philosopher Anaxagoras. This resulted in the banishment of Anaxagoras from Athens. According to Diogenes Laertius (fl. early third century A.D.), Anaxagoras committed suicide."

According to Grant, "What all this reveals for the relations between science and religion is that the Greeks of Anaxagoras' time believed that the celestial region was divine, and they therefore found reason to persecute Anaxagoras when he dared proclaim the sun a mass of red-hot metal. Another clash between science and religion occurred in the third century B.C., when Aristarchus of Samos became the first to proclaim that the cosmos is really heliocentric rather than geocentric. He displaced the earth as center of the world with the sun, and then set the earth moving around the sun with an annual motion while simultaneously rotating daily on its axis. In reaction to this revolutionary move, Cleanthes the Stoic (263-232 B.C.), the second head of the Stoic school, is reported to have charged Aristarchus with impiety, because he removed the 'hearth of the universe' from the center of the world and set it in motion. Nothing happened to Aristarchus, and no such charge was ever brought officially by any religious or governmental body. To my knowledge, no similar case arose in the Greek world prior to the Christian era."

Edward Grant says, however, that it is noteworthy that these two instances were both relevant to the physical structure of the universe, that is, to cosmology, and that they represent rather isolated and atypical incidents. For the most part, many city-states in Greece enjoyed a remarkable level of freedom of speech by ancient or even by modern standards. The problem for Muslims was that they wanted to expropriate the achievements of infidel science without taking into account the ideological atmosphere of free speech in which these achievements were made. They wanted the golden eggs, but killed the goose that laid them.

In contrast, medieval Europeans institutionalized a degree of free inquiry that was unprecedented by any major civilization on earth at the time. The basis for the Scientific Revolution was laid in the universities, one of the greatest inventions of Christian European civilization.

As Toby E. Huff, says, "In short, the European medievals had fashioned an image of man that was so imbued with reason and rationality that philosophical and theological speculation became breathtaking spheres of inquiry whose outcomes were far from predictable, or orthodox - to the consternation of all. Furthermore, this theological and philosophical speculation was taking place within the citadels of Western learning, that is, in the universities. Christian theology had indeed clothed man with a new set of methods and motivations, but it had also attributed to him a new set of rational capacities that knew no bounds."

Wasn't Socrates eventually killed in Athens for being too troublesome, you say? Yes, he was. This demonstrates that no society in history has ever been perfect. Yet as Henry Bamford Parkes asks in Gods and Men - The Origins of Western Culture, "Why was one relatively small city, during a period of only two or three generations, able to make so many contributions of such lasting importance to human thought?" After all, "There was less accumulated surplus wealth in classical Greece than in the cities of the oriental empires or of the Hellenistic kingdoms of a later period. The Athenian achievement is a permanent refutation of the notion of any close or necessary relationship between economic and cultural productivity. It was the result not of surplus wealth, but of favoring institutions and beliefs." He concludes that "Perhaps the chief reason was that it was sufficiently small to give every individual a sense of responsible participation in public affairs."

The irony is that one of our most important sources regarding the life and teachings of Socrates (who wrote nothing himself) is his pupil Plato, who supposedly wished to see the works of his rival Democritus burned. Plato used the treatment of Socrates in democratic Athens as a proof that democracy was an unjust system. He was certainly correct in pointing out that democracy does not automatically lead to free speech and individual liberty. It did not do so in the ancient world, and it does not do so now. Probably no culture, ancient or modern, has ever enjoyed total free speech in all walks of life, but Athens was still closer to this ideal than any other ancient culture.

The problem with Plato is not that he used the shameful treatment of Socrates to demonstrate flaws in the democratic system and show that it does not automatically lead to individual liberty, freedom of speech and respect for private property rights, which is legitimate criticism. The problem with Plato is that he rejected these goals as desirable to begin with. He embraced what I would call "seductive authoritarianism," where he argued that since democracy isn't perfect, we should passionately embrace an authoritarian or indeed totalitarian system where all aspects of human life are controlled by the state with mathematical precision.

Although he is not uncritical of Sparta, the system Plato praises in The Republic is a lot closer to authoritarian Sparta than to Athens. In doing this, Plato conveniently forgot that there was no Socrates in Sparta, just like there was no Plato or Aristotle. While Plato was free to be in democratic Athens and praise the Spartan system, praising any state or system other than the Spartan one was quite literally a crime in Sparta. They produced good soldiers, but few if any scientists worthy of note. Plato thus praised a system in which no Plato could, or did, exist.

As Henry Bamford Parkes puts it, "Any application of Platonic principles would have destroyed the social milieu that had made such dialogues possible. There could have been no Socratic discussions in the authoritarian state envisaged in the Republic and the Laws." In his view, Plato's influence was primarily negative: "In spite of his contempt for empirical observation, his emphasis on the value of mathematics helped to promote the scientific development of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries." Yet all in all, "his chief importance has been to provide philosophical support for the belief that order requires the denial of freedom."

According to Henry Bamford Parkes, "Sparta represented the totalitarian solution to the political problem, and because of the admiration felt for it by the Athenian aristocrat Plato, it has had a lasting influence on Western thought." One could thus argue that although freethinking is a golden thread running through the history of Western civilization, this legacy gave birth to a radical rejection of freethinking, which is also a part of the Western legacy. It is tempting to view Plato as an early forerunner of modern intellectuals with totalitarian longings, who use their freedom to praise political systems in which no freedom exists, be that Communist, Islamic or other.

When you read essays such as "The Peace Racket" by Bruce Bawer, the author of While Europe Slept: How Radical Islam is Destroying the West from Within, you get a very strong impression that many Western universities are now dominated by persons, many of them Marxists, who have no interest in using Socratic dialogue in search of truth. They already know the truth, or consider it irrelevant, and simply view the universities as a platform for ideological indoctrination of students. This ideological corruption has been infused with an element of financial corruption as well. As Ibn Warraq says in Defending the West: A Critique of Edward Said's Orientalism:

"The West, in giving in to political correctness and in being corrupted by Saudi and other Arab money, is ceasing to honor the original intent of the university. In recent years, Saudi Arabia and other Islamic countries (e.g., Brunei) have established chairs of Islamic studies in prestigious Western universities, which are then encouraged to present a favorable image of Islam. Scientific research leading to objective truth no longer seems to be the goal. Critical examination of the sources or the Koran is discouraged. Scholars such as Daniel Easterman have even lost their posts for not teaching about Islam in the way approved by Saudi Arabia. In December 2005, Georgetown and Harvard universities each accepted $ 20 million from Saudi prince Alwaleed bin Talal for programs in Islamic studies. The Carter Center, founded by former president Jimmy Carter, is funded in part by bin Talal. Such money can only corrupt the original intent of all higher institutions of education, that is, the search for truth."

In abandoning Socratic dialogue and the search for truth, the West has made itself more vulnerable to Islamic infiltration because it has in some ways become more like Islam. Only by insisting on our right to ask questions about anything can we restore what once was the purpose of our education system. We should start with rational criticism of Islam.

Fitzgerald: Questions Jimmy Carter was not asked

Jimmy Carter has exhibited, and did exhibit at Camp David, an antipathy to Israel, a cruel indifference to the past that every Jewish Israeli carries around within him. These were dead giveaways of the classic antisemite. Yet some are now horrified by his meeting with Hamas, as if all this were something new.

Carter has not changed. He is just freer now, or thinks himself freer, to be more openly vicious. Anyone who failed to recognize that in 1979, or 1989, or 1999, should bethink himself.

Carter is interviewed on this station and on that. Not one of the interviewers thinks to ask Carter if he understands what a "hudna" is. Not one asks him why he thinks the figure of ten years, rather than five, or fifteen, or twenty years, was chosen by the leaders of Hamas as the appropriate length of time for this "hudna" or truce.

Not one of them has asked him, or will ask, if he has any idea that the model for this offer is the Treaty made at Hudiabiyya in 628 A.D. between Muhammad and the Meccans. Not one of them will ask Carter if he has heard about that treaty, knows its terms, knows when, and why, Muhammad chose to break it. Not one of those interviewing Carter will ask him if he knows the significance of Muhammad in Islam, if he knows what Muhammad said and did, if he knows what the phrases "uswa hasana" and "al-insan al-kamil" mean. Not one will ask Jimmy Carter if, since he has been an ex-president for nearly 30 years, and since he has considered himself a great expert on Middle Eastern matters, and even offered public relations advice, free, to Yassir Arafat, and clearly has a thing about Israel, a most unpleasant thing. There seems to be no need at this point to point out what prompts Jimmy Carter to have that "thing" about Israel.

And it did not start yesterday, but was or should have been obvious from his behavior at Camp David. Yet so many of those who then claimed (and claim still) to be "pro-Israel" have no idea of how obviously vicious Carter (and Brzezinski) were then, during those fantastic negotiations that I remember so clearly, at every twist and cruel turn, as they hectored and bullied and inveigled and mocked Begin's worries, and gave Saint Sadat not only what he dared to ask but made him ask for even more, and more.

And since Carter has been paid tens of millions of dollars during that time, in all kinds of annual support supplied by American taxpayers, and since furthermore he has decided on many occasions to formulate and attempt to execute his own foreign policy, should he not be asked if, in those nearly 30 years, he has bothered to study the Qur'an, the hadith, the Sira, or bothered to read any of the great Western authorities -- not the espositos and ernsts, please, not the michael-sells bowdlerized Qur'an, please, not Noah "After Jihad" Feldman, please. (For now let's leave Feldman to his ill-merited tenure at Harvard Law School. He is one more war profiteer of the Iraq folly, voted on by colleagues who themselves were in no position to judge his worth, but were deeply impressed by that Iraq-constitution business, as well as by glowing endorsements from John Esposito and Roy Mottahedeh.) Rather, has Carter read studies of Islam by Joseph Schacht, by C. Snouck Hurgronje, by Arthur Jeffrey, by Henri Lammens, by K. S. Lal, by fifty others, from a dozen countries, who were the Orientalists who studied Islam in the age of mental freedom that flowered in the field prior to the Great Inhibition? Has Carter attended to what the defectors from the army of Islam say, which is or should be as useful to the West as once were defectors from Soviet Russia, or Communist Eastern Europe?

Of course Carter was not asked any of this. He wasn't asked any of this because none of those who interviewed him, however briefly, and however skeptically, knew any of this themselves. Yet they still think that they are perfectly justified in reporting on, in talking about, in fashioning the judgments of others about, Islam -- when they are entirely unjustified in so doing, and guilty, as are so many, of criminal irresponsibility in the performance of their duties, of their difficult but indispensable task.

Fitzgerald: Qur'anic science

"A prominent cleric, Sheikh Youssef al-Qaradawy, said modern science had at last provided evidence that Mecca was the true centre of the Earth; proof, he said, of the greatness of the Muslim "qibla" - the Arabic word for the direction Muslims turn to when they pray....The meeting in Qatar is part of a popular trend in some Muslim societies of seeking to find Koranic precedents for modern science." -- from this article

Mecca is the center of the universe because it is the most important city on earth, because that is where Muhammad got his revelatory start, and -- there is no Muslim Galileo, just as there is no Muslim William Wilberforce or Muslim Mozart or Muslim Leonardo or Muslim Shakespeare -- the earth is the center of the universe.

It's the hometown of Muhammad, uswa hasana, al-insan al-kamil. It's where the uncreated and immutable text of Islam first began to be revealed to Muhammad, Mecca's most famous native son. It's the cynosure of all Muslim eyes, the center of all Muslim hopes and dreams. Now that the more than ten trillion dollars Muslim members of OPEC have received since 1973 alone, or a hundred billion of it at least, has been deployed as the Money Weapon, and now that millions of Muslims have been permitted to settle deep behind what they have taught to regard as enemy lines, within the countries of Western Europe, Muslims are busy making demands, putting pressure, and even uttering such outlandish nonsense as this, for one reason: because they feel strong enough to do so -- that is, because they can.

Muslims are touchingly aware, even as they outwardly express other, more triumphalist notions, that Muslim societies have been, from every point of view, failures -- failures in their encouragement of despotisms, failures in the inshallah-fatalism that underlies economic stasis, failures in their societies, where both women and non-Muslims are subject to unequal and intolerable treatment.

And among those many failures, there is the dreamy belief that there was once a "Golden Age of Islamic Science," its achievements greatly exaggerated, with no recognition of how much was simply taken, lock, stock, and algebra-gunpowder-and-printing barrel, from India and from China, and claimed for Islam and for Muslims.

When one looks at the non-orthodox beliefs of, say, ar-Razi (Rhazes), one realizes that many of those in lands under Islamic rule whose achievements are now celebrated were not Muslims but Arabic-using Christians and Jews, or new converts who were only one generation, or possibly two, away from a Christian or Jewish milieu. Much that has been described as "Islamic science" or "science under Islam" took place despite, not because of, Islam, which in spirit and letter is opposed to free and skeptical inquiry, and unlike Western Christendom, has remained so opposed, and will always do so. Muslims do not want to recognize the failures, the absence of achievement in science, after the first few hundred years of Muslim conquests. Nor do they wish to recognize that the end of the period of scientific achievement in Dar al-Islam can be linked to the mass conversions in lands conquered by Muslims that inexorably brought about a change from a largely non-Muslim to a largely Muslim population. Islam discourages the very attitudes that the enterprise of modern science most requires. And there is no solution for this, except either to forego participation in that worldwide enterprise, or to limit the power of Islam over the minds of its adherents, and its role in their lives.

The desperate attempt to read into the Qur'an all kinds of modern developments in science reflects this felt inferiority -- behind all the Muslim bluster about "Islamic science" or, in George Saliba's version, "Arabic science" (which means, or should mean, science as conducted by those who, whether Muslim or not, used Arabic as their main language). Since Islam encourages the habit of mental submission, the number of those who believe in conspiracy theories, and in crackbrain theories of every kind, are not merely present, as they are in all societies, but in fact far outnumber the handful of those whom we might recognize as fellow inhabitants of something like the same mental universe that all the rest of us inhabit. These crackbrain theorists locate in some vague Qur'anic phrase now all of vulcanology, and now, in another phrase, all of Mandelbrot's fractals, and over here, in this phrase, we can find Muhammad setting out the double-helix in all of its Mill-Hill glory. No need for Watson, Crick, Maurice Wilkins, or Rosalind Franklin to come along. It was there, all of it, already, in some phrase in the Qur'an, if only poor naked forked Infidel man had known where to look. But he didn't, the dope.

RIP Robert Collins, victim of dhimmitude

The author of the book Alms for Jihad, about who is funding the jihadist movement, a book banned by its dhimmi publisher under Saudi pressure, has passed away.

"Robert O. Collins, 75; UC scholar's Bin Laden book was withdrawn by publisher," by Jocelyn Y. Stewart for the Los Angeles Times (thanks to Twostellas):

In a career devoted to the study of Africa's Upper Nile Valley, particularly Sudan, historian Robert O. Collins wrote books and articles that were considered required reading for scholars and students of Africa.

The U.S. government sought his insight on the conflict in Darfur and on Osama bin Laden. Hollywood filmmakers asked his advice in depicting the region on screen. A former president of Sudan presented Collins with a distinguished award for scholarship.

But when Collins and a colleague wrote the 2006 book "Alms for Jihad: Charity and Terrorism in the Islamic World," the two historians found themselves in the middle of what the New York Times called an international cause celebre.

To avoid a defamation lawsuit in British courts -- where the burden of proof is on the defendant -- the publisher of "Alms" apologized to a wealthy Saudi mentioned in the book, Sheikh Khalid bin Mahfouz, and paid a settlement. The publisher, Cambridge University Press, also destroyed all unsold copies of "Alms," an act of pure heresy to Collins and other scholars.

Until his death from cancer in Santa Barbara on April 11, the 75-year-old Collins maintained that he and J. Millard Burr had written a good book that deserved to exist.

"The Shaykh can burn the books in Britain, but he cannot prevent the recovery of the copyright by the authors nor their search for a U.S. publisher to reprint a new edition of 'Alms for Jihad,' " Collins said in an essay posted online at George Mason University's History News Network....

I am sorry that he did not live to see his struggle through to victory. That victory is now up to us.

May his memory be eternal.

Yemeni lawyer says Yemen should stop child marriages

But of course Yemen can't, and Yemen won't, because Muhammad consummated his marriage with a nine-year-old when he was in his fifties, and he is the supreme example of conduct (Qur'an 33:21).

"Yemen 'should stop child marriages,'" by Nasser Arrabyee for GulfNews (thanks to Agnostichk):

Sana'a: Human rights activists and lawyers should put pressure on the government to ban marriage of young girls, said a Yemeni lawyer.

Lawyer Shatha Nasser, who defended an 8-year-old girl who was divorced last week in a Yemeni court, called all civil society organisations and human rights activist to form a coalition for amending the current law which allows marriage of children under 15.

"Our next step now is to do all that we can to make the minimum marriage age in Yemen 18 years," Shatha told Gulf News.

"But this cannot happen if there is no cooperation between lawyers and human right groups," she said.

Eight-year-old Nojoud was in the news last week after appearing in the court requesting a divorce from her 32-year-old husband after a two-month marriage. Shatha said there were a lot of child marriages in Yemen.

[...]

On April 15, with support from Shatha and judge Aboud Al Khaleq Ghowber, Nojoud paid her way out of marriage. The amount of 100,000 Yemeni riyals was given by an anonymous donor in the UAE, and Nojoud happily became an 8-year-old divorcee.

[...]

"I am so happy to be free and I will go back to school and will never think of getting married again," Nojoud said joyfully. "It is a good feeling to be rid of my husband and his bad treatment."

[...]

According to the International Centre for Research on Women's 2007 statistics, Yemen is one of 20 developing countries where child marriages are common. Nearly half of all Yemeni girls are married before the age of 18.

Most women have their first child immediately after their first menstruation cycle and are likely to have many more. Yemen's fertility rate is very high, with an average of 6.3 children per woman, and the country also has some of the highest mother and infant mortality rates worldwide.

According to research on early marriage in Yemen from Oxfam and the United Nations Population Fund, many girls like Nojoud develop irreparable psychological scarrings from early marriage and the forced sexual encounters that accompany it.

"I hated nights because they usually meant that my husband would come to my bed. I used to run from him and he would chase me and beat me and do his thing. I pray that my younger sisters do not face the same fate," said Nojoud. Now Nojoud is living with her uncle and his family in relative safety.

"He would chase me and beat me":

"Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them." (Qur'an 4:34)

Islamic scholars in Algeria: government ban on veils in passport photos violates Sharia

How is it that so many Islamic scholars end up becoming Misunderstanders of Islam? Anyway, it will be interesting to see how this shakes out: will Sharia win or lose? I expect the smart money will be on another victory for the guardians of religious purity. "Algeria passport veil ban protest," from the BBC (thanks to Morgaan Sinclair):

Muslim Scholars in Algeria say a government ban on pictures of veiled women in passport photographs runs counter to Sharia law.

The Society of Algerian Muslim Scholars has denounced the ban which also applies to bearded men.

The organisation says the veil and beard are part of Muslim tradition which cannot be outlawed.

The society says it issued a fatwa against the ban after receiving hundreds of complaints.

Prime Minister Abdelazeez Belkhadem is reported to have received complaints from the public urging him to overturn the ban.

The BBC's Arab affairs analyst Magdi Abdelhardi says it is an example of a modern secular state coming under fire from a resurgent Islamism....

Wow! Really?

The Pope, the Grand Sheikh, and the Jews

Andy Bostom has a terrific piece, "A Study in Contrasts: Benedict, Tantawi, and the Jews," in National Review, showing the stark contrast between Pope Benedict XVI, who is routinely called a "Nazi," and Al-Azhar's Grand Sheikh Tantawi, who is a lot closer to really being one:

Last Friday, Pope Benedict XVI stopped at the Park Street Synagogue on the Upper East Side of Manhattan. The 81-year-old pontiff — a native of Germany whose father had been anti-Nazi — was forcibly enrolled in the Hitler Youth, and conscripted into the German army during the final months of World War II, before deserting in the war’s concluding days. With fitting poignancy, Rabbi Arthur Schneier, the Holocaust survivor who leads the synagogue, greeted Pope Benedict. Schneier, 78, lost his family in the Nazis’ Auschwitz and Terezin concentration camps as a teenager. Schneier has headed the synagogue since 1962, while championing religious freedom and tolerance worldwide.

Monsignor David Malloy, general secretary of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, characterized the pope’s appearance — one day before Passover — thusly: “By this personal and informal visit, which is not part of his official program, His Holiness wishes to express his good will toward the local Jewish community as they prepare for Passover.”

Indeed this is the pope’s second visit to a synagogue as pontiff. On his initial papal trip abroad, in August 2005, Benedict visited a synagogue in Cologne, Germany, that had been destroyed by the Nazis. Rabbi Marvin Hier, founder and dean of the Wiesenthal Center, noted appositely, on that occasion, “The fact that in his very first foreign visit as Pope he went to the Cologne Synagogue is an indication of the importance that the Church attaches to its relationship with the Jews.” Within a year later, Benedict’s May 2006 address while visiting the Auschwitz-Birkenau concentration camp included a blistering rebuke and condemnation of those who would persecute Jews, and a lucid presentation of the phenomenon of anti-Semitism, particularly as it was manifested in the unspeakable horrors of Auschwitz:

Deep down, those vicious criminals, by wiping out this people, wanted to kill the God who called Abraham, who spoke on Sinai and laid down principles to serve as a guide for mankind, principles that are eternally valid.

Earlier, writing in December 2000, the future pope (then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger) affirmed his close alignment with the teachings of the Second Vatican Council, and the ecumenical thought of his predecessor and dear friend, Pope John Paul II. Ratzinger’s statement reiterates this “new vision of Jewish-Christian relations,” and even acknowledges a role for Christian anti-Semitism in the Holocaust itself:

Down through the history of Christianity, already-strained relations deteriorated further, even giving birth in many cases to anti-Jewish attitudes, which throughout history have led to deplorable acts of violence. Even if the most recent, loathsome experience of the Shoah was perpetrated in the name of an anti-Christian ideology, which tried to strike the Christian faith at its Abrahamic roots in the people of Israel, it cannot be denied that a certain insufficient resistance to this atrocity on the part of Christians can be explained by an inherited anti-Judaism present in the hearts of not a few Christians.

He then implores that a new relationship be forged between the Church and Israel out of the tragic ashes of the Holocaust, based upon overcoming “every kind of anti-Judaism,” and engaging in sincere, meaningful dialogue.

As Pope Benedict, this commitment and its constructive impact were re-affirmed in a Passover greeting to the Jewish community, issued officially during his visit to Washington, D.C. last Thursday.

In contrast to the pope, consider Muhammad Sayyid Tantawi, the current Grand Imam of Al-Azhar University in Cairo, Egypt. For more than a thousand years, since its founding in 792 A.D., Al-Azhar, has served as the academic shrine — much as Mecca is the religious shrine — of the global Sunni Muslim community (Sunnis are about 90 percent of Muslims).

Tantawi’s Ph.D. thesis, Banu Israil fi al-Quran wa-al-Sunnah (Jews in the Koran and the Traditions), was published in 1968-69. In 1980 he became the head of the Tafsir (Koranic Commentary) Department of the University of Medina, Saudi Arabia — a position he held until 1984. Tantawi became Grand Mufti of Egypt in 1986, and a decade later he took his current post as Grand Imam.

My forthcoming book The Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism includes extensive, first-time English translations of Jews in the Koran and the Traditions. In the 700-page treatise, Tantawi wrote these words:

[The] Koran describes the Jews with their own particular degenerate characteristics, i.e. killing the prophets of Allah [Koran 2:61/ 3:112], corrupting His words by putting them in the wrong places, consuming the people’s wealth frivolously, refusal to distance themselves from the evil they do, and other ugly characteristics caused by their deep-rooted lasciviousness. . . . Only a minority of the Jews keep their word [Koranic citations here]. . . . All Jews are not the same. The good ones become Muslims [Koran 3:113], the bad ones do not.

These are the expressed, “carefully researched” views on Jews held by the nearest Muslim equivalent to a pope. Tantawi has not mollified such hatemongering beliefs since becoming the Grand Imam, as his statements on “dialogue” with Jews (“I still believe in everything written in that dissertation”), the Jews as “enemies of Allah, descendants of apes and pigs,” and the legitimacy of homicide bombing of Jews make clear.

Unfortunately, Tantawi’s anti-Semitic formulations are well-grounded in classical, mainstream Islamic theology. The Koranic depiction of the Jews — their traits deemed both infallible and timeless — highlights, in verse 2:61 (repeated in verse 3:112), the centrality of the Jews “abasement and humiliation,” and being “laden with God’s anger.” Koranic verses 5:60 and 5:78 describe the Jews’ transformation into apes and swine (5:60), or apes alone (2:65 / 7:166), having been “cursed by the tongue of David, and Jesus, Mary’s son” (5:78). Moreover, forcing Jews, in particular, to pay the Koranic poll tax “tribute” (as per verse 9:29), “readily,” while “being brought low,” is consistent with their overall humiliation and abasement in accord with Koran 2:61, and its directly related verses.

An additional, much larger array of anti-Jewish Koranic motifs build to a denouement (as if part of a theological indictment, conviction, and sentencing process) concluding with an elaboration of the “ultimate sin” committed by the Jews (they are among the devil’s minions [Koran 4:60], accursed by God [Koran 4:47]), and their appropriate punishment: As per Koran 98:6, “The unbelievers among the People of the Book and the pagans shall burn forever in the fire of Hell. They are the vilest of all creatures.”

However, the Koranic origins of Islamic anti-Semitism are not a justification for the unreformed, unrepentant modern application of these hateful motifs pace Tantawi. Within days of the Netanya homicide bombing massacre on a Passover seder night in 2002, for example, Tantawi issued an abhorrent endorsement of so-called “martyrdom operations,” even when directed at Israeli civilians....

Read it all.

Indonesian "prophet" jailed for contempt of Islam

Prophethood: it's just not the growth industry it once was. Sharia Alert from modern, moderate Indonesia: "'Prophet' jailed for contempt of Islam," from Agence France-Presse (thanks to Twostellas):

THE leader of an Indonesian sect who had controversially claimed he was a prophet has been jailed for four years for contempt against Islam.

Ahmad Mushaddeq alias Abu Salam, 63, leader of the Al Qiyadah Al Islamiyah sect, was "guilty of showing contempt in public against a religion recognised by the state," Judge Zahrul Rabaid told a packed courtroom today.

The verdict was greeted by religious chanting by hundreds of followers who had crammed South Jakarta district court since early in the morning.

A police officer said 2000 people were at the venue.

Mushaddeq's claim violated a central Islamic tenet that the Prophet Muhammad is the last prophet and will not be followed by any other messengers from God.

His group was proscribed as "deviant" by the country's top clerics last year, echoing the same charge levelled against the Ahmadiya sect this year.

Mushaddeq, who told the court he will appeal, was whisked into a police detention car that left immediately for the state prison....

Fitzgerald: Rice, in over her head

“A reliable source has informed me that Condoleeza Rice has approved a new lexicon for State Department usage, absolutely forbidding the use of the terms "jihad" and "jihadist" by any State Department official.” -- Robert Spencer

Without intelligent use of the word "Jihad," a word both accurate and useful (these qualities do not always coincide), a word that demands to be explained, and in that explanation -- the same kind of explanation that the word "dhimmi" calls for, Infidels will be forced to learn certain home truths about the meaning, and menace, of Islam.

By banning use of the word "Jihad," Rice makes much more difficult the intelligent dissemination of information about Islam. She makes more difficult the task of seeing the war of self-defense in all of its dimensions, and furthermore, far from encouraging peace, defined as the absence of open warfare through military means, makes such open warfare through such means more likely, by preventing the United States and other Infidel lands, from working to divide and demoralize the Camp of Islam and Jihad. That can only take place, it is clear, once the conflict is understood, and once the most effective instruments of Jihad are grasped, and the monomaniacal emphasis on "terrorism" has come, as it must, to an end. For that emphasis has served to divert attention from the Money Weapon, campaigns of Da'wa, and most important of all, demographic conquest that, in Western Europe, proceed without Infidel governments taking the kind of minimal measures that, at any other time in history, would long ago have been sensibly undertaken.

Whatever the peoples of the West may have lacked in the past -- cars and computers, say -- they did at least forthrightly, uninhibitedly, recognize the nature of Islam, its meaning, its menace. Rice wishes to prevent this, in order to curry favor with Arab states, and possibly in order to prevent having to begin the difficult work (but hardly too difficult) of figuring out the kinds of things that might best work to weaken the Camp of Islamic Jihad. Those ways have all been set out here, over the past few years -- often in great detail. But Rice hasn't time in her datebook. She hasn't space in her brain, to consider how best, how most effectively, how at the least cost, without all the squandering (of men, money, materiel, morale both civilian and military) that the Iraq folly continues to cause, to undo or hold in check the forces of Jihad.

She's in over her head, and not waving, but drowning.

And despite all this, a Jihad Watch commenter said in the wake of this news that "our administration is doing just fine."

The Bush Administration has had nearly seven years to educate itself, and then to help educate those whose duty it is to instruct and to protect, in the nature of Islam, and in the meaning, and instruments, and goals, of Jihad. It has failed completely to do so. In fact, it has chosen to squander men, money, materiel in Iraq, in a venture that, if it might conceivably be justified initially, is so no longer. And that initial justification depends on one's judgment in the Administration's presentation of, and belief in, evidence concerning weapons, and ongoing projects to produce weapons of mass destruction by the regime of Saddam Hussein. For that was the argument presented to Congress -- that and that alone, and not the idiotic bringing of "freedom" to "ordinary moms and dads" in Iraq, or any other such impossible and irrelevant nonsense. Such nonsense stands in the way of the icy exploitation of ethnic and, especially, sectarian fissures that, once openly on display with the removal of the iron hand of Saddam Hussein, could have led, and can still lead -- and indeed inevitably will lead, as soon as the Americans get out of the way -- to a situation that will demand the attention, and the volunteers, and the materiel, and above all the money, of both Iran and Saudi Arabia, and will necessarily cause difficulties within many Muslim countries, including Yemen, Bahrain, Pakistan, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia (in the Eastern Province populated by Shi'a), well beyond the immediate and permanent problems that will remain in Iraq.

Having used up -- having squandered -- so much political capital in Iraq, the Administration has failed completely to deal with Iran. And if Iran acquires nuclear weapons, one can thank those who were so convinced that the Iraq Project made sense, though no one has yet been able to utter an articulate paragraph explaining just how the stated desired outcome or goals of the Bush Administration in Iraq would help weaken the Camp of Islamic Jihad or, for example, lessen the threat of the Money Weapon, Da'wa, and demographic conquest in the threatened lands of Western Europe. They haven't explained this, because they can't.

And the unpopularity of the Iraq War, and failure to explain the nature of Jihad, has made it domestically harder to obtain from Congress the support necessary for domestic security measures that make sense, if explained by an administration that had a policy that made sense. But the Iraq policy does not make sense. It makes the very opposite of sense. American forces should leave Iraq, indeed should have started to leave by February or March 2004 (by that time Saddam Hussein had been captured, his sons killed, his chief collaborators captured or killed, and the country scoured for weapons and weapons projects).

But the Bush loyalists, incapable of independent analysis, and still so incapable, saw support for the idiotic Iraq War as a test of wills with those they deem "lefties" (or some such vulgarism). And so they continue to pour this nonsense into the ear of McCain, who if he does not come to understand that the American forces should leave Iraq not because the Total Belief-System of totalitarian Islam is not a great and universal menace, but precisely because it is, will undoubtedly lose the election. And at least one of his potential opponents apparently has views on Islam that rival those of Jimmy Carter, indeed is a Carter in posse waiting to become one in esse.

"Our administration is doing just fine."

"Our" administration could hardly be doing worse.

Fitzgerald: Islamic antisemitism's Islamic roots

Among the report's most worrying findings is the growth over the past three decades of uniquely Muslim roots to older European versions of anti-Semitism. Without discounting classical Christian Europe's canards regarding secret Jewish conspiracies, the ritual slaughter of non-Jewish children and other allegations of Jewish evil, anti-Semitism in the Muslim world increasingly finds its own, Islamic reasons for anti-Jewish hatred through new interpretations of Islamic history and scripture. -- from this article

Muslim antisemitism did not grow "uniquely Muslim roots" over the past three decades. Muslim antisemitism was always there, within Islam. It was not virulent, because the Jews were weak, despised, and unlike the Christians, had no possible strong outside powers that could pressure Muslims in order to protect their co-religionists within Dar al-Islam. But then the Jews re-established their ancient Jewish commonwealth, despite Arab terrorism that started early against Jews settling on land they had bought (Joseph Trumpeldor at Tel Hai). That Arab terrorism continued throughout the 1920s (a decade that begins with murderous mobs killing Jews in Jerusalem in 1920, and then massacring every last Jew Hebron in 1929) and then through the 1930s, especially during the so-called Arab Revolt.

During that revolt, the Mandatory Authority officials in Jerusalem expelled Captain Orde Wingate for the crime of having taught Jewish settlers how to defend themselves. Meanwhile, Arab terrorism continued. Then there was the attack on the nascent state of Israel by seven Arab armies, and the period of terrorism by Egyptian fedayin (and by Jordanians too, until terrorism from Jordan was ended by a retaliatory raid led by Colonel Ariel Sharon and his Unit 101).

It is the refusal of the Jews of Israel to surrender, to relapse into the status that they deserve -- according to the Shari'a -- of dhimmis, living on Muslim sufferance, according to Muslim dictates, in a state of permanent humiliation and degradation and physical insecurity, that in the twisted worldview of Muslims becomes a constant, gnawing source of anguish for them, of their humiliation, their degradation, their physical insecurity.

And because of this, the texts pertaining to Jews, and the anti-Jewish animus that always was to be found in Islam, and that resulted in the mistreatment of Jews that has been so well-documented, and the texts and tenets that explain the 1350-year mistreatment of Jews, an antisemitism different in its promptings from that found in Western Christendom, was revived with special fervor. That mistreatment of Jews was not unique; Christians, too, were mistreated as dhimmis (unless one takes the ahistorical view that the dhimmi condition was benign, that as "protected peoples" dhimmis had a good thing going), but there was a special animus, with textual authority in support, toward Jews.

They were always regarded, however, as weak, and no threat. And indeed, they had their uses, for example as doctors (the Padishahlar or Ottoman Sultans, for example, always relied on Jewish doctors). But this should not be confused with the condition of the Jewish community, one which the scholar S. E. Goitein described as far worse than he had realized, over many decades of close study, until he finally spent years studying the contents of the Cairo Geniza, which led him to reconsider his underestimate of the burden on the Jews of, for example, the Jizyah, the poll-tax for dhimmis specified in Qur’an 9.29.

Of course the mistreatment of non-People of the Book, such as Hindus and Buddhists, was more atrocious than that endured by Jews. Possibly some may find consolation in that fact. But then, all kinds of people try to make all kinds of mental salti mortali to convince themselves that antisemitism in the Islamic world is an import, and not native. That view, of course, requires that one ignore a mountain of evidence, of the kind collected by Georges Vajda -- whose work Bernard Lewis includes in both his notes and his bibliography but, one can only assume from his misleading treatment of Jews under Islam, did not read, or did not comprehend, or did not wish to comprehend.

Did Lewis read Vajda? Did he read Vajda's translation of Al-Magili? What did he get out of Vajda? Or out of many others who wrote on the Jews under Islam?

It is true that the Mufti of Jerusalem was anti-Jewish and found much to his liking the views of Adolf Hitler. But his views preceded those of Hitler, and came from another source: the Qur'an, the Hadith, the Sira. One of the reasons all the Arabs favored the Nazis is that the Nazi antisemitism echoed, or provided a variant on, familiar and welcome hatreds. Lewis and this new report come perilously close to maintaining, and Lewis certainly gives the impression to many, that Islam "borrowed" European antisemitism because it had no homegrown variety. But it did, and the borrowings were not essential.

Does anyone think that the Saudi textbook remarks on the Jews are due to the Nazis or the antisemitism displayed, at different levels in different places and times, of Western Christendom? Or that what Ahmadinejad thinks of Jews, and the need to wipe Israel out, comes from Hitler and not entirely from another source closer to home?

Iranian police bust birthday party as "non-authorized promiscuous gathering"

That begs the question: Are there ever authorized promiscuous gatherings? Sharia Alert. "Iran: Police arrest 75 young people for 'immoral acts'," from Adnkronos International:

Tehran, 22 April (AKI) - Seventy-five young people accused of 'immoral acts' have been arrested by police at a birthday party in the city of Shiraz in southwestern Iran.

The young men and women were accused of "immoral acts" and of holding a "non-authorised promiscuous gathering" said the chief commander of the police forces, Ali Moayyedi.

"These young people were dancing, drinking alcohol and listening to forbidden western music," said Moayyedi.

It is not the first time police have raided private parties and arrested people.

While they may not approve of such behaviour at parties, some Muslim clerics consider these kinds of police raids unjustified and an intrusion into people's private lives.

Human Rights Watch on Saudi women: "The authorities essentially treat adult women like legal minors who are not entitled to authority over their lives and well-being"

But according to the Saudis, there isn't really a problem. But then again, there is. But there isn't. But there kind of is. But it doesn't have anything to do with the government, and nor does Islamic law or tradition, except where it, you know, "elevates women." So... yeah. Next question.

"Saudi guardianship key to women rights abuse," from Reuters:

RIYADH - Saudi Arabia's system of male "guardianship" or wide-ranging control over women lies at the heart of rights abuse in the conservative Islamic state, U.S.-based Human Rights Watch (HRW) said on Monday.

But a government spokesman said Saudi Arabia was disappointed the report had failed to highlight efforts to improve women's status and confused tradition with state policy.

"We agree with some points and we are working on that as a commission for the government, but we don't agree with the generalisation," said Zoheir al-Harithi, spokesman for Saudi's Human Rights Commission.

Saudi Arabia is one of the most conservative countries in the world. Tradition and the Islamic clerical establishment restrict women's movement, preventing them from driving cars.

Saudi women must usually obtain permission from a "guardian" -- father, husband, or son -- to work, travel, study, marry, or get access to healthcare, HRW said in the study, "Perpetual Minors: Human Rights Abuses Stemming from Male Guardianship and Sex Segregation in Saudi Arabia".

"The Saudi government sacrifices basic human rights to maintain male control over women," Farida Deif, Human Rights Watch women's rights researcher for the Middle East, said in a statement sent to Reuters.

"Saudi women won't make any progress until the government ends the abuses that stem from these misguided policies."

Since King Abdullah came to power in 2005, the government has said it supports a reform agenda but that it cannot enforce changes if significant sections of society continue to resist.

Clerics of the state-sanctioned brand of Sunni Islam, a strict form often termed Wahhabism, see the "muhrim", or guardian of women's honour, as central to the system of social and moral control in the country.

The rules -- the subject of heated national debate -- are enforced by the judiciary and a morals police body, both of which are run by Wahhabi clerics.

The government has allowed Human Rights Watch unprecedented access over the past two years, and more women have been able to enter the workforce. This year new regulations allowed women to stay in hotels without a guardian.

"The authorities essentially treat adult women like legal minors who are not entitled to authority over their lives and well-being," the HRW report says, citing a list of complaints based on interviews with about 100 women.

It says women cannot open bank accounts for children, enroll them in school, obtain school files, or travel with their children without written permission from the child's father.

Women are also prevented from accessing government agencies that have not established female sections unless they have a male representative, and the need to establish separate office space discourages firms from hiring women, it said.

"We know some customs and traditions prevent women having their complete rights, but you cannot say they are 'legal minors'," said the Saudi HRC's Harithi. "They are doctors, teach in universities, are elected to the chambers of commerce."

The report can be accessed at www.hrw.org.

Stop the presses! New study discovers antisemitism on the rise in the Islamic world

There is an inconsistency at the heart of this report: Erlich asserts that "until about 10-15 years ago, anti-Semitism was imported into the Muslim Arab world from Europe," but we're also told that the Muslim antisemites are "using well-known Koranic texts" in order to map out "the Jews' 'innate negative attributes.'"

Now, the Qur'an has been in the Islamic world since the seventh century, and its canonical interpretation essentially fixed by the most influential Sunni tafasir (commentaries on the Qur'an): those by Ibn Kathir, the two Jalals, Qurtubi, Tabari, the Tanwir al-Miqbas, etc. While there is some disagreement over some aspects of the Qur'anic teaching on the Jews, it is peripheral -- it has to do with questions such as, Did the Jews whom Allah transformed into apes and pigs (Qur'an 2:62-65, 5:59-60, 7:166) have offspring or not? There is essentially agreement on the fact that the Jews are and will always be the Muslims' worst enemies (5:82) and that they're accursed (2:89, 3:112, 9:30).

In light of all that, which seems to be acknowledged at least in part in this report, it strains credulity that up until only ten or fifteen years ago, antisemitic material was imported into an otherwise non-antisemitic Islamic world. Whatever imports there were found an eager audience, already primed by Qur'anic antisemitism.

"Report analyzes Muslim anti-Semitism," by Haviv Rettig in the Jerusalem Post (thanks to all who sent this in):

Muslim anti-Semitism is growing in scope and extremism, to the point that it has become a credible strategic threat for Israel, according to a 180-page report produced for Israeli policymakers by the semi-official Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center (ITIC) and obtained exclusively by The Jerusalem Post ahead of its Tuesday release.

According to the report, by educating generations of Muslims with a deep animus toward Israel and Jews, this anti-Semitism, actively promulgated by many states in the region, holds back the peace process and normalization efforts between Israel and Muslim countries. It also forms the intellectual justification for an eliminationist political program.

"This isn't ordinary prejudice," explained ITIC director Col. (res.) Dr. Reuven Erlich, formerly of the IDF's Intelligence Directorate, who heads the team of researchers that produced the report. "This prejudice is evil because it isn't theoretical. It is ideological incitement by states and organizations with the practical means of translating it into action."

Following on a similar study produced in 2004, the report is a comprehensive examination of anti-Semitism in the Muslim world, with emphasis on Iran and Arab states.

It is also an insight into the perception of the threat within the Israeli intelligence establishment. The ITIC operates under the aegis of the Israel Intelligence Heritage and Commemoration Center (IICC), the official commemoration agency for the fallen of Israel's intelligence services. The IICC is chaired by former Mossad head Efraim Halevy and maintains close contact with Israel's intelligence community. The ITIC's reports are widely read among Israeli policymakers.

Among the report's most worrying findings is the growth over the past three decades of uniquely Muslim roots to older European versions of anti-Semitism. Without discounting classical Christian Europe's canards regarding secret Jewish conspiracies, the ritual slaughter of non-Jewish children and other allegations of Jewish evil, anti-Semitism in the Muslim world increasingly finds its own, Islamic reasons for anti-Jewish hatred through new interpretations of Islamic history and scripture.

From the Koranic story of a Jewess who poisoned Muhammad, to the troubled relations between Muhammad and the Jewish tribes of Arabia, radical Islamist groups and thinkers have been using extreme anti-Semitic rhetoric that has grown increasingly popular with the Muslim public, particularly in Iran and the Arab states. Using well-known Koranic texts, these groups have been mapping out the Jews' "innate negative attributes" and teaching a paradigm of permanent struggle between Muslims and Jews.

The goal of this "Islamified" anti-Semitism, according to the report, is to transform the Israeli-Palestinian conflict from a national territorial contest which could be resolved through compromise to a "historic, cultural and existential struggle for the supremacy of Islam."

The study examined books, newspapers, television and radio broadcasts and Internet sites, along with studies of groups following anti-Jewish discourse in the Muslim world, such as MEMRI and the ADL.

In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, rising anti-Semitic sentiment in Europe was injected into Muslim lands through commercial and diplomatic ties. Spurred by opposition to Zionism and ideologically strengthened by Nazi rhetoric and support, Muslim anti-Semitism grew in the 20th century into a phenomenon so widespread that blatantly anti-Semitic texts can be purchased on street corners of Arab cities, even in countries where almost no Jews remain.

The research team did not deal with "anti-Israel incitement," according to Erlich, "only with anti-Semitism. But when you read an article or listen to a speech, the terminology is confused and intertwined. You can't distinguish the anti-Zionism from the anti-Semitism."

According to the report, the past decade has seen a veritable explosion of anti-Semitic literature in the Muslim world which intentionally confuses Israel and the Jewish people and is broadcast worldwide through books, radio, television, newspapers, caricatures and Internet forums. This discourse reaches outside Muslim lands to a large Muslim audience in the West.

"Until about 10-15 years ago, anti-Semitism was imported into the Muslim Arab world from Europe," says Erlich. "They translated The Protocols of the Elders of Zion and Mein Kampf into Arabic. Over the past 10-15 years, there's been a deep change. Today it isn't an import, but an export. This needs more research, since we don't have access to European mosques, but we're convinced that the export of anti-Semitic myths and politics to Europe is having an effect on European Muslim communities."

The hundred-year-old Czarist forgery The Protocols, which accuses the Jews, among other "crimes," of fomenting liberalism by masterminding the American and French revolutions, is being published in new editions in Egypt, Syria, Iran and other countries.

The report finds little government action either in the Muslim world or in the West to curb this phenomenon, citing restrictions on viewing Hizbullah's Al-Manar television station as an exception that proves the rule....

London mayor defends his jihadist friend Qaradawi

Livingstone says that Al-Qaradawi doesn't support jihad against the West. Apparently the jihad against Israel, in the context of which this great reformist Sheikh has defended suicide attacks, is just fine with Red Ken. "Ken Livingstone defends his extremist backer," by Aislinn Simpson in the Telegraph (thanks to Sr. Soph):

Ken Livingstone defended his decision to share a platform with a homophobic Islamic preacher as he and his challenger, Boris Johnson, were neck and neck in the race for the capital yesterday.

Yusuf al-Qaradawi has described homosexuality as an "unnatural and evil practice" and said the Koran permitted wife-beating in certain circumstances.

The Qatar-based Egyptian cleric has also advocated the use of Palestinian children as suicide bombers and once claimed that Asian tsunami victims were punished by Allah because their countries were centres of perversion.

But speaking on BBC1's Politics Show yesterday, the London Mayor insisted he was right to welcome the cleric to City Hall as an "honoured guest" in July 2004. He said that while he did not agree with some of his views, al-Qaradawi did not support terrorism against the West. "He is a man who is prepared to say al-Qa'eda is wrong and to be very strong in that condemnation," he said....

Oh! Then everything is all right!

London mayoral candidate has to say 'Islam is a religion of peace" -- after saying Islam was the problem after 7/7

Can't get elected unless you adhere to State Dogma. "Boris defends stance on Islam," from the Chronicle Live (thanks to Twostellas):

Tory London mayoral candidate Boris Johnson was forced to defend his stance on Islam, insisting he believed it was a "religion of peace".

Mr Johnson has been criticised for an article he wrote in the wake of the 7/7 London terror attacks in 2005 claiming "Islam is the problem".

But Mr Johnson said the problem was extremists taking the words of the Koran out of context.

He said: "The problem is people who wrench out of context quotes from the holy book of Islam, the Koran, and use it to inspire evil in men's hearts.

"That is a fact that few serious people would deny and we need to tackle the extremists."

Indeed, but few serious people also have noticed that this much-discussed true, peaceful context of the Qur'an's violent verses has never actually been produced, or that Islamic theological tradition tends to favor a more violent understanding.

Man sentenced to death for blasphemy in Saudi Arabia

Sharia Alert: "Saudi Arabia: Death, for taking God's name in vain," by Borzou Daragahi in the LA Times's Babylon and Beyond blog (thanks to Western Resistance, where there is much more on this):

Turkey's president and prime minister have stepped in to save the life of a Turkish man sentenced to die in Saudi Arabia.

The prisoner's capital offense: using God's name in vain during an argument with a neighbor, according to Turkish newspapers.

Turkish President Abdullah Gul has penned a letter to Saudi King Abdullah requesting a pardon for Sabri Bogday, a barber who moved to Jeddah from southeastern Turkey more than a decade ago. Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan has also reached out to Saudi officials on the barber's behalf.

Apparently, Bogday had an argument with an Egyptian neighbor in Jeddah. The neighbor told authorities that Bogday had "cursed the name of God."

Bogday was arrested, tried and sentenced to death, even though his accuser has apparently disappeared. [...]

We'll give the final word to the astute Fred Stopsky, at the Impudent Observer, who spotted the story:

Saudi Arabia stands with the United States in the fight against terrorism. Unfortunately, that fight against terrorism does not include the nation of Saudi Arabia.

Indeed not, and that is just one of the unfortunate results of our refusal to face the reality of what (and who) exactly we are fighting in this great conflict.

West African Islamic schools still hubs of human trafficking

There are three points worth noting here: First, the clerics should not be accumulating wealth in this way to begin with, but is anyone looking at how is all this ill-gotten cash being spent?

Second, the story exemplifies a pattern of behavior that is seeping into the West, and must be resisted: The lack of outside oversight of various enterprises labeled as "Islamic" for fear of giving offense -- especially education, though usually for reasons different from these. And the result we so often see is the cruel exploitation of the most vulnerable members of society.

Third, what are Muslims in the region doing to stop this? The article below is not so much an update on this story as it is more of the same; it is more or less the same story from two years ago with new victims. "Boy flees Islamic school that makes beggars of African kids," by Rukmini Callimachi for the Associated Press:

DAKAR, Senegal - On the day he decided to run away, 9-year-old Coli awoke on a filthy mat.

Like a pup, he lay curled against the cold, pressed between dozens of other children sleeping head-to-toe on the concrete floor. His T-shirt was damp with the dew that seeped through the thin walls. The older boys had yanked away the square of cloth he used to protect himself from the draft. He shivered.

It was still dark as he set out for the mouth of a freeway with the other boys, a tribe of 7-, 8- and 9-year-old beggars.

Coli padded barefoot between the stopped cars, his head reaching only halfway up the windows. His scrawny body disappeared under a ragged T-shirt that grazed his knees. He held up an empty tomato paste can as his begging bowl.

There are 1.2 million Colis in the world today, children trafficked to work for the benefit of others. Those who lure them into servitude make $15 billion annually, according to the International Labor Organization.

It's big business in Senegal. In the capital of Dakar alone, at least 7,600 child beggars work the streets, according to a study released in February by the ILO, the United Nations Children's Fund and the World Bank. The children collect an average of 300 African francs a day, just 72 cents, reaping their keepers $2 million a year.

Most of the boys — 90 percent, the study found — are sent out to beg under the cover of Islam, placing the problem at the complicated intersection of greed and tradition. For among the cruelest facts of Coli's life is that he was not stolen from his family. He was brought to Dakar with their blessing to learn Islam's holy book.

In the name of religion, Coli spent two hours a day memorizing verses from the Quran and over nine hours begging to pad the pockets of the man he called his teacher.

It was getting dark. Coli had less than half the 72 cents he was told to bring back. He was afraid. He knew what happened to children who failed to meet their daily quotas.

They were stripped and doused in cold water. The older boys picked them up like hammocks by their ankles and wrists. Then the teacher whipped them with an electrical cord until the cord ate their skin.

Coli's head hurt with hunger. He could already feel the slice of the wire on his back.

He slipped away, losing himself in a tide of honking cars. He had 20 cents in his tomato can.

Three years ago, a man wearing a skullcap came to Coli's village in the neighboring country of Guinea-Bissau and asked for him.

Coli's parents immediately addressed the man as "Serigne," a term of respect for Muslim leaders on Africa's western coast. Many poor villagers believe that giving a Muslim holy man a child to educate will gain an entire family entrance to paradise.

Since the 11th century, families have sent their sons to study at the Quranic schools that flourished on Africa's western seaboard with the rise of Islam. It is forbidden to charge for an Islamic education, so the students, known as talibe, studied for free with their marabouts, or spiritual teachers. In return, the children worked in the marabout's fields.

The droughts of the late 1970s and '80s forced many schools to move to cities, where their income began to revolve around begging. Today, children continue to flock to the cities, as food and work in villages run short.

Not all Quranic boarding schools force their students to beg. But for the most part, what was once an esteemed form of education has degenerated into child trafficking. Nowadays, Quranic instructors net as many children as they can to increase their daily take.

"If you do the math, you'll find that these people are earning more than a government functionary," said Souleymane Bachir Diagne, an Islamic scholar at Columbia University. "It's why the phenomenon is so hard to eradicate."

Middle men trawl for children as far afield as the dunes of Mauritania and the grass-covered huts of Mali. It's become a booming, regional trade that ensnares children as young as 2, who don't know the name of their village or how to return home.

Read it all.

Pakistani columnist: "Muslims do not treat women right"

Watch for Michael van der Galien to charge Dr. Farrukh Saleem with dishonesty for failing to claim that, back in the seventh century, Muhammad improved the status of women, and that the hijab was borrowed from Christianity.

But in the real world, it is good to see this published in Pakistan.

"Women in Muslim world," by Dr Farrukh Saleem in The News International (thanks to Morgaan Sinclair):

Muslims do not treat women right. According to the Global Gender Gap (GGG) report, the planet's ten-worst offenders are: Yemen, Chad, Pakistan, Nepal, Saudi Arabia, Benin, Morocco, Turkey, Egypt and Oman. Of the ten, nine are Muslim-majority states. At the other end of the spectrum, the planet's best countries for women to live in are: Sweden, Norway, Finland, Ireland, New Zealand, Philippines, Germany, Denmark, Ireland and Spain. Not even one of the top-ten is a Muslim-majority state.

GGG collected data from a total of 128 countries to develop a comprehensive, scientific index. The GGG Index is based on four different sub-indices -- namely, economic participation, educational attainment, political empowerment and health -- while each of the sub-indices has half a dozen components.

Under economic participation, five of the worst-offenders are: Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Oman and Bahrain. Under educational attainment, the worst-offenders are: Chad, Yemen, Benin and Pakistan. The best: Denmark, United Kingdom, Australia, France and Belgium. Under political empowerment the worst are: Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Kuwait, Qatar, Egypt and Iran. The best: Sweden, Finland, Norway, Iceland and Spain.

For women, the Islamic Republic of Pakistan comes out as one the worst of countries to live in; there are only two other countries worse off than is Pakistan -- Yemen and Chad. Under economic participation, Pakistan is ranked 126 out of 128. Educational attainment, 123 out of 128. Health, 121 out of 128. Political empowerment, 43 out of 128. Surprisingly, Pakistani women are worse off this year than they were last year.

Al Mamlakah al Arabiyah as Suudiyah, or the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, is ranked really low, too. Under economic participation, Saudi Arabia is ranked 127 out of 128. Educational attainment, 87 out of 128. Health, 60 out of 128. Political empowerment, 128 out of 128.

Al Jumhuriyah al Yamaniyah, or the Republic of Yemen is worse than both Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. Under economic participation, Yemen is ranked 128 out of 128. Educational attainment, 127 out of 128. Political empowerment, 127 out of 128.

Intriguingly, there is a correlation between poverty and status of women. Some of the worst offenders are also the poorest of the poor (with the exception of oil wealth). Most of the Arab world is far below global averages and conditions, unfortunately, are actually deteriorating -- not improving. Yes, there are a few exceptions. The UAE, for instance, has invested massive resources into educating its women. Bahrain now has a woman parliamentarian....

France: "We want to help Morocco to have the special status it seeks in the European Union"

Eurabia Update: "France determined to help Morocco get advanced status in EU," from ANSAmed (thanks to Fjordman):

(ANSAmed) - RABAT, APRIL 18 - Visiting French Prime Minister, Francois Fillon pledged that his country is determined to help Morocco get an advanced status in its relations with the European Union. "We want to help Morocco to have the special status it seeks in the European Union," Fillon said on the sidelines of a dinner banquet held in his honor by his Moroccan counterpart, Abbas El Fassi, Map news agency reports. The French official, who started yesterday a two-day visit to Morocco to co-chair with El Fassi the 9th high-level Moroccan-French joint commission, added that "we seek to widen the cooperation with Morocco, given that the French government supports the wide-ranging orientations of the Moroccan policy in all fields". Recalling the various commitments taken by French President Sarkozy during his official visit to Morocco last October, during which the two countries signed agreements amounting to 3 billion euro on transport, justice, social security, mines and equipment, the minister stressed the importance of agreements to be concluded during the 9th high-level meeting. From his part, Abbas El Fassi said that the advanced status desired by Rabat is not only based on geographical proximity, but also on the adhesion to common values, namely the respect for human rights, individual and collective liberties, gender equality, justice and solidarity and the rule of law....

Uh huh.

Yemeni Parliament votes down bill to outlaw female genital mutilation

We keep hearing from Islamic spokesmen in the West how this practice has nothing to do with Islam -- and yet Yemen now votes down attempts to outlaw it. Jordan did the same thing a few years ago on another practice that is supposed to be solely cultural: the Parliament voted down attempts to stiffen penalties for it, on Islamic grounds. And here a Yemeni pol explains that since religious authorities haven't forbidden genital mutilation, they can't very well outlaw it.

"Yemen’s MPs debate female circumcision, pre-marriage tests," from the Yemen Times (thanks to Gateway Pundit):

SANA’A, April-13 — Preventing female circumcision and pre-marriage medical tests evoked turmoil and disagreement among Parliament members (MPs) in last week’s session.

The session ended with a unanimous agreement to cancel the term 3, which would prevent female circumcision, and delay the discussion of pre-marriage tests.

The two terms were part of a draft written by the Safe Motherhood Law Project, and introduced by the heath committee inside Parliament.

Najeb Ghanem, the Chairman of the Health Committee in Parliament, expressed his sorrow over the way Parliament discussed the two issues.

“These two topics are very important for guaranteeing women’s rights in Yemen,” he commented in a phone call to the Yemen Times after the session.

According to Ghanem, who belongs to the Islah party, most of the MPs who disagreed with the terms represent the conservative attitudes of most Yemeni citizens. “The committee is aware of the Yemeni conservative community’s positions on these issues. So we [the committee] suggested applying the law of emphasizing pre-marriage medical tests after ten years… that is after we carry out extensive awareness campaign to educate people about the importance of such tests.”

Zid Al-Shami, an MP who suggested delaying the approval of the two terms, confirmed that such topics are “sensitive and need more awareness.”

“I suggested canceling term number three, about preventing female circumcision, for many reasons. First, the term, which was written in the draft, included inappropriate and shameful sentences. Second, female circumcision exists in few regions in Yemen, like in Hodeidah and Hadramout, so it not common practice. And finally, there is still religious debate regarding the issue, so as we have no directives by the heads of religion to forbid female circumcision, we do not have the right to ban it,” Al-Shami explained....

Iran leads the world in executions of homosexuals

So says Rooz (thanks to Gateway Pundit):

In reality, 2007 was one of the hardest years for Iranian homosexuals. According to Amnesty ‎International, Iran had the highest number of execution of homosexuals in that year. Several ‎cases of executions of homosexuals were cited in cities such as Shiraz, Esfahan, Tehran, Rasht, ‎Ahwaz, Tabriz, Kermanshah and Mashhad. ‎

At Columbia University last year, Iran's Thug-In-Chief said there were no homosexuals in Iran. This would explain why.

United Nations Human Rights Council – Geneva: Ongoing absurd and ludicrous challenges of ‘Freedom of Expression’

Comments on the attempts to muzzle NGOs at the 7th Session of the UN Human Rights Council (4–28 March 2008) by David G. Littman, NGO Representative in Geneva of the Association for World Education (AWE) & World Union for Progressive Judaism (WUPJ):

On March 13, Roy W. Brown, speaking on behalf of the International Humanist and Ethical Union and the Association for World Education on threats to ‘freedom of expression’, was stopped several times by member States of the Organization of the Islamic Conference on ‘points of order’. You can read his report here or here.

On March 25, the subject of Tibet was in the news, but every mention of Tibet during the general debate was challenged by China – on the spurious grounds that country situations were irrelevant to item 8, then being debated. The Association for World Education had accredited Mme. Claude B. Levenson – a world expert who had just published a book on Tibet – to speak on that ongoing tragedy. But the president of the HRC finally had no alternative, after almost 20 interruptions by China and other States, to ask all representatives – particularly NGOs – to keep off the subject of Tibet. The moment Mme. Levenson mentioned the word “Tibet” the president stopped her and gave the floor to the next speaker.

After the plenary meeting the President of the Council, Romanian Ambassador Doru Romulus Costea, called a meeting with NGOs (6:00–7:00pm) to explain these problems. There were many questions and warnings by very concerned key NGOs. Just before the close, we asked the president twice to be our ‘watchman’ (as in the Book of Ezechiel, ch. 33), and blow the trumpet loud and clear, so that such debilitating tactics would not become a precedent the next day, under item 9 (racism), when we would be speaking on certain taboo subjects. The president then made it very clear that he would do everything to protect the inherent ‘freedom of expression’ of all NGOs.

The next morning I spoke on behalf of the Association for World Education, under item 9: Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia, and Related Forms of Intolerance. The attempts to muzzle me by the Egyptian, Palestinian and Iranian delegates were hilarious and the whole 12 minutes has been reproduced, with each ‘point of order’ reproduced as spoken in broken English. This farce may be viewed on the UN video. See: rtsp://webcast.un.org/ondemand/conferences/unhrc/seventh/hrc080326am-eng.rm?start=01:16:448 end=01:28:32. As can be seen and read below, President Costea kept his promise to protect NGO rights.

An hour later I spoke again for the World Union for Progressive Judaism on a similar theme under item 9. On that occasion, there were no interruptions from any Council member, using a ‘point of order’. See: rtsp://webcast.un.org/ondemand/conferences/unhrc/seventh/hrc080326am-eng.rm?start=01:57:338end= 02:01:14. Both texts are reproduced below as they were spoken – and with the verbatim interruptions.

Statement to Human Rights Council by David G. Littman for the Association for World Education (March 26)

The Council should condemn calls to kill in the name of God or religion – any religion Preaching & teaching of hate and Judeophobia / Antisemitism: endemic in Muslim countries

[Reduced passages in brackets were not pronounced in the 3 minutes, but are left for documentation]

[Everything in italics has been transcribed verbatim direct from the video, exactly as spoken in English by the five speakers. The five interruptions on a ‘point of order’ are indicated with an asterisk in brackets]

Sir, regarding the Report [A/HRC/7/19] of the Special Rapporteur on Racism [Mr. Doudou Diène] and his comments on defamation of religion, we note that once again he has failed to mention the greatest of all defamations of religion – when chapter and verse of holy texts are cited to justify calls to kill in the name of God or of Allah. On the 9th August 2007, we made an Appeal to the UN Secretary-General and the High Commissioner – and later to the Council “to condemn all calls to kill in the name of God or religion – any religion.” [joint written statement to 6th Session by AWE, IHEU, AWC) – A/HRC/6/NGO/5: Appeal to Condemn Calls to Kill in the name of God]: (*) (**) (***)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

President: We have a ‘point of order’ requested by the delegation of Egypt. You have the floor, Sir.

Egypt (improvisation in English): Thank you, Mr. President. I’m sorry for interrupting the meeting, but I just want to make sure – since I was not here in January 24 – if the speaker is … just being given the floor is the same speaker who said… replying to the president… who said: That there is … “something is rooten in the state of this Council.” [in reading the quotation from our statement, Egypt’s delegate pronounced the word “rooten”, instead of “rotten.” No on could understand this subtlety.] So, if he would just please check if this is the same speaker who insulted the Council and its president … who was just given the floor. Thank you.

The reference was to the 24 January 2008 oral statement (titled: The Gaza Strip: in the grip of a criminal Hamas regime with its racist, genocidal, jihadist Charter), delivered on behalf of the World Union for Progressive Judaism (WUPJ) to the HRC 6th Special Session – on Gaza. The President interrupted after our 1st paragraph: “Sir, in order to understand the Palestinian self-inflicted tragedy in the Gaza Strip, there is an urgent need to reconsider the basic implications of the binding, genocidal HAMAS Charter, concerning which we have been warning Human Rights bodies, High Commissioners and Special Rapporteurs for 20 years – all to no effect. We first warned of the HAMAS menace at the 45th session of the Commission on Human Rights on 31 January 1989.” A 2nd time came after the request: “May this Human Rights Council and all UN bodies utterly condemn Hamas and its evil Charter.” Abridging the statement, we then concluded with the final line – the president had a copy of the statement – “Sir, there is a general malaise in the air, a feeling that: “Something is rotten in the State of this Council.” [Hamlet metaphor: “Something is rotten in the State of Denmark.”]

President: I notice that the distinguished representative of Palestine has asked for the floor.

Palestine (improvisation in English): Yes, thank you Mr. President. My delegation would like to fully endorse what has been said by Egypt and again we would like to express our shock to the permission given to a distinguished representative of an NGO again to address this respectful place. Thank you.

President: Any other demands for the floor. It doesn’t seem to be the case. Let me recall that the NGO that we are talking about does have a consultative status. It [AWE] is in full observance of the rules of accreditation. Consequently, it [AWE] has the right to take the floor as per our rules of procedure. You may continue, Sir.

David G. Littman: Thank you very much….

President: Excuse me. A point of order? Yes, is that a question or a point of order? A point of order – you have the floor.

Egypt (agitated improvisation in English): I will not prolong this discussion. It’s not working anyway. I’m just wondering how can we give the floor to somebody who has insulted the Council. It doesn’t matter if an organization has a status or not. I worked in the Committee of NGOs for four years and I know how statuses are given. Can you get the status and then you proceed to do whatever you do with the status to insult the Council and its members? I don’t think we can do this. Mr. President, I don’t think that such a speaker should be allowed to insult the Council. These are insults to the Civil Society … at all, not only the Council. But again, it is not worth it. I leave it to you, Mr. President.

President: Thank you. Of course, matters of what NGOs can participate or not in the debate or discussion of a UN body are, as mentioned here, decided elsewhere. Under the circumstances, I think that, unless otherwise decided, we will continue to listen to the statements that are presented by the NGOs that fall within this category. I hope I’m quite clear about that. Number 2 – I would like to call on all the delegations to express restraint in their statements. Let me repeat – I would like to invite all delegations to express restraint in their statements, all delegations! And number 3 – I would also invite all speakers to bear in mind that this is an organization belonging to the UN where we are supposed to address issues which we may not agree upon, but where we have, we must, address these issues with respect to the opinions of the others. I would like also to encourage the present audience to abide by the laws of decency and readiness to listen to others express opinions, as against respective statements, in a manner that will befit this building and this institution. I certainly hope that we will be able to continue in this atmosphere. Thank you. I give the floor to the representative of the Association for World Education.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

David G. Littman: Mr. President – “For this relief much thanks.” [Hamlet, I: i., 8]

This taboo subject is consistently ignored within the UN system despite the fact that a policy of silence on the part of the international community, of Muslim spiritual and secular leaders, the OIC and the Arab League, is tantamount to condoning this great evil. Calls to kill in the name of Allah should be unequivocally condemned by senior Muslim theologians as a “defamation of Islam”. Yet these calls have been justified by Al-Azhar Grand Sheik Muhammad Sayyed Tantawi, by Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradhawi, and by many others, including Osama bin Laden. The Special Rapporteur makes no clear (****) reference to this global plague of our time, [other than by a side reference to: “the stereotyped association of Islam with violence and terrorism – an association which is bolstered by intellectual constructs, used by political rhetoric and exaggerated in the media…” (§57)]

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

President: Excuse me, I have a point of order at the demand of the distinguished delegation of Egypt. You have the floor, Sir.

Egypt: (extremely agitated improvisation in English): Thank you, Mr. President. I have no intention of assisting the speaker to find his way to the front pages of the newspapers. This is what he is after, but I will not accept that the Sheikh of Al-Azhar is mentioned in the same sentence with Osama bin Laden. This I will not accept. I don’t care how much donations he is after, but this I will not accept – as simple as that. Sheikh Al-Azhar is the head of the most prestigious and august Islamic university in the world. It has been there for 1100 years… that promoting Islam all over the world. You can not mention him with bin Laden in the same sentence. Thank you.

President: Thank you. I give the floor back to the speaker.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Secondly, the Special Rapporteur refers to “the writing and teaching of history” [Summary, p. 2]: “the importance of fostering education in multiculturalism in schools, in the media and in the home.” [§31, “Human Rights and Children” at the Fourth International Human Rights Forum in Lucerne, 24-25 May 2007; and, “the role of education in promoting tolerance and coexistence and cooperation between Muslims and non-Muslims.” §36, “to consider the question of discrimination against Muslims…”, in Jaén, Spain, 8 Oct. 2007]

Yet Judeophobia / Antisemitism – under the guise of ‘anti-Zionism’ – is now widely recognised as endemic in the Muslim world, being nourished by a general culture of hate, and is creeping into Europe and beyond. Clearly many of the States that, since 1999, have sponsored the resolution combating defamation of religion – adopted on the 18th December 2007 by the General Assembly – do not believe it applies to them!
A recognised expert on racism, the Director of Research at the CNRS in Paris, Pierre-André Taguieff has described all this in detail in two recent voluminous books [La Nouvelle Judéophobia (Paris, 2002) and, Prêcheurs de haine: Traversée de la judéophobie planétaire (Paris, 2004)].

In 2005, we analysed in three NGO written statements what is being taught to schoolchildren in Egypt and Saudi Arabia. [E/CN.4/Sub.2/2005/NGO/2: The culture of ‘Jihad and Martyrdom’ in Egyptian school textbooks, E/CN.4/Sub.2/2005/NGO/3: The culture of hate in Saudi Arabian textbooks & growing Arab reactions: and Arab criticisms: E/CN.4/Sub.2/NGO/4; also, an article: “A Culture of Hate Based ‘Jihad and Martyrdom’: Saudi and Egyptian Schoolbooks Today”, Midstream, March-April 2005.] The same hatred is also being taught in Palestinian, Syrian and Iranian schools and elsewhere. [In his conclusion, “The Special Rapporteur recommends that the Council draw the attention of member States to the importance of developing an intellectual front against racism and, consequently combating – through education, scientific research and information – ideas, concepts and images likely to incite or legitimize racism, racial discrimination or xenophobia.” This appeal should be heeded here by the Council – and by the Special Rapporteur.]

Nothing of this outrageous Judeophobia has been covered in reports of the Special Rapporteur, nor by any UN bodies (*****) or UNESCO.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

President: Excuse me, Sir, there is a point of order raised by the distinguished delegate of Iran.

Iran (in English): Thank you, Mr. President. As far as I understand, we are…we have a general debate on item 9 of the agenda and it’s focusing on the Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia, and Related Forms of Intolerance. It seems that the speaker, in his statement, is focusing on Islam and some Islamic countries by insulting them, so I request you, Mr. President, to draw his attention to the topic under discussion. I would appreciate that. Thank you, Mr. President.

President: Thank you. I have made a statement some five minutes earlier. I am not going to repeat it. I would also encourage delegations that may have other opinions than those presented by speakers to recall that there is a method, there is a way of acting on it, and that is to exercise a ‘right of reply’ when the time is… comes for that. We have never, ever, in this Council, denied this right to anyone.

You have the floor, Sir.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yet the proof of this endemic hate-mongering is easily available in original texts and translations by consulting websites such as MEMRI (Middle East Media Research Institute), PMW (Palestinian Media Watch) and CMIP (Center for Monitoring the Impact of Peace).

To conclude Mr. President, is this Human Rights Council now ready to condemn calls to kill in the name of God, and the preaching and teaching of hate, or will it remain silent on such major issues for humanity?

Thank you very much, Mr. President.

* * * * *

Statement to Human Rights Council by David G. Littman for the World Union for Progressive Judaism (March 26)

Subject: Multireligious Appeal to condemn all calls for any violence and hate in the name of God

The Council on Human Rights should develop a code of guidelines for access to HRC membership

[Reduced passages in brackets were not pronounced in the 3 minutes, but were left for documentation]

Mr. President, in section: C. Religious Intolerance, of his Report [A/HRC/7/19], the Special Rapporteur on Racism does not come to grips with the real problem of indiscriminate killing in the name of God. [He refers to the dangers of “the stereotypical association of Islam with violence and terrorism.” He then goes on to stress “the growing trend of defamation of religions”; “a clash of religions”; “the fight against terrorism, reduced to its purely religious dimensions” and a new ideology providing “fertile soil for the defamation of religions”.]

Five years ago [on 17 March 2003], the late High Commissioner for Human Rights Sergio Vieira De Mello, made his opening address to the Commission’s 59th session. He expressed his strong revulsion against the growing global terrorist plague whereby: anyone could be killed at any time, in any place, by anyone. Five months later, he and over 20 of his UN colleagues were assassinated in Baghdad when indiscriminate terrorism struck, leaving many widows and orphans. And indiscriminate killing in the name of religion continues without respite worldwide.

At that same session, on 25 March 2003, Rabbi François Garaï, the main representative of the World Union for Progressive Judaism, cited the 1999 Promulgation of the Geneva Spiritual Appeal and its 2003 Confirmation at St. Peter's Cathedral, Geneva, and he then declared:

“We see currently that religions and the One whom we name God, are taken hostage in the political discourse and defamed. Those engaged in this action cannot hold prisoner the One whom we consider as our Creator and the source of all Revelation, who cannot be confined in a simple word, in writing, even less in a slogan.”

He referred to an Appeal made three days earlier – on 22 March 2003– when Christians, Jews and Muslims declared in Geneva’s St Peter's Cathedral:

Together, we denounce all reference to God to justify and foster hatred.
Together, we appeal to resist all use of this conflict to bring communities into confrontation.
Together, we wish to consolidate community and religious peace.
Together, we bear witness to our hope and our faith in God.

Rabbi Garaï added: “We await the day when religion will no longer be subverted, nor God taken hostage by political, civil or religious leaders.”

The WUPJ once again calls upon this Council – and in particular the sponsors of any resolution on ‘Combating defamation of religions’ – to insert two major paragraphs in that text:

(a) Strongly deplores all references to God in order to justify any form of violence, hatred, and the use of any religious motive to kill civilians: men, women and children;
(b) Condemns all who blaspheme and defame religion by claiming to kill in the name of God.

Sir, we wish to conclude by a homage to Sergio by quoting an apposite passage from §5 of his groundbreaking Report [E/CN.4/2003/14], which remains pertinent for this Council:

“Membership of the Commission on Human Rights must carry responsibilities. I therefore wonder whether the time has not come for the Commission itself to develop a code of guidelines for access to membership of the Commission and a code of conduct for members while they serve on the Commission. After all the Commission on Human Rights has a duty to humanity and the members of the Commission must themselves set the example of adherence to the international human rights norms – in practice as well as in law…”

His courageous words five years ago apply to this Council – yesterday, today and for tomorrow.

Thank you, Mr. President

[E/CN.4/NGO/88: Human Rights and Terrorism: The most essential & basic human right is the right to life]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

N.B. This initiative of Sergio Vieira De Mello is being applied for the first time this year for 16 Member States of the Human Rights Council, of which five are members of the Organization of the Islamic Conference. An attempt was made by the OIC, the Arab League and the African Union to limit public access to these enquiries by forbidding the customary UN video of all events – it failed.

UK: Down's syndrome boy charged with racism and assault after playground incident with "Asian" girl

"Girl irritated boy, boy pushed girl and told her to go away." But girl is a Muslim -- an "Asian" in British PC-speak -- and so boy is charged with racial assault and hounded. He has been cleared, but the whole thing is a travesty from beginning to end. Who made sure these charges were brought? What is being done about them to ensure this kind of thing will not happen again? Nothing, of course.

"How can my son be racist, asks mother of Down's boy charged after playground spat with Asian girl," by Natasha Courtenay-Smith for the Daily Mail:

Until recently, Fiona Bauld thought her 18-year-old son Jamie had not fully grasped the gravity of the situation he found himself in.

It brought her solace that her child, who has Down's syndrome and the mental age of a five-year-old, hadn't fully comprehended the charges of racism and assault against him, let alone begun to contemplate the consequences.

But one night shortly after Christmas, as the family watched TV, Fiona realised to her horror that Jamie was not as oblivious as she'd hoped.

A scene featuring a prison appeared on screen, at which point Jamie said quietly: "I don't want to go to jail, Mum. Please don't let them take me away." He then burst into tears.

"I rushed over, put my arms around him and told him everything was going to be fine," says Fiona.

"All through this nightmare I've done my best to put on a smile and act normally around Jamie, simply to protect him from everything that was happening. But that night, as he sobbed in my arms, I wasn't sure everything would be OK.

"My worst fear was that Jamie would be taken away somewhere that I wouldn't be able to protect him. I said: 'Jamie, you're not going to prison', but I found myself in tears, too."

When Fiona - who lives in Cumbernauld, Lanarkshire, with her husband James, 46, a telecommunications contractor, and their daughter Stephanie, 17 - uses the word "nightmare" she is making no understatement.

Hers is a situation so ridiculous it would be laughable, had the potential ramifications not been so serious.

Her story also serves as a disturbing example of how extreme political correctness can allow minor of incidents to be blown out of all proportion.

The events which have brought her such anguish in recent months begun with what was effectively a playground spat between two individuals with special needs.

It soon escalated into a seven-month criminal investigation that could have resulted in Fiona's son being hauled before a court and left with a criminal record.

Last September, Jamie - who is 18 but cannot even tie his own shoelaces, needs help on the lavatory, mustn't be left alone in the house and still relies on his mother to tuck him up in bed at night - had an altercation with an Asian girl of a similar age, also a pupil at the special needs department of Motherwell College in Lanarkshire, where Jamie is a student.

Put quite simply - girl irritated boy, boy pushed girl and told her to go away. Then, girl responded by telling her teacher.

The two were sent their separate ways and their parents informed about the falling out.

Given their mental ages, it was no more significant than a playground spat between two five-year-olds. That should have been the end of it.

Instead, a notice was placed in the local newspaper - it is not known by whom - asking for witnesses to a "racial assault" at the college on the day in question.

Whether this notice led to the police investigation, or whether the family of the girl contacted them directly is still not clear. Either way, just over a week later, Jamie was charged with racism and assault.

It was an insane example of overzealous political correctness; a local zero-tolerance policy on racism taken to its extremes without any common sense being applied, let alone consideration for the unusual circumstances of the individuals involved.

After months of stress and fear, the Baulds' ordeal came to an end yesterday when, in a remarkable climbdown, the Crown Office issued a formal apology to the family for any distress caused over the past seven months.

All charges have now been dropped, but this, says Fiona, is not enough.

Not only have they encountered confusion, red tape and a lack of compassion in their dealings with the Scottish legal system, they are left fearing that Jamie will forever have a blot on his reputation as a result of being charged at all.

"Our family has been put through a terrible ordeal over nothing," says Fiona. "It is utterly ridiculous that the authorities brought adult charges against our son, who was not only innocent, but clearly unable to comprehend why he was in trouble.

"For instance, when the police arrived to interview Jamie, he welcomed them with a big smile and a handshake. As they read him his rights, he said thank you for coming to see him, and agreed with everything they said."...

Saudi Arabia: Young woman married at 10 years old, must pay to obtain divorce

Here is yet another one to remember when you hear Islamic spokesmen in the West insist that Aisha was 19 when she married Muhammad, not nine, and that his child marriage not only is not exemplary for all too many Muslims, but didn't even happen at all. Sharia Alert from the Land of the Two Holy Places, from AKI (thanks to Insubria):

Riyadh, 18 April (AKI) - A 23 year old girl, forced to marry at ten in Saudi Arabia was ordered to pay the equivalent of 16,750 euros to obtain a divorce from his husband, according to Saudi daily al-Watan.

The girl, deemed as a 'rebel' by a judge in the capital, Riyadh, was forced to marry a 67-year-old man due to her family's economic problems, in exchange for a dowry of 100,000 Saudi riyals (16,750 euros).

According to the judge, the girl does not have any grounds for divorce, but if she wants to divorce the husband, she must return the dowry given to the family 13 years ago.

The father of the girl, regrets having married her daughter so young, saying "I made a mistake by forcing my daughter to marry. If she wants to re-marry, it will be her decision who to do it with."...

Antisemitism in the Hadith and Early Muslim Biographies of Muhammad: Motifs and Manifestations

A Jihad Watch exclusive: here is an important follow-up by Andrew G. Bostom to this key reference work:

Abstract

The contemporary pronouncements of the Islamic Center of Cleveland’s clerical “Imamate”—Fawaz Damra and his erstwhile replacement Ahmed Alzaree—illustrate an ancient, but continuous tradition of anti-Jewish incitement by Islam’s “popular preachers,” very much alive today. And the historical treatment of Jews in Muslim societies—chronic oppression, punctuated by outbursts of mass anti-Jewish violence, forced conversion to Islam, or expulsion—has been consistent with such sacralized religious bigotry. Promoters of modern jihad genocide from the former Mufti of Jerusalem, Hajj Amin el-Husseini, to contemporary Hamas clerics, have repeatedly invoked Islam’s Jew-exterminating eschatology.

George Vajda’s 1937 essay “Juifs et Musulmans Selon Le Hadit” (“Jews and Muslims According to the Hadith”)—a magisterial 70-page treatise discussed at some length herein—remains the definitive study of Jews and their relations with Muhammad and Muslims, as depicted in the hadith. Vajda’s research demonstrates how Muslim eschatology highlights the Jews supreme hostility to Islam. Jews are described as adherents of the Dajjâl—the Muslim equivalent of the Anti-Christ—and as per another tradition, the Dajjâl is in fact Jewish. At his appearance, other traditions state that the Dajjâl will be accompanied by 70,000 Jews from Isfahan, or Jerusalem. When the Dajjâl is defeated, he and his Jewish companions will be slaughtered— everything will deliver them up except for the so-called gharkad tree. Thus, according to a canonical hadith—incorporated into the 1988 Hamas Charter (article 7)—if a Jew seeks refuge under a tree or a stone, these objects will be able to speak to tell a Muslim: “There is a Jew behind me; come and kill him!”

Vajda also emphasizes how the notion of jihad “ransom” extends even into Islamic eschatology casting the Muslims’ sins upon the Jews. And in the corporeal world, Vajda observes, “distrust must reign” in Muslims relations with the rebellious Jews. But it is the Jews stubborn malevolence, Vajda further notes, that is their defining worldly characteristic

Jews are represented in the darkest colors. Convinced by the clear testimony of their books that Mohammed was the true prophet, they refused to convert, out of envy, jealousy and national particularism, even out of private interest. They have falsified their sacred books and do not apply the laws of God; nevertheless, they pursued Mohammed with their raillery and their oaths, and harassed him with questions, an enterprise that turned to their own confusion and merely corroborated the authenticity of the supernatural science of the prophet. From words they moved to action: sorcery, poisoning, assassination held no scruples for them.

Vajda concludes that these archetypes, in turn, justify Muslim animus towards the Jews, and the admonition to at best, “subject [the Jews] to Muslim domination”, as dhimmis, treated “with contempt”, under certain “humiliating arrangements.”

Hartwig Hirschfeld’s detailed analyses of Muhammad’s interactions with the Jews of Medina as depicted in the earliest pious Muslim biographies of Muhammad (sira; sirat) describes the “mutual disappointment” that characterized their relationship, and the predictably disastrous results for the Jews.

The Jews, for their part, were singularly disappointed in their expectations. The way in which Muhammad understood revelation, his ignorance and his clumsiness in religious questions in no way encouraged them to greet him as their Messiah. He tried at first to win them over to his teachings by sweetness and persuasion; they replied by posing once again the questions that they had already asked him; his answers, filled with gross errors, provoked their laughter and mockery. From this, of course, resulted a deep hostility between Muhammad and the Jews, whose only crime was to pass a severe judgment on the enterprise of this Arab who styled himself “God’s prophet” and to find his conduct ridiculous, his knowledge false, and his regulations thoughtless. This judgment, which was well founded, was nevertheless politically incorrect, and the consequences thereof inevitably would prove to be disastrous for a minority that lacked direction or cohesion.

Muhammad’s failures or incomplete successes were consistently recompensed by murderous attacks on the Jews. Thus Muhammad developed a penchant for assassinating individual Jews, and destroying Jewish communities—by expropriation and expulsion (Banu Quaynuqa and Nadir), or massacring their men, and enslaving their women and children (Banu Qurayza). Subsequently, in the case of the Khaybar Jews, Muhammad had the male leadership killed, and plundered their riches. The terrorized Khaybar survivors—industrious Jewish farmers—became prototype subjugated dhimmis whose productivity was extracted by the Muslims as a form of permanent booty. And according to the Muslim sources, even this tenuous vassalage was arbitrarily terminated within a decade of Muhammad’s death when Caliph Umar expelled the Jews of Khaybar.

Muhammad’s brutal conquest and subjugation of the Khaybar Jews, and their subsequent expulsion by one of his companions, the (second) “Rightly Guided” Caliph Umar, epitomize permanent, archetypal behavior patterns Islamic Law deemed appropriate to Muslim interactions with Jews.

Historical and contemporary examples are briefly adduced to illustrate the ongoing relevance of archetypes from the hadith and sira as sources of Islamic antisemitism, past and present.

Introduction

Fawaz Damra [1], the former Imam of the Islamic Center of Cleveland, was touted as a promoter of interfaith dialogue even after [2] evidence of his participation in fundraising events for the terrorist group Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) [3], was produced, along with a videotape of the Imam telling a crowd of Muslim supporters in 1991 [4] that they should aim “…a rifle at the first and last enemy of the Islamic nation, and that is the sons of monkeys and pigs, the Jews.” Convicted in 2004 for lying to immigration officials about his links to the PIJ, Damra, who was born in Nablus in 1961, was subsequently deported [5] back to the West Bank in January 2007.

And just this past October 30, 2007 it was announced [6] that Imam Ahmed Alzaree—the first permanent successor to Damra—resigned as the new “spiritual leader” of the Islamic Center of Cleveland three days prior to officially beginning the job. Alzaree, who at one stage of the vetting process expressed the unusual reservation that “he would not come to Cleveland because a reporter was inquiring about his background” [7], ostensibly accepted the position as noted on October 26, 2007, then pre-emptively resigned a few days later [8], after the contents of “khutbahs” (sermons) he had delivered on March 7, 2003, were revealed. [9]

Alzaree’s March, 2003 sermons were in fact far worse than had been portrayed by the Cleveland media. [10] One assumes that either they were not read at all, or at best only perused, and those reading these sermons, by and large, had no idea about the virulently Antisemitic motifs in the Qur’an and hadith (i.e., the words, deeds, and even physical gestures of Muhammad as recorded by pious Muslim transmitters). Moreover, these sermons were also virulently Christianophobic, invoking combined anti-Christian/Jew-hating motifs from the Qur’ran [11] (for example, Qur’ran 4:157-159), as well as anti-Christian eschatology (linked explicitly to Jew-hating eschatology) from the hadith, particularly with regard to “Jesus,” or to be precise, the Muslim simulacrum of Jesus, “Isa,” as characterized in Islam’s foundational texts. Alzaree simply recounts Islamic doctrine (as per the Qur’an and hadith) regarding “Isa”—the Muslim Jesus [12]—which emphasizes the Jews overall perfidy, especially their gloating (but unknowingly “false”) claim to have killed Isa. According to this sacralized Islamic narrative, Isa is merely a Muslim prophet whose ultimate “job description” includes the destruction of Christianity. Thus Alzaree’s sermon invokes the canonical hadith [13] that this Muslim Jesus—who was never crucified—the perfidious Jews prodding the Roman’s to kill Isa’s “body double” [14]—will return as a full-throated Muslim to break the cross, kill the pig, and end the payment of the deliberately humiliating Qur’anic (9:29) poll-tax demanded of Christians (i.e., the jizya). This hadith states, “He [Isa] will fight the people for the cause of Islam. He will break the cross, kill swine, and abolish jizya” [15]—because Christians will be converted to Islam (and thus exempt from the jizya), or eliminated—“Allah will perish all religions except Islam.” Alzaree concluded the second sermon with an apocalyptic canonical hadith [16]—repeated in the 1988 Hamas Charter, article 7 [17]—stating if a Jew seeks refuge under a tree or a stone, these objects will be able to speak to tell a Muslim: “There is a Jew behind me; come and kill him!”

Thus the blatant Jew-hatred expressed by Damra and reiterated (in tandem with anti-Christian motifs) by Alzaree—this erstwhile “Imamate of Cleveland”—was fully sanctioned by—indeed they were merely quoting directly from—the core religious texts of Islam, i.e. the Qur’an, hadith, and early Muslim biographies of Muhammad.

More than four decades ago (in 1964), Moshe Perlmann the pre-eminent scholar of Islam’s ancient anti-Jewish polemical literature, observed [18],

The Qur’an, of course became a mine of anti-Jewish passages. The hadith did not lag behind. Popular preachers used and embellished such material.

In an earlier study (published 1948) of 11th century Muslim Spain [19]—idealized, falsely, as the paragon of Islam’s ecumenism—Perlmann had described how such polemical tracts and sermons incited the mass violence which destroyed the Jewish community of Granada during the catastrophic 1066 pogrom, with its death toll of some 3000 to 4000 Jews. [20] This figure equals or exceeds the number of Jews reportedly killed by the Crusaders during their pillage of the Rhineland, some thirty years later, at the outset of the First Crusade. [21]

The modern pronouncements of Cleveland’s clerical “Imamate”—Damra and Alzaree—reflect an ancient, but continuous tradition of anti-Jewish incitement by Islam’s “popular preachers,” very much alive today. And the historical treatment of Jews in Muslim societies—chronic oppression, punctuated by outbursts of mass anti-Jewish violence, forced conversion to Islam, or expulsion [22]—has been consistent with such sacralized religious bigotry. Promoters of modern jihad genocide have repeatedly invoked Islam’s Jew-exterminating eschatology. Hajj Amin el-Husseini, ex-Mufti of Jerusalem, and Muslim jihadist, who became, additionally, a full-fledged Nazi collaborator and ideologue in his endeavors to abort a Jewish homeland, and destroy world Jewry [23], composed a 1943 recruitment pamphlet for Balkan Muslims entitled, “Islam and the Jews.” [24] This incendiary document was rife with antisemitic verses from the Qur’an, as well as Jew hating motifs from the hadith, and concluded with the apocalyptic canonical hadith [25] describing the Jews’ annihilation. Forty-five years later the same hadith [26] was incorporated into the 1988 Hamas Charter, making clear its own aspirations for Jew annihilation. Sheer ignorance of this history and theology are pathognomonic of much larger and more dangerous phenomena: the often willful, craven failure to examine and understand the living legacy of Islam’s foundational anti-Jewish animus, or acknowledge the depth of Jew hatred that pervades contemporary Islam’s clerical leadership, including within major Muslim communities of the United States.

Having earlier described the antisemitic motifs in the Qur’an [27], as well as their historical manifestations across space and time, the current paper examines in complementary fashion, the antisemitic motifs in the hadith, and earliest pious Muslim biographies of Muhammad, or sira.

Antisemitism in the Hadith

Hadith, which means “story” (“narrative”), refers to any report of what the Muslim prophet Muhammad said or did, or his tacit assent to something said or done in his presence. [28] (Hadith is also used as the technical term for the “science” of such “Traditions”). As a result of a lengthy process which continued for centuries after Muhammad’s death (in 632), the hadith emerged for Muslims as second in authority to the Qur’an itself. [29] Sunna, which means “path” refers to a normative custom of Muhammad or of the early Islamic community. [30] The hadith “justify and confirm” the Sunna. [31] Henri Lammens highlights the importance of the Sunna (and, by extension, the hadith): [32]

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

The hadith compiled by al-Bukhari (d. 870) and Muslim b. al-Hajjaj (d. 875) are considered, respectively, to be the most important authoritative collections. The titles Sahih (“sound”) or Jami, indicating their comprehensiveness, signify the high esteem in which they are held. [33] James Robson summarizes their comprehensive content: [34]

In addition to giving information about religious duties, law and everyday practice, they contain a considerable amount of biographical and other material. Nothing is too unimportant to form a valid topic for tradition. Guidance is given even on the most intimate matters of personal life. The compilers of Tradition seem to have had a keen desire to leave nothing to chance, so guidance is to be found on almost every conceivable subject.

Four other compilations, called Sunan works, which indicates that they are limited to matters of religious and social practice, and law, also became authoritative. Abu Dawud (d. 888), al-Tirmidhi (d. 892), Ibn Maja (d. 896), and al-Nasi (d. 915) compiled these works. By the beginning of the 12th century, Ibn Maja’s collection became the last of these compilations of hadith to be recognized as “canonical.” [35]

Despite appearances of rigor in the methods employed to assemble the various canonical hadith collections [36], the meticulous studies of Ignaz Goldziher [37] and Joseph Schacht [38] (and others) demonstrate that while the hadith reflect theological-juridical “tendencies” during Islam’s formative early centuries, they are useless as a source of objective historical information. Schacht argued for abandoning the “one-sided traditional sham-castle” based upon [39],

..the gratuitous assumptions that there existed originally an authentic core of information going back to the time of the Prophet, that spurious and tendentious additions were made to every succeeding generation, that many of these were eliminated by the criticism of isnads [“chains” of pious Muslim transmitters] as practiced by the Muhammadan scholars, that other spurious traditions escaped rejection, but that the genuine core was not completely overlaid by later accretions

Alternatively, Schacht, a legal scholar, urged that these deconstructed “materials” be re-evaluated in their real context, i.e., the evolution of Islamic law, especially during the time of al- Shafi‘i (d. 820; after whom the Shafi‘ite school of Islamic jurisprudence was named). [40] 232 Sixty years earlier Goldziher had suggested more broadly that although ahistorical, the hadith reflected important aspects of social and religious development during the first two centuries after the advent of Islam. [41]

In the absence of authentic evidence it would indeed be rash to attempt to express the most tentative opinion as to which parts of the hadith are the oldest original material, or even as to which of them date back to the generations immediately following the Prophet’s death. Closer acquaintance with the vast stock of hadiths induces skeptical caution rather than optimistic trust regarding the material brought together in the carefully compiled collections.

The hadith will not serve as a document for the history of the infancy of Islam, but rather as a reflection of the tendencies which appeared in the community during the maturer stages of its development….the greater part of it [the hadith, reflecting] the religious…and social development of Islam during the first two centuries

The conception of Goldziher provides a useful framework for an examination of the anti-Jewish motifs in the hadith.

George Vajda’s 1937 essay “Juifs et Musulmans Selon Le Hadit” (“Jews and Muslims According to the Hadith”) [42]—a magisterial 70-page analysis—remains the definitive study of Jews and their relations with Muhammad and Muslims, as depicted in the hadith. Vajda, in light of the scholarship of Goldziher (especially) on the inadequacy of the canonical hadith as “history,” chose not to limit himself to these six collections: [43]

As soon as one renounces using the hadiths as absolutely sure and trustworthy documentation, it is evidently vain to try to take account of the value judgments that Muslim criticism emits regarding any isolated tradition, any collection, or the individual credibility of any traditionalist. Therefore I have been very wide-ranging in making use of documents and the “six books”, as well as of the Musnad by Ahmed ibn Hanbal and the Muwatta by Mālik, not forgetting the commentaries to which I was able to have access, Kastalāni on Buhārī, Nawawi on Muslim, and Zurkāni on the Muwatta. Ibn Sa’d’s Tabakāt and Tabarī’s Tafsīr have also been consulted. It would no doubt have been possible and even desirable to prolong this promenade through the vast fields of the hadith.

The remainder of this discussion of antisemitism in the hadith relies upon the themes developed by Vajda, amplified with excerpts from the canonical hadith, and other Traditions, themselves.

Both anti-dhimmi and specific anti-Jewish motifs figure prominently in Vajda’s detailed assessment. He begins by emphasizing Goldziher’s prior “discovery” of the animating principle prescribed for Muslims with regard to the customs of non-Muslims: khalifuhum, which means, “do not do like them.” [44]Vajda illustrates this attitude with regard to basic grooming and dress: [45]

“Leaving his apartments, the prophet found old men Ansar whose beards were white. He told them: ‘Assembly of Ansār, dye yourselves red or yellow and do the contrary of the people of the Book.’ We told him: ‘Apostle of Allah, the people of the Book wear the sirwāl (pantaloons) and do not wear the izār.’ The prophet says ‘Wear the sirwāl and wear the izār, and do the contrary of the people of the Book.’ We told him ‘The people of the Book wear ankle-boots (huff) and do not wear sandals (na’l).’ He says: “Wear ankle-boots and wear sandals, and do the contrary of the people of the Book.’ We told him: ‘The people of the Book trim their beards and grow their mustaches.” He says: “Trim the mustache and grow the beard, and do the contrary of the people of the Book.”

“grow your beard, remove your mustaches, alter your white hair and do not resemble Jews or Christians.”

The prophet also forbids as a Jewish custom the qaza (partial removal of the hair).

Also branded was the use of false hair/hairpieces/wigs. According to a tradition reported in several compilations (Sa’id b. al-Musayyab and Humayd b. ‘Abdalrahmān), during the last khuTba that he pronounced in Medina, the caliph Mu’awiya I showed the faithful a toupée of false hair, saying “I never saw that done except among the Jews, the prophet had called it ‘falseness’ (zūr)’’; or in another version: “people of Medina, where are your wise men? I heard the prophet, who prohibited doing the like and said: ‘the children of Israel perished when their women took [false hair]’.”

Almost always it is recommended to dye the hair in contrast to the Jews, (or to Jews and Christians).

Even sanctioned Muslim practices of onanism/masturbation, and bestiality (as Vajda notes, “…on which the hadiths cited by Tabari [d. 923] give such exact, if repellant details” [46]), in particular with slaves whom the Muslims wished to avoid impregnating, became a source of friction vis a vis the Jews. [47]

The Jews protested against this procedure [coitus interruptus with slaves]. Here is what a tradition of Abū Sa’īd al-Hudrī relates: someone comes to find the prophet and tells him: “I have a slave with whom I interrupt coitus, for I do not want her to conceive, but I want what men want. But the Jews claim that coitus interruptus is an attenuated case of the exposure of newborn girls.” The prophet replied: “The Jews have lied. If Allah wants to create it, you are not capable of preventing [the child from being conceived].”

The same Companion found himself implicated in an analogous incident after the expedition of al’Muraysi in year 5 [after the Hijra, i.e., 622]. The partial restraint of the Muslims, permitting them the satisfaction of their concupiscence without compromising the hope for ransoming the captives, was approved by the prophet, with the same motive as in the preceding hadith. But when Abū Sa’īd wanted to sell a young girl from the booty, a Jew observed at the market that she was certainly pregnant by him; the Muslim assured him that he had practiced ‘azl, to which the Jew replied that it was an attenuated form of coitus. Informed of this discussion, the prophet could only denounce the lies of the Jews.

The frankly reproving attitude of the Jews toward the sexual dissipation of the Arabs may be illustrated by many Talmudic texts. They found conjugal relations during the day repugnant, at least unless they were invisible. The indecencies committed in the course of the act implied physical infirmities for any child: muteness, deafness, blindness, paralysis. Onanism was severely reproved.

The customs to be observed at funerals, the matters of burial plots and tombs, and more decidedly, Muhammad’s view of the fate of buried Jews, also illustrate anti-Jewish animus. [48]

Another tradition (‘Bāda b. al’Sāmit) recounts that in following funerals, the prophet had the habit of standing until the dead person was put in his tomb. One day a haber [rabbi] passed and told him that the Jews did likewise, at which Mohammed invited those attending to sit down so as not to do as the Jews.

Still, in another opinion, “one should not go with slow steps with the coffin like the Jews do.” ‘Imrān b. al-Husayn (died 52) ordered when dying: “when after my death you take me outside, go quickly and do not walk slowly like the Jews and the Christians.”

A hadith that was widespread relates that during his agony the prophet cursed the Jews and Christians who had taken the tombs of their prophets as sites of worship.

When the prophet was taken by an attack, he threw a hamīsa (a sort of robe) over his face; when he came around, we lifted him while he said: ‘May God curse the Jews and the Christians, they have taken the tombs of their prophets for sites of worship’ (Aysha adds: ‘he put them on guard [Muslims] against similar practices’). Elsewhere, one finds this curse without the tale that frames it, Abũ ‘Bayda relates it as the prophet’s last recommendation, at the same time as the order to expel the Jews from the Arabian peninsula.

“Aisha (the wife of the Prophet) Once Allah's Apostle passed by (the grave of) a Jewess whose relatives were weeping over her. He said, ‘They are weeping over her and she is being tortured in her grave.’ ”

“ ’Amra daughter of 'Abd al Rahman narrated that she heard (from) 'A'isha and made a mention to her about 'Abdullah b. 'Umar as saying: ‘The dead is punished because of the lamentation of the living.’ Upon this 'A'isha said: ‘May Allah have mercy upon the father of 'Abd al-Rahman (Ibn 'Umar). He did not tell a lie, but he forgot or made a mistake. The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) happened to pass by a (dead) Jewess who was being lamented. Upon this he said: ‘They weep over her and she is being punished in the grave’.”

Moreover, public lamentation over the dead became forbidden to the Jews (and Christians). [49]

The hadith further condemn certain physical gestures for being specific to Jews. [50]

A hadith disapproves of Muslims who salute each other by making a sign with their fingers like the Jews, or with the hand like the Christians. Aisha did not like her protégé Masrūq to put his hands on his hips for, she said, only the Jews do that.

Raising the hands in prayer is a Jewish gesture.

One should not sway (nawadān) while praying, as the Jews do.

The hadith also portray the Jews hatred and jealousy of Muhammad. Vajda observes that according to the hadith [51],

…the Jews knew very well that it was Mohammed who should accomplish the prediction of their books. If, then, they did not follow him, this was not out of ignorance but out of jealousy and national particularism.

He then provides two examples of this recurring motif [52]:

“The apostle of Allah entered the Bayt al-Midrās and said: ‘Send me the wisest person among you.’ They said: ‘It is Abdallāh b. Sũriyā.’ The apostle of Allah remained alone with him and adjured him by his religion, by the blessings that God had showered [on the Jews] by nourishing them with manna and [salwaa] quail and protecting them by clouds [to answer him]: ‘Do you know that I am the apostle of Allah?’ He answered: ‘By God, yes, and of course these people [the Jews] know what I know and that your description is clearly found in the Torah, but they are envious of you.’ [The prophet:] ‘What prevents you yourself?’ He answered: ‘I feel repugnant at doing otherwise than my people, but perhaps they will follow you and convert to Islam, and then I will convert [also]’.”

“A Jew said to his comrade: ‘Let us go find the prophet to ask him about this verse (Koran 17:101): “We brought Moses nine signs”.’ His comrade says: ‘Do not say prophet in speaking of him, for if he heard this, he would have four eyes.’ They ask him and he tells them: ‘You would not associate anything with God, you would not commit larceny, you would not fornicate, you would not kill the soul that God has forbidden, except through justice, you would not practice magic, you would not lend at usury, you would not deliver the innocent to the men invested with authority to be put to death, you would not slander an honest women [var. you would not desert the army on campaign] and on you, Jews, it is especially imposed to not violate the Sabbath.’ He embraced his hands and his feet, saying: ‘We confess that you are a prophet.’ He said: ‘And what prevents you from following me?’ They replied: ‘David prayed that [prophecy?] never quit his descendants and so we fear that the Jews would kill us if we converted to Islam’.”

Despite being convinced of the authenticity of Mohammed’s divine mission, as Vajda notes, the hadith accusation that the Jews did not become votaries of Islam due to pride in their birth and appetite for domination, became a recurrent theme in later Muslim polemics. [53]

Striking evidence of Jewish perfidy in the hadith is illustrated by their continual, surreptitious cursing of the Muslims while ostensibly offering proper greetings [54]:

“A Jew greeted the apostle of Allah by saying al-sām ‘alayka (May poison be on you, for may peace be upon you.) [The prophet said:] ‘Bring him to me.’ He told him: ‘Did you say al-sām ‘alayka?’ ‘Yes.’ The apostle of Allah said: ‘When the people of the Book greet use, say wa’alayka’.”

A slightly more developed version: “When the prophet was sitting amid his companions, here comes a Jew who greets them. The prophet had him come back and asked him: ‘What did you say?’ ‘I said al-sām ‘alayka.’ The prophet concluded: ‘When an individual of people of the Book greets you, say and to you, meaning what you have said’.”

A slightly dramatized tale: “A Jew passed by the prophet and his companions, greeted them, and the prophet’s companions returned the greeting. The prophet declared: ‘He said al-sām ‘alaykum.’ They apprehended the Jew, brought him back, and he admitted it. The prophet said: ‘Render back to them what they said’.”

Another version features ‘Omar with his habitual violence: “An individual of the people of the Book arrived and greeted the prophet by saying al-sām ‘alaykumi. Then ‘Omar said: ‘Apostle of Allah, should I cut off his head?’ He answered: ‘No. When they greet you, say wa’alaykum’.”

Elsewhere, the scene is embellished by Aysha’s intervention: “The Jews came to find the prophet and told him al-sām ‘alayka. The prophet replied [to them]: ‘Al-sām ‘alaykum.’ Then Aysha cried: ‘Al-sām ‘alaykum, brothers of monkeys and pigs and the curse of Allah and his anger!’ The prophet said: ‘Gently.’ She replied: ‘Apostle of Allah, did you not hear what they said?’ The prophet: ‘Did you not hear what I replied to them? [Know] Aysha [that] gentleness ornaments everything, but everything is spoiled if one suppresses it’.”

Vajda offers these explanations for why the hadith are so richly endowed with (and “pleased to raise”) examples attesting to Jewish perfidy. [55]

It is impossible for a real incident to be the basis of this group of anecdotes, which are mutually irreconcilable. But it is also probable that they were born of the desire to legitimate a governing arrangement whose practical application must have suffered some difficulties in conquered countries, where even the most elementary relations were daily making the new masters confront a significant non-Muslim population.

This important series of hadiths illustrates so vividly the insolence and crudeness of Jews that later, when the jurists (fukahā; especially Western ones) decreed pitiless sanctions against whoever insulted or mocked the prophet, it was wondered why Mohammed had not dealt severely with the Jews who saluted him with al-sām ‘alaykum. The cadi/judge ‘Iyād replied: ‘especially [he used] diplomacy so as not to scare minds away at the start of Islam by rigorous measures; in addition, the incriminating words of the Jews had not been pronounced distinctly enough to constitute a public outrage.’

Another commonplace charge in the hadith is that Jews altered their sacred texts deleting Muhammad’s name and precise description. Vajda includes these two vivid examples [56]:

This was transmitted in the name of ‘Abdallāh b. Mas’ūd: “Allah sent his prophet to have someone entered into paradise. He entered into the synagogue [al-kanīsa] [where] a Jew was just in the course of reading [them] the Torah. When they [the Jews] arrived at the description of the prophet, they stopped. But in a corner of the synagogue was a sick person. The prophet said: ‘Why did you stop?’ The sick person replied: ‘They arrived at the description of the prophet, which is why they stopped.’ Then the sick person dragged himself up to the book of the Torah, grabbed it and read until he came to the description of the prophet and of his community and he said: ‘Here is your description and the description of your community. I confess that there is no other God but Allah and that you are the apostle of Allah.’ Then he rendered up his soul.”

Another version of the same story is found in Ibn Sa’d. The prophet accompanied by Abũ Bakr and ‘Omar passed beside a Jew who was reading in a book of the Torah for one of his sick parents. The prophet adjured the Jew to tell him if his description was found in the Torah. When he shook his head no, the sick person contradicted him, pronounced profession of Muslim faith, and expired. The prophet himself recited the prayer at his burial and wrapped him in his winding sheet.

However the prime example of the Jews illegitimate alteration of the Torah cited in the hadith “with most self-satisfaction” concerns the prescribed punishment for adultery. As per the hadith, a controversy arose between the Jews and Muslims over legislation concerning adultery. The narrative emphasizes the Jews perfidy and overt disrespect for their own revealed scriptures. Vajda examines several of these hadith [57]:

The Jews brought to the prophet an adulterous couple and claimed that their book prescribed punishing them by blackening their faces so as to cover them with shame. Mohammed told them: “You are lying, [the punishment ordered] for this crime is lapidation; so bring the Torah and recite it if you are telling the truth” (Cf. Koran 3:93, which in context relates to the alimentary prohibitions of the Jews). The one-eyed reader of the Jews named Ibn Sūriyā started to read; arriving at a certain passage, he covered it with his hand. Mohammed invited him to lift it; when he lifted it, it shone. So, the Jews admitted that lapidation was indeed prescribed in the Torah, but then kept this law hidden. The prophet had the guilty ones stoned.

[Sahih] Muslim gives this story with several isnād [chains of transmission] In the first hadith, the punishment indicated by the Jews is a little more exactly described: “We blacken their faces, we place them on a mounting, their faces turned toward each other, and we make them take a tour of the town. The reader is anonymous [Some fellow] (fatā); it is ‘Abdallāh b. Salām who engages the prophet in ordering the reader to raise his mind, under which is found the verse about lapidation. One of the versions gathered by Abū Dāwūd situates the scene in the Bayt al-Midrās (house of study); another specifies that the guilty ones received a hundred lashes with a tarred cord.

Another variant in [Sahih] Muslim and in Ibn Māja highlights the perfidy of the Jews even more, as well as the little respect they have for their revealed book. “They passed by the prophet with a flagellated Jew with a blackened face. He called them and asked them: ‘Is that the punishment for adultery that you find in your book?’ ‘Yes.’ He fetches one of their wise men and adjures him by the God who revealed the Torah to Moses to tell him if this is really the punishment for adultery [ordered] in their book. The latter answered; ‘No, if you had not adjured me in this fashion I would not have told you. We found [that the punishment for adultery is] lapidation, but this sin was widespread among our great and when we seized great personages, we let them off, but to the weak we applied the punishment. [Finally] we said to ourselves: “Let us agree on a punishment that we will apply to the great as to the weak.” We then instituted the blackening of the face and flagellation instead of lapidation.’ The apostle of Allah cried: ‘God, I am the first who has revived your order after they killed it off.’ On which came the revelation of Koran 5: 41, [‘O Messenger! Let not them grieve thee who vie one with another in the race to disbelief, of such as say with their mouths: “We believe, but their hearts believe not, and of the Jews: listeners for the sake of falsehood, listeners on behalf of other folk who come not unto thee, changing words from their context and saying: If this be given unto you, receive it, but if this be not given unto you, then beware! He whom Allah doometh unto sin, thou (by thine efforts) wilt avail him naught against Allah. Those are they for whom the Will of Allah is that He cleanse not their hearts. Theirs in the world will be ignominy, and in the Hereafter an awful doom’.]

Bearing in mind that the Qur’an itself prescribes flagellation for adultery (i.e., Qur’an 24:2, “The adulterer and the adulteress, scourge ye each one of them [with] a hundred stripes”), if confirmed by four eyewitnesses, Vajda summarizes the ironies in alleging Jewish perfidy with regard to the stoning of adulterers [58]:

The prophet reproaches the Jews for having substituted a rule they had themselves invented for God’s own law concerning adultery. He applies this law to a Jew, and if one believes the traditions (which are no more or less worthy of credit than any others), he applied it, as did [Caliph] ‘Omar, to the Muslims too. Nevertheless, the “lapidation verse” has not been accepted in the Koran’s canonic text, which replaces it, in the most recent passages relating to adultery, precisely with the flagellation whose practice by the Jews is regarded as an arbitrary alteration of the primitive revelation. Unless one rejects en bloc the traditions relating to the rajm [lapidation = stoning] as forged for the sole purpose of shaming the Jews as falsifiers of their revelation and to glorify Mohammed, who saw clearly through their criminal actions, it is necessary to regard the procedure censured by the prophet as having been really used in the ghettos (juiveries) of Hijāz. But in that case, the effective legislation of the Koran concerning the punishment of adultery, definitively consecrated by surah 24 [verse 2], derives in a direct line from Jewish practice, consecrated by Mohammed.

Another series of hadiths elaborate on Qur’an 3:93 (“All food was lawful unto the Children of Israel, save that which Israel forbade himself, (in days) before the Torah was revealed. Say: Produce the Torah and read it (unto us) if ye are truthful.”), and associated Qur’anic exegeses, which accuse the Jews of misrepresenting their alimentary prohibitions, most notably camel’s flesh, as in fact described in the Torah (Leviticus 11:4—“Nevertheless these shall ye not eat of them that chew the cud, or of them that divide the hoof: as the camel, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.”). Vajda notes for example, that the classical Qur’anic commentator Tabari [59],

…gathered a great number of interpretations of this verse. According to Suddī, Jacob [the Biblical patriarch] suffered in the night from sciatica; he made the vow never to eat any nerve if God would deliver him from this malady. The Jews claim to follow their ancestor but they are lying, for it is God who imposed on them alimentary restrictions, on account of their sins. According to Dahhāk the verse means to say that neither before nor after the revelation did God forbid anything to the Jews, except that for the reason that we know, Jacob made the vow to abstain from consuming nerves. Ibn ‘Abbās explains: any food was permitted to the children of Israel before the revelation of the Torah, but Jacob forswore nerves, and his children imitated him, without the interdiction being in the Torah. Tabarī lingers over this exegesis, not without modifying it. Before the revelation of the Torah, nothing was forbidden to the children of Israel, but Jacob, suffering from sciatica, forswore nerves, etc. Then, in revealing the Torah, God prohibited certain foods to the Jews.

Additional hadiths cited by Vajda present matters with a slight variation—Jacob’s prohibition on camel’s flesh and milk is self-imposed [60]:

‘Abdallāh b. Katīr (and others): Jacob, suffering from sciatica, renounces by a vow, so as to get better, his preferred food: flesh and milk of the camel. According to Hasan, the Jews falsely pretended that the interdiction by Jacob of camel flesh is found in the Torah, whereas in fact it is prior to the revelation and is not in the Torah at all; this is also the opinion of Ibn Abbās. The latter doctor reconciles the two series of traditions by teaching that Jacob forbid himself both the nerves and flesh of camels. He had consumed meat not cleaned of the sciatic nerve and fell ill and swore never to eat it again.

As Vajda further indicates, Tabari subscribes to this latter interpretation because [61],

…the Jews still prohibit nerves [in general] and the flesh of the camel [in particular]. He then cites, under the name of Ibn ‘Abbās, the question the Jews put to Mohammed that we have seen. Mohammed invites the Jews to bring the Torah and read it so as to make manifest their falsehood; God has never forbid these things. It is a proof of the authenticity of Mohammed’s mission that he, an‘ummī [i.e., a/the prophet] has unmasked the lie of Jewish doctors that most of their co-religionists had not perceived.

Vajda’s concluding analysis summarized the evolution of this anti-Jewish polemical theme, which ignores Leviticus (11:4) [62]:

Let us try to retrace the evolution of this polemic theme, whose elements we have just analyzed. The familiar narration of Genesis (Jacob’s struggle with the angel in Genesis 32:25-33) closes with the remark: “This is why the children of Israel do not eat the sciatic nerve.” So this is a custom that was never raised, within the Pentateuch, to the rank of a positive interdiction. The Biblical motif is unknown or ignored by Muslim tradition. The Koran speaks, without being precise, of a prohibition voluntarily assumed by Israel. Tradition designates as the object of the interdiction either the sciatic nerve (with a motive alien to Jewish sources) or else the meat and milk of the camel. These two indications are reconciled, but the tendency (supported indeed by the remainder of the Koranic verse) that is everywhere subsidiary, is to demonstrate that the interdiction is not revealed and hence is expressly willed by God (or else, according to some who are still in conformity with the thinking of the Koran on this point, imposed after the fact on Jews on account of their sins). It is due to Jacob’s private initiative, something followed by his descendants, but it does not oblige the Muslims by any means to do so.

The Muslim polemic does not want to admit that this interdiction is written in the Torah, for that would put the national dish of the Arabs on the same footing as pork, for example.

Other traditions attribute evil spells to the Jews. Vajda provides two examples of this motif, the latter not being consistently clear as to its “magical origins” in the various iterations [63]:

The biography of the prophet recounts that he had a spell cast upon him by the Jew Labīd b.al-al’A’sam. The charm was broken when, thanks to the intervention of Jibril (or Jibril and Mikā’il, or two anonymous personages), who indicated the place where Labīd had hidden the hair of the prophet, which he had taken and braided into magic knots and introduced into the male flower of the palm tree.

Another case is much less clear. Ibn ’Omar recounts that when he went to Khaybar to attend the division of the crop between Jews and the treasurer of Egypt, in conformity with the pact in force, the Jews bewitched him so well that his right hand froze at the fist. It was after this event that ‘Omar expelled them from Khaybar.

Bukhārī’s version leaves out the bewitching; ‘Abdallāh b.’Omar was the victim of a nocturnal assault when he went to Khaybar to inspect a property he owned. According to a tradition from Wākidī. The Jews were expelled for having incited slaves to assassinate their masters. Finally, a tradition recorded by Ibn Sa’d reports that ‘Omar expelled the Jews of Khaybar because at that time the Muslims already had enough manpower to cultivate their palm groves without turning to tenant farmers.Consequently it is difficult to admit the historicity or at the very least the magic origin of the accident of Ibn ‘Omar. This story had to have been invented so as to lay the responsibility for the expulsion of the Jews of Khaybar on themselves.

And after the Muslims had initially conquered the Jewish farming oasis of Khaybar, one of the vanquished Jewesses reportedly served Muhammad poisoned mutton (or goat), which resulted, ultimately, in his protracted, agonizing death [64]:

Anas reported that a Jewess came to Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) with poisoned mutton and he took of that what had been brought to him (Allah's Messenger). (When the effect of this poison were felt by him) he called for her and asked her about that, whereupon she said: I had determined to kill you. Thereupon he said: Allah will never give you the power to do it. He (the narrator) said that they (the Companion's of the Holy Prophet) said: Should we not kill her? Thereupon he said: No. He (Anas) said: I felt (the affects of this poison) on the uvula of Allah's Messenger. [Sahih Muslim Book 026, Number 5430]

Narrated Anas bin Malik: A Jewess brought a poisoned (cooked) sheep for the Prophet who ate from it. She was brought to the Prophet and he was asked, "Shall we kill her?" He said, "No." I continued to see the effect of the poison on the palate of the mouth of Allah's Apostle . [Sahih Bukhari Volume 3, Book 47, Number 786]

Ibn Sa‘d’s biography, however, maintains that the offending Jewess gave Muhammad poisoned goat, and insists that she was not spared [65]:

She [a Khaybar Jewess, Zaynab Bint al-Harith] poisoned the goat putting more poison in the forelegs…The Apostle of Allah took the foreleg, a piece of which he put into his mouth...The Apostle of Allah sent for Zaynab Bint al-Harith [and]…handed her over to [those] who put her to death…The Apostle of Allah lived after this three years, till in consequence of his pain he passed away. During his illness he used to say: I did not cease to find the effect of the poisoned morsel I took at Khaybar.

Vajda’s research further demonstrates how Muslim eschatology highlights the Jews supreme hostility to Islam. Jews are described as adherents of the Dajjâl—the Muslim equivalent of the Anti-Christ—and as per another tradition, the Dajjâl is in fact Jewish. [66] Armand Abel, the renowned Belgian scholar of Islam includes this summary characterization of the Dajjâl (from his official entry, “al-Dajdjal,” in the Encyclopedia of Islam [67]): “A giant, false prophet, king of the Jews, representations of him vary according to the degree of literary information available or the predominating prejudices.” At his appearance, other traditions state that the Dajjâl will be accompanied by 70,000 Jews from Isfahan wrapped in their robes, and armed with polished sabers, their heads covered with a sort of veil. When the Dajjâl is defeated, his Jewish companions will be slaughtered— everything will deliver them up except for the so-called gharkad tree. Thus, according to a canonical hadith (Sahih Muslim, Book 40, Number 6985), if a Jew seeks refuge under a tree or a stone, these objects will be able to speak to tell a Muslim: “There is a Jew behind me; come and kill him!” [68] Another hadith variant, which takes place in Jerusalem is described by James Robson. [69]

…most of the Arabs will be in Jerusalem when Jesus [i.e., Isa [70], 259 the Muslim Jesus] will descend. The imam will give place to him, but Jesus will tell him to lead the prayers. Afterwards, Jesus will order the door to be opened, and the Dajjal will be seen there will 70,000 armed Jews. The Dajjal will begin to melt, but Jesus will pursue and catch him and kill him at the east gate of Ludd. God will rout the Jews who will find that even the places where they shelter will shout out where they are hiding.

Vajda emphasizes how the notion of jihad “ransom” extends even into Islamic eschatology [71]:

Not only are the Jews vanquished in the eschatological war, but they will serve as ransom for the Muslims in the fires of hell. The sins of certain Muslims will weigh on them like mountains, but on the day of resurrection, these sins will be lifted and laid upon the Jews.

And in the corporeal world, Vajda observes, “distrust must reign” in Muslims relations with Jews, because [72],

the Jews…are rebels to the solicitations of Islam and keep their religious traditions in a way liable to lead Muslims into error. Even when Islam knowingly borrows from Judaism, these borrowings are presented as amendments of the corresponding Jewish customs, unless they expressly forge traditions that aim to efface the true origin of the rite in question, by transposing it either into Arab paganism or into “Israelite” or pre-Israelite antiquity… especially beware of asking them for information of a religious kind

But it is the Jews stubborn malevolence, Vajda further notes, that is their defining worldly characteristic [73]:

Jews are represented in the darkest colors [i.e., in the hadith]. Convinced by the clear testimony of their books that Mohammed was the true prophet, they refused to convert, out of envy, jealousy and national particularism, even out of private interest. They have falsified their sacred books and do not apply the laws of God; nevertheless, they pursued Mohammed with their raillery and their oaths, and harassed him with questions, an enterprise that turned to their own confusion and merely corroborated the authenticity of the supernatural science of the prophet. From words they moved to action: sorcery, poisoning, assassination held no scruples for them.

Vajda concludes that these archetypes, in turn, justify Muslim animus towards the Jews, and the admonition to at best, “subject [the Jews] to Muslim domination”, as dhimmis, treated “with contempt”, under certain “humiliating arrangements.” [74] Subsequent regional surveys across time (including the documents section) will provide copious evidence of the chronic anti-Jewish animus—sanctioned by the hadith—which was an indelible feature of the dhimmi condition for Jews.

One particularly tragic fate befell the Jews of Yemen based on rigid adherence to a motif in the hadith (and sira). Imam al-Mahdi, a pious 17th century Yemenite ruler, acted upon the well-known statement from the canonical hadith, attributed to a death bed wish of Muhammad himself, as recorded by Umar (the second Rightly Guided Caliph), “Two religions shall not remain together in the peninsula of the Arabs.” [75] In his fanatic zeal for Islam, al-Mahdi wished to fulfill the mandate of this hadith in Yemen as well. Thus Al-Mahdi, in 1679-1680, ordered the entire Jewish population of Yemen – men, women and children— exiled to the plain of Tihama, known for its salty water and soil, and generally unfavorable climate. [76] A twentieth-century German tourist described Tihama as follows [77]:

Tihama is a dreadful place because of its terrible heat. Temperatures of fifty degrees centigrade in the shade last for several days. The Bedouins, who are used to a variety of climatic conditions, do not dare to cross the coastal strip between the Red Sea and the mountains of Yemen before sunset… the meager waters of the inner Tihama are salty and not potable, at least as far as Europeans are concerned. Therefore, for example, the drinking water for the port city Hudayda must be carried on the backs of donkeys from mountains as far as eighty miles away. The climate of Tihama is the most harmful to one's health in the entire Arabian peninsula. Harsh cases of malaria which gradually destroy the health of its inhabitants are a common occurrence. Even the Italian physicians in Hudayda are not able to do much against it.

In addition to the expulsion, there were destructions of synagogues, desecrations of the Torah scrolls, and inducements for conversion to Islam. Only one quarter of those thousands of Jews expelled returned to their homes; the rest perished, dying primarily from exposure, due to the intense heat, lack of potable water, and the resultant spread of epidemic disease. Of the major Yemenite Jewish community in San’a, for example, which had numbered about 10,000, only about one tenth, i.e., 1,000, survived this catastrophic exile. [78]

Brief modern examples, presented below, illustrate the ongoing relevance of two Jewish archetypes from the hadith as sources of Islamic antisemitism.

The Qur’anic curse (verse 2:61, repeated in 3:112) upon the Jews for (primarily) rejecting, even slaying Allah’s prophets, is updated with perfect archetypal logic in the canonical hadith allegation of Muhammad’s poisoning by a Khaybar Jewess, which culminates in his painful and protracted death. Eliz Sanasarian provides a striking contemporary (1980s) example from Iran which affirmed this hadith account as objective, factual history during the examination of young adult candidates for national teacher training programs. Sanasarian notes [79],

…the subject became one of the questions in the ideological test for the Teachers’ Training College where students were given a multiple-choice question in order to identify the instigator of the martyrdom of the Prophet Muhammad, the “correct” answer being “a Jewess.”

The 1988 Hamas Charter, in section 7 [80], quotes from the apocalyptic canonical hadith (“The hour of judgment shall not come until the Muslims fight the Jews and kill them, so that the Jews hide behind trees and stones, and each tree and stone will say: ‘Oh Muslim, oh servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him,’ except for the Gharqad tree, for it is the tree of the Jews.”), detailing one account of the Jews annihilation. And a British television investigation reported on January 11, 2007 revealed this eschatological theme was part of a video sermon during which a Sheikh (Feiz) could be seen, “…imitating the noise of a pig when referring to Jewish people [consistent with Qur’an 5:60], who he says will be killed (in a mass extermination) on the ‘day of judgment’”. A digital video disc (DVD) format recording of this sermon was sold at the London Central Mosque, “one of London’s most established mosques”, in Regents Park. [81] Such contemporary eschatological antisemitism began to be popularized two decades ago when the Egyptian writer Sayyid Ayyub started publishing works in Arabic maintaining that the Dajjal was already active on Earth, and that he was Jewish. [82] Ayyub’s view was reiterated more recently by an Indian Muslim writer, Mohamad Yasin Owadally [83], who is convinced that “the Jews are waiting impatiently for the coming of Dajjal, their beloved king [84],” because [85]:

Zionists in their bloodthirsty lust for power are not satisfied with Palestine. In their arrogance, they openly admit that they want all Syria…LebanonJordan…Iraq…Iskenderun [former Alexandretta, in southwestern Turkey]…the Sinai…the Delta area of Egypt and the Upper Hejaz and Najd….They even want the holy Medinah ….Their main aim is to exterminate Islam

Antisemitism in the The Early Muslim Biographies of Muhammad (Sira; Sirat)

Sīra, which can mean “epistle”, “pamphlet”, or “manifesto”, also means “biography”, “…the life and times of…”. The most widely used names for the traditional early Muslim accounts of Muhammad’s life and background are “The sīra”, “sīrat rasūl allāh”, or “sīra al-nabawiyya.” [86]

Ibn Ishaq of Medina (d. 767-770) [87], composed the earliest full-length biography of Muhammad, Sīrat Rasūl Allāh (Biography of the Prophet of Allah) [88], nearly 150 years after the Muslim prophet’s death. However, as Raven has observed, “…there has hardly been any written standard text by Ishaq himself…we depend upon his transmitters [89],” most notably Ibn Hisham’s (d. 834) selections from Ishaq’s work. [90] The combined efforts of Ibn Ishaq and Ibn Hishm produced a biography which placed Muhammad in the tradition of the earlier prophets, with Ibn Hisham (perhaps) focusing the perspective on ancient Arabia. [91] Two other important early Muslim biographies of Muhammad were composed by al-Wakidi (d. 822) [92], and his student and secretary, Ibn Sa‘d (d. 845). [93] The accounts by al-Wakidi (Kitāb al-Maghāzī) and Ibn Sa‘d (Kitāb al-Tabakāt al-kabīr), concentrate on the life and times of Muhammad, only [94], in particular the many battles, razzias (raids), and even political assassinations he led, or sanctioned. [95]

Michael Cook’s assessment of the sīra [96], including Ishaq’s foundational biography (which according to A. Guillaume, author of an authoritative modern English translation of Sīrat Rasūl Allāh [97] 277, “…had no serious rival…”), recalls the intractable limitations discussed earlier with regard to the hadith [98] as sources of objective history. On the one hand, Cook observes, there is a prevalent view [99],

…that the chains are genuine and the authorities are authors. Thus we can simply extend back the kind of reconstruction that works for the biographies of Ibn Ishaq’s day. For example, he and his contemporaries make frequent reference to Zuhri (d. 742), a major figure of the previous generation. An energetic researcher could then collect all the quotations relating to the life of Muhammad that are given on Zuhri’s authority, and hope to emerge with something like a reconstruction of his work. It would of course have to be conceded that the further back we go, the more blurred our reconstructions are likely to become. But this is a small price to pay for the overall assurance of the reliability of our sources. If these sources preserve for us a literature that reaches back to the contemporaries of Muhammad, and if they preserve the testimony of numerous independent witnesses, then there is little room for the skeptic in the study of Muhammad’s life.

Yet Cook also makes clear that [100],

…false ascription was rife among the eighth-century scholars, and that in any case Ibn Ishaq and his contemporaries were drawing on an oral tradition. Neither of these propositions is as arbitrary as it sounds. We have reason to believe that numerous traditions on questions of dogma and law were provided with spurious chains of authorities by those who put them in circulation; and at the same time we have much evidence of controversy in the eighth century as to whether it was permissible to reduce oral tradition to writing. The implications of this view for the reliability of our sources are clearly rather negative. If we cannot trust the chains of authorities, we can no longer claim to know that we have before us the separately transmitted accounts of independent witnesses; and if knowledge of the life of Muhammad was transmitted orally for a century before it was reduced to writing, then the chances are that the material will have undergone considerable alteration in the process.

Disregarding their validity as sources for the historical advent of Islam, what matters, ultimately is the lasting impact of the pious Muslim narrative as recorded in the sīra on Islamic doctrine and Muslim behavior. Robert Spencer’s 2006 biography of Muhammad elucidates this point [101]:

…it is less important to know what really happened in Muhammad’s life than what Muslims have generally accepted as having happened, for the latter still forms the foundation of Muslim belief, practice, and law.

Ibn Ishaq’s biography chronicles the evolution of Muhammad’s teaching and behaviors which accompanied the hijra, or migration to Medina from Mecca, in 622. Initially [102],

The apostle had not been given permission to fight, or allowed to shed blood…He had simply been ordered to call men to God and endure insult and forgive the ignorant. The Quraysh had persecuted his followers, seducing some from their religion, and exiling others from their country. They had to choose whether to give up their religion, be maltreated at home, or to flee the country, some to Abyssinia [Ethiopia], others to Medina.

Then after being “wronged” and “badly treated” Muhammad and his followers were enjoined to fight in self-defense [103]:

When Quraysh became insolent toward God and rejected his gracious purpose, accused his Prophet of lying, and ill-treated and exiled those who served Him and proclaimed His unity, believed in his prophet, and held fast to His religion, He gave permission to His apostle to fight and to protect himself against those who wronged them and treated them badly. The first verse which was sent down on this subject from what I have heard from ‘Urwa b. al-Zubayr and other learned persons was: [Qur’an 22:39-41] “Permission is given to those who fight because they have been wronged. God is well able to help them,—those who have been driven out of their houses without right only because they said God is our Lord. Had not God used some men to keep back others, cloisters and churches and oratories and mosques wherein the name of God is constantly mentioned would have been destroyed. Assuredly God will help those who help Him. God is Almighty. Those who if we make them strong in the land will establish prayer, pay the poor tax, enjoin kindness, and forbid iniquity. To God belongs the end of matters”. The meaning is: “I have allowed them to fight only because they have been unjustly treated while their sole offense against men has been that they worship God. When they are in the ascendant they will establish prayer, pay the poor tax, enjoin kindness, and forbid iniquity, i.e., the prophet and his companions, all of them.”

Robert Spencer emphasizes that the phrase, “When they are in the ascendant” refers to the establishment of a ruling Islamic community or state wherein Muslims will perform regularly prescribed prayer, pay the zakat (“poor tax”), and institute the Shari’a (Islamic Law). [104]

But the revelation process continues—Ibn Ishaq tellingly quotes Qur’an 2:193 sanctioning aggressive warfare—a doctrine which was ultimately elaborated into the uniquely Islamic institution of jihad. [105]

Then God sent down to him: “Fight them so that there be no more seduction [i.e., to idolatry; modern translations state “persecution”, or “oppression”], i.e., until no believer is seduced from his religion. “And the religion is God’s. i.e., until God alone is worshipped.

Such was the mindset when, according to Ibn Ishaq [106],

…the apostle commanded his companions, the emigrants of his people and those Muslims who were with him in Mecca, to emigrate and to link up with their brethren the Anṣār [107]

At the time of Muhammad’s arrival in Medina (622), several Jewish tribes, most importantly the Banu Qaynuqa, Banu Nadir, and Banu Qurayza inhabited the city. [108] Muslim sources described Medina (Yathrib) as having been a Jewish city founded by a Palestinian diaspora population which had survived the revolt against the Romans. Distinct from the nomadic Arab tribes, the Jews of the north Arabian peninsula were highly productive oasis farmers. These Jews were eventually joined by itinerant Arab tribes from southern Arabia who settled adjacent to them and transitioned to a sedentary existence. [109] The pagan Arab inhabitants of Medina in 622 were composed of two clans, the Aws and Khazraj (sometimes referred to collectively as Banu Qayla [110]). Bitter and sanguinary rivalries and divisions—the Jewish B. Nadir and B. Quraysh tribes siding with the Aws, the Jewish B. Qaynuqa with the Khazraj—had taken their toll on all these Medinan tribes. Soon after Muhammad reached Medina in September of 622, he purportedly created a federation consisting of the Medinan tribes and his followers from Mecca, based upon an agreement known as the Constitution of Medina. Ibn Ishaq describes this putative document, as follows [111]:

The apostle wrote a document concerning the emigrants and the helpers in which he made a friendly agreement with the Jews and established them in their religion and their property, and stated the reciprocal obligations…

Thorough analyses by modern scholars indicate that this constitution was part of Muhammad’s design to neutralize the Jews and establish a hegemonic order, which is in fact what occurred. The assessments of Julius Wellhausen (1889), A.J. Wensinck (1908), and Moshe Gil (1974), which concur on this critical argument, are presented chronologically.

Julius Wellhausen [112]:

I doubt that there was indeed a written agreement of which both parties had a copy. The Jews never referred to their document. The Banū Qurayza claimed that there was no agreement between them and Muhammad. Their leader Kacb ibn Asad, did not tear up a document, rather a shoelace, to demonstrate symbolically the breach with the Medinans. In any case, there cannot have been a general agreement with the Jews, but only special arrangements with individual clans, for the Jews were no political unit, rather each of their clans formed a confederation with the neighboring Arab clan. As far as I am concerned, Muhammad left the existing relations of individual Jewish clans with the families or clans of the aṇsār and incorporated them in the ummah. This was all he did. Muhammad had no direct relationship with the Jews but only by way of the aṇsār. It was only they who had obligations towards the Jews, and had to honor them. Muhamamd’s obligations derived from this, and it was only because of consideration for the aṇsār that he did not declare them fair game…In spite of what has been said, I do not doubt the authenticity of the constitution as transmitted by Ibn Isḥāq. But it did not represent an agreement with the Jews…

[Islamic] Tradition has a simple explanation why Muhammad’s relation with the Jews was so little affected by the agreement: Every hostile act of Muhammad was precipitated by the Jews and justified by planned or accomplished treachery, even though they had no intention openly to break the agreement. Muhammad himself supplies the interpretation in Koran 8:55-58 [113]: 293 “Lo! the worst of beasts in Allah's sight are the ungrateful who will not believe.[8:55]; Those of them with whom thou madest a treaty, and then at every opportunity they break their treaty, and they keep not duty (to Allah). [8:56]; If thou comest on them in the war, deal with them so as to strike fear in those who are behind them, that haply they may remember. [8:57]; And if thou fearest treachery from any folk, then throw back to them (their treaty) fairly. Lo! Allah loveth not the treacherous. [8:58]”

We, however, will find that it was Muhammad who committed the perfidy. He gladly used every chance to punish the Jews, and contrived to create reasons if there were none.

A.J. Wensinck [114]:

The constitution was no treaty concluded between muhājirūn, aṇsār, and the Jews. It was an edict defining the relation of the three parties; above them was Allah, i.e., Muhammad. It was evidence of his great authority that, after a short stay in Medina, he, the stranger could lay down the law for all segments of the population.

In religious matters the break with the Jews was irreconcilable. Muhammad did not express his annoyance over this. For the time being, he needed the Jews and included them in the ummah. His first plan failed; he had come to Medina hoping the town would soon be a religious unity as a theocratic monarchy under his leadership. If the Jews would have recognized him, this hope might have been realized…But the Jews showed no such inclination. What to do? They could not be attacked openly because Muhammad’s position was still insufficiently established. All he could do was to use them in his plans, or in any case, neutralize them.

When he realized that in the long run a common basis was impossible, he looked for an alternative which he found in the dogma of the religion of Abraham. The proclamation of this dogma coincided with the break with the Jews. Therefore, the constitution must have been written in the middle of the year 2 A.H. [year 2 after the hijra of 622; year 1 starts July 16, 622, and year 2 on July 5, 623] because the terminus ad quem [goal or finishing point] for dating the document is the battle of Badr in Ramaḍān 2 A.H. Quite clearly, it is unthinkable that after the battle of Badr Muhammad should have promised the Jews help against internal or external enemies, freedom of worship, or declared the territory of Yathrib [Medina] inviolable ground since he was on the point of attacking Banū Qaynuqāc. The battle of Badr gave Muhammad the opportunity to repeal all concessions made to the Jews. This victory was a success which increased his authority among Banū Qaylah [i.e., the Aws and Khazraj, or aṇsār] and allowed him to act with far greater confidence. From then on he felt he could do without the Jews; consequently he did not wait long to express his exasperation.

Moshe Gil [115]:

The document is better understood as an act of preparation for war, and not as its result. Through his alliance with the Arab tribes of Medina the Prophet gained enough strength to achieve a gradual anti-Jewish policy, despite the reluctance of his Medinese allies, who had formerly been those of the Jews…It is therefore an obvious alibi that Muslim sources have developed a tradition about a treaty between Muhammad and the Jews, be it this document or a lost one, as presumed by some modern scholars. Elsewhere, it is declared in complete sincerity that Muhammad, without invoking any treaty, simply asked the B. Qaynuqāc before taking action against them, to accept Islam. [116] 296 One of the ḥulafā’ [allies, confederates] cUbāda b. al-Ṣāmit of the clan B. cAwf declares that he takes as walīs [ruler] God and His Prophet, and renounces (abra’u) the ḥ̣ilf [oath, sworn alliance] with B. Qaynuqāc. cUbāda also says further to ‘Abdallah b. Ubayy: Taghayyarat al qulūbu wa-maḥā’l-islāmu’l-cuhūda (“The disposition of the hearts has changed and Islam has cancelled [any] treaties”). Usayd b. Ḥuḍayr, when reminded by the B. Qurayẓa about the fact that they are mawālī [clients, feudal tenants] of his tribe, the Aws, answers: “There is no cahd ill [contractual obligation] between us”. The document therefore, was not a covenant with the Jews. On the contrary, it was a formal statement of intent to disengage the Arab clans of Medina from the Jewish neighbors they had been allied with up to that time.

Hartwig Hirschfeld’s detailed analysis of Muhammad’s interactions with the Jews includes this opening summary of the “mutual disappointment” that characterized their relationship, and the predictably disastrous results for the Jews. [117]

The Jews, for their part, were singularly disappointed in their expectations. The way in which Muhammad understood revelation, his ignorance and his clumsiness in religious questions in no way encouraged them to greet him as their Messiah. He tried at first to win them over to his teachings by sweetness and persuasion; they replied by posing once again the questions that they had already asked him; his answers, filled with gross errors, provoked their laughter and mockery. From this, of course, resulted a deep hostility between Muhammad and the Jews, whose only crime was to pass a severe judgment on the enterprise of this Arab who styled himself “God’s prophet” and to find his conduct ridiculous, his knowledge false, and his regulations thoughtless. This judgment, which was well founded, was nevertheless politically incorrect [une faute politique], and the consequences thereof inevitably would prove to be disastrous for a minority that lacked direction or cohesion.

During his attempts at proselytization, Muhammad’s ignorance of Jewish doctrine was ridiculed by rabbis and Jewish poets. [118] Ibn Ishaq accuses them of “hostility…, envy, hatred, and malice because God ha[d] chosen his apostle from the Arabs” [119], consistent with the Muslim traditionalists perspective [120]:

It was the Jewish rabbis who used to annoy the apostle with questions and introduce confusion, so as to confound the truth with falsity. The Quran used to come down in reference to these questions of theirs, though some of the questions about what was allowed and forbidden came from the Muslims themselves.

In essence, Ibn Ishaq concedes, these Jews, especially the rabbis, made queries of
Muhammad [121]:

These were the Jewish rabbis, the rancorous opponents of the apostle and his companions, the men who asked questions, and stirred up trouble against Islam to try to extinguish it…

Ibn Ishaq records [122] one fortuitous conversion of a Jew to Islam—the rabbi ‘Abdallah b. Salam, whose example was followed by several members of the B. Qaynuqa tribe. [123] However, as Hirschfeld observes [124],

These conversions,…were still exceptional cases, and Islam had few initiates among the Jews. The followers of Mohammed were almost all uneducated, rough-hewn Arabs, ignorant even of the very principles of the religion that they had embraced. As for the Jews, they responded to the prophet’s advances with jesting. That is when Mohammed began to replace persuasion with violence; those who were not sincere in the Moslem beliefs, whether Jews or Arabs, were beaten and driven from the mosques. Abu Bakr [the first “rightly Guided Caliph”, d. 634] himself, who was usually so prudent and moderate, made his way into the Jewish school and rained blows upon the rabbi Finḥāṣ. To reward him for this exploit, Mohammed favored him with a revelation. [Qur’an 3:177-181/186]

Ibn Ishaq’s description of Abu Bakr’s outburst includes these details [125]: 305

Abu Bakr went into a Jewish school and found a good many men gathered round a certain Finḥāṣ, one of their learned rabbis, and another rabbi called Ashya‘. Abu Bakr called on the former to fear God and become a Muslim because he knew that Muhammad was the apostle of God who had brought the truth from Him and that they would find it written in the Torah and the Gospel. Finḥāṣ replied: “We are not poor compared to Allah but He is poor compared to us. We do not humble ourselves to Him as He humbles Himself to us; we are independent of Him while He needs us. Were He independent of us He would not ask us to lend Him our money as your master pretends, prohibiting you to take interest and allowing us to. Had He been independent of us He would not have given us interest.”

Abu Bakr was enraged and hit Finḥāṣ hard in the face, saying, “Were it not for the treaty between us I would cut off your head, you enemy of Allah!” Finḥāṣ immediately went to the apostle and said, “Look, Muhammad, at what your companion has done.” The apostle asked Abu Bakr what had impelled him to do such a thing and he answered: “The enemy of Allah spoke blasphemy. He alleged that Allah was poor and that they were rich and I was so angry that I hit his face.” Finḥāṣ contradicted this and denied that he had said it, so Allah sent down refuting him and confirming what Abu Bakr had said: “Allah has heard the speech of those who say: "Allah is poor and we are rich." We shall write what they say and their killing the prophets wrongfully and we shall say, Taste the punishment of burning.” [Qur’an 3:181]

And there came down concerning Abu Bakr and the anger that he felt: “And you will certainly hear from those who received the book before you and from the polytheists much wrong but if you persevere and fear God that is of the steadfastness of things.” [Qur’an 3:186]

Then He said concerning what Finḥāṣ and the other rabbis with him said: “And when God laid a charge upon those who had received the book: You are to make it clear to men and not to conceal it, they cast it behind their backs and sold it for a small price. Wretched is the exchange! Think not that those who rejoice in what they have done and want to be praised for what they have not done-think not that they will escape the punishment: theirs will be a painful punishment.” [Qur’an 3:187] He means Finḥāṣ and Ashya‘ and the rabbis like them who rejoice in what they enjoy of worldly things by making error attractive to men and wish to be praised for what they have not done so that men will say they are learned when they are nothing of the kind, not bringing them to truth and guidance and wanting men to say that they have so done.

At about the same time, Muhammad is said to have written a letter to the Jews of Khaybar (then mostly belonging to the B. Nadir tribe), attempting to convert them to Islam. This appeal was to no avail [126], as were others, despite Muhammad’s proselytizing zeal. [127] The Jews stubborn refusal to convert to Islam altered, decisively, the trajectory of Muhammad’s religious thinking, as characterized by Hirschfeld [128]:

The resistance that the Jews put up to all attempts at converting them changed in a singular manner the direction of Muhammad’s religious thinking. Until then he had adopted Jewish ceremonies for his new religion; he had been turning toward Jerusalem to pray and had used the same method as the Jews of calling the faithful together to prayer…finally, he had the faithful summoned from the top of a tower by a man’s voice. Then he commanded the Muslims to turn toward Mecca while they prayed. This sudden change, to his way of thinking, had a twofold purpose: to show the Jews that he was making himself independent of their laws, and to flatter the national self-esteem of the Arabs. Although he responded weakly to the Jews who were astonished at this change, there is nevertheless no doubt about his real sentiment.

It was around that time that Muhammad inaugurated a new system of propaganda to recruit followers and to put an end to opposition against his teachings: he used force. Upon learning that a caravan of Quraysh was about to get under way, he instructed a certain number of his friends to position themselves in ambush so as to attack the travelers. One of the Quraysh was killed, two others were taken captive, while the fourth fled. This incident took place during the holy month of the Arabs, in which it was forbidden to engage in battle. Muhammad, who had even shared with the murderers in the spoils from his enemies, justified his conduct and that of his friends by means of a new revelation. (Qur’an 2:217) [129] The Jews vehemently scoffed at this modus operandi of the prophet, who of course resolved that he would take revenge on his adversaries as soon as circumstances would allow.

The Battle of Badr—during which the Muslims, aided by Allah and a thousand angels—killed 49 Meccans, took an equal number prisoner, and acquired considerable booty—established the power of nascent Islam. [130] Afterward, Muhammad launched a campaign of political assassinations of Jewish (or presumptively Jewish) poets and leaders. [131] These assassinations were followed by the siege, expropriation, and expulsion of the Medinan Jewish tribes B. Qaynuqa and B. Nadir, and the subsequent massacre of the Jewish men of the B. Qurayza whose wives, children, and possessions were then seized as booty by the Muslims. [132]

Asma, daughter of Marwan, wrote satirical verses against Muhammad, so he ordered her assassination. [133] Hirschfeld writes that Muslim traditionalists (such as Wakidi) “…justify this murder by saying that this woman was Jewish and defiled the mosques.” [134] The following is William Muir’s description of Asma’s assassination and its aftermath, according to the sira [135]:

The first blood shed at Medina with the countenance of Mahomet was that of a woman. Asma, daughter of Marwan, belonged to a disaffected tribe, the Bani Aus, and to a family which had not yet thrown off their ancestral faith. She made no secret of her dislike to Islam; and being a poetess, composed some couplets, after the battle of Bedr [Badr], on the folly of her fellow citizens in receiving and trusting one who had slain the chief men amongst his own people. The verses spread from mouth to mouth (for such was one of the few means possessed by the Arabs of giving expression to public opinion), and at least reached the ears of the Mussulmans. They were offended; and Omeir, a blind man of the same tribe (and according to some a former husband of Asma) vowed that he would kill the author. It was but a few days after the return of Mahomet from Bedr, that this man, in the dead of night, crept into the apartment where, surrounded by her little ones, Asma lay asleep. Feeling stealthily with his hand, he removed her infant from her breast, and plunged his sword into her bosom with such force that it passed through her back. Next morning, being present in the Mosque at prayers, Mahomet, who was aware of the bloody design, said to Omeir: “Hast thou slain the daughter of Marwan?” “Yes”, he answered; “but tell me is there any cause of apprehension for what I have done?” “None”, said Mahomet; “a couple of goats will not knock their haeds together for it.” Then turning to the people assembled in the Mosque, he said: “If ye desire to see a man that hath assisted the Lord and his Propeht, look ye here! “What!” Omar exclaimed, “the blind Omeir!” “Nay”, replied the Prophet, “call him not blind; rather call him Omeir the Seeing”.

As the assassin returned to his home in Upper Medina, he passed the sons of Asma burying their mother; they accused him of the murder, which without compunction he avowed, and added that if they dared to repeat such things as she had uttered, he would slay the whole clan of them. The bloody threat had the desired effect. Those of the family who had secretly espoused the cause of Mahomet, now succumbed before the fierce determination and growing influence of the Prophet’s followers. Indeed, as Sprenger [136] remarks, the only course by which they could now preserve their honor without entering on a hopeless blood-feud, was the adoption of Islam.

Soon afterwards, another (Jewish) poet who dared to write verses critical of Muhammad, Abu ‘Afak, reportedly a centenarian, was assassinated on Muhammad’s order, while he slept. Muir provides these details [137]:

Many weeks did not elapse before another foul murder was committed by the express command of Mahomet. Abu Afak belonged to the Bani Amr (whose doubtful loyalty is marked by the message sent to them by Mahomet on his march to Bedr); he had embraced Judaism, but still lived with his tribe in Upper Medina. Though (as is said) above a hundred years of age he was active in his opposition to the new religion. He, too, composed some stinging and disloyal verses which annoyed the Mussulmans. The Prophet signified his wish for his assassination by saying: “Who will rid me of this pestilent fellow?” A convert from amongst the Bani Amr watched his opportunity, and falling unawares upon the aged man, as he slept in the court-yard outside his house, dispatched him with his sword. The death shriek of the Jew drew the neighbors to the spot; but though they vowed vengeance against the murderer, he escaped unrecognized.

Attempting to exploit the fear aroused by these assassinations [138], Muhammad admonished the Jews of Medina (specifically, the B. Qaynuqa) one more time to convert to Islam. Ibn Ishaq records this threatening appeal, and the associated Qur’anic revelation (3:12-3:13) [139]:

The apostle assembled them in their market and addressed them as follows: “O Jews, beware lest God bring upon you the vengeance that He brought upon Quraysh and become Muslims. You know that I am a prophet who has been sent – you will find that in your scriptures and God's covenant with you.” They replied, “O Muhammad, you seem to think that we are your people. Do not deceive yourself because you encountered a people with 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!”

A freedman of the family of Zayd b. Thabit from Sa'id b. Jubayr or from ‘Ikrima from Ibn ‘Abbas told me that the latter said the following verses came down about them: “Say to those who disbelieve: you will be vanquished and gathered to Hell, an evil resting place. You have already had a sign in the two forces which met, i.e. the apostle's companions at Badr and the Quraysh. “One force fought in the way of God; the other, disbelievers, thought they saw double their own force with their very eyes. God strengthens with His help whom He will. Verily in that is an example for the discerning.”

Once the B. Qaynuqa defied this threat the outcome was predictable. Muir recounts the events leading to their subjugation and expulsion from Medina [140]:

An incident soon occurred which afforded the pretext for an attack. An Arab girl married to a convert of Medina, went to a goldsmith’s shop in the marketplace of the Cainucaa [B. Qaynuqa], and, while waiting for some ornaments, sat down. A silly neighbor, unperceived, pinned the lower hem of her skirt behind to the upper dress. When she arose, the awkward exposure excited laughter, and she screamed with shame. A Mussulman, being apprised of the affront, slew the offending Jew; the brethren of the Jew, in their trun fell upon the Mussulman and killed him. The family of the murdered Mussulman appealed to the converts of Medina, who espoused their cause. Though bound by a friendly treaty, Mahomet made no attempt to compose the quarrel, nor any demand that the guilty should be singled out and brought to justice. Without further communication, he marshaled his followers, and, placing the great white banner in the hands of Hamza, marched forth to attack the offending tribe. Their settlement was sufficiently fortified to resist assault. It was therefore invested, and a strict blockade maintained. This happened within one month from the Battle of Bedr.

The Bani Cainucaa were besieged closely by Mahomet for fifteen days. They had expected that Abdallah ibn Obey and the Bani Khazraj, with whom they had long been in close bonds of defensive alliance, would have interfered in their behalf; but no one dared to stir. At last, despairing of the looked-for aid, they surrendered at discretion. As, one by one, they issued from the stronghold, their hands were tied behind their backs, and preparations made for execution. But Abdallah, fallen as he was from his high estate, could not endure to see his faithful allies massacred in cold blood. Approaching Mahomet, he begged for mercy to be shown them; but Mahomet turned his face away. Abdallah persisted in his suit, and seizing the Prophet by the side, as he stood armed in his coat of mail, reiterated the petition. “Let me alone!” cried Mahomet; but Abdallah did not relax his hold. The marks of anger mantled in the Prophet’s face, and again he exclaimed loudly: “Wretch, let me go!” “Nay!” said Abdallah, “I will not let thee go until thou hast compassion on my friends; 300 soldiers armed in mail, and 400 unequipped—they defended me on the fields of Hadaick and Boath from every foe. Wilt thou cut them down in one day, O Mahomet? As for me, I am one that verily feareth the vicissitudes of fortune.” Abdallah was yet too strong for Mahomet with safety to neglect the appeal so urgently preferred. “Let them go!” the Prophet said, reluctantly; “God curse them, and God curse him also!” So Mahomet released them from death, and commanded that they should be sent into exile. They were lead forth some distance by Obada, one of the Khazrajite “leaders;” thence they proceeded to the Jewish settlement of Wadi al Cora, and, there being assisted with carriage, reached Adzraat, a territory on the confines of Syria.

The spoil consisted mainly of armor and goldsmiths’ tools, for that was the chief occupation of the tribe: they possessed no agricultural property, nor any fields. Mahomet took his choice of arms—three bows, three swords, and two coats of mail. The royal fifth was then set aside, and the remainder distributed amongst the army.

Muhammad’s ultimate political goals vis a vis the Jews were becoming quite apparent [141]:

The Jews might now see clearly the designs of Mahomet. It was no petty question of an affronted female. Blood had no doubt been shed in the quarrel; but it was shed equally on both sides. And had there not been a deadly enmity, and a predetermination to root out the Israelites, the difference might easily have been composed. Moreover Mahomet was bound by treaty to deal justly and amicably with the tribe: the murderer alone was “liable to retaliation”. Indeed, of such minor importance was the quarrel, that some biographers do not mention it at ll, but justify the attack by a divine revelation of Jewish treachery. The violent proceedings of Mahomet widened also to some extent the breach between his followers and the disaffected citizens. Abdallah thus upbraided Obada (they were both principals in the confederacy with the Bani Cainucaa) for the part he had taken in abandoning their allies, and aiding in their exile: “What! Art thou free from the oath with which we ratified their alliance? Hast thou forgotten how they stood by us, and shed for us their blood, on such and such a field?”—and he bgean enumerating the engagements in which they had fought together. Obada cut him short with the decisive answer: “Hearts have changed. Islam hath blotted all treaties out.”

The expulsion of the B. Qaynuqa made the remaining Jewish tribes of Medina more vulnerable. Following a series of caravan raids (of varied success), and an interlude of calm [142], Muhammad began a renewed campaign of assassinations starting with the murder of Ka’b b. al ‘Ashraf, the son of a Jewess from the B. Nadir. Ibn Warraq summarizes the events surrounding this assassination [143]:

He [Ka’b] had gone to Mecca after the battle of Badr and had composed poems in praise of the dead, trying to stir up the Meccans to avenge their heroes of Badr. Rather foolishly he returned to Medina, where Muhammad prayed aloud, “O Lord, deliver me from the son of Ashraf, in whatsoever way it seems good to you, because of his open sedition and his verses.” But the Banu Nadir were powerful enough to protect Ka’b, and the Muslims who volunteered to murder him explained to the Prophet that only by cunning could they hope to accomplish their task. The conspirators met in Muhamamd’s house, and as they emerged at night, the Prophet gave them his full blessings. Pretending to be Ka’b’s friends, the Muslims lured him out into the night and, in a suitable spot near a waterfall, murdered him. They threw Ka’b’s head at the Prophet’s feet. Muhammad praised their good work in the cause of God.

Ibn Ishaq records these telling words of one of the conspirators [144]:

Our attack upon God’s enemy cast terror among the Jews, and there was no Jew in Medina who did not fear for his life.

Indeed this fear was well founded, as on the very morning after Ka’b’s murder, Muhammad encouraged the Muslims to slay Jews indiscriminately, according to Ibn Ishaq [145]:

The apostle said, “Kill any Jew that fails into your power.” Thereupon Muhayyisa b. Mas'ud leapt upon Ibn Sunayna, a Jewish merchant with whom they had social and business relations, and killed him. Huwayyisa was not a Muslim at the time though he was the elder brother. When Muhayyisa killed him Huwayyisa began to beat him, saying, “You enemy of God, did you kill him when much of the fat on your belly comes from his wealth?” Muhayyisa answered, “Had the one who ordered me to kill him ordered me to kill you I would have cut your head off.” He said that this was the beginning of Huwayyisa's acceptance of Islam. The other replied, “By God, if Muhammad had ordered you to kill me would you have killed me?” He said, “Yes, by God, had he ordered me to cut off your head I would have done so.” He exclaimed, “By God, a religion which can bring you to this is marvelous!” and he became a Muslim.

Not surprisingly, as Muir notes [146],

The Jews were now in extreme alarm. None ventured abroad. Every family lived in fear of a night attack; every individual dreaded the fate of Kab and Ibn Sanin…the Jews thenceforward lived (as well they might) in a state of depression and disquietude.

Clearly these murders, particularly of Ka’b, were a prelude to a general attack on the B. Nadir. But this enterprise was delayed by the Muslims defeat at Uhud (A.H.3; 625 C.E.), a setback to Muhammad’s power and prestige. [147] Hirschfeld characterizes his inevitable course of action [148]:

In order to restore his military glory and avenge their insults—the mere memory of which roused his indignation—the prophet resolved to have done with the Jews. Furthermore he felt encouraged by the calm and indifference with which they had witnessed the expulsion of the Banu Qaynuqa and the murder of Ka’b.

The alleged pretext for Muhammad’s campaign against the B. Nadir, and the results of the Muslims attack, are summarized by Hirschfeld, as follows [149]:

A Muslim had killed two members of the Banu Amir tribe. Muhammad, accompanied by Abu Bakr, Umar and Ali, went to the Banu Nadir and asked them to join with him in apologizing for that double murder. His friends waited for him at the entrance to his dwelling; they saw him return in great haste. Muhammad told them that a divine revelation warned him that the Jew ‘Amr b. Jiḥāsh (b. Ka’b), refusing to obey the orders of Sallam b. Mishkam, was planning to throw a rock down on him from the height of his citadel so as to kill him. This accusation was certainly false and only served as a pretext to attack the Banu Nadir, whose destruction had been decided long ago. Muhammad laid siege to the citadels of his enemies and, contrary to all customs, gave orders to burn and cut down the palm trees at Boeira. Abdallah b. Ubayy urged those who were under siege not to persist, and he promised to intercede in their favor with the prophet. The latter agreed to allow the Banu Nadir to come out of their fortresses, unarmed, and he permitted each group of three persons to take with them a camel’s load of their belongings. The Banu Nadir accepted these conditions, loaded their beasts, carrying off the wooden materials of which their houses were built, and withdrew, to the sound of music, to the North, where they settled, partly in Khaybar, partly in Adzraât in Syria. Among those who decided to stay in Khaybar were the brother and the sons of Kinana Rabi b. Abu’l-Huqayq and the rabbi Huyayy. Two Banu Nadir, Yāmīn b. cUmayr and Abou Sad b. Wahb, embraced Islam in order to save their fortune and remain in Medina. The lands and houses of the emigrants were divided up among the Muslims.

Hirschfeld concludes that the forced emigration of the B. Nadir resulted from a lack of “energy, resolve, and unity”, compounded by a fearful awareness “…they would not be able to continue living in a land where betrayal and murder prevailed, and where their adversaries would surely increase in numbers and strength over time.”[150] Muhammad, in contrast, was well aware of the bounty of the exiled B. Nadir, whose lands and possessions became Muslim booty, celebrated in Qur’an 59: 1-10, and subsequently codified into Islamic Law (as “fay territory” etc.) [151] Ibn Ishaq emphasizes how this “Sura (Sura 59) of Exile” [152],

…came down in which is recorded how God wreaked His vengeance on them [the Jews] and gave His apostle power over them and how He dealt with them. God said: “He it is who turned out those who disbelieved of the scripture people from their homes to the first exile. You did not think that they would go out and they thought that their forts would protect them from God. But God came upon them from a direction they had not reckoned and He cast terror into their hearts so that they destroyed their houses with their own hands and the hands of the believers.” That refers to their destroying their houses to extract the lintels of the doors when they carried them away. “So consider this, you who have understanding. Had not God prescribed deportation against them,” which was vengeance from God, “He would have punished them in this world,” i.e. with the sword, “and in the next world there would be the punishment of hell” as well. “The palm-trees which you cut down or left standing upon their roots.” Lina means other than the best kind of dates. “It was by God's permission,” i.e. they were cut down by God's order; it was not destruction but was vengeance from God, “and to humble evil­doers. “The spoil which God gave the apostle from them,” i.e., from B. al-Nadir. “You did not urge on your cavalry or riding camels for the sake of it, but God gives His apostle power over whom He wills and God is Almighty,” i.e., it was peculiar to him , “The spoil which God gave the apostle from the people of the towns belongs to God and His apostle.” What the Muslims gallop against with horses and camels and what is captured by force of arms belongs to God and the apostle. “And is for the next of kin and orphans and the poor and the wayfarer so that it should not circulate among your rich men; and what the apostle gives you take and abstain from what he forbids you.” He says this is another division between Muslims concerning what is taken in war according to what God prescribed to him.

Then God said, “Have you seen those who are disaffected,” meaning ‘Abdullah b. Ubayy and his companions and those who are like-minded “who say to their brothers of the scripture people who disbelieve,” i.e. the B. Al-Nadir, up to the words “like those who a short time before them tasted the misery of their acts and had a painful punishment,” i.e. the B. Qaynuqa. Then as far as the words “Like Satan when he said to man Disbelieve”, and when man disbelieved he said, “I am quit of you. I fear Allah the Lord of the worlds and the punishment of both is that they will be in hell ever­lastingly. That is the reward of the evildoers.”

The last remaining Jewish tribe in Medina was Banu Qurayza. During the Battle of the Trench (627), when the Meccans and their allies had besieged Medina, B. Qurayza contributed to the city’s defense, but on the whole remained neutral. [153] After a fortuitous storm helped break the siege, the loyalty of the B. Qurayza was questioned, and Muhammad, inspired by another divine revelation, moved against them. [154] When Muhammad approached the fortifications of the B. Qurayza, according to Ibn Ishaq, he declared, “You brothers of apes, has God disgraced you and brought his vengeance upon you?” [155]

A consensus Muslim account of the subsequent events which lead to the massacre of the B. Qurayza has been compiled by M.J. Kister. [156] Twice the Qurayza made offers to surrender, and depart from their stronghold, leaving behind their land and property. Initially they requested to take one camel load of possessions per person, but when Muhammad refused this request, the Qurayza asked to be allowed to depart without any property, taking with them only their families. However, Muhammad insisted that the Qurayza surrender unconditionally and subject themselves to his judgment. Compelled to surrender, the Qurayza were lead to Medina. The men with their hands pinioned behind their backs, were put in a court, while the women and children were said to have been put into a separate court. A third (and final) appeal for leniency for the Qurayza was made to Muhammad by their tribal allies the Aws. Muhammad again declined, and instead he appointed as arbiter Sa’d Mu’ad from the Aws, who soon rendered his concise verdict: the men were to be put to death, the women and children sold into slavery, the spoils to be divided among the Muslims.

Muhammad ratified the judgment stating that Sa’d’s decree was a decree of Allah pronounced from above the Seven Heavens. Thus some 600 to 900 men from the Qurayza were lead on Muhammad’s order to the Market of Medina. Trenches were dug and the men were beheaded, and their decapitated corpses buried in the trenches while Muhammad watched in attendance. Male youths who had not reached puberty were spared. Women and children were sold into slavery, a number of them being distributed as gifts among Muhammad’s companions. According to Ibn Ishaq, Muhammad chose one of the Qurayza women (Rayhana) for himself. The Qurayza’s property and other possessions (including weapons) were also divided up as additional “booty” among the Muslims. The following details have been chronicled consistently by Muslim sources: the arbiter (Sa’d Mu’ad) was appointed by Muhammad himself; Muhammad observed in person the horrific executions; Muhammad claimed as a wife a woman (Rayhana) previously married to one of the slaughtered Qurayza tribesmen; the substantial material benefits (i.e., property; receipts from the sale of the enslaved) which accrued to the Muslims as a result of the massacre; the extinction of the Qurayza.

Abu Yusuf (d. 798), the prominent Hanafi jurist who advised Abbasid Caliph Harun al-Rashid (d. 809), made the following observations about the Qurayza massacre in his writings on
jihad: [157]

Whenever the Muslims besiege an enemy stronghold, establish a treaty with the besieged who agree to surrender on certain conditions that will be decided by a delegate, and this man decides that their soldiers are to be executed and their women and children taken prisoner, this decision is lawful. This was the decision of Sa’ad b. Mu’ad in connection with the Banu Qurayza…it is up to the imam to decide what treatment is to be meted out to them and he will choose that which is preferable for religion and for Islam. If he esteems that the execution of the fighting men and the enslavement of their women and children is better for Islam and its followers, then he will act thus, emulating the example of Sa’ad b. Mu’ad.

Al-Mawardi (d. 1072), another eminent Muslim jurist from Baghdad, characterized the slaughter of the Qurayza as a religious duty incumbent on Muhammad. Kister quotes al-Mawardi as follows: “…it was not permitted (for Muhammad) to forgive (in a case of ) God’s injunction incumbent upon them; he could only forgive (transgressions) in matters concerning his own person.” [158] The notion that this slaughter was sanctioned by God as revealed to Muhammad was, according to Kister, reflective of “…the current (as of 1986) Sunni view about the slaughter of the Banu Qurayza.” [159]

W.H.T. Gairdner, also relying exclusively upon Muslim sources characterizing the slaughter of the Qurayza, highlights the pivotal role that Muhammad himself played in orchestrating the overall events: [160]

The umpire who gave the fatal decision (Sa’ad) was extravagantly praised by Muhammad. Yet his action was wholly and admittedly due to his lust for personal vengeance on a tribe which had occasioned him a painful wound. In the agony of its treatment he cried out- “O God, let not my soul go forth ere thou has cooled my eye from the Bani Quraiza”. This was the arbiter to whose word the fate of that tribe was given over. His sentiments were well-known to Muhammad, who appointed him. It is perfectly clear from that that their slaughter had been decreed. What makes it clearer still is the assertion of another biographer that Muhammad had refused to treat with the Bani Quraiza at all until they had “come down to receive the judgment of the Apostle of God”. Accordingly “they came down”; in other words put themselves in his power. And only then was the arbitration of Sa’ad proposed and accepted- but not accepted until it had been forced on him by Muhammad; for Sa’ad first declined and tried to make Muhammad take the responsibility, but was told “qad amarak Allahu takhuma fihim” “Allah has commanded you to give sentence in their case”. From every point of view therefore the evidence is simply crushing that Muhammad was the ultimate author of this massacre.

In the immediate aftermath of the massacre, the Muslims benefited substantially from the Qurayza’s assets which they seized as booty. The land and property acquired helped the Muslims gain their economic independence. The military strength of the Muslim community of Medina grew due to the weapons obtained, and the fact that captured women and children taken as slaves were sold for horses and more weapons, facilitating enlargement of the Muslim armed forces for further conquests. Conversely, the Jewish tribe of the Qurayza ceased to exist.

Muhammad prepared for his campaign against Khaybar—a farming oasis and the last Jewish stronghold in Northern Arabia, where survivors (most notably, the B. Nadir) of the Muslims earlier attacks on Medinan Jewry had also sought refuge—by two further political assassinations. Hirschfeld describes these murders of prominent Khaybar Jews [161]:

Abu Rafi Sallam b. Abu’l-Huqayq was in Khaybar. Muhammad, who feared that he might cause him difficulties, sent murderers after him. Five men from the tribe of the Khazraj traveled to Khaybar, slipped into Sallam’s dwelling at night and closed the doors. Sallam was on the upper floor; his wife went down and asked the men what they wanted. They replied that they had come to buy some wheat, entered the chamber where Sallam was in bed, and stabbed him. At the cries of the victim’s wife, some Jews came running with torches, but the murderers had managed to escape.After the death of Sallâm, the chieftain of the Jews of Khaybar was Al-Yoseir b. Rizâm. Since the latter was one of those who had incited the Ghatafan to attack the prophet, Muhammad sent against him a band of assassins headed by the poet Abdallâh b. Rawâha, which included the murderers of Abu Rafi Sallam. Their plan failed, but they managed to persuade Al-Yoseir that Muhammad was summoning him to appoint him to an important position. Seduced by that promise, he left for Medina, accompanied by several friends. Along the way, the men who had been sent by Muhammad attacked those who had trusted their words and killed them.

Ibn Ishaq’s account of Abu Rafi Sallam b. Abu’l-Huqayq’s assassionation spares none of the gruesome details [162]:

When they [the Muslim assassins] got to Khaybar they went to Sallam’s house by night, having locked every door in the settlement on the inhabitants. Now he was in an upper chamber of his to which a ladder led up. They mounted this until they came to the door and asked to be allowed to come in. His wife came out and asked who they were and they told her that they were Arabs in search of supplies. She told them that their man was here and that they could come in. When we entered I we bolted the door of the room on her and ourselves fearing lest something should come between us and him. His wife shrieked and warned him of us, so we ran at him with our swords as he was on his bed. The only thing that guided us in the darkness of the night was his whiteness like an Egyptian blanket. When his wife shrieked one of our number would lift his sword against her; then he would remember the apostle's ban on killing women and withdraw his hand; but for that we would have made an end of her that night. When we had smitten him with our swords 'Abdullah b. Unays bore down with his sword into his belly until it went right through him, as he was saying “Qaṭnī, qạtnī” i.e. “It's enough.”

We [the Muslim assassins] went out. Now ‘Abdullah b. ‘Atik had poor sight, and fell from the ladder and sprained his arm severely, so we carried him until we brought him to one of their water channels and went into it. The people lit lamps and went in search of us in all directions until, despairing of find­ing us, they returned to their master and gathered round him as he was dying. We asked each other how we could know that the enemy of God was dead, and one of us volunteered to go and see; so off he went and mingled with the people. He said, “I found his wife and some Jews gathered round him. She had a lamp in her hand and was peering into his face and saying to them ‘By God, I certainly heard the voice of 'Abdullah b. 'Atik. Then I decided I must be wrong and thought ‘How can Ibn 'Atik be in this country?’” Then she turned towards him, looking into his face, and said, 'By the God of the Jews he is dead!' Never have I heard sweeter words than those.

Then he came to us and told us the news, and we picked up our companion and took him to the apostle and told him that we had killed God's enemy . We disputed before him as to who had killed him, each of us laying claim to the deed. The apostle demanded to see our swords and when he looked at them he said, “It is the sword of ‘Abdullah b. Unays that killed him; I can see traces of food on it.”

The brutal, sanguinary assaults by the Muslims which ensued shortly afterwards resulted in the complete subjugation of the Jews of Khaybar (and by extension, Fadak), as summarized by Hirschfeld [163]:

These murders were the prelude to a general attack against the Israelites of Khaybar. Muhammad, at the head of 1,400 foot soldiers and 300 horsemen, marched against that city and arrived during the night. In the morning the Israelites, going out to the fields as usual, noticed armed Muslims everywhere.

Little by little all the forts fell into the hands of the Muslims, with the exception of Wâtih and Solâlim. A great number of Jews were taken prisoner, among them Kinana b. Ar-Rabi b. Abu’l-Huqayq and his fiancée, Safiyya daughter of Huyayy. Safiyya was very beautiful, and Muhammad wanted to take her as his wife; he summoned her fiancé Kinana, and under the pretext of making him tell where he had hidden the treasures of the Banu Nadir that had been entrusted to his protection, he subjected him to atrocious tortures, put him to death, and then married Saffiya. All the combatants who were captured with weapons in hand were killed; almost nine hundred died in this way.

The two other forts that were still putting up resistance surrendered shortly after to the Muslims. The soldiers’ lives were spared, but they had to hand over all their treasures to Muhammad and abandon their lands to the victors. However, since they were better farmers than the Muslims, they could continue to cultivate these lands, on the condition that they would deliver half of the harvest to their masters and leave the countryside as soon as Muhammad demanded it. The Jews of Fadak, whose chieftain was named Youschah b. Noun, and those of Teimâ and Wâdi-l-Kôrâ, terrified by the defeat of the inhabitants of Khaybar, likewise submitted to Muhammad

Ibn Ishaq chronicled the torture-murder of Kinana b. Ar-Rabi b. Abu’l-Huqayq, on Muhammad’s orders, as follows [164]:

When he [Muhammad] asked him [Kinana] about the rest [of the treasure] he refused to produce it, so the apostle gave orders to al-Zubayr b. al-'Awwam, “Torture him until you extract what he has,” so he kindled a fire with flint and steel on his chest until he was nearly dead. Then the apostle delivered him to Muhammad b. Maslama and he struck off his head, in revenge for his brother Mahmud.

Following the conquest of Khaybar, the hadith and sira accounts refer to an event which updates with impeccable logic the Qur’anic curse upon the Jews (2:61) for having wrongfully slain Allah’s earlier prophets—a Khaybar Jewess is accused of serving Muhammad poisoned mutton (or goat), leading ultimately to his protracted and painful death. [165] Ibn Sa‘d’s sira (Kitab Al-Tabaqat Al-Kabir) focuses on the Jewish conspiracy behind this poisoning, while insisting adamantly that the Khaybar Jewess perpetrator was put to death [166]:

The Jews discussed about poisons and became united in one poison. She [a Khaybar Jewess, Zaynab Bint al-Harith] poisoned the goat putting more poison in the forelegs…The Apostle of Allah took the foreleg, a piece of which he put into his mouth...The Apostle of Allah sent for Zaynab Bint al-Harith [and]…handed her over to the heirs of Bishr Ibn al-Barra [who the Jewess had also poisoned, leading to his rapid death] who put her to death. This is the approved version [emphasis added]…The Apostle of Allah lived after this three years, till in consequence of his pain he passed away. During his illness he used to say: I did not cease to find the effect of the poisoned morsel I took at Khaybar…

The political rationale for Muhammad’s campaign against Khaybar has been discussed by Hirschfeld and D.S. Margoliouth. Hirschfeld, in his review [167] of Leone Caetani’s Annali dell Islam, agrees with the latter’s assessment,

The author [Caetani] is undoubtedly right in saying that the reasons given by the Muslim traditionalists are worthless, as Muhammad’s real motive was a purely political one, an additional motive being the opportunity which it gave of employing a number of followers unskilled in work but eager for spoil.

Hirschfeld then adds, based upon his own research of the documentary record [168],

The expedition against Khaybar was a distinct breach of faith, as two years previously Muhammad had given the Jews of Khaybar and Maqna a charter of liberty which has fortunately been preserved, and traces of which are also to be found in the works of al-Wakidi and al-Baladhuri.

Margoliouth expands upon these arguments, and concludes [169],

…in plundering Meccans he [Muhammad] could plead that he had been driven from his home and possessions: and with the Jewish tribes of Medina he had in each case some outrage, real or pretended, to avenge. But the people of Khaybar, all that distance from Medina, had certainly done him and his followers no wrong: for their leaving unavenged the murder of one [170] of their number by his emissary was no act of aggression. Ali, when told to lead the forces against them, had to enquire for what he was fighting: and was told that he must compel them to adopt the formulae of Islam. Khaybar was attacked because there was booty to be acquired there, and the plea for attacking it was that its inhabitants were not Muslims.

Georges Vajda, in turn, reminds us of the theological animus which motivated Muhammad’s political subjugation of the Jews, specifically, and became an indelible part of Muslim attitudes toward Jews across space and time. [171]

The more Mohammed advanced his career in Medina, the more his resentment against Jews grew. This evolution was rather natural since the Jews, not content with disappointing his expectations of seeing them rally unreservedly to his cause, riddled him with sarcasm, cast doubt on the authenticity of his prophetic mission, and lastly had the fault of possessing vast resources in chattels and land, which the prophet could not do without in order to secure his domination in Medina and the execution of vast projects of religious and political conquest.

Muhammad’s campaigns against the Jews of Northern Arabia (i.e., Medina and Khaybar) may have had both near and long term ramifications: the launching of the Great Jihad [172] which would subject the major Jewish communities of the Near East to Muslim conquest and colonization, and the imposition of Islamic Law. Although Antisemitic Islamic motifs from the hadith, and sira were much more commonly employed in daily life as a form of chronic discrimination against Jews—sanctioned by Islamic Law—they have also been used to incite, more extensive persecutions, including mass violence against Jewish communities. [173]

The rise of Jewish nationalism—Zionism—posed a predictable, if completely unacceptable challenge to the Islamic order—jihad-imposed chronic dhimmitude for Jews—of apocalyptic magnitude. As Bat Ye’or has explained [174],

…because divine will dooms Jews to wandering and misery, the Jewish state appears to Muslims as an unbearable affront and a sin against Allah. Therefore it must be destroyed by Jihad.

Historian Saul S. Friedman, also citing the emergence of Zionism (as an ideology anathema to the Islamic system of dhimmitude for Jews), concluded that this modern movement, and the creation of the Jewish State of Israel has, not surprisingly, unleashed a torrent of annihilationist Islamic antisemitism, “the brew of thirteen centuries of intolerance” [175]:

Since 1896, the development of modern, political Zionism has placed new tension on, and even destroyed, the traditional master-serf relationship that existed between Arab and Jew in the Middle East. An Arab world that could not tolerate the presence of a single, “arrogant” Jewish vizier in its history was now confronted by a modern state staffed with self-confident Jewish ministers.

This is exactly the Islamic context in which the widespread, “resurgent” use of Jew annihilationist apocalyptic motifs from the hadith—exemplified by the Hamas charter—would be an anticipated, even commonplace occurrence. Indeed, as noted at the outset, the same eschatological references to Jew annihilation have been repeated within prominent US mosques far removed from the battlegrounds of the Arab-Israeli conflict in the Middle East [176]

The uncomfortable examination of Islamic doctrines and history is required in order to understand the enduring phenomenon of Muslim Jew hatred, which dates back to the origins of Islam. We can no longer view Muslim Jew hatred—including annihilationist strains of this apocalyptic hatred—as a “borrowed phenomenon,” seen primarily, let alone exclusively, through the prism of Nazism and the Holocaust, the tragic legacy of Judeophobic Christian traditions, or “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion” from Czarist Russia.

Notes

[1] The Investigative Project on Terrorism. Individual Terrorists. Fawaz Damra. http://www.investigativeproject.org/profile/110
[2] The Investigative Project on Terrorism. Al Arian’s “Active Arm.” April 7, 1991. http://secured.investigativeproject.org/article/348
[3] The Investigative Project on Terrorism. Fawaz Damra Fund Raising for Jihad. April 7, 1991. http://www.investigativeproject.org/article/224
[4] NOW, Week of 7/7/06, Public Broadcasting System. Profile: Imam Fawaz Damra http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/227/imam-fawaz-damra.html
[5] “Brother says deported imam was arrested by Israel in West Bank upon his arrival.” The International Herald Tribune, January 8, 2007. http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/01/09/america/NA-GEN-US-Imam-Deportation.php
[6] David Briggs. “Islamic Center of Cleveland imam Ahmed Alzaree resigns before starting job.” October 30, 2007. The Cleveland Plain Dealer http://www.cleveland.com/religion/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/living-0/1193733101223070.xml&coll=2
[7] David Briggs. “Islamic Center hires new imam to replace deported” September 25, 2007. The Cleveland Plain Dealer http://blog.cleveland.com/pdworld/2007/09/islamic_center_hires_new_imam.html
[8] Briggs, “Islamic Center of Cleveland imam Ahmed Alzaree resigns before starting job.”
[9] “The Day of Judgment.” By Imam Ahmed Alzaree. Friday, March 7, 2003
http://www.bizzyblog.com/DayOfJudgement_Alzaree030703.html
[10] Briggs, “Islamic Center of Cleveland imam Ahmed Alzaree resigns before starting job.”
[11] Andrew G. Bostom. “Antisemitism in the Qur’an: Motifs and Historical Manifestations.” Dhimmi Watch, April 7, 2008, http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/2008/04/020584print.html
[12] Mark Durie. “Isa, the Muslim Jesus.” In, Robert Spencer, editor, The Myth of Islamic Tolerance, Prometheus Books, Amherst, New York, 2005, pp. 541-555.
[13] Sunan Abu Dawud Book 37, Number 4310:
Narrated Abu Hurayrah: The Prophet (peace be upon him) said: There is no prophet between me and him, that is, Jesus (peace be upon him). He will descent (to the earth). When you see him, recognize him: a man of medium height, reddish fair, wearing two light yellow garments, looking as if drops were falling down from his head though it will not be wet. He will fight the people for the cause of Islam. He will break the cross, kill swine, and abolish jizyah. Allah will perish all religions except Islam. He will destroy the Antichrist and will live on the earth for forty years and then he will die. The Muslims will pray over him.
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/abudawud/037.sat.html#037.4310
[14] Andrew Bostom. “Jews as Christ-Killers in Islam.” FrontPageMagazine.com, Wednesday, March 03, 2004 http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=7D37FB0D-D331-41B6-9E31-D807A55D1308
[15] Sunan Abu Dawud Book 37, Number 4310
[16] Sahih Muslim Book 041, Number 6985: Abu Huraira reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: The last hour would not come unless the Muslims will fight against the Jews and the Muslims would kill them until the Jews would hide themselves behind a stone or a tree and a stone or a tree would say: Muslim, or the servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me; come and kill him; but the tree Gharqad would not say, for it is the tree of the Jews.
[17] “The Covenant of the Islamic Resistance Movement – Hamas.” Middle East Media Research Institute. Special Dispatch Series, No. 1092. February 14, 2006.
http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=sd&ID=SP109206
Ibn Kathir’s commentary on Koran 4:155-159 also discusses Isa’s (the Muslim Jesus’) role in defeating the Dajjal, and his Jewish minions, invoking the apocalyptic canonical hadith of Jew annihilation, Sahih Muslim Book 041, Number 6985. (Tafsir Ibn Kathir, Vol. 3, Riyadh, 2000, pp. 33-34.)
[18] Samau’al Al-Maghribi. “Ifham Al-Yahud.” [“Silencing the Jews.”] Edited and Translated by Moshe Perlmann. Proceedings of the American Academy for Jewish Research, Vol. 32, 1964, p. 19.
[19] Moshe Perlmann, “Eleventh Century Andalusian Authors on the Jews of Granada” Proceedings of the American Academy for Jewish Research, 1948-49, Vol. 18, pp. 269-290.
[20] Perlmann, “Eleventh Century Andalusian Authors on the Jews of Granada,” p.284; Reinhart Dozy. Spanish Islam: A History of the Muslims in Spain, Translated by Francis Griffin Stokes, London, 1915 (reissued by Kessinger Publishing), p. 653.
[21] Richard Gottheil, Joseph Jacobs. “The Crusades” in The Jewish Encyclopedia http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view_friendly.jsp?artid=908&letter=C
[22] Andrew G. Bostom. The Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism: From Sacred Texts to Solemn History. Prometheus Books, Amherst, N.Y., 2008, 768 pp.
[23] Jennie Lebel. The Mufti of Jerusalem Haj-Amin el-Husseini and National Socialism. Cigoja Stampa, Belgrade, Serbia, 2007. English translation by Paul Munch, 373 pp.
[24] Ibid., pp. 311-320.
[25] Sahih Muslim Book 041, Number 6985
[26] Ibid.
[27] Bostom. “Antisemitism in the Qur’an: Motifs and Historical Manifestations.”
[28] J. Robson. “Hadith”. Edited by P. Bearman, Th. Biaqnquis, C.E. Bosworth, E. van Donzel, and W.P. Heinrichs, Brill, 2006, Brill Online; J. Robson. “Tradition, The Second Foundation of Islam”, Muslim World, 1951, Vol. 41, pp. 22, 24.
[29] Robson. “Hadith”; Robson. “Tradition”, pp. 22,23
[30]Robson. “Hadith”; Robson. “Tradition”, p.24.
[31] H. Lammens. Islam: Beliefs and Institutions, (reprint) New Delhi, 2002, p. 69.
[32] Ibid., p. 65.
[33] Robson. “Tradition”, p. 31.
[34] Ibid., p. 31.
[35] Ibid., p. 32.
[36] Robson in “Hadith” and “Traditions, pp. 25-30.
[37] Ignaz Goldziher. Muslim Studies. Two Volumes. Translated by C.R. Barber and S.M. Stern, London, 1967-1971, Vol. 2, p. 19
[38] Joseph Schacht. “A Revaluation of Islamic Traditions”, Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, 1949, pp. 143-154. Re-published in, Ibn Warraq (editor), The Quest for the Historical Muhammad, Amherst, New York, 2000, pp. 358-367.
[39] Ibid., pp. 366,361
[40] Ibid., p. 360
[41] Goldziher, Muslim Studies., Vol. 2, pp. 18-19.
[42] Georges Vajda. “Juifs et Musulmans Selon Le Hadit”, Journal Asiatique, 1937, Vol. 229, pp. 57-127. A first time English translation of this essay, in full, is provided in The Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism, pp. 235-260.
[43]Vajda. “Juifs et Musulmans Selon Le Hadit”, p. 61.
[44] Ibid., p. 63
[45] Ibid., pp. 63-65.
[46] Ibid., p. 72.
[47] Ibid., pp. 72-73.
[48] Ibid., pp. 75-81; Sahih Bukhari Volume 2, Book 23, Number 376; Sahih Muslim Book 004, Number 2029.
[49] Vajda. “Juifs et Musulmans Selon Le Hadit,” p. 78.
[50] Ibid., pp.83-84.
[51] Ibid., p. 85
[52] Ibid., pp. 86-87.
[53] Ibid., p. 87.
[54] Ibid., pp. 87-89.
[55] Ibid. pp. 88, 90
[56] Ibid. pp. 91-92.
[57] Ibid., pp. 93-96.
[58] Ibid., pp. 97-98.
[59] Ibid., p. 104.
[60] Ibid., pp. 104-105.
[61] Ibid., p. 105.
[62] Ibid., pp. 106, 105.
[63] Ibid., pp. 108-109.
[64]Sahih Muslim Book 026, Number 5430; Sahih Bukhari Volume 3, Book 47, Number 786 http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/
[65] Ibn Sa‘d. Kitab Al-Tabaqat Al-Kabir. Volume 2, New Delhi, 1993; pp. 249-252. English translation by S. Moinul Haq and H.K. Ghazanfar.
[66] Vajda. “Juifs et Musulmans Selon Le Hadit”, pp. 112-13.
[67] Armand Abel. “al-Dadjdjal” Encyclopedia of Islam. Edited by P. Bearman, Th. Bianquis, C.E. Bosworth, E. van Donzel and W.P. Heinrichs. Brill 2008. Brill Online.
[68] Vajda. “Juifs et Musulmans Selon Le Hadit”, pp. 112-13.
[69]Robson. “Tradition”, p.259.
[70] Mark Durie. “Isa, the Muslim Jesus”, in Robert Spencer, editor, The Myth of Islamic Tolerance, Amherst, New York, 2005, pp. 541-555.
[71] Vajda. “Juifs et Musulmans Selon Le Hadit”, pp. 112-13; Regarding the the ransoming of prisoners of Muslim enemies vanquished by jihad (see Bostom, The Legacy of Jihad, p. 149), the great Maliki jurist and polymath Averroes (d. 1198), wrote:

Most scholars are agreed that, in his dealings with captives, various policies are open to the Imam [head of the Islamic state, caliph]. He may pardon them, kill them, or release them…on ransom...

[72] Vajda. “Juifs et Musulmans Selon Le Hadit”, p. 110
[73] Vajda. “Juifs et Musulmans Selon Le Hadit”, pp. 124-125.
[74] Ibid., pp. 110, 125.
[75] Sahih Bukhari, vol. 3, no. 2730, in the Book of the Conditions; Sahih Muslim vol. 3, no. 4366; Ibn Ishaq (Guillaume translation) p. 525 (sections 779-80).
[76]Yehuda Ratzaby. “The Expulsion of Yemenite Jewry to Mawza' in 1679-80 in Light of Recently Discovered Sources” Zion, 1972, Vol. 37, pp. 197-215. [Hebrew; (English translation by Rivkah Fishman)]; Yehuda Ratzaby. “The Expulsion to the Desert.” Et-Mol [Hebrew; (English translation by Rivkah Fishman)] 9, 3 [53] (Jan 1984) 16-18.
[77] H. Helfritz, Land ohne Schatten (Leipzig, 1934), 212-213, cited in Ratzaby, “The Expulsion of Yemenite Jewry to Mawza' in 1679-80”
[78] Ratzaby, ““The Expulsion of Yemenite Jewry to Mawza' in 1679-80”, and “The Expulsion to the Desert.”
[79] Eliz Sanasarian. Religious Minorities in Iran, Cambridge, England, 2000, p. 111.
[80] “The Covenant of the Islamic Resistance Movement—Hamas”, Middle East Media Research Institute.
[81] David Byers. “Report: London mosque’s DVDs predict mass extermination of Jews”, European Jewish Press January 11, 2007.
[82] David Cook, “Muslim Fears of the Year 2000,” Middle East Quarterly, V, 2 (June 1998), pp. 51-62.
[83] Mohamad Yasin Owadally, Emergence of Dajjal. The Jewish King (Delhi, India, 2001).
[84] Ibid., p. 12.
[85] Ibid., pp. 35-36.
[86] W. Raven. “Sira”. Encyclopedia of Islam. Edited by P. Bearman, Th. Biaqnquis, C.E. Bosworth, E. van Donzel, and W.P. Heinrichs, Brill, 2006, Brill Online.
[87] J.M.B. Jones. “Ibn Ishak Muhammad b. Ishak b. Yasar b. Khiyar (according to some sources, b. Khabbar, or Kuman, or Kutan)”. Encyclopedia of Islam. Edited by P. Bearman, Th. Biaqnquis, C.E. Bosworth, E. van Donzel, and W.P. Heinrichs, Brill, 2006, Brill Online.
[88] Guillaume. The Life of Muhammad.
[89] Raven, “Sira”.
[90] Guillaume. The Life of Muhammad.
[91] Raven, “Sira”.
[92] S. Leder. “al- Wakidī , Muhammad b . ‘Umar b. Wakidi.” Encyclopedia of Islam. Edited by: P. Bearman , Th. Bianquis , C.E. Bosworth , E. van Donzel and W.P. Heinrichs. Brill, 2006. Brill Online.
[93] J.W. Fück. “Ibn Sa‘d , Abū ‘Abd Allāh Muhammad b. Sa‘d b. Manī c al-Basrī al-Hās̲h̲imī Kātib al-Wākidī”. Encyclopedia of Islam. Edited by: P. Bearman , Th. Bianquis , C.E. Bosworth , E. van Donzel and W.P. Heinrichs. Brill, 2006. Brill Online.
[94] Raven, “Sira”.
[95] Hirschfeld, “Essai sur l’histoire des Juifs de Medine”.
[96] Michael Cook. Muhammad. Oxford, England, 1983, 1996, pp. 64-65.
[97] Guillaume. The Life of Muhammad., p. xiv.
[98] See notes 37-41 above, and the associated text which refers to the analyses of the hadith by Ignaz Goldziher and Joseph Schacht.
[99] Cook, Muhammad, pp. 64-65.
[100] Ibid. p. 65.
[101] Robert Spencer. The Truth About Muhammad. Regnery Books, Washington, D.C., 2006, p. 31.
[102] Guillaume. The Life of Muhammad., p.212.
[103] Ibid., 212-213.
[104] Spencer. The Truth About Muhammad, p. 78.
[105] Guillaume. The Life of Muhammad., p. 213.; See also, for a discussion of jihad, Bostom, The Legacy of Jihad.
[106] Guillaume. The Life of Muhammad., p. 213.
[107] W. Montgomery Watt. “Al Ansar”. Encyclopedia of Islam. Edited by: P. Bearman , Th. Bianquis , C.E. Bosworth , E. van Donzel and W.P. Heinrichs. Brill, 2006. Brill Online. Watt writes:

“the helpers”, the usual designation of those men of Medina who supported Muhammad, in distinction from the muhājirūn or “emigrants”, i.e., his Meccan followers. After the general conversion of the Arabs to Islam the old name of al-Aws and al-Khazraj jointly, Banu Kayla, fell out of use and was replaced by Ansar, the individual being known as Ansari. In this way the early services of the men of Medina to the cause of Islam were honorably commemorated.

[108] Hirschfeld. “Essai sur l’histoire des Juifs de Medine” 1885, Vol. 10, pp. 10-31.
[109] Moshe Gil. A History of Palestine, 634-1099, translated by Ethel Broido, Cambridge and New York, 1992, p. 11.
[110] W. Montgomery Watt. “Al Ansar”.
[111] Guillaume. The Life of Muhammad., p.231.
[112] Julius Wellhausen. “Muhammad’s Constitution of Medina” (first published as “Muhammads Gemeindeordnung von Medina” from Skizzen und Vorarbeiten, Berlin, 1889, IV, pp. 67-83.), published as an excursus in, Arent Jan Wensinck. Muhammad and the Jews of Medina, English translation by Wolfgang H. Behn, Berlin, 1982, pp. 137, 136.
[113] The exegeses of Ibn Kathir (14th century) and Mawdudi (20th century) make clear that these verses refer to the “B. Qurayza” (Ibn Kathir, Tafsir Ibn Kathir, Riyadh, Vol. 4, p. 347), specifically, or the Jews of Medina (Mawdudi, Towards Understanding the Qur’an, Vol. 3, pp. 160-161.)
[114] Arent Jan Wensinck. Muhammad and the Jews of Medina (first published as Mohammed en de Joden te Medina, Leiden, 1908), with an excursus [appendix] from Julius Wellhausen’s “Muhammad’s Constitution of Medina” (first published as “Muhammads Gemeindeordnung von Medina” from Skizzen und Vorarbeiten, Berlin, 1889, IV, pp. 67-83.) English translation by Wolfgang H. Behn, Berlin, 1982, pp. 70-71.
[115] Moshe Gil. “The Constitution of Medina: A Reconsideration” Israel Oriental Studies, Vol. 4, 1974, pp. 64-65.
[116] Guillaume. The Life of Muhammad., p. 363.
[117] Hirschfeld, “Essai sur l’histoire des Juifs de Medine”, 1885, p. 11
[118] Ibid., pp. 11-12.
[119] Guillaume. The Life of Muhammad., p. 239.
[120] Ibid., p. 239
[121] Ibid., p. 240.
[122] Ibid., p. 240.
[123] Hirschfeld, “Essai sur l’histoire des Juifs de Medine”, 1885, p. 13.
[124] Ibid., p. 13.
[125] Guillaume. The Life of Muhammad., pp. 263-264.
[126] Hirschfeld, “Essai sur l’histoire des Juifs de Medine”, 1885, p. 14.
[127] Ibid., p.15
[128] Ibid., pp. 15-16.
[129] Qur’an 2:217—“They question thee (O Muhammad) with regard to warfare in the sacred month. Say: Warfare therein is a great (transgression), but to turn (men) from the way of Allah, and to disbelieve in Him and in the Inviolable Place of Worship, and to expel His people thence, is a greater with Allah; for persecution is worse than killing. And they will not cease from fighting against you till they have made you renegades from your religion, if they can. And whoso becometh a renegade and dieth in his disbelief: such are they whose works have fallen both in the world and the Hereafter. Such are rightful owners of the Fire: they will abide therein.”. Ibn Kathir’s commentary (Tafsir Ibn Kathir, Vol. 1, p, 602.) explains the killings thus:

This Ayah means if you had killed during the Sacred Month, they (the disbelievers of Quraysh) have hindered you from the path of Allah and disbelieved in it. They also prevented you from entering the Sacred Mosque, and expelled you from it, while you are its people, “a greater transgression with Allah” than killing whom you killed among them. Also, “…and Al-Fitnah (persecution) is worse than killing” means, trying to force the Muslims to revert from their religion, and re-embrace Kufr (disbelief) after they had believed, is worse with Allah than killing.

[130] Hirschfeld, “Essai sur l’histoire des Juifs de Medine”, 1885, p. 16; Warraq. Why I Am Not a Muslim, p.93.
[131] Hirschfeld, “Essai sur l’histoire des Juifs de Medine”, 1885, pp. 16-21; 27-28; Warraq. Why I Am Not a Muslim, pp. 93-95.
[132] Hirschfeld, “Essai sur l’histoire des Juifs de Medine”, 1885, pp. 16-27.
[133] Sir William Muir. The Life of Mahomet. London, 1878 (Kessinger Reprints, 2003), pp. 248-249; Hirschfeld, “Essai sur l’histoire des Juifs de Medine”, 1885, p. 16; Warraq. Why I Am Not a Muslim, pp. 93-94.
[134] Hirschfeld, “Essai sur l’histoire des Juifs de Medine”, 1885, p. 16.
[135] Muir, The Life of Mahomet, pp. 248-249.
[136] Aloys Sprenger (1813-1893), an Austrian Orientalist and Professor of Oriental Languages at Bern (1858-1881), was a prolific writer, editor, and collector of Islamic literature, especially hadith literature. See Wolfgang Behn, Concise Biographical Companion to Index Islamicus, Leiden, 2004, Vol.3, p. 435.
[137] Muir, The Life of Mahomet, p. 249.
[138] Ibid., p. 249.
[139] Guillaume. The Life of Muhammad., p. 363.
[140] Muir, The Life of Mahomet, pp. 250-251.
[141] Ibid., pp. 251-252.
[142] Hirschfeld, “Essai sur l’histoire des Juifs de Medine”, 1885, pp. 17-18; Warraq. Why I Am Not a Muslim, p. 94.
[143] Warraq. Why I Am Not a Muslim, pp. 94-95.
[144] Guillaume. The Life of Muhammad., p. 368.
[145] Ibid., p. 369.
[146] Muir, The Life of Mahomet, pp. 258-259.
[147] Hirschfeld, “Essai sur l’histoire des Juifs de Medine”, 1885, p. 20; Warraq. Why I Am Not a Muslim, p. 95.
[148] Hirschfeld, “Essai sur l’histoire des Juifs de Medine”, 1885, p. 20.
[149] Ibid., pp.20-21.
[150] Ibid., p. 21.
[151] The expression “fay” is found in Qur’an 59: 6-10, which describes Muhammad’s attack upon the Jewish tribe, Banu Nadir. In the traditional Muslim interpretation of these verses the theocratic conception of property rights is confirmed, as voiced by the Prophet—Allah returns to the Believers the possessions of His foes, what is properly His. See Leone Caetani. Annali dell’ Islam, Milan, 1905-1926, Vol. 5, p. 332.
[152] Guillaume. The Life of Muhammad., pp. 438-439.
[153] Warraq. Why I Am Not a Muslim, p. 95.
[154] Muir, The Life of Mahomet, p. 325; Warraq. Why I Am Not a Muslim, p. 95.
[155] Guillaume. The Life of Muhammad., p. 461, actually uses the word “monkeys.” “Apes” and “monkeys” are used interchangeably in translation. See for example, Norman Stillman’s translation of this same excerpt in The Jews of Arab Lands in Modern Times, p. 137, which refers to the Jews as “apes”.
[156] M.J. Kister, “The massacre of the Banū Qurayẓa: a re-examination of a tradition” Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam, Vol. 8, 1986, pp. 61-96.
[157]Abu Yusuf Ya’qub Le Livre de l’impot foncier, Translated from Arabic and annotated by Edmond Fagnan. Paris, 1921. English translation in Bat Ye’or, The Dhimmi, pp. 172-173.
[158] Kister, “The massacre of the Banū Qurayẓa”, p. 69.
[159] Kister, “The massacre of the Banū Qurayẓa”, p. 69 ff.
[160] W.H. T. Gairdner, “Muhammad Without Camouflage”, The Moslem World, Vol. 9, 1919, p. 36.
[161] Hirschfeld, “Essai sur l’histoire des Juifs de Medine”, 1885, pp. 28-30.
[162] Guillaume. The Life of Muhammad., pp. 482-483.
[163] Hirschfeld, “Essai sur l’histoire des Juifs de Medine”, 1885, pp. 28-30.
[164] Guillaume. The Life of Muhammad., p. 515.
[165] Sahih Bukhari Volume 3, Book 47, Number 786; Sahih Muslim Book 026, Number 5430; Sunan Abu Dawud Book 39, Number 4498; Guillaume. The Life of Muhammad., p. 516; Ibn Sa’d. Kitab Al-Tabaqat Al-Kabir, pp. 249-252.
[166] Ibn Sa’d. Kitab Al-Tabaqat Al-Kabir, pp. 249-252.
[167] Hartwig Hirschfeld. “The Annals of Islam”. Review of Annali dell’Islam compilati de Leone Caetani, Principe de Teano, Volume 2, Milan, 1907, in The Jewish Quarterly Review, 1908, Vol. 20, p. 876.
[168] Ibid., p. 876. Regarding the breached treaty, Hirschfeld refers to its existence in his own essay “The Arabic Portion of the Cairo Genizah at Cambridge”, The Jewish Quarterly Review, 1905, Vol. 15, pp. 170-174.
[169] D.S. Margoliouth. Mohammed and the Rise of Islam, London 1905 (reprinted in New Delhi, India, 1985), pp. 362-363.
[170] See note 161 above, and the related text, in which Hirshfeld discusses two assassinations of Khaybar Jews, prior to the Muslims assault, which is confirmed by Ibn Ishaq (Guillaume. The Life of Muhammad., pp. 665-666, and 482-483.)
[171] Vajda. “Juifs et musulmans selon le Hadit”, p. 85.
[172] Bostom, The Legacy of Jihad, pp. 37-56.
[173] Andrew G. Bostom, editor, The Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism, Prometheus Books, Amherst, N.Y., 2008, 768 pp.
[174] Bat Ye’or. “The New Egyptian Jew Hatred—Local Elements and External Influences”, in Andrew G. Bostom, editor, The Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism, Prometheus Books, Amherst, N.Y., 2008, p. 617.
[175] Saul S. Friedman. Without Future. The Plight of Syrian Jewry. Praeger, New York, 1989, p. 9.
[176] See notes 1-10, above

Carter, hold your peace!

A terrific piece by FDD's Cliff May on Carter and appeasement:

[...] Those who attempt to appease tyrants are generally suspected of cowardice. More often, I suspect, lack of imagination is the cause. When Neville Chamberlain met with Hitler, he no doubt believed he could reason with him because he also no doubt believed that the Fuhrer - whatever his grievances or ambitions - was also a reasonable man.

What this leaves out is ideology. Hitler’s ideas - odious as they may now seem to you, me and Carter (though certainly not to Mashaal) - inspired millions to fight and die for the glory of the Third Reich. And Marxist/Leninist/Stalinist/Maoist ideology inspired millions to fight and die for the illusion of a communist utopia.

The ideology of Hamas derives from something more enduring than “Mein Kampf,” “Das Kapital” and the sayings of Chairman Mao. It is rooted in a 1,400-year-old religion. Hamas proudly proclaims that “the Koran is our constitution, Jihad is our way, and death for the sake of God is our highest aspiration.” Hamas leaders promise their followers not just rewards here on Earth but in the next world as well - a selling point neither Nazism nor communism could offer.

Surely, Carter is aware that, as a matter of religious conviction, Meshaal cannot accept Israel’s existence. Hamas believes every inch of Israel and, indeed, of any land ever ruled by Muslims is “an Islamic Waqf consecrated for future Moslem generations until Judgment Day,” the charter states. A Muslim can fight to reclaim this endowment or he can fail to fulfill the obligations his faith imposes. To Hamas, there is no third option.

The Hamas charter asserts, “There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad.”

Not only do Hamas members oppose a “two-state solution,” they believe that nation-states are un-Islamic. Instead, an Islamic caliphate is to be re-established, an empire that is to expand until the Dar al-Islam, the world ruled by Muslims, consumes the Dar al-Harb, the world in which infidels now hold sway.

“Rome will be conquered, just like Constantinople was, as was prophesized by our prophet Muhammad,” Hamas member and Palestinian parliamentarian Yunis al-Asal has pledged.

Does Carter sincerely think he can convince Mashaal to reject such ideas and embrace the Carter Center’s kumbaya mission of “waging peace and building hope?” Does he really believe he can change Mashaal’s mind, much less open his heart?

If so, Carter is as clueless now as he was almost 30 years ago when, on his watch as president, the Ayatollah Khomeini took power in Iran, seized America’s embassy, held our diplomats hostage and sat back to watch Carter do nothing effective in response....

Yes, he is just that clueless, if not more so.

US offers Pakistan $7 billion to fight "terrorism"

"Terrorism" according to what definition? With what accountability?

"US offers Pakistan government $7bn in non-military aid to fight terrorism," by Julian Borger in The Guardian (thanks to all who sent this in):

The US has promised to curb air strikes by drones against suspected militants in Pakistan, as part of a joint counter-terrorism strategy agreed with the new civilian government in Islamabad, the Guardian has learned. That strategy will be supported by an aid package potentially worth more than $7bn (£3.55bn), which is due to go before Congress for approval in the next few months.

The package would triple the amount of American non-military aid to Pakistan, and is aimed at "redefining" the bilateral relationship, US officials say.

Pakistan will also be given a "democracy dividend" of up to $1bn, a reward for holding peaceful elections and forming a coalition government. Of that, $200m could be approved in the next few days.

The aid package, being put together by the Democratic senator Joseph Biden, will mark a decisive break in US policy on Pakistan, which for much of the past nine years focused on President Pervez Musharraf and the Pakistani military as Washington's primary partners in the "war on terror". Officials in Washington said yesterday that the shift had already been made.

"Senator Biden wants to show the relationship is much broader than a military one, and that we are willing to sustain it over time," one of the senator's senior aides said yesterday.

A US administration official said: "Each day Musharraf's influence becomes less and less. Civilians are in control. People aren't meeting with Musharraf any more ... we are very pleased with the new civilian government."

Pakistani officials say much of the new counter-terrorism aid will be spent on civilian law enforcement institutions, such as the interior ministry, the intelligence bureau and the federal investigation agency, rather than being channelled almost exclusively through the army and the military-run Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) organisation....

Multiculturalism gone wild: UK father and son banned from public swimming pool for not being Muslims

You see how quickly and easily demands for special consideration in the name of civil rights -- which are granted in the name of fostering assimilation -- become exclusionary and supremacist. "Father and son banned from council swimming pool for not being Muslims," from the Daily Mail (thanks to all who sent this in):

A stunned dad and his little boy were banned from swimming at a popular public sports centre - because they are not Muslims.

The man, known only as David T, and his 10-year-old son were stopped from going into the pool at Clissold Leisure Centre in Stoke Newington, east London.

Last night embarrassed management at the complex said staff were wrong to turn customers away from the designated 'men-only modesty session' on Sunday morning.

The council says the special early-morning get-togethers are aimed at community groups who have strict rules on segregation.

But the dad and his lad were prevented from swimming when they turned up at 9am on Sunday.

David T said: "I arrived at the pool to discover that they were holding what staff described to me as 'Muslim men-only swimming'.

"I asked whether my son and I could go as we were both male. I was told that the session was for Muslims only and that we could not be admitted.

"I asked to speak to the duty manager, who confirmed that this was the case."

He added: "I asked what would happen if I turned up and insisted I was Muslim.

"The manager suggested that they might ask the Muslims swimming if they minded my son and I swimming with them.

"If they didn't object, we might be allowed in."

The men-only modesty swimming sessions take place every Sunday from 8am to 9.30am.

Two websites have been advertising the sessions for Muslim men only....

Bishop of Iran condemns Fitna, Motoons: "No religion, society or culture should be allowed such acts of blasphemy, which give rise to violence and undermine the global war on terror"

I understand the pressure this man is under, but who is he kidding with a statement like that? Blasphemy leads to violence and hence undermines the war on terror? So are we to assume that if there is no blasphemy, there will be no jihad terrorism? Of course, that is absurd, unless the good cleric wishes to consider the very existence of non-Muslim polities and blasphemous. But in any case, not only is he a good dhimmi, but he is advocating that the free West play the dhimmi as well by adopting Islamic Sharia restrictions on free speech and free inquiry -- which would not be an act of tolerance or respect for religion, but an act that would begin the institutionalization of Islamic supremacism in the non-Muslim West by creating a protected class, sheltered from all criticism or any speech they disliked.

"Bishop condemns anti-Islam film and caricatures," from the Daily Times (thanks to Twostellas):

LAHORE: The Bishop of Iran and the Gulf, Azad Marshall, and the National Council of Churches in Pakistan (NCCP), have condemned the publication of the anti-Islam caricatures and a film by Dutch lawmaker Geert Wilders.

According to a press release issued on Wednesday, the bishop and the NCCP expressed concerns over “the mischievous acts, maligning the Islamic faith in the name of modernisation, secularism and so-called freedom of expression”. They said the freedom of expression did not provide an open licence to hurt the religious sentiments of 1.5 billion Muslims worldwide.

Marshall called these acts “misconceived, malicious and politically motivated”. He said that these acts, especially in a society that propagated human rights, human dignity and tolerance, were against all decent norms and demonstrated a lack of respect for others religious feelings.

On one hand, the West seeks to bridge gap between different faiths and on the other it creates rift by such acts, Marshall said. “No religion, society or culture should be allowed such acts of blasphemy, which give rise to violence and undermine the global war on terror,” he said and demanded that the United Nations evolve a code of ethics that all religions be treated with same respect and dignity. The Muslim countries should use diplomatic means so that there should be no more instances in future, he added.

That bolded demand means that the UN should criminalize and prosecute those who violate Sharia norms about speaking of Allah, Muhammad, and Islam. In other words, it should become a Sharia-enforcing body.

Singapore: Couple gets sedition charge for casting Muhammad in negative light

Death of Free Speech Update: "Singaporeans charged with sedition over evangelical publication," from AFP (thanks to Abandon Skip):

SINGAPORE (AFP) - - A court has charged a Singaporean couple with sedition for distributing an evangelical Christian publication that cast Mohammed, the prophet of Islam, in a negative light, a newspaper reported Wednesday.

Ong Kian Cheong, 49, and Dorothy Chan Hien Leng, 44, had two charges lodged against them in court on Tuesday -- one under the Sedition Act and the other under the Undesirable Publications Act, The Straits Times reported.

Police declined to comment and court officials could not be reached.

The report did not provide details about the couple's alleged publication but said the couple had distributed it to two people, one in March last year and another in October.

A sedition charge for showing something to two people!

Singapore, a multi-racial island nation, clamps down hard on anyone seen to be inciting communal tensions.

In 2005, two ethnic Chinese men were jailed for anti-Muslim blogs.

The following year, a Singaporean blogger received a stern warning after posting cartoons mocking Jesus Christ on his online journal, police said at the time....

A stern warning for mocking Christ, a sedition charge for casting Muhammad in a negative light -- to two people.

CAIR claims threats against publicly-funded Minnesota madrasa

Maybe there really were threats. If so, they're deplorable, as evil as they are idiotic. Above all, however, they're useful. The unindicted co-conspirator CAIR knows how to play the game: deflect attention away from anything Muslims are doing that might cause non-Muslims concern, and do everything possible to portray Muslims as victims who need a special protected status. Now the story about this school is not whether or not it is teaching Islam on public money, but how terrible it is that Muslims face "Islamophobia."

And note that what CAIR wants is a community meeting -- i.e., an indoctrination session in which the participants will be instructed about the evils of "Islamophobia" and the little matter of taking public funding for an Islamic school will go unmentioned.

Minnesota Public Madrasa Update: "Muslim civil liberties group seeks FBI probe of school threats," by Sarah Lemagie for the Star Tribune (thanks to all who sent this in):

The Minnesota chapter of a national Islamic civil liberties group has asked the FBI and local law enforcement officers to investigate reported threats against a Twin Cities charter school as possible hate crimes, while a Jewish organization deplored the threats.

The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) made the request Monday after the director of Tarek ibn Ziyad Academy in Inver Grove Heights told police that he and the school had received threatening and harassing phone messages and e-mails.

The group is concerned about the safety of the school's students, many of whom are Muslim, said CAIR chapter coordinator Chris Schumacher. Tagging the threats as possible hate crimes also makes it clear that prejudice could have prompted them, and "we wanted to bring that to light in case that wasn't already obvious to people," he said.

The Jewish Community Relations Council of Minnesota and the Dakotas also condemned the alleged threats in a statement released Monday.

As of Monday, the charter school had not filed a complaint with the Minneapolis FBI office, but agents will reach out to the school and get more details about the messages, said Special Agent Paul McCabe. Identifying the messages as possible hate crimes would put them under the jurisdiction of federal as well as local law enforcement authorities, he said.

CAIR members are talking with the school about follow-up action that could include a community meeting along the lines of a town hall forum held in Blaine after arsonists set fire to a convenience store owned by a Muslim man in January, Schumacher said....

Marked Manner and Michelle Malkin have more.

Denmark approves establishment of Azhar Institute in Denmark to "confront misconceptions about Islam"

No doubt the Danish authorities think they're getting a organization that will teach Moderate, Peaceful, Tolerant Islam in Denmark. But Al-Azhar? Al-Azhar's Grand Sheikh, Muhammad Sayyid Tantawi, has endorsed suicide attacks against Israeli civilians and is the other of an elephantine dissertation on the Qur'an's Jew-hatred (of which he thoroughly approves). Al-Azhar once the professorial home of the blind Sheikh, Omar Abdel Rahman, who masterminded the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. And this Institute will teach Moderate, Peaceful, Tolerant Islam?

The language alone, about dispelling misconceptions of Islam, is reminiscent of the language employed by so many sly Islamic apologists in the West already: instead of acknowledging that the jihadists are working from longstanding traditions of how the Qur'an and Sunnah are to be interpreted, and offering proposals for reform, these apologists maintain that Islam is peaceful and that perceptions otherwise stem from ignorance or misunderstanding of the Islamic texts -- and of course, they ignore or deny the existence or authenticity of texts that make their claim too obviously shaky.

Note also that this is a reaction to the Motoon controversy -- henceforth the dhimmis will be kept in line.

"Egypt: Denmark Approves Setting Up of Azhar Institute," from ANSAmed (thanks to Wayne):

(ANSAmed) - CAIRO, APRIL 7 - Danish authorities have approved the establishment of an Azhar institute in Denmark to teach the Islamic religion, confront misconceptions about Islam and explain the true Islam to the European society. The Islamic community in Denmark received initial approvals from authorities for the establishment of the institute, said Al Azhar Undersecretary Sheikh Abdel-Fattah Allam. Similar institutes have been established in Britain and Austria, he added. The decision came after Danish newspaper the Jyllands-Posten published Muhammad cartoons on 30 September 2005. The newspaper claimed that this publication was an attempt to contribute to the debate regarding criticism of Islam and self-censorship. The published cartoons outraged numerous reactions in the Arab world starting with protests to boycotting Danish products and called for several initiatives for interfaith dialogue.

Islamic Jihad: Dhimmi Carter wanted to meet with us

But they turned him down -- he was too pro-Israeli for them.

"Islamic Jihad: We Refused Carter’s Request for a Meeting," by Eric Trager at Commentary's Contentions blog:

Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) has announced that its leadership has refused former U.S. President Jimmy Carter’s request for a meeting. According to PIJ’s QudsNews website, Egyptian authorities contacted PIJ Secretary-General Dr. Ramadan Shallah on Carter’s behalf earlier this week, inviting Shallah to meet with Carter in Cairo. Shallah is listed on the FBI’s list of Most Wanted Terrorists, and the reward for information leading to his apprehension is $5 million.

He is also a former associate of Sami Al-Arian at the University of South Florida.

In turning down the request, Shallah declared that Carter is “carrying an American-Israeli agenda,” while PIJ spokesman Daoud Shahab blasted Carter’s criticism of Palestinian rocket attacks during the former president’s visit to Sderot. E-mails and phone calls to the Carter Center press office seeking confirmation of Carter’s outreach to PIJ have not been returned....

Yet Carter’s attempt to meet with PIJ is his most disturbing gambit to date. After all, PIJ is generally considered even more extreme than Hamas. While PIJ shares many of Hamas’ militant features–including its coordination of terrorist activities, calls for Israel’s destruction, and theocratic aims–PIJ lacks Hamas’ social and political significance. It does not have the social welfare network on which Hamas has built its popularity, while PIJ’s refusal to participate in the 2006 parliamentary elections points to its minimal public authority among Palestinians. Carter is therefore unable to argue that PIJ is somehow central to any Israeli-Palestinian peace process, which is the very argument he has used to defend his meetings with Hamas officials.

Afghan parliament committee drafts Taliban-style moral law: no makeup for women, veil obligatory, no female dancers, no billiards or video games, and more

Where will it stop? With Sharia enshrined in the constitution, there certainly isn't any protection against a steady stream of additional limitations on private behavior and civil liberties.

A five-alarm Sharia Alert. "Afghan parliament committee drafts Taliban-style moral law," from Agence France-Presse:

KABUL (AFP) - An Afghan legislative committee has drafted a bill seeking to introduce Taliban-style Islamic morality codes banning women from wearing make-up in public and forbidding young boys from wearing female fashions.

The draft, a copy of which was obtained by AFP, needs approval by both chambers of the Islamist-dominated parliament and President Hamid Karzai signature to become a law.

"Women and girls are obliged to not wear make-up, wear suitable dresses and observe hijab (veil) while at work or classrooms," said one article of the draft.

It also aims to ban women dancers performing during concerts and other public events as well as on television.

"The mass media including television and cable networks must avoid broadcasting programmes against Islamic morals," it said without giving details.

In a similar move the parliament, which is dominated by former anti-Soviet Islamist warlords, called earlier this month for a ban on dancing and Indian soap dramas on private television networks.

Men and young boys must avoid wearing bracelets, necklaces, "feminist dresses," and hair-bands, the draft reads.

The proposals also demand an end to dog and bird-fighting, pigeon-flying, billiards and video games, all past times favoured by many Afghans.

It demands separate halls for men and women during wedding parties, while loud music is banned at such gatherings. Afghans hold big and costly get-togethers for weddings, usually in a public hall with music.

If the proposals are passed, violators could be fined 500 Afghanis (10 dollars) to 5,000, according to the draft.

The plans mirror many of the laws introduced by the extremist Taliban regime, which ruled the country from 1996 to 2001 with strict Islamic Sharia law.

U.K.: "Private donations, mostly to Islamic study centres, are much greater than government funding for Islamic studies and academics are said to be nervous of the threat to their academic freedom."

With good reason. More on this story. "Concerns over funding of Islamic studies," from the Guardian:

A confidential meeting called by the Higher Education Funding Council for England (Hefce) about Islamic studies will take place today amid fears that Saudi and Muslim organisations exert too much influence over UK universities as a result of donations that dwarf government funding.

Private donations, mostly to Islamic study centres, are much greater than government funding for Islamic studies and academics are said to be nervous of the threat to their academic freedom.

The conference will discuss how to improve Islamic studies in UK universities after the government earmarked £1m in funding following the publication of Dr Ataullah Siddiqui's report last June.

Ministers labelled Islamic studies a "strategic subject" and said the "effective and accurate teaching" of it in universities could help community cohesion and counter extremism.

It is expected that the conference will hear calls for more Islamic study centres to be opened at or allied to British universities.

In 2006, Hefce and the Scottish funding council and the research councils for the arts and humanities and economic and social research earmarked £4.5m annually to support area studies and related languages.

This included setting up the Centre for the Advanced Study of the Arabic World - a collaboration between the universities of Edinburgh, Manchester and Durham.

Dr Denis MacEoin, Islam expert at Newcastle University, said academics were nervous about handling topics that might upset their sponsors.

"It's part of an overall belief that only Muslims can teach Islam, which in an academic context is entirely wrong. It would soon remove the possibility for genuine academic debate."

He said increasing numbers of students with Salafist - a more traditional form of Islam - backgrounds were taking Islamic studies and could be upset by "proper academic critical debate".

"It does threaten academic freedom and critical thinking," he warned.

But Dr Colin Turner, lecturer in Islamic studies and Persian at Durham University said there was no evidence that the subject was a "puppet in the hands of the extremists".

"There are certain departments in which, owing to the dynamics of their funding, one can find lecturers who avoid criticism of their (Arab) benefactors, but this is an exception rather than a rule; furthermore, if criticism is avoided, it is criticism of political rather than religious stances which is avoided," he said.

"It is usually anti-Wahhabi voices that dominate; the notion that Saudi money is turning Islamic Studies centres in the UK into hotbeds of Wahhabi extremism is completely unfounded," he said.

Prof Anthony Glees, director of Brunel University's Centre for Intelligence and Security Studies, claims that eight universities, including Oxford and Cambridge, have accepted more than £233.5m from Saudi and Muslim sources since 1995, with much of the money going to Islamic study centres.

Glees' report, which is to be published by the Centre for Social Cohesion, part of rightwing thinktank Civitas, says this is 200 times the amount the government is putting into Islamic studies and will allow one-sided views of Islam and the Middle East, and anti-democratic propaganda to prosper.

Glees wants all university donations to be made public. He said any money coming into higher education from Islamic organisations should not be used for Islamic studies because of the "clear conflict of interest".

He alleges the government's plan to counter extremism would in fact create a Muslim apartheid in the UK, with Muslims being taught to think of themselves as Muslim first, British second.

Rice calls Hamas 'resistance movement' during unscripted remarks

From our Why We're In The Fix We're In Department: "Oops, she did it again! Rice calls Hamas 'resistance movement' during unscripted remarks," by Aaron Klein for WorldNetDaily:

JERUSALEM – For at least the fourth time in recent months, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice referred to the Hamas terrorist organization as a "resistance" movement during unscripted remarks with reporters, WND has learned.

This time, Rice was giving a free-ranging interview two weeks ago with the Washington Times when a reporter asked her about the wisdom of encouraging democracy in countries where radical Islamists could win elections, pointing as an example to Hamas, which won Palestinian elections two years ago.

Rice replied: "It's, I would say, still a story-in-progress on Hamas, in particular, because I think there's plenty of evidence now that one reason that Hamas went back to their bad old ways and took over the Gaza and overthrew the legitimate Palestinian Authority institutions is that actually they were failing at governance, and it's easier to be a resistance movement than to be a governing movement."

Her remarks are transcribed in full on the State Department website....

Malaysia Council of Churches: Fitna distorts Islam

"Wilders is provocative in his comments on selective readings of the Quran and seeks to present a distorted portrayal of Islam as a violent religion." Predictably enough, there was nary a word from the august churchmen about the Islamic preachers depicted in the film, using the Qur'an to preach violence. No, it's all Geert Wilders's fault.

"Council of Churches: Fitna distorts Islam," from The Star (thanks to Twostellas):

KUALA LUMPUR: The Council of Churches Malaysia on Wednesday expressed concern over the release of the controversial movie Fitna made by Dutch Member of Parliament Geert Wilders.

“The film, which is now posted on the web, highly criticises Islam, setting verses from the Quran against a background of violent images from terrorist attacks. "Wilders is provocative in his comments on selective readings of the Quran and seeks to present a distorted portrayal of Islam as a violent religion," said CCM general secretary Rev Dr Hermen Shastri.

He said the CCM was in solidarity with the Council of Churches in Netherlands which had stated: “We strongly reject all contempt and slander aimed at the Quran and the Prophet Muhammed, just as we would not wish this with regard to the Bible and the Christian faith. We stress that Mr Wilders represents the vision of a small section of Dutch society. This vision is certainly not shared by the Dutch churches.”

Rev Dr Shastri said in a statement the 15-minute feature film had distorted the core spiritual values of Islam, which like Christianity did not advocate violence....

What a relief!

Iranian authorities destroy seven ancient synagogues in Tehran

Jahiliyya Update: The artifacts of the pre-Islamic period or non-Islamic cultures are, to traditional Islam, worthless trash -- the society of unbelievers. "Iran: Seven historic synagogues in Tehran destroyed," from AKI (thanks to Sr. Soph):

Tehran, 15 April (AKI) - Seven ancient synagogues in the Iranian capital, Tehran, have been destroyed by local authorities.

The synagogues were in the Oudlajan suburb of Tehran, where many Iranian Jews used to live.

"These buildings, which were part of our cultural, artistic and architectural heritage were burnt to the ground," said Ahmad Mohit Tabatabaii, the director of the International Council of Museums’ (ICOM) office in Tehran.

"With the excuse of renovating this ancient quarter, they are erasing a part of our history," said Tabatabaii....

Eight-year-old girl wins divorce in Yemen

"Her lawyer compared the case to thousands of others in Yemen, which has no minimum age of marriage."

An update on this story. "Eight-Year-Old Girl Divorces Husband From Arranged Marriage," from FoxNews (thanks to all who sent this in):

An eight-year-old Yemeni girl was granted a divorce from an arranged marriage she was forced into in just the second grade.

Nojud Mohammed Ali said she was forced to marry under an agreement reached between her unemployed father and 28-year-old former husband, Faez Ali Thameur, earlier this year, AFP reported.

"They asked me to sign the marriage contract and remain in my father's house until I was 18," the girl told AFP. "But a week after signing, my father and my mother forced me to go live with him."

Thameur told a judge that he married Nojud with her consent and her parents', and that the marriage "was consummated, but I did not beat her." He did not object to the divorce petition.

Nojud's father said he married off his daughter with her consent out of fear that she might be kidnapped, as he claimed her two older sisters had been, AFP reported....

"I am happy that I am divorced now. I will be able to go back to school," Nojud told AFP.

Her lawyer compared the case to thousands of others in Yemen, which has no minimum age of marriage. She said advocates are pushing for laws that would make 18 the minimum age of marriage.

Hugs for thugs: Dhimmi Carter meets Hamas politician, also lays wreath on Arafat's grave

Surprising? No. Appalling? Yes.

"Carter embraces Hamas official at West Bank meeting," by Josef Federman for the Associated Press:

JERUSALEM - Former President Carter angered Israel's government Tuesday by embracing a Hamas politician during a visit to the West Bank, ignoring Israeli and U.S. designation of the Islamic militants as a terror group. Israel accused Carter, the broker of the first Arab-Israeli peace accord, of "dignifying" extremists. But Carter vowed to meet Hamas' supreme leader this week in Syria.

Carter, a Nobel Peace laureate, also laid a wreath at Yasser Arafat's grave, another break with U.S. policy during a private peace mission to the Middle East that includes stops in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan and Syria — where the virulently anti-Israel Hamas movement has its headquarters. Carter returns to Israel on Monday.

Carter has been shunned by Israel this week, and the White House has criticized him for his willingness to meet with Hamas leaders. Carter says the U.S. and Israel should stop isolating the group, whose control of the Gaza Strip threatens to undermine Israeli-Palestinian peace efforts.

"Since Syria and Hamas will have to be involved in a final peace agreement, they have to be involved in discussions that lead to final peace," Carter said in the West Bank city of Ramallah.

During the graveside ceremony, a two-man honor guard escorted the 83-year-old Carter and his wife, Rosalynn. Carter placed the wreath on the grave, then solemnly nodded before turning away. Later, a Palestinian host told Carter that Arafat's resting place was temporary, and the Palestinians hope to move his remains to Jerusalem one day. Carter did not react.

President Bush blamed Arafat for the breakdown of peace talks and subsequent wave of violence and cut off of contacts with the longtime Palestinian leader before he died in 2004. Bush did not visit Arafat's grave when he visited Ramallah this year.

Carter also attended a reception organized by his office for Palestinian dignitaries in Ramallah. At the gathering, Carter embraced Nasser Shaer, a senior Hamas politician, meeting participants said. Embraces between men are a common custom in Arab culture.

"We hugged each other, and it was a warm reception," Shaer said. "Carter asked what he can do to achieve peace between the Palestinians and Israel ... and I told him the possibility for peace is high."

Shaer, who served as deputy prime minister and education minister in the Hamas-led Palestinian government that unraveled last year, is considered a leading member of the Islamic militant group's pragmatic wing. After a stint in an Israeli prison last year, he is now a professor at a West Bank university, teaching comparative religion.

Palestinians say Shaer, an academic, was not involved in Hamas attacks against Israel, and Israel has never charged him with violent activity.

Bridge for Sale. Shaer is nonetheless still a member of an organization committed to the destruction of Israel.

More on this spectacle in "Carter kisses Hamas terrorist," by Aaron Klein for World Net Daily:

RAMALLAH, West Bank – Former President Jimmy Carter today warmly embraced a top Hamas terrorist and laid a wreath on the gravesite of former Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat, whom Carter called a "peace fighter" and a "dear friend," according to Palestinian officials speaking to WND.

Visiting the West Bank city of Ramallah, Carter attended a reception with Nasser Shaer, a senior Hamas leader. The reception was closed to the media, but according to participants and the Hamas leader, Carter hugged Shaer and kissed him on each cheek, the customary greeting for good friends. Many U.S. diplomats refrain from kissing Palestinian officials.

Prior to embracing Shaer, Carter met with officials from Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas' Fatah organization at the Muqata, the main Fatah headquarters.

Carter paid a visit to the gravesite of Arafat, who is buried just outside the Muqata. Palestinian officials who escorted Carter told WND the former president paused for a moment of silence at Arafat's grave before laying a wreath there.

The Palestinian officials quoted Carter stating Arafat was a "peace fighter and a dear friend of mine."

They also quoted Carter calling Arafat a "partner in representing the question of justice in the world."

"Up to 48 universities in Britain have been infiltrated by fundamentalists financed by Muslim groups."

"Eight of Britain's leading universities, including Oxford and Cambridge, have accepted more than 236 million pounds sterling, about $460 million, in donations from Muslim organizations, 'many of which are known to have ties to extremist groups, some have links to terrorist organizations'."

"Saudis purchasing UK universities?" from World Net Daily:

LONDON – Jonathan Evans, the director-general of MI5, has warned the government that donations of hundreds of millions of pounds from Saudi Arabia and powerful Muslim organizations in Pakistan, Indonesia and the Gulf Straits have led to a "dangerous increase in the spread of extremism in leading university campuses," according to Joseph Farah's G2 Bulletin.

Eight of Britain's leading universities, including Oxford and Cambridge, have accepted more than 236 million pounds sterling, about $460 million, in donations from Muslim organizations, "many of which are known to have ties to extremist groups, some have links to terrorist organizations."

The bulk of the donations have come in the past five years during a period when terrorist activities in Britain have increased. Home Secretary Jacqui Smith announced over the weekend that MI5 was now investigating "42 current terror threats and the possibility of attacks is increasingly real."

Universities that have accepted the money also include the London School of Economics, the City of London, Exeter and Dundee universities. All have a growing number of Muslim students.

A major donation has included 20 million pounds sterling from the late King Fahd of Saudi Arabia to help establish the Oxford Center for Islamic Studies, which will be affiliated to the university when it opens next year.

The MI5 claims follow a lengthy investigation that revealed 70 percent of political lectures at the Middle Eastern Center at St. Anthony’s College in Oxford were "implacably hostile to the West and Israel."

The MI5 claims are reinforced by Prof. Anthony Glees, the director of Brunel University's Center for Intelligence and Security Studies, a think-tank with close links to the Intelligence Services.

"Up to 48 universities in Britain have been infiltrated by fundamentalists financed by Muslim groups. The potential threat this poses is obvious to the security of the country," Glees said.

However, Prime Minister Gordon Brown insists it is strategically "important to study Islam." He has authorized one million pounds sterling to be spent at the campuses on a counter radicalization drive.

It certainly is strategically important to study Islam. But where one gets information, and the agenda of the party disseminating that information makes quite a difference.

Which race is Islam again? Brigitte Bardot on trial in France for "inciting racial hatred" for criticizing Islam, Eid animal slaughter

An update on this story. "Brigitte Bardot on trial for Muslim slur," from Reuters:

French former film star Brigitte Bardot went on trial on Tuesday for insulting Muslims, the fifth time she has faced the charge of "inciting racial hatred" over her controversial remarks about Islam and its followers.

Prosecutors asked that the Paris court hand the 73-year-old former sex symbol a two-month suspended prison sentence and fine her 15,000 euros ($23,760) for saying the Muslim community was "destroying our country and imposing its acts."

Since retiring from the film industry in the 1970s, Bardot has become a prominent animal rights activist but she has also courted controversy by denouncing Muslim traditions and immigration from predominantly Muslim countries.

She has been fined four times for inciting racial hatred since 1997, at first 1,500 euros and most recently 5,000.

Prosecutor Anne de Fontette told the court she was seeking a tougher sentence than usual, adding, "I am a little tired of prosecuting Mrs. Bardot."

"Doctor, it hurts when I do this."

"Well, don't do that."

Bardot did not attend the trial because she said she was physically unable to. The verdict is expected in several weeks.

'France invaded by sheep-slaughtering Muslims'

French anti-racist groups complained last year about comments Bardot made about the Muslim feast of Eid al-Adha in a letter to President Nicolas Sarkozy that was later published by her foundation.

Muslims traditionally mark Eid al-Adha by slaughtering a sheep or another animal to commemorate the Prophet Abraham's willingness to sacrifice his son on God's orders.

France is home to 5 million Muslims, Europe's largest Muslim community, making up 8 percent of France's population.

"I am fed up with being under the thumb of this population which is destroying us, destroying our country and imposing its acts," the star of "And God created woman" and "Contempt" said.

Bardot has previously said France is being invaded by sheep-slaughtering Muslims and published a book attacking gays, immigrants and the unemployed, in which she also lamented the "Islamization of France."

And she's been aggressively prosecuted for which of those opinions?

Awkward Wedding Toast of the Year: Hamas' Mashaal praises "Palestinian Reproductive Machine" at daughter's wedding

Alluding to the tactic of demographic conquest, while also speaking volumes about the value and role of women in the jihadist vision for society. "Mashaal Praises ‘Palestinian Reproductive Machine’," from Israel National News:

Hamas leader Khaled Mashaal made a speech in favor of the “Palestinian reproductive machine” at his daughter Fatima’s wedding over the weekend. The “machine” is constantly active, Mashaal said. He told his daughter and son-in-law that their children would one day live in the “48 territories,” that is, within Israel’s 1948 borders.

Mashaal took time from his speech to thank Syria for allowing him, Islamic Jihad head Ramadan Shallah, and other senior terrorists to live in Damascus. “We realize the pressures on Syria for housing Mashaal and Shallah,” he said. Shallah attended the wedding, as did PFLP head Mahir at-Tahir, Iranian ambassador Ahmed al-Musawi, Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Muallem, and other Arab and Muslim diplomats.

Teacher at U.K. Islamic school who exposed "apes and pigs" texts receives £70,000 settlement for unfair dismissal

An update on this story. "Teacher accuses Islamic school of racism," by Alexandra Frean for the Times Online:

A former teacher at an Islamic school, who alleged that it taught an offensive and racist view of non-Muslims, has been awarded £70,000 by an employment tribunal after winning his case for unfair dismissal.

Colin Cook told the tribunal in Watford that pupils were taught from Arabic books that likened Jews and Christians to “monkeys” and “pigs” at The King Fahad Academy, which is funded and run by the Saudi Arabian Government.

The tribunal ruled that Mr Cook, a British Muslim, was unfairly dismissed from his £36,000-a-year post at the school in Acton, West London, in December 2006 after blowing the whistle on systematic cheating at a GCSE exam.

The panel found that the school created a “smokescreen” to try to justify his dismissal after 18 years’ unblemished service.

It awarded Mr Cook £58,800 in compensation for loss of earnings and £10,500 for injury to feelings. But it rejected his claim that the school discriminated against him on racial grounds.

Mr Cook told the hearing that after leaving the school another member of staff gave him extracts from an Arabic textbook, which encouraged students to believe that all religions other than Islam were worthless.

The books referred to “the repugnant characteristics of the Jews”. Another passage said: “Those whom God has cursed and with whom he is angry, he has turned into monkeys and pigs. They worship Satan.”

Mr Cook alleged that the books were spreading race hatred. “They should not be brought into this country and they should not be used in this country,” he said.

The school denied ever teaching any form of racial hatred and insisted that the offending passages in the books were “misinterpreted” and were never used in class. But it later got rid of the books.

Not exactly.

Sweden: Muslim woman receives $4,000 in damages for having to remove face veil

Cultural Capitulation Update: never mind the possibility of deception, and the concomitant ease of committing crimes, made possible by the face veil. Self-defense does not trump multiculturalism.

"Muslim woman receives damages for headscarf slight," from The Local (thanks to Marked Manner):

A 20-year-old Malmö woman has been awarded damages after she was asked to leave a bus for wearing a veil.

The woman has received 25,000 kronor ($4,203) from public bus service operator Arriva after an agreement was reached with the Ombudsman against ethnic discrimination (DO), according to local newspaper Sydsvenskan.

The woman was instructed to leave the bus in the southern Swedish city when she refused to remove the niqab veil that she was wearing as part of her sartorial hijab headdress. The niqab covers the entire face except for eyes.

The bus driver had asked the woman to remove her niqab so that he could identify her, however the woman was using a buss pass that did not require identification.

"The bus driver has not acted according to Arriva's values. There is no doubt where the fault lies and this is most regrettable. We are happy to pay out the money to make up for it," said Jan Wildau at Arriva.

Dhimmi Carter reiterates plans to meet with Hamas leaders in Syria

An update on this story. "Jimmy Carter says he likely will meet with Hamas," from Reuters:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Former U.S. President Jimmy Carter said in remarks to air on Sunday that his upcoming visit to the Middle East probably would include a meeting in Syria with leaders of the militant group Hamas.

"I've not confirmed our itinerary yet for the Syrian visit, but it's likely that I will be meeting with the Hamas leaders," Carter said, according to a transcript of his interview on ABC News' "This Week."

The Bush administration and close U.S. ally Israel oppose the meeting, which would take place during Carter's nine-day trip to the Middle East that begins on Sunday.

U.S. policy has been to isolate Hamas, which seized control of Gaza last June, and to bolster pro-Western President Mahmoud Abbas, who rules the West Bank and is in U.S.-sponsored talks with the Israelis.

U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who sought Carter's counsel on his own previous Arab-Israeli peacemaking efforts ahead of a U.S.-hosted Middle East conference in Annapolis last November, called Hamas a "terrorist organization" on Friday.

"I think there's no doubt in anyone's mind that, if Israel is ever going to find peace with justice concerning the relationship with their next-door neighbors, the Palestinians, that Hamas will have to be included in the process," said Carter, who won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2002.

"I think someone should be meeting with Hamas to see what we can do to encourage them to be cooperative," he added.

Carter, who served one term as president from 1977 to 1981, would be one of the most prominent Americans to meet with the leader of Hamas, Khaled Meshaal.

"We'll be meeting with the Syrians, the Egyptians, the Jordanians, the Saudi Arabians, and with the whole gamut of people who might have to play a crucial role in any future peace agreement that involves the Middle East," Carter said of his trip.

The 83-year-old former president has a long history of being involved in the Middle East. In 1978 he succeeded in negotiating the Camp David Accords that paved the way for peace between Israel and Egypt, but he has increasingly taken positions critical of Israel.

In a 2006 book, he described Israeli policy in the occupied territories as "a system of apartheid."

President of E.U. parliament rejects "statements, pictures or descriptions that identify violence and terrorism with Muslim beliefs"

"There are people who think the clash of civilizations is inevitable. But I reject this idea very strongly."

And apparently the way to avoid that clash is to pretend the differences don't exist, and surrender. "Islam, terrorism not linked, says top EU official," from The Peninsula:

Doha - The European Parliament is highly critical of those who equate Islam with terrorism, its President said here yesterday.

"I will not accept this and we in the European Parliament do not accept that Islam and terrorism are identified as the same thing. We don't believe in this idea and we reject this idea," Hans-Gert Pottering, who is here on an official visit to Qatar, told a news conference.

A sloppy statement on so many levels. Obviously, a belief system and a tactic (terrorism) are not the same thing. But that's not to say open-ended commands to wage war against unbelievers are not contained in that belief system, or don't pose a serious problem for Western nations and cultures. Then there's the imprecision of the term "terrorism," as opposed to armed jihad and all other forms of campaigns to overthrow non-Islamic govenments and subjugate non-believers. But we're not supposed to talk about that.

He said the European Parliament rejected statements, pictures or descriptions that identify violence and terrorism with Muslim beliefs.

Referring to the controversial Dutch MP Geert Wilders' anti-Islam film Fitna, Pottering said: "I express my opposition to this film and the same thing with the Danish cartoons."

"We in Europe are committed to the freedom of the press, on the one hand, but on the other the media should develop a sort of self responsibility. They should always know the consequences of what they publish about other cultures," he said.

"We should respect others' beliefs and our relations should be based on mutual tolerance."

He commended the opening of a church in Qatar, saying this is something he understands as tolerance.

Pottering said 2008 is the European Year of Inter-Cultural Dialogue. "I deeply believe that understanding between the Arab world and Europe is very important for our common future," he said.

"There are people who think the clash of civilizations is inevitable. But I reject this idea very strongly. I believe it is our moral and political obligation to work for partnership, peace and understanding."

Pope at Ground Zero to call for terrorists to convert to Christianity

This is likely to cause immense outrage among Muslims, but consider this: most of the time the party line is that the terrorists are hardly Muslims at all, but are perverting and twisting and hijacking a peaceful religion. I have seen many Muslim spokesmen in the West loudly say that they don't have to apologize for the deeds of the terrorists, because the terrorists aren't true Muslims. So if they aren't, why is this a big deal (as it almost certainly will be)? But I expect that there will be expressions of outrage that the Pope is praying for the conversion to Christianity of any Muslim -- suddenly, the terrorists will turn out to be Muslim after all.

"Pope will pray for terrorists at Ground Zero," by Malcolm Moore in the Telegraph (thanks to Zeus):

The Pope will pray for the redemption of Islamic terrorists when he visits the site of the September 11 attacks in New York next week. The pontiff will call for terrorists to convert to Christianity, saying: "Turn to Your way of love those whose hearts and minds are consumed with hatred.

"God of understanding, overwhelmed by the magnitude of this tragedy, we seek your light and guidance".

The prayer is likely to further incense the Muslim world, which has already attacked the Pope for publicly converting Magdi Allam, a journalist and one of Italy's most high-profile Muslims, at Easter.

Osama bin Laden accused the Pope of trying to provoke "a new crusade" against Islam.

Aref Ali Nayed, a leading scholar and proponent of peaceful relations between the Roman Catholic Church and Islam, said that there were "genuine questions about the motives, intentions and plans of some of the Pope's advisers on Islam".

He said that religious conversion should not be "made into a triumphalist tool for scoring points"....

BBC chief: Reporting on Islam is over-cautious out of fear of offending Muslims

When the head of the BBC says this, you know you've got a real problem. "BBC chief Mark Thompson warns of 'over-cautious' Islam coverage," by Dan Sabbagh in the Times (thanks to all who sent this in):

Mark Thompson, the Director General of the BBC, tonight warned broadcasters against becoming overly-cautious in their reporting on Islam for fear of causing offence to Muslims.

Speaking at Westminster Cathedral Mr Thompson, a practising Catholic, said there was “a growing nervousness about discussion about Islam and its relationship to the traditions and values of British and Western society as a whole”.

He said that the BBC and other major channels “have a special responsibility” to ensure that debates about “faith and society” and about any religion “should not be foreclosed or censored”.

In an effort to demonstrate that his remarks were not targeted solely at ensuring that Islam received journalistic scrutiny, Mr Thompson also referring to his decision to broadcast Jerry Springer, The Opera despite an avalanche of complaints from Christians unhappy at the depiction of Jesus in the satire.

“There is no point having a BBC which isn’t prepared to stand up and be counted; which will do everything it can to mitigate potential religious offence; but which will always be forthright in the defence of freedom of speech and of impartiality,” he said....

Indeed not.

Fitzgerald: Criticism of Israel is not permitted?

Iranian filmmaker Nader Talebzadeh recently asserted "the fact that the West does not tolerate any criticism of Israel.”

Not only does "the West" tolerate constant criticism of Israel, but Israel also -- this mighty empire about the size of Connecticut, hard to discern on a map of the world -- about one-third to one-half of the total debates and resolutions at the U.N. and many of its subsidiary bodies. Whole conferences seem to veer inexorably into the subject of Israel's perfidy and the greatest tragedy in the history of the world, that of the "Palestinians" -- whether it be a conference on racism at Durban, or on women in Cairo. And the Western world not only tolerates it, but sometimes joins in. Israel has been left virtually alone, save for a handful of states.

And as for the Western press, a drip-drip-drip of anti-Israel venom now courses through the veins of so many in the West because the good doctors of The Guardian and the BBC and Le Monde and Agence France Presse and Reuters and a cast of thousands, with Robert Fisk in the lead but hardly alone, have misrepresented everything. They have caused everything to be taken out of context. They have promoted the notion of the "Palestinian people." They have caused collective amnesia about the reason, and terms of, the Mandate for Palestine. They have rewritten or ignored the true demographic history and the cadastral history of that tiny sliver of land in dusty Asia that had fallen into ruin and desolation, and that would still be in ruins if the Jews had not returned. That includes the Jews of the Middle East (the Jews of the Middle East whom we are supposed to forget about, as if they never existed) as well as the Jews whose mistreatment in Europe had its final apotheosis in Mr. Hitler and the still-unbelievable events of 1933-1945. Those who belonged to the most persecuted tribe in human history returned -- though some had never left, for there was a continuous Jewish presence, always, in Safed, Tiberias, Jerusalem, and even in Hebron until the Arab Muslim massacre of 1929). They returned, and reestablished, for the second time in 2000 years, a Jewish commonwealth. The incredible accomplishments in Israel, the magnanimity it has shown as well to its mortal enemies, have both been systematically ignored.

One may or may not agree with the celebrated Italian journalist and historian Indro Montanelli, who, a few years before his death in 2001 at the age of 90, wrote that the reestablishment of the State of Israel was "the greatest thing, possibly the only good thing, to have come out of the twentieth century." Montanelli could say this because, though not Jewish, he -- like Churchill -- understood what that meant, in world-historical terms, what it meant to the West.

This has been forgotten in that same West, the West where we are told by this crazed Muslim observer that criticism of Israel is not tolerated. Though the least deserving of criticism, in the West, as elsewhere, Israel has become an object of hysterical and ahistorical criticism, criticism that is spread and finds favor with two kinds of people: the usual group, some 10-20% of the population in any given Western country, that exhibits signs of that mental pathology we call antisemitism (and for whom Israel provides an "acceptable" outlet for their low-level hostility or hatred) and those who simply do not know, are ignorant of, the history of Israel, of the Mandate period, of the Mandate itself, of the rules of territorial adjustment after wars, of the history of the Middle East, of the history of Islamic conquest, of the demographic and cadastral history of the area that became modern Israel, of the texts, tenets, attitudes, and atmospherics, of Islam.

And the less you know of these things, the more likely it is that you will credulously accept and pass on to others the inaccurate and at times horrifically and sinisterly unjust reporting on events, and "making sense" of events, that takes place in the popular press and in broadcasting.

From Anthony Lewis, to Tom Friedman, to Robert Fisk, to Eric Rouleau, the misrepresenters of Israel, who have done so much damage, are many and various.

"Criticism of Israel" is not tolerated? There is an object of conceivable criticism that is, in many parts of the Western world, carefully protected from such criticism, but it is not "Israel." It does, however, share the same initial syllable. And that is about all it shares.

Fitzgerald: Appease Saudi Arabia?

There is no reason to do anything to appease Saudi Arabia. Yet the assumption that the West must do this is commonly made. In order to obtain oil from Saudi Arabia, or from any other oil producer, the only thing that any consumer need do is offer the market price. That's it. And if for some reason one producer -- let's say Venezuela -- decided it did not want to sell oil to the United States, or all the Arab countries decided that they would not sell oil to Israel, or to Denmark, or to the Netherlands, it doesn't matter. Oil is fungible. Oil can be obtained through dozens of possible sellers. If buyer X won't sell, buyers Y and Z will. It is actually easier for buyers to put pressure and organize boycotts of sellers of oil, than vice-versa.

The repetition of the phrase above, and the unexamined belief of so many that we need to placate or appease Saudi Arabia, a backward land that is totally dependent on the West for its professional and managerial class, and dependent on the West for advanced education, medical care, arms, and protection for the Al-Saud, needs to be held up for inspection, analysis, and ridicule.

Now, there are those who, on the Saudi payroll, directly or indirectly, in the capitals of the West, keep parroting this nonsense. It is their job to make Western policymakers believe that "of course we can't offend the Saudis." But we can. We can and we should. They will still have to sell their oil on the world market. And as the rich Arabs have now been acquiring assets -- not all of them liquid, by any means -- in the Western world, these assets can be seen as hostages to fortune. For even if we were to seize all the assets of those countries that were funding the worldwide Jihad -- not the violent Jihad, but the Jihad that is proceeding through non-violent and stealthy means -- there is nothing that the daggers-and-dishdashas rulers of Saudi Arabia, or the rulers of Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, and other places could do about it. (Why not seize the assets of countries funding the violent Jihad? No country is doing that outright. It is merely individuals in various Muslim countries who are doing what comes naturally. Or more likely, in the cases of some rich and decadent and outwardly westernized rich Arabs, funding the Jihad may be the best way they have, as they see it, of making up for their personal decadence -- financing the true-blue dedicated muhajideen, as a contribution to The Cause of Islam.)

Those states would still have to sell their oil. They need the money. And they have no way of imposing their will, other than to slyly buy up enough corrupt people, who in turn will attempt, and have attempted, and have succeeded, for quite a while in fooling some of the people all of the time. But only "some" of the people. The clear-sighted will understand that while it is very much in the interest of particular Westerners (those who are hirelings of the Saudis, those who can benefit directly from Saudi largesse or contracts) that policies in the West be made by those who have wrongly been made fearful of Saudi Arabia and the lesser sheikdoms of the Gulf, it is not in the interests of this or any Western nation, or of the West as a civilization, or of Western infidels as individuals, to continue to believe, and what's more to build policies on the belief, that anything at all needs to be done to placate those Muslim states. Nothing at all needs to be done. In fact, the more unbending we become, the more they will bend. For we have a thousand ways to make their lives more uncertain and unpleasant, beginning with the threat of seizing the assets of enemy aliens. And that is certainly a threat that should be carried out if Saudi Arabia, for example, does not stop funding, with public and private money from Saudis, the mosques, madrasas, propaganda, campaigns of Da'wa, and armies of Western hirelings all over the Western world. This should go all the way to military measures that, in another age, we would not have hesitated to have used long before now.

Fitzgerald: A tribute to Robert Fisk

A Jihad Watch reader recently referred to the “award-winning journalist Robert Fisk.”

Robert Fisk has been, for many decades, a stalwart, and a fan, of the PLO. He has also been, for at least as long, someone who repeats every conceivable canard and bit of viciousness that can be found in Arab or other propaganda against Israel. He is also, according to many journalists who know him, someone who sometimes claims eyewitness knowledge of things he could not possibly have seen because he was nowhere around at the time.

As for being "award winning" -- so what? There are so many awards being handed out like confetti, that some of them, many of them, most of them, surely go to entirely unworthy recipients. These awards mean nothing. Sometimes, in some fields -- what are called hard sciences --and at the highest level, they may mean something. But there are so many equally, or even more deserving, than some of the recipients, that even there one must not be surprised to find a Nobel Prize winner who is not up to expectations. Or in some cases one may reasonably conclude that others of equal or of greater merit in the same field were somehow overlooked.

Fisk's meretriciousness, in dispatch after dispatch, is hardly to be believed. But it is, by some, believed. Of course, you won't find a thing about Islam in the work of Robert Fisk. Islam, and its effect on the minds of men, and on what they do, how they see the world -- that is not part of Fisk's reporting. So he has been putting on Hamlet without the Prince for his entire life. You learn nothing from Fisk, except about Robert Fisk. About Muslim men, in mental and emotional thrall to Islam, and history-haunted, he tells you nothing. That is, he gives you no understanding of the kind without which it is not possible to make sense either of Arabs or the history of the Middle East, or of the present Middle East. And that goes far beyond the war against Israel. It includes events in the Sudan, and what happens to the Berbers and the Kurds, and to the Christians in Lebanon. It also helps to explain the peculiar role of the Alawite dictatorship in Syria. For all of this, his supposed area of expertise, the indolent Fisk, who has never paid attention to the texts, tenets, attitudes, and atmospherics of Islam, has nothing to offer. Worthless.

Still, we should do what Robert Fisk wants, and get out of Iraq. Do just what Robert Fisk wants, and MoveOn.org, and all those Arab agitators everywhere. Yes, get out -- but get out on our terms, without waiting for the Iraqis to grandly tell us when we can go, and with an entirely new set of accompanyng measures that will reveal a colder, harder, altogether more disturbing (for them, for Muslims generally) view of the Jihad. Cut the jizyah to Egypt. Change your mind about those absurd, suicidal billions being offered the "Palestinian" Arabs who are the shock troops of the Jihad against Israel -- which was the main one going until OPEC oil money allowed the Arabs and Muslims to extend their reach worldwide, with mosques, madrasas, arms bought and arms produced. For Islam does not tell Muslims "take the Christian Holy Land, take the Jewish Eretz Israel" and "be satisfied." It says: participation in Jihad is a collective duty of all Muslims, and under certain circumstances it is an individual duty of Muslims, Jihad to spread Islam, Jihad to fight back against any and all obstacles put up to the spread of Islam. Europeans are discovering that when, without paying any attention to Islam, they allowed in millions of Muslim migrants, who now conduct Da'wa and have large families that are mostly, but not entirely, on the Infidel-financed doles of generous European welfare states. They introduced a classic fifth column into their midst. They fret, they hope, they avert their eyes, they talk with waning faith in the possibility of "integration." Yet that "integration" will merely supply the linguistic and cultural tools to produce cleverer Muslims, more Tariq Ramadans, rather than foreign-sounding and foreign-looking Hamzas. It was quite a plan, to pay for K.G.B.-like "spy villages" where Muslims will be supported to learn even better how to exploit the European system, how to appeal to European Infidels, how better to conduct Da'wa and other propaganda among them.

And then they throw up their hands and say -- but "what can we do?" And from that despairing conclusion, which apparently stops them cold, or most of them, they work backwards. They try to figure out "what they can do" to make Muslims happy, to pretend that everything is or can be made okay, because the tenets of Islam cannot possibly be what we now all realize they seem to be, and the history of Islamic conquest and subjugation of non-Muslims cannot possibly be what we now all realize it has been -- so let's just pretend.

It's a very good game. Some people do it with the problem of retirement, and puny or non-existent pensions. Some people do it with affairs of the heart. And some people – like Robert Fisk -- do it with other, much more menacing matters.

Fitzgerald: Israel and Western Europe are in the same boat

The Netherlands and Denmark provide funding to a Palestinian news agency that glorifies terrorists, uses biased language and promotes hatred for Israel, Itamar Marcus and Barbara Crook of Palestinian Media Watch allege in a report obtained exclusively by The Jerusalem Post ahead of its official release on Friday. […]

"We find it surprising and unfortunate that the governments of the Netherlands and Denmark continue to fund this hate journalism without demanding a change," Marcus and Crook wrote. "Hate incitement, including denial of Israel's existence and glorifying terror, is universally accepted as a paramount cause of continued Palestinian terror. These governments, together with governments who have blindly funded Palestinian schoolbooks, bear direct moral responsibility for the continued hatred that is being ingrained into future Palestinian generations, and bear a moral responsibility for the terror and its victims." -- from this news article

There is a direct connection between the fate of Israel and the fate of Western Europe. If Israel is forced back, and the Arabs sense that they can finally eliminate the humiliating -- to them, as Muslims -- fact of an Infidel nation-state in the heart of the Dar al-Islam, Muslim triumphalism will be fantastic.

And this will not sate, as some so devoutly and naively think, Arab Muslim appetites. Rather, it will do exactly the opposite. It will whet them for further triumphs, further conquests.

Those states, those NGOS, those individuals, in Western Europe include newspapers, radio, and television whose reporters and editorialists on the Middle East have steadily misrepresented the Lesser Jihad against Israel as a "nationalist" struggle, and have accepted, even parroted, every twist and turn of "Palestinian" and other Arab propaganda. In many ways those who have in the Middle East gone native often monopolize those newspapers, radio stations, and television channels on Middle Eastern matters.

They have seen only that, in the immediate area of Israel, it is the "Palestinians" who seem to be the weaker party, and the Israelis who seem to be more powerful. But this is an optical illusion, for if the camera pulls back, one sees the vast Arab lands, the vast Arab wealth, the vast Arab effort. And if one pulls the camera back still further, one sees the even larger Muslim world that does the Arab bidding, with countries just as viciously anti-Israel as are the Arabs -- unless the regime in power is secular, as was the Shah of Iran, or the Kemalists in Turkey, where Muslim solidarity frays.

And those Western reporters -- including those in such countries as the Netherlands and Denmark -- have blackened Israel's name in a thousand ways, little and big, as Israel merely tries, and with amazing, unimaginable scrupulosity, to limit its responses. What country, being made war on, supplies electricity and gas to its mortal enemies, as Israel does? Israel also gives all kinds of goods and services, and even offers free and advanced medical care to thousands upon thousands of "Palestinians" who come from Gaza and the "West Bank" to Israeli hospitals. After that, having received care equal to that given to Israelis, and even having had their lives saved, those “Palestinians” return to, or never drop, their fanatical hatred of those who have given them, unstintingly, that medical care.

Those in Denmark and in the Netherlands who fear for the future of their own countries, and who recognize the meaning, and menace, of Islam as a Total Belief-System, and therefore the threat of a rising Muslim population, should not think -- and many in that vanguard do not think -- that throwing Israel to the wolves, that helping its Arab and Muslim enemies, that overlooking the intent of those enemies and excusing their murder and mayhem, now and in the future, will buy Western Europe time, or somehow make it safer. It won't.

Israel, and all Infidel lands, but especially, at the moment, the states of Western Europe, are in the same boat. Or rather, in the same ships, in the same besieged fleet. And the passengers on all those ships suffer from the same fact -- that none of the captains, and few of those on the crews, that is, the people in charge of making sure that the ships and its passengers are safe, at this point inspire confidence. Some among the passengers -- see the manifest, and you will recognize their names -- may need to stage a kind of mutiny, and seize control, before it is too late.

8-year-old girl seeks divorce in Yemen

The would-be divorcee

Yes, child marriage, and hence child divorce, does happen. The Qur'an even envisions the prospect of divorce for prepubescent girls. It stipulates a waiting period to determine whether or not the wife being divorced is pregnant: "If you are in doubt concerning those of your wives who have ceased menstruating, know that their waiting period shall be three months.” Then it goes on: “The same shall apply to those who have not yet menstruated” (Qur'an 65:4).

It's good to know, however, that these men were arrested, although it is unclear on what grounds, and doubtful, I believe, that they will actually be prosecuted.

Sharia Alert: "8-year-old girl asks for divorce in court," by Hamed Thabet in the Yemen Times:

SANA’A, April 9 - An eight-year-old girl decided last week to go the Sana’a West Court to prosecute her father, who forced her to marry a 30-year-old man.

Nojoud Muhammed Nasser arrived at court by herself on Wednesday, April 2, looking for a judge to handle her case against her father, Muhammed Nasser, who forced her two months ago to marry Faez Ali Thamer, a man 22 years her senior. The child also asked for a divorce, accusing her husband of sexual and domestic abuse.

According to Yemeni law, Nojoud cannot prosecute, as she is underage. However, court judge Muhammed Al-Qathi heard her complaint and subsequently ordered the arrests of both her father and husband.

“My father beat me and told me that I must marry this man, and if I did not, I would be raped and no law and no sheikh in this country would help me. I refused but I couldn’t stop the marriage,” Nojoud Nasser told the Yemen Times. “I asked and begged my mother, father, and aunt to help me to get divorced. They answered, ‘We can do nothing. If you want you can go to court by yourself.’ So this is what I have done,” she said.

Nasser said that she was exposed to sexual abuse and domestic violence by her husband. “He used to do bad things to me, and I had no idea as to what a marriage is. I would run from one room to another in order to escape, but in the end he would catch me and beat me and then continued to do what he wanted. I cried so much but no one listened to me. One day I ran away from him and came to the court and talked to them.”

“Whenever I wanted to play in the yard he beat me and asked me to go to the bedroom with him. This lasted for two months," added Nasser. "He was too tough with me, and whenever I asked him for mercy, he beat me and slapped me and then used me. I just want to have a respectful life and divorce him.”...

Read it all.

Iraqi Islamic scholar: Muhammad consummated his marriage with Aisha when she was nine, and there is no minimum age for marriage in Islamic law

Many, many times Islamic apologists in the West have called me "Islamophobic" for pointing out that the traditions of Muhammad that Muslims consider most reliable say that Aisha was nine when Muhammad consummated his marriage with her. This matters because Muhammad is the supreme example for conduct for Muslims -- which leads to a situation in which child marriage is difficult to condemn and is even endorsed by Islamic jurists, such as this fellow. Will Ibrahim Hooper and Salam Al-Marayati and the rest descend upon Dr. Abd Al-Hamid Al-'Ubeidi and call him an "Islamophobe"?

"Iraqi Expert on Islamic Law Calls to Allow Young Girls to Get Married: In Islamic Countries, Girls Get Their Periods at the Age of 8-10. Westerners Criticize the Prophet Muhammad for Having Sex with His 9 Year Old Wife, But Allow Fornication with Underage Girls," from MEMRITV (thanks to all who sent this in):

Following are excerpts from an interview with Dr. Abd Al-Hamid Al-'Ubeidi, an Iraqi expert on Islamic law, which aired on Al-Rafidein TV on March 14, 2008:

Dr. Abd Al-Hamid Al-'Ubeidi: There is no minimum marriage age for either men or women in Islamic law. The law in many countries permits girls to marry only from the age of 18. This is arbitrary legislation, not Islamic law. Why? Because there might be cases in which it is impossible to keep the girl [single] until the age of maturity.

[...]

Most of the time we act according to what is acceptable to most people, and indeed, most men do not marry a girl until she is of age. In some Islamic countries, the age of maturity can be 8 or 10 years. In Yemen, a girl might get her period at the age of 8. In cold countries, such as Russia, Belarus, Scandinavia, New Zealand, Canada, and so on, a girl might not reach maturity until she is 22 years old. She might not get her period until then. Therefore, the greatness of Islamic law is manifest in the fact that marriage is not just for pleasure. True, it is the basic objective for marriage, but there are some cases that require solutions.

[...]

Many criminals, the enemies of Islam, ask: "How could the Prophet Muhammad, at 52 years of age, marry 'Aisha when she was only 8 years old, and consummate the marriage when she was 9 years old?" I say to them: People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. Why do you permit your young girls to fornicate? They consider it one of their liberties. Therefore, in these stupid countries, you rarely find girls aged 10 or 12 who are still virgins. They permit this. They have even legislated laws stating that if a girl is under the age of 18, and her girlfriend [sic] or whatever has had sex with her, she has the right to have an abortion. How can you permit the outcome without accepting the cause? Why do you allow your girls to have sex and say this is an individual liberty? It is okay to fornicate with girls there or force them to have sex, and so on, and they have the right to have an abortion. If you permit all this before the age [of 18], without a marriage contract and without any legal grounds – how come you forbid marriage?

Istanbul's last pork butcher fights anti-pig crackdown

No more bacon

Sharia Alert from Occupied Constantinople, in modern, moderate, model-for-the-Islamic-world secular Turkey: "Istanbul's Last Pork Butcher Fights Islamist Crackdown on Swine," by Firat Kayakiran for Bloomberg (thanks to SMC):

April 10 (Bloomberg) -- Lazari Kozmaoglu, Istanbul's last pork butcher, takes a break from a two-hour backgammon session to recall the days he spent slicing bacon instead of rolling dice.

Eight workers used to rush in and out of the cutting room, placing wrapped meat in refrigerators, Kozmaoglu, 63, recalls in his store in central Istanbul. Today the shop is down to its last two months of stock and attracts only a handful of customers.

Turkey's Islamist-rooted government has clamped down on the pork industry since 2004, closing all but two of the country's 25 pig farms and revoking slaughterhouse licenses. Kozmaoglu, unable to add to his meat supplies, spends most of his time shuffling paperwork as he seeks permission to reopen his abattoir.

``I don't know what I can do if they don't give it to me; this business is my life,'' Kozmaoglu says as he watches a news bulletin on Greek television.

He's one of about 2,000 ethnic Greeks remaining in Istanbul. Most Greeks left the city after Turkish mobs attacked their homes and workplaces in 1955. Others were expelled in 1964 after fighting between Greeks and Turks on Cyprus.

Before the 2004 crackdown, Kozmaoglu was one of four pork butchers in Istanbul. All of his competitors quit handling pigs after losing their slaughterhouse permits. The state granted Kozmaoglu temporary licenses to let him kill the swine on outlawed farms, but those have now been cut off, he says.

In 2004, the Agriculture Ministry assumed the power to issue livestock handling permits previously controlled by local authorities. The ministry has refused applications for pig facilities, citing a failure to meet sanitary or other standards. [...]

The pork crackdown began in 2004 after 40 people contracted food poisoning at a restaurant in Izmir on the Aegean coast, said Zafer Ustundag, one of two remaining pig farmers in Turkey. Raw pork was found mixed with the raw beef and cracked wheat used to make the Turkish dish ``cig kofte.''

`Overzealous Officials'

The ministry used the food-poisoning scare as an excuse to shut down the pork industry, says Tahsin Yesildere, former head of the Turkish Veterinary Medical Association's Istanbul branch.

``The Islamic mentality within the government finished off the business after the public outcry following the incident in Izmir,'' he said. ``The prime minister probably doesn't even know about it, but that's what happens when you have overzealous officials.''

Erdogan's press spokesman, Akif Beki, didn't respond to phone calls seeking comment.

Ustundag, 43, keeps about 200 pigs at his farm in Kirklareli, near the Bulgarian border, and owns a nearby convenience store. At first, he was optimistic about the government's measures.

``We thought they would provide us with a properly regulated work environment,'' Ustundag says. ``But it turned out to be a plan to suffocate us.''

The pig farmers soon faced a Catch-22, Ustundag says. While a new rule required farmers to provide the address where their animals would be slaughtered, there were no abattoirs left.

``How can we provide that when they've revoked all the slaughterhouse licenses?'' says the goatee-wearing Ustundag, sitting in his half-empty food and alcohol store. [...]

Back in Istanbul, Kozmaoglu says sales have fallen to less than a 10th of the 50,000 liras ($39,000) a month he brought in four years ago. He employs just three workers.

The shop, next to a gas station in the Dolapdere neighborhood, doesn't have a sign out front because Kozmaoglu doesn't want to attract attention from ultra-nationalists.

Gee, I wonder who those "ultra-nationalists" who get upset about pork might be.

But just so you don't get a negative impression of Muslims, Bloomberg adds a bit of human-interest: this poor man whose livelihood has been taken away by Islamic supremacist officials still has backgammon to comfort him...and he plays with a pious Muslim! How magnificently moderate and multicultural! Not that it does a thing to relieve him from the government's Catch-22, but hey, it makes him feel better!

Gammon or Backgammon

His main customers are restaurants and well-paid businessmen from various ethnic groups. Kozmaoglu laments that there are fewer Greek Christian customers than there once were because the younger generation doesn't want to pay for high-quality food.

Less demand for gammon means more time for backgammon. Kozmaoglu smiles across the table at his friend, a pious Muslim man who lives nearby and visits the shop for their regular games.

``This man takes all my troubles away for a few hours every afternoon,'' Kozmaoglu says. ``This is the best part of my time in the shop.''

Fitzgerald: American law and accommodation of Islam

CHEYENNE, Wyo. — The American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit Thursday claiming that a Wyoming State Penitentiary policy restricting prisoners' mealtimes violates the constitutional rights of two Muslim inmates….

At issue is an alleged "20-minute rule" requiring inmates to eat their meals within 20 minutes after the food is delivered to a cell or common dining area, the lawsuit said. The lawsuit seeks for the inmates to be exempted from the rule because it forces them to choose between eating and practicing their religion. -- from this news article

The principle of American constitutional law that has been applied n cases where, it is claimed, the free exercise of religion has been infringed, is that of "reasonable accommodation." And in the case law, what is "reasonable accommodation" in turn requires an analysis of the state interest involved. The smooth functioning of prisons would be compromised, and an administrative headache created if such a claim were to stand, so that "20 minutes" would have to be lengthened. If it were lengthened, then no doubt it would have to be lengthened for all prisoners, for if it weren’t, a great many prisoners might -- and this is a worry -- start to claim that they, too, were Muslims. They might even decide to convert, since it takes nothing but a phrase, in order to obtain such a benefit, and then, having done so lightheartedly, find that "you know, there really is something to this Islam." It's a very dangerous thing to give in on.

That is the case law. A few years ago there was an attempt to deal with this situation by statute, the so-called RULIPA (which google). It tries to accommodate religion in such areas as land use and institutional -- including prison -- practices. How this case might be decided under RULIPA, how RULIPA relates to the prior case law or might if the case came to the Court, is unclear. And here one must put one's faith in the common sense of the Court, but it would be a Court whose members are no more acquainted with Islam than are most of our leaders.

Of course, this all begs the question: is Islam a religion in the sense in which the Framers understood that word, and as we today in the West understand that word? It is much more than a religion. It is a politics. It is a geopolitics. It is a program for, and justification of, world conquest for Islam and for Muslims. That can be found, quite easily, in the texts. Those who keep refusing to examine those texts, or examining the totalitarian nature of Islam, with its system of Total Regulation, and its justification for the mistreatment of all Unbelievers, or Infidels, have the responsibility to learn all this. This needs to be understood by those in Congress who pass such a statute as RULIPA, and by judges, including of course those on the Supreme Court.

Islam presents an unprecedented challenge, both to American jurisprudence, and to American society -- and to all Western states, and societies. A challenge and, if rightly understood, a danger that will not disappear, because it is based on texts that are regarded as uncreated and immutable, and the literal word of God. Every Muslim is, or is supposed to be, a literalist, and those who are not and who maintain silence about the nature of Islam are only encouraging unwariness on the part of naive Infidels. Thus they themselves are participating, even if they would not see it that way, in the Jihad whose instruments include Da'wa, and also a worldwide propaganda campaign of steady misinformation. So far, that propaganda campaign has been working, for it appeals, in many ways, to all kinds of fashionable tendencies -- the deep unexamined belief in the wonders of "diversity," the deep Family-Of-Man sentimentalism that insists "all people are the same the whole world over" and its bomfoggish corollary, "all religions mean the same thing" or "we all worship the same God."

If examined with care, by the well-prepared, all of this crumbles into dust. But who, nowadays, is used to examining anything? And how many, nowadays, can be included in the list of the "well-prepared"?

Minnesota publicly-funded madrasa doesn't fly the American flag

Tarek ibn Zayed Academy, which receives public funds but has been accused of being an Islamic school, doesn't endorse any religion -- so says its Executive Director. Got it. But it just happens that the Executive Director and everyone else involved with this school is an adherent of a supremacist creed that disdains national allegiances, preaching that one owes no loyalty to the state, especially to the infidel state, but only to the global community of believers. Now of course, maybe the Exec Dir and his staff and all the students reject those elements of their religion, and are fervently patriotic and loyal citizens of the United States, firm believers in the Bill of Rights who -- by an amazing coincidence -- just can't figure out how to work the flagpole.

I'm sure there are already many defenders of this school who are ready to believe just that.

Minnesota Madrasa Update: "Metro charter school accused of teaching Islam," from KSTP.com (thanks to Terrence):

[...] TIZA Executive Director Azad Zaman insisted the school follows with state and federal laws.

"TIZA does not endorse any religion," he said. [...]

State law requires the school to fly an American flag during school hours, however no flag flies outside of TIZA Academy.

Zaman told 5 EYEWITNESS NEWS he didn’t know how to work the flagpole.

Learn.

Modern, moderate Jordan: Father charged in "honor killing" of 35-year-old daughter

"Jordanian authorities recorded a total of 17 so-called 'honour' killings in 2007, slightly up on previous years."

"Jordan charges father over “honour’ killing," from Agence France-Presse:

AMMAN - A Jordanian man has been charged with premeditated murder after his 35-year-old daughter was shot dead in an apparent “honour killing,” a judicial source said on Thursday.

“The suspect was arrested on Wednesday following a complaint by his other daughter that he killed and buried her sister several months ago in the (northern) city of Ramtha,” the source told AFP.

“The man was charged after he confessed to murdering his daughter to cleanse the family’s honour because she frequently disappeared from home.”

Jordanian authorities recorded a total of 17 so-called “honour” killings in 2007, slightly up on previous years.

The killers often receive light sentences if convicted, as parliament has refused to reform the penal code to end the near impunity of the perpetrators.

Iran: Top Shia cleric says unveiled women turn men into beasts

This man was once a Wall Street executive

Reinforced here is the widespread assumption that men have no capacity to control themselves, and no responsibility to do so; the burden is all on women to protect men from temptation by hiding inside movable tents.

Sharia Alert from AKI (thanks to Sr. Soph):

Mashad, 10 April (AKI) - A top Shia cleric in Iran has said that unveiled women are a serious danger to Iranian society as they cause men to be "transformed into beasts".

"Women without the veil are a danger that the authorities underestimate," said Hojatolislam Seyyed Ahmad Elmalhoda, a powerful cleric who leads the Friday prayers in Mashad, a site considered sacred for Shia Muslims as it houses the shrine of Imam Reza.

"This situation is very serious in that if men see these bad women, they will turn into beasts, and then the whole of society will have to pay the consequences."

According to the Shia cleric, women who do not respect conservative Islamic dress rules are "sources of all that is bad in society."

"Respecting the chador (a long, black cloak that covers the arms and legs and is usually worn with a hijab) is the law of the state and the authorities must severely punish anyone who does not respect this law, in the same way that they punish thieves and murderers," said Elmadhoda.

He is who is also a member of the Council of Experts - a powerful body of 86 senior clerics which elects, supervises and can dismiss the country's supreme leader....

"A women who does not wear the entire veil is like a fire which burns anyone who comes into contact with her," said Elmalhoda.

"Our youth, even those who are educated by families who believe and respect the words of the Prophet, when they come into contact with this fire [the women who are not properly veiled] they burn and become ash," he said.

From Tom Burnett Sr: A petition to stop the Flight 93 Memorial

An important message from the father of one of the heroes of Flight 93:

Dear Fellow Americans:

The planned Flight 93 Memorial contains extensive Islamic symbolism. It is an insult to my son Tom, and to the other murdered heroes of Flight 93 who stopped Islamic terrorists from destroying the White House or the Capitol that terrible September day.

Please consider signing this online petition that I and some compatriots have put together. It calls for a new memorial design, and for investigation of the present design. If you want to do more, feel free to forward or post this appeal.

For those who are not familiar, the original “Crescent of Embrace” design was laid out in the crescent and star configuration of an Islamic flag:

Outrage over this overt Islamic symbolism forced the Memorial Project to disguise the original crescent with a few additional trees, but every particle of the original design remains completely intact in the so-called redesign. The giant crescent and star flag is still there!

The Memorial Project assumes that any similarity to an Islamic crescent has to be unintentional. Even if it WERE unintentional it would still be intolerable, but how can anyone look at that crescent and star configuration and think that it CAN’T be intentional? That is like seeing an airliner fly into the World Trade Center and thinking that it CAN’T be intentional. Worst of all, the Memorial Project refuses to confront voluminous evidence that the Islamic symbolism IS intentional.

It turns out that a person facing into the giant crescent will be facing Mecca. A crescent that Muslims face into to face Mecca is called a “mihrab” and is the central feature around which every mosque is built. The crescent memorial will be the world’s largest mosque!

When TWO airplanes fly into the World Trade Center, even the most naïve person has start taking the possibility of intent seriously, but not the Memorial Project. The Islamic symbolism in Flight 93 Memorial goes on and on, but the Park Service refuses to be concerned.

Architect Paul Murdoch says that the crescent shape comes from the hijacked airplane breaking the circle where it crosses the upper crescent tip. The flight path then continues down to between the crescent tips where Flight 93 crashed. (That’s right: the crash site is the star on the crescent and star flag.)

Along the flight path are to be placed 44 translucent blocks, equaling the number of passengers, crew, AND terrorists:

Left image: The Memorial Wall, traces flight path just above the point of impact. The white line at eye level is a set of 43 glass blocks, 40 to be inscribed with the names of my son and the other passengers and crew, and three (on the near side of the gap) to be inscribed with 9/11 date. Right image: At the upper crescent tip, at the end of the Entry Portal Walkway, sits a huge glass block, the 44th glass block on the flight path. It marks the spot where, in the architect’s description, the terrorists turned our humanitarian circle into a giant (Islamic shaped) crescent. Inscription: “A field of honor forever.”

I don’t want to celebrate the terrorist’s circle-breaking crescent-creating feat, and I certainly don’t want my son’s name inscribed on that terrorist memorializing block count.

We need to get the word out: the Flight 93 Memorial has been re-hijacked, and this time the whole nation is aboard. We have to get up out of our seats and stop this abomination!

Sincerely,
Tom Burnett Sr.
Northfield Minnesota, March 2008

P.S. Paper petitions are also available (with mailing instructions, and explanatory information on the back). Just open and print.

Online petition: http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/HonorFlight93/
Paper petitions and flyer-petition combinations: http://www.crescentofbetrayal.com/PetitionPage.htm
More information: http://errortheory.blogspot.com/2008/03/petition-for-congressional.html
Full exposé: http://www.crescentofbetrayal.com/

Dhimmi Carter plans meeting with Hamas' Mashaal

Living up to his nickname.

The excuse we're probably going to hear will involve extolling the virtues of communication. But whether that is useful, or just a hollow photo-op and so much wasted breath depends on the substance of the discussion. And it seems much more likely that this "dialogue" will focus on Israeli concessions, not on the demand that Hamas renounce the goal of destroying Israel and stop firing rockets from Gaza.

"Former US president Carter plans meeting with Hamas' Mashaal," by Yitzhak Benhorin for Israel News:

WASHINGTON – US network Fox reported Wednesday that former US president Jimmy Carter was preparing for an unprecedented meeting with Hamas politburo chief Khaled Mashaal.

The Arabic-language newspaper Al-Hayat reported Tuesday that Carter was planning a trip to Syria for mid-April, during which he would meet with Mashaal, the exiled head of the Islamist group, on April 18.

Jimmy Carter was US president between 1976 and 1980, and was partially responsible for the peace treaty signed between Israel and Egypt. Recently he has been blamed by Israel for harboring anti-Israeli views, due in part to the release of his book, "Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid".

Israeli officials have received requests to allow him to enter the dispute between Israel and the Palestinians as a mediator.

Carter did not receive a negative response, but his request was evaded, officials said. However, according to reports, the former president plans to involve himself in the dispute with or without Israel's approval.

Deanna Congileo, Carter’s press secretary, confirmed in an e-mail to FOX network that Carter will be in the Mideast in April. Pressed for comment, Congileo did not deny that the former president is considering visiting Mashaal.

The Republican Jewish Coalition (RJC) responded to the reports by calling upon presidential candidates John McCain, Barack Obama, and Hilary Clinton to object to Carter's plan to meet with Mashaal, claiming that as head of a terrorist organization it would be illegal for an American official to meet with him.

In a press statement, Executive Director of the RJC Matthew Brooks slammed the reported meeting, saying that it was unacceptable for a former American president to glorify a terrorist organization by meeting with its leader.

He said that Hamas denies Israel's right to exist, and is involved with the kidnapping of its soldiers, in addition to which it led celebrations in the streets of Gaza following the 9/11 attacks. He added that Mashaal has praised the Iranian president for his 'bravery' in denying the Holocaust.

Mobile phone insurance company markets Sharia-compliant policy as "ethical" insurance for all consumers

"The company claims that the policy will appeal to ethically aware consumers, not just upwardly-mobile European Muslims."

This could be seen as rather insulting to ethically-minded non-Muslims who have previously never been offered such a product. The good news: The insult will be met with nary an effigy burning.

Eurabia Alert. "Mobile phone insurance to comply with Sharia law arrives," by Tony Dennis for The Inquirer:

HOT ON the heels of the Archbishop of Canterbury's remarks about Sharia law becoming more prevalent in the UK, Foneshield is launching what it claims is the first Sharia compliant mobile phone insurance policy.

Well, we know health insurance can be a dicey proposition under Sharia. Could mobile phone insurance be a sort of "gambling" as well? Once you start slipping down the Sharia slope, you don't know where you might end up.

The company claims that the policy will appeal to ethically aware consumers, not just upwardly-mobile European Muslims.

It introduced this new insurance product following research that showed 58 per cent of respondents were willing to opt for an ethical insurance policy.

Ethical compliance will cover the investment, participation and processes of the insurance cover. It will be sold directly online and through selected mobile phone dealers.

Foneshield also has a very interesting policy aimed at mobile phone dealers called Cashield. It's designed to protect them against problems arising from offering customers mobile phone cashbacks.

That's good news considering the significant numbers of mobile phone dealers who go bust before paying the cashbacks they owe to existing customers.

The INQ is not quite sure how the company can do it, but if you take out a mobile phone insurance policy with Foneshield and don't make a claim after 18 months, then the cover is free.

Egypt sentences five men to 3-year jail terms on accusations of homosexuality

"The men were arrested three weeks ago in a central Cairo restaurant following an argument after which a client accused them of practising homosexuality ... Egyptian homosexuals have in the past been jailed on charges ranging from 'scorning religion' to 'sexual practices contrary to Islam'."

As is often the case with Sharia laws, not only is the law here inherently unjust by Western standards of personal privacy and separation of religion and state, but it is incredibly prone to being abused to settle personal grudges.

"Egypt jails five “homosexuals” for three years," from Agence France-Presse:

CAIRO - A Cairo court on Wednesday jailed five men, four of them HIV positive, for three years on charges of ”debauchery” linked to homosexuality, a court official told AFP.

The men were arrested three weeks ago in a central Cairo restaurant following an argument after which a client accused them of practising homosexuality.

A police doctor carried out anal inspections on the men “which confirmed their homosexuality,” the court official said. Human Rights Watch said such examinations constitute torture and are medically spurious.

While homosexuality is not included in a list of sexual offences explicitly outlawed by Egypt’s Islamic-inspired legislation, it can be punished under several different laws on morality.

Besides facing widespread public prejudice, Egyptian homosexuals have in the past been jailed on charges ranging from “scorning religion” to “sexual practices contrary to Islam.”

Hafez Abu Saada, of the Egyptian Organisation for Human Rights, said the men were prosecuted under 1961 anti-prostitution laws which ”must be changed ... as it’s against the international convention of human rights which Egypt signed in 1986.

“This law is also against the Egyptian constitution which guarantees the right to privacy and individual freedom,” he said.

The men, who can appeal the verdict, were also ordered to pay a small fine.

Bahrain: Male doctors may not be allowed to treat female patients

"Al Wefaq defended its decision by highlighting that Bahrain is an Islamic country that should protect religious principles."

Are suffering unnecessarily or dying a premature, preventable death religious principles? If such rules are adopted, hospitals risk finding themselves dithering over ridiculous legal compliance while lives are at stake.

Sharia Alert. "Male doctors may not be allowed to treat female patients," from the Khaleej Times:

MANAMA — Male physicians and nurses can't treat female patients according to a parliamentary proposal approved on Tuesday by the parliament.

If the government backs the proposal, the Ministry of Health will be badly affected, especially with its shortage of medical teams.

The largest bloc in the parliament (Al Wefaq) tabled the proposal that was supported by majority of the house.

The proposal bans also female physicians from treating male patients and stresses that all manpower in the gynecology section should be females. The proposal forbids medical team from examining dead bodies of opposite sex.

"All manpower in the gynecology section should be females." Got that?

Al Wefaq defended its decision by highlighting that Bahrain is an Islamic country that should protect religious principles.

The government obliges its effort to eliminate gender discrimination in all aspects in life, especially in employment.

Substitute teacher blows the whistle on publicly-funded Minnesota madrasa

Recently I wrote about the Tarek ibn Ziyad Academy (TIZA) in Minneapolis, which appears to be an Islamic academy that receives public funding. I depended for my information largely on the work of the indefatigable and courageous journalist Katherine Kersten, who now has new information about this school.

"Teacher breaks wall of silence at state's Muslim public school," by Katherine Kersten for the Star Tribune (thanks to all who sent this in):

...TIZA has many characteristics that suggest a religious school. It shares the headquarters building of the Muslim American Society of Minnesota, whose mission is "establishing Islam in Minnesota." The building also houses a mosque. TIZA's executive director, Asad Zaman, is a Muslim imam, or religious leader, and its sponsor is an organization called Islamic Relief.

Students pray daily, the cafeteria serves halal food - permissible under Islamic law -- and "Islamic Studies" is offered at the end of the school day.

Zaman maintains that TIZA is not a religious school. He declined, however, to allow me to visit the school to see for myself, "due to the hectic schedule for statewide testing." But after I e-mailed him that the Minnesota Department of Education had told me that testing would not begin for several weeks, Zaman did not respond -- even to urgent calls and e-mails seeking comment before my first column on TIZA.

Now, however, an eyewitness has stepped forward. Amanda Getz of Bloomington is a substitute teacher. She worked as a substitute in two fifth-grade classrooms at TIZA on Friday, March 14. Her experience suggests that school-sponsored religious activity plays an integral role at TIZA.

Arriving on a Friday, the Muslim holy day, she says she was told that the day's schedule included a "school assembly" in the gym after lunch.

Before the assembly, she says she was told, her duties would include taking her fifth-grade students to the bathroom, four at a time, to perform "their ritual washing."

Afterward, Getz said, "teachers led the kids into the gym, where a man dressed in white with a white cap, who had been at the school all day," was preparing to lead prayer. Beside him, another man "was prostrating himself in prayer on a carpet as the students entered."

"The prayer I saw was not voluntary," Getz said. "The kids were corralled by adults and required to go to the assembly where prayer occurred."

Islamic Studies was also incorporated into the school day. "When I arrived, I was told 'after school we have Islamic Studies,' and I might have to stay for hall duty," Getz said. "The teachers had written assignments on the blackboard for classes like math and social studies. Islamic Studies was the last one -- the board said the kids were studying the Qu'ran. The students were told to copy it into their planner, along with everything else. That gave me the impression that Islamic Studies was a subject like any other."

After school, Getz's fifth-graders stayed in their classroom and the man in white who had led prayer in the gym came in to teach Islamic Studies. TIZA has in effect extended the school day -- buses leave only after Islamic Studies is over. Getz did not see evidence of other extra-curricular activity, except for a group of small children playing outside. Significantly, 77 percent of TIZA parents say that their "main reason for choosing TIZA ... was because of after-school programs conducted by various non-profit organizations at the end of the school period in the school building," according to a TIZA report. TIZA may be the only school in Minnesota with this distinction.

Why does the Minnesota Department of Education allow this sort of religious activity at a public school? According to Zaman, the department inspects TIZA regularly -- and has done so "numerous times" -- to ensure that it is not a religious school.

But the department's records document only three site visits to TIZA in five years -- two in 2003-04 and one in 2007, according to Assistant Commissioner Morgan Brown. None of the visits focused specifically on religious practices. [...]

TIZA is now being held up as a national model for a new kind of charter school. If it passes legal muster, Minnesota taxpayers may soon find themselves footing the bill for a separate system of education for Muslims.

Indeed. Read it all.

Muslims demonstrate against bin Laden! No, wait...

Actually the demonstration was against a real threat: the prospect of a pig farm being built in a majority-Muslim country. Nota bene: this is the kind of story we will be seeing in the United States in a few years, if the stealth jihad continues to advance unhindered. We will progress from building footbaths at public expense for Muslim ablutions to abridging the practices of non-Muslims in order to avoid giving offense to Muslims.

Sharia Alert from modern, moderate Malaysia: "Pig farm plan stirs protests among Muslims Malaysia [sic]," from The Associated Press (thanks to Twostellas):

KUALA LUMPUR, Malaysia: A plan to build a major pig farm outside Malaysia's largest city has triggered protests by some Muslim residents whose religion considers the animal unclean.

About 200 people carrying banners staged a demonstration outside the Selangor state government's office Wednesday and handed a protest note to officials, the national news agency Bernama reported.

"We are worried that the number of pigs will increase and the environment will be polluted with the stench of pig waste," Bernama quoted a protester, Mohamad Tarmudi Tushiran, as saying.

Prominent newspapers published letters Wednesday from angry Muslims.

"They are challenging Muslims and stirring protests because a pig farm that involves such huge expenses is inappropriate for a country where Islam is the official religion," Mohamed Idris Abu Bakar, a federal government lawmaker, told the Malay-language Berita Harian newspaper....

U.K.: Muslim sex offenders may opt out of treatment

"The Prison Service last night said it was seeking to ensure the programme was 'sensitive to the diversity of religions within the prison context' ."

Because sensitivity and not getting sued by a prisoner is so much more important than evaluating and attempting to rehabilitate criminals, and preventing future crimes.

"Muslim sex offenders may opt out of treatment," by Ben Farmer for The Telegraph:

Muslim sex offenders may be allowed to opt out of a prison treatment programme because it is against their religion, it has emerged.

The Prison Service's Muslim advisor has said there is a "legitimate Islamic position" that criminals should not discuss their crimes with others.

Under the Sex Offender Treatment Programme (SOTP), which treats more than 600 prisoners including rapists and sexual killers each year, offenders must discuss their crime, sometimes in groups.

Ahtsham Ali said he would now urgently raise the issue with prison policy makers, raising the prospect of an exemption or special rules for Muslim prisoners.

However, union leaders warned that as treatment is used to assess whether prisoners are suitable for early release, Muslims who have to serve longer terms because they did not take part could sue the Prison Service.

Muslim sex offenders may be allowed to opt out of a prison treatment programme because it is against their religion, it has emerged.

Muslim sex offenders who do not take part in the course may spend more time in prison, experts say.

The Prison Service's Muslim advisor has said there is a "legitimate Islamic position" that criminals should not discuss their crimes with others.

Under the Sex Offender Treatment Programme (SOTP), which treats more than 600 prisoners including rapists and sexual killers each year, offenders must discuss their crime, sometimes in groups.

Ahtsham Ali said he would now urgently raise the issue with prison policy makers, raising the prospect of an exemption or special rules for Muslim prisoners.

However, union leaders warned that as treatment is used to assess whether prisoners are suitable for early release, Muslims who have to serve longer terms because they did not take part could sue the Prison Service.

The prospect of a dispensation for Muslim prisoners emerged after an unnamed prisoner wrote to a prison magazine asking for clarification of the position of Muslims on the programme.

He wrote: "I have always insisted that it was against Islamic teachings to discuss your offence to anyone, let alone act it out within a peer group."

Mr Ali said the issue had been raised before and told Inside Times: "I will be taking it forward as a matter of some urgency with colleagues, including those with policy responsibility for the SOTP programme."

The Prison Service last night said it was seeking to ensure the programme was "sensitive to the diversity of religions within the prison context".

Mark Leech, the editor of the Prisons Handbook, said: "Muslims who don't want to take part in the course may have to spend more time in prison, because their risk of re-offending will not be assessed as part of the treatment programme."

"This would be quite right, because we have to think about the victim."

"I think it is feasible there may be a judicial review so that Muslim sex offenders get a dispensation from the rules."

Harry Fletcher, the assistant general secretary of probation union Napo, described the situation as an "intractable problem".

He said: "The logic is that Muslims cannot take part in offender programmes and therefore their offending behaviour cannot be assessed and they are unlikely to be granted parole."

"They may then seek legal redress through judicial review on the grounds that they are being discriminated against on the grounds of religion."

A spokeswoman for the Prison Service said the programme was suitable for all sex offenders."

She said: "Membership of a particular religion is not a bar to participation in accredited programmes."

Non-Muslim children told they are dogs during mosque visit

Whoops. Somebody didn't get the memo: tell the kuffar that we revere the People of the Book. Save that "infidels are dogs" stuff for later!

"Children Told they are Dogs during Mosque Visit," from NISNews (thanks to Sr. Soph):

THE HAGUE, 09/04/08 - A primary school in Amsterdam wished to provide its pupils with an understanding for other cultures. But during a visit to a mosque, the children were told they were dogs.

With a view to developing understanding and respect for other cultures among children, primary school De Horizon regularly organises outings to various religious organisations. The chairman of the El Mouchidine mosque told the children from group 7 (aged 10) and their chaperones however that non-Muslims are dogs....

In the meantime, the school's management has addressed the mosque on the undesirable behaviour of the chairman. Both parties will say nothing further on the matter. "We will resolve the matter amongst ourselves and I have no inclination whatsoever to discuss the matter with the media", as newspaper De Telegraaf quoted the school's spokesperson Mariet ten Berge. "We have been to the mosque before and it always went well".

Angry parents had sent the letter on to De Telegraaf but were reportedly rapped on the knuckles by the school's management. "The school wishes to play this down. That is precisely the problem", as one mother commented.

CAIR defames cartoonist, newspaper responds with...anti-dhimmitude

The CAIR Hate and Terror blog has the story: Pulitzer Prize-winning cartoonist Michael Ramirez drew the cartoon above, which has roaches coming out of a sewer marked "Iran" and "Extremism." I would see that as referring to Iran's exporting of jihad terrorists, but CAIR saw it differently, and called upon its drones to write protest letters to the Columbus Dispatch: "Send polite comments about this Nazi-style cartoon depicting Iranians as roaches fleeing a sewer to: gsheller@dispatch.com, michael.ramirez@investors.com."

Of course, the cartoon doesn't refer to Iranians as roaches, and CAIR -- as the CAIR Hate and Terror blog points out -- has never spoken out against Ahmadinejad's Nazi-like emissions of Jew-hatred, but when has CAIR cared for decency or consistency?

Anyway, the Columbus Dispatch would have none of it. Editorial page editor Glenn Sheller wrote a reply to the CAIR intimidation letters, saying in part:

CAIR also likens the cartoon to Nazi propaganda. This is a remarkable display of intellectual gymnastics. Iranian President Ahmadinejad has called for the destruction of the Jewish state and questions the Holocaust, while his regime tries to develop nuclear weapons. If CAIR is truly concerned about the promotion of Nazi ideas and the use of Nazi methods, it should direct its attention to Tehran.

CAIR’s claims that its mission is to promote understanding of Islam and combat anti-Islamic information and anti-Islamic attitudes. That’s an honorable mission when it is directed at legitimate grievances.

In this case, CAIR has misrepresented this cartoon and missed the mark by fabricating a false grievance.

CAIR fabricating a false grievance? Stop the presses!

Read all about it, over at CAIR Hate and Terror.

Sharia finance: "Jihad with money"

Three little words -- coined by Yusuf al-Qaradawi himself -- that summarize the short- and long-term hazards posed by the advance of Sharia-compliant finance. "Jihad with money," by Melanie Phillips for the Spectator:

Alex Alexiev on National Review Online sets out the reasons why sharia finance — described by Sheikh Yusuf al Qaradawi as ‘jihad with money’ — is a serious threat to the west:

The legitimization of sharia in the West and its gradual imposition in Muslim communities and beyond is a key objective of sharia finance, and there is no doubt it has already made huge strides. …

Notably, for those Muslims who cannot engage in physical jihad using force of arms, sharia requires that they support jihad financially. This is what sharia finance is all about.

Far from being a legitimate investment vehicle, sharia finance facilitates religiously sanctioned support for terrorist organizations — as well as providing radical Islamists with highly paid sinecures as sharia-finance board advisors in the sanctum sanctorum of capitalism, all the while that they are pursuing a subversive campaign to destroy it.

Predictably, none of this is even remotely disclosed by any of the dozens of Western banks promoting sharia finance today, which obviously exposes them to huge non-disclosure risks ranging from fraudulent misrepresentation, to material support for terrorism.

And not disclosed either by Gordon Brown, whose stated ambition is to make London the global centre of Islamic banking (reported to be yet another brilliant wheeze from Ed Balls). Of all the manifestations of the Islamisation of the west (see this piece by Dan Rabkin on the acceleration of Londonistan) sharia finance is perhaps the most deadly, because it effectively sells the west to Islam, and the most difficult to stop — because for the financiers and politicians in the west who are thus selling it, all they can see are the trillions of dollar and pound signs being dangled enticingly before their eyes.

Antisemitism in the Qur’an: Motifs and Historical Manifestations

Here is an important reference work by Andrew G. Bostom:

Abstract

The essential nature of the Qur’ranic “revelation,” as understood by Muslims, was elaborated in 1891 by Theodore Nöldeke (whose seminal 1860 Geschichte des Qorans remains a vital tool for Qur’ranic research): “To the faith of the Muslims…the Koran is the word of God, and such also is the claim which the book itself advances…” And to this day, as the contemporary Qur’anic scholar Ibn Warraq notes, for all believing Muslims, and not merely “fundamentalists, ” the Qur’an remains Allah’s “uncreated” words, “…valid for all times and places; its ideals are, according to all Muslims, absolutely true and beyond any criticism.”

The Qur’anic depiction of the Jews—their traits as thus characterized being deemed both infallible and timeless—highlights, in verse 2:61 (repeated in verse 3:112), the centrality of the Jews “abasement and humiliation”, and being “laden with God’s anger,” as elaborated in the corpus of Muslim exegetic literature on Qur’an 2:61, including the hadith and Qur’anic commentaries. The terrifying rage decreed upon the Jews forever is connected in the hadith and exegeses to Qur’an 1:7, where Muslims ask Allah to guide them rightly, not in the path of those who provoke and must bear His wrath. This verse is in turn linked to Qur’anic verses 5:60, and 5:78, which describe the Jews transformation into apes and swine (5:60), having been “…cursed by the tongue of David, and Jesus, Mary’s son” (5:78). Moreover, forcing Jews, in particular, to pay the Qur’anic poll tax “tribute,” (as per verse 9:29) “readily,” while “being brought low,” is consistent with their overall humiliation and abasement in accord with Qur’an 2:61, and its directly related verses.

An additional much larger array of anti-Jewish Qur’anic motifs build to a denouement (as if part of a theological indictment, conviction, and sentencing process) concluding with an elaboration of the “ultimate sin” committed by the Jews (they are among the devil’s minions [Qur’an 4:60], accursed by God [Qur’an 4:47]), and their appropriate punishment: If they do not accept the true faith (i.e., Islam), on the day of judgment, they will burn in the hellfire (Qur’an 4:55). As per, Qur’an 98:7: “The unbelievers among the People of the Book and the pagans shall burn forever in the fire of Hell. They are the vilest of all creatures”

After presenting a full spectrum of the major anti-Jewish motifs in the Qur’an, additional illustrations demonstrating their persistent influence on Muslim attitudes (and resultant behaviors) towards Jews, are provided. Four themes are considered, and their historical application illustrated, across space and time, through the present: (I) the Jews being associated with Satan and consigned to Hell (Qur’an 4:60, 4:55, 58:14—19, and 98:6); (II) the imposition of the Qur’anic poll-tax (jizya; Qur’an 9:29) on Jews, specifically, and (III) the related enforcement of the Qur’anic (2:61) “curse” upon the Jews for killing the Prophets, and other transgressions against Allah’s will, meriting their permanent humiliation and abasement; and, last in connection to this curse, (IV) the Jews’ transformation into apes/swine, as punishment (Qur’an 2:65, 5:60, and 7:166).

The contemporary case of Muhammad Sayyid Tantawi, author of a 700 page scholarly treatise rationalizing Muslim Jew hatred, Banu Isra’il fi al-Qur’an wa al-Sunna [Jews in the Qur’an and the Traditions], and current Grand Imam of Al-Azhar University, demonstrates the prevalence and depth of sacralized, “normative” Jew hatred in the contemporary Muslim world. Even if all non-Muslim Judeophobic themes were to disappear miraculously overnight from the Islamic world, the living legacy of anti-Jewish hatred, and violence rooted in Islam’s sacred texts—Qur’an, hadith, and sira—would remain intact. The assessment and understanding of Islamic antisemitism must begin with an unapologetic analysis of the anti-Jewish motifs contained in these foundational texts of Islam.

Introduction

Muhammad Sayyid Tantawi wrote these words in his 700 page treatise rationalizing Muslim Jew hatred, Banu Isra’il fi al-Qur’an wa al-Sunna [Jews in the Qur’an and the Traditions], originally published in the late 1960s, and early 1970s, and then re-issued in 1986/87: [1]

[The] Qur’an describes the Jews with their own particular degenerate characteristics, i.e. killing the prophets of Allah, corrupting His words by putting them in the wrong places, consuming the people’s wealth frivolously, refusal to distance themselves from the evil they do, and other ugly characteristics caused by their deep-rooted lasciviousness…only a minority of the Jews keep their word….[A]ll Jews are not the same. The good ones become Muslims, the bad ones do not. (Qur’an 3:113)

Tantawi was apparently rewarded for this scholarly effort by being named Grand Imam of Al-Azhar University in 1996, a position he still holds. These are the expressed, “carefully researched” views on Jews held by the nearest Muslim equivalent to a Pope—the head of the most prestigious center of Muslim learning in Sunni Islam, Sunnis representing some 85% of the world’s Muslims. And Sheikh Tantawi has not mollified such hatemongering beliefs since becoming the Grand Imam of Al-Azhar as his statements on the Jews as “enemies of Allah, descendants of apes and pigs” [2], the legitimacy of homicide bombing of Jews, [3] or “dialogue” with Jews (just below), make clear. [4]

…anyone who avoids meeting with the enemies in order to counter their dubious claims and stick fingers into their eyes, is a coward. My stance stems from Allah’s book [the Qur’an], more than one-third of which deals with the Jews…[I] wrote a dissertation dealing with them [the Jews], all their false claims and their punishment by Allah. I still believe in everything written in that dissertation. [i.e., from above, in Banu Isra’il fi al-Qur’an wa al-Sunna]

Tantawi’s case illustrates the prevalence and depth of sacralized, “normative” Jew hatred in the contemporary Muslim world. Even if all non-Muslim Judeophobic themes were to disappear miraculously overnight from the Islamic world, the living legacy of anti-Jewish hatred, and violence rooted in Islam’s sacred texts—Qur’an, hadith, and sira—would remain intact. The assessment and understanding of Islamic antisemitism must begin with an unapologetic analysis of the anti-Jewish motifs contained in these foundational texts of Islam.

The Major Anti-Jewish Motifs in the Qur’an

Composed in Arabic, and divided into chapters (suras) and verses (ayah; plural ayat), the Qur’an contains some 80,000 words, 6200-6240 verses, and 114 suras, arranged from longest to shortest in length. Irrespective of chronology, i.e., when they were putatively revealed to the Muslim prophet Muhammad, the longer suras appear first in the actual arrangement of the Qur’an. [5] Theodore Nöldeke (d.1930), whose seminal 1860 Geschichte des Qorans remains a vital tool for Qur’anic research, elaborated on the “revelation process”, as understood by Muslims, in 1891:

To the faith of the Muslims…the Koran is the word of God, and such also is the claim which the book itself advances…The rationale for the revelation is explained in the Koran itself as follows:—In heaven is the original text (“the mother of the book,” [sura]xliii.[verse]3; “a concealed book,” lv.77; “a well-guarded tablet,” lxxxv.22). By a process of sending down (tanzil), one piece after another was communicated to the Prophet. The mediator was an angel, who is called sometimes the “Spirit” (xxxvi.193), sometimes the “holy Spirit” (xvi.104), and at a later time “Gabriel” (ii.91}. This angel dictates the revelation to the Prophet, who repeats it after him, and afterward proclaims it to the world (lxxxvii.6, etc.)…It is an explicit statement of the Koran that the sacred book was revealed (“sent down”) by God, not all at once, but piecemeal and gradually (xxv.34). This is evident from the actual composition of the book, and is confirmed by Muslim tradition. That is to say, Muhammad issued his revelation in flyleaves of greater or less extent. A single piece of this kind was called either, like the entire collection, qur’an, i.e., “reading”, or rather “recitation;” or kitab, “writing;” or sura, which is the late-Hebrew shura, and means literally “series.” The last became, in the lifetime of Muhammad, the regular designation of the individual sections as distinguished from the whole collection; and accordingly it is the name given to the separate chapters of the Koran. [6]

And to this day, for the Muslim masses, as Ibn Warraq notes, [7]

…the Koran remains the infallible word of God, the immediate word of God sent down, through the intermediary of a “spirit” or “holy spirit” or Gabriel, to Muhammad in perfect, pure Arabic; and every thing contained therein is eternal and uncreated. The original text is in heaven…The angel dictated the revelation to the Prophet, who repeated it after him, and then revealed it to the world. Modern Muslims also claim that these revelations have been preserved exactly as revealed to Muhammad, without any change, addition, or loss whatsoever…the Koran remains for all Muslims, and not just “fundamentalists” the uncreated word of God Himself. It is valid for all times and places; its ideals are, according to all Muslims, absolutely true and beyond any criticism.

The Qur’anic depiction of the Jews—their traits as thus characterized being deemed both infallible and timeless—has been summarized in elegant, complementary discussions by Haggai Ben-Shammai, [8] and Saul S. Friedman.[9] Ben-Shammai focuses on two key examples of Jew hatred in the Qur’an (and Qur’anic exegesis)—the “curse against the Jews” (in sura 2, verse 61), and Qur’anic verses (most notably, sura 5, verse 82) rationalizing why Jews were to be held in greater contempt than Christians. [10] Friedman’s presentation is a remarkably compendious synthesis of anti-Jewish motifs developed in the Qur’an—Jews as misguided souls designated to suffer a “lighter punishment” in the corporeal world, but ultimately consigned to the hellfire if they fail to accept the “true faith” of Islam. [11]

Ben Shammai [12] highlights the centrality of the Jews “abasement and humiliation”, and being “laden with God’s anger” in the corpus of Muslim exegetic literature on Qur’an 2:61, including the hadith and Qur’anic commentaries. Despite the literal reference of 2:61 to the Israelites in the wilderness during their exodus from Egypt, he notes, [13]

…to all of the Muslim exegetes, without exception, it was absolutely clear that the reference was to the Jews of their day. The Arabic word translated as “pitched upon them” also means, literally, that the “abasement and poverty” were decreed for them forever. The “abasement” is the payment of the poll tax [jizya] [14] and the humiliating ceremony involved. As for the “poverty,” this insured their remaining impoverished forever. There are traditions which attribute this interpretation to Muhammad himself. [15]

The terrifying rage decreed upon the Jews forever is connected in the hadith and exegeses to Qur’an 1:7, where Muslims ask Allah to guide them rightly, not in the path of those who provoke and must bear His wrath. This verse is in turn linked to Qur’anic verses 5:60, and 5:78, which describe the Jews transformation into apes and swine (5:60), having been “…cursed by the tongue of David, and Jesus, Mary’s son” (5:78). [16]

Ben-Shammai explains the primary reason for this “fearful decree” which resulted in the Jews being “so terribly cursed”: [17]

…from time immemorial the Jews rejected God’s signs, the wonders performed by the prophets. They did not accept the prophecy of Jesus whom the Koran counts among the prophets. But this is all part of the Jews’ nature: they are by their very nature deceitful and treacherous.

Although the Jews initially longed for Muhammad to triumph over the pagan Arabs, “Would that Allah send this prophet of whom our Book says that his coming is assured” (according to a tradition cited by Ben-Shammai) [18], realizing that Muhammad was not one of them, Ben-Shammai observes, quoting from Qur’an 5:64, [19]

…they then denied him out of jealousy of the Arabs, though they knew in truth he is the prophet. Furthermore, this Jewish trait brought them to grave heresy. They thought that they would succeed not only in leading humankind astray but also in fooling God…(5:64) “The Jews have said, God’s hand is tied…As often as they light a fire for war, God will extinguish it”. Exegetes cite traditions which prove that the Jews always hated the true prophets and put them to death. Therefore they always failed in their wars and their Temple was destroyed time and again.

Independent confirmation of Ben Shammai’s analyses of these specific verse linkages to the central Qur’anic curse (i.e., verse 2:61, reiterated at 3:112), can be found in the major contemporary Qur’anic commentary written by Maulana Mufti Muhammad Shafi (d. 1976), which was completed in Urdu during the 1960s, and early 1970s. [20] Shafi’s exegesis notes that verses 5:78, and the connected verse 5:77, are directed at the Jews, who, having strayed “…from the right path (again, verse 1:7),” were beset by “the curse of Allah the Almighty.” [21] Shafi then outlines the following “temporal” arrangements, and specific associations with the Biblical figures David, Jesus, and Moses, culminating in a curse upon the Jews by Muhammad himself (albeit Muhammad’s curse would be a reference to the sira, [22] specifically):

Firstly, it [the Qur’anic curse] came through the tongue of Dawud [David] as a result of which they were transformed into swines. Then, this curse fell upon them through the tongue of Isa [the Muslim Jesus] the temporal effect of which was that they were transformed into monkeys…the fact is that the curse on them began with Musa [Moses] and ended at the Last among Prophets [Muhammad]. Thus, the curse which overtook those, who were hostile to prophets or were guilty of acting excessively by making prophets sharers in Divine attributes, was wished verbally by four prophets one after the other. [23]

Ben-Shammai’s analysis [24] of Qur’an 5: 82 (“Thou wilt surely find the most hostile of men to the believers are the Jews and the idolaters; and thou wilt surely find the nearest of them in love to the believers are those who say 'We are Christians'; that, because some of them are priests and monks, and they wax not proud.”), links this verse to Qur’an 3:54-3:56, [25] and in turn to the tradition, “The Christians are to be above the Jews until the day of Judgment, for there is no land where the Christians are not above the Jews, neither in the east nor the west. The Jews are degraded in all the lands.”

He emphasizes that in the traditions, [26]

…the Christians have a clear priority over the Jews. If we posit that the early tradition reflects the historical development of early Islam and that the political, economic, and social reality was apt to produce this preference, there is no doubt that these traditions reflect this reality.

Both classical and modern Qur’anic exegeses by seminal Muslim commentators uphold Ben-Shammai’s interpretation of the anti-Jewish motifs featured in Qur’an 2:61 and 5:82. The great Muslim historian and Qur’anic exegete Tabari (d. 923), for example, interpreted the Qur’anic curse upon the Jews in 2:61, as follows: [27]

…“abasement and poverty were imposed and laid down upon them”, as when someone says “the imam imposed the poll tax (jizya)on free non-Muslim subjects”, or “The man imposed land tax on his slave”, meaning thereby that he obliged him [to pay ] it, or, “The commander imposed a sortie on his troops”, meaning he made it their duty.

…God commanded His believing servants not to give them [i.e., the non-Muslim people of the scripture] security—as long as they continued to disbelieve in Him and his Messenger—unless they paid the poll tax to them; God said: “Fight those who believe not in God and the Last Day and do not forbid what God and His Messenger have forbidden—such men as practice not the religion of truth [Islam], being of those who have been given the Book [Bible]—until they pay the poll tax, being humble” (Qur’an 9:29)

…Ibn Zaid said about His words “and abasement and poverty were imposed upon them”, ‘These are the Jews of the Children of Israel’. I said: ‘Are they the Copts of Egypt?’ He said: “What have the Copts of Egypt to do with this? No, by God, they are not; but they are the Jews, the Children of Israel.

…By “and slain the prophets unrightfully” He means that they used to kill the Messengers of God without God’s leave, denying their messages and rejecting their prophethood.

Tabari’s own related commentary on the posture to be assumed by a tributary during jizya collection (derived from Qur’an 9:29) underscores the deliberately humiliating character of this Qur’anic poll tax: [28]

The dhimmis [non-Muslim tributary’s] posture during the collection of the jizya- “[lowering themselves] by walking on their hand, …reluctantly

Baydawi (d. ~ 1316), in his important Qur’anic exegesis Anwaar al-Tanziil wa-Asraar al-Ta’wiil, provided this analysis of Qur’an 2:61: [29]

…“humiliation and wretchedness” covered them like a dome, or stuck to them like wet clay to a wall—a metaphor for their denial of the bounty. The Jews are mostly humiliated and wretched either of their own accord, or out of coercion of the fear of having their jizya doubled….Either they became deserving of His wrath [or]…the affliction of “humiliation and wretchedness” and the deserving wrath which preceded this.

…“because they disbelieved and killed the prophets unjustly” by reason of their disbelief in miracles, e.g. the splitting of the sea, the clouds giving shade, and the sending of the manna and quails, and splitting of the rock into twelve fountains/or, disbelief in the revealed books, e.g. the Gospel, Qur’an, the verse of stoning, and the Torah verse in which Muhammad is depicted; and their killing of the prophets like Shay`aa [Isaiah], Zakariyyaa, Yahyaa, et al., all killed unjustly because they considered that of these prophets nothing was to be believed and thus they deserved to be killed.

In addition [God] accuses them of following fantasy and love of this world, as he demonstrates in His saying [line 14] “this if for their transgression and sin” i.e. rebelliousness, contrariness, and hostility brought them into disbelief in the signs, and killing the prophets. Venal sins lead to serious sins, just as small bits of obedience lead to larger ones….God repeated this proof of what is inveterate [in the Jews], which is the reason for their unbelief and murder, and which is the cause of their committing sins and transgressing the bounds God set.

Ibn Kathir (d. 1373), another prominent Qur’anic commentator, emphasized the Jews eternal humiliation in accord with Qur’an 2:61: [30]

This ayah indicates that the Children of Israel were plagued with humiliation, and this will continue, meaning it will never cease. They will continue to suffer humiliation at the hands of all who interact with them, along with the disgrace that they feel inwardly.

Al-Hassan commented, “Allah humiliated them under the feet of the Muslims, who appeared at a time when the Majus (Zoroastrians) were taking the jizya from the Jews. Also, Abu Al-‘Aliyah, Ar-Rabi bin Anas and As-Suddi said that ‘misery’ used in that ayah means ‘poverty’. ‘Atiyah Al-‘Awfi said that ‘misery’ means, ‘paying the tilth (tax)’. In addition, Ad-Dahhak commented on Allah’s statement, “and they drew on themselves the wrath of Allah”, ‘They deserved Allah’s anger’. Also, Ibn Jarir said that, “and they drew on themselves the wrath of Allah” means, ‘They went back with the wrath. Similarly, Allah said, “Verily, I intend to let you draw my sin on yourself as well as yours” (Qur’an 5:29) meaning, ‘You will end up carrying my and your mistakes instead of me’. Thus the meaning of the ayah becomes, “They went back carrying Allah’s anger: Allah’s wrath descended upon them; they deserved Allah’s anger’.

Allah’s statement, “That was because they used to disbelieve in the Ayat (proofs, evidence, etc.) of Allah and killed the Prophets wrongfully”, means ‘This is what We rewarded the Children of Israel with: humiliation and misery’. Allah’s anger that descended on the Children of Israel was a part of the humiliation they earned, because of their defiance of the truth, disbelief in Allah’s Law, i.e., the Prophets and their following. The Children of Israel rejected the Messengers even killing them. Surely there is no form of disbelief worse than disbelieving in Allah’s ayat and murdering the Prophets of Allah.

The prolific modern Qur’anic commentator Sayyid Qutb (d. 1966), in contrast to the classical exegeses cited above, focuses initially on the plight of the Jews in Biblical Egypt: [31]

…Moses is telling them to go back to Egypt and resume their servile, humble, humdrum life where they can have their cucumber, lentils, garlic, and onion. They would not, it seems, be strong enough for the great and noble task God had called on them to undertake…I favor this second meaning because it reminds the Israelites of their misery and humiliation in Egypt…“Ignominy and humiliation stamped upon them [the Jews] and they incurred the wrath of God” (Verse 61)..Historically, this came later as a result of their disbelief in God’s revelations, their killing of some of the prophets, and their general disobedience. These developments occurred several generations after Moses, but “ignominy and humiliation” are mentioned here because they fit the context of their condescension and insolence. Moses reminded them of the suffering and distress they had undergone in Egypt and of God’s kindness in delivering them from the Pharoah.

However, largely consistent with the classical commentaries on Qur’an 2:61 of Tabari, Baydawi, and Ibn Kathir, which emphasize (especially Baydawi and Ibn Kathir) the “inveterate” nature of the Jews, Qutb ultimately concludes: [32]

No other nation has shown more intransigence and obstinacy than the Jews. They viciously and mercilessly killed and mutilated a number of prophets and messengers. They have over the centuries displayed the most extreme attitudes towards God, and towards their own religion and people. Nevertheless they have always boasted of their virtue and made the implausible claims of being the most rightly-guided nation, the chosen people of God and the only people that shall be saved. Such claims are totally refuted by the Qur’an…

Finally, Sayyid Abul A’la Mawdudi (d. 1979), one of the most widely read and influential Muslim scholars of the 20th century, [33] wrote the following commentary on Qur’an 2:61 in what is considered his “magnum opus” (completed in 1973), the Tafhim al Qur’an (“Towards Understanding the Qur’an”): [34]

The Israelites recorded their crimes in detail in their own history…The same hostility to Prophets is evident from the life of Jesus…This is a shameful chapter in the record of the Jewish nation, to which the Qur’an refers here in passing. It is evident that when a nation chooses its most notoriously criminal and wicked people for positions of leadership, and its righteous and holy men for gaol [jail] and the scaffold, God has no alternative but to lay His curse and damnation on that nation…

The Qur’an, as discussed by Ben-Shammai, [35] also maintains in sura 5, verse 82, that the Jews harbored a singular hatred of the Muslims, which distinguished them in this regard, from the Christians:

Thou wilt find the most vehement of mankind in hostility to those who believe (to be) the Jews and the idolaters. And thou wilt find the nearest of them in affection to those who believe (to be) those who say: Lo! We are Christians. That is because there are among them priests and monks, and because they are not proud.

The classical Qur’anic commentaries of Tabari, Zamakashari (d. 1143), Baydawi, and Ibn Kathir on Qur’an 5:82 demonstrate a uniformity of opinion on the confirmed animus of the Jews towards the Muslims, which is repeatedly linked to the curse of Qur’an 2:61.

Tabari: [36]

In my [Tabari’s] opinion, [the Christians] are not like the Jews who always scheme in order to murder the emissaries and the prophets, and who oppose God in