This is part IV of a series about Islamic anti-Semitism as seen, essentially, from the perspective of Andrew Bostom, author of The Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism: From Sacred Texts to Solemn History. Bostom's recently published book is likely to restructure or overturn popular conceptions of the topic.

Conflict during the early years of Islam, in the 7th Century

The discussion about how Islam related, historically, to non-Muslims and Jews, in particular, begins with an examination of the treatment of Jews in Medina, under the direction of the prophet Muhammad (after his departure from Mecca.)

There is disagreement as to the context of a seminal incident known as the massacre of the Jewish tribe of Banu Qurayzah. As referenced below, the incident is related only in Islamic sources -- in which the treatment of the Jews is justified. The Jews were accused of breaking a pact, under which they were "protected." This, then, is seen by some critics of the traditional Islamic interpretation as an application of coercion directed toward the non-Muslim minority which led to the commission of jihad against the allegedly non-compliant minority. -- Mark Finkelstein



Detail from miniature painting ''The Prophet, Ali, and the Companions at the Massacre of the Prisoners of the Jewish Tribe of Beni Qurayzah'', illustration of a 18th century text, Kitāb-i Hamlah-i Haydarī, by Muhammad Rafi Bazil (d.1711 or 12). Manuscript now in the British Library.

The 'Banu Qurayza' (Arabic بني قريظة; بنو قريظة were a Jewish tribe who lived in northern Arabia during the 7th century, at the oasis of Yathrib (now known as Medina). In 627 CE, the tribe was charged with treachery during the Battle of the Trench and besieged by the Muslims commanded by Muhammad. The Muslims took the Qurayza captive and all the men, apart from a few who converted to Islam, were beheaded, while all the women were enslaved.

From a Muslim perspective:

The famous pact of Medina and its terms

On the arrival of the Prophet at Medina they [the Jews] had joined with the Muslims in a half-hearted welcome to the Prophet. The Prophet upon his arrival joined the heterogeneous and conflicting elements of the city and its suburbs through a Charter by which the rights and obligations of the Muslims and of the Muslims and Jews were clearly defined. The Jews because of the irresistible character of the brotherly movement had gladly accepted the pact.

This pact was officially made between the tribes living in Medina. The Jews of Bani-Kainuka Ban-Kuraizha and Bani-Nadir gladly accepted all the terms. This famous pact proceeds as follows:

"The state of peace and war shall be common to all Muslims ; no one among them shall have the right of concluding peace with, or declaring war against, the enemies of his co-religionists. The Jews who attach themselves to our commonwealth shall be protected from all insults and vexations ; they shall have an equal right with our own people to our assistance and good offices : the Jews of the various branches of 'Auf, Najjar, Harith, Jashm, Th'alaba, Aus, and all others domiciled in Yathrib (Medina), shall form with the Muslims one composite nation; they shall practise their religion as freely as the Muslims ; the clients and allies of the Jews shall enjoy the same security and freedom ; the guilty shall be pursued and punished ; the Jews shall join the Muslims in defending Yathrib against all enemies ; the interior of Yathrib shall be a sacred place for all who accept this Charter ; the clients and allies of the Muslims and the Jews shall be respected as the patrons ....."

This pact was concluded with the terms:

" All future disputes between those who accept this Charter shall be referred, under God, to the Prophet. "

Hostility of the Jews
No kindness or generosity, however, on the part of the Prophet would satisfy the Jews ; nothing could conciliate the bitter feelings with which they were animated. Enraged by the Prophet's tremendous success they soon broke off (secretly) , and ranged themselves on the side of the enemies of the 'new' Faith. They reviled the Prophet ; they twisted their tongues and mis-pronounced the Quranic words and the daily prayers and formulae of Islam, rendering them meaningless, absurd, or blasphemous; and the Jewish poets and poetesses, of whom there existed many at the time, outraged all common decency and the recognised code of Arab honour and chivalry by lampooning in obscene verse the Muslim women. But there were minor offences. Not satisfied with insulting the Muslim women and reviling the Prophet, they sent out emissaries to the enemies of the State, the protection of which they had formally accepted.

Bostom's perspective

Bostom characterizes 'the so-called “Medina Charter” of Muhammad— [as]in reality, a part of Muhammad’s design to neutralize the Jews of Medina, and establish a hegemonic Islamic order.' He defines the Quarayza massacre as an act of jihad.
Bostom discusses the early relations between Muhammad and the Jewish tribes as follows:

September 622 C.E. marks a defining event in Islam, the hijra. Muhammad and a coterie of followers (the Muhajirun), persecuted by fellow Banu Quraysh tribesmen who rejected Muhammad's authenticity as a divine messenger, fled from Mecca to Yathrib, later known as Medina. The Muslim sources described Yathrib as 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.

Following Muhammad's arrival in Medina, he re-ordered Medinan society, eventually imposing his authority on each tribe. The Jewish tribes were isolated, some were then expelled, and the remainder attacked and exterminated. A consensus Muslim account of the massacre of the Qurayzah " one of the Jewish tribes of Medina " has emerged as conveyed by classical Muslim scholars of hadith (putative utterances and acts of Muhammad, recorded by pious Muslim transmitters), biographers of Muhammad's life (especially Ibn Ishaq), jurists, and historians.

-Earlier segments of this series are archived on http://jcommunitynews.blogspot.com

Criticism of the anti-Jewish content within the Quran and the Islamist jihadi culture should not be taken as an indictment of all Muslims. As put by Bernard Lewis: "Not all Muslims are fundamentalists and not all fundamentalists are terrorists...."
The content of this series is the sole responsibility of Mark Finkelstein. Direct comments to jcrc@dmjfed.org

For Bostom's introduction to the subject, read "Misunderstanding Islamic Antisemitism."

Wednesday, June 25, 2008
Palestinians Unworthy of Sovereignty [from weblog of Yaacov Lozowick* ]

Hamas has announced it will not "protect Israel from attacks by other factions". There is nothing new about this idiotic line of reasoning, of course, and it has been one of the standard canards ever since Israel began disbanding its occupation and transferring power to the Palestinians in 1993.

The question is not if the PLO, or PA, or Hamas, or anyone else, will protect Israel from the more extreme Palestinian forces that will always continue with their anti-Israeli violence no matter what agreements are reached. The question is if whatever Palestinian government it may be will take upon itself one of the most basic of all tasks of government, the monopoly of waging violence. As long as they don't understand that this is a fundamental need of their own, irrespective of Israel, no peace agreement with them will ever hold. On the contrary, the longer they insist on behaving like little children, the more obvious and irrevocable it will be not to allow them a government. Governing is a matter for adults.

[Which doesn't mean Israel should continue to control them. More and more I am beginning to think there will ultimately be not choice but to hand over some sort of control of the Palestinians to the Jordanians and the Egyptians
-----------
* Yaacov Lozowick,Jerusalem, Israel
Historian, author of "Right to Exist, A Moral Defense of Israel's Wars" and other works, former Director of Archives at Yad Vashem

Self-imposed mental, moral, and cultural censors cripple the Muslim world

Blaming others

By Farooq Sulehria 6/17/2008

The Amnesty International report on human rights for the year 2007 is out. The Muslim world constitutes, as usual, bleakest chapter. Every single country across the Muslim world has been pointed out by the Amnesty International either for executions and torture or discrimination against women and ethnic and religious minorities. Punishments never handed down even during the Stone Age, have been awarded in 21st century Muslim world. In one case, two Saudi nationals were awarded 7,000 lashes. Yes, 7,000. And executions? Well, 335 in Iran, 158 in Saudi Arabia and 135 in Pakistan. Violation of human rights, it seems, is the only thing that unites the otherwise divided Muslim world.

The report is no exception. The Muslim world cuts a sorry figure every time a global watchdog releases its findings. Freedom of expression here remains curtailed, Reporters Sans Frontieres annually reports. Regarding freedom of expression, there is a joke often told in Arab world. At a meeting, a US journalist says: "We have complete freedom of expression in the US. We can criticise the US president as much as we like." The Arab journalist replies. "We also have complete freedom of expression in Arab world. We can also criticise the US president as much as we like."

Similarly, it is either Bangladesh or Pakistan or Nigeria which is on top of Transparency International's corruption indexes. However, when Nobel laureates gather in Stockholm every December, Muslim scientists and writers are conspicuous by their absence. In case, as Naguib Mahfouz is crowned, he is stabbed and rendered paralysed. The irony, or tragedy, is that his attacker had not even read his excellent books. Or we disown Dr Abdul Salam just because he belonged to the Ahmadiya community. Salam's case deserves special mention since it underlines the absurdity that characterises this part of the world.

When all else fails, "Jews" and "Christian" West are there to lay the blame for all our ills. Conspiracy theories instead of scientific, rational thought holds sway across much of the Muslim world. And every time a rights abuse is highlighted in Iran, Saudi Arabia or Pakistan, a typical Muslim answer is: Look at Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine and Chechnya. True, imperialism and Zionism have a hand in our predicament. However, there are many wounds one can only describe as self-inflicted.

Take, for instance, the Iran-Iraq war, one of the last century's bloodiest conflicts. There is no denying the fact that the United States backed the Saddam regime. But it was the Arab sheikhdoms, panicked at the Iranian revolution, that stoked the flames of war. And, ironically, now in the post-Saddam era when the "Christian" West has written off Iraq's Saddam-era debt worth $66 billion, Iraq's Arab brothers refuse to write off that country's $67 billion loans.

Similarly, last century's bloodiest Muslim genocide was not carried out by Serbs, Israelis, Americans, Europeans or Hindus. It was Pakistan's military that refused to respect a democratic verdict and plunged East Pakistan, now Bangladesh, into an ocean of blood. Millions were killed, maimed, raped and rendered homeless. Luckily, Pakistan has a "Hindu" neighbour. "Hindus are born enemies of Islam'. Hence, Pakistani children are now taught that a Bengali traitor (revered by Bengalis as founder of Bangladesh), in connivance with our "Hindu" neighbour, dismembered Pakistan. Ironically, of all her South Asian neighbours, Pakistan enjoys most cordial relations with the world's only Hindu state, Nepal. The other big genocide was perpetrated by Indonesia. The target was: its own citizens who were members of the Communist Party.

Figures are not available but Israel perhaps cannot match Iran in executing Arabs. Iran's confessional regime is a champion of the Arab cause in Occupied Territories but Arabs of its Khuzestan province are regularly sent to the gallows. Seizing the opportunity, one may also point out how only recently Afghan refugees were driven out of Iran as if Afghan refugees were not as Muslim as Palestinians. And, by the way in the fallen "Emirate of Afghanistan" itself, Hazaras were slaughtered by the Taliban in their thousands almost a decade ago – mainly because Hazaras are Shia. In Iraq, more people have been killed in Shia-Sunni clashes than in resisting the US occupation. Shia-Sunni clashes in Pakistan have claimed more lives than those lost in its wars against India. Ironically, this only "nuclear power" of the Muslim world is not being occupied on its eastern front by its "Hindu" neighbour but is losing territory on its western front to its own citizens.

One can mention from the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait to the recent Hamas-Fatah infighting (a shameful tribute to Israel on its 60th anniversary). The list is long. Indeed, unending. However, the solution to all our problems is always simple: return to an imagined past which, mercifully for the people of the seventh century, never existed. Every time, a scientist in the West is ready with an invention, our readymade answer is: we knew about it 1,400 years ago what the West has found only now. We kill Theo van Gogh when confronted with a film. We burn down our own cities in response to a blasphemous and racist caricature. Still, we refuse to understand that our answer to every "provocation" is either a fatwa or mindless violence – perhaps because creativity is anathema to us. Not because we lack fertile minds, but because we lack liberation and freedom -- liberation from self-imposed mental, moral, and cultural censors. And freedom to think and express. Time to heed the great Syrian poet Nizar Qabbani, who said:

Five thousand years

Growing beards

In our caves.

Our currency is unknown,

Our eyes are a haven for flies.

Friends,

Smash the doors,

Wash your brains,

Wash your clothes.

Friends,

Read a book,

Write a book,

Grow words, pomegranates and grapes,

Sail to the country of fog and snow.

Nobody knows you exist in caves.

People take you for a breed of mongrels

.


The writer is a freelance contributor. Email: mfsulehria@hotmail.com

Anti-Semitic views can be changed

Anti-Semitic views can be changed
by Julia Duin Sunday, June 22, 2008 Washington Times

Years ago, while reporting for the Houston Chronicle, I realized I'd better wise up in terms of covering Muslims, many of whom were employed with the local oil industry.

This was years before reporters got serious about covering Islam. The first thing I did was read the first five chapters (suras) of the Koran, Islam's holy book.

What struck me was the passages comparing Jews to apes or pigs. I could not miss the deep invective against Jews for their hard-heartedness against Allah. The Koran built a case for the Jews - and the Christians as well - as being replaced by the followers of Allah.

For instance, Sura 3:67 claims the patriarch Abraham "was not a Jew nor yet a Christian," but a Muslim. Sura 5 is full of imprecations against Jews and Christians.

Which is why, when Andrew Bostom's new book, "The Legacy of Islamic Anti-Semitism" landed on my desk a few weeks ago, I took notice.

This enormous 700-page-plus read catches one's attention with cover art depicting the beheading of a 17-year-old Moroccan Jewish girl. The French painter portrayed an actual incident that happened in Fez, Morocco, in 1834 when Sol Hachuel, the daughter of a Talmudic scholar, was executed. The culprit was a female Muslim friend who claimed Sol had secretly become a Muslim, then apostacized.

Apostasy, that is, leaving Islam, was punishable by death back then and still is considered a capital crime today in some Islamic republics. Although Sura 2:256 says, "Let there be no compulsion in religion," Sura 3:85 says "If anyone desires a religion other than Islam, never will it be accepted of him."

That jogged something in my brain. While an exchange student in Strasbourg, France, I was assigned to live with a Jewish family that had fled Morocco years before. Mr. Bostom's book tells of the nonstop assaults on Jewish Moroccans that only ceased when the French colonized Morocco in 1912. When the French began pulling out in the 1950s, Jews left too, guessing bad times would return.

Years later, I sponsored a Kurdish family from Iraq. When they first arrived, I could not get over what seemed an in-born hatred for Jews. Mr. Bostom's book, which has pages of verses extracted from the Koran and the Hadith (commentary on the Koran), makes the case that anti-Semitism is indigenous to the religion.

"It was so preposterous to claim [the anti-Semitism] is not doctrinal," he told me recently. "You can be deprogrammed from this stuff, but that is different than saying the program does not exist."

A 2005 Pew survey gives some credence to his claim. "Anti-Jewish sentiment is endemic in the Muslim world," the survey said. Ninety-nine percent of all Jordanians and Lebanese have a "very unfavorable" view of Jews, it said, as do inhabitants of majority Muslim countries that do not border Israel: Indonesia, Morocco, Pakistan, even Turkey.

"The attitudes are the same everywhere," Mr. Bostom said, "so it's got to be doctrinal," that is, based in the teachings of Islam.

But attitudes change. My Kurdish friends had not been here a year when they began to encounter Jews at their workplaces; something that never occurred when they lived in Iraq. The most vociferous anti-Semite among them ended up with a Jewish boss who treated her kindly.

So I was not too surprised when she asked me if I could find a local synagogue we could visit. Maybe the Jews weren't so bad after all.


Julia Duin can be reached at jduin@washingtontimes.com. Her "Stairway to Heaven" column runs Thursdays and Sunday

Mischaracterization of Hezbollah a flaw in the Stanley Foundation's peace strategy

In his Des Moines Register op ed, "Change Mideast policy — It's rooted in delusion," MICHAEL KRAIG, director of policy analysis and dialogue at the Stanley Foundation, advocates a hugs and kisses approach to get Hezbollah to abandon its negative behaviors.

An integrative approach in Lebanon would recognize Hezbollah's valuable social and political role in southern Lebanon while still opposing its destabilizing, dangerous and unsustainable anti-Israeli actions. It would encourage truly equitable talks among all Lebanese factions on the future institutional makeup of the national government, including Hezbollah as an equal and legitimate actor at the table.

Mr. Kraig, how about identifying Hezbollah for what it is: an organization on the US State Department's list of international terrorists.

Global “Jewish Targets”: Renewing Hezbollah’s Jihad Genocide?June 21st, 2008 by Andrew Bostom

Hezbollah’s “Spiritual” Purveyors of Jihad Genocide

According to US and Canadian intelligence agencies the Shi’ite jihad terror organization Hezbollah, supported by its patron Iran, is poised, once again, to launch a lethal attack against “Jewish targets” far removed from the battlegrounds of the Middle East.

Although no substantive evidence has emerged identifying a specific target, both Canada and Latin America have been suggested as possible targets—the latter being where, in Buenos Aires, Hezbollah struck twice during the 1990s, killing 29 at the Israeli embassy in 1992, and murdering at least 85 more in a 1994 bombing of a Jewish community center.

The ostensible reason given for this renewed jihad terror activity is “revenge” for the February (2008) assassination of Hezbollah’s murderous terror master Imad Mugniyah, killed by a car bomb in Damascus, Syria. Hezbollah blames Israel for this assassination, an allegation rejected by Israeli officials.

Ultimately, however, Hezbollah’s chronic, annihilationist jihad against Israel reflects a rigid adherence to both classical jihad theory, and the ugliest elements of Islamic theology regarding Jews.

The distinguished Shi’ite theologian al-Amili (d.1622) wrote the following (p.213) about jihad war in the Jami-i-Abbasi, his seminal Persian manual of Shi’a Law:

“Islamic Holy war [jihad] against followers of other religions, such as Jews, is required unless they convert to Islam or pay the poll tax.”

And the Jews stubborn malevolence—portrayed in the darkest colors by Islam’s sacred texts—is their defining worldly characteristic. Examples of this archetypal Jew hatred from the Koran, and hadith (traditions of the Muslim prophet Muhammad), amplified by the early Muslim biographies of Muhammad, include:

· Koranic verses labeling Jews as malevolent enemies of Islam (5:82); disobedient slayers of their own prophets who suffered justifiable abasement (2:61), including, for some, transformation into apes and swine (5:60);

· the canonical hadith (Sahih Muslim Book 026, Number 5431), and accounts provided by early Muslim biographers of Muhammad (such as Ibn Saad, below), that the Jews caused Muhammad’s protracted, excruciating death from poisoning:

“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.. Allah’s Apostle took the foreleg, a piece of which he put into his mouth…Allah’s Apostle sent for Zaynab [and]…handed her over to [those] who put her to death…Allah’s Apostle 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…”

Hezbollah’s name, “The Party of Allah”, derives from Koran 5:56—“And whoever takes Allah and His messenger and those who believe for a guardian, then surely the party of Allah are they that shall be triumphant.” In a public statement issued February 15/16, 1986, Hezbollah stressed its indelible links to Iran and Ayatollah Khomeini (“We obey the orders of one leader wise and just…”) and conceived of itself as a “nation” linked to Muslims worldwide by “…a strong ideological and political bond, namely Islam.”

Expressed in the political language of the Koran, Hezbollah’s ideology encompasses, (as per the slogan adorning the party emblem, “The Party of Allah is Sure to Triumph” ) at least three major objectives: transforming Lebanon into a Shari’a state; destroying Israel; establishing regional, followed by international Islamic hegemony, i.e., bringing the region, then the world under Shari’a law.

…we do not constitute an organized party in Lebanon. Nor are we a tight political cadre. We are an umma linked to the Muslims of the whole world by the solid doctrinal and religious connection of Islam, whose message God wanted to be fulfilled by the Seal of the Prophets, i.e., Muhammad. This is why whatever touches or strikes Muslims, in Afghanistan, Iraq, the Philippines and everywhere reverberates throughout the Muslim umma of which we are an integral part. Our behavior is dictated to us by legal principles laid down by the light of an overall political conception defined by the leading jurist (wilayat al-faqih)

As for our culture, it is based on the Holy Koran, the Sunna and the legal rulings of the faqih who is our source of imitation (marja’ al-taqlid). Our culture is crystal clear. It is not complicated and is accessible to all.

No one can imagine the importance of our military potential as our military apparatus is not separate from our overall social fabric. Each of us is a fighting soldier. And when it becomes necessary to carry out the Holy war (Jihad), each of us takes up his assignment in the fight in accordance with the injunctions of the Law, and that in the framework of the mission carried out under the tutelage of the Commanding Jurist.

…our struggle [against Israel] will end only when this entity is obliterated. We recognize no treaty with it, no cease fire, and no peace agreements, whether separate or consolidated.

Demonizing Israel and Jews—via motifs in the Koran and hadith—Hezbollah views the jihad against the “Zionist entity” as an annihilationist war intrinsic to broader conflicts: the struggle between the Islamic world and the non-Muslim world, and the historical struggle between Islam and Judaism.


The most senior clerical authority for Hezbollah, Husayn Fadlalah has stated, “We find in the Koran that the Jews are the most aggressive towards the Muslims…because of their aggressive resistance to the unity of the faith.”

Fadlallah repeatedly refers to anti-Jewish archetypes in the Koran, hadith, and sira: the corrupt, treacherous and aggressive nature of the Jews; their reputation as killers of prophets, who spread corruption on earth; and the notion that the Jews engaged in conspiratorial efforts against the Muslim prophet. Fadlallah argues, ultimately, “Either we destroy Israel or Israel destroys us.”

Muhammad Hassan Nasrallah, current Secretary General of Hezbollah, and a protége of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, presently Iran’s highest ranking political and religious authority (i.e., its “Guardian Jurisprudent”), has reiterated these antisemitic and annihilationist views with particular vehemence.

Invoking motifs from Islam’s foundational texts, Nasrallah has characterized Jews as the “grandsons of apes and pigs,” and as “Allah’s most cowardly and greedy creatures.”

He elaborates these themes into an annihilationist animus against all Jews, not merely Israelis.

Anyone who reads the Koran and the holy writings of the monotheistic religions sees what they did to the prophets, and what acts of madness and slaughter the Jews carried out throughout history…

Anyone who reads these texts cannot think of co-existence with them, of peace with them, or about accepting their presence, not only in Palestine of 1948 but even in a small village in Palestine, because they are a cancer which is liable to spread again at any moment…There is no solution to the conflict in this region except with the disappearance of Israel.

If we searched the entire world for a person more cowardly, despicable, weak and feeble in psyche, mind, ideology and religion, we would not find anyone like the Jew.

Notice, I do not say the Israeli…[I]f they [the Jews] all gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of going after them worldwide.

The Shi’ite jihadist organization Hezbollah thus proclaims with triumphant exuberance its visceral opposition to Judaism and the existence of Israel, stressing the eternal conflict between the Jews and Islam.

Eradicating Israel, and terrorizing, perhaps even destroying Jewish communities worldwide, represents an early stage of Hezballah’s Pan-Islamic ambitions, and its jihad against the rest of the non-Muslim world.

Blithely ignoring this reality, and allowing places such as Toronto, Canada, or Dearborn, Michigan to become hubs for Hezbollah fund-raising and organizing is both morally repugnant, and destructive to our must fundamental Western values expressed with such eloquence in George Washington’s 1790 letter to the Jewish community of Newport, Rhode Island.

The Citizens of the United States of America have a right to applaud themselves for having given to mankind examples of an enlarged and liberal policy: a policy worthy of imitation. All possess alike liberty of conscience and immunities of citizenship. It is now no more that toleration is spoken of, as if it was by the indulgence of one class of people, that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent national gifts. For happily the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens, in giving it on all occasions their effectual support.

May the children of the Stock of Abraham, who dwell in this land, continue to…enjoy the good will of the other Inhabitants; while every one shall sit in safety under his own vine and figtree, and there shall be none to make him afraid.

All Articles Copyright © 2007-2008 Dr. Andrew Bostom | All Rights Reserved

Part III: Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism

Part III of a discussion about
“The Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism: From Sacred Texts to Solemn History,” by Andrew Bostom. In this segment, we reference Robert Kaplan's review of Bostom's book for how Bostom treats the subject of Islamic antisemitism differently than does Bernard Lewis. Kaplan is a professor of history at Cornell University.

Writes Kaplan: (excerpted)

Bostom's book is part of an ongoing debate about the comparative situation of Jews under the crescent and the cross. In this debate Bostom is in sharp disagreement with Bernard Lewis, the well known and much quoted authority on the history of Islam.

One source of difference lies in the fact that compared with Lewis's [Bostom's] writing includes considerably more detail of the anti-Jewish elements in Islamic religion, culture and history.

By quoting the words of Jews who lived under the Muslims and non-Moslems visiting their lands, Bostom's text conveys emotions of sympathy and indignation regarding the oppressed condition of Jews which Lewis's academic, non-emotional style largely omits.

The structure of Lewis's and Bostom's arguments are also quite different.

Employing a genetic approach, Bostom shows that Islam's holy books, the Koran, the hadith and the sira all have sharply negative things to say about Jews, that these have been emphasized and reinforced by Moslem thinkers, jurists and preachers throughout the history of Islam, and that the attitudes and ideas engendered by them have directly influenced the actions of Moslem rulers, clergy and mobs both in their oppression of Jews as dhimmis and their aggressive excesses against Jews which have included pogroms, forced conversion, pillage and expulsion.

The status of dhimmi to which Jews and Christians are relegated under Islamic law is one entailing serious suffering and indignity in the best of circumstances. Frequently circumstances were far from the best.

Lewis puts Islam's record regarding Jews in a favorable light mainly with the generalizations he makes rather than the particular facts he marshals.

Lewis writes "dhimmitude was a minor inconvenience Jews learned to live with ...under Muslim rule the status of dhimmi was long accepted with gratitude by Jews." In making this improbable claim he gives no evidence or explanation.

How does Lewis reach the conclusion that anti-Semitism is unknown to classical Islam? He defines "anti-Semitism" as hatred of Jews according to Christian doctrine, not simply hatred of Jews. In doing so he distorts the ordinary meaning of "antisemitism" which in contemporary English means hatred of Jews.

This said, Lewis's writing about Muslim and Jews should not be dismissed. Key to his thinking is the idea, which seems reasonable enough, that in recent years Arab Moslem hatred of Jews has become especially widespread and intense.


The Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism provides a broad history of the darker side of the Jewish experience in the lands of Islam and the ideas and beliefs which guided Moslem attitudes towards Jews. In this the book brings to light a little known and largely misunderstood area of history and provides an important corrective to the skewed interpretation common among scholars of Islam who, for whatever reason, feel they must put a positive spin on what is essentially negative history.

Part II: Leagacy of Islamic Antisemitism

A continuation, part II, of a discussion about “The Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism: From Sacred Texts to Solemn History,” by Andrew Bostom. Part I may be accessed on the blogsite.

Looking at Bostom’s book in context, it appears that it comes as an outgrowth of discussions about the nature of Islam. More precisely, critics have pointed to the oppression of non-Muslims, historically, in Islamic-ruled societies, as apparently mandated by Islam. (The contemporary problem, of course, is that SOME Muslim fundamentalists – even MANY, and maybe most, but NOT ALL Muslim fundamentalists – and certainly NOT ALL Muslims -- choose to act upon Islamic mandates in a violent, anti-democratic manner.)

Stated positively, certain non-Muslims were honored as “People of the Book [the Bible]” and were protected as minorities. Stated negatively, non-Muslims were required to display submission to Muslims by assuming specified restrictions – or to convert, or die. The term for protected/submissive minority was: dhimmi.

It is instructive, and fascinating, to follow a debate about the treatment of non-Muslims ruled by Islam, (follow the link back to previous links , for the full flavor of the debate ) such as the following, important rejoinder by the author who writes under the name of Bat Ye’or. She coined the term dhimmitude in 1983 and authored a text about the treatment of Christians and Jews under Islam (1985).

Bat Ye’or: The treatment of the Jews by the Prophet has become the standard by which the classical Muslim jurists formulated their policy toward non-Muslims, as embodied in the Shari'a and in the jihad’s rules.

Hence, when non-Muslims (primarily Hindus and Christians) were killed in Bali [2002], Amrozi, the Indonesian terrorist,[ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amrozi_bin_Nurhasyim] invoked the fate of the Jews in the oasis of Khaybar…. Although many of the Jews of Khaybar were killed in an unprovoked jihad campaign by Muhammad, those vanquished Khaybar Jews who surrendered were not killed, but were dispossessed and became exploited dhimmi tributaries, until, within a decade later, they were expelled by the "Rightly Guided" Caliph Umar.



So how did Bostom get involved with all this? Bostom was involved in the debate about the Islamic imperative toward jihad, and in 2005 authored “The Legacy of Jihad: Islamic Holy War and the Fate of Non-Muslims”

Bostom says, however, it was not until he came across an Islamic anti-Jewish aphorism embedded in, of all places, a 17th century anti-Hindu tract, that his curiosity was piqued as to the provenance of anti-Jewish hatred in Islam:

Bostom: Nearing completion of my first book compendium, The Legacy of Jihad, in early 2005, specifically the section about jihad on the Indian subcontinent, I came across a remarkable comment by the Indian Sufi theologian Sirhindi (d. 1624). …In the midst of an anti-Hindu tract… Sirhindi observes, “Whenever a Jew is killed, it is for the benefit of Islam.”

The biographical information I could glean about Sirhindi provided….no evidence he was ever in direct contact with Jews, so his very hateful remark suggested to me that the attitudes it reflected must have a theological basis in Islam...

Resource: An Extended interview with Andrew Bostom
Next: Popularly accepted contentions taken on by Bostom.