C
cor
Guest
By “wipe out polytheistic religions” do you mean killing all polytheists? I don’t see how killing all polytheists is more palatable than killing all non-Muslims.
- Status
C
Contarini
Guest
I am not an expert in Islamic law, but my understanding is that theoretically polytheists were supposed to be given the choice of conversion or death, yes. In practice a version of “dhimmitude” was usually imposed there as well.
I wish we could discuss the issue rationally without the assumption that everyone must have an agenda either to defend or attack Islam. I’m simply trying to be as accurate as I can and to promote this in others. I am not trying to make Islam out to be “palatable” or to comfort people. Obviously as a matter of charity and justice I’d rather err on the hopeful side. Note that I said this was the harshest interpretation, not the universal one. Guanophore spoke of the killing of *all *non-Muslims, and I’m pointing out that the principle of dhimmitude (the subjugation and limited toleration of non-Islamic monotheists) is well-established in traditional Islam. If radical Muslims have indeed abandoned it, I’d like to see clear evidence to that effect (and not simply rhetorical stements on videos to the effect of “we will kill you”).
Edwin
M
Montalban
Guest
Moslems are supposed to dominate the world. They’re allowed to wage war against non-Moslems who have not yet submitted to Islam. One can ‘submit’ to Islamic rule and still retain one’s faith - however it’s at the price of heavy discrimination. How does this ‘soften’ Islam, as far as you’re concerned?
From paying a special tax (Jizyah)
“Fight against those who (1) believe not in Allaah, (2) nor in the Last Day, (3) nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allaah and His Messenger (Muhammad), (4) and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (i.e. Islam) among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued”
[al-Tawbah 9:29]"
onwards…
- dhimmi people had to cede the center of the road to Muslims;
- the only animal they could ride was a donkey;
- they could not testify against a Muslim in court;
- they could not build houses taller than those of Muslims;
- they could not build new places of worship;
- they had to pray quietly so as not to offend the ears of passing Muslims;
- a dhimmi man could not so much as touch a Muslim woman, but a Muslim man could take Jewish or Christian women as wives;
- a dhimmi could not defend himself if physically assaulted by a Muslim;
- dhimmis could not bear arms;
- dhimmis had to pay a special tax every year and were treated in humiliating fashion when paying it;
- in public, dhimmis had to wear distinctive clothing, intentionally designed to be humiliating;
- at least in the 9th century, dhimmis had to nail wooden images of devils to their doors;
If you think that becoming a dhimmi in any way softens the stance of Islam then you’re misinformed. For in effect once Islam becomes dominant than non-Islamic forms of worship will diminish due to such persecution. You seem to think that if they’re not wiped out immediately, that somehow makes it okay.
M
Montalban
Guest
Yes, it’s to spread terror. Moslems can use terror to dominate non-Moslems.
People here are basing their ideas on Islam on how Moslems have acted after interpreting their Koran.
I have, for one, noted that not all Moslems will kill. Many are ignorant about their own faith - as many Christians are ignorant about theirs. I know for instance a great many Catholics who believe that the Immaculate Conception refers to Jesus’ conception, not Mary’s.
That’s illogical. If I wanted to discover for myself what Islam meant, it would be, under your conditions impossible. I could neither research it for myself, nor trust the judgment of a convert. Here’s why.
- In self-research, I’d never be able to judge what real Islam is, because I’m outside it. How could I then tell what really is Islam?
- In being taught;
a) If I go to a person and ask them, they could tell me, but how could I really judge if what they’re saying is true because I’m outside it, and therefore unable to judge what’s really Islam
b) How can I know the person’s really a Moslem because only people within it are the best judges. A Shi’a might tell me the Sunn’i teaching me is not really a Moslem. Which is the real Moslem? Even if they both agreed on a point how would I know it’s still Islamic (see 1, 2a) )
Because it’s based on a misguided view of Islam. You seem to think that because Moslems aren’t supposed to kill everyone, but dominate and in effect enslave them, that this presents Islam in a vastly different light.
M
Montalban
Guest
However Christians are accused of having a ‘partner’ for God.
So if people are enslaved by conditions of dhimmitude that’s better? I suppose having your society slowly killed is better than it being quickly killed
M
Montalban
Guest
Generally the chronology for Book 2 is given as after Mecca.
However, even if we assume that this was correct, you’ve not disputed that it was in fact abrogated.
K
Kadaveri
Guest
So why say it was revealed at the start of Muhammad’s Prophethood if you knew it wasn’t? There is such a thing as intellectual honesty afterall.
And it isn’t abrogated.
And it isn’t abrogated.
M
Montalban
Guest
I have stated that generally Book 2 was revealled at Medina. That doesn’t mean ALL of it. I cited evidence that shows that it was a fairly early (and pre-Medina) verse
You’ve simply misread what I wrote as a concession to your point. It’s not.
So you say.
K
Kadaveri
Guest
No you didn’t cite any evidence, you just said it was revealed when ‘Muhammed was just starting the religion and was in a position of weakness’ without giving any reasons why that is so at all; going against what every scholar of Islam has ever said about it.
C
Contarini
Guest
You haven’t provided any evidence that it was, so there’s no need to dispute what is asserted with no proof. Answering-Islam, which you cite, simply refers to “some Muslim commentators.” Which commentators? Which commentators, if any, disagree? Where might one go to see a good summary of where the different traditions of fiqh stand on this?
Edwin
C
Contarini
Guest
Are you suggesting that it would be better to be dead than to be a dhimmi?
Are you seriously claiming that being a dhimmi was worse than being a member of the peasant class of most premodern societies? I can’t see that it was.
I am not of course suggesting that dhimmitude is a good thing. The fact that you can somehow imagine that I’m claiming this shows how disconnected from reality you are. I point out that traditional Islam does not set out to kill all Muslims, and you get upset. Why? If it doesn’t make any difference, then let me make my pedantic correction, which may be relevant to those who think that subjugating people is more merciful than killing them.
Coptic Christians still live in Egypt after nearly 1400 years of Islamic rule. Their lot has been extremely tough, but they have survived. Are you suggesting that they might as well all have been wiped out in the seventh century? Are you suggesting that their long history since the Islamic conquest is worth nothing? Logically, that *is *what you are saying, if dhimmitude is really just as bad as extermination.
And, of course, many Muslims do not hold to the view that all non-Muslim societies must be conquered. Even traditionally, while in theory all non-Muslim countries were in the “dar al-harb,” the “temporary truces” could last for centuries and involve quite good relations. However, the real question on this thread is how we are to treat those Muslims who are moving toward a less aggressive understanding. You and many others on this forum seem to think that we should dismiss them as “not really Muslims.” I think this is both intrinsically unjust (which is by far the more important consideration) and practically stupid to the point of insanity.
We should not treat either the more moderate or the more militant Muslims as “not really Muslims.” We should recognize that both sides exist, we should pray for the victory of the moderates, and we should be ready to resist the militants to the death if need be.
Edwin
C
Contarini
Guest
No, they obviously aren’t, or they wouldn’t be accusing some Muslims of reading the Qur’an wrongly. That’s what I’m objecting to–the idea that if Muslims read the Qur’an and then do not go out and attack non-Muslims, they mustn’t have read it thoroughly enough.
Your assumption that all nonviolent Muslims are ignorant does not seem to be based on any evidence but solely on prejudice. This is what I’m trying to get at. How do you know that they are ignorant? Just because you don’t see how they get their views from the Qur’an?
If by “what Islam meant” you mean some abstraction called “Real Islam,” then sure, you can’t get at that. Why would you want to? That is a construct that only exists for Muslims. For us there is simply the body of beliefs and practices characterizing Muslims. And we have no business telling one group of Muslims that they are not “real” Muslims because they don’t correspond to our construction of Islam.
You don’t get it. My point is that we have no business judging what is “really Islamic.” If a Shi’ite and a Sunni both call themselves Muslims, then we accept that they represent different kinds of Islam. If they call each other names and each says that the other isn’t a Muslim, we note that Muslims are divided into at least two very different groups, but we still regard them both as Muslims. We learn what each group believes–we have no reason to decide which is “really” Muslim. It’s a meaningless concept for us. Islam is simply a handy umbrella term for a certain group of beliefs and practices. For Muslims, it’s the True Religion. So of course they have every reason to worry about what Real Islam is. We don’t. Period.
I think that life and death are different, yes. Doesn’t everyone?
Edwin
M
Montalban
Guest
It’s better to die on your feet than to live on your knees. Whilst you might think it is great to escape with your own life the problem is that your own kids might convert - that’s what Islam’s looking at - the long term.
Indeed. In England there was a lot more mobility than you’re probably aware. For instance following the great plague labourers could get more for their labour - by virtue of a labour shortage. Some improved to become squires, or better. I’m not claiming it was ideal, but at least you wouldn’t be afraid that your faith could be curtailed .
I’m not upset in the slightest. That’s simply projection. You’re making an apology for Islam by saying that although they don’t kill everyone, they enslave them, as if this is light-years better. It’s not. It still doesn’t detract from the goal of Islam - domination.
It’s not just subjugating. There was movement in Islamic society too, one could relieve oneself of the burdens of dhimmitude by converting. AND THAT IS THE POINT. Loosing one’s faith to falsehood is far worse than death.
Luke 9:25
What good is it for a man to gain the whole world, and yet lose or forfeit his very self?
Indeed, but they were subjected to a special condition owing to the fact that one of Muhammad’s wives was Mary the Copt and she got these concessions from her. This exception doesn’t make for the rule. Perhaps a little more history would help you. Another exception was the church on Mt Sinai.
Given that they were a special condition not as badly persecuted as the rest of Christianity, we can see the results for ourselves. The real dhimmitude areas such as the area of Asia Minor sees next to no Christians whatsoever - the long term goal of Islam.
This then is subject to your own flawed logic - how would you know that they’re views are really Islamic?
But thanks for the truism.
What understanding? For instance all the Moslems I’ve seen here say what a great guy Muhammad is (even for having sex with a child). How am I meant to come to an ‘understanding’ with them over this?
I’ve said in my previous posts I recognise not all Moslems follow the evils of Islam. The tenets of Islam are there none-the-less.
M
Montalban
Guest
They haven’t. The four main schools of Islamic thought have centuries of interpretation behind them.
I suggest you read The Legacy of Jihad: Islamic Holy War and the Fate of Non-Muslims by Andrew G Bostom
There is for instance, an Appendix of Islamic Jurists, Theologians and Historians in his book (see p682)
But the flaw in your argument is that your interpreation of Islam is more correct than mine. You offer no evidence and say my view is false. I’ve cited countless examples over the months I’ve debated about Islam.
The Koran says it…
[Koran 3.151] We will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve, because they set up with Allah that for which He has sent down no authority, and their abode is the fire, and evil is the abode of the unjust.
The major schools of Islam say it. History shows it.
jihad is a fard al-kifaya, that is, that one must begin the fight against the enemy, even when he [the enemy] may not have taken the initiative to fight, because the Prophet…early on…allowed believers to defend themselves, later, however, he ordered them to take the initiative at certain times of the year, that is, at the end of the haram months, saying, “Kill the idolaters wherever you find them…” (Q9:5).
He finally ordered fighting without limitations, at all times and in all places, saying, “Fight those who do not believe in God, and in the Last Day…”(Q9:29); there are also other [similar] verses on the subject. This shows that it is a fard al-kifaya
frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=24999
But by you own logic you can’t know who real Moslems are
Yes, I do get it. You don’t get my rebuttal. You can’t know who the real Moslems are. IF you can’t really know what Islam is then you can’t really know who are practicings it. Sorry you missed that.
So simply calling themselves a Moslem, they’re Moslem, and then they can talk about Islam. Okay then, I declare myself so I can discuss it. You can’t now judge that my practice of Islam is less valid, but is just a ‘different type’. That’s why your post-modern deconstructionalist approach is so flawed.
C
Contarini
Guest
Right, although I note that Bostom is not an expert on Islamic history. Why is it that (as he notes, if I remember rightly) the people whose job it is to study the subject disagree with him? To me that’s evidence that there may be something wrong with his approach, although from briefly looking at the book some time ago I found it quite reasonable on the whole.
Anyway, that’s really not the point. The point is first of all that you don’t know that these “peaceful” Muslims haven’t read these traditions of Islamic interpretation. And in the second place, both liberal and “fundamentalist” Muslims tend to be qutie dismissive of these traditional interpretations. If the liberals are not “real Muslims” because they reject the traditions of fiqh, then the fundamentalists aren’t “real Muslims” either, because for the most part they dismiss the tradition as well.
No, my point is that neither of us have any business making a generalization about an abstraction called Islam.
I am not certain that what you think I am disputing. I am not arguing that traditional Islam did not teach the legitimacy (and even necessity) of offensive jihad. However, some modern Muslims argue that this does not apply to democratic, religiously tolerant non-Muslim countries. My point is that these Muslims cannot simply be written off as ignorant. They know the tradition and they have an intelligent argument for why circumstances are different, or in the case of the more liberal ones for why the traditional interpretation was wrong.
I don’t need to! Why this obsession with knowing who “real Muslims” are? What do you get out of it? Why not just observe and classify in whatever way is convenient?
And the problem with that is? If they call their religion “Islam,” then I probably will as well.
This shows that you really don’t get it. I never said that non-Muslims can’t talk about Islam. I said that non-Muslims can’t judge what is “real” Islam and what isn’t.
It’s not flawed at all. You’re creating an artificial case, because you don’t actually want to identify yourself as a Muslim. My point is that people who do want to identify themselves with Islam have the right to do so for all I care–it’s for Muslims to object to this.
For instance, there are people who come to believe in Jesus but want to continue to identify themselves as Muslims or Hindus or Buddhists (or Jews, but that’s a special case). If we saw the development of a group of “Muslims who believe in Jesus” as the Son of God, I would not say that they were not real Muslims. I would of course say that their beliefs were different from those of traditional Islam, but it would not be any of my business to tell them that they were not “real” Muslims. (I would have problems as a Christian with their unwillingness to call themselves Christians, but that’s another issue.)
It seems very commonsense to me! Nothing deconstructionist about it that I can see. am not a relativist, unless it’s relativistic to recognize my limitations as a human being (which seems to be what many people mean by relativism).
Let me have one more go at this. Religions are historic bodies of tradition. But they quite obviously change and develop over time. I am saying that an outsider has no way of judging when a development is legitimate and when it isn’t. You have to be within the tradition to do that. If that’s relativism, so be it.
Edwin
C
Contarini
Guest
I am not at all sure that that is a Christian sentiment. It is better to die than to deny Christ. I am not sure that it is better to die than to live under the conditions in which most human beings have lived throughout history. That will do for the 300 Spartans, but I’m not sure Christians have a right to talk this way.
I’m quite aware of this. But I was not talking about late medieval England, where social mobility was increasing. That was the beginning of the modern West, so you are making my point quite nicely! The modern West is the exception in terms of social mobility and human rights. And I for one think that Western Christianity can take a lot of the credit for that, however indirectly.
I never said it was light-years better. I simply pointed out that it was the case. Don’t you care about accuracy, at all? Guanophore made an inaccurate statement. Why not just accept that and move on. You know that the statement was wrong–why are you defending it? Your indifference to truth is what really bothers me.
I agree with that. But the question isn’t what is better for Christians, but what is more humane in terms of natural law. And obviously it’s more humane to make people pay taxes (and the other marks of subjugation) than to kill them.
Perhaps, but you have not convinced me that you are the person from whom I should be taking lessons, given that even your grammar is confused. Who got concessions from whom? Muhammad was long dead by the time the Muslims conquered Egypt. I find this argument highly dubious. And there are still many Christians in other parts of the Muslim world as well–the Holy Land, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq. Egypt is simply the best example. This won’t fly.
I definitely do not want to learn history from you! First of all, Asia minor was a frontier area for centuries and was the location of the most intensive ghazi warfare. Areas that were conquered earlier still have many Christians and are much better candidates for “real dhimmitude areas.” You are arbitrarily picking Asia Minor because it suits your purposes. But actually it is the exception.
Furthermore, the main reason it’s so “free” of Christians is that there was an exchange of populations after WWI between Turkey and Greece. The Muslims in Greek territory moved to Turkey and the Christians in Turkish territory moved to Greece.
I didn’t say you have to like their beliefs! You just have to treat them fairly. You really aren’t capable of a rational discussion, are you?
Edwin
M
Montalban
Guest
He set out to offer a sourcebook on Islamic opinion on the meaning of jihad. In this he’s been highly successful. He notes all four major Islamic schools, and cites them through the centuries
Actually, it is entirely the point. He shows through evidence that over the centuries
a) Moslems have interpreted jihad as war
and as a result
b) have carried it out.
It shows that over the course of the life of Islam a majority of Moslem scholars have interpreted Islam differently from what you continue to suppose, and that they’re history shows this too. Against this you offer continued appeal to incredulity and an illogical approach that shows no one can ever really know Islam.
Its irrelevant. Whether they have or not doesn’t negate that the interpretations still exist. What you’re arguing is the equivalent of someone pointing out that a Nazi party member didn’t read Mein Kampf, and as a result he actually saved some Jews, therefore one can’t judge Nazism based on the actions of someone who wasn’t representative of the ‘group’.
SO you continue to suppose
This only works if we accept your supposition that it is so.
Islam is not an abstract because it is applied to the ‘practical’. Further you seem certain I am wrong, and as I’ve pointed out, this argues against your own idea about no one knowing what Islam is (except Moslems - whatever they are)
I’m not sure that you know. Whilst you’re certain I’m wrong, you can talk about ideas such as ‘traditional Islam’, as if you know.
Noting again only you seem to be able to term something in Islam as ‘traditional’, and yet I can’t know anything about Islam, because I’m not a Moslem, I’ll move on. Show me the democratic legacy of Islamic teaching.
Ignoring for a moment that you continue to argue against yourself, cite me the connection between these ‘modernists’, and Islamic texts that they’re basing their beliefs upon. In other words, enough with the supposition.
Why is it only you can determine that one form of Islam is ‘traditional’?
M
Montalban
Guest
"Contarini:
Contarini:
So far from you I get an appeal for incredulity, based on making a very practical religion something so abstract you’re not sure anyone (other than a Moslem) can know what it is, but you certainly can. Logically if you can do this this means you’re a Moslem!
For you ‘rational’ is the belief that every argument you have, despite being contradictory, is rational.
But you’re right, I really don’t just ‘get’ your illogical argument. It’s an argument based on contradiction and nonsense. One that says I’m unable to know what Islam is, but you can instantly talk about ‘traditional’ Islam… as if you know - even though you say only Moslems can know, which would mean that either you
a) really know - and are a Moslem
or
b) you really don’t know, and therefore your argument is not based on reality.
I just noted the problem. Based on your own beliefs that leaves you outside of Islam and unable to comment about it - though you continue to do so. I can, therefore continuing your argument I know more about it than you and therefore your defeat yourself.
So what is left to talk about? Ho would we know what we’re talking about really represents Islam?
So far from you I get an appeal for incredulity, based on making a very practical religion something so abstract you’re not sure anyone (other than a Moslem) can know what it is, but you certainly can. Logically if you can do this this means you’re a Moslem!
For you ‘rational’ is the belief that every argument you have, despite being contradictory, is rational.
But you’re right, I really don’t just ‘get’ your illogical argument. It’s an argument based on contradiction and nonsense. One that says I’m unable to know what Islam is, but you can instantly talk about ‘traditional’ Islam… as if you know - even though you say only Moslems can know, which would mean that either you
a) really know - and are a Moslem
or
b) you really don’t know, and therefore your argument is not based on reality.
M
Montalban
Guest
Contrary to Contarini conjectures I offer Islamic opinion of their own faith - and its treatment of others.
You’re not even considered a ‘brother’ of a Muslim
"Question: Does not brotherhood extend to all of mankind because it is established that Aadam was the forefather of everyone?
Response: This is not so. There is no doubt that everyone is from the offspring of Aadam but we do not say, “This is my brother,” when referring to a disbeliever meaning by that within the brotherhood of man. We can only refer to him as brother when there is a relationship by descent or lineage.
fatwa-online.com/fataawa/muslimminorities/0000920_5.htm
They view non-Islamic practices as evil
“…But he does have the right to forbid her to go out of the house, even if she is going to go out to go to church, because she is commanded to obey him. He also has the right to forbid her to commit evil openly in the house, such as setting up statues or ringing bells.”
islamqa.com/index.php?ref=70177&ln=eng
It goes far worse. They’ve practiced massacres/pogroms upon non-Moslems
"When Jews were perceived as having achieved too comfortable a position in Islamic society, anti-Semitism would surface, often with devastating results: On December 30, 1066, Joseph HaNagid, the Jewish vizier of Granada, Spain, was crucified by an Arab mob that proceeded to raze the Jewish quarter of the city and slaughter its 5,000 inhabitants. The riot was incited by Muslim preachers who had angrily objected to what they saw as inordinate Jewish political power.
Similarly, in 1465, Arab mobs in Fez slaughtered thousands of Jews, leaving only 11 alive, after a Jewish deputy vizier treated a Muslim woman in “an offensive manner.” The killings touched off a wave of similar massacres throughout Morocco.(6)
Other mass murders of Jews in Arab lands occurred in Morocco in the 8th century, where whole communities were wiped out by Muslim ruler Idris I; North Africa in the 12th century, where the Almohads either forcibly converted or decimated several communities; Libya in 1785, where Ali Burzi Pasha murdered hundreds of Jews; Algiers, where Jews were massacred in 1805, 1815 and 1830 and Marrakesh, Morocco, where more than 300 hundred Jews were murdered between 1864 and 1880.(7)
Decrees ordering the destruction of synagogues were enacted in Egypt and Syria (1014, 1293-4, 1301-2), Iraq (854-859, 1344) and Yemen (1676). Despite the Koran’s prohibition, Jews were forced to convert to Islam or face death in Yemen (1165 and 1678), Morocco (1275, 1465 and 1790-92) and Baghdad (1333 and 1344).(8)"
jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/anti-semitism/Jews_in_Arab_lands_(gen).html
“In the late 1800’s the Jews continued to suffer the same discriminatory practices as other non-Muslim “infidels” (58) which “in many places throughout Syria and Palestine” meant “oppression, extortion, and violence by both the local authorities and the Muslim population.” (59) [p. 180]”
quoting Joan Peters book “From Time Immemorial–The Origins Of The Arab-Jewish Conflict Over Palestine (New York: Harper & Row, 1984.)” at
rachelstomb.org/dhimmi.html
You’re not even considered a ‘brother’ of a Muslim
"Question: Does not brotherhood extend to all of mankind because it is established that Aadam was the forefather of everyone?
Response: This is not so. There is no doubt that everyone is from the offspring of Aadam but we do not say, “This is my brother,” when referring to a disbeliever meaning by that within the brotherhood of man. We can only refer to him as brother when there is a relationship by descent or lineage.
fatwa-online.com/fataawa/muslimminorities/0000920_5.htm
They view non-Islamic practices as evil
“…But he does have the right to forbid her to go out of the house, even if she is going to go out to go to church, because she is commanded to obey him. He also has the right to forbid her to commit evil openly in the house, such as setting up statues or ringing bells.”
islamqa.com/index.php?ref=70177&ln=eng
It goes far worse. They’ve practiced massacres/pogroms upon non-Moslems
"When Jews were perceived as having achieved too comfortable a position in Islamic society, anti-Semitism would surface, often with devastating results: On December 30, 1066, Joseph HaNagid, the Jewish vizier of Granada, Spain, was crucified by an Arab mob that proceeded to raze the Jewish quarter of the city and slaughter its 5,000 inhabitants. The riot was incited by Muslim preachers who had angrily objected to what they saw as inordinate Jewish political power.
Similarly, in 1465, Arab mobs in Fez slaughtered thousands of Jews, leaving only 11 alive, after a Jewish deputy vizier treated a Muslim woman in “an offensive manner.” The killings touched off a wave of similar massacres throughout Morocco.(6)
Other mass murders of Jews in Arab lands occurred in Morocco in the 8th century, where whole communities were wiped out by Muslim ruler Idris I; North Africa in the 12th century, where the Almohads either forcibly converted or decimated several communities; Libya in 1785, where Ali Burzi Pasha murdered hundreds of Jews; Algiers, where Jews were massacred in 1805, 1815 and 1830 and Marrakesh, Morocco, where more than 300 hundred Jews were murdered between 1864 and 1880.(7)
Decrees ordering the destruction of synagogues were enacted in Egypt and Syria (1014, 1293-4, 1301-2), Iraq (854-859, 1344) and Yemen (1676). Despite the Koran’s prohibition, Jews were forced to convert to Islam or face death in Yemen (1165 and 1678), Morocco (1275, 1465 and 1790-92) and Baghdad (1333 and 1344).(8)"
jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/anti-semitism/Jews_in_Arab_lands_(gen).html
“In the late 1800’s the Jews continued to suffer the same discriminatory practices as other non-Muslim “infidels” (58) which “in many places throughout Syria and Palestine” meant “oppression, extortion, and violence by both the local authorities and the Muslim population.” (59) [p. 180]”
quoting Joan Peters book “From Time Immemorial–The Origins Of The Arab-Jewish Conflict Over Palestine (New York: Harper & Row, 1984.)” at
rachelstomb.org/dhimmi.html
M
Montalban
Guest
This hatred of Jews stems from the Koran itself.
The Koran says that the Jews are like donkeys!
62: 5 The likeness of those who were entrusted with the Taurat (Torah), but who subsequently failed in those (obligations), is as the likeness of a donkey who carries huge burdens of books (but understands nothing from them). How bad is the example (or the likeness) of people who deny the Ayat (proofs, evidences, verses, signs, revelations, etc.) of Allah. And Allah guides not the people who are Zalimun (polytheists, wrong-doers, disbelievers, etc.).
2:96 says that they are the greediest people…
And verily, you will find them (the Jews) the greediest of mankind for life and (even greedier) than those who - ascribe partners to Allah (and do not believe in Resurrection - Magians, pagans, and idolaters, etc.). Everyone of them wishes that he could be given a life of a thousand years. But the grant of such life will not save him even a little from (due) punishment. And Allah is All-Seer of what they do.
2:61 says that al-lah stamped wrtechedness upon them.
4:61 Says that they (and Christians) believe in idols
5:52 they are cursed.
Note: animal analogies are used a number of times
Sabbath breakers are said to be like monkeys
2: 65 And indeed you knew those amongst you who transgressed in the matter of the Sabbath (i.e. Saturday). We said to them: “Be you monkeys, despised and rejected.”
2: 66 So We made this punishment an example to their own and to succeeding generations and a lesson to those who are Al-Muttaqun (the pious - see V.2:2).
5:93 the Jews are cursed
5:51 don’t take a Jew as a friend
5:53 Jews (and Christians) are losers
5:57 Don’t choose Jews, (or Christians, or disbelievers) as guardians
5:59 Jews (and Christians) are evil-doers
5:63 Rabbis do evil
The Koran even mentions incidents of terror against the Jews
“And He has caused to descend from their strongholds the Jews that assisted them. And he struck terror into their hearts. Some you slaughtered and some you took prisoner”
Sura 33.25
The Koran says that the Jews are like donkeys!
62: 5 The likeness of those who were entrusted with the Taurat (Torah), but who subsequently failed in those (obligations), is as the likeness of a donkey who carries huge burdens of books (but understands nothing from them). How bad is the example (or the likeness) of people who deny the Ayat (proofs, evidences, verses, signs, revelations, etc.) of Allah. And Allah guides not the people who are Zalimun (polytheists, wrong-doers, disbelievers, etc.).
2:96 says that they are the greediest people…
And verily, you will find them (the Jews) the greediest of mankind for life and (even greedier) than those who - ascribe partners to Allah (and do not believe in Resurrection - Magians, pagans, and idolaters, etc.). Everyone of them wishes that he could be given a life of a thousand years. But the grant of such life will not save him even a little from (due) punishment. And Allah is All-Seer of what they do.
2:61 says that al-lah stamped wrtechedness upon them.
4:61 Says that they (and Christians) believe in idols
5:52 they are cursed.
Note: animal analogies are used a number of times
Sabbath breakers are said to be like monkeys
2: 65 And indeed you knew those amongst you who transgressed in the matter of the Sabbath (i.e. Saturday). We said to them: “Be you monkeys, despised and rejected.”
2: 66 So We made this punishment an example to their own and to succeeding generations and a lesson to those who are Al-Muttaqun (the pious - see V.2:2).
5:93 the Jews are cursed
5:51 don’t take a Jew as a friend
5:53 Jews (and Christians) are losers
5:57 Don’t choose Jews, (or Christians, or disbelievers) as guardians
5:59 Jews (and Christians) are evil-doers
5:63 Rabbis do evil
The Koran even mentions incidents of terror against the Jews
“And He has caused to descend from their strongholds the Jews that assisted them. And he struck terror into their hearts. Some you slaughtered and some you took prisoner”
Sura 33.25
- Status