Saturday, March 1, 2008


Koran 5:64
The Jews say: 'God's hand is chained.' May their own hands be chained! May they be cursed for what they say!...

You will surely find that, of all people, the most hostile to those who are committed [to Allah] are the Yahud . . . ."(5:82).

Since the founding of the ideology of Mohammed, called Islam, the Jews have been the prime target of Moslem hatred and violence.

kaleb yahud (Jew dog)

Al Yehud Kelabna (The Jews are Our Dogs)

Itbaq al-Yahud (Slaughter the Jews!)

And then there is the chant:
“Khaybar Khaybar ya yahud, jaysh Muhammad sawfa ya‘ud” (Khaybar Khaybar, Oh Jews! The army of Muhammad will return.) This refers to the slaughter of Jews by Mohammed.

[The "arm(ies) of Muhammad" did return, several times--and each time had their asses kicked by the yahudis. One can expect the same were there to be the final encounter. So far, there ain't too much for the chanters to be proud of.]

The Arabs of today, gloating about a victory of Mohammed and his band over the Jews of Medina. It is as if the Jews were to gloat and chant at Greeks or Cretans about defeating the Philistines (the sea people [pleshti] who are thought to have come from the Greek archipelago.)

"Perhaps something like "Goliath, Goliath, the champion of your king, David the Jew slew him with his sling," to give vent to anti-Hellenistic sentiment. Idiotic, that would be.

But the hatred of Islam and the Islamics for Jews and the Jewish State: Israel is real, it is not funny, as it explodes into violence, mayhem and Jew-murder by Arabs and other arabized peoples--Pakistanis, Berbers, etc.

At the present time, Moslem venom against the hated yahudis--now they are even called Israelis in this piece--runs as white-hot as ever:


One strong argument for a war with the Israelis of Madinah at that time was their obviously racist character. The Israelis refused to acknowledge Muhammad (saw) because of their racism: he was an Arab — descended from Ibrahim (as) through Isma’il (as) — instead of being an Israeli, descended from Ibrahim as through Ishaq (as). This racism turned them against God because He had given His mission to Muhammad (saw) of the Quraish, instead of giving it to them and their race!

Let us try to follow this Israeli racism and the extremes to which it will go to undermine an Islamic order. The Israeli Yahud in Madinah tried to use hypocrisy to subvert Islam from within. Some of these yahud feigned Islam; some of them were even rabbis. Many are known by name in the recorded history of the Prophetic period: Sa’d ibn Hanif, Zaid ibn al-Lusait, Nu’man ibn Awfa, ‘Uthman ibn Awfa, Rafi’ ibn Huraimalah, Rufa’ah ibn Zaid ibn Tabut, Silsilah ibn Barham, and Kinana ibn Suriya’. These Yahud would wait for a suitable moment to inject their venom. One such incident concerns Zaid ibn al-Lusait. He blew his cover, so to speak, when the Prophet’s pack animal got lost. "Muhammad claims to receive news from heaven, yet he does not know where his own pack animal is!" he exclaimed.

Another ploy to cause confusion was to declare that they had accepted Islam, and then proceed to renounce and revile Islam. The idea was to take in or distract weaker, newer Muslims, who — they hoped — would be easily misled and confused, in order to cause rifts in the Muslim rank and file, and to slow the phenomenal progress and growth of Islam.

The books of Seerah — in episodes that tend to gather dust rather than inform the contemporary Islamic movement — tell us that ‘Abdullah ibn Daif and ‘Uday ibn Zaid (both Yahudis of Banu Qaynuqa) met with al-Harith ibn ‘Awf (a Yahudi of Banu Quraida) and made a plan. They said: come, let us all announce our faith in Muhammad at the beginning of the day, and then at the end of the day let us quit the faith. In this way the general Muslim public will be shocked and confused.

Addressing this fifth column, Allah says in the Qur’an:
O people of earlier Scripture! Why do you cloak the truth with falsity and conceal the truth of which you are [so well] aware? And some of the followers of earlier Scripture say [to one another]: "Declare your belief in what has been revealed to those who believe [in Muhammad] at the beginning of the day, and deny the truth of what came later, so that they might renounce [their deen]." But [O Muslims] do not believe anyone who does not [really] follow your own deen. (3:71—73)

Another ploy that these Yahud used was to come to Allah’s Prophet (saw) and ask him to do impossible things. They were not doing so in order to ascertain whether or not he was a prophet (they already knew that he was), but rather to show that he was inferior in some way to the miracle-performing prophets who had preceded him. So they asked him: "If you are telling the truth and you are God’s messenger, then have Him talk to us so that we may hear Him." On another occasion their question was: "O Muhammad! If you are truly a prophet, then tell us: when will the Day of Resurrection come?" Another time they said: "We understand that God created humanity, but who created God?" It may easily be considered that the trouble that these Israeli Jews were trying to brew within the Islamic power base in Madinah gave the Islamic leadership enough reason to declare war against them; yet Rasool-Allah (saw) did not do so at this stage. The war continued against the mushrikeen of Makkah . . . "

[Close Quote]

--The Seerah and the political questions confronting the Islamic movement today
Colombo, Sri Lanka, October 5-6, 2002.)
Muhammad Al-Asi , (Paper presented at the ICIT International Seerah Conference,

website (good one, that one, at
has these examples of white-hot Jew-hatred of the Arabs:

"God has gathered the Zionists together from the corners of the world so that the Arabs can kill them all at one stroke."
- Ibrahim Tawhi, Fedayeen official
Al-Ahram, September 8, 1956

Arab violence against Jews has a long history. This survey of terrorist organizations and their attacks against Israelis should not be taken as exhaustive, but it will serve to give the reader a general idea of what took place, and still goes on. These pages are a work in progress, to be updated as new information and photos are found.

The roots of Arab terrorism against the Jews dates back to the Ottoman Empire. From 1870 until the outbreak of World War I in 1914 — every Jewish town, neighborhood, moshava (village), farm, moshav and kvutza (cooperative and collective settlements, respectively), had to protect itself against local individual Arab thieves organized gangs. The Jewish community of Palestine was under the thumb of a few wealthy effendi (landlord) families, most prominently the Husseinis and the Nashashibis. Criminals were employed to attack Jews who threatened rent prices by the fact that they lived outside Jerusalem's city walls.

Syrian-born Sheikh Izz Ad-Din El-Kassam, after whom the "military wing" of HAMAS is named, created the first terrorist network in the British Mandate of Palestine. The network, called the Black Hand, was responsible for the deaths of at least 10 Jews. After the Black Hand killed a Jewish police officer, El-Kassam was hunted down and killed by British police.
Black Hand, which specialized in terror against random Jewish farmers and, for that matter, random Arab Christians in Mandate Palestine

In 1916, as part of the secret Sykes-Picot Agreement, Britain and France agreed that all of eastern Upper Galilee was to come under French rule. The four Jewish settlements of Metullah, Hamrah, Tel Chai, and Kfar Giladi were situated in this area. Muslims, who desired an independent Arab Greater Syria, were no pleased with this development.

After World War I, Emir Feisal I (the leader of the Arab movement) agreed to the establishment of a Jewish National Home in Palestine by signing the Feisal-Weizmann Agreement at Paris Peace Conference of 1919. Palestinian Arab leaders, among them the Jerusalem Mayor Musa Khazim al-Husseini, rejected the agreement - relations between Arabs and Jews took a turn for the worse. Groups loyal to Feisal in Syria, who was sympathetic to the British, attacked After the war the Muslim Arabs began attacks both on the Christian villages of southern Lebanon and on the isolated Jewish settlements of Upper Galilee . . . Read On at

ALSO--Great Reviews of a book on this topic:

The Jew, the Arab: A History of the Enemy (Cultural Memory in the Present) (Paperback)
by Gil Anidjar

Check out the reviews of this book. Posted at the now-censored Islamic Danger blog as but now re-posted below:

The Jew, the Arab: A History of the Enemy (Cultural Memory in the Present) (Paperback)
by Gil Anidjar

Neither history nor literature are Anidjar's strong suits..., October 19, 2005

Review by jazzitupbaby

As Hugh Fitzgerald so shrewdly observed: Gil Anidjar is an Assistant Professor at Columbia, with his primary responsibility the teaching of Comparative Literature - but there is a lot of comparison, and very little literature, in his writing. He offers two Comparative Literature courses. One is on Freud and Derrida. The second, a course that is listed as part of Columbia's Middle East offerings, is called, dramatically, "Hate."

The course on "Hate" is not really about the history or literature of the Middle East at all. It is an extended rumination upon two matters. The first is the evil of Europe, which has for its own purposes not merely created "the Other" (or rather, being especially awful, as Europe will be, creating two "the Others" - "Arab" and "Jew"), and subjecting both of them to identical diabolical persecution.

The second is that in creating, and persecuting, these inoffensive Arabs throughout Europe (and those inoffensive Jews) Europe is largely responsible for the otherwise harmonious relations between Arab and Jew, and which were disrupted only by Europe's colonial project, and attempts to separate, and "create difference," as with, for example, the loi Cr_mieux (1870), which gave French citizenship to Sephardic Jews in Algeria.

Here we have, in full flower, the conception of "the Other" who is created in order for European (or Euro-American Man) to define himself, as against that "Other." Indeed, Gil Anidjar has written a book about this subject called The Jew, the Arab: A History of the Enemy.

"What is Europe such that it has managed to distinguish itself from both Jew and Arab and to render its role in the distinction, in the separation, and the enmity of Jew and Arab invisible - invisible, perhaps, most of all to itself".

In other words, Jew and Arab are equally victims - not of each other, except insofar as each "creates" the other in imitation of the Ur-villain Europe, that has "created" both Jew and Arab as the enemy. In Gil Anidjar's world, European history is replete with hatred - equal hatred - and persecution - equal persecution - of the Jew and of the Arab. This equality in suffering is central to his world view.

Unfortunately, it bears no relation to reality. The Jews of Europe were in fact (see Leon Poliakoff, see Malcolm Hay, see Gavin Langmuir) subjected, first out of theological hatreds, and then out of racism directed at Jews even if they ceased to be Jews, over more than a millennium. They were inoffensive; they had no political or military power. Yet they were driven from country after country, their goods stolen, many of them killed. The history of charges of ritual murder, of massacres, could fill up a book, and indeed, do fill up a book - Simon Wiesenthal's Every Day Remembrance Day, in which murder after murder, massacre after massacre, expulsion after expulsion, is listed.

But the Arabs? The Arabs, or rather the Muslims, though stopped by Charles Martel and the Franks at Poitiers in the West in 732, continued to fight in Spain until finally Muslim power came to an end in 1492; in the East, the Muslims seized much of Eastern Europe and the Balkans, and were besieging Vienna as late as 1683. And meanwhile, for a thousand years, Arab raiders went up and down the coasts, not only on the Mediterranean, but as far north as Ireland and Iceland, and razed and looted whole villages, and kidnapped, historians estimate, about 1 million white Europeans (and killed many more) who were taken back to North Africa, enslaved, and forcibly converted. The historian Giles Milton has just written White Gold about this forgotten part of European history, focusing on one Thomas Pellow.

Anidjar is not a historian. He fails to understand the threat that Muslims continued to pose, for roughly a thousand years, through these raiding and slaving expeditions. If Europeans regarded Muslims as "the enemy," it was not out of some need, like a small child with an imaginary friend, but because the Muslims, impelled by the doctrine of jihad-conquest that is in Qur'an, hadith, and sira, were militarily threatening. Those Muslim raids came to an end only in the 19th century, first with the American attacks on the Barbary Pirates, and then, in 1830, with the French conquest of Algeria.

But why read Bat Ye'or, or Bernard Lewis or even the great actor and Shakespeare scholar Harley Granville-Barker, when you can quote philosophers like Emmanuel Levinas and Franz Rosenzweig, and "critics" like Derrida, Foucault, and Said, e tutti quanti.. It would not do to subject the belief-system of Islam, or the history of Jihad-conquest, to critical or historical examination, not when you are in the business of symmetrically reducing "Jew" and "Arab" to the identical status of victims. Why bother investigating the belief-system of Islam, with its Manichaean division of the world between Believer and Infidel with which the canonical texts of Islam are full, instinct with hatred for all who are not Muslim all hates are equally ill-founded.

But Anidjar thinks of himself as a literary scholar, and that fatally vitiates all of his musing, and all of his cobbling-together of the oddest kinds of "evidence" or quasi-evidence. When, for example, he suggests that Shylock is the Jew, and Othello the Muslim, he reveals that he simply is no Shakespearean scholar; phrases such as "the distinction between Shylock and Othello, between Jew and Moor, is already breaking down as the image of the black ram begins to loom." He completely fails to realize that throughout the play, Othello is depicted as a Moor, but a Christian, in the service of Venice against the Turk.

Neither history nor literature are Anidjar's strong suits. He is a philosophizer, and "the Jew, the Arab" is filled to the brim with such portentous meditations as:

The Jew, the Arab, that is to say, the enemy, constitutes the theologico-politicial. It is through "them" that it becomes what it is. As a philosophical problem, the massive absence of the metaphysical question ....

This goes on for hundreds for pages.

And once he leaves Europe, he no longer maintains the fiction of "equal victimhood." When it comes to the Middle East, he knows nothing of the treatment of the Jews of the Middle East. His denunciation of the loi Cr_mieux shows that he does not understand what the Jews endured under Muslim rule. He even begins to invent a new kind of being- "c'est bien ... l'Arabe, de l'_tre juif arabe qu'il faudra parler et au nom duquel il faudra lutter." What is this "_tre juif arabe" - this "Jew-Arab creature" in whose name one must continue to struggle? It is a fiction, an ideological hippogriff, created only so that "the Arab" may claim for himself, at the hands of Europe, a false victimhood, based on the real victimhood of Jews.

The only conceivable reason for this course being offered is that it attempts to present the Arab as victim, at the hands of Europe, and later, at the hands of the "Zionists." If his treatment of Europe and Islam is a travesty, one should not be surprised to see that his view of Israel is similarly loaded. Not realizing that not all Jews were from Europe, that many never left the Middle East, and unaware, it seems, both of the demography and the land-ownership in what became Mandatory Palestine (where nearly 90 percent of the land was owned by the Ottoman state, and then passed to the mandatory authority, and then to the successor state, Israel), and unaware of the true definition of "colonialism,"

Here is how he discusses Israel:

The argument I want to make is that it is absolutely essential to continue to insist on the colonial dimension of Zionism, and colonial in the strict sense, absolutely. The claim that there was no colonial basis for Israel is ludicrous. People were citizens of countries and were acting on behalf of Western powers, and Western powers understood this very well. As did Herzl, of course, and others. So Israel is absolutely a colonial enterprise, a colonial settler state, to be precise.

And "why," Anidjar asks in an interview, "did the Western powers want and agree with the destruction of Palestine for the benefit of Israel? Why to the `Holy Land'? For Anidjar the answer always goes back to Europe, or at least its "Christian, Western powers":

The question must be asked and the answer must engage "the Muslim question." For to ignore this question is to renew and increase the invisibility of the Christian role in the pre-history and the history of colonialism and post-colonialism...There is rather an extreme investment in the continuation of the war of Israel against Palestine, that is to say, in maintaining the conditions that make this war possible.

And finally, Anidjar asks:

There is, in fact, a level at which I simply lack all understanding. Can anyone seriously claim that the problem with Islamic countries is Islam?

And the answer to that rhetorical question, I'm afraid, is obvious - and it is not the answer that Gil Anidjar was expecting.

Research of dubious value,
February 27, 2005
Reviewer: Jill Malter

This is a very sophisticated book, with plenty of references. But there are statements in it that we can all relate to.

At one point, Anidjar compares the Arab-Israeli dispute to the Hutu genocide against the Tutsi. He wisely asks who in Israel "are the Hutu and who the Tutsi?" That's not a bad question. I'm tempted to answer by pointing out that French support has been for both the Hutu and Arab sides. But more seriously, I think there is no question about genocidal propaganda and acts. In Israel, the Jews are the Tutsi. That is true even though the Jews are the majority in Israel, given the huge number of Arabs in countries bordering Israel. It's not a tough question after all, and Anidjar could have said so, clearly and simply.

At another point, Anidjar makes a clear statement of his own. Namely, "without this enemy par excellance that is Islam, Europe, Christian Europe, would not exist or would no longer exist."

Now that may be a profound point. But it seems to me that for the past two centuries, the existence of Europe has in no way depended on Islam. Had Islam collapsed at the end of 1804, Europe would not have fallen apart as a result. Nor would Christian Europe. As a matter of fact, if Islam is to cause the end of Christian Europe, it is far more likely to do so by defeating it than by losing to it.

Nor do I think there is anything profound about the enmity between Jew and Arab. Even a dog knows the difference between being tripped over and kicked. If you keep getting kicked, or insist on kicking, you'll wind up with an enemy. Jews were treated as dhimmis by Arabs for quite a while. When many Jews became emancipated, some Arabs felt humiliated by their liberation and decided to do plenty of kicking. On the other side, plenty of Jews decided how to deal with being kicked. Now, was that tough to say?

We also get to think about the extent to which Jews learned to kick from the Nazis. After all, Jews learned plenty about how the Nazis behaved. In spite of having been victims, did the Jews simply decide to do unto the totally innocent Arabs what the Nazis had done to the Jews? What can we learn from this?

Anidjar actually should have explained that there is something we can learn. The Jews, having been terribly mistreated by the Nazis, have shown a great aversion to doing anything that looks like what the Nazis did. Knowing this, enemies of the Jews tend to taunt them by pretending that Jewish behavior is similar to Nazi behavior (as well as by pretending that Arab behavior is somehow similar to how Jews behaved in Nazi Europe). Of course, the author didn't say all this.

This book is awfully weak and uninspiring

No comments: