Muhammad and the Jews: Why the Hostility Today?

Muhammad and the Jews: Why the Hostility Today?
By James Arlandson

Many millions of Muslims in the Arab world and beyond have a deep
hostility towards Jews or "the Jew." It seems to have reached a
metaphysical level or descended into a debased, irrational state of
mind. The question is: where does the hate come from? From the anti-
Israel news media? The media are powerful. So they may be a factor,
partially.


Leaders in the Arab world constantly shriek that Israel is the
oppressor, so this one storyline may be a factor for the hostility.
But evidence that millions of average Muslims are influenced by their
leaders on this matter must be brought forward, in a free and
voluntary way without fear of reprisal in a dictatorship.


It is also revealing that the Arab Christians, who may live in or
around Israel or the Palestinian Territories (Muslims have virtually
taken over Bethlehem), do not become human bombs. Why not? The short
answer: Jesus never says that dying in a military holy war guarantees
the "martyr" heaven, but only his death or "martyrdom" on the cross
guarantees all true believers a place in heaven. The thorough answer
may be read in Islamic Martyrdom? What a Bargain!


This entire article seeks to demonstrate that this connection between
early Islam and Islam today, at least in part, plays a role in the
hostility. At least this much will be certain: Muhammad's example
cannot forbid Muslims from holding hatred in their hearts for Jews.


At first Muhammad lived peacefully with the Jews, shortly after his
emigration or Hijrah from Mecca to Medina in AD 622. In fact, he saw
himself as a reformer of Judaism. But as he pushes his ideas on to the
rather large and strong Jewish communities in Medina, trouble erupted,
because the Jews quite rightly refused his ideas. Muhammad quickly
grows in his hostility towards them, so that he eliminates most of
them from Medina, either by expulsion or death or enslavement. He
becomes excessive, and this can only inspire terrorists like bin Laden
and non-violent fanatics-and average Muslims.


These ruptures and hostilities take place in two overlapping domains:
theology and politics, both backed by an increasingly strong military.


Theological Differences


The theological can be subdivided into five stages: (1) Muhammad's
efforts to develop and improve on Judaism; (2) Islam's fulfillment of
Judaism; (3) Jewish resistance, based on Muhammad's deficient
knowledge of the Torah and gentile status; (4) his change in prayer
direction or qiblah; and (5) Muhammad's riposte to this resistance.
The political tension and ruptures that result in warfare and conquest
will be discussed afterwards, but the theological and political
differences and strife parallel each other.


(1) First, while Muhammad is settling down in Medina and his position
there is insecure, he tries to convince the Jews that his revelations
were the continuation of Judaism (and Christianity), the religion of
the People of the Book or the Bible. Before he left Mecca, he faced
Syria (i.e. Jerusalem) in prayer. The early Muslims in Medina may have
observed the fast for the Day of Atonement, and their special Friday
worship was a response to the beginning of the Jewish Sabbath from
Friday evening to Saturday evening. Muhammad forbad the Muslims from
eating the same food prohibited for Jews, namely, pork, blood,
carrion, and meat sacrificed to idols (see Surah or Chapter
2:172-173). It seems, then, that earliest Islam was the development
and even improvement on the prior faith, Judaism, or so Muhammad
believed. Why would tension grow between Muhammad's Islam and Judaism?


(2) Allah tells Muhammad in a surah (chapter) revealed in Mecca that
the "unlettered" prophet (Muhammad) is described in the Torah and
Gospel, and hence predicted and endorsed by the two prior religions:


7:156 "I shall ordain My mercy for those who are conscious of God and
pay the prescribed alms; who believe in Our Revelations; 157 who
follow the Messenger- the unlettered prophet they find described in
the Torah that is with them, and in the Gospel-who commands them to do
right and forbids them to do wrong, who makes good things lawful to
them and bad things unlawful" . . . (MAS Abdel Haleem, The Qur'an,
Oxford UP, 2004)


The literary context of these verses shows Moses rebuking the children
of Israel for disobeying him. They denied God's signs and worshiped
the golden calf as Moses was coming down with the tablets of stone,
inscribed with the Ten Commandments (7:145-156). Verses 156-157 imply
that someone better than Moses (and Jesus) is here to guide them
rightly. Muhammad declares what is lawful and unlawful and commands
people to do right and forbids them to do wrong. The Jews of
Muhammad's time were getting a second chance. Would they accept it
after falling away from the Torah?


(3) The Jews, however, saw things a little differently. Muhammad was
not educated in the Torah. Though he had picked up some elements from
the Scriptures, in bits and pieces, which were circulating around
Arabia along the trade routes, his knowledge was deficient. It is
possible that one or two Jewish converts who had a certain level of
knowledge in the Torah coached him, as well. Whatever the case, it was
not hard for the Jews to contradict him. For example, in Surah
37:100-107, a Meccan surah, he believes that Abraham nearly sacrificed
Ishmael, not Isaac, on the altar (though the Quran does not actually
mention his name and the early Muslim sources are divided on his
identity). However, Genesis 22, the only ancient source on Abraham
nearly sacrificing Isaac, does not say this.


In Surah 18:60-82, another Meccan surah, he recounts fanciful tales
about Moses and a servant named Khidir (so named in Islamic tradition,
but not in the Quran), who got the better of Moses. For example,
Khidir made him promise that he would not bring up any topic until
Khidir did first. On their travels they met a boy, and Khidir killed
him. Forgetting his promise, Moses challenged Khidir, but Khidir
reminded him of his promise, so Moses repented. Two other such tales
are recounted with the same structure. The servant acted mysteriously,
Moses challenged him. So Khidir rebuked him and then clarified the
hidden purpose of Allah to the baffled Hebrew prophet. Thus, Khidir
revealed to him that the boy was rebellious against his parents and a
disbeliever. Allah will grant the parents another son, who will behave
more righteously. Compared to such a confused Moses, Muhammad is
clearly better than he.


As these and other tall tales likely became known to the Jews in
Medina, it was only natural for them to point out some contradictions
between his "revelations" and their Bible. It was not difficult for
them to reject him as falling outside of Biblical revelation. Besides,
Muhammad was a gentile, and that in itself was enough to turn away
from him. Thus, hostility grew between the two sides.


(4) The fourth stage in the theological domain is the change in prayer
direction or the qiblah. Today, Muslims pray towards Mecca and the
Kabah, where hundreds of thousands of pilgrims go every year. However,
when Muhammad lived in Mecca, he prayed toward Jerusalem. After he
arrived in Medina at the end of his Emigration in 622, he still prayed
towards Jerusalem. Sixteen months later (February 624, one month
before the Battle of Badr), he received revelation from on high to
change direction toward the Kabah (Surah 2:122-129; 142-147). How did
this come about?


Four factors explain the need for this timely revelation.


First, after Muhammad settled in Medina, he found, as noted, a
powerful Jewish presence in his new city. He saw himself as a prophet
in the Biblical tradition, but tension between him and the Jews
reached a boiling point. So he changed his qiblah towards the Kabah in
Mecca. Then, the Jews challenged the prophet: if Muhammad were the new
representative of Judaism and monotheism, why was he praying toward
the Kabah, which was dedicated to polytheism? He then got a revelation
that gave him permission.


The second factor is a partial answer to the challenge from the Jews.
He believed that Abraham had built and purified the shrine, so it does
not belong to the polytheists, but to him (Surahs 2:122-129; 8:34-38).
He was the best representative of true monotheism, and he was the one
honoring Abraham.


The third concerns the Arab custom of raids. After one year of
fruitless raids on Meccan caravans in 623, finally in January 624
Muhammad's jihadists got a lucky strike (read about it here),
capturing a caravan near Mecca, spilling blood in a sacred month. When
they brought the spoils back to Medina, the non-Muslim Medinans were
understandably upset because they knew the Meccans could not let their
defeat and Muhammad's violation of a sacred month stand. Conflict
would have to escalate in order to restore the Meccans' honor. What
was his justification?


Fourth, besides his theological belief that Abraham built the Kabah,
it must not be overlooked that the shrine was a popular site of
pilgrimage in the Arabian Peninsula, so it generated a lot of income.
Since early Islam is expansionist, Muhammad could not let the Kabah
alone until "religion becomes that of Allah" (Surah 2:193, Majid
Fakhry, An Interpretation of the Qur'an, NYUP, 2000, 2004). It must
become a site of pilgrimage and support for Muslims, as Muhammad
himself admits: "God has made the Kabah-the Sacred House-a means of
support for people...." (Surah 5:97, Haleem).


So it is in the historical context of the tension with the Jews in
Medina, his unassailable (but unfounded) belief that Abraham built and
purified the Kabah, the raids on Meccan caravans, and the Kabah's
popularity that Muhammad turned his face toward Mecca in prayer to
Allah.


(5) Finally, given such contradictory and deficient knowledge of the
Bible, Muhammad had to fight back theologically, striking out on a new
path and reinterpreting matters in the new light of Abraham's
religion, if Muhammad's new competitor religion is to survive. This
struggle lasted for several years until the Jews were no longer a
threat, and then he directed his aggressive energies against the
Christians. But until that time, he struck back in at least four ways.


First, he claimed, for instance, that Abraham was not a Jew (nor a
Christian) (Surah 3:67), so original monotheism is open to another
descendant of Abraham: Muhammad himself and his Arabs who were
believed to descend from the first monotheist through Ishmael,
according to Muhammad.


Second, the Hebrew Bible (and the New Testament) was perniciously
misinterpreted and misapplied (Surahs 2:75, 79; 3:77-78; 4:44-49). The
Quran, on the other hand, came directly from Allah through Gabriel and
hence is incorruptible, straightforward, and clear (Surahs 39:28,
55:1, 75:19, 26:193, 2:97). Muhammad's religion wins out over any
contradictions, in his mind (Surah 3:23). In addition, Jews were said
to conceal the truth about Muhammad's prophethood and the righteous
practices of Islam (Surahs 2:42, 146, 159, 174; 3:187-188; 5:70), so
the Bible really testifies about him, though the Jews do not want this
to leak out.


Third, from Muhammad's point of view, both Judaism and Christianity
made exclusive claims of being the right way (Surah 2:111-113), yet
both came from the same children of Israel; thus, both religions in
Muhammad's time went astray from their origins. So if some claims of
all three religions are contradictory, then the fault lies in the
first two religions, not his, which resolves all contradictions-in his
logic (Surah 3:23).


Fourth, as noted, the Torah itself says that the children of Israel
disobeyed Moses in denying God's signs and in worshipping the golden
calf. If the Jews of Moses' time were disobedient, then according to
Muhammad's reasoning the Jews as a whole in his own time cannot be
purer (Surah 7:145-156), though some are acknowledged as staying true
(Surah 3:113-115). And thus Muhammad's religion is the better and
purer representation of Abraham and fulfills and completes Judaism.


To conclude this section, the theological break with the Jews is
complete. If these five stages had remained only in the realm of
abstract theology, then no conflict would have emerged between Muslims
and Jews back then and even today (though theological differences
would still persist). However, Islam cannot remain in an abstract
realm because it must envelope and control all facets of society.
After all, the Quran came down directly and purely to earth from Allah
through Gabriel, and it allegedly guides humankind in all matters.


Politics, Warfare, and Conquest


As hostilities grow in the domain of theology, the political strain
also grows, hand in hand. Muhammad increases his military strength,
which backs up his theology and politics. It is in this section that
Muhammad's hostility towards the Jews will become most evident. The
growth of his hostility occurs in seven chronological stages. At the
end of this process, Jews will no longer inhabit the Arabian
Peninsula.


At the time of Muhammad's Hijrah, three major Jewish clans lived in
Medina: Qaynuqa, Nadir, and Qurayza. Muhammad worked on an agreement
with them that all the Jews "were not to support an enemy against
him," and elsewhere "they were to be neither for him nor against him,"
in other words, be neutral. However, another early source says that
only one clan, the Qurayza, had an agreement. The sources, then, are
garbled, but since the terms are not outlandish, perhaps an agreement
with one clan or all of them was actually signed. W. M. Watt rightly
points out that the Muslim sources have a strong motive to make the
case against Qurayza clan as dark as possible, so some of the terms of
the treaty may be exaggerated or invented. However, even if we assume
that such an agreement was signed, we may still ask these questions:
who gets to decide how the terms of the treaty are maintained? Will
the Jews fall prey to one-sided interpretations?


Source: W. M. Watt, Muhammad at Medina, Oxford UP, 1956, p. 196.


(1) In April 624 (or a month or two later) after his victory at the
Battle of Badr in March, a battle which made his position in Medina
more secure, Muhammad expelled the one clan that dominated the trades
in Medina: Qaynuqa. One day a Muslim woman was conducting business in
this Jewish section, and some Jews (or one Jew) fastened her skirt to
a nail. When she stood up, she was exposed. A Muslim happened to be
present and witnessed the practical joke and the ridicule, and killed
one of the pranksters, who avenged their friend's death in turn.
Despite this prank found in Islamic source documents, it is unclear
what his real motives were for the expulsion, for the trick is found
elsewhere in pre-Islamic Arab literature. Regardless, the reaction was
disproportionate. But what elicited this expulsion? Was it the Jewish
refusal to become Muslims? Jewish opposition to his policies and
religion?


For example, Abu Bakr, one of his chief companions, barged into a
Jewish school led by two rabbis. Abu Bakr called on one of the rabbis
"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." One of the rabbis sassed
him, saying that Allah must be poor, if Muhammad has to borrow money
from the Jews. Enraged, Abu Bakr struck him hard on the face, telling
him: "Were it not for the treaty between us I would cut off your head,
you enemy of Allah!" The story ends with the rabbi denying to Muhammad
that he sassed Abu Bakr (note how the Jew is not only a blasphemer but
also a liar), but the prophet got a revelation that the rabbi had
mocked Allah (cf. Surah 3:181). Thus, Abu Bakr was justified in using
physical violence in response to disrespectful words. He is a Muslim
hero. Incidentally, many quickly narrated stories like this one that
are found everywhere in early Islamic sources.


The Muslim Emigrants moved from a trading and artisan town (Mecca) to
an agrarian town (Medina) in AD 622, so they were impoverished. The
Qaynuqa tribe controlled the market of the craftsmen in Medina-the
exact skills of the Emigrants. So were Muhammad's motives partially
economic? Early historian Tabari writes: "The Banu [tribe] Qaynuqa did
not have any land, as they were goldsmiths [and armor-makers]. The
Messenger of God took many weapons belonging to them and the tools of
their trade."


Did the Qaynuqa betray Muhammad in some way between the Battle of Badr
(AD 624) and the Battle of Uhud (AD 625)? The sources do not provide
reliable details.


Whatever the case, Muhammad waged war on these Jews. They retreated to
their strongholds, and he besieged them for fifteen days. He gave them
three days to collect the debts owed to them and to get out of Medina,
but to leave their tools behind. Did at least some of the poor
Emigrants take up the vacant trades? The clan departed northward for
Wadi'l-Qura, where a Jewish community lived. Then a month later they
left for Syria.


Was Muhammad's response to the conflict proportional? It seems not,
for the Qaynuqa never waged war on Muhammad. Why should we be
surprised, then, if Muhammad's radical followers today make their
responses to perceived aggressions disproportionate? Is it any wonder
why millions of Muslims hate the Jews in a disproportionate way? They
are merely following their leader. But even if it is objected that
Muslims have enough grievances today to hate the Jews, then how are
moderates supposed to exhort them to let go of their hatred, when
Muhammad is their guide? This will become clearer as we continue
outlining Muhammad's tense relations with the Jews.


Sources: Muslim, vol. 3, nos. 4363; Ibn Ishaq, Life of Muhammad,
trans. A. Guillaume, Oxford UP, 1955, p. 263 and p. 363; Tabari, The
Foundation of the Community, trans. M. V. McDonald, vol. 7 (SUNYP,
1987), pp. 85-87. Muslim (d. 875 AD) was a collector and editor of the
hadith, which are the Traditions about Muhammad outside of the Quran.
Muslim is considered completely reliable.


(2) In the second stage, occurring in late August and early September
625, Muhammad besieged and expelled the Nadir clan from Medina.
Muhammad's motives were much too complicated to be described here, but
they seem to be founded on blood feuds and the payment of blood-wit,
which compensates for loss of life. He went to the Nadir settlement
near Medina to ask for some blood-wit money that he had to pay, but
the Jews were reluctant, even though by apparent agreement with
another tribe the Nadir clan was required to contribute to the
payment. They asked him to stay until they prepared a dinner, but
after a short time he left because he got a revelation that they were
going to assassinate him by dropping a stone off the roof of a
building, where he was sitting with his back against its wall. Or
perhaps the real reason for exiling the clan lay in Muhammad's recent
loss in the Battle of Uhud in March 625 and in a failed raiding
expedition in June, so his position weakened somewhat in Medina-but
still strong enough to confront the clan.


Whatever the motive, Muhammad besieged Nadir in their strongholds for
fifteen days until he started destroying their date palms, their
livelihood, so they capitulated to his first demand for blood-wit
money. However, he raised the penalty-they must get nothing from their
palms. Their livelihood undergoing destruction and then theft, they
departed to the city of Khaybar, seventy miles to the north, where
they had estates. This takeover helped relieve the ongoing poverty of
many Muslims, who took over their date orchards.


Sura 59 deals with the expulsion of Nadir, but we do not need to
analyze it since it repeats the themes of answering charges that
Muhammad did not distribute the booty fairly and of Allah's greatness
in supporting Islam. However, of particular interest is revelation
that permits Muhammad to cut down the date palms owned by the Jews
(Sura 59:5). Law and custom forbad this practice in war or at any
time, but Allah gave his prophet permission to break this rule.
Apparently, though, he was too powerful to be put on trial for this
illegal act.


Muhammad expelled the entire tribe because they supposedly tried to
kill him and refused to pay the blood-wit money. Is his response
proportionate to their refusal and assassination attempt? Why did he
not surround the house where the alleged assassination attempt took
place and demand that only a few be executed or expelled? Any
objective observer understands that Muhammad's response was excessive.
Therefore, why should we be surprised if Muhammad's radical followers
today respond to perceived aggressions disproportionately, especially
in their hatred of the Jews? How can his example, at the very least,
stop them?


Sources: Bukhari vol. 5, nos. 4028-4036 (these numbers follow the
print edition, but scroll down in the online Book of Military
Expeditions and find references to Nadir); Muslim vol. 3, nos. 4324
(scroll down for 4325-4326 and 4346-4349); Ibn Ishaq pp. 437-38;
Tabari, vol. 7, pp. 156-61. Bukhari (d. 870 AD) is another collector
and editor of the hadith. He too is considered completely reliable.


(3) and (4) The third and fourth stages concern two assassinations of
Jewish leaders from the Nadir clan, one year apart, because they
fraternized with Muhammad's enemies: Sallam b. Abi'l-Huqayq (Abu Rafi)
and Usayr (or Yusayr) b. Razim, using Watt's chronology.


In the first case, in May 626 a Muslim who had a Jewish foster-mother
and spoke Hebrew managed to gain entrance into Abu Rafi's house at
night with four companions and easily kill with him. They hid until
the search died down and then returned to Medina, with the blessing of
Muhammad-he was the one who sent out the hit squad.


The second assassination, in February-March 627, was more deceptive.
Under the guise of ambassadors from Muhammad, thirty Muslims traveled
up to Khaybar and invited Usayr to Medina to negotiate peace between
him and Muhammad. Despite warnings, thirty Jews set out with the
Muslims. Watt rightly says that the Jews were unarmed (Muhammad at
Medina, p. 213). The Muslim leader surreptitiously made his camel
carrying himself and Usayr lag behind, and then the Muslim killed him.
The other Jews were also killed with one exception.


Thus, Muhammad engaged in assassinations, and a deceptive one at that,
to deal with two Jewish leaders who intrigued with his enemies.


Why would not violent fanatics be inspired by this "technique" of
getting rid of enemies, as Muhammad and his later followers deem them?
More specifically, why would not his radical followers today hate the
Jews and engage in violence against them? This much is true, at least:
Muhammad's example does not tell them no.


Sources: Bukhari vol. 5, nos. 4038-4040 (these numbers follow the
print edition, but scroll down in the online Book of Military
Expeditions and look for the references to these Jews); Tabari, pp.
99-105; Ibn Ishaq pp. 482-84 and 665-66.


(5) In March 627, after the Battle of the Trench, Muhammad imposed the
ultimate penalty on the men in the Jewish clan of Qurayza, his third
and final major Jewish rivals in Medina. Reliable traditions say that
Gabriel himself came down to Muhammad and asked why he took off his
uniform and was taking a bath. There was one more battle to embark on:
against the Jews. This clan was supposed to remain neutral in the
Battle, but they seem to have intrigued with the Meccans and to have
been on the verge of attacking Muhammad from the rear-though they did
not. Nevertheless, according to Muhammad's interpretation of the
facts, they must be put on trial.


The sentence: Death by decapitation for around 600 men (one source
says as high as 900, Ibn Ishaq, p. 464), and enslavement for the women
and children. Muhammad was wise enough to have six clans execute two
Jews each in order to stop any blood-feuds. The rest of the executions
were probably carried out by Muhammad's fellow Emigrants from Mecca,
and lasted throughout the night, as the heads and bodies were dragged
into trenches.


One Muslim defense of this atrocity says that the Jews agreed to a
verdict rendered by a Muslim ally, Sad bin Muadh, but he voted against
the Jews. So it was not Muhammad's fault. However, this defense,
besides being a tacit admission that this penalty was excessive, is
misguided because Muhammad could have called off the trial, expelled
them from Medina (as indeed they requested), or shown them mercy,
possibly taking a percentage of their goods and produce as collateral.


See Muhammad and Massacre of Qurayzah Jews for more information. This
article has replies to the standard justifications of the massacre.


What is worse, the prophet seems to celebrate this atrocity in Sura
33:25-27, a revelation from Allah concerning the Battle of the Trench
and his treatment of Qurayza:


25 Allah turned back the unbelievers [Meccans and their allies] in a
state of rage, having not won any good, and Allah spared the believers
battle [q-t-l]. Allah is, indeed, Strong and Mighty. 26 And He brought
those of the People of the Book [Qurayza] who supported them from
their fortresses and cast terror into their hearts, some of them you
slew [q-t-l] and some you took captive. 27 And he bequeathed to you
their lands, their homes and their possessions, together with land you
have never trodden. Allah has power over everything. (Fakhry)


These verses show three unpleasant truths.


First, Allah helps the Muslims in warfare or battle (three-letter
Arabic root is q-t-l in v. 25) against a much-larger foe, so Allah
endorses Islam in battle.


Second, Allah permits the enslavement and beheading of Jews, so any
Muslim familiar with the background of this verse knows that beheading
as such has been assimilated into the Quran. The word q-t-l in v. 26
can mean slaughter.


Finally, Allah permits Muhammad to take the Jewish clan's property on
the basis of conquest and his possession of all things. This is a
dubious revelation and reasoning. Allah speaks, and this benefits
Muhammad materially. Thus, once again religion, politics, wealth,
revenge, and military converge in Islam. It is no wonder and no
surprise that terrorists are inspired by violence in early Islam. Or,
short of that, average Muslims feel permitted to entertain hostility
in their minds for Jews. How can the example of Muhammad tell them to
stop?


However, Sura 33:25-27 leaves out Muhammad's heart's desire.


The apostle had chosen one of their women for himself, Rayhana bint
Amr . . . one of the women of . . . Qurayza, and she remained with him
until she died, in his power. The apostle had proposed to marry and
put a veil on her, but she said: "Nay, leave me in your power, for
that will be easier for me and for you." So he left her. She had shown
repugnance towards Islam when she was captured and clung to Judaism.
(Ibn Ishaq, p. 466)


Shortly afterwards, though, she converted to Islam and a messenger
informed Muhammad of this, and he reacts to the good news: "This gave
him pleasure." It is wrong to believe that this human spoil of war was
Muhammad's motive to execute so many Jews. But this woman did provide
him with an extra, unforeseen benefit.


It seems Muhammad was reacting way out of proportion to a "rupture" in
the treaty. Should it surprise us, therefore, that many in the Muslim
world have a disproportionate hatred of the Jews? How can the example
of Muhammad tell them, "Stop this hatred, right now!"?


Sources: Bukhari vol. 4, no. 2813 in the Book of Jihad (this reference
is to the book edition; scroll down in the online version, looking for
the key words qurayzah or quraizah or either word, but without the "h"
at the end); and vol. 5 nos. 4117-4124 in the Book of Military
Expeditions, especially nos. 4121 and 4122; Muslim vol. 3, nos.
4368-4373; Ibn Ishaq, p. 466; Tabari, The Victory of Islam, vol. 8,
trans. Michael Fishbein, (SUNYP, 1997), pp. 27-41.


(6) In May-June 628, shortly after the Treaty of Hudaybiyah with the
Meccan polytheists, according to which they and the Muslims could deal
with their allies as each side saw fit, Muhammad attacked Khaybar
barely one or two months after the treaty. Why did he do this? Solid
evidence suggests that Umar, one of his closest companions, was
disgruntled with the treaty because he saw it as a compromise with
polytheists. Also, some of the commoners believed the raid (it was
actually a pilgrimage to Mecca) was a failure because it did not win
booty. It is possible that Muhammad decided to conquer Khaybar to
placate this faction (see also this analysis of the treaty).


Further, though the Jews at Khaybar-now more numerous with the exiled
Nadir tribe-never attacked Muhammad physically, they entered in
alliances with Muhammad's Arab enemies. The Jews, undeterred by the
Meccan defeat, constantly encouraged their allies to take up arms. The
threat to Muhammad, though, was too late and meaningless after the
Battle of the Trench, for he was too strong.


Long ago, the Jews of Khaybar built a series of fortresses, some on
hills, and they were thought unassailable, but Muhammad attacked them
one group at a time. Eventually, he prevailed and set the terms of
surrender. The Jews could keep their property, but they had to turn
over half their produce to specially designated Muslims who went out
on this conquest and to some notables as well, like Muhammad's wife
Aisha. This introduced a special policy that Muhammad incorporated
into his religion: conquered cities housing the People of the Book
were not required to convert necessarily, but they had to pay a
special "protection" tax, which Islamic apologists (defenders) say
gives the Jews and Christians special "privileges" for living under
Islam; but an outside observer may rightfully draw the inference that
the "protection" entails a guarantee that the payers would not be
attacked-again. The details of this broad policy were worked out over
time (see Sura 9:29).


Does intriguing with Muhammad's enemies equal conquering the entire
city of Khaybar? Why would not Muslims today imitate their prophet?


Sources: Bukhari vol. 3, no. 2720, in the Book of Conditions, and vol.
5, nos. 4147-4191; and 4194-4249 in the Book of Military Expeditions;
Muslim vol. 3, nos. 4437-4441; Ibn Ishaq pp. 510-18; Tabari, vol. 8,
pp. 116-30.


(7) In the seventh and final stage, during the caliphate of Umar
(ruled 634-644), the Jews were expelled from the Arabian Peninsula,
Umar citing the prophet's words spoken on his deathbed: "Two religions
shall not remain together in the peninsula of the Arabs." What was the
precipitating event to expel the Jews? Two Muslims went to inspect
their property in Khaybar, and one of them was attacked in the night
in his bed and had his elbows dislocated by an unidentified assailant.
The attacked Muslim reported this to Umar, and the caliph concluded,
"This is the work of the Jews." This was enough of a trigger to expel
the entire Jewish community from Khaybar and Wadi'l-Qura. If reputable
historians were to call this incident fanciful as the reason for
expelling the Jews, it is odd that it would make it into Arab texts,
so that millions would believe it. This shows that irrational excess
seeped into Islam in the very beginning.


Sources: Bukhari, vol. 3, no. 2730, in the Book of the Conditions;
Muslim vol. 3, no. 4366; Ibn Ishaq p. 525.


To conclude this section, do these seven chronological steps represent
a master plan drawn up by Muhammad against the Jews? Most scholars say
no. Muhammad was feeling his way. However, it is beyond coincidence
that his path led him in one direction: the gradual expulsion and
death of Jews living in Medina and its environs. It may be argued,
contrary to common sense, that these stages in Muhammad's life are not
triggering causes for Muslim hostilities today. But one thing is
bedrock: these true incidents that culminate in the killing and
expulsion of the Jews cannot stop the hostilities today. No one can
use Muhammad's life and policies as a model of peace and divine love
for the Jews.


Conclusion


As for the entire article, what do we see when we step back and look
at the big picture of Muhammad's relations with the Jews?


It is a brute fact that when Muhammad arrived in Medina in AD 622, a
sizable Jewish community thrived there. When he died in AD 632, very
few Jews remained, due to expulsion, death, or enslavement of all the
others. Surely all of these unpleasant events are not only the Jews'
fault. Muslims believe that their prophet had reached some state of
perfection, so how can these events be his fault? After all, these are
Jews-enough said, so traditional Muslim belief seems to go.


Islam must rule the world and every aspect of society. That is the
will of Allah, so many Quran-believing Muslims must obey their deity
in carrying out his will. This dominance begins in the Arabian
Peninsula and flows out to Europe, North Africa, and Central and
Subcontinent Asia, all the way to China. This goal allows for all
sorts of self-interested interpretations as a means of implementing
Allah's will, such as unilaterally interpreting excessive and
disproportionate retaliations.


Seeds of violent ambiguity have been planted in the early soil of
Islam. It is no wonder and no surprise that non-violent and violent
fanatics are inspired by Muhammad and his book, especially in their
hatred of the Jews. And it is no wonder and no surprise that average
Muslims would have hatred for Jews, too.


This article has a companion piece: Allah's Special Little Apes and
Pigs.


This article is an update of an earlier version.


For a longer version of this present article that replies to standard
justifications of these policies, please see this article.


James M. Arlandson may be reached at jamesmarlandson@xxxxxxxxxxx


Supplemental material


This intellectual and moderate Qatari bravely and accurately concludes
that anti-Semitism in the Arab world is rooted in the Quran and the
hadith (the reports about Muhammad outside of the Quran). He cites the
hadith passages that say that in the Last Day a tree or a stone will
cry out that a Jew is hiding behind it, so Muslims must come and kill
him. It is no wonder, the Qatari says, that the Muslims believe that a
Jew is behind every bad event, such as 9/11. The problem is: how can
traditional and conservative Muslims reform, when they cherish their
sacred text and traditions? At least when Christianity reformed, it
went back to the New Testament, which preaches peace and love. But
when Muslims have to deny their Quran and hadith in order to reform,
we should not hold our breath, waiting for them, even though their
sacred book is filled with violence.


If the reader would like to see the hadith passages that speak of a
Jew hiding behind a stone or a tree and then being discovered and
killed, click here for the collection compiled and edited by Bukhari
(considered totally reliable), and click here for the collection
compiled and edited by Muslim (also considered fully reliable).


Sheikh Ibrahim Mudeiris is one of the most radical and incessant
preachers of hatred against the Jews in the entire cadre of
Palestinian haters. In his Friday sermon in a mosque, he outlines
three stages that Muhammad used in dealing with the Jews (political;
toleration of the damage done by Jews; and war and expulsion). Filling
his sermon with Quranic verses, he quotes this gem:


Time does not permit us to discuss the rest of the Jewish tribes. But
we must learn the lesson of the Prophet with regard to the Jews of Al-
Madina, whom he expelled. His strategic choice was: "Fight them, Allah
will torture them [at your hands]" and also, "Make ready against them
[all] the force and horsemen that you can."


Who says that a plain reading of the Quran does not inspire fanatics?
The example of Muhammad in his three-step plan inspires this fanatic,
who is extreme even for extremists, to fight the Jews in Israel. But
does not the sheikh misread Muhammad? No, because, as noted, when
Muhammad the newcomer arrived in Medina in 622, a large Jewish
community thrived there. When he died in 632, very few were left. How
can this be only the Jews' fault?


Here is Mudeiris again in a translated transcript from MEMRI TV,
shrieking that when Islam rules the world, the Jews will be
eliminated. This was aired on Palestinian TV. If the Palestinians are
serious about peace, they should fire or sack this "sheikh." But they
do not. Therefore, they are not serious about peace.


MEMRI TV provides a translated transcript of an Egyptian cleric
singing and celebrating the Jews getting killed as they hide behind
trees and stones in the Last Day. He calls the Jews apes and pigs.
Where does he get these epithets? From the Quran itself, as the
companion piece to this present article demonstrates. Not only does he
cite current events, he also refers to early Islam as his inspiration
for his hate speech.


This summary of sermons in Palestine shows the sheiks quoting amply
from the Quran and the hadith to inspire them in their hatred of Jews.
Are they distorting the Quran or hadith? There is so much material in
both sources that express hatred for Jews that there is no need for
distorting clear texts.


This is another special report summary on how the early Islamic
sources inspire a wide range of Islamists to hate Jews, calling them
apes and pigs.


The readers should visit memri.org and memritv.org. Once at these two
sites, they should do a search with the key word: Jew. Many hits will
come up, and most are neither kind nor conciliatory. And too many of
the haters will reference the source documents of early Islam, as the
foundation for their venom.


James M. Arlandson is a frequent contributor to American Thinker.

.

Relevant Pages