[ThinkInsane]

Originally posted by Salah al-Din:
What is this? A Jew supporting Nazis??? OMG!!!!oneone!!! Fact is that some Jews supported Nazism. Just like people from all over the world and from different religions did. It's nothing to be ashamed of, just something we should learn from. And you can't learn if you try to hide it and forget it

I disagree. It certainly is something to be ashamed of.

[Salah al-Din]

Originally posted by ThinkInsane:
I disagree. It certainly is something to be ashamed of.

hmmm, after reading that part of my post again I have to say I agree completely with you.

oops

[undotwa]

Originally posted by Taliesin:
I don't know much about the connection of zionism to nazism, for me those stories read like fictive conspiracies. There obviously have been contacts between zionists and nazis, but those were probably to save jews. Besides it wasn't until the fourties that Hitler-Germany decided to use the socalled "end-solution", before that Hitler-Germany played with the idea to just transfer jews to Palestine or Madagascar or somewhere else in Africa, and therefore it could well be that zionists contacted Hitler-Germany so that the jews get treansferred nowhere else than to Palestine.

Some conspiracy-stories go even as far as to claim that the zionism-organization provoked the holocaust in Europe,in order to further their political agenda of convincing all jews in the world to work for an own nation and in order to convince the world itself that such a state is necessary, but I haven't seen any proof for that story, so it's probably not true.

Taliesin

Something I can agree with. Feels nice to agree with someone for once.

[undotwa]

Originally posted by eklipse:
Add up your evidence and you are still left with one confirmed Arab Nazi sympathizer.

It is pretty well historical that many Arabs sympathised with the Nazis. The enemy of my enemy is my friend, as it goes to say.

[Curios Meerkat]

What does "pretty well historical" mean? Since when are Jews "enemies" of the Arabs?

It's an historical fact that for over a millennium Jews fled Europe (where they were often persecuted by the Christians) to live in Muslim and Arab countries (Balkans, Morocco, Tunisia, etc.) - there was by and large no enmity between Jews and Muslims until the European colonialist interventions in the Middle East.

[eklipse]

Originally posted by Curios Meerkat:
What does "pretty well historical" mean? Since when are Jews "enemies" of the Arabs?

It's an historical fact that for over a millennium Jews fled Europe (where they were often persecuted by the Christians) to live in Muslim and Arab countries (Balkans, Morocco, Tunisia, etc.) - there was by and large no enmity between Jews and Muslims until the European colonialist interventions in the Middle East.

Precisely.

[vmarks]

Originally posted by Curios Meerkat:
What does "pretty well historical" mean? Since when are Jews "enemies" of the Arabs?

It's an historical fact that for over a millennium Jews fled Europe (where they were often persecuted by the Christians) to live in Muslim and Arab countries (Balkans, Morocco, Tunisia, etc.) - there was by and large no enmity between Jews and Muslims until the European colonialist interventions in the Middle East.

There was "no emnity" as long as Jews remained less-than-human to Muslims. Wore the zunnar signifying their lower class to be spat upon, paid the punitive tax set aside for non-Muslims, testimony treated as impermissible because they weren't Muslim,

Not complying with any of these restrictions rendered Jews in mortal danger.

The European interventions insisted that these restrictions go away, breaking the less-than-human status- if Jews had just remained as barely tolerated subhumans, they would never have been attacked, right?

Shaikh Hasan Al Kafrawi, The Shafiite explained the situation this way:

The decision given by the Shaikh ar-Ramli [a great Cairo legal authority, d. 1596], by the Shaikh al-Islam [the Muslim religious authority in Constantinople], and by the learned scholars whose decrees can hardly be written down here, may be worded as follows: "It is forbidden to the tolerated peoples living on Muslim territory to clothe themselves in the same manner as the chiefs, the scholars, and the nobles. They should not be allowed to clothe themselves in costly fabrics which have been cut in the modes which are forbidden to them, in order that they may not offend the sensibilities of poor Muslims and in order that their faith in their religion should not be shaken by this. [Poor Muslims may regret their faith when they see how well-dressed the Christians and Jews are.]


"They should not be permitted to employ mounts like the Muslims. They must use neither saddles, nor iron-stirrups, in order to be distinguished from the true believers. They must under no circumstance ride horses because of the noble character of this animal. The Most-High has said [Qu'ran 8:62]: 'And through powerful squadrons [of horses] through which you will strike terror into your own and God's enemies.' [A verse of the Qu'ran makes a good support for a law. Verses may even be torn out of their context.]


"They should not be permitted to take Muslims into their service because God has glorified the people of Islam. He has given them His aid and has given them a guarantee by these words [Qu'ran 3:140]: 'Surely God will never give preeminence to unbelievers over the true believers.' Now this is just what is happening today, for their servants are Muslims taken from among men of a mature age or from those who are still young. This is one of the greatest scandals to which the guardians of authority must put an end. It is wrong to greet them even with a simple 'how-do-you-do'; to serve them, even for wages, at the baths or in what relates to their riding animals; and it is forbidden to accept anything from their hand, for that would be an act of debasement by the faithful. They are forbidden while going through the streets to ape the manners of the Muslims, and still less those of the cities of the religion. They shall only walk single-file, and in narrow lanes they must withdraw even more into the most cramped part of the road.


"One may read that which follows in Bukhari and Muslim [religious authorities of the ninth century]: 'Jews and Christians shall never begin a greeting; if you encounter one of them on the road, push him into the narrowest and tightest spot.' The absence of every mark of consideration toward them is obligatory for us; we ought never to give them the place of honor in an assembly when a Muslim is present. This is in order to humble them and to honor the true believers. They should under no circumstances acquire Muslim slaves, white or black. Therefore they should get rid of the slaves which they now have for the), have no right to own them. If one of their slaves who was formerly an infidel, becomes a Muslim, he shall be removed from them, and his master, willingly or unwillingly, shall be compelled to sell him and to accept the price for him.


"It is no longer permitted them to put themselves, with respect to their houses, on an equal footing with the dwellings of their Muslim neighbors, and still less to build their buildings higher. If they are of the same height, or higher, it is incumbent upon us to pull them down to a size a little less than the houses of the true believers. This conforms to the word of the Prophet: 'Islam rules, and nothing shall raise itself above it.' This is also in order to hinder them from knowing where our weak spots are and in order to make a distinction between their dwellings and ours.


"They are forbidden to build new churches, chapels, or monasteries in any Muslim land. We should destroy everything that is of new construction in every place, such as Cairo, for instance, founded under the Muslim religion, for it is said in a tradition of Umar: 'No church shall be built in Islam.' They shall no longer be permitted to repair the parts of these [post-Islamic] buildings which are in ruins. However, the old buildings [of pre-Islamic times] which are found in a land whose population had embraced Islam need not be destroyed. They shall not, however, be enlarged by means of repairs or otherwise. In case the tolerated peoples [Jews, Christians, etc.] act contrary to these provisions we will be obliged to destroy everything that has been added to the original size of the building. [Only pre-Islamic churches and synagogues may be repaired; new ones must be torn down.]


"Entrance into Muslim territory by infidels of foreign lands under the pact guaranteeing protection to the tolerated peoples is permitted only for the time necessary to settle their business affairs. If they exceed this period, their safe-conduct having expired, they will be put to death or be subject to the payment of the head-tax.[Jews and Christians of foreign lands must pay a special head-tax if they wish to remain permanently in Muslim lands.] As to those with whom the ruler may have signed treaties, and with whom he, for whatever motive, may have granted a temporary truce, they form only the smallest fraction. But they, too, must not pass the fixed limit of more than four months [without paying the tax], particularly if this occurs at a time when Islam is prosperous and flourishing. The Most-High has said [Qu'ran 2: 2341: 'They should wait four months,' and he has again said [47:37]: 'Do not show any cowardice, and do not at all invite the unbelievers to a peace when you have the upper-hand and may God be with you.'


"Their men and women are ordered to wear garments different from those of the Muslims in order to be distinguished from them. They are forbidden to exhibit anything which might scandalize us, as, for instance, their fermented liquors, and if they do not conceal these from us, we are obliged to pour them into the street."


This which precedes is only a part of that which has been written on this subject, and if we should wish to mention it all here it would take too long. But this brief recital will be sufficient for those men whose intelligence God has enlightened, to whom he has given the breath of life, and whose inner thoughts he has sanctified. Now let us beg the Sovereign Master of the world to extend His justice over humanity universally, in order that they may direct all their efforts toward raising with firmness the banner of the religion.


In a tradition of the sincere and faithful [Calif Abu Bekr, 632-634] it is likewise said: "The abolition of a sacrilegious innovation is preferable to the permanent operation of the law." In another tradition it is also said: "One hour of justice is worth more than sixty years of ritual." The verses of the Qu'ran and the traditions are very numerous on this subject, and they are known by all the faithful. God has cursed the former nations because they have not condemned scandalous things; and He has said [Qu'ran 5:82]: "They [the children of Israel] seek not at all to turn one another from the bad actions which they have committed. 0 how detestable were their actions. But He has punished these men because of their obstinate conduct." The Most-High has also said [Qu'ran 9: 1 131: "Those who bid what is right and forbid what is wrong, who observe the divine precepts, will be rewarded. Announce these glad tidings to the Muslims."


May the Most High God admit us to the number of this company and may He lead us in the paths of His favor. Certainly God is powerful in everything; He is full of mercy to His servants; He sees all.


Written by the humble Hasan al Kafrawi, the Shafiite. [1772 CE]

[Curios Meerkat]

And now that you have posted the answer, you should post the question as well - verbatim, as well as providing the context for it - In 1772 a Muslim scholar in Cairo was asked how Jews and Christians should be treated. The answer is found in this selection, issued four years before the American Declaration of Independence. This answer is not law, but only the opinion of a conservative Muslim. The opinion is in Arabic., etc.

As far as your personal additions (less-than-human, to be spat upon, etc.) it's fair to say, that is your personal, uncorroborated POV.

[vmarks]

Originally posted by Curios Meerkat:
And now that you have posted the answer, you should post the question as well - verbatim, as well as providing the context for it - In 1772 a Muslim scholar in Cairo was asked how Jews and Christians should be treated. The answer is found in this selection, issued four years before the American Declaration of Independence. This answer is not law, but only the opinion of a conservative Muslim. The opinion is in Arabic., etc.

As far as your personal additions (less-than-human, to be spat upon, etc.) it's fair to say, that is your personal, uncorroborated POV.

Not at all- the sheikh notes that his answer is incomplete, and if you read his answer at all, you would note that they indicate absolutely less-than-human treatment.

It's certainly goes to show that your assertion about history was flawed.

[undotwa]

Originally posted by Curios Meerkat:
What does "pretty well historical" mean? Since when are Jews "enemies" of the Arabs?

It's an historical fact that for over a millennium Jews fled Europe (where they were often persecuted by the Christians) to live in Muslim and Arab countries (Balkans, Morocco, Tunisia, etc.) - there was by and large no enmity between Jews and Muslims until the European colonialist interventions in the Middle East.

Actually, the Jews fled Western Europe to mainly eastern Europe, especially Poland. Poland by the 17th century housed half of the Jews in the world. Oh except the Sephardic Jews of Spain which went to the Ottoman Empire, I think.

You can't say the Jews were treated like kings in the Arab world. They were 'tolerated', but hardly any better than they were in much of Europe.

[undotwa]

Originally posted by Curios Meerkat:
What does "pretty well historical" mean?

I'm sorry. I might have used an Australian colloquialism inadvertently.

[Curios Meerkat]

On the contrary... it proves my assertion right. First of all, your quote is from 1772 - that's after over thousand years of Muslim rule in Egypt. The Ottoman Empire was well beyond its golden age, and for the first time European science and technology surpassed Middle Eastern one. Less than a hundred years later, Britain would own Egypt. The question is very important to understand the answer, which begins with:

What do you say, O scholars of Islam, shining luminaries who dispel the darkness (may God lengthen your days!)? What do you say of the innovations introduced by the cursed unbelievers [Jewish and Christian] into Cairo, into the city of al-Muizz [founder of Cairo, 969] which by its splendor in legal and philosophic studies sparkles in the first rank of Muslim cities?

What is your opinion concerning these deplorable innovations which are, moreover, contrary to the Pact of Umar which prescribed the expulsion of the unbelievers from Muslim territory? [This is exaggerated. Umar exiled the infidels only from Arabia.]

Among other changes they have put themselves on a footing of equality with the chiefs, scholars, and nobles, wearing, like them, costly garments of cloth of India, expensive silk and cashmere fabrics, and they imitate them even in the cut of these very garments.

Complete document here

By the same author, a more relevant document would be the Pact of Umar, 7th Century:

The Status of Non-Muslims Under Muslim Rule

After the rapid expansion of the Muslim dominion in the 7th century, Muslims leaders were required to work out a way of dealing with Non-Muslims, who remained in the majority in many areas for centuries. The solution was to develop the notion of the "dhimma", or "protected person". The Dhimmi were required to pay an extra tax, but usually they were unmolested. This compares well with the treatment meted out to non-Christians in Christian Europe. The Pact of Umar is supposed to have been the peace accord offered by the Caliph Umar to the Christians of Syria, a "pact" which formed the patter of later interaction.

We heard from 'Abd al-Rahman ibn Ghanam [died 78/697] as follows: When Umar ibn al-Khattab, may God be pleased with him, accorded a peace to the Christians of Syria, we wrote to him as follows:

In the name of God, the Merciful and Compassionate. This is a letter to the servant of God Umar [ibn al-Khattab], Commander of the Faithful, from the Christians of such-and-such a city. When you came against us, we asked you for safe-conduct (aman) for ourselves, our descendants, our property, and the people of our community, and we undertook the following obligations toward you:

We shall not build, in our cities or in their neighborhood, new monasteries, Churches, convents, or monks' cells, nor shall we repair, by day or by night, such of them as fall in ruins or are situated in the quarters of the Muslims.

We shall keep our gates wide open for passersby and travelers. We shall give board and lodging to all Muslims who pass our way for three days.

We shall not give shelter in our churches or in our dwellings to any spy, nor bide him from the Muslims.

We shall not teach the Qur'an to our children.

We shall not manifest our religion publicly nor convert anyone to it. We shall not prevent any of our kin from entering Islam if they wish it.

We shall show respect toward the Muslims, and we shall rise from our seats when they wish to sit.

We shall not seek to resemble the Muslims by imitating any of their garments, the qalansuwa, the turban, footwear, or the parting of the hair. We shall not speak as they do, nor shall we adopt their kunyas.

We shall not mount on saddles, nor shall we gird swords nor bear any kind of arms nor carry them on our- persons.

We shall not engrave Arabic inscriptions on our seals.

We shall not sell fermented drinks.

We shall clip the fronts of our heads.

We shall always dress in the same way wherever we may be, and we shall bind the zunar round our waists

We shall not display our crosses or our books in the roads or markets of the Muslims. We shall use only clappers in our churches very softly. We shall not raise our voices when following our dead. We shall not show lights on any of the roads of the Muslims or in their markets. We shall not bury our dead near the Muslims.

We shall not take slaves who have beenallotted to Muslims.

We shall not build houses overtopping the houses of the Muslims.

(When I brought the letter to Umar, may God be pleased with him, he added, "We shall not strike a Muslim.")

We accept these conditions for ourselves and for the people of our community, and in return we receive safe-conduct.

If we in any way violate these undertakings for which we ourselves stand surety, we forfeit our covenant [dhimma], and we become liable to the penalties for contumacy and sedition.

Umar ibn al-Khittab replied: Sign what they ask, but add two clauses and impose them in addition to those which they have undertaken. They are: "They shall not buy anyone made prisoner by the Muslims," and "Whoever strikes a Muslim with deliberate intent shall forfeit the protection of this pact."

from Al-Turtushi, Siraj al-Muluk, pp. 229-230.

Complete document here

Again, from the same author you copy-pasted so extensively, a page about a jewish man in Muslim Grenada:

On Samuel Ha-Nagid, Vizier of Granada, 993-d after 1056
One of the most famous of the Jewish notables of Moslem Spain was Samuel Ha_Levi, who is also known as Samuel Ha_Nagid. Beginning life as a shopkeeper, Samuel Ha_Levi ultimately became the chief minister at the court of Granada. By virtue of this office he became the political head of the Jews in Granada and probably thus received the title Nagid ("Prince"), his name becoming Samuel Ha_Nagid. He served his community as rabbi and did a great deal to further Jewish learning throughout the world.

Samuel was a fine linguist, a scholar, a diplomat, and a distinguished soldier. His reputation in the Middle Ages was based mainly on his excellent poetry, some of which was written even on the battlefield.

The following account of his life is taken from Sefer Seder ha-Kabbalah ("The Line of Tradition"), a Hebrew historical work written by Abraham ibn Daud of Toledo in 1161.

Complete document here

Concluding: while your zionist revisionist historical review might get the ignorants all riled up against Muslims, the historical reality looks very different and can be summed up in my reply to undotwa - like it or not.

[undotwa]

Originally posted by Curios Meerkat:
And now that you have posted the answer, you should post the question as well - verbatim, as well as providing the context for it - In 1772 a Muslim scholar in Cairo was asked how Jews and Christians should be treated. The answer is found in this selection, issued four years before the American Declaration of Independence. This answer is not law, but only the opinion of a conservative Muslim. The opinion is in Arabic., etc.

As far as your personal additions (less-than-human, to be spat upon, etc.) it's fair to say, that is your personal, uncorroborated POV.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/...in_Arab_lands_(gen).html

The Treatment of Jews in Arab/Islamic Countries

By Mitchell Bard

Arabs sometimes claim that, as "Semites," they cannot possibly be anti-Semitic. This, however, is a semantic distortion that ignores the reality of Arab discrimination and hostility toward Jews. Arabs, like any other people, can indeed be anti-Semitic.

The term "anti-Semite" was coined in Germany in 1879 by Wilhelm Marrih to refer to the anti-Jewish manifestations of the period and to give Jew-hatred a more scientific sounding name.(1) "Anti-Semitism" has been accepted and understood to mean hatred of the Jewish people.

While Jewish communities in Arab and Islamic countries fared better overall than those in Christian lands in Europe, Jews were no strangers to persecution and humiliation among the Arabs and Muslim. As Princeton University historian Bernard Lewis has written: "The Golden Age of equal rights was a myth, and belief in it was a result, more than a cause, of Jewish sympathy for Islam."(2)

Muhammad, the founder of Islam, traveled to Medina in 622 A.D. to attract followers to his new faith. When the Jews of Medina refused to convert and rejected Muhammad, two of the major Jewish tribes were expelled; in 627, Muhammad's followers killed between 600 and 900 of the men, and divided the surviving Jewish women and children amongst themselves.(3)

The Muslim attitude toward Jews is reflected in various verses throughout the Koran, the holy book of the Islamic faith. "They [the Children of Israel] were consigned to humiliation and wretchedness. They brought the wrath of God upon themselves, and this because they used to deny God's signs and kill His Prophets unjustly and because they disobeyed and were transgressors" (Sura 2:61). According to the Koran, the Jews try to introduce corruption (5:64), have always been disobedient (5:78), and are enemies of Allah, the Prophet and the angels (2:97_98).

The Dhimmi

Still, as "People of the Book," Jews (and Christians) are protected under Islamic law. The traditional concept of the "dhimma" ("writ of protection") was extended by Muslim conquerors to Christians and Jews in exchange for their subordination to the Muslims. Peoples subjected to Muslim rule usually had a choice between death and conversion, but Jews and Christians, who adhered to the Scriptures, were allowed as dhimmis (protected persons) to practice their faith. This "protection" did little, however, to insure that Jews and Christians were treated well by the Muslims. On the contrary, an integral aspect of the dhimma was that, being an infidel, he had to openly acknowledge the superiority of the true believer--the Muslim.

In the early years of the Islamic conquest, the "tribute" (or jizya), paid as a yearly poll tax, symbolized the subordination of the dhimmi. Later, the inferior status of Jews and Christians was reinforced through a series of regulations that governed the behavior of the dhimmi. Dhimmis, on pain of death, were forbidden to mock or criticize the Koran, Islam or Muhammad, to proselytize among Muslims or to touch a Muslim woman (though a Muslim man could take a non_Muslim as a wife).

Dhimmis were excluded from public office and armed service, and were forbidden to bear arms. They were not allowed to ride horses or camels, to build synagogues or churches taller than mosques, to construct houses higher than those of Muslims or to drink wine in public. They were not allowed to pray or mourn in loud voices-as that might offend the Muslims. The dhimmi had to show public deference toward Muslims-always yielding them the center of the road. The dhimmi was not allowed to give evidence in court against a Muslim, and his oath was unacceptable in an Islamic court. To defend himself, the dhimmi would have to purchase Muslim witnesses at great expense. This left the dhimmi with little legal recourse when harmed by a Muslim.(4)

Dhimmis were also forced to wear distinctive clothing. In the ninth century, for example, Baghdad's Caliph al-Mutawakkil designated a yellow badge for Jews, setting a precedent that would be followed centuries later in Nazi Germany.(5)

Violence Against Jews

At various times, Jews in Muslim lands were able to live in relative peace and thrive culturally and economically. The position of the Jews was never secure, however, and changes in the political or social climate would often lead to persecution, violence and death. Jews were generally viewed with contempt by their Muslim neighbors; peaceful coexistence between the two groups involved the subordination and degradation of the Jews.

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)

As distinguished Orientalist G.E. von Grunebaum has written:

It would not be difficult to put together the names of a very sizeable number of Jewish subjects or citizens of the Islamic area who have attained to high rank, to power, to great financial influence, to significant and recognized intellectual attainment; and the same could be done for Christians. But it would again not be difficult to compile a lengthy list of persecutions, arbitrary confiscations, attempted forced conversions, or pogroms.(9)

The situation of Jews in Arab lands reached a low point in the 19th century. Jews in most of North Africa (including Algeria, Tunisia, Egypt, Libya and Morocco) were forced to live in ghettos. In Morocco, which contained the largest Jewish community in the Islamic Diaspora, Jews were made to walk barefoot or wear shoes of straw when outside the ghetto. Even Muslim children participated in the degradation of Jews, by throwing stones at them or harassing them in other ways. The frequency of anti-Jewish violence increased, and many Jews were executed on charges of apostasy. Ritual murder accusations against the Jews became commonplace in the Ottoman Empire.(10)

By the twentieth century, the status of the dhimmi in Muslim lands had not significantly improved. H.E.W. Young, British Vice Consul in Mosul, wrote in 1909:

The attitude of the Muslims toward the Christians and the Jews is that of a master towards slaves, whom he treats with a certain lordly tolerance so long as they keep their place. Any sign of pretension to equality is promptly repressed.(11)

The danger for Jews became even greater as a showdown approached in the UN over partition in 1947. The Syrian delegate, Faris el-Khouri, warned: "Unless the Palestine problem is settled, we shall have difficulty in protecting and safeguarding the Jews in the Arab world."(12)

More than a thousand Jews were killed in anti-Jewish rioting during the 1940's in Iraq, Libya, Egypt, Syria and Yemen.(13) This helped trigger the mass exodus of Jews from Arab countries.


Notes

1. Vamberto Morais, A Short History of Anti-Semitism, (NY: W.W Norton and Co., 1976), p. 11; Bernard Lewis, Semites & Anti-Semites, (NY: WW Norton & Co., 1986), p. 81.
2. Bernard Lewis, "The Pro-Islamic Jews," Judaism, (Fall 1968), p. 401.
3. Bat Ye'or, The Dhimmi, (NJ: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, 1985), pp. 43-44.
4. Bat Yeor, pp. 30, 56-57; Louis Gardet, La Cite Musulmane: Vie sociale et politique, (Paris: Etudes musulmanes, 1954), p. 348.
5. Bat Yeor, pp. 185-86, 191, 194.
6. Norman Stillman, The Jews of Arab Lands, (PA: The Jewish Publication Society of America, 1979), pp. 59, 284.
7. Maurice Roumani, The Case of the Jews from Arab Countries: A Neglected Issue, (Tel Aviv: World Organization of Jews from Arab Countries, 1977), pp. 26-27.
8. Bat Ye'or, p. 61
9. G.E. Von Grunebaum, "Eastern Jewry Under Islam," Viator, (1971), p. 369.
10. Bernard Lewis, The Jews of Islam, (NJ: Princeton University Press, 1984) p. 158.
11. Middle Eastern Studies, (1971), p. 232.
12. New York Times, (February 19, 1947).
13. Roumani, pp. 30-31.

[Curios Meerkat]

Originally posted by undotwa:
Actually, the Jews fled Western Europe (Spain, Britain, France etc.) to mainly eastern Europe, especially Poland. Poland by the 17th century housed half of the Jews in the world.

You can't say the Jews were treated like kings in the Arab world. They were 'tolerated', but hardly any better than they were in much of Europe.

Sephardic Jews from Spain fled mainly to Morocco and the Balkans. I never said "Jews were treated like kings", and "hardly any better than they were in much of Europe" is a very incorrect statement:

Fourth Lateran Council, 1215 - Canons on Jews

And please, don't link to revisionist websites.

[undotwa]

Originally posted by Curios Meerkat:
Sephardic Jews from Spain fled mainly to Morocco and the Balkans. I never said "Jews were treated like kings", and "hardly any better than they were in much of Europe" is a very incorrect statement:

Fourth Lateran Council, 1215 - Canons on Jews

And please, don't link to revisionist websites.

I had revised my post btw.

I never said they were treated well in Europe either. Like had been pointed out before, similar laws that had been passed in Europe were passed in the Arab world.

Have a look at the article. If the Jews were sporadically massacred in the Islamic world, doesn't that imply that the Jews were thought of with disdain in those lands even when in times of peace?

[Taliesin]

Originally posted by undotwa:
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/...in_Arab_lands_(gen).html

The Treatment of Jews in Arab/Islamic Countries

By Mitchell Bard
...

Muhammad, the founder of Islam, traveled to Medina in 622 A.D. to attract followers to his new faith. When the Jews of Medina refused to convert and rejected Muhammad, two of the major Jewish tribes were expelled; in 627, Muhammad's followers killed between 600 and 900 of the men, and divided the surviving Jewish women and children amongst themselves.(3)

The Muslim attitude toward Jews is reflected in various verses throughout the Koran, the holy book of the Islamic faith. "They [the Children of Israel] were consigned to humiliation and wretchedness. They brought the wrath of God upon themselves, and this because they used to deny God's signs and kill His Prophets unjustly and because they disobeyed and were transgressors" (Sura 2:61). According to the Koran, the Jews try to introduce corruption (5:64), have always been disobedient (5:78), and are enemies of Allah, the Prophet and the angels (2:97_98).

...

What should one think of that op-editorial, when the most important part, what the Quran says about jews, and how Muhammed, the prophet, treated jews has been covered so wrong and deceitful?

a)Muhammed didn't travel to Medina to attract followers but because the polytheists in Mecca have decided to kill him and his his followers.

And eventhough he tried to convince the rabbis in Medina that he is a prophet sent by God in the tradition of Noah, Abraham, Moses and Jesus, he didn't try to convert them and he definetly didn't expell them for that reason. The jewish tribes lived many years in peace with Muhammad, and Muhammad even decided to pray in the direction of Jerusalem in order to showcase the connection between Islam and Judaism. The cause that led to the expelling of jews was not of religious nature, but of secular nature:
There was a war going on between the polytheistic Mecca and the monotheistic (jewish and islamic) Medina, and the jewish tribes had signed a neutrality-agreement with Muhammad and his followers, but they didn't kept it as they later on made a deal secretly with the polytheistic Meccans and from then on served as spies and traitors in Medina for Mecca.

When that came out, Muhammad and his followers expelled them, but only the one jewish tribe that made the secret deal with Mecca, the other jewish tribe, yes there were two, was not expelled.

The expelled tribe moved north of Arabia, but when the war between Mecca and Medina flared up again, that expelled jewish tribe, or more exact the male-part, fought on the side of Mecca, and the other jewish tribe seeing the other jewish tribe on the side of Mecca also made a secret deal with Mecca and warned Mecca of any plans and movements of Medina, and when that came out, it was decided to kill all male jews that could fight as punishment, and kept the women, children and elderly alive out of mercy.
The reasoning behind that was that when they expelled them too, they would also end up in the army of Mecca, and they would have to kill them on the battle-field anyhow.

The punishment by the way was legitimate according to the laws of the jewish tribe laid down in their own religious scriptures, and the jewish tribe knew before-hand what to expect when the secret help for Mecca would be discovered.

b) Now I will tackle the even more deceitful m�suse of quranic verses that talk about jews:

1. Jews as well as christians are called in the Quran as "people of the book", meaning they are also people like the muslims thatreceived revelations from God and that collected them in written books. Eventhough, the Quran claims that the jews and christians in ancient times have misunderstood and sometimes even deliberately changed parts of the revelations, God nonetheless promises in the Quran that jews and christians will be able to enter paradise, if they believed in God and committed good deeds, just like muslims. So, they aren't seen as unbelievers in the Quran, eventhough their scriptures are not 100% correct, but off course even among jews and christians there also can be unbelievers, just like among muslims unbelievers can exist.

2. That op-editorial obviously ignored all the verses in the Quran that talked favourably about the jews and that promised paradise for jews, etc.. and just quoted verses out of context that talked about the wrong-doings of the jews. For example, everyone knows the story of the jews and Moses, when he went onto that mountain to talk to God, and when he returned he found some of his followers dancing around a cow manufactured out of gold. That is a true story, but does that mean that the Quran condemns jews? No, it just illustrates the fact that even among a certain religious group, be it a jewish, an islamic or a christian group there can be unbelievers, and when the believers don't stand up against the unbelievers, the unbelievers will take control and abuse the religion.

3. Under this number, I will disprove the accusations of the op-ed regarding the Quran by directly quoting the Quran, even the verses the op-ed used:

2: 61: And remember ye said: "O Moses! we cannot endure one kind of food (always); so beseech thy Lord for us to produce for us of what the earth groweth, -its pot-herbs, and cucumbers, Its garlic, lentils, and onions." He said: "Will ye exchange the better for the worse? Go ye down to any town, and ye shall find what ye want!" They were covered with humiliation and misery; they drew on themselves the wrath of God. This because they went on rejecting the Signs of God and slaying His Messengers without just cause. This because they rebelled and went on transgressing.

In that quote, you clearly see that Moses, a jew himself, had an argument with some unbelievers among his followers, because they were not content with the food God gave them from the sky, so here obviously the verse says that the rebels, not the jews in general, drew the wrath of God upon themselves. These rebels then left the other jews that stayed with Moses and became unbelievers.

And, even more important and showing the true anti-Islam-bias of the op-ed is the Quran-verse following right behind the just quoted one:

2:62: Those who believe (in the Qur'an), and those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Christians and the Sabians,- any who believe in God and the Last Day, and work righteousness, shall have their reward with their Lord; on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.

There you see, black on white, that the Quran doesn't condem jews nor christians and promises that believers among both groups as well as among the muslims will enter paradise, if they commited good deeds.

The op-ed also misuses another verse:

2:97-98:
97. Say: Whoever is an enemy to Gabriel-for he brings down the (revelation) to thy heart by God's will, a confirmation of what went before, and guidance and glad tidings for those who believe,-

98. Whoever is an enemy to God and His angels and apostles, to Gabriel and Michael,- Lo! God is an enemy to those who reject Faith.

That verses don't claim that jews are enemies of God, but that those who reject faith in God are enemies of God, be they of jewish, christian or islamic sort.

In 5: 78, which the op-ed claims would show that jews have always been disobedient:

5.78: Curses were pronounced on those among the Children of Israel who rejected Faith, by the tongue of David and of Jesus the son of Mary: because they disobeyed and persisted in excesses.

It clearly talks about those among the jews that rejected faith in the presence of David and Jesus, and not all jews.

What should one think of an op-ed that gets basic history wrong and that deliberately misuses quranic verses?

Taliesin

[Salah al-Din]

[undotwa]

Originally posted by Taliesin:
What should one think of that op-editorial, when the most important part, what the Quran says about jews, and how Muhammed, the prophet, treated jews has been covered so wrong and deceitful?

a)Muhammed didn't travel to Medina to attract followers but because the polytheists in Mecca have decided to kill him and his his followers.

And eventhough he tried to convince the rabbis in Medina that he is a prophet sent by God in the tradition of Noah, Abraham, Moses and Jesus, he didn't try to convert them and he definetly didn't expell them for that reason. The jewish tribes lived many years in peace with Muhammad, and Muhammad even decided to pray in the direction of Jerusalem in order to showcase the connection between Islam and Judaism. The cause that led to the expelling of jews was not of religious nature, but of secular nature:
There was a war going on between the polytheistic Mecca and the monotheistic (jewish and islamic) Medina, and the jewish tribes had signed a neutrality-agreement with Muhammad and his followers, but they didn't kept it as they later on made a deal secretly with the polytheistic Meccans and from then on served as spies and traitors in Medina for Mecca.

When that came out, Muhammad and his followers expelled them, but only the one jewish tribe that made the secret deal with Mecca, the other jewish tribe, yes there were two, was not expelled.

The expelled tribe moved north of Arabia, but when the war between Mecca and Medina flared up again, that expelled jewish tribe, or more exact the male-part, fought on the side of Mecca, and the other jewish tribe seeing the other jewish tribe on the side of Mecca also made a secret deal with Mecca and warned Mecca of any plans and movements of Medina, and when that came out, it was decided to kill all male jews that could fight as punishment, and kept the women, children and elderly alive out of mercy.
The reasoning behind that was that when they expelled them too, they would also end up in the army of Mecca, and they would have to kill them on the battle-field anyhow.

The punishment by the way was legitimate according to the laws of the jewish tribe laid down in their own religious scriptures, and the jewish tribe knew before-hand what to expect when the secret help for Mecca would be discovered.

b) Now I will tackle the even more deceitful m�suse of quranic verses that talk about jews:

1. Jews as well as christians are called in the Quran as "people of the book", meaning they are also people like the muslims thatreceived revelations from God and that collected them in written books. Eventhough, the Quran claims that the jews and christians in ancient times have misunderstood and sometimes even deliberately changed parts of the revelations, God nonetheless promises in the Quran that jews and christians will be able to enter paradise, if they believed in God and committed good deeds, just like muslims. So, they aren't seen as unbelievers in the Quran, eventhough their scriptures are not 100% correct, but off course even among jews and christians there also can be unbelievers, just like among muslims unbelievers can exist.

2. That op-editorial obviously ignored all the verses in the Quran that talked favourably about the jews and that promised paradise for jews, etc.. and just quoted verses out of context that talked about the wrong-doings of the jews. For example, everyone knows the story of the jews and Moses, when he went onto that mountain to talk to God, and when he returned he found some of his followers dancing around a cow manufactured out of gold. That is a true story, but does that mean that the Quran condemns jews? No, it just illustrates the fact that even among a certain religious group, be it a jewish, an islamic or a christian group there can be unbelievers, and when the believers don't stand up against the unbelievers, the unbelievers will take control and abuse the religion.

3. Under this number, I will disprove the accusations of the op-ed regarding the Quran by directly quoting the Quran, even the verses the op-ed used:



In that quote, you clearly see that Moses, a jew himself, had an argument with some unbelievers among his followers, because they were not content with the food God gave them from the sky, so here obviously the verse says that the rebels, not the jews in general, drew the wrath of God upon themselves. These rebels then left the other jews that stayed with Moses and became unbelievers.

And, even more important and showing the true anti-Islam-bias of the op-ed is the Quran-verse following right behind the just quoted one:



There you see, black on white, that the Quran doesn't condem jews nor christians and promises that believers among both groups as well as among the muslims will enter paradise, if they commited good deeds.

The op-ed also misuses another verse:


That verses don't claim that jews are enemies of God, but that those who reject faith in God are enemies of God, be they of jewish, christian or islamic sort.

In 5: 78, which the op-ed claims would show that jews have always been disobedient:



It clearly talks about those among the jews that rejected faith in the presence of David and Jesus, and not all jews.

What should one think of an op-ed that gets basic history wrong and that deliberately misuses quranic verses?

Taliesin

I agree with you on that the Moslem faith isn't at its foundation anti-Jewish or Christian. I pointed to that article not for those two paragraphs, however, but for its citations of anti-Jewish acts throughout the Islamic world prior to the 20th century. Many westerners have an idealised vision of the Ottoman Empire in regards to tolerance of religious minorities in comparision to that of Europe. That though is not the case; there were periods in which the Jews could live peacefully along side Moslems in the Islamic world, but there were many times in which they did not - alike the situation in Europe. They were often seen with contempt and rarely seen as equals. Perhaps the Jews were treated at times better than in Europe, but then, it really has to do with which part of Europe you are speaking of; in some parts of Europe the Jews were tolerated and recognised in law as equals to any Christian (though inate prejudices still existed).

[vmarks]

Muhammed travelled to the Jews of Yidrath to attract followers. When they refused to become followers, they were non-believers and were made war against.

Of course, this is confused by Maududi, who wrote that "�Consequently their [Jewish] beliefs, their morals and their conduct had gone to the lowest depths of degeneration. The pity is that they were not only satisfied with their condition but loved to cling to it. Besides this, they had no inclination to accept any kind of reform. So they became bitter enemies of those who came to teach them the Right Way and did their worst to defeat every effort. Though they were originally Muslims, they had swerved from real Islam and made alterations in it and had fallen victims to hair splitting. They had forgotten and forsaken Allah so much so that they had even given up their original name �Muslim� and adopted the name �Jew� instead. They made religion the sole monopoly of the Jews.�"

The notion that Jews were always Muslims, but had swerved from real Islam makes them apostates, worthy of killing under Sharia. Except that they were Jews, people of the book, worthy of respect.

How then, does the Koran address this?

The Koran does have a policy of abrogation, so that verses that are anti-Jewish later on replace the earlier verses that call for respect of Jews.

The policy of abrogation is stated here:

http://www.quranbrowser.com/cgi/bin/...chstring=2:106

002:106
*
Nothing of our revelation (even a single verse) do we abrogate or cause be forgotten, but we bring (in place) one better or the like thereof. Knowest thou not that Allah is Able to do all things?

(Hint, bringing one better or like thereof replaces the earlier one. Abrogation.)

The earlier verses call for respect for people of the book, except that then later, the verses state that Jews are transformed into apes (7:166) thus making modern Jews the sons of apes if the Koran is to be believed, and calling us the sons of apes doesn't really sound like respect, does it?

This, coupled with the strong Hadith:

"The Day of Resurrection will not arrive until the Muslims make war against the Jews and kill them, and until a Jew hiding behind a rock and tree, and the rock and tree will say: 'Oh Muslim, Oh servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him!'"

This Hadith was recited by Sheikh Muhammed Abd al Hadi La'afi, Responsible for Religious Teaching and Instruction in the Office of the Wakf in the official P.A. newspaper Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, 18, May 2001 and 27 April 2001, Dr. Muhammed Ibrahim Madi Palestinian Television in the main Friday sermons on 30 March 2001 and 13 April 2001.

Course, I'll be accused of misusing these verses, and worse. This accusation will be deceptive, what I have said here will not be debated, expect the hear about how the translation must not be accurate, or some other diversion. Expect to hear claims of victimhood of discrimination and intolerance, despite the well known texts I quoted above showing intolerance towards Jews. Expect to hear some diversion about US foreign policy and Israel. Expect to hear some demand of 'evidence'. Expect to hear some reiteration of the claim that Islam respects Jews despite historical and textual evidence to the contrary. Expect to hear any of these.

[vmarks]

But there's more we can say about the "People of the Book"

"When you meet the unbelievers in the battlefied, strike off their heads, and when you have laid them low, bind your captives firmly" - Sura 47:4

"Fight for the sake of G-d those that fight against you, but do not attack them first. G-d does not love the aggressors. Slay them wherever you find them. Drive them out of the places from which they drove you. Idolatry is worse than carnage. " Sura 2:190-191 (foundation of the idea that jihad is supposed to be defensive, carried out after inviting unbelievers to Islam)

"When the sacred months are over, slay the idolaters wherever you find them. Arrest them, besiege them, and lie in ambush everywhere for them. If they repent and take to prayer and render the alms levy [the jizya, special tax on non-muslims] allow them to go on their way. G-d is forgiving and merciful." Sura 9:5

The word translated as idolaters in the last passage, Al-Mushrikun, is sometimes translated as 'pagans' or 'polytheists' . Although some Muslims hesitate to use Al-Mushrikun to refer to those the Quran calls "people of the book", this word and this verse are commonly used in Muslim literature as a guide for dealing with any group that supposedly worships beings created alongside G-d. Strictly speaking, this would not include Jews, except that the Quran places them within it by stating that "Jews say Ezra is the son of G-d" (Sura 9:30) -- a claim that corresponds to no known Jewish tradition.

[Salah al-Din]

Our Lord! Forgive us our sins as well as those of our brethren who proceeded us in faith and let not our hearts entertain any unworthy thoughts or feelings against [any of] those who have believed. Our Lord! You are indeed full of kindness and Most Merciful (59:10)

Originally posted by vmarks:
Muhammed travelled to the Jews of Yidrath to attract followers. When they refused to become followers, they were non-believers and were made war against.

Wrong.

http://www.islamicity.com/mosque/ihame/Sec2.htm

The Koran does have a policy of abrogation, so that verses that are anti-Jewish later on replace the earlier verses that call for respect of Jews.

Wrong.

http://www.understanding-islam.org/r...stion&qid=1159

The policy of abrogation is stated here:

http://www.quranbrowser.com/cgi/bin/...chstring=2:106

002:106
*
Nothing of our revelation (even a single verse) do we abrogate or cause be forgotten, but we bring (in place) one better or the like thereof. Knowest thou not that Allah is Able to do all things?

(Hint, bringing one better or like thereof replaces the earlier one. Abrogation.)

The earlier verses call for respect for people of the book, except that then later, the verses state that Jews are transformed into apes (7:166) thus making modern Jews the sons of apes if the Koran is to be believed, and calling us the sons of apes doesn't really sound like respect, does it?

The verse you are refering to is talking about those who rejected the signs of God and what God said unto them. He is not talking about every Jew but those who rejected the signs He sent at that time.

165. When they disregarded the warnings that had been given them, We rescued those who forbade Evil; but We visited the wrong-doers with a grievous punishment because they were given to transgression.

166. When in their insolence they transgressed (all) prohibitions, We said to them: "Be ye apes, despised and rejected."

This, coupled with the strong Hadith:

"The Day of Resurrection will not arrive until the Muslims make war against the Jews and kill them, and until a Jew hiding behind a rock and tree, and the rock and tree will say: 'Oh Muslim, Oh servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him!'"

This Hadith was recited by Sheikh Muhammed Abd al Hadi La'afi, Responsible for Religious Teaching and Instruction in the Office of the Wakf in the official P.A. newspaper Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, 18, May 2001 and 27 April 2001, Dr. Muhammed Ibrahim Madi Palestinian Television in the main Friday sermons on 30 March 2001 and 13 April 2001.

If it's so strong could you tell me from where it comes?

Course, I'll be accused of misusing these verses, and worse. This accusation will be deceptive, what I have said here will not be debated, expect the hear about how the translation must not be accurate, or some other diversion. Expect to hear claims of victimhood of discrimination and intolerance, despite the well known texts I quoted above showing intolerance towards Jews. Expect to hear some diversion about US foreign policy and Israel. Expect to hear some demand of 'evidence'. Expect to hear some reiteration of the claim that Islam respects Jews despite historical and textual evidence to the contrary. Expect to hear any of these.

It must be great for you to be a moderator and then be able to throw around flames like this post and warn people about debating this(or prove you wrong just like I did).

[Salah al-Din]

Originally posted by vmarks:
But there's more we can say about the "People of the Book"

"When you meet the unbelievers in the battlefied, strike off their heads, and when you have laid them low, bind your captives firmly" - Sura 47:4

What has this verse have to do with the People of the Book? People of the Book are not unbelievers.

"Fight for the sake of G-d those that fight against you, but do not attack them first. G-d does not love the aggressors. Slay them wherever you find them. Drive them out of the places from which they drove you. Idolatry is worse than carnage. " Sura 2:190-191 (foundation of the idea that jihad is supposed to be defensive, carried out after inviting unbelievers to Islam)

Again, what has this have to do with People of the Book?

"When the sacred months are over, slay the idolaters wherever you find them. Arrest them, besiege them, and lie in ambush everywhere for them. If they repent and take to prayer and render the alms levy [the jizya, special tax on non-muslims] allow them to go on their way. G-d is forgiving and merciful." Sura 9:5

Again, what has this to do with People of the Book?

The word translated as idolaters in the last passage, Al-Mushrikun, is sometimes translated as 'pagans' or 'polytheists' . Although some Muslims hesitate to use Al-Mushrikun to refer to those the Quran calls "people of the book", this word and this verse are commonly used in Muslim literature as a guide for dealing with any group that supposedly worships beings created alongside G-d. Strictly speaking, this would not include Jews, except that the Quran places them within it by stating that "Jews say Ezra is the son of G-d" (Sura 9:30) -- a claim that corresponds to no known Jewish tradition.

According to Encyclopedia Judaica, Vol. 6, Encyclopedia Judaica Jerusalem, page 1108, Uzair was called the Father of Judaism by the Jews. According to the same resource, the Arab Jews in Yemen did indeed consider Uzair as the "son of God".

[Salah al-Din]

And since you have so conveniently "forgotten" our original "debate" I'll give you the link to the first of a couple of posts you still haven't answered.

http://forums.macnn.com/showthread.p...=1#post2389572

[vmarks]

Originally posted by Salah al-Din:
Our Lord! Forgive us our sins as well as those of our brethren who proceeded us in faith and let not our hearts entertain any unworthy thoughts or feelings against [any of] those who have believed. Our Lord! You are indeed full of kindness and Most Merciful (59:10)


Wrong.

http://www.islamicity.com/mosque/ihame/Sec2.htm

Doesn't even mention the Jews in the area, instead mentions the pagans that were slaughtered in one sentence. As I showed, the word for pagans is also unbelievers, idolaters, and so forth, which the Jews were classified as after the Quran introduces this made up notion of calling Ezra the son of G-d.

[quote][b]
Wrong.

http://www.understanding-islam.org/r...stion&qid=1159
[b][quote]

According to your own link, it says that there IS abrogation in the Quran, proving my statement correct. In most cases, the abrogating verses are placed immediately after the abrogated verses, but not always.

The verse you are refering to is talking about those who rejected the signs of God and what God said unto them. He is not talking about every Jew but those who rejected the signs He sent at that time.

165. When they disregarded the warnings that had been given them, We rescued those who forbade Evil; but We visited the wrong-doers with a grievous punishment because they were given to transgression.

166. When in their insolence they transgressed (all) prohibitions, We said to them: "Be ye apes, despised and rejected."

If it's so strong could you tell me from where it comes?

“You will fight the Jews and will prevail over them, so that a rock will say, ‘O Muslim! There is Jew behind me, kill him!’” (Reported by Muslim, 2921; al-Bukhaari, 2926).

It must be great for you to be a moderator and then be able to throw around flames like this post and warn people about debating this(or prove you wrong just like I did).

It isn't a flame, and there was no warning, it was clearly a prediction that you made come true. You've responded by saying 'it isn't true' or 'it's not relevant' or 'here's my site that gives the answer I want you to hear' -

[vmarks]

Originally posted by Salah al-Din:
What has this verse have to do with the People of the Book? People of the Book are not unbelievers.

Except when they reject becoming Muslims, and reject the jizya, then they are accused of being the sons of Apes and Swine, and are to be made war against.

Again, what has this have to do with People of the Book?

Again, what has this to do with People of the Book?

This is you ignoring the obvious before you- first step: portray the Jews as idolaters by claiming they worshipped Ezra as son of G-d, something that there is no known history of such a tradition in all of Judaism, and then apply these verses to all Jews, because you've revealed that all Jews corrupted monotheism, and are therefore unbelievers, to be beheaded.

According to Encyclopedia Judaica, Vol. 6, Encyclopedia Judaica Jerusalem, page 1108, Uzair was called the Father of Judaism by the Jews. According to the same resource, the Arab Jews in Yemen did indeed consider Uzair as the "son of God".

You'll want to have read the encyclopedia before just quoting someone else's reference to it. The real article in it says:

Ezra in Islam. Muhammed claims (Sura 9:30) that in the opinion of the Jews, Uzayr (Ezra) is the son of God. These words are enigma because no such opinion is to be found among the Jews, even though Ezra was singled out for special appreciation (see Sanh. 21b; Yev. 86b). The Muslim traditionalists attempt to explain the words of Muhammed with a Muslim legend, whose origin appears to stem from IV Ezra 14:18-19. The people of Israel sinned, they were punished by God, the Holy Ark was removed, and the Torah was forgotten. It was due, however, to Ezra's merit that his heart was filled with the Torah of God, which he taught to people of Israel. When the Holy Ark was returned to them and they compared that which Ezra taught them with the text of the Sefer Torah in the Holy Ark, the words they found were identical. They deduced from this that Ezra was the son of Allah. Tabari cites another version of this legend: the Jewish scholars themselves did the Ark, after they were beaten by the Amalekites. H.Z. Hirschberg proposed another assumption, based on words of Ibn Hazm (I,99), namely, that the "righteous" who live in Yemen believe that Uzayr was indeed the son of Allah. According to other Muslim sources, there were some Yemenite Jews who had converted to Islam who believed that Ezra was the messiah. For Muhammed, Ezra, the apostle of the messiah, can be seen in the same light as the Christian saw Jesus, the messiah, the son of Allah. An allusion to the figure of Erza as the apostle of the messiah is found in a tale which is widespread among the Jews of Yemen, according to which Ezra requested that they emigrate to Erez Israel, and because they did not, he cursed them. Yemenite Jews have therefore refrained from naming their children Ezra. According some Muslim commentators, Uzayr is the man who passed by the destroyed city (of Jerusalem; Sura 2:261) and did not believe that it could be rebuilt ( see *Jeremiah).

Please note that all of the assertions of Ezra being a son of G-d to the Jews come from Muslim sources, none in Jewish tradition. Muslim legend, Tabari, Ibn Hazm, and Hirschberg's attempt to make sense of Ibn Hazm.

[vmarks]

Originally posted by Salah al-Din:
And since you have so conveniently "forgotten" our original "debate" I'll give you the link to the first of a couple of posts you still haven't answered.

http://forums.macnn.com/showthread.p...=1#post2389572

We were done: you concluded by more of your misdirection and denial, either saying 'it's not true', 'it's not relevant', or 'I need more evidence because I don't accept your conclusions in spite of all evidence to the contrary.' But even so we were making progress- you used to deny that there was no support at all for my argument, and now you accept that a few specific individuals were involved as I say, and even allow the possibility that more than those held the positions I laid out.

[Salah al-Din]

Originally posted by vmarks:
Doesn't even mention the Jews in the area, instead mentions the pagans that were slaughtered in one sentence. As I showed, the word for pagans is also unbelievers, idolaters, and so forth, which the Jews were classified as after the Quran introduces this made up notion of calling Ezra the son of G-d.

Well if they would have mentioned the Jews in the area you would have complained since they both attacked and betrayed Muhammed(phub). And it's irrelevant who was there. That link showed you why Muhammed(pbuh) left Mecca and went to Medina. It basically proved you wrong. Not the first time and definately not the last.

“You will fight the Jews and will prevail over them, so that a rock will say, ‘O Muslim! There is Jew behind me, kill him!’” (Reported by Muslim, 2921; al-Bukhaari, 2926).

Wow, you found one "negative" Hadith out of the whole collection. Good for you. But will you keep your mind open now and listen to the explanation to this Hadith? I guess not but I will still explain it.

The Prophet(pbuh) said this during the wars brought onto him by the Meccan tribes and during the time while he had been betrayed by one of the Jewish tribes in Medina. This was said during a time of war. A war started by the Meccan tribes who were supported by Jewish traitors from Medina. I know you will try to use this as something you can "prove" Islam is anti-Jewish but you would be wrong.

It isn't a flame, and there was no warning, it was clearly a prediction that you made come true. You've responded by saying 'it isn't true' or 'it's not relevant' or 'here's my site that gives the answer I want you to hear' -

Well what should I say when you say something false, irrelevant etc etc? It was easy for you to "foresee" the responses will be like that when you post something that is both false and irrelevant.

[Salah al-Din]

Originally posted by vmarks:
Except when they reject becoming Muslims, and reject the jizya, then they are accused of being the sons of Apes and Swine, and are to be made war against.

And of course you can back up that claim can't you?

This is you ignoring the obvious before you- first step: portray the Jews as idolaters by claiming they worshipped Ezra as son of G-d, something that there is no known history of such a tradition in all of Judaism, and then apply these verses to all Jews, because you've revealed that all Jews corrupted monotheism, and are therefore unbelievers, to be beheaded.

No, but some Jews did. Perhaps you think that all Jews are perfect but I know that there are people who do wrong within all religions. There were at the time people who said that. And I'm sure you can back up that last claim of yours, can't you?

You'll want to have read the encyclopedia before just quoting someone else's reference to it. The real article in it says:

Ezra in Islam. Muhammed claims (Sura 9:30)

Muhammed didn't claim anything. The first sentance is wrong.

that in the opinion of the Jews, Uzayr (Ezra) is the son of God.

No, but some Jews.

According to other Muslim sources, there were some Yemenite Jews who had converted to Islam who believed that Ezra was the messiah.

I know you will never in your life trust Muslim sources but this backs up exactly what I said.

Please note that all of the assertions of Ezra being a son of G-d to the Jews come from Muslim sources, none in Jewish tradition. Muslim legend, Tabari, Ibn Hazm, and Hirschberg's attempt to make sense of Ibn Hazm.

heh, what a surprise....

[Salah al-Din]

Originally posted by vmarks:
We were done: you concluded by more of your misdirection and denial, either saying 'it's not true', 'it's not relevant', or 'I need more evidence because I don't accept your conclusions in spite of all evidence to the contrary.' But even so we were making progress- you used to deny that there was no support at all for my argument, and now you accept that a few specific individuals were involved as I say, and even allow the possibility that more than those held the positions I laid out.

Where did I misdirect?(and this coming from you after starting the latest attacks on Islam in a thread that has nothing to do with Islam is quite amusing).

And what did I deny?

Where did I use to deny that you had no support at all for my argument?(though you rarely do)

Now you claim a few specific individuals but at the start it were the Arabs. Are you therefore retracting your original statement?

And at last. There is one question you have sidestepped from the start but I will give you another chance to answer it.

What were the borders of Israel at the time of it's foundation('48) and what are the borders today?

[vmarks]

I am retracting no statement in this thread, you mangled the Encyclopedia Judaica entry, and you've since mangled my posts. There's nothing to say to you, you're busy misquoting and misdirecting.

First you deny the hadith, and then you admit it. the same is true of your position on Arab and Palestinian Nazis- first you deny it in whole, then you admit a few specific people and lay out the possibility for more, but attempt to keep up your denial.

[Salah al-Din]

Originally posted by vmarks:
I am retracting no statement in this thread, you mangled the Encyclopedia Judaica entry, and you've since mangled my posts. There's nothing to say to you, you're busy misquoting and misdirecting.

First you deny the hadith, and then you admit it. the same is true of your position on Arab and Palestinian Nazis- first you deny it in whole, then you admit a few specific people and lay out the possibility for more, but attempt to keep up your denial.

So because a few Arabs/Muslims supported the Nazi's you think it's OK to say that the Arabs/Muslims supported the Nazi's?

What did I mangle about it? I pointed out what was relevant but please show me how I mangled it. How did I mangle your posts? What did I misquote and what did I misdirect? Pretty serious accusations but for some reason I won't be surprised if you don't back a single one of them up. You are much more likely to lobby for me to get banned like you did with a friend of mine who enjoyed this site until you got him banned.

When did I deny the Hadith? And again, when did I deny it it in whole(Palestinian Nazi's)?

You make some pretty outrageous claims but when you are asked to back them up you "disappear". Great behaviour from a moderator.

[eklipse]

Originally posted by vmarks:
Muhammed travelled to the Jews of Yidrath to attract followers. When they refused to become followers, they were non-believers and were made war against.

Of course, this is confused by Maududi, who wrote that "�Consequently their [Jewish] beliefs, their morals and their conduct had gone to the lowest depths of degeneration. The pity is that they were not only satisfied with their condition but loved to cling to it. Besides this, they had no inclination to accept any kind of reform. So they became bitter enemies of those who came to teach them the Right Way and did their worst to defeat every effort. Though they were originally Muslims, they had swerved from real Islam and made alterations in it and had fallen victims to hair splitting. They had forgotten and forsaken Allah so much so that they had even given up their original name �Muslim� and adopted the name �Jew� instead. They made religion the sole monopoly of the Jews.�"

The notion that Jews were always Muslims, but had swerved from real Islam makes them apostates, worthy of killing under Sharia. Except that they were Jews, people of the book, worthy of respect.

The full passage which you neglected to include is:

At Makkah the Quran generally addressed the mushrik Quraish who were ignorant of Islam, but at Al-Madinah it was also concerned with the Jews who were acquainted with the creed of the Unity of Allah, Prophethood, Revelation, the Hereafter and angels. They also professed to believe in the law which was revealed by Allah to their Prophet Moses (Allah's peace be upon him), and in principle, their way was the same (Islam) that was being taught by Prophet Muhammad (Allah's peace be upon him). But they had strayed away from it during the centuries of degeneration and had adopted many un-Islamic creeds, rites and customs of which there was no mention and for which there was no sanction in the Torah. Not only this: they had tampered with the Torah by inserting their own explanations and interpretations into its text. They had distorted even that part of the Word of God which had remained intact in their Scriptures and taken out of it the real spirit of true religion and were now clinging to a lifeless frame of rituals. Consequently their beliefs, their morals and their conduct had gone to the lowest depths of degeneration. The pity is that they were not only satisfied with their condition but loved to cling to it. Besides this, they had no intention or inclination to accept any kind of reform. So they became bitter enemies of those who came to teach them the Right Way and did their worst to defeat every such effort. Though they were originally Muslims, they had swerved from the real Islam and made innovations and alterations in it and had fallen victims to hair splitting and sectarianism. They had forgotten and forsaken Allah and begun to serve mammon. So much so that they had even given up their original name "Muslim" and adopted the name "Jew" instead, and made religion the sole monopoly of the children of Israel. This was their religious condition when the Holy Prophet went to Al-Madinah and invited the Jews to the true religion. That is why more than one third of this Surah has been addressed to the children of Israel. A critical review of their history, their moral degeneration and their religious perversions has been made; side by side with this the high standard of morality and the fundamental principles of the pure religion have been put forward in order to bring out clearly the nature of the degeneration of the community of a prophet when it goes astray and to draw clear lines of demarcation between real piety and formalism, and the essentials and non-essentials of the true religion.

He is referring specifically to a group of Jews living in Medina who had abandoned the ways sanctioned by the Torah and distorted the word of God. They were 'Muslims' in that they were formerly believers in the one true God (the God of Moses and Muhammad) - they were no longer 'Muslim' (one who submits completely to the will of God) because they had forsaken the teachings of God. Note also that the above quotation is a summary (written in contemporary/familiar language) of the longest Surah in the Qur'an and is consequently lacking in details. The Qur'an itself refers to the followers of Moses as the 'Children of Israel' and the followers of Muhammad, Moses and Jesus alike as 'believers'. In this context, 'Jew' does not refer to a 'person of the book' but to a 'person formerly of the book, now gone astray and living in Medina' - hence the contradiction you put forward does not exist.

How then, does the Koran address this?

The Koran does have a policy of abrogation, so that verses that are anti-Jewish later on replace the earlier verses that call for respect of Jews.

The policy of abrogation is stated here:

http://www.quranbrowser.com/cgi/bin/...chstring=2:106

002:106
*
Nothing of our revelation (even a single verse) do we abrogate or cause be forgotten, but we bring (in place) one better or the like thereof. Knowest thou not that Allah is Able to do all things?

(Hint, bringing one better or like thereof replaces the earlier one. Abrogation.)

This is correct - it just doesn't apply in this case.

The earlier verses call for respect for people of the book, except that then later, the verses state that Jews are transformed into apes (7:166) thus making modern Jews the sons of apes if the Koran is to be believed, and calling us the sons of apes doesn't really sound like respect, does it?

Absolute rubbish - the Qur'an suggests no such thing. The verse you mention (and the three preceding verses) refer to a specific group of Jews who broke the Sabbath:

(The reference in the above four verses is to the Jews who lived in that township and were divided into three groups : one group was those who refrained from angling on the Sabbath day and tried to admonish those who were breaking the Sabbath not to transgress; the second group took a neutral stand and did not condemn the Sabbath breakers but only asked those who stopped them from transgressing why they were preaching to a people whom Allah has already condemned and would chastise; and the third group were the Sabbath breakers themselves who carried on doing what they were asked not to do, - angling, eating, and selling. Hence, the group trying to prevent them from transgression decided to segregate themselves from the transgressors by erecting a wall in between them with a door for random visits; and then, when David cursed the Sabbath breakers, Allah turned them into apes, who retained recollections in their minds of friends and relatives on the other side of the wall, but no longer had the ability to communicate with them.

Whether the Sabbath breakers were physically transmuted into apes is controversial, some commentators electing to contend that their transformation was in demeanour only and not in appearance. Whatever the case be, Allah did chastise them by taking away from them the qualities of human beings and replacing them with the dumbness of animals).

Again, we see your inability to differentiate between members of a group and an entire group. It is in no way implied that the group of Sabbath offenders in the verse represent all the followers of Moses.

This, coupled with the strong Hadith:

"The Day of Resurrection will not arrive until the Muslims make war against the Jews and kill them, and until a Jew hiding behind a rock and tree, and the rock and tree will say: 'Oh Muslim, Oh servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him!'"

This Hadith was recited by Sheikh Muhammed Abd al Hadi La'afi, Responsible for Religious Teaching and Instruction in the Office of the Wakf in the official P.A. newspaper Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, 18, May 2001 and 27 April 2001, Dr. Muhammed Ibrahim Madi Palestinian Television in the main Friday sermons on 30 March 2001 and 13 April 2001.

This hadith and hadiths in general have been discussed before. The bottom line is that hadiths are not the word of God - they do not carry anywhere near the same weight as the Qur'an. They were written by man and thus susceptible to the fallibilities of man (ignorance, bias, politics etc.)

Course, I'll be accused of misusing these verses, and worse. This accusation will be deceptive, what I have said here will not be debated, expect the hear about how the translation must not be accurate, or some other diversion. Expect to hear claims of victimhood of discrimination and intolerance, despite the well known texts I quoted above showing intolerance towards Jews. Expect to hear some diversion about US foreign policy and Israel. Expect to hear some demand of 'evidence'. Expect to hear some reiteration of the claim that Islam respects Jews despite historical and textual evidence to the contrary. Expect to hear any of these.

Heh. Nice try at preempting criticism, bub. Sorry - if you insist on posting inaccurate and inflammatory, anti-Islamic nonsense expect to be called on it. What authority do you have to denounce any opposition to your comments as 'deceptive'?

[vmarks]

Originally posted by Salah al-Din:
So because a few Arabs/Muslims supported the Nazi's you think it's OK to say that the Arabs/Muslims supported the Nazi's?

At first you denied that any Arabs or Muslims or Palestinians supported or were Nazis. Then you accepted that a few did. Since you are slowly admitting the truth of that situation, why is it not okay for me to keep making the argument?

What did I mangle about it? I pointed out what was relevant but please show me how I mangled it.

You took the Encyclopedia Judaica, which you misquoted originally. I corrected you with a quote from it, which you then took apart piece by piece until you could read it differently than what it said. You cut off the source from the sentence "that in the opinion of the Jews, Uzayr (Ezra) is the son of God." in order that you could assign that to Jews, when the source of that statement is not Jews, but Muslims, in Sura 9:30- which is not a Jewish source, tradition, or history. As I said before, this accusation that Jews held Ezra to be son of G-d exists in no Jewish tradition.

How did I mangle your posts? What did I misquote and what did I misdirect? Pretty serious accusations but for some reason I won't be surprised if you don't back a single one of them up. You are much more likely to lobby for me to get banned like you did with a friend of mine who enjoyed this site until you got him banned.

When did I deny the Hadith? And again, when did I deny it it in whole(Palestinian Nazi's)?

I don't have to lobby for people to be banned, they do it for me. Your "friend" made the denial, and you have picked up right where he left off under both his nicknames- and if you're honest with yourself and the rest of us, you are he. But it's okay, you can keep up that bit of deception along with the rest of it.

You asked for the source of the hadith, if it was so strong. That's tantamount to claiming it isn't a strong hadith, and doesn't matter- except that I backed it up with Bukari, which I expect you knew before you even asked.

You make some pretty outrageous claims but when you are asked to back them up you "disappear". Great behaviour from a moderator.

This last bit is more misdrection away from the arguments but instead puts attention on me and my status as moderator, when I haven't even employed moderator abilities in weeks.

[Taliesin]

Originally posted by eklipse:

This hadith and hadiths in general have been discussed before. The bottom line is that hadiths are not the word of God - they do not carry anywhere near the same weight as the Qur'an. They were written by man and thus susceptible to the fallibilities of man (ignorance, bias, politics etc.)

Very impressive, eklipse, you beat me to it.

*smackdown*

I'm quite puzzled why vmarks tries so heavily to paint Islam and Quran in a bad light, and it's also strange, why undotwa has edited his last post in this thread to erase the half-sentence he directed at me saying originally "props to you for your solid rebuttal" shortly after vmarks has started his new wave of anti-Islam-bashing.

Quite contrary to me and eklipse, Salah-al Din feels the need to defend not only the Quran but also hadiths, but hadiths are nothing but human interpretations often only using the form of hadith in order to put more legitimacy into it. "Hadith" are tools for islamic governors to strengthen their ruling among populations that were mostly consisting of illiterates, and so they represent more the challenges and political systems of the time and have only little to do with Islam or with the Quran.

As to the situation of jews in the islamic world before the ottoman empire, during the ottoman empire and after it:

Their situation was always way better than in most of Europe though unforunately not free form discrimination. The jewish communities had basically autonomy and were inside their communities free and unharrassed as long as they paid their symbolic taxes, after which they didn't have to pay the taxes muslims had to pay and were not drafted into the islamic armies. The discrimination came into play when the jews left their communities and came into contact with the islamic communities, jews then were forbidden to wear costly clothes and were forbidden to ride on horses and usually had a weaker stand in courts when a jew were involved in a crime against a muslim.

That's unfortunate but only reflects the times and coditions of the middle-age and no society on earth was free from discrimination when dealing with minorities or other cultures and religions. But eventhough the discrimination existed it was for jews still way better than under european rulers, as on top of all that discrimination there came also the anti-jewish violence, pogroms and genocides..

What is important is that their is no basis in the Quran for discrimination in this life against jews and christians, the people of the book.

Taliesin

[Taliesin]

dp

[Taliesin]

Originally posted by vmarks:
Muhammed travelled to the Jews of Yidrath to attract followers. When they refused to become followers, they were non-believers and were made war against.

Absolutely wrong, see, even when it were true that Muhammad, the prophet, called jews unbelievers, which he didn't, even then he wouldn't lead war against them. Why not? Because even against unbelievers war is only allowed when the unbelievers start the war. For example against the polytheistic Mecca, Muhammad only led war because Mecca wanted to kill him and his followers. War in Islam is only allowed as a defensive war or in order to free people that are oppressed because of their belief in God.

Originally posted by vmarks:
Of course, this is confused by Maududi, who wrote that "�Consequently their [Jewish] beliefs, their morals and their conduct had gone to the lowest depths of degeneration. The pity is that they were not only satisfied with their condition but loved to cling to it. Besides this, they had no inclination to accept any kind of reform. So they became bitter enemies of those who came to teach them the Right Way and did their worst to defeat every effort. Though they were originally Muslims, they had swerved from real Islam and made alterations in it and had fallen victims to hair splitting. They had forgotten and forsaken Allah so much so that they had even given up their original name �Muslim� and adopted the name �Jew� instead. They made religion the sole monopoly of the Jews.�"

The notion that Jews were always Muslims, but had swerved from real Islam makes them apostates, worthy of killing under Sharia. Except that they were Jews, people of the book, worthy of respect.

Again, wrong, my friend. The Quran states in numerous verses throughout a lot of suras, that people of the book are to be respected and not to be converted violently nor to be harrassed nor attacked, except in a defensive war if those people of the book start a war.
Besides if what you say about apostates and jews is right, which it isn't, why hasn't it been applied also to christians?

Originally posted by vmarks:
How then, does the Koran address this?

The Koran does have a policy of abrogation, so that verses that are anti-Jewish later on replace the earlier verses that call for respect of Jews.

The policy of abrogation is stated here:

http://www.quranbrowser.com/cgi/bin/...chstring=2:106

002:106
*
Nothing of our revelation (even a single verse) do we abrogate or cause be forgotten, but we bring (in place) one better or the like thereof. Knowest thou not that Allah is Able to do all things?

(Hint, bringing one better or like thereof replaces the earlier one. Abrogation.)

That's actually an interestin topic. In the Quran God states that he wouldn't let any verse be forgotten except those he wishes to replace by one of equal worth or even better one. That means that the forgotten verses are not part of the Quran anymore and have been replaced by some of equal worth or better ones, so it's not possible that both versions are at the same time in the Quran, which rules out your suggestion. And since the verses calling jews people of the book, and that people of the book have to be treated with respect, are still in the Quran, not forgotten and not replaced, you are wrong again.

Originally posted by vmarks:
The earlier verses call for respect for people of the book, except that then later, the verses state that Jews are transformed into apes (7:166) thus making modern Jews the sons of apes if the Koran is to be believed, and calling us the sons of apes doesn't really sound like respect, does it?

What a nonsense! That verse is not meant methaphorical or symbolic, it talks about a special tribe in ancient times that was transformed by God into apes as punishment. The sons and daughters of that tribes can logically be only apes, too. So it's not possible that jews, humans are descendants of those apes as apes only give birth to apes.

Here are the verses you refer to:

7.165. When they disregarded the warnings that had been given them, We rescued those who forbade Evil; but We visited the wrong-doers with a grievous punishment because they were given to transgression.

7.166. When in their insolence they transgressed (all) prohibitions, We said to them: "Be ye apes, despised and rejected."

The verse before 166 clearly states that the ones who forbade evil were rescued by God, yes rescued jews (!), and only the wrong-doers were punished by transforming to apes, doesn't sound quite like what you try to interpret into it, does it?

Originally posted by vmarks:
This, coupled with the strong Hadith:

"The Day of Resurrection will not arrive until the Muslims make war against the Jews and kill them, and until a Jew hiding behind a rock and tree, and the rock and tree will say: 'Oh Muslim, Oh servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him!'"

This Hadith was recited by Sheikh Muhammed Abd al Hadi La'afi, Responsible for Religious Teaching and Instruction in the Office of the Wakf in the official P.A. newspaper Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, 18, May 2001 and 27 April 2001, Dr. Muhammed Ibrahim Madi Palestinian Television in the main Friday sermons on 30 March 2001 and 13 April 2001.

Like already said, hadiths are only little more than political tools and can often times not be trusted. That hadith espescially is riddled with wrongness that it is just rediculous:
1. The day of ressurection can't be delayed nor accelerated regardless of what humans do.
2. The Quran clearly says that warfare is only allowed in a defensive form and only allowed against fighting males.
3. The Quran states multiple times that jews and christians are people of the book to be respected, except if they start a war.
4. The Quran also states multiple times that jews and christians as well as muslims will enter paradise if they believed in God and commited good deeds.

So, the hadith is obviously a wrong one, an invented one and contrary to the quranic message on every level.

Originally posted by vmarks:
Course, I'll be accused of misusing these verses, and worse. This accusation will be deceptive, what I have said here will not be debated, expect the hear about how the translation must not be accurate, or some other diversion. Expect to hear claims of victimhood of discrimination and intolerance, despite the well known texts I quoted above showing intolerance towards Jews. Expect to hear some diversion about US foreign policy and Israel. Expect to hear some demand of 'evidence'. Expect to hear some reiteration of the claim that Islam respects Jews despite historical and textual evidence to the contrary. Expect to hear any of these.

LOL, what a great way to escape the discussion of your anti-Islam-bashing.

Taliesin

[Taliesin]

Originally posted by vmarks:
But there's more we can say about the "People of the Book"

"When you meet the unbelievers in the battlefied, strike off their heads, and when you have laid them low, bind your captives firmly" - Sura 47:4

You have the idea stuck in your head that jews are unbelievers in the Quran, because some jews believed that one prophet they had were a son of God, but that is wrong. Regardless of jewish superstitions, misinterpretations and wrong ideas, they are nonetheless called people of the book and to be respected in this life. It's God's task in the after-life who to punish because of the wrong beliefs and who to forgive. Same is applicable to christians and their wrong idea that Jesus were God's son. Both are not on the level of idolaters or unbelievers.

Besides that verse talks about unbelievers attacking Muhammad and his followers on the battlefield in a war!

Originally posted by vmarks:
"Fight for the sake of God those that fight against you, but do not attack them first. God does not love the aggressors. Slay them wherever you find them. Drive them out of the places from which they drove you. Idolatry is worse than carnage. " Sura 2:190-191 (foundation of the idea that jihad is supposed to be defensive, carried out after inviting unbelievers to Islam)


"When the sacred months are over, slay the idolaters wherever you find them. Arrest them, besiege them, and lie in ambush everywhere for them. If they repent and take to prayer and render the alms levy [the jizya, special tax on non-muslims] allow them to go on their way. G-d is forgiving and merciful." Sura 9:5

Thank you that you make my point: Even against unbelievers war is only permitted as a defensive war, if the unbelievers started it.

Originally posted by vmarks:
"The word translated as idolaters in the last passage, Al-Mushrikun, is sometimes translated as 'pagans' or 'polytheists' . Although some Muslims hesitate to use Al-Mushrikun to refer to those the Quran calls "people of the book", this word and this verse are commonly used in Muslim literature as a guide for dealing with any group that supposedly worships beings created alongside God. Strictly speaking, this would not include Jews, except that the Quran places them within it by stating that "Jews say Ezra is the son of God" (Sura 9:30) -- a claim that corresponds to no known Jewish tradition.

Yes, God (in the Quran) doesn't like that christians keep believing that Jesus is the son of God or even God himself, but still God says (in the Quran) that He will judge christians about it and that it is not the task of muslims to do it. In that verse you are referring to God says that muslims have to fight against everyone that starts a war against them, even if they are people of the book, that are otherwise to be protected, until they give in and renounce the war they started and pay the tax.

Taliesin

[undotwa]

Originally posted by Taliesin:

I'm quite puzzled why vmarks tries so heavily to paint Islam and Quran in a bad light, and it's also strange, why undotwa has edited his last post in this thread to erase the half-sentence he directed at me saying originally "props to you for your solid rebuttal" shortly after vmarks has started his new wave of anti-Islam-bashing.

The reason why I removed it was because I reconsidered that your post didn't warrant any congratulations. I still fundamentally agree with it though; I don't believe Islam is anti-Jewish or Christian at its foundation like vmarks.

But nevertheless it is not true to say that the treatment of Jews under the Ottomans was better than in Europe. It is dependant upon a) time b) place. You can point to particular instants in European history such as the Inquisition and compare it to the open door policy of the Ottomans at the time, but to conclude from that alone that the Ottomans were more tolerant than Europe (which encompasses a large area, which each kingdom treating the Jews differently) would be to distort the facts. There were times where the Jews were persecuted, massacred and discriminated against. There was always anti-Jewish feeling amongst the Arabs similar to that of the Christians in Europe because religious dissidents paved problems for maintaining a united and coherent state.

Even in the late 19th century, when Jewish immigration to Israel was miniscule and all land for their kibbutz was purchased from funds raised by Zionist organisations, the Jews faced incredible opposition from the Arabs, including terrorist attacks. This is not something which spawned out of some of the barbarous retaliations of Israel or the displacement of millions of Palestinians during the war against Egypt, though these sentiments may have been intensified by these actions, it always existed.

Jews formed their ghettoes in the Ottoman empire, and the Moslems often despied them for that. We're always naturally suspicious of those who behave as foreigners.

You can point to sources or laws of the Ottoman empire which suggest toleration for the Jews or even call for it, but that does prove that there was general toleration. I can show you epistles of some of the Popes and of many kings which demand toleration for the Jews but we generally know that despite such advocations, discrimination (and sometimes, though rarely) outright persecution persisted.

[vmarks]

Some correction is in order:

I do not believe Islam in its foundation is anti-Jewish. The Sura and Hadiths that come later are.

Abrogation is an interesting thing: the abrogated verses are not removed from the Quran. In some cases, the abrogated verses are immediately followed by the verses replacing them, and in other cases they just appear later, not immediately after.

Explain the terrorists who believe they are in a defensive war- explain the statements issued that call the West to come to Islam, and if not, face war? That's what's happening: If Christians and Jews do not accept Islam, they are being made war against as unbelievers, and it is defensive war from the perspective of those making the statements because the offense was not accepting Islam.

Speaking on Saudi Arabia's Iqra TV last month, Sheikh 'Aed Al-Karni expounded:

"The Prophet Muhammad, as is said in the Hadith [post-Koranic instructions for behavior and belief], sent Ali to the Jews - to the Jews, the brothers of apes and pigs - to fight them. Ali, being so brave and daring, thought he was sent to behead them. The Prophet Muhammad told him that it was better to guide them to the righteous path than to kill them...."

Adding elucidation of the founder of Islam's instruction, Al-Karni concluded, "By Allah, if you guide a Jew or a Christian to the righteous path, it is better than slaughtering one or two thousand of them on the battlefield."

And lastly, explain to me why so many Imams and clerics denounce today's Jews as the sons of monkeys and pigs?

The Jews are the sons of monkeys and pigs (5,60). (For the idea
that Jews are related to pigs and monkeys see, for example,
Musnad al-Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal, (Beirut 1969) vol. 3, p. 241.
See also pages 348, 395, 397, 421, and vol. 6, p. 135.)
(http://www.rense.com/general5/holy.htm)

A3. As Applies to Zionism

An Irish newspaper sampled this statement of clarity:

Mr Izzat Ibrahim, vice-chairman of the Revolutionary
Command Council representing President Saddam Hussein,
said: "We demand from the Islamic and Arab nation to rise
quickly to expel the sons of monkeys and pigs, strangers on
the land."

(http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/bre...breaking59.htm)

Words of a Muslim activist, as reported on CNN:

Two months ago, in his prayer sermon of July 11, 1997, Sabri
also called for the destruction of America. Following are
excerpts from his July sermon, broadcast on the Voice of
Palestine:

"Oh Allah, destroy America, for she is ruled by Zionist Jews...
Allah will paint the White House black! Clinton is fulfilling
his reverend's will to identify with Israel...The Muslims say
to Britain, to France and to all the infidel nations that
Jerusalem is Arab. We shall not respect anyone else's wishes
regarding her. The only relevant party is the Islamic nation,
which will not allow infidel nations to interfere...The homes
the Jews are building will become Arab property, with Allah's
help...."

"Allah shall take revenge on behalf of his prophet against the
colonialist settlers who are sons of monkeys and pigs....Forgive
us, Muhammad, for the acts of these sons of monkeys and pigs,
who sought to harm your sanctity."

***

"There is no peace with the sons of monkeys and pigs... and no
peace with Zionists who killed prophets...We, the sons of Islam,
must move to stop this cancerous disease called Israel, because
its destruction is a Koranic imperative."

A4. Military Assessment

A college professor provides the following insight:

On the tape, Damra, a Palestinian, said Muslims should be
"directing all the rifles at the first and last enemy of the
Islamic nation and that is the sons of monkeys and pigs, the
Jews."

(http://fyi.cnn.com/2001/fyi/teachers....professor.ap/)

Often, assaults on the offspring of apes and swine are one of the
holiest tasks of jihad:

"This operation was revenge from the sons of monkeys and pigs and
the worshippers of evil -- the Jews -- and to avenge the deaths of
the martyrs in Lebanon. The operation was meant for a Jewish
tourist
group because they often stay in this hotel."
(http://www.isnet.org/archive-milis/a...pr96/0384.html)

and showing that it isn't just a Middle East phenomenon, in Canada, a Sheik admits he said that Jews are the brothers of Monkeys and Swine, and defends himself by saying "it was taken out of context" and "it's in our Quran."

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2...679667-cp.html

VANCOUVER (CP) - A Muslim leader under attack for calling Jews "brothers of monkeys and swine" says he is no anti-Semite.

Sheik Younus Kathrada, who teaches at the Dar al-Madinah Islamic Society's information centre in East Vancouver, says his remarks in a recorded lecture were taken out of context. In a statement posted on the society's website this weekend, Kathrada says his comments were aimed at the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and not intended to tar the all Jews.

"Any name-calling has been aimed at those perpetrating crimes and acts of terrorism and showing open aggression towards Muslims," the lengthy statement says.

"We do not perceive the entire Jewish population as having these traits or qualities. It is not our belief that Jews are sub-human."

At the centre of the controversy is a recorded lecture - part of a series Kathrada taught on Islamic creed - posted on the society's website last spring.

In it, Kathrada rails against the death in late March of Ahmed Yassin, spiritual leader of the militant Hamas movement, in an Israeli missile attack.

"We must remind ourselves of that which Allah has reminded us of so often in the Qur'an, that we are dealing with a people as we said, the brothers of the monkeys and the swines, a people whose treachery is well known," Kathrada says.

---- He says it's in the Quran that Jews are treacherous and the brothers of monkeys and pigs. And he applies it to modern Jews. He's a Sheik, and he isn't alone in doing so. Is he mistaken? Is this the kind of respect the Quran shows for "people of the book"?

He isn't alone:

http://www.imra.org.il/story.php3?id=20108

Monday, March 15, 2004
PA Supervised Sermon:Jews the sons of apes and pigs
[FBIS (US Government service) Translated Excerpt]
[With thanks to www.mideastweb.org/mewnews1.htm ]

Gaza Palestine Satellite TV Channel in Arabic, official television
station of the Palestinian Authority, carries on 13 March 2004 at 0958 GMT a live sermon from Zayid Bin-Sultan Mosque in Gaza.

Shaykh Ibrahim Mudayris delivers the sermon, which he begins by saying
that life is a continuous struggle between right and falsehood and that such a struggle exists in the territories between Palestinians and Jews. The Palestinians, he says, are defending a just cause and will triumph in the end.

The imam recalls how the prophet dealt with the problem of Jewish
existence before establishing the State of Islam in Medina. He says that the prophet first fraternized the warring Arab tribes of Al-Aws and Al-Khazraj.

Then victory in the Battle of Badr gave him the military strength to deal with Jewish existence in Medina, he adds.

The imam says: "Here are the Jews today taking revenge for their
grandfathers and ancestors, the sons of apes and pigs. Here are the
extremist Jews demanding their rights. Some extremists even demand their rights in Medina." He adds: "This is the extremist tendency of Jews. They are extremists and terrorists who deserve death, while we deserve life, since we have a just cause. Here they are avenging for their grandfathers, taking revenge on us, Muslims, by seizing our holy places and lands forcefully. Last week was a bloody week in which they killed 40 youths, children, and women within the sight of the whole world. No one made a move against these massacres."

----- To recount, Jews are the sons of monkeys and pigs, they are so audacious as to demand their rights, they deserve death, and for fun, a fictional massacre. And why not? the Jews as monkeys and pigs occurs in the Qur'an: Suras 2:62-65, 5:59-60, and 7:166.


I'll close with a video of a Sheikh halfway around the world from Kathrada.

Sheikh Musa Al-Qarni says Jews and Christians are the enemies of Allah and that it is in the Quran. http://switch3.castup.net/cunet/gm.a...=50001&ak=null


"Let's have a look at what is written in the Koran. What position must we adopt towards Allah's enemies? Is it the position we have adopted? First of all, we must be aware of the fact that at present we see that [the West] doesn't want us even to say the words 'Allah's enemies.' They don't want us to say that the Jews and the Christians are Allah's enemies. They don't want us to say that the Jews and the Christians are the enemies of the Muslims and the enemies of Islam.

"This is fixed and established in the Koran and in the tradition...

"If this is so, if this is something fixed, how is it that we find in the things that we say, among our children, our own flesh and blood, among Muslims, people who are in denial of these things, who deny that there is a great enmity between Muslims and non-Muslims?"

EDIT: fixed some characters that were substituted instead of quotation marks.

[Salah al-Din]

blah blah blah blah.........

We could dig up stupid quotes like that from every religion(meaning people claiming to be of that religion), every country, every class of people, and every street.

But what has this got to do with the thread at hand? That's a question I'd like to get the answer to.

[Salah al-Din]

Originally posted by vmarks:
Some correction is in order:

I do not believe Islam in its foundation is anti-Jewish. The Sura and Hadiths that come later are.

I forgot to highlight this portion.

You don't believe Islam is anti-Jewish but you believe the Surah is? You have shown your knowledge of Islam again. The Surah are chapters from the Holy Quran. The very essence of Islam.

And you haven't shown a single hadith that is anti-Jewish.

[vmarks]

Originally posted by Salah al-Din:
I forgot to highlight this portion.

You don't believe Islam is anti-Jewish but you believe the Surah is? You have shown your knowledge of Islam again. The Surah are chapters from the Holy Quran. The very essence of Islam.

And you haven't shown a single hadith that is anti-Jewish.

Actually, I have, and you have misread the word 'foundation':

The foundation of Islam, it's early Sura, are ok- they preach respect for people of the book- it is the later Sura, that go off on the dark, anti-semitic path I lay out.

You're misdirecting, I showed a lot of evidence that the Sura is cited the way I said it was, contradictory to how Taliesin said it was, and so you ignore that and go off on the Hadith, which I showed earlier in the thread. At that point, you even asked what made it a strong Hadith, so I showed you- you switch between Surah and Hadith depending on which is convenient for you to argue. It's intellectually dishonest.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by vmarks:
Except when they reject becoming Muslims, and reject the jizya, then they are accused of being the sons of Apes and Swine, and are to be made war against.

That's fascinating, and perhaps even correct, especially when one considers how many Americans compared Arabs to animals as justification for how Arabs are treated in American detention facilities and in their arguments that the area be "turned into glass".

[vmarks]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
That's fascinating, and perhaps even correct, especially when one considers how many Americans compared Arabs to animals as justification for how Arabs are treated in American detention facilities and in their arguments that the area be "turned into glass".

Comparing a few non-authority-figure Americans to religious leaders preaching to their faithful believers is not a same-same comparison.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by vmarks:
Comparing a few non-authority-figure Americans to religious leaders preaching to their faithful believers is not a same-same comparison.

You mean to the opinion of one Arab over 200 years ago?

[vmarks]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
You mean to the opinion of one Arab over 200 years ago?

Nonsense. One revered authority on Islam who made the distinction between issuing religious law and issuing his opinion on existing law (which carries almost as much weight) and then following with the Muslims who adhered to that opinion for hundreds of years prior, until today.

Please, do some reading.

[Salah al-Din]

Originally posted by vmarks:
Actually, I have, and you have misread the word 'foundation':

The foundation of Islam, it's early Sura, are ok- they preach respect for people of the book- it is the later Sura, that go off on the dark, anti-semitic path I lay out.

Actually no, you haven't. Every attempt of yours to attack Islam has been proven false. The Holy Quran from the first page to the last is the foundation of Islam. Claiming something else is ignorance. You can't say that Islam isn't anti-Jewish and at the same time say The Holy Quran is. It just shows an appaling lack of knowledge and respect.

You're misdirecting, I showed a lot of evidence that the Sura is cited the way I said it was, contradictory to how Taliesin said it was, and so you ignore that and go off on the Hadith, which I showed earlier in the thread. At that point, you even asked what made it a strong Hadith, so I showed you- you switch between Surah and Hadith depending on which is convenient for you to argue. It's intellectually dishonest.

I didn't switch between anything. You quoted a Hadith. I explained that Hadith for you. Taliesin made an even better explanation. And yet you claim you know more about Islam than two Muslims.

You haven't shown a single Surah nor Hadith that is anti-Jewish. You have shown Surahs and Hadiths that talk about Jews in a negative way but ignore the fact that they are talking about a specific group of Jews under specific circumstances. Not the whole religion/race.

[Salah al-Din]

Well vmarks said he has shown several anti-Jewish Surahs and Hadiths so I decided to go through the thread again and see if I maybe missed one.

Originally posted by vmarks:
The Most-High has said [Qu'ran 8:62]: 'And through powerful squadrons [of horses] through which you will strike terror into your own and God's enemies.' [A verse of the Qu'ran makes a good support for a law. Verses may even be torn out of their context.

Interesting. Because the Holy Quran in Surah 8:62 actually says:

But if their aim is to cheat you, then Allah suffices you! He it is who strengthens you with His support and with the support of your fellow Muslims.

[Qu'ran 3:140]: 'Surely God will never give preeminence to unbelievers over the true believers.'

Again interesting. Because what the Holy Quran actually says in Surah 3:140 is:

If you have sustained a blow, your opponents have sustained a similar blow; these are merely fluctuations that We cause for mankind so that they take turns, and so that Allah may discover who the true believers are and confer upon some of you the status of martyrdom! And Allah cherishes not the invidious!

The Most-High has said [Qu'ran 2: 2341: 'They should wait four months,'

Finally although just a partial quote. What it actually says is(in Surah 2:234):

Those of you who die, leaving behind your wives, let the widows abstain for a period of four months and ten days. When they have completed this period, it is no sin for you to let them do whatever they please with themselves, within the bounds of morality. Allah is aware of your actions!

And this has what exactly to do with what you are trying to say?

and he has again said [47:37]: 'Do not show any cowardice, and do not at all invite the unbelievers to a peace when you have the upper-hand and may God be with you.'

Again. What Surah 47:37 actually says is:

But if He should ask them of you, and ask them of you with a degree of pressure, it would tempt you into parsimony, and parsimony exposes the evil in your hearts

[Qu'ran 5:82]: "They [the children of Israel] seek not at all to turn one another from the bad actions which they have committed. 0 how detestable were their actions. But He has punished these men because of their obstinate conduct."

Actually the correct verse here couldn't be more fitting for you vmarks. Surah 5:82:

You will find the most inflexible in resentment towards the believers to be the Jews and the idolaters; and you will find the nearest in affection towards the believers to be those who say : 'Verily we are Christians!' That is because amongst them are many a priest and monk who are not conceited!

The Most-High has also said [Qu'ran 9: 1 131: "Those who bid what is right and forbid what is wrong, who observe the divine precepts, will be rewarded. Announce these glad tidings to the Muslims."

Surah 9 only has 129 verses. Surah 1 only has 7 verses. Which is it?

Then in the following posts(there might be some that I have already answered but vmarks seems to be in desperate need of education on this matter so I'll do it again.

The earlier verses call for respect for people of the book, except that then later, the verses state that Jews are transformed into apes (7:166) thus making modern Jews the sons of apes if the Koran is to be believed, and calling us the sons of apes doesn't really sound like respect, does it?

What 7:166 says is:

But when they took pride in doing that which they were forbidden, We said to them : 'Be you apes, derided and ostracized!'

This and the preceeding verses talks about three different groups of Jews. First one talks about those who respected the Sabbath(7:164):

When a community amongst them said : 'Why preach to those whom Allah is about to destroy or to punish with an awful doom?' They said : 'To absolve ourselves of guilt and in the hope that perchance they might fear Him!'

The just Jews who tried to correct their bretheren who went astray.

Next(7:165):

And when they forgot that of which they were reminded, We did protect those who warned them against evil deeds and visited upon the wrong doers a severe punishment in retaliation for their solecism.

God protected those who did right. Yes, this verse is talking about Jews.

The verse you used talks about the Jews who went astray and didn't respect the Sabbath. So no anti-Jewishness here.

"When you meet the unbelievers in the battlefied, strike off their heads, and when you have laid them low, bind your captives firmly" - Sura 47:4

This is according to vmarks to be something anti-Jewish. How he gets that I don't know. But lets take a look at the full verse.

When you confront in battle those who disbelieve, slash their necks until you have routed them and then secure the rest with firm knots; afterwards, either set them free with kindness or in lieu of ransom until the battle lays down its burden. That is the Command. If Allah had willed He would have taken them to task (without you), except that, He wishes to test each of you by means of the other. And those who are slain in the Cause of Allah, He will never render their sacrifices futile!

This of course talks about what to do in war. In war you have to be firm. Again, no anti-Jewishness.

"Fight for the sake of G-d those that fight against you, but do not attack them first. G-d does not love the aggressors. Slay them wherever you find them. Drive them out of the places from which they drove you. Idolatry is worse than carnage. " Sura 2:190-191

Somehow vmarks views this as anti-Jewishness. Don't see it. Again it's a verse referring to war.

full version:

Take up arms for the cause of Allah against those who take up arms against you but do not transgress, for Allah cherishes not the transgressors

Slay them wherever you find them, and drive them out from wherever they drove you out, for feud and persecution is worse than bloodshed. But attack them not in the vicinity of the Hallowed Mosque unless they attack you first; however, if they attack you there, then slay them! This is the only appropriate requital for those who disbelieve!

It even clearly removes the Jews and Christians from these verses by using the word "disbelieve". Again, no anti-Jewishness.

"When the sacred months are over, slay the idolaters wherever you find them. Arrest them, besiege them, and lie in ambush everywhere for them. If they repent and take to prayer and render the alms levy [the jizya, special tax on non-muslims] allow them to go on their way. G-d is forgiving and merciful." Sura 9:5

The unedited version(editing the verses from the Quran is highly disrespectful vmarks but I'm sure you know that and do it for exactly that reason).

Then, when the auspicious months have passed away, slay the idolaters wherever you find them and take them captive and ravage them and lie in ambush for them. But if they repent and establish worship and give to the deserving their due, then get out of their way. Verily Allah is Magnanimous and Merciful!

This obviously isn't talking about Jews since Jews aren't idolaters. So again, no anti-Jewishness here.

"Jews say Ezra is the son of G-d" (Sura 9:30)

This again.... Full version:

And the Jews say : 'Uzair is the son of Allah', and the Christians say : 'The Messiah is the son of Allah!' Such is the gibberish they utter with their mouths while trying to emulate that which the other disbelievers used to babble in the past. Allah Himself will retaliate them for their blasphemy.

And perhaps the best proof that this was right(that some Jews said this) is that no records have been found from that time of the Jews attacking that part of the Quran. The Jews at that time in Arabia did not object to the allegation. Which backs it up. Yes, the majority of Jews do not support this view but there were those who did.

But again, no anti-Jewishness.

And just to add to this. Didn't Ezra say this?

Whatever is commanded by the God of heaven, let it diligently be done for the house of the God of heaven. For why should there be wrath against the realm of the king and his sons? (Ezra 7:23)

From this it is obvious that some Jews might have misunderstood him.

Better luck next time v.

[Taliesin]

Originally posted by vmarks:
Some correction is in order:

I do not believe Islam in its foundation is anti-Jewish. The Sura and Hadiths that come later are.

Abrogation is an interesting thing: the abrogated verses are not removed from the Quran. In some cases, the abrogated verses are immediately followed by the verses replacing them, and in other cases they just appear later, not immediately after.

I have already shown that your idea of abrogation is inconsistent: The revelations in the Quran came to prophet Muhammad over the timespan of 23 years, the Quran itself says that in that timespan there were verses revealed that were later on forgotten but that for every forgotten one of equal worth or better was sent as replacement. What does that mean? That means that the replacement and the forgotten one are not in the Quran at the same time!

Therefore there are no contradictory statements in the Quran about jews in general. What you are confused about is, why there is then a verse in the Quran warning prophet Muhammad about jews. The reason is that the Quran not only delivers timeless messages, wisedom, rules and prophecies but also timebound concurrent warnings and hints that should help prophet Muhammad and his followers in winning a war the polytheistic Mecca started.

The two jewish tribes betrayed a neutrality agreement with Muhammad during a war with Mecca and served as spies for the polytheistic opponents, which was the incident leading to a few warning verses.

All the other verses talking unfavourably about jews, dealt with unbelieving jews, for example the jews that rebelled against Moses and then left him, and not with jews in general.

Eventhough I already disproved similar ideas like you have in my reply to undotwa's flaming op-editorial, I will do it again for the sake of truth:

Originally posted by vmarks:
The Jews are the sons of monkeys and pigs (5,60).
...

the Jews as monkeys and pigs occurs in the Qur'an: Suras 2:62-65, 5:59-60, and 7:166.

That are the suras you referred to in order to prove anti-jewish ideas in the Quran:

Sura 5.59-5.60:

59. Say: "O people of the Book! Do ye disapprove of us for no other reason than that we believe in God, and the revelation that hath come to us and that which came before (us), and (perhaps) that most of you are rebellious and disobedient?"

60. Say: "Shall I point out to you something much worse than this, (as judged) by the treatment it received from God. those who incurred the curse of God and His wrath, those of whom some He transformed into apes and swine, those who worshipped evil;- these are (many times) worse in rank, and far more astray from the even path!"

Where does it say that jews are the sons of apes and swines? Nowhere, it instead talks about people (from ancient times) that drew the wrath of God upon themselves and were then transformed into apes and swines as punishment, literally, so that it was impossible that they could breed humans again. That's the whole point with the transformation God brought upon them, to prevent them from breeding humans again. The transfoming is only one of a whole set of punishments God used to further his plan: Floods, earthquakes, blizzards, erupting vulcanos, asteroid-crashings... Sodom and Gommorrah is the most famous of those punishments by God.

What is written in 5.59 is most interesting, it brings up the topic that the people of the book at that time disapproved the revelations to Muhammad and the arabs, and that most of the people of the book at that time and region were disobedient and rebellious regarding God.

Why that is interesting? Because Jesus said similar things regarding the jews at his time and region. Does that mean that jews are all disobedient and rebellious regarding God at all times and regions? No! Nonetheless most of the people of the book at the time and regions of the appearance of Muhammad and Jesus were disobedient and rebellious, so the new revelations of both were also a reminder of God to the people of the book so that they return from their wrong doings and improve and refresh their faith in God.

If they were successful in doing that in the last hundreds of years is not to be judged by muslims or any humans but by God on judgment day, and the maxime for muslims is to respect the people of the book and to leave judgment about them to God.

Let's see what Surah 2:61-65 has to say:

61. And remember ye said: "O Moses! we cannot endure one kind of food (always); so beseech thy Lord for us to produce for us of what the earth groweth, -its pot-herbs, and cucumbers, Its garlic, lentils, and onions." He said: "Will ye exchange the better for the worse? Go ye down to any town, and ye shall find what ye want!" They were covered with humiliation and misery; they drew on themselves the wrath of God. This because they went on rejecting the Signs of God and slaying His Messengers without just cause. This because they rebelled and went on transgressing.

62. Those who believe (in the Qur'an), and those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Christians and the Sabians,- any who believe in God and the Last Day, and work righteousness, shall have their reward with their Lord; on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.

63. And remember We took your covenant and We raised above you (The towering height) of Mount (Sinai) : (Saying): "Hold firmly to what We have given you and bring (ever) to remembrance what is therein: Perchance ye may fear God."

64. But ye turned back thereafter: Had it not been for the Grace and Mercy of God to you, ye had surely been among the lost.

65. And well ye knew those amongst you who transgressed in the matter of the Sabbath: We said to them: "Be ye apes, despised and rejected."

So, there it is written, black on white, that those who follow jewish scriptures, and the christians and the sabians, anyone who believes in God and the last day and commit good deeds will have their reward with God. More clear isn't possible...

In 65 it is described that some jews in ancient times who ignored the jewish scriptures that dealt with the Sabbath were transformed into apes, literally, and off course from then on were never humans agains and off course weren't able to breed humans again, so that it is impossible that jews are sons of apes!!

Now we come to the last surah you provided, that is in the context of 7:163-166:

163. Ask them concerning the town standing close by the sea. Behold! they transgressed in the matter of the Sabbath. For on the day of their Sabbath their fish did come to them, openly holding up their heads, but on the day they had no Sabbath, they came not: thus did We make a trial of them, for they were given to transgression.

164. When some of them said: "Why do ye preach to a people whom God will destroy or visit with a terrible punishment?"- said the preachers:" To discharge our duty to your Lord, and perchance they may fear Him."

165. When they disregarded the warnings that had been given them, We rescued those who forbade Evil; but We visited the wrong-doers with a grievous punishment because they were given to transgression.

166. When in their insolence they transgressed (all) prohibitions, We said to them: "Be ye apes, despised and rejected."

What is that, a test by God in ancient times to find out who keeps to the rules of God and who transgresses? In 165 there is written that those jews that forbade evil and kept true to their faith were rescued by God, and the wrongdoers were punished by trasformation into apes, as written in 166.
Off course apes can't ever breed humans again, so no jew is the son of an ape.

As to those muslims, be they imams or not, that still claim that jews are sons of apes, eventhough the Quran says something completely different, they are either idiots, or they are playing political games. If the former is the case, they can hope for mercy by God, if the latter is true, then they will find punishment on judgment day for their lies.

So, vmarks will you admit that you are wrong about the Quran, or will you just ignore it all that I have written and bring it up again in a future time, maybe in another thread or even in this one, hoping most have forgotten that I have disproved you about the Quran and with the help of the Quran?

Taliesin

[vmarks]

It isn't my view of abrogation that is inconsistent, it is the way abrogation is applied to the Quran itself- but again we've made progress: At first there was denial in this thread that abrogation even happened in the Quran, and I had to show that it did. Sometimes the verses abrogating are immediately following the verses they replace, sometimes they appear later.

Salah tries to claim still that the Jews that were unbelievers were the ones he believes worshipped Ezra. We still have no source for this other than the Quran, and no basis for it in Jewish history or tradition. He says that it's true because the Jews didn't leave a record of challenging it at the time the Quran was written- I don't know that they would have bothered, and I don't know that any Muslims would have listened, given the preference to believe that the Quran is true for all times.

What was interesting was that Salah cited a source saying that the Jews who supposedly worshipped Ezra and the Christians worshipping Jesus are much like the babble of the unbelievers of old and that Allah himself will retaliate them for their blasphemy. So the basic tenet of Christianity makes a Christian a blasphemer- an unbeliever, and we know what kind of respect THAT means.

The upshot is this:

You ignore all the Sheikhs who disagree with your interpretation. I showed you them above.

Are they all wrong?

Isn't using the accusation as these Sheikhs did, that "Jews are treacherous, it's in the Quran, they are the brothers of monkeys and pigs!" disrespectful to people of the book?

If you agree that it is, why would so many Muslim religious authority figures say so, and why would they influence other Muslims to believe so?

Can you support your view in contradiction to theirs? Are there Sheikhs you can cite who support your view and show where theirs is incorrect?

And since you're explaining everything for us, explain Taqiyya and Kitman.