The idea that modern Arab antisemitism comes from a medieval, irrational hatred
of the Jews, similar to the antisemitism of Christianity, with its medieval origins, cannot be sustained. Understood as a religiously-based complex of irrational, mythical, and
stereotypical beliefs about the diabolical, malevolent, and all-powerful Jew, infused in its
modern, secular form with racism and belief in a Jewish conspiracy against mankind--
antisemitism is not an indigenous or inherent phenomenon in Islam.11 It was first
encountered by Muslims at the time of the Ottoman expansion into Europe, which
resulted in the absorption of large numbers of Greek Orthodox Christians.12 This
Christian antisemitism became more firmly implanted in the Muslim Middle East in the
nineteenth century as part of the discourse of nationalism. Seeking greater acceptance in
a fledgling pan-Arab nation constituted by a majority of Muslims, Christians in the Arab
world, aided, among other things, by European Christian missionaries, began to use
western-style antisemitism to focus Arab/Muslim enmity away from themselves and onto
a new and, to them, familiar enemy. This Christian antisemitism has since become
absorbed into the fabric of Islam as if it were there from the start, when it was never there
from the start at all. The widely read Arabic translations of the late-nineteenth century
Russian-Christian forgery, "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion," seems to many
Muslims almost an Islamic text, echoing old themes in the Qur'ān and elsewhere of
Jewish treachery toward Muhammad and his biblical prophetic predecessors. The
"Protocols" seem all the more credible in the light of the political, economic and military
success of Israel. Sadly, the pluralism and largely non-violent attitude towards the Jews
that existed in early and classical Islam seems to have lost its public face. Equally sad,
age-old Jewish empathy with Islamic society among Jews from Muslim lands, and
memory of decent relations with Muslim neighbors in Muslim lands in relatively recent
times, have similarly receded. Comparative study of Jewish-gentile relations in
Christendom and in Islam explains the difference between the two societies, though it
does not make present-day Arab antisemitism any less unfortunate than its Christian
roots. One can only hope for a time when a just and peaceful solution to the Arab-Israeli
conflict will allow a correct memory of the past to play a role in attitudes of the present.
Thanks to Medievalists.net and Al-Biruni.
While the question, “Have, historically, Jews and Muslims got along better than Jews and Christians?” is still it could be argued, an open question one must respond to many of the historical claims that Mr. Cohen makes in his ‘argument’ that are quite simply false.
ReplyDeleteIndeed they are so ridiculously absurd that one can only conclude that they constitute deliberate misinformation for political purposes or if not, they display an ignorance of the highest order.
Undeniably they represent a politically correct revision of history. Owing to the fact that some of Prof. Muhlberger’s students may read this entry it is I believe necessary and warranted that they do not get fed this misinformation that is, it could be argued, blatant political propaganda.
From the article Mr. Cohen states,
1) “anti-semitism is not an indigenous or inherent phenomenon in Islam”
2) (re. anti-semitism)
“It was first encountered by Muslims at the time of the Ottoman expansion into Europe,”
3) “This Christian anti-semitism has since become absorbed into the fabric of Islam as if it were there from the start, when it was never there from the start at all.”
4) “Sadly, the pluralism and largely non-violent attitude towards the Jews
that existed in early and classical Islam seems to have lost its public face.”
5) “Equally sad, age-old Jewish empathy with Islamic society among Jews from Muslim
lands, and memory of decent relations with Muslim neighbors in Muslim lands in relatively recent times, have similarly receded.”
6) “One can only hope for a time when a just and peaceful solution to the Arab-Israeli
conflict will allow a correct memory of the past to play a role in attitudes of the present.”contd.
Response:
ReplyDelete1) Is the Koran, the Hadith, and the Sirah part of Islam? Of course!
For Mr. Cohen to make this claim and for it to be true he would have to argue that the aforementioned Islamic religious books are not part of Islam. Which is quite simply absurd!
There are many, indeed numerous anti-semitic (anti-Jewish) admonitions in the Koran, Hadith and Sirah. (If anyone denies this I can gladly provide many references in these works).
2) Since the Koran, Hadith and Sirah predate the Ottoman expansion into Europe, and anti-semitism (anti-Jewish) actions were practiced by many adherents of Islam from the beginning of the faith. This claim is also absurd!
3) It (anti-Semitism) was there from the start! The Koran, Hadith and Sirah prove this to be the case.
4) There was NO pluralism and largely non-violent attitude towards the Jews that existed in early and classical Islam. From the earliest days of Islam, and one of the most famous examples (there are many) Muhammad and his followers massacred hundreds of Jews in
Yathrib (now Medina when they refused to convert to Islam. The Koran and the Hadith give evidence to this truth. (The Koran allows Christians and Jews to be tolerated (barely) because they are followers of Abraham (mono-theism) but they were required to pay a special tax (Jizya) and had no power whatsoever, certainly not ‘pluralism’in any sense of the word.
5) Age-old Jewish empathy with Islamic society? What is this man smoking? This is diabolically false for many reasons that can be annunciated. The age-old Jews liked being second-class citizens, having to pay (Jizya), having no or very little political or economic power? Please!!!
6) Ahh!!! Theres the rub! If only Israel did not exist then all of the problems between Islam and the Jews would go away.
To talk of a ‘correct memory’ is laughable! The facts: Jews have been targets and victims of Islam from the earliest days of Muhammad (the massacre at Yahtrib just being the first) which occurred approximately 1300 years before the state of Israel was legally created by the international community in 1948.
The obvious distortions and omissions by Mr. Cohen can only work with uneducated and ‘ignorant’ people. It seems hard to believe a scholar with the stature of Professor Muhlberger could and does believe these claims made by Mr. Cohen.
Do you Professor?
If one actually takes the time to read Mr. Cohen’s article it is obvious that Mr. Cohen blatantly omits certain inconvenient truths from the Koran and the contextual requirement to understand the history. That he does so is a necessary requirement for the strength of his arguments. Indeed without this convenient omission a great deal of Mr. Cohen’s argument fails.
ReplyDeleteJust one of many examples (too numerous to mention) would be where he cites the oft quoted (almost tediously overdone) passage, “There is no compulsion in religion” (Sura 2:256).” Apologists for Islam like to quote Koran 2:256, which states that there is “no compulsion in religion.” There are, however, myriad forms of coercion, from the jizya tax mandated by Koran 9:29 to oppressive dhimma laws, and of course, outright warfare and all of its provisions for plunder, captivity, slavery, and rape (sex with captives and slaves, per Koran 4:24).
But the most relevant contextual point that Mr. Cohen fails to include in his recitation of this quote from the Koran is that it was made in Muhammad’s early phase of Mecca. That is the relatively peaceful phase where the powerless Muhammad tried to peacefully convince others to become followers of his new religion. But the problem for Mr. Cohen and probably no doubt why he neglected to give the whole truth is that this earlier peaceful Meccan phase verse, is abrogated by later, aggressive and violent Medina phase verses. This abrogation in essence supersedes and nullifies the earlier verses. That this is so, there is no doubt. The overwhelming theological consensus from various highly respected Islamic scholars throughout history and indeed to this very day bears this out.
Mr. Cohen either knows or does not know of this abrogation. If he does not then he is simply ignorant, but if he does (which I suspect to be the case) he is being duplicitous in not letting his readers know of this truth. For a ‘scholar’ of history to deliberately omit this most crucial piece of contextual information is indefensible. And for this reason pretty well most of what Mr. Cohen argues cannot be taken seriously.
Professor Muhlberger may I respectfully suggest that your blog would be more appropriately named “Muhlberger’s Politically Correct World History”.
ReplyDeleteIn the banner of your blog you state ‘comments, resources and discussion.’
While it certainly is your prerogative to approve comments (censor) that may be posted to your blog, evidently if anyone offers legitimate criticism and /or comments that you find not congenial to your pre-established politically correct world-view you will not post them.
What discussion? If one’s comments and/or criticisms are so incorrect and easily refuted, post them and refute it. Quite noticeable is that criticism in particular topics (primarily Islam) is obviously not permitted on your blog.
A case in point, Mr. Cohen in the article that you referred to, makes these astonishing claims (re. The Theological Difference), ‘First, Islam as a religion abides the existence of Judaism more readily than Christianity “ and, “In its theological attitude toward the Jews Islam presents a different face.” (i.e. compared to Christianity) and, “But the Qur’an also contains the nucleus of a kind of religious pluralism. It does not envision forcefully converting these non- believers—as opposed to the pagans--to Islam.”
Mr. Cohen basically cherry picks one quotation from the Koran, “There is no compulsion in religion” (Sura 2:256).” (From the abrogated earlier Mecca verses) and conveniently disregards and omits literally hundreds of other (later Medina verses) that specifically and vehemently denigrate the Jews and other non-believers). What entitles Mr. Cohen to draw these aforementioned comprehensive conclusions about Islam from only one quotation? Why are all the other hundreds of contrary quotations not applicable? And to suggest that Islam does not “envision forcefully converting these non-believers” to Islam is so out of context in the bigger picture of the theology of Islam to be preposterous.
One can only conclude that Mr. Cohen has not actually completely read the Koran, Hadith or Sirah and has only taken a very cursory perusal of these Islamic holy texts. If on the contrary Mr. Cohen has indeed read these Islamic holy texts, than he is knowingly promulgating a perspective that must have as its root, a politically correct purpose and motivation and has nothing to do with the scholarly pursuit of genuine history and facts. That this is so is readily displayed in his shameful neglect of the greater context of these Islamic holy texts.
If you are sincere and want honest discussion, post this criticism and let others read it and discuss, debate and criticize it. That’s what debate and discussion is all about!
I have republished the last three of your posts, which do not seem to have come through last time I published them. Is anything else missing?
ReplyDelete