MUSLIM HATE OF JEWS!
MUSLIM SERMON - THE MENACE OF THE JEWS
1) Jews are a source of evil and enmity against them is part of our faith.
2) The Jews war against the Muslims is a religious one.
3) Nationalism has not and can never bring any benefit to the Muslims.
4) Our war against the Jews can only be conducted according to the principles of Islaam.
5) The reasons why Salaah Ad-Deen was able to defeat the crusaders.
6) The miserable predicament of contemporary Muslims and the role of the sick-hearted Muslims and hypocrites in calling for peace settlements.
7) The Jews never keep their covenants and our war against them is continuous.
8) The evil role of the Jews in Madeenah, their plots against Muslims and the stance of the Prophet sallallaahu ‘alaihi wa sallam towards them.
The Jews, who are the nation of pigs and monkeys, are nothing but a source of evil, corruption, tribulation and war. Hatred against the Muslims is inherited by every generation of Jews who in turn teach it to their children. Our enmity and hostility against them is based on our faith. The Jews have never and will never lower the banner of war against us Muslims; it is a war between truth and falsehood, belief and disbelief. It is a war between the truth of Islaam and the falsehood of Judaism. The Jews will never stop adding fuel to the fire of war, nor will they ever stop plotting against us. Whenever the fire of one battle is extinguished, they light another.
The Jews fight in the name of religion with their Torah. They called their nation the state of ‘Israel’, which is another name for Ya’qoob Ibn Ibraaheem, who was one of the Prophets of Allaah. They summon their people from all over the world into the blessed land around Al-Aqsaa in the name of the Torah. They have even named the cities and provinces in that country with names taken from the Torah. The majority of Jewish politicians are secularists who give no weight to religion, but they know very well that their cause will never succeed unless they present it as a religious war under the banner of the Torah.
Therefore, knowing all this, should we fight them in the name of territory, soil, mountains, gardens and fruits? This is indeed feeble and twisted logic which can in no way counter a war launched under the banner of religion. What benefit did we ever get from nationalism in the past forty years? What effect did it have in countering the Jews?
Nationalism has been devastated and humiliated repeatedly in its war against the monkeys and pigs over the past forty years. The nationalists, who fought for the sake of land and olive fields, have strayed far away from Islaam and have refused to base this war against the Jews on Islamic principles. The Jews rush towards their religion searching for ways of unity, strength and victory, while the nationalists run away from their religion. They have kept their people pre-occupied with empty slogans which are of no benefit. This can never be a cause for victory against the Jews who are fighting a religious war.
The reality of our war against the Jews is that it is a religious war which cannot be conducted except according to the principles of Islaam which are clearly defined. Allaah says that which translates as: “Fight those who do not believe in Allaah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allaah and His Messenger have made unlawful and do not adopt the religion of truth [i.e., Islaam] from those who were given the scripture – [fight] until they give the jizyah (protection tax) willingly while they are humbled.” (At-Tawbah: 29).
This is a divine command; a militant, political and religious order addressing the nation of Jihaad and not those who are still fighting for the sake of olive fields, oranges and watermelons. It is an order to the Islamic nation, which lives for Jihaad. Unfortunately, today’s Muslim youth are pre-occupied with entertainment and frivolities; most of the men are occupied with trade and running after profit and material goods. This is why that cannot fulfil this divine command, nor can they fight, because they did not live the life of Jihaad.
When the crusaders conquered Al-Aqsaa a few hundred years ago during the time of Sultan Salaah Ad-Deen, who was a known Mujaahid, he swore not to have marital relations with his wife, nor wear perfume, until he rescued the first Qiblah for the Muslims. Salaah Ad-Deen indisputably fulfilled this oath and freed Al-Aqsaa after a few years when Allaah rescued it by the hands of him and his army. Allaah’s victory came due to the sincerity and righteousness of Salaah Ad-Deen, who had raised the banner of Jihaad for the sake of Allaah to rescue Al-Aqsaa.
The contemporary Muslims are spending most of their lives in idle pursuits, entertainment, trade and worldly gains, yet they expect to be supported by Allaah and be victorious. Forty years have passed and they are still waiting for this victory, they act as if success is something that has no pre-conditions and comes without making any effort.
No, rather, victory will never be attained unless certain conditions are fulfilled and it will not be granted to people who are frittering their lives away in idle pursuits and frivolities.
It is precisely because the Muslims have become so weak and abandoned raising the banner of Jihaad that the hypocrites and those Muslims who have sicknesses in their hearts began to propagate the slogans of peace with the monkeys and pigs. It is as if they actually believe that the Jews would put down their banner of war and stop their hatred, enmity and plotting against us!
Let us never forget that the Jews fought against the most honourable person and the master of the Prophets and Messengers; our Prophet Muhammad sallallaahu ‘alaihi wa sallam, until the very last moment of his life, despite the fact that they knew for certain that he was the seal of the Prophets which the Torah and the Bible had mentioned. They also knew for sure that Allaah would grant him victory over them and all other disbelievers; but despite all of this, they still fought, betrayed and deceived him. Moreover, they actually plotted to assassinate him sallallaahu ‘alaihi wa sallam and never lowered the banner of war against him.
During the worst and most difficult times of times for the Prophet sallallaahu ‘alaihi wa sallam, at the battle of the trench, while there were armies surrounding Madeenah, the Jews plotted to kill the Prophet sallallaahu ‘alaihi wa sallam and his companions from within Madeenah. The companions, may Allah be pleased with them, were having a terrible experience during this battle, yet the Jews of Banu Quraydhah (who were one of the Jewish tribes of Madeenah), at this most critical of times, broke the pledge of non-aggression and mutual defence which they given to the Prophet sallallaahu ‘alaihi wa sallam.
The Jews intimidated the Muslims, which added to their sense of fear and danger of being in Madeenah. Their families were at great risk and had it not been for the mercy of Allaah, the Jews of Banu Quraydhah would have started another front in the war against the Muslims from within, just when the Muslims were at their most vulnerable.
Allaah rendered the Jews plans as futile as well as those of the confederate tribes who had surrounded Madeenah. He sent down His angels who cast terror into the hearts of the confederates and they withdrew, leaving the Jews of Banu Quraydhah alone with no support.
When the battle was over, the Muslim army and the Prophet sallallaahu ‘alaihi wa sallam went back to their homes. He sallallaahu ‘alaihi wa sallam then took off his armour and began to have a wash when the angel Jibreel, peace be upon him, came to him and said: “O Messenger of Allaah! You have taken off your armour, but I swear by Allaah that the angels have not yet put down their weapons, go to them” (and he pointed in the direction of Banu Quraydhah). Thereupon, the Prophet sallallaahu ‘alaihi wa sallam instructed an envoy to command the Muslim army to go to attack Banu Quraydhah by proclaiming: “None of you should pray ‘Asr until they are within the territory of Banu Quraydhah.” After this, the Messenger of Allaah sallallaahu ‘alaihi wa sallam set out with his army of believers who numbered close to three-thousand mujaahideen.
Banu Quraydhah were surrounded and blockaded for more than twenty nights until they offered to surrender on the condition that Sa’d Ibn Mu’aadh, may Allaah be pleased with him, would act as an arbiter in their case. They asked for this because he, may Allaah be pleased with him, was from the tribe of Aws who were their allies before Islaam and therefore they hoped that he would give a biased judgement in their favour. Also, they refused the Prophet sallallaahu ‘alaihi wa sallam as a judge because they where afraid of the consequences of his judgement.
So the Prophet sallallaahu ‘alaihi wa sallam sent for Sa’d, who was injured during the battle and therefore had to be carried. The judgement of Sa’d was that all their men should be beheaded, their properties be seized and distributed among the Muslims and that their women and offspring be held captive. Thereupon, the Messenger of Allaah exclaimed: “Allaahu Akbar! O Sa’d! You have judged by the command of Allaah.”
Indeed, this is the judgment of Allaah with regard to the Jews who are the people of betrayal, deception, evil and corruption; the people who exhibited these repugnant characteristics even with the most honourable of the creations of Allaah; His Prophets and Messengers.
Knowing all this, do we really believe that the Jews would give up their evil habits of deception and betrayal and make peace with the contemporary Muslims; who have become indolent and indifferent to their religion and are only concerned with entertainment and trade? Are we so ignorant and that we would believe that the Jews would give in to those who are still fighting for the sake of territory under the banner of olives and oranges?
So I advise you all to fear Allaah; He says that which translates as: “And to Allaah belongs whatever is in the heavens and whatever is on the earth. And We have instructed those who were given the scripture before you and yourselves to fear Allaah. But if you disbelieve – then to Allaah belongs whatever is in the heavens and whatever is on the earth. And ever is Allaah Free of need and Praiseworthy. And to Allaah belongs whatever is in the heavens and whatever is on the earth. And sufficient is Allaah as Disposer of affairs.” (An-Nisaa’: 131-132).
THE AMERICAN THINKER
Muhammad and the Jews
June 30th, 2005
Everyone knows that many millions of the Muslims in the Arab world have a deep hostility towards Jews or “the Jew.” It seems to have reached a metaphysical level or has debased into an irrational state of mind.
The question is: where does it come from? From the anti-Israel news media? The media are powerful. So they may be a factor, partially.
Leaders in the Arab world and wider Muslim world constantly shriek that Israel is the oppressor, so this may be a factor in the hostility, but evidence that millions of average Muslims are influenced by their leaders on this matter must be brought forward, in a free and voluntary way without fear of reprisal in a dictatorship. It is difficult to imagine, for example, that millions of Muslims in Indonesia or Malaysia would become human bombs in Palestine or hate the Jews for this geopolitical reason.
So where does the deep and irrational hostility come from?
Osama bin Laden, the dark prince of terrorism, stands in for countless other fanatics, both violent and non-violent. In fact, he represents millions of average Muslims who have given him the status of a folk hero. In a 1998 interview (scroll down to Jonathan Miller interview), though, bin Laden cites the Crusader-Zionists as one source of enmity, he also says the enmity between Jews and Muslims runs more deeply in history than that.
The enmity between us and the Jews goes far back in time and is deep rooted. There is no question that war between the two of us is inevitable.
What does he mean that the enmity goes far back in time? How far back? Rooted where?
Bin Laden gives us an example of early Islamic history in his lengthy 1996 fatwa (point no. seven, and scroll a long way down past that point). He refers to the seventh-century Jewish tribe of Qaynuqa who lived in Medina with Muhammad the Prophet. The terrorist draws inspiration from Muhammad’s expulsion of these Jews just for a petty trick done by a Qaynuqa Jew. He pinned a Muslim woman’s skirt to a nail, and when she stood up, the skirt stayed down. A fight erupted and murders ensued. For that, Muhammad expelled the entire tribe. Therefore, goes the thinking, bin Laden is justified in hating the Jews because they are troublemakers.
Bin Laden gives us another example from early Islam. This message of his has a long list of irrational grievances against the Jews. He cites many verses in the Quran and hadith passages (hadith are the reports of Muhammad’s words and actions outside of the Quran). One particular hadith passage that he quotes says that trees will cry out that there are Jews hiding behind them, so Muslims should come and kill them. Other traditions say that Jews will hide behind stones and then be found and killed.
In his hostility toward the Jews, bin Laden
believes that he is following his prophet. In a certain way, he is indeed
closely following Muhammad. Bin Laden represents millions who have at least
heard of these two examples (and others) of expelling and killing Jews, as these
reports circulate around in their world, in newspapers, in school curricula, in
books, in popular folk belief, and in major news media outlets, like the
editorial pages in newspapers. But these incidents and beliefs are found in the
source documents of early Islam, as well, so they have had centuries to seep
into the fabric of the Arab and Islamic world today.
This entire article seeks to demonstrate that this connection between early Islam and Islam today, at least in part, plays a profound role in the hostility that has wrapped its tentacles around the minds of too many in the Arab world. At least this much will be certain: Muhammad’s example cannot forbid Muslims from holding hatred in their hearts for Jews.
At first Muhammad lived peacefully with the Jews, shortly after his emigration or Hijrah from Mecca to Medina in AD 622. In fact, he saw himself as a reformer of Judaism. But as he pushes his ideas on to the rather large and strong Jewish community in Medina, trouble erupted, because the Jews quite rightly refused his ideas. Muhammad quickly grows in his hostility towards them, so that he eliminates most of them from Medina, either by expulsion or death. He becomes excessive, and this example can only inspire terrorists like bin Laden and non-violent fanatics—and average Muslims.
These ruptures and hostilities take place in two overlapping domains: theology and politics backed by a strong military.
The theological background of Muhammad's hostility to Jews can be subdivided into five stages: (1) Muhammad’s efforts to develop and improve on Judaism; (2) Islam’s fulfillment of Judaism; (3) Jewish resistance, based on Muhammad’s confused knowledge of the Torah and his gentile status; (4) his change in prayer direction or qiblah; and (5) Muhammad’s riposte to this resistance. The political tension and ruptures that result in warfare and conquest will be discussed afterwards, but the theological and political differences and strife parallel each other.
(1) First, while Muhammad is settling down in Medina and his position there is insecure, he tries to convince the Jews that his revelations were the continuation of Judaism (and Christianity), the religion of the People of the Book or the Bible. Before he left Mecca, he faced Syria (i.e. Jerusalem) in prayer. The early Muslims in Medina may have observed the fast for the Day of Atonement, and their special Friday worship was a response to the beginning of the Jewish Sabbath from Friday evening to Saturday evening. Muhammad forbad the Muslims from eating the same food prohibited for Jews, namely, pork, blood, carrion, and meat sacrificed to idols (see Sura 2:172-173). It seems, then, that earliest Islam was the development and even improvement on the prior faith, Judaism, or so it seemed to Muhammad. Why would tension grow between Muhammad’s Islam and Judaism?
(2) Allah tells Muhammad in a sura (chapter) revealed in Mecca that the “unlettered” prophet (Muhammad) is described in the Torah and Gospel, and hence predicted and endorsed by the two prior religions:
7:156 “I shall ordain My mercy for those who are conscious of God and pay the prescribed alms; who believe in Our Revelations; 157 who follow the Messenger— the unlettered prophet they find described in the Torah that is with them, and in the Gospel—who commands them to do right and forbids them to do wrong, who makes good things lawful to them and bad things unlawful” . . . (MAS Abdel Haleem, The Qur’an, Oxford UP, 2004)
The literary context of these verses shows Moses rebuking the children of Israel for disobeying him. They denied God’s signs and worshiped the golden calf as Moses was coming down with the tablets of stone, inscribed with the Ten Commandments (7:145-156). Verses 156-157 imply that someone better then Moses (and Jesus) is here to guide them rightly. Muhammad declares what is lawful and unlawful and commands people to do right and forbids them to do wrong. The Jews of Muhammad’s time were getting a second chance. Would they accept it after falling away from the Torah, which was changed to begin with?
(3) The Jews, however, saw things a little differently. Muhammad was not educated in the Torah. Though he had picked up some elements from the Scriptures, in bits and pieces, which were circulating around Arabia along the trade routes, his knowledge was confused. It is possible that one or two Jewish converts who were knowledgeable in the Torah coached him, as well. Whatever the case, it was not hard for the Jews to contradict him. For example, in Sura 37:100-107, a Meccan sura, he believes that Abraham nearly sacrificed Ishmael, not Isaac, on the altar, though Genesis, the only ancient source on Abraham, does not say this.
In Sura 18:60-82, another Meccan sura, he recounts fanciful tales about Moses and a servant named Khidir (so named in Islamic tradition, but not in the Quran), who got the better of Moses. For example, Khidir made him promise that he would not bring up any topic until Khidir did first. On their travels they met a boy, and Khidir killed him. Forgetting his promise, Moses challenged his servant, but Khidir reminded him of his promise, so Moses repented. Two other such tales are recounted with the same structure. The servant acted mysteriously, Moses challenged him, so Khidir rebuked him and then clarified the hidden purpose of Allah to the baffled Hebrew prophet. Thus, Khidir revealed to him that the boy was rebellious against his parents and a disbeliever. Allah will grant the parents another son, who will behave more righteously. Compared to such a confused Moses, Muhammad is clearly better than he.
As these and other tall tales likely became known to the Jews in Medina, it was only natural for them to point out some contradictions between his revelations and their Bible. It was not difficult for them to reject him as falling outside of Biblical revelation. Besides, Muhammad was a gentile, and that in itself was enough to turn away from him. Thus, hostility grew between the two sides.
(4) The fourth stage in the theological domain is the change in prayer direction or the qiblah. Today, Muslims pray towards Mecca and the Kabah, where hundreds of thousands of pilgrims go every year. However, when Muhammad lived in Mecca, he prayed toward Jerusalem. After he arrived in Medina at the end of his Emigration in 622, he still prayed towards Jerusalem. Sixteen months later (February 624, one month before the Battle of Badr), he received revelation from on high to change direction toward the Kabah (Sura 2:122-129; 142-147). How did this come about?
Four factors explain this change or the need for this timely revelation.
First, after Muhammad settled in Medina, he found, as noted, a powerful Jewish presence in his new city. He saw himself as a prophet in the Biblical tradition, but tension between him and the Jews reached a boiling point. So he changed his qiblah towards the Kabah in Mecca. Then, the Jews challenged the prophet: if Muhammad were the new representative of Judaism and monotheism, why was he praying toward the Kabah, which was dedicated to polytheism? He then got a revelation that gave him permission.
The second factor is a partial answer to the challenge from the Jews. He believed that Abraham had built and purified the shrine, so it does not belong to the polytheists, but to him (Suras 2:122-129; 8:34-38). He was the best representative of true monotheism, and he was the one honoring Abraham.
The third concerns the Arab custom of raids. After one year of fruitless raids on Meccan caravans in 623, finally in January 624 Muhammad’s jihadists got a lucky strike, capturing a caravan near Mecca, spilling blood in a sacred month. When they brought the spoils back to Medina, the non-Muslim Medinans were understandably upset because they knew the Meccans could not let their defeat and Muhammad’s violation of a sacred month stand. Conflict would have to escalate in order to restore the Meccans’ honor. What was his justification?
Fourth, besides his theological belief that Abraham built the Kabah, it must not be overlooked that the shrine was a popular site of pilgrimage in the Arabian Peninsula, so it generated a lot of income. Since early Islam is expansionist, Muhammad could not let the Kabah alone until “religion becomes that of Allah” (Sura 2:193, Fakhry, An Interpretation of the Qur’an, NYUP, 2000, 2004). It must become a site of pilgrimage and support for Muslims, as Muhammad himself admits: “God has made the Kabah—the Sacred House—a means of support for people” . . . (Sura 5:97, Haleem).
So it is in the historical context of the tension with the Jews in Medina, his unassailable (but unfounded) belief that Abraham built and purified the Kabah, the raids on Meccan caravans, and the Kabah’s popularity that Muhammad turned his face toward Mecca in prayer to Allah.
(5) Finally, given such contradictions and confused Biblical knowledge, Muhammad had to fight back theologically, striking out on a new path and reinterpreting matters in the new light of Abraham’s religion, if Muhammad’s new competitor religion is to survive. This new struggle lasted for several years until the Jews were no longer a threat, and then he directed his aggressive energies against the Christians. But until that time, he struck back in at least four ways.
First, he claimed, for instance, that Abraham was not a Jew (nor a Christian) (Sura 3:67), so original monotheism is open to another descendant of Abraham: Muhammad himself and his Arabs who were believed to descend from the first monotheist through Ishmael.
Second, the Hebrew Bible (and the New Testament) was corrupted, distorted, and perniciously misinterpreted and misapplied (Suras 2:75, 79; 3:77-78; 4:44-49). The Quran, on the other hand, came directly from Allah through Gabriel and hence is incorruptible, straightforward, and clear (Suras 39:28, 55:1, 75:19, 26:193, 2:97). Muhammad’s religion wins out over any contradictions, in his mind. In addition, Jews were said to conceal the truth about Muhammad’s prophethood and the righteous practices of Islam (Suras 2:42, 146, 159, 174; 3:187-188; 5:70), so the Bible really testifies about him, though the Jews do not want this to leak out.
Third, from Muhammad’s point of view, both Judaism and Christianity made exclusive claims of being the right way (Sura 2:111-113), yet both came from the same children of Israel; thus, both religions in Muhammad’s time went astray from their origins. So if some claims of all three religions are contradictory, then the fault lies in the first two religions, not his, which resolves all contradictions—in his logic.
Fourth, as noted, the Torah itself says that the children of Israel disobeyed Moses in denying God’s signs and in worshipping the golden calf. If the Jews of Moses’ time were disobedient, then in Muhammad’s logic the Jews as a whole in his own time cannot be purer (Sura 7:145-156), though some are acknowledged as staying true (Sura 3:113-115). And thus Muhammad’s religion is the better and purer representation of Abraham and fulfills and completes Judaism.
Go here to read Zarqawi’s denunciation of democracy. Anyone who supports it is endued with the spirit of the golden calf.
To conclude this section, the theological break with the Jews is complete. If these five stages had remained only in the realm of abstract theology, then no conflict would have emerged between Muslims and Jews back then and even today (though theological difference would emerge). However, Islam cannot remain in an abstract realm because it must envelope and control all facets of society. After all, the Quran came down directly and purely to earth from Allah through Gabriel, and it allegedly guides humankind in small matters.
Politics, Warfare, and Conquest
As hostilities grow in the domain of theology, the political strain also grows, hand in hand. Muhammad grows in his military strength, which backs up his theology and politics. It is in this section that Muhammad’s hostility towards the Jews will become most evident. The growth of his hostility occurs in seven chronological stages. At the end of this process, Jews will no longer inhabit the Arabian Peninsula. Excess is never just, but does Muhammad become excessive in his response to the Jews and their opposition to him? The answer to this question can be guessed accurately, but how does he become excessive?
At the time of Muhammad’s Hijrah, three major Jewish clans lived in Medina: Qaynuqa, Nadir, and Qurayza. Muhammad worked on an agreement with them that all the Jews “were not to support an enemy against him,” and elsewhere “they were to be neither for him nor against him,” in other words, neutral. However, another early source says that only one clan, the Qurayza, had an agreement. The sources, then, are garbled, but since the terms are not outlandish, perhaps an agreement with one clan or all of them was actually signed. Watt rightly points out that the Muslim sources have a strong motive to make the case against Qurayza clan as dark as possible, so some of the terms of the treaty may be exaggerated or invented. However, even if we assume that such an agreement was signed, we may still ask these questions: who gets to decide how the terms of the treaty are maintained? Muhammad unilaterally canceled treaties with peaceful polytheists (Sura 9:1-6). Will the Jews fall prey to such one-sided interpretations?
Source: Watt, Muhammad at Medina, New York: Oxford UP, 1956, p. 196.
(1) In April 624 (or a month or two later) after his victory at the Battle of Badr in March, a battle which made his position in Medina more secure, Muhammad expelled the one clan that dominated the trades in Medina: Qaynuqa. One day a Muslim woman was conducting business in this Jewish section, and some Jews (or one Jew) fastened her skirt to a nail. When she stood up, she was exposed. A Muslim happened to be present and witnessed the practical joke and the ridicule, and killed one of the pranksters, who avenged their friend’s death in turn. Despite this prank found in Islamic source documents, it is unclear what his real motives were, for the trick is found elsewhere in pre-Islamic Arab literature. Was it the Jewish refusal to become Muslims? Jewish opposition to his policies and religion?
For example, shortly before Muhammad’s surprise victory at Badr, Abu Bakr, one of his chief companions, barged into a Jewish school, led by two rabbis. Abu Bakr called one of the rabbis “to fear God and become a Muslim because he knew that Muhammad was the apostle of God who had brought the truth from Him and that they would find it written in the Torah and the Gospel.” One of the rabbis sassed him, saying that Allah must be poor, if Muhammad has to borrow money from the Jews. Enraged, Abu Bakr struck him hard on the face, telling him: “Were it not for the treaty between us I would cut off your head, you enemy of Allah!” The story ends with the rabbi denying to Muhammad that he sassed Abu Bakr (note how the Jew is not only blasphemer but also a liar), but the prophet got a revelation that the rabbi had mocked Allah. Thus, Abu Bakr was justified in using physical violence in response to disrespectful words. He is a Muslim hero. Incidentally, it is many quickly narrated stories like this that are found everywhere in early Islamic sources that shock fair-minded readers. Islam is not the religion of peace.
The Muslim Emigrants moved from a trading and artisan town (Mecca) to an agrarian town (Medina) in AD 622, so they were impoverished. The Qaynuqa tribe controlled the market of the craftsmen in Medina—the exact skills of the Emigrants. So were Muhammad’s motives partially economic?
Did the Qaynuqa betray Muhammad in some way between the Battle of Badr (AD 624) and the Battle of Uhud (AD 625)? The sources do not provide reliable details.
However, the economic or retaliatory motives do not matter, since bin Laden is inspired by the prank to bear a grudge against the Jews. See, for example, his fatwa, referenced in the introduction to this article, in which he cites this prank as reason enough to hate them (among other reasons). He implies that if Muhammad was wound up so tightly, then he is allowed to have the same hair trigger.
Whatever the case, Muhammad waged war on these Jews. They retreated to their strongholds, and he besieged them for fifteen days. He gave them three days to collect the debts owed to them and to get out of Medina, but to leave their tools behind. Did at least some of the poor Emigrants take up the vacant trades? The clan departed northward for Wadi’l-Qura, where a Jewish community lived. Then a month later they left for Syria.
Was Muhammad’s response to the conflict proportional? It seems not, for the Qaynuqa never waged war on Muhammad. Why should we be surprised, then, if Muhammad’s radical followers today make their responses to perceived aggressions disproportionate? Is it any wonder why millions of Muslims hate the Jews in a disproportionate way? They are merely following their leader. But even if it is objected that Muslims have enough grievances today to hate the Jews, then how are moderates supposed to exhort them to let go of their hatred, when Muhammad is their guide? This will become clearer as we continue outlining Muhammad’s disturbed relations with the Jews.
Sources: Muslim, vol. 3, nos. 4363; Ibn Ishaq, Life of Muhammad, trans; A. Guillaume, Oxford UP, 1955, p. 263 / Arabic p. 388 and p. 363 / 545; Tabari, The Foundation of the Community, trans. M. V. McDonald, vol. 7 (SUNYP, 1987), 85-87 / 1359-62.
(2) In the second stage, occurring in late August and early September 625, Muhammad besieged and expelled the Nadir clan from Medina. Muhammad’s motives were much too complicated to be described here, but they seem to be founded on blood feuds and the payment of blood-wit, which compensates for loss of life. He went to the Nadir settlement near Medina to ask for some blood-wit money that he had to pay, but the Jews were reluctant, even though by apparent agreement with another tribe the Nadir clan was required to contribute to the payment. They asked him to stay until they prepared a dinner, but after a short time he left because he got a revelation that they were going to assassinate him by dropping a stone off the roof of a building, where he was sitting with his back against its wall. Or perhaps the real reason for exiling the clan lay in Muhammad’s recent loss in the Battle of Uhud in March 625 and in a failed raiding expedition in June, so his position weakened somewhat in Medina—but still strong enough to confront the clan.
Whatever the motive, Muhammad besieged Nadir in their strongholds for fifteendays until he set about destroying their date palms, their livelihood, so they capitulated to his first demand for blood-wit money. However, he raised the penalty—they must get nothing from their palms. Their livelihood destroyed, they departed to the city of Khaybar, seventy miles to the north, where they had estates. This takeover helped relieve the ongoing poverty of many Muslims, who took over their date orchards.
Sura 59 deals with the expulsion of Nadir, but we do not need to analyze it since it repeats the themes of answering charges that Muhammad did not distribute the booty fairly and of Allah’s greatness in supporting Islam. However, of particular interest is a self-serving revelation that permits Muhammad to cut down the date palms owned by the Jews (Sura 59:5). Law and custom forbad this practice in war or at any time, but Allah gave his prophet permission to break this rule. Apparently, though, he was too powerful to be put on trial for this illegal act.
Muhammad expelled the entire tribe because they supposedly tried to kill him and refused to pay the blood-wit money. Is his response proportionate to their refusal and assassination attempt? Why did he not surround the house where the alleged assassination attempt took place and demand that only a few be executed or expelled? Any objective observer understands that Muhammad’s response was excessive. Therefore, why should we be surprised if Muhammad’s radical followers today respond to perceived aggressions disproportionately, especially in their hatred of the Jews? How can his example, at the very least, stop them?
Sources: Bukhari vol. 5, nos. 4028-4036, in the Book of Military Expeditions; Muslim vol. 3, nos. 4324-4326 and 4346-4349; Ibn Ishaq pp. 437-38 / 652-54; Tabari, vol. 7, pp. 156-61 / 1448-1453.
(3) and (4) The third and fourth stages concern two assassinations of Jewish leaders from the Nadir clan, one year apart, because they fraternized with Muhammad’s enemies: Sallam b. Abi’l-Huqayq (Abu Rafi) and Usayr (or Yusayr) b. Razim, using Watt’s chronology.
In the first case, in May 626 a Muslim who had a Jewish foster-mother and spoke Hebrew managed to gain entrance into Abu Rafi’s house at night with four companions and easily kill him. They hid until the search died down and then returned to Medina, with the blessing of Muhammad—he was the one who sent out the hit squad.
The second assassination, in February-March 627, was more deceptive. Under the guise of ambassadors from Muhammad, thirty Muslims traveled up to Khaybar and invite Usayr to Medina to negotiate peace between him and Muhammad. Despite warnings, thirty Jews set out with the Muslims. Watt rightly says that the Jews were unarmed (Muhammad at Medina, p. 213). The Muslim leader surreptitiously made his camel carrying himself and Usayr lag behind, and then the Muslim killed him. The other Jews were also killed with one exception. Thus, Muhammad engaged in assassination, and a deceptive one at that, to deal with two Jewish leaders who intrigued with his enemies.
Why would not violent fanatics be inspired by this “technique” of getting rid of enemies, as Muhammad and his later followers deem them? More specifically, why would not his radical followers today hate the Jews and engage in violence against them? This much is true, at least: Muhammad’s example does not tell them no.
Sources: Bukhari vol. 5, nos. 4038-4040, in the Book of Military Expeditions; Tabari 99-105 / 1375-83; Ibn Ishaq pp. 482-84 / 714-16; 981 and 665-66 / 981.
(5) In March 627, after the Battle of the Trench, Muhammad imposed the ultimate penalty on the men in the Jewish clan of Qurayza, his third and final major Jewish rivals in Medina. Reliable traditions say that Gabriel himself came down to Muhammad and asked why he took off his uniform and was taking a bath. There was one more battle to embark on: against the Jews. This clan was supposed to remain neutral in the Battle, but they seem to have intrigued with the Meccans and to have been on the verge of attacking Muhammad from the rear—though they did not. Nevertheless, according to Muhammad’s interpretation of the facts, they must be put on trial.
The sentence: Death by decapitation for around 600 men (some sources say as high as 900), and enslavement for the women and children. Muhammad was wise enough to have six clans execute two Jews each in order to stop any blood-feuds. The rest of the executions were probably carried out by Muhammad’s fellow Emigrants from Mecca, and lasted throughout the night, as the heads and bodies were dragged into trenches.
One Muslim defense of this atrocity says that the Jews agreed to a verdict rendered by a Muslim ally, Sad bin Muadh, but he voted against the Jews. So it was not Muhammad’s fault. However, this defense, besides being a tacit admission that this penalty was excessive, is misguided because Muhammad could have called off the trial, expelled them from Medina (as indeed they requested), or shown them mercy, possibly taking a percentage of their goods and produce as collateral.
Another Muslim defense of this atrocity is that the Jews broke their agreement to remain neutral in the Battle. This implies that they deserved their punishment. In reply, however, this penalty shows Arab tribalism at its worse. (Some Muslims today extol early Islam as breaking down tribalism.) Muhammad could have executed only a few leaders or the few guilty ones. He did not have to wipe the entire Jewish tribe off the face of the earth, by execution and enslavement.
A third defense is even worse than the first two. Reza Aslan, a young intellectual Iranian, in his book No god but God (New York: Random House, 2005), says that the Qurayza tribe amounted to a tiny fraction of Jews in Medina and its environs (p. 94). Therefore, Muhammad’s execution of them is not a “genocide” (Aslan’s word). His implication is that this act against one tiny tribe of Jews is minor and therefore not extreme, but proportional. In reply, however, tribalism ruled in Arab culture (and still does in many places), and Muhammad eliminates an entire tribe; though not a genocide, it is excessive for their “brazen” crime. It is simply underhanded to throw in the word “genocide” as if its lack is supposed to make Muhammad’s excessive punishment seem acceptable. Eliminating a tribe? That is no big deal when we compare it to a genocide, Aslan seems to imply. (This kind of confused defense of Muhammad’s indefensible actions permeates Muslim literature today.) However, anyone whose judgment and sound mind have not been clouded by a lifetime of devotion to Islam knows that Muhammad’s action against the Qurayza tribe was factually and objectively excessive, regardless of his culture and century he lived in.
What is worse, the Prophet seems to celebrate this atrocity in Sura 33:25-27, a revelation from Allah concerning the Battle of the Trench and his treatment of Qurayza:
25 Allah turned back the unbelievers [Meccans and their allies] in a state of rage, having not won any good, and Allah spared the believers battle [q-t-l]. Allah is, indeed, Strong and Mighty. 26 And He brought those of the People of the Book [Qurayza] who supported them from their fortresses and cast terror into their hearts, some of them you slew [q-t-l] and some you took captive. 27 And he bequeathed to you their lands, their homes and their possessions, together with land you have never trodden. Allah has power over everything. (Fakhry)
These verses show three unpleasant truths. First, Allah helps the Muslims in warfare or battle (three-letter Arabic root is q-t-l in v. 25) against a much-larger foe, so Allah endorses Islam in battle. Second, Allah permits the enslavement and beheading of Jews, so any Muslim familiar with the background of this verse knows that beheading as such has been assimilated into the Quran. The word q-t-l in v. 26 can mean slaughter. Finally, Allah permits Muhammad to take the Jewish clan’s property on the basis of conquest and his possession of all things. This is a dubious revelation and reasoning. Allah speaks, and this benefits Muhammad materially. This happens too often in Muhammad’s life. Thus, once again religion, politics, wealth, revenge, and military converge in Islam. It is no wonder and no surprise that terrorists are inspired by violence in early Islam. Or, short of that, average Muslims feel permitted to entertain hostility in their minds for Jews. How can the example of Muhammad tell them to stop?
But Sura 33:25-27 leaves out Muhammad’s heart’s desire.
The apostle had chosen one of their women for himself, Rayhana bint Amr . . . one of the women of . . . Qurayza, and she remained with him until she died, in his power. The apostle had proposed to marry and put a veil on her, but she said: “Nay, leave me in your power, for that will be easier for me and for you.” So he left her. She had shown repugnance towards Islam when she was captured and clung to Judaism.
Shortly afterwards, though, she converted to Islam and a messenger informed Muhammad of this, and he reacts to the good news: “This gave him pleasure.” It is wrong to believe that this was Muhammad’s motive to execute so many Jews, but his love does provide an extra benefit.
To repeat: this atrocity cannot be defended by reasonable people. Muhammad was reacting way out of proportion to a rupture in the treaty. Should it surprise us, therefore, that many in the Muslim world have a disproportionate hatred of the Jews? How can the example of Muhammad tell them, “Stop this hatred, right now!”?
Sources: Bukhari vol. 4, no. 2813 in the Book of Jihad; and vol. 5 nos. 4117-4124 in the Book of Military Expeditions, especially nos. 4121 and 4122; Muslim vol. 3, nos. 4368-4373; Ibn Ishaq, p. 466 / 693; Tabari, The Victory of Islam, vol. 8, trans. Michael Fishbein, (SUNYP, 1997), pp. 27-41 / 1485-1500.
(6) In May-June 628, shortly after the Treaty of Hudaybiyah with the Meccan polytheists, according to which they and the Muslims could deal with their allies as each side saw fit, Muhammad attacked Khaybar barely one or two months after the treaty. Why did he do this? Solid evidence suggests that Umar, one of his closest companions, was disgruntled with the treaty because he saw it as a compromise with polytheists. Also, some of the commoners believed the raid (it was actually a pilgrimage to Mecca) was a failure because it did not win booty. It is possible that Muhammad decided to conquer Khaybar to placate this faction. Further, though the Jews at Khaybar—now more numerous with the exiled Nadir tribe—never attacked Muhammad physically, they entered in alliances with Muhammad’s Arab enemies. The Jews, undeterred by the Meccan defeat, constantly encouraged their allies to take up arms. The threat to Muhammad, though, was too late and meaningless after the Trench, for he was too strong.
Long ago, the Jews of Khaybar built a series of fortresses, some on hills, and they were thought unassailable, but Muhammad attacked them one group at a time. Eventually, he prevailed and set the terms of surrender. They Jews could keep their property, but they had to turn over half their produce to specially designated Muslims who went out on this conquest and to some notables as well, like Muhammad’s wife Aisha. This introduced a special policy that Muhammad incorporated into his religion: conquered cities housing the People of the Book were not required to convert necessarily, but they had to pay a special “protection” tax, which Islamic apologists (defenders) say gives the Jews and Christians special “privileges” for living under Islam; but an outside observer may rightfully draw the inference that the “protection” entails a guarantee that the payers would not be attacked—again. The details of this broad policy were worked out over time.
Does intriguing with Muhammad’s enemies equal conquering the entire city of Khaybar? Excess is never just, but Allah and his prophet will it nonetheless. Why would not Muslims today imitate their prophet in this irrational and excessive hostility?
Sources: Bukhari vol. 3, no. 2720, in the Book of Conditions, and vol. 5, nos. 4147-4191 and 4194-4249 in the Book of Military Expeditions; Muslim vol. 3, nos. 4437-4441; Ibn Ishaq pp. 510-18 / 756-69; Tabari, vol. 8, pp. 116-30 / 1575-30.
(7) In the seventh and final stage, during the caliphate of Umar (ruled 634-644), the Jews were expelled from the Arabian Peninsula, Umar citing the prophet’s words spoken on his deathbed: “Two religions shall not remain together in the peninsula of the Arabs.” What was the precipitating event to expel the Jews? Two Muslims went to inspect their property in Khaybar, and one of them was attacked in the night in his bed and had his elbows dislocated by an unidentified assailant. The attacked Muslim reported this to Umar, and the caliph concluded, “This is the work of the Jews.” This was enough of a trigger to expel the entire Jewish community from Khaybar and Wadi’l-Qura. If reputable historians were to call this incident fanciful as the reason for expelling the Jews, it is odd that it would make it into Arab texts, so that millions would believe it. This shows that irrational excess seeped into Islam in the very beginning.
Sources: Bukhari, vol. 3, no. 2730, in the Book of the Conditions; Muslim vol. 3, no. 4366; Ibn Ishaq p. 525 / 779-80;
To conclude this section, do these seven chronological steps represent a master plan drawn up by Muhammad against the Jews? Most scholars say no. Muhammad was feeling his way. However, it is beyond coincidence that his path led him in one direction: the gradual expulsion and death of Jews living in Medina and its environs. It may be argued, contrary to fact, that these stages in Muhammad’s life are not triggering causes for Muslim hostilities today. But one thing is bedrock: these true incidents that culminate in the killings and expulsion of the Jews cannot stop the hostilities today. No one can use Muhammad’s life and policies as a model of peace and divine love for the Jews.
In the introduction to this article, Osama bin Laden is quoted, saying that the enmity between the Muslims and Jews goes far back in time and is deeply rooted. He was referring to Muhammad in Medina during a mere ten years. How right he was about the history of this irrational hostility.
As for the entire article, what do we see when we step back and look at the big picture of Muhammad’s relations with the Jews?
In all these assassinations, conflicts, besiegements, and conquests, traditional and devout Muslims believe that Muhammad never acted excessively, because when treaties and agreements were broken or when he or his followers suffer persecution and betrayal, only then would he retaliate or punish, and only in the right proportion. Muslims seem to know this a priori from the Quran. Muhammad says in Meccan Sura 16:126 the following:
If you people have to respond to an attack, make your response proportionate, but it is better to be steadfast. (Haleem)
Why would Muhammad disobey his own Scripture? From this verse and false reasoning comes absolutist reasoning like this:
(1) Everyone who is a true prophet is never
excessive, but always proportionate.
(2) Muhammad was a true prophet.
(3) Therefore, he was never excessive, but always proportionate.
That is the ideal. What about the real? Does traditional Muslim belief and logic follow history? No. It seems Muhammad does not always remain only steadfast (see the last clause in Sura 16:126), but he takes his revenge.
It is a brute fact that when Muhammad arrived in Medina in AD 622, a sizable Jewish community thrived in and around Medina. When he died in AD 632, very few Jews were left in Medina, due to expulsion, death, or enslavement. Surely all of these unpleasant events are not only the Jews’ fault. But what about the logic? Muslims believe that their Prophet had reached some state of perfection, so how can these events be his fault? After all, these are Jews—enough said, so traditional Muslim belief seems to go.
One Islamologist answers that in Muhammad’s punishments and retaliations, he was simply following Arab custom, which allowed various means of dealing with enemies, including enslavement or death. The reports about the atrocity against Qurayza are written in a casual way, so this means that the atrocity is casual by its nature (Watt, Muhammad: Prophet and Statesman, p. 173). In reply, however, granted that everyone is part and parcel of his or her own culture, should a prophet practice the questionable customs of his culture like tribal execution or enslavement? Are they not excessive by their very nature? It is disappointing that an Allah-inspired prophet could not or would not rise above these dubious and violent customs.
So how did Muhammad gauge a proportionate response? Is a cheap trick in the marketplace equal to warfare and exile? Osama bin Laden seems to think so. Is inciting or intriguing with an enemy, as Nadir and Qurayza did, proportionate to exile, mass execution, or the conquest of a city? What would the 600 or so male Jews of Qurayza say? Are two dislocated elbows by an unidentified assailant a sufficient trigger to equal the complete expulsion of Jews from Arabia? Who decides? The tribal chief with the most powerful army?
Islam must rule the world and every aspect of society. That is the will of Allah, so many Muslims must obey their deity in carrying out his will. This dominance begins in the Arabian Peninsula and flows out to Europe, North Africa, and Central and Subcontinent Asia, all the way to China. This end or goal allows for all sorts of self-interested and even diabolical interpretations as a means of implementing Allah’s will, such as unilaterally interpreting excessive and disproportionate retaliations.
Seeds of violent ambiguity have been planted in the early soil of Islam. It is no wonder and no surprise that non-violent and violent fanatics are inspired by Muhammad and his book, especially in their hatred of the Jews. And it is no wonder and no surprise that average Muslims would have hatred for Jews, too.
This article has a companion piece that may be read here.
James M. Arlandson may be reached at email@example.com
This intellectual and moderate Qatari bravely and accurately concludes that anti-Semitism in the Arab world is rooted in the Quran and the hadith. He cites the hadith passages that say that in the last day a tree or a stone will cry out that a Jew is hiding behind it, so Muslims must come and kill him. It is no wonder, the Qatari says, that the Muslims believe that a Jew is behind every bad event, such as 9/11. The problem is: how can traditional and conservative Muslims reform, when they cherish their sacred text and traditions? At least when Christianity reformed, it went back to the New Testament, which preaches peace and love. But when Muslims have to deny their Quran and hadith in order to reform, we should not hold our breath, waiting for them, even though their sacred book is filled with violence.
If the reader would like to see the hadith passages that speak of a Jew hiding behind a stone or a tree and then being discovered and killed, click here here for the collection compiled and edited by Muslim (also considered totally reliable). for the collection compiled and edited by Bukhari (considered totally reliable), and click
Sheikh Ibrahim Mudeiris is one of the most radical and incessant preachers of hatred against the Jews in the entire cadre of Palestinian haters. In his Friday sermon in a mosque, he outlines three stages that Muhammad used in dealing with the Jews (political; toleration of the damage done by Jews; and war and expulsion). Filling his sermon with Quranic verses, he quotes this gem:
Time does not permit us to discuss the rest of the Jewish tribes. But we must learn the lesson of the Prophet with regard to the Jews of Al-Madina, whom he expelled. His strategic choice was: “Fight them, Allah will torture them [at your hands]” and also, “Make ready against them [all] the force and horsemen that you can.”
Who says that a plain reading of the Quran does not inspire fanatics? The example of Muhammad in his three-step plan inspires this fanatic, who is extreme even for extremists, to fight the Jews in Israel. But does not the sheikh misread Muhammad? No, because, as noted, when Muhammad the newcomer arrived in Medina in 622, a large Jewish community thrived there. When he died in 632, very few were left. How can this be only the Jews’ fault unless a Muslim has a prior belief that their prophet is flawless?
Here is Mudeiris again in a translated video clip and transcript from MEMRI TV, shrieking that when Islam rules the world, the Jews will be eliminated. This was aired on Palestinian TV. If the Palestinians are serious about peace, they should fire this “sheikh.” But they do not. Therefore, they are not serious about peace.
MEMRI TV provides a translated video clip and a transcript of an Egyptian cleric singing and celebrating the Jews getting killed as they hide behind trees and stones in the Last Day. He calls the Jews apes and pigs. Where does he get these epithets? From the Quran itself, as the companion piece to this article demonstrates. Not only does he cite current events, he also cites early Islam as his inspiration for his hate speech.
This summary of sermons in Palestine shows the sheiks quoting amply from the Quran and the hadith to inspire them in their hatred of Jews. Are they distorting the Quran or hadith? There is so much material in both sources that express hatred for Jews that there is no need for distorting clear texts.
This is another summary special report on how the early Islamic sources inspire a wide range of Islamists to hate Jews, calling them apes and pigs.
Readers should visit memri.org and memritv.org, especially if the video clips no longer work. Once at these two sites, they should do a search type with the key word: Jew. Many hits will come up, and most are neither kind nor conciliatory. And too many of the haters will reference the source documents of early Islam, as the foundation for their beliefs.
Arab TV stations air anti-Semitic show over Ramadan
After fast, viewers get to sit down and watch ‘Khaiber,’ a historic drama rife with negative Jewish stereotypes
July 15, 2013
The Times of Israel
JTA — An anti-Semitic television series is being broadcast throughout the Arab world for the Muslim holy month of Ramadan.
“Khaiber,” which is being shown on the satellite network Dubai TV, the Algerian 3 station and Dream TV, dramatizes the battle between Muslims and the Jews of the town of Khaiber in Arabia and depicts Jews as the enemy of Islam.
Traditional Islam believes the battle ended with the execution of thousands of Jews.
Episodes aired to date have revealed classic anti-Semitic motifs, including a Jewish conspiracy to undermine Arabs, as well as depicting Jews as cheap, greedy and immoral, according to the Anti-Defamation League.
“With Syria, Egypt and other countries in the Middle East going through historical upheavals, it is absurd and outrageous that the entertainment of the Ramadan season promotes the Muslim subjugation of caricatured Jews,” Abraham Foxman, ADL’s national director, said in a statement.
“The uprisings in the Arab and Muslim world have revealed a hunger among much of the Middle East for democracy, accountability and the development of effective civil and pluralistic society. ‘Khaiber’ and other productions of its ilk represent the old detrimental approach of promoting Muslim societal unity through focusing hatred on Jews and Israel.”
Other anti-Semitic miniseries have aired in the Arab world during previous Ramadans.
Jewish, Muslim students clash at UWM
By Annysa Johnson of the Journal Sentinel
Posted: April 30, 2010
University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee officials said Friday that they will investigate whether student conduct rules were violated when Muslim and Jewish students clashed during a protest of a Jewish-sponsored event on campus Thursday.
One Jewish student was reported injured and a Muslim student was arrested by campus police in the incident on Spaights Plaza outside the UWM Union during an event meant to mark the 62nd anniversary of the founding of the state of Israel.
The event erupted into shouting and then violence after members of the Muslim Student Association confronted the Jewish students over Israel's treatment of the Palestinians, and a Jewish student attempted to throw a Palestinian flag in the trash.
Jewish students said Friday that they felt threatened and were seeking a meeting with university officials to ensure a safe environment for future events. And a small group of Jewish and Muslim students met on the plaza Friday to quietly discuss the conflict and how they might move beyond it.
"It was very difficult, but it was good to do," said Diana Azimov, president of the Jewish Student Association who planned the Israel anniversary party and was offended by the protest - particularly a swastika that was scrawled along with other anti-Israel rhetoric on the plaza the night before the event.
"I think it says something about these groups that we could clash one day and the next day come together to share our feelings," she said.
Yamin Masalkhi, who is president of the Muslim Student Association and participated in the protest, said that he apologized to the organizers, but that many members in his organization are of Palestinian descent and have strong feelings about Israel's treatment of the Palestinians.
"We didn't go there intending to cause trouble, we just wanted to have a conversation," said Masalkhi, who stressed their actions were personal and not affiliated with the Muslim Student Association. "Things unwound so quickly," he said.
At one point during the confrontation, Masalkhi said, "some of the hotheads in our group" scaled a climbing wall the Jewish students rented for the event and unfurled a Palestinian flag atop it.
The flag was confiscated, and when one of the Jewish students attempted to throw it in the trash, a Muslim student struck him - though witnesses differ on how hard.
The Muslim students and members of Students for a Democratic Society - which is under investigation by the university for its role in a March protest on campus that turned violent - said they wrote anti-Israel political statements in chalk on the plaza pavement Wednesday night, but denied drawing the swastika.
"We saw a lot of things the next day that weren't there the night before - the swastika, obscene remarks that don't further anybody's interests," said Masalkhi.
Tom McGinnity, interim dean of students, said the university would likely try to pull the groups together to discuss the conflict.
And if an investigation confirms one student struck another, the attacker could be sanctioned up to and including expulsion.
But peaceful protest, even if it's offensive to some, is protected by the Constitution and part of life at a college, McGinnity said.
"A university brings together all types of viewpoints and sometimes they're loud. . . . But if your conduct infringes on the rights of others . . . if you get into a fight or a pushing match, you go from free speech to physical activity, and that's not protected by the Constitution."
The Face of Islamic Religious Intolerance
by Paula R. Stern
September 12, 2005
Today, as I knew they would, crazed Palestinian mobs are desecrating 25 synagogues in Gaza, setting them on fire and destroying what it took years to build. I have visited almost all of these synagogues, prayed in many of them. I cannot even begin to put into words the pain I feel today, the anger and the sadness.
The world, as I expected, is silent. The United Nations' Kofi Annan was asked to protect the remaining synagogues, but we hear nothing. Empty buildings, they will protest quietly; and what did you expect? Unspoken is the silent message that while the Christian world and the Jewish world would respect places of worship, the Muslim world cannot be held to the same level of accountability. Did you expect any different? No, I did not, though it would be a mistake to assume that knowing they would destroy these holy places in any way lessens the pain.
We can't say that we expected no better, of course, because that would be deemed racist and wrong. It would be insulting to the honorable religion of Islam, even though it is the truth. It would imply that their values are different than ours, even though they are. It would suggest that their culture is one that lacks respect for other religions, one deeply embedded in violence and one that cannot tolerate and respect the beliefs of others. We can't say all that, and so the lie will live on, the destruction go unpunished, the truth left unsaid.
The world will quietly offer Israel their condolences and throughout the world, in places like Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Egypt, and even in Poland, Romania, Hungary and the Ukraine, people will wonder if maybe they could destroy a nearby synagogue, too. Why should the land on which these buildings sit continue to be "wasted" when there are no Jews around? Could there be a way to rid Europe and Arab countries of these buildings in which Jews once prayed? The first step, of course, is to deny.
Palestinian President Abu Mazen has become a rabbi, apparently. He can now determine the holiness of a synagogue and has issued his rabbinic decree that these buildings are no longer synagogues, no longer holy. If you take the wooden pews, the musical instruments, the Bibles, hymnals, altar furnishings and vestments out of a church, is it then permissible to burn it down? Does it lose its sanctity because the inner contents have been removed?
Perhaps others are wondering if they too could use the Palestinian excuse that a building stripped and desecrated is no longer holy and can be destroyed. How many Jewish cemeteries are there in Europe? Are Jews ever likely to return to Iraq? Must Tunisia protect the remaining synagogues? What of Morocco?
Luckily, our holy places will be saved by the most unlikely source. Abu Mazen has one problem in making his claim believable. His own people reject his words. Watch the pictures of them dancing on the rooftops of these buildings, see how they set fire to these holy places.
In his mad rush for the border, Ariel Sharon gave the Palestinians millions of dollars in infrastructure, public buildings, lighting, roads and more. And yet the pictures in the media are all the same. The Palestinian mobs are frantic and out of control in their bloodthirsty quest to destroy the synagogues, because they recognize that these places are holy to the Jews. Of course they are synagogues, today as they were yesterday. The ground sacred, the buildings holy.
What interest would they have in simply destroying a building? They will scavenge around and take what they can - but the synagogues are being destroyed. Why burn and damage them if not for the intense hate-filled desire to destroy something that represents Judaism, a non-Muslim place of worship?
But it is not only the pictures from Gaza that cause me great pain today, not just the hatred and destruction that we all knew was inevitable. Add in a debate going on now in England, civilized England. At first glance, it seems like it is a different topic entirely, and yet, in its own way, it is the same debate, albeit in a more civilized environment. Perhaps commemorating Holocaust Day is a little too Jewish, say a team of advisors to Prime Minister Tony Blair. Perhaps it would be more politically correct to call it Genocide Day, so as to avoid insulting England's growing Muslim population.
Words fail me. How many fronts can we fight at one time? How appropriate that this debate would be raised on days when synagogues are again being burned and destroyed. Would England deny the unique place the Holocaust has in world history? Are the Holocaust and the few days we commemorate it not sacred? There have been many attempts at genocide throughout the centuries, but none were as systematic, as civilized and as endorsed as the Holocaust.
Nowhere, never, was the machine of a government focused so totally on obliterating all traces of a religion or people in such an efficient and barbaric way, while being accompanied by the silence of nations who could have, should have, done something.
Not since Nazi Germany have so many synagogues been destroyed. Muslim intolerance is well known and yet the world continues to be silent. Why was the world silent when 2,000 Hindi temples were destroyed by Muslims in India? When will the world finally react to Islamic religious intolerance? Would the world remain silent if 25 churches were burned in one day? Where is the Vatican's voice of outrage as the synagogues in Gaza burn? I can only imagine what fury there would be if Israel were to now demolish 25 mosques on Israeli soil.
Just three days ago, I stood in the Yamit Yeshiva in N'vei Dekalim, the famous synagogue in the shape of a Jewish star. Rabbi Abu Mazen has promised that this building will be destroyed. Apparently, its continued existence would be an insult to the Palestinians, who do not believe in the sanctity of any religion but their own.
As I walked around, there was a swirl of action. Soldiers moved quickly back and forth removing whatever could be taken. The books had been removed, the holy Torah scrolls long since taken away so they would not see the shame of what would come. The High Court had not yet ruled whether Israel should destroy the buildings in anticipation of the desecration Abu Mazen and his government was promising, but the soldiers knew destruction was coming soon.
In the end, the Israeli government made the correct choice. We will not destroy synagogues. We will not send a signal to the world that it is acceptable to wantonly destroy the holy places of our religion or another. And so, today, as yesterday and tomorrow, mosques will be safe in Israel, while synagogues burn elsewhere.
Jews do not destroy places of worship even if the alternative in the end is the desecration of these Houses of God at the hands of rioting mobs who worship terror, incite violence and care not for any buildings or any people, not even their own. The world will not admit it, it can't be said or written, but Jews honor churches, mosques and synagogues throughout our country and in our communities. Since the Holocaust, the Jewish synagogues in Europe have largely been protected and public outcries have often resulted when desecrations have occurred.
Israelis even protect Arab holy sites when they are built on top of our holy places, as they are on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, Joseph's Tomb, Samuel's Tomb and the Tomb of the Patriarchs in Hebron.
Make no mistake, the face of the future state of Palestine can be seen in the actions of Palestinians today. There is an impossible divide between our culture and theirs, our dreams and the nightmares they would force upon us.
Jews made their stand yesterday by not destroying the synagogues. Palestinians made their stand today by burning and desecrating them. The remaining question now is what the Christian world will do. Will you express outrage at Islamic intolerance or continued silence?
Iran's president: Israel must be 'wiped off the map'
The Associated Press
TEHRAN, Iran (AP) — Iran's hard-line president called for Israel to be "wiped off the map" and said a new wave of Palestinian attacks will destroy the Jewish state, state-run media reported Wednesday.
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad also denounced attempts to recognize Israel or normalize relations with it.
"There is no doubt that the new wave (of attacks) in Palestine will wipe off this stigma (Israel) from the face of the Islamic world," Ahmadinejad told students Wednesday during a Tehran conference called "The World without Zionism."
"Anybody who recognizes Israel will burn in the fire of the Islamic nation's fury, (while) any (Islamic leader) who recognizes the Zionist regime means he is acknowledging the surrender and defeat of the Islamic world," Ahmadinejad said.
Ahmadinejad also repeated the words of the founder of Iran's Islamic revolution, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, who called for the destruction of Israel.
"As the imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map," said Ahmadinejad, who came to power in August and replaced Mohammad Khatami, a reformist who advocated international dialogue and tried to improve Iran's relations with the West.
Ahmadinejad referred to Israel's recent withdrawal from the Gaza Strip as a "trick," saying Gaza was already a part of Palestinian lands and the pullout was designed to win acknowledgment of Israel by Islamic states.
"The fighting in Palestine is a war between the (whole) Islamic nation and the world of arrogance," Ahmadinejad said, using Tehran's propaganda epithet for the United States and Israel. "Today, Palestinians are representing the Islamic nation against arrogance."
Iran does not recognize the existence of Israel and has often called for its destruction.
Israel has been at the forefront of nations calling and end to Iran's nuclear program, which the United States and many others in the West say is aimed at acquiring weapons of mass destruction. Iran says the program is for generating electricity.
White House press secretary Scott McClellan said Ahmadinejad's comment "reconfirms what we have been saying about the regime in Iran. It underscores the concerns we have about Iran's nuclear intentions."
French Foreign Minister Jean-Baptiste Mattei condemned Ahmadinejad's remarks "with the utmost firmness."
Harsh words for Israel are common in Iran, especially at this time of year, the end of the Muslim holy month of Ramadan. In Iran, this Friday — the last Muslim day of prayer in the Ramadan holiday — has been declared Quds Day, or Jerusalem Day. Rallies were slated in support of Palestinians — and against Israel's occupation of parts of the city and other Palestinian lands.
Other Iranian politicians also have issued anti-Israeli statements, in attempts to whip up support for Friday's nationwide Quds Day demonstrations.
But Ahmadinejad's strident anti-Israeli statements on the eve of the demonstration were harsher than those issued during the term of the reformist Khatami and harkened back to Khomeini's fiery speeches. Ahmadinejad was a longtime member of Iran's elite Revolutionary Guards, which even operates a division dubbed the Quds Division, a rhetorical reference to Tehran's hopes of one day ending Israel's domination of Islam's third-holiest city.
After his election, Ahmadinejad received the support of the powerful hard-line Revolutionary Guards, who report directly to supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.
Last year, a senior member of the guards attended a meeting that called for and accepted applications for suicide bombers to target U.S. troops and Israelis.
Iran announced earlier this year that it had fully developed solid fuel technology for missiles, a major breakthrough that increases their accuracy.
The Shahab-3, with a range of 810 miles to 1,200 miles, is capable of delivering a nuclear warhead to Israel and U.S. forces in the Middle East.
North Indian Muslims hate Israel, says researcher
12 December 2005
LONDON — Animosity against Israel is widespread among Indian Muslims living in the northern part of the country and forming the second largest Muslim bloc in the world, according to an Indian researcher from the College of Orient and African Studies of the London University.
In an address during a seminar organised by the Centre for Jewish Studies under the theme: “How the Indians and Pakistanis view Israel and Zionism,” Dr Sosila Yusudian Shitroviel, said she visited the northern part of India last year, where she conducted studies, including the universities of those areas. She said she discovered that anti-Israeli sentiment was getting higher among the people in that area.
She said Indian Muslim students from northern India see Zionism in the same light as Nazism and never believe in the Holocaust as a real historic event as portrayed by Zionists. She said this negative stance has its roots in the past as the British colonial masters used to regard Indian Muslims (including those in today’s Pakistan) as a group that pose a danger to British interests, while the Indian Muslims saw the alliance between the British colonial masters and global Zionists as a common enemy which must be dealt with.
But the researcher pointed out that former Indian leaders like Mahatma Gandhi and Jawahal Nehru took a moderate stance on the Arab-Israeli conflict. They did not support Zionism, but rather stood by the Arabs in support of the right of Palestinians, until the nationalist parties in India, like the BJP, came to power and gave rise to Hindu nationalist sentiment against Muslims inside and outside India, tipping the scales in favour of an Indian alliance with Israel against Arabs and Muslims.
This sentiment rose higher with the assassination of Indira Gandhi and her son, Rajiv Gandhi which brought to power political parties that were against the Gandhi and Nehru policies, she said, adding that Indian Muslims see Jewish immigrants to Palestine as a continuation of the British imperialist extension in the region.
On the other hand, she said, the leadership of Mohammed Ali Jinnah, who led Pakistan to separate from India, was anti-Zionist and regarded the latter as an integral part of British imperialism.
Muslims offended by
Company may change product name of traditional pre-Christmas Danish treat
Yigal Romm, EJP
A group of Danish Muslims is refusing to eat traditional “Jewish” cookies because they feel offended by the name.
According to the daily Danish newspaper B.T., Ole Poulsen, head of the public food consumer department said that the Muslim refusal to buy the cookies could have an effect on sales.
"If this will be the case, then we would be obliged to do something about it," he declared.
He added that changing the product name was a possibility, as had in the past been done with the “Negroes’ kiss” cakes, which were re-branded with a more neutral name.
Educating population (Muslims are generally ignorate)
Jewish cookies, which are made with cinnamon and hazelnuts and actually have nothing particularly Jewish about them, are very popular in Denmark during the pre-Christmas period.
Denmark’s chief rabbi, Bent Lexner, said that he did not see any problem in a name change.
“There is nothing Jewish in it and I wouldn’t mind another name, but I think that it would be better to educate Muslims to respect the culture of the majority in Denmark, if they want the majority to respect their culture".
Most of Denmark’s “Jewish” cookies are not kosher and they are therefore not consumed by a large part of the Jewish population.
Arab/Muslim anti-Semitism no less threatening
By Kenneth I. Segel
All Americans are worried about the hatred among groups who do not value human life. But Jews who know their history have additional fears. We Jews have reasons to worry because a significant part of humanity has a hatred of us indistinguishable in kind and intensity from that of the Nazis.
We Jews have reasons to worry because the last time a civilization declared such hatred against Jews, what ensued was the most organized and monumental evil in history, the Holocaust. We hoped that Nazi-type hatred would never reappear. But it has. In fact, in two ways, Arab/Muslim anti-Semitism is more frightening.
First, while both Nazi and the Arab/Muslim anti-Semites have used closed societies with their controlled press to promote horrific lies about Jews, the Nazis hid their murder of Jews from the German public. They did not have confidence that enough Germans would support the murder of Jewish men, women and children. The Arab/Muslim anti-Semites, however, have no such problem. Those who kill Jews in Israel are public celebrities.
The second more frightening aspect of Arab/Muslim Jew-hatred is that many of these haters do not value their own lives. Nazis did.
Once upon a time there was a special place in the lowest depths of hell for anyone who would intentionally murder a child. Now, the intentional murder of Israeli children is legitimized as Palestinian "armed struggle." However, once such behavior is legitimized against Israel, it is legitimized everywhere in the world, constrained by nothing more than the subjective belief of people who would wrap themselves in dynamite and nails for the purpose of killing children in the name of God.
Because the Palestinians have been encouraged to believe that murdering innocent Israeli civilians is a legitimate tactic for advancing their cause, the whole world now suffers from a plague of terrorism, from Nairobi to New York, from Moscow to Madrid, from Bali to Beslan.
They blame suicide bombing on "desperation of occupation." Let me tell you the truth. The first major terror bombing committed by Arabs against the Jewish state occurred 10 weeks before Israel even became independent. On Sunday morning, Feb. 22, 1948, in anticipation of Israel's independence, a triple truck bomb was detonated by Arab terrorists on Ben Yehuda Street in what was then the Jewish section of Jerusalem. Fifty-four people were killed and hundreds were wounded. Thus, it is obvious that Arab terrorism is caused not by the "desperation" of "occupation," but the very thought of a Jewish state.
So many times in history in the last 100 years, citizens have stood by and done nothing, allowing evil to prevail. As America stood up against and defeated communism, now it is time to stand up against the terror of religious bigotry and intolerance. It's time for all to stand up and support and defend the state of Israel, which is the front line of the war against terrorism.
So long as terror is tolerated, it will continue. So long as terrorism is granted a kind of moral equivalence with those defending themselves, it will thrive. Negotiating with terrorists, and trying to work something out with them, which is what Mahmoud Abbas proposed, will soon enough undermine the negotiator, not the terrorists. Which is what happened to Abbas.
The Palestinians deserve peace and the opportunity to live in democracy as much as the Israelis do. The Palestinians also deserve leaders who are accountable. But progress for the Palestinians is incompatible with a culture of hatred in which every public platform, every mosque, every educational program is used for exhortations to destroy Israel. Which is why, sadly, the poisonous legacy of Arafat may take a generation to excise.
Anyway, in the Middle East, "It is wise to remember that hope is a good breakfast but a very poor supper."
Kenneth I. Segel is rabbi at Temple Beth Or in Montgomery.
Jews jeopardized by Muslim immigration
February 16, 2007
Following Sept. 11, immigration from Muslim countries tapered off, but, as the New York Times enthused, it has rebounded with a vengeance: "In 2005, more people from Muslim countries became legal permanent United States residents … than in any year in the previous two decades." Although Bush is unlikely to allow millions of displaced Iraqis the prerogatives he bestows on illegal Mexicans, the reality is that he is responsible for rendering a Muslim country uninhabitable. This makes it harder for the U.S. to reject Iraqi immigrants and asylum seekers. Starting this year, up to 20,000 Iraqis will be granted asylum in the U.S. They will join close to 100,000 "Muslim from countries in the Middle East, North Africa and Asia," who arrived in 2005.
Immigration (and the war in Iraq) ought to be the most crucial question in the 2008 election. It is the issue that will ultimately decide whether American values and institutions endure. Unfortunately, it's a debate American Jews can put off no longer, although it's too late for their European, British and Canadian brethren. To speak plainly: A gathering danger threatens the Jews of America – to whom George Washington promised peace and goodwill in a 1790 address to a synagogue congregation in Newport, R.I.
American Jewry has "lived up to the standard asked of them by Washington," observed philosopher David Conway in his inquiry into the "Place of Nations in Classical Liberalism." But "The stock of Abraham," which has flourished in the New World – producing uniquely entrepreneurial, creative and philanthropic citizens – is now threatened by what it perversely promotes: mass immigration. And in particular, immigration from Muslim countries, where anti-Semitism and extremism are imbibed with mother's milk.
Before 1965, immigration to the U.S. occurred in manageable ebbs and flows, ensuring the new arrivals were thoroughly assimilated and integrated. Multiculturalism was unheard of. In 1965, without voter approval, the U.S. Congress replaced the national-origin immigration criterion, which ensured newcomers reinforced the historical majority, with a multicultural, egalitarian quota system, which divided visas between nations with an emphasis on mass importation of people from the Third World. The new influx was no longer expected to acculturate to liberal democratic Judeo-Christian values. With family reunification superseding economic or cultural requirements, every qualified immigrant would henceforth hold an entry ticket for his entire tribe.
Stephen Steinlight of the Center for Immigration Studies – in "High Noon to Midnight: Does Current Immigration Policy Doom American Jewry?" – courageously (for it runs counter to the views of most of his fellow American Jews) highlights the bizarre situation where entire villages from rural Mexico and the West Bank in Israel have U.S. citizenship. How so? One member qualifies and then imports the entire town. In addition to having huge extended families, Muslims and Mexicans share an anti-Americanism, a tendency to crab about historical grievance and cling to a militant distinctiveness, and a predilection for aggressive identity politics (which the New York Times finds "strikingly positive"). Second only to Latinos, the relatively new (roughly 30-year-old) Muslim community is the most anti-Semitic community in the U.S., its members harboring the greatest propensity to act on their hatred.
Although Jews don't benefit in the least from open-door immigration, having long since settled in the U.S., Israel, and other First World countries, the liberal Jewish community has continued to generously support this policy.
In Canada, Muslims now greatly outnumber Jews. In Europe, what remains of a Jewry devastated by the Holocaust comes under daily assaults and threats, mostly from the 20-million-strong Muslim community. American Jewry is next. Although taqiyya-talking Muslim organizations (almost all radical) inflate the numbers, there are still only, approximately, 2 to 3 million Muslims in America to 5.3 million Jews. But mass immigration is rapidly changing that.
Allusions to the rise of a "new anti-Semitism" are misleading, because the violent assaults on Jews and their property in Europe, England and Canada are nourished by an old hatred rooted in the Quran and in anti-infidel Islamic laws. Remember, Muslims invented the yellow rag with which the Nazis tagged Jews. The ghetto, "mellah" in Arabic, was a Muslim-devised gated community for the Jews of the Maghrib back in the 15th century. Not for naught did Maimonides, the 12th century Jewish philosopher and physician, write about the Arabs, "Never did a nation molest, degrade, debase and hate us as much as they."
As Steinlight points out, "It is virtually impossible to be reared in classical Islam and not be educated to hate Jews – based on a literalist reading of the Quran, where many of the Suras concerning Jews are monstrously hateful, murderous, [and] terrifying. … These texts also regard Jews as a spiritually fraudulent entity – all the prophets and great figures of the Hebrew Bible, according to Islamic teaching, were Muslims, not Jews. … With the exception of a tiny group of courageous American Muslims … who have spoken out and condemned … anti-Semitism, the 'Muslim Street' in the U.S. has yet to show its disapproval of this philosophical and political agenda."
Ted Kennedy, the architect of the lemming's lunacy that is American immigration policy, has hammered the administration for its apathy: "We can no longer ignore the plight of millions of [Iraqi] people. … America must respond." And so should American Jews! So far, however, the exponential growth of the Muslim community through immigration has failed to rally Jewish leaders. Listening to Abe Foxman, you would think that the chief dangers to Jewish continuity are marauding Mormons (who convert dead Jews) or Mel Gibson.
Terror in Jerusalem
It would be easier to come to terms with what happened in Jerusalem on Wednesday if we could convince ourselves that Jabr Duwait had simply gone berserk when he ploughed murderously into pedestrians, cars and buses.
If only a forensic psychiatrist could certify that the 30-year-old bulldozer operator had suffered a psychotic episode that impelled him, perched on that mammoth machine, to rampage through one of the city‚s most congested thoroughfares killing and wounding as many innocents as he could. We might shake our heads in dismay, but tell ourselves that there can be no ultimate protection from a madman.
But the havoc wrought on Jaffa Road was in all likelihood not the work of a madman; to convince ourselves otherwise would be delusional.
Eyewitnesses described a scene of mayhem. Duwait began his onslaught from a construction site on nearby Sharei Yisrael Street, ramming a city bus and wounding people along the way before turning into Jaffa Road -- which was even more congested than usual because of infrastructure work on the light railway.
As pedestrians scattered to avoid being crushed by the giant vehicle, the killer drove in the direction of the Mahaneh Yehuda outdoor market, viciously smashing into a second city bus, knocking it over. He smashed and crushed several other vehicles in his path.
Three people were killed and scores wounded, before an off-duty soldier and a specially-trained motorcycle policeman managed to climb aboard the bulldozer and, as Duwait cried “Allahu Akbar” (God is great), shot him dead.
JUST HOURS after the killing spree, the overturned bus had been set upright and towed away. The bulldozer, too, was removed, as were the crushed cars. Volunteers washed the blood of the victims from the street. Jaffa Road, and the adjoining Central Bus Station vicinity, resumed their normal appearance.
But the people of Jerusalem have been badly traumatized. There is a gnawing sense that the tranquility residents have enjoyed for some years now, since the unofficial end of the second Intifada, may be over -- and that the biggest danger emanates from within the boundaries of the city itself.
Duwait was a resident of Sur Baher, a Palestinian Arab village located near Kibbutz Ramat Rahel in southeast Jerusalem, and inside the security barrier. Being a resident of metropolitan Jerusalem, as opposed to the West Bank, Duwait held a blue ID card similar to the one carried by all Israeli citizens.
Wednesday’s outrage recalls the attack just two months ago inside the study hall of the Mercaz Harav Yeshiva in which another Jerusalem Arab, Ala Abu Dhaim from Jebl Mukaber, murdered eight students before being shot dead by an off-duty IDF officer (who, by a surreal coincidence, is the brother-in-law of the man who shot Duwait).
WITH SEVERAL notable exceptions, Jerusalem Arabs tended to avoid being drawn into the second intifada. But in recent months a number of incidents, including the near-lynching of two municipal inspectors on Salah-a-Din Street and an attempt to murder two security guards in the Old City, have spotlighted what appears to be a trend toward radicalization. The capital’s Arab population gave their support to Hamas in the 2006 Palestinian elections.
The Arab neighborhoods that dot metropolitan Jerusalem -- not just “east,” but north and south as well -- were absorbed into the capital’s boundaries after the 1967 Six Day War and its Arab residents issued blue ID cards. Eligible to apply for full Israeli citizenship, they overwhelmingly chose not to do so, in solidarity with the Palestinian cause.
The dichotomy under which these Arabs live seems to be growing ever more strained. They may work for Jews; they may receive health and social benefits from the Zionist state, but culturally and politically they are inseparable from the surrounding Arab milieu. They watch the same satellite TV stations and hear preachers espousing the same radical messages as their compatriots in the West Bank and Gaza.
We must, at the very least, acknowledge that this framework -- the relationship between Jerusalem’s Arabs and Jews, and its security ramifications -- which has applied since 1967 needs reevaluation. To do otherwise would leave us in denial.
WORD FAITH INDEX
CATHOLIC CHURCH INDEX