Thank you for the powerful message. If the message is not heard, is not understood, the future of Judeo-Christian civilization will be short, painful and deadly. Much of Europe is now teetering on the edge of the cliff of Muslim domination and control.
Your message is even more important today, Holocaust Remembrance Day. Never again.
Wow it really IS a death cult. How bizarre that Western civilization is at serious risk because of some psycho cult-leader from 1400 years ago, and this poorly written book that appear to be the ramblings of a mad man.
Elaine you forgot to mention my all time favorite passage from the Quran:
“Judgment Day will not come before the Muslims fight the Jews, and the Jews will hide behind the rocks and the trees, but the rocks and the trees will say: Oh Muslim , oh servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him – except for the gharqad tree, which is one of the trees of the Jews.”
Thank you so much Elaine, for your interesting article......It's utterly painful to witness the spreading of Islam .....it's like civilization is going backwards.....anyhow, I think people should know that the creator of Islam was the first terrorist and pedophile, and what he created is a cult of hate and death.......Am Israel Chai.....
What we require are leaders willing to suspend their disbelief and examine this doctrine as they would any other "how-to" manual. The evidence is before their eyes: Islam is primarily a system of governance and a civilizational threat.
The "religious" leaders they consult are not like pastors or rabbis; they are political opponents seeking power, as seen in Iran — where religious leaders preside over the highest rate of execution in the world.
They are barbarians and the West, which should unapologetically love and support Enlightenment values -- including tolerance -- must not allow intolerance to reign. They must be defeated, and by that I mean decimated. They must be forced to surrender.
The West must expose the doctrine for what it is - a manual of war against the non-Muslim - and stop giving it credence as a religion. People can believe whatever they want of course - but for the West to allow, and even facilitate, all manner of Islamic law - whether it's the school, halal food, marketing and finance, grants, charitable status, beards where they are a safety issue, time off for prayers, the hijab - even though it poses a national security threat to unveiled women - etc, is to aid it's own demise.
Once the general public understands that they have been sold a bill of goods, that Islamic law - the ordained way of Islam - is contrary to human rights as we understand them, Islam will lose the support it currently enjoys.
Taqiyya makes it difficult - presenting the evidence makes it easy. Let's do that.
Truly, how can anyone doubt it? And I'd like to point out that two out of the three quotations you use in the beginning cite Christians as well as Jews.
That’s not how Islamic doctrine describes the "end-times." According to Islam, Jesus (Isa) will return, break the cross (since he was never crucified), kill the pigs (some sources suggest this refers to the Jews, though opinions are divided), lead the Muslims in prayer, and bring all under Islam. There will be no more opportunity to pay jizya (protection money) to live as dhimmis (subjugated peoples) - it will be accept Islam or die.
There’s more to it, but that’s the part those who believe Islam shares a Judeo-Christian tradition really need to reconsider.
Islam is an ideal accompaniment for western antisemitism. Battles against fanatic terrorists of Hamas and Hezbollah can now be conveniently placed into antisemitic western journalism as heroic struggles against apartheid and Israeli colonialism. Palestinian Arabs can be misconstrued as a suffering minority instead of a thousand-to-one majority of Arab/Persian-against-Jew against Israel. Astonishingly, the Egyptian locked passage at Rafa that prevents Gazans from sheltering in Egypt can be ignored while defensive fences in Israel can be touted as imprisoning of innocents. The sliver of land that is Israel can be presented to the public as essential to Gazan expansion while vast expanses of Arab land remain uninhabited and Palestinians are aggressively unwelcome to live there with their “brothers.” Decades of terrorist killings of innocent bystanders in Israel are given a blind eye. Islamic propaganda trumpets Israeli rape and murder of prisoners that is absurd finger pointing to draw attention away from perverted racist murderers. Massacres of Israelis and their visitors can be conveniently committed to amnesia. Even to PA has called Hamas “sons of dogs” for continuing their suicidal-homicidal campaign. That says something coming from another group of fanatic Jew haters. Where in hell is American public information? Shall we defend campus Jew haters from expulsion and ignore exponential attacks against Jews? For fuck sake, progressives. Wake up. Or are you wide awake and just doing what you want to do?
They are wide awake and feel empowered by the anonymity of scarves, masks, and sunglasses. Cowards, hidden and protected by the elite administrations of poison ivy institutions. The current leader of Harvard is a prime example. Shame. But alas, they have no capacity for shame. They feast on hate and bloat their egos. They must be exposed.
Strengthen our own law. People can believe what they want but according Islam that protected status it enjoys as a 'religion' conveys legal privileges that do not benefit with the state and are contrary to Western constitutions, charters and other rules of law. For Islam, it is death to apostates and slavery is halal etc. Why is this regarded as a religion in Western countries? That makes no sense.
I recently read "Sword and Scimitar", you will enjoy it. It's an excellent account of Islam's wars against the Jews with primary sources from both Arab and Western sources by a well-regarded historian.
The one thing the Muslims got right is that if you are going to commit gennocide then you need to get rid of everyone.
Raymond Ibrahim is not only a brilliant historian and librarian, but also a translator of original source documents, providing unadulterated facts. He has written several books and I recommend them all.
Studying history, it is clear that until the fall of the Ottoman Empire, Islam was universally viewed as a civilizational threat. But in their weakened state after 1918, Western egos grew too large, and they ignored Islamic imperialist history. Instead, they created the United Nations and invited Islamic countries to participate.
Everything stems from this fatal mistake.
From the very beginning, the U.N. was a corrupt, rudderless organization with no moral compass.
It proclaimed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights - a marvellous document - but failed to alert the public that Islamic states had refused to sign it. Instead, Islamic countries drafted their own, based on sharia law - the polar opposite of true human rights.
There was, and still is, no functioning moral compass.
Meanwhile, the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) - the most powerful voting bloc owing to numbers, petrodollars, and the global voice of the united ummah - has led the United Nations by the nose.
We can thank this organization; along with its global migration pacts, media "guidelines," twenty years of so-called "Islamophobia" reports, the permanent asylum status of Gazans, and UNWRA, for the mess the Western world finds itself in today.
While the OIC often claims to defend the "honour of Islam" or the "rights of Muslims," in reality it promotes the political agendas of Islamic regimes. Separately, the ummah — with its multitude of sheikhs, muftis, imams, mullahs, and scholars issuing thousands of conflicting fatwas every year — operates without any unified legal authority.
I think this will be my next article: a chaotic system, now invited to dine at the table of world leaders who cannot tell reality from deception.
This points toward a nuclear Holocaust that would destroy Israel. Any Muslims that survived a response to that should be sent to reservations and not allowed out of them. The asshole leftists on the side of the obscene Holocaust preparers should be flown into nuked territory with their fellow criminals and left to die of radiation poisoning. That would approximate what Allah is said to have prepared for evil men and women.
- Antisemitism = Hatred of Jews because they are Jews — a concept that historically developed mostly in Christian Europe (especially from the Middle Ages onward), and later included racial antisemitism (19th–20th centuries).
- Islam emerged in the 7th century CE in Arabia — in a very different historical and religious environment.
Thus:
- Islamic texts are critical of some Jewish groups, especially those Muhammad dealt with.
- But Islam does not inherently teach racial hatred against Jews — which is what “antisemitism” usually means today.
Islamic Roots Regarding Jews:
Positive Aspects:
- The Qur'an recognizes Jews as "People of the Book" (Ahl al-Kitab), sharing a divine origin with Muslims.
- Moses (Musa) is one of the most highly honored prophets in Islam.
- Jews, along with Christians, were given special protected status (dhimmi) under Islamic rule — with certain restrictions, yes, but they could live and worship relatively freely compared to Jews under Christian rule in medieval Europe.
Critical / Negative Aspects:
- Some parts of the Qur'an and hadith criticize specific Jewish tribes (especially those in Medina who opposed Muhammad).
- Example:
- Qur'an 2:61 and 5:60 criticize Jews for rejecting God's messages.
- Qur'an 5:82 says: "You will find the most intense in animosity toward the believers are the Jews and those who associate others with Allah..."
- Some hadiths (sayings attributed to Muhammad) include strong hostile language against Jews, particularly in eschatological (end-of-times) contexts.
Historical Outcome:
- In Islamic societies, Jews (and Christians) lived with second-class status (paying jizya tax, certain legal disabilities).
- However, compared to Christian Europe (pogroms, Inquisition, ghettos, expulsions), Muslim societies were often much more tolerant until the modern era.
- Extreme antisemitic ideologies (like racial antisemitism) entered the Muslim world much later, influenced by European colonialism and Nazi propaganda in the 20th century.
Bottom Line:
- Islam contains theological criticisms of Jews, stemming from early 7th-century conflicts.
- It does not teach antisemitism in the modern racial hatred sense.
- Historical Muslim treatment of Jews was mixed: sometimes peaceful and prosperous, sometimes discriminatory — but generally better than Christian Europe during the same periods.
Extra Thought:
Many modern radical Islamist movements (like Hamas) use very antisemitic language — but that reflects modern political ideologies (often mixing Islamic references with European antisemitism), not necessarily original Islamic teachings.
- Antisemitism = Hatred of Jews because they are Jews — a concept that historically developed mostly in Christian Europe (especially from the Middle Ages onward), and later included racial antisemitism (19th–20th centuries).
- Islam emerged in the 7th century CE in Arabia — in a very different historical and religious environment.
Thus:
- Islamic texts are critical of some Jewish groups, especially those Muhammad dealt with.
- But Islam does not inherently teach racial hatred against Jews — which is what “antisemitism” usually means today.
Islamic Roots Regarding Jews:
Positive Aspects:
- The Qur'an recognizes Jews as "People of the Book" (Ahl al-Kitab), sharing a divine origin with Muslims.
- Moses (Musa) is one of the most highly honored prophets in Islam.
- Jews, along with Christians, were given special protected status (dhimmi) under Islamic rule — with certain restrictions, yes, but they could live and worship relatively freely compared to Jews under Christian rule in medieval Europe.
Critical / Negative Aspects:
- Some parts of the Qur'an and hadith criticize specific Jewish tribes (especially those in Medina who opposed Muhammad).
- Example:
- Qur'an 2:61 and 5:60 criticize Jews for rejecting God's messages.
- Qur'an 5:82 says: "You will find the most intense in animosity toward the believers are the Jews and those who associate others with Allah..."
- Some hadiths (sayings attributed to Muhammad) include strong hostile language against Jews, particularly in eschatological (end-of-times) contexts.
Historical Outcome:
- In Islamic societies, Jews (and Christians) lived with second-class status (paying jizya tax, certain legal disabilities).
- However, compared to Christian Europe (pogroms, Inquisition, ghettos, expulsions), Muslim societies were often much more tolerant until the modern era.
- Extreme antisemitic ideologies (like racial antisemitism) entered the Muslim world much later, influenced by European colonialism and Nazi propaganda in the 20th century.
Bottom Line:
- Islam contains theological criticisms of Jews, stemming from early 7th-century conflicts.
- It does not teach antisemitism in the modern racial hatred sense.
- Historical Muslim treatment of Jews was mixed: sometimes peaceful and prosperous, sometimes discriminatory — but generally better than Christian Europe during the same periods.
Extra Thought:
Many modern radical Islamist movements (like Hamas) use very antisemitic language — but that reflects modern political ideologies (often mixing Islamic references with European antisemitism), not necessarily original Islamic teachings.
Your definitions are too narrow and misapplied. You're confusing racial antisemitism (a modern European phenomenon) with religiously mandated hatred and violence, which is fully embedded in Islamic doctrine from its beginnings. Islam's hostility toward Jews is not based on race — it is based on belief: systemic, divinely sanctioned hostility, subjugation, and violence against Jews.
Let's be precise:
The Koran contains extensive, repeated condemnations of Jews:
Jews are called cursed (Koran 5:60, 2:88).
Jews are described as apes and pigs (Koran 5:60).
Mohammed accuses Jews of corrupting their scriptures (Koran 2:75, 2:79) - he says the scriptures foretold his coming - there are many differences in how the Koran presents Judaism, for example in the Koran, Job struck his wife, in the hadith, Christ will return to break the cross, kill the pigs and lead the Muslims in prayer - there will be no more 'jizya' all will have to accept Islam or perish.
The treatment of Jews in Medina:
Mohammed expelled the Banu Qaynuqa and Banu Nadir,
Then beheaded all the adult males of the Banu Qurayza tribe (~600–900 men) after they refused to submit (Sirat Rasul Allah, Ibn Ishaq [p. 461-464, Guillaume translation]).
Islamic eschatology is violently anti-Jewish:
Hadith Bukhari: Mohammed (the example Muslims are supposed to follow) said "The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say. "O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him."
This hatred is doctrinal, persistent, and lethal. It is not a matter of "some criticisms of a few tribes."
It is a divine mandate to despise, subjugate, and ultimately kill Jews if they do not submit.
As for your historical comparisons:
Under Islamic rule, Jews were tolerated only as dhimmis — second-class subjects under constant threat. They had to:
Pay the jizya tax with humiliation (Koran 9:29),
Accept legal inferiority (could not testify against Muslims, restricted in public dress, riding horses, building new synagogues),
Saying "it was better than Christian Europe" is like saying "the whip was better than the rack." Neither is a model of human rights. The key difference is doctrinal: there is no Christian scriptural authority for the abuses committed in Europe, whereas Islamic doctrine explicitly ordains the subjugation of Jews — in perpetuity.
Finally, regarding October 7, 2023:
Hamas, quoting Islamic scripture, cites the same anti-Jewish hatred found in traditional Islamic sources.
It is not a "modern political distortion."
It is a fulfillment of Islamic eschatological doctrine — the same hadith promising the murder of Jews at the end of time.
Islam's foundational texts contain religiously mandated hatred against Jews, and it remains active today - we hear it in the streets every week.
Christian doctrine, by contrast, contains no such mandate to kill, subjugate, or hate anyone.
The comparison is not between medieval Europe and medieval Islamic societies —
It is between doctrine that commands hatred and doctrine that does not.
The claim that Islam is inherently anti-Semitic, based on selective verses from the Qur'an and historical incidents, distorts both the textual and historical record. While there are critiques of specific Jewish individuals or groups in Islamic sources, they are contextual, political, or theological—not racial or inherently anti-Jewish.
1. Qur’anic Verses and Jewish Critique
Several verses cited (e.g., Qur’an 2:88, 5:60, 2:75, 2:79) are often misrepresented:
- Qur’an 2:88 refers to a group rejecting God's message, saying “our hearts are wrapped.” The “curse” in this context is a consequence of rejection—not a general condemnation of Jews.
- Qur’an 5:60 metaphorically refers to some people (including among Jews) who transgressed as being turned into “apes and pigs.” This echoes biblical language (e.g., Exodus 32, about the golden calf) and is directed at specific wrongdoers—not all Jews.
- Qur’an 2:75 and 2:79 criticize individuals who are accused of corrupting scriptures or hiding parts of the truth for personal gain. These are theological critiques, not ethnic generalizations.
Crucially, the Qur’an also praises Jews, acknowledging righteous individuals among them (e.g., Qur’an 3:113–115, 2:62).
2. Hadith and Eschatological References
Some hadith (e.g., Jesus returning to “break the cross and kill the pigs”) are eschatological—they symbolize the purification of faith and the end of religious divisions, not literal anti-Jewish violence.
The reference to abolishing the jizya and forcing conversion is tied to end-times prophecy, not standard Islamic governance. Historically, Jews and Christians were protected under Islamic rule (dhimmi status) and allowed to practice their religions.
3. The Treatment of Jewish Tribes in Medina
The events involving the Banu Qaynuqa, Banu Nadir, and Banu Qurayza are often cited as evidence of anti-Semitism, but they must be understood in historical context:
- Banu Qaynuqa and Banu Nadir were expelled from Medina after breaking political alliances and conspiring with enemy forces. Their expulsion was political, not religious.
- The Banu Qurayza were executed after being accused of treason during the Battle of the Trench. They allegedly sided with attacking Meccan forces during a siege of Medina. The judgment against them came from Sa’d ibn Mu’adh, a leader of a Medinan Arab tribe allied with them, and followed Jewish legal precedent (Deuteronomy 20:10–14). Though tragic, this was not religious persecution, but a wartime decision in a tribal society.
It's also important to note: not all Jews in Arabia were expelled or harmed. Other Jewish communities continued to live under Muslim rule, and Islam does not call for general hostility toward Jews.
4. Broader Historical Context
Throughout much of Islamic history, Jews lived as protected minorities in Muslim lands:
- Under Muslim rule in Spain, Jews flourished during periods of tolerance.
- In the Ottoman Empire, Jews expelled from Christian Europe were welcomed and integrated.
- Jewish-Christian-Muslim relations were often more stable in Islamic societies than in medieval Christian Europe, where Jews frequently faced persecution and expulsion.
Conclusion
Islamic theology does not promote racial or inherent hostility toward Jews. While there are critiques of specific actions by certain individuals or groups (as with any community), these are not equivalent to anti-Semitism. Conflating isolated historical incidents or theological disagreements with racial hatred is a distortion of the Islamic tradition. A careful reading of Islamic texts and history shows a far more nuanced and complex relationship between Muslims and Jews than this claim suggests.
Your claim reflects a highly selective and decontextualized reading of Islamic texts. While it's true that the Qur'an contains critiques of certain Jewish individuals and communities, these are often tied to specific historical or theological disputes—not blanket condemnations of all Jews.
You say the texts are selective — but in Islamic law, a single command in the Koran or Sunnah is sufficient to establish obligation. Together, the Koran and the Sunnah form the immutable basis of Islamic law that has been continuously enforced for fourteen centuries. These are not dusty historical records. In fact, while modern fatwas may conflict with one another, none can legally contradict the Koran and Sunnah without committing blasphemy — a crime punishable by death in many Islamic countries. Islamic doctrine is living, binding, and enforced, not frozen in the past.
Moreover, Islamic doctrine includes the principle of naskh (supersession), meaning later revelations supersede earlier ones. The later Medinan verses — which include open hostility toward Jews — supersede the earlier, more neutral Meccan verses. Thus, Islam's final and binding position toward Jews is one of hostility, not reconciliation.
As for interpretation - use a tafsir if you need one - I recommend ibn Kathir.
A Response to Claims about Islamic Law, Naskh, and Anti-Semitism
Your argument hinges on three claims:
1. That Islamic law is immutable and mandates hostility based on the Qur’an and Sunnah;
2. That later Medinan verses supersede earlier Meccan onesthrough naskh and reflect a final hostile position toward Jews;
3. That classical interpretation (e.g., Ibn Kathir) proves this claim.
Let’s address each in turn:
1. Islamic Law and Interpretive Diversity
It is true that the Qur’an and Sunnah form the primary sources of Islamic law, and that a command in either can establish obligation. However, your claim that these sources lead to a fixed, hostile position ignores the long history of diverse legal and theological interpretation across Islamic schools of thought: Interpretation is not static. Islamic jurisprudence (fiqh) is built not just on the texts themselves, but also on contextual understanding, reasoning (ijtihad), and scholarly consensus (ijma), which have evolved over centuries.
- Even scholars like Ibn Taymiyyah, known for strict views, emphasized that rulings depend on context, not merely text.
- While some verses are harsh toward groups that opposed the Prophet politically or militarily, these have not been read historically as mandates for indiscriminate hostility toward Jews in daily life or legal status.
The lived reality of Islamic governance—where Jews lived and thrived under Muslim rule for centuries —contradicts the idea of legally enforced, religiously mandated hostility.
2. Naskh (Abrogation) and Final Judgment
The principle of naskh is real but highly contested:
- Scholars disagree on how many verses are abrogated—some say a handful, others claim more—but the majority do not agree that every later verse cancels earlier, especially in ethical or interfaith matters.
- The idea that Medinan verses “override” Meccan ones assumes a rigid and simplistic chronological reading. In fact, many conciliatory verses remain operative and are cited in both premodern and modern legal and interfaith contexts (e.g., Qur’an 5:32, 2:62, 60:8).
- Most importantly, naskh does not abrogate entire groups of people—it addresses legal prescriptions, not theological worth or human dignity.
3. Tafsir and Ibn Kathir
Ibn Kathir is a respected classical exegete—but:
- His interpretations reflect a 14th-century Mamluk context, shaped by political conflicts with Crusaders and Mongols. Like any scholar, his views were products of his time.
- Even he acknowledged righteous Jews and did not declare all Jews as enemies to be fought perpetually.
Moreover, no single tafsir is definitive. Other authoritative tafsirs (e.g., Al-Razi, Al-Tabari) offer alternative readings that are more contextual and less polemical.
Historical and Theological Reality
- Jews were not treated as permanent enemies in Islamic empires. They served as physicians, scholars, viziers, and traders under Muslim rule in Baghdad, Cordoba, Istanbul, and elsewhere.
- The Qur’an itself says: “They are not all alike among the People of the Book. Among them is a community that is upright…” (Qur’an 3:113–115). This verse is Medinan—not superseded.
- Islam’s final “stance” is not enmity—it is moral accountability. Hostility is directed at betrayal, not ethnicity or belief. This is why Qur’anic critique is behavioral, not racial—a crucial distinction from modern anti-Semitism.
Conclusion
Your interpretation reflects a particular ideological reading, not a consensus. Islam is a living tradition, but its legal and theological doctrines have never universally mandated hostility toward Jews. Like all religious traditions, its texts contain both critique and reconciliation—and its history proves that coexistence, not enmity, has been the dominant norm.
You are quite wrong Mike - the Jew hatred is baked in - the end times will not come until all Jews have been killed - the example of Mohammed is what Muslims are supposed to aspire to. You have only to believe your eyes.
You are not a serious scholar. Your own hate for Islam and Muslims prevents useful debate. I suggest you take your thoughts and conclusions about the roots of Islam to your local mosque and discuss them there. You might be enlightened.
You write: “Interpretation is not static... legal thought has evolved.”
Reality:
Islamic law is grounded in the Koran and Sunnah, which are considered unchangeable.
All four Sunni schools of jurisprudence and Shi’a doctrine affirm that no ijtihad (independent reasoning) may contradict text.
This is confirmed in Reliance of the Traveller, o1.0–o1.2: denying any verse or hadith is blasphemy punishable by death.
“Interpretive diversity” only exists within strict doctrinal boundaries, and never permits contradicting core texts.
You claim: “Not all scholars agree on how many verses are abrogated... ethical verses remain valid.”
Reality:
Yes, scholars disagree on how many verses are abrogated — but not whether naskh exists. It is a doctrinal fact.
Koran 2:106, 16:101 confirm it.
More importantly: in practice, later Medinan verses guide legal rulings, especially in fiqh manuals.
Harsh verses like Koran 9:5 (kill the polytheists), 9:29 (fight the Jews and Christians) are post-treaty, legally binding, and widely cited in rulings.
So-called “tolerant” verses like 2:256 (no compulsion in religion) are considered abrogated (e.g., by Ibn Kathir, al-Jalalayn).
You say: “Ibn Kathir was a product of his time.”
Reality: That is irrelevant. Ibn Kathir’s tafsir is canonical — widely cited by Muslims today, especially Salafi and Wahhabi authorities.
If his historical context invalidates his interpretations, then so too does Mohammed’s 7th-century context — yet the Koran is considered eternal.
You write: “Jews served as physicians, viziers, etc. under Islamic rule.”
Reality:
Yes — as dhimmis: tolerated only under systematic subjugation, with a jizya tax, public humiliation, and no legal parity.
Occasional appointments to courtly positions do not disprove systemic discrimination — they prove conditional usefulness under supremacist terms.
You appeal to context, while ignoring that sharia explicitly excludes historical reinterpretation.
You write: "“You are not a scholar. You’re just hateful.”
This is the final retreat of a losing argument. I am quoting doctrine, pointing to actual events whereas you are now resorting to smears.
I do not hate anyone - quite the reverse, and I suggest that you retract that accusation. Disagreement with a doctrine is not hatred.
Perhaps you should take your defense of Islamic theology to Afghan women confined to their homes, to the families of Christians slaughtered in Nigeria over Easter, or to Jewish families whose children were butchered on October 7. The list is long — and growing.
You’ve chosen to end this exchange with insult rather than substance. That confirms this conversation is over.
Thank you for the powerful message. If the message is not heard, is not understood, the future of Judeo-Christian civilization will be short, painful and deadly. Much of Europe is now teetering on the edge of the cliff of Muslim domination and control.
Your message is even more important today, Holocaust Remembrance Day. Never again.
Wow it really IS a death cult. How bizarre that Western civilization is at serious risk because of some psycho cult-leader from 1400 years ago, and this poorly written book that appear to be the ramblings of a mad man.
Love this! Well said. It's insane.
Elaine you forgot to mention my all time favorite passage from the Quran:
“Judgment Day will not come before the Muslims fight the Jews, and the Jews will hide behind the rocks and the trees, but the rocks and the trees will say: Oh Muslim , oh servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him – except for the gharqad tree, which is one of the trees of the Jews.”
Sahih al-Bukhari 2926 : Book 56, Hadith 139
ha ha - you must have skimmed it. Right near the end KD :)
Anybody know where one can purchase a gharqad tree?
not at Lowes! not at 1-800-Flowers (I checked ;-)--Sumbuddy' wanna find some seeds?
Lag BaOmer's comin' up in May... Do we need one per person or can 2 "share?" (oy)
Thank you so much Elaine, for your interesting article......It's utterly painful to witness the spreading of Islam .....it's like civilization is going backwards.....anyhow, I think people should know that the creator of Islam was the first terrorist and pedophile, and what he created is a cult of hate and death.......Am Israel Chai.....
What we require are leaders willing to suspend their disbelief and examine this doctrine as they would any other "how-to" manual. The evidence is before their eyes: Islam is primarily a system of governance and a civilizational threat.
The "religious" leaders they consult are not like pastors or rabbis; they are political opponents seeking power, as seen in Iran — where religious leaders preside over the highest rate of execution in the world.
For more on this you might be interested in an interview I had with Tom Dienes on Wednesday: https://tomdienes.substack.com/p/interview-with-islamic-doctrine-expert
They are barbarians and the West, which should unapologetically love and support Enlightenment values -- including tolerance -- must not allow intolerance to reign. They must be defeated, and by that I mean decimated. They must be forced to surrender.
We'll never stop Islam by focusing on people.
The West must expose the doctrine for what it is - a manual of war against the non-Muslim - and stop giving it credence as a religion. People can believe whatever they want of course - but for the West to allow, and even facilitate, all manner of Islamic law - whether it's the school, halal food, marketing and finance, grants, charitable status, beards where they are a safety issue, time off for prayers, the hijab - even though it poses a national security threat to unveiled women - etc, is to aid it's own demise.
Once the general public understands that they have been sold a bill of goods, that Islamic law - the ordained way of Islam - is contrary to human rights as we understand them, Islam will lose the support it currently enjoys.
Taqiyya makes it difficult - presenting the evidence makes it easy. Let's do that.
Truly, how can anyone doubt it? And I'd like to point out that two out of the three quotations you use in the beginning cite Christians as well as Jews.
You wrote: “Additionally, there are many Islamic scholars excited by “portents” of the end-times that they believe are upon”
Well if they knew how the story ends from either an Old Testament or New Testament perspective, they should be very worried…
That’s not how Islamic doctrine describes the "end-times." According to Islam, Jesus (Isa) will return, break the cross (since he was never crucified), kill the pigs (some sources suggest this refers to the Jews, though opinions are divided), lead the Muslims in prayer, and bring all under Islam. There will be no more opportunity to pay jizya (protection money) to live as dhimmis (subjugated peoples) - it will be accept Islam or die.
There’s more to it, but that’s the part those who believe Islam shares a Judeo-Christian tradition really need to reconsider.
Time for more guns. These freaks are scaring me.
No Islam is by definition Antichrist
Even Judaism looks for the Christ, though not as Christians would interpret things
Islam is an ideal accompaniment for western antisemitism. Battles against fanatic terrorists of Hamas and Hezbollah can now be conveniently placed into antisemitic western journalism as heroic struggles against apartheid and Israeli colonialism. Palestinian Arabs can be misconstrued as a suffering minority instead of a thousand-to-one majority of Arab/Persian-against-Jew against Israel. Astonishingly, the Egyptian locked passage at Rafa that prevents Gazans from sheltering in Egypt can be ignored while defensive fences in Israel can be touted as imprisoning of innocents. The sliver of land that is Israel can be presented to the public as essential to Gazan expansion while vast expanses of Arab land remain uninhabited and Palestinians are aggressively unwelcome to live there with their “brothers.” Decades of terrorist killings of innocent bystanders in Israel are given a blind eye. Islamic propaganda trumpets Israeli rape and murder of prisoners that is absurd finger pointing to draw attention away from perverted racist murderers. Massacres of Israelis and their visitors can be conveniently committed to amnesia. Even to PA has called Hamas “sons of dogs” for continuing their suicidal-homicidal campaign. That says something coming from another group of fanatic Jew haters. Where in hell is American public information? Shall we defend campus Jew haters from expulsion and ignore exponential attacks against Jews? For fuck sake, progressives. Wake up. Or are you wide awake and just doing what you want to do?
They are wide awake and feel empowered by the anonymity of scarves, masks, and sunglasses. Cowards, hidden and protected by the elite administrations of poison ivy institutions. The current leader of Harvard is a prime example. Shame. But alas, they have no capacity for shame. They feast on hate and bloat their egos. They must be exposed.
The media is somewhere between atheists and Satan-worshippers like the late Pope is alleged to have been.
The question is not whether jews deserve a home, but how to rid the home of the pestilence that threatens it's existence, once and for all time .
Strengthen our own law. People can believe what they want but according Islam that protected status it enjoys as a 'religion' conveys legal privileges that do not benefit with the state and are contrary to Western constitutions, charters and other rules of law. For Islam, it is death to apostates and slavery is halal etc. Why is this regarded as a religion in Western countries? That makes no sense.
Thank you for an education on Islam and the Jews. Well done.
Thank you Mark.
I recently read "Sword and Scimitar", you will enjoy it. It's an excellent account of Islam's wars against the Jews with primary sources from both Arab and Western sources by a well-regarded historian.
The one thing the Muslims got right is that if you are going to commit gennocide then you need to get rid of everyone.
Raymond Ibrahim is a fantastic author.
Raymond Ibrahim is not only a brilliant historian and librarian, but also a translator of original source documents, providing unadulterated facts. He has written several books and I recommend them all.
Studying history, it is clear that until the fall of the Ottoman Empire, Islam was universally viewed as a civilizational threat. But in their weakened state after 1918, Western egos grew too large, and they ignored Islamic imperialist history. Instead, they created the United Nations and invited Islamic countries to participate.
Everything stems from this fatal mistake.
From the very beginning, the U.N. was a corrupt, rudderless organization with no moral compass.
It proclaimed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights - a marvellous document - but failed to alert the public that Islamic states had refused to sign it. Instead, Islamic countries drafted their own, based on sharia law - the polar opposite of true human rights.
There was, and still is, no functioning moral compass.
Meanwhile, the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) - the most powerful voting bloc owing to numbers, petrodollars, and the global voice of the united ummah - has led the United Nations by the nose.
We can thank this organization; along with its global migration pacts, media "guidelines," twenty years of so-called "Islamophobia" reports, the permanent asylum status of Gazans, and UNWRA, for the mess the Western world finds itself in today.
The OIC is a cancer.
While the OIC often claims to defend the "honour of Islam" or the "rights of Muslims," in reality it promotes the political agendas of Islamic regimes. Separately, the ummah — with its multitude of sheikhs, muftis, imams, mullahs, and scholars issuing thousands of conflicting fatwas every year — operates without any unified legal authority.
I think this will be my next article: a chaotic system, now invited to dine at the table of world leaders who cannot tell reality from deception.
This points toward a nuclear Holocaust that would destroy Israel. Any Muslims that survived a response to that should be sent to reservations and not allowed out of them. The asshole leftists on the side of the obscene Holocaust preparers should be flown into nuked territory with their fellow criminals and left to die of radiation poisoning. That would approximate what Allah is said to have prepared for evil men and women.
I'm done.
Does Islam have antisemitic roots?
Let’s approach it carefully and precisely.
First, definitions matter:
- Antisemitism = Hatred of Jews because they are Jews — a concept that historically developed mostly in Christian Europe (especially from the Middle Ages onward), and later included racial antisemitism (19th–20th centuries).
- Islam emerged in the 7th century CE in Arabia — in a very different historical and religious environment.
Thus:
- Islamic texts are critical of some Jewish groups, especially those Muhammad dealt with.
- But Islam does not inherently teach racial hatred against Jews — which is what “antisemitism” usually means today.
Islamic Roots Regarding Jews:
Positive Aspects:
- The Qur'an recognizes Jews as "People of the Book" (Ahl al-Kitab), sharing a divine origin with Muslims.
- Moses (Musa) is one of the most highly honored prophets in Islam.
- Jews, along with Christians, were given special protected status (dhimmi) under Islamic rule — with certain restrictions, yes, but they could live and worship relatively freely compared to Jews under Christian rule in medieval Europe.
Critical / Negative Aspects:
- Some parts of the Qur'an and hadith criticize specific Jewish tribes (especially those in Medina who opposed Muhammad).
- Example:
- Qur'an 2:61 and 5:60 criticize Jews for rejecting God's messages.
- Qur'an 5:82 says: "You will find the most intense in animosity toward the believers are the Jews and those who associate others with Allah..."
- Some hadiths (sayings attributed to Muhammad) include strong hostile language against Jews, particularly in eschatological (end-of-times) contexts.
Historical Outcome:
- In Islamic societies, Jews (and Christians) lived with second-class status (paying jizya tax, certain legal disabilities).
- However, compared to Christian Europe (pogroms, Inquisition, ghettos, expulsions), Muslim societies were often much more tolerant until the modern era.
- Extreme antisemitic ideologies (like racial antisemitism) entered the Muslim world much later, influenced by European colonialism and Nazi propaganda in the 20th century.
Bottom Line:
- Islam contains theological criticisms of Jews, stemming from early 7th-century conflicts.
- It does not teach antisemitism in the modern racial hatred sense.
- Historical Muslim treatment of Jews was mixed: sometimes peaceful and prosperous, sometimes discriminatory — but generally better than Christian Europe during the same periods.
Extra Thought:
Many modern radical Islamist movements (like Hamas) use very antisemitic language — but that reflects modern political ideologies (often mixing Islamic references with European antisemitism), not necessarily original Islamic teachings.
Does Islam have antisemitic roots?
Let’s approach it carefully and precisely.
First, definitions matter:
- Antisemitism = Hatred of Jews because they are Jews — a concept that historically developed mostly in Christian Europe (especially from the Middle Ages onward), and later included racial antisemitism (19th–20th centuries).
- Islam emerged in the 7th century CE in Arabia — in a very different historical and religious environment.
Thus:
- Islamic texts are critical of some Jewish groups, especially those Muhammad dealt with.
- But Islam does not inherently teach racial hatred against Jews — which is what “antisemitism” usually means today.
Islamic Roots Regarding Jews:
Positive Aspects:
- The Qur'an recognizes Jews as "People of the Book" (Ahl al-Kitab), sharing a divine origin with Muslims.
- Moses (Musa) is one of the most highly honored prophets in Islam.
- Jews, along with Christians, were given special protected status (dhimmi) under Islamic rule — with certain restrictions, yes, but they could live and worship relatively freely compared to Jews under Christian rule in medieval Europe.
Critical / Negative Aspects:
- Some parts of the Qur'an and hadith criticize specific Jewish tribes (especially those in Medina who opposed Muhammad).
- Example:
- Qur'an 2:61 and 5:60 criticize Jews for rejecting God's messages.
- Qur'an 5:82 says: "You will find the most intense in animosity toward the believers are the Jews and those who associate others with Allah..."
- Some hadiths (sayings attributed to Muhammad) include strong hostile language against Jews, particularly in eschatological (end-of-times) contexts.
Historical Outcome:
- In Islamic societies, Jews (and Christians) lived with second-class status (paying jizya tax, certain legal disabilities).
- However, compared to Christian Europe (pogroms, Inquisition, ghettos, expulsions), Muslim societies were often much more tolerant until the modern era.
- Extreme antisemitic ideologies (like racial antisemitism) entered the Muslim world much later, influenced by European colonialism and Nazi propaganda in the 20th century.
Bottom Line:
- Islam contains theological criticisms of Jews, stemming from early 7th-century conflicts.
- It does not teach antisemitism in the modern racial hatred sense.
- Historical Muslim treatment of Jews was mixed: sometimes peaceful and prosperous, sometimes discriminatory — but generally better than Christian Europe during the same periods.
Extra Thought:
Many modern radical Islamist movements (like Hamas) use very antisemitic language — but that reflects modern political ideologies (often mixing Islamic references with European antisemitism), not necessarily original Islamic teachings.
Your definitions are too narrow and misapplied. You're confusing racial antisemitism (a modern European phenomenon) with religiously mandated hatred and violence, which is fully embedded in Islamic doctrine from its beginnings. Islam's hostility toward Jews is not based on race — it is based on belief: systemic, divinely sanctioned hostility, subjugation, and violence against Jews.
Let's be precise:
The Koran contains extensive, repeated condemnations of Jews:
Jews are called cursed (Koran 5:60, 2:88).
Jews are described as apes and pigs (Koran 5:60).
Mohammed accuses Jews of corrupting their scriptures (Koran 2:75, 2:79) - he says the scriptures foretold his coming - there are many differences in how the Koran presents Judaism, for example in the Koran, Job struck his wife, in the hadith, Christ will return to break the cross, kill the pigs and lead the Muslims in prayer - there will be no more 'jizya' all will have to accept Islam or perish.
The treatment of Jews in Medina:
Mohammed expelled the Banu Qaynuqa and Banu Nadir,
Then beheaded all the adult males of the Banu Qurayza tribe (~600–900 men) after they refused to submit (Sirat Rasul Allah, Ibn Ishaq [p. 461-464, Guillaume translation]).
Islamic eschatology is violently anti-Jewish:
Hadith Bukhari: Mohammed (the example Muslims are supposed to follow) said "The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say. "O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him."
This hatred is doctrinal, persistent, and lethal. It is not a matter of "some criticisms of a few tribes."
It is a divine mandate to despise, subjugate, and ultimately kill Jews if they do not submit.
As for your historical comparisons:
Under Islamic rule, Jews were tolerated only as dhimmis — second-class subjects under constant threat. They had to:
Pay the jizya tax with humiliation (Koran 9:29),
Accept legal inferiority (could not testify against Muslims, restricted in public dress, riding horses, building new synagogues),
Endure periodic massacres (e.g., Granada 1066, Baghdad 9th century).
Saying "it was better than Christian Europe" is like saying "the whip was better than the rack." Neither is a model of human rights. The key difference is doctrinal: there is no Christian scriptural authority for the abuses committed in Europe, whereas Islamic doctrine explicitly ordains the subjugation of Jews — in perpetuity.
Finally, regarding October 7, 2023:
Hamas, quoting Islamic scripture, cites the same anti-Jewish hatred found in traditional Islamic sources.
It is not a "modern political distortion."
It is a fulfillment of Islamic eschatological doctrine — the same hadith promising the murder of Jews at the end of time.
Islam's foundational texts contain religiously mandated hatred against Jews, and it remains active today - we hear it in the streets every week.
Christian doctrine, by contrast, contains no such mandate to kill, subjugate, or hate anyone.
The comparison is not between medieval Europe and medieval Islamic societies —
It is between doctrine that commands hatred and doctrine that does not.
Clarification
The claim that Islam is inherently anti-Semitic, based on selective verses from the Qur'an and historical incidents, distorts both the textual and historical record. While there are critiques of specific Jewish individuals or groups in Islamic sources, they are contextual, political, or theological—not racial or inherently anti-Jewish.
1. Qur’anic Verses and Jewish Critique
Several verses cited (e.g., Qur’an 2:88, 5:60, 2:75, 2:79) are often misrepresented:
- Qur’an 2:88 refers to a group rejecting God's message, saying “our hearts are wrapped.” The “curse” in this context is a consequence of rejection—not a general condemnation of Jews.
- Qur’an 5:60 metaphorically refers to some people (including among Jews) who transgressed as being turned into “apes and pigs.” This echoes biblical language (e.g., Exodus 32, about the golden calf) and is directed at specific wrongdoers—not all Jews.
- Qur’an 2:75 and 2:79 criticize individuals who are accused of corrupting scriptures or hiding parts of the truth for personal gain. These are theological critiques, not ethnic generalizations.
Crucially, the Qur’an also praises Jews, acknowledging righteous individuals among them (e.g., Qur’an 3:113–115, 2:62).
2. Hadith and Eschatological References
Some hadith (e.g., Jesus returning to “break the cross and kill the pigs”) are eschatological—they symbolize the purification of faith and the end of religious divisions, not literal anti-Jewish violence.
The reference to abolishing the jizya and forcing conversion is tied to end-times prophecy, not standard Islamic governance. Historically, Jews and Christians were protected under Islamic rule (dhimmi status) and allowed to practice their religions.
3. The Treatment of Jewish Tribes in Medina
The events involving the Banu Qaynuqa, Banu Nadir, and Banu Qurayza are often cited as evidence of anti-Semitism, but they must be understood in historical context:
- Banu Qaynuqa and Banu Nadir were expelled from Medina after breaking political alliances and conspiring with enemy forces. Their expulsion was political, not religious.
- The Banu Qurayza were executed after being accused of treason during the Battle of the Trench. They allegedly sided with attacking Meccan forces during a siege of Medina. The judgment against them came from Sa’d ibn Mu’adh, a leader of a Medinan Arab tribe allied with them, and followed Jewish legal precedent (Deuteronomy 20:10–14). Though tragic, this was not religious persecution, but a wartime decision in a tribal society.
It's also important to note: not all Jews in Arabia were expelled or harmed. Other Jewish communities continued to live under Muslim rule, and Islam does not call for general hostility toward Jews.
4. Broader Historical Context
Throughout much of Islamic history, Jews lived as protected minorities in Muslim lands:
- Under Muslim rule in Spain, Jews flourished during periods of tolerance.
- In the Ottoman Empire, Jews expelled from Christian Europe were welcomed and integrated.
- Jewish-Christian-Muslim relations were often more stable in Islamic societies than in medieval Christian Europe, where Jews frequently faced persecution and expulsion.
Conclusion
Islamic theology does not promote racial or inherent hostility toward Jews. While there are critiques of specific actions by certain individuals or groups (as with any community), these are not equivalent to anti-Semitism. Conflating isolated historical incidents or theological disagreements with racial hatred is a distortion of the Islamic tradition. A careful reading of Islamic texts and history shows a far more nuanced and complex relationship between Muslims and Jews than this claim suggests.
Your claim reflects a highly selective and decontextualized reading of Islamic texts. While it's true that the Qur'an contains critiques of certain Jewish individuals and communities, these are often tied to specific historical or theological disputes—not blanket condemnations of all Jews.
You say the texts are selective — but in Islamic law, a single command in the Koran or Sunnah is sufficient to establish obligation. Together, the Koran and the Sunnah form the immutable basis of Islamic law that has been continuously enforced for fourteen centuries. These are not dusty historical records. In fact, while modern fatwas may conflict with one another, none can legally contradict the Koran and Sunnah without committing blasphemy — a crime punishable by death in many Islamic countries. Islamic doctrine is living, binding, and enforced, not frozen in the past.
Moreover, Islamic doctrine includes the principle of naskh (supersession), meaning later revelations supersede earlier ones. The later Medinan verses — which include open hostility toward Jews — supersede the earlier, more neutral Meccan verses. Thus, Islam's final and binding position toward Jews is one of hostility, not reconciliation.
As for interpretation - use a tafsir if you need one - I recommend ibn Kathir.
A Response to Claims about Islamic Law, Naskh, and Anti-Semitism
Your argument hinges on three claims:
1. That Islamic law is immutable and mandates hostility based on the Qur’an and Sunnah;
2. That later Medinan verses supersede earlier Meccan onesthrough naskh and reflect a final hostile position toward Jews;
3. That classical interpretation (e.g., Ibn Kathir) proves this claim.
Let’s address each in turn:
1. Islamic Law and Interpretive Diversity
It is true that the Qur’an and Sunnah form the primary sources of Islamic law, and that a command in either can establish obligation. However, your claim that these sources lead to a fixed, hostile position ignores the long history of diverse legal and theological interpretation across Islamic schools of thought: Interpretation is not static. Islamic jurisprudence (fiqh) is built not just on the texts themselves, but also on contextual understanding, reasoning (ijtihad), and scholarly consensus (ijma), which have evolved over centuries.
- Even scholars like Ibn Taymiyyah, known for strict views, emphasized that rulings depend on context, not merely text.
- While some verses are harsh toward groups that opposed the Prophet politically or militarily, these have not been read historically as mandates for indiscriminate hostility toward Jews in daily life or legal status.
The lived reality of Islamic governance—where Jews lived and thrived under Muslim rule for centuries —contradicts the idea of legally enforced, religiously mandated hostility.
2. Naskh (Abrogation) and Final Judgment
The principle of naskh is real but highly contested:
- Scholars disagree on how many verses are abrogated—some say a handful, others claim more—but the majority do not agree that every later verse cancels earlier, especially in ethical or interfaith matters.
- The idea that Medinan verses “override” Meccan ones assumes a rigid and simplistic chronological reading. In fact, many conciliatory verses remain operative and are cited in both premodern and modern legal and interfaith contexts (e.g., Qur’an 5:32, 2:62, 60:8).
- Most importantly, naskh does not abrogate entire groups of people—it addresses legal prescriptions, not theological worth or human dignity.
3. Tafsir and Ibn Kathir
Ibn Kathir is a respected classical exegete—but:
- His interpretations reflect a 14th-century Mamluk context, shaped by political conflicts with Crusaders and Mongols. Like any scholar, his views were products of his time.
- Even he acknowledged righteous Jews and did not declare all Jews as enemies to be fought perpetually.
Moreover, no single tafsir is definitive. Other authoritative tafsirs (e.g., Al-Razi, Al-Tabari) offer alternative readings that are more contextual and less polemical.
Historical and Theological Reality
- Jews were not treated as permanent enemies in Islamic empires. They served as physicians, scholars, viziers, and traders under Muslim rule in Baghdad, Cordoba, Istanbul, and elsewhere.
- The Qur’an itself says: “They are not all alike among the People of the Book. Among them is a community that is upright…” (Qur’an 3:113–115). This verse is Medinan—not superseded.
- Islam’s final “stance” is not enmity—it is moral accountability. Hostility is directed at betrayal, not ethnicity or belief. This is why Qur’anic critique is behavioral, not racial—a crucial distinction from modern anti-Semitism.
Conclusion
Your interpretation reflects a particular ideological reading, not a consensus. Islam is a living tradition, but its legal and theological doctrines have never universally mandated hostility toward Jews. Like all religious traditions, its texts contain both critique and reconciliation—and its history proves that coexistence, not enmity, has been the dominant norm.
You are quite wrong Mike - the Jew hatred is baked in - the end times will not come until all Jews have been killed - the example of Mohammed is what Muslims are supposed to aspire to. You have only to believe your eyes.
Here's a website that keeps track of jihad worldwide; https://thereligionofpeace.com/
Here's another specific to Jews - read the source docs: https://www.cspii.org/learn-political-islam/methodology/statistical-analysis-political-islam/anti-jew-text-trilogy/
You are not a serious scholar. Your own hate for Islam and Muslims prevents useful debate. I suggest you take your thoughts and conclusions about the roots of Islam to your local mosque and discuss them there. You might be enlightened.
You write: “Interpretation is not static... legal thought has evolved.”
Reality:
Islamic law is grounded in the Koran and Sunnah, which are considered unchangeable.
All four Sunni schools of jurisprudence and Shi’a doctrine affirm that no ijtihad (independent reasoning) may contradict text.
This is confirmed in Reliance of the Traveller, o1.0–o1.2: denying any verse or hadith is blasphemy punishable by death.
“Interpretive diversity” only exists within strict doctrinal boundaries, and never permits contradicting core texts.
You claim: “Not all scholars agree on how many verses are abrogated... ethical verses remain valid.”
Reality:
Yes, scholars disagree on how many verses are abrogated — but not whether naskh exists. It is a doctrinal fact.
Koran 2:106, 16:101 confirm it.
More importantly: in practice, later Medinan verses guide legal rulings, especially in fiqh manuals.
Harsh verses like Koran 9:5 (kill the polytheists), 9:29 (fight the Jews and Christians) are post-treaty, legally binding, and widely cited in rulings.
So-called “tolerant” verses like 2:256 (no compulsion in religion) are considered abrogated (e.g., by Ibn Kathir, al-Jalalayn).
You say: “Ibn Kathir was a product of his time.”
Reality: That is irrelevant. Ibn Kathir’s tafsir is canonical — widely cited by Muslims today, especially Salafi and Wahhabi authorities.
If his historical context invalidates his interpretations, then so too does Mohammed’s 7th-century context — yet the Koran is considered eternal.
You write: “Jews served as physicians, viziers, etc. under Islamic rule.”
Reality:
Yes — as dhimmis: tolerated only under systematic subjugation, with a jizya tax, public humiliation, and no legal parity.
Occasional appointments to courtly positions do not disprove systemic discrimination — they prove conditional usefulness under supremacist terms.
You appeal to context, while ignoring that sharia explicitly excludes historical reinterpretation.
You write: "“You are not a scholar. You’re just hateful.”
This is the final retreat of a losing argument. I am quoting doctrine, pointing to actual events whereas you are now resorting to smears.
I do not hate anyone - quite the reverse, and I suggest that you retract that accusation. Disagreement with a doctrine is not hatred.
Perhaps you should take your defense of Islamic theology to Afghan women confined to their homes, to the families of Christians slaughtered in Nigeria over Easter, or to Jewish families whose children were butchered on October 7. The list is long — and growing.
You’ve chosen to end this exchange with insult rather than substance. That confirms this conversation is over.
Please read yadayah.com, “Religion”
You might be interested an article I published a couple months ago:
https://perspectivesonislam.substack.com/p/islam-is-not-a-religion
Like anti any fucking thing to be blunt!
We'll make those capital letters then, shall we :)
ANTI