This is the final of four installments. Previously: Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3.
Antisemitism in the Hadith and Early Muslim Biographies of Muhammad: Motifs and Manifestations
by Andrew G. Bostom
Muhammad’s ultimate political goals vis a vis the Jews were becoming quite apparent :
The Jews might now see clearly the designs of Mahomet. It was no petty question of an affronted female. Blood had no doubt been shed in the quarrel; but it was shed equally on both sides. And had there not been a deadly enmity, and a predetermination to root out the Israelites, the difference might easily have been composed. Moreover Mahomet was bound by treaty to deal justly and amicably with the tribe: the murderer alone was “liable to retaliation”. Indeed, of such minor importance was the quarrel, that some biographers do not mention it at ll, but justify the attack by a divine revelation of Jewish treachery. The violent proceedings of Mahomet widened also to some extent the breach between his followers and the disaffected citizens. Abdallah thus upbraided Obada (they were both principals in the confederacy with the Bani Cainucaa) for the part he had taken in abandoning their allies, and aiding in their exile: “What! Art thou free from the oath with which we ratified their alliance? Hast thou forgotten how they stood by us, and shed for us their blood, on such and such a field?”—and he bgean enumerating the engagements in which they had fought together. Obada cut him short with the decisive answer: “Hearts have changed. Islam hath blotted all treaties out.”
The expulsion of the B. Qaynuqa made the remaining Jewish tribes of Medina more vulnerable. Following a series of caravan raids (of varied success), and an interlude of calm , Muhammad began a renewed campaign of assassinations starting with the murder of Ka’b b. al ‘Ashraf, the son of a Jewess from the B. Nadir. Ibn Warraq summarizes the events surrounding this assassination :
He [Ka’b] had gone to Mecca after the battle of Badr and had composed poems in praise of the dead, trying to stir up the Meccans to avenge their heroes of Badr. Rather foolishly he returned to Medina, where Muhammad prayed aloud, “O Lord, deliver me from the son of Ashraf, in whatsoever way it seems good to you, because of his open sedition and his verses.” But the Banu Nadir were powerful enough to protect Ka’b, and the Muslims who volunteered to murder him explained to the Prophet that only by cunning could they hope to accomplish their task. The conspirators met in Muhamamd’s house, and as they emerged at night, the Prophet gave them his full blessings. Pretending to be Ka’b’s friends, the Muslims lured him out into the night and, in a suitable spot near a waterfall, murdered him. They threw Ka’b’s head at the Prophet’s feet. Muhammad praised their good work in the cause of God.
Ibn Ishaq records these telling words of one of the conspirators :
Our attack upon God’s enemy cast terror among the Jews, and there was no Jew in Medina who did not fear for his life.
Indeed this fear was well founded, as on the very morning after Ka’b’s murder, Muhammad encouraged the Muslims to slay Jews indiscriminately, according to Ibn Ishaq :
The apostle said, “Kill any Jew that fails into your power.” Thereupon Muhayyisa b. Mas’ud leapt upon Ibn Sunayna, a Jewish merchant with whom they had social and business relations, and killed him. Huwayyisa was not a Muslim at the time though he was the elder brother. When Muhayyisa killed him Huwayyisa began to beat him, saying, “You enemy of God, did you kill him when much of the fat on your belly comes from his wealth?” Muhayyisa answered, “Had the one who ordered me to kill him ordered me to kill you I would have cut your head off.” He said that this was the beginning of Huwayyisa’s acceptance of Islam. The other replied, “By God, if Muhammad had ordered you to kill me would you have killed me?” He said, “Yes, by God, had he ordered me to cut off your head I would have done so.” He exclaimed, “By God, a religion which can bring you to this is marvelous!” and he became a Muslim.
Not surprisingly, as Muir notes ,
The Jews were now in extreme alarm. None ventured abroad. Every family lived in fear of a night attack; every individual dreaded the fate of Kab and Ibn Sanin…the Jews thenceforward lived (as well they might) in a state of depression and disquietude.
Clearly these murders, particularly of Ka’b, were a prelude to a general attack on the B. Nadir. But this enterprise was delayed by the Muslims defeat at Uhud (A.H.3; 625 C.E.), a setback to Muhammad’s power and prestige.  Hirschfeld characterizes his inevitable course of action :
In order to restore his military glory and avenge their insults—the mere memory of which roused his indignation—the prophet resolved to have done with the Jews. Furthermore he felt encouraged by the calm and indifference with which they had witnessed the expulsion of the Banu Qaynuqa and the murder of Ka’b.
The alleged pretext for Muhammad’s campaign against the B. Nadir, and the results of the Muslims attack, are summarized by Hirschfeld, as follows :
A Muslim had killed two members of the Banu Amir tribe. Muhammad, accompanied by Abu Bakr, Umar and Ali, went to the Banu Nadir and asked them to join with him in apologizing for that double murder. His friends waited for him at the entrance to his dwelling; they saw him return in great haste. Muhammad told them that a divine revelation warned him that the Jew ‘Amr b. Jiḥāsh (b. Ka’b), refusing to obey the orders of Sallam b. Mishkam, was planning to throw a rock down on him from the height of his citadel so as to kill him. This accusation was certainly false and only served as a pretext to attack the Banu Nadir, whose destruction had been decided long ago. Muhammad laid siege to the citadels of his enemies and, contrary to all customs, gave orders to burn and cut down the palm trees at Boeira. Abdallah b. Ubayy urged those who were under siege not to persist, and he promised to intercede in their favor with the prophet. The latter agreed to allow the Banu Nadir to come out of their fortresses, unarmed, and he permitted each group of three persons to take with them a camel’s load of their belongings. The Banu Nadir accepted these conditions, loaded their beasts, carrying off the wooden materials of which their houses were built, and withdrew, to the sound of music, to the North, where they settled, partly in Khaybar, partly in Adzraât in Syria. Among those who decided to stay in Khaybar were the brother and the sons of Kinana Rabi b. Abu’l-Huqayq and the rabbi Huyayy. Two Banu Nadir, Yāmīn b. cUmayr and Abou Sad b. Wahb, embraced Islam in order to save their fortune and remain in Medina. The lands and houses of the emigrants were divided up among the Muslims.
Hirschfeld concludes that the forced emigration of the B. Nadir resulted from a lack of “energy, resolve, and unity”, compounded by a fearful awareness “…they would not be able to continue living in a land where betrayal and murder prevailed, and where their adversaries would surely increase in numbers and strength over time.” Muhammad, in contrast, was well aware of the bounty of the exiled B. Nadir, whose lands and possessions became Muslim booty, celebrated in Qur’an 59: 1-10, and subsequently codified into Islamic Law (as “fay territory” etc.)  Ibn Ishaq emphasizes how this “Sura (Sura 59) of Exile” ,
…came down in which is recorded how God wreaked His vengeance on them [the Jews] and gave His apostle power over them and how He dealt with them. God said: “He it is who turned out those who disbelieved of the scripture people from their homes to the first exile. You did not think that they would go out and they thought that their forts would protect them from God. But God came upon them from a direction they had not reckoned and He cast terror into their hearts so that they destroyed their houses with their own hands and the hands of the believers.” That refers to their destroying their houses to extract the lintels of the doors when they carried them away. “So consider this, you who have understanding. Had not God prescribed deportation against them,” which was vengeance from God, “He would have punished them in this world,” i.e. with the sword, “and in the next world there would be the punishment of hell” as well. “The palm-trees which you cut down or left standing upon their roots.” Lina means other than the best kind of dates. “It was by God’s permission,” i.e. they were cut down by God’s order; it was not destruction but was vengeance from God, “and to humble evildoers. “The spoil which God gave the apostle from them,” i.e., from B. al-Nadir. “You did not urge on your cavalry or riding camels for the sake of it, but God gives His apostle power over whom He wills and God is Almighty,” i.e., it was peculiar to him , “The spoil which God gave the apostle from the people of the towns belongs to God and His apostle.” What the Muslims gallop against with horses and camels and what is captured by force of arms belongs to God and the apostle. “And is for the next of kin and orphans and the poor and the wayfarer so that it should not circulate among your rich men; and what the apostle gives you take and abstain from what he forbids you.” He says this is another division between Muslims concerning what is taken in war according to what God prescribed to him.
Then God said, “Have you seen those who are disaffected,” meaning ‘Abdullah b. Ubayy and his companions and those who are like-minded “who say to their brothers of the scripture people who disbelieve,” i.e. the B. Al-Nadir, up to the words “like those who a short time before them tasted the misery of their acts and had a painful punishment,” i.e. the B. Qaynuqa. Then as far as the words “Like Satan when he said to man Disbelieve”, and when man disbelieved he said, “I am quit of you. I fear Allah the Lord of the worlds and the punishment of both is that they will be in hell everlastingly. That is the reward of the evildoers.”
The last remaining Jewish tribe in Medina was Banu Qurayza. During the Battle of the Trench (627), when the Meccans and their allies had besieged Medina, B. Qurayza contributed to the city’s defense, but on the whole remained neutral.  After a fortuitous storm helped break the siege, the loyalty of the B. Qurayza was questioned, and Muhammad, inspired by another divine revelation, moved against them.  When Muhammad approached the fortifications of the B. Qurayza, according to Ibn Ishaq, he declared, “You brothers of apes, has God disgraced you and brought his vengeance upon you?” 
A consensus Muslim account of the subsequent events which lead to the massacre of the B. Qurayza has been compiled by M.J. Kister.  Twice the Qurayza made offers to surrender, and depart from their stronghold, leaving behind their land and property. Initially they requested to take one camel load of possessions per person, but when Muhammad refused this request, the Qurayza asked to be allowed to depart without any property, taking with them only their families. However, Muhammad insisted that the Qurayza surrender unconditionally and subject themselves to his judgment. Compelled to surrender, the Qurayza were led to Medina. The men with their hands pinioned behind their backs, were put in a court, while the women and children were said to have been put into a separate court. A third (and final) appeal for leniency for the Qurayza was made to Muhammad by their tribal allies the Aws. Muhammad again declined, and instead he appointed as arbiter Sa’d Mu’ad from the Aws, who soon rendered his concise verdict: the men were to be put to death, the women and children sold into slavery, the spoils to be divided among the Muslims.
Muhammad ratified the judgment stating that Sa’d’s decree was a decree of Allah pronounced from above the Seven Heavens. Thus some 600 to 900 men from the Qurayza were led on Muhammad’s order to the Market of Medina. Trenches were dug and the men were beheaded, and their decapitated corpses buried in the trenches while Muhammad watched in attendance. Male youths who had not reached puberty were spared. Women and children were sold into slavery, a number of them being distributed as gifts among Muhammad’s companions. According to Ibn Ishaq, Muhammad chose one of the Qurayza women (Rayhana) for himself. The Qurayza’s property and other possessions (including weapons) were also divided up as additional “booty” among the Muslims. The following details have been chronicled consistently by Muslim sources: the arbiter (Sa’d Mu’ad) was appointed by Muhammad himself; Muhammad observed in person the horrific executions; Muhammad claimed as a wife a woman (Rayhana) previously married to one of the slaughtered Qurayza tribesmen; the substantial material benefits (i.e., property; receipts from the sale of the enslaved) which accrued to the Muslims as a result of the massacre; the extinction of the Qurayza.
Abu Yusuf (d. 798), the prominent Hanafi jurist who advised Abbasid Caliph Harun al-Rashid (d. 809), made the following observations about the Qurayza massacre in his writings on jihad: 
Whenever the Muslims besiege an enemy stronghold, establish a treaty with the besieged who agree to surrender on certain conditions that will be decided by a delegate, and this man decides that their soldiers are to be executed and their women and children taken prisoner, this decision is lawful. This was the decision of Sa’ad b. Mu’ad in connection with the Banu Qurayza…it is up to the imam to decide what treatment is to be meted out to them and he will choose that which is preferable for religion and for Islam. If he esteems that the execution of the fighting men and the enslavement of their women and children is better for Islam and its followers, then he will act thus, emulating the example of Sa’ad b. Mu’ad.
Al-Mawardi (d. 1072), another eminent Muslim jurist from Baghdad, characterized the slaughter of the Qurayza as a religious duty incumbent on Muhammad. Kister quotes al-Mawardi as follows: “…it was not permitted (for Muhammad) to forgive (in a case of ) God’s injunction incumbent upon them; he could only forgive (transgressions) in matters concerning his own person.”  The notion that this slaughter was sanctioned by God as revealed to Muhammad was, according to Kister, reflective of “…the current (as of 1986) Sunni view about the slaughter of the Banu Qurayza.” 
W.H.T. Gairdner, also relying exclusively upon Muslim sources characterizing the slaughter of the Qurayza, highlights the pivotal role that Muhammad himself played in orchestrating the overall events: 
The umpire who gave the fatal decision (Sa’ad) was extravagantly praised by Muhammad. Yet his action was wholly and admittedly due to his lust for personal vengeance on a tribe which had occasioned him a painful wound. In the agony of its treatment he cried out — “O God, let not my soul go forth ere thou has cooled my eye from the Bani Quraiza”. This was the arbiter to whose word the fate of that tribe was given over. His sentiments were well-known to Muhammad, who appointed him. It is perfectly clear from that that their slaughter had been decreed. What makes it clearer still is the assertion of another biographer that Muhammad had refused to treat with the Bani Quraiza at all until they had “come down to receive the judgment of the Apostle of God”. Accordingly “they came down”; in other words put themselves in his power. And only then was the arbitration of Sa’ad proposed and accepted — but not accepted until it had been forced on him by Muhammad; for Sa’ad first declined and tried to make Muhammad take the responsibility, but was told “qad amarak Allahu takhuma fihim” “Allah has commanded you to give sentence in their case”. From every point of view therefore the evidence is simply crushing that Muhammad was the ultimate author of this massacre.
In the immediate aftermath of the massacre, the Muslims benefited substantially from the Qurayza’s assets which they seized as booty. The land and property acquired helped the Muslims gain their economic independence. The military strength of the Muslim community of Medina grew due to the weapons obtained, and the fact that captured women and children taken as slaves were sold for horses and more weapons, facilitating enlargement of the Muslim armed forces for further conquests. Conversely, the Jewish tribe of the Qurayza ceased to exist.
Muhammad prepared for his campaign against Khaybar—a farming oasis and the last Jewish stronghold in Northern Arabia, where survivors (most notably, the B. Nadir) of the Muslims earlier attacks on Medinan Jewry had also sought refuge—by two further political assassinations. Hirschfeld describes these murders of prominent Khaybar Jews :
Abu Rafi Sallam b. Abu’l-Huqayq was in Khaybar. Muhammad, who feared that he might cause him difficulties, sent murderers after him. Five men from the tribe of the Khazraj traveled to Khaybar, slipped into Sallam’s dwelling at night and closed the doors. Sallam was on the upper floor; his wife went down and asked the men what they wanted. They replied that they had come to buy some wheat, entered the chamber where Sallam was in bed, and stabbed him. At the cries of the victim’s wife, some Jews came running with torches, but the murderers had managed to escape.After the death of Sallâm, the chieftain of the Jews of Khaybar was Al-Yoseir b. Rizâm. Since the latter was one of those who had incited the Ghatafan to attack the prophet, Muhammad sent against him a band of assassins headed by the poet Abdallâh b. Rawâha, which included the murderers of Abu Rafi Sallam. Their plan failed, but they managed to persuade Al-Yoseir that Muhammad was summoning him to appoint him to an important position. Seduced by that promise, he left for Medina, accompanied by several friends. Along the way, the men who had been sent by Muhammad attacked those who had trusted their words and killed them.
Ibn Ishaq’s account of Abu Rafi Sallam b. Abu’l-Huqayq’s assassionation spares none of the gruesome details :
When they [the Muslim assassins] got to Khaybar they went to Sallam’s house by night, having locked every door in the settlement on the inhabitants. Now he was in an upper chamber of his to which a ladder led up. They mounted this until they came to the door and asked to be allowed to come in. His wife came out and asked who they were and they told her that they were Arabs in search of supplies. She told them that their man was here and that they could come in. When we entered I we bolted the door of the room on her and ourselves fearing lest something should come between us and him. His wife shrieked and warned him of us, so we ran at him with our swords as he was on his bed. The only thing that guided us in the darkness of the night was his whiteness like an Egyptian blanket. When his wife shrieked one of our number would lift his sword against her; then he would remember the apostle’s ban on killing women and withdraw his hand; but for that we would have made an end of her that night. When we had smitten him with our swords ‘Abdullah b. Unays bore down with his sword into his belly until it went right through him, as he was saying “Qaṭnī, qạtnī” i.e. “It’s enough.”
We [the Muslim assassins] went out. Now ‘Abdullah b. ‘Atik had poor sight, and fell from the ladder and sprained his arm severely, so we carried him until we brought him to one of their water channels and went into it. The people lit lamps and went in search of us in all directions until, despairing of finding us, they returned to their master and gathered round him as he was dying. We asked each other how we could know that the enemy of God was dead, and one of us volunteered to go and see; so off he went and mingled with the people. He said, “I found his wife and some Jews gathered round him. She had a lamp in her hand and was peering into his face and saying to them ‘By God, I certainly heard the voice of ‘Abdullah b. ‘Atik. Then I decided I must be wrong and thought ‘How can Ibn ‘Atik be in this country?’” Then she turned towards him, looking into his face, and said, ‘By the God of the Jews he is dead!’ Never have I heard sweeter words than those.
Then he came to us and told us the news, and we picked up our companion and took him to the apostle and told him that we had killed God’s enemy . We disputed before him as to who had killed him, each of us laying claim to the deed. The apostle demanded to see our swords and when he looked at them he said, “It is the sword of ‘Abdullah b. Unays that killed him; I can see traces of blood on it.”
The brutal, sanguinary assaults by the Muslims which ensued shortly afterwards resulted in the complete subjugation of the Jews of Khaybar (and by extension, Fadak), as summarized by Hirschfeld :
These murders were the prelude to a general attack against the Israelites of Khaybar. Muhammad, at the head of 1,400 foot soldiers and 300 horsemen, marched against that city and arrived during the night. In the morning the Israelites, going out to the fields as usual, noticed armed Muslims everywhere.
Little by little all the forts fell into the hands of the Muslims, with the exception of Wâtih and Solâlim. A great number of Jews were taken prisoner, among them Kinana b. Ar-Rabi b. Abu’l-Huqayq and his fiancée, Safiyya daughter of Huyayy. Safiyya was very beautiful, and Muhammad wanted to take her as his wife; he summoned her fiancé Kinana, and under the pretext of making him tell where he had hidden the treasures of the Banu Nadir that had been entrusted to his protection, he subjected him to atrocious tortures, put him to death, and then married Saffiya. All the combatants who were captured with weapons in hand were killed; almost nine hundred died in this way.
The two other forts that were still putting up resistance surrendered shortly after to the Muslims. The soldiers’ lives were spared, but they had to hand over all their treasures to Muhammad and abandon their lands to the victors. However, since they were better farmers than the Muslims, they could continue to cultivate these lands, on the condition that they would deliver half of the harvest to their masters and leave the countryside as soon as Muhammad demanded it. The Jews of Fadak, whose chieftain was named Youschah b. Noun, and those of Teimâ and Wâdi-l-Kôrâ, terrified by the defeat of the inhabitants of Khaybar, likewise submitted to Muhammad
Ibn Ishaq chronicled the torture-murder of Kinana b. Ar-Rabi b. Abu’l-Huqayq, on Muhammad’s orders, as follows :
When he [Muhammad] asked him [Kinana] about the rest [of the treasure] he refused to produce it, so the apostle gave orders to al-Zubayr b. al-’Awwam, “Torture him until you extract what he has,” so he kindled a fire with flint and steel on his chest until he was nearly dead. Then the apostle delivered him to Muhammad b. Maslama and he struck off his head, in revenge for his brother Mahmud.
Following the conquest of Khaybar, the hadith and sira accounts refer to an event which updates with impeccable logic the Qur’anic curse upon the Jews (2:61) for having wrongfully slain Allah’s earlier prophets—a Khaybar Jewess is accused of serving Muhammad poisoned mutton (or goat), leading ultimately to his protracted and painful death.  Ibn Sa‘d’s sira (Kitab Al-Tabaqat Al-Kabir) focuses on the Jewish conspiracy behind this poisoning, while insisting adamantly that the Khaybar Jewess perpetrator was put to death :
The Jews discussed about poisons and became united in one poison. She [a Khaybar Jewess, Zaynab Bint al-Harith] poisoned the goat putting more poison in the forelegs…The Apostle of Allah took the foreleg, a piece of which he put into his mouth…The Apostle of Allah sent for Zaynab Bint al-Harith [and]…handed her over to the heirs of Bishr Ibn al-Barra [who the Jewess had also poisoned, leading to his rapid death] who put her to death. This is the approved version [emphasis added]…The Apostle of Allah lived after this three years, till in consequence of his pain he passed away. During his illness he used to say: I did not cease to find the effect of the poisoned morsel I took at Khaybar…
The political rationale for Muhammad’s campaign against Khaybar has been discussed by Hirschfeld and D.S. Margoliouth. Hirschfeld, in his review  of Leone Caetani’s Annali dell Islam, agrees with the latter’s assessment,
The author [Caetani] is undoubtedly right in saying that the reasons given by the Muslim traditionalists are worthless, as Muhammad’s real motive was a purely political one, an additional motive being the opportunity which it gave of employing a number of followers unskilled in work but eager for spoil.
Hirschfeld then adds, based upon his own research of the documentary record ,
The expedition against Khaybar was a distinct breach of faith, as two years previously Muhammad had given the Jews of Khaybar and Maqna a charter of liberty which has fortunately been preserved, and traces of which are also to be found in the works of al-Wakidi and al-Baladhuri.
Margoliouth expands upon these arguments, and concludes ,
…in plundering Meccans he [Muhammad] could plead that he had been driven from his home and possessions: and with the Jewish tribes of Medina he had in each case some outrage, real or pretended, to avenge. But the people of Khaybar, all that distance from Medina, had certainly done him and his followers no wrong: for their leaving unavenged the murder of one  of their number by his emissary was no act of aggression. Ali, when told to lead the forces against them, had to enquire for what he was fighting: and was told that he must compel them to adopt the formulae of Islam. Khaybar was attacked because there was booty to be acquired there, and the plea for attacking it was that its inhabitants were not Muslims.
Georges Vajda, in turn, reminds us of the theological animus which motivated Muhammad’s political subjugation of the Jews, specifically, and became an indelible part of Muslim attitudes toward Jews across space and time. 
The more Mohammed advanced his career in Medina, the more his resentment against Jews grew. This evolution was rather natural since the Jews, not content with disappointing his expectations of seeing them rally unreservedly to his cause, riddled him with sarcasm, cast doubt on the authenticity of his prophetic mission, and lastly had the fault of possessing vast resources in chattels and land, which the prophet could not do without in order to secure his domination in Medina and the execution of vast projects of religious and political conquest.
Muhammad’s campaigns against the Jews of Northern Arabia (i.e., Medina and Khaybar) may have had both near and long term ramifications: the launching of the Great Jihad  which would subject the major Jewish communities of the Near East to Muslim conquest and colonization, and the imposition of Islamic Law. Although Antisemitic Islamic motifs from the hadith, and sira were much more commonly employed in daily life as a form of chronic discrimination against Jews—sanctioned by Islamic Law—they have also been used to incite, more extensive persecutions, including mass violence against Jewish communities. 
The rise of Jewish nationalism—Zionism—posed a predictable, if completely unacceptable challenge to the Islamic order—jihad-imposed chronic dhimmitude for Jews—of apocalyptic magnitude. As Bat Ye’or has explained ,
…because divine will dooms Jews to wandering and misery, the Jewish state appears to Muslims as an unbearable affront and a sin against Allah. Therefore it must be destroyed by Jihad.
Historian Saul S. Friedman, also citing the emergence of Zionism (as an ideology anathema to the Islamic system of dhimmitude for Jews), concluded that this modern movement, and the creation of the Jewish State of Israel has, not surprisingly, unleashed a torrent of annihilationist Islamic antisemitism, “the brew of thirteen centuries of intolerance” :
Since 1896, the development of modern, political Zionism has placed new tension on, and even destroyed, the traditional master-serf relationship that existed between Arab and Jew in the Middle East. An Arab world that could not tolerate the presence of a single, “arrogant” Jewish vizier in its history was now confronted by a modern state staffed with self-confident Jewish ministers.
This is exactly the Islamic context in which the widespread, “resurgent” use of Jew annihilationist apocalyptic motifs from the hadith—exemplified by the Hamas charter—would be an anticipated, even commonplace occurrence. Indeed, as noted at the outset, the same eschatological references to Jew annihilation have been repeated within prominent US mosques far removed from the battlegrounds of the Arab-Israeli conflict in the Middle East. 
The uncomfortable examination of Islamic doctrines and history is required in order to understand the enduring phenomenon of Muslim Jew hatred, which dates back to the origins of Islam. We can no longer view Muslim Jew hatred—including annihilationist strains of this apocalyptic hatred—as a “borrowed phenomenon,” seen primarily, let alone exclusively, through the prism of Nazism and the Holocaust, the tragic legacy of Judeophobic Christian traditions, or “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion” from Czarist Russia.
|141.||Ibid., pp. 251-252.|
|142.||Hirschfeld, “Essai sur l’histoire des Juifs de Medine”, 1885, pp. 17-18; Warraq. Why I Am Not a Muslim, p. 94.|
|143.||Warraq. Why I Am Not a Muslim, pp. 94-95. |
|144.||Guillaume. The Life of Muhammad., p. 368.|
|145.||Ibid., p. 369.|
|146.||Muir, The Life of Mahomet, pp. 258-259.|
|147.||Hirschfeld, “Essai sur l’histoire des Juifs de Medine”, 1885, p. 20; Warraq. Why I Am Not a Muslim, p. 95.|
|148.||Hirschfeld, “Essai sur l’histoire des Juifs de Medine”, 1885, p. 20.|
|150.||Ibid., p. 21.|
|151.||The expression “fay” is found in Qur’an 59: 6-10, which describes Muhammad’s attack upon the Jewish tribe, Banu Nadir. In the traditional Muslim interpretation of these verses the theocratic conception of property rights is confirmed, as voiced by the Prophet—Allah returns to the Believers the possessions of His foes, what is properly His. See Leone Caetani. Annali dell’ Islam, Milan, 1905-1926, Vol. 5, p. 332. |
|152.||Guillaume. The Life of Muhammad., pp. 438-439.|
|153.||Warraq. Why I Am Not a Muslim, p. 95.|
|154.||Muir, The Life of Mahomet, p. 325; Warraq. Why I Am Not a Muslim, p. 95. |
|155.||Guillaume. The Life of Muhammad., p. 461, actually uses the word “monkeys.” “Apes” and “monkeys” are used interchangeably in translation. See for example, Norman Stillman’s translation of this same excerpt in The Jews of Arab Lands in Modern Times, p. 137, which refers to the Jews as “apes”.|
|156.||M.J. Kister, “The massacre of the Banū Qurayẓa: a re-examination of a tradition” Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam, Vol. 8, 1986, pp. 61-96. |
|157.||Abu Yusuf Ya’qub Le Livre de l’impot foncier, Translated from Arabic and annotated by Edmond Fagnan. Paris, 1921. English translation in Bat Ye’or, The Dhimmi, pp. 172-173. |
|158.||Kister, “The massacre of the Banū Qurayẓa”, p. 69. |
|159.||Kister, “The massacre of the Banū Qurayẓa”, p. 69 ff. |
|160.||W.H. T. Gairdner, “Muhammad Without Camouflage”, The Moslem World, Vol. 9, 1919, p. 36. |
|161.||Hirschfeld, “Essai sur l’histoire des Juifs de Medine”, 1885, pp. 28-30.|
|162.||Guillaume. The Life of Muhammad., pp. 482-483.|
|163.||Hirschfeld, “Essai sur l’histoire des Juifs de Medine”, 1885, pp. 28-30.|
|164.||Guillaume. The Life of Muhammad., p. 515. |
|165.||Sahih Bukhari Volume 3, Book 47, Number 786; Sahih Muslim Book 026, Number 5430; Sunan Abu Dawud Book 39, Number 4498; Guillaume. The Life of Muhammad., p. 516; Ibn Sa’d. Kitab Al-Tabaqat Al-Kabir, pp. 249-252.|
|166.||Ibn Sa’d. Kitab Al-Tabaqat Al-Kabir, pp. 249-252.|
|167.||Hartwig Hirschfeld. “The Annals of Islam”. Review of Annali dell’Islam compilati de Leone Caetani, Principe de Teano, Volume 2, Milan, 1907, in The Jewish Quarterly Review, 1908, Vol. 20, p. 876. |
|168.||Ibid., p. 876. Regarding the breached treaty, Hirschfeld refers to its existence in his own essay “The Arabic Portion of the Cairo Genizah at Cambridge”, The Jewish Quarterly Review, 1905, Vol. 15, pp. 170-174.|
|169.||D.S. Margoliouth. Mohammed and the Rise of Islam, London 1905 (reprinted in New Delhi, India, 1985), pp. 362-363.|
|170.||See note 161 above, and the related text, in which Hirshfeld discusses two assassinations of Khaybar Jews, prior to the Muslims assault, which is confirmed by Ibn Ishaq (Guillaume. The Life of Muhammad., pp. 665-666, and 482-483.)|
|171.||Vajda. “Juifs et musulmans selon le Hadit”, p. 85.|
|172.||Bostom, The Legacy of Jihad, pp. 37-56.|
|173.||Andrew G. Bostom, editor, The Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism, Prometheus Books, Amherst, N.Y., 2008, 768 pp.|
|174.||Bat Ye’or. “The New Egyptian Jew Hatred—Local Elements and External Influences”, in Andrew G. Bostom, editor, The Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism, Prometheus Books, Amherst, N.Y., 2008, p. 617.|
|175.||Saul S. Friedman. Without Future. The Plight of Syrian Jewry. Praeger, New York, 1989, p. 9.|
|176.||See notes 1-10, above|