Hatred of Jews: Anti-Semitism as a Koranic legacy?

How interesting!” an older gentleman on the ICE asked me about the book I was reading: “The Jews in the Koran”. – “Didn’t Muslims and Jews used to live well together?” he continues. Abdel-Hakim Ourghi, who heads the Department of Islamic Theology and Religious Education in Freiburg im Breisgau, contradicts this widespread view. Advocating a secularized reform of Islam, he is one of the co-founders of the liberal mosque of the lawyer Seyran Ates in Berlin. In his homeland of Algeria, the author, who was born in 1968, was given a strongly anti-Semitic image of Judaism and Israel not only in Islamist-influenced mosques, but also in the education system infiltrated by Islamists. Only through personal contact with Jews in Europe did he free himself from this. His book seems to confirm the widespread media discourse about anti-Semitism among people with an Islamic background, which is perhaps just as deeply rooted as European, especially German, anti-Semitism.

Ourghi describes and interprets the bloody conflicts recorded in the Koran that the first Muslims waged against Jewish communities and the invectives (insults) of Mohammed against the defeated. The prophet, who fled from Mecca to Medina with a small group of followers in 624 CE, succeeded in converting the local polytheists to Islam and getting them to recognize him as a political leader. Since the Medina Jews refused, there were cruel reckonings with them and other Jewish tribes. The rich oasis of Haibar surrendered after eight weeks of siege and fighting.

What is underestimated in Ourghi is that for Mohammed the polytheists remained the main enemies, to whom he no longer granted the right to exist. He gave non-converted Christians and surviving Jews the status of “protected persons”. He continued to see their holy books as precursors of Islamic revelation, although they had provoked erroneous interpretations.

Ourghi mentions that there were no such serious conflicts with the Christians who also lived in ancient Arabia, without – like most of today’s Islamic theologians – providing the important, obvious explanation: Mohammed himself must have come from a Christian background, otherwise he would not have been able to marry the rich widow Khadidja, with whose Christian uncle – according to tradition – he is said to have discussed. It is important to understand that he originally wanted to bring together the two already monotheistic religions and bring the majority of still polytheistic tribes under their umbrella in order to create a counterpower to Byzantium and the Persians, who were also interested in the Arabian Peninsula. Therefore, the Quran relies on both the Torah and the Gospel. From the latter he adopted universalism.

Jesus is recognized as a prophet in the Koran and Mary, mentioned there much more often than in the New Testament, is recognized as a prophetess. One of the references to Judaism, whose monotheism was more consistent than that of Christianity, is that Jesus was denied to be the Son of God. Mohammed described himself as a prophet, but at the same time thoroughly human. After the battles with the Jewish communities, he changed some of the rites that were initially borrowed from Judaism, such as the direction of prayer towards Jerusalem, which, however, also remained a holy place for Muslims. The prayer now had to be carried out in the direction of the Kaaba, which was declared to be Abraham’s building. Islam became the third independent monotheistic religion in the Middle East.

Because the Koran had stipulated that the “wards” had to pay taxes, unlike Muslims, Muhammad’s successors, who conquered large areas of the Middle East and North Africa, were less eager to convert. The fact that the handing over of taxes was supposed to be accompanied by gestures of submission led some later Islamic rulers to turn it into a degrading ceremony. Other discriminations were also introduced, such as special clothing regulations. Honey-colored or yellow fabrics were required for Jews, which was echoed by the yellow star introduced by the Nazis.

There is no doubt about the historical core of these traditions. What is completely unacceptable, however, is that Ourghi measures discriminatory conditions in early and medieval Islam with the yardstick of today’s democratic ideals. As if there had been permanent equal rights for ethnic and religious minorities somewhere in the world during the tempi passati! It would have been more appropriate to at least parallel Mohammed’s anti-Jewish invectives with those of Martin Luther.

Regarding the attitude of Muslims towards Jews today, Ourghi says that most of them transfer the hate slogans of the Koran to the Israeli state and its population. When chanters repeatedly chant “Haibar” (campaign) at anti-Israel demonstrations, historically uninterrupted religious-essentialist anti-Semitism is being revitalized. Ultimately, this would also be indulged by Muslims who glorified coexistence with Jews when people lived together peacefully and Jews also held high state offices under Muslim rule. There is a tendency among these Muslims to defame the founding and existence of the Israeli state as an ungrateful Jewish response to the supposedly good old days.

According to Ourghi, the founding of Israel and the expulsion of 750,000 Palestinians between 1947 and 1949 was not a reason, but at most an “accelerant” for the eternally unbroken anti-Semitism of Muslims. The demand he makes to Muslims to renounce once and for all the Koranic heritage that affects Jews does not help to calm the conflict if it is not supplemented by the demand for many Jews and Israelis to distance themselves from the heritage of the Torah. which supposedly empowers them to take possession of the territory of Palestine promised to them by God. Especially since the Torah also justifies violence against other communities living there. The conflicts will only be resolved if, like Ourghi, they are not seen primarily as a religious conflict, but rather as a territorial conflict. The revitalization of the Old Testament and Koranic image of the enemy is not the cause, but a side effect. The establishment of the State of Israel was essential, but it took place without taking into account the legitimate rights of the Palestinians.

Ourghi’s presentation of the historical relationship between Muslims and Jews in Algeria is also narrow. By focusing on the Koran passages concerning Jews, he assumes their permanent oppression by Muslims. However, historian Mustafa Lacheraf has shown that under Ottoman rule, which began in 1519, not only Jews but also Algerian Arabs and Berbers were severely discriminated against, even though they were Muslims. Following the motto “Divide and conquer,” the French colonizer gave the Algerian Jews full civil rights in 1871, which gave them – unlike Muslims – access to the European education system and the ability to develop socially without having to give up their religion. Ourghi does not mention the Muslim uprising that unsuccessfully demanded the same rights in 1871, but simply claims that the Muslims were “envious” of the Jews. What remains unmentioned is that in October 1940, the Vichy government, which collaborated with the Nazis, degraded the Algerian Jews back to being “indigenous,” which was only reversed by the Allies. And contrary to what Ourghi writes, the Jews were not “expelled” when they gained independence in 1962, but they fled with the one and a half million French Algerians who could not imagine a future without the privileges based on the hierarchical colonial system.

It was Israel’s expulsion policy that revived anti-Semitic attitudes in Algeria. But neither politicians nor the media use religious motives to criticize the occupation policy. However, Islamist preachers are different, whose propaganda reaches into schools and is countered by little knowledge about the world history of anti-Semitism. Ourghi rightly condemns this.

Abdel-Hakim Ourghi: The Jews in the Koran. A distorted image with fatal consequences. Claudius, 264 p., hardcover, €26.

The establishment of the State of Israel was essential, but it took place without taking into account the legitimate rights of the Palestinians.

–