It’s not going to be easy, but let’s imagine for a moment
that Christians would firmly believe Jesus prophesized the rise of Islam and
told his followers: “The last day will not come unless you fight the Muslims. A
Muslim will hide himself behind stones and trees and stones and trees will say,
‘O servant of God, o Christian, there is a Muslim behind me, come and kill
him.’” Let’s also imagine that recently, a Christian preacher repeatedly referred
to this belief during a long sermon about a topic that would inflame the
passions of his audience – like Islamist terrorism and the dire situation of
Christians in the Muslim world – and that he would call for Christian unity and
ask God to “liberate” Christian sites “from the filth of the Muslims;” he would
also pray: “Oh God, count them one by one and annihilate them down to the very
last one. Do not spare any of them.” Finally, let’s imagine that when this
sermon was highlighted in the news and widely condemned, the Washington Post
would rush to publish an article defending the preacher and trying desperately
to downplay his vile incitement.
It’s unimaginable, you say? Well, yes, it is.
But it happened – though the preacher was a Muslim, and the
people he railed against and wished to see killed were the Jews… Obviously,
this makes a big difference, right?
What the Washington Post’s “religion reporter”
Michelle Boorstein was doing with her utterly disgraceful
article was already described by Martin Kramer when he wrote
years ago about a similar incident and concluded:
“the hadith [that calls for the
killing of Jews] predates the State of Israel by well over a millennium, so it
certainly can’t be attributed to Israeli provocation. Those who invoke it—the
Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, Bin Laden—root their hatred of Israel in a much
deeper stratum of Islamic animosity toward the Jews. Those who downplay that
sort of Judeophobia just help to perpetuate it.”
While the Washington Post was publishing its craven
apologia for the antisemitic incitement, and while the Islamic Center of Davis
was demanding
the vile sermon should be seen in the proper context, pious Palestinian Muslims
were providing a very relevant context by rioting in Jerusalem and shouting
“Khaybar, Khaybar, ya yahud.”
Of course, we can’t know what this really truly means in
context until the Washington Post gets around to asking expert
apologists for Muslim Jew-hatred about it… So until the Washington Post
enlightens us about the real meaning and the proper context, we will have to
try hard to ignore that Muhammad’s jihadists won a spectacular victory in their
bloody battle against the Jews of Khaybar, and that
this victory was the first step in the subjugation and eventual ethnic
cleansing of the Jews from the Arabian peninsula. We will also have to try hard
to ignore that Muslim efforts to justify the war waged against the Jews by the
founder of their religion have spawned a demonization
of Jews that is more than a millennium old and remains popular to this day.
And there’s so much more to ignore!!! Among the very
important issues that must be ignored are all the hate-filled writings and
speeches of Sheik Yusuf
Qaradawi, who has been regarded for decades as a great scholar by many
millions of Muslims, and who has even been described as the “Global Mufti” due
to his enormous influence. And of course, it’s also very important to ignore the
fact that the kind of hateful sermon and vile prayer that the Washington
Post defended so valiantly are a regular
occurrence at the Al-Aqsa mosque, which is usually described as “Islam’s
third-holiest” site.
If you find it hard to keep up with all the issues you have
to ignore, the Washington Post offers a not-so-subtle clue that makes it
real easy. And it’s obvious enough: without the translations provided by the Middle
East Media Research Institute (MEMRI), any incitement spread by Arab preachers,
politicians and journalists could be savored by the intended audiences, without
foreigners who need translations getting all worked up. You see, MEMRI “monitors
media coverage, particularly about Israel” – AHA!!! – and a trustworthy
academic expert from Georgetown University’s Center for Muslim-Christian
Understanding in Arab and Islamic Studies has expressed “concern that MEMRI was
hoping to stir up anti-Muslim sentiment at a time when Muslim Americans feel
under siege.”
Yeah, that’s obviously a reasonable concern: first, it
shifts the blame away from the Muslim preacher who called for killing Jews; and
second, this kind of “concern” has some tradition – after all, already Muhammad
felt there was reason to be concerned about the anti-Muslim sentiment stirred
up by the Jews of Khaybar…
So it’s really wonderful that Georgetown University has a
Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding in Arab and Islamic Studies with
experts who can be consulted when a Muslim preacher cites an ancient and
well-known call for killing Jews… And the “understanding” that the center works
so hard to foster doesn’t include Jews, right? Incidentally, since 2005, when the center “received a $20
million dollar gift from HRH Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal”, it is known as the Prince
Alwaleed Bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding. If you’re
impressed by the sum, read Martin Kramer’s fascinating post
on the “Georgetown Yankees in Prince Alwaleed’s court” and take into account
that since the late 1970s, Saudi Arabia “has invested at least 76 billion euros
($86 billion)” to promote “Wahhabi extremism, the ideological basis of
extremist and jihadist movements throughout the world.”
So it’s a great investment to spend a measly 20 million
dollars on a center at a prestigious western university in America’s capital – which
is really a good location for academics who have always worked hard to downplay
Muslim extremism and who stand ready to provide the Washington Post with
some soothing mumblings about “oral traditions about Muslims fighting Jews”
when a Muslim preacher in the US bases his sermon on a well-known
hadith that calls on Muslims to slaughter Jews. And you are a real expert
when you not only manage to downplay this incident and pretend it’s an isolated
one, but also turn it around by insinuating that those who drew attention to it
by providing a translation should be suspected of trying “to stir up
anti-Muslim sentiment.”