The theology of genocide

Posted by: Phineas on May 14, 2010 at 2:55 pm

A couple of days ago at my blog, I commented on the UC San Diego student, a member of the Muslim Students Association (which itself is a front for the Muslim Brotherhood), who publicly stated her support for another Holocaust against the Jews.

In response to the inevitable question, “How in the name of all that’s decent can she make such a statement,” Robert Spencer, a noted scholar of Islam, explains how the roots of Ms. Albahri’s murderous antisemitism is grounded in the core works of Islam itself: Theology for a Holocaust

None of this should come as any surprise. The genocidal hadith [Sahih Muslim 6985 –Anthony] quoted on Palestinian TV is just one element of an anti-Semitism that is deeply rooted in the Qur’an and Sunnah, and which runs through Islamic history with a remarkable consistency. The Qur’an portrays the Jews as the craftiest, most persistent, and most implacable enemies of the Muslims. Three notorious Qur’anic passages depict an angry Allah transforming Jews into apes and pigs: 2:63–66; 5:59–60; and 7:166. The first of those passages depicts Allah telling the Jews who “profaned the Sabbath”: “Be as apes despicable!” It goes on to say that these accursed ones serve “as a warning example for their time and for all times to come.” The second has Allah directing Muhammad to remind the “People of the Book” about “those who incurred the curse of Allah and His wrath, those of whom some He transformed into apes and swine, those who worshipped evil.” The third essentially repeats this, saying of the Sabbath-breaking Jews that when “in their insolence they transgressed (all) prohibitions,” Allah said to them, “Be ye apes, despised and rejected.”

In traditional Islamic theology these passages have not been considered to apply to all Jews. However, that hasn’t stopped contemporary jihadists from frequently referring to Jews as the “descendants of apes and swine.” The implication is that today’s Jews are bestial in character and are the enemies of Allah, just as the Sabbath-breakers were. The grand sheikh of Al-Azhar, Muhammad Sayyid Tantawi, the most respected cleric in the world among Sunni Muslims today, has called Jews “the enemies of Allah, descendants of apes and pigs.” Saudi sheikh Abd al-Rahman al-Sudayyis, imam of the principal mosque in the holiest city in Islam, Mecca, said in a sermon that Jews are “the scum of the human race, the rats of the world, the violators of pacts and agreements, the murderers of the prophets, and the offspring of apes and pigs.”

Another Saudi sheikh, Ba’d bin Abdallah al-Ajameh al-Ghamidi, made the connection explicit: “The current behavior of the brothers of apes and pigs, their treachery, violation of agreements, and defiling of holy places … is connected with the deeds of their forefathers during the early period of Islam—which proves the great similarity between all the Jews living today and the Jews who lived at the dawn of Islam.” A 1996 Hamas publication says that today’s Jews are bestial in spirit, and this is a manifestation of the punishment of their forefathers. In January 2007, Palestinian Authority president Mahmoud Abbas stated, “The sons of Israel are mentioned as those who are corrupting humanity on earth,” referring to Qur’an 5:64.

It’s information such as this that our government (and others) willfully ignores when dealing with the Arab-Israeli dispute and the threat from Islamic terrorism. Trading land for peace and clinging to illusory “root causes” makes no sense -in fact, it’s downright dangerous- when dealing with a foe who believes he is fighting for a holy cause. Any concession or act of good faith is seen as weakness on our part and a proof of the righteousness of their struggle.

Be sure to read the whole thing. Of  Spencer’s books, I most recommend “The Truth About Muhammad: Founder of the World’s Most Intolerant Religion” and “The Complete Infidel’s Guide to the Koran.”

(Cross-posted at Public Secrets)

RSS feed for comments on this post.


10 Responses to “The theology of genocide”


  1. Zippy says:

    Violent and vulgar. They use their religion as an armor to justify their hatred. What baffles me is this: Any religion that preaches hostility and punishment is not a religion, it’s a cult. A way of keeping their people controlled through fear. So why do so many become entranced in it’s promise of heaven when applying hate? Sounds ‘sort of’ counterproductive.

  2. Carlos says:

    You want a “root cause” of all the unrest with Israel? I’ll give you the long and short answers in one word: Islam.

    Other than basic human greed and jealousy, there is no other factor that contributes as much to the entire mideast unrest as that one factor.

    Of course, it’s a lot easier to blame the Jews for their own incompetence than it is for the Arabs to man up and take responsibility for their own miserable existence.

  3. Mark Johnson says:


    If God was on Earth, he would have vaporized every little living things and left humans to fight and kill themselves to watch and enjoy for his amusements. Why? We are the only creatures or animals of this planet who thinks we are far more better than any species or animals on Earth, when in fact, we are not. We are all animals with a lots hate for others based on their belief systems, skin color, dispute over lands. By definition, religion is supposed to be a vehicle in which a follower should become kind and loving person(s) once they become part of that religion. Here, Islam is used to solely to fullfill ones greed and desire not for the good of their people or country. All middle eastern countries are out of their mind.

  4. Jo says:

    And where does our ‘esteemed leader’ seem to fall on this issue? Appears to me he falls on the side of Islam. And yet, what is baffling is the number of America Jews who act as if he is the New Messiah. Go figure that one.

  5. Paul says:

    What some Muslims reap they could sow at some point.

  6. Sefton says:

    Any concession or act of good faith is seen as weakness on our part and a proof of the righteousness of their struggle.

    Interesting read on our own country’s first declared war as an independent nation, and why the above statement rang true from the start:

    The Barbary Powers (called Barbary “pirates” by most Americans) attacked American civilian and commercial merchant ships (but not military ships) wherever they found them. Prior to the Revolution, American shipping had been protected by the British navy, and during the Revolution by the French navy. After the Revolution, however, America lacked a navy of her own and was therefore left without protection for her shipping. The vulnerable American merchant ships, built for carrying cargoes rather than fighting, were therefore easy prey for the warships of the Barbary Powers, which seized the cargo of the ships as loot and took their seamen (of whom all were considered Christians by the attacking Muslims) and enslaved them.
    In 1784, Congress authorized American diplomats John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, and Thomas Jefferson to negotiate with the Muslim terrorists. Negotiations proceeded, and in 1786, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson candidly asked the Ambassador from Tripoli the motivation behind their unprovoked attacks against Americans. What was the response?

    The Ambassador answered us that it was founded on the laws of their Prophet [Mohammed] – that it was written in their Koran that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners; that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners; and that every Musselman [Muslim] who should be slain in battle was sure to go to paradise.

    In an attempt to secure a release of the kidnapped seamen and a guarantee of unmolested shipping in the Mediterranean, President Washington dispatched diplomatic envoys to negotiate terms with the Muslim nations. They secured several treaties of “Peace and Amity” with the Muslim Barbary Powers to ensure “protection” of American commercial ships sailing in the Mediterranean. And because America had no threat of force against the Muslims, she was required to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars (tens of millions in today’s money) of “tribute” (i.e., official extortion) to the Muslim countries to secure the “guarantee” of no attacks. In fact, one Muslim Ambassador told American negotiators that “a perpetual peace could be made” with his nation for the price of 30,000 guineas [$2.3 million today], with an additional 3,000 guineas [$230,000] fee for himself. Having no other recourse, America paid. Sometimes the Muslims even demanded additional “considerations” – such as building and providing a warship as a “gift” to Tripoli, a “gift” frigate to Algiers, paying $525,000 to ransom captured American seamen from Algiers, etc.

    Disgusted with the payments, Washington lamented:
    “Would to Heaven we had a navy able to reform those enemies to mankind – or crush them into non-existence.”

    By the last year of Washington’s presidency, a full sixteen percent of the federal budget was spent on extortion payments. Thomas Jefferson, who served as Secretary of State under President Washington, believed that a time would come when not only the economic effects of the extortion payments to the Muslim terrorists would be felt by every American but also that using force would be the only practicable way to end the terrorist attacks.

    Jefferson predicted:
    “You will probably find the tribute to all these powers make such a proportion of the federal taxes as that every man will feel them sensibly when he pays these taxes. The question is whether their peace or war will be cheapest? . . . If we wish our commerce to be free and uninsulted, we must let these nations see that we have an energy [willingness to use force] which at present they disbelieve. The low opinion they entertain of our powers cannot fail to involve us soon in a naval war.”

    Eventually, Americans reached the point Jefferson had predicted: not only did they feel the economic effects but they also resented the unprovoked attacks and paying for rights already guaranteed by international law. Therefore, tiring of the largely unsuccessful diplomatic approach, military preparations were urged, thus embracing President George Washington’s wise axiom that:

    “To be prepared for war is one of the most effectual means of preserving peace.”

    Because America had adopted a policy of appeasement in response to the terrorist depredations, the Barbary Powers viewed America as weak. In fact, William Eaton, whom [now President] Adams had dispatched as American diplomat to Tunis (one of the four terrorist powers), reported to Secretary of State Timothy Pickering that “an opinion long since conceived and never fairly controverted among the Tunisians [is] that the Americans are a feeble sect of Christians.” Truly, with no fear of consequence, Muslims found American targets especially inviting, fueling even further attacks.

    By the end of Adams’ administration, extortion payments to the Muslim terrorists accounted for twenty percent of the federal budget, but an American Navy was building.

    When Thomas Jefferson became President in 1801, having personally dealt with the Muslim Barbary Powers for almost two decades, he had already concluded that there were only three solutions to the terrorist problem: (1) pay the extortion money, (2) keep all American ships out of international waters (which would destroy American commerce), or (3) use military force to put an end to the attacks. Jefferson discarded the first two options, rejecting the second as a matter of bad policy, and the first because:

    “I was very unwilling that we should acquiesce in the . . . humiliation of paying a tribute to those lawless pirates.”

    He supported the third option, acknowledging: “Justice is in favor of this opinion; honor favors it; it will procure us respect in Europe, and respect is a safeguard to interest; . . . [and] I think it least expensive and equally effectual.”

    Jefferson formed this position long before his presidency; so once inaugurated, he began refusing payments to the offending nations. In response, Tripoli declared war against the United States (and Algiers threatened to do so), thus constituting America’s first official war as an established independent nation. Jefferson, determined to end the two-decades-old terrorist attacks, selected General William Eaton (Adams’ Consul to Tunis) and elevated him to the post of “U. S. Naval Agent to the Barbary States,” with the assignment to lead an American military expedition against the four terrorist nations. Using the new American Navy built under Adams, Eaton transported the U. S. Marines overseas; and when the offending nations found themselves confronted by imminent American military action, all but Tripoli backed down.

    General Eaton therefore led a successful military campaign against Tripoli that freed captured seaman and crushed the terrorist forces. After four years of fighting, in 1805 Tripoli signed a treaty on America’s terms, thus ending their terrorist aggressions. (It is from the Marine Corps’ role in that first conflict with Muslim terrorists from 1801-1805 that the opening line of the Marine Hymn is derived: “From the halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripoli . . .”)

  7. Carlos says:

    Does this mean we can now officially consider UCSD a madrassa?

  8. MissJean says:

    “So why do so many become entranced in it’s promise of heaven when applying hate? Sounds ’sort of’ counterproductive.”

    If you look at people who are Muslim in the world, they’re people born into it. So they’re raised in a Muslim culture and it seems natural to them.

    But if you look at converts to Islam in the US, it’s a different story. Consider that the vast majority are men, not women. Also consider the large number who convert while serving time in prison for violent offenses. If you could find a philosophy that would a) put you higher on the “food chain” by virtue of sex, b) meshed with your penchant for violence and theft, and c)even justified further violence by giving you God-given targets, it would make perfect sense to embrace it.

  9. Carlos says:

    Unfortunately, the state prison systems in the United States (and to a lesser extent, the fed system) have become little more than madrassas, teaching their hateful and anti-American pig poop to those dumb enough to believe anything to get back at “the man” [a liberal phrase that equates to “slaveowner”, or Jew, or Chinese, or any other boogyman phrase used throughout the history of mankind to create an excuse for one’s own (or a society’s own) incompetence.]

    Looking at their teachings as a road to get revenge for their own incompetence can make sense, if the end product is to gain power and revenge for those perceived injustices.

    For those born into the system, it is understandable (but not condonable); for those brought into the system after an “age of accountability” there can be no excuse.