For an enlarged, easier to read index click here . To "google search" this site, scroll to the bottom of this page. (This site is best viewed with "Firefox")

(Tips: F11 key enables full screen viewing & Ctrl-F to search the index)


ZIONISM-----our relations with arabs / muslims

Lizard Posted - 17 November 2000 0:37

Are most goyim today esav's descendants?

I also heard Yishmael's descendants are called Oyev which is worse than soney.

MODERATOR Posted - 17 November 2000 1:30

If you include both maternal and paternal lineage, the chances of any given gentile NOT being descended from Esav (or any other individual in those days) are very slim.

I did not hear about Yishmael being called "oyev" as opposed to "soneh" (if you find that there really is such a statement please let me know), but I do know that Rabbeinu Bachai (Bereishis 21:14) writes that "there is no nation in the world that will hate the Jews like the children of Yishmael."

The Medrash in numerous places (see Shmos Rabbah 5:1) says that Yishmael hated (sonoh) Yitzchok. In Tanchuma (Shmos 27) it adds that Yishmael wanted to kill Yitzchok.

The Zohar (Shemos 248) says "Yishmael did many evils to the Jews, and ruled over them and made them suffer though all types of suffering, and decreed upon them many Shmados (campaigns to force Jews not to fulfill the Torah), and to this day they dominate them and do not allow them to stand with their religion. There is nothing so difficult for the Jewish people as Golus Yishmael."

The Ramban (Bereishis 16:6) explains:

“‘And Sarah caused her [Hagar] to suffer'. Our mother [Sarah] sinned by doing this, and so did Avrohom for letting her do it. Hashem heard her cries and gave her a son who will be a wild man that will make Avrohom's children suffer through all manner of suffering".

The difference between Esav's and Yishmel's hatred for the Jews, is that Esav's is declared by Chazal to be a "halachah", which means it is the natural default value of Esav to hate Yaakov. Yishmael's hatred, on the other hand, although more intense, is not natural ("halacha") but developed through circumstances, as most hatred is.

Lizard Posted - 17 November 2000 14:05

I heard a shuir on this. I think it was the Yalkut shimoni who said the uluv in the posuk hinting to the number of galus the Jews will be in (breishis 15:12) is a 5th golus Yishmael.

After which the yalkut marshal’s the posuk in Tehillim (132:18) where oyvov (Yishmael) will be defeated and moshiach will come.

Also R Bachyai asks why Yishmael called oyev and eisav soney to which he answers that a soney has mercy whereas the oyev harbors an eternal hatred. The Gra in aderes eliyahu says a soney (eisav western society) destroys us spiritually while an oyev wants a physical destruction.

Also compare pesukim 22:17 and 24:60 in Breishis where hashem talking to Avraham uses language of oyvov and lavan to rivkah uses sonov.

MODERATOR Posted - 17 November 2000 14:11

Thank you for the information.

The GRA you are cite indicates the opposite of the Rabbeinu Bachyai, since we have a rule "godol hamachtio yoser min ha'horgo", someone who wants to hurt us spiritually is worse than someone who wants to kill us physically.

I am not aware of the Rabbeinu Bachya that you bring. The closest one I know of is the one I quoted that Yishmael will hate the Jews more than any nation. Do you know perhaps where it is?

Q1 Posted - 05 January 2001 5:32

I think historically it’s been proven that "godol hamachtio yoser min ha'horgo".

If you consider the reform movement in the first 150 years of its existence caused 90 percent of Jews to succumb.

I think R Elchonon Wasserman said for this reason that Stalin was worse than Hitler. I believe the reasoning for the GRA saying someone who wants to kill you is worse is because someone who wants to influence you you are able to resist.

MODERATOR Posted - 05 January 2001 5:39

Godol Hamachtio Yoser Min Hahorgo is true not because they cause more damage to Klall Yisroel than the murderers, although you are correct, that is true as well, but because if someone makes you sin he is taking away your Olam Habah, whereas a murderer only takes away Olam Hazeh. So even if an equal amount of people would be victims of both, Godol Hamachtio Yoser Min Hahorgo would still be true.

Btw, what you are quoting from the GRA has very interesting connotations if you combine it with what you quoted last week in the name of the Ohr HaChaim in the Bechirah forum. I will IY"H explain in that forum. Check it out.

GaryG Posted - 08 January 2001 23:30

I was taught in school that the Arabs are the natural enemies of the Jews, and that as long as Jews and Arabs exist, they will be at war with each other.

MODERATOR Posted - 09 January 2001 0:14


You were taught wrong. Throughout history, the Arabs were not nearly our worst enemies; the Christians were.

The Arabs became our bloodthirsty enemies because of Zionism. It's very simple: They want the land.

The Arab hatred for the Jew was synthetically and unnecessarily created by the Zionist movement, which was opposed by Torah Jews all over the world.

Unfortunately, the Zionists took it upon themselves to represent all of Jewry ("Jewish State", "Jewish Homeland", "Jewish Agency" etc.) which was far from the truth, but because of this the Arabs have come to hate all Jews, even Torah Jews.

It is true that the Arabs are our worst enemies now and they want to kill us all, but that would not have happened if not for the violation of the Torah of the Zionist movement.

Although such talk is unpopular today, it is a fact. Even the religious Zionists used to admit this. Here is a quote from the "Five Addresses", by Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveichik, p.79:

"There has always existed a hatred of the Jew amongst the peoples of the world. Whoever was in power, Esau or Yishmael, Christians or Moslems, they pursued us. Nonetheless, in the history of Jewish persecution the Moslems were always relatively better then the Christians. We do not find tragedies such as the Jewish martyrology at the time of the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, or the Chmelnicky massacres, in the annals of our communities in Islamic lands.

"The position has now been radically reversed. While among the Christians one hears voices of soul searching, tens of millions of Moslems, in particular Arabs, have become Amalekites and Nazis who have engraved on their banner the call: 'Come, let us cut them off from being a nation; that the name of Israel may be no more a remembrance" (Ps. 83,5) - far be it. It is unnecessary to dilate on this; we all know the facts.

"What has brought about the wave of hatred that has engulfed the Moslem world? We all know it is the founding of the State of Israel."

And the following is from a pamphlet called "Facts About Israel: History", published by the Israel Information Center of the Israeli Information Center in the U.N., p.22:

"The Jewish national revival and the efforts of the Jewish community to rebuild the country were opposed from the outset by extreme Arab nationalists. Their strong resentment erupted in periods of intense violence in 1920, 1921, 1929, and 1936-1939 . . . Attempts to reach a dialogue with the Arabs, undertaken early by the Zionist endeavor, were ultimately unsuccessful.

Henceforth, Zionism and Arab nationalism were polarized into a potentially explosive situation. Recognizing the opposing aims of the two national movements, the British, who had already once partitioned the territory under the Mandate (1922) recommended a further partition (1937), dividing the land west of the Jordan River into two states, one Jewish and one Arab. The Jewish leadership accepted the idea of partition and empowered the Jewish Agency to negotiate with the British government in an effort to reformulate aspects of the proposal. The Arabs were uncompromisingly opposed to any partition plan."

So "we all know" that the Arab hatred to the Jews is because of the founding of the State. Just imagine what a holocaust the Arabs would cause if they were to win power over all of Eretz Yisroel tomorrow. But it wasn't always like that. The Arabs did own Eretz Yisroel for about 400 years (from 636 - 1099 CE), beginning just 4 years after the death of Muhammad. During that time, the Arabs did NOT run around killing Jews.

In fact, at the beginning of the Arab rule, the Jewish settlement in Jerusalem was resumed, and the Jewish community was given permission to live in peace with property rights and freedom of religion in return for paying extra taxes -- which was the same way the Muslims treated all non-Muslims under their rule.

Later, additional restrictions against non-Muslims made Jewish life economically difficult, and many left the country.

Compare that to what would c"v happen if the Arabs were to take over rule of Eretz Yisroel today. The difference is then, there was no Zionist movement.

Or compare it to how the Christians treated the Jews when they took control of the land from the Arabs in the year 1099 CE.

In July 1099, the Crusaders captured Jerusalem after a 5 week siege and massacred most non-Christians living in the city. The Jews were burnt to death or sold into slavery.

The Crusaders proceeded from there to continue their bloody carnage all over the country.

Except for the five years that Saladin the Kurd grabbed dominion over the land from the Crusaders (the Crusaders took back the land in 1193 after Saladin's death), the Jews lived with no freedom and in constant terror. It was the Muslim Mamluks that conquer the land from the Crusaders in 1291 CE who finally rid the Jews of their bloodthirsty Christian rulers.

No, the Arabs are not the natural enemies of the Jews. They are the most bloodthirsty today, to be sure, but it was not always this way, nor did it have to be. Unfortunately, because of the Zionists, we are now all in grave danger at the hands of murderous enemies.

shamah Posted - 11 January 2001 19:43

I see that I am arguing with a moderator here, so I hope you really are as fair as you think you are and post this.

Don't you think that this answer is a bit one-sided? There is ample historical evidence that the Arabs/Muslims were just as nasty to the Jews as Christians (my ancestors are from Arab countries and can tell many hair-raising stories about pogroms, etc.).

Instead of relying on half-truths, you should check out the facts if you are planning to answer on behalf of Jewish history (that's just as bad as organizations that "take it upon themselves to represent all of Jewry."

Even your religious argument is incorrect, as there were/are plenty of 'Gedolim' who were/are not opposed to the state as there were against it.

Certainly now, when we Jews who live here are threatened (and it's still an important mitzvah, no matter what your opinion) one would think that this should be behind us and we would all rally together to face our common enemy.

Criticism of less frum Jews and arguing over who was "wrong" (after all, one could say that the Gedolim who prevented their followers from leaving Europe 50+ years ago were "wrong") does nobody any good at this point.

MODERATOR Posted - 11 January 2001 20:50

Sorry, Shamah, I know that's what Zionist institutions teach, but it's not so. If you say there's "ample historical evidence", you should please at least find some of it and enlighten us, but don't hold your breath, because it doesn't exist.

Rav J.B. Soloveichik is Mizrachi, not Satmar, and he says that "we all know" it is true. The Israeli government in its promotional literature also say this nonchalantly, because there's no question about it. So if you like you can search for this "ample evidence", but you will not find anything.

As far as the pogroms go, we've had them in every country we have lived, for without question Esav - and Yishmael - hates Yaakov. But until Zionism was created, the Arabs were not the bloodthirsty kill-all-the-Jews enemies that they have been since then.

You are also not correct about the "equal amount" of Gedolim who were in favor of creating a state. Absolutely untrue. Except the Mizrachi, absolutely zero Torah leaders were in favor of creating a Medinah in '48. If you want a list, you should check out a Sefer called "Daas Harabonim" that has collections of letters from Gedolim on this.

(Incidentally, the famous statement of R. Meir Simchah of Dvinsk which you may have heard of is not relevant here. If this is what you are referring to, please say so and I shall explain.)

shamah Posted - 16 January 2001 21:11

1) History is not "Zionist" or "non-Zionist," it just is, regardless of the fondest wishes of Arab propagandists and people against the "Medinah."

I suggest you read some of the words of S.D. Gotein to get a true view of Moslem-Jewish relations, especially after the fall of Spain. Meanwhile, here is a Web site that will give a more true picture of *traditional* Moslem opinion on who the world's greatest criminals are.

Certainly there were no Zionists in Damascus in 1840 or Aleppo in 1865 when there were blood libels and rioting killing scores of Jews. And Cairo was the scene of blood libels as early as the 1700's.

2) Re the Gedolim: You missed my point. The support of Gedolim I am citing is *after* the state's establishment. My point is that, like it or not (and you obviously don't) Israel is without question (with all due respect to Boro Park) the spiritual and physical center of Jewry today (and what would American Orthodoxy be without the chizuk kids get from learning here - not something the Arabs or British would have permitted, don’t you think?).

Whatever your wishes, it is obviously Hashem's wish - I think after 50 years we can say that this is likely - that there be an independent Jewish nation in Eretz Yisrael. The prewar debate should be over and done with at this point!

3) Re the various arguments given by non/anti-Zionists about the illegitimacy of the Medinah based on various logical arguments, "traditions," or Midrashim in Masechet Ketubot (you know which one I mean): I once read a very interesting sefer which deals with this whole anti-issue.

According to the author (his name escapes me, but he is a well-known OU Rav), one could look at the State as a "break" after the Holocaust to allow the Jews a modicum of dignity and a rebuilding of Jewish life, something that was not about to happen in the US or certainly not Russia.

If we say that the shoah was a "tochacha" (see R. Hutner's famous sicha on this subject), that came as a punishment for various sins (according to him, assimilation), how could Hashem have not expected everyone from all walks of Jewish life to embrace the State - only three years after Auschwitz! We believe in a "Kel rachum vechanun," and if the State was the "work of the devil" (Vayoel Moshe) - why, even the worst legal-aid lawyer could get us all off for "entrapment!" Makes you think.

MODERATOR Posted - 16 January 2001 21:50

The establishment of the State of Israel was opposed by all Torah leaders. Only the Mizrachi wanted it, and not only were they hopelessly outgunned scholarship-wide by the Torah giants that opposed them, but they have not yet show nay hope of answering the Torah claims leveled against them by the Gedolim.

Your analogy to "entrapment" is an example of the halachicly invalid arguments that need to be used to defend the indefensible. Entrapment is not a Halachicly valid defense. It is the Yetzer Horah's job in this world is to "entrap" us.

The same argument that you are making here I have heard from Jewish men who fell in love with non-Jewish women, and attempt to justify their intermarriage. They say How can G-d allow me to fall in love with this woman and not marry her? Isn't that "entrapment?" Any Yetzer Horah is entrapment. Entrapment is not a Halachicly valid claim in Torah law. If you are using Goyishe law to decide Halachah, then your point could be debated. Otherwise, it doesn't work.

Secondly, the Medinah is only acceptable, even after WWII by those who either don't know it is against the Torah or don't care. The fact that the vast majority of Torah Jews, including the Gedolei Yisroel and their followers did not accept it invalidates your argument of entrapment.

The existence of the Brisker Rav, the Chazon Ish, the Rogachover Gaon, the Lubavitcher Rebbe Rashab, Rav Samson Raphael Hirsch, the Chofetz Chaim, and other authorities who taught us not to accept the Medinah is more compelling to Torah Jews than whatever promises of salvation Ben Gurion and Achad Ha'am had to offer.

Furthermore, nobody ever said that the creation of the State was an "act of the devil". Judaism has no devil. Such statements are regularly used by Zionists to misrepresent their opponents, and they have zero truth to them. A "maaseh Satan" is not an "act of the devil". It is exactly what you described in your post: Something that is tempting but against the Torah. The Yetzer Horah (Satan)'s job is to create such situations. And if as you say the State was a tempting attraction especially after WWII then by definition, if it is against the Torah it is a Maaseh Satan. "Act of the devil" is a totally different concept which does not exist in our religion.

Your examples of the way the Jews were treated in Syria - blood libels, pogroms killing scores of Jews - is nothing exceptional, unfortunately, throughout Golus. And it does not compare in the slightest to the treatment we had under the Christians. Again - under Arab rule, both in Palestine and in Arab lands, we were treated much better than we were by the Christians and Europeans. Until the Zionists came. this is not a question, it is, as the Zionists themselves admit, a historical fact. Ben Gurion himself said that if he were the Arabs he would never accept Israel, "for we took their land" were his words.

Incidentally, in Syria, although you are correct that there were a relatively small amount of violent outbreaks against the Jews (that is, relative to the Christians), the Jews were not allowed to leave, but were afforded general protection of the government.

I am fully aware of the writings of Gotein, including his Iyunim B'Mikrah. Nothing he says changes any of the above. And the website link you supply doesn't have any information that changes any of the above either.

The argument that since the State exists it is the will of G-d is just one more example of the untenable position of the Zionists. Just because G-d allows something does not mean He approves of it. G-d allowed six million Jews to be killed. Does that mean He approves of Hitler?

Flower Posted - 20 May 2002 20:06

I don't see how we took the Arabs' land. The British owned Palestine, and promised it to the Jews (if you want to talk from a political, not Torah, perspective). Then they promised it to the Arabs. To compromise, they gave the Arabs most of that land, which was named Jordan. They gave the Jews a small sliver, and the Jews named it Israel. At least, that's what I recall learning in Global History. And I go to a very frum BY, it's not at all Zionistic.

MODERATOR Posted - 20 May 2002 20:30

Please refer to the Zionism boards.

In short,

(a) the Arabs, who lived in the land (not the British, though it was a British mandate) did not want us there.

(b) Incidentally, it was promised to the Arabs before it was promised to the Jews.

(c) First, the Balfour declaration never promised us Israel as a Nation. Although the Zionists said it did, they were told time and time again that it is not so. Winston Churchill said it in 1922.

At you will find a letter from Freda Kirchwey to Chaim Weizman. The following is an excerpt therefrom:

"The Jews based their claim to the right to go to Palestine on the Balfour Declaration....

"The question of a "national home" can be subject to many interpretations. it is hard to believe that the British government, using the words "national home" in 1917 had any idea that there should be created a Jewish State in Palestine without regard to the rights of the large Arab majority living there".

Also, the following memo by Frank P. Corrigan, titled "Summary of the Palestine Problem" at

"The legal claims stem first out of the Balfour Declaration. This was a political paper that promised the Jews a 'home' where they might feel safe from persecutions from which they had for centuries been the victims. Closely examined, this does not constitute much grounds for the legal establishment of a sovereign Jewish State in Palestine. The Jews have read into it much more than it contains."

In fact, the Balfour Declaration was originally drafted by the Zionists. They (July 1917) wanted it to say, "His Majesty's government accepts the principle that Palestine should be reconstituted as the national home of the Jewish people.."

But Lord Balfour did not agree to that. What it said instead (October 1917) was "His Majesty's government view with favor the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people...".

A big difference. A 'national home' is not necessarily a sovereign state, and "in" Palestine does not mean, as they wanted it to say, [all of] "Palestine".

Second, the UN is not a Sanhedrin Hagadol whose opinion has Halachic validity. The question is, the residents of the land at that time - vast majority were against the Jewish State - the rebellion was against them, not the Americans or the Italians.

hadtosaythis Posted - 02 June 2002 19:04

I would like to point out that all of the excerpts you have been quoting are not a proof that the British did not promise a state; it means that the British were purposely vague about it so that they would not appear to be submitting to the Jews, and were smart enough to play the politics and not say anything explicitly.

Historically, they were answering to Zionist requests; what you are saying wouldn't have changed the status quos. All those excerpts show was that the British were good politicians.

MODERATOR Posted - 02 June 2002 19:40

Not all those quotes are from the British - the US, too, held that the Jews were reading too much into the declaration.

Promising the safe and guaranteed expansion of the Jewish settlements in Palestine was not the status quo - it was a guarantee for the Jews to have large, maybe almost carte blanche immigration, with a certain level of self-rule . That certainly is not the status quo, but it certainly does not promise that Palestine will become a Jewish State.

But in any case, if the promise is vague or ambiguous than you have no proof at all that a State was ever promised. In addition, even if a State would have been promised, that promise was clearly subsequently broken, and in the end, a State was not granted; and a promise, in Halachah and International Law, does not constitute legal title.

dlyst Posted - 22 July 2003 6:26

Are the Arabs idol worshippers?

MODERATOR Posted - 22 July 2003 6:38

You mean Moslems. Arabs are not a religion.

No, they are not.

Whatever distortions the Moslems inserted into the Torah to make it compatible with the teachings of Mohammed (such as Akeidas Yishmael c"v, NOT AKeidas Yitzchok!) they did not change the basic concept of G-d. The Christians did, creating a trinity, which is a quantification of G-d or His aspects, which is idolatry. G-d has no "aspects" and cannot be quantified of fit into a trinity or a quadrinity in any way. G-d is totally Simple, and no aspect of being composite is present in Him. That’s includes "aspects." The believe G-d is measurable in this way, or His aspects are, is to attribute physicality to G-d, since quantification necessarily demands finiteness and physicality, and that is idolatry.

But when the Moslems created their religion they did not do violence to the concept of G-d's Oneness.

The Moslems created a newfangled religion based on a fabricated prophet who never met any of the requirements to demand that he be considered a prophet, except for his sharp sword.

But as far as Hashem Himself, that they did not tamper with.

odutingtom Posted - 23 July 2003 10:28

What about the fundamentalist Arabs? They hate everyone because they’re all infidels who should either be killed or converted! Arafat surely wants to kill all Jews because of their religion.

MODERATOR Posted - 23 July 2003 11:15

There’s no such thing as a "fundamentalist Arab". First of all, as I said, "Arab" is not a religion - Islam is. The followers of Islam are called Moslems. Arab is a geographic adjective and has nothing to do with religion. There are Syrian Jews and Egyptian Christians, just as there are Anglo or Spanish Jews and Christians. And Moslems.

It is a Zionist thing to make the current conflict in Israel into a Jew vs. Moslem religious war. It has nothing to do with religion. A minority of Moslems actually are Arabs - most Moslems live in Asia in places like China and Indonesia and Pakistan, more than Lebanon and Syria and the Arab countries (the exact statistics are posted elsewhere on the site).

Moslems never had anything against Jews, in fact, we got along much better with them than we did with the Christians. (Remember: There was no holocaust in the Arab countries!) Jews and Christians both are considered "protected religions" in Islam - we are not "infidels" to them.

The fight in the middle east is political: Zionists vs. Arabs, both who want the same piece of land. It has zero to do with Judaism (it wasn’t those practicing Judaism who took the land to begin with) or Islam (the fight broke out in the middle east because that’s where the land was --- even though there are more Moslems in Asia), and the fight did not start until the Zionists declared in the early 20th century that they are taking the land.

Second, Arafat is not a practicing Moslem. He is totally secular - like Sharon is to Judaism. And just like the Arabs are tricked into thinking that heretics like Sharon and his ilk represent what "Jews" hold, Jews are tricked into thinking that secular Arabs like Arafat represent what Moslems hold. Arafat is even married to a Christian (even though in Moslem law technically a man may marry a woman of another religion, though a woman may only marry a fellow Moslem, nevertheless it is very very frowned upon and not done by religious Moslems).

Secondly, Moslems don't use descriptions such as fundamentalist - that’s exclusive to Christianity.

But just as we have many sects who claim to represent Judaism, such as Conservative and Reform, but are really other religions, there are also many religions vying for the label of legitimate Islam.

The kharijites and their sub-sects (such as wahhabi) and the sub sects of the sub sects are on one end of the spectrum, and the shia are on the other. The kharijites are more of what you would call fundamentalists in another religion. And the wild militant crazies are sub sects of sub sects going in that direction.

And even the crazies of crazies are not motivated by a hatred for Judaism, but rather it is a political war - over the land - and they are targeting Jews as their political enemies because of the political dispute over the land; they don’t care at all about Judaism itself.

The following was part of a public statement by a Hamas murderer ys"v:

Session Details
Guest Name Mr. Usama Hamdan: Member of Hamas, & Hamas Representative in Lebanon
Subject: Mid-East Truce: Will Peace Prevail?
Date Thursday,Jul 10 ,2003
Time Mecca
From... 18:30...To... 20:30
From... 15:30...To...17:30

Name Daniel - United States
Question: Greetings Mr. Hamdan. I would like to ask you whether you
and your organizations, and others like yours, both in Palestine and in
the Palestinian Diaspora are aware of the fact that there are many religious
Jews who oppose Zionism? ... How ironic that the world forgets that before Zionism the Jewish People never had as good
friends [relatively] as the Arab People!

Answer: First of all, thank you for your greetings and I send you the same. We are certainly aware and very much concerned with you have said. And I would like to clarify that our resistance against the Zionists is just For the fact that they are occupiers. And of course we don't fight them for their religion, on the contrary, with respect to us as Muslims, we are commanded to deal with Christians and Jews with great respect. And that's why the Arab and Muslim region is the only place where Christians and Jews were not killed or persecuted just for their religion.

Now of course, it is needless to say that this does not justify in the slightest nor reduce the intensity of the guilt of people like him and his gang of terrorists who murder innocent people. May G-d avenge them all swiftly and completely!

But that is exactly the point - a fight was picked by the Zionists against millions of Arabs, which include animals like the Hamas murderers, and people like the Brisker Rav ZTL and Rav Michoel Ber Weissmandel ZTL warned them that this would happen if they tried to make a Jewish State in Eretz Yisroel.

All those deaths are not in the slightest justified - but the Gedolim told us they could have been prevented. If you walk into Harlem at night alone, you may get hurt. Walking alone at night doe not justify the mugger, but if you were smart, you could have prevented it. And if you go and scream out racial epithets, antagonizing the Harlem residents, and then get yourself killed, well, even though calling someone names does not in the slightest make him less of a murderer, it makes you an idiot, and suicidal for doing it.

And if you shlep your brothers and sisters and family with you, then you are a criminal. And that does not negate in the slightest the guilt of the murderer; it merely means that you’re a murderer as well.

dlyst Posted - 23 July 2003 21:05

So ALL the Moslems are all Hashem worshippers??????

MODERATOR Posted - 23 July 2003 21:50

Basically, yes. They have the right G-d but the wrong religion.

The Halachah considers them not idol worshippers. There was, however, there is an Orthodox Islamic doctrine called Sifa Dhatiyya, which means basically attributes of G-d's essence, which has similar (but not the same) antagonism to G-d's Oneness as the Christian Trinity. The Mutazilites opposed them because of this. Official Islamic doctrine believes in One G-d, at least enough so, that they avoid crossing the line into idol worship.

frumgirl87 Posted - 05 August 2003 14:21

We learned in Jewish History class that for a long time Jews and Arabs got along a lot better b/c a lot of things we have in common.

For example, we're both monotheistic, have some sort of shechita, love learning, etc. My Jewish History teacher even went as far as to point out that we're blessed that the Arabs built their mosque on Temple Mount and the Christians didn't build a church. B/c now at least, there's people praying to Hashem(who they call something else) and not Christians who are polytheistic where the Bais HaMikdash used to be.

Also, Jews and Arabs got along a lot better when the Jews accepted the fact that they were dhimmis(lesser people) in society. Once the whole radical jihad thing came about, Arabs no longer got along with Jews. Now, ironically, it seems Christians are better friends to Jews than Arabs are, regardless of their past history.

MODERATOR Posted - 05 August 2003 14:41

You’re history teacher is absolutely correct. Add to that the fact that Jews are a "protected religion" according to Moslem law, plus they are not considered idol worshippers according to the Torah (the monotheism was not mere commonality between us and them but a halachic status).

Rav Soloveichik, who was Mizrachi, NOT Chareidi, admits this unequivocally (Five Addresses p.79), that whereas in the past the Christians were much worse enemies than the Arabs, today it has reversed. He also states that the reason for this sudden Arab hatred is clearly the State of Israel.

But I am certain he doesn’t literally mean the State of Israel, but rather the movement to create the State, which began in the late 19th century.

Zionist propaganda tries to teach that the Arabs "always" wanted Jews killed because the chevron massacre happened in 1929, almost 20 years before the State was established. Meir Kahane tried to use this piece of propaganda many times, as well as others.

But its nonsense, because even though the State was established in 1948 the Zionist movement, including the violent Haganah, Irgun and Stern Gang were around before; the Balfour Declaration, promising the Jews a homeland in Palestine, which freaked out the Arabs happened in 1971; the first Zionist congress when they publicly announced their intentions to take the land form the Arabs, which freaked them out as well, happened in 1897; Herzl wrote in his diary that the Zionist should "spirit the penniless [Arabs] across the border" in his diary in 1895; Zev Jobatinsky, and the Iron Wall philosophy was public knowledge way before 1948.

The Chevron massacre, as explained elsewhere on this site, and as explained by eye witnesses on audio tapes that are available commercially (Rav Boruch Kaplan ZTL, husband of Rebitzen Vichna Kaplan of Bais Yaakov was a survivor of the Chevron massacre; he made a taped narration of what happened so that his children will know the true story, not the propaganda version) was a direct result of Zionist instigation against the Arabs, particularly regarding use of the Kosel area. The Rabbonim begged the Zionists to stop instigating the Arabs with threats of throwing them out of the land and such, but their please fell on deaf ears. Chevron was the Arab's murderous response to the Zionists.

The Zionist declaration they are taking over the land was tantamount to a declaration of war against the Arabs living there, and their allies. That war began was before the State was established, and is still being fought today.

js5 Posted - 07 August 2003 14:37

Under sharia law, Jews are still second-class citizens, which means that Muslims have every possible advantage over them. however, they are above pagans.

Moderator, I have a question. do you think the Arabs do not hate Jews?

It seems all you are trying to do is Zionism, but Islam is the religion of the sword. There are two houses the world is ranked under in Islam: Dar-al-Islam which is the Arabian peninsula and Muhammad’s birthplace. The rest of the world comes under Dar-al-harb the house of war.

A Muslim is obligated to undertake a jihad to reclaim any land in the entire world ever conquered by Muslims. they are obligated to take over much of Europe and Asia .I still think without what you call "Zionist instigation" Arabs would still kill Jews

MODERATOR Posted - 07 August 2003 15:42

If we as Jews know anything about religious persecution, it is that random quotes and laws "on the books" mean nothing in terms of actual beliefs. Zionists have done to the Moslems the exact same thing that the KKK and anti-Semites have done to the Jews: takes some halachos and quotes form Torah and, without explaining them in depth, displayed them as "proof" of the Jews' danger to the world.

The following is flaunted on the KKK websites:

Sanhedrin 59a: "A Goy (Gentile) who pries into the law (Talmud) is guilty of death."

"Yebhamoth 11b: "Sexual intercourse with a little girl is permitted if she is of three years of age.

Shabouth Hag. 6b: "Jews may swear falsely by use of subterfuge wording.

Choschen Ham 266, 1: "A Jew may keep anything he finds which belongs to the Akum (Gentile). For he who returns lost property (to Gentiles) sins against the law by increasing the power of the transgressors of the law. It is praiseworthy, however, to return lost property if it is done to honor the name of God, namely if by so doing Christians will praise the Jews and look upon them as honorable people."

"Yebamoth 98a - Egyptians have no fathers ... G-d declared their children to be legally fatherless, as it says "Their flesh is like the flesh of donkeys and their children are like the children of horses"

Goyim in the eyes of the Jews: "Their flesh is like the flesh of donkeys and their children are like the children of horses"

How about the anti-Semites who toss around the following halachos, all of which are quotes:

"A goy who worships idols is guilty of the death penalty" AND "Christianity is idol worship". Ergo, all Christians who practice their religion are guilty of the death penalty according to Jewish law.

Heretics that do not believe in the Jewish religion (apikorsim) - are guilty of the death penalty.

Then look up the English translation of "shefoch chamaschah" and try to imagine what it can do in the wrong hands!

And what about the fact that Jews pray 3 ties a day for the death of all "heretics (minim)" - and then list who is a "min" according to the Halachah!

Now we all know that all of this is nonsense, and that without proper context, depth of understanding, and clarification, those quotes - each one 100% accurate totally misrepresent Judaism, even though they are correct quotes, and correct laws.

Take the statement in the Gemora that a girl less than 3 years old is permitted .... it makes Jews out to be child molesters! But that quote is thoroughly not meant in that way.

Anti-Semites have done this to Jews throughout history, and it has caused the deaths of countless innocent Jewish soul hy"d. And we are appalled at the base evil that doing such a thing entails. It’s the lowest of the low. But now the Zionists are taking lessons from the anti-Semites and doing the exact same thing to others.

Of course the Quran has anti-Semitic things in it! And of course the Moslems believe that those who do not follow their religion are inferior!

But the question is: IS THAT what is motivating Arabs to kill Jews? That is a totally different question, and to that, the answer is absolutely no, because those beliefs were not meant to be used that way.

And of course there are Arab-Moslems who will use their religion as an excuse and a reason to kill Jews --- just as there are Jews who do the same thing by twisting the Torah -- like the Zionists who are currently preaching the nonsense that all Arabs are assumed to be Amalek! I am not kidding - there are Zionist rabbis who are really preaching this. And people like Meir Kahane who use the Torah to create his anti-Torah and anti-Jewish philosophy of violence and hisgarus b'umos.

What you need to do is, to open your eyes and see that the only Moslems who are saying these sort of things - the only ones who have become our mortal enemies - are the Arabs, even though they comprise a SMALL MINORITY of the followers of Islam. The Pakistani guys you see in America are also Moslems (many of them anyway). The ones who own the gas stations and the groceries in OUR neighborhoods -- their attitude toward the Jews is NOT the same as the Arabs. But they are both Moslems.

But just as many Jews do not know or understand the difference between Arab and Moslem, there are many, many Arabs who do not understand the difference between Judaism and Zionism. They believe , because this is what Zionists tell the world - that JUDAISM is what they represent, and so, their acts and the acts of the "Jewish State" represent Jews and Judaism.

And THAT is why the Arabs hate Jews. Because they think that Judaism includes Zionism. Their fight is with Zionism -- they just believe - as do many Jews - that that is part and parcel of Judaism. How can you blame them? Check this out - it’s from Webster's Third New International Dictionary:

anti-Semitism, anti-Semitism
\n, usu cap S 1: hostility towards Jews as a religious or racial minority group often accompanied by social, economic, and political discrimination - compare RACISM 2: opposition to Zionism : sympathy with opponents of the state of Israel.

After all the anti-Semitic quotes from the Arabs, it is only those Moslems who have a political conflict with Zionists over the in the middle east that want to kill Jews and it is only after that conflict was started by the Zionists that they became our enemies.

It’s not Moslems - its ARABS that have become bloodthirsty killers of Jews, meaning, those who have a political conflict with Zionism. The current lethal Arab animosity toward Jews has nothing to do with Islam - and the Zionist hatred and animosity toward Arabs has nothing to do with Judaism.

Here is a typical piece of Zionist propaganda, a very common Zionist claim, from :

Historically, the Islamic world's orientation to genocide against the Jews has not been limited to idle phrasemaking. Even before Israel came into existence in 1948, on November 28, 1941, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin, met in Berlin with Adolph Hitler. The subject of their meeting was "the final solution of the Jewish Question". This meeting, which followed Haj Amin's active organization of Muslim SS troops in Bosnia, included the Mufti's promise to aid German victory in the war. Later, after Israel's trial and punishment of Nazi war criminal Adolph Eichmann in 1961, Iranian and Arab newspapers treated the mass murderer as a "martyr", and congratulated him for having "conferred a real blessing on humanity" by liquidating six million Jews.

Please see Rav Hutner's article on this quoted elsewhere in this forum. The Mufti of Jerusalem had no interest in harming the Jews before the looming threat of a Jewish State was upon him - it was Zionism that changed him into the malach hamaves. Jews got a long cordially with the Mufti before the Zionists came. It’s insane that Zionists expect people to believe such blatant propaganda - they know full well that when the Mufti met with Hitler was 24 years after the Balfour Declaration, 44 years after the first Zionist congress, and Zionism was already in full force, fighting a war in Eretz Yisroel with the Arabs for territory. The man says that it was "even before Israel came into existence", trying to prove that the State of Israel has nothing to do with the Mufti's visiting Hitler. The Zionists were not yet successful in making a State but they were trying --- physically, politically, and often violently! It’s amazing that such a distortion could be passed off. And it’s an embarrassment to all Jews that such ridiculous lies - no more logical or reasonable than the KKK's website claims against the Jews - should come from the mouths of people who have been gifted with the Toras Emes.

Today is Tisha Bav. Rav Yochanan ben Zakai begged the Jews to make peace with the Romans, but the Baryonim wanted war. The Zionists are the Baryonim of today. And just as the Meforshim tell us, had we surrendered to the Romans, the Bais Hamikdash would never have been destroyed, so too, so much carnage would have been prevented if not for the Zionists. That’s what our Gedolim warned us, almost a century ago, would happen, but you don’t need to be a Godol to see it.

PS - The next post is a response to your Moslem Law lesson.

MODERATOR Posted - 07 August 2003 15:45

The following was authored by Imaam Yahiya Emerick, President of the Islamic Foundation of North America:

According to Sharia Law, an armed struggle can be initiated only for the following reasons:

-to defend your community or nation from aggressors.
-to liberate people living under oppressive regimes
-to remove any government that will not allow the free practice of Islam within its borders.

Any war for conquest or glory is forbidden in Islam.

"There is no compulsion in religion" -Quran 2:256 ; forced conversion is not legitimate.

An individual Muslim religious figure is not authorized by Islamic law (sharia) to tell his followers to go and fight, because the main principal of Islamic government is mutual consultation, known as Shura. Given that their is no worldwide Islamic government or forum as once was (the Caliphate), most of the Islamic groups engaging in armed struggle have no legitimacy to Islamic law.

Muslims who are living in a non-Muslim society are bound by sharia law to live peacefully with their neighbors so long as no injustice is being done to anyone. Crime and vice must be opposed regardless.

Given that Islam recognizes that Jews and Christians received authentic prophets and revelations in the past, the Quran uses a special title to separate them from mere idolaters.
(What status does the towrah give to gentiles?) The term is AHL al Kitab, or people of the book. It is an allusion to the fact that Jews and Christians received Holy Books from God long before and can be counted on to have certain ideas and concepts that are similar to Islam's.

The People of the Book have such an elevated status that, according to Islamic Law, a Muslim man is allowed to marry a practicing Jewish or Christian woman. (And he is not allowed to force her to convert or curtail her religious freedom.) In addition, meat prepared by Jews and Christians based on their religious dictates (the kosher standard) is permissible for Muslims to eat.

Many of the verses in the Quran concerning Jews were directed to 3 specific Jewish tribes in Medina, Banu Nadir, Banu Qaynuqa, and the Banu Quraiza.

It is not the concept of being Jewish that the Quran calls into question:

"Rest assured that Muslims, Jews, Christians and Sabians- whoever believes in God and the last day and performs good deeds- will be rewarded by their Lord; they will have nothing to fear of regret."-Quran 2:62

The Quran maintains that all people are equal in God's sight and that it was only in the strength of their faith that they could be judged.

The Quran refers to the Synagogue as a place of God:
"If God didn't check one set of people by means of another there would surely have been pulled down monasteries, churches, synagogues, and mosques in which the name of God is commemorated in abundant measure." _Quran 16:118

Islam does not teach its followers to discriminate against Jews. When a Jewish funeral procession was passing by him in Medina, Muhammad stood up in respect for the deceased.

The history of Islam from Muhammad's time until the advent to the 20th century is one of tolerance toward Jews and Judaism. Even as Jews were persecuted in Europe during the Middle Ages, they always enjoyed political and religious freedom in Islamic societies. The greatest example of that is found in the period known as the Golden Age in Spain. From the 8th century until the 15th century, Muslims ruled nearly all of Spain and a small sliver of France. During that time, Jewish citizens of the empire had rights nearly equal to their rights in America today. Jewish historians refer to the time their people lived in Muslim ruled Spain as the Golden Age of Judaism.

Jews were also prominent in the courts of Baghdad, Cairo, Istanbul, and elsewhere, being palace physicians, finance officers, and even Viziers, or government ministers. The Islamic Millet, or Sectional system, operated to the benefit of religious minorities by setting up an official board of people from every religion who ruled over their co-religionists according to their own religious laws .(Non-Muslims are exempt from following many aspects of Islamic Law).

In recent times, however, political conditions have cast a pall over Muslim-Jewish relations that never existed before. The tension of the Arab-Israelis conflict has divided Muslims and Jews irreparably, it seems. However, recent efforts have been made to heal some of the mistrust, and tentative steps towards peace may yet restore amicable relations between the followers of the world's two purest monotheistic religions.

MODERATOR Posted - 07 August 2003 15:48


Here's an explanation of the Dar Al-Islam and Dar Al-Harb -- much different than what you are presenting.


MODERATOR Posted - 07 August 2003 16:03

For the Zionist side of the story, including a different spin on the "Dhimmi - inferior but protected" status, see

but ---- if you read what they say with the understanding that (a) just as we do not want people to judge Judaism by Jews, we also do not judge other religions by some of their practitioners, and (b) the issue is not whether we wee treated like royalty under the Arabs but whether the Arabs were interested in killing Jews, driving them into the sea, and waging war with them ---- you will find that, even though the historical truth of the level of tolerance Moslems had for Jews practicing Judaism in Moslem lands, they were never our mortal enemies, never wanted to kill us at all. That, the war between Jews and Arabs, happened only because of Zionism.

And we knew it would happen. The Brisker Rav and others said so. But the Zionists thought they knew better. Like the Baryonim.

js5 Posted - 07 August 2003 18:34


Thank you for the info. Now that we are in the midst of this struggle which you say was foisted on us by Zionists, what should we do?

I have read sources that talk about this state being the "footsteps of moshiach". Do you consider this false?

Do you propose the giving back of all the territories the Palestinians are asking for?

That's more a political question, though. I think that once the state is there even if you disagree with the way it is run such as the attempt to separate church and state I still think you can support the state.

My Rebbeim talk about the "gathering of exiles" coming true and fulfilling messianic properties. Do you think it is possible that the state is part of that too?

MODERATOR Posted - 07 August 2003 18:57

“I have read sources that talk about this state being the "footsteps of moshiach". Do you consider this false?”

Of course. The State of Israel, has no geulahic properties. It only prevents the geulah, makes Jews suffer, makes Hashem angry, and, well, as Rav Elchonon Wasserman said "the only way a Jewish State in Eretz Yisroel will bring Moshiach closer is through the statement of the GRA that all suffering that we endure during golus hastens the geula - and since the State of Israel is likely to be the worst thing that has ever happened to us in all of our golus history, in that sense, it makes moshiach come faster."

“do you propose the giving back of all the territories the Palestinians are asking for? that’s more a political question, though.”

Whatever will bring more peace should be done. All the territory in the world is not worth one Jewish life and so, if giving back any amount of land will prevent even one Jewish death, it is the right thing to do. Whether this is the case of not is, as you say, a political question, but unfortunately, we will not get an honest answer out of the politicians. So I do not know.

“I think that once the state is there even if you disagree with the way it is run such as the attempt to separate church and state I still think you can support the state.”

Contrary to what is taught in Religious Zionist schools, opposition to the State is not based on how the State is run; it is based on its illegitimate, contrary to Halachah existence. I don’t know what you mean by "support the state". To say that I am happy it is here, no, I cannot and am not allowed to say that.

“my Rebbeim talk about the "gathering of exiles" coming true and fulfilling messianic properties. Do you think it is possible that the state is part of that too?”

No. Your Rebbeim are teaching Zionism, not based on any Judaic sources. The geulah process does not involve a Jewish State - in fact, it involves the non-existence of a Jewish State. Israel does not fulfill any messianic properties at all.

MODERATOR Posted - 08 August 2003 3:29

Some Pakistani-Moslem girl sent me this in through email (it seems more that just Yidden read this site):

You were right about how Arabs and Muslims don't have some type of, religious reason to hate Jews. It all started after the creation of Zionism; and even that, for example, my family, what beef do they have with Jews? Growing up in Pakistan, how many Jews do u think they ran across? Maybe some of the Muslims in the Indian subcontinent have a problem with Hindus, but its all regional conflict; like Muslims in Yugoslavia are going to have a problem with Christians, because of what the Serbs did to them. And not all people even care; they're intelligent enough to know that you can't hate someone because of their religious affiliation or their race.

MODERATOR Posted - 08 August 2003 3:36

Right - unless their religious affiliation tells them to kill Arabs because they’re Amalek or tell them to expel Arabs from Eretz Yisroel, which is what extremist Zionists are saying, and which causes terrible anti-Semitism, because the Arabs who hear this think its really Judaism. They have no idea that there is a difference between the crazies and the normals.

And, it seems, neither do many Jews. Hazeet. The first step is for the Jews to properly understand the Torah, and not listen to the Zionist propaganda; you cannot teach others before you know yourself.

Lchapes emes Posted - 11 August 2003 3:34

Some general questions:

1) What is 'hazeet'?

2) Does the Arabic word 'Allah' have the status of just another name for God in another language, like "Got" in Yiddish or "Dieu" in French? Or is there some deeper significance having to do with Islam which means that Jews speaking Arabic would never refer to God as Allah? For example, the Islamic equivalent of "Im Yirtzeh Hashem" is "Inshallah". Could a Jew say this when talking with an Arab/in Arabic? Or do we say it is related to a foreign form of worship? Like in English, Xtians and Jews and everyone else say "God willing".

3) On an unrelated note, is the Chabad ideal (as I understand it) of 'shleimus ha'aretz' (complete control of the land) based on the logic that only the complete territory of the Medinah in possession of Jews will ensure Jewish safety, or is it a kind of Zionist ideology?


MODERATOR Posted - 11 August 2003 5:35

1) Hazeet means "nebach". It's a Sefardishe (Syrian) expression.

2) Allah just means "G-d", and has nothing to do with Islam. It is also commonly used by Sefardim in expressions such as "allamaak", which means good-bye (lit. "G-d be with you", which, is the meaning of the word "good-bye" - it is an abbreviation of "G-d Be with You")

3) Its not Zionist ideology. The Lubavitcher Rebbe held that even though Jews should not conquer territory in Eretz Yisroel, if they have it, they should not give it back. He made statements to the effect that giving back any land is a sakanah for Jews. He did not provide any evidence for this statement, and he did not indicate whether he thought so because of his political understanding of the situation, or whether this was one of his prophecies or Ruach HaKodesh statements or what, such as when he told the residents of South Africa not to leave, because South Africa will remain safe for them, which of course, turned out to be a debacle of major proportions.

mo Posted - 21 November 2004 2:40

**I did not hear about Yishmael being called "oyev" as opposed to "soneh" (if you find that there really is such a statement please let me know), but I do know that Rabbeinu Bachai (Bereishis 21:14) writes that "there is no nation in the world that will hate the Jews like the children of Yishmael."**
Ramban says just the opposite : yishmaelis are "soine" and edoimites - "oyev".

MODERATOR Posted - 28 December 2005 6:31

More on the Chevron Massacre

I have mentioned above that there is a cassette tape available of a speech given by Rav Boruch Kaplan ZTL, (husband of Rebitzen Vichna Kaplan A"H, founder of Bais Yaakov in America), a survivor of the Chevron Massacre, describing the sequence of events that led to the massacre, as well as details of the massacre itself.

It is horrifying but very educational. Rav Kaplan describes how the Arabs and Jews got along well together in Chevron, until the Arabs were threatened -that their land would be taken from them by the Zionists. He held the Zionists, including and in certain ways especially the religious ones, responsible for instigating the massacre

(of course, that does not in any way reduce the culpability of the murderers themselves. If someone goes into Harlem and screams racial epithets, he is putting his life in danger. His actions do not make his attackers any less murderers, but it does make him a suicidal idiot. And if it is not only his own life that he puts in danger thusly, he is a suicidal rodef idiot. This is why Rav Elchonon Wasserman ZTL referred to the militant Zionists as Rodfim). Someone sent me the following pertinent article

Some relevant excerpts, that duplicate details of Rabbi Kaplan's tale almost word for word:

For some time, the 800 Jews in Hebron lived in peace with their tens of thousands of Arab neighbors.

But on the night of August 23, 1929, the tension simmering within this cauldron of nationalities bubbled over, and for 3 days, Hebron turned into a city of terror and murder.

By the time the massacres ended, 67 Jews lay dead and the survivors were relocated to Jerusalem, leaving Hebron barren of Jews for the first time in hundreds of years...Jewish immigrants were arriving in Palestine in increasing numbers, further exacerbating the Jewish-Arab conflict...Hebron had, until this time, been outwardly peaceful, although tension hid below the surface. The Sephardi Jewish community in Hebron had lived quietly with its Arab neighbors for centuries.... [Slabodka] Yeshiva students lived separately from the Sephardi community, and from the Arab population.

Due to this isolation, the Arabs viewed them with suspicion and hatred, and identified them as Zionist immigrants. Despite the general suspicion, however, one yeshiva student, Dov Cohen, still recalled being on "very good" terms with the Arab neighbors.

He remembered yeshiva boys taking long walks late at night on the outskirts of the city, and not feeling afraid, even though only one British policeman guarded the entire city...Rabbi Slonim, who had tried to shelter the Jewish population, was approached by the rioters and offered a deal. If all the Ashkenazi yeshiva students were given over to the Arabs, the rioters would spare the lives of the Sephardi community. Rabbi Slonim refused to turn over the students and was killed on the spot...

A few Arabs did try to help the Jews. Nineteen Arab families saved dozens, maybe even hundreds of Jews.

No comments: