Posts
since Wed, 26 Dec 2007 20:04:17.
I am trained as an historical political economist with specialization in modern Eastern European and Jewish studies. Nevertheless, I have long had an interest in the classical and medieval Medieval period.
I work as an engineer because reaction to my undergraduate hypothesis explaining the transition from Geonic to Rabbinic Judaism indicated that I would never be able to obtain an academic position unless I were willing to lie about Jewish historical political economy.
Because I know the history of Greco-Roman Judaism in detail, I recently helped my wife put together a brief summary of Zionist usurpation for the Khaleej Times: [snipped -- originally Israel Steals Palestinian Heritage, History]
Although I am Muslim, I run an organization, whose name is [snipped -- originally Ethnic Ashkenazim Against Zionist Israel] because in Boston Jews have generally been far more willing than Muslims:
- to undertake coordinated unequivocal anti-Zionist action and
- to stand up for Muslim constitutional rights.
I have put up a summary blog entry, [snipped -- originally From Ancient to Modern Judaism], that points to a collection of articles explaining more about the origins of Modern Jewry than most people would ever want to know.
In order to be neutral on religious issues, the articles are all written from the standpoint of historical political economy.
Edited by J.Hashmi [who wrote the original MuslimMatters article]
Welcome to MM, Joachim.
I'm really sorry to do this to you, but I had to snip out your links. I wanted this article to deal only with that which is agreed upon by scholars and academics. Although I only spent a few minutes on your site, I did notice a few things which bothered me. I think your writing is much more controversial and contested.
I generally have a very positive opinion of secular historians. I just tend to stick to the historical record that they agree upon, in order to avoid shoddy and selective scholarship. Furthermore, I prefer dispassionate discourse instead of ideologically driven research. With regard to your work, it is beyond my capability to comment on it, so I will just say nothing and apologize to you for snipping your links.
There is an open thread on MM. You may share whatever views you want there, and the MM staff there may be more lenient in letting certain posts pass. I however will keep an eye on my article to make sure we stick to what is agreed upon. Muslims already have a credibility issue, as we--like minorities in general--tend to flock to conspiracy theories. I wanted to avoid this pitfall, insha-Allah.
I replied:
While I generally focus mostly on modern E. European and Jewish studies, I am no slouch when it comes to the classics.
Among scholars I am fairly close to the mainstream in Jewish studies.
In this case, the preponderance of scholarship does not happen to agree with Zionist mythology even if common wisdom does, and to pretend that there is consensus on the issues my wife raised is the purest mendacity.
In her article my wife cited two well-respected scholars: Columbia University Professor Nadia Abu el-Haj and Tel Aviv University Professor Shlomo Sand (Zand).
I don't quite understand why Muslims would go out of their way to pander Zionist racism
- by casting doubt on the scholarly qualifications of these two academics and
- by insulting my wife, who is the Civil Rights Division Director of the National Association of Muslim American Women.
I was trying to be nice, but you simply do not understand the Biblical History, and I have to doubt whether you ever read the Bible, religious historians of Biblical Israel or secular historians of Biblical Israel, for no one except a Zionist or someone totally indoctrinated with Zionist propaganda talks about the Jewish conquest of Canaan. The proper terminology is the Israelite conquest. The Kingdom of Judah does not arise until after the reign of Solomon, and many contemporary archeologists and historians treat that whole period as mythological.
In the Hebrew Bible, the word Yehudi (יְהוּדִי, which is generally equivalent to Arabic Yahudi with a few subtle distinctions) is not used until the Book of Esther, which among other things describes a massive conversion to some form of Judaism as it was practiced at the time period.
If I were translating Yehudi, I would use Jehudite because the group being described is quite distinct
1. from the Judahites of the pre-exilic Kingdom of Judah,
2. from the Judeans of the Greco-Roman time period, and
3. from Jews of the medieval to modern period.
Obviously, there is some disagreement in the terminology, but the issue of properly translating Hebrew yehudi and Greek ioudaios has been around since Reuchlein in the 15th century.
Reuse of gentilics or demonyms is hardly unusual in the European context, and Patrick J. Geary summarizes practice in The Myth of Nations, The Medieval Origins of Europe, pp. 118-119. His analysis applies at least as much to the term yehudi as it applies to any European ethnic name.
Conclusion: Old Names and New Peoples
The fourth and fifth centuries saw fundamental changes in the European social and political fabric. In the process, great confederations like those of the Goths disappeared, to re-emerge transformed into kingdoms in Italy and Gaul. Others like the Hunnic Empire or the Vandal kingdom seemed to spring from nowhere, only to vanish utterly in a few generations. Still other, previously obscure peoples, such as the Angles and the Franks, emerged to create enduring polities. But whether enduring or ephemeral, the social realities behind these ethnic names underwent rapid and radical transformation in every case. Whatever a Goth was in the third-century kingdom of Cniva, the reality of a Goth in sixth century Spain was far different, in language, religion, political and social organization, even ancestry. The Franks defeated by Emperor Julian in the fourth century and those who followed Clovis into battle in the sixth century were likewise almost immeasurably distant from each other in every possible way. The same was true of the Romans, whose transformation was no less dramatic in the same period. With the constant shifting of allegiances, intermarriages, transformations, and appropriations, it appears that all that remained constant were names, and these were vessels that could hold different contents at different times.
Names were renewable resources; they held the potential to convince people of continuity, even if radical discontinuity was the lived reality. Old names, whether of ancient peoples like the Goths or Suebi or of illustrious families such as the Amals, could be reclaimed, applied to new circumstances, and used as rallying cries for new powers. Alternatively, names of small, relatively unimportant groups might be expanded with enormous power. The Franks were the most significant of these. In the third century, they were among the least significant of Rome's enemies. By the sixth century, the name Frank had eclipsed not only that of Goth, Vandal, and Sueb, but of Roman itself in much of the West.
Probably no greater fraud has ever been perpetrated in the history of the human race than Zionism: Every Israel Advocate a Madoff. [Hashmi removed this link.]
I am quite offended that you write:
I wanted this article to deal only with that which is agreed upon by scholars and academics. [It is not a history where there is agreement. To pretend consenus exists is dishonest.] Although I only spent a few minutes on your site, I did notice a few things which bothered me. [Like what? On any point I make I can cite either primary research, primary literature or numerous secondary sources.] I think your writing is much more controversial and contested. [Your are simply saying that I do not agree with Zionist propaganda. A lot of Jewish studies researchers don't in fact agree with it. That should be a good thing. Good historical scholarship is often controversial.]
I generally have a very positive opinion of secular historians. I just tend to stick to the historical record that they agree upon, in order to avoid shoddy and selective scholarship. [There is no consensus in the history I was discussing except the nonsense Zionists are trying to foist on the rest of the world. If anything, you are regurgitating shoddy and selective scholarship.] Furthermore, I prefer dispassionate discourse instead of ideologically driven research. [Good research is objective even if it is passionate, and on some issues it is simply difficult to avoid passion. Jewish scholars of the Holocaust are not criticized for passion. They are criticized as Goldhagen was for selective or distorted use of sources.] With regard to your work, it is beyond my capability to comment on it, so I will just say nothing and apologize to you for snipping your links. [You are just admitting that you should not be pretending to write a factual summary and that you have no ability to justify your position.]
There is an open thread on MM. You may share whatever views you want there, and the MM staff there may be more lenient in letting certain posts pass. I however will keep an eye on my article to make sure we stick to what is agreed upon. [I have to reiterate there is no agreement in this area, but the preponderance of serious scholarship is closer to my summary than to yours.] Muslims already have a credibility issue, as we -- like minorities in general -- tend to flock to conspiracy theories.
There is a whole area of historical research devoted to conspiracy theories. (Fire in the Minds of Men by Billington is a popular but solid work in this genre.) Conspiracy theories are phenomenologies that people develop to explain observables in the face of a dearth of data. Usually when more data becomes available, previously formulated conspiracy theories must either be modified or dropped, but problems with a given conspiracy theory does not mean there are no conspiracies.
In fact, because conspiracies are fairly common, they have been criminalized in US law and there are several regulatory agencies that watch for them. Eastern European politics has been highly conspiratorial since the 18th century at least. Sometimes scholarly literature calls the Polish Socialist Party the 40 year conspiracy to create an independent Poland. Historically Eastern European Jewish communism was highly conspiratorial just as Eastern European Jewish Zionism is today. Muslims have problems with conspiracy theories not because Muslims are wrong to worry about Islamophobic conspiracies but because American Muslims do not have a clue about discussing conspiracy in a rational or persuasive fashion.
Censoring the discussion to avoid offending Jewish prejudices hardly makes American Muslims more credible especially when in this case the censorship is being applied to one of the 5 or so Muslims that actually has an in-depth knowledge of Jewish studies.
Hashmi answered.
As-Salam Alaykum.
I don't quite understand why Muslims would go out of their way to pander Zionist racism by casting doubt on their scholarly qualifications and by insulting my wife
My dearest brother, I did not question your or your wife's scholarly qualifications. I do not know you or her, so what right would I have to do that?
for no one except a Zionist or someone totally indoctrinated with Zionist propaganda talks about the Jewish conquest of Canaan. The proper terminology is the Israelite conquest.
Brother, I already dealt with this issue in the comments. Please scroll up to see what I said. I acknowledged that the term "Jew" I used was anachronistic. As for your unnecessary accusation, please note that Imam Ibn Kathir himself used the term "Jew" when referring to the conquest of Canaan. But like I said, I acknowledge that it is anachronistic, and that the more correct term would be Israelite, like you mentioned.
May Allah [swt] reward you!
----------------------
Hashmi admits that his use of Jew in his original article was anachronistic -- I would have said propagandistic -- when another commentator called him on it.
I spent the last day or so in looking over Ibn Kathir's commentary, and as far as I can tell he uses Israel or children of Israel in reference to the conquest of Canaan. If Hashmi has a copy of Ibn Kathir's commentary -- as he should have if he is going to write on this material (I have the major Muslim and Jewish commentaries in my library) -- he should have been able to point me to the specific verse on which Ibn Kathir's commentary used Jews as equivalent to children of Israel.
My wife tells me that Hashmi may be depending on a misleading English translation of an Urdu summary of the original Arabic commentary because Hashmi's confusion is not unusual among non-Arabic-reading Pakistani American Muslims depending on translations of translations.
In any case, not only is Hashmi's knowledge about this sensitive material deficient, but he does not even allow the reader to go to my blog where I provide citations to show that he is regurgitating Zionist propaganda long ago rejected by Jewish studies scholars. Hashmi really should not be posting on issues of Jerusalem to the MuslimMatters website.
Sphere: Related Content
