By Jerry Honigman
So, unless you’ve been away in another galaxy (but pay attention to what’s happening in our world otherwise), you’ve heard of the BDS movement, “Progressive” higher indoctrination instead of education on too many campuses, increasing worldwide anti-Semitism, and the exploits of The Three Amigas and their abettors in the USA and elsewhere by now https://ekurd.net/the-
I’m getting too old and too cranky to put up with this manure (not that I ever did). You’ll soon see what I mean below.
It’s kind of like hearing how Jews have just been stubborn and blind because they won’t accept the changes that Christianity has made to their own millennial original thoughts about G_d, the Messiah, and so forth as witnessed in the Hebrew Bible (not the mistranslations or cherry-picked passages, pulled out of context without even reading the very next sentences, for so-called Christological “proofs”). Jews have just been expected to accept this “love” and allow others to define them–or else be demonized, ghettoized, slaughtered and so forth if they dare to disagree…
Sorry, not this Son of Israel.
My friend Cathy recently asked for help to provide a response to Arab assertions that Abraham was a Muslim and possibly Arab, and that Jews were nothing more than Arabs in disguise–unbeknown to themselves. Hey, they both like falafel.
Before tackling these subjects head-on, please permit me to provide a little background…
During the 19th century, European scholars of the Middle East–German Jews in particular–were prone to paint a picture of a tolerant Muslim world which treated non-Muslims admirably.
While it’s true that live Christians and Jews could be a better source of continuous revenue for Muslims via special taxes (the Jizyah) and such than dead ones, even though there was no Holocaust per se of Jews under Muslim domination, it’s also true that dhimmi populations never knew what the morrow would bring. Massacres, forced conversions, subjugation, and so forth were no strangers in the realm of Islam.
And forget about non-dhimmi “Peoples of the Book”–Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs, pagans, and so forth points east either converted and saw the Islamic “light” or were slaughtered. A reading of Middle Eastern Jewish scholars such as Norman Stillman, Sir Martin Gilbert, Albert Memmi, and Bat Ye’or is a must on this subject, as is newer work edited and/or authored by others like Andrew Bostom and the much maligned (especially by those who could not factually dispute her) Joan Peters.
It seems that 19th century whitewash of Islam–which still continues–was largely done to contrast an allegedly tolerant Arab/Muslim East–where Jews are commonly known askilab yahud, “Jew dogs,” and killers of prophets–to a historically intolerant Christian West, complete with its inquisitions, crusades, blood libels, demonization, forced ghettoization and conversions, massacres, Holocaust, and branding of the Jew as the deicide people…and that’s just for starters.
So (you ask), what does all of this have to do with Abraham?
Firstly, keep in mind that all that we know of Abraham comes via the Hebrew Bible. That is our one and only original source.
We have good corroborative evidence from contemporary, non-Hebraic sources that Asiatic Semitic Habiru /‘Apiru were on the move, causing headaches for Canaanites, Egyptian Pharaohs, and so forth about three and a half to four millennia ago, during the time that Abraham is thought to have walked Planet Earth.
We also know that around that same time Semitic “Shepherd Kings” (the 15th Dynasty) conquered Egypt…possibly/probably kin to the Hebrews. One of the names mentioned in Hyksos records was Yacub…Yaacov in Hebrew–Jacob. The Biblical story of the Hebrew patriarch, Jacob (later renamed Israel), gaining permission to enter the Nile Valley most likely occurred during this time. And he was the grandson of the original Hebrew patriarch, Abraham.
Yes, some say, but others claim that Muslims have their own version of the Abraham story as well.
That’s true, but, keep the following in mind…
When Muhammad, the Arabian Prophet of Islam, fled Mecca to Medina in 622 C.E. (theHijrah), the mixed population of Jews and pagans welcomed him. Pre-Muhammad Yathrib/Medina had been developed as a thriving date palm oasis by Jews fleeing the Roman conquest of Judaea (the banu-Qurayzah, banu-Kainuka’, and banu-al-Nadir tribes, etc.) centuries earlier http://www.jewishencyclopedia.
Muhammad learned much from the Jews. He listened to their prayers, their Biblical stories, and so forth. While the actual timing of his decision on the direction of prayer may never be known, during his long sojourn with the Jews of Medina, his followers were instructed to pray towards Jerusalem. Early prominent Arab historians such as Jalaluddin came right out and stated that this was done primarily as an attempt to win support among the influential Jewish tribes (the “People of the Book”) for Muhammad’s religio-political claims.
It is from the Temple Mount in Jerusalem where Muslims believe Muhammad ascended to Heaven on his winged horse. A shrine, the Dome of the Rock, would later be erected on this Jewish holy site after the Arab imperial conquest of the land in the 7th century C.E.
There is no doubt among objective scholars–not apologists for Islam–that Jews had an enormous impact on both Muhammad and the religion that he founded.
Hebraic Biblical stories are prominent in the Qur’an, and the holy sites for Muslims in Jerusalem (i.e. the Dome and the mosque erected on the Temple Mount of the Jews) are now deemed “holy” precisely because of those critical years Muhammad spent after the Hijrah with the Jews.
The Temple Mount, Hebrew Biblical stories of Abraham, Ishmael, Moses (mentioned repeatedly in the Qur’an), the Angel Gabriel, the Children of Israel, the Hebrew Prophets such as Zachariah, and so forth had no prior meaning to pagan Arabs. They mostly worshipped the idol of the Moon god in the pre-Islamic Arabian Peninsula’s Kaaba.
While there was also some early Christian influence, intense scholarship has shown that the Holy Law (Halakha) and Holy Scriptures of the Jews had a tremendous influence on the Qur’an and Islamic Holy Law (Shari’a).
As I’ve written often before, Muhammad’s “Jerusalem connection” was most likely not established until after his extended stay with his Jewish hosts. This was no mere coincidence–Islamic religious beliefs regarding Muhammad’s alleged conversations with the Angel Gabriel, etc,. notwithstanding.
And, important for this analysis, as with Jerusalem, so with Islam’s subsequent supplanting of the Hebraic son of Abraham, Isaac, with the allegedly “Arab” son of Hagar, Sarah’s servant, Ishmael.
When the Jews refused to recognize Muhammad as the Seal of the Prophets and the chief political honcho, he turned on his hosts who gave him refuge with a vengeance.
Before long, with the exception of Yemen, there were virtually no Jews left on the Arabian Peninsula. He decapitated all the Jewish men in Medina and enslaved their women and children. And the direction of prayer was changed away from Jerusalem and towards the Islamized Kaaba in Mecca instead.
So much for the Arab claim that all was fine for “their” Jews until Zionism came into the picture.
Okay… Now we’re ready to deal with Cathy’s Abraham concerns above and the notion that Arabs are the Jews’ cousins since they’re allegedly descendants of Abraham’s son with Hagar, the Egyptian servant of Sarah.
Ramses II ruled Egypt in the 13th century B.C.E., after the native Egyptian reconquest of the land from the Semitic Hyksos. No doubt the latter’s allies fell into disfavor at this time as well–as seen in the story in the Biblical Book of Exodus (“a Pharaoh who knew not Joseph,” etc.). In one Egyptian relief, Ramses is depicted holding up the heads of three conquered peoples…a black African (probably Nubian), Asiatic Semite, and another probably East Asiatic type. Ramses looks quite different from all of the conquered peoples, as do other depicted Egyptians as well.
The Bible states that Ishmael is the son of an Egyptian woman. E G Y P T I A N…not Arab.
While it is true that Semitic culture entered into Egypt (some documents were written in Hieroglyphics in both Egyptian and a Hyksos Semitic language), it’s an extremely far stretch to say that Hagar and Ishmael were thus Arabs…
It seems that just like some Jews earlier wanted to contrast Western Christian and Eastern Muslim treatment of their brethren to make a point, that later–to try to ease the strife between Jewish and Arab nationalisms (Zionism and Arabism)–later Jews quite possibly (if not probably) stretched the identity of Hagar from Egyptian to Arab as well.
While Arabs from the Arabian Peninsula traveled to Egypt, the bulk of Semites coming there in ancient times were not of that origin–regardless of wishful thinking by espousers of the Winckler-Caetani Theory–which, among other things, makes Babylonians, Canaanites, Assyrians, Hebrews, and others all Arabs as well…like those Cathy is dealing with assert.
Given that Abraham (son of a Babylonian Chaldean Semite), surfaced in history when he did, coincidental with the Semitic Hyksos conquest of Egypt, Hagar was most likely a native non-Semitic or Semitic Hyksos Egyptian. She was not likely Arab–so neither was her son, Ishmael.
Furthermore, when the Jews made reference to Arabs–in the few places where they did–they were not shy to call them that.
So, for example, Geshem the Arab appears in Nehemiah 2:19 and 6:1-6. He was recorded as one of the three leaders opposing the Jews rebuilding the Temple after their return from Babylonian exile upon being freed by ancient Iran’s Cyrus the Great (not exactly the Ayatollah’s ideal Persian leader, if you get my drift)…
In short, if Hagar was an Arab, the Jews would have had no reason not to say so. She wasn’t–so neither was Ishmael, the half brother of Abraham’s Hebrew son with Sarah, Isaac, whom Arabs sought/seek to supplant.
After the Arab imperial conquest of Egypt and much of the rest of the region some twenty-seven centuries since the time of Abraham, it was beyond convenient for Arabs to then write themselves into the original Hebraic story in the Jews’ sacred writings. Adding insult to injury, they next claimed that both Jews and Christians corrupted the original version.
If you don’t know the meaning of “chutzpah,” now’s a good time to learn it. Yet, Arabs have gotten away with this utter rubbish even with many “experts” in academia, in the State Department, and elsewhere. Never say that those folks don’t know who butters their bread, however. Hundreds of millions of dollars have been contributed by Arabs and Arab-connected petro-businesses to fund Middle Eastern programs, travel, scholarships, politicians, and the like. Besides the higher indoctrination instead of education on campus, just ask folks like Jimmy Carter, those running the Clinton Foundation and other causes, and too many others like them. Together, such influence-buying contributions make the impact of AIPAC look like child’s play.
My point here has not been to argue particular religious beliefs. That’s between people and G_d.
But historical fact should never be replaced with such beliefs–unless there is adequate and accurate corroboration, documentation, archaeological evidence, and the like to do that with. Arabs and other Muslims have none of that with regards to Abraham and his family–whom they only learned about, once again, via Muhammad’s sojourn with the Jews of Medina…those very same Jews who gave the Arab Prophet, Muhammad, refuge from his enemies–and whom he subsequently slaughtered.
Coming back to the future in 2019, some things change, some don’t. As the late, great baseball player, Yogi Berra, said, “it’s like deja vu again”…
When dealing with claims like those my friend has been confronted with, unfortunately there’s no substitute for what needs to be gained only by investing adequate intellectual capital in the subject. Either that, or give up the ship…
Hopefully, despite the increasingly “Progressive” nature of far too many Jews, there will be enough left afterwards who’ve not joined the BDS movement, J Street, (in) abetting Jihadi-supporting groups like Students for Justice in Palestine, and folks like The Three Amigas above to keep the ship afloat.
@ Michael S:
This is a silly post. Completely hyperbolic (perhaps needing a hyperbaric treatment) I blame the Arabs all the time, I regard them as lower than low… liars, thieves, scoundrels and evil murderers…all on this site-as well as on others. And those are the more polite epithets… …..I’m well known here, and have absolutely no protection.There are Muslims around. Nobody has blown me up so far…At least I don’t think so, it has several different meanings.
(the only knives they have are those they scoop peas onto before tilting into their mouths. It’s an art) …
I should imagine that it conveys a sense of euphoria whilst soaring through the air.
While Israel has many friends who are evangelical Christians today who do a lot of good for Israel. There are also many Christians who are part of the BDS movement and act as enemies towards Israel.
@ Honigman:
I totally disagree that Constantine was converted to Christianity. He never made the Empire Christian… If he had been he’d have made a Christian Empire. It was Theodosius who made it Christian-which you know).
There is no credible evidence that Constantine converted to Christianity. Records say that “he received baptism on his deathbed”……It all rests on the “evidence” of a certian monk whose name I now forget. In times of the passing of an Emperor or KIng ,and the neccessity of making sure of the successor etc. death-beds were surrounded by a multitude of courtiers, officials and quacks.
It happened that a certain monk averred that he had spent many hours urging Constantine to convert, and that at the very end “with his very last breath” he DID. He stated that he knew for certian….. because Constantine had blinked his left eye at him… THAT is the total evidence of his “conversion”.
Extant records of witnesses show that the Emperor was in a complete coma for the 30 or more hours preceding his final passing and altogether moribund and incommunicado.
He NEVER did officially convert, and, until the end was showing the utmost respect, interacting and personally celebrating all the existing pagan festivals as usual. He assumed the title of Sol Invictus during the rites for that god, and also, like all previous emperors, assumed the title and was regarded as a god by the people. . Although he was gradually introducing Christians into his government, at his death the great majority of his officials were pagans..
Sorry…!!
@ Michael S:
The article is mostly about the origin if the Jews, the fascinating (for me) story of
the Habiru/Apiru/(Hysos),(to whom I was first introduced by Professor Immanuel Velikovsky), Arab theft and twisting 180 degrees of Jewish history and tradition to assume it for themselves etc. Well written, and scrupulous in it’s affirmations as far as I can see.. If I had as much focus as the writer I’d have seen it all for myself…
A problem you have Michael -meaning NO offense -is that when you say ” I could go on and on” ..You DO go on and on.. A point you missed in your quote on Jesus saying “you should love one another”: …I take that to mean “love other Christians”….
(not Jews- and you know I don’t believe that Jesus ever existed anyway and the early converts were formerly pagan “G-G Lovers” who’d been flocking to the synagogues to hear the Jewish teachings.) .
I did not get the same vibes about Jerry’s REAL meanings that you did. Perhaps because am not as defensive as you are. You know the old saying that “sticks and stones may break my bones but names…” …as a Christian, and historically inclined when you can be steered away from “Revelations”, you KNOW that where Jews were concerned they DID break their bones ..
Regardless of what you infer, Christians are “batting on a sticky wicket” as regards their treatment of Jews. Two millennia of torture, obscenities, degradation and massacre cannot be shoved under the rug by a 25 year blanket of repentance and sweet “love”… As Jews we KNOW that it can all change in a moment…And we see that it IS… In past secure pro Jewish areas, Jew-Hate is now the open norm. Already about 6-7 years ago I was writing that it was already ten times worse than what we experienced in the 1930s…(a period I know well about ). Then it was European, but today it is spread all over the “civilised” world…So it’s up to the loving Christians (who DON’T want to covert us -or their euphemistic “perfect”.us..and all that crap) to make the massive efforts needed to combat this revived evil..
I believe that in THIS instance you took the article far too personally. Nothing in the article was untruth, and everything was obviously very well researched. It is all very true and you KNOW it. At the same time why take it personally when not meant.
So…please let it go. You are not Henry the Eighth “The Defender of the Faith”….
Oh.. and thank you for the (back-handed) encomium re grammar. I’m drooling with “nachas” used up two handkerchieves (handkerchiefs) already(not literally)
@ Michael S:
Michael:
Quoting you…The BDS Movement
Including Christians?
You act as if Christians aren’t a major part of that movement. Practically all of the Mainline churches are either now part of it or are debating whether to be part of it or not. Google it…
Quoting you here:
“Full stop. The BDS movement, and present-day antisemites like the “Three Amigos”, haven’t, so far as I can see, been dredging up any “Christological proofs”. They are pure BDS minus the “D” — raw emotion, wanting only to instil hatred and revulsion against their many enemies (including Christians, as well as Jews). You’re scapegoating, using “Christianity” as your scapegoat; and the hateful thing about Christianity that makes you repeatedly choose this goat, is the word “love” — a word which you, as a loyal Jew, feel you need to take issue with.”
. Of course you’re not concerned with documentation which corroborates fact–as you openly say. I know other folks like you who don’t want to be bothered with facts and prefer concocting their own truths instead. So you ought to not bother reading anything I write.
I don’t have a problem with “love”–just the kind of so-called love, practiced by the mostly pagan converts to Christianity (especially after the conversion of Constantine and the Council of Nicea in the 4th century C.E.) which led to millions upon millions of Jews being slaughtered in its name. Something that Yehoshua/Jesus most certainly would not have approved of.
Rome’s Constantine slaughtered all he could who espoused rival Gospels in his Wars of the Heresies–including those who saw Jesus as a Hebrew HUMAN Messianic figure–not a man-god Romans, GreeKs, and others surrounding the ancient Jews were used to.
@ Gerald A. Honigman:
Hello, Gerald
I agree with Edgar — You should have said “Methinks”.
If you ever figure me out, you’ll realize I’m not interested in “documentation” in these matters. I’m more concerned with what “Youthinks”.
It takes a lot of writing, to develop a legal case, or a scholarly argument; and more often than not, I don’t read the fine print. I’m more interested in knowing what the writer is thinking; and that usually comes out in the title, or in the opening paragraphs. Let me break down, how you came across to me:
“So…”
I know some Jews might be inclined to start a piece with “Nu…”, a Yiddish carryover; but in English, saying “so…” implies that something has been argued beforehand; it is roughly equivalent to “therefore”; and as one of my pastors once told me,
“When you see the word “therefore” in the Bible, look back to see what it’s “there for”.
I looked back, and only saw, “By Jerry Honigman”. What you were about to say, then, introduced with the coordinating conjunction “so” (Edgar must be ecstatic, to hear someone talking about grammar), had to do with something deep in the bowels of Jerry Honigman.
Then you talked briefly about the manure of BDS, antisemitism, etc., and said,
“I’m getting too old and too cranky to put up with this manure…”
At this point, I had a good idea what the coordinating conjunction “so” was coordinating to: You were in a cranky mood, and ready to unload about BDS, antisemitism, etc. Then you went straight for the jugular:
“It’s kind of like hearing how Jews have just been stubborn and blind because they won’t accept the changes that CHRISTIANITY has made…”
By now, I got the point, that no matter what the title was about (i.e. “Abraham”), your cranky invective was directed at “Christianity”, which you connect in your mind with antisemitism, BDS, etc.
“Christianity”, of course, is not the same as “Christians”; so I knew that the target of your accusations was not the people themselves (who are, after all, pretty ordinary humans), but at the New Testament. Going forward,
“… so-called Christological “proofs”). Jews have just been expected to accept this “love”…”
Full stop. The BDS movement, and present-day antisemites like the “Three Amigos”, haven’t, so far as I can see, been dredging up any “Christological proofs”. They are pure BDS minus the “D” — raw emotion, wanting only to instil hatred and revulsion against their many enemies (including Christians, as well as Jews). You’re scapegoating, using “Christianity” as your scapegoat; and the hateful thing about Christianity that makes you repeatedly choose this goat, is the word “love” — a word which you, as a loyal Jew, feel you need to take issue with.
Do you want to know what the NT says about “love”?
Matt 5:
[44] But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
I know you don’t like that passage, because you hate your enemies, real and imagined.
Matt 22:
[37] Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
[39] And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
I’ll bet you have trouble with that one too, but will deny it up and down. Let’s move on… I’ll bet you really don’t like this one:
Mark 12:
[38] And he said unto them in his doctrine, Beware of the scribes, which love to go in long clothing, and love salutations in the marketplaces,
Some scribes nowadays go around in clerical garments; but most wrap themselves in “sheepskins” (many puns intended)
I could go on and on, but I fear I might trip some wire in the software. To sum things up, Yes, the heart of Jesus’ teaching is that his followers should love one another; and the “crux” of that teaching (pun intended) is this,
John 15:
[13] Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.
Most people balk at this admonition — not because they aren’t fond of their friends, but because they don’t want to lay down their lives. This is what the NT calls “the offense of the cross”.
So you see, this isn’t about “presenting proofs”. It’s about what’s eating us, leading us to write what we do.
Not having the super ed most of the geezers being critic’s on this cite I only get a degree in flipping from hamburger uni in Chicago. 1 fing thay teech us if unsure yus a dickshonary . Sorry geezers ‘dost’ is correct, so put yer greens get yer spuds an join a st paddys day parade.
@ Gerald A. Honigman:
“Doth”.. And you missed out the “methinks”……Tut……Tut…. Excellent-first class- article ..I forgot to mention..
Michael S….
It seems to me that You dost protest too much.
The parallels I cite are undoubtedly relevant, well-documented, and accurate. Again, stop pretending to be the poor innocent Christian being unfairly crucified by a Jew. Read the analysis with an open mind and educate yourself—as painful as this seems to be for you.
Trust me, Christianity is not the victim here…
@ Michael S:
@ Michael S:
You know Michael, I wouldn’t spin you a lie under any circumstances. I like you and we-apart from a few well argued tiffs- get along well together.. with much mutual respect. But definitely I discern lately, a sort of sensitivity in your make-up….often “jumping on” certain remarks which you seem to see as attacks on Christians or Christianity” of which you appoint yourself a defender -when they are not seen by anyone else.
As Yamit correctly asserts, Christians have a horrific history of Jew-Hate in their past and present conduct. There’s no getting away from it.. All historically accurate and ineradicable… AND….very likely far, far more than has been recorded.
So you have to live with that, this being a Jewish site, although personally being anything but Ant-Semitic.
Just my feeling about it.
@ Michael S:
You claimed Honigman attacks the Chrtistians. “it’s always open season on Christians.”
Don’t know but if he did the truth is the truth.
@ yamit82:
Hi, Yamit
Of course, Muslims and Christians — and, don’t forget, fellow Jews as well, and Pagans — have all oppressed the Jewish people over the millennia. But the title of the OP is not about Jews being hated and oppressed; it is about claims that Abraham is not Jewish. It seems that Honigman will use any topic as a forum to bash Christians.
@ Michael S:
Jew-hatred can be laid at the door of only the two sectarian groups birthed byJudaism. chriatianity and Islam both supersessionist universal creeds. There is no evidence of Jew-hatred in any culture or religion other than these two groups.
Abraham was not Jewish… Jews are descendants from Jacob (Israel)
The Arabs claim that Abraham was not Jewish, so Honigman attacks the Chrtistians. It seems obvious to me, just why: If he blames the Arabs, he might get knifed or blown up; but it’s always open season on Christians.
@ Adam Dalglish:
Unfortunately, you are using an anachronism. The actual meaning of Arav does not necessarily mean the ethnic group known as Arabs today, although it does most likely pertain to a nomadic or semi-nomadic people who lived in the arid plains to the south of Israel.
One of the problems about the Talmud is…that it literally is NOT Torah although the devout regard it as so. It was compiled over many hundreds of years from discussions, often with the most devout-rather than the most intelligent– winning the day…
If you’ve ever read much of it, you’d see some of the most nonsensical remarks and comments, such that you’d be sure they were simple as “Simon’..or as inventive as Asimov
Ths does not take away from vital tractates, extremely deep and cogent, with the most fascinating discussions arguments and counter suggestions flying around like hai-obviously from great minds, even genius.
If they adhered to Torah why were they calling the Arabs Ishmaelites ?? This may show that either they regarded it as an insult, (and they flung around plenty of that) or that even long before Muhammed (mythical as he likely was) the Arabs somehow got ths dea. It doesn’t mean it’s true. The information in the article sounds VERY substantial..
Alternately the Talmudists WERE, based on Torah, making a connection between Ishmael and all “desert dwellers”… This seems to me to be the most likely….
The Talmud refers to Arabs as “Ishmaelites.” Thus Muhammed had solid Jewish authority for claiming that the Arabs were descended from Ishmael.