Mohammed’s ethnic cleansing
“At Medina he expected the Jews to recognize the agreement between his teaching and theirs, and to own him as a prophet in the true succession, perhaps as the Messiah for whom they were waiting. The Moslems, when they prayed, turned their faces toward Jerusalem; the Day of Atonement was made a solemn fast for Moslems, the one great fast in the year. Mohammed did not see why if he acknowledged Moses and his Torah, the Jews should not acknowledge him and his Koran.This is taken from the 1941 edition of George Foot Moore’s History Of Religions Volume II: Judaism, Christianity, Mohammedanism, Charles Scribner’s Sons, page 402. Moore was a professor of the history of religion at Harvard University. The phrase ethnic cleansing wasn’t in use in the years 1914-1941, but it clearly describes the result. Moore doesn’t dwell on the details. In fact, the above passage is presented without judgment or comment. A complete survey was expected to present the major aspects of history.
The Jews proved obdurate; their doctrine had no place in it for Arab prophets or messiahs. They took a malicious pleasure in exposing the ignorance of biblical history which Mohammed displayed in his stories about biblical persons, thus impugning his claim to have his stories by revelation. He retorted that his was the true and original version; if it was told otherwise in the books of the Jews it was because they had falsified their Scriptures. The attitude of the Jews was not only vexatious, but had in it a visible element of danger. In conjunction with the ‘hypocrites,’ as Mohammed calls the numerous class who outwardly professed Islam but had no real faith in it, they might at more than one crisis have made his position in Medina untenable. In the interludes in the conflict with the Meccans, Mohammed, on one pretext or another, fell upon the Jews, and did not stop till he had driven out all their tribes from Medina, and conquered their strongholds in the oasis of Khaibar.”
Moore has great respect for Islam and its founder. “It is unreasonable to censure Mohammed for not reconstructing the whole social system of the Arabs in anticipation of modern ideas … he accomplished notable reforms … the moral teaching of the Koran is high; it may fairly be compared with Deuteronomy … “ (p400-401). The standards of Moore’s day demanded a full account without omissions of key elements even when they clash with modern mores.
Today, it is rare to find such a presentation. Most people are shocked when I mention that Mohammad ethnically cleansed Medina of Jews. “Surely, I would have read of such a horrendous event in my history book,” I’m told by skeptical critics. After reading several books, each with a part of the picture, the whole becomes clear to any open-minded person. Those few who’ve followed my advice have been amazed. But who is going to do such extensive research?
Today’s authors lie by omission in order to present a narrative that isn’t embarrassing to Muslims in light of contemporary standards. The worse offender is John Esposito of Georgetown University. In a recent introductory book he describes Mohammad’s exemption from the 4-wife limit as a result of Mohammad’s kindness. Esposito explains that he married widows to provide them with protection and security. He conveniently leaves out that fact that many, if not most of these women became widows when Mohammad slaughtered the men of the tribe and took first pick of the wives for a trophy.
Did I mention that Esposito was a past president of the Middle East Studies Association (MESA) – the leading academic society in this area? For more on Esposito read this. For good books on Islam see my reference page. It's time to face the painful truth about Islam.
For a follow-up study of Mohammad's war against the Jews see my essay here.