Edited on the 2nd of December for length, objectivity and structure. Much shorter, I think.

Recently, I had joined a rather heated debate in a semi-public forum about some Muslims' hatred against Jews, and how some method of expression for that hatred were not justified. It began with a simple e-mail listing so-called "Jewish Protocols", which tried to connect to a significant portion of the moral problems of the ummah today to Jews, so far as to connect very distant ideas - such as the ability of hypothetical children to memorise Hindi and Siti Nurhaliza songs, and the playing of football by women - to Jewish influence.

While the impossibility (or, at least, the improbability) of such a distant relation was dealt with objectively, the discussion still kept going round in circles. When I first joined the discussion (started it, more like), I had initially thought I was voicing out (not necessarily representing) mainstream opinion, but seeing that the pro-hate bench were passionately resisting any influence from the anti-hate side to the point that the (merely rhetorical?) questioning of another's religious "alignment" began to arise, I started to become a little worried if I should have even spoken out in the first place. I didn't doubt that Islam rejects racism - it was more of a case of me being worried if I was speaking out of line about things I didn't quite know about.

Anyway - to cut an unneccessarily long story short - in the end, I found the answer to my question through direct and indirect consultation, and I remained with my original stand. And so I write this article now to elaborate on the reasons as to why I reject this idea of blaming the ummah's problems on Jews, even if some would so passionately defend it.

For me, the Protocols email drew my protest because it consisted of very specific and elaborate accusations without specific proof or substance for support. We have to realise that hate without reason is, in fact, something for us to fear. The spreading of lies about a people is characteristic of ideologies and beliefs that even the most fanatical of Muslims would despise: racist genocide, and Islamophobia. We don't have to dig deep to realise the shallowness of the concept of Islamophobia, which has very recently led the Dutch legislature to consider banning the burqa and niqab in their country. One of the reasons for the ban was supposedly to "suppress" the spread of "Islamic" extremism in the country. Clearly, the Dutch proposal makes as much sense as the French government's choice to ban religious symbols in schools. I do not see any comprehensible correlation between a woman's choice on how she wants to guard her modesty and acts of extremism (who, it should be pointed out, are mostly committed by men dresed in unconspicuous clothing - in other words, "Western" garb). While I am no fan of the burqa, nor do I personally prefer (or would advocate) the wearing of niqab, it is in fact the idea behind the ban itself that we should scrutinise; an idea that is without a doubt fueled by baseless fear of Muslims and the constant - almost, in itself, racist - connecting of anything even vaguely Islamic to extremism by atheists and secularists.

But I digress. My point is, Islamophobia and racism are both clearly related in methodology. Such hate or fear is a mercantile interaction between the gullible and the hateful - hate bought from lies, lies sold for hate. So, if such an action of spreading accusations or allegations without factual basis is a characteristic of something anti-Islam, why are some Muslims committing a similar offence against Jews?

Secondly, it would be foolish and non-PC to not understand the meaning of the term "Jew" itself, and to also not recognise the distinction between a Zionist, and a regular Jew. Not all Jews are followers of Judaism, not all Jews do not believe in Allah, not all Jews support the cause of the Zionists, and thus definitely not all Jews have a desire to lead Muslims into an abyss of irreversible moral decay. If the Jews are a race, doesn't our attributing a characteristic to them in the sense of a negative stereotypical labelling border towards racism? To blame a whole race - and include the children of that race who are oblivious to the dynamics of politics and religion - as the source of seemingly every single problem of the ummah is disturbingly remindful of Nazi contempt for other races. But, most importantly, it rather reflects a defiant position among some in the ummah, as opined next.

I'm sure we have all heard our share of conspiracy theories about Jewish figures holding influential positions in world politics, and their plans to dominate the world. Regardless of the factual accuracy of such claims, this passion of blaming Jews for our problems reminds me of an attitude of choosing to ignore one's own weaknesses, and instead choosing to blame others for causing the problem.

To clearify, let us take the "even if" stand: say, even if we seek to believe for a moment that Jews (by race and religion) do have a conspiracy to eradicate morality from the Muslim ummah through elaborate mechanisms involving Hindi songs and a Malaysian singer, is it not still - in the end - mostly our own selves that should be blamed for choosing to sin? At the end of the day, the one who invites to sin would defend his position by saying he was only extending the invitation, but it was our own carnal desire that led us to make the choice to sin in the first place.

It is definitely easy and comfortable to blame Jews for causing all of the ummah's problems, especially since, in these modern times, we sometimes unceasingly - and understandably - relate the Jewish race directly to the oppressor Israel. However, we have to realise that such widespread hatred for all Jews in general should actually be a cause for worry to Muslims, because this phenomena fuel the polemics of hate-mongers like D. P. and R.S., who would be more than happy to play their part in feeding the monster of Islamophobia (I can at least say that the former has done so). This baseless hatred may even turn us into a culprit of our own destruction, influencing more people like N.D. to rebel against our beliefs.

It is easy to mistaken the anti-hate for being apologetic of Israel, apathetic of Muslim suffering in Palestine or needlessly sympathetic to non-Muslim oppressors, but the harder thing to do is to understand that this matter - far from being a case of "defending the enemy" - relates more to maintaining an ideal state of relationship with non-Muslims, without us transgressing our limits on both ends of the spectrum. It is important to realise that how we are supposed to interact with non-Muslims (with Christians and Jews in particular) as dictated by the Quran and hadith is not the matter being questioned, but it is this seemingly new trend of fuelling hate through baseless allegations that is actually being brought to the table. Regardless, we should all be quite open to ideas, suggestions, corrections and protests. For any pro-hate readers, you are most welcomed to voice your opinions here, because I personally am very curious as to why the pro-hate is adamant on their case of justifying indiscriminate hatred against Jews. It would help if you could cite third party opinions (that is, relative to our interaction).

Whatever it is, in the end, I believe the most important thing to remember in dealing with this matter, is to know when to differentiate a Jew from a Zionist, an innocent human being from a foe, and to know that fair and just treatment is deserving to both friend and foe.

I end this article with the following translations of a Quranic verse and a hadith (the inclusion of which is subject to your own interpretation, mind you):

Al-Hujurat, 49:13

O mankind! We created you from a single (pair) of a male and a female, and made you into nations and tribes, that ye may know each other (not that ye may despise each other). Verily the most honoured of you in the sight of Allah is (he who is) the most righteous of you. And Allah has full Knowledge and is well-acquainted (with all things).

Volume 2, Book 23, Number 399, Sahih Bukhari:

Narrated 'Abdur Rahman bin Abi Laila:

Sahl bin Hunaif and Qais bin Sad were sitting in the city of Al-Qadisiya. A funeral procession passed in front of them and they stood up. They were told that funeral procession was of one of the inhabitants of the land i.e. of a non-believer, under the protection of Muslims. They said, "A funeral procession passed in front of the Prophet and he stood up. When he was told that it was the coffin of a Jew, he said, "Is it not a living being (soul)?"

On a side note, one thing I would like to bring up on this issue of hating, is that I once heard an opinion that when Muslims hate, it is more a matter of hating the actions or intentions of the sinner, and not a matter of hating the physical being of the person itself, because of the belief in redemption and repentance. That is, one does not hate the thief, adulterer, or muderer, but hates the very acts of thievery, adultery and murder themselves only. So, am I correct to say that we should hate what injustice some Jews have committed against Muslims (in Palestine, for example), but we should not hate their very person or race? It would help if someone could comment on this idea.

Wallahualam. My opinions are my own, and I definitely do not vouche for their infallibility. Please feel free to point out my errors.

I recommend the following online literatures/links for references on the matter: Islam Denounces Anti-Semitism by Harun Yahya, Islamophobia and Anti-Semitism by Alexander Gainem, Islam and Other Religions by Professor Shahul Hameed, The Prophet of Islam and the Jews by Faisal Burhan, Need it Be "Us" and "Them"? by IslamOnline and The True, Peaceful Face of Islam by Karen Armstrong (written for the Time magazine). Thank you to Mr Hasrizal of Saifulislam.com for the following recommendation: Muslims and Jews in the West at IslamOnline.