Jews faced discrimination, humiliation, periodic persecution and violence from Muslim rulers across the centuries, but it was only in modern times that Muslims systematically organized their political life with Jews as the enemy. Neither of the typical explanations seems adequate on its own. One explanation sees modern Islamic antisemitism as just a continuation of seventh century anti-Jewish Islam while another suggests that antisemitism was foreign to Islamic civilization and only arrived through Christian Europe, colonialism, and modern racial ideology. Both views capture part of what has happened over the centuries, but neither view can explain how older Islamic theological claims about Jews (which were never new) acquired such force in Muslim discourse against Jews at the exact moment when their political status changed so dramatically.

The key issue, therefore, is not whether anti-Jewish ideas have existed within Islamic history. The key issue is: when, how, and why did those ideas become politically exigent? Muslims have not always made Jews their political enemy because the position occupied by “the Jew” has changed. For centuries Muslims were politically dominant over Jews. Modernity made them equals, Zionism made them politically independent of Muslims and Israel made Jews sovereign over many Muslims. Then, in 1948 and especially in 1967, Jews went from political subordinates to victors.

Modern Jewish sovereignty did not just create a geopolitical crisis for Muslims. In certain restorationist Islamic perspectives it also created something like a crisis of theological explanation, or a problem of theodicy. Theodicy does not simply refer to trying to explain suffering in light of God’s goodness. Instead it also refers to what can happen when a community experiences history in ways that appear to contradict what should happen if divine truth is on its side and if God favors believers and orders things the right way. In short: if Muslims had come to see Islamic political supremacy as fitting the truth and finality of Islam, what was Jews’ surprising sovereignty to say about divine will?

The Jew as Counter-Witness

In order to appreciate the significance of this development, we need to rewind back to square one. Jews whom Muhammad encountered in Medina found themselves in a unique theological situation since Islam inherited its self-understanding from Israel’s revelatory narrative. Muhammad presented himself as more than the founder of another Arabian religion. The message he brought, as recounted in the Qur’an, placed him within the revelation history of Abraham, Moses and the biblical prophets. Jews accordingly had scriptures and traditions that were claimed by the Islamic scripture as its own prototype.

This meant that Jewish rejection functioned differently than pagan rejection. Learned Jews could answer “yes” to Abraham, Moses, covenant, revelation and prophecy then deny Muhammad’s place in that lineage. The Jew was not simply stating “I do not believe you.” He could logically say, “The revelation history you use does not support your conclusion.” Jewish rejection was then able........

© The Times of Israel (Blogs)