David Yeagley's piece about the Koran's Zionism was prompted by what he felt was an ignorant and naive interview of Iranian President Ahmadinejad by Mike Wallace of the US TV programme Sixty minutes. (With thanks: Albert)
"The Qur'an doesn't condemn the state of Israel. Why do Muslims become hysterically murderous over it? Yes, the Qur'an sanctions and encourages aversion towards Jews and Christians, but there is no specific injunction of hate toward a nation of Israel. Did the prophet's vision fail to reach modern times? "
"Mike Wallace recently procured with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, President of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Wallace gave opportunity for Ahmadinejad to profess a fair and equitable disposition toward the Jews. Why, Iran has no problem with Jews. Look at the large and ancient Jewish population of Iran. Look at the number of Iranian parliamentary seats held by Jews (one, actually - ed).
"It is only the state of Israel that Ahmadinejad condemns. He asks why the Jews insist on a state in the midst of "our Arab homeland." Why can't the Jews have their state in Europe, in Germany, or in the United States?
"Ahmadinejad doesn't want to destroy Jews. He simply doesn't want a state of Jews in the middle of the "Arab homeland."
"This is error on all sides. First of all, the Wallace interview offers a pretentiously naïve view of Iran, Islam, and Ahmadinejad. It intentionally presents a fabricated "good" side, and Wallace insisted on the wonderful humanness of Ahmadinejad. The Iranian madman was cordial, warm, and very rational.
"Secondly, if Wallace is so ignorant of Iranians not to know they are the most charming, magical people in the world, then he shouldn't have gone to Tehran for an interview. He was a dupe from the outset.
"Thirdly, Wallace is so historically ignorant as to accept the false notion that Palestine is Arab homeland, or not to notice that Ahmadinejad identified himself with the Arabs when he is the Persian president of modern Persia (Iran), then Wallace should never have undertaken a conversation.
"Finally, if Wallace is uninformed of the actual teaching of the Qur'an, and the fact that it does not condemn any state of Israel, then he should have consulted with someone before prostrating so pretentiously before the great and mighty Oz of Iran.
"All the Qur'an does say about Jews in Palestine is simply a recount of their original entry into Canaan. "O my people! Enter the holy land which God has assigned unto you" (5:22). "We settled the Children of Israel in a beautiful dwelling place, and provided for them sustenance of the best" (10:93), and "Dwell securely in the land of promise" (17:104). (...)
If the prophet did not condemn Israel for being in Palestine the first time, why do the mullahs get hysterical about the Jews there now?
In 1999, when I visited Astan Quds Razavi University (a Shi’ite theological seminary in Masshad), Professor Khazee Ali pushed the same line. "We have no objection to Jews in Palestine. It is the ruling state of Israel that is unjust and immoral." Fine. Just don't say that's what the Qur'an teaches.
Islamic Professor Abdul Hadi Palazzi is quoted in the July 2, 2001, Washington Times: "A good Muslims must be a Zionist." "Classical Islamic sources do not support the so-called 'Islamic anti-Zionism' preached by radical groups." "The idea of making Islam a factor that prevents Arabs from recognizing any sovereign right of Jews over Palestine is an artificial apparatus that has no precedent in Islamic classical sources." Sheik Palazzi is director of the Cultural Institute of the Italian Islamic Community.
So, Muslims have a choice about what to believe, after all.
On the other hand, the Qur'an leaves the door wide open for the most base anti-Semitism—and hatred of anyone who isn't a Muslim. But that’s another column.
Read article in full