In the name of Allāh,
the Beneficent, the Merciful.
Peace and Blessings of Allāh on Mohammad.
Allāh–the Glorious and the High,
Lord of the worlds
Mohammad–who brought the world
to our feet and eternity to our arms.
Those who want their virtues extolled and their vices suppressed
need to cultivate dignity and maturity.
(The Toronto Star, Tuesday, November 9, 2010, (p. A4) headlined “Canada will stand fast against ‘anti-Israeli rhetoric,’ PM says.” There are presently “those who choose evil, and would launch another Holocaust if left unchecked,” Prime Minister Stephen Harper is noted as saying; and, “We must be relentless in exposing this anti-Semitism for what it is.”
While vigilance against hatred against any people is commendable, to make it a crime to criticize Israel (or any nation) is the way of tyranny, not the way of democracy. In fact, other nation(s) could readily criminalize criticism of, say, Hamas, Iran, China, North Korea, France… No man or nation is beyond reproach! Perhaps Nazi Germany prided itself above criticism.
Truth is not criticism!
Truth is not anti-Israel!
Truth is not anti-Semitism!
Truth is truth!
(Perhaps the wise and the just view criticism not as demonizing but as purifying –helping to better one’s self).
Incidentally, the very nation that Mr. Harper seeks to safeguard against Holocaust is itself engaged in Holocaust (somewhat) of the Palestinians –driven from their homes lands and country; forced into refugee-hood and refugee camps; attacked “en masse;” provoked “so we could attack and smash them;” burned alive with “White phosphorous” (a “chemical agent” that “keeps burning till it is consumed, complete destruction of the tissues down to the bone”). (See Rabbi Marmur & Farouk Hosny). (Wonder what Prime Minister Stephen Harper has to say about this monumental and grotesque injustice –and for more than six torturous decades– against the native Palestinians. Wonder what Canadian, or other, would accept for himself and herself that which was/is foisted upon the hapless Palestinians. Lest we forget!)
It would be an indelible stain of shame and disgrace on the intellectuals and honest and just individuals if such a monumental and grotesque absurdity should become law.
Semites (more correctly Shemites) are the descendants of Shem, one of Noah’s three sons. Can those who claim to be Semites prove that they are descendants of Shem?
Even from the inception the “pure” Jewish Semitic gene seemed destined for extinction. Isaac –the lineage through which Judaism emerged– was born, in Gerar (in Canaan/Palestine)–(Gen. 20:2; 21:5). He took Rebecca, a Syrian, for wife–Gen. 25:20. These Syrians, contrary to popular view, could not have been Semites; Shem’s descendants went east-(Genesis 10:21-31); and Canaan is west from where the Ark rested, even if we accept that it rested on Ararat rather than on Judi. Also, if Abraham was the first Semites in Canaan, Rebecca, who must have been born around the same time as Isaac, would have to be non-Semite. Thus, the only mates available for wives for Isaac would be non-Semites. And their off-spring would consist of non-Semite genes.
Isaac, at the age of sixty, was given two sons, Esau and Jacob (who would have non-Semite genes, on account of their mother, Rebecca, a Syrian)–(Gen. 25:20, 26). Thus, in sixty years Abraham’s family circle increased by only three –his daughter-in-law and two grandsons, (not counting Ishmael who was in Paran/Arabia).
If Abraham was the only Semites in Canaan, unless tribes from Shem came to Canaan, there were no Semitic women for Jacob and Esau to take for wives, and Jacob and Esau’s offspring’s would consist of non-Semitic genes. (While Lot came with Abraham to Sodom and Gomorrah. After the destruction of these two cities, Lot stayed back where he fathered, through his daughters, the Moabite and Ammonite tribes–Gen. 19:29-38. If the Moabites/Ammonites, who were Semites, had migrated north to where Abraham was, they would not be termed Canaanites/Syrians).
Isaac sent Jacob to Haran (in Turkey), not to Shem’s Semitic tribes, to find a wife–(Gen. 28:1, 10; 29: 1-4). As noted Shem’s lineage went east, towards Yemen. Jacob, through whom the Twelve Tribes of Israel were established, married Rachel and Leah, daughters of Laban, a Syrian, who was also his (Jacob’s) mother’s brother–(Gen. 28:5; 29:10-35). Like his mother, Rebecca, Jacob’s wives, clearly, were also non-Semites. These eight sons –Reuben, Simeon, Levi, Judah, Issachar and Zabulon; and Joseph and Benjamin, respectively– borne by Leah and Rachel were not of pure Isaaic/Jewish genes. This would make these eight, of the total twelve founders of the Tribes of Israel, to be of mixed genes. (Gen. 29:32-35; 30:17-20; 30:22-24; 35:16-18). But the matter does not end here.
Jacobs’ wives, Rachel and Leah, gave their respective hand-maids, Bilhah and Zilpah, to Jacob to raise children–(Gen. 30:1-9). These handmaids, Bilhah and Zilpah, were “slave-girls”. These “slave-girls” originally belonged to Rachel’s and Leah’s father, Laban, the Syrian–(Gen. 29:24, 29). It would seem obvi-ous that these handmaids/”slave-girls” were also non-Semite. These handmaids, Bilhah and Zilpah, each bore Jacob two sons–Dan and Naphtali, and Gad and Asher, respectively–(Gen. 30:3-13). And three of these sons born of these two handmaids were also founders of tribes of Israel –Dan was not a founder of a tribe. Joseph’s son, Manasseh, was founder of a tribe, making up the total twelve tribes. There is differing view as to whether Joseph was a founder or his other son, Ephraim.
Thus we have Jacob’s eight sons from his Syrian wives, plus three of his sons from his wives’ handmaids and his grandson, Manasseh, making up the twelve founders of the Twelve Tribes of Israel, all being of non-Jewish (non-Isaaic) genes. (And if these early Syrians were non-Semites, which would seem to be the case, these twelve sons would have non-Jewish genes in their mix.). And the twelve Tribes have not yet officially been designated as such; and this some two thousand years before Christ.
Again, the Bible tells us that Simeon married a Canaanitish woman (who likely was non-Semite)–(Gen. 46:10), and that Jos-eph married the Egyptian, Asenath, daughter of Potiphar, and had two sons, Manasseh and Ephraim–(Gen. 41:45, 50-52). Simeon, Joseph and Manasseh were all founders of tribes of Israel. If children are joined by their mothers only, children born to these wives would be out of the tent of “Children of Israel,” on account of Simeon’s wife being Canaanitish, Asenath being Egyptian, and Manasseh being of a non-Jewish mother.
Even if Manasseh’s wife was Jewish, his children and future descendants would not be “pure” Jewish, he being, in the first place, of mixed birth. Even if children are joined by either parent, there would still be the case of the non-Jewish genes in their make-up. Which brings us to Judah, one of Jacob’s twelve sons, and the one from which Judaism emerged and the term “Jew.”
Judah was married to a Canaanite woman, who bore him three sons, two of whom died; and his daughter-in-law, Tamar, who also must have been Canaanite, bore Judah two sons–(Gen. 38:2; 11-30). Thus even Judah’s descendants are not of pure “Jewish” genes.
Even if we take these twelve children of Jacob to be the base of the Twelve Tribes of Israel, regardless of the ethnicity of his wives and handmaids, there was still the possibility of the “purity” of these tribes being mixed with non-Jewish genes, through inter-marriage among the tribes; on account of Simeon’s wife being Cannanitish, and Joseph’s being Egyptian, and Manasseh having Egyptian genes in his make-up.
Intermarriage between tribes did not seem to be taboo–we have Abraham having married his half-sister, Sarah–(Gen. 20:12); Amram, Moses’ father, having married his father’s sister–(Exod. 6:20); and Rehoboam, Solomon’s son, having taken the daughter of David’s son as wife–(2 Chr. 11:18). (We even have Esau, Isaac’s other son, marrying his uncle, Ishmael’s, daughter, Mahalath–(Gen. 28:9).
With such intermarriages among the members of these tribes, and considering that the total members of the tribes were few –at the time of his journey to reunite with Joseph in Egypt, Jacob had only about seventy members in his family circle, excluding his daughters-in-law–(Gen. 46:27)–it would not take much for the entire family of the first hundred years, to be completely of mixed genes. By the time Moses appeared on the scene–(14th–13th century B.C.)–the “purity” of the twelve tribes of Israel may already have been on its journey to extinction.
History notes that around 930 .B.C., the tribe of Ephraim, after successfully leading the ten northern tribes of Israel against the south, and reigning; the kingdom was conquered by the Assyrians in 721 B.C., which lead to the “eventual disappearance” of these ten tribes–the tribe of Ephraim and the nine others1. Having lost their identity and dispersed among other peoples, it is possible that the “pure” Jewish genes, what was there of it, was fur-ther diluted through this intermixing.
During their bondage, Pharaoh killed their sons and let their daughters live–(Exod. 1:15-22; Qur’an 2:49). It is not improba-ble that Jewish women were violated during their term of ser-vitude, by their Egyptian “taskmasters.”
Even during and after their liberation from Pharaoh, diluting of the “pure” Jewish genes took place. The Bible tells us that Moses, a Levite, married non-Jewish women–a Midianite, Zipporah, who bore him two sons; and to an Ethiopian (Exodus 2:16, 21-22; 4:22; 18:2-4; and Numbers 12:1; respectively).
Even King David, who came from the house of Judah, may not have been of “pure” Jewish genes on account of his ancestors, Isaac, Jacob and Judah, all having had wives outside of the Ab-rahamic tent.
David himself had sons from “concubines”–(1 Chr. 3: 9). The Bible tells us that David married Bathsheba, the wife of Uriah, a Hittite; and she bore him (king) Solomon–(2 Samuel. 11:1-5; 27; 12:24). Though Bathsheba’s nationality is not given, it is rea-sonable to assume that she, like her husband, was also Hittite–an “Indo European” race. Thus Solomon also may not have been of “pure” Jewish genes. Adding to the already diluted pool of Jew-ish “pure” genes.
Again, Solomon “loved many strange women, together with the daughter of Pharaoh, women of the Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Zidonians, and Hittites;”“he had seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines”–(1 Kings 11:1-3); one of whom was Sheba, of Ethiopian heritage.
We read of Rehoboam, Solomon’s son, having eighteen wives and sixty concubines–twenty-eight sons and sixty daughters –(2 Chr. 11:21). Were all these wives and concubines Jewish; and of “pure” Jewish genes? Was it allowable that Jewish women be taken as concubines? Or were these concubines non-Jewish captives of war, (or women taken, as Solomon had taken)?
Apart from their bondage by Pharaoh (for some three hundred years?), in which their sons were killed and daughters spared, it is also a fact that Jerusalem was destroyed twice –by the Babylonians and the Romans, respectively. It is doubtful that Jewish daughters were not violated during these times of bondage and captivity. Resulting once again in outside genes entering into the pool of already mixed genes.
Then there were the Israelites, David’s two wives among them, that were taken and held captives by the Amalekites (whose origin is unknown) for at least three days; before they were freed by the Israelites–(1 Samuel 30:1-18). It is doubtful that in these three days these daughters of Israel were not violated by their captors, who were, most likely, non-Semites. Which violation may have resulted in some captives having issues. Which children may, in all likelihood, have intermarried with other members of the Israelite community. Plus, Jews being “scatter(ed) among the heathen, and disperse(d)” in the countries–(Ezekiel 22:15), which may have generated more inter-racial marriages. By the time Jesus appeared Jewish “pure” blood was already on its way to extinction. If not already extinct.
In short, with the founding Fathers’ marriages possibly to non-Jewish women, certain leaders’ marriages with non-Jewish women and their many concubines, the possible violation of Jewish women at certain times in their history and marriage to those with mixed genes, and their dispersal, it could hardly be denied that very few, if any, of the pure descendants of Jacob are in existence today. Perhaps it is because of this it is stated: “Citizens of the State of Israel are called Israelis, a term carrying no ethnological or religious connotations”2.
Arthur Koestler in his book, The Thirteenth Tribe, theorized, convincingly so, that the Khazar –a Turkish tribe– that converted to Judaism in the eighth century may be the ascendants of modern World Jewry. Though his attempt to follow the history of the Khazar Empire is based on insufficient available materials, Koestler has endeavored to show that anthropological evidence agrees with history in negating the accepted belief in a Jewish race of Biblical lineage; he also points out that the large majority of existing Jews is of “Eastern European” ancestry.
If there is no Biblical Jew, i.e. no Semitic Jewish race, the term “anti-Semitism” would be meaningless.
To make a charge of anti-Semitism,
it must be proven that there are Semites.
Those who make the charge of anti-Semitism
must show that they are descendants
of the twelve tribes of the prophet Jacob.
As the horn of history unclogs, she may clearly sound the seemingly muffled truth that, Biblically, there is no Jew.
(When one is forced to believe and is subjected to Judiciary for denying a thing the truth of such a thing becomes highly suspect. If an event or doctrine is truth there is no necessity to legislate belief in it or to criminalize question or denial of it; proponents and opponents alike must provide proofs of their claim and let the public judge who is truthful and who is liar. To institute a law against denial of a thing is an abomination and an insult to the intellectuals and to all members of society –it may be equated with tyranny; and may be an avenue to other such legislation(s). Laws do not prevent people from being violated: laws can only bring violators to justice; laws do not sanctify or justify a claim: truth does. Forcing people to not speak out only serves to silence voices: it does not change mentality. Such a law may bring more harm than benefit –it may attract more opposition to the “truth” it professes to protect. It is a monumental disgrace that “civilized” society would allow such a law to be instituted. Such a law is repugnant to reason. And is to be repealed. Forthwith! Be it history or theology Truth stands by itself; Falsehood needs to be propped up!)
1 Ency. Brit. 15th Ed; Vol. III, Ephraim, tribe of, p. 919
2 Ency Brit. 15th Ed., Vol. V, p. 552.