Hacker News Reader

Comment by gadilif | Hacker News Reader

This is... not a surprise. Jews have lived in Islamic countries for centuries, and had very good relations with their Islamic neighbors. In fact, there are many Jews with Arab origins living in Israel today. Unfortunately, after WWII, most Arab countries forced the Jews living there to leave (mostly to Israel). There are minor Jewish communities in some Islamic states still, but in recent decades this is very rare (there is, obviously, a large minority of arabs, both muslims and christians, living in Israel. Yes, as first class citizens - I'm not talking about the occupied territories, but Israel within the 1967 lines).

View on HN

I do think that your comment almost understates the relationship: in 1917, an incredible 40% of Baghdad's population was Jewish.

The nature of historical Jewish-Islamic relations is obviously a matter of great political contention (especially now). It varied depending on the politics of the time and place—sometimes rich and peaceful (and indeed better than Europe) and sometimes tragic and violent—but for anyone casually curious, there is a dedicated Wikipedia article that I think is pretty good: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_under_Musl...

During the rule of al-Mutawakkil, the tenth Abbasid Caliph, numerous restrictions reinforced the second-class citizen status of dhimmīs and forced their communities into ghettos.[15] For instance, they were required to distinguish themselves from their Muslim neighbors by their dress.[16] They were not permitted to build new churches or synagogues or repair old churches according to the Pact of Umar.

Is this an accurate portrayal of the good relations you describe or an exception? It's hard to find unbiased accounts of what Jewish-Islamic relations were like pre-israel, especially since both sides have an agenda to push.

There are examples of widespread persecution, but this is incredibly low effort. Al-Mutawakkil (who was Uzbek and Greek, for what it's worth) was a psychopath that didn't represent the general Islamic view. The pressures he placed on Christians, Jews, Zoroastrians and even other internal Islamic sects was not a popular view. Christians were regularly teaming up with Muslims to riot against the bad leadership[0].

The idea that it was enforced is even more dubious. The decrees were racist, sure, but unlike his more insane personalized antics (like when he ordered a holy Zoroastrian tree be cut down and shipped to him so he can build his house out of it[1]) the vast majority of the Islamic world didn't agree or support any of it and it was unlikely that any of it was actually enforced. He had little support outside of the Turkic world and a North African militia group, and even that was far and few inbetween.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homs_revolts_(854%E2%80%93855)

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cypress_of_Kashmar

I'm not sure the articles you cited are enough to prove that all of his decrees went un-enforced but I appreciate the rebuttal and added context. What we can both agree on is there was widespread persecution and the relationship was not as rosy as some would claim.

Well, the more serious decrees (such as demolition of churches to punish Christian groups) didn't happen[0], so by extension we can assume that the much more minor ones weren't likely enforced either.

But yeah to call it all rosy is definitely rewriting history. All Abrahamic faiths are hyper-aggressive and whenever we've seen politicization of one we see the suffering of other faiths. Of course on differing degrees as different leaderships and empires came and went.

[0] Almost all of these churches were eventually destroyed/taken over later, sometimes centuries later, but not during his lifetime.

You seem hell-bent on not compromising with his position despite writing we can both agree. Can you agree that in the more-than-a-millenia of history there were some rosy relationships without widespread persecution too?

And yet this hardly compares to what happened in Europe during the medieval period.

It seems like neither the Christian world or the Islamic world have been safe havens for Jewish people.

Describing Arabs in Israel as first-class citizens is a bit starry-eyed, although they're certainly better off than their second-class non-citizen cousins across the Green Line though.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism_in_Israel#Racism_agains...

Jewish Arab relations historically were ok, not something I’d call “very good”. Some paces better than others, some times better than others. Generally though Jews were still second class citizens in Arab nations.

Here’s a wiki article that captures some the past issues. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism_in_the_Arab_world

The fact that Israel carried out an intimidation campaign against Iraqi Jews to force them to immigrate is pretty much a mainstream historical discourse.[1]

[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1950%E2%80%931951_Baghdad_bomb...

The source you link to seems to indicate that this is not an accepted historical fact but very much disputed who precisely did what.

And I thought that enforcement is a direct retribution because of a certain nation being created in 1948. The relation certainly plunges downhill after that.

I've known Israelis and Arab Israelis. I would NOT call them 'first class citizens', there is discrimination codified into law and most state entities.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com