On February 8th, Noor Rashid loudly interrupted Israeli Deputy Prime Minister Daniel Ayalon’s speech at the Oxford Union. He claims to have said, “Khaybar Khaybar Ya Yehud, Jaysh Muhammad Sawf Ya’ud” (“Khaybar, Khaybar O Jews, the Army of Muhammad Will Return”).
This 7th century Arabic chant refers to a battle between the Jews of Arabia and the early Muslim community led by the Prophet Muhammad. It concluded with the surrender of the Jewish community of Khaybar and its eventual expulsion under the Caliph Umar.
Even if these were the words used – as opposed to the ‘IdhbaH al-Yahud’ (Slay the Jews) reported by eye witnesses at the time – it is difficult to know what prompted Mr. Rashid to shout this verse. Rashid has stated in the The Oxford Student that “his remark may have been distasteful but was not intended as anti-Semitic,” which “is despicable,” and that he meant the remark “simply as a metaphor for the Palestinian people overcoming adversity.”
The phrase’s actual meaning has not been adequately discussed in coverage of the incident. Mr. Rashid’s subsequent explanations and the coverage by OxStu do not explain the contemporary relevance of, or the mindset behind, the use of this 7th century chant, and utterly ignored its role in the general Islamist debate.
To unpack its fuller meaning, it is necessary to understand the symbolic power of Quranic allusions in the development of Islamism (particularly its violent strains) in 20th century Egypt. The most prominent Egyptian theoretician of violent Islamism during the 1960s is Sayyed Qutb. Qutb, a member of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, famously declared in his 1964 book Milestones that all modern societies – Muslim and non-Muslim – are jahiliyyah (an allusion to pre-Islamic pagan Arabia used in the Quran). Thus, Muslims must understand themselves to be in an eternal battle with non-Muslims and Muslims who practice Islam “incorrectly.” Among non-Muslims, Qutb noted that Jews must be fought with particular commitment because of their “conspiracies” against Islam since Muhammad’s times.
So the question arises: How does Qutb’s view of Jews underlay the understanding of Khaybar embraced by successive Islamist groups? And more importantly, how should we understand Mr. Rashid’s allusion to a historical event in which Muslims compelled Jews to surrender?
Khaybar has taken on importance within contemporary political battles. In the Palestinian arena, the political heir to Qutb’s vision is Hamas, which has drawn frequently on the symbolism of this battle. For example, a founding Hamas ideological document is titled “From Khaybar to Jerusalem” and details the status of Jews as eternal enemies of Muslims. Even more revealing is that a popular Hamas chant during the first Palestinian Intifada (1987 – 1993) was none other than “Khaybar Khaybar Ya Yehud, Jaysh Muhammad Sawf Ya’ud.” Or type in Khybar on Youtube: an early result is a Khybar-themed Hizballah promotional video in which Hizballah recruits enact a one-armed salute resembling that of the Nazis.
It is difficult to dispute the intellectual roots of the modern usage of the term Khaybar and its connection to a violent Islamist vision. It is also difficult to deny the explicit connotation of the term in the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict: Hamas, like 7th century Arabs, will be victorious by expelling the Jews from the state of Israel. In both cases, the underlying premise of this phrase is that to be a true Muslim is incompatible with co-existing with non-Muslims and that violent conflict is a religious responsibility.
Mr. Rashid claims to be guilty merely of poor judgment in shouting ‘Khaybar, Khaybar’. He is distraught that a Google search of his name associates him with “hate speech”. Yet, whatever phrase Rashid did actually use, it cannot, in my view, be understood as an innocent Quranic allusion, but rather a deeply symbolic rejection of co-existence among Muslims and Jews. If he knows enough about Islam to quote the Quran in Arabic, he ought to be aware that his speech connotes hatred, religious intolerance and even violence. The Oxford community should not aid his continued attempts to hide under a disingenuous veil of naiveté and pseudo-tolerance.
In an earlier form, this editorial mistakenly asserted that Noor Rashid is the Islamic Society representative to Teddy Hall. This assertion was based on this academic year’s ISOC freshers’ guide. ISOC President Aminul Islam, however, has made clear by email that Mr. Rashid “was removed from his position and replaced in early MT [Michaelmas] 2009.” He adds that “ISoc is completely against such phrases being used and is completely against intolerance, the incitement of racial hatred and the fostering of enmity between different groups of people.”
