Oxford student denies wanting to slaughter the Jews, but what does he want instead?


By Miriam Shaviv
February 11, 2010
Share

The student accused of shouting "slaughter the Jews" at the Oxford Union, while Israel's deputy foreign minister, Danny Ayalon, was speaking, has denied the charge. Let's take a look:

Mr Rashid claimed that he had in fact shouted “Khaybar ya Yahod”, a classic Arabic battle cry referring to a seventh-century attack by Mohammed on the Jewish community in Khaybar where the Jews were conquered and made to pay half of their income to the Muslim population.

They were finally expelled by a successive Muslim ruler, Caliph Omar.

Mr Rashid said: “My version went: ‘Khaybar, O Jews, we will win’. This is in classical, Koranic Arabic and I doubt that apart from picking up on the word ‘Jew’, that even the Arabic speakers in the room would have understood the phrase.

“As you can see, I made no reference to killing Jews. It carries absolutely no derogatory or secondary meanings.”

Giving him the benefit of the doubt, it is, in fact, entirely possible that the audience misheard. But since the Oxford Union has threatened disciplinary proceedings against the hecklers, there is also a certain interest in downplaying events. We may never know.

As for 'Khaybar, O Jews', having "no derogatory or secondary meanings" - there is no need to resort to secondary meanings. The primary meaning is offensive and derogatory enough. It is a call for Jews to be subdued (in violent battle) and fall under Muslim control, and to assume inferior dhimmi status.

No, thanks.

Mr Rashid said he believed the words ‘Jew’ and ‘Israeli’ were interchangeable terms.

Hard to believe a bright Oxford student could really think this. Also, the implication that screaming 'Khaybar, O Israelis' would be acceptable is simply false.

He added that it was possible he could have been misunderstood by the crowd, saying: “There was a great deal of confusion and several people were shouting at the same time.

“I do acknowledge that people may have misheard me and assume that I uttered something else - namely to ‘slaughter the Jews’ which is something that I do not believe.

“I express the deepest regret if my remarks were misunderstood or misheard to mean anything that even comes close to encouraging the slaughter of innocents. I will be writing letters to all my Jewish friends to express my sincere apologies, and also to clarify my remarks.”

And to ask for half their income?

 

COMMENTS

moshetzarfati2

11 February, 2010 - 15:37

Rate this:

0 points

Isn't it about time the JC and other communal organisations started being a bit more responsible when it comes to making false claims about antisemitism. Ever hear of the boy who cried wolf?
It would be better instead if there were a condemnation of the settlers and their supporters who hurled anti-Semitic abuse at those Jews with whom they profoundly disagree. That's a far greater threat to Israel than someone shouting khaybar al-Yahud which is nothing like Idbach al-Yahud.
This whole mess is just like Jim Callaghan said: a lie has gone half way around the world before the truth has time to put on its socks.


Miriam Shaviv

11 February, 2010 - 15:42

Rate this:

0 points

How exactly is this not antisemitism??


moshetzarfati2

11 February, 2010 - 15:47

Rate this:

0 points

Because Khaybar al-Yahud is a call much like the line in Flower of Scotland, where the the English Army was "sent homewards tae think again". It isn't a call to slaughter (such as idbach al-yahud), it's a just an historical reminder that you might have won once, but you ain't invincible. Also, let's try to remember we ain't living in 7th century Arabia.


Miriam Shaviv

11 February, 2010 - 16:02

Rate this:

0 points

Well, I remember it, the question is whether the people shouting it remember it.
And no, it isn't just "an historical reminder that you might have won once, but you ain't invincible" - it is a call to subdue the Jews under Muslim rule.


moshetzarfati2

11 February, 2010 - 16:15

Rate this:

0 points

There we differ; it's an ancient battle cry similar to the New Zealanders' Haka. Do we take that seriously? No. But still I believe we should be concentrating our efforts on the greater threat to Israel posed by those Jews who hurled antisemitic abuse at fellow Jews. That would be far more responsible.
Anyhoo, I wonder if Ayalon will get done for wasting police time next time he visits Blighty.


Yvetta

11 February, 2010 - 17:55

Rate this:

0 points

We might realise that this isn't the 7th century, Moshe, but I fear certain elements would love to take us back there.


Jonathan Hoffman

11 February, 2010 - 18:43

Rate this:

0 points

Just out of interest Troll - why do you believe Rashid and not Ayalon?


Miriam Shaviv

11 February, 2010 - 19:06

Rate this:

0 points

Can we please keep things civil, thanks


Avraham Reiss

11 February, 2010 - 20:02

Rate this:

0 points

Why leave it simple when it can be made more complicated?

There's an additional possible meaning of 'Khaybar', also in a very violent connotation:

KA-BAR
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

USMC-issue Ka-Bar KA-BAR (trademarked as KA-BAR, capitalized) was a fighting and utility knife issued to American armed forces. KA-BAR is also the name of a related manufacturing company most known for the same 11-3/4-inch fighting and utility Bowie knife adopted by the United States Marine Corps and United States Navy as the USN Fighting Knife Mark II.

A typical KA-BAR knife has a 7" clip point blade. The KA-BAR fighting knife is made of 1095 carbon steel and features a leather-washer or synthetic handle made of Kraton (a non-slip rubber substitute).


Avraham Reiss

11 February, 2010 - 20:09

Rate this:

0 points

Did anyone notice how zafarti slips in his obsession wherever he can, with or without a KA-BAR?

"It would be better instead if there were a condemnation of the settlers and their supporters" (sic)

- what the heck settlers have to do with the Oxford Union, only zafarti knows.

He reminds me of the man to whom a psychiatrist showed a drawn circle, and asked him what it reminded him of.

"Sex" replied the man.

He was then shown a square, was asked the same question, and again replied "Sex".

A third time, with a triangle, yielded the same reply: "Sex".

"In my opinion", said the psychiatrist, "you are obsessed with sex!".

"Me?" said the man, outraged. "Whose been showing me all those dirty pictures?"


moshetzarfati2

12 February, 2010 - 14:07

Rate this:

0 points

I see he has gone schtum, but does Jonathan mean me, Ms Shaviv? If he does then he and his foul-mouthed friends will get their answer when they address me by my name. Until then, however, they'll have to learn a little savlanout and a lot of sovlanout (not a concept they readily grasp, it appears).


Emanuelducas

1 March, 2010 - 11:46

Rate this:

0 points

Thank you for this beautiful article e okul . I took güzel sözler great pleasure in reading yeni albüm dinle . I have been writing continuously to follow always son albüm dinle . Wishing to do canlı tv izle so much good shares. In the meantime, sometimes I'm having problems entering your site. If you are interested in this subject better e okul . Many thanks++

POST A COMMENT

You must be logged in to post a comment.