Part I
Lucius Cassius Dio Cocceianus; or simply Cassius Dio, is one of the most utilized and best known of all later Roman historians and has long been one of the standard intellectual touchstones of classical history as his only extant work; 'Roman History', is one of the widest in scope and one of the most detailed accounts we have of the later Roman Empire as well as providing scholars with a good idea as to how earlier epochs and thinkers were perceived at this time among the Roman governing elite: of which Dio was famously part.

Dio is also one of our key sources on jewish history at around this time as he mentions and discusses the jews on numerous occasions in his 'Roman History'. That said Dio's information has long been frowned upon by jewish and philo-Semitic authors precisely because Dio is perceived to be intensely anti-jewish and unlike Seneca the Younger: it is rather simpler to attack Dio for holding similar views because he; as they say, is no great philosopher and as such does not have the protection of his other intellectual output to save him from the vim and venom of the jews and their allies.

Indeed if we base our textual historical understanding on the common mix of Dio, Josephus, Tacitus and Philo (the most commonly cited authors on jews in Rome) then we come to a kind of impasse as the two jews (Josephus and Philo) give a rather rosy picture of the jews; although Josephus can be read negatively as well as positively, while Dio and Tacitus make no bones about the fact that the jews were; to them, dangerous subversives who needed to be removed from the Roman Empire post haste or at the very least brutally chastened.

This picture is usually resolved by jews and philo-Semites by selecting Philo and the more positive aspects of Josephus, while downplaying or writing off as 'malicious gossip' or 'rhetoric' the more unpleasant passages of Tacitus and Dio. However I would argue that Philo; as an ambassador for the jews of Alexandria to the Emperor Caligula, was certainly the most obviously biased of the lot and while Josephus is not much better: he does maintain a spirit of criticality and balance that Philo simply lacks.

Dio and Tacitus on the other hand do not contradict what other disparate sources; notably Suetonius, Appian, Martial, Strabo, Ovid, Juvenal, the Emperor Claudius and so on, have to say about the jews. In fact these other authors complement what Tacitus and Dio have to say and as such we should consider Tacitus and Dio not as 'biased Roman sources' but rather as a hostile witnesses to the events they describe. That said we need to bear in mind that not everything Tacitus and Dio say will necessarily be true, but we should not be so quick to dismiss something if we do not like it if it is backed up with suggestive confirmatory evidence.

The first mention we have of jews in Dio's 'Roman History' is in his thirty-seventh book, which states:

'This was the course of events at that time in Palestine; for this is the name that has been given from of old to the whole country extending from Phoenicia to Egypt along the inner sea. They have also another name that they have acquired: the country has been named Judea, and the people themselves Jews. I do not know how this title came to be given to them, but it applies also to all the rest of mankind, although of alien race, who affect their customs. This class exists even among the Romans, and though often repressed has increased to a very great extent and has won its way to the right of freedom in its observances. They are distinguished from the rest of mankind in practically every detail of life, and especially by the fact that they do not honour any of the usual gods, but show extreme reverence for one particular divinity. They never had any statue of him even in Jerusalem itself, but believing him to be unnameable and invisible, they worship him in the most extravagant fashion on earth. They built to him a temple that was extremely large and beautiful, except in so far as it was open and roofless, and likewise dedicated to him the day called the day of Saturn, on which, among many other most peculiar observances, they undertake no serious occupation.

Now as for him, who he is and why he has been so honoured, and how they got their superstitious awe of him, accounts have been given by many, and moreover these matters have naught to do with this history.' (1)

In the above we can see that Dio is picturing the customs and characteristics of the jews rather accurately in that he correctly acknowledges that the jews are unique ('distinguished from the rest of mankind'), have a unique religious system ('they do not honour any of the usual gods'), are generally monotheistic ('show extreme reverence for one particular divinity'), are iconoclastic ('never had any statue of him') and that the Temple of Solomon in Jerusalem was a large and extravagant complex ('temple that was extremely large and beautiful'; 'they worship him in the most extravagant fashion').

So far so good, but we note an interesting reference in the passage that could easily go unnoticed but is; in fact, far more telling in informing just how reliable a source Dio is on the jews. I quote the specific part of the previous section we need to consider further:

'They have also another name that they have acquired: the country has been named Judaea, and the people themselves Jews. I do not know how this title came to be given to them, but it applies also to all the rest of mankind, although of alien race, who affect their customs. This class exists even among the Romans, and though often repressed has increased to a very great extent and has won its way to the right of freedom in its observances.' (2)

Now here we see that Dio is aware of the problem of gentile converts to Judaism as well as 'god-fearers', which is indicated by his reference to the title of jews being used not only by those born into Judaism but also by those who are not and have since become enamoured with the ways of the jews. Dio further tells us that these gentiles affecting jewish customs and ways are even to be found among the citizens of Rome and it (Judaism) has 'won its way to the right of freedom in its observances'.

What is Dio saying here?

Clearly Dio could be interpreted as saying that jews have been persecuted in the past but have now proven to be loyal subjects of the empire and therefore Judaism is no longer repressed by Imperial order. Now this is the preferred reading among philo-Semites, but the problem of context rears its ugly head in so far as Dio places this statement directly after his extended reference to a significant number of Romans effecting jewish ways.

This is not likely to be coincidence, but is rather Dio subtly offering the contextual reason why Judaism has become accepted in the Empire, because the jews have succeeded in converting a significant number of Roman power-brokers and/or their families to their cause and these Romans working in the jewish interest; 'god-fearers', have subsequently succeeding in getting Judaism at least accepted if not legalised within the Empire.

This suggests; as I have argued in relation to other classical authors, the existence of what we can tentatively term an ancient 'Israel Lobby', which used covert and/or overt converts and those sworn to serve the jews as the priestly class of Yahweh ('god-fearers') to effect change in Roman policy that was perceived as beneficial to jews. This is not to suggest; of course, that those was an organised conspiracy but rather a convergence of individual and group interests on the part of the jews in the Empire; and particularly those in Rome, that allowed them to temporarily operate as a fractious unit.

Indeed we can observe that in such significant; although not total, concentrations of jewish effort; which are unusual but not uncommon in jewish history, one can see the individualistic and egotistical nature of jews. In so far as they; even when operating in a loose collective, are eternally battling for position, scheming to become the predominant figure and/or spreading malicious gossip about each other as a method of trying to assert dominance and their personal superiority over their fellows.

This competition in concentration is indicated by Dio's comment that the number of converts and 'god-fearers' have greatly increased among the citizens of Rome themselves. Now it is implausible to suggest that all this was part of a highly organised scheme or was controlled by the jewish priestly class in Judea as we have no evidence of this. However what is far more plausible is a situation akin to the spread of Christianity among the Romans: whereby there was no centralized Church as such, but rather lots of smaller sects and a few larger groups all competing for converts and trying to out do each other in their preaching and miracle-mongering.

This is further suggested by the references by Horace to jewish tendency to credulity (3) in addition to their messianic attempts to make all Romans converts or 'god-fearers' (4) as well as Epictetus' reference to this same phenomenon. (5) Thus we can reasonably derive from Dio the picture of the streets of Rome as being the religious battleground between the jews and their gentile; usually pagan, foes where each side was locked in a desperate battle for followers and the concomitant donations and patronage.

That the jews; along with their possibly closest competition the Cult of Isis, were so successful and as such had to continually suppressed by the Roman authorities is well-attested by Dio when he talks of the former suppression of; what I have come to call, the mystery cult of Yahweh. It is also mentioned as having been suppressed on several occasions by Suetonius, (6) while Ovid paraphrases the seduction of gentiles by the cult, (7) Martial calls the jews religious con-men (8) and Seneca the Younger laments that the 'conquerors are now ruled by the conquered'. (9)

All this suggests; as we have no other intellectual rubric (other than to suggest that they were all paranoid/delusional/prone to flights of fancy as jews and their supporters delight in implying) to utilize, that the jews were not so much a proverbial hive dominated and driven by a single goal, but rather a; for lack of a better term, virus; in the form of a human biological group, that was generally prone to act the same way but often differed and tried to evolve on its own independent of its fellows.

As such it is difficult to see in this subversion of Roman society by the mystery cult of the Yahweh a proverbial hidden hand; as remember that it is quite possible that the jewish king Herod Agrippa I had a hand in suppressing the jewish riots in Rome led by the followers of Chrestus in the reign of the Emperor Claudius, (10) but rather is more sensibly understood (and with far fewer assumptions) as a proverbial feeding frenzy of jews seeking to exploit the opportunities that Rome offered; via the medium of commerce or religion (a serious point that Ovid makes in the course of jesting about the Sabbath), (11) paralleled in history only by the same jewish feeding frenzy that characterised the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries in North America and Europe.

This proverbial 'freeing' of the jews from the confines of the lands of Palestine: Dio attributes to the wars the Romans fought just prior to the Civil War (between Caesar and his detractors) (12) as well as the later activities of Roman generals and rulers such as Mark Anthony. (13) In the instance of Mark Anthony; a triumvir with Augustus and Lepidus, we can see that as ruler of the East he involved himself in the still yet formally unconquered; although informally under Roman rule (i.e. a client kingdom), land of Judea as the jews were once again fermenting trouble.

Dio describes how Anthony routed the armies of Antiochus in the north and then swung south to deal with the jews; once again in revolt, lead by the last of the Hasmonean dynasty: Antigonus II (or in Hebrew: Matityahu [lit. 'Matthew']).

What happened next is best narrated by Dio when he states that Anthony:

'Also conquered in battle Antigonus, who had put to death the Roman guards that were with him, and reduced him by siege when he took refuge in Jerusalem. The Jews, indeed, had done much injury to the Romans, for the race is very bitter when aroused to anger, but they suffered far more themselves. The first of them to be captured were those who were fighting for the precinct of their god, and then the rest on the day even then called the day of Saturn. And so excessive were they in their devotion to religion that the first set of prisoners, those who had been captured along with the temple, obtained leave from Sosius, when the day of Saturn came round again, and went up into the temple and there performed all the customary rites, together with the rest of the people. These people Antony entrusted to a certain Herod to govern; but Antigonus he bound to a cross and flogged, a punishment no other king had suffered at the hands of the Romans, and afterwards slew him.' (14)

Thus Dio states that Anthony was engaged in what we would call today: a just war.

Anthony was simply avenging the fact that the jews had risen against their Roman masters; Dio implies it was for religious reasons (as with nearly all jewish risings and revolts of this era) when he suggests that the jews 'devotion to their religion was excessive' (read 'Sabbath' for 'Saturn') and that they were captured 'fighting for the precinct of their god' (i.e. fighting to defend the Temple of Solomon against the Roman legionaries), by killing the Roman troops that the triumvirate; through the relevant triumvir (Anthony), had assigned to Antigonus. This is one of the first instances in non-Biblical jewish history of a theme Dio returns on later: the religiously driven massacre of gentiles by jews and then even more terrible counter massacres of jews by gentiles.

Or put somewhat more simply: religious jews murder gentile 'idolaters' (as per the many precedents in the Torah and the then recent books of the Tanakh for just this type of action being perceived as a Mitzvah) at the instigation of a fanatical priesthood who may or may not have been using their religion as an political crutch for their geopolitical dreams of a revived jewish empire (in alliance with the Parthians who the Triumvirate were fighting). This then causes the gentiles to become understandably angry; per Dio's point that 'the jews had done much injury to the Romans', who then promptly come to hate the jews and then in reprisal for jewish actions: the gentiles then launch an even more savage counter massacre of any jew they can get their hands-on.

Jews and their supporters frequently mention the second massacre in the cycle (gentiles on jews), but rarely do they mention the first and even if they do they have an intellectually unfortunate tendency to style it as a 'revolt of the oppressed' or the actions of a 'small minority' rather than a religiously-inspired attempt at gentile genocide. One can remove such quibbles by pointing out that they take the jews out of their historical context and treat them as they (the jews) view themselves: chosen and above the standards of mere gentiles.

As such jews and philo-Semitic writers on this issue by trying to style the cycle of jewish massacre and gentile counter massacre as one of gentile irrationality and jewish innocence indirectly prove the contextual argument I have made to be true.

Or put more simply: if you necessarily assert that jews are 'unique' and 'special' (which can only be done inside the rubric of their self-description as the 'chosen') then you therefore suggest that jews historically have believed just this and therefore that they believe themselves religiously (and as Judaism works on lineage therefore biologically) superior then they believe others religiously (and biologically) inferior. As such then one comes out with the same logic that I would argue the jews in the time of Antigonus; and after, were using: that they; the jews, were the chosen of the one true god and therefore it was completely intolerant to their religious sensibilities for them to be ruled by mere gentiles.

This is further proven by Anthony's choice of Herod to rule the jews: precisely because Herod was what has come to be called a mamzer in halakhah. In other words Herod (so-called the Great) was born to a non-jewish mother; a Nabatean converted to Judaism (but not jewish by birth), and a jewish father (remember the priestly patrilineal right to assign jewishness is codified only later) and as such his claim to be jewish (let alone of priestly lineage) was highly disputable and also made him the object of supreme hatred among the religious jews.

This made Herod a highly attractive client king of the jews for the triumvirate precisely because he was only quasi-legitimate in Judaism and ruled on Roman sufferance alone as it was they who put the iron in his glove so-to-speak, while Herod would be too busy trying to subdue his own people while trying to gain a substantial; and would likely never again a majority, following that Rome could feel some measure of safety in the East and return stability of a sort to Judea by ensuring; in effect, there was no rebellious priestly leader like Antigonus to unite behind.

Dio then illuminates this pragmatic; if short-term, policy on Anthony's part by pointing out that Anthony had Antigonus executed by crucifying him as a traitor: although both Josephus and Plutarch believe him to have been beheaded. Either method of execution is possible although I err on the side of crucifixion on the grounds that it was the common Roman method for dealing with traitors and political subversives while also being more of a public spectacle (and thus a demonstration of power), which the Romans quite probably would deem necessary to demonstrate to the jews that their leader was dead, buried and that they should just accept the reality of Roman rule not the religious fantasy of Yahweh's rule.

References

(1) Cassius Dio 37:16.5-17.4
(2) Ibid, 37:16.5-17.1
(3) Horace Sat. 1:5
(4) Ibid. 1:4
(5) Epict. Disc. 2:9
(6) Suet. Tib. 36; Claud. 25
(7) Ovid Ars Ama. 1:3
(8) Mart. Epi. 12:57
(9) Aug. Civ. Dei. 6:11
(10) Suet. Claud. 25; Cassius Dio 60:6.6
(11) Ovid Ars Ama. 1:11
(12) Cassius Dio 39:56; 48:26.1-3
(13) Ibid, 49:22.1-6
(14) Ibid, 49:22.3-6

Saadi's 'Gulistan'; or 'The Rose Garden', is one of the masterpieces of Persian Islamic literature and as such it has influenced such great minds as Goethe, but one aspect of the work is seldom brought out. It's anti-jewish message that although not central to Saadi's theme is one of those that the work never-the-less allows the reader to see if they like the taste of. As such 'The Rose Garden' is not an anti-jewish work per se, but it carries a very distinct anti-jewish theme that jews and Zionist supporters have been quick to seize on; often quoting Maimonides 'Epistle to the Jews of Yemen', to suggest 'mass persecution' of the jews in the lands of Islam. (1) This however; as Ginsberg (2) and Lewis (3) have noted, is incorrect and examples of jews in positions of power are evident even in ardently Zionist works of jewish history. (4)

As such we should see Saadi's 'The Rose Garden' as an expression of the perceived; and quite plausible, jewish behaviour of the time: we can and should note that the ideas that Saadi expresses were independently also expressed by Christians and Pagans in Europe before and after him as well as during the time that he lived. (5)

This similar sentiment in cultures far removed from each other; although with a small amount of interaction, in both time and place is difficult to explain for proponents of the theory that anti-jewish sentiment; not limited to anti-Semitism but covering anti-Judaism as well, is not linked to jewish behaviour: precisely because if their theory; summarized best as 'anti-Semitic stereotypes without jews', (6) were true then anti-jewish sentiment should not hold similar themes and make similar accusations across geopolitical, social, religious, cultural and racial boundaries.

The fact that this is indeed the case makes the theory of jewish non-involvement in the creation of anti-jewish stereotypes, actions and/or arguments not only implausible, but irrational. This is particularly so as those who argue this theory frequently juxtapose positive jewish stereotypes, actions and/or arguments as being ipso facto reliable and/or based on real experience with jews.

This means therefore that what we are dealing with is not an evidence-based theory, but rather an ideologically-based theory that accepts few to no criticisms and accepts most to all compliments. As such proponents of the theory that anti-jewish sentiment has nothing evidentially to rest itself on are in fact deliberately selectively basing their argument on an ipso facto conclusion, which they then seek to make plausible by selecting evidence that fits it and suppressing evidence that does not.

Saadi fits this paradigm as a suppressed and/or ignored piece of evidence precisely because he is not frequently cited by strident proponents of the 'anti-Semitism without jews' argument, but yet is an obvious historical personage whose views they should attempt to account for which they do not. As such it is of value to understand Saadi's views on the jews as expressed by his 'The Rose Garden'.

Saadi begins by coming to a recurring theme in both Christian and Islamic religious literature: the idea of the 'choice' to do good or evil in a world ruled by a single omnipotent and omnipresent deity who is both ineffable and undefinable. Thus Saadi accords to the jew the 'inclination for Islam' but asserts that their 'parents make them a Jew'. (7)

What Saadi is saying he is that a jew is not born with a urge for Judaism as such, but rather it is a tradition foisted upon them by their parents and if they were left to their own devices they would become good Muslims as that; to Saadi, is the true religion. Christian scholars as different as Saint Thomas Aquinas and Martin Luther have also said more or less the same thing, which I might add is the basis for the counterargument (8) against the common enunciated jewish view that Christians are the worst persecutors of jews that history has ever known. (9)

The idea that underlies this notion is false however as it is a 'chicken and egg' argument as to what came first: the jew or Judaism. I would argue; as a materialist of a sort, that it was in fact the jew and although Judaism has undoubtedly modified and sharpened the jewishness of the jew. I would assert that in order for Judaism; as we can read in the Tanakh, to be created in the first place it required people who acted and thought just like the prophets and leaders of the jews in the Tanakh in the first place.

As such we must understand that although Judaism has shaped individual jews and collective jewish culture: it is not the primary cause of the jews behaving like jews. Rather it is a simple product of that behaviour as religion; of any description, does not come into being without its principle human actors innovating it and as such it acts as a historical mirror through which we can gaze at the minds and values of the creators.

Therefore when we look through the blood-soaked books of the Torah and stories of the fall and rebirth of the Israelites in the Tanakh: we begin to comprehend that the jews are much the same now as they were in the time of Moses. It is not so much they who have changed, but rather it is manner in which they operate; dictated by their circumstances, that has changed. Even then however I will note that if you know your Tanakh then you can find numerous precedents in it for all the ways that jews behave and operate today.

Saadi however was not a materialist, but rather a devout Muslim who believed that jews; as primarily human as opposed to being primarily jewish, were the creation of Allah and as such had been merely mislead into believing in a prior revelation of Allah rather than the current one. In a sense then what Saadi thought was that a jew was the proverbial stuck-in-the-mud who liked to write and post letters rather than use the latest knowledge encapsulated in email (who were the Muslims).

This assumption of fundamental human goodness is both a beautiful and also a fundamentally stupid thing: it assumes something that is both the ideal of many but also the downfall of them. It forgets that whatever your spirituality: what happens on this earth is not in the hands of a God or Gods, but rather the actions of men and women who often rationalise their actions by appealing to religion. It forgets that what you would like to see is not necessarily what is there and such is the case with Saadi's Islamic view of the jews: as a kind of religious heresy as opposed to a biological religion.

To Saadi then when a Muslim ceases to practice Islam he is no longer a Muslim, but when a jew ceases to practice Judaism then Saadi believes he is no longer a jew: Saadi, of course, did not comprehend that this is not how Judaism or even jews themselves view the issue. As Judaism assigns jewishness (i.e. members of Israel) by descent not by confession and as such a jew who converts to Islam is as much a jew as he was when he practised Judaism, but has merely changed his form of religious worship and remains first, last and always a jew in both Judaism and jewish culture.

Saadi does not understand this, but it does not stop him from expressing as Luther did: a crypto-racial view of the jewish question as he clearly indicates that jews; as a people, engage in practices which are difficult to ascribe to mere religious confession.

We can see this when Saadi pokes fun at jewish burial practises and their; almost obsessive compulsive, obsession over ritual cleanliness when he states:

''If the water of a Christian's well is impure
What matters it if thou washest a dead Jew therein?
They said: 'The lime-mortar is not clean.'
We replied: 'We shall plug therewith the privy holes.'' (10)

The burial ritual that Saadi is talking about here is the ritual washing of the dead in Judaism and he is rhetorically asking why a dead jew cannot be washed in any old well; i.e. that of a Christian, as the jew is a believer in an imperfect revelation in Saadi's view and therefore has no need to be that particular about which well his dead are washed in.

Saadi is also knowingly alluding; as above stated, to the obsession with ritual cleanliness in Judaism and the fact that jews are called on to exclude all gentiles from their rituals; as it makes them impure to have them involved in any way, with the significant exception of the Shabbos goyim. As well as poking fun at the fact that these are the pointless quibbles of the impious ones in his eyes.

To simplify: Saadi is saying that because to a jew anything that a non-jew has touched or has owned is been soiled by that touch/ownership. It needs to properly cleansed for it to be allowed to be used in jewish religious rituals and as such Saadi states that the jews even want the lime-mortar of a well to be purified (which would require the rebuilding of the well just for the jews) and thus what should be done to satisfy the nit-picking rituals of the jews is to plug all the toilets and thereby make sure everyone goes to the toilet in all the wells: making every well unclean and thus forcing the jews to either abandon their absurd practices or wash their dead with urine and faeces.

This; as I have said, is a play on the concept of ritual cleanliness in Judaism whereby jews are acutely afraid (and at the same time seemingly fascinated) of all things to do with human faeces and urine, (11) which Saadi is using to poke fun at them with.

Indeed Saadi goes on to allude to the fact that a jew's word or oath is always false when he portrays a jew and Muslim debating thus:

'A Jew was debating with a Muslim
Till I shook with laughter at their dispute.
The Moslem said in anger: 'If this deed of mine
Is not correct, may God cause me to die a Jew.'
The Jew said: 'I swear by the Torah
That if my oath is false, I shall die a Moslem like thee.'
Should from the surface of the earth wisdom disappear
Still no one will acknowledge his own ignorance.' (12)

Saadi's allusion here is probably not readily apparent to a lot of readers so thus we need to simplify what he is saying to illustrate his meaning. Saadi is asserting that in a religious debate when a jew and a Muslim cannot agree: a Muslim will demand to be demonstrated as factually incorrect and will thus; if shown to be wrong, convert to Judaism as the true religion. However; Saadi says, a jew will swear an oath on the Torah that if the oath he made; about the truthfulness of his arguments and assertions, is false he will become a Muslim.

This is a clever piece of wordplay on Saadi's part as he is using the necessary conclusion to be drawn from this statement to point out that a jews oath is meaningless as jews will renege on it regardless of what it is made on, because; in Saadi's view, it is being made on a prior revelation and thus is meaningless. All of which compiled together gives us the meaning behind Saadi's assertion about jews and vows/oaths: the historically-common argument that jews do not feel bound; and are not bound Judaism, vows and oaths made to gentiles.

This theme of jewish dishonesty is further alluded to by Saadi in his 'Rose Garden' when he states thus:

'I have seen a fat fool, dressed in a costly robe,
With a turban of Egyptian linen on his head, riding on an Arab horse.
Someone said: 'Saadi, what thinkest thou of this famous brocade upon this ignorant animal?'
I replied: 'It is like ugly characters scrawled with gold-water.'
Verily he is like an ass among men,
A calf, a body which is bleating.
This animal cannot be said to resemble a man
Except in his cloak, turban and outward adornment.
Examine all his property and belongings of his estate
Thou wilt find nothing lawful to take except his blood.
If a noble man becomes impoverished imagine not
That his high worth will also decrease.
But if into a silver threshold golden nails are driven
By a Jew, think not that he will thereby become noble.' (13)

Saadi; in-between poking fun at pretentious nouveau riche merchants who imagine themselves Ali Baba, is making a quite a distinct point here about the jews that is related to the one in regards to oaths and vows. In so far as he asserting that like extracting a vow or oath from a jew is meaningless, because it means nothing to the jews as well as that purchasing things from jews is also a risky business.

Saadi is once again also using wordplay to convey his point to the reader; a reading that would be more intelligible to the average reader at the time of writing than it is now, so once again it is necessary to simplify what Saadi is saying so as to drawn out his underlying meaning.

Saadi's allusion here is that ignorant worldly merchants are still such when it comes down to lineage and as such even the poorest of noble houses is still noble while a jumped up merchant is still a merchant. However a jumped up merchant pretending to be an aristocrat; according to Saadi, is inclined to look to the jews for assistance in becoming an actual noble (as jews were often in prominent position at court and could grant such favours) and thus should not imagine that; just because a jew says he is a noble, he is.

There is also a double meaning to Saadi's wordplay directly related to his comments on jewish oaths and vows: in so far as Saadi alludes that what a jew sells you as golden nails worth thousands of dirhems are nothing of the kind and are probably only gold painted iron work. Thus indicating that to Saadi the jews are both schemers at court corrupting the world of Islam and also commercial fraudsters in the bazaars and markets of the Islamic world selling worthless junk to ignorant status conscious fools as pure gold.

We see this role of the jew as a commercial fraudster finally played in the last of Saadi's mentions of the jews in his 'Rose Garden' when he says:

'I was hesitating in the conclusion of a bargain for the purchase of a house
When a Jew said: 'Buy it for I am one of the landholders of this ward.
Ask me for a description of the house as it is and it has no defect.'
I replied: 'Except that thou art the neighbour of it.'
A house which has a neighbour like thee is worth ten dirhems of a deficient standard
But the hope must be entertained that after thy death it will be worth a thousand.' (14)

Here Saadi is at his most blunt when he implies that as the jew is concerned is trying to get him to purchase a property that supposedly has no defect, but in reality does have them. However the jew in trying to con Saadi comes to a bad end when he tries to get Saadi to play into his confidence trick by telling Saadi that he lives next to the house. To which Saadi guffaws and retorts; in typical wordplay, that then the jew is obviously lying as the reason why the jew knows the house has no defects (i.e. because he lives next to it) is a defect in itself. Thus indicating that to Saadi the jews are a dishonest people who will try to sell you anything if they possibly can and in doing so; as Saadi implies, reveal their true nature.

We also see Saadi here state his belief that the residence of jews nearby actually decreases the value of property as one has to put up with them for neighbours: meaning of course that the jews are; in Saadi's view, not only unscrupulous as well as undesirable but also actively malicious to those around them. Meaning that; in Saadi's understanding, if you want to live in peace you do not live next to or near jews

The message of Saadi's 'Rose Garden' is very simply that of: never trust the jews.

References

(1) Ibn Warraq, 2008, 'Foreword', p. 22 in Andrew Bostom (Ed.), 2008, 'The Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism', 1st Edition, Prometheus: New York
(2) Benjamin Ginsberg, 1993, 'The Fateful Embrace: Jews and the State', 1st Edition, University of Chicago Press: Chicago, pp. 14-17
(3) Bernard Lewis, 1984, 'The Jews of Islam', 1st Edition, Princeton University Press: Princeton, pp. 90-92
(4) For one simple example: Eliyahu Ashtor, 1973, 'The Jews of Moslem Spain', 1st Edition, Vol. I, Jewish Publication Society of America: Philadelphia, pp. 66-67
(5) Isaac Jacob Yuval, 2008, 'Two Nations in your Womb: Perceptions of Jews and Christians in Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages', 1st Edition, University of California Press: Berkeley
(6) Per the title of one of the founding studies of this view: Bernard Glassman, 1975, 'Anti-Semitic Stereotypes without Jews: Images of the Jews in England 1290-1700', 1st Edition, Wayne State University Press: Detroit.
(7) Saadi, Gulistan 1:4
(8) For a demolition of the myth of 'rampant Christian anti-Semitism' see Jacob Neusner, 1990, 'Jews and Christians: The Myth of a Common Tradition', 1st Edition, SCM Press: London.
(9) For an easy-to-read presentation of this theory see Dan Cohn-Sherbok, 1992, 'The Crucified Jew: Twenty Centuries of Christian Anti-Semitism', 1st Edition, Harper Collins: New York.
(10) Saadi, Gulistan 3:21
(11) For example see Solomon Ganzfried, Kitzur Schulchan Aruch 4-8
(12) Saadi, Gulistan 8:17
(13) Saadi, Gulistan 3:26
(14) Saadi, Gulistan 4:9

Fred Schwarz is a name well-known to those who lived through the days of; what appeared to be, the anti-Communist riposte of the 1950s and 1960s with the rise of numerous patriotic anti-Communist organisations. One of the better known of these was the Christian anti-Communist Crusade run by an Australian physician; Dr. Frederick Schwarz, as can evinced by their being mentioned in one of the most important and widely read anti-Communist handbooks of that area: Anthony Bouscaren's 'Guide to Anti-Communist Action'. (1)

We should note that you should not confuse the Christian Nationalist Crusade; often done by individuals and groups historically and currently, with the Christian Nationalist Crusade: the former is the more intellectually-sound anti-jewish anti-communist outfit run by the late Reverend Gerald Smith (2) while the latter is Dr. Fred Schwarz's rather kosher outfit. Now when I say kosher I am not merely using it in the rhetorical sense, but the literal one as well as isn't widely known Fred Schwarz was actually the son of a jewish convert to Christianity.

To quote Schwarz:

'May I tell you a little of the history of the Christian Anti-Communism Crusade and myself. My father was born of Jewish parents in Austria. He left home when he was 12 years of age and migrated to Australia via England. He chose to become a Christian when he was about 20 years of age. He met and married my mother, Phoebe Smith, who was an English girl and a worker in the Methodist Church.' (3)

This is an extract from a letter that Schwarz sent to several hundred rabbis and synagogues in New York City in 1963: (4) he is not shy about admitting and boasting about his jewishness to suit him. Of particular interest is his desire in to use that jewishness in funding drives as the letter this was attached to was to serve a dual purpose: to raise funds and nullify some the hostile press that Schwarz was getting from liberal media and perhaps somewhat oddly the Anti Defamation League of B'nai Brith. (5) One can particularly wryly enjoy Schwarz's remark that for a league that opposing defamation it does an awful lot of defaming itself. (6)

The reason for this assault is ironically the fact that Schwarz was stepping on the ADL's patch and the ADL was keen to boot its new and more dynamic competitor out the way by calling their fellow member of the tribe an 'anti-Semite'. (7) The reason for this perception was three fold:

1) Schwarz had begun in a short time to rake in some $1.25 million dollars per annum by 1961. (8) Remember that compared to today books could be bought for a one or two dollars and often for a few a cents if subsidized. So we get quite some idea of just how much money Schwarz was making. If Schwarz was discredited then the ADL could tap some of this funding into its own coffers.

2) Schwarz's anti-communism lectures, seminars and courses (everyone paid at least a dollar for a ticket of course) were direct competition to the ADL's own anti-communist watchdog program, which it was marketing as an important part of the 'crusade for freedom'. (9) We must remember that the Israel Lobby was not very powerful at this point in its history and had only just begun to try to fight its way onto the special interest group playing field.

3) Schwarz marketed his anti-communist campaign very widely and gained a lot of support for being an effective speaker as well as having; unlike many students of Marxism before or since, a good basic understanding of Hegelian dialectics. The ADL had very little in the way of speakers to match Schwarz and was unable to take its message outside of its primarily jewish audience.

It is interesting to note that even in spite of the ADL bringing its not insignificant resources to bear on defaming Schwarz the latter still managed to take some $1 million dollars in 1962. (10) It just goes to show you can take on the ADL and win even if it seems far more monolithic now than it would have done in 1961/1962.

In spite of the ADL's typical aggressive defamation of anybody it perceives to be a threat or competition: Schwarz continued to have quite the soft spot for the ADL and declared that 'non-jews could join the ADL', which is a half-truth. As we know of non-jews who have served as honorary members of the ADL's board, but non-jews; as far as I am aware, cannot be members of the ADL by virtue of it being of the B'nai Brith (originally a purely jewish Masonic sect that still exists in tandem with the ADL of today), which means 'Sons of the Covenant'. (11) The covenant being the covenant Moses made with Yahweh whereby all of Israel; meaning biological jews, would be circumcised to show their allegiance to their generally genocidal God.

Thus it isn't exactly possible to not be a member of Israel; a born jew, and be a 'son of the covenant' as even if you converted and performed the briss you would still not be considered an Israelite by any form of Judaism, but rather a convert which is a rung below Israelite and subject to all sorts of additional religious rulings about who and whom you can marry or not marry etc.

Schwarz's little 'white lie' is thus exposed for the hypocrisy at it is: made even worse by the fact that Schwarz clearly understands this as he says:

'Although my father had become a fervent Christian he remained proud of his Jewish heritage. He often reminded us that the Jews were “God's chosen people” and taught us that Christians must love the Jews.' (12)

Here Schwarz is clearly invoking the biological nature of Israel; 'God's chosen people', and saying that jewishness is not merely a religious confession, but is in fact a distinct people regardless of their religious confession. I would further point out that Schwarz here is also telling us that Christians (he means gentiles) must 'love' the jews as 'God's chosen people', which is not only not very Christian (as it denies Saint Paul's assertion that the cup of 'choseness' had passed from Israel to the gentiles) it is also an invocation of Judaism's understanding of the place of the gentile: as eternal servants of the jewish people as Noahides.

One thus finds it to be of note that even a half-jew; who probably wasn't halakhically jewish (his mother wasn't jewish and his father probably wasn't a member of Kohanim [priestly class]), Christian preacher has the gall to tell non-jews that they are to serve as jewish lackeys for all eternity. It goes to show that even if a jew changes his spots he still remains a jew.

One prominent jewish anti-Communist who did directly side with Schwarz was Eugene Lyons; the author of two anti-communist best-sellers 'Assignment in Utopia' (13) and 'The Red Decade', (14) who publicly criticised the ADL (15) with William F. Buckley (16) in the pages of 'The National Review'. That is not very surprising that Lyons openly identified as a partisan of jewish interests in the 1930s when he was openly campaigning for Stalin's socialism until he visited the USSR and realised; to his slight credit, that the 'grand experiment' was not only a sham but a murderous regime that was far more despotic than anything that had previously ruled Russia.

Lyons attacked the ADL and his former friends in the Marxist 'anti-fascist' scene (17) for their smears against Schwarz: in particular their attacks on Schwarz's finances and his personal conduct.

A synopsis of Lyons' argument for Schwarz is easy:

A) Schwarz had been audited more than once by the IRS due to accusations of misuse of the funds he collected and he was cleared every time.

B) Schwarz was an open and honest person who was kind and charitable.

On both counts we can find Schwarz wanting: in that just because Schwarz was audited by the IRS does not mean that Schwarz did not misuse the funds he was given in terms of 'fighting anti-Communism' as a lot of the funds he collected are not accounted for by Schwartz in his own memoirs even when answering this charge. He merely chalks them down to expenses and quotes the fact that one of his opponents pointed out that he did only take home $5,000 a year in salary. (18)

Now because the IRS stated that they could find nothing with Schwarz's books means that either Schwarz really was squeaky clean, Schwarz had hidden what he was doing very well (remember this is the time before today's almost histrionic book and process auditing) or Schwarz had corrupted the IRS auditors. Now I don't think the latter is particularly likely given we have no evidence to suggest it was the case, but neither do I think Schwarz was 'squeaky clean' as he officially took in a lot of money and doesn't account for how most of it was spent.

Indeed when Schwarz talks of how he set up and supported a small anti-Communist orphanage in Kerala in India, with a school converted into a 'mobile anti-Communist library', a small local anti-communist newspaper and how it costs him over $200,000 to run (!) then one's ears should prick up. (19) As India is possibly the cheapest place to run anything with low wages, low cost, low land prices and so forth then as now. The idea that a third world orphanage would cost that much money suggests something fishy in Schwarz's books and add that to the fact that the oldest trick in the book is to send money to a designated shell company/legal entity overseas where the money is then put through the books and then used to purchase bogus products/services finding its way back into the designated pockets.

Of course proving that Schwarz was doing this is difficult as the means to do so is largely gone: however that Schwarz didn't work as a medical doctor since he began work as; what his enemies styled, a 'patriot for profit'. So thus one immediately wonders where all the money came from to support all the expenses of a household plus bringing up children, paying for their university educations etc. This would be very difficult to do on $5,000 a year as Schwarz claims he collected in salary (even adjusting for inflation over the years).

The most plausible solution is rather simply that Schwarz was in fact fiddling at least some of his account books to make sure he had plenty of cash to support his family and lifestyle as he continued to speak on anti-Communist platforms throughout his life even when his big money donors and backers of the 1950s, 60s and 70s had disappeared.

The second of Lyons' points in Schwarz's defence I have already partly addressed in pointing out Schwarz's knowing 'white lie' about the ADL's jewish composition and about what constitutes a jew. One troubling fact is that Schwarz began dating his gentile wife-to-be; Lillian Morton, when she was 14 and he 22 marrying her when she was 18 and he 26. (20) This would make Schwarz in our modern understanding a paedophile and although their relationship wasn't in all likelihood consummated till after their marriage: the fact that Schwarz could find a 14 year old sexually attractive is disturbing in itself.

We can further point to the fact that Schwarz in spite of asserting himself to be a 'pathologist' of Communism; by which he meant that he sought to research and objectively understand Marxist thought and the logic behind it, evinces little of the through understanding he professes to have. This is not immediately apparent to somebody who has not studied Marxism in detail as Schwarz does have an excellent understanding of the how the Hegelian dialectic is used in Marxist thought and has actually simplified it in the most succinct way that I have ever come across as (I quote it en toto for general elucidation on the reader's part):

'Universal progress required a universal cause, and Hegel taught that this cause was a universal state of conflict. In diverse situations two forces existed in conflict or “contradiction.” One of them was progressive, while the other was reactionary. He called one the “thesis” and the other the “antithesis.” These forces inter-penetrated and formed a unity of opposites. This opposition, or “contradiction,” provided the dynamic of progress. Progress was always resisted, and took place in a specific way.

One example of dialectical progress is what happens when a man tries to overturn a huge boulder with a lever. He inserts one end of the lever under the boulder and uses all his strength in order to raise the boulder. The lever exerts a progressive force on the boulder, but the weight of the boulder exerts an opposing reactionary force on the lever. This conflict results in a period of slow movement of the boulder until a critical or nodal point is reached, at which the progressive, or lifting, force overcomes the reactionary force and the boulder topples. In dialectical language, the thesis has negated the antithesis and a new state of conflict emerges, called the “synthesis.”

In the synthesis, a new state of conflict ensures between a new thesis and a new antithesis. This lead to a succeeding stage of slow progress in a new direction until another nodal point is reached, at which slow progress is transformed into rapid, fundamental change as the new thesis emerges. This synthesis may resemble the situation that originally existed, but it is invariably in quantity and quality. This sequence is known as the “negation of the negation.” Thus progress proceeds by a series of negations that cause advances and reversals.' (21)

In spite of this superb understanding of the dialectical reasoning that underlies Marxist thought; which enabled Schwarz to give many a Marxist a rough time as few Marxists put much thought into the internal logical of their own dialectical reasoning, one notes immediately upon reading Schwarz's two books (22), listening to Schwarz's speeches and reading his pamphlets that he quotes a very limited amount of Marx and Engels' corpus.

The main work that Schwarz quotes is the last edition of 'The Communist Manifesto' (not seeming to know there were multiple versions of this document which was known in the 1960s and 1970s) largely written by Engels and then 'corrected' by Marx. One also finds many subtle references to Engel's Anti-Duhring (where Schwarz takes his understanding of dialectical materialism) and the occasional one to Marx's 'The Civil War in France' and Engels' 'The Peasant War in Germany'. However that is only a tiny part of Marx and Engels' joint corpus with the most startling lack of references to 'Das Kapital' (Marx and Engels' fundamental statement of their case), which one would expect a 'pathologist of Communism' to not only have read but have commented in detail on.

Schwarz probably read at least one volume of 'Das Kapital' (there are four) (23) but no-where does he actually quote from it or show an understanding of say Marx's theory of surplus value, which forms the basis of Marxist critique of the capitalist economic system (and thus providing the evidential rationale for introducing the dialectic into the past and future equation) as much as dialectical materialism offers the intellectual base for asserting the inevitability of a truly socialist (i.e. communal and thus communist) society. Schwarz does not seem to appreciate or understand this very basic issue with his self-description.

Schwarz however is somewhat well read in the major later commentators on Marx's writings and routinely uses Lenin as his touchstone for understanding a specific point, but again fails to comprehend that Leninism is just one form of Marxism and although important his ideas have historically been rejected by significant sections of the Communist community. Also one finds that Schwarz has a tendency to just take one simple textbook, read it and then use that to suggest he is in fact an 'expert' on Communism when all he is done is take another's work, apply his knowledge of dialectical materialism and then use it confirm what his audience wished to hear or prod a Marxist as to when the next negation of the negation will occur and what form it will take. He does precisely this with Lin Shao-Chi's Communist textbook 'How to Be a Good Communist' (24) in his 'Beating the Unbeatable Foe' for example. (25)

No-where do we see Schwarz; for example, discuss the many periodicals and their reasoning/claims (which to be frank are superb propaganda as Marxists habitually contradict each other and cannot manage; in the main, to organise a nun shoot in a nunnery without demanding an investigation as to whether it is 'objectification of women' to do so) that he claims to have collected for research and used as such in his speeches and work. (26)

One can therefore see that this 'pathologist of Communism' was in fact nothing of the kind and was if anything extremely dishonest in his self-promotion and claims to having expert knowledge of Marxism. Some of Schwarz's partisans might claim this is because I have possibly overlooked some speech or article that Schwarz gave or wrote (it is quite possible), but my retort to that is simple.

Where has Schwarz shown a detailed understanding of Marxism that didn't derive from exactly the same fallacy; as recently noted by Tristram Hunt, (27) whereby alleged students of Marx in fact derive more or less their whole understanding of Marx's ideas from reading Engels' work (most notably anti-Duhring) and not from Marx himself (ergo the debate around authorial voice in Marx and Engels' joint works)? (28)

He hasn't.

Schwarz merely recycled what Lenin said and then; as Revilo Oliver might quip, fed it to the boobs in the certain and happy knowledge that they would swallow it whole, applaud him for telling them what they could easily work out themselves and then shower money on him for doing so.

If that isn't being an effective confidence trickster: I don't know what is.

Thus Fred Schwarz was not only a confidence trickster of a sort, but also the kind of jewish 'patriot for profit' that Robert Griffith bombastically argued characterized the whole anti-Communist riposte of the 1950s and 60s. (29)

(1) Anthony Bouscaren, 1958, 'A Guide to Anti-Communist Action', 1st Edition, Henry Regnery: Chicago, p. 234
(2) On Gerald Smith see Glen Jeansonne, 1988, 'Gerald L. K. Smith: Minister of Hate', 1st Edition, Yale University Press: New Haven.
(3) Fred Schwarz, 1996, 'Beating the Unbeatable Foe: One Man's Victory over Communism, Leviathan, and the Last Enemy', 1st Edition, Regnery: Washington D.C., p. 338
(4) Ibid, p. 337
(5) One example being in Arnold Forster, Benjamin Epstein, 1964, 'Danger on the Right', 1st Edition, Random House: New York. Forster and Epstein were both highly-placed officials at the ADL at the time of the writing and publication of this book. Also see Solomon Bernards (Ed.), 1965, 'The Radical Right and Religion', 1st Edition, Anti Defamation League of B'nai Brith: New York, which also viscerally attacks Schwarz.
(6) Schwarz, 'Beating', Op. Cit., p. 329
(7) Ibid, p. 332
(8) Ibid, p. 314
(9) Ibid, pp. 343-344
(10) Ibid, Op. Cit., p. 314
(11) On the ADL's origins see Robert Seitz Frey, Nancy Thompson, 2002, 'The Silent and the Damned: The Murder of Mary Phagan and the Lynching of Leo Frank', 1st Edition, Cooper Square Press: New York.
(12) Schwarz, 'Beating', Op. Cit., p. 324
(13) Eugene Lyons, 1937, 'Assignment in Utopia', 1st Edition, Harcourt, Brace and Co: New York
(14) Eugene Lyons, 1941, 'The Red Decade: The Stalinist Penetration of America', 1st Edition, Bobbs-Merrill: Indianapolis
(15) Eugene Lyons, 'Does Mr. Forster Plead the Fifth?', The National Review, 3rd July 1962
(16) William F. Buckley, 'The Impending Smear of Fred Schwarz', The National Review, 5th June 1962
(17) This jewish journey from Marxist anti-fascism in the 1930s and 1940s to the conservative anti-Communism in the 1950s and 1960s was very common as Haynes has pointed out in detail. John Earl Haynes, 1996, 'Red Scare or Red Menace?: American Communism and Anticommunism in the Cold War Era', 1st Edition, Ivan R. Dee: Chicago, pp. 33-36
(18) Schwarz, 'Beating', Op. Cit., p. 314
(19) Ibid, pp. 317-318
(20) I have worked out their relative ages from Schwarz's comments given in Ibid, pp. 17-20.
(21) Ibid, pp. 46-47
(22) The other is Fred Schwarz, 1961, 'You can Trust Communists (to be Communists)', 1961, Prentice-Hall: New York.
(23) One by Marx, two by Engels and one by Karl Kautsky.
(24) Liu Shao-Chi, 1952, 'How to Be a Good Communist', 1st Edition, Foreign Languages Press: Peking
(25) Schwarz, 'Beating', Op. Cit., pp. 58-60
(26) Ibid, pp. 384-385
(27) Tristram Hunt, 2009, 'Marx's General: The Revolutionary Life of Friedrich Engels', 1st Edition, Henry Holt: New York, p. 6
(28) On this issue see Manfred Steger, Terrell Carver (Eds.), 1999, 'Engels after Marx', 1st Edition, Pennsylvania State University Press: University Park for a detailed discussion.
(29) Robert Griffith, 1970, 'The Politics of Fear: Joseph R. McCarthy and the Senate', 1st Edition,