Adam Elmasri on Antisemitism and Uncomfortable Hermeneutics

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/03/13

Adam Elmasri is an Australian Egyptian free thinker, human rights activist, author, and content creator. He is widely recognized as a strong religious critic whose viewpoints are based on academic studies and as a supporter of the LGBTQ+ and women’s rights in the Middle East. As an author, Adam Elmasri has published two books and numberous articles on various topics, including religion, politics, and human rights. His work has been praised for its insightful and thought-provoking analysis, and he is considered one of the leading voices in his field. In addition to his YouTube channels and writing, Adam Elmasri is also a popular speaker and commentator. He has appeared on numerous media outlets to share his expertise and insights, and he is often invited to speak at conferences, universities and community based events around Australia. He examines antisemitic narratives woven into Christian and Islamic texts, which continue to shape hostile attitudes toward Jews today. They note how scriptures like Matthew 27:25 and Surah 5:82 historically demonize Jews and incite hatred. Elmasri emphasizes that apocalyptic, end-times beliefs in the Middle East further reinforce these biases, conflating Jewish identity with political actions of Israel. He calls for a clear separation between legitimate critique of state policies and antisemitism, urging religious leaders to reinterpret sacred texts as historical artifacts rather than immutable moral guides, to dismantle ingrained prejudice and promote human dignity worldwide.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Do you see a pattern of antisemitic narratives woven into their sacred texts or commentaries, and how do these influence contemporary cultural attitudes toward Jewish people?

Adam Elmasri: Absolutely—antisemitic narratives are deeply embedded in both Christian and Islamic sacred texts, with Islamic texts being particularly severe in their portrayal of Jewish people.

In Christian scripture, the Gospels depict Jews as responsible for inciting the crucifixion of Jesus, with verses like Matthew 27:25—”His blood is on us and our children”—framing Jewish people as collectively culpable. This passage, among others, has historically fuelled antisemitic sentiments and persecution.

Islamic texts go even further. Both the Quran and Hadith contain explicit hostility toward Jews. For instance, Surah 5:82states:
“You will surely find that the most hostile people toward the believers are the Jews and those who associate partners with Allah.”

While these texts may not always command direct action against Jewish people in a contemporary sense, they undeniably shape negative perceptions. They portray Jews as enemies of God, the betrayers of Christ, and inherently corrupt, often implying that they are somehow “deserving” of misfortune.

It is important to clarify that I am not claiming all Christians or Muslims hate Jewish people. Many believers interpret their faith differently and do not harbor these views. However, the issue is that these texts explicitly paint a deeply negative and hostile image of Jews, and because they are regarded as sacred and divine, they serve as a foundational perspective on Jewish people within these religious traditions. Whether consciously or unconsciously, these portrayals continue to influence attitudes and perceptions, making it difficult to separate theological beliefs from ingrained prejudice.

Jacobsen: What sub-cultures of Middle Eastern culture and history might perpetuate antisemitic sentiments?

Elmasri: One particularly interesting sub-culture that perpetuates antisemitic sentiments in the Middle East is the apocalyptic, end-of-days worldview. Across nearly all Abrahamic faiths — including many Jewish, Christian, and Islamic sects — there is a deep-rooted belief that the end of days is inevitable and that Jewish people, Jerusalem, the Jewish temple, and Al-Aqsa Mosque will be central to the catastrophic events leading up to it.

In Islamic eschatology, for example, one of the most notorious hadiths states:

“The Final Hour will not come until the Muslims fight the Jews, and the Muslims will kill them until the Jew hides behind a rock or a tree, and the rock or tree will speak up: ‘O Muslim, O servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me, so come and kill him.’”

The implications of such narrative are deeply troubling. The logic that follows is this: whenever major global crises or disturbing events occur, many people in the region interpret them as signs that the end times are near. This belief, in turn, subconsciously reinforces antisemitic attitudes. It becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy — one that fuels hostility toward Jewish people, whether through direct action or passive endorsement.

Some individuals, believing they are fulfilling divine prophecy, may feel justified in harming Jewish people, while others, convinced that Jewish suffering is predestined, may choose to stand by and do nothing. In either case, whether through violence or silent complicity, this apocalyptic narrative perpetuates antisemitism both in thought and in action. It’s a profoundly disturbing worldview that continues to shape cultural attitudes in the region and globally.

Jacobsen: As a religious critic, what interpretations or teachings in Islamic commentaries have been used as justification for antisemitism?

Elmasri: On the surface, contemporary Islamic commentary and apologetic responses often condemn violence against Jewish people, citing hadiths such as:

“Whoever kills a person with whom he has a covenant will never enter Paradise.”

This is frequently used to promote a more tolerant stance, suggesting that as long as Jewish people are not seen as aggressors — meaning they exist under a state of peace or a covenant (a ceasefire or non-hostile agreement) — they should be spared and “should not be killed.”

However, the problem with this apologetic framing is that it collapses entirely with the establishment of the State of Israel. From an Islamic perspective, particularly within traditional jurisprudence and commentary, Israel’s creation was not just a political event — it was an act of aggression against what is considered sacred Islamic and Palestinian land. By this interpretation, Jewish people are no longer seen as being under a covenant but rather as violators of Islamic territorial sanctity.

As a result, the apocalyptic narrative resurfaces, fuelling deep-seated hostility. Since many Islamic eschatological texts already frame Jews as enemies of God and the believers, Israel’s existence becomes the ultimate trigger for viewing Jewish people around the world as “out of covenant” — no longer protected under Islamic law but rather positioned as adversaries. This creates a ticking time bomb of tension and hostility, where antisemitic justifications are not only tolerated but, in some circles, actively reinforced as part of a divinely sanctioned struggle.

Jacobsen: What is important to distinguish between critiques of political actions of the Israeli state versus challenging antisemitic narratives around Jewish identity? Sometimes, these can be conflated conceptual spaces.

Elmasri: The fundamental issue is that many belief systems do not make this distinction—they fail to separate Jewish identity from the political actions of the Israeli state.

Historically, Jewish people have been referred to as “Banu Isra’il” (the Children of Israel), a term that links Jewish identity with the concept of Israel itself. This linguistic and historical association leads many — especially in the Middle East—to view all Jewish people, regardless of nationality or personal beliefs, as inherently tied to the Israeli state. The result is a widespread inability to distinguish between an individual of Jewish descent (as an ethnic or cultural identity) and Israel as a political entity.

This confusion is precisely why, whenever the Israeli government engages in military actions, Jewish individuals around the world often become targets of hostility. In the eyes of many, being Jewish and being Israeli are seen as one and the same, which fuels global antisemitic attacks in response to conflicts in the Middle East.

So, to answer the question precisely: the most critical distinction we must make is that political actions of a government should never be equated with the identity of an entire people. We need more advocates, thinkers, and voices across the world to actively challenge this conflation. A person can rightfully critique or condemn the actions of the Israeli government while still recognizing that their Jewish neighbour in Canada, the U.S., or Europe is simply an individual with Jewish heritage—not a representative of Israel’s policies.

I find it baffling that this is so difficult for some to grasp. If conflict or war erupts between African nations, does that justify hostility toward Black people worldwide? Do we not recognize that Black Americans, for example, have nothing to do with what happens in Africa beyond shared ancestry? This is exactly the distinction that must be made — politics are politics, with all their complexities, but people are people, individuals who come from diverse races and cultures and should never be held accountable for the actions of governments the represent them or not.

Jacobsen: Are there ex-believer communities who carry over antisemitic views rooted in their former religious lives?

Elmasri: Yes, absolutely—ex-believers can and often do carry over antisemitic views from their former religious lives, even after they leave their faith.

The reason for this is that religion is not just a set of doctrines that a person can simply abandon—it is a deeply ingrained cultural framework that shapes identity, worldview, and subconscious biases. Even when someone intellectually rejects their former religious beliefs, many of the implicit attitudes and prejudices they were raised with can persist, sometimes unnoticed.

A good example of this is gender inequality. Despite radical shifts in global beliefs about gender equality, we are still fighting deeply embedded prejudices against women today. That’s because centuries of religious and cultural conditioning do not disappear overnight—they linger in our social structures, legal systems, and personal biases. The same applies to antisemitic views among ex-religious individuals.

Many former believers may have left their faith but still retain anti-Israel sentiments due to their upbringing. In many environments, anti-Zionism and antisemitism are conflated (which is a complex topic on its own), making it difficult for people to recognize that their stance may still be rooted in biases carried over from religious teachings.

For instance, a former believer might reject religious justifications for antisemitism but still hold onto the political, social, or conspiratorial narratives they grew up with. They may continue to see Israel not as a political entity, but as an enemy of “their own people” or “their race.” A false but deeply ingrained notion like “I’m no longer Muslim, but the Jewish people are still killing my brothers and sisters” may still influence their thinking.

Ultimately, deconstructing faith does not automatically mean deconstructing everything faith taught them. Cultural prejudices, especially those reinforced over generations, can persist long after belief is gone. Unlearning them requires conscious effort, self-awareness, and a willingness to question not just religious teachings but the broader narratives inherited from them.

Jacobsen: What is the role of broader religious educations in dismantling harmful cultural misconceptions about Jewish people? How can religious leaders address antisemitic references in teachings and texts?

Elmasri: Allow me to combine these two questions. I fully acknowledge my own biases as an ex-religious person—I don’t have much faith left in religious leadership (pun intended). This is not to say that I lack faith in religious individuals themselves or in those who genuinely try to create change from within. My skepticism, however, comes from the limitations imposed by the religious texts themselves.

Take, for example, the struggle for LGBTQ+ rights. It has taken centuries to even begin shifting perspectives on homosexuality, and despite the efforts of progressive religious leaders, we are still far from full acceptance. Why?Because religious texts, when viewed through a sacred lens, do not change. The same applies to antisemitism. No matter how well-intentioned a religious leader may be, they are bound by the authority of texts that contain harmful narratives.

In my view, dismantling antisemitic misconceptions requires a shift away from strict religious frameworks and toward a more spiritual and secular approach. At this point in history, kindness, acceptance, and equality cannot be contingent upon what is “permissible” in sacred texts. These values must instead be rooted in spiritual and psychological awareness—an understanding of human dignity that transcends ancient dogmas.

One way forward is to recontextualize religious texts as historical artifacts rather than moral absolutes. We can acknowledge that these scriptures served a role in shaping civilizations, but that role must end where it ceases to serve humanity today. Antisemitic passages can be rendered historical, referring to conflicts of the past rather than dictating attitudes in the present. The apocalyptic narratives that continue to fuel hostility can be reframed—not as an impending future, but as a metaphor for an era we have already left behind.

These are just ideas, and I remain uncertain how effective they can be within a religious mindset that still holds these texts as sacred. But what I do know is this: the more we cling to religious texts and depend on religious leadership for moral progress, the more we risk being trapped in historical narratives that no longer serve humanity today.

Jacobsen: Where are the opportunities to challenge antisemitism in volatile geopolitical contexts shaped by long-standing historical conflicts, e.g., the Israel–occupied Palestinian territories?

Elmasri: One of the biggest challenges in addressing antisemitism in the Middle East is that it is not perceived as “hatred” in the traditional sense — rather, it is embedded in theology, education, and political discourse as an accepted “fact” about the world. It is a worldview rather than hatred, if that makes sense! This makes it even harder to confront because those who hold antisemitic beliefs do not necessarily see themselves as bigoted. Instead, their hostility toward Jewish people is often framed as justified by one or more of these factors, religious texts, historical conflicts, and/or ongoing geopolitical struggles.

The opportunities to challenge antisemitism, as I have outlined throughout my responses above, lie in several key areas. Religious texts that demonize Jewish people must be openly discussed and reinterpreted, shifting from being seen as eternal truths to historical contexts that no longer apply today. The idea that Jewish people are divinely cursed or that conflict with them is inevitable must be dismantled at the theological level, because as long as these beliefs remain untouched, they will continue to shape perceptions and fuel hostility. Furthermore, one of the most critical steps in addressing antisemitism is to consistently separate criticism of Israel’s political actions from hostility toward Jewish people. In many parts of the Middle East, the equation of Jewish = Israel = enemy is so deeply ingrained that people fail to distinguish between Jewish individuals and the actions of the Israeli government. This conflation must be broken if we are to make any meaningful progress.

I have also encountered many individuals who, even after leaving religion, continue to carry remnants of antisemitic thinking without realizing it. This is why deeper deconstruction is necessary. Not just of religious beliefs, but also of the political and psychological biases that have been inherited from them. Acknowledging these deeply rooted attitudes is crucial, even beyond ex-religious perspectives, because many of these biases exist at a subconscious level. One issue I find especially important to recognize is the mistaken idea that acknowledging the suffering of one group somehow diminishes the suffering of another. But challenging antisemitism does not mean ignoring the suffering of Palestinians or downplaying the realities of occupation and displacement. The key is to promote a worldview in which the humanity of one group does not (and should not) come at the expense of another.

Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Adam.

Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.