Yes, according to Philip Jenkins, a scholar of ancient Near Eastern religions. Noting that the most explicitly anti-Jewish passages in early Islamic texts are to be found not in the Quran itself but in the hadith (extracanonical lore), Jenkins argues that the authors were influenced by nearby Christians’ attitudes toward Jews. Take, for instance, a prophecy found in an apocalyptic Islamic work, entitled the Turmoil and the Portents, that calls for the slaughter of Jews by Muslims:

[This passage, cited in the Hamas charter], is a major departure from the world of the Quran and of Muhammad’s era. Nor does it fit regularly into the history of early Islam, when many Jews welcomed the Muslim conquerors as liberators from Christian rule.

The closest parallels to the text are actually in Eastern Christian writings, either Greek or Syriac, and they abounded during the 8th century, at the time when [this text probably] originated. From the 4th century onward, Eastern Christians were frequently in conflict with Jews, and a couple of incidents in particular were deeply resented. . . . After the Muslim conquest [of Jerusalem in the 7th century], Jews often persuaded Muslim authorities to suppress public symbols and displays of Christianity, notably the display of the cross. In the 720s, the Byzantine Emperor Leo III tried to force all Jews within his realm to receive baptism.

Anti-Jewish themes were prominent in Eastern Christian apocalyptic literature, which at so many points resembles . . . the Turmoil and the Portents. I suggest that these strong anti-Jewish themes originated among converted Christians, possibly clergy or monks, and probably during the 8th century. In doing this, I am not trying to minimize the toxic quality of these passages, or to underestimate their pernicious influence on extremist Islamic thought. Rather, I want to trace their origins, and to stress yet again the commonalities of Islamic and Christian apocalyptic thought.

Early Friday morning, Israel attacked military installations near the Iranian cities of Isfahan and nearby Natanz, the latter being one of the hubs of the country’s nuclear program. Jerusalem is not taking credit for the attack, and none of the details are too certain, but it seems that the attack involved multiple drones, likely launched from within Iran, as well as one or more missiles fired from Syrian or Iraqi airspace. Strikes on Syrian radar systems shortly beforehand probably helped make the attack possible, and there were reportedly strikes on Iraq as well.

Iran itself is downplaying the attack, but the S-300 air-defense batteries in Isfahan appear to have been destroyed or damaged. This is a sophisticated Russian-made system positioned to protect the Natanz nuclear installation. In other words, Israel has demonstrated that Iran’s best technology can’t protect the country’s skies from the IDF. As Yossi Kuperwasser puts it, the attack, combined with the response to the assault on April 13,

clarified to the Iranians that whereas we [Israelis] are not as vulnerable as they thought, they are more vulnerable than they thought. They have difficulty hitting us, but we have no difficulty hitting them.

Nobody knows exactly how the operation was carried out. . . . It is good that a question mark hovers over . . . what exactly Israel did. Let’s keep them wondering. It is good for deniability and good for keeping the enemy uncertain.

The fact that we chose targets that were in the vicinity of a major nuclear facility but were linked to the Iranian missile and air forces was a good message. It communicated that we can reach other targets as well but, as we don’t want escalation, we chose targets nearby that were involved in the attack against Israel. I think it sends the message that if we want to, we can send a stronger message. Israel is not seeking escalation at the moment.