There is a realist element in our mind and an idealist. The idealist element say all race are political constructs that should have no basis to judge fellow human beings. The realist element say racism is rampant and that is how the world operates. You could try not perpetuate this vicious cycle, but you cannot escape living in it. The material condition has no regard to our ideology.No, but from reading briefly the wiki summary, I don't see any problem with it or with Marxism. He was talking about the relationship between secular state and religion using the "Jewish question" to counter the other school. He was arguing against the over simplification of the other school who dimised the influence of religion, but that does not contradict Marxism's fundation that is economy (material interest) creates everything else including religion, state which in turn have great inpact on economy (materialistic activities).
If Marx was living in India he could use the "Muslim question" as a subject to prove his point, or being a Afro-American arguing against the BLM movement's approach under the book name "Black question". The very eye-catching reason that made this book attractive is the name"Jewish Question" which was made famous by Hitler. So the name of the book becomes a cheap-shot by anti-Marxist to discredit Marx or redicule Jewish people. Having a question is nothing right or wrong, the answer is.
Marxism fundation is dialitic materialism. Materialism means "materialisc activity" creates social activity. Dialitic denote that social activity created by materialistic activity has impact in return but never the fundation. The two words can NOT be taken apart, missing any one of them is not Marxism. Marxism does not reject religion's great inpact but only reject it being the root of everything. Religion is a cloak to legimitize the economy order that benifit the ruling class, a drug to anaesthetize the people's desire to change, it is no more different from a gun.
I think people who keep using this book as some sort of "antisemitic" or "Jewish thinker against Jew" is looking through the lense of anti-Marxism anti-Materialism, because only in anti-Materialism one would see religion as a foundamental and determining element. Once again as I said before, people fighting the west are actually unkowningly spiritually their own enemy. In a Buddhist term, 心魔, the devil in one's own heart. It is easy to identify who is the enemy outside (the west), but difficult to find the enemy inside our own mind (fed by western papers).
So no, I don't see any meaning of bringing up this book, nor is there anything significant for Karl Marx to talk about the situation of Jews or any minority groups in Europe back in his time. Nor is there any reason to take in Karl Marx' enthnity background into the equation.
The Jewish Question basically stated Jewish will never be freed until it give up being Jewish. The dominant society is not Jewish, therefore can only tolerate it. If that is not sufficient, then society can only give prevliges to the Jewish at cost of itself. Why should that happen? It is not as if Jewish people are fighting to end the plight of commoners around them? They only fight for themselves. Why would others fight for their prevliges? This is an impossible contradiction. The only solution is if both Christians and Jewish end their religion as their central identity. In other words, it is not enough for the broad society to end its difference to Jews, Jews also must end its difference to the broad society. Otherwise it is a zero sum relationship.
In our modern context, the contradiction still exists but in a different form than Christian vs Jewish. It is their identity. These Jewish community must end their ethnic centrism and recognize it is silly. This is just as important as world need to end its discrimination against Jewish people. If these Jewish people keep fighting for their own interest only and refuse to integrate with the broader society, the contradiction remains, only this time they are the oppressors.