Thursday, June 23, 2005

Muslim Fallacies about the Torah and Judaism

In Muslim religious tradition, there are several arguments that try to prove that Jews corrupted the Torah, rendering Judaism an invalid religion. Before examining some of these, consider that the significance of a premise, or a reason to believe something, takes precedence over the idea itself in some cases. For example, when someone tells you something, you must consider two things; the content of what they are saying, and the reason for their saying it. Even if the content is trustworthy, if the premise is arguable, then the information might have to be discarded. For example, if I say that Baskin Robbins ice cream tastes bad, and that my home-made ice cream is the best, my premise is that my ice cream is the best. Even if Baskin Robbin’s ice cream does taste bad, I am only saying that because I want people to buy my ice cream.

The Torah is corrupt.

The first “allegation” is that the Torah is corrupt. What would be the reason for this argument? Islam was trying to gain followers, and since Judaism (and Christianity) was a religion with many followers, Islam attempted to discredit it. This is reason enough to cast doubt on the argument that the Torah was corrupt. In other words, it had to be said to be corrupt if people were to come to Islam.

The basis of this allegation has to do with Avraham and his children; Yitzchak (from Sarah) and Yishmael (from Haggar). Yishmael was the first-born son, and the Muslims are correct in stating that in that time and culture, the first-born son would receive a blessing from his father. However, the Torah says that Yitzchak, the younger son, received his father’s blessing. Since Yitzchak was the second-born, Muslims say that they do not believe that Yitzchak really received the blessing, but that at some point in time Jews altered the text to write Yishmael out of the blessing that was rightly his. Since Muslims claim the genealogy of Yishmael, they say that Islam is the product of his lineage, the correct religion, and that none of the Torah can really be trusted due to this alleged corruption. Therefore, Muslims believe that the entire Jewish Bible is a product of falsehood.

However, a slightly deeper look into the text will reveal an overlooked fact; Avraham was younger than his brother Nachor. As the text says, Hashem chose Avraham for His covenant, not the first-born Nachor, but the second-born, Avraham. To be consistent with their allegation, Muslims must also argue that the Jews corrupted the text to write Nachor out of his blessing, but since Muslims also tie their heritage to Avraham, to do so would be saying that Islam is also an invalid religion. Furthermore, Ya’akov, Yitzchak’s son, was Esav’s younger brother and he received the blessing; would not the argument apply here too? And what about Yoseph, he was the younger of ten brothers, and Moshe, who was Aharon’s (Aaron’s) younger brother? Did the Jews write all of these people out of their blessings, or was Hashem consistently choosing the second-born for His covenant?

Since not all Jews are from the Tribe of Judah – Judaism is not a real religion

I once heard an opinion that Judaism doesn’t really exist; the basis for this opinion is the word “Jew,” which is connected to the tribe of Judah. This is discussed in the section titled “History of the Word ‘Jew.’”

Jews are white, but Avraham was dark-skinned

This is a funny argument because not all Jews are white. I would imagine that Arabs from countries in the Middle East would have known this, but perhaps those countries have been Jew-desolate for so many years that many of these Arabs have never seen a Middle Eastern Jew. Judaism is a religious identity, which cannot be bound by skin color. Indeed, this was one of the teachings of Muhammad; it is a wonder that it is not extended to Jews. We cannot really expect his followers to apply his teachings to European Jews when he himself had a problem with the Jews of Mecca and Medina, who were probably dark-skinned.

The Semites of Semantics

The world “Islam” means “submission” (to G-d) and the word “Muslim” means “submitter.” In Arabic, unlike English, there are no capital letters. Therefore the word is “muslim,” pronounced “musleem.” The English word “Muslim” means “a member of the religion of Islam,” but in Arabic, it is simply an adjective that defines one who submits to Allah. The Hebrew word is "meshalem," meaning "to make complete," "to make perfect," or "to make peaceful," but does not contain religious meaning. This issue of semantics has allowed Muslims to traditionally refer to Jews and Christians as “muslims,” with the lower case “m,” based on the notion that they were submitting to Hashem. However, since the religions of Judaism and Christianity were deemed corrupted, Jews and Christians were no longer considered muslims (lower case “m”), but could be rectified by their becoming Muslims (capital letter “m”). Some Muslims will try to tell you that there is no difference between “muslim” and “Muslim,” and linguistically that is true, but conceptually, there is a member of the religion of Islam, and there is a submitter. Jews and Christians are not muslims, so they must become Muslims. When talking to Muslims, it is hard to observe that this is indeed the linguistic thought process behing the usage of the word "Muslim." A Jew or Christian that genuinely believe in G-d cannot be called “muslims” because they practice a corrupted faith; they are not to blame, but they must convert.

The Semantics of Semites

The word “Jew” has no such conceptual definition; the linguistics of the word “Jew” does not imply faith or submission because it is derived from a tribal affiliation, as explained in the section “History of the Word ‘Jew’”). Rationally, it is possible to say that there were Jews that did not follow their religion, they did not cease to become Jews. If a Christian does not believe in Jesus, he or she is not a Christian. If a Muslim does not believe in Allah and Muhammad as His final prophet, he or she is not a Muslim. But semantics-wise, if a Jew does not believe in Hashem and in the Torah, he or she is still a Jew. It can be said that he or she is not an observant Jew, but they are still a part of the people that makes up Jewry, they are still a part of the family.

What's my Shem?!

A Jew will tell you that they are Jewish whether or not they believe in Hashem. If a person comes from a Christian family but they do not believe in Jesus, they will not say that they are Christian. A person cannot really be deemed a Muslim if he or she does not believe in Allah and Muhammad as His final prophet. Out of all three, only Judaism incorporates a bond between Jews that transcends faith and observance, although faith and observance are essential to Judaism.

Judaism Advocates Slavery

The basis of this point is based in Muhammad’s teaching that slavery should be completely outlawed. The argument brings up that in the Torah is a commandment explaining the rules of treatment of an “'oved,”('abd in Arabic) a worker, or slave, which casts doubt on its origin from Hashem. This is based on a misunderstanding, for the person was more like an indentured servant who would volunteer to work as payment for theft or the destruction of property, and when the Year of Jubilee came, he or she would be freed. The Torah instructs how to properly care for and treat the worker, and that he was to be treated in accordance with many of the same rules that applied to non-workers.

If Judaism advocates slavery, then Islam advocates polygamy. The Q’uran allows for polygamy, but similarly, an educated reading yields an explanation. A man was allowed to take up to four wives, but the reasoning behind this was not to create a harem, but to provide for a woman that did not have a husband. After officially marrying her, she was totally independent from him; the marriage was purely technical, not sexual. When she was able to, she could “divorce” him. Again, the logic has to be applied consistently.

History of the Word "Palestine"

What is the origin of the word “Palestine?” Today, the word connotes the ethnic Arabs known as Palestinians that live in the areas of land surrounding Israel, titled “the Occupied Territories, or “shtachim,” in Hebrew, meaning “the camps” or “refugee camps.” But let us examine the historical development of this word. In 1932, the League of Nations, the forerunner to the United Nations, an institution whose goal was to motivate nations of the world into military, economic, and political cooperation, gave the now State of Israel, established in 1948, the name “Palestine.

This name was to be a neutral name for the inhabitants of the region, indicating no favor to any religious, ethnic, social, or political group. At this point in time, anybody living in the roughly established borders of Palestine was known as a Palestinian, which included Jews and Arabs both. Arabs were known as “Arab Palestinians,” some having been there for centuries and others because they came from many surrounding countries. As far as for the Arabs living in the region before it was named Palestine, they were not known as Palestinians but rather by their respective family grouping, usually a tribe or another grouping. From 1932 until 1948, Jews who were making their new lives there were not known as an Israeli’s, but rather as “Palestinians,” or “Jewish Palestinians,” and it is true that during this period of time, references to Palestinians were largely references to settling Jews. Before moving on, wrap your mind around the notion that Jews were returning to the land of their heritage after thousands of years, finding it exceedingly difficult to live in other lands, trying to make their future in the land of their past. Israel is the land of origin of the Jews. In fact, it is the only reason that they can be called “Jews.” (Read the posting "History of the Word 'Jew'")

Many of the Arabs were and are of the xenophobic notion that since the Jews that first came to Israel did not look like “the Jews of old,” due to their having lived in other countries for several generations, that they were somehow “not real Jews.” In short, this is a negation of identity based on appearance and culture. If we look past physical appearance, we will realize that appearance and culture do not negate their right to have a future in their birth land. There are black Muslims, Arab Muslims, Pakistani Muslims, Philippine Muslims, white Muslims, and Iranian Muslims; do they all have the right to visit Mecca freely? According to Muslim tradition, Muhammad taught that there was no place in Islam for hierarchy between Muslims; if Muslims were to extend this teaching to the Jews, “whiteness” would not be an issue. It is important to mention that there is much racial and ethnic variation among Christians too (Mexican, Arab, Anglo, African, etc…).

The point is that the surrounding (Arab) Muslims were xenophobic towards the Jews based on the simple notion that they were European, but had fewer problems accepting the Jews of Arab countries because they shared cultural similarities, and perhaps had the same skin tone. However, when these same Middle Eastern Jews expressed the desire to live in Israel, the Muslims turned on them and many were kicked out (such as my grandparents). Therefore, the cultural similarities shared between Arab Jews and Arab Muslims were only skin-deep; their identity as Jews had to remain submissive to the Muslim hierarchy, and once they decided to step out of it they became enemies of the state.

It should be clear by now that the Arab intolerance of Jews had less to do with their being European and more to do with their being Jews. This is the basis of the claim that anti-Israelism is anti-Semitism; the Jews returned to and established Israel based on their right to live there as Jews, a right that the Arabs rejected. The rejection is related to both religious and political reasons, based on centuries of traditional Muslim teachings about Jews. Indeed, religious Muslim teachings, based in the Q’uran and Hadiths (commentaries on the Q’uran) teach that the Jews corrupted the Torah, leading Hashem to withdraw His promise from them. In short, Muslims believe that Jews have forsaken their right to Israel, and even to Hashem’s favor. The (shared) Muslim belief in the existence of the One G-d becomes irrelevant when their belief maintains that He only favors them. So even though Jews and Muslims believe in “the same G-d,” as He is commonly referred to, it ceases to matter when one group believes that He only “belongs” to them. This explains why the political slanders that come from the media sources of the Arabs known as Palestinians are anti-Jewish in nature. People who reject that anti-Israelism is anti-Semitism are perhaps not aware of the real motive beyond (readily admitted by its advocates) the nature of anti-Israelism.

Passport to Palestine

So where did the name “Palestine” come from? Going back about 2,000 years to the year 70, the Roman Empire was spreading its rule over much of the then-known world. The Jewish Holy Land, known as “Eretz Israel,” the “Land of Israel” to the Jews, was just one province under Roman rule at that time. Much of the politics for the Romans, who were invaders and occupiers of the Jewish land, revolved around the Temple that stood in the center of Jerusalem. In the year 70, the Roman army sacked and destroyed the Temple in Jerusalem, burning it to the ground, and tightened their grip on the everyday lives of Jews in the land of their own heritage, the land that gave birth to their religious, social, and ethnic identity. Jerusalem’s new name was to be “Aetolia Capitolina,” and (Eretz) Israel’s new name was to be “Philistina.” Philistina is the original word that later developed into “Palestine.” Today, when people use the name "Palestine," they are either misinformed, deliberate (anti-Semites), or some combination of the two. There is no logical reason for a person to refer to a non-existent country by a name that he or she wishes it to be named.

Passport to Philistina

Where did the word “Philistina” come from? Thousands of years before the Romans existed, lived an Israelite king named David. David was the king that began the building project of the Temple in Jerusalem, a central city to the land of Israel. The Land of Israel, referred to as “the land that I will show you” in the Torah, was promised to the ancestors of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob by Hashem. One of the known national and political enemies of the Israelites was the Philistines, a sea-faring people living on the western coast of modern-day Israel on the banks of the Mediterranean Sea and it is believed that they were a Greek people. After nearly two-thousand years had passed, when the Romans sacked and destroyed Jerusalem and overtook Israel, they renamed it, “Philistina.” The general practice of occupiers is to change names of towns, cities, entire lands, etc, in order to drive home the point that the land no longer belongs to its original inhabitants. By changing the name, the occupier attempts to drive a wedge between the original inhabitants of the land and the identity that is attached to it. The Romans took the name of the Philistines, who by this time having ceased to exist as any identifiable peoples, and applied it to Israel. By giving the name “Philistina” to Israel, the Romans were telling the Jews that their land, and their future there, was now in the hands of the Roman Empire. A deep sense of injustice and rebellion were in the air, and it was in this context, prior to the destruction of the Temple, the religious and spiritual center of Jewish living, that the movement of Jesus and his followers began. Philistina eventually became known as a region with roughly-delineated borders, much like “the Amazon,” which is a general area rather than anything that can be deemed as a country.

Throughout history, the name “Palestine,” a derivative of the word “Philistina,” was used to refer to the land by scholars, books, professors, etc. However, in the hearts and minds of Jews, many of whom were still living in the land as well as with others whom had left and been scattered to other places, Palestine was still known as “Eretz Israel,” the original homeland of their religious, social, and ethnic identity. Even through integration in their new homes, throughout the generations, Jews remained conscious of the Land of Israel, as they do today, citing both its significance to heritage and to Judaism. The essential core importance of the Land of Israel dates back to the original Biblical promise from Hashem to Abraham that his ancestors would inhabit it. Jewish theology, which believes in the entire world’s future embrace of G-dly concepts in day-to-day living, revolves around this promise, the Jews’ sovereignty in Israel, and rebuilding of the erected Temple in Jerusalem. This is further discussed in another section.

Passport to Israel

Palestine remained Palestine until 1948, when Jews established it as their political homeland and gave it the name the Modern State of Israel, or “Medinat Israel,” a country. The Jews who were previously referred to as “Palestinians,” were now known as “Israeli’s.” Logically, Ariel Sharon, the current Prime Minister of the State of Israel, was a Palestinian before he was an Israeli, both words that at points in time applied to Jews. Today, however, the term “Palestinian” has an entirely different connotation, as will now be examined. The irony of the term “a Palestinian state” is bizarre. In 1967, the same Arab states that tried to prevent the establishment of the Jewish state by destroying it, Egypt, Syria, and Jordan, deployed an attack on Israel from three fronts. The ring leader behind the anti-Israel propaganda and political machismo of this movement was the Egyptian President, Gamel ‘Abd Al-Nasser. The war of 1967, also known as “The Six Day War,” because it lasted for six days, ending with Israeli victory (and survival), changed the status quo of both Israel and the Arab’s perspective on the country. In 1967, Israel’s shape and size changed, due to the land that it seized during the Six-Day War. Previously, Israel’s narrowest point was a nine-mile stretch between the city of Tel-Aviv and its border with Jordan, but after the war, the entire Sinai Desert (previously Egypt’s), the Golan Heights (previously Syria’s) and the area of land known as the “West Bank (previously Jordan’s),” because it lay on the west bank of the Jordan River fell under Israeli, and should we say, Jewish rule.

Ten years later the entire Sinai Peninsula was returned to Egypt in the wake of peace talks between Israel’s rightwing Prime Minister, Menachem Begin, and between Egypt’s seemingly progressive President Anwar as-Sadat. The Golan Heights became the heated topic of land concessions between Israel and Syria, and which are still going on today. Rahman al-Qudwa The Arab states’ hatred towards Israel culminated in a war only in 1967, but Israel faced constant terrorist attacks by extremist Muslim Arab groups from before its inception, during it, up to 1967, and has faced a continuing policy of political blacklisting, televised hate propaganda for the youth, and terrorist attacks to this day. Some videos from Palestinian media can be seen here... (

Rahman al-Qudwa

In 1964, one such extremist Muslim Arab terrorist was a man named “Rahman al-Qudwa,” born in Egypt on August 4, 1929, began operating under the terrorist name “Yasser Arafat." During 1964, three years before the Six-Day War, Qudwa began employing the use of suicide bombings against Israeli civilians as a means of political resistance towards the State of Israel, in line with the pre-existent desire of Arab states to put an end to Israel. Anti-Semites and anti-Israeli's commonly state that suicide bombing was the result of the occupation of the West Bank in 1967, which ignores that it began in 1964. Qudwa saw the Arab loss of the Six-Day War of 1967 as a new and powerful political justification by which to incite propaganda and inflict harm on Israel, in line with the perpetual Arab states wish to destroy it. The Six-Day War brought a population of Jordanian Arabs under Israeli rule. The already-existent Arab propaganda towards Israel made this an undesirable new state of existence for these Jordanians; no Arab, after having such distaste for the State of Israel, would want to live within its borders.

Qudwa’s anti-Israel tactic was one that neither the Arab world nor Israel had previously seen, it was to push for a “Palestinian state,” a concept that nobody has ever heard of in reference to Arabs. Furthermore, all twenty two Arab states had been established more than twenty years ago, why the sudden need for a twenty third? As was previously written, Israel, before 1948, was known as the region of Palestine, so what geographical area would constitute a “Palestinian state” in the year 1967, in the aftermath of the Six-Day War? In fact, the Arab states did not want there to be an independent Palestinian state before 1948, as long as it was to be a Jewish state. After 1967, Arab states rallied behind the Palestinian cause, because by this point, the definition of Palestinian nationalism had taken a 180 degree turn. Qudwa tried to depict “Palestinian nationalism” to the surrounding Arab states in the way that Theodore Herzl (the founder of Zionism) tried to persuade heads of government in Europe and wealthy Jews to donate money to the new Jewish state. In other words, he employed the same mechanisms that the Zionists used to create Israel and deliberately used the same terminology to paint a picture. The only difference was that his goal was not to simply create a Palestinian state, a twenty third Arab state in the Middle East, but to destroy Israel with it. He essentially invented what was an entirely unheard of narrative for the Jordanian Arabs under Israeli rule, keeping in mind that there were no political movements for “Palestinian nationalism” between 1948 and 1967.

Qudwa used all of the terms previously used to refer to Israel to refer to the “Palestinian cause.” The term “right of return” referred to the right of Jews to return to their homeland, Qudwa used to say that the “Palestinians” had the right to return to their homeland. “Diaspora” was a term that referred to the Jews living outside of Eretz Israel; Qudwa arbitrarily used this term to describe the Arabs that left Israel in the War of 1948 (Independence War) to the Jordanians that fell under Israeli rule in 1967 and said that these Arabs were living in the “Palestinian Diaspora.” According to the Balfour Declaration, the country of Jordan was to be an Arab Palestinian state, so by living in Israel were the Arabs in the “Palestinian Diaspora.” “Genocide” was one of the known causes for the establishment of the Jewish state; Qudwa was charging Israel with a Palestinian genocide. “Jewish homeland” was among the terminology describing Israel, Qudwa said that Palestine was the “Palestinian homeland,” and interestingly enough, that a united Jerusalem should be its capital.

To paraphrase Dennis Ross, “Arafat gave the Palestinians a past, but he did not give them a future.” Even the Palestinian flag is almost exactly the same as the Jordanian flag, minus a white eight-sided star. The ethnic identity of the Palestinians is largely Jordanian, given that Arabs from various countries married each other anyway, and their culture is accordingly similar. However, since the Six-Day War, the Palestinians have developed their own culture, one which has mixed traditional Muslim Arab culture, new ideas of nationality, and seething hatred of Israel. Televised Palestinian propaganda from the Palestinian Authority television station began to say that the Palestinians were actually descendants of the Canaanites, the people that were living in the land prior to both King David and to the Philistines, the very people whose name the Palestinians carry. The Canaanites existed, but the Palestinians are not their descendants.


If the Palestinians actually believe that they are the descendants of the Canaanites is questionable, but the fact remains that the purpose of this propaganda is to recast themselves as the Canaanites, who the Israelites removed from the land upon entering it. This has clear propaganda purposes and no basis in reality. The most ironic thing about the Palestinian movement is that it ended causing great suffering, economic depression, and sadness among the new Palestinians, causing them enormous anger at their situation, which Qudwa, with deliberation, directed at Israel. The result: a group of people who think that they are historically deserving of a state of their own. By now, of course, they are in such a state of trauma, and the surrounding Arab states are unwilling to help alleviate their problems but rather fuel the flames, that one proposes a Palestinian state just in order to end their suffering. Would this be a just solution?

If anyone belongs in "Palestine," Jews do.

Satan is in Heaven

Calm down, I am not a Satanist. In Hebrew, "Ha-SatAN" means "the adversary," "the destroyer," and is sometimes loosely translated as "the evil inclination." Another term commonly used for "Ha-Satan" is the Hebrew "yetzer harah," which literally means "the evil inclination." It must also be noted that humans have both a "yetzer harah" and a "yetzer hatov," the good inclination, and it is completely within our capabilities to lead with either one. For this analysis, I will simply use the word "Satan," the English word for "Ha-Satan."

Judaism and Christianity both believe that Satan exists and that his goal is to get us to partake in evil. The only difference between Judaism and Christianity with regards to Satan is that the former believes that his job is to tempt humanity, meaning that he has a role in the divine scheme of things, while the latter believes that he is an enemy of Hashem, acting against His will. I believe that the latter view is simply untrue as well as being spiritually unhealthy, and will attempt to show why.

First, Satan cannot be Hashem's enemy because Hashem made him with the intent of tempting us. Hashem has an angel for everything, and unless we believe that Hashem is the one that tempts us, belief in the existence of Satan makes sense. However, why Hashem would banish Satan from His Presence baffles me. First of all, if Hashem banished Satan, would Satan not cease to exist? Can it be said that there is anything outside of the realm of Hashem that has the ability to exist? If Hell is entirely outside of the realm of Hashem, is it really just a name for a place of non-existence? If Satan can be banished from Hashem but still exist, it says that he has the power of being independent from Hashem; he is as strong as or stronger than Hashem, which is impossible. It only makes sense that Satan is working for Hashem, as in Job. This also means that Satan is not evil in the sense that a person who does evil things is evil. Satan is, like all angels, a perfect receptacle for Hashem's will; he does what he does out of necessity and does not derive pleasure from it. Of course, our attitude towards him has to be "less than friendly" because his function is to harm us. This is the Jewish viewpoint of Satan.

But if Hell really exists, it must be a place that Hashem condones, because if He did not want it to be, then it would not. What this means is that there is some level of G-dliness there, even if it's just enough to maintain its existence. So if Hell is a real place, all who are there barely exist, they almost do not, which means that they have almost no power or strength, or life. Hell would be the place farthest from Hashem. Therefore, if we believe that Satan is the tempter of humanity, we must assume that he is in Heaven.

The Torah's view on Hell, or "Gehennom," is that only the genuinely wicked people go there for eternity. However, "genuinely wicked" is not a term that humanity can even begin to pretend to be able to determine, and therefore the judgment is left entirely up to Hashem, who happens to be merciful. It is doubtful that kicking your little brother in the tuchus (butt) qualifies you as "genuinely wicked," although you should probably go to your room for a while and think about what you did.

Second, it would also baffle me as to why Hashem would banish Satan but not strip him of his powers of temptation first. Is it really the act of an all-wise Hashem to kick Satan out but to continue to allow him to "do his thing?" Satan's job is indeed a necessary one if free will is to exist, but if he were unchecked by Hashem in his job as a tempter, he would wreak havoc on the Earth. What this means is that Satan has built-in limits on what he can do, he cannot make an individual act in a way other than the individual is willing to act. He cannot control us, he can only confuse us, and only if we let him. Of course, we can say that Satan is wreaking havoc on the Earth, but the extent of Satan's ability is our submission to our weaknesses. If Hashem saw Satan as an unnecessary nuisance, would He not just end his existence? Clearly Satan exists, which can only mean that Hashem Himself is allowing him to exist. And clearly Satan still tempts us, which means that he has not been defeated, which means that Meshiach (Messiah) has not come yet. For this reason, I do not agree with the Christian view that Jesus defeated sin, and therefore Satan. Satan is real and sin is real, and within practical limits, it is only as real as we let it be.

Third, the notion that Hashem has to defeat Satan also confuses me. I cannot imagine that the all-powerful Hashem has to put any amount of effort into defeating one of His creations. If Hashem wanted Satan to disappear, it would be done and over with. Again, it would not take Hashem a trial-by-error method to decide if He wants Satan to exist or not; the fact that He made him shows that he has an eternal purpose.

Fourth, do angels really have free will? Can an angel do something that Hashem has not allowed it to do, or can an angel avoid its responsibility? Free will is the only constant in the human story, something that angels do not possess. In Job, Satan asks Hashem for permission to do everything before he does it - he has no free will. Can the universe really function if Hashem grants His angels, His "employees," free will? What if an angel was feeling lazy one day, or overzealous, or scared? Would they not need a Torah of their own to keep them in check, a Torah that they could reject? Look at humanity, we have free will and look at what a situation we are in. I view angels as being programmed by Hashem to carry out a certain task; they can do nothing outside of that task, which also rules out rebellion against their Maker. But assuming that some kind of anomaly occurred and an angel was able to rebel against Hashem, I would imagine that He would just end his existence and make another one. Taking it a step farther, it is hard to believe that He would even have to resort to that; would He not just reprogram the angel to do what it is supposed to do? Assuming that angels can be reprogammed, it means that they do not have free will anyway (to resist being reprogrammed).

A Note about Satanism

Here is just a thought that I will explore in another post. In the light of all this, worshipping Satan would make absolutely no sense. If Satan is an angel designated to a task, to worship him would get one nowhere. He has no power of his own and he does not answer prayers, which is something that only Hashem does. Prayers to Satan would go completely ignored since answering them is not one of his abilities. Praying to Satan is like talking to a brick wall.