Muslim Intellectual From Bahrain -

What are your opinions on what Dhiyya al-Musawi is saying?

Pro-Islam -

Religiously speaking, with regards to religious concepts, practices, and theology, Judaism and Islam are quite similar. One can benefit from many of the same, or at least similar, things in Islam as he can in Judaism. Having said that, the religion of Islam brings nothing new to the table as far as these are concerned. That they are found in Judaism is something that Islam recognizes. In this light, Judaism can be seen as the father religion of Islam.

Historically speaking, Islam’s historical narrative, a selective edition of Judaism’s narrative organized in a new direction, and some of its own inputs, serves the function of setting Islam as a religion. The religion of Islam assigned itself the task of reinforcing the religious ideals set down by Judaism and not the presentation of new ones. Its casting itself as “the true religion” served largely the function of self-perpetuation and not necessarily the attempt at introducing the world to those values, although to re-introduce them was the stated task of Islam. Suffice it to say that Islam itself recognizes the eternality of the commandments of Judaism, if at least in theory. Even if tikkun (repair; in Torah, the Jews are charged with ‘tikkun ‘olam,’ repair of the world) is near to the heart of Islam, its primary concern was with finding the best way to ensure its own survival against the backdrop of Judaism and Christianity, and one could make the case that it still is.

As a system, Islam, which means “submission” (to G-d’s Will) could have achieved better success with its neighboring Jews by working itself into the world-view of the Torah. The way it could have begun to achieve this was by filling the position of righteous monotheistic Gentile Arabs with the goal of spreading monotheism. The Jewish religion, regardless of Islam's critical view of Judaism, saw itself as a light to the nations; theoretically, considering the stubbornness of the nations in accepting monotheism, another monotheistic partner would have been welcome. The finite imperfection of human beings, including Muhammad, colors history in a different way. This same finite imperfection is shown through his attempt at making a strained alliance with the Jews of Medina and Mecca. Neither he nor they were able to fully devote themselves to this ideal alliance because the pact Muhammad suggested placed his concerns over theirs. In other words, the stipulations of the pact did not perfectly reflect the spirit of the ideal alliance between Jews and Muslims and expected the Jews to compromise beyond their ability. In the end, the Jews of Mecca and Medina basically walked out on the pact in a time when Muhammad relied on them most. The result was that the Muslim tradition viewed the Jews as dishonest and weakly devoted to fighting anti-monotheistic forces (since Muhammad wanted the Jews to help him fight Meccan pagans). This negative record of Islam’s experience with the Jews of Mecca and Medina serves largely as Islam’s point of reference to the whole of the Jewish People, having "broken the camel's back" and, in the mind of the Muslim tradition, making another alliance with them forever impossible. (This might shed some light on the nature of modern skirmishes between Jews and Muslims today)

As a side note, there was an interesting corollary to this pact in today's modern political mythology. When Ehud Barak, Prime Minister of Israel in 1999, made moves to settle the conflict with the Palestinians, he offered Yaser Arafat some 87-95% of the land in the West Bank in which to create a Palestinian state. Arafat rejected this proposal and later, people seeking to justify his rejection, explained that Barak's terms were not fully in alignment with Arafat's wishes for the Palestinian people. In a true case of irony, in public speeches to the Palestinians, Arafat referred back to this particular pact made by Muhammad. Only here, he presented himself as Muhammad and the Jews as the Jews of Mecca and Medina, unwilling to keep their word. However, if the "Palestinian reason" was right, then it was Barak who was Muhammad and Arafat and the Palestinians who were the Jews, for according to the record, at least as recorded by those critical of Israel, Barak was too forceful with the Palestinians and pushed upon them stipulations that they could never dream of accepting. Arafat likely picked up on the historicity of this moment and tried to "Islamicize" it by assigning roles - however, in reality, a better reflection of the scenario would place the Palestinians in the role of the Jews, thus left with a new (and alternately different) viewpoint of the cherished record of the pact with the Jews in the 7th Century. Considering Arafat's historical usage of the Jewish (and Zionist) narrative to reinforce the aspirations of Palestinian nationalism, it is not too difficult to imagine him utilizing the story in this way; on the cover it seemed to confer Muslim tradition, but on the inside it bore resemblance to Israeli and Jewish nationalism.

Back to history, one can definitely find plentiful reason to see Islam as a tikkun to the Arab peoples, whom probably shortly after descending from Ishmael descended into polytheism, yet to see Islam as a universal tikkun for the entire world is only a view that Islam holds in order to justify its existence. This particular characteristic of Islam, its deliberate linking of self-justification to an absolute universal norm, is less of a theological and social revolution than it is the only practical way for Islam to become established in light of the existence of Judaism (and Christianity). Considering the universalist claims of Judaism and Christianity, it becomes necessary for Islam to try to find a way to “tighten the screws” on universality, as it were, or to find a way to present itself as “more universal” than them. This is a tough thing to achieve if the previous religions are monotheistic and already stand for eternal truths. In order for such a thing to work, the next religion, whatever it is, must find internal weaknesses, even if they are perceived or even created, in order to provide itself as the remedy.

From a monotheistic perspective, Christianity’s polytheistic Trinity is easy enough to reject, but Judaism’s system of living, which is basically mirrored in Islam, is much harder to replace with something that is virtually the same. Therefore, the only functioning way for Islam to replace Judaism is by taking a different stance on the historical narratives that G-d set down as truth and tradition. The rejection of Judaism’s Oral Tradition allows Islam to make almost whatever it wants (within a set of limitations) of the Torah’s text. However, Islam is forced to stay with the confines of a very basic schema, for if it were to under mind the whole thing, there would not even be a basis for Islam. Despite these "minor" differences in the narrative, Islam then is forced to recognize the most basic pattern of the Torah record; G-d created the world and humanity, spoke to the prophets, and even that He created a covenant with the Jewish People.

The major point of convergence is with their treatment of Ishmael as the prime inheritor of Abraham's legacy versus Isaac. Simply put, how the Jews view Isaac the Muslims view Ishmael. In its oral law, Islam maintains that Isaac still inherited a portion of his father's legacy, even though it doesn't specify the nature of this legacy or what it entails. The indication of the Muslim oral tradition is that Isaac's descendants inherited a loosely formed monotheistic system - Isaac's descendants, the Jews. All of this meets a certain criterion of logic until we reach the revelation at Sinai, which Islam also accepts occurred and is spoken about in the Qur'an. At Mount Sinai, after the Egyptians enslaved Isaac’s descendants for four hundred years, Moses, also a descendant of Isaac, took them out of Egypt by a command of G-d. During a trek through the desert, G-d revealed Himself to them in a way that is unparalleled anywhere else in the Torah or in the Qur'an. There, each and everyone of Isaac's descendants was heightened to a level of prophecy - the Torah says that they "saw thunder and heard lightning," and that they begged Moses not to make them near the base of the mountain lest they die. Islam recognizes that this event occurred and confers that G-d in deed gave the Torah to the descendants of Isaac.

That G-d gave to the descendants of Isaac, not long after he died, the Torah, presents a serious challenge to Islam’s view that Isaac received a smaller portion of Abraham’s legacy, i.e. in that the first-born receives the larger portion. In fact, the culmination of Isaac’s portion of Abraham’s legacy was indeed the Torah, and according to the Muslim tradition, Ishmael’s descendants, did actually receive a similar revelation later through Muhammad. Yet, if Ishmael was the first-born, it would have made more sense if he received his revelation chronologically earlier than did the descendants of his younger brother. What we see here is that the descendants of the younger brother received a revelation thousands of years before the descendants of the older brother, who, according to Muslim tradition, received the proper birthright. We would assume that Ishmael’s descendants should have received their revelation, the Q’uran, at some time before Isaac’s descendants received the Torah; this would have fully harmonized, in the Muslim tradition, the relationship between Ishmael and Isaac. Yet history attests to something else. Not only that, the revelation of the descendants of the younger brother was public and the revelation of the descendants of the older brother was private and involved one man, as respected as he was and is to the Muslim tradition.

We should note that the Qur'an underplays this event (the giving of the Torah) and places less emphasis on it than does the Jewish tradition. This is because the Muslim tradition runs into problems when it tries to reconcile Ishmael's larger part of the portion of Abraham's legacy with Isaac's reception of the Torah - G-d gave it to Isaac's descendants and not Ishmael's. Consequently, the Qur'an has not produced a record of the descendants of Ishmael receiving any such massive and public revelation. Can Islam logically validate the giving of the Torah to the descendants of Isaac if it wishes to confer the primary blessings on Ishmael? The Muslim tradition tries to straighten out these wrinkles by explaining that Isaac's descendants eventually (or right away by worshipping the golden calf) corrupted the Word of G-d as they received it. This sin, among others, necessitated the religion of Islam, which as the tradition explains was the fulfillment of Ishmael's portion of his father's legacy. However, why did this fulfillment take so long to come to fruition? Islam began some 4,ooo years later. We know that during the time of the revelation at Sinai, the descendants of Ishmael were, as is shown by history, steeped in polytheism. The evidence for this is that poetry in Arabic dated to thousands of years ago speaks no mention of the One G-d. When Muhammad, thousands of years after Sinai spoke of his experience to the Arabs, Ishmael's descendants, he had to convince them of the One G-d. The Q'aba itself is testimony to this in that Muhammad wiped away the god-worship occurring there and dedicated it to the One G-d; and he was not met without resistance. That Muhammad brought his message to Arab pagans is recorded as fact in the Muslim tradition.

*Interestingly, Muslim tradition explains that the Q’aba was the true site of the Akeidah (“binding” in Hebrew, and in Arabic the word describing the doctrinal belief of the Muslim religion – Aqeedah), where the Torah says that Abraham took Isaac to be sacrificed. Based on the stance that the Akeidah actually took place in Mecca with Ishmael, Muhammad dedicated the Q’aba to the belief in the One G-d. However, Torah tradition explains that the site of the Akeidah was actually Mt. Moriah in Jerusalem. Based on this tradition, King David began the erection of the Temple in Jerusalem, and the Holy of Holies, the most central section of the Temple, was built directly over the site where Abraham was to sacrifice Isaac. Further, it was the exact site on which sacrifices were brought. The Torah tradition explains that Isaac was nearly sacrificed on Mt. Moriah as a foreshadowing that atonement sacrifices were later to take place on that same exact site. The Akeidah-Ishmael connection is logical, but no such sacrifices later took place in the Q’aba, as Islam is not a religion that sacrifices animals in order to atone for sin. Not only that, but empire upon empire and power upon power have historically tried to rule over Jerusalem and the Temple, and no such power struggle has historically occurred in Mecca. This is a strong indication that Mecca did not gain historical significance as early as the Muslim tradition says it did. Rather, it did not gain historical significance until the advent of Islam, relatively late, in the 7^th century, and therefore does not date back to Abraham.

So the question remains; what became of Ishmael's descendants? When the Qur'an speaks about the prophets living before Muhammad, it refers to them as "Muslims," (submitters to G-d), but every single prophet was a descendant of Isaac, and not one was a descendant of Ishmael. How can we say that Ishmael's descendants received the primary portion of Abraham's legacy when all of the prophets of the Tanakh, whom Muslims recognize, were Hebrews, "Isaacites," (a term I once heard a Muslim use), Israelites (descendants of Jacob), and Jews (all of the major and minor prophets)? There was only one non-Jewish prophet, Balaak, who was a Midianite. The way Islam dealt with these matters was by creating its own oral tradition, which Islam believes is the true oral tradition as handed down by G-d, yet which has no pre-Islam tradition of its own. G-d forbid, none of what I say is meant to defame Islam, but rather to shed some light on these matters.

I have a friend, also an observant Jew, whom suggested that Islam is exactly the way the nations should be living. His point was to say that the theology, beliefs, behaviors, and concepts of Islam are basically completely in tune with the Noachide Laws, the religious system that the Torah requires for the nations of the world. From that vantage point I would argue that he is right. However, from the vantage point that this religious system has built itself upon the notion that it is to fulfill the obligations of the nations through replacing Judaism, calls Islam into question as a unit. The nations are already not obligated to the religion of Judaism, but for the new religion to hold that the Jews themselves, along with the rest of the world, are to practice the new religion is anathema to order and truth. G-d delivered the pillars of the world through the Torah and told the Jews to keep it for the sake of the world, so for another religion’s attempt to subsume those pillars into its own version of reality is to create a war of metaphysical spiritual proportions. If we were to take out the last three words of the sentence, “through replacing Judaism,” Islam would be a shining example to the Gentiles. However, the reality of the last words as a fundamental precept in Islam is empirical evidence that Islam, by its own choices, has set itself in religious opposition to Judaism as its replacement and therefore creates a war on truth and even G-d. If this is true about Islam, then it is a religion close to the way the nations should be living, but not exactly as they should be living, for the Gentiles’ version of monotheism does not replace the Jews’ version but lives along side it.

If we were to view the Muslim religion as the perfect Noachide religion for the nations of the world, our stumbling block would be its desire to replace Judaism; the Noachide Laws never replace the Mosaic Laws. Suffice it to say that the opposite is also true; even though the Mosaic Laws came after the Noachide Laws, they did not replace the Noachide Laws, i.e., for the Gentile nations but only for the Hebrew nation. Such is not the case when it comes to Islam's belief, which is that the Qur'anic Laws replace the Mosaic Laws, not just for the Arab nation but for the entire world. It is not in accordance with Noachide Law that their religious system replace the Mosaic system. If we strip Islam away from the historical narrative it claims for itself, it is a just monotheistic system. But if we link it with Ishmael, regardless of its internal beliefs, as true as they may be, it is at odds with Judaism. It seems that the Torah's prophecies about Ishmael (his descendants) becoming wild, aggressive, and contemptuous, is best understood as being manifested in their vigor and religious agitation with the Jews and the Jewish tradition, and not to mention other nations, since the Torah says "he will have his hand on everybody and everybody will have their hand on him." In that, the Torah's prophecies about Ishmael, through Islam, have come true. The only way for their to be a reconciliation between Judaism and Islam is for there to be a reconciliation between Isaac and Ishmael, and the Jewish sources and midrashim say that Ishmael did teshuva ("repentance"), and the Torah records his death in the same manner as it records all other tzadikim (brilliantly righteous people), explaining that he was restored to his nation. Not only that, the Torah text itself says that Isaac and Ishmael came together to bury their father, after all their turmoil and tribulations. Since Abraham, in a sense, is the father of all nations, Isaac's and Ishmael's reconciliation in the name of their father will bring peace to the entire world. It seems that time has now come for Muslims to realize their place in the tradition, for Ishmael to do teshuva, and for them to be restored to their nation.

How Do We Know That There is an Oral Law?

Logically speaking, there has to be. In the Torah there is a commandment that mentions what is done with a habitually goring bull; it is put to death. The presence of this commandment in the Torah leads to a proof that G-d gave the Oral Law to Moses along with the Written Torah. The question that naturally comes from this commandment is, "What constitutes a habitually goring bull?" The importance of this question cannot be underplayed; if a society is a product of its laws, then a society needs to have good and coherent laws. If my bull continuously gores other bulls, it would be in the best interest of bull-owners as to what exactly constitutes a habitually goring bull. The inability to define this particular status of bull would lead the bull to continue damaging peoples' property and would create an element of strife and even hatred in the society. Therefore, peace rides upon the ability to define just what exactly a "habitually goring bull" is.

The Talmud explains that a bull which has gored three times constitutes a habitually goring bull. We know this because it is written in the physical Talmud, which the holy Sages of the Sanhedrin wrote down in a codified form during the destruction of the Second Temple during the Roman occupation. They considered that the events taking place after this destruction, namely dispersal, would also decompose the Jewish society and so they felt it an obligation to codify which had not been codified since its deliverance to Moses along with the Written Law. The Oral Law was meticulously written down as Jews now took to studying it on their terms with Rabbi's and most likely amongst themselves, and later as printing became a possible industry, it appeared in printed form in mass quantities. Now every Jew (and person) has access to the Talmud

There are some people whom seek to prove the invalidity of the Oral Law, or rather its supposedly corrupting rigorous approach to Law, in order to validate their own beliefs. It is these people, namely a certain "brand" of Christians (and most likely all of them), whom seek to show the universal role of Jesus in the Second Temple time by playing him against the assumedly dead routine of the Law and the corruption of which it is charged (there are also Muslims whom seek to show the universality of Muhammad in a similar fashion). Therefore, these Christians argue that the Oral Law was not Divinely authored, unlike the (Written) Torah, which they believe was, and therefore must logically conclude that the Sages invented it in the Second Temple time. Make no mistake, to be under "Divine influence" is not the same thing as receiving something from G-d, as did Moses, and therefore even if the Sages were inspired by (what they thought was) the Will of G-d, the Oral Law would be useless and even dangerous.

Fortunately reality saves the day. There is a problem with the view that the Sages invented the Oral Law upon its codification in the year 70 C.E.; how did the Jews of Moses' time understand the commandment to put to death a bull which had habitually gored? If we ask the question "What constitutes a habitually goring bull," then we can assume that the recipients of the Torah, the Jews whom G-d liberated from Egypt and were wandering in the desert, also had that question. Can it be possible that the question only became relevant in the 1st Century and therefore the Jewish Sages only codified the Oral Law in that time? Absolutely not! However, this is what we must conclude if we go by the view of the people whom state that the Sages invented the Oral Law. Rather, that the Talmud elucidates an answer, which is not found anywhere in the Written Torah, is a proof that there was both a question and an answer, and since they were not originally in written form, they must have been in oral form. It is not only silly to say that the Sages invented an arbitrary answer to the question, it also does not hold water due to the fact that if there is no Oral Law, G-d has given the Jews a useless commandment (a habitually goring bull...), and if we believe in G-d we are not free to assume that. If we do assume this, however, then we also assume that the entire Torah is useless since we cannot decipher it. What bigger tragedy would there be than an incomprehensible Torah? Yet that is what people assume the Torah is when they say that there is no Oral Law. It also makes room for people to enter their interpretations into the Torah. The existence of an Oral Law does not allow for that to occur.

But if logic is not your cup of tea, then perhaps you would enjoy a proof that is found in the text of the Torah itself. In Exodus18:13-26, Moses has the sole responsibility of providing conclusions to legal matters that the Jews bring to him. His father-in-law, Jethro, seeing that this task is daunting for Moses, says to him,

"You shall caution them regarding the decrees and the teachings, and you shall make known to them the path in which they should go and the deeds that they should do. And you shall discern from among the entire people, men of accomplishment, G-d-fearing people, men of truth, people who despise money, and you shall appoint them leaders of thousands, leaders of hundreds, leaders of fifties, and leaders of tens. They shall judge the people at all times, and they shall bring every major matter to you, and every minor matter they shall judge, and it will be eased for you, and they shall bear with you. If you do this thing - and G-d shall command you - then you will be able to endure, and this entire people, as well, shall arrive at its destination in peace." (Exodus 18, 20-23)

Just a second here; "Leaders of thousands? "They shall judge the people at all times?" "Every major matter... every minor matter?" Why so many judges, why at all times, and there were so many cases that there was actually a difference between minor and major cases? Sounds like a huge group of people had a massive amount of questions for Moses, a case factory. Could it be that they, just like us, were puzzled by the nature of many of their legal disputes? From where exactly was Moses retrieving this information that he was giving them in order to resolve their disputes? Did he make up the answers as he went along? The answer is that G-d gave to him the Oral Law on Mt. Sinai to accompany the Written Law. Remember, Moses made several trips up and down Mt. Sinai, only receiving the first Ten Commandments during his first forty-day period ascent.

How Do We Know that Isaac (and not Ishmael) Inherited all of Abraham's Property?

Logically speaking, since Ishmael was the G-d-chosen progenitor of Abraham according to Islam, which says that Isaac's being the Torah's chosen one of Abraham was a Jewish cover-up of the true record of history, there should be a written historical record of the descendants of Ishmael in the same way that there is a written historical record of Isaac's descendants, whom are the Jews. We know that this is not true, first, because there is no historical record in writing of the events of Ishmael's descendants. Secondly, all of the major events in the Torah happened to the descendants of Isaac, such as the 400-year slavery in Egypt, which culminated in their deliverance of the Torah and their being brought into the Land that G-d promised Abraham's descendants (Isaac or Ishmael?). How do Muslims explain that the descendants of Isaac were given the Torah and brought, under Joshua, to possess the Land that G-d promised Abraham? The descendants of Ishmael, whom appear infrequently in the Tanakh, are referred to as "Ishmaelites" and are not central to any of the themes other than being the ones to whom Joseph's brothers sold him. Near the end of the Tanakh (I am not sure where) appears the word "Arabs."

Thirdly, the formation of the religion of Islam in the 6th Century, with the Qur'an as its text, is the first time to make mention of any sort of history preceding it, and guess what, the entire Biblical history encapsulated in the Qur'an is the history of the Jews! If Ishmael's descendants recorded their history in the manner that did the descendants of Isaac, the new Muslims should have made reference to that as their religion's history, but they did not! Why not!? Why did they have to use the history of Isaac's descendants? The answer is that there was no other recorded Biblical history! We have to face it, after the Torah's final mention of the person Ishmael (Genesis 25:12-18) he is no longer mentioned; what becomes of him seems to be unknown. Suddenly in the 6th Century (more than 3,000 years later) a religion arises with its founder claiming to be the descendant of Ishmael coming to claim his rightful inherited legacy of Abraham; why had none of Ishmael's descendants taken it upon themselves to rectify this historical injustice and discrepancy earlier? Where were they, who they they, and what were they doing this whole time (more than 3,000 years)? That Muhammad brought the message of Islam to a civilization of Arabs whom were polytheists alludes that somewhere along the line the descendants of Ishmael became polytheists, i.e., veered from the monotheism of their fathers Ishmael and Abraham and their mother Hagar. Their history is nowhere to be found, and even if it was, it would all be rife with polytheism and so Islam has nothing (no historical monotheism) on which to stand. Grappling with this reality, the founder of Islam claims that all of the Biblical figures (including Jesus) are the progenitors of Islam, and they were all Jews!

Further, even though Islam claims that Ishmael is the heir to Abraham's legacy, which would suggest a blood, and therefore "genetic" association with being a Muslim, it makes an interesting contradiction; Islam claims itself to be a pure religion having nothing to do with genetics, ethnicity, or bloodline, i.e., to be strictly about faith. If this is true then why does the Muslim tradition emphasize that the true legacy of Abraham comes from the lineage of a specific son? If bloodline is irrelevant, why does it matter that Muhammad was a descendant of Ishmael, why does one have to be a descendant of any particular son if Islam is based purely on faith and has no blood, ethnic, or genetic component? I would advise not to rack your brain trying to find an answer because there is is no answer, but don't take my word for it, ask a Muslim. Islam has dealt with this discrepancy relatively well, but not well enough, by saying that both Ishmael and Isaac are the inheritors of Abraham's legacy, but just that Ishmael inherited the larger and better portion of that legacy. How is this an acceptable view to Muslims when the Torah's view, which says that Isaac inherited the larger and better section of Abraham's legacy, is what they find unacceptable? Simultaneously, the Muslim tradition insists on the equality of Ishmael and Isaac and states that Ishmael received the larger portion, yet only one could be true.

The Jewish tradition has nothing to hide; Isaac received the larger portion of Abraham's legacy by Divine command, while Ishmael received the legacy of monotheism as well but none of Abraham's property. To our modern eyes this can seem politically incorrect, but not according to the social and cultural standards more than 3,000 years ago. It was a commandment but G-d but we have no reason to ignore the sociological element. Further, let us be honest: Muhammad did not establish the religion of Islam in order to correct an age-old injustice for the same reason I stated earlier; why wasn't there a revolutionary Arab whom started Islam at an earlier point in history. The truth is that Muhammad tapped into Biblical history simply because it would give Islam the appearance of antiquity and would afford him the followers whom he desperately needed, and therefore he did was necessary. The reality of Islam is that Muhammad created it because 6th Century pagan Saudi Arabia was in desperate need of monotheism and an entire new political system, which Muslims treat as a validating reason for the establishment of Islam.

Now to those who prefer Biblical proofs over logical ones, Genesis 25:5 says, "Abraham gave all that he had to Isaac." Remember, if the Muslim tradition has no problem with the notion of one son getting more than the other, then it should have no problem with Isaac getting more than Ishmael, which is the truth. Have no fear! Genesis 9 says, "His (Abraham's) sons Isaac and Ishmael buried him in the cave of Machpelah, in the field of Ephron the son of Zohar the Hittite, facing Mamre." Further, all of the promises that G-d promised would happen with Ishmael to Hagar come true, and even further, the end of this Parsha (Chayei Sarah, the Life of Sarah), ends with the statement, "These were the years of Ishmael's life: a hundred and thirty-seven years, when he expired and died, and was gathered to his people." (Genesis 25:17). This is the same ending that all of the respected figures of the Torah receive, namely Abraham and all the other Patriarchs and Matriarchs.

1-Kings 8:41-43

I was driving and thinking about this and figured I'd run a concept or two here.

Imagine that a person speaks to an Orthodox Jew about G-d, religion, spirituality, how to relate to G-d, how to make the world G-dly, etc... Then the next week the same person goes to a religious Muslim and speaks to him about the same things and finds the answers to be consistent, even if that Jew and Muslim never met. What this means is that the Source of truth is present in both religious systems. This would be a "Kiddush Hashem" in Hebrew, or a "sanctification of G-d's Name," because it is upon the people who know that G-d is real to bring Word of Him into this world, and therefore His Presence.

Now imagine that the person got relatively inconsistent responses about the topics from both the Jews and the Muslim; this would be "Khilul Hashem," a desecration of G-d's Name, and takes G-d out of this world.

I am realizing more and more that as long as the general population of nations of the world, in all their uncontrollable variety, are covering the very basic laws of G-d, then humanity is on the right path. Jewish tradition (in Gensis) explains that this correct path for the nations of the world are the Noachide Laws and there are seven, although their application concludes to a bit more than that. Now it seems, and I don't know for sure if I am right or wrong yet, that any religion following them is a Noachide religion, i.e., it follows the Noachide Laws, the last of which is for them to set up their own courts to administer these laws. Islam seems to follow all of the Noachide Laws.

But this isn't just about Islam. It's about every religious and spiritual movement that clings to the truth of G-dliness (of which the original revelation is the Torah), i.e., every "nation" of people whom cling to that truth and make it the center of their being. I used to think that it was my duty to try to change the way they think, but what I see more and more is that as long as they believe in the One G-d and follow those seven commandments, it's OK. Rastafari's for example, believe in the Kingdom of David and cling to the Torah and G-d through him, believing that the 225th descendant of King Solomon and his (African) wife Sheba was the emperor of Ethiopia; Haile Selassie I . A problem with them is that they believe that Haile Selassie was G-d and the reincarnate of Jesus, but I would have to confirm that. In other words, variety shouldn't scare the believer, only idolatry (or any other violation of the Seven Laws of Noah).

This brings me to Judaism and Islam. Islam seems to fall into the category of a religion that follows all of the Noachide Laws (it even takes it upon itself to follow more, which I don't think is necessarily a problem). If for the sake of the argument we can consider Islam a Noachide religion (if indeed this is an accurate understanding on my part of the laws) if there is a problem with Islam it is only that it is a Noachide religion that does not accept that its predecessor religion (Judaism) has a role to play in the world. In other words, Islam sees the relationship between Judaism and Islam that either one or the other is right; it does not believe that both can be perfectly valid G-dly religions drawing from a common Source of G-dliness, i.e., G-d's Instruction.

I think that this creates an unnecessary (psychological) stress on Muslims because they feel it is their duty to bring Islam to the entire world. But if you look at Judaism for a second (and put aside the biases), believing Jews don't want the world to be Jewish, they want the world to be G-dly, i.e., adherents to G-d's Word - this allows for a harmony between the entire humanity with itself and between the entirety of humanity with G-d. It is a commonality rooted in specific G-d-given commandments but which allows for national variety. The "Mumbutus" of Africa can jump up and down and scream in their rituals as long as they are doing it to the One G-d (and following the Seven Laws of Noah). The stress caused between Islam and other peoples in the world (both religious and not) is that Islam believes that the only commonality in the world is Islam and nothing else.

Judaism believes that the commonality has its Source in something coming before Judaism (i.e., before the 613 commandments given to Moses); Islam believes that the commonality came as Islam, i.e., and not in the universal sense of the word (submission), but in the strict and narrow sense of an adherent to the religion of Islam. It seems to be that what Judaism calls "Noachide," Islam calls "Islam." In other words, and very loosely speaking, the Noachide Laws and "submission" are two different labels for the same thing, a common G-dly Law for the entire world. The only difference is that the Noachide Laws allow for the nations of the world to embroider the Seven Laws onto their societies in light of their cultural differences, while Islam demands the adoption of Islam as a religion. Most people would recognize this as a full-scale societal or political conversion to Islam. However, Islam uses the word "reversion," a clear indication that Islam, like Judaism, believes that there was a state beforehand, in "primeval" times, in which there was a G-d-based religious and spiritual commonality. Because there is One G-d, an absolute truth, there can (and can only) be separate manifestations of the Law of G-d as long as it is fully in line with those Laws. For there to be one Law is not the same as The One G-d and is the dangerous folly of man that leads to Hitlerian totalitarian regimes - this applies to Christiandom at certain historical points as well. This would explain the ideological and theological similarities between Hezba-llah warriors and Nazi's.

I wonder what Islam would look like if it laid to rest its insistencies that Judaism should bleed into Islam and in doing so become Islam. Judaism, obviously, lacks nothing - every theological concept in Judaism has its Muslim paralle - search if you want, you will find that nothing in Islam is original. Mind you, this is not an attack on Islam; it is the dream of every believing Jew that the world be turned to the Truth of G-d - Muslims, despite some serious problems, have done that especially well. The only problem, and this is the really annoying part, is Islam's interpretation of the narrative in the Torah which says that Isaac was the chosen son. The Torah says that Ishmael was chosen for his own specific purpose, a positive purpose in G-dliness, so the grievance that Muslims have towards the Torah and towards Judaism is baseless. I wonder what Islam would look like if it allowed Jews to take care of their religious observances in Jerusalem and to live in Israel without interference. That would be a great world and it is a possible one if only people made proper use of their free will.

King David, in 1 Kings 8:41-43 says, "Also a gentile who is not of your people Israel, but will come from a distant land, for Your Name's sake - for they will hear of Your great Name and Your strong hand and Your outstretched arm - and will come and pray toward this Temple - may Your hear from Heaven, the foundation of Your abode, and act according to all that the gentile calls out to You, so that all the peoples of the world may know Your Name, to fear You as [does] Your people Israel, and to know that Your Name is proclaimed upon this Temple that I have built."

It is one of the ironies of ironies that a memorial to intolerance was erected on top of the house of tolerance by those acting in the name of universality; is this not an insult to King David (whom Muslims label "Muslim")? The political strategy is to populate it as thoroughly as possible in order to make it impossible to be open to Jews. Is not an insult to G-d?

Discussion between a Friend and I

* This discussion is a segment of an e-mail between a friend and I. My friend was born a Protestant but later converted to Islam, and eventually found that he was more content with following a monotheistic spiritual tradition that functions on the truths found in all three monotheistic religions. In my e-mail I responded to only a few of his points, and perhaps I will post more of our conversations on this blog. The bold writing is his.

Enjoy...

****************************************

The Jews do not accept the Christian Bible, but the Christian accepts theirs and so any Bible you pick up has the Hebrew canon in it. The point is that Christians believe the Torah is null and void, and the Jews believe the Christians are insane for believing Jesus was the Messiah. Yet they behave as if they are the best of friends.

* We aren't at each others throats, but we don't act like we are best friends. 2,000 years of conflict teaches people how to get along, and when Islam came around (7th century) we've already had about 700 years of practice. There is a form of tolerance that we have learned towards each other, tolerance in the face of heavy theological disagreement. It's a pendulum, the ideal center of getting along is always missed by a little, sometimes it falls on one side and sometimes it falls on the other, but we reach some kind of average. For example, we've been quite content with drawing our own established lines of what it means to be a Jew and a Christian and not to fudge the theologies.

However, given the nature of Christianity, it always has the potential to want to cross over those lines and to make Judaism and Christianity seem like the same things, and for that reason, Judaism always has to have a steady response. When Jews get fed up with these attempts, it leads to spiritual warfare because we begin warding of Christianity, which involves showing why it's false. If Christianity wasn't in our face, then we would keep our ideas of its falsity to ourselves, but they when they bring their garbage to our front lawn and try to pull our kids over, we don't stay quiet. At other times, we realize that they are people that are trying to be G-dly in their own way, and as long as they understand that it's their way and can never be ours, then we'll let them be, and maybe even respect them. The result, a strange relationship between Jews and Christians, not always warm, but still unique. I myself periodically go from loathing Christianity to having a humble type of respect for it, and it goes back and forth in accordance with my personal experiences with Christians. With Muslims, for the time being, I either focus on Islam's potential, or I am severely discontented with it - that balance hasn't been found yet.

Muhammad was simply a messenger and a warner, just like Jesus was, although it is believed that Jesus is also the messenger anointed to return as Messiah, which makes sense to me being that Jesus is believed to be Messiah in the Muslim and Christian scripture, and the fact he is Jewish and lived according to the true Torah, will be the door for Jews to join in at that time. No other prophet can bridge all three "sons of Abraham" like that.

I see the logic, but I think that it's the vice versa. Rather than Jesus being a Jew opening up the way for us to accepting his messages, whatever they were, his being a Jew opens up the way for Christians (and maybe Muslims) to accepting the message of the Torah. As a Jew, I see Jesus as a small piece of what the Torah and Talmud are. The New Testament has him emphasizing certain points, lessons, and commandments from the Torah (such as love your neighbor), and it's fine when a Gentile decides to adhere to his teachings, but it's not fine when a Jew decides to do that because we are not free to pick or emphasize one mitzvah (commandment) over another, or in other words, we cannot take away from or add to the Torah, as the Torah itself says. Therefore, Jesus' words are not a New Testament at all, but a section of the Original Eternal Testament handed down to others. Also, this falls into the several-millennia old Jewish tradition of attempting to get others to see the truth of the Torah and G-d (as every great prophet did), and in that light, perhaps that is what Jesus was trying to do.

Now if we think about it, there is no reason for me to accept Jesus as anything, I don't even have any precedent to believe that he and he alone was saying these things. In fact, you can find many of the things that Jesus was saying in the Talmud, and since it would be false optimism (for Christians) to believe that somehow the compilers of the Talmud included Jesus' words because they agreed with them, it only makes sense that the stuff that he was saying was part of a pre-existent Jewish oral tradition that he just reiterated as well. So rather than highlighting Jesus as the source of those sayings, I should just go to the source, which is the Talmud, which is the oral tradition of the Torah, which came from the Source. These are realizations that don't necessarily affect Muslims.

Furthermore, Jesus' message and Jesus' death are theologically unrelated. If I concede that he said some things that made sense, it is still bizarre to believe that I have to believe in his death as atonement. If his words carry truth, does that mean that his death saved me from my sins? It is a bizarre idea and I'm fine living my life without it. So he was a sacrifice right? When a Jew brought a sacrifice, the animal never said anything of any import, the purpose of a sacrifice is the sacrifice, not the sounds (baaaah) that the animal makes. If Jesus wanted to change the world, he should have stayed alive and died an old man on his deathbed. Perhaps that is what Jesus preferred, afterall, he did cry out to G-d as he was being crucified wondering why He had forsaken him.

Another prophet can bridge all of us like that, and his name is Abraham, for one, then Moses, and then the prophets of the Prophets (Isaiah, Ezekiel, Amos, etc, who all came with stark moral, spiritual, and ethical demands). In fact, one can say that neither Jesus nor Muhammad were saying anything new, which I am aware is a position that both Christians and Muslims are willing to accept, under the condition that people concede that Jesus and Muhammad are respectively to be singled out as unique chosen and final prophets. For example, in my mind, I can accept the message of Muhammad as valid and right, and not have to become a Muslim. But Islam doens't work that way; it's "engineered" in a way that I cannot accept only part of Muhammad's words, but I must accept all of them, and if I do that, then I have to concede that my tradition (which is not really my tradition afterall, but G-d's) has been wrong or somehow faulty all along and therefore necessitates my becoming a Muslim. In other words, the Muslim view is that a Jew theoretically can be a Muslim by believing in G-d, but a Jew can't really be a submitter because the Torah doesn't carry the recipe for submission.

Furthermore, a fallacy is introduced. The Torah is submission, but the Jews have not followed its path, so then they must turn to the Q'uran, which is an entirely illogical expectation. The prophets in the Tanakh were not saying, "Since ya'll can't keep the Torah, it's time to keep a new book," they were saying, "Ya'll have messed up keeping the Torah, so do yourselves a favor and show G-d some love and go back to keeping the Torah." No Jew in his right mind would follow after a person who says to keep something else other than the Torah, no matter how nice, spiritual, insightful, and eloquent he is; the Torah specifically says not to follow after someone that does not speak in the Name of G-d (the Torah) and that false prophets are tests that need to be passed. Christians have adopted this verse and concept and used it to keep themselves from their own false prophets, but can it be that the contextual intent of the verse was to prevent the Jews from following after false prophets, which they interpreted as Jesus, and maybe Muhammad?

If Christians and Muslims don't want us referring to Jesus and Muhammad as false prophets, then they need to realize that they have to stop insisting that we follow after them. We have our prophets and Christians and Muslims can have theirs, we are not convinced of the universality of those prophets with regards to us. There is, however, reason to believe that those prophets were sent to them, and I personally am content with that, as I know that many other Jews are as well. The problems arise when they expect us (and demonize us) when we don't accept their prophets.

In the end, I truly think that Islam is confused about its own position on the Torah; is it valid or is it not? Is it from G-d or is it not? Is it imperfect or is it just that the Jews are imperfect? Was it corrupted by Jews or did Muhammad simply want to create a new system to replace the old - self election? Can there exist a system where Jews live by the Torah and Muslims live by the Q'uran, and it just be left at that? These are theological wrinkles in the proverbial tablecloth that will have to be ironed out - and they are the cause par excellence for conflict between Jews and Muslims. Every single suicide (homicide) bombing, etc... is a result of this.


*Feel free to leave a comment!*