yusuf ali on the taurat

I thought Yusuf Ali's essays on the Taurat and Injil seem like good starting places for Muslim reflection on the Bible. They are found in the appendices of his translation of the Quran. Please forgive any typographical errors. The page I got this from seems oddly edited.

APPENDIX II.

On the Taurat (see v. 47, n. 753)

The Taurat is frequently referred to in the Quran. It is well to have clear ideas as to what it exactly means. Vaguely we may say that it was the Jewish Scripture. It is mentioned with honour as having been, in its purity, a true revelation from God.

To translate it by the words "The Old Testament" is obviously wrong. The " Old Testament " is a Christian term, applied to a body of old Jewish records. The Protestants and the Roman Catholics are not agreed precisely as to the number of records to be included in the canon of the " Old Testament." They use the term in contradistinction to the " New Testament, " whose composition we shall discuss in Appendix III. 

Nor is it correct to translate Taurat as the " Pentateuch, " a Greek term meaning the " Five Books." These are the first five books of the Old Testament, known as Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. They contain a semi -historical and legendary narrative of the history of the world from the Creation to the time of the arrival of the Jews in the Promised Land. There are in them some beautiful idylls but there, are also stories of incest, fraud, cruelty, and treachery, not always disapproved. A great part of the Mosaic Law is embodied in this narrative. The books are traditionally ascribed to Moses, but it is certain that they were not written by Moses or in an age either contemporary with Moses or within an appreciable distance of time from Moses. They were in their present form probably compiled some type after the return of the Jews from the Babylonian Captivity. The decree of Cyrus permitting such return was in 536 B.C. Some books now included in the Old Testament, such as Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi were admittedly written after the return from the captivity, Malachi being as late as 420-397 B.C. The compilers of the Pentateuch of course used some ancient material: some of that material is actually named. Egyptian and Chaldsean terms are relics of local colour and contemporary documents.

But there are some ludicrous slips, which show that the compilers did not always understand their material. Modern criticism distinguishes two distinct sources among the documents of different dates used by the editors. For the sake of brevity and convenience they may be called (a) Jehovistic, and (b) Elohistic. Then there ate later miscellaneous interpolations. They sometimes overlap and sometimes contradict each other.

Logically speaking, the Book of Joshua, which describes the entry into the Promised Land, should be bracketed with the Pentateuch, and many writers speak of the six books together as the Hexateuch (Greek term for Six Books).

The Apocrypha contain certain Books which are not admitted as Canonical in the English Bible. But the early Christians received them as part of the Jewish Scriptures, and the Council of Trent (A.D. 1545-1563) seems to have recognised the  greater part of them as Canonical. The statement in 2 Esdras (about the first century A.D.) that the law was burnt and Ezra (say, about 458-457 B.C.) was inspired to rewrite it, is probably true as to the historical fact that the law was lost, and that what we have now is no earlier than the time of Ezra, and some of it a good deal later.

So far we have spoken of the Christian view of the Old Testament. What is the Jewish view? The Jews divide their Scripture into three parts- (1) the Law (Torah), \?A the Prophets (Nebiim), and (3) the Writings (Kethubim). The corresponding Arabic words would be : (1) Taurat, (2) Nabtyin, and (3) Kutub. This division was probably current in the time of Jesus. In Luke xxiv. 44 Jesus refers to the Law, the Prophets and the Psalms. In other places (e.?., Malt. vii. 12) Jesus refers to the Law and the Prophets as summing up the whole Scripture. In the Old Testament Book, II. Chronicles xxxiv. 30, the reference to the Book of the Covenant must be to the Torah or the original Law. This is interesting, as the Quran frequently refers to the Covenant with reference to the Jews. The modern Christian terms " Old Testament " and " New Testament " are substitutes for the older terms " Old Covenant " and " New Covenant." The Samaritans, who claim to be the real Children of Israel and disavow the Jews as schismatics from their Law of Moses, only recognise the Pentateuch, of which they have their own version slightly different from that in the Old Testament.

The view of the school of Higher Criticism is radically destructive. According to Renan it is doubtful whether Moses was not a myth. Two versions of Sacred History existed, different in language, style, and spirit, and they were combined together into a narrative in the reign of Hezekiah (B.C. 727-697). This forms the greater part of the Pentateuch as it exists to-day, excluding the greater part of Deuteronomy and Leviticus. In the reign of Josiah about 622 B.C., certain priests and scribes (with Jeremiah the prophet) promulgated a new code, pretending that they had found it in the Temple (II. Kings, xxii. 8). This Law {Torah— Taurat) was the basis of Judaism, the new religion then founded in Palestine. This was further completed by the sacerdotal and Levitical Torah, compiled under the inspiration of Ezekiel, say, about 575 B.C., and contained mainly in the Book of Leviticus, with scattered fragments in Exodus, Numbers, and Joshua. We are entitled to accept the general results of a scientific examination of documents, probabilities, and dates, even though we reject the premise which we believe to be false, viz., that God does not send inspired Books through inspired Prophets. We believe that Moses existed ; that he was an inspired man of God ; that he gave a message which was afterwards distorted or lost ; that attempts were made by Israel at various times to reconstruct that message ; and that the Taurat as we have it is (in view of the statement in 2 Esdras) no earlier than the middle of the fifth century B.C.

The primitive Torah must have been in old Hebrew, but there is no Hebrew manuscript of the Old Testament which can be dated with certainty earlier than 916 A.D. Hebrew ceased to be a spoken language with the Jews during or -after the Captivity, and by the time we come to the period of Jesus, most cultivated Hebrews used the Greek language, and others used Aramaic (including Syriac and Chaldee), Latin, or local dialects. There were also Arabic versions. For historical purposes the most important versions were the Greek version, known as the Septuagint, and fhe Latin version, known as the Vulgate. The Septuagint was supposed to have been prepared by 70 or 72 Jews (Latin, septuaginta=seventy) working independently and at different times, the earliest portion dating from about 284 B.C. This version was used by the Jews of Alexandria and the Hellenized Jews who were spread over all parts of the Roman Empire. The Vulgate was a Latin translation made by the celebrated Father of the Christian Church, St. Jerome, from Hebrew, early in the fifth century A.D., superseding the older Latin versions. Neither the Septuagint nor the Vulgate have an absolutely fixed or certain text. The present standard text of the Vulgate as accepted by the Roman Catholic Church was issued by Pope Clement VIII (A.D. 1592-1605). 

 It will be seen therefore that there is no standard text of the Old Testament in its Hebrew form. The versions differ from each other frequently in minor parti- culars and sometimes in important particulars. The Pentateuch itself is only a small portion of the Old Testament. It is in narrative form, and includes the laws and regulations associated with the name of Moses, but probably compiled and edited from elder sources by Ezra (or Esdras Arabic, 'Uzair) in the 5th century B.C. As Renan remarks in the preface to his History of the People of Israel, the " definite constitution of Judaism " may be dated only from the time of Ezra. The very early Christians were divided into two parties. One was a Judaizing party, which wished to remain in adherence to the Jewish laws and customs while recognising the mission of Jesus. The other, led by Paul, broke away from Jewish customs and traditions. Ultimately Pauline Christianity won. But both parties recognised the Old Testa- ment in its present form (in one or another of its varying versions) as Scripture. It was the merit of Islam that it pointed out that as scripture it was of no value, although it recognised Moses as an inspired apostle and his original Law as having validity in his period until it was superseded. In its criticism of the Jewish position it said in effect : " You have lost your original Law ; even what you have now as its substitute, you do not honestly follow ; is it not better, now that an inspired Teacher is living among you, that you should follow him rather than quibble over uncertain texts ? " 

 But the Jews in the Apostle's time (and since) went a great deal by the Talmud, or a body of oral exposition, reduced to writing in different Schools of doctors and learned men. " Talmud " in Hebrew is connected with the Arabic root in Talmlz, " disciple " or " student. " The Talmudists took the divergent texts of the Old Testament and in interpreting them by a mass of traditional commentary and legendary lore, evolved a standard body of teaching. The Talmudists are of special interest to us, as, in the sixth century A.D., just before the preaching of Islam, they evolved the Massorah, which may be regarded as the body of authorita- tive Jewish Hadlth, to which references are to be found in passages addressed to the Jews in the Quran. 

 The first part of the Talmud is called the Mishna,— a. collection of traditions and decisions prepared by the Rabbi Judah about 150 A.D. He summed up the results of a great mass of previous rabbinical writings. The Mishna is the " Second Law " : 285 ( Appendix it. Cf. the Arabic 77ja/i-m = second. " It bound heavy burdens, grievous to be borne, and laid them on men's shoulders " : Matt, xxiii. 4. 

There were also many Targums or paraphrases of the Law among the Jews. " Targum " is connected in root with the Arabic word Tarjama, "he translated." There were many Targums, mostly in Aramaic, and they constituted the teaching of the Law to the masses of the Jewish people. 

The correct translation of the Taurat is therefore " The Law. " In its original form it was promulgated by Moses, and is recognised in Islam as having been an inspired Book. But it was lost before Islam was preached. What passed as " The Law " with the Jews in the Apostle's time was the mass of traditional writing which I have tried to review in this Appendix. 

 Authorities: Encyclopaedia Brilannica, "Bible"; Helps to the Study of the Bible, Oxford University Press; A. F. Kirkpatrick, Divine Library of the Old Testament; C. E. Hammond, Outlines of Textual Criticism; E Renan, History of Israel; G. F. Moore. Literature of the Old Testament, and the bibliography therein (Home University Library); Sir Frederic Kenyon, The Story of the Bible, 1936 * * • * * 

what is the zabur?

وَرَبُّكَ أَعْلَمُ بِمَنْ فِي السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالْأَرْضِ ۗ وَلَقَدْ فَضَّلْنَا بَعْضَ النَّبِيِّينَ عَلَىٰ بَعْضٍ ۖ وَآتَيْنَا دَاوُودَ زَبُورًا 

And it is your Lord that knoweth best all beings that are in the heavens and on earth: We did bestow on some prophets more (and other) gifts than on others: and We gave to David (the gift of) the Psalms. (17:55)

I've been thinking about ways to respond to Christians who want to insist that the Quran is telling Muslims to essentially affirm the Bible as valid with little to no qualification or criticism. InshaAllah, I will make a series of posts containing some modest reflections on the subject. The current post is on the Zabur.

As we can see above, the Quran describes the Zabur as a revelation which was given to David (as). But as we will see, we cannot simplistically identify the Zabur with the book of Psalms in the Bible. First of all, by its own admission, only some of the Psalms in the Bible are attributed to David, while others are attributed to other people (Asaph, the sons of Korah, Solomon, Korah, Moses, Ethan the Ezrahite, Herman the Ezrahite, Haggai, Zechariah, Ezekiel and Jeremiah).

Secondly, most modern Biblical scholarship assigns very late dates to final completion of the Biblical book of Psalms. Parts of the book were not even written until after Solomon's Temple was destroyed and rebuilt. So the Biblical book was only arranged in its final form hundreds of years after David (as) lived. So even if there is a Davidic core, other layers of text have certainly been added to it.

And finally there seems to have been some significant variations in the text over the years. For example as part of the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls near Qumran, archeologists found The Great Psalms Scroll or 11Q5.

The reason this manuscript is of such great interest to scholars is due to its major deviance from the Masoretic Psalter. Its textual makeup is that of “apocryphal compositions interspersed with canonical psalms in a radically different order”. It contains approximately fifty compositions, forty of which are found in the Masoretic text. While some maintain the masoretic order, such as some of the Psalms of Ascent, others are scattered throughout in a different order.

11Q5 has generated a lot of interest in scholars due to its large difference from the Masoretic Psalter, “both in ordering of contents and in the presence of additional compositions.”[ It contains several compositions that are not present in the Masoretic Psalter of 150 hymns and prayers and therefore, “challenges traditional ideas concerning the shape and finalization of the book of Psalms.” There are eight non-Masoretic compositions with an additional prose composition that is not formatted like a psalm. Three highlighted compositions include “The Apostrophe to Zion”, “Plea for Deliverance”, and Psalm 151; in addition, the prose composition is researched to be known as “David’s Compositions.” While these are non-Masoretic, some of them, Psalm 151, was known in the Septuagint.

[...]

The additional prose composition is also known as David's Compositions. It references many Psalms associated with David, including 364 songs for each day of the year, conforming to calendars found in distinctively sectarian texts among the Dead Sea Scrolls. These songs were hymns attributed to King David, praising him for composing the Psalms, classifying the hymns and prayers he wrote. According to this list, David composed 3,600 psalms, 364 songs to be performed each day of the year during regular sacrifices, another 52 songs for the weekly Sabbath sacrifice, 30 songs for sacrifices of annual festivals and the new moon, and 4 songs for the sick. Therefore, 11Q5 concludes with the bold statement that David was an avid sage and hymnist, crafting upwards of 4,050 psalms.

In other words, the Dead Sea Scrolls seems to show at least one "book of Psalms" with a great number of non-trivial differences from the Masoretic Psalter found in the the Western Bible. Perhaps this is the true Zabur? Furthermore, if there are thousands of Psalms written by David, then perhaps those texts, not found in the Bible is where we might identify the Zabur of David to which the Quran refers.

Bottom line, while its certainly possible that the original Zabur of David overlap a great deal with the Biblical book of Psalms, it would be a mistake to claim the two were perfectly identical. Allahu alim.

"the oriental doesn't put the same high price on life as does a westerner"

Loonwatch: Jews and Christians Way More Likely than Muslims to Justify Killing Civilians

Loonwatch: Surveys Show Muslims in Every Country Less Likely to Justify Killing Civilians than Americans and Israelis

Why They Hate Us (II) by Stephen Walt

I don't really want to essentialize Jews and Christians in the way Muslims too often are, but I can't help but point out that given the genocides which were commanded in the book of Deuteronomy and put into vivid practice in the book of Joshua, it is clear that Bible believers can't take the position that genocide is always wrong and be consistent. Furthermore, in modern times, in spite of the moral restrictions of Catholic just war theory, it is clear through acts like the attacks on Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima and Nagasaki during WWII that even Christian/Western nations have reached a turning point in terms of following their own rules.

On a related note Defending the Transgressed: Mudafi' al-Mazlum by Shaykh Muhammad Afifi al-Akiti is a contemporary fatwa (from a traditional Shafii) against targeting civilians in warfare.

Blogger Muhammad Cohen shares a tongue-in-cheek reaction to the Breivik attacks in Norway which was Overheard at Ali’s Diner on Arab Street

For a bit of background on where the title of this post comes from, you can check out Common Dreams' The Westmoreland Mind-Set by Derrick Z. Jackson

silent but deadly

The title is meant as a tongue in cheek reference to the Florida legislature's odd entry in the apparent national race to pass anti-sharia legislation. Florida's anti-Sharia bill is unusual in that it actually makes no reference to the Sharia or Islam or Islamic concepts at all. Instead Florida's SB 1294 is about the "application of foreign law". And the bill's language goes on to explain that:

the term “foreign law, legal code, or system” means any law, legal code, or system of a jurisdiction outside any state or territory of the United States, including, but not limited to, international organizations or tribunals, and applied by that jurisdiction’s courts, administrative bodies, or other formal or informal tribunals.

And then the bill goes on to say that rulings, arbitration decisions, contractual obligations etc. based on foreign law can't be enforced:

if the law, legal code, or system chosen includes or incorporates any substantive or procedural law, as applied to the dispute at issue, which would not grant the parties the same fundamental liberties, rights, and privileges granted under the State Constitution and the Constitution of the United States.

The last part of the bill explains that it applies only to "natural persons" and "does not apply to a corporation, partnership, or other form of business association".

To be honest, I'm not absolutely certain how I feel about the bill since I don't have the legal training to determine exactly how it would be applied.

The bill seems limited to cases which have an international component, and if "sharia" is interpreted as "the legal system of this or that Muslim country" then I'm tempted to say "fine, I don't get my interpretations of the sharia from Iran / Saudi Arabia /Afghanistan etc. anyway." What I'm still unclear on is whether SB 1294 would also void out contracts and decisions involving U.S. citizen which are not based on foreign law per se (e.g. the laws of Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Iran, etc.) but are based on religious rulings (e.g. The Fiqh Council of North America, ones local imam, etc.)

Since the bill doesn't mention Islam at all, it will be interesting to see how it will be applied to Jewish arbitration bodies or cases where American law butts up against Israeli law and the laws of other non-Muslim countries (which is likely to be an issue in Florida generally, and Miami in particular).

A few Christians would be surprised to learn that the Bible itself also seems to have little faith in secular legal systems:

When one of you has a grievance against a brother, does he dare go to law before the unrighteous instead of the saints? Do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if the world is to be judged by you, are you incompetent to try trivial cases? Do you not know that we are to judge angels? How much more, matters pertaining to this life! If then you have such cases, why do you lay them before those who are least esteemed by the church? I say this to your shame. Can it be that there is no man among you wise enough to decide between members of the brotherhood, but brother goes to law against brother, and that before unbelievers?
(1 Corinthians 6:1-6)

And as a result, there are also Christian arbitration organizations which operate parallel to the US court system.

What I find most ironic is that it seems many of these anti-sharia efforts are backed by the Religious (Christian) Right while the same Religious Right are perfectly willing to impose their own opinions on abortion, homosexuality, US foreign policy (especially towards Israel) and social justice on the rest of the US population, even those who don't share their convictions. It raises the possibility that the anti-sharia movement might end up secularizing American society in ways that the Islamophobes would find constraining as well.

Past posts:
"lord i've really been real stressed/ down and out / losing ground..."
oklahoma and the sharia

Miami Herald: Republican lawmakers are taking aim at Islamic Sharia law, but they don’t specifically want to talk about it
Huffington Post: Florida State Lawmakers Push Bill That Would Ban Sharia Law

episcopal priest tries islamic rituals for lent

A few years back, Episcopalian bishop, Ann Holmes Redding declared that she was both Muslim and Christian. Now the Episcopal priest, Rev. Steve Lawler is trying to pray 5-times a day as a Muslim... for Lent. Especially as someone with more of an evangelical fundamentalist upbringing, I never stop being surprised at how liberal the more liberal ends of the Christian spectrum are.

islamicate: Episcopal cleric tries Islamic rituals for Lent

see also:
"i am both muslim and christian" (part 3)
"i am both muslim and christian" (part 2)
"i am both muslim and christian" (part 1)
robert karimi

a question about religion and film

I just saw Anthony Hopkins in The Rite last weekend. It was a halfway decent movie with its high points but after The Exorcist it is difficult for any exorcism-themed supernatural thriller to impress or cover new ground. (Although, Drag Me To Hell wasn't bad and the Angel episode I've Got You Under My Skin had a nice twist.)

It occurs to me that (even apart from the super-obvious examples like The Ten Commandments or The Passion of The Christ) there are plenty of Hollywood movies which assume that Christianity is basically true (Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, The Rapture, The Book of Eli, Left Behind). There are also a number of movies where Hinduism is true (Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, The Love Guru) and movies where Buddhism or other Eastern philosophies are true (The Golden Child, Little Buddha, a number of martial arts films). But I was hard pressed to come up with a movie where Islam was true. Apart from The Message, the only one I could think of was The Jewel of the Nile (which is actually full of your typical Arab stereotypes, but the "Jewel" of the title is an Egyptian Sufi with real powers.) Are there any others?

muslims/arabs and the spirit of mlk

From Al Ahram Online: Egypt's Muslims attend Coptic Christmas mass, serving as "human shields" provides a nice counter-narrative to the dominant image of Muslims in the Middle East which somehow seems especially appropriate for MLK day.

In a similar vein, there is the story of Budrus, a West Bank village where the Palestinians used non-violent protest in order to save their land from the Israeli government. (A documentary film about the protest, also called Budrus was recently made and is catalyzing a number of discussions).

The Huffington Post has a brief article about the effort in the article, Civil Resistance to Bring Down the Walls by Ayed Morrar who is primarily responsible for organizing the protests.

Riz Khan on Al-Jazeera leads a discussion with Ayed Morrar along with several of the producers behind the documentary:

Finally, another discussion about Budrus can be found at the Sons of Malcolm blog (which is actually where I learned about the film and the non-violent protests in the first place.

sherman jackson and cornel west at princeton

I've posted an excerpt from this exchange before, but here is the full two hour conversation between Sherman Abdul Hakim Jackson and Cornel West on the Problem of Black Suffering. The discussion ranged from: the distinction between suffering and struggle, how do we wrestle with invisible systems of domination, Islam as a way to empower individuals to master their nafs, metaphysical suffering, inner-cities as war zones, the dangers of pragmatism, America as an empire, the Inner City Muslim Action Network as an example of "prophetic" Islam, why is Sherman Jackson a Muslim and Cornel West a Christian, the multireligious nature of Muslim Spain, the split between political and religious authority, Obama, and the indigenization of Islam in America.

The catalyst for the event seems to be the publication of Jackson's book "Islam and the Problem of Black Suffering" (I haven't read it yet) which is apparently an attempt at an Islamic response to William R. Jones' work Is God a White Racist?

The Problem of Suffering: Muslim Theological Reflections is a nice general overview from Sherman Jackson which appeared in Huffington Post on a range of Muslim answers (Ashari, Maturidi, Mutazilite and "Traditionalist") to the problem of pain.

also see Examiner: Cornel West: "Maybe I should consider being Muslim..."

shariah: between two popes

Sharî'ah: Between Two Popes by Sherman Abdul-Hakim Jackson looks at some interesting differences in how the Catholic and Coptic popes approach the Shariah. Pope Benedict XVI, viewing the issue through the lens of modern Western notions of the state and assumes the shariah will impose a uniform law without any accommodation for religious difference. On the other hand, Pope Shanoudah, understanding that the shariah actually allows for religious minorities to govern themselves according to their own rules, actually appealed to the shariah in order to enforce Coptic principles on Coptic couples.

the king's torah and the roots (and branches) of jewish violence

What follows is mostly from Coteret with a few passages from Haaretz. But to make a long story short, Rabbis Yitzhak Shapira and Yosef Elitzur wrote a legal text called The King's Torah which discusses the circumstances, according to Jewish law, when it is permissible to kill non-Jews. The book is apparently a bestseller in Israel. Personally I don't find it all that shocking. Don't get me wrong, based on the excerpts, the book is definitely evil and racist and offensive. But it isn't particularly surprising. Even among mainstream rabbinic Judaism's traditional enumeration of the 613 commandments of the Torah you will find:

596. Destroy the seven Canaanite nations Deut. 20:17
597. Not to let any of them remain alive Deut. 20:16
598. Wipe out the descendants of Amalek Deut. 25:19
599. Remember what Amalek did to the Jewish people Deut. 25:17

The above-listed commandments from Deuteronomy are clearly genocidal. And in the book of Joshua one can read about how they were implemented by the armies of the children of Israel who went from city to city "killing everything that had breath" in the "Promised land". And as far as the Old Testament is concerned those laws are still valid. Do I think all Jews and Christians are genocidal maniacs? Of course not. Christians typically teach that Jesus (as) abrogated those commandments (although I would argue it is still problematic to accept God would reveal such commandments in the first place) while many Jews today find creative ways to read those texts non-violently (e.g. saying that the Canaanite nations don't exist in the present-day, treating Amalek as a metaphor for the evil inclinations inside of everyone). Although in Israel today you definitely have more hawkish voices (like Netanyahu) who rhetorically invoke the label of "Amalek" to refer to the enemy of the day (Saddam Hussein, Iran, the PLO, Hammas, etc.)

So while the authors of the King's Torah are clearly extremists, they generally don't seem to be disavowed by the rabbinical establishment which makes it hard not to conclude that the apple isn't falling very far from the tree.

Something else which should be mentioned is that apparently US taxpayer money is being used to help support Rabbi Shapira's organization which definitely needs to be fixed.


[modified article begins]

The marble-patterned, hardcover book embossed with gold Hebrew letters looks like any other religious commentary you'd find in an Orthodox Judaica bookstore - but reads like a rabbinic instruction manual outlining acceptable scenarios for killing non-Jewish babies, children and adults.

The prohibition 'Thou Shalt Not Murder' applies only "to a Jew who kills a Jew," write Rabbis Yitzhak Shapira and Yosef Elitzur of the West Bank settlement of Yitzhar. Non-Jews are "uncompassionate by nature" and attacks on them "curb their evil inclination," while babies and children of Israel's enemies may be killed since "it is clear that they will grow to harm us."

When is it permissible to kill non-Jews? The book Torat ha-Melekh [The King’s Teaching], which was just published, was written by Rabbi Yitzhak Shapira, the dean of the Od Yosef Hai yeshiva in the community of Yitzhar near Nablus, together with another rabbi from the yeshiva, Yossi Elitzur. The book contains no fewer than 230 pages on the laws concerning the killing of non-Jews, a kind of guide for anyone who ponders the question of if and when it is permissible to take the life of a non-Jew.

Although the book is not being distributed by the leading book companies, it has already received warm recommendations from right-wing elements, including recommendations from important rabbis such as Yitzhak Ginsburg, Dov Lior and Yaakov Yosef, that were printed at the beginning of the book. The book is being distributed via the Internet and through the yeshiva, and at this stage the introductory price is NIS 30 per copy. At the memorial ceremony that was held over the weekend in Jerusalem for Rabbi Meir Kahane, who was killed nineteen years ago, copies of the book were sold.

Throughout the book, the authors deal with in-depth theoretical questions in Jewish religious law regarding the killing of non-Jews. The words “Arabs” and “Palestinians” are not mentioned even indirectly, and the authors are careful to avoid making explicit statements in favor of an individual taking the law into his own hands. The book includes hundreds of sources from the Bible and religious law. The book includes quotes from Rabbi Abraham Isaac Kook, one of the fathers of religious Zionism, and from Rabbi Shaul Yisraeli, one of the deans of the Mercaz Harav Yeshiva, the stronghold of national-religious Zionism that is located in Jerusalem.

The book opens with a prohibition against killing non-Jews and justifies it, among other things, on the grounds of preventing hostility and any desecration of God’s name. But very quickly, the authors move from prohibition to permission, to the various dispensations for harming non-Jews, with the central reason being their obligation to uphold the seven Noahide laws, which every human being on earth must follow. Among these commandments are prohibitions on theft, bloodshed and idolatry. [The seven Noahide laws prohibit idolatry, murder, theft, illicit sexual relations, blasphemy and eating the flesh of a live animal, and require societies to institute just laws and law courts]

“When we approach a non-Jew who has violated the seven Noahide laws and kill him out of concern for upholding these seven laws, no prohibition has been violated,” states the book, which emphasizes that killing is forbidden unless it is done in obedience to a court ruling. But later on, the authors limit the prohibition, noting that it applies only to a “proper system that deals with non-Jews who violate the seven Noahide commandments.”

The book includes another conclusion that explains when a non-Jew may be killed even if he is not an enemy of the Jews. “In any situation in which a non-Jew’s presence endangers Jewish lives, the non-Jew may be killed even if he is a righteous Gentile and not at all guilty for the situation that has been created,” the authors state. “When a non-Jew assists a murderer of Jews and causes the death of one, he may be killed, and in any case where a non-Jew’s presence causes danger to Jews, the non-Jew may be killed.”

One of the dispensations for killing non-Jews, according to religious law, applies in a case of din rodef [the law of the “pursuer,” according to which one who is pursuing another with murderous intent may be killed extrajudicially] even when the pursuer is a civilian. “The dispensation applies even when the pursuer is not threatening to kill directly, but only indirectly,” the book states. “Even a civilian who assists combat fighters is considered a pursuer and may be killed. Anyone who assists the army of the wicked in any way is strengthening murderers and is considered a pursuer. A civilian who encourages the war gives the king and his soldiers the strength to continue. Therefore, any citizen of the state that opposes us who encourages the combat soldiers or expresses satisfaction over their actions is considered a pursuer and may be killed. Also, anyone who weakens our own state by word or similar action is considered a pursuer.”

Rabbis Shapira and Elitzur determine that children may also be harmed because they are “hindrances.” The rabbis write as follows: “Hindrances—babies are found many times in this situation. They block the way to rescue by their presence and do so completely by force. Nevertheless, they may be killed because their presence aids murder. There is justification for killing babies if it is clear that they will grow up to harm us, and in such a situation they may be harmed deliberately, and not only during combat with adults.”

In addition, the children of the leader may be harmed in order to apply pressure to him. If attacking the children of a wicked ruler will influence him not to behave wickedly, they may be harmed. “It is better to kill the pursuers than to kill others,” the authors state.

In a chapter entitled “Deliberate harm to innocents,” the book explains that war is directly mainly against the pursuers, but those who belong to the enemy nation are also considered the enemy because they are assisting murderers.

Retaliation also has a place and purpose in this book by Rabbis Shapira and Elitzur. “In order to defeat the enemy, we must behave toward them in a spirit of retaliation and measure for measure,” they state. “Retaliation is absolutely necessary in order to render such wickedness not worthwhile. Therefore, sometimes we do cruel deeds in order to create the proper balance of terror.”

In one of the footnotes, the two rabbis write in such a way that appears to permit individuals to act on their own, outside of any decision by the government or the army.

“A decision by the nation is not necessary to permit shedding the blood of the evil kingdom,” the rabbis write. “Even individuals from the nation being attacked may harm them.”

Unlike books of religious law that are published by yeshivas, this time the rabbis added a chapter containing the book’s conclusions. Each of the six chapters is summarized into main points of several lines, which state, among other things: “In religious law, we have found that non-Jews are generally suspected of shedding Jewish blood, and in war, this suspicion becomes a great deal stronger. One must consider killing even babies, who have not violated the seven Noahide laws, because of the future danger that will be caused if they are allowed to grow up to be as wicked as their parents.”

Even though the authors are careful, as stated, to use the term “non-Jews,” there are certainly those who could interpret the nationality of the “non-Jews” who are liable to endanger the Jewish people. This is strengthened by the leaflet “The Jewish Voice,” which is published on the Internet from Yitzhar, which comments on the book: “It is superfluous to note that nowhere in the book is it written that the statements are directly only to the ancient non-Jews.” The leaflet’s editors did not omit a stinging remark directed at the GSS, who will certainly take the trouble to get themselves a copy. “The editors suggest to the GSS that they award the prize for Israel’s security to the authors,” the leaflet states, “who gave the detectives the option of reading the summarized conclusions without any need for in-depth study of the entire book.”

One student of the Od Yosef Hai yeshiva in Yitzhar explained, from his point of view, where Rabbis Shapira and Elitzur got the courage to speak so freely on a subject such as the killing of non-Jews. “The rabbis aren’t afraid of prosecution because in that case, Maimonides [Rabbi Moses ben Maimon, 1135–1204] and Nahmanides [Rabbi Moses ben Nahman, 1194–1270] would have to stand trial too, and anyway, this is research on religious law,” the yeshiva student said. “In a Jewish state, nobody sits in jail for studying Torah.”

Coteret: Settler Rabbi publishes “The complete guide to killing non-Jews” — UPDATED
Haaretz: The King's Torah: a rabbinic text or a call to terror?
AlJazeera: The King's Torah
Pakalert Press: FALSE FLAG NUKE ATTACK ON U.S. JUSTIFIED….”KING’S TORAH”
Alternet: How to Kill Goyim and Influence People: Israeli Rabbis Defend Book's Shocking Religious Defense
of Killing Non-Jews (with Video)
MyJewishLearning: Genocide in the Torah: The existential threat of Amalek by Shmuly Yanklowitz
City of Brass: Iran as Amalek: Netanyahu pulls an Ahmadinejad

catholic church involved in terrorist cover-up

NPR: Cover-Up In 1972 North Ireland Bombing
The British government and the Roman Catholic church colluded to cover up the suspected involvement of a priest in a 1972 bombing that killed nine people and injured 30, a new report said Tuesday.

christian book touting manly aggression inspires violent fundamentalist meth trafficking cult

To be fair, John Eldredge, the author of the book Wild At Heart: Discovering the Secret of a Man’s Soul is probably not happy that his book has become required reading for a "a ruthless cultic Christian paramilitary fundamentalist crime syndicate that controls most of the Crystal Meth traffic in the US and is fond of tossing severed heads into Mexican discos". Furthermore, it isn't as if the meth gang (La Familia) had been selling Girl Scout cookies before Eldredge's book came out.

On the other hand, the book does say things like:

Aggression is part of the masculine design, we are hardwired for it. If we believe that man is made in the image of God, we would do well to remember that “the LORD is a warrior, the LORD is his name.” (Ex. 15:3)

and

The kingdom of heaven suffers violence,” Jesus said, and violent men take it by force.” (Matt 11:12 NASB) Is that a good thing or a bad thing ? Hopefully by now you see the deep and holy goodness of masculine aggression and that will help you understand what Christ is saying.

and

(quoting Tremper Longman, author of God is a Warrior) Virtually every book of the Bible–Old and New Testament–and almost every page tells us of God’s warring activity… what would Miss Manners have to say about taking the promised land ? Does wholesale slaughter fit under “Calling on Your New Neighbors.”

In a lot of ways Eldredge is a fairly mainstream evangelical who happens to be less apologetic than most about the patriarchal and martial aspects of the Bible. In any case, even apart from Eldredge's influence, the cartel also has ties to a Traditionalist Catholic community called New Jerusalem with its own history of latent sectarian violence which bubbles to the surface from time to time.

The Arizona Republic: Government, leader deaths reshape apocalyptic sect in Mexico
NarcoGuerraTimes: More on The Faith-Based Cartel
Alternet: Christian Book Touting Manly Aggression Inspires Violent Fundamentalist Meth Trafficking Cult

see also:
all terrorists are muslims... except the 94% that aren't
on joe (joseph) stack
claim that all terrorists are muslims ignores history
the murder of george tiller
thoughts on the hutaree

more on the ex-muslim industry

In the current political and cultural climate it has become lucrative for many individuals from Muslim backgrounds (and the corresponding cache, authenticity and authority which comes with that) to become critics of Islam and the Muslim world. Recently some of my fellow bloggers have commented on some recent events regarding the ex-Muslim industry.

Marc Manley over at the Manrilla blog, in his entry "Oh, if only I were Dust!" shares a clip of an interview of Ayaan Hirsi Ali by Tavis Smiley. In a refreshing change of pace, Tavis refused to endorse Ali's generalizations about Islam and counter-balanced her comments with violence carried by Christians in the West. To watch or read the transcript for the entire interview, click here.

The blog Islamicate also had a recent post simply titled: the ex-Muslim industry

Finally, following up on a post of mine, also entitled the ex-Muslim industry which focused on Ergun Caner, then Dean of Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary; Son of a Turkish father and Swedish mother, he converted to Christianity as a teenager and became a minister. But after 9/11 he rose to prominence by exaggerating the Muslim aspects of his biography. After a number of both Muslim and Christian bloggers were able to detail inconsistencies in his biography and the story was picked up by the mainstream press, Liberty University was moved to formally investigate the matter and the results were announced this Friday. Basically he lost his position as Dean but he will still be a Professor in the Fall.

I wonder if the fallout from this will affect his brother Emir Caner? Emir is currently President of Truett-McConnell (a Baptist school). I've seen clips of Emir and Ergun appearing together and telling a shared story backing one another up. But as the younger brother it is possible that he was less willing/able to embellish (he was definitely born and raised in Ohio so it was harder to talk about being raised in Turkey).

See also:
the trouble with irshad manji for a take on someone who taps into the same ex-muslim industry money while still asserting a muslim identity.

"i'm both muslim and christian" (part 3)

We've mentioned (the former Rev.) Ann Holmes Redding, the Episcopal priest who announced her conversion to Islam, before but here is a clip of her speaking in her own words.

The latest update in her story is that in April she has been officially defrocked by her bishop, so she is no longer an Episcopal priest. Also, she has co-authored the recently published book: "Out of Darkness Into Light: Spiritual Guidance in the Quran with Reflections from Christian and Jewish Sources.". Her co-authors are Jamal Rahman, a "Muslim Sufi minister at Interfaith Community Church" and Kathleen Schmitt Elias, "a former nun, now a Sufi Jew".

"i'm both muslim and christian" (part two)
"i'm both muslim and christian"

new crusades?

Some frightening pieces about the extent to which military policy under President Bush was shaped and informed by a particular reading of Biblical doctrine:

Alternet: Bush's Shocking Biblical Prophecy Emerges: God Wants to "Erase" Mid-East Enemies "Before a New Age Begins"
CommonDreams: War Room is No Place for Bible Study

see also:
onward christian soldiers
more on evangelicals at the air force academy

indiana jones and the kingdom of the crystal skull

So aparently my speculations about the upcoming Indiana Jones film back in indiana jones and the spear of destiny were totally off the mark. The new film will be called Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull and will center around crystal skulls which are a part of pre-Columbian culture rather than the Abrahamic tradition. It makes me wonder if across the various incarnations of the Indiana Jones stories; the movies, the television series, the novels (graphic and otherwise) etc. does the theology get any clearer? In the first and third films, we see Judeo-Christian relics which are clearly endowed with real power. But in second film, we see Hinduism-related artificats which are also "real". So will this fourth film help clarify the issue or will it make things more complex by throwing another pantheon into the mix? Or have things already been "mixed" in the other Indiana Jones stories?

see also
indiana jones and the temple of orientalism