(no subject)
Dec. 30th, 2003 10:14 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
taratemimaI do a thought experiment.
Two religions, two problematic words.
The word jihad and what does it mean to Muslims
The word Amalek and what does it mean to Jewish people
I decided to search within the categories, to try and see what the members of Islam and Judaism thought about the problematic words.
Searches within the category
http://search.yahoo.com/search/dir?p=jihad&y=n&e=261577&f=0%3A2766678%3A2718086%3A254845%3A259232%3A2701400%3A261577&r=Society+and+Culture%02Religion+and+Spirituality%02Faiths+and+Practices%02Islam
I am curious how over time these three levels of jihad came about. I wonder if some Sufi influence came about.
"Muslims understand these levels based not only on the words of Allah in the Qur'an, but also on the authentic statements of the Prophet Muhammad as recorded in our oral traditions, preserved as hadith," he says. According to 'Abdur-Rashid, there are three levels of jihad:
Personal Jihad: The most excellent jihad is that of the soul. This jihad, called the Jihadun-Nafs, is the intimate struggle to purify the soul of satanic influence--both subtle and overt. It is the struggle to cleanse one's spirit of sin. This is the most important level of jihad.
Verbal Jihad: On another occasion, the Prophet said, "The most excellent jihad is the speaking of truth in the face of a tyrant." He encouraged raising one's voice in the name of Allah on behalf of justice.
Physical Jihad: This is combat waged in defense of Muslims against oppression and transgression by the enemies of Allah, Islam and Muslims. We are commanded by Allah to lead peaceful lives and not transgress against anyone, but also to defend ourselves against oppression by "fighting against those who fight against us." This "jihad with the hand" is the aspect of jihad that has been so profoundly misunderstood in today's world.
There are papers not just on terrorism, but also religious lectures:
Jihad in the Qur'an and Sunnah, an article by Sheikh 'Abdullah bin Muhammad bin Humaid, ex-Chief Justice of Saudi Arabia, presenting Jihad in the light of Qur'an and Sunnah. It looks very long and I need some time to read it. Also Spiritual Significance of Jihad, an article by Seyeed Hossein Nasr.
Part of the reason why I am writing this: because some people are identifying Palestinians with Amalek, which reminds me of certain folks identifying jihad with such acts as bombing Turkish buildings and driving planes into towers:
http://www.ortzion.org/Amalek.html. Concerning that, in the creepiest of ironies, I got a listing for Palestinian Islamic Jihad. You can find it quickly enough, I will wait until I read it.
http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=Amalek&ei=UTF-8&n=20&fl=0
With Judaism, I had to remove the restriction of being within the Judaism category. It is a grab-bag of Talmudic reasoning with connections to Purim, specifically Haman, with some connection to Nazi Germany) and Messianic screeching (okay, my bias are there, but as someone who rolls her eyes at "OMG the Israelis are going to exterminate the Palestinians" freakout, rhetoric about 'blotting out their name' in the light of all that death still is creepy).
Most of it focuses on the traits of the Amalekites: they went out of their way to attack the travelling Hebrews, even when they weren't threatened by them. They are identified as "attacking the weakest people trailing behind" (Deut. 25:18).
One book took Amalek to mean this:
"Battling against the kelipah [meaning the forces of unholiness] of Amalek by means of the Divine spark within one's soul and by means of one's conscious faculties brings about[9] "G-d's battle against Amalek from generation to generation," a phrase which the Targum relates to the generation of Mashiach. It brings about the time at which[10] "[G-d] has set a limit to darkness" - with the imminent coming of Mashiach."
Then there is another take on Amalek, one that I committed too many times:
"Humor is not the same as mockery. The Gemara says that except for mockery of 'avoda zara', idol worship, all mockery is assur, is forbidden. Rabbi Yitzchak Hutner explains that the idea behind mockery is stripping away the value of something important. Avoda zara is the opposite, giving meaning to something worthless. Thus mocking avoda zara restores it to its proper place.
And what does it mean that it is "assur?" The word is generically translated as "forbidden", but in fact means "shackled." Every morning in brachot we refer to G-d as "matir assurim," who "frees the shackled." From a kabalistic perspective, when something is assur, it is shackled to the dark side, shackled to evil. [...]
Along came Amelek, and said "G-d's relationship with Israel, G-d's active role in the world, holiness, they're no big deal." Amalek attacked Israel, physically and spiritually; their self-appointed role was to chill Israel's fervor for all that is significant. Amalek tried to strip away the value of everything that is important. According to Rabbi Zalman Sorotskin, they wanted to keep Bnai Yisrael from receiving the Torah at Mount Sinai. Our Sages consider Amalek to be the ultimate in mockery, the ultimate "letz." We are commanded to remember what Amalek did to us, and to eradicate them from amongst us."
Believing only in your own strength is also of Amalek:
"A person's whole life may be centered on positioning himself so that he only benefits from life, and is spared the suffering nature casts upon others. If a person does live such a life, he is enslaved to nature. He has fallen into the trap that the Rambam describes: if a person writes off the possibility of divine intervention, and believes wholly in himself, he will cling to his evil ways. G-d will act with him accordingly. "
Note among the examples I gave, the 'blotting out' means not to act like Amalekites. In the earlier link and this one, they are referring to actual physical warfare, perhaps even death.
There is even a mention of a lecture on the subject by RJ Rushdoony, the father of Christian Reconstructionism. Hmmm, he seems to consider anyone not Christian Reconstructionist descendants of Amalek:
Again, violence is begotten by false teachings which, in the name of God, deny God. Thus, in 1968, in a women's Bible study group, ostensibly "fundamental" and strongly Arminian, this statement was made and accepted with almost no dissent: "Human needs come before God's law." This is an incitement to break the law, for there is not a law of God which cannot be contradicted by human need. When churchmen make such assertions, the world has no need for the Marquis de Sade or the Marxists to have violence: it is a historical inevitability that "human needs" will violently assail God's law-order.
To return to the law, as stated in Numbers 15:30,31, in the Torah Version:
But the person, be he citizen or stranger, who acts defiantly reviles the LORD; that person shall be cut off from among the people. Because he has spurned the word of the LORD and violated His commandment, that person shall be cut off--he bears his guilt.
That more than excommunication is meant by this is apparent from Deuteronomy 17:12, 13, where the capital penalty, death, is required for this "proud self-assertion against the law." To defy the law and treat it with contempt, to place oneself above the laws of God and man, is to be at total war with God and man, and the penalty is death. [7]
There are two ways of looking at these two words: as a call to repentence or call to war. I am writing this because there is the persistent question asked of both religions: "How can you claim to be good people when you have such a cruel and violent history that some of your fanatics want a return to?" The cynical simply assume that the fanatics are right and those who talk of mercy are liars (and you can find Little Green Footballs on your own to illustrate that last part). I need to do more reading before I can give some of an answer.
Your thoughts?
Two religions, two problematic words.
The word jihad and what does it mean to Muslims
The word Amalek and what does it mean to Jewish people
I decided to search within the categories, to try and see what the members of Islam and Judaism thought about the problematic words.
Searches within the category
http://search.yahoo.com/search/dir?p=jihad&y=n&e=261577&f=0%3A2766678%3A2718086%3A254845%3A259232%3A2701400%3A261577&r=Society+and+Culture%02Religion+and+Spirituality%02Faiths+and+Practices%02Islam
I am curious how over time these three levels of jihad came about. I wonder if some Sufi influence came about.
"Muslims understand these levels based not only on the words of Allah in the Qur'an, but also on the authentic statements of the Prophet Muhammad as recorded in our oral traditions, preserved as hadith," he says. According to 'Abdur-Rashid, there are three levels of jihad:
Personal Jihad: The most excellent jihad is that of the soul. This jihad, called the Jihadun-Nafs, is the intimate struggle to purify the soul of satanic influence--both subtle and overt. It is the struggle to cleanse one's spirit of sin. This is the most important level of jihad.
Verbal Jihad: On another occasion, the Prophet said, "The most excellent jihad is the speaking of truth in the face of a tyrant." He encouraged raising one's voice in the name of Allah on behalf of justice.
Physical Jihad: This is combat waged in defense of Muslims against oppression and transgression by the enemies of Allah, Islam and Muslims. We are commanded by Allah to lead peaceful lives and not transgress against anyone, but also to defend ourselves against oppression by "fighting against those who fight against us." This "jihad with the hand" is the aspect of jihad that has been so profoundly misunderstood in today's world.
There are papers not just on terrorism, but also religious lectures:
Jihad in the Qur'an and Sunnah, an article by Sheikh 'Abdullah bin Muhammad bin Humaid, ex-Chief Justice of Saudi Arabia, presenting Jihad in the light of Qur'an and Sunnah. It looks very long and I need some time to read it. Also Spiritual Significance of Jihad, an article by Seyeed Hossein Nasr.
Part of the reason why I am writing this: because some people are identifying Palestinians with Amalek, which reminds me of certain folks identifying jihad with such acts as bombing Turkish buildings and driving planes into towers:
http://www.ortzion.org/Amalek.html. Concerning that, in the creepiest of ironies, I got a listing for Palestinian Islamic Jihad. You can find it quickly enough, I will wait until I read it.
http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=Amalek&ei=UTF-8&n=20&fl=0
With Judaism, I had to remove the restriction of being within the Judaism category. It is a grab-bag of Talmudic reasoning with connections to Purim, specifically Haman, with some connection to Nazi Germany) and Messianic screeching (okay, my bias are there, but as someone who rolls her eyes at "OMG the Israelis are going to exterminate the Palestinians" freakout, rhetoric about 'blotting out their name' in the light of all that death still is creepy).
Most of it focuses on the traits of the Amalekites: they went out of their way to attack the travelling Hebrews, even when they weren't threatened by them. They are identified as "attacking the weakest people trailing behind" (Deut. 25:18).
One book took Amalek to mean this:
"Battling against the kelipah [meaning the forces of unholiness] of Amalek by means of the Divine spark within one's soul and by means of one's conscious faculties brings about[9] "G-d's battle against Amalek from generation to generation," a phrase which the Targum relates to the generation of Mashiach. It brings about the time at which[10] "[G-d] has set a limit to darkness" - with the imminent coming of Mashiach."
Then there is another take on Amalek, one that I committed too many times:
"Humor is not the same as mockery. The Gemara says that except for mockery of 'avoda zara', idol worship, all mockery is assur, is forbidden. Rabbi Yitzchak Hutner explains that the idea behind mockery is stripping away the value of something important. Avoda zara is the opposite, giving meaning to something worthless. Thus mocking avoda zara restores it to its proper place.
And what does it mean that it is "assur?" The word is generically translated as "forbidden", but in fact means "shackled." Every morning in brachot we refer to G-d as "matir assurim," who "frees the shackled." From a kabalistic perspective, when something is assur, it is shackled to the dark side, shackled to evil. [...]
Along came Amelek, and said "G-d's relationship with Israel, G-d's active role in the world, holiness, they're no big deal." Amalek attacked Israel, physically and spiritually; their self-appointed role was to chill Israel's fervor for all that is significant. Amalek tried to strip away the value of everything that is important. According to Rabbi Zalman Sorotskin, they wanted to keep Bnai Yisrael from receiving the Torah at Mount Sinai. Our Sages consider Amalek to be the ultimate in mockery, the ultimate "letz." We are commanded to remember what Amalek did to us, and to eradicate them from amongst us."
Believing only in your own strength is also of Amalek:
"A person's whole life may be centered on positioning himself so that he only benefits from life, and is spared the suffering nature casts upon others. If a person does live such a life, he is enslaved to nature. He has fallen into the trap that the Rambam describes: if a person writes off the possibility of divine intervention, and believes wholly in himself, he will cling to his evil ways. G-d will act with him accordingly. "
Note among the examples I gave, the 'blotting out' means not to act like Amalekites. In the earlier link and this one, they are referring to actual physical warfare, perhaps even death.
There is even a mention of a lecture on the subject by RJ Rushdoony, the father of Christian Reconstructionism. Hmmm, he seems to consider anyone not Christian Reconstructionist descendants of Amalek:
Again, violence is begotten by false teachings which, in the name of God, deny God. Thus, in 1968, in a women's Bible study group, ostensibly "fundamental" and strongly Arminian, this statement was made and accepted with almost no dissent: "Human needs come before God's law." This is an incitement to break the law, for there is not a law of God which cannot be contradicted by human need. When churchmen make such assertions, the world has no need for the Marquis de Sade or the Marxists to have violence: it is a historical inevitability that "human needs" will violently assail God's law-order.
To return to the law, as stated in Numbers 15:30,31, in the Torah Version:
But the person, be he citizen or stranger, who acts defiantly reviles the LORD; that person shall be cut off from among the people. Because he has spurned the word of the LORD and violated His commandment, that person shall be cut off--he bears his guilt.
That more than excommunication is meant by this is apparent from Deuteronomy 17:12, 13, where the capital penalty, death, is required for this "proud self-assertion against the law." To defy the law and treat it with contempt, to place oneself above the laws of God and man, is to be at total war with God and man, and the penalty is death. [7]
There are two ways of looking at these two words: as a call to repentence or call to war. I am writing this because there is the persistent question asked of both religions: "How can you claim to be good people when you have such a cruel and violent history that some of your fanatics want a return to?" The cynical simply assume that the fanatics are right and those who talk of mercy are liars (and you can find Little Green Footballs on your own to illustrate that last part). I need to do more reading before I can give some of an answer.
Your thoughts?
