Dear Kenneth
This matter is too important to be treated casually. It is the very
basis of the Covenant between God and Israel
The first paragraph of the Stone Chumash notes on Genesis reads thus:
" We begin the study of the Torah with the realisation that the Torah
is not a history book, but the charter of man's mission in the
universe. Thus, in his very first comment, Rashi cites Rav Yitzchak
who says that since the Torah is primarily a book of laws , it
should have begun with the commandment of the New Moon ( Exodus 12:
2) , the first law that was addressed to all Jewry as a nation. He
explains that the reason for the Torah's narrative of creation is to
establish that God is the sovereign of the universe. " He declared
to His people the power of His works in order to give them the
heritage of the nations." (Psalm 111.6) If the nations accuse
Israel of banditry for seizing the lands of the seven nations of
Canaan, Israel can respond, " The entire universe belongs to God. He
created it and He granted it to whomever He deemed fit. It was His
desire to give it to them and then it was His desire to take it
from them and give it to us."
As the bard sings,
"Well, the Book of Leviticus and Deuteronomy
The law of the jungle and the sea are your only teachers"
Your quest to bring peace on earth and goodwill to all men is
understandable, even admirable, not just in connection with this issue
but in connection with other human rights issues that you are engaged
in, in and out of this USA- Africa dialogue series.
Just for the record, truth being irreconcilable with falsehood, I also
much appreciate the uncompromising and humane interpretation of what
all Torah Scholars hold to be true: that Sarah's son Yitzhak and
Hagar's son were brothers and that love for their father and their
father's love for them is what, as you say, brings them "together on
the burial of their father."
http://www.google.se/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=Genesis+22%3A1-24
http://www.google.se/search?aq=f&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=the+Akeidah
" Genesis 22 : 1 - 2 :
"And it happened after these things that God tested Abraham and said
to him, "Abraham", and he replied , " Here I am."
And He said, " Please take your son, your only one, whom you love –
Isaac – and go to the land of Moriah ; bring him up there as an
offering upon one of the mountains which I shall tell you."
Note: "Your son" - God did not immediately reveal to Abraham, the
clear identity of the intended offering. The Talmud records the
conversation as follows:
" God said, " Take your son"
"But I have two sons. Which should I take?"
"Your only one!"
"But each of them is the only son of his mother."
"Whom you love", God answered.
"But I love them both."
"I mean Isaac," God replied.
There are two reasons why God did not say directly, " Take Isaac".
Firstly, He wanted to avoid giving a sudden command, lest Abraham be
accused of complying in a state of disoriented confusion. (This is
also a reason for having him travel for three days of reflection
before carrying out the injunction.) Additionally, the slow unfolding
of the offering's identity was to make the commandment more precious
to Abraham, by arousing his curiosity and rewarding him for complying
with every word of the command." (Sanhedrin 89b; Rashi)
The Akeidah (Genesis 22:1-24) is so important that it is recited in
each morning prayer. It also delineates and accentuates the
everlasting difference between Yitzhak the son of Abraham's wife Sarah
and - Ishmael his older brother, the son of Sarah's maidservant
Hagar who later became Abraham's concubine Hagar and begat Ishmael. In
the Akeidah, it is suggested that Eliezer and Ishmael are the two men
that Abraham leaves behind "with the donkeys" (Genesis 22.4- 5 ) :
" On the third day, Abraham looked up and perceived the place from
afar. And Abraham said to his young men, " Stay here by yourselves
with the donkey, while I and the lad will go yonder; we will
prostrate ourselves and we will return to you."
" And perceived the place from afar " : Note: " Abraham saw a cloud
hovering over the mountain and recognised it as signifying God's
presence (Pirkei D'Rabbi Eliezer). He said, " Isaac , my son, do you
see what I see?"
"Yes, " said Isaac, and Abraham understood that Isaac had the degree
of spiritual insight that made him worthy to be an offering.
He then turned to the two attendants and asked, "Do you see what I
see?" They did not . Noting this, Abraham put them in the same
category as his donkey( next verse) and said, in effect, " The donkey
sees nothing and you see nothing, therefore stay here with the
donkey."
The differences in the character of Yitzhak and Ishmael - according
to the Bible - is in essence what separates the lineages of the Jews
on the one hand descended from Abraham through Yitzhak and Jacob,
Sarah, Rebekah, Leah and Rachel; - and some of the Arabs descended
through the common ancestor Abraham , via Ishmael.
And there is the irreconcilable rift between the Torah and the Quran
which insists that it was not Sarah's Yitzhak but Ishmael the son of
the Egyptian maidservant Hagar that was going to be sacrificed -
Ishmael and not Sarah's Yitzhak - ( although Yitzhak means " She
laughed" - when she was told she was going to have a baby - at the
age of 90 years (when Abraham was 100 years old) and she passed away
at the point at which she heard the false news that her husband
Abraham had sacrificed her only son....)
And that is what the Muslims' Eid al- Adha is all about.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eid_al-Adha
So, whilst you may be busy, uprightly proposing your new hermeneutic
for the reading of all scripture/s " that takes us past the surface of
the text." (and I'm happy to say that all my reading has always been
"past the surface of the text") whilst still at it you could seize the
time and sell that idea not to Allamah Tabatabai - he is far past all
talk of the redemption, but you could sell the idea to Nigeria's Boko
Haram (if they will ever deign to listen to the likes of you) and try
selling it to the Taliban, the Ikhwan al-Muslimin, to Hamas, to Fatah,
to Iran's president Ah-mad-inejad, to Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, al-
Aqsa Martyrs Brigade and to Ahimsa India versus al-Qaeda's Taliban
Pakistan on the Battlefield of Kurukshetra to solve the Kashmir
problem. Line them all up and ask them to lay down their weapons
before the Last Day & da final battle of Armageddon - and you could
ask all a-them to say "Amen" when you come to the end/bottom line of
your teaching, if it so please you. Should you succeed - and a Jew
never loses hope – apart from the Nobel Peace Prize Committee in Oslo
there is many an academic institution outside of the WWW that would be
standing in line to award honorary accolades, to the marvellous
messianic messenger Kenneth Harrow whose new exegesis will reduce the
dichotomy between " us and them "
Your fine words can turn out to be better and more long-lasting than
laser-guided missiles, Apache helicopters and bombs and may even
replace them or a need for them.
Tell them that the life of Muhammad and the Qur'an and all therein,
and all of Islamic history, the Battle of Khaybar etc. can be read as
an internal allegory and that they should upgrade their muscles and
develop from performing the little jihad to preparing for the bigger
battle against their individual and collective nafs so that there will
be peace on earth....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g8RjjeN1H9M
The Islamic position is based on the policy of dar al-Harb / Dar – al-
Islam. Article 11 of the Hamas charter is predicated on that. Of
course, hopefully, they will abrogate that charter, but I doubt it –
and of course although they cannot abrogate the contents of the Quran
they could conceivably adopt your methodology in the reading of
it......and interpreting it......
You say that
"everyone who
cares about a religion, would begin with the premise that all
authoritative texts and commentaries be considered only on the level
of
a figurative reading, and not a literal reading. the literal readings
are what divide us into "us" and "them.."
You could sell the idea - the idea of the new reading to Hamas, who
say that all of Israel ( God forbid) is theirs and that they are not
gonna budge from that position ( Article 11) until "The day of
resurrection"/ Judgement Day ...
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/hamas.asp
To Hamas & Co , we could also infiltrate some of the seminal ideas of
Arthur Green ( really not my cup of tea)
http://www.google.com/search?q=arthur+green+%28+Judaism&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&lr=lang_en
All I know about him is that I went through his "Seek My Face: A
Jewish Mystical Theology." , in 2003. It was intriguing, but I was not
impressed. Ditto his Radical Judaism: Rethinking God & Tradition,
2010.
He was in Stockholm some years ago, but I did not even bother to waste
my time ( my ear time) listening to that kind of prattle. ( As the
Qur'an says to its adherents, Surah Al-Annam, Ayat 91
"Say "Allah" and leave them to their babble!"
No matter how you read this, the Qur'an too "confirms" it : ISRAEL
belongs to THE JEWS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I should hope that at least some of the above makes sense without the
support of those links which are meant to share information.
Over the weekend I read Jonathan Cook's slightly dated ( 2008 ) "
Israel and the Clash of Civilisations" and wish that I could share
that too, especially,chapter 4 ( pages 116 – 149) of my paperback
edition....
PS 2. In referring to King Saul's weakness I meant I Samuel 15:9 :
" Saul, as well as as the people , took pity on Agag , on the best of
the sheep , the cattle, the fatted bulls, the fatted sheep, and on all
that was good ; and they were not willing to destroy them ; but the
inferior and wretched livestock, that they did destroy."
http://www.jewishhistory.org/saul-the-first-king/
http://www.google.com/search?source=ig&hl=en&rlz=&q=King+Saul&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=
On Jul 23, 7:12 pm, kenneth harrow <har...@msu.edu> wrote:
> dear cornelius
> why should the state of israel and its biblical borders, whatever they
> were, be the property of israel any more than the temple mount, haram
> ash sharif, should belong to the muslims or the arabs, or the berbers.
> why should new york belong to the white people who bought it.
> why should any claims for original owners to lands be valid?
> what, in fact, makes claims to any territory valid?
> your answer to me is that of the jewish bible, what others call the old
> testament. that old thing. why accept one part of it, and not the laws
> that have us kill our children for disobedience, or any of dozens of
> passages you could cite that we "nowadays" do not accept.
> so, to cut to the chase--
> i would wish that you, that others on the list, and that everyone who
> cares about a religion, would begin with the premise that all
> authoritative texts and commentaries be considered only on the level of
> a figurative reading, and not a literal reading. the literal readings
> are what divide us into "us" and "them," and in every religion i know,
> which is, in fact, all the major world religions, each one explains to
> its adherents why it is not only right, and others wrong, but it is
> better, and often worth killing others for.
> if that is the price for religion and belief, it should be ended.
> fortunately, the bagavad gita tells us krishna's battles were for those
> interior impulses against which he had to struggle; fortunately jihad
> can be read as the internal struggle; fortunately, the meaning of every
> single word in the torah can be read upside down and inside out in 45
> different ways, on wednesday alone.
> otherwise, we are all isaac, doomed to the silence of the victims of
> god's whimsical tests, and ismael doomed to mourn his father's
> pusillanimous acquiescence to his first wife's jealousy.
>
> there is only one acceptable reading of the bible: the one that brings
> ismael and isaac together on the burial of their father. it is the same
> reading that sembene gave to the senegalese christians and muslims on
> the death of the hero, guelwaar: we all shed our blood on the
> circumcision stone, we are one people.
> whatever you quote from jewish texts to validate claims to the land are
> equally valid for everyone else. to understand that is the beginning of
> any textual reading that takes us past the surface of the text.
> in any event, we teach our children about the meaning of the passover
> every year; the meaning is, the egyptian children are also our own
> i don't recall kng saul giving us that reading. i'd look more to isaac.
> ken
>
> On 7/23/11 3:51 PM, Cornelius Hamelberg wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > amended:
>
> > Dear Kenneth,
>
> > Shabbat Shalom!
>
> > Israel, the Almighty's gift to His people and to mankind is the heart
> > and soul of Jewish existence.
>
> > Approximately six million Jews live in Israel today.
> >http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/jewpop.html
>
> >http://www.google.com/search?q=the+land+of+israel&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&l...
>
> > Do you not say,
>
> > "If I forget thee, O Jerusalem, let my right hand forget her cunning.
> > If I do not remember thee, let my tongue cleave to the roof of my
> > mouth; if I prefer not Jerusalem above my chief joy."
> > ?
> >http://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/16358
>
> > I am regularly updated almost on a weekly basis by friends who come
> > and go, about the true state of affairs in the Holy Land even about
> > Palestinian suffering updated by Palestinians and friends of
> > Palestinians.
>
> > Some of your kind words, kindly intended, turn out to be not so kind.
> > Your insistence that you do not believe the survival of jews depends
> > on the existence of israel must sound like music to Ah-mad-inejad's
> > ears and contribute to his justification in wanting to (Heaven forbid)
> > wipe out Israel from earthly existence.
>
> > You keep on insisting that you are a jew who had once
> > considered israel necessary to the survival of the jewish people, but
> > no
> > longer does.
>
> > Conversely, do you sincerely believe that the survival of the Arabs
> > depends on their sovereignty over Judea and Samaria, the so called
> > West Bank ? Conversely, you could argue that you do not believe that
> > the existence of Iran is necessary for the survival of the Iranian
> > people. Or the existence of Saudi Arabia or Mecca is not necessary for
> > the survival of the Saudi Arabians or of Islam.
>
> > The Arabs already have twenty two ( 22) states and some of them are
> > hell-bent on erecting their twenty-third ( 23rd) state on the remains
> > of Israel if they could have their way, and you think that that's
> > OK? Shame on such wishful thinking!
>
> > Fortunately for all of us, you are still an ethical Jew, perhaps
> > suffering from an excess of Chesed which can be dangerous ....but who
> > am I to castigate King Saul in this late day and age, for his excess
> > of lovingkindnesss and a deficit in necessary hardness against the
> > enemy - when for Israel today it is still a question of stand firm
> > or you're gonna feed worm ?
>
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k6fvex8kr58
>
> > Sure Pikuach Nefesh is an ethical and pragmatic Jewish value to be
> > adhered to - not that it should jeopardise the nation's future.
>
> > And what do you propose then, that the Temple be rebuilt on Ground
> > Zero, in New York City?
>
> > In my humble opinion, no Jew or Non- Jew should play with Israel's
> > existence and what is in the air is the problem of defensible
> > borders - the very existence of the state of Israel is at stake and
> > it is painful to hear anyone even Ahmadinejad - joking about
> > Israel's existence, survival, future.
>
> >http://www.google.com/search?q=Israel+and+defensible+borders&ie=utf-8...
>
> > Please pay more attention to the problem of defensible borders and
> > please keep in mind that according to the Chafetz Chayim, out of the
> > 613 mitvoth, only 77 positive mitzvoth and 194 negative mitzvoth can
> > be observed outside of Israel today...
>
> > On Jul 22, 10:27 pm, kenneth harrow<har...@msu.edu> wrote:
> >> dear cornelius, and others,
> >> there is a lot here, too much to respond in detail, which is beyond my
> >> capacities and knowledge. i know something about israel, not as much as
> >> real experts. but i have had a stake in this knowledge, whatever that
> >> counts for.
> >> i do not believe the survival of jews depends on the existence of
> >> israel, as i did believe when i was younger. i certainly do not believe
> >> whatever israeli politicians decide is good is necessarily good.
> >> dear cornelius, i don't know quite how to make this soft, but the
> >> conditions of the occupation in gaza are unacceptable. you can find
> >> rightwing israeli or american jews who deny that; that doesn't change
> >> anything.
> >> are some palestinains fighting back, and saying hateful things about
> >> jews? of course. does that mean hamas and fatah won't make peace, or
> >> even that they are the same? i do not believe so.
> >> this is the bottom line for me, and it is a line that separates me from
> >> pius, partly, in viewing the question of jewish rights to a presence in
> >> israel. much of this slight historical knowledge comes from tom segev's
> >> One Palestine Complete.
> >> the jews and arabs came to occupy two more or less divided camps during
> >> the period of zionist development and immigration in the first half of
> >> the 20th c. there were many on both sides willing to live together
> >> peacefully. there were also, on both sides, hardlines wishing to drive
> >> the other out.
> >> by the end of this period, around the time of world war 2, there were
> >> about an equal number of jews and arabs, about half a million each,
> >> whereas at the turn of the century there were about 10% jews.
> >> the jews who immigrated were seeking a decent life outside a europe that
> >> was antisemitic.
> >> who on this list would oppose that? is there ever a reason to oppose
> >> people migrating to other lands? to conquer, that is not the same.
> >> jewish zionist migration, look into it, it was people who were being
> >> persecuted in places like russia where my uncle's mother had her head
> >> cut off by kazacks during pograms. should his family not have migrated
> >> to israel, or later to the u.s.? pius cites indigenous peoples; but what
> >> of the bantu migrations? or any other? conquest is not justified; but
> >> migration is, and i must state i oppose limits to migrations anywhere.
> >> the brits didn't want the balance between arabs and jews unsettled, so
> >> tried to slow down jewish immigration. jews had no where to go during
> >> world war two, were turned back by america and most of the rest of the
> >> world. to me, opposing immigration is fascist. now it is called
> >> neofascist, national front, or sarah palin, michelle bachman; same thing.
>
> >> then the war came: israel survived, but the palestinians lost the west
> >> bank to jordan, and egypt took the sinai. that was reversed in 67.
> >> since they\n, occupation, oppression, hatred.
> >> i spoke this last year to a young israeli friend, and this is what he
> >> told me. take it for what it is worth. as he grew up, there was conflict
> >> between palestinians and israelis; but not racism. now there are no more
> >> palestinian arabs working in israel, and the racism of israelis has
> >> taken hold against arabs. the possibility of a peace movement or a
> >> political party on the left having a voice is gone as people are
> >> convinced that security has to trump all other concerns, and that
> >> security comes from military power.
> >> it is the very worst time in israeli politics, with peace yielding to
> >> domination, and hatred supplanting notions of living together. like the
> >> right wing in the globalnorth.
> >> i don't know what people living in the misery of gaza are supposed to
> >> feel towards israelis under these conditions.
> >> i do not understand, cornelius, you who seek ways to avoid war if
> >> possible, and believe that people can establish dialogue and resolve
> >> differences, can accept the demonization of
>
> ...
>
> read more »
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the "USA-Africa Dialogue Series" moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin.
For current archives, visit http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
For previous archives, visit http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
To post to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue-
unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
No comments:
Post a Comment