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 25, 4:29 pm, Cornelius Hamelberg <corneliushamelb...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> 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.
>
> http://www.google.co.uk/#sclient=psy&hl=en&source=hp&q=Jewish+encyclo...
>
> 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 KennethHarrowwhose 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=u...
>
> 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!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> http://www.google.co.uk/#sclient=psy&hl=en&source=hp&q=Quran+:+Israel...
>
> PS:http://frontpagemag.com/
> ...
>
> 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