Posted on 04/05/2006 3:07:48 PM PDT by Dark Skies
In Douglas Adam's comedic novel "Life, the Universe and Everything", mattresses are not manufactured objects. Rather, they are a species of "... large, friendly, pocket-sprung creatures which live quiet private lives in the marshes of Squornshellous Zeta."
Interestingly enough, all members of this sentient species are called "Zem".
How would Judaism and Islam compare on Squornshellous Zeta? Far away from the earth, far away from the Mideast crisis and the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, amidst a species of quietly burbling mattresses (all called Zem), how would Islam and Judaism compare? What would the mattresses think of these two systems of thought, not as religions, but simply ideas, simply two systems of ideas, with no political baggage and no religious compulsion of any kind?
The answer to this question was unwittingly given by Ismail Haniyeh, head of the Hamas government in the Palestine Authority in the spring of 2006, a few days after the party took power.
There was factional violence in the Palestinian authority, beginning with the murder of the Popular Resistance Committees leader Khalil al-Quqa in a car bomb. PRC members claimed that Palestinian security forces (and Israel ) had taken part in al-Quqa’s assassination. Riots ensued, along with exchanges of gunfire between Palestinian security forces and members of the PRC, killing three more people and injuring 25.
Ismail Haniyeh called on his people to show some unity, and vowed to get the situation out of control. He called upon the groups to disarm and work together (perhaps unaware of the irony of this request), and said:
"The culture that dominated the Palestinian street in past years is a culture that needs time in order to turn into a culture that keeps law and order and does not resort to using arms under any condition."
And that is why Judaism is superior to Islam.
On Squornshellous Zeta, at least.
------------------------------------------------
Exclusionary Command and Control vs. Rule of Law
------------------------------------------------
Looked at as a system of ideas for guiding and regulating one's life and one's society, Islam is what sociologists might call an exclusionary command and control system. One obeys the *will* of Allah, and the *words* of the prophet. So there are commanders, and their decisions are the commands or orders everyone must follow. Commands are enforced by threats of death, torture, eternal damnation, social ostracism and rejection, and so on. Compliance is rewarded with approval, social inclusion, a sense of belonging, eternal sexual bliss for males (a bit odd, that one...) and a sense of goodness. What is good or bad is determined by decree (by fatwah). It is all a question of obeying, of seeing who is being obedient, of rewarding disobedience and punishing disobedience. Violence is both implicit and explicit in this kind of command and control system. Those who disobey are punished. There is no recognition of the fact that every individual is sovereign, with their own capacities to choose and decide, based on a natural human sense of ethical reciprocity. The system is really all about legitimizing the use of force to guarantee compliance.
The system is also exclusionary. There is an in-group and an out-group, an 'us' and a 'them', and this becomes a huge moral dividing line. It becomes okay to kill or dominate 'them', in the name of 'our' beliefs. There is no such thing as universal moral laws for all beings, including everybody in the in-group *and* out-group as one human family. This kind of exclusionary mentality leads to a binary oppositional understanding of conflict. 'We' must be in command. 'Our' truth is the only truth for ever and all time (a bit odd, that one...). 'We' must dominate. If 'we' don't dominate... Oh my God that must mean 'they' are dominating! Those are the only two possibilities! (Extremely, bizarrely and viciously odd, that one...) Those are the only two possibilities! The idea that 'we' might be sabotaging ourselves, and 'they' may only be mildly interested in us, but willing to help us out more if we prove to be good neighbours, that is impossible. 'We' must totally reject and destroy 'them', because 'they' fail to recognize 'our' God and 'our' prophet (I fail to see the logic here, but that is apparently what some people believe). 'We' must make 'them' submit to the commands of 'our' faith.
The mattresses on Squornshellous Zeta might have a hard time understanding this kind of angry, violent, command and control structure that forces everybody to think a certain way, if a Quran fell onto their planet from the sky. Squornshellous Zeta is a very peaceful planet. It's swampy, and the mattresses mostly just swim around blowing bubbles and relaxing. Interestingly, all of them are named 'Zem'.
I don't think they would like to be threatened with horrible consequences, and teased with extreme rewards, until all of them thought the same way – and here is the important point - JUST BECAUSE SOME PERSON/BEING SAID SO. Why should they stop just burbling away in the water? Here is another important point - THEY AREN'T HURTING ANYONE!! (The only justification for interfering with the choices of another is when those choices hurt somebody. Everything else is okay.)
All Islam has, at its ethical heart, are commands and exhortations to obey. Support other Muslims, no matter what (even if they murder), and subjugate or convert all non-Muslims (using murder if necessary). There is no single universal law (murder) by which one might judge both muslims and non-muslims equally and without prejudice. There are wild inconsistencies in the Quran partly because of this fact: it is based on bald assertions and exhortation, not laws or argumentation.
If a powerful mullah condemns me, his word is law for many people. I used to be in the 'in' group, but the mullah has now said I am in the 'out' group. It is now not only justified, but glorious and holy for people to kill me. The mullah has commanded it so, in the name of Allah who commands everything and the good little soldiers in the command and control structure will now seek me out, and they will only be following orders. I cannot simply take the mullah to court and prove according to objective laws that the charges he leveled against me were false. It is not the case that both I and the mullah are equals before the law in all civic disputes, with equal powers to condemn or exonerate each other.
Let's see if Judaism offers the bewildered mattresses on Squornshellous Zeta anything better.
In the holy books of Judaism, we find all kinds of stories about exclusionary command and control structures. We have kings and generals doing what kings and generals do, some of it good, some of it evil. However, as Robert A. Morey famously pointed out, Jews and Christians do not make the same claims for their holy books that Muslims make for theirs. Muslims believe that the Quran is a perfect book, full of unambiguous truth, written in heaven by Allah himself with no earthly sources. Jews and Christians know fully well that their books are compilations of stories from all around the middle east, brought together either because they contained important historical information, or interesting philosophical musings, or stories that taught interesting lessons, and so on.
The meaning of a story from these books is very much open for debate in the Judeo-Christian tradition. The term "Rabinnical debate" is almost a pure redundancy! Meanings are not necessarily fixed and eternal. For example, in the conquest of the Promised Land, Joshua carried out military maneuvers. This does not mean that the God of the Jews says that everything Joshua did is a model for future generations! What do Joshua's acts mean for us today? What lessons can we draw? Discussion and debate is encouraged.
Judaism and classical Greek cultures are the basis of Western society not because they have told us what to think, but because they have taught us how to disagree and debate peacefully and productively. The Western way is not a religion; it is a way of living with differences.
The ethical heart of Judaism is easy to spot. It is Mosaic Law, and most importantly the Ten Commandments. Let's review the Ten Commandments for a moment. There are a few different versions of these commandments, of course, but here is one of them.
1. I am the Lord thy God. Thou shalt not have strange gods before me.
2. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain.
3. Remember thou keep the Sabbath Day.
4. Honor thy Father and thy Mother.
5. Thou shalt not kill.
6. Thou shalt not commit adultery.
7. Thou shalt not steal.
8. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.
9. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s wife.
10. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s goods.
Two of these Ten Commandments are purely cultic, about respecting the Sabbath and following only one God. Commandment number 2 is partly cultic, but it is in many respects a very interesting commandment. One should not use the Lord's name in vain. This might apply to people who kill, rape, steal or bear false witness (think 'conspiracy theorists') in the name of God. One should not use God's name to justify atrocities. This is a violation of God.
The remaining seven commandments are completely universal. Of course, the whole book is about how Jews are to organize their society, but these commandments are applicable anywhere. Even the mattresses of Squornshellous Zeta (all of them curiously named 'Zem') would agree that in general, these commandments are a good idea. Living according to these rules will actually help preserve their peace, so they can swim around blowing bubbles in the swamp without being troubled, even if they never convert to Judaism, or never even figure out what Judaism is (mattresses are not too bright, but anyone from any tradition can see the value of these ethical rules).
Judaism is a religion, and so of course there is orthodoxy, extreme pressure to conform in some circles, manipulation of people, social ostracism and all the rest. But that is not all there is to it. There are some *universal* rules - rules that would apply to everybody, not just the ‘in-group’.
Thou shalt not kill.
This rule does not distinguish between Muslims and Kaffirs, or Jews and Gentiles. It is because of rules like this that Jews can criticize their own traditions, criticize their own governments, criticize their own orthodoxy, assess stories in the Torah and judge the actions of historical figures, and hold up all human beings to the same moral standards.
Judaism is a religion, and it has a lot of the in-group/out-group dynamics that Islam has, but in Judaism these tribal tendencies are powerfully balanced by universal moral rules.
As Ismail Haniyeh, head of the Hamas government in the Palestian Authority in the spring of 2006 said, a few days after the party took power.
"The culture that dominated the Palestinian street in past years is a culture that needs time in order to turn into a culture that keeps law and order and does not resort to using arms under any condition."
They are just starting the long, hard path towards civilization, where disputes are settled not by establishing dominance, but by adherence to the rule of law. Hamas sees this is needed among its own people, but it remains steadfast in its commitment to wipe Israel off the face of the map. Nothing else will do. No two-state solution, no compromise. And if Hamas learned to compromise, this would be seen as weakness on the Arab street! One can only dominate totally, or be dominated totally. Prior treaties, rules and agreements are ignored.
However, elevate one of these street fighters to a position of responsibility, where he has to mediate between parties in a conflict, and suddenly the need for rule of law becomes obvious to him. He asks his followers to do exactly what the international community has demanded Hamas do – recognize your opponent’s right to exist, disarm, negotiate according to objective rules, and keep your agreements.
Judaism, whatever its flaws, began to journey along the long, hard road of ethical universalism and the rule of law thousands of years ago.
I wonder which ethical system the mattresses of Squornshellous Zeta (all of them curiously named 'Zem') would prefer?
Whadda a bidness the delis will do.
Yum!!!
Thanks!
Best deli EVER, just like the olden days:
Marky's, at Wilson & Bathurst, in Toronto
My favorite is Shapiro and Fine on the West Side in NYC.
Forgive me...I remember it as Shapiro and Fine. But it is incredible. If I didn't have a pastrami and cole slaw on rye (with thousand island dressing) at least once a week...I felt weak at the knees.
Heaven on earth!!!
bump for Douglas.
FTR, It's, "Thou shall not murder."
There is a difference.
ML/NJ
synonyms DESIRE, WISH, WANT, CRAVE, COVET mean to have a longing for. DESIRE stresses the strength of feeling and often implies strong intention or aim (desires to start a new life). WISH sometimes implies a general or transient longing especially for the unattainable (wishes for permanent world peace). WANT specifically suggests a felt need or lack (wants to have a family). CRAVE stresses the force of physical appetite or emotional need (craves sweets). COVET implies strong envious desire (covets his rise to fame).I think covet is not quite so illicit in English as you suggest.
The first translation of the Hebrew was into Aramaic and there the word used translates into our desire.
I also found this:
What does 'covet' refer to? In Exodus 34:24 this verb (hamad) appears where the context suggests the meaning 'to confiscate your home' and not 'to covet'. Rashi, following a strong Rabbinic tradition, interprets the eighth commandment that we typically render as 'You shall not steal' to refer to stealing people (ie. kidnapping), and then understands 'covet' in the Ten Commandments to mean stealing objects. Does 'covet' then mean 'to steal' (or planning to steal)? Is only the behaviour acted upon the desire prohibited, or is the desire itself forbidden? I assume the latter would be the most widely violated commandment. (I mean, come on, don't tell me you don't covet your neighbour's iPod?) This was also an issue for the Christian church. Must I confess for inward desire or only outward acts? In a rare act of biblical interpretation, Pope Pious V in 1567 ruled that mere desire was not to be considered sinful; notwithstanding, President Jimmy Carter famously once admitted to 'sinning' in his heart.ML/NJ
ping for later
What about Schwartz's in Montreal? Nothing in TO beats that.
Schwartz's, in Montreal. When Japanese businessmen order jets to deliver their pastrami same-day to a business meeting thousands of miles away, paying tens of thousands of dollars for delivery of a meal that only costs a few hundred, you know it's damn fine.
I am also partial to Yitz's, in Toronto. Though I feel its quality has gone down in the last while.
That is scary...please freepmail me with meaning. Are you a redhead or a Scot?
Balderdash like this supposedly "on my side" embarrasses me.
Torat-HaShem temimah. And the Torah was written by HaShem without sources and served as the blueprint for Creation. It was dictated to Moses letter-by-letter.
This "unlike the muzzies, Jews and chr*stians have thrown into the towel to Hegelian historical development" is utter nonsense (at least as far as traditional Torah Judaism is concerned). Unfortunately, the traditional Jewish attitude is completely unknown outside the Yeshivish world. Let us pray that Jewish "fundamentalism" comes out of the closet!!!
Straighten this out...Doug Adams or...Douglas, ...?
Except that Jews and Christians have a different Chief of Police. Jews who reject Christ as their Savior, in effect reject the Father. So if the Father is absent (per Jesus' words), then who takes his place? The Father without the Son?
"I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. If you know me, you will know my Father also."John 14:6-7
"Whoever hates me hates my Father also." John 15:23
"Whoever listens to you listens to me. Whoever rejects you rejects me. And whoever rejects me rejects the one who sent me." Luke 10:16
And hey, we recognize that our religion comes from yours, so it works. :)
Freepmail not necessary.
It didn't mean a dadgum thing, except that I like Douglas Adams and planned to read your essay later because of that.
So I wanted to bookmark it.
No.
Atheism is superior to Islam, better that you have no meaning to life and no faith in the future than you worship evil and murder people.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.