Why Judaism is Superior to Islam (quaint, but good, read)

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."

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."

------------------------------------------------
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.

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’.

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.

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?

I'm not a big fan of number ten myself; obeying that Commandment would hamstring capitalism completely.

Not necessarily so. It is subject to interpretation. You could say that is means "don't be jealous", because jealousy is self-destructive. Jealousy is one of the seven deadly sins!

It could also be interpreted as 'live modestly'. This might undermine rapid economic turnover, but would not undermine capitalism.

It could also be interpreted literally - referring to your neighbors property... with an implication of a sort of "live and let live" ethic. And in that it doesn't have to mean that because you think your neighbor's iPod is really cool that you can't have an iPod too... you just shouldn't want his iPod.

Not all of them (several from the book noted in the post), but I never claimed it was original.

I made trade my tagline for some.

"G-d's a clever feller. He has used islam to put Jews and Christians together."

No doubt.

He uses lots of nasty folk for His purposes -- Pharoh to create the impetus for Israel, the Babylonian king to punish, that prick mentioned in Ester (won't bother to type his name), prick No. 2 (the German one, again won't bother to type his name) to re-form Israel, etc.

"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."

That was caused by the fat clots leaving your femoral arteries.

I've got a stack of Baptist jokes, too, but they won't laugh like Jews will.

Just stare at their shoes.

I think they are afraid laughing might lead to dancing.

If you look at my follow-up post, it looks like Pope Pious and I are pretty much on the same page.

It is a hard concept to write out, but to paraphrase Scalia, I know it when I feel it (coveting, that is.)

It's a sick, stomach-clenching, desire that you KNOW is wrong. The gut (or Holy Spirt, if so inclined), more than the mind, is the tip off.

"Unfortunately, the traditional Jewish attitude is completely unknown outside the Yeshivish world."

Actually, most fundamentalist Christians (in the sense of Bible-following and believing, NOT TV preachers and what the media protrays) are in full agreement.

Indeed, most fundamentalist Christians, but for the disagreement regarding the nature of Jesus, would convert and follow the Law more ardently than 99.99 of Orthodox Jews.

That was caused by the fat clots leaving your femoral arteries.

lol...vy likely. Yet, thirty years later my heart is still strong and unclogged.

I think I'll have a pastrami for lunch today.

Actually, most fundamentalist Christians (in the sense of Bible-following and believing, NOT TV preachers and what the media protrays) are in full agreement.

Indeed, most fundamentalist Christians, but for the disagreement regarding the nature of Jesus, would convert and follow the Law more ardently than 99.99 of Orthodox Jews.

Conservative chr*stians and liberal Jews should switch testaments!

Jews and Christians are essentially the police department, holding true to ethics and morality as given to them from above.

Judaism and Christianity should not be expressed as a pair as though they were equivalent belief systems, for exactly the opposite is true: for example, Judaism, and its followers, are most inevitably "pro-choice", whereas Christianity is natively pro-life.
No they are not the same. However, the West is based to a large degree on these two.
There are many liberal Jews but they no more speak for Judaism than Christian liberal speak for liberals.

Based on your posts it is clear that you don't like Jews or Judaism.

I believe in the fundamental right to congenially express disagreement with any particular worldview or religion. Without such a right, freedom of speech would be sublimated to theocracy, much as is the case in the Middle East.

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.