*The overwhelming majority of Jewish authorities believe that the*milhemet mitzvah*, commanded war, is no longer viable today (since it was directed against biblical nations that no longer exist). However, according to one interpretation of a statement by the medieval scholar Nahmanides, the possibility of a contemporary *milhemet mitzvah *exists. In this article, Firestone explores his personal concerns with this situation. Reprinted with permission from *Sh’ma <http://www.shma.com/>*(December 2001).*
A couple of years ago I proudly showed my new book, *Jihad: The Origin of Holy War in Islam*, to a Muslim colleague of mine, trained with a Ph.D. in an American university, and now the head of the Department of Contemporary Islamic Studies at al-Quds University in Jerusalem. He took one look at the title and turned to me with a look of pity and almost disgust on his face. “Reuven,” he said, “you must know that there is no holy war in Islam!” And there is no holy war in Judaism. [image: holy war]Fighting–as we learn from Rabbi Saul Berman–is not *kadosh* [holy]. Neither is it *muqaddas*, as my Muslim scholar friend told me. But if God commands war, if the authority to engage in fighting and inevitably mass killing is divinely inspired, is the act sanctified? “Holy war” with all its connotations of mindless excess, fervent, and wild fanaticism, is not a Christian monopoly; the sooner Jews and Muslims acknowledge this fact, the better. We Jews observe the acts and rhetoric coming from al-Qa’ida, Hamas, and Islamic Jihad and we know that *qital* (warring), or *jihad* (exerting great effort), or *fi sabil Allah* (in the path of God) is holy war. While such warring in Islam is governed by rational and ethical rules of engagement, just as “just war” theory in the West is governed by such rules (*jus ad bellum*, *jus in bello*), excess always abounds when the warrior knows that the cause or authority for fighting transcends the rationale or logic of the human mind. The ecstasy of personal sacrifice in obeying God’s will, of willingness literally to obliterate the self in the ultimate sacrifice of giving one’s own life to the divine command, may lead to extraordinary valor or extraordinary atrocity. Before dismissing the appalling behaviors of our Muslim cousins engaged in holy war, let us put our own house in order. Holy war has been revived among Israel the people and within Israel the state. Why is *milhemet mitzvah*/*hovah* obligatory war? Because God-the-Commander (*haMetzaveh*) requires it. Is it not a holy act to carry out God’s command? Is there not an essence of *kedushah* [holiness] in the fulfillment of every mitzvah, large or small? When the rabbis in Mishnah Sotah 8:7 <http://www.sefaria.org/Mishnah_Sotah.8.7?lang=he-en> categorized Israel’s wars as obligatory or discretionary, they were attempting to define and dismiss a dangerous phenomenon that had twice in their memory brought devastation to the Jewish people. Both the great Revolt of 66 C.E. and the Bar Kokhba Rebellion of 132 C.E.–two of the most horrific and catastrophic events that the Jewish people ever experienced–were driven by Jewish holy war ideas. After the Mishnah, Jewish holy war ideas lay virtually dormant for most of our exilic existence, though they were discussed briefly by certain medieval thinkers and appear in some of our apocalyptic and messianic writings. But holy war has been revived in contemporary Israel, especially among ultranationalist Orthodox settlers in Judea and Samaria (the West Bank) and their many supporters. The war–and it may now be accurately called a war between Israel and the Palestinians–is defined by many religiously observant settlers and their supporters as a divine obligation to reclaim the whole of the Land of Israel as either a prelude to or as actually part of the messianic awakening. Many in this camp cite ad nauseum the now famous statement of Nahmanides in his gloss on Maimonides’ *Book of Commandments* (positive commandment 4), who teaches that the conquest and settlement of the Land of Israel lies in the category of obligatory war (*milhemet mitzvah*). “It is a positive commandment for all generations obligating every individual, even during the period of exile.” As Jewish holy war has entered religious and political discourse in relation to the Israel-Palestine conflict, so has the increase of Jewish atrocities in the name of a higher cause. It reached its peak in the mid-1980s to mid-1990s with the maiming and murder of Muslim non-combatants by the Jewish Underground, the massacre of Muslims in prayer by Barukh Goldstein, and Yigal Amir’s assassination of Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin. Holy war ideas continue to inform the behavior of many religious settlers to this day, though there has been a concerted effort by both the Israeli government and the settler movement to refrain from committing such blatant atrocities. Radical Muslim terrorists maim and kill in the name of God, perverting the normative Islamic legal traditions in their self-proclaimed justification for the mass slaughter of innocents. Where are the imams and other Muslim religious leaders who should be condemning these hideous acts? And while we have the right to ask where are these voices, we will have little impact on the complex internal debates that confront the Muslim communities in this country and the rest of the world. Holy war is a dangerous reality. We have now felt its sting. Let us, therefore, before we try vainly and patronizingly to intervene in the internal debates of another religious community, put our own house in order. We must neutralize if not eradicate the ugly and gravely dangerous revival of holy war within Judaism. The first step is to acknowledge its existence. The next is to engage in public discussion within our own community, especially among the spectrum of religious leaders, to mitigate the inherently self-destructive and ultimately immoral efforts to define our fighting with the Palestinians as a holy war. --- On Sunday, March 13, 2016 at 7:43:51 AM UTC-5, Travis wrote: > > > > > > > > > > *WHY ISLAM IS A RELIGION OF WAR* > > *by Daniel Greenfield* > > *"He it is who has sent His Messenger (Mohammed) with guidance and the > religion of truth (Islam) to make it victorious over all religions even > though the infidels may resist."*— Koran 61:9 > > Islamic violence is a religious problem. > > Islam derives meaning from physical supremacy, so war becomes an act of > faith. To believe in Islam, is to have faith that it will conquer the > entire world. And to be a true Muslim, is to feel called to aid in that > global conquest, whether by providing money to the Jihadists or to become a > Jihadist. > > The fulfillment of Islam depends on the subjugation of non-Muslims so that > violence against non-Muslims become the essence of religion. > > When Hamas states that, "Killing Jews is worship that draws us close to > Allah" or the ISIS rapists tell Yazidi girls that rape "draws them closer > to Allah", they really do mean it. > > They are not perverting a great religion, as our politicians claim, they > are living it. > > Everything they do is based on the Koran, the body of Islamic law and the > greater history of Islam. > > What the Ten Commandments are for the Jew, or the resurrection of Jesus is > for the Christian-- the physical dominance of Islam is to the Muslim. It is > the basis and fulfillment of his faith. > > Jihad is the force that gives Islam meaning. It is the deepest expression > of faith. > > To its followers the validity of Islam is directly connected to its > physical supremacy. As followers of the purported "final revelation" to > mankind, Muslims not only have the obligation to conquer and subjugate the > rest of the world, their religion is meaningful to the extent that they can > carry on the work begun by Mohammed. The Jihadis who massacre non-Muslims > are missionaries of their faith. > > Anything that suggests Islam is not absolutely superior becomes blasphemy. > When Muslims explode into outbursts of violent rage over seemingly petty > things like a cartoon or a video, it is because to them, any loss of face > for Islam is the worst kind of blasphemy because it challenges its > supremacy. > > Truth and power in Islam are identical. It is not a religion of the > oppressed, but of the oppressors. > > Mohammed's prophecies are validated by his conquests. The truth of Islam > is seen in the expansion of Islam. When Muslims succeed in killing > non-Muslims, they prove the truth of their religion. > > That is why Muslim terrorists shout, "Allahu Akbar", "Allah is greater." > The old Mohammedan taunt aimed at Jews was then directed at Christians, > Hindus, Buddhists and all the world's religions. By killing their > non-Muslim victims, the Muslims proved that Allah was greater than their > gods. > > Islam is not only a tribal and materialistic religion, but it is closely > linked to the honor-shame code of its Arab originators. Islam is not > primarily an inward spiritual experience, but an outward expression of > tribal honor. Its religious expression is the upholding of the honor of > Islam and its expansion in the same exact ways as the honor and expansion > of the tribe are upheld. > > That is why Islam suffers from the classically tribal obsession of > protecting "honor" by controlling women so that the blood of the tribe is > not polluted by outsiders. That is why it is obsessed with any insult, real > or imaginary to Mohammed, its theological tribal founder. And why it must > continually expand its territory through conflict so that the tribe grows > and so that the surplus sons don't stay behind to fight each other over > tribal territory. This is true of Syria on a much larger scale. > > Forcing non-Muslims into a submissive position affirms the truth and power > of Islam. By causing infidels to "lose face", the Muslim fulfills the > Koranic verse which promises that Allah had sent Mohammed to make Islam > supreme over all religions. By contrast when Islam "loses face", an act of > blasphemy has been committed, which can only be righted religiously by > killing the non-Muslims, thereby forcing them to lose face and once again > affirming the physical superiority of Islam. > > This creates the cycle of violence, which is not the result of Christian > or Jewish oppression, but of the need for Muslims to validate the truth of > their faith by oppressing non-Muslims. To co-exist with non-Muslims is > blasphemous for a Muslim, when his Koran proclaims "*Do not take the Jews > and the Christians for friends*" (Koran 5:51). Mohammed's final command > was to ethnically cleanse the Jews and Christians of the Arabian Peninsula. > ISIS sees itself as completing the work that he began. > > Islam does not co-exist, for its followers its truth can only be found in > conquering non-Muslims. > > Whereas most religions can accept being in the inferior position because > their fundamental faith in spiritual, rather than material-- Islam has > little to it but the material. Even its paradise exists in the form of the > sort of physical pleasures that its followers crave, fancy robes, exquisite > banquets, golden couches, and of course that famed appeal to the dedicated > Jihadist, "curvaceous virgins... and an overflowing cup" (Koran 78:33-34). > Islamic Heaven is a grossly exaggerated version of the kind of loot that > Mohammed's followers expected to find by following him in the first place, > gold, jewels, silk, spices and young girls. > > The gang of throat slitters who accompanied Mohammed on his massacres > across the region were given a religious incentive that would transcend > death. > > Even if they died in battle and would not live to enjoy all the jewels, > overflowing cups and girls-- the Koran promised it to them in heaven > anyway. The gang of robbers, escaped slaves and ambitious desert rats > trailed after Mohammed across sand dunes, their minds filled with the > promises of rich loot from the caravans they were raiding. And in the > feverish heat, the idea that they would receive even better loot if they > were to die in battle, making death preferable to life, would have seemed > plausible. > > Out of such such petty greed and lust did Islam initially expand. Its code > was that of the tribesman, to lose face or engage in vendetta. Except > Islam's face and vendetta did not involve a single man or a clan, it came > to involve over a billion people, who found meaning in working toward the > final conquest of Islam. The global triumph of a desert raider's clumsily > hammered together mass of Jewish and Christian beliefs and tribal customs > and legends, and his own biography, used as a tool of conquest, forging > temporary unities out of quarreling tribes and clans. > > And now Islam's vendetta is worldwide. Every insecurity translates into a > provocation. Every jealous impulse never satisfied explodes into violent > rage. Every conflict for thousands of years breeds a new vendetta. Did > Muslims once live somewhere? They must reclaim it, for to fail to do so is > blasphemous and a betrayal of Mohammed's mission. Did Muslims never live > somewhere? Then they must go there now, and raise up minarets and proclaim > the superiority of Islam, for to do otherwise is a failure to expand the > borders of the Ummah, which is a betrayal of Allah's will. > > The very existence of people living free from Islamic dominion, is > blasphemy. Blasphemy that must be remedied by bringing them under the rule > of Islamic law. > > Meanwhile people who were once under Islamic dominion living free of > Islam, is worse than blasphemy, it is an insult and an attack on Islam. > That is what is behind the Muslim homicidal obsession with Israel, which > had until recently been in Muslim hands under the Ottoman Empire. However > even nations such as Spain, which had been lost to the Ummah long ago, > still inspire rage. The liberation of the Jews from Islamic dominion is a > particularly sore point, but not the only one. > > The intersection of Islam and Terrorism is the inevitable result of > Islamic theology which is supremacist and materialist, which when combined > with the honor-shame code of a tribal culture, drives it compulsively > toward war and conquest. > > The actions of non-Muslim nations serve only as variables to create a > context within which the supremacism of Islam expresses itself. These > contexts may vary as often as the justifications used in a ISIS video. But > the context itself is irrelevant in the larger history and theology of > Islam. Because in the end, the problem of Islamic violence is the problem > of Islam. > > > > *EDITOR'S NOTE:* > > *Some of the comments that added useful information.* > > *Common 'tater* > > *You are so correct and so politically incorrect that it hurts. Our so > called leaders and wannabee next in lines tend to pass around the soothing > balms that the religion that must not be criticized really is the religion > of peace.* > > *This is not to say that there are not westernized secular members of said > religion located mainly in North America, but the polls show that there is > massive support for the subjugation of non-members of said religion that > cannot be criticized under pain of death or imprisonment, charges of > inciting hatred, or for a hate crime.* > > *Funny, isn't it. One can put a crucifix in a bottle of urine, call it > art, have the taxpayers pay for it, and yet the taxpayers cannot get it > removed, no matter how much we protest. Or, one can put elephant poop on a > painting of the Virgin Mary, and despite protests, the authorities are > quick to jump in and protect the "rights" of the son-called "artist" to > promote his works (probably also at taxpayer's expense).* > > *However, except for Texas, no one can dare to make any kind of picture of > the prophet of said religion that we dare not criticize. Based upon the > results of the Texas exposition, we should only try such things there, but > it probably would get shut down if you tried it in Irving, even if it is in > TX.* > > *We have seen the WTC attacked twice and finally destroyed, bombings in > Argentina, England and Spain. gruesome massacres in Nairobi, Beslan, and > Mumbai, endless intifada in Israel, and now the massacres in France > (actually, this is about the third and most spectacular set).* > > *So far, only Trump and Carson seem to get it, maybe one of the other R's > as well. But basically, we are being served up the same old pablum. As for > France, a "massive" attack by 10 planes dropping 20 bombs. I realize that > technology has changed, but really, 20 bombs? BHO sent 50 men over for > boots on the ground?* > > *All I can say is this: The only way this milk-toast, 1/10th hearted, for > show only response to such violence will change only when the family of > some of the elites suffers the same ignominy as the rest of us for all the > world to see. In the meantime we will see the same bought and paid for > election results regardless of who runs with the same results.* > > > > *Clelia&Eric, Eurabia italian Province* > > *The "problem of Islam" is the answer to to the question WHY occurs all > that "horrible", "unexplainable", "barbaric" violence in Dar-al-Islam and > in Dar-al-Harb. The incompetence or unwillingness to see and speak the > truth, i.o.w. to make the link between quranic-based faith and jihad, > between Islam and terrorism, constitutes the great hoax Western political > and spiritual leaders are carrying forward. Even the Pope wrote in 2013 > that " True Islam is free from violence ". And nowadays, just after the > latest Islamic Paris massacre, he mumbled something like " I don't > understand... What happened is difficult to explain ". We all heard the > usual mantras of the political keaders in charge. Nothing has changed in > their heads since Charly Hebdo, and Europe has just to wait for the next > Islamic attempt. Repetita non juvant...* > > > > *Edward Cline* > > *To its followers the validity of Islam is directly connected to its > physical supremacy." But this is true of every totalitarian ideology : > Nazism, Communism, Socialism, within a nation and in the nations they have > conquered. Nazism and Communism were akin to religions for their elites. > The partitioning of Poland, for example, by the Nazis and Soviets was an > act of physical supremacy. "We're here, and what are you going to do about > it? What can you do about it, short of getting yourself shot? We reign > supreme, we occupy you, and you will learn to submit to our supremacy, or > die." As Daniel points out, Islam differs in no fundamental way from the > same policy. * > > > > *mindRider* > > *It is 1933 all over again, people see and hear but remain blind and deaf > to the reality of what goes and on top the left-wing media and the > social-democrats are helping in puling the wool of ignorance and deceit > over the populace's eyes. After 1400 years of Muslim violence no reformer > of that ideology has come in sight and the few moderates are silenced to > less than a whisper. If political correctness is not shed soon and with it > the un-will to fight for freedom, all of 2000 years progress shall be lost.* > > > > *tyrannovar* > > *To Common 'tater: you say:* > > *"So far, only Trump and Carson seem to get it, maybe one of the other R's > as well."* > > *Rick Santorum is still running for president.* > > *"What must we do to win? We must educate, engage, evangelize and > ERADICATE." — Rick Santorum* > > *Rick Santorum is one of the few politicians who has the courage to speak > the truth, that Islam must be eradicated from the face of the Earth. > Indeed, Rick Santorum is one of the few men in the world who has to courage > to say "Eradicate Islam".* > > > *From this > article: > http://www.studentsforacademicfreedom.org/news/2472/speech-by-senator-rick-santorum > > <http://www.studentsforacademicfreedom.org/news/2472/speech-by-senator-rick-santorum> > The > link above didn't work at last check. Where did it go? my emphasis.* > > *From a link that still works: Here is another article that refers to the > same speech. http://www.mintpressnews.com/santorumislamo-fascism/4048/ > <http://www.mintpressnews.com/santorumislamo-fascism/4048/>* > > > *Quote Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum called for the need > to "evangelize" and "eradicate" parts of the Middle East and Islam because > of what he called "Islamo-fascism" during a 2007 speech at the Second > National Academic Freedom Conference in Washington D.C. Unquote — my > emphasis* > > *Daniel Greenfield has used the work "De-Islamize". I consider that > another way of saying that "Islam must be eradicated from the face of the > Earth". Anyone who has read the Koran would know "eradicate" is what must > be done.* > > > > *gdnctr* > > *It's NOT a religion. It's a tribal political system of subjugation and > conquest, which relies on unceasing fanaticism, often mistaken as the > religious component. The West makes a fatal error by giving it credit as a > religion. History shows and proves otherwise.* > > > > *tyrannovar* > > *Even if Islam and its billion adherents were to suddenly disappear off > the face of the Earth today, the world would still have to face a more > fundamental question. Will the world of the future be the New World Order > one world government where there are no more nation-states or races or > ethnicities - or will the world of the future be a world founded upon the > principle of respect for individual sovereign nation-states, like Israel > which declares itself to be the "nation-state of the Jewish people"? The > megalomaniacal Globalist elite want to dictate to the people of the world, > the Nationalists of the world want freedom for each nation-state to > preserve their own race, ethnicity, religion and national identity.* > > *But good luck to Orania, because the Globalists have almost all the > power, and if any nation-state looks like it might pose a real threat to > the NWO then the Globalists will come crashing down on the head of that > group or nation-state with the full weight of all of their international > power.* > > > > *Dymphna* > > *above, gdnctr said: "It's NOT a religion. It's a tribal political system > of subjugation and conquest, which relies on unceasing fanaticism, often > mistaken as the religious component. The West makes a fatal error by giving > it credit as a religion. History shows and proves otherwise."* > > *If we could get people to understand what David Yerushalmi has > demonstrated so well, i.e., that this tribal desert ideology is juridical > in nature. Shariah is not a moral code, nor is it theological.* > > *At best Mohammed was an ambtious a caravan robber (probably suffering > from an occipital lobe tumor which left him w/auditory hallucinations and > urinary incontinence). While he was alive, the rules changed whimsically. > Had the Jews not laughed at his attempts to syncretize his ideas with the > Torah, would he have been so bent on revenge? Who knows.* > > *At any rate, after his death there was immediate internecine war, but the > basic parasitical foundation, designed to conquer and subjugate the whole > world, was set in motion. Think of Marxism with Allah as a convenient front > man but with the complication of an intensely dysfunctional & divided > obsession - poly perverse sexual behaviors on one side and puritanical laws > on the other.* > > *In the end, Islam will implode. Its basic flaws won't permit any > resilience to form. Meanwhile we'll have this insanely regressive Allah > über alles.* > > *If Islam is a religion, then so was Hitler's Nazism, and for the same > reasons.* > > > > *Princeton 1967* > > > *Qur'an 5:32 teaches more about the "religion of peace" than so-called > "Islamic scholars" have been able to comprehend ... One's life may depend > on an understanding of this passage. Take less than 8 minutes to view the > teachings: > https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ur7Ttz0q0o4 > <https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ur7Ttz0q0o4>* > > *A text, without a context, is nothing more than a pretext. I need not > comment further on the perspectives of Islamic apologists. I much prefer > leaving fools to practice their folly. No accolades should be accorded to > acolytes.* > > *_____________* > > *Warfare - Soviet style:* > > *The story (possibly apocryphal) is told regarding the Soviet adventure in > Afghanistan. The Russians were having a particularly difficult time weeding > out opposition leadership in a region of incursion. A commando raid was > undertaken, and a prominent Islamic military leader was kidnapped. He was > taken to a Soviet command post, where a surgical procedure was undertaken. > He was later found in the outskirts of the city, his wounds bandaged. And > his scrotum stuffed into his mouth. Henceforth, there was little opposition > in the area ...* > > > *I recommend Derek Hunter's column: "We Need to Care > Less". > http://townhall.com/columnists/derekhunter/2015/11/15/we-need-to-care-less-n2080829 > > <http://townhall.com/columnists/derekhunter/2015/11/15/we-need-to-care-less-n2080829>* > > *__________________* > > *Mizzou and France:* > ... -- -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
