The phenomenon of double meaning is a popular thing to rely on, often innocently. Religious preachers can and often do manipulate the text at will in this way. Many times it is accompanied by hinting that those who lack religious education are not qualified to properly understand the text. Is ‘thy hand shall be first upon him to put him to death’ so difficult to understand? Which word specifically is difficult to understand?

This phenomenon becomes annoying when many people are actually speaking the words without giving much attention to the semantics. Every Passover, millions of Jews read (aloud) the “Haggadah”. Many of them reach the paragraph that requests God to:

“Pour out thy wrath upon the nations that know thee not and upon the kingdoms that call not upon thy name … Pour out thy fury upon them, and may the kindling of thine anger overtake them. Pursue them with anger and destroy them from under God’s skies.”

Not too many of the celebrators really bother to pause and think about the real meaning of what they say. Most have never intended any major harm for other nations and kingdoms. They just say these words as part of the ceremony. Some may even know about the history of this paragraph, associated with the Crusades in the 12th century.

Religious leaders or scholars often attempt to soften such hard messages, explaining about the different contexts in which they originated, or about various ways to interpret the words. Others take a different approach – they do understand it literally, and even explain it as such to others (e.g., Abdullah el-Faisal and Ovadia Yosef), but they largely choose not to perform the associated acts themselves. Sometimes there is even a separation between what should be done according to the holy scripts vs. what should be done in reality. The Jewish religion explicitly talks about “Dina de-malchuta dina” – Aramaic for “The law of the land is the law” (which must be observed as long as it doesn’t conflict directly with the religious law). Thus creating a strange mixture of ancient and modern rules.

You can observe such a way of thought and conflict resolution in the “Shulchan Aruch” itself. When it discusses the killing of heretics, it elaborates:

“…He would act against them with cunning, causing their death. If he would see one of them falling into a well, and the ladder is in the well, first he would remove the ladder and say, ‘I must take my son down off the roof, and I’ll bring it back to you’, or some such thing.”

Peace loving in the Christian holy texts should not be taken for granted as well. Note what Jesus has to say when not too many people are around:

“Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law;” (Matthew, chapter 10, verses 34-35)

As expected, the softer interpretation of this passage talks about preaching for the preference of a religious path over certain aspects of family bonds.

Towards the end of the previous millennium the world learned about a new phenomenon: Islamic suicide bombers. As always, things started in and around the Holy Land and were quickly associated with religious justification. If you kill yourself for Allah, then seventy-two virgins will be waiting to serve you in heaven. That is, if you’re a male, of-course.

At first, the Muslim leaders were very much against female suicide bombers. The Koran forbade it. However, the beginning of the new millennium introduced several such heretic ladies in the Middle East. Left with no choice, the local Muslim religious leaders did what religious leaders do best: They bent the religious rules to suit their needs. Suddenly it was all right for a woman to be a suicide bomber, because there were also certain Muslim females who fought in Muhammad’s time. Female suicide bombers were promised, though, only a single lover in heaven. Sex discrimination seems to follow you long after you’re dead.

In mid-2003, the well-known Saudi Sheikh Nasser bin Hamd al-Fahad issued a Fatwah (a religious edict) legitimizing the use of weapons of mass destruction against the United States. It was again based on his interpretation of Muhammad’s words.

It’s debatable whether religions actually kill, but undoubtedly many people have died because of religion.

<< Prev Contents Next >>

“I have always thought the actions of men the best interpreters of their thoughts.” – John Locke

In 2003, Sheikh Abdullah el-Faisal was put in jail for nine years. The judge recommended that el-Faisal, from Stratford in east London (UK), should serve at least half of the sentence and then be deported. Abdullah el-Faisal had attended Brixton Mosque, in south London, and was jailed for urging his audience to kill Jews, Hindus and Americans.

During his trial, el-Faisal took a somewhat surprising approach. He argued that the words he had used were taken from the Koran – the Muslim holy book. The case was presented as if the Koran itself was on trial. However, the judge – Peter Beaumont – told the court: “It does not afford him a defense in law … any more or less than any similar citations from anyone else’s holy book, including the Bible, would be”.

In fact, the killing of unbelievers does appear in the Koran in one way or another. The Koran has Surahs that explicitly instructs to “cast terror into the hearts of the unbelievers”. Resisting Islam is punishable by death or other physical body injuries, and holy war (known as Jihad) is encouraged against those who reject Islam.

Some Muslim scholars explained that the words should not always be interpreted literally, and that the problem lies in the ways old metaphoric text is applied to our modern world.

About half a year later, Rabbi Ovadia Yosef in his weekly sermon in Israel announced that religious Orthodox Jewish Yeshiva students should not be scorned, and that it is allowed to kill those who scorn them. The announcement was aimed at certain political rivals, but nevertheless took place and was made by a person who spiritually led hundreds of thousands.

Similarly to Mr. el-Faisal, Mr. Yosef was also equipped with some holy texts. The Bible, as well as several later Jewish religious verdicts, explicitly allow and encourage the killing of other Jews who are occupied with heresy. Just a few examples:

“If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, that is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying: ‘Let us go and serve other gods,’ which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers … thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him; but thou shalt surely kill him; thy hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die …” (Deuteronomy, chapter 13, verses 7-11)

“Do not I hate them, O Lord, that hate Thee? And do not I strive with those that rise up against Thee? I hate them with utmost hatred; I count them mine enemies.” (Psalms, chapter 139, verses 21-22)

Thus all the important Jewish authorities during the years have ruled that heretics should be killed. The Rambam (Moses Maimonides) literally encouraged the act in the 12th century. Rabbi Yosef Karo compiled the ‘Shulchan Aruch’ (Hebrew for “A Set Table”) in the 16th century. It is considered the most authoritative compilation of Jewish law since the Talmud, and it also explains the issue of killing heretics. This kind of ruling has been followed by several other famous rabbis, as well as by Rabbi Ovadia Yosef.

In a previous chapter we already discussed the vague line that’s drawn between literal and metaphoric interpretation of holy texts. Both the Bible and the Koran have many verdicts that Judge Beaumont would consider worthy. However, it’s the ability to stretch the line according to will, which may prove hazardous to your health, as it did for the late Prime Minister Itzhak Rabin. His assassination in 1995 by Yigal Amir was justified by a religious verdict.

Before Mr. Rabin’s murder, a small group of Orthodox rabbis gave the religious sanction of this act. This was based on two old Jewish religious rules: “Din Rodef” (the duty to kill a Jew who puts at risk the life and property of another Jew) and “Din Moser” (the duty to eliminate a Jew who intends to turn another Jew into non-Jewish authorities).

Of-course, most Jews do not seek heretics to kill and do not decide to murder prime ministers due to religious reasons. Most Muslims do not slaughter Jews, Hindus and Americans. Yet, when the appropriate circumstances are formed for certain individuals, it becomes easy to justify extreme personal preferences by quoting the word of God.

The story of Sir Winston Churchill and the city of Coventry in England became famous about a quarter of a century after the Second World War was over. According to it, Mr. Churchill had certain information from secret intelligence sources, implying that the Germans were going to bomb Coventry. He faced a difficult dilemma: Warning the people of Coventry would mean compromising an extremely important source of intelligence, which would perhaps cost many more lives eventually. He chose not to give the warning. Many people were killed in the attack on Coventry that took place in 1940.

Why is this story important here? Mr. Churchill’s decision was probably based on rational considerations. No offense to Mr. Churchill – Yigal Amir’s decision was largely based on religious reasoning. It is safe to assume that both felt very uneasy taking the decisions. It is also safe to assume that after taking the decision, both felt it was justified. Thus, old religious verdicts may help a killer to consider an act of murder as justified and they may encourage him to think that he is actually saving lives in the long run. With this self-justification, one may find some explanation to the tranquility associated with the behavior of the World Trade Center’s terrorists, for instance. It all depends on how you choose to interpret the meaning of the divine command.

<< Prev Contents Next >>