Inheritance Laws, Gender, Sharia & Halacha – An honest/diversity competence perspective

Last Thursday I attended a seminar on “Gender Differences and Inheritance”. I was moved by some ideas, impressed with the sincerity, the integrity and the inclusion of a female scholar on the panel who showed courage in raising an inconvenient practical problem. Some of it challenged me. I have been thinking a lot about what it means to be competent in responding to diversity. I think of the experience of a Greens party campaigner who told me how she managed to connect with campaigners from a far right party called One Nation. She realised they were not monsters, but people like her who wanted the best for their families and the community. Connecting with people we strongly disagree with is one of the great tasks of our time.

In this post I explore two issues, inheritance laws in Islam and Judaism and how this issue is to be dealt with in terms of interfaith respect and appreciation.

Some basic rules of inheritance in Islam

In Islam, I heard, sons inherit twice as much as daughters. The disparity is justified because men have responsibilities in Islam to support women as breadwinners. Impressively, one of the panellists raised the problem of Muslim men who shirk their responsibility. In Muslim majority countries, courts can compel them to contribute more, but there is not much that Muslim communities can do about this in non-Muslim countries.

We also learned that the widow gets 1/8 of the inheritance. In Malaysia a way was found, with approval from Islamic authorities, to give the family home to the widow. Essentially this is compensation for the income she did not earn while looking after the family. This solution was dismissed by the Islamic authority on the panel. ‘I don’t know where they got that Fatwa from’ he said, but he was quite sure it was wrong. 

An Interfaith/diversity competence perspective

On the surface, interfaith respect means that we respect each other despite our different beliefs. I suggest that it is easy when the differences are not something we care a lot about e.g one person prays 5 times while another prays 3 times. It is trickier, when the difference relates to strong opinions about what is right. When Abraham sees his father’s idols he doesn’t say, I respect his beliefs, instead he smashes them[i]. I think it is useful for me to honestly examine my discomfort and find my way to continue to respect and connect with Muslims, with integrity.  

Can an outsider understand?

One speaker at the seminar explained that it is important to consider Sharia as a holistic system of ways of living that cover every facet of life of the individual, families and communities. I agree that my capacity to fully understand the issue is limited by lack of experience of Islam as an outsider. A similar argument has been made against certain forms of interfaith dialogue; that religious experience is too intimate to be understood by an outsider[ii].

Diversity within Faith Communities- and the higher purpose of Shariah

It was clear that despite the view of the scholar on the panel, there were other substantial Islamic scholars who found a way to give a widow far more than he thought was right. An Imam I know suggested that the Malaysians might be following the principle of Maqasid[iii] (Maqasid at Shari’ah). My understanding of this approach is that it considers the broad purposes of the law alongside the letter of the law. Key purposes are compassion and benefit. “A mere conformity to rules that went against the purpose and vision of the Shari’ah was therefore generally unacceptable”. Perhaps the broader consideration of compassion in changed social conditions is being prioritised in the Malaysian approach.

Common Ground, Jewish Inheritance law

In Judaism the basic law in the written Torah itself is that sons get everything, the firstborn son gets double the amount inherited by the other sons, the daughters get nothing[iv], and the widow is not mentioned.

Classic texts of the oral law give a somewhat different picture.  The widow is entitled to have her needs provided for from the estate for the rest of her life in a way that is according to her honour and that of her late husband[v]. Daughters must be provided for until the age of puberty for food, clothes as needed rather than what she is accustomed to. Daughters past the age of puberty still inherit nothing, but daughters regardless of age can get up to 1 tenth of the estate to help pay for their “dowry”[vi]. Both widow and young daughters are also entitled to a place to live from the estate.

Based on the classic sources here is a partial comparison in the following scenario; Abraham age 60 is a devoutly religious man who dies in a plane crash. The estate is worth 3 million dollars including the family home which is worth $500,000. Abraham and his wife Sarah 53 had five children; son Aaron 22, married daughter Bracha 20, daughter Chaya 16, son Daniel 14 and daughter Elka 10.  Abraham’s mother, Freida aged 80 is still alive.

Family member	Classic Jewish Inheritance Law	Islamic law*- based on Seminar as applied in Western countries a helpful website[i] and my limited understanding	Islamic Law* as apparently practiced in Malaysia according to seminar and my limited understanding	Current Jewish Practice
Mother Freida aged 80	$0	$500,000	$333,333	? any thing
Sarah 58- the widow	Expenses (rough figure $500,000) to live in dignity including unlimited use of family home	$375,000 + obligations by men of family	$250,000 + family home (total $750,000) and obligations by men of family	Family home + any thing?
First-born son Aaron age 22	$1,266,666	$607,142	$404,761	Might be divided equally between children but could be any thing
Married daughter Bracha age 20	$0	$303,571 and obligations by men of family	$202,380 and obligations by men of family
daughter Chaya age 16	$0 but up to $300,000 dowry	$303,571 and obligations by men of family	$202,380 and obligations by men of family
son Daniel age 14	$633,333	$607,142	$404,761
daughter Elka age 10	Expenses (basic til puberty $30,000) and up to $270,000 dowry[ii]	$303,571 and obligations by men of family	$202,380 and obligations by men of family

---

[i] http://www.islamicsoftware.org/irth/irth.html

[ii] Shulchan Aruch Even Haezer Laws of Ketubot, 113:4, the second dowry is calculated after deducting older daughter Chaya’s $300,000 from the total)

* Note: in Islam there is discretion about 1/3^rd of the estate.

Jewish “inheritance” in practice

There is a massive loop hole that makes Jewish inheritance laws practically irrelevant. If one used language to indicate that he wishes to gift his property in a way that is inconsistent with inheritance law he can do so[ix], which means he can give the sons, daughters of anyone else whatever they wish, including completely equal parts for all. There are other formulas that essentially amount to getting around the inheritance laws, which are recommended as part of a Halachic will by the Beth Din (religious court)[x]. What I find particularly interesting about this, is that this is done despite the explicit instructions to preserve inheritance law as an eternal law[xi]. It appears that customs began to emerge centuries ago not to give the first born son his double portion and this deviation was frowned upon[xii]. One opinion recommends a token gesture of leaving a small portion of the estate out of the formulas that get around the laws to obey the inheritance law at least symbolically[xiii].

Integrity & religious certainty

The sweepingly liberal application of Jewish law in this case can mean that men and women enjoy equality in inheritance. On the other hand I find it hard to explain how orthodox Jews can insist that every word of the Torah is the word of God handed down from Sinai[xiv] while almost completely going around a phrase “he will not be able to grant the son of his beloved wife the status of first born…but the first born son of the hated wife he must recognise to give him a double portion[xv]”. I am sure the scholars of the Talmud use their own rigorous methods, but I must acknowledge that the Imam taking the view that the inheritance laws are an expression of God’s wisdom shows consistency and integrity by refusing to find ways around it.

One of the diversity competence skills I have learned from my colleague, Donna Jacobs Sife is to be aware of and reflect on my own discomfort. So I ask myself, am I reacting to religious certainty based on the broad narrative that if Muslims are too religious, they will also be hostile to non-Muslims? I know that in my own tradition, those who take a less certain and literalist view are more often more respectful of other faiths. I also know very devout Muslims who take every word in Quran as the word of God and this reinforces their positive attitude to non-Muslims. I should not makes assumptions that project what happens in my own community or what seems to be the case with Christian fundamentalists on Muslims. I also know Jewish and Christian literalists who are deeply committed to interfaith respect. 

The choice between taking every work as the word of God is a big one. When I was in London as a 16 year old, I was told by a Jewish Cabbie, “God law is wrong”. When I asked him why he told me “I am a Mamzer, (a Bastard[xvi]) when I wanted to get married in my synagogue I was not allowed to”. He felt very humiliated because of this and was still enraged years later. “If I see Dayan Ehrentreu (chief of the London Beth Din) walking down the street, I would run him down with my cab” he told me. In his case, religious certainty led him to be publicly humiliated through no fault of his own. In practice, classic Jewish or Islamic Inheritance law might be quite harsh in certain situations on some women. I love the way some scholars in both faiths have found ways to mitigate the impact.

I would be easier on some people if people believed that the laws in the books were not binding. On the other side of the ledger, religious certainty is the deeply held position of billions of people. It motivates people to extraordinary generosity, personal sacrifice, and care for elderly parents or disabled children.  I was welcomed warmly by these “un-moderate Muslims” at the seminar, I think because of Islamic teachings of hospitality. My own children have been raised as I have been with religious certainty, I am grateful for how they are growing up and for my own parents modelling principle centered living, what matters most was what is right.  There are three atheists I know personally who are similarly virtuous, but that does not negate the religious pathway to virtue.  

Conclusion

It would be easier to avoid talking about this at all. Just to say that Jews and Muslims have a lot in common and I admire the many Muslims I come into contact with. I think for a real acceptance of each other, it is important to honestly grapple with the things that make us uncomfortable. The options I had were a) to recognise the limits of my understanding as an outsider, b) to try to get additional insight within the limits of what an outsider can understand, this approach yielded the fascinating ideas about the higher purposes of Sharia and helped me recognise the diversity of opinions within the faith c) I noticed a fair bit of common ground at least in the classic sources and d) I respect the integrity of the decision making without pretending to be comfortable with the decision. This is how I continue to deeply appreciate my fellow men and women, who follow Islam.

---

[i] This is story appears in the Midrash Bresheet Rabba 38, and is also told by Muslims

[ii] Soloveitchic, Rabbi JB, (1964) in Confrontation, http://www.bc.edu/dam/files/research_sites/cjl/texts/cjrelations/resources/articles/soloveitchik/

“The word of faith reflects the intimate, the private, the paradoxically inexpressible cravings of the individual for and his linking up with his Maker. It reflects the numinous character and the strangeness of the act of faith of a particular community which is totally incomprehensible to the man of a different faith community”.

[iii] Kamali, Mohammed Hashim (2010), He is Professor of Law at the International Islamic University Malaysia. He is author of numerous articles published in learned journals and many works including Principles of Islamic Jurisprudence, Criminal Law in Islam and Freedom of Expression in Islam.  http://www.faithinallah.org/higher-objectives-of-islamic-law-maqasid-ash-sharia/

[iv] Numbers 27:8-11, Deuteronomy 21:17

[v] Shulchan Aruch Even Haezer Laws of Ketubot, 112:6

[vi] Shulchan Aruch Even Haezer Laws of Ketubot, 113:1

[vii] http://www.islamicsoftware.org/irth/irth.html

[viii] Shulchan Aruch Even Haezer Laws of Ketubot, 113:4, the second dowry is calculated after deducting older daughter Chaya’s $300,000 from the total)

[ix] Shulchan Aruch, Choshen Mishpat, laws of inheritance, 381:7

[x] http://www.bethdin.org/docs/PDF14-Halachic_Will_Materials.pdf

[xi] Rabbenu Bchaya, on Numbers 27:11 commenting on the words “Chukat Mishpat”

[xii] Shulchan Aruch, Choshen Mishpat, laws of inheritance, 381:4 citing Marik Shoresh 8

[xiii] Responsa of Tashbaz, Vol.3 No.147, cited by Ksos Hachoshen, 352(2). See also Responsa, Chasan Sofer, Choshen Mishpat, 151. Cited in Dick, J, Halacha and the Conventional Last Will and Testament,  http://www.jlaw.com/Articles/last_will_and_testament1.html accessed 18/05/12

[xiv] Note Rashi’s commentary based on Torah Cohanim to Leviticus 25:1, what is the link between Shemita and Mt. Sinai, all the general principles and details are all from Sinai

[xv] Deuteronomy 21:16-17

[xvi] This status could be the result of a child being born from a mother that is religiously considered married to a previous husband from whom she is legally but not religiously divorced and conceived with a new partner

Negative Framing, Fanatics, Females and Forwarding

Just as putting your head in the sand and pretending there are never any problems between groups is foolish, focusing too much on the evil in others is destructive.

I received an e-mail with a link to a disturbing YouTube video in which a woman wearing typical Western dress is asked by a woman with a veil “who are you trying to seduce?!” It shows Muslim men and women chanting “UK go to hell! UK Police go to hell!” The e-mail said simply “An eye opening video about the strength of the Muslims and their beliefs and how it gets when there are enough of them”. I was upset when I watched it. I was disturbed by the extremism of the marchers and the implied generalisation. The common thread is a narrow and negative perspective about others.

To put the clip in some context, a Gallup poll found that “About two-thirds of Muslims in London (64%) say they have confidence in the British government, compared to just 36% of the British public overall[i]”. Another survey found that while 84% of British Muslims surveyed endorsed a literalist view of scripture, “with regard to national identity, 58% reported that they “very strongly” belong to Britain and 29% “fairly strongly[ii]” a total of 87%. In another version of the video we are told that less than 100 of the 30,000 Muslims living in the area were are at the protest. In the version that I was sent, with 1.4 million views, we don’t see any of this. This post, seeking guidance in Torah sources, examines the attitudes of the protesters, the creation/editing of the clip and its circulation.

Assertiveness without prejudice- don’t you call me a racist!

It is not racist to criticise members of minority groups about specific behaviours. Although expressing hostility to the government is protected by the principle of free speech, it is right for other citizens to robustly object to these attitudes. A wholesale condemnation of the country one lives in, rather than demonstrating against specific policies should be criticised. Denigrating others for their choices, such as suggesting that someone with a different idea about clothing is promiscuous is wrong. At the same time, if a critique generalises the problem to a whole group, rather than the individuals involved, it is racism or bigotry.

Groups are entitled to assert themselves and their legitimate rights. In doing so, it is vital to keep a sense of proportion and a broad perspective of the whole picture. Exaggerating the threat posed by the “other” is apparently the reason for the killing of Trayvon Martin, and exaggeration is also reflected in the ridiculous rants of the mass murderer, Breivic, in Norway.

The divider, the law of the “Metzorah”  

One problem common to the demonstrators and their critics is divisive speech, an issue which the Torah deals with harshly. It mandates isolation for the Metzorah (problematically translated as a leper), which is a person exhibiting very specific skin or hair discoloration[iii] that does not conform to any scientifically known conditions[iv]. Predominantly, the condition is understood to be result of engaging in “Lashon Harah”, evil talk, (telling people about the bad things another person has done for no constructive purpose (among other sins)[v]. In a play on words, the word Metzorah מצורה is equated with Motzi Rah, מוצי רע one who “brings out” evil. One who highlights and calls attention to the faults and misdeeds of others.

Isolation of the divider

Isolation is declared to be a fitting punishment, “just as he separated by his evil talk between a husband and wife and between a man and his friend, so too should he be separated (from others)[vi]”. Not only must the Metzorah leave the camp and live alone, he is also forbidden to talk to others, be greeted by anyone[vii] and needs to shout out “I am impure” and dress in a way[viii] that will keep people away. The Metzorah, gossiping about the evil of others, does not value the community in which s/he lives, indifferent to the division his negative speech is causing. Being forced out of the community provides an opportunity to consider the value of community[ix].

But it’s True…

Significantly, this harsh punishment is not for slander and false accusations, the definition of Lashon Harah, “evil talk” includes talking about incidents that are true. Perhaps the problem with telling the truth about the faults of others is that it dwells on this one aspect of the subject and the narrow focus distorts that person’s reputation which should take into account the full person. Following the Yiddish saying, “a half truth is a complete lie”. It’s the missing tile syndrome. Our eyes are drawn to the one missing tile but ignore the rest of the beautiful mosaic.

A narrow perspective

When the demonstrators shout UK ‘go to hell’, they are dwelling on certain aspects of the UK that they object to, an arrest they don’t agree with among other things, and ignoring the virtues of that society. A Muslim friend told me yesterday about a Sheik who teaches his students that there is no need to seek Sharia law as a system of government. He argues that 95% of the principles of Sharia such as care for the vulnerable etc. are already part of Australian law.

As demonstrated in the second paragraph, the film that portrays these people is giving an extremely narrow picture of a small group of people. We also know almost nothing about the people portrayed except that they have a negative attitude and on a given day expressed their hostility. We don’t know if they are productive tax paying citizens, honest, loving family members, have a sense of humour or love cricket.

The Constructive clause

Some would argue that circulating the video is not Lashon Harah/evil speech because of the constructive purpose clause that allows reporting evil deeds to protect the innocent, eg. it is permissible to tell a prospective employer about the bad habits of the person they are seeking to employ. They would argue that this video raises awareness of an important social problem. When employing this justification, it is important to be accurate in reporting which this video is not. Certainly the comments left about the video are far from constructive; many are hateful, some even calling for extermination and mosque burnings. 

Reintegration of the “divider

The Torah response to divisive speech is assertive but humane. In spite of the gravity of the offense, and the harshness of the response, the humanity of “divider/Metzorah” is not forgotten. The Talmud sees a second purpose in his shouting out that s/he is “impure! impure!” is to make known his pain to many, and many (people) will ask for (divine) mercy for him[x]”. Once the Metzorah has “served his time” s/he must be given an opportunity to again be an upstanding member of the community. This process begins with a leader of the community going out of the camp to where the Metzorah is[xi], symbolising the leadership seeking to understand the situation of the “outcast”[xii].  Asserting a standard of behaviour does not preclude understanding the situation of those who fail to adhere to that standard. Typically the leading Kohen/priest would be joined by many other people. This meant that the Metzorah was honoured with a large welcoming delegation[xiii]. The ceremony uses a red thread, a hyssop and cedar wood. The symbolism being that the Metzorah who was previously red with sin in the sense of the verse “if your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow[xiv]”, and was humbled from being like a tall tree to a lowly hyssop through his sins can now be restored by God’s forgiveness to his place and (tree like) height. A bird is released symbolising that like a caged bird feed to socialize with its fellow birds, the former “Divider” is now welcome to be with his community[xv].

 

In conclusion

Not all criticism of minorities or government is wrong. There are some substantial issues that fuel division or anger. I think, the exaggerated perception of those differences is a far more significant factor. The Muslims at the demonstration as well those who edited, and promoted the video as being representative of all Muslims are allowing a focus on the negative to divide us.

---

[i] http://www.gallup.com/poll/27409/Muslims-Europe-Basis-Greater-Understanding-Already-Exists.aspx

[ii] http://www.brin.ac.uk/news/2010/clive-field-on-attitudes-to-islam-and-muslim-attitudes-in-britain/

[iii] Leviticus 13:46

[iv] Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsh and Rabbi David Zvi Hoffman cited in Nachshoni, Y (1991), Studies in the Weekly Parsha, Vayikra, Artscroll, New York, p. 723. At face value this would seem to be simply about the fear of contagion  (Daat Zekainim Mbaalei Tosafot, on Leviticus 13:44, Bchor Shor) of a natural disease. However, it is more useful to set aside arguments about the facts of “leprosy” and focus on how this phenomenon is understood in context and tradition, which is that these conditions are understood to be a supernatural phenomenon (Maimonides commentary to Mishna, Negaim 12:5, cited in Leibowitz, N, (1993) New Studies in Vayikra Leviticus, the World Zionist Org, dept. for Torah Education pub. p. 188). This view is not shared by all commentators, Ralbag states that it is caused by moisture and heat. Even Maimonides himself attributes some natural aspects to it in the guide for the perplexed (3:44). Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsh and Rabbi David Zvi Hoffman both argue strongly that is not a natural disease. Some of proof includes instances where concern about contagion would require isolation yet the law does not require it. If the discoloration spreads to the entire body the person is declared “pure”. A groom celebrating in the week following his marriage and anyone celebrating during the pilgrimage who has the symptoms  is exempt from being examined and declared impure until the end of the celebration (Maimonides laws of the Impurity of the Metzorah 9:8) . If we thought this was a contagious disease we certainly would not allow someone to be among so many people during the celebrations. (This over-riding of the laws of the Metzorah would only apply to an non-declared condition, if it has already been declared the festival would not over-ride the status of the Metzorah and he would remain isolated – Talmud Moed Katan 14b)The bottom line is that the predominant understanding among the religious Jews I grew up with was that this was a direct sign from God rather than some normal illness.  

[v] Midrash Vayikra Rabba 17:3, Talmud Arachin 16a, other sins said to result in this condition in the Talmud are murder, stealing from the public, adultery, false oaths, arrogance and ungenerous attitude to others. All of these result in the destruction of community and relationships

[vi] Talmud Arachin 16b, Rashi and Baal Haturim to Leviticus 13:46

[vii] Talmud Moed Katan 15a

[viii] Leviticus 13:45

[ix] Oznayim Latorah, cited in Nachshoni, Y (1991), Studies in the Weekly Parsha, Vayikra, Artscroll, New York, p. 744

[x] Talmud Sotah 32b

[xi] Leviticus 14:3

[xii] Siach Hasadeh, cited in Greenberg, A Y (1992), Torah Gems, Vol 2, Y. Orenstien, Yavneh Publishing, Tel Aviv, p.293

[xiii] Sifsei Kohen

[xiv] Isaiah 18:1

[xv] Bchor Shor

Religious Certainty; Conformity, Carnage & Comfort

In Toulouse, French Jews & Muslims
link arms in protest of the killings. 

We have been doing a lot of religion this week, two long Seders to midnight, a massive effort to rid our homes of any traces of bread (or other leaven) and long prescribed prayers. Some people happily choose to do all of this and get a lot out of it, personally, I found the Seders fulfilling but reading some of the required prayers felt more like conforming to religious rules or community norms than motivated by devotion to God. I have also been moved by a report about young man who is very much part of the Sydney Muslim community, is gay and considers himself agnostic but he feels compelled to either hide his truth or sever all ties with his community[1]. I suspect that if he was an orthodox Jew his situation would be very similar. In both cases it seems that conformity is part of the cost of belonging[2], rather than individuals being encouraged to freely pursue truth and choose what they believe to be right.

The recent murder of a Rabbi/teacher and his young children in Toulouse is a more serious example of how religion can be used for evil. As a Rabbi/teacher with young children myself, it really brings it home to me. I don’t think it is just to blame all adherents of Islam for the actions of this murderer. The act has also been condemned by French Muslim leaders.  In this post I share a few thoughts about the broader issue of whether religions that claim to have the absolute Truth are a force for good. 

Double edged sword

A starting point for me is the idea that religion can be used for good or evil. It is written of the Torah, If he merits, it becomes a life giving drug for him, if he does not merit it becomes poison[3]. This is interpreted as depending on whether one studies for its own sake[4] rather than some ulterior motive, or alternatively, whether “they occupy themselves with it with all their strength to know it’s secret[5]”. This presents the idea that religion can be destructive, but also the opportunity to get it right by being alert to the dangers and continually seeking the “true secret” within the sacred text.

Religiously justified violence and creativity

Yet seeking the truth might still lead people to the conviction that they know what God wants, and that God’s will is for them to kill another person (apart from self-defence). In the Torah, the Israelites are instructed to annihilate the Canaanites, execute Sabbath violators and witches. Yet beyond the early years[6],  religious courts rarely administered capital punishment. “A Sanhedrin (high court) that executes one person in seven years is called "murderous." Another sage says “one execution in seventy years”. Rabbi Tarfon and Rabbi Akiva say, "If we had been among the Sanhedrin, no one would ever have been executed.[7]" This reluctance to take a life shows a creative application of God’s law in which very mature, responsible sages, while not doubting their right to kill, somehow manage not to.

Application to Toulouse

In the case of the Toulouse murderer, I think of religion abused. Here was a young person with a criminal record, and no formal religious authority making decisions on his own about religion and death. As the attached image shows, religious authorities in his community clearly did not agree. I suggest that in some cases terrorism might be the bastard child or western individualism/anti-authoritarianism and narrow extremist interpretation of text. If Authority was strongly respected the idiot- murderers would feel compelled to seek guidance, and wiser heads would weight up the interpretations, the circumstances etc. and at least in some cases such as Toulouse, rule against the killing.

An example of this was told to me about some gong-ho young Muslims in Sydney who asked a sheik if they could go off to Iraq to “kill the invaders attacking their co-religionists”. The Imam cleverly instructed them to first fulfil their religious obligations of honouring their mothers and come to dawn prayers every morning before they think of undertaking such a mission. The last US soldiers will be long gone from Iraq before these guys start getting out of bed at 5 am or get permission to fight. This is not a panacea, but in some cases respect for authority and guidance certainly can help, just as in other cases questioning bad authority is important.

Conformity and Questioning Authority   

As part of the Seder ritual, we read about the “wicked son”[8]. His “wickedness” consists of excluding himself from the ritual by asking “What is all this work for you?!”. This is seen as a denial of the main principle because he excludes himself. The wicked son is dealt with harshly and confronted with the idea that if he had been in Egypt with that kind of attitude he would not have been redeemed.

The requirement to conform is not based on authority always getting it right. The Torah discusses a process of atonement for when leaders make mistakes and lead others to sin[9]. One teaching tells us “because a person comes to (a position of) greatness, immediately he comes to sin[10]”. In a play on words we are taught, fortunate is the generation in which leaders are prepared to acknowledge their mistakes[11]. One of the great stories about Abraham has him challenge his father and the religious leadership of his time by smashing idols[12]. Yet, it seems that the more dominant example is the story of the binding of Isaac when Abraham is prepared to kill his own child to obey the word of God.

The positive power of certainty and conformity

While some would prefer a more open approach to truth, others find great value in conforming to a set of certainties about God and truth. Consider the inspiring words from Eva Sandler the widow of the murdered French Rabbi who also lost two children. “I don’t know how I and my husband’s parents and sister will find the consolation and strength to carry on, but I know that the ways of G-d are good… I know that their holy souls will remain with us forever… Parents, please kiss your children. Tell them how much you love them, and how dear it is to your heart that they be living examples of our Torah…, imbued with the fear of Heaven and with love of their fellow man[13].” I doubt anyone who had suffered such a great loss could find the strength to be so positive unless she is certain about God and Torah.

A way forward

Conformity and religious certainty can be both a good or bad thing depending on how it is applied. I think is it vital for those who believe they have the Truth to be aware of the dangers that could flow from this certainty and grapple with the ethical implications of it. One way to decrease the risk of devaluing others is to interact in a genuine way with people who do not share one’s own faith. This would hopefully help focus the mind to creatively seek out interpretations that bring people together, and preserve peace, justice and dignity for all. 

---

[1] Good Weekend Magazine, Sydney Morning Herald, 7/4/2012

[2] Vardy, P, (2010) Good and Bad Religion, SCM Press , London, explores this theme

[3] Talmud Yoma 72b

[4] Maharsha, Rabbi Shmuel Eliezer Edeles  (1555-1631)

[5] Rashi to Talmud Shabbat 88b

[6] of conquest and battle with Amalek

[7] Talmud Makot 7a, translation from www.jlaw.com/Briefs/capital2.html

[8] The Haggada, the text we recite at the Passover Seder

[9] Leviticus 4:3

[10] Midrash Hacheifetz, from an old manuscript, cited in Kasher, M, Torah Shlaima, vol. 25, p 159

[11] Torah Kohanim cited in Torah Shlaima, , vol. 25, p. 194, Rashi

[12] Midrash, also told by Muslims

[13] http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/1808989/jewish/Massacre-in-Toulouse.htm