As a rabbi and professor of rabbinic literature, I am naturally drawn to interpreting texts. The best moments are when these texts come alive and inform my life (inshallah). I have long been intrigued by an ancient text attributed to a pre-rabbinic figure from the first century BCE (Before the Common Era – rabbis did not emerge until after the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple in 70 CE). The text reads:

Joshua ben Perahia said, “Find a teacher for yourself, and acquire a colleague, judge every person favorably” (Mishnah Pirke Avot 1:6).

This triplet of good advice requires some explanation. Find (or “make,” which is closer to the Hebrew original) a teacher for yourself might also be translated that you should make someone your “master.” In the Hebrew text the word for teacher is Rav which can mean master, as well as being the root of the word rabbi. In other words, choose a rabbi to study with and to follow.

Next, we are taught to acquire a colleague. Most likely this means someone to study with, but it also can mean someone who you can share a meal with (that is to say, you trust that his food is kosher or halal). In general, it is a blessing to have good colleagues.

The final piece of advice, while commendable, seems on the surface to be disconnected: Judge everyone favorably. Might it refer to choosing a teacher or your study-buddy?

I will come back to what I think this text means, but first, I want to consider a text from the Torah, which commands: Love your neighbor as yourself (Lev 19:18). This text, too, seems straightforward, until we wonder how do we “love” on command? Some commentators assume this means that you would care about your neighbor’s finances as you would your own. A small minority of others, I am embarrassed to say, have construed this to mean that you need only love your neighbor who is like yourself. This implies that the commandment is limited to only loving other Jews!

Indeed, there is a rabbinic text from the second century that might be construed precisely this way – it is alarming:

In the Mishnah (Yoma 8:7) we read about a case where a wall falls upon someone on Shabbat. Now uncovering a pile of rubble is a forbidden labor on the Sabbath. But the Mishnah of the second century CE seems to make an exception: If there is doubt whether he was there or not there, if there is doubt whether he was alive or dead, if there were doubt whether he was a Jew or a non-Jew – then one removes the rubble.

The text is clear that to save a Jewish life, one may violate Shabbat, as saving a life takes precedence over all other commandments. But we must ask: whose life? Does this only apply, God forbid, to saving a Jew? This one of those famous “difficult texts” that we stumble over in interfaith dialogue. When we compare “our best” to “their worst” during dialogues, such difficult texts are stumbling blocks. We all have such texts. And until we learn to dialogue by proudly sharing our best with their best, we will stumble.

My teacher 45 years ago was a man in his eighties, Rabbi Saul Lieberman. He was widely regarded as the foremost authority on the Talmud in his generation. He once told me the story about taking a Shabbat stroll with a colleague from Columbia University, Prof. Morton Smith. Now it happens that Morton, although many years my elder, was my teacher but also my colleague and my friend. He had been ordained an Episcopal priest early in his career, and he loved to tweak the supercilious pieties of religion. Morton was also an expert in rabbinic literature. As the story goes, Morton Smith and Rabbi Lieberman walked past a building site on Broadway when Morton asked my rabbi, “Prof. Lieberman, if that wall fell on me now during the Sabbath, would you save me?”

On the face of it, this was a serious challenge to what might have been understood as the law of the Mishnah. A strict reading might have required Prof. Smith’s body to remain under the rubble until Shabbat ended. But Prof. Lieberman replied in an instant, “Why Morton, of course I would save you! And then, I would go home, consult my tomes of Jewish law, and find the correct reason for having done so.”

Actually, it would not have been very hard to find a legal authority. As we mentioned above, saving a life certainly would take priority over Sabbath law. That’s what the Mishnah is trying to teach us. But would it apply to saving a non-Jew? Both Lieberman and Smith knew perfectly well that the Torah explicitly teaches, You shall not oppress the stranger. You must know the heart of the stranger, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt (Exodus 23:9). And if that wasn’t clear enough, the Torah commands, You shall love the stranger, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt (Deut 10:19).

Indeed, the Mishnah and other rabbinic literature bend over backward to assure that Jews have good relations with their non-Jewish neighbors (the word used is Shalom) and require that Jews greet non-Jews, care for their poor, mourn and bury their dead, offer condolences, care for their animals, midwife their births, heal their sick, much as would be done for other Jews.

What I learn from the story of my teacher Rabbi Lieberman and my colleague and teacher Prof. Smith is that teachers and colleagues who are NOT Jewish require us to confront, and solve, our tradition’s difficult texts. Interaction with the other, collegiality, even friendship, to say the least of discipleship, require us to love one another as we would ourselves.

My teacher of New Testament, Father Raymond Brown, offered an example from the Catholic tradition. Prof. Brown took scrupulous care in carefully teaching Gospel texts, lest other priests or their parishioners might learn anti-Semitism from those ancient texts. Christianity had a long and sorry history of enmity towards the Jews. Anti-Semitism had been the norm for almost 2,000 years. But in the aftermath of the Holocaust, Christian teaching radically changed. As Pope Francis said in March, 2019, “I stress that for a Christian any form of anti-Semitism is a rejection of one’s own origins, a complete contradiction.”

We take care to find the right teachers. I am blessed to have such teachers and to have made good colleagues in the Muslim world, as well. This is not surprising as the Holy Qur’an teaches,

O mankind! We created you from a single (pair) of a male and a female, and made you into nations and tribes, that ye may know each other. Verily the most honored of you in the sight of Allah is the most righteous of you (Qur’an 49:13, after Yusuf Ali).

In the Hadith of al-Nawawi (Forty Hadith, no. 15): we learn that on the authority of Abu Hurayrah (may Allah be pleased with him), the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said: “Whoever believes in Allah and the Last Day should speak good things or keep silent. Whoever believes in Allah and the Last Day should be generous to his neighbor. Whoever believes in Allah and the Last Day should be courteous and generous to his [travelling] visitor.” This is reported in Bukhari and Muslim.

In other words, this Hadith seems to teach a tradition similar to that of the Torah and the rabbis. Further, al Nawawi teaches (ibid. no. 13): on the authority of Abi Hamza Anas bin Malik, the servant of the messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) from the prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) who said: “None of you [truly] believes until he loves for his brother what he loves for himself. ” This is also reported in Bukhari and Muslim.

These Hadith traditions emphasize that what is true for Jews is true for Muslims. We must learn to love one another and want what is best for our brothers and sisters of the other religion, much as we would want for ourselves.

Now we know that despite these teachings, there are Jews who hate Muslims and Muslims who revile Jews. Thank God / Al hamdulillah, that we have teachers who clearly teach against this tendency. Our master, Hocaefendi Fethullah Gülen stated:

“A crucial step in healing the sick mindset that leads individuals to kill people out of hatred or other reasons is for every individual to acknowledge the dignity of every human being, to respect them as a work of art that was created by God and to inculcate this perspective in the minds of our youth.”

If we all come from our common ancestors Adam and Eve, Hocaefendi Gülen seems to say to us, then every person shares the same human dignity. No one can say, “My ancestry is better than yours.”

A couple of months ago, I had the wonderful privilege of meeting with Hocaefendi Gülen at his home in rural Pennsylvania. We drove there from New York City, but were warned that Hocaefendi was tired and might not spend more than a few minutes greeting us. As it turned out, we were honored to share an hour of discussion with our teacher. By the end of the meeting, I had found for myself another “rabbi.” I was thrilled to meet this revered leader, a man near in age to my rabbis of old. But I was utterly astounded by the act of humility with which he welcomed me. Hocaefendi Gülen rose from his chair and said, “Rabbi, please sit here in my place.” Had I traveled hours only to experience his hospitality and humility, it would have been a lesson well learned.

But I was privileged to engage further in a wide-ranging conversation on how we might confront anti-Semitism and Islamophobia. As with all good teachers, the conversation and Hocaefendi’s questions have continued to turn over in my mind since that extraordinary meeting.

What can we do to better relations between Muslims and Jews? Here are some suggestions I have learned in my nearly three decades of Jewish-Muslim dialogue.

First, as the Holy Qur’an teaches, we should meet and “know one another.” A good example of how this is accomplished is through the organization the Sisterhood of Salaam / Shalom (https://sosspeace.org/ ). Or we can arrange visits between Mosque and Synagogue. (see http://mideastweb.org/muslim-sermon_cg.htm ). We can celebrate our festivals together (see http://nyc.muslimjewishsolidarity.org/). Here, the Hizmet movement has excelled in arranging interfaith Iftar dinners during the Holy month of Ramadan (e.g https://hizmetnews.com/24889/interfaith-ramadan-iftar-dinner-held-in-montville/#.Xg9tJLpOmEc ).
 
We can also study to learn about one another. I recommend a book jointly published by the Jewish Theological Seminary and the Islamic Society of North America: Sharing the Well: A Resource Guide to Jewish-Muslim Relations (www.jtsa.edu/sharingthewell ). And, of course, we must protect one another and fight Islamophobia and anti-Semitism by standing together SHOULDER TO SHOULDER (https://www.shouldertoshouldercampaign.org/ ).  Both the Jewish and Muslim traditions demand that we work for social justice and righteousness (e.g. feeding the hungry: https://www.denverpost.com/2012/11/18/muslims-jews-gather-at-denver-mosque-to-help-feed-the-hungry/ ).

Now that I have shared what I learned from loving my neighbor, the non-Jewish other, the Christian or the Muslim, I have a new understanding of the text I quoted at the outset of this article.

Joshua ben Perahia said, “Find a teacher for yourself, and acquire a colleague, so that you will learn from them to judge every person favorably” (Pirke Avot 1:6).

Rabbi Burton L. Visotzky
Director, Milstein Center for Interreligious Dialogue Jewish Theological Seminary, New York

Written and illustrated by Karen Gray Ruelle and Deborah Durland Desaix, The Grand Mosque of Paris is published by Holiday House Books for $17.95. Bouquets should be presented to the authors for the research they’ve done to bring such a beautiful historical moment to life. This book is living proof that Muslims and Jews lived as brothers in the past.

At forty pages long, and with illuminating illustrations on nearly every page, this is a fascinating read. It is set in 1939, when the Nazis invaded Poland, initiating World War II. Jews, the Nazis’ main victims, were in grave danger; they were being hunted down all over Europe. Many of them fled to France in the hopes of safety, but in 1940, the Nazis conquered France. A new French government of collaborators was set up, and as per the order of the Nazis, many anti-Jewish laws were passed. The new government rounded up Jews of all ages, mercilessly tortured them, and sent them to concentration camps, where millions died. Those Jews who were not captured began to seek shelter and refuge wherever they could. A large number of them found help in an extraordinary place: it was the Grand Mosque, the center of the Islamic Community in Paris, “… an oasis hidden behind high walls right in the middle of the city.”

The authors have projected the Mosque as both a place of great beauty and as a place of refuge and sanctuary, glorifying the Islamic principle of helping people in distress:

“The Grand Mosque shimmered like a mirage, the white dome and the glittering mosaics of the minaret in shark contrast to the mutated colors of Paris. When the mosque was built in 1926, the North African countries of Algeria, Morocco, and Tunisia were under French rule, and many Muslims had come to Paris from those countries. The land for the mosque was given by the French government in exchange for a symbolic payment of one franc, to thank the half million Muslim soldiers who had fought for France during the First World War.”

The mosque, with its graceful columns and arches, spacious courtyards, blooming gardens, and cascading fountains had a library full of rare manuscripts and books, steam baths, a clinic, and a restaurant. Everything that happened in the Muslim community – like births, marriages, and deaths – was duly recorded at the mosque.

This short book pays tribute to some notable persons who played dynamic roles in France and unflinchingly helped Jews – women and children young and old. There was Si Kaddour Benghabrit, the writer and diplomat who was in charge of the mosque. He kept the gates of the mosque open for Jews, housed and fed them, and kept them safe from persecution. In some cases, he even issued fake birth certificates to them to prove that they were Muslims. In one example, a young Jew from Algeria, Salim Halali, had a great desire to be a singer. In France, he was given protection in the mosque. Benghabrit secretly asked a stone carver to inscribe the family name on an unmarked tombstone in the Muslim cemetery, to convince the Nazis that Salim was a Muslim.

Another notable figure was Dr. Ahmed Somia, who cared for and protected the young children who were sick.

Besides these notable people, many unnamed Muslims in the French Resistance helped Jews to escape from Nazi-occupied Paris. Various means were adopted to disguise Jews. They were supplied with the Fez (a traditional tasseled wool felt hat) so that they could pass as Muslims. The Resistance also operated a secret network that smuggled Jews out of Paris to safety, sometimes through hidden tunnels under the basement of the mosque. These passageways twisted and turned beneath the streets for miles and miles until they reached the bank of River Seine, where Jews could then be transported to safe havens.

The authors, Ruelle and DeSaix, lament the fact that most important documents and manuscripts were either destroyed or lost during the Nazi invasion. After a long and laborious search, they could obtain only a few documents that threw light on the historical facts chronicled in the book. One letter, as the authors say, “… was recently found among the old papers of a Paris cafe owned by a Tunisian. The cafe owner said that it dated from World War II. It read:

Yesterday at dawn, the Jews of Paris were arrested. The elderly, the women, and the children. In exile like ourselves, workers like ourselves. They are our brothers. Their children are like our children. Anyone who encounters one of his children must give that child shelter and protection for as long as misfortune – or sorrow – lasts. Oh man of my country, your heart is generous.

Was this letter read out in the cafe? Did it circulate among the Kaybele workers of Paris, making its way through the crowded boardinghouses where these men lived? It certainly seems to be a call to action. Without a doubt, it is a recognition of the strong bond between North African Muslims and Jews.”

When World War II ended, Si Benghabrit kept on serving in the mosque as its rector until his death in 1954. He was buried by the mosque. Jewish singer Salim Halali lived a long, successful life, and is revered as the father of modern North African song. Dr. Ahmed Somia continued his selfless devotion to the sick until his death.

The Grand Mosque of Paris, written in simple English, is a book that must be cherished. One cannot help but feel it could have been better if descriptions of the incidents and the works of the people mentioned in the book were in greater detail. Yet, it is a book designed for children, so the authors wanted to keep the level good enough for the aimed age group.

Since all monotheistic scriptures come from the one and only God, we should view other scriptures as potentially enriching our understanding of our own scripture. But in the middle ages, almost all readers thought of revelation as a zero sum sport like tennis rather than a multiple win co-operative sport like mountain climbing.

In a zero sum game, any value or true spiritual insight I grant to another scripture somehow diminishes my own. This was the result of the influence of Greek philosophy’s emphasis on the logic of the excluded middle. Something is either true or it is false. There is no other option. If two propositions contradicted one another, one or both of them must be false. If my religion is true, yours must be false.

In modern terms, light could not be both a particle and a wave at the same time. Yet we now know that light is indeed both a particle and a wave at the same time.

This situation did not improve much in modern times. In the last two centuries, university academics have written many studies of comparative religion which they claim are objective and not distorted by their religious beliefs. Unfortunately, academics who treat other religions academically usually do not believe that other scriptures are actually Divinely inspired. Indeed, many academics do not believe that even their own scriptures are Divinely inspired.

They use the same kinds of explanation to understand a revealed religion that they would use to explain secular history and literature. I follow a different model, one I learned from Prophet Muhammad. For example, the Mishnah (an early third century compilation of the oral Torah), states, “Adam was created as an individual to teach you that anyone who destroys a single soul, Scripture imputes it to him as if he destroyed the whole world” (Mishnah Sanhedrin 4:5).

And the Qur’an states, “one who kills a human being, unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land, would be as if he slew the whole people, and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people” (Qur’an 5:32). Academics explain the similarity of the two statements by assuming that since the Jewish statement is several centuries earlier than the Qur’an, Muhammad must have heard it from a Rabbi or other educated Jew in Medina.

But I believe Muhammad is a prophet of God who confirms the Torah of Prophet Moses. Muhammad has no need to learn this statement from another human being. Academics might reply that the statement is not found in the written Torah; it appears in the oral Torah, written by the Rabbis in the Mishnah more than 1000 years after Moses.

But the Rabbis maintain that the Mishnah is part of the oral Torah that was passed down from Moses through many generations, just as the Prophet Muhammad’s sayings have been passed down through the generations. Indeed, the Qur’an itself introduces this statement as follows, “It is because of this that We ordained for the Children of Israel ‘one who kills a human being …'” (Qur’an 5:32).

No prophet of God needs to be informed by another human what should be written in Holy Scripture. God is the source of all Divine inspiration. There are several verses in the Qur’an that mention things from the oral Torah. My perspective is that prophets and Holy Scriptures cannot in reality oppose one another because they all come from one source. Prophets are all brothers; they have the same father (God) and different mothers (motherlands, mother tongues, nations, cultures, and historical eras).

All of these produce different rituals and legal systems, but their theology can differ only in small and unessential details. As the sage of Konya, Jalal al-Din al-Rumi says, “Ritual prayer might differ in every religion, but belief never changes” (Fihi Mafih 49). Religions differ because the circumstances of each nation receiving them differ. Where the Scriptures differ, they cast additional light on each other. My belief is based on an important Hadith of Prophet Muhammad: a disciple of Muhammad named Abu Huraira relates, “The people of the Book used to read the Torah in Hebrew and then explain it in Arabic to the Muslims. Allah’s Apostle said (to the Muslims). “Do not believe the people of the Book, nor disbelieve them, but say, ‘We believe in Allah, and whatever is revealed to us, and whatever is revealed to you.'”

Following Muhammad’s teaching, I too neither believe nor disbelieve the Qur’an. If I believed in the Qur’an, I would be a member of the Muslim ummah (community). But I cannot disbelieve in the Qur’an because I believe that Muhammad was a prophet and I respect the Qur’an as a revelation to a kindred people, in a kindred language. In fact, the people, the language and the theology are closer to my own people, language, and theology than that of any other on earth.

How does this perspective affect my understanding of their Qur’an and my Torah? I practice “hosgoru.” Unlike those in the past who played the zero sum game, I do not seek some verse in the Qur’an I can dispute or object to. Indeed, this is what the Qur’an itself teaches. “For every community We have appointed a whole system of worship which they are to observe. So do not let them draw you into disputes concerning this matter” (22:67).

One of the major differences between the Qur’an and the Torah is the Torah’s attention to details (names of people and places) and the Qur’an’s emphases on universals. The Torah has long lists of geographical locations and of genealogies that many people today, especially non-Jews, find boring.

The Qur’an rarely identifies locations, and often omits the names of the people it does mention, for example the prophet who appointed Talut to become the first king of Israel (2:246). Indeed, Muslim commentators disagree about many of these details. Some say the prophet who appointed Talut king of Israel was Samuel and others think it was Joshua or Simeon.

These disagreements occur because many commentators do not use the Bible to fill in the details for the generalities of the Qur’an. Sometimes the Qur’an refers to nameless Messengers sent to a nameless town and no additional details can be added because there is no parallel in the Torah (36:13-29). In this case, even the punishment is only a vague “single blast and all became corpses” (26:29).

This lack of detail points to the Qur’an’s universal and ongoing Divine call for all human societies to repent and reform themselves.

On the other hand, many Rabbis get caught up in the details of the Torah and even expand them into super details. Thus, the rules relating to dietary observance of Passover and prohibited work on Shabbat have multiplied endlessly.

We need to learn from the Sunnah of the prophet as narrated by Abu Huraira: The Prophet said, “Religion is very easy and whoever overburdens himself in his religion will not be able to continue in that way. So you should not be extremists, but try to be near to perfection and receive the good tidings that you will be rewarded” (Bukhari Volume 1, Book 2, Number 38).

Another important lesson from the Prophet’s Sunnah, as narrated by his wife Aisha, says, “Whenever the Prophet was given an option between two things, he used to select the easier of the two as long as it was not sinful; but if it was sinful, he would remain far from it” (Bukhari Volume 4, Book 56, Number 147).

This is the path that I and most Reform Rabbis have taken in the last two centuries. If Orthodox Jews in the time of Muhammad had followed the prophet’s teaching, Reform Judaism (the largest of several different religious groups of Jews in North America) would have begun 14 centuries ago, instead of only two centuries ago.

The Qur’an was also far ahead of its time in many other ways. One of the most important ways is the Qur’an’s oft repeated statement that believers (Muslims) should believe in all the messengers of God. This message of religious pluralism and toleration is sorely needed in the 21st century.

The Qur’an states: “They say that none will enter Paradise unless he be a Jew or a Christian. That is their wishfulness. Say ‘Produce your proof if you are truthful'” (2:111).

At the time of Muhammad, both Orthodox Rabbis and Catholic Priests did claim that only their own believers would enter Paradise. The Qur’an instructs Muslims that this claim is not based on the Jewish or the Christian scriptures but only on the desires of those people who make these claims. In truth, nowhere in the Torah of Moses, the Zabur of David, or anywhere else in the Hebrew Bible is this claim that only Jews will enter Paradise asserted.

The great Sage Hillel, who lived in the first century prior to the birth of Jesus, taught that, “The righteous of all nations have a place in Paradise” (Tosefta Sanhedrin). Jesus also taught, “In my Father’s house are many dwelling places; if not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you” (John 12:2).

But generations after the death of Jesus, claims were made in his name, that only those who believed Jesus was the son of God, who died on the cross to save all humans from going to Hellfire, would be able to enter Paradise. In reaction to these polemical Christian claims, some Talmudic Rabbis began to counter-claim that only Jews would enter Paradise.

Yet even then the Rabbis did not think that eternal punishment was the fate of all those excluded from Paradise. Gehenna-Hellfire was conceived of as a temporary abode generally believed to last a maximum of 12 months.

The great sage, Rabbi Akiba, stated, “The punishment of the wicked in Gehenna lasts 12 months” (Mishnah Eduyyot 2:10). This is repeated in the Talmud (Shabbat 33b), and elsewhere it is stated that sinners, both Jewish and non-Jewish, are punished in Gehenna-Hellfire for (up to) 12 months (Rosh HaShanah 17a).

Thus the Qur’an accurately states, “They say, ‘the Fire will not touch us except for a fixed number of days” (2:80). The Qur’an instructs Muslims to say to both Jews and Christians, “If the abode of the Hereafter with God is reserved for you alone, excluding other people, then long for death … but they will never long for it” (2:94-5).

So, the answer to those who claim that, “none will enter Paradise unless he is a Jew or a Christian,” is “No! Rather, whoever submits his whole being to God as one devoted to doing good, aware that God is seeing him, his reward is with his Lord, and all such will have no fear, nor will they grieve” (2:112).

Thus, the Qur’an affirms that those Rabbis who strayed from the words of Hillel, “The righteous of all nations have a place in Paradise,” were wrong. Those followers of Jesus who abandoned his teaching, “In my Father’s house are many dwelling places,” and instituted the doctrine that Saint Augustine espoused, “No one can find salvation except in the Catholic Church. Outside the Catholic Church one can have everything except salvation,” are also wrong.

Tragically, during many centuries of Medieval debate between the three religions, everyone thought that religion was a zero sum game (one winner or one truth vs. many winners or many truths, i.e. soccer or tennis vs. hiking or mountain climbing).

Thus, some Muslim commentators also began to take the same exclusionary view condemned by Prophet Muhammad by adding specific details of theological belief to the statements in the Qur’an that stress a simple and firm belief in the one and only God: “No! rather, whoever submits his whole being to God as one devoted to doing good, aware that God is seeing him, his reward is with his Lord, and all such will have no fear, nor will they grieve” (2:112).

And even more explicitly, “Those who believe (Muslims), those who advocate Judaism, Christians, Sabeans, whoever truly believes in God and the Last Day, and does good righteous deeds, surely their reward is with their Lord, they will not fear, nor will they grieve” (2:62).

Thank God, in 21st century America the majority of most religious groups now believe the teachings of the Qur’an cited above (2:112 and 2:62).

A survey of over 35,000 Americans in 2008 found that most Americans agree with the statement: many religions – not just their own – can lead to eternal life. Among those affiliated with a religious tradition, seven-in-ten say many religions can lead to eternal life. This view is shared by a majority of adherents in nearly all religious traditions, including 82% of Jews, 79% of Catholics, 57% of evangelical Protestants and 56% of Muslims (from the U.S. Religious Landscape Survey, Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life, 2008, Pew Research Center).

Thus, in the 21st century United States most Christians, Jews, and Muslims have rejected the zero sum mind set and believe in the Qur’an’s teachings, “If God had so willed He could surely have made you a single community, but (He didn’t) in order to test you by what he has given you. Strive then, in competing in good works” (5:48). For ultimately, “On the Day of Resurrection God will judge between you about what you differed” (22:69).

Only those who reject God by disbelief or by unrepentant evil activities will be the losers when Judgment Day comes. But many, perhaps most, theologians will learn that they might not be as smart as they thought they were.

In conclusion, it is very important to understand that “religious pluralism is the will of God” is very different from religious, moral, or cultural relativism. Relativism teaches that all values and standards are subjective, and therefore there is no higher spiritual authority available for setting ethical standards or making moral judgments.

Thus, issues of justice, truth or human rights are, like beauty, just in the eye of the beholder. Most people, especially those who believe that One God created all of us, refuse to believe that ethics and human rights are simply a matter of taste. Religious pluralism as the will of God is the opposite of cultural or philosophical relativism.

The fundamental idea supporting religious pluralism is that religious people need to embrace humility in many areas of religion. All religions have always taught a traditional anti self-centered type of humility. Religious pluralism also opposes a religious, philosophical, and self righteous intellectual egoism that promotes a tendency to turn our legitimate love for our own prophet and Divine revelation into universal truths that we fully understand and know how to apply.

Religious pluralism teaches that finite humans, even the most intelligent and pious of them, cannot fully understand everything the way the infinite One does.

This is true, for every human being, even for God’s messengers themselves. When Prophet Moses, “who God spoke with face to face, as a person speaks with a friend” (Exodus 33:11) asks to see God face to face, he is told, “You cannot see My face, for no man can see My face and live” (33:20).

Similarly, in the Qur’an, Prophet Jesus admits to God, “You know everything that is within myself, whereas I do not know what is within Yourself” (7:116). When Prophet Jesus was asked, in private, by his disciples, “What will be the sign for your coming (back) and the end of the age?” (Matthew 24:3) Jesus warns his disciples about all kinds of upheavals and false Messiahs that will come. Then Jesus concludes by saying, “But about that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, not even the son: only the Father” (24:36).

A similar statement was made by Prophet Muhammad when he was asked, “Tell me about the Hour.” He said: “The one questioned about it knows no better than the questioner” (Muslim book 1 Hadith 1&4).

God taught the general principle of epistemological humility through his Prophet who taught his followers, “I am no novelty among the messengers. I do not know what will be done to me, or to you” (Qur’an 46:9).

Only on Judgment Day will the answer to the theological differences that divide us now be resolved. “To each among you have we prescribed a law and an open path. If God had so willed, He would have made you a single people, but (He desires) to test you in what He has given you: so (compete) strive in all virtues as in a race. The goal of you all is Allah. He will (on Judgment Day) show you the truth of the matters in which you dispute” (5:48).

Christians

In Acts 10:38 we read the following: “God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power. He went about doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil, for God was with him.” And in Matthew 9:36 we read: “At the sight of the crowds [who seemed lost], his heart was moved with pity [with compassion] for them.” In brief, this explains what was responsible for the life and actions of Jesus of Nazareth and how it is that he did no harm, but rather only good: He was moved with pity, with compassion for others. And what is compassion?

The Greek word for compassion is “splanchnizomai” or “spankhnomai.” It means to be moved as to one’s bowels moved with love and pity or sorrow. It means to suffer with someone, to feel and identify with someone’s pain. To have compassion is to have mercy, to recognize and have sorrow for someone’s suffering. It is to have love, care, kindness and tenderness for someone, especially for those in need.

Clearly, those who are planting bombs or blowing themselves up or who are plotting similar schemes in Nigeria (and people of similar minds who are perpetuating violence in other parts of the world) no longer have compassion for others and for themselves. And yet, they claim, for the most part, that they are doing this in God’s name. The real question is: In the name of whose God? Is there a God without compassion? It is certainly not in the name of the God of Jesus of Nazareth, nor is it really in the name of Allah of Islam. And it is definitely not in the name of YHWH (God) of the Jews either.

In John 14:9-11, Jesus said to Philip who asked him to show them the Father, “Whoever has seen me has seen the Father. … I am in the Father and the Father is in me. … The Father … dwells in me.” Unequivocally, one can say that what we see and love in Jesus of Nazareth, namely, his compassion for the poor and for everyone in need, his gentleness, his unconditional and faithful love, to name only a few, is equally true of the God that he has revealed to us. And Saint Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 11:1, saying, “Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ.”

Muslims

What do we know about the God of Islam? Asghar Ali Engineer remarks that the very first chapter of the Qur’an has the second verse as follows: Al-Rahman al-Rahim (i.e., The Compassionate, the Merciful). In fact, every chapter of the Qur’an (there are one hundred and fourteen of them), from surat al-fatiha to surat al-nas, begins with Bismillah al-Rahman al-Rahim (i.e., “in the name of Allah the Compassionate and the Merciful”) (with the exception of the chapter Tawbah in which this phrase is not in the beginning but comes later). Thus, among Allah’s own 99 names are al-Rahman and al-Rahim (i.e., The Compassionate and The Merciful), and Allah has sent his Prophet Muhammad into the world as the Mercy of the world, as rahmatu lil’alamin (i.e., as “mercy of the worlds”) and as al-risalat al-alamiyyah (i.e., as one who represents universal mercy). And a Muslim, according to Asghar Ali Engineer, begins everything by reciting, “Bismillah al-Rahman al-Rahim” (that is, “begin [every step] in the name of Allah Who is Compassionate and Merciful”). One can infer from this that the predominance of mercy and compassion in the life of Muslims is indisputable. Thus, even when one may engage in a “rescue mission” – that is, plot or participate in a war against the oppressor in order to liberate the oppressed, who cries for justice – even then the Qur’an (in chapter 4, verse 75) does not expect the violence to be reckless. In other words, Muslims may never fight a war “without compassion”; they may never fight a war except on compassionate grounds (and only with compassion). Not even in the name of the most oppressed of peoples may they fight a godless war, an unholy war. A war that is considered holy is that which is fought fi sabili Allah (i.e., in the way of Allah). The way of Allah is of justice and of protecting the rights of the poor and exploited. For more on this matter, one may consult the commentary of Maulana Muhammad Ali’s The Holy Qur’an (Lahore, 1973). Meanwhile, it is most certainly unjust and ungodly to kill the innocent. Is it not?

Now we have seen that like the God of Jesus of Nazareth, Allah of Islam is compassionate and merciful. Among Allah’s 99 names none is used as frequently as al-Rahman al-Rahmin. And Allah demands that Muslims be compassionate and merciful to others even in circumstances where they are morally compelled to liberate the poor and exploited from the callousness, godlessness and decadence of the oppressor. Otherwise, those that they seek to help may in fact end up being worst off, and even destroyed by their actions.

Additionally, in the ninth century the servant of God Umar, the second successor of the holy and most venerable Prophet Muhammad, decrees as follows in respect of Christians: “Their churches shall neither be used as dwellings nor destroyed. They shall not suffer any impairment nor shall their dependencies, their crosses, nor any of their property. No constraint shall be exercised against their religion (Q. 2:256) nor shall any harm be done to any among them” (cited in J. M. Gaudeul’s Encounters & Clashes: Islam and Christianity in History, Rome, 2000, p. 47). All in all, the soul of Islam is mercy and compassion.

The Jews

Finally, what do we know of the God of the Jews? According to Richard H. Schwartz, YHWH (God) is referred to in synagogue services as Ha-rachman, that is, as “The Compassionate One” and as Av harachamin, that is, as “Father of Compassion.” And the Talmud (i.e., a collection of books, which is considered as one of the holiest of Judaism’s books and taken to be very authoritative in Judaism) also teaches that Jews are to be rachmanim b’nei rachmanim, that is, “compassionate children of compassionate ancestors.” Thus, one who fails to be compassionate cannot be a true descendant of Abraham (Bezah 32b). And the Talmud says categorically that heaven will grant compassion exclusively to those who have shown compassion to others (Shabbat 151b). This insistence on and importance of compassion in Judaism is taken further by the Baruch Sheh’amar prayer which is recited daily in the morning (Shacharit) services. Here is the prayer: “Blessed is the One (God) Who has compassion on the earth; blessed is the One Who has compassion on the creatures [animals and people].”

In Judaism, compassion is not only an attribute of God, it is imperative for all Jews to show compassion. Rabbi Dovid Sears states, “Compassion for all creatures, including animals, is not only God’s business; it is a virtue that we too must emulate. Moreover, compassion must not be viewed as an isolated phenomenon, one of a number of religious duties in the Judaic conception of the Divine service. It is central to our entire approach to life.” Why is compassion at the core of Judaism? As Richard H. Schwartz reminds us affirmatively of Isaiah 11:9, the answer is: so that “no one shall hurt nor destroy in all of God’s holy mountain”; so that no one may hurt or be hurt; so that no one may destroy or be destroyed in all of God’s creation.

We may now conclude by saying that if and when all men and women of Nigeria realize that those who have shown no mercy and compassion on earth to their fellow men and women and children will not be shown mercy and compassion in heaven by God, then they will most certainly, consciously and actively cultivate compassion, and the current reckless violence and killings in Nigeria will begin to die a natural death.

Rev. Dr. Pachomius Okogie
University of Saint Anselm,
Rome, Italy

This article is mostly based on the book of the Spanish historian and paleontologist, Ignacio Olagüe, La Revolución Islámica en Occidente (The Islamic Revolution in the West), also translated into French as Les arabes n’ont jamais envahi l’Espagne (The Arabs Never Invaded Spain), which portrays some of the ideas of the historian and philologist Americo Castro, especially known for his writings about convivencia.

According to the way that history is taught in most Spanish schools, the Moors invaded the Iberian Peninsula in 711 AD. Here, the following question can be asked: Who did the Moors invade? In order to understand this, it is important to give a background of the inhabitants of Hispania at the time. The Iberian Peninsula was populated by Celts, Iberians, Sephardic Jews, Romans and Visigoths. The majority of Visigoths were Unitarian, meaning that they believed in only one God and were waiting the coming of the Messiah. They also saw Jesus as a Prophet. The rulers of Hispania in 711 AD were Visigoths as well. However, it was a civilization that constantly used force as a means of controlling the citizens of the peninsula, which resulted incessant instability. It was at this time that the Arabs, according to many historians, invaded Hispania.

De la Guardia² states that “in no way were the newcomers all Arabs.”³ The leaders came from Damascus, but they were only a few, and the majority that arrived in Hispania were Muslim Berbers. She later added, as well as Dr. Francisco Layna, author and professor of Harvard University: “Everybody that studies history at any university is aware that there was not an Arab invasion in 711 AD. The Gibraltar Canal that separates Morocco from Spain has always been known as a tool for merchants to trade on both the Spanish and Moroccan Coast. Hence, this was not the first time that the Berbers had visited Spain.”4

We can also ask if the Arabs were in a condition to invade Spain in 711 AD or not. In the middle of the eighth century the Berbers brought the Arabs’ progress to a halt twice and this suspended the conquest of Northern Africa for another fifty years. Hence, the Arabs that came to Northern Africa were weak and few and therefore could never have invaded Hispania.

Olagüe adds that people never take the time to think how the “invaders” of North Africa crossed the Gibraltar Canal in a blink of an eye. In other words, how were they able to conquer 544,192 km2, the most mountainous region in Europe, in three years? Even more astonishing is how the 7,000 men of General Tariq, were enough in number, to defeat Rodrigo and his people in the Battle of Guadalete. Olagüe continues: “If our math is right, each of the 25,000 Arabs was responsible for 23 km2. Since this was too easy for them, they ran to traverse the Pyrenees to dominate France.”⁵ How could a person cover 23 km2 especially in those harsh and mountainous conditions? Olagüe writes that “even if these soldiers conquered Hispania in these conditions, they would each have had 23 km2 of land and therefore would be like a needle in a haystack, compared to the other populations.”⁶ Due to these reasons, we can conclude that an Arab invasion never took place. Furthermore, if natives of the Iberian Peninsula would have resented these newcomers, Hispania would have never been Muslim, would have never planted the seeds for the Renaissance in Europe, and would have not had scientific and artistic advancements that later influenced Europe and the American continent. If it were an invasion, the natives would have forced them to leave Hispania as it occurred when Napoleon in 1807 tried to seize Spain and asked permission of the Catholic Spanish Monarchy for his French troops to pass through Spain in order to invade Portugal. However, once in Spanish territory, Napoleon declared himself Emperor of Spain. It was at this point that the Spanish population resisted and with the help of sticks and stones drove the French out of the country. This was never the case when the Muslims arrived in Spain. Actually, the natives from the Iberian Peninsula welcomed them and were happy to see someone that respected their faith and their traditions and had similar beliefs as the majority of the natives of Hispania were Unitarian Christians. They believed in only one God, saw Jesus as a Prophet and awaited the Messiah, exactly as Muslims. The following treaty was signed in 713 CE-within two years after the first organized entry of Muslims into Spain from the south under the command of Tariq ibn Ziyad-between the Arab commander Abdal-Aziz and Theodomir, the Visigothic prince of Murcia, is a proof of the freedoms the natives of Hispania enjoyed after the Arab conquests.

In the Name of God, the Most Merciful, the Most Compassionate. This is the text that Abd al Aziz ibn Musa presented to Teodomiro ibn Gandaris, in virtue in which it is agreed that in the territory will be in peace by the promising it to God, His Prophets and His Messengers that this territory will be protected by God y the protection of His Messenger Muhammad- peace be upon him. Nobody will be forced, nothing will be taken away from you; Nobody will be slaves; you will not be separated from your wife or children; you lives will be respected; you will not be killed and your churches will not be burned down. You will be free to practice your own religion. (Text of the Treaty of the Visigoth Ruler of Murcia, Teodomiro and Abd Al Aziz).⁷

“In the name of God, the merciful and compassionate. This is a document [granted] by ‘Abd al-‘Aziz ibn Musá ibn Nusair to Tudmir, son of Ghabdush, establishing a treaty of peace and the promise and protection of God and his Prophet) may God bless him and grant him peace). We [‘Abd al-‘Aziz] will not set special conditions for him or for any among his men, nor harass him, nor remove him from power. His followers will not be killed or taken prisoner, nor will they be separated from their women and children. They will not be coerced in matters of religion, their churches will not be burned, nor will sacred objects be taken from the realm, [so long as] he [Tudmir] remains sincere and fulfills the [following] conditions that we have set for him. He has reached a settlement concerning seven towns: Orihuela, Valentilla, Alicante, Mula, Bigastro, Ello, and Lorca. He will not give shelter to fugitives, nor to our enemies, nor encourage any protected person to fear us, nor conceal news of our enemies. He and [each of] his men shall [also] pay one dinar every year, together with four measures of wheat, four measures of barley, four liquid measures of concentrated fruit juice, four liquid meastures of vinegar, four of honey, and four of olive oil. Slaves must each pay half of this amount. {Names of four witnesses follow, and the document is dated from the Muslim month of Rajab, in the year 94 of the Hijra (April 713).} “The Treaty of Tudmir” in Reading the Middle Ages: Sources from Europe, Byzantium, and the Islamic World. ed. Barbara H. Rosenwein. Peterborough, Ont.: Broadview, 2006, p. 92.

Although there were other capitulation agreements with the same nature dating from 711, this one signed on the surrender of the city of Orihuela has survived to this date. The inhabitants of the conquered territories of Spain were suitably impressed by the tolerance which the Muslims offered them once active resistance had ceased. It is these earlier agreements and their successful implementation that prompted Theodomir and the population of Orihuela to agree to sign the treaty.⁸

If the people that arrived were not Arabs in majority, why are they referred to Arabs in Spain and why was Arabic spoken and even carved in some of their architectural beauties such as the Al-hambra in Granada? Guardia clearly states “they were not Arabs, even when the majority of Spain was Muslim. However, they adopted Arabic as their language.”? Arabic was the language of scholars and Latin was the language of soldiers. Little by little, the natives of the Iberian Peninsula adopted Arabic as their own language, even people from other faiths. In the ninth century, a Bishop of Cordoba wrote: “Many of my colleagues read poems and stories; they study their philosophies as well as the Muslim theologians in Arabic, not to refute them, but to learn how to express themselves in Arabic more correctly and elegantly.”¹⁰

Olagüe states that it took 300 years for the natives of the Iberian Peninsula to adopt and utilize the Arabic language. We can see a wonderful fusion of the jarchas, or poetry from Al-Andalus or Muslim Spain, where it can easily be seen how Arabic and Latin fused. These were love poems that were written in Arabic, and ended in Latin.

Poetry is only one of the many examples of the advances Spain experienced during this era. When in many cities of Europe people walked in streets of mud, people in Hispania walked on pavement, had a drainage and sewage system. Cordoba, once the capital of Al-Andalus, was famous for its scientific advances in medicine. Andalusians had stomach operations and very specialized cataract operations. Some specific instruments that were used at that time in medicine are still used today in the same field.

The first university in the West was founded in Cordoba, Spain. Scholars from all over the world came to gain knowledge in all the natural and social sciences such as medicine, technology for agriculture, astronomy, literature, and jurisprudence to name a few. The city of Toledo is another example of intercultural exchange, where the School of Translation efficiently contributed to the culture of mutual understanding.

Among many inventions Andalusians developed was the astrolabe which was used to determine the latitude of a ship at sea by measuring the noon altitude of the Sun or the meridian altitude of a star of known declination.¹¹ It was with the help of this astrolabe that Christopher Columbus was able to travel to the American continent in 1492.

This intercultural and multicultural convivencia between Jews, Christians and Muslims in Al-Andalus was key to the development of different sciences that later contributed to give birth to the Renaissance in Italy. When the inhabitants of Al-Andalus put emphasis on their spirituality, this was also the time when their scientific and technological advances were strongest, also influencing Catholics in later times.

Towards the last century of Muslim Spain, the Christians had adopted the majority of Muslim traditions as well as the scientific discoveries and advances that they had accomplished during more than 800 years in the Iberian Peninsula.

In conclusion, the Arab invasion is only a myth and Al Andalus was in its majority composed of natives of the Iberian Peninsula and not Arabs. This civilization that spanned across eight centuries was a unique model of respect for other cultures and religions, a model that we can learn a lot from in our times.
Islamic Caligraphy at the Alhambra Palace in Granada,Spain.

Karin de Villa is a Spanish Professor at St. Mary’s University, San Antonio, TX.

Notes

1. The Spanish Word for coexistence, also referred sometimes by Americo Castro as Las Tres Culturas or The Three Cultures: Jews, Christians and Muslims living together in peace during the Muslim rule.
2. One of the contemporary famous Historians and Chair of the University Autónoma de Madrid.
3. De La Guardia, Carmen. Lecture: Jews, Christians and Muslims in Spain and Latin America. Middlebury College: Spain, Madrid, 2006.
4. Lecture: Don Quijote, Spain: Madrid, 2006.
5. Olagüe, Ignacio. La Revolucion Islamica en Occidente. Espana: Cordoba, 2004. 36.
6. Ibid.
7. Historia de Espana, vol. 3. Historia 16 extra XV Madrid, 1980.
8. The Treaty of Orihuela. The Surrender of Orihuela, Spain, 713 C.E. http://cyberistan.org/islamic/treaty713.html.
9. De La Guardia, Carmen. Lecture: Jews, Jews, Christians and Muslims in Spain and Latin America. Middlebury College: Spain, Madrid, 2006.
10. Alvarez, Fe Bajo & Pecharroman, Julio Gil. Historia de Espana. Sociedad General Espanola de Libreria. S.A. de Alcobendas: Madrid, 1998. 48.
11. Morrison, J. The Mariner’s Astrolabe. http://www.astrolabes.org/mariner.htm. 2002.

Don’t most people think that being happy is the most important thing? Isn’t eating one of the most accessible pleasures we have? Why should people limit their culinary pleasures? More outrageous, why should we afflict ourselves by fasting? Why do Islam and Judaism restrict their adherents from the simple pleasure of food each year? For the entire month of Ramadan, Muslims fast from first light until sundown, abstaining from food, drink and marital relations. The Qur’an says, “Oh you who believe! Fasting is prescribed to you as it was prescribed to those before you, that you may (learn) self-restraint” (2:183). Why should the Torah decree for Jews a day of fasting (Leviticus 16:29, 23:27) when for twenty-four hours adult Jews (in good health) are supposed to trouble their bodies by abstaining from eating, drinking and marital relations? Both religions teach us that what we do not eat may be even more important than what we do eat.

All animals eat, but only humans choose not to eat some foods that are both nutritious and tasty. Some people do not eat meat for religious or ethical reasons. Jews and Muslims do not eat pork for religious and spiritual reasons. On fast days such as Yom Kippur—the Day of Atonement and the ninth of Av (a day of mourning like the Shi’a observance of Ashura on the tenth of Muharram)—Jews do not eat or drink anything at all, and abstain from marital relations for twenty-four hours. Fasting results in many different outcomes that help bring us closer to God.

First of all, fasting teaches compassion. It is easy to talk about the world’s problem of hunger, easy to feel sorry that millions of people go to bed hungry each day. But not until one actually feels it in one’s own body does the impact truly hit home. Compassion based on empathy is much stronger and more consistent than compassion based on pity. It is a feeling that leads to action. Fasting is never an end in itself; it has many different outcomes. But none of the other outcomes are of real moral value if compassion is not enlarged and extended through fasting. As the prophet Isaiah said, “The truth is that at the same time you fast, you pursue your own interests and oppress your workers. Your fasting makes you violent, and you quarrel and fight. The kind of fasting I want is this: remove the chains of oppression and the yoke of injustice, and let the oppressed go free. Share your food with the hungry and open your homes to the homeless poor” (Isaiah 58:3-7).

Second, fasting is an exercise in will power. Many people think they can’t fast because it’s too difficult, but actually the discomfort of hunger pangs is relatively minor. A headache, muscle soreness from too much exercise, or a toothache are more severe than the pain temporary hunger produces. I have on one occasion fasted for three days, and found that after the first twenty-four hours the pain decreases slightly, as the stomach becomes numb. The real reason it is challenging to fast is because it so easy to break the fast, since food is almost always in easy reach — all you have to do is take a bite. Thus the key to fasting is the will power to decide again and again not to eat or drink. Our society has increasingly become one of self-indulgence; we lack basic self-discipline. Fasting opposes our increasing “softness” in life; when people exercise their will power to fast, they are affirming their self-control and celebrating mastery over themselves. We need continually to prove to ourselves that we can do it, because we are aware of our frequent failures to be self-disciplined.

The third outcome of fasting is improved physical health. Of course, one twenty-four hour fast will not have any more effect than one day of exercise; only prolonged and regular fasting promotes health. The annual fast on Yom Kippur can, however, awaken us to the importance of how much and how often we eat. For many years, research has shown that when animals are slightly underfed, receiving a balanced diet below the normal quantity for maximum physical health, their life spans were prolonged from 50 to 100 percent. With all the additives placed in food these days, a reduction of total food intake is healthful. More important, since our society has problems with overabundance, fasting provides a good lesson in the virtue of denial. Illnesses caused by overeating are increasing in affluent Western countries, such as the incidence of diabetes. Sixteen million people in the United States have diabetes, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Diabetes can lead to blindness, kidney disease, heart disease, nerve damage, amputation and sometimes death. The prevalence of the disease is related to high rates of obesity and sedentary lifestyles, which increase the risk of developing the disease. More than half of adults in Los Angeles are overweight, and 60 percent do not get regular exercise. One-fifth of all those who are obese will develop diabetes. Thus going without any food, or even water, for a twenty-four hour period challenges us to think about the benefits of the spiritual doctrine “less is more.”

Fourth in our list of outcomes is that fasting is a positive struggle against our dependencies. We live in a consumer society, and are constantly bombarded by advertising that tells us we must have this or that to be healthy, happy, popular, or wise. By fasting, we assert that we need not be totally reliant on external, material things, even essentials such as food. If our most basic need for food and drink can be suspended for twenty-four hours, how much more may we learn to limit our needs for all non-essentials? Judaism and Islam do not advocate asceticism as an end in itself; in fact, it’s against Jewish and Muslim law to deny ourselves normal physical pleasures. But in our overheated consumer society, it is necessary periodically to turn off the constant pressure to consume, and forcibly remind ourselves that “Man does not live by bread alone” (Deuteronomy 8:3).

Fifth, fasting serves as a penance. Though self-inflicted pain may alleviate some guilt, it is much better to reduce one’s guilt with offsetting acts of righteousness. This is why charity is an important part of Yom Kippur, and the same is true for Muslims during Ramadan. Indeed, Judaism teaches that fasting which doesn’t increase compassion is ignored by God. The concept of fasting as penance helps us to understand that our hunger pains can be beneficial. Contemporary culture desires happiness and comfort above all else. Any pain or suffering is seen as unnecessary, even evil. Though we occasionally hear people echo values from the past that suffering can help one grow, or that an existence unalloyed with grief would lack certain qualities of greatness, many today think that the primary goal in life is to always be happy and free from all discomfort. The satisfaction one derives from the self-induced pain of fasting provides insight into a better possible reaction to the normal, external suffering we will all experience throughout our lives. Taking a pill is not always the best way to alleviate pain, especially if by doing so we allay the symptoms without reaching the root cause.

Sixth, fasting is good for the soul. It often serves as an aid for spiritual experiences. For most people, especially those who have not fasted regularly before, hunger pains are a distraction. People who are not by nature spiritual or emotional individuals will probably find that a one-day fast is insufficient to induce an altered state of consciousness. Those who have fasted regularly on Yom Kippur might like to try a two- to three-day fast (liquids permitted after the first 24 hours). It is best to go about daily activities and devote late evening or early morning to meditation and prayer. Having already fasted for Yom Kippur, one may simply extend the fast another thirty-six to forty-eight hours. We are prohibited to fast prior to Yom Kippur; eating a good meal prior to Yom Kippur Eve is a mitzvah (religious duty), because Judaism, like Islam, opposes excessive asceticism.

The seventh outcome of fasting is the performance of a mitzvah, which is the one fundamental reason for fasting on Yom Kippur. We do carry out mitzvot (religious duties) in order to benefit ourselves, but because our duty as Jews requires us to do them. Fasting is a very personal mitzvah, with primarily personal consequences. Fasting on Yom Kippur is a personal offering to God, from each and every Jew who fasts. For more than 100 generations, Jews have fasted on this day; fasting is part of the Jewish people’s covenant with God. The principal reason to fast is to fulfill God’s commandment, but the outcome of the fast can be any of a half-dozen forms of self-fulfillment. But simply knowing that one has done one’s duty as a faithful Jew is the most basic and primary outcome of all.

Finally, fasting should be combined with the study of Torah (the five books of Moses specifically, or Scriptural texts in general). A medieval text states, “Better to eat a little and study twice as much, for the study of Torah is superior to fasting.” Indeed, the more one studies, the less one needs to fast. Fasting is a very personal, experiential offering. However, though study is also a personal experience, it takes place with a text and/or a teacher. The Divine will is often more readily and truly experienced in study or in spiritual dialogue with others than in solitary meditation.

May our fasting become a first step toward the removal of the chains of self-oppression and narrow-mindedness that enslave us, our neighbors, and our world! May future years of shared fasting by Muslims and Jews lead to a greater understanding and respect through increased acceptance of religious pluralism. May we always be part of those organizations and movements that are fully committed to contributing to world peace, and who are equally committed to respecting both our own religion and our neighbor’s.

Muslim scholar Fethullah Gulen points out that the Abrahamic faiths (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) and some non-Abrahamic faiths (Hinduism) accept that there is only One source for all religions, and pursue the same goal. Gulen states: “As a Muslim, I accept all Prophets and Books sent to different peoples throughout history, and regard belief in them as an essential principle of being Muslim. A Muslim is a true follower of Abraham, Moses, David, Jesus, and all other Prophets. Not believing in one Prophet or Book means that one is not a Muslim. Thus we acknowledge the oneness and basic unity of religion, which is a symphony of God’s blessings and mercy, and the universality of belief in religion.” Gulen’s description of universal religion as a symphony is an excellent illustration. One cannot have harmony if everyone plays the same notes; and one cannot have symphony if everyone plays the same instruments. Individual conductors and composers are different, but the source of musical creativity is One. According to a hadith narrated by Abu Huraira, Prophet Muhammad said, “The prophets are paternal brothers; their mothers are different, yet their religion is one (because they all have the same father)” (Bukhari, Book 55, Hadith 652).

Allen S. Maller is the former Rabbi of Temple Akiba in Culver City, California. He has authored several books and is currently the editor of a series of prayer books for the Jewish High Holy Days.

Christian and Jewish scripture

Islamic theology is strictly monotheistic. Consequently, the Qur’an denies such Christian doctrines as the Trinity and the resurrection of Jesus, which can seem to suggest that God works in a partnership (Jacques 2004, 16). Yet Jesus is always honored in the Qur’an. He is referred to as a “sign” of mercy and an “example.” Nowhere is he or any other Prophet criticized (Jacques 2004, 16). Moses is also revered in the Qur’an, where he is referred to more than one hundred times (Khan 2001, 35.

The Qur’an does not claim to supersede the scriptures that came before it, but is understood to complete the revelations of the Prophets (Jacques 2004, 298). It is a culmination of the history of divine revelation, which includes stories from the Old and New Testaments such as the stories of Abraham, Moses, Noah, and Jesus. Sura 61:6 is an example of how the Qur’an affirms the validity of Jewish and Christian scriptures: “And when Jesus son of Mary said, ‘Children of Israel, I am indeed God’s messenger to you, confirming the Torah that has gone before me…’” (Murata and Chittick 1994, 165).

Qur’anic doctrine about the “People of the Book”

In the Qur’an, Jews, and Christians are referred to as Ahl al-kitab, meaning “the People of the Book.” The Qur’an makes distinctions between the People of the Book. Many verses acknowledge that there are both wrongdoers and righteous ones among them (Sarýtoprak 2000, 323).

Where the Qur’an criticizes the People of the Book, it generally makes clear that it is referring only to those who do not adhere to the message of the Prophets (tawhid) (Murata and Chittick, 1994, 170):

Those who persistently disbelieve from among the People of the Book and the polytheists would not abandon until there had come to them the Clear Evidence … Surely those who disbelieve from among the People of the Book and from among the polytheists will be in the fire of Hell a seed of which unbelief bears, abiding therein. (98:1, 6)

Some verses that criticize the People of the Book without making a distinction are open to various interpretations. For example, Sura 5:55 states: “Oh believers, take not Jews and Christians as friends; they’re friends of each other. Whoso of you makes them as friends is one of them.” Said Nursi suggests that the verse may refer to particular groups of Jews and Christians who committed treachery during the days of the Medina Charter. Nursi points out that at the time of the Prophet, people hated and loved each other solely on the basis of religion, so close relationships with non-Muslims were considered hypocritical (Sarýtoprak 327). As the basis for friendships has changed, hypocrisy in this respect is no longer an issue.

Another reason why such verses should be interpreted broadly rather than literally is because some of the words used in their original Arabic forms are ambiguous. In this verse, the word for friend (wali) can mean guardian. The sentence might mean that Muslims cannot make Jews or Christians their guardians. In some verses, the People of the Book are referred to as kafir, meaning either “one who denies the existence of God” or “one who denies the prophethood of Muhammad.” Non-Muslims are not necessarily kafirs in the first sense of the word (Sarýtoprak, 328).

The Qur’an commonly advocates tolerance, respect, and goodwill towards the People of the Book. For example, Sura 60:8 declares:

God does not forbid you, as regards those who do not make war against you on account of your Religion, nor drive you away from your homes, to be kindly to them, and act towards them with equity. God surely loves the scrupulously equitable.

In addition to advocating tolerance, the Qur’an praises the People of the Book. In Sura 21:7, they are referred to as “People of Knowledge” (ahl al-dhikr) (Sarýtoprak, 328) and verses 3:113-15 declare:

Yet, they are not all alike: among the People of the Book, there is an upright community, reciting God’s Revelations in the watches of the night and prostrating (themselves in worship). They believe in God and the Last Day, and enjoin and promote what is right and good, and forbid and try to prevent evil, and hasten to do good deeds, as if competing with one another. Those are of the righteous ones. Whatever good they do, they will never be denied the reward of it; and God has full knowledge of the God-revering, pious.

This sura provides an example of how the Qur’an recognizes that the People of the Book worship the same God as Muslims. This recognition of a common ground is repeated in other verses, such as 3:64, which commands:

Say (to them, O Messenger): “O People of the Book, come to a word common between us and you, that we worship none but God, and associate none as partner with Him, and that none of us take others for Lords, apart from God.”

Another implication in Sura 3:115 is that the People of the Book will be rewarded. A general theme in the Qur’an is that those People of the Book who accept tawhid will have salvation (Murata and Chittick, 168). For example, Sura 2:62 states:

Those who believe (Muslims), the Jews, the Christians, and the Sabaeans, whosoever believe in God and the Last Day and do good deeds, they shall have their reward from their Lord, shall have nothing to fear, nor shall they come to grief.

Tolerance in Practice

The Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) protected and defended the People of the Book. In the hadith by Al-Munawi, he is quoted as saying: “Who wrongs a Jew or Christian will have myself as his prosecutor on the day of Judgement.” In Al-Bayhaqi’s hadith he is quoted: “Whosoever persecuted a dhimmi [non-Muslim who paid a protection tax] or usurped his rights, or took work from him beyond his capacity, or took something from him without his permission, I shall be a complainant against him on the Day of Resurrection.” Al-Bukhari tells of how Muhammad would not exclude Jewish people when he visited the sick. On one occasion, when a Jewish funeral procession passed by him, he stood up out of respect, and when asked why, replied: “Is it not a human soul?”

The Prophet’s respect for the People of the Book was an example to others during his time. One of his companions, Hizam b. Hakim, reproached the Governor of Syria when he saw a group of group of Christians standing out in the hot sun as punishment for not paying their taxes.

Said Nursi also advocated tolerance, affirming that Muslims and non-Muslims are equal before Qur’anic law, and that people should be praised and loved based on their individual attributes (Sarýtoprak 326–327).

Dhimmi law and jizya

Soon after the Hijra (the migration of the Prophet to Medina), the Prophet signed a pact with the local tribes of Medina. Famously known as the Medina Charter, the Prophet aimed at generating a peaceful, pluralist society in this town, which was torn apart with decades-long civil strife and bloodshed. However, when this pact was violated by some Jewish tribes who supported the Meccans against Muslims, Jews were eventually driven out. Yet cooperation was renewed when the Prophet concluded a treaty with the Jews of Khaibar (Jacques 14–16).

Under an Islamic government, dhimmi law was developed in relations with the People of the Book which required them to pay a poll tax, or jizya, which is sanctioned in the Qur’an (9:29).

In exchange, Muslims were responsible for the protection of the People of the Book in their society. During the reign of the second Caliph, the Governor of Homs (in modern-day Syria) returned the poll tax to his Christian subjects because he realized he could not protect them against the Byzantine army (Jacques 14–16).

The policies surrounding jizya were relatively fair. Under a Muslim government, non-Muslims were not required to pay zakat (prescribed charity), which was a legal and religious requirement for Muslims. Furthermore, the poor, the blind, the elderly, the rescue workers at the houses of worship, women and children were all exempt from jizya. If it was not paid, the maximum punishment was imprisonment, and if a person died without having paid it, it could not become a debt transferred to his estate or heirs (Jacques 14–16).

Interaction between Muslims and the People of the Book

Muslims, Jews, and Christians socialized among one another regularly and rather freely in the Islamic Middle Ages, creating bonds (Cohen 2000, 39, 42). For example, they met in public baths, and business partnerships between Muslims and non-Muslims occurred despite disapproval of some authorities. Some Muslims even took part in Christian and Jewish religious celebrations. Jews and Christians had many ample opportunities in daily life “to cross barriers in the hierarchy of Islamic society” (Cohen 2000, 39). Dhimmis enjoyed acceptance in intellectual circles (majalis) and studied with Muslims at universities, particularly during the “renaissance of Islam” in cosmopolitan tenth-century Baghdad. Cohen states that “Jewish physicians were found in Arab society in numbers disproportionate to the Jewish presence in the population at large … They also formed part of the interdenominational circle of physicians working in state hospitals and adorning Muslim courts” (Cohen 2000, 42).

In the early Abbasid period, Muslims and Christian theologians frequently corresponded by sending letters to each other, or in debates. Although the dialogue was concerned with both parties trying to prove the superiority of their religion over the other, it was nevertheless constructive and meaningful (Sirry 2005, 365–73).

Life in Spain (al Andalus) between 711 and 1492 is a prime example of harmonious coexistence between Muslims, Jews, and Christians. Jews and Christians enjoyed participation in Arab cultural activities, such as poetry competitions and intellectual circles (Menocal 2002, 173–80).

In 1856, full egalitarian rights were given to all citizens of the Ottoman Empire. Citizens of any religion could be accepted into government service and enroll in military and state schools (Sarýtoprak, 322).

Restrictions in Muslim-Dhimmi Relations

In the fourteenth century, jurist Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya wrote an influential book compiling general Islamic laws for dhimmis: Ahkam ahl al-dhimma (The Laws pertaining to the Protected People) (Cohen 53). Among these, he states that Muslims may convey condolences to non-Muslims or congratulate them on marriage, birth or good health with the exception of occasions, which contradict Islamic tenets (Jacques 39).

In some domains, such as marriage and dining, Muslim interaction with the People of the book is given Qur’anic sanction.

This day (all) pure, wholesome things have been made lawful for you. And the food of those who were given the Book before is lawful for you, just as your food is lawful for them. And (lawful for you in marriage) are chaste women from among the believers, and from among those who were given the Book before, provided that you give them their bridal-due, taking them in honest wedlock, and not in debauchery, nor as secret love-companions. Whoever rejects faith, all his works are in vain, and in the Hereafter he will be among the losers. (5:5)

Sunni law permitted the eating of animals slaughtered by the People of the Book. Muslims could eat food provided by Jews as the Prophet Muhammad himself had done (Cohen 41). It was more problematic to eat in Christian homes, as pork might be served. However, Shia Islam rejected food prepared by dhimmis as unclean.

Sura 5:5 allows Muslim men to marry dhimmi women, not the other way around. This is to protect the woman’s rights, because the man might forcefully impose his religion on his Muslim wife (Cohen 41). If the wife of a Jewish or Christian couple converts to Islam, the marriage becomes invalid and from then on she may only marry Muslim men (Spectorsky 2000, 274). A Muslim husband is required to permit his non-Muslim wife to observe her religious rituals in the household and to read her own scriptures, and not encourage her to break rituals such as fasting and (for Jews) keeping the Sabbath (Cohen 41).

Conclusion

In studying the Qur’an, it is evident that Islam is inherently tolerant of Judaism and Christianity. It requires Muslims to respect the validity of the Scriptures of the People of the Book, and their right to be treated with kindness. The practice of the Prophet is consistent with this view as is the example of many influential Muslims throughout history, such as Said Nursi and Rumi. In today’s world of pluralism and multiculturalism, understanding is essential for adherents of different religions to coexist in peace and harmony. Muslims, Jews, and Christians must understand the tolerant message of Islam and the great Muslim role models. Exclusive focus on seemingly negative Qur’anic verses such as 5:55, without understanding the context, can lead to fear and hatred. They must embrace their similarities to see that they are brethren, and embrace their differences as a chance for learning. Amidst the twentieth and twenty-first century conflicts between the Islamic World and the West, one might see peaceful coexistence between religious groups as idealistic. But one needs only to look at the experience of Jews and Christians under Islamic rule in the Middle Ages to see that religious pluralism is possible.

References

• Cohen, A. 1984. Jewish Life under Islam: Jerusalem in the Sixteenth Century. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
• Cohen, M.R. 1994. Under Crescent and Cross: The Jews in the Middle Ages. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.
• ——. 2000. “Sociability and the Concept of Galut in Jewish-Muslim Relations in the Middle Ages” in Judaism and Islam: Boundaries, Communication and Interaction: Essays in Honor of William M. Brinner. Edited by B.H. Hary, J.L. Hayes, and F. Astern. Brill’s Series in Jewish Studies 27. Leiden: Brill.
• Huda, Q. 2003. “Knowledge of Allah and the Islamic View of Other Religions,” Theological Studies 64: 278–305.
• Jacques, W. 2004. “Christians, Muslims, Jews and Their Religions.” Islam and Christian-Muslim Relations 15: 13–33.
• Khan, I.A. 2001. “The Qur’anic View of Moses as a Messenger of God from the Children of Israel to Pharaoh.” In Jewish-Muslim Encounters: History, Philosophy and Culture, Edited by C. Selengut. St. Paul, Minn.: Paragon House.
• Lewis, B. 1984. The Jews and Islam. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.
• Menocal, M.R. 2002. “Culture in the Time of Tolerance: Al-Andalus as a Model for Our Own Time.” Palestine-Israel Journal of Politics, Economics & Culture 8/9: 173–180.
• Murata, S., and W.C. Chittick. 1994. The Vision of Islam. New York: Paragon House.
• Sarýtoprak, Z. 2000. “Said Nursi’s Teachings on the People of the Book: A Case Study of Islamic Social Policy in the Early Twentieth Century.” Islam and Christian-Muslim Relations 11: 321–32.
• Sirry, M.A. 2005. “Early Muslim-Christian Dialogue: A Closer Look at Major Themes of the Theological Encounter.” Islam and Christian-Muslim Relations Vol. 16: 361–76.
• Spectorsky, S. 2000. “Problems of Intermarriage in Early fiqh Texts.” In Judaism and Islam: Boundaries, Communication and Interaction: Essays in Honor of William M. Brinner. Edited by B.H. Hary, J.L. Hayes, and F. Astern. Brill’s Series in Jewish Studies 27. Leiden: Brill.

The rule of Muslims represents a particular period in Spanish history. It was at this time that a substantial part of Spain, known back then as Al-Andalus, came under the control of various Islamic groups. The entire period of Islamic rule lasted from the first conquest in 711 to 1492 when the Christian King Ferdinand reconquered Granada (La Reconquista), thereby extinguishing the rule of Muslims (Crow 1985, p.78).

The Umayyad prince, Abd-ar-Rahman I, established himself as Emir of Cordoba in 756, after the Abbasids supplanted Umayyad rule in Syria (Fletcher 2000, p.64). The Umayyad dynasty first ruled as emirs (756–929), then as caliphs (929–1031), but eventually fell to the invading Berber tribes of North Africa, the Almoravids (1090–1147) and then the Almohads (1147–1248) (Fletcher 2000, p.64). The Muslims of Spain ushered in a period of great creativity and scholarship, in which significant advances in poetry, art, music, calligraphy, botany, historiography, medicine, mathematics, and astronomy were made (Fletcher 2000, p. 65).

Maria Rosa Menocal argues that Al-Andalus was a peaceful society in which Jewish people were free to practice their religion without being subject to the threat of forced conversion or persecution. She further claims that the rulers of Al-Andalus not only gave the Jews the right to maintain their religious identity, they also offered them the opportunity to fully involve themselves in what was then a predominantly Muslim society. Al-Andalus is, therefore, a truly unique example of religious toleration and cultural interaction, one which stands above all others in Medieval Europe.

Menocal claims that the Jews of Spain, that is the Sephardic Jews, enjoyed a certain degree of autonomy as they were considered to be people of a particular status. They were members of the Dhimmi, or “pact,” whereby the Muslim rulers agree to protect and care for non-Muslims insofar as they accede to the laws and regulations of the state (Menocal 2002, p.29). Jews, like Christians, are particularly important to this contract as they are “People of the Book” (Ahl al-Kitâb), the book being the Torah or the Bible, both of which are considered to have been revealed by God in Islam (Lassner 1999, p.106). As monotheistic religions of the Abrahamic tradition, Islam, Judaism and Christianity share common ground.That Spanish Jews were treated with respect by their Islamic rulers is evidenced by the way in which they were permitted to be directly involved in the political process. Menocal refers to several Jewish people who rose to claim positions in the Umayyad dynasty, one such person being Hasdai Ibn Shaprut.

Shaprut served as vizier to Caliph Abd-ar-Rahman III (911–961), while also acting as the “prince” or nasi of his own religious community (Menocal 2002, p.79). Shaprut, through his skill and intellect, was able to secure a position of considerable influence and prestige, while retaining his role as a representative of the Jewish community. He served the Umayyad rulers in a variety of ways, including several stints as a foreign ambassador and general secretary (Glick 1979, p.172). Menocal claims that this was not an unusual occurrence or isolated event as Al-Andalus was in fact a “world brightly lit for Jews,” in which they were free to participate in the politics of the state (Menocal 2002, p. 84).

Samuel Ibn Naghrela (Samuel the Nagid, or “prince”) also showed how a Jewish person was able to enjoy a position of power under Islamic rule. Born in 993, he pursued success in a number of fields including as a high-ranking official, poet, statesman and warrior. At thirty-four he was chosen as the first Nagid, or head of the Jewish community, and was later appointed as a vizier and prime minister of Granada (Menocal 2002, p. 104). Jewish people also served as viziers in Zaragoza, Seville, and Almeria during the Muslim rule (Perez 1993, p.10). They were also very active in the economy of Al-Andalus as they had “virtually unlimited opportunities in the booming commercial environment” (Menocal 2002, p. 85). Jewish people were allowed to pursue their vocational interests, and, in time, they came to dominate the financial and mercantile activity of the region (Glick 1979, p. 176).

Menocal attributes the success of the Jewish people in Islamic Spain to their willingness to assimilate, or be “Arabized.” Arabization is the process whereby the Jewish people of Spain sought to understand and to engage with Arabic culture-its language, art, tradition, and values- while still retaining their own sense of identity as a separate community. It is said that the potential for this style of acculturation was great because much of Islamic Spain was highly secular (Glick 1979, p.175). Therefore, the religious affiliation of the individual in Islamic Spain had far less importance, and thus far fewer consequences, than it did elsewhere.

The Jews of Spain excelled in many areas of their society, owing to the tolerance which they had been accorded by their Islamic rulers. They ensured a climate in which Muslims and Jews could live in a state of peaceful cooperation. This happened not by the imposition of one culture on that of another, but a cultural exchange wherein Jews were “able to openly observe and eventually enrich their Judaic and Hebrew heritage and at the same time fully participate in the general cultural and intellectual scene” (Menocal 2002, p. 87). Therefore it can be said that Spain, under the rule of Muslims, was quite tolerant of its Jewish population. The Jews, according to Menocal, did not have “to abandon their orthodoxy to be fully a part of the body politic and culture” (Menocal 2002, p. 86).

Maria Rosa Menocal offers a particular interpretation of this period, one that is certainly not shared by all. Bernard Lewis agrees that the Islamic rulers in Spain treated their Jewish counterparts with some degree of respect (Lewis 1984, p. 9). Lewis refers to the Qur’anic verse (11:62), “Those who believe [the Muslims], and those who profess Judaism, and the Christians and the Sabian, those who believe in God and the Last Day and act righteously, shall have their reward with their Lord,” as the injunction by which Muslims must treat Jews with tolerance (Lewis 1984, p. 13). But Lewis also sees the seeds of hostility and intolerance in the way Muslims treated Jews.

In reality, however, Jews, like Christians, were still defined by their supposed inferiority to that of the Muslim. They were possessors of a religion that was based on authentic revelation, but that incomplete or distorted. They had failed to realize God’s truth in its most perfect form, as it is in Islam.

Bernard Lewis does not limit his perspective to “religious inferiority.” He argues that Muslims restricted Jews’ movement into the wider community. According to him the poll tax, or jizya, a fixed tax that was to be paid by all non-Muslims to the Muslim rulers in return for certain immunities like not going to war, was a “symbolic expression of their (Jews) subordination” to the Muslims (Lewis 1984, p. 14). Restrictions, Lewis argues, were certainly not limited to fiscal servitude, but also applied to the way in which Jewish people conducted themselves in public and private life. A Jewish man could not enter into a marriage with a Muslim woman as that would make a Muslim subordinate to the will of a Dhimmi, though a Muslim man could marry a Jewish woman (Lewis 1984, p. 27).

Generally, the Jewish people were allowed to practice their religion and live according to the laws and scriptures of their community. Furthermore, the restrictions to which they were subject “were social and symbolic rather than tangible and practical in character” (Lewis 1984, p. 26). That is to say, these regulations served to define the relationship between the two communities, and not to oppress the Jewish population.

Norman Roth claims, much like Menocal, that the Jewish population was quite prominent in Spain during the Muslim rule. According to Roth, rarely did “Jews reach such prominent positions of power as they did in Al-Andalus” (Roth 1994, p. 79). This was due, in part, to the fact that they were perceived by the Muslims and Christians of Spain as being “neutral,” that is, without allegiance to either side (Roth 1994, p.79).

While Al-Andalus was a society in which Jews enjoyed a certain degree of freedom, particularly after the advent of the Almohads, Roth claims, some restrictions in clothing were strictly enforced (Roth 1994, p. 167). For instance, the Almohad ruler Abu Yusuf Yaqub (1184–99) made it compulsory for Jews to dress in certain colors (Roth 1994, p. 167), perhaps to distinguish non-Muslim citizens from the Muslims. According to Joseph Perez, the Almohads also instituted religious persecution and forced Jews to convert (Perez 1993, p. 12). In this way, Perez draws a parallel with this period and the one that was to follow, in which Jews were expelled from the newly reclaimed Christian Kingdom of Spain.

The rule of the Moors is a unique period of Spanish history, one that has received much attention from scholars and theologians alike. It was, according to Maria Rosa Menocal, a time in which Jews and Muslims lived a relatively peaceful existence. While the evidence suggests that Jews and Muslims did integrate to an extent, there are also some scholars who suggest that Jews were subject to persecution. Therefore, this period of history offers a lot to be learned for our modern times.

References

• Crow J, 1985, Spain: The Root and the Flower: an interpretation of Spain and the Spanish people, University of California Press, Berkley.
• Fletcher R, 2000, “Islamic Spain,” in Carr R, Spain: A History, Oxford University Press, New York.
• Glick T, 1979, Islamic and Christian Spain in the Early Middle Ages, Princeton University Press, New Jersey.
• Lassner J, 1999, “Abraham Geiger: A Nineteenth-Century Jewish Reformer on the Origins of Islam,” in Martin Kramer, The Jewish Discovery of Islam, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv.
• Lewis B, 1984, The Jews of Islam, Routledge & Kegan Paul, London.
• Menocal MR, 2002, Ornament of the World, Little, Brown and Company, Boston.
• Perez, J, 1993, History of a Tragedy, University of Illinois Press, Chicago.
• Ray, J, 2006, The Sephardic Frontier: the Reconquista and the Jewish community in Medieval Iberia, Cornell University Press, New York.
• Roth N, 1994, Jews, Visigoths, and Muslims In Medieval Spain: Cooperation and Conflict, Leiden, New York.

Hadiths are narrative accounts by Muhammad’s companions of situations involving God’s Messenger and rulings or statements that Muhammad made. Since Muhammad is considered by Muslims to be an excellent exemplar, hadiths have had a major impact on Islam’s worldview. There are six major collections of hadith. The most influential one is by al-Bukhari (who died about 240 years after Muhammad). Bukhari claims to have examined almost six hundred thousand hadith. He only accepted seventy-four hundred of them (1.2%) as being undeniably authentic. The other five collections also did not include the vast majority of hadiths they examined, but they do overlap considerably in the ones that they do consider authentic. I have selected five hadiths to gloss from my perspective as a Reform Rabbi. The first is from Sahih Muslim and the following four are from Bukhari.

Menstruation

Sahih Muslim: Thabit narrated it from Anas: Among the Jews, when a woman menstruated, they did not dine with her, nor did they live with them in their houses; so the Companions of the Apostle (may peace be upon him) asked the Apostle (may peace be upon him), and God, the Exalted revealed: “They also ask you about (the injunctions concerning) menstruation. Say: ‘It is a state of hurt (and ritual impurity), so keep away from them during menstruation’” to the end (Baqara 2:222). The Messenger of God (may peace be upon him) said: “Do everything except intercourse.” The Jews heard of that and said: “This man does not want to leave anything we do without opposing us in it.” (Book 003, Number 0592)

Gloss: Both Islam and Judaism have laws about ritual pollution deriving from a woman’s monthly period. Orthodox Judaism had greatly expanded the prohibitions against physical contact during a woman’s period. Muhammad opposes this expansion and limits the prohibition for Muslims. Reform Rabbis today are much closer to Islamic practice than they are to Orthodox Jewish practice.

Extremism

Bukhari; Narrated Abu Huraira: The Prophet said, “Religion is very easy and whoever overburdens himself in his religion will not be able to continue in that way. So you should not be extremists, but try to be near to perfection and receive the good tidings that you will be rewarded.” (Volume 1, Book 2, Number 38)

Gloss: Unlike Christianity, both Islam and Judaism teach the importance of sacred slaughter of meat, and the avoidance of certain animals for food. In Islam, the rules are simpler and fewer than in Orthodox Judaism. Reform Rabbis would regard the increasingly restrictive developments in the laws of kosher diet, especially for Passover, as a counterproductive, overburdening of the people. The expansion of restrictions on Shabbat activities is also seen by Reform Rabbis as a counterproductive, overburdening of the joy of Shabbat. Muhammad wisely differentiates between extremism and striving to be near perfect (no one is perfect) which involves a rejection of extremism. Just trying to do well will be rewarded. Religion should not be hard. Making religion easier does not mean making religion soft or impious. This is a very important hadith because all religions have believers that think more is better, and harder is still better.

Worshiping none other than God

Narrated ‘Aisha and Ibn’ Abbas: On his deathbed God’s Apostle put a sheet over his face and when he felt hot, he would remove it from his face. When in that state (of putting and removing the sheet) he said, “May God’s Curse be on the Jews and the Christians for they build places of worship at the graves of their prophets.” He intended to warn (the Muslim) from what they (i.e. Jews and Christians) had done. (Volume 4, Book 56, Number 660)

Gloss: God’s apostle strongly opposed any diversion of reverence or worship to anyone other than God. Christians, and even Jews, had started worshiping at the graves of holy men, saints and prophets. Although they claimed to be only worshiping God, their feeling that prayer was better or more effective at such sites was cursed by Muhammad. In later centuries, some Muslims also began worshiping at the tombs of holy men and building places of worship near their graves. For Islam, none other than God can be attributed with divinity. Therefore, seeking divine assistance from the graves is shirk, associating partners with God, which is the gravest sin in Islam. However, some ignorant Muslims may unintentionally hypothesize divine qualities for certain deceased people. Although such Muslims are not too many, and they do not really intend to worship them, this is one of the developments that the Wahhabi movement strongly opposes.¹

Reform Rabbis would agree that such activity at grave sites should be condemned and could be seen as a curse. God’s apostle must also have realized that even the Muslim community would produce people whose piety would lead to such errors. No religious community is exempt from people who use piety and belief improperly. This hadith teaches us all to be humble when we view other religions and other sects within our own religion. The next hadith teaches this even more explicitly.

Learning from failings

Narrated Abu Said: The Prophet said: “You will follow the wrong ways of your predecessors so completely and literally that if they should go into the hole of an animal, you too will go there.” We said, “O God’s Apostle! Do you mean the Jews and the Christians?” He replied, “Whom else?” (Volume 4, Book 56, Number 662)

Gloss: Muhammad criticized the failings of many in the Jewish and Christian communities (as did the prophets of Israel), but he realized that people are human, and most do not seem to learn from the failings of others. He hoped that Muslims would retain their original purity, but he foresaw that decay and falsification were inevitable. God’s apostle would certainly attack female genital mutilation in Africa today as sharply as he attacked female infanticide in Arabia in his day.² It is a shame that many Muslim leaders in Africa today do not condemn it. Reform Rabbis, who have now been part of a modern democratic society for several generations are openly critical of those Orthodox practices and ideas that we think betray the spirit of Judaism in today’s world.

Superiority

Abu Huraira related: Two men, a Muslim and a Jew, abused each other. The Muslim said, “By Him Who gave superiority to Muhammad over all the people.” At that, the Jew said, “By Him Who gave superiority to Moses over all the people.” The Muslim became furious at that and slapped the Jew in the face. The Jew went to God’s Apostle and informed him of what had happened between him and the Muslim. God’s Apostle said, “Don’t give me superiority over Moses, for people will fall unconscious on the Day of Resurrection and I will be the first to gain consciousness, and behold! Moses will be there holding the side of God’s Throne. I will not know whether Moses has been among those people who have become unconscious and then has regained consciousness before me, or has been among those exempted by God from falling unconscious.” (Volume 8, Book 76, #524)

Gloss: God’s Messenger is so well known for his sense of justice that a Jew can appeal to him even in a conflict with a Muslim who has attacked a Jew. It is only natural for Jews to think that Moses is the best, and for Muslims to think that Muhammad is the best. Muhammad rebukes the Muslim, telling him not to claim that Muhammad is superior to Moses because even on the day of Resurrection, Muhammad himself will not know their relative merit, for although Muhammad will be the first to be revived, Moses will already be there holding the side of God’s throne. Muhammad teaches us that comparisons of religious superiority are wrong, for no human in this world, and perhaps even in the world to come, will know who the best is, and such comparisons do not help anything but polarize people by inciting partisan fervor. All Reform Rabbis would applaud this teaching although we know that during the Middle Ages all three religions claimed superiority.

Most Americans would be amazed to hear such liberal and flexible statements coming from a religion that they think is rigid and fanatical. But the politicized Islam that has captured so much attention in the world today is the outgrowth of two recent factors. One is an anti-western reaction and scapegoating due to the great dislocations and upheavals occurring as a result of globalization in all modernizing societies in the twentieth century. The second factor is the result of several previous centuries of socio-economic decline that took place in the Middle East. Jews and Christians have already had reforming movements. Muslims have not. But the Prophet predicted that Muslims also would become more rigid and orthodox just as the Jews and Christians had. As we have seen Abu Sa’id al-Khudri reported God’s Messenger as saying: You will tread the same path as was trodden by those before you inch by inch and step by step, so much so that if they had entered into the hole of a lizard, you would follow them in this also. We said: Do you mean Jews and Christians? He said: Who else?”

Unlike Orthodox Rabbis, Reform Rabbis accept the doctrine of nullification, which teaches that one verse in scripture can nullify another, and that rulings can be changed due to changed circumstances. Muhammad provides an excellent example of this principle in the following account. The Prophet originally told women not to visit graveyards, but toward the end of his life, he said to them: “I had told you not to visit graves; now I am telling you to visit them.” The reason was that Arabian women used to wail at graves. The Prophet wanted this practice to be stopped. Therefore, he banned women from visiting graves to start with. After some time, when Muslim women were better aware of how Islam wants them to behave in different situations, he allowed them such visits. In fact, the Prophet encourages visiting graveyards because such a visit reminds the visitor of his or her own death and the fact that they would have to stand in front of God when their actions are reckoned to determine their reward or punishment. Scholars like Ibn Qudamah, of the Hanbali school of law, make it clear that since this is the purpose of visiting graveyards, both men and women need such visits.

Another important teaching of the Qur’an for people all over the world today is that God chose not to create human beings as one nation and bestowed upon them free will to believe or not to believe. As it is written in the Qur’an (Maedah 5:48) “For every one of you did We appoint a law and a way. If God had pleased He would have made you one people, but (He didn’t) that He might test you in what He gave you. Therefore compete with one another to hasten to virtuous deeds; for all return to God, so He will let you know (after Judgment Day) that in which you differed.” This is a wonderful further development of the teaching of the Biblical prophet Micah (4:5) that in the end of days-the Messianic Age-”All people will walk, each in the name of their own God, and we shall walk in the name of the Lord our God forever.”

A Muslim is one who submits to the will of God and believes that God has sent many different prophets to the many peoples of the world. As a Reform Rabbi I believe that Muhammad was the Prophet sent to the Arab people. I believe that the Qur’an is as true for Muslims as the Torah is true for Jews. Indeed, I love the hadith also narrated by Abu Huraira that says, “The people of the Book used to read the Torah in Hebrew and then explain it in Arabic to the Muslims. God’s Apostle said (to the Muslims). “Do not believe the people of the Book, nor disbelieve them, but say, ‘We believe in God, and whatever is revealed to us, and whatever was revealed to you.’”³ Following Muhammad’s teaching I too neither believe nor disbelieve in the Qur’an. I do respect the Qur’an very much as a kindred revelation to a kindred people in a kindred language.⁴ “We have not sent you but as an unequalled mercy for all the worlds” (Anbiya 21:107). The Prophet Muhammad’s mission, peace be upon him, is not restricted to Arabs only. Arabs today comprise not more than twenty percent of the entire Muslim population around the world. Belief in the Prophets and previous revelations are two of the six pillars of faith in Islam. Likewise, the Qur’an is the final revelation that was sent after the Torah, Psalms, and Gospels. Its message is universal and does not cover one specific nation only. (Ed.)In fact, the people, the language and the theology are closer to my own people, language and theology than that of any other on earth. Of course, more than eighty percent of Muslims in the world today are not of Arab decent. But Arabic is their sacred language and the tradition that Arabs and Jews are cousins is widely accepted. This makes the present conflict between the Palestinians and the Israelis especially tragic. It is very important to realize that the conflict is a political one and not a religious one. There can be no religious conflict between religions like Judaism and Islam because neither of them declares that their scriptures are the only ones from God. The strong support that the Qur’an gives to religious pluralism is a lesson that is sorely needed by the religious fundamentalists of all religions in the world today.

Notes

1. The tradition of building mosques next to graves, or the other way round is a common practice. However, Muslims do not have the intention of worshiping the deceased saints. Muslims worship and petition God, and God only. Besides, there are practical reasons, like performing funeral services more easily and praying for one’s deceased. (Ed.)
2. Female genital mutilation (or female circumcision) has nothing to do with any Islamic practice. It is a custom in some parts of Africa and the Middle East. In Islamic sources, there is no absolute prohibition, nor is there any kind of encouragement regarding this practice. This practice is also considered reprehensible since it carries a risk to the girl’s future ability to enjoy sexual relations with her husband. (Ed.)
3. This hadith refers to the fact that as a part of the Islamic creed, Muslims have to believe in all the Prophets and revelations sent to them. Muslims believe the previous scriptures have not remained in their original state. Since it is not certain how much these scriptures have been changed, the Prophet enjoins Muslims not to accept or deny completely the message of these scriptures. (Ed.)
4. “We have not sent you but as an unequalled mercy for all the worlds” (Anbiya 21:107). The Prophet Muhammad’s mission, peace be upon him, is not restricted to Arabs only. Arabs today comprise not more than twenty percent of the entire Muslim population around the world. Belief in the Prophets and previous revelations are two of the six pillars of faith in Islam. Likewise, the Qur’an is the final revelation that was sent after the Torah, Psalms, and Gospels. Its message is universal and does not cover one specific nation only. (Ed.)

Historical background

Dhimmi designates an indefinitely renewed contract through which non-Muslims have a specific status (but are not full citizens), have their property protected, and are ensured safe conduct in return for acknowledging Islam’s domination and paying the jizya (poll tax).(3) In early Islam, they were Christians, Jews, Magians, Samaritans, and Sabians.(4) The Prophet and the early caliphs showed religious tolerance and caution toward religious minorities.(5) The Ottoman sultans made slight changes, but basically followed the same attitude in a more structured fashion.

Dhimmis in the Ottoman State

Some assert that Ottoman society was divided into ruling (Muslim) and (non-Muslim) raaya classes. But it was more complicated than that, for Muslims and non-Muslims were referred to as raaya (followers, the ruled, or non-participants in government). As the Ottoman State was semi-theocratic, raaya should be understood in the biblical sense as the shepherd and the flock.(6)

Government personnel worked in three areas: religion and law, war and statecraft, and the bureaucracy. The first branch was restricted to Muslim-born subjects. The ulema devoted long years to theological, scholastic, and legal studies in order to become judges and professors. The latter two branches were reserved mainly for non-Muslims. Neither group was inferior to the Muslims.

The Ottoman system was so complex that we cannot determine whether there was religious or racial discrimination. After reforms during the nineteenth century, many intellectuals and ecclesiastics argued that applying a unified law would deprive them of their privileges.(7) The Ottoman system of government was holistic, considered all branches interwoven and interconnected, and was fairly well integrated, in socioeconomic matters but not in religious matters, at least in Turkish-majority areas.

The Millet System

Three days after Sultan Mehmed the Conqueror entered Constantinople (1453), he told everyone to go home and continue his or her occupation and religion. He supervised the election of a new Greek Patriarch, a monk named Genadius, who was elected by Synod and consecrated. He proclaimed the patriarch-elect in the most honorific terms, gave him the pastoral staff with his own hands, and said: Be patriarch, live with us in peace, and enjoy all the privileges of your predecessors.(8) Though other communities later were recognized in the same terms, the Greek Orthodox Church always had more privileges and stronger ties with the central government.

Gradually, dealing with minorities engendered the millet system. Controlling the minority communities through their local bishops and rabbis stopped, and the whole Orthodox Church was organized as Rum Milleti (Roman people). The patriarch collected and allocated the poll tax and served as his community’s temporal leader. He was assigned a ceremonial rank with three tugs (horsetails), allowed his own court and prison in Istanbul’s Fener district, and had unlimited civil jurisdiction over and responsibility for his community. The State assigned him other duties and enforced the laws that he laid down for his community.

Since Islamic law is corporate (not territorial) and Ottoman society was corporate in nature, the Ottoman State dealt with dhimmis as members of a community and not as individuals.(9) A community member was directly responsible for and accountable to the community. Thus the government protected the communities from internal and external aggression, while the community’s leaders managed its affairs. The Porte had to ratify the chosen leader, but this was a mere formality. Each millet’s leader represented his people, and these matters were dealt with through the Foreign Ministry. The Greek Orthodox Patriarch had the rank of vizier and was provided with a guard of Janissaries (soldiers).

The Christian Millet. Most Orthodox Christian Balkan territories had been included in the Patriarchate of Constantinople’s jurisdiction. But by the time of Ottoman conquest, the Slavonic branch in the Sultan’s dominion had split into three patriarchates: Ochrida, Trnovo, and Ipek. These divisions were racial, dynastic, and nationalistic, and not doctrinal. Thus the Conqueror placed all Orthodox Christians under the authority of the Ecumenical Patriarch in Constantinople and let him decide how to apportion the tax among them.

The sixteenth-century conquests in the Islamic lands and the capture of Cyprus and Crete brought many Orthodox Christians and the ancient patriarchates of Jerusalem, Antioch, and Alexandria under Muslim control. As the patriarch was influential with the sultan, the Porte made arrangements through which the Greek elements became dominant.(10)

The Jewish Millet. The Conqueror allowed the Jews, recognized as another millet, to settle in Istanbul. He appointed a haham basi (Chief Rabbi) with powers similar to those enjoyed by the patriarch. The haham basi was given precedence over the patriarch next to the head of ulema, and after the conquest, the Jews’ position improved. Although outcasts under the Byzantines, they now started holding various public offices.(11) Jews fleeing persecution in Spain and elsewhere were welcomed into Ottoman lands.

Each minority community was treated according to how it had been incorporated into the Ottoman State. Under Bayezid II and Mehmed the Conqueror, Muslims seem to have favored Jews over Christians, since Christians were suspected of being too sympathetic to Christian Europe. The Jews had no central authority to follow and be instigated by, save that of the office of haham basi, which the Porte could check easily. Almost all Jews were immigrants and brought their distinctive rituals, habits, and customs with them, Therefore, different regions inhabited by homogeneous groups were represented by different synagogues.

The Armenian Millet. In 1462, the Armenians became the last community recognized as a separate millet until the period of decline. Whereas the Patriarch was the most prominent ecclesiastical figure in the Orthodox Church and the Jews had no spiritual universal director, the head of Armenian Church did not reside within the Empire.

The Orthodox Church considered the Armenian church (Gregorian) heretical. Earlier, it had been as powerful as Orthodoxy. When the Armenians became a separate millet, neither little Armenia nor the Armenian provinces of the East, two important seats, were ruled by the Ottomans. Therefore, Mehmed II chose Horaghim, Gregorian bishop of Bursa, as the Armenian patriarch of Istanbul and gave him powers similar to those of the Orthodox patriarch and the haham basi.

Also belonging to this millet were all unclassified subjects, such as the Bogomils and the Paulicans, two heretical sects that originated from the Armenian church. Most Balkan Armenians accepted Islam after the area was overrun by the Ottoman armies. Remaining subjects have retained their particular faith until today. Other members included various Catholic and other Christian groups that the Orthodox Church considered heretical.

The devshirme and ghulam systems

This devshirme system was based on traditional views of dealing with prisoners of war. In the classical Islamic period, jurists advised immediate execution, allowing some or all to be ransomed or freed, exchanges for Muslim prisoners, or enslavement.(12)

Islam allowed slaves to be emancipated; the Ottomans did not. One-fifth of all captives entered the ghulam system (the sultan’s slave family), and were trained and allowed to rise within the system. Such slaves were recruited from Christians aged 10 to 20 years. The preferred ages were probably between 14 and 18, and boys younger than 12 or older than 20 were considered only in exceptional cases.(13)

Recruits were obtained through capture, purchase, gift, or tribute. Slaves not bought for the sultan or given to him were usually either captives or levied with the tribute boys. There was hardly any other way, since slaves passed too rapidly into the Muslim fold to have their children available for the system. The sons of the recruits (though already themselves Muslim) were eligible, but not their grandsons, because by then the grandchildren would most likely be Muslims. Reliable statistical data is rare, but based on contemporary ac-counts, in the sixteenth century probably 3,000 children were recruited annually. Those within the system might have reached as high as 80,000, and the total number recruited throughout the centuries might have been close to 2 million.

This exclusion of all other Muslims’ children and grandchildren lasted until Suleyman the Magnificent broke them. He allowed the Janissaries’ children to join their ranks or other parts of the system. This proved to be a fatal move, for it became the only hereditary institution after the sultanate.

At first, parents were anxious to keep their children out of the system. But later on, even Muslim families tried to get their children into it because of the prestige it conferred. Originally restricted to the sons of villagers and poor families, it eventually spread to the townsmen’s children. The earlier practice resulted in great social upward mobility; the later practice opened up a new way of accumulating wealth and prestige, and thus undermined the State.

This tribute system brought children from Austria, the Caucasus, the Crimea, and the Balkans. Those captured by raiders and corsairs were presented to the sultan as gifts. Otherwise, recruiting officers visited some villages every 4 years to fill their quota. The officer summoned the priest and got a list of children, visited the houses, and took the most suitable children. If he received more than required, the surplus was sold elsewhere.(14) Contemporary accounts say that it produced the ablest and most talented children.

These children became known as ghilman. The sultan had the absolute sovereignty over them. However, they felt honored by this title and tried to show their loyalty to him. The Ottoman system raised slaves to ministers of state, courtiers, husbands of princesses, rulers of the Islamic state, soldiers and generals, bureaucrats and prime ministers. Race was irrelevant, for only potential talent was considered.(15)

They were taught Turkish, Arabic, Persian, physical training, war affairs, administration, the Ottoman governing institutions, and so on. The successful and meritorious could expect to serve in some of the Empire’s highest positions. Its graduates became fully Muslim, as did those who served in the Ottoman armed forces. However, many non-Muslims served in respectable positions during the reigns of Murad II, Mehmed the Conqueror, and Salim I. Muslims and non-Muslims held provincial administration positions and were members of court slave families (e.g., the grand vizier, governors, princes, military officers, and so on).

Taxation

Dhimmis paid two special taxes: jizya (a tribute or a poll tax) and kharaj (land tax). Ottoman ulema ruled that this rule still was in use, but since all agricultural land belonged to the State, it applied to private holdings. Another tax was taken from all peasants. Many other dues levied on peasants and traders were heavier for dhimmis than for Muslims. Though the land tax was discontinued during the early days of Islam, the Ottomans continued to levy the poll tax in lieu of military service.(16) Interestingly enough, it was confused with land tax and the dhimmis were confused with the masses. The masses’ payment of the land tax thus was actually the dhimmis’ payment of the poll tax.(17)

Originally it was levied only on free men who could earn and afford to pay it. But later on, ministers, rabbinical representatives, the chief rabbi, teachers, slaughterers, and a few Jewish families in Istanbul were excluded. Many Christian families obtained a decree from the sultan that made them exempt. Gibb and Bowen estimate that probably only one-third of all eligible dhimmis paid this tax during the State’s later period.(18)

During the nineteenth century, the land tax was abolished (in principle) and yet retained as a compensation for military duty. Shortly thereafter, Istanbul’s people were exempted from it in toto, although it was still collected in the provinces. Until the republican era, all non-Muslims (except for Istanbul residents) paid only a military and a road tax.

Conclusion

The Ottoman State acted according to Islam and its own interests. It recognized each community’s rights and frequently protected them at the expense of its own citizens. It opened up state offices to non-Muslims as an incentive to become Muslim. Such a policy was unknown to the Europe of that time. However, the Ottomans did not spread the Islamic educational system among the non-Muslims to encourage their conversion, which constituted the state’s very raison d’etre.

Footnotes

1. Abu Jaber, book title/pub. info needed, 213.
2. H.A.R. Gibb and Harold Bowen, Islamic Society and the West (London and New York: Oxford University Press, 1950-), 1:43.
3. H.A.R. Gibb et al., eds., Encyclopedia of Islam, Dhimma (Leiden: Brill, 1960-).
4. M. Khadduri, War and Peace in the Law of Islam (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1955), 176-77.
5. Ibid., 173.
6. Abu Jaber, 212.
7. Carel Bertram, book title/pub. info needed, 127.
8. Ibid.
9. Stanford J. Shaw and Ezel K. Shaw, History of the Ottoman Empire and Modern Turkey (Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press, 1976-77), 1:151.
10. Ibid., 153.
11. Cyrus Adler et al., eds., The Jewish Encyclopedia, Turkey (New York and London: Funk & Wagnalls, 1901-06).
12. A. H. Lybyer, The Government of the Ottoman Empire in the Time of Suleiman the Magnificent (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1913).
13. Ibid., 54.
14. Ibid., 46.
15. Vernon Parry, Elite Elements in the Ottoman Empire, in Governing Elites: Studies in Training and Selection, ed. Rupert Wilkinson (New York: Oxford University Press, 1969), 50-73.
16. Gibb and Bowen, Islamic Society, 253.
17. The Jewish Encyclopedia, Turkey.
18. Gibb and Bowen, Islamic Society, 255.