Akram's Razor - Reflections on Islam, Muslims & America

A beastly crime of anti-Semitism in France

Ilan Halimi, 23, was kidnapped, tortured over a period of 2 weeks and left for dead, naked, by a gang of French kidnappers-- a young, multi-ethnic group of Muslims and non-Muslims that, with great understatement, refered to themselves as "the Barbarians"--in Bagneux, France.  (See WSJ article )

Halimi was Jewish and the perpetrators' behavior leaves little doubt that anti-Semitism played a major part in this truly ghastly crime. 

As more details come out, the monstrosity of this crime becomes harder and harder to bear.  The animals put cigarettes out in the poor young man's face, beat him, and left burns on over 80% of his body.  He was tortured for weeks--during which time his depraved captors regularly called his terrified family to demand ransom and taunt them (it has even been reported in the media that they taunted the family by forcing them to listen to recordings of the Quran, an image so simutaneously blasphemous and inhumane that it makes my blood boil)--and then dumped him, gagged, naked and tied to a tree.  He died en route to the hospital.

For me, the most chilling detail to come out is that over 20 people are believed to have visited the room where Halimi was held, sometimes even joining in the torment, during those weeks.  This included friends and relatives.  The depravity and inhumanity beggars the imagination.

It reminds me of Hannah Arendt's warning concerning the "Banality of Evil" and the potential for evil that lies beneath the surface of our impersonal "modern" socieities that are full of strangers lacking any bond or sense of solidarity to their neighbors.

May Allah grant him and his family peace and punish those responsible.  And may all people, Muslim and non-Muslim alike, learn a lesson about our shared humanity from this terrible tragedy and obscenity.

Exaggerated though it is at times by sensationalistic media, Muslim anti-Semitism is real and needs to be addressed.  I remember getting into a shouting match with a bookseller  at the Grand Mosque in Paris after Friday juma prayers a decade ago over his sale of a revisionsist tract (i.e., one denying the Nazi Holocaust) along with Qurans and various religious books.  I made quite a scene, in the process probably reinforcing some of his suspicions.  (What's better "proof" of Jews running America to a bigot from North Africa than the only white American Muslim he's encountered freaking out when he merely wants to "reexamine" the historical facts of the Holocaust?) 

On a related note, I've always been greatly disstressed by the simplistic and ultimately dehumanizing way some Muslims talk about  "the Jews", as if all Jews were the same regardless of time, space, circumstance or personal characteristics.  There's a tendency to discuss all members of other religious traditions (and even other Muslims, as illustrated the way Salafis and the Salafized talk about Shiahs)--but especially Jews, it must be noted--like cartoon characters who've popped out of the pages of scripture, rendering them impossibly monolithic and devoid of individuality or real humanity.  People get reduced to abstract geopolitical categories, anonymous members of an opposing camp, with whom serious dialogue, much less friendship, becomes impossible.  As I've noted before, Muslims need to stop talking as if all Jews are the Banu Qurayza of Medina in the Prophet's time or Golden Calf-worshipping Levites of Moses' days.  They come in all shapes and sizes.  Some are good and some are bad.  Just like us.

Of course, this isn't a simple request, as many Muslims have great trouble extending that courtesy even to other Muslims, much less "kafirs" ("People of the Book, People of the Shmook"!).  The fact that we Muslim now are on the receiving end of such dehumanizing stereotypes thanks to sensationalistic coverage of 9/11, Osama Bin Laden, the Taliban, honor killings, ad infinitum, ought to open our eyes, though, about the need not to stereotype.

It's inevitable that a savage, polarizing crime like this will create new tensions, fears and misunderstandings between Muslims and Jews.  I can't entirely blame people for being a little afraid of Muslims when they hear a terrifying story like this.

I have to note, though, that I think viewing this horrific tragedy through a post-9/11 ideological prism (i.e., as this being a manfestation of Islamic hate rather than as a grisly crime that involved Muslims and Jews) is a big mistake.  Out in suburbia, we may forget that killings like this aren't all that unusual in the violent socieites we live in--recently, a friend of Shabana's got the chilling news that an old high school friend had been kidnapped, raped and dumped naked on the street--and I hope people will remember the culptrits involved were depraved criminals with a history of kidnappings, and that some involved were not even Muslim.  Their motivation appears to have been primarily greed, though anti-Semitism clearly played a disgusting role. 

Also, at the risk of sounding like a bleeding heart liberal and without in any way minimizing my outrage at the rank prejudice and brutality displayed, these ghastly crimes are also clearly linked to some extent to the poor, crime-ridden and increasingly stratum of French society that these people inhabit.  As we saw recently in the riots, France has social problems that cause resentments to fester and encourage the eventual outbreak of communalism and lawlessness.

We must pray for the victim, stand his family and demand that those responsible be held responsible to the fullest extent of the law and made an example of, but we mustn't let tragedies like this drive new wedges between communities or let bigots and xenophobes exploit  outrage over this crime to promote their hateful agenda (which will only lead to more intercommunal prejudice and violence; declaring open season on Muslims in France in the name of fighting anti-Semitism will not help France's Jews).

The Quran, Jews & the Bible

Since I figure it might interest some people, I'm going to reproduce a comment I made on another blog (which I highly recommend) in reaction to an insightful posting by the Velveteen Rabbi on the Quran. 

My contribution wasn't particularly erudite or articutle.  I was just trying to throw some light on how the Quran treats Jews and how there is an interesting interaction within Islam with the Tanakh (i.e., the Hebrew Bible) and Jewish tradition.  Since the audience is presumably non-Muslim, I kept it pretty high-level regarding Islamic beliefs.

Any corrections or additional examples from my esteemed readers would be very welcome.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A great post and a great blog.

As a Muslim, I'm very appreciative of your thoughtful and respectful approach to the Quran.

The profound similarities between Islam and Judaism is a topic that has long fascinated me. I'm sure you're well aware of the parallels: kashrut/halal; halakha/shariah; what I'd call strict & unambiguous monotheism (as opposed to the complexity of Trinitarian monotheism); daily prayers and other religious rituals; etc. etc.

The question of the Quran's view of Jews is a controversial and IMHO generally poorly understood one. I think that when you read the Quran holistically, with an awareness of the historical context in which it was revealed, and with an open mind--something which comes no easier to Muslims than non-Muslims--its message is not at all hostile to Judaism, even if does view Islam as superior to Judaism (which is to be expected--most religions claim to supercede others). There are a number of verses which imply, either directly or indirectly, that Judaism is based on Divine truth and, thus, an ally of Islam against sin and materialism (e.g., verse 22:40 makes it clear that Muslims are to declare jihad to protect churches and synagogues along with mosques because these are places where "Allah's name is oft remembered"). Also, another verse explicitly states that God intentionally created the world in "tribes and nations" (49:31) and yet another declares that "there is no compulsion of religion" (2:256).

There are admittedly verses which condemn the Israelites of old for sinning and erring, but we should remember that is in keeping with Jewish tradition (e.g., the Golden Calf incident). To view it as anti-Semitic is to miss the whole point, as these are shared religious traditions and metaphors for spiritual life. Is it anti-Semitic for the Quran to *accept* Biblical accounts and take them at face value? Jews might fairly object to some aspects to the way these stories are interpreted in Islam (though I'm not sure they differ substantially from the Jewish tradition), but to label them anti-Semitic is to really go overboard.

There are also verses which speak of enmity with "the Jews". This question is more complex, but they clearly refer to contemporary political problems with some Jewish tribes in the city of Madina (e.g., there was a case where a Jewish tribe in Medina betrayed Muhammad and his community by siding with an enemy inspite of a treaty they'd signed) and not Judaism or Jews for all time. (Sadly, some Muslims--thanks in part to this tragic conflict in the Middle East--fail to remember this crucial distinction, as well, but the failings of Muslims are not the fault of the Quran.)

That's not to say that anti-Semitic interpretations aren't to be found among Muslim interpreters, but the assumption that they are the result of the Quran is highly debatable.

An area that I wish to learn more about is the differences between Islam and Judaism concerning *shared* traditions. There are numerous shared narratives in the Quran and Tanakh, but sometimes with interesting differences. For example, as you no doubt know, the story of Abraham's Akidah  [This isn't the be confused with the Islamic concept of Aqidah.  --Svend] appears in the Quran (and is the basis for one of the Islam's two major holidays), but with the crucial difference that the son involved was Ishmael instead of Isaac. Another less well known example is the story of Solomon. Much of the Biblical account of his reign appears in the Quran, but the Quran specifically repudiates one aspect of the Biblical account, saying that he did not worship the gods of his foreign wives.

The general rule for Muslims is to accept whatever appears in the Tanakh is assumed to be of divine origin so long as it doesn't contradict the Quran, sayings of the Prophet Muhammad or key Islamic beliefs. Thus, though nothing specific is mentioned about this in the Quran, Muslims reject the account of David and Bathsheba, feeling adultery and murder couldn't be committed by a prophet of God (in Islam, prophets are by definition sinless) and therefore must be a fabrication (no offense intended--just noting the differences).

It gets more hairy and ambiguous, though, when you look at accounts of minor sins or debatable ones. I don't know what Muslim commentators have said on this particular story, but I suspect that most Muslim commentators would, for similiar reasons, question the account of Noah (who's also a prophet in Islam; the Quran also tells the story of the Flood) getting drunk and exposing himself to his sons, even though alcohol was not forbidden at the time. Then there's the incident with Lot and his daughters,which would certainly make a Muslim uncomfortable but is unclear (it's inconceivable in Islam that prophet would committ incest, but then he didn't do it voluntarily according to Genesis).

There are other examples like this, as well.

Thanks.

Svend

The Grinch: A Misunderstood Mujahid

Growing up a Muslim in Boston in the 70s and 80s and with little contact with the broader Muslim community, I had BIG issues with Christmas.

Unlike a lot of Muslims, my beef with Christmas wasn't theological.  I don't accept the line that to joining Christians in celebrating their holiday is to engage in or condone  shirk (idolatry), as do many Muslims.  Nor was it philosophical or ethical.  To the contrary, I always liked Christmas in priniciple, finding it a noble and inspiring holiday that reminds people of what's important in life.

My objection was cultural and political.  I saw it as a cultural Trojan Horse, a sneaky way for the Christian majority to impose its values on non-Christian minorities.  Its ubiqitiousness and the lack of attention given to other religions' holidays (except for the perfunctory nod to Hanukkah) offended my sense of multicultural equality. 

Religious exchanges are great, but so long as they really are exchanges--it must be two-way street, not something imposed on minorities.  During my childhood in Boston,  nobody ever wished me "Eid mubarak" or gave a hoot about my religious background, so I resented having Christmas rammed down my throat (and really gave my Jewish friends grief over their "Hanukkah bushes") .  To my eyes, it was yet another way to promote assimilation and I was no fan of assimilation (and still am not, for that matter).

As a result,  I always found myself rooting for the Grinch during the TV special every year and came to view him, like Ebenezer Scrooge, as a tragic hero, a misunderstood mujahid for religious freedom and multicultural equality.

These days, though, I must confess I'm increasingly relaxed about Christmas.  My machinations against the Yuletide season are now mostly a sweet memory (I miss plotting against it with my Jewish friends--one year we went and watched "Hellraiser" at the theater on Christmas Eve).  I suspect that's because today the Muslim community is much larger, more developed and better organized.  In a day where ISNA draws tens of thousands to its convention every year and when mosques and Islamic shops are sprouting everywhere, Christmas no longer functions as an insidious a threat to a fledgling community trying to establish its own identity and resist the crushing pull of assimilation, at least where I live, I think.   

Update (12-12-25):
Driving around Northern Virginia today (which is Christmas Day) desperately searching for a place to relax and plug in my laptop, I felt some of my old anti-Christmas resentments returning.   It happens to me every year.  I feel increasingly ecumenical as the Christmas season progresses but then when Santa shuts down all my favorite shops and haunts and leaves me shivering outside in the cold wondering what to do, I find myself crying out, "Bah humbug!"

Since Christmas is just another day for me, I go about my normal business and forgot that everything will be closed.  You'd think I'd learn, but It catches me off guard every time.  I always end up getting denied access to something important at the last minute (e.g., in this case an internet cafe).

Few things are more boring and frustrating for us infidels than the Christmas Day ghost town phenomenon, when a world that never sleeps suddenly shuts off the lights and locks the door in the middle of the day.  It can be agonizingly boring, and very frustrating if you're not expecting it and made plans that involve a visit to any business other than a gas station.

While living in Copenhagen about a decade ago, I was so desperate for something, anything, to do on Christmas Eve that I took a train to a Buddhist Temple, though it turned out that, much to my horror, they were celebrating Christmas, too.

As the US becomes increasingly diverse and multi-confessional, perhaps we should take a lesson from Israel and establish a "Shabbas Goy"-style system for Christmas where shops with non-Christian employees remain open on Christmas Eve and Christmas Day and cater to those of us with nothing to do or celebrate. 

Thank goodness for Lebnan Zamaan, a Lebanese sheesha cafe in Vienna, Virginia (an exotically named suburb of DC, for you non-Washingtonians).   

Update (2006-01-04): Christopher Hitchens recently penned a memorable and elegant anti-Christmas screed. 

A Lost Tribe is found in India

The world is peppered with peoples that claim descent from the "Lost Tribes" of Israel (see  this link for the seemingly never-ending parade of contenders) that were exiled over two and a half millenia ago by Assyria's King Nebuchanezzar.  As one site puts it:

Scholars have claimed to discover their descendants in North and South America, England, China, Japan, Burma, Africa, Arabia, Persia, Central Asia, and Siberia, among other places.

And then there are the various New Age and/or Afrocentric identity groups like the Rastafarians and the Black Israelites.

Who knows, maybe you're a latterday Israelite, yourself.  Those lost tribes seem to have really gotten around.

The case of the  Bnei Menashe community in Mizoram and Manipur--states in India's troubled northeastern tribal areas bordering Burma and Nepal--is intriguing, as it appears to be one of the first instances that I'm aware of of a claim to being "lost" Jews being accepted by Israel (*) and citizenship being granted accordingly. 

They're not the only South Asian claimants (though they might be the only ones who are actively lobbying for the status).  The Kashmiri claim has gotten a lot of attention, and there are also suspicions that there are Pathan tribes with Israelite blood  The Kashmiris even boast a tomb that has long been believed by locals--and even some outsiders, especially in New Age spirituality circles (e.g., Holger Kerstein)-- to be the final resting place of Jesus Christ (as). 

These other claims are a lot more messy.  Whereas the Bnei Menashe number only 6,000, there are millions of Kashmiris and/or Pathans to whom this might apply.  Then there's  the Kashmiris' accompanying belief in the arrival of and eventual burial of the Messiah, a matter that Jews can be quite understandably touchy about.  And the idea of Muslim Jews probably isn't very appealing to the authorities.

* I don't place the Falashim/Olim of Ethiopia under this rubric, as they claim to have arrived earlier during the reign of Solomon, if I'm not mistaken.  And I think that the Russian Jews that have been imported to give Israelis  demographic reinforcements vis-a-vis their  more fertile Palestinian neighbors are categorized simply as normal Jews (however dubious that claim may be in some cases).

In a bizarre twist, Black Israelites were recently granted Israeli citizenship.  This is rich  given how they've been accused of anti-Semitism in the past.

The joys of interfaith (and intra-faith) dialogue

No irony or sarcasm is meant by that title.  When it works, it really is a joy.

Last night, I participated in an interfaith dinner between local young Muslims and young Christians enrolled in a pastoral studies program at The Falls Church, a beautiful Episcopal church that happens to be right next to  one of the nexi  of Muslim life in northern Virginia, Halalco.   

An aside:  Halalco is the first modern, professionally-run Islamically themed department store--as opposed to a mom & pop convenience store or market--that I've encountered in the States.  How many Muslim shops do you know that have a parking lot, shopping carts, checkout aisles, barcode scanners, prepackaged halal meat and  separate departments (i.e., books, clothes, electronics)?  It really is a sign of things to come as the community comes of age.   

The dinner was organized by the Buxton Initiative (about which there is precious little info available online, alas; this church newsletter happens to show the profiles of many of the Christian participants last night) at the home of Amina Khan, who's been actively involved in this and other interfaith initiatives in DC.

Interfaith dialogue, while noble and inspiring in principle--and as much as I enjoy it--can be a chore.  For one thing, the people you most need to reach tend to be the least likely to attend.  And you don't really have control over who you end up talking to--I prefer to discuss doctrine and history rather than sing Kumbaya--with the result that it can be really hit or miss.  You meet a lot of good people, but just because people are nice it doesn't mean you actually connect and learn much from each other.

The participation of Muslims in the process frankly doesn't always help, either, as many of the Muslims floating around the interfaith dialogue circuit have yet to learn the difference between dialogue and dawah  (to say nothing of plain old disinformation in some cases). In such fora, some Muslims become spiritual Amway salesmen, incessantly hawking their wares to every person who makes the mistake of crossing their path, in the process dumbing down the conversation to the point where you start to wonder whether  it wouldn't have been better to just hand out CAIR book packages and be on your way. 

(Personally, I believe that any Muslim who doesn't see an important difference between the words  "kafir" and "non-Muslim", or "Jew" and "Israelite" (to say nothing of "Israeli") simply shouldn't be allowed to do high-profile dawah, even if they've gone to a madrassa, have a PhD, etc.  Closedminded dawah [sic--dawah should never be closedminded] does more harm than good to the cause of Islam with intelligent, sensitive people .  You must engage with people, not talk at them.  And you have to view them as individuals, not respresentatives of some abstract category of infidels.)

Thankfully, it wasn't like that last night.  We had a great group of thoughtful people, on both sides of the aisle.   The Muslim group was actually unusually diverse.  There was a mix of whites, desis and Arabs. Unfortunately, there were no African American Muslims present (though, for whatever it's worth, I made plugs  for  their critical role in the development of Islam in America, both past and present).  A nice change was that most were American-born.  There was a young Shiah, a convert of a several years, a very recent convert (as in a few months ago), and even a former Qadiani.  There were hijabis and non-hijabis, dari-wallahs and clean shaven men. 

The discussion was excellent.  Both groups spoke at length about the role of prayer in both religions.  A lot of great questions were asked.  Other topics were the place of houses of worship in religious practice. 

One small surprise for me was a question whether salat (i.e., the 5 daily prayers) being performed in Arabic means that Allah doesn't understand other languages (which implies a partiality towards Arabs).  Obviously, salat is both "prayer" and "ritual" while at the same time being neither, so it's confusing to a non-Muslim, but it's still not a question I would've expected.   When we explained the difference between duah (which can be in any language and at any time) and salat as a prescribe ritual and spiritual exercise in a specific language and any place, though, they got it. 

Even when you're speaking the same language and are from the same culture (most of us were American-born). vocabulary and implicit cultural assumptions sometimes get in the way.   "Prayer" is no doubt misleading as a transation for salat, but I wonder if the fact that these were Protestants whose religious liturgy has long since been totally indigenized (i.e., translated into the local languages) long ago, plays a role.  I wonder if a group of Catholics might have found the idea of salat being in a foreign language less odd, given how  Catholic churches around the world conducted Mass and other rituals entirely in Latin until only a generation ago (i.e., the Vatican II in 1965).

Next time, though, I think we need to make sure the Muslims come armed with specific questions about Christianity.  It's too easy for these sorts of events to become a long show-and-tell session for the Mussies (who, quite understandably, have a lot on their chests these days and are desperate to get  their version of the story out).  Then there's the khutbah gene with which all Muslims seems to be born, which is only exaccerbated when the people on the other side of the table are unfailingly polite.

Another secret to this event's success, I suspect, is the fact that it was low-key.  This wasn't a high-profile event with a bunch of VIPs or leaders. It just was an honest exchange between normal people, far from the TV cameras or critical gaze of community leaders.  There was no need for speeches or posturing, so we could actually accomplish something.

The ex-Qadiani's comments were intriguing as he seemed to be really overcompensating at times.  I find this  common among  Muslim activists with a controversial background who are trying to work in mainstream orgs.  Unfortunately, the only way they're accepted as kosher by some gatekeepers in the mainstream community is if they turn on their friends and family and harshly denounce them as deviant (if not heretical).  They're not allowed to just be Muslims who mind their own business like everybody else--they're required to constantly prove their legitimacy by denying the Muslim-ness of others, even though the Shahadah makes no mention of other people (i.e., it is about your beliefs).   (I still remember one softspoken and bearded young Muslim student was active in his local MSA who, when I guessed from his name and family origins in East Africa that he was of Ismaili background, launched into a Salafi jeremiad against how Ismailism was "all kufr", though I hadn't indicated any consternation or shock at his family background.  He was quite confused when instead of nodding piously I asked "Is is really all kufr?  Nothing of any value at all?"  Then he let his guard down and admiteed, "Well, there are some really good people.  And I've never felt such a sense of community since."  "Perhaps not all of it is kufr then," I said.) 

Anyway, the ex-Qadiani--who was otherwise fairly knowledgeable and engaging--first got himself into trouble when he answered a student's question about the difference between Sunnis and Shiahs by stating matter-of-factly that they were a sect that had basicly added all sorts of things onto the true Islam, etc. etc..  He didn't get too far into his tenditious narrative, though, as several of us simutaneously  jumped in and reminded him that there were two sides to this story (I was sorely tempted to note how ironic his hardline Sunni reading was in light of his background, too).

The brother's impolitic comment was actually very helpful, though, as it resulted in an exchange among the Muslim participants that brought to life the  diversity of the Ummah for these students.  Contrary to our instinct sometimes, a litte public disagreement is often a healthy thing (the Jewish community understands the benefit of open debate).  The fact that much of the discussion was sometimes lead by the Shiah Muslim (who was quite knowledgable and had a very sharif yet totally American manner)  surely also helped the group realize that Muslims come in a number of shapes and sizes, and that this doesn't undermine the unity of Islam or the Ummah. 

Then, later in a side discussion with some of the students about New Age movements, I noted my discomfort with the Church of Scientology. [*]

[* I have concerns about any religious  organization that seems to operate like a for-profit business--charging its congregants ever-increasing fees for dispensing its teachings--and which is accused of  cult-like practices. 

Also, for all their invocations of spirituality and God, I find their message extremely relativistic, if not atheistic.

After all, they essentially argue that a modern person who wasn't a divinely inspired prophet (i.e., the writer L. Ron Hubbard) plumbed the depths of the world's religions, the universe, good & evil, the purpose of  life, ..., and arrived at a superior understanding of all these things than those religions' founders (the conclusion is inescapable).   He knows Christianity's "real" meaning better than Jesus,  Saint Paul or the Church; he knows the "real" meaning of Islam better than the Holy Prophet, classical commentators, the awliya, or modern Muslim scholars.   He's essentially overruling everybody--including people believed to be divinely inspired--and without even claiming divine inspiration himself. 

How can you belive in a traditional religion and simutaneously believe in this new dispensation (remember: Scientology isn't merely a philosophy or self-help system; it's a religion)?  I don't see how it's possible.]

At this, the  ex-Qadiani launched inexplicably into a conspiracy theory about Qadianis.  Now, I'm no fan of Qadianism, but I don't take kindly to Protocols of the Elders of Zion-style rhetoric about any communty, especially in an interfaith setting.   I don't care for Moonie beliefs, but that doesn't mean I want to hear nonsense about them running the world, either.   

So I reminded him of the difference between critiquing beliefs you disagree with strongly and making wild accusations and gross oversimplifications against a large group of people (who in this case are widely persecuted and demonized) .   Attack the beliefs, not the people, I said.  He responded, "I know this stuff is true.  I used to be one."   Being a former membership gives you license to weave whatever fables you like, it seems.   

I happen to know a lot about this controversial and highly politicized subject (how is a topic for another, long long posting), but I didn't think this was the time or place.  Nor am I terribly interested in explaining the intricacies of Qadianism at a forum designed to explain Islam to non-Muslims!  So I moved on.

Back to our sheep, as the French say.  One point I made a point of hammering home was how philosophically similiar we are to Jews and how for "ritual" isn't a dirty word for us.  I noted how, like Jews and unlike Christians, Muslims believe that the old dispensation regarding the "Law" is still in effect (halakhah in Judaism; shariah in Islam). 

There are important differences, of course--Muslims are strictly forbidden alcohol, whereas Judaism not only allows it but has a fascinating holiday, Purim, where you're expected to get inebriated  (the Hebrew Bible is quite explicit, saying one is to drink until one cannot tell the difference between Haman and the Mordechai, two starkly different figures in the Bible, which sounds like getting tanked to me)--but the underlying assumption in both faiths is that a believer must adhere to a specific set of instructions and devotional practices in their daily lives (i.e., dietary limitations, various taboos, and daily prayer rituals).

In Christian belief, however, these practices are no longer required after Christ's crucifixion and resurrection, as the Holy Spirit has descended into the world and superceded the Law of Moses.  Christians believe that Christ came to "not to break the Law but to fulfill the Law", but from a Jewish/Muslim perspective the Law has been broken, as it is no longer observed, at least not as was the case in the past.

Update (2005-12-10):
It's been brought to my attention that the link on Moonies that I included initially included, unbeknownst to me, a banner ad at the bottom of the page that led to an adult website!  Just wanted to note for the record that did not realize it was there and apologize to any readers that might have been offended.   That link has now been replaced with a safe, tame Wikipedia link. 

From now on, I'm scrolling all the way through all pages I link to!  What an embarassment...

Update (2005-12-11):
As is my wont, I've made some stylistic changes and moved things around a bit to make it flow better.  And I'll probably make more.