Incitement and Religion

[Fourth in a series of 4 posts about “Freedom of Speech”]

[Trigger warning – this post contains a few modest proposals and references to terrible religious incitements (don’t blame me I didn’t write them), those of a sensitive disposition are advised NOT to read this post.]

In this post I am going to take a look at the 3 Abrahamic religions to decide whether any of their religious texts should be considered as direct and credible incitements to violence according to the framework that I set out in the previous post. In so many debates that I have listened to about whether these religions encourage violence, historical acts carried out supposedly in the name of each religion have been used as “arguments”. I regard these “arguments” as non-arguments because often the historical acts were carried out in opposition to the actual religious teachings, and so instead I am here going to focus purely on the religious texts.

The only “history” that is relevant in this discussion is the story of the actions of the main characters in the religions, as told by the religious texts. The actual historical truth of the religious texts is also not relevant, because it is the religious texts that form the basis of the religions, not what may or may not have actually happened. The truth about the events described in the religious texts is at best either historically disputed or unverifiable in any case.


Note – when I refer to apologists here I am referring to all those who try to excuse the incitements in the Islamic texts, both Muslims and non-Muslims.


One of the central ideas in the Islamic religion is that the life of the man that Muslims regard as the last prophet was an excellent example for Muslims to follow. This is stated for example in this Koranic verse:


YUSUFALI: Ye have indeed in the Messenger of Allah a beautiful pattern (of conduct) for any one whose hope is in Allah and the Final Day, and who engages much in the Praise of Allah.

SHAKIR: Certainly you have in the Messenger of Allah an excellent exemplar for him who hopes in Allah and the latter day and remembers Allah much.

Apologists have claimed that this pattern of conduct does not include the violent deeds of Mohammed. However there is nothing in this verse to suggest that those violent deeds should be excluded. This claim becomes particularly ridiculous when you look at the immediately preceeding and following verses which are clearly referring to a warlike campaign that Mohammed was involved in at the time. Consider this following verse particularly, which is almost certainly supposed to be Allah’s blessing for the Banu Qurayza massacre or at least a very similar event, where Mohammed’s forces executed hundreds of defenceless prisoners and enslaved their women and children:


YUSUFALI: And those of the People of the Book who aided them – Allah did take them down from their strongholds and cast terror into their hearts. (So that) some ye slew, and some ye made prisoners.

SHAKIR: And He drove down those of the followers of the Book who backed them from their fortresses and He cast awe into their hearts; some you killed and you took captive another part.

In the modern world such an action would be considered a war crime – the execution of defenceless prisoners who had surrendered without a fight at the end of a siege. This is the sort of thing the Nazis used to get up to in occupied Europe in WWII. The apologist defence of this massacre is that the people of this settlement had helped Mohammed’s enemies in violation of an agreement that they had with Mohammed. Even if this was really the case however, it could scarcely excuse the execution of all the men of the settlement, including adolescent boys, and not just the leaders of the settlement. As for the enslavement of the women and children then again this is a criminal act in the modern Western world, by the example of his conduct the Islamic texts incite Muslims to enslave civilians captured in war, another direct and credible incitement which encourages slavery (including sexual slavery, some of the captives were taken as wives).  While the above verse refers to the taking of “prisoners” rather than slaves, later in this section slavery is justified explicitly:


YUSUFALI: O Prophet! We have made lawful to thee thy wives to whom thou hast paid their dowers; and those whom thy right hand possesses out of the prisoners of war whom Allah has assigned to thee; and daughters of thy paternal uncles and aunts, and daughters of thy maternal uncles and aunts, who migrated (from Makka) with thee; and any believing woman who dedicates her soul to the Prophet if the Prophet wishes to wed her;- this only for thee, and not for the Believers (at large); We know what We have appointed for them as to their wives and the captives whom their right hands possess;- in order that there should be no difficulty for thee. And Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.

SHAKIR: O Prophet! surely We have made lawful to you your wives whom you have given their dowries, and those whom your right hand possesses out of those whom Allah has given to you as prisoners of war, and the daughters of your paternal uncles and the daughters of your paternal aunts, and the daughters of your maternal uncles and the daughters of your maternal aunts who fled with you; and a believing woman if she gave herself to the Prophet, if the Prophet desired to marry her– specially for you, not for the (rest of) believers; We know what We have ordained for them concerning their wives and those whom their right hands possess in order that no blame may attach to you; and Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.

Note also the reference to terror in the 33:26 verse – “cast terror into their hearts”, which flies in the face of those who claim terrorist acts have nothing to do with Islam. There are other references to terror in the Koran as well, for example:


YUSUFALI: Remember thy Lord inspired the angels (with the message): “I am with you: give firmness to the Believers: I will instil terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them.”

SHAKIR: When your Lord revealed to the angels: I am with you, therefore make firm those who believe. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them.

You see – “strike off every fingertip”, its not really very nice is it?

The second half of Mohammed’s career, known as the Medina period, was essentially a campaign of war to establish Mohammed’s rule and consequently to establish the Islamic religion. Apologists have tried to claim that this war was purely defensive, but this is also an utterly ridiculous claim in light of the fact that Mohammed went from having just a small band of followers to ruling the entire Arabian peninsula by the end of his life. Clearly it was an expansionist campaign designed to establish Mohammed’s rule.

There are numerous incitements to violence in the Koran, supposedly Allah’s encouragements to Mohammed to wage war against the unbelievers, for example:


YUSUFALI: Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

SHAKIR: Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Messenger have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.

Although these incitements are quite enough evidence on their own, readers unfamiliar with the Islamic texts should understand there are many more in the Koran and Hadiths, as well documented here:

In summary then the Islamic religion incites its followers to wage war against the non-Islamic people of the world until they submit to Islam, because Mohammed did the same, according to the instructions he claimed to have received from Allah which are recorded in the Koran, and Muslims are supposed to follow the example of Mohammed’s conduct. This is not only a direct and credible incitement to violent propagation of the Islamic religion, it is also an incitement that has been heeded through the ages, and continues to be heeded in the present day. We should be glad that most Muslims do not act on these incitements most of the time, but we cannot escape from the fact that the Islamic religion incites violence against the unbelievers, and that it does so in a direct and credible manner. I therefore rule that the preaching of the Islamic religion, and construction of mosques should both be illegal under my legal framework.

It appears that the Reverend Gavin Ashenden, a chaplain to the Queen, agrees with me that Islam incites violence:

Note particularly:

Reverend Ashenden said in response: “If they are offended by my quoting the Koran they are not offended by me, they are offended by the Koran.”

This is a good way to answer those who try to suggest that telling the truth about Islam somehow “radicalizes” vulnerable people. No, its the Islamic religion that radicalizes people. It appears that a former “Islamist” also agrees that Islam incites violent conflict with the unbelievers. The fact that he now claims to interpret the texts in another way does not alter the fact that the texts clearly CAN be interpreted in this way, and that he DID once interpret them in that way.  Quote:

“In the Koran and the Hadith (the compiled sayings of the Prophet Muhammad), I found an abundance of verses that I believed justified heinous violence in support of the establishment of an Islamic state for the whole world.”

The full article is here:

The fact that many Muslims somehow manage to interpret their Islamic texts differently does not alter the fact that those texts contain direct and credible incitements to violence that can be interpreted as such.


It is my belief that the preaching of the Islamic religion is currently in violation of UK law against incitement to violence. The failure of the UK law enforcement authorities to prosecute those who preach the faith should be a matter of the gravest concern to all UK citizens. This failure is in fact an act of appeasement of the religion. This failure is an act of cowardice by the UK authorities.

I do not believe that the preaching of the Islamic religion is currently in violation of US law because of the requirement established in Brandenburg v. Ohio for the incitement to be likely to lead to imminent unlawful action.

I humbly suggest to the people of the USA your current law is misguided. The failure to use the law to act against the Islamic religion is simply inviting more bloodshed for example in the Orlando gay nightclub massacre and Fort Hood massacre and San Bernandino massacre.

The danger of escalation of conflict can most probably be seen in the arson attack that occurred against the local mosque in the Orlando case. Armed militias are also now staging protests against mosques in the US. Surely it would be better for the law to intervene and close down all the mosques before any more incitements to violence can be made within them.


Obviously it would be impossible to ban religious thought. We can scarcely start arresting every person who declares themselves to be a Muslim either, this would be impractical.

What we could do however:

  • Make it illegal (at least publicly) to preach the Koran as the word of a supreme being, on incitement grounds. I don’t think the Koran should be banned as a book however, because for one thing people need to be able to see for themselves WHY such a “ban” on the religion became necessary. It would also be practically almost impossible to achieve and in any case the Koran is widely published on the internet. Also, it is not the Koran that directly incites violence on its own, but rather the preaching of the Koran as the unquestionable word of Allah.
  • Withdraw planning permission for mosques and force existing mosque closures. Mosques that clearly bear the hallmarks of mosques – domes and minarets could be closed and either modified for other uses or demolished.
  • Make it illegal to wear face veils. I personally think bans on hijabs and the other headgear and burkinis would be impractical to enforce. For one thing women in Europe used to wear headscarves of a non-religious kind not so very long ago, and some even still do.
  • All legislation for example on employers and schools should be removed to allow employers to discriminate against hijab etc. wearing candidates if they wish to.  A recent decision by some UK police forces to allow the hijab as part of police uniforms is of course entirely ridiculous and should be stopped.
  • Allow employers to sack any worker for taking time out of the working day for prayer.
  • Make Ramadan fasting illegal in cases where it potentially could endanger public safety.

The sheer number of Muslims already in the West means that this is going to be a very difficult and controversial position to adopt, but its better to have this conversation now than 10-20 years from now.

An exception could be made for example for the Ahmadi religion possibly as that religion does not incite violence. It would have to be established that the Ahmadi religion did not incite other crimes, from my current knowledge I don’t believe it does however. The “most perfect life” verse would have to be clarified.  I think on the whole the message of the Mahdi probably abrogates the violent verses in the Koran, but I’m not an expert on that.

Such an exception could equally be applied to any other sect where it can be shown that religious texts override the incitements to violence in the Koran. I don’t like these other “versions” of Islam but as long as something is harmless then of course we should tolerate it. Remember, we are trying to construct a watertight legal framework here.

There are growing numbers of voices across the “West” calling for such a ban:

German far-right AfD calls for mosque ban


There can be no doubt that the Christian bible contains incitements to violence. For example, in Leviticus 20:10 it says:

If a man commits adultery with another man’s wife—with the wife of his neighbor—both the adulterer and the adulteress are to be put to death.

However in the New Testament, Jesus appears to implicitly contradict this ruling:

“Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.”
Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.
At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. Jesus straightened up and asked her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?”
“No one, sir,” she said.
“Then neither do I condemn you,” Jesus declared. “Go now and leave your life of sin.”

I think this demonstrates that the old testament is over-ruled by Jesus’s moral teachings, and since Jesus is the central figure in the Christian religion, I would say his teachings take precedence.

The only doubtful statement in the new testament is (Matthew 10:34):

“I came not to bring peace, but to bring a sword”

This statement seems not only ambiguous but also at odds with everything Jesus says elsewhere, for example (Matthew 26:52):

“But Jesus said to him, “Put your sword in its place, for all who take the sword will perish by the sword”.

(Jesus said this after Peter had struck one of the soldiers who were attempting to arrest Jesus. Jesus subsequently healed the soldier’s wound).

I therefore rule that the former statement in Matthew 10:34 does not constitute a credible incitement, it isn’t even direct but rather ambiguous.

In conclusion then, none of Jesus’s teachings meet the credibility test of inciting violence, and Jesus’s teachings can be regarded as over-ruling the Old Testament and so I would rule that Christianity does not overall constitute a direct and credible incitement to violence. The terrible events described in the book of revelations should be regarded I believe as God punishing the human race, not as any sort of incitement. I will deal with the old testament accounts of extreme violence in the next section on Judaism, as the old testament and Judaism are based on the same stories.


The Judaic religion is possibly much more problematic than Christianity, because it does not include the later moral teachings of Jesus against violence. I don’t have the knowledge of this religion to really be sure that Judaism does not constitute a direct and credible incitement. The fact that Jewish people have not for example been stoning people to death for adultery and other sins for over a thousand years (as far as I know) should be taken into account however.

Capital punishments generally could also be seen as only being applicable under the law of the land, rather than incitements to violence between citizens. Therefore, as long as the law of the land that is either secular or otherwise overrules whatever religions advocate, then any incitements to capital punishment in the religions can be ruled not credible.

The Old Testament accounts of violence, terrible though they are (including genocide), could be regarded as mere historical accounts of what took place, or at the most indirect incitement, rather than direct incitement. As far as I can determine there is no instruction to followers of the religion to repeat these acts.

Some claims have been made that the old testament was taken as justification of the treatment of indigenous peoples during the colonial era, but since these are at worst indirect incitements, they would not constitute a reason to make the religion illegal according to my framework.


In the first post in this series I called for an amendment to the First Amendment to remove all mention of religions. This clears the way for a rational evaluation of whether any particular religion incites violence. In the preceeding post I created a legal framework for types of incitement that should be deemed illegal and types that should not. Clearly there is much that is problematic in all 3 Abrahamic religions, particularly Islam and Judaism, however I am inclined to rule that Islam uniquely incites violence in a direct and credible manner and that therefore Islam should solely be considered in violation of this legal framework. Furthermore, there have now been a long succession of extremely violent terrorist attacks in Europe where the Islamic religion was known to be a major motivating factor. Such events should pragmatically carry weight in deciding that its time to ban a particular religion.

If European countries that have laws against incitement fail to ban the Islamic religion, then they are violating that most important principle of just societies, namely equality before the law.

Bible and Qur’an: equally violent?

Violence in the Bible—How Should We Respond?

25 thoughts on “Incitement and Religion

  1. Chauncey – I applaud your efforts to start delineating those parts of Islam which should be proscribed from those which are harmless. There are Muslims who follow Mohammed’s example closely and those who don’t so I am opposed to those who call for blanket legislation against Muslims. If we were to proscribe sharia for instance, or some part of it, I suggest that it would soon become clear which Muslims support democracy and which are actually or potentially seditious.

    Incitement to violence would be a good place to start. Elsewhere I have suggested testing the law on hate speech:

    It was intended as a thought experiment but could be tried in reality if anyone wasn’t fazed by the possibility of 3 months on D Wing with devout Muslims (I am).

    By the way I think you’ve got the hihab thing for police uniforms confused. Hijabs have been allowed for years. The recent brouhaha was over two police chiefs saying they would consider policewomen wearing burqas or niqabs (but not policemen – the sexist bastards!)


    • Thanks and yes you’re right on the hijab thing I will amend that.

      Sorry but I don’t think we can separate bits we like and bits we don’t like however, for one thing that’s a recipe for the awful nonsense to hang around for years until eventually its “rediscovered” some time in the future. We need a clean break with the whole thing. I don’t care what some Muslims do or don’t think – the religion incites violence, its time for it to end. Its not just Muslims who suffer under Islam its all the victims including us – how much of our time is being wasted talking about it? I’m sick and tired of it.


        • No, what I’m saying is you can’t chop bits out of the Koran and say there – a nice Kuffir friendly version. The whole point I’m trying to get at with this post is that its inescapable that Islam incites violence/murder/terror, and that therefore it should be possible to close mosques and arrest preachers on that basis.

          If a preacher said no, the Koran is not the unquestionable word of Allah, but there is some good wisdom in the book, could he even call himself a Muslim?

          Liked by 1 person

          • So you object to an Imam saying the first 3 verses of the Koran:

            1:1 In the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful.
            1:2 Praise be to Allah, Lord of the Worlds,
            1:3 The Beneficent, the Merciful.

            and would close his mosque down on that basis? So you advocate simply banning Islam period, because all sects quote from the Koran and consider it to be Allah speaking. Have I understood?


            • Not quite – Ahmadis call themselves Muslims but, just as I suggested, they actually claim that they have a more recent messenger from Allah who has abrogated the violent aspects of the Koran. I don’t know if there are any other “sects” (not sure if that is the right word for the Ahmadis), but they would have to have some similar overriding newer “messages” from Allah and accompanying religious texts that clearly abrogated the violent conduct of the “excellent example” of Mohammed.

              It does seem a bit over the top when you put it as you just have, but only because all the implied messages (that incite violence) are not immediately apparent to those not in the know.

              Liked by 1 person

        • Think about it, if someone says the Koran is not the unquestionable word of Allah, then produces an edited version of the Koran, then they are surely effectively saying that they are a new prophet with a direct line to Allah (no doubt through the archangel Gabriel). How is that going to go down with Muslims the world over? By the way I was planning to gather these thoughts about why an Islamic reformation won’t work for another post, but thanks for challenging it, its good to test it.

          Liked by 1 person

    • ”I applaud your efforts to start delineating those parts of Islam which should be proscribed from those which are harmless.”

      Which parts of *Nazi* ideology should be proscribed, and which should be left alone because they are harmless ?

      ”There are Muslims who follow Mohammed’s example closely and those who don’t so I am opposed to those who call for blanket legislation against Muslims”

      There were fanatical Germans, who worshipped Hitler, pragmatic Germans who supported him because there were now jobs, Germans who supported him as long as the Wehrmacht was victorious, Germans who weren’t really bothered either way so long as they were comfortable; Should we not have fought the Nazis because of those Germans ?

      Liked by 3 people

      • “Which parts of *Nazi* ideology should be proscribed, and which should be left alone because they are harmless ?”

        The dangerous parts, which in the case of Nazism was just about all of it.

        Islam is different though because it has two faces – the traditionally religious, looking a lot like parts of the Old Testament (surprise), to be found in the Meccan verses, and the political/military stuff in the Medinan verses resembling (I’m guessing) Genghis Khan’s exhortations to his murderous hordes. Here they are shown clearly, as no other presentation of the Koran does as far as I am aware:

        I don’t give a damn about the Meccan stuff. Allah shows himself to be spectacularly unpleasant and ill-informed about his own universe but I don’t feel at all concerned about what he promises to do when he gets his hands on me.

        The Medinan stuff is different. Allah franchises his viciousness to a human. Blood and conquest ensues, and whether Mohammed intended to take over the whole world or not, the later scholars overwhelmingly interpreted it that way.

        If Muslims could be induced to go with the Meccan stuff what a wonderful world it would be. Mahmoud Taha thought so (oops) and so does Ayaan Hirsi Ali now. Personally I don’t think it stands a chance because without the endless predation or parasitism on its neighbours and the apostasy law Islam would collapse. Good. Nevertheless it is only the Medinan verses and the later tradition including crucially the sharia which threatens us.

        “Should we not have fought the Nazis because of those Germans?”

        Straw man alert! Mirren10…I’m shocked.

        As it happens, it seems to me that our first, most crucial action should be to accept that global jihad or political/radical/fundamentalist etc Islam is at war with us and declare war back. Everything would naturally flow from that…proscribing parts of Islamic ideology, reintroducing treason and sedition laws, internment, withdrawal of citizenship, deportation to somewhere (not necessarily the ancestral home but anywhere that can be induced to take our internal enemies), closing down offending mosques, cutting off welfare, making life generally so uncongenial for those conventionally called Islamists that they prefer to go back to Dar al Islam etc etc.

        There…you’ve made me write a bloody essay, and I haven’t even taken the dog for a walk yet!


        • As per my other comments, Ayaan Hirsi Ali cannot chop out bits of the Koran that she doesn’t like, because she is not a prophet (or is she?). A “reformed” version of Islam already exists, its called Ahmadiyya Islam. Why don’t these reformers just urge people to become Ahmadis?

          Are you saying then that you would force mosques to practice an actually edited version of the Koran? That is an interesting approach if so.

          Liked by 1 person

          • I think you risk straying into theological areas which are an endless quagmire. Neither Ayaan Hirsi Ali nor the Ahmadi prophet, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, have proposed a different Koran nor could they. But surely we as a society should be able to say “We consider such and such parts of your scriptures seditious. If you wish to promulgate them you will have to do it elsewhere”.

            I do not suppose there would be many takers for the resulting Islam lite although you never know, perhaps there are a substantial body of Muslims who would happily do without the jihad stuff and being bullied by those who more closely follow Mohammed’s example. Or perhaps there are not but it would provide an objective test for those who are willing to co-exist with us as opposed to those who believe it is their duty to convert or dominate us in the fullness of time.

            Such an approach is not unprecedented. Mein Kampf was effectively banned in Germany for 70 years under copyright laws (which ran out in 2016).

            I do not say it is a likely runner now but who knows, perhaps after increasing jihad attacks force us to accept that we are at war, it wouldn’t look so outlandish.


            • The Mahdi was a later authority who supposedly had Allah’s later advice – therefore the Mahdi’s peaceful teachings abrogated the earlier “messages” from Mohammed. The Koran can stay intact in the case of the Ahmadis because of these abrogations. I don’t like it but this isn’t about what I like and don’t like.

              I don’t know exactly what Ayaan Hirsi Ali is proposing but I got the impression that she was proposing to somehow revert back to the Mecca verses (which are of course currently in their turn abrogated by the Medina verses for mainstream Muslims). So her position doesn’t work in my legal framework unless she either:

              a) Declares herself to be a prophet (she seems pretty sensible but I never quite got a feeling of divine authority about her), and produces her own messages from Allah that likewise abrogate the violence in the Koran.


              b) Declares herself to be a prophet and declares “Allah tells me it was all a mistake!” “The violent bits are fake!” and produces her own edited version of the Koran with all the violent bits chopped out. Note – the hate can stay in under my framework not because I like it but because I believe in freedom of speech.

              What she CANNOT do in my legal frame work is say, well the Muslims are now going to just keep the Koran as it is but they will PREACH the nice bits only. I CANNOT accept this approach because it suggests that the Koran is still the unquestionable word of Allah in its entirety. Sooner or later some Muslim is going to pick it up and say “Woah, they are lying to us, we are supposed to kill the disbelievers.”.

              As for us editing the Koran and giving our version of it to Muslims saying hey – we fixed it for you, well erm I suppose we can try it :-). You go first! Seriously though, I think it is a better approach to just reject the whole thing out of hand and say – leave the religion or leave the country. The Ahmadis can stay because they already moved past the violence on their own. There seems to be an idea that we can’t encourage Muslims to just become ex-Muslims, there has to be some sort of new “version” of the religion. There doesn’t.

              The whole subject is a stupid quagmire but I’m trying to come at it from a legalistic point of view and I believe in “freedom of speech” so I have to dive right in to the quagmire and get wet and dirty. I have to allow the Ahmadiyya Islam because I believe it does not incite violence overall. By the way the UK laws on sedition have been repealed so we would have to reinstate those to go down the sedition route. Hope that’s clearer…

              Liked by 1 person

  2. Yes, I agree – ban it! Saudi Arabia bans churches and conversion to Christianity (and anything else, probably) yet we allow them to fund the building of mosques all over our country (many of which preach radical jihad). What’s wrong with banning them at least until they stop banning us?

    Liked by 2 people

  3. I read the entire article but the Talmud was left out when analyzing Judaism and its take on violence. The Talmud is the book of laws and how these laws are interpreted. The verses dealing with Christianity, Christ and Christians became such an issue that a trial was held in Paris in 1240 AD called “the Disputation of Paris” where 35 charges of blasphemy was brought against it by Nicolas Donin.
    As far as Islam Sufism was left out. Sufism played a major role in that faith.


    • A book of laws doesn’t affect societies outside the one where the believers are a majority or otherwise where those laws are accepted, so I don’t see how you can argue that the Talmud is comparable to the Islamic texts which obviously do incite violence against the disbelievers, apostates etc. What’s more as far as I know Jews have never tried to enforce their laws outside Israel in the way for example that the killers of the Charlie Hebdo people did.

      As for Sufism you haven’t explained why you think that Sufism makes any difference to the claim that the core Islamic texts incite violence.

      Liked by 1 person

  4. I did not make the case about the Talmud, Others have with good reason. The Talmudic laws have shaped Western economies, culture and how the Church has been vilified. It includes a relationship that spans 2 thousand years from the time of the destruction of the Temple of Jerusalem in 70 AD to the modern era. No other faith has had such an antagonist relationship with Christianity as Judaism has. It is a personal relationship where Christ is seen as a Jewish man by some and by others as a God. The tensions cannot be more intense in a faith that only recognizes God the Father as the one and only God.
    The laws of the Talmud include trade and commerce. It includes the practice of Jubilee where the loans of some are forgiven while the rest have to pick the slack for those forgiven loans and the lost interest. It covers broad sweeping movements such as Karl Marx and Communism to the Frankfurt School of Cultural Marxism. There is so much more but I am limiting my comment so it is not pedantic.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Sufism was central to South Asian Islam and South Asia is home to 1/3 of the Muslim world. Today that stands at 550 million Muslims. Sufi Saints saw “Jihad” as an internal struggle between good and bad. It is the mystical aspect of Islam. Both Hindu and Muslim pilgrims go to Sufi Shrines. Due to Sufism Indonesian Islam is very moderate. It is branch that has translated the Hindu Ramayana as part of its heritage. The Javanese shadow theater and classical dancers are performed by Muslims . This branch is seldom spoken in the West these days.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Influencing the making of laws and inciting violence (in violation of the law of the land) are two very different things, so this doesn’t answer my question. By the way I am not implying that I agree on the influence of the Talmud in the West, I don’t know enough about that subject to comment on it but in any case it’s not relevant to this debate.

      Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s