Today, I want to write about democracy. I only want to explore what is known as the "democratic peace" theory. In short, the theory states that as a general rule, (there are always exceptions) two democratic states will not go to war with each other. When looking back in history, this is certainly arguable especially considering the ambiguous and dynamic definition of democracy.
Either way, there is certainly a trend that democratic states tend to be more peaceful. Not only do they tend not to fight with each other, but statistically, democracies are less likely to start wars even with non-democracies. Obviously, there are many wars and sadly we don't have to look very far to find to find prime examples of democracies vs. non-democracies but, once again, there is such a trend.
Furthermore, if democracies do decide to go to war, 80 percent of the time, they are likely to leave victorious. How encouraging is that!
There seems to be 3 explanations as to why specifically democracies are less violent. The first relates to democracy's natural structure. That there are checks and balances. The country is not run by an emotional, possibly unstable dictator, who has absolute power. The decision-making process is long and arduous. Additionally, public opinion plays a much larger role in democracies and the public has the potential to seriously affect policy.
The second explanation is that most of the time, democracy is synonymous with liberalism. Ever since childhood, we are inculcated with morals that value discussion and negotiation over violence and conflict.
The third reason has to do with economics. One of the more essential elements to democracies is a large middle class. (A large middle class is usually the result of capitalism, especially in its social democratic format.) The ultimate symbol of a large middle class is McDonalds. Thus, the "democratic peace" rule can also be referred to as the "McDonalds law." Capitalistic countries are fully aware of the costly price of war. In war, many middle class citizens stand to lose excessive amounts of time and money. They are empowered by their right to vote and they indeed influence and attempt to avoid costly wars whenever possible.
Once again, this does not mean that democracies are visions of Eden. However, when it comes to war, democracies are indeed more apt to look for peaceful ways out.
There is a statement by someone famous (I don't remember who...if someone does please let me know) that goes along the lines that democracy is, by no means, the ultimate type of government, but that in the meantime it is certainly the best of the worst.
Good night and good luck.
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
Thursday, March 20, 2008
Oil
I'm sure we are all aware of explanations that attempt to explain entire systems on the basis of one idea. For example, some would be able to explain all of your health problems based on what you eat or don't eat.
In history and politics, I have encountered this phenomenon with regards to oil. Now, I know that often oil can be considered part of conspiracy theories, especially when it comes to the recent war in Iraq, however, we have to understand that ever since the industrial revolution of the 1800's, all modern and advanced countries are dependent on this precious resource that is known as oil, whether for personal transportation or industry. Right now, I will attempt to provide a small insight into several processes that are intrinsically connected to oil and perhaps, at a later point in time, the discussion will continue.
Oil is very important for an American living in Israel for two reasons. One, America is the largest oil consumer in the world and therefore has a tremendous effect and influence on all that happens in the oil markets, from the process of drawing the oil through its purification and to the setting of its prices. The second reason that oil is so personal is that at least 60 percent of the world's oil is found in the greater Middle East.
Now, everyone knows that the world markets are down, especially the American market. In almost every article on this subject, the price of oil has been mentioned. This is simply because all modernized, industrialized countries run on oil.
There is a specific reason Bush refers to Venezuela and Iran as the axis of evil. Both are very involved in OPEC, the organization for oil producing countries, and both are leading the calls to keep the price of oil as high as possible.
Traditionally, America was able to control the price of oil through Saudi Arabia, who, as the most fruitful country in terms of oil had a large amount of influence on the other countries. America would sell weapons and military equipment to the Saudis in return for guarantees that prices remain reasonable. Ever since the Asian market crash of 1997, Saudi Arabia's power and influence, as well as American influence in Saudi Arabia has dropped only to be replaced by Iran, who is not willing to deal with the Americans and the feeling is obviously mutual. Iran and Venezuela lead the cries that the West is taking advantage of the oil countries by bribing them with weapons. They want to ensure that those who want oil will pay its true worth.
As of now, it seems that Iran and co. are winning the battle as oil prices have been over 100 dollars per barrel. This is one factor in the current recession (or not, depending on definitions of recession) in the US. When oil prices are high, highly industrialized economies slow down because they cannot afford to purchase the same amounts of oil that they might have when the prices were lower. What will eventually happen (it has happened before) is that the prices will rise and rise, countries will buy less and less oil, until the price of oil drastically drops because there is no longer any demand.
It must be understood that most of the work in oil producing countries is done by foreign workers. There are enormous amounts of foreign workers in countries such as Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar etc. When the price of oil dramatically drops, most of these workers find themselves on their way home, unemployed (see the beginning of the movie Syrianna). What this leads to is eventual waves of terror.
I am fully aware that not all terrorists are poor and unemployed, in fact, most are educated and middle class. However, it must be understood that the processes described above are exactly that, processes. They are processes that take place over several years at a time. For example, the energy crisis of the 1970's eventually let to the First Intifada in the 1980's. It must be kept in mind that obviously the energy crisis was not the direct cause for the Intifada, but it definitely had an effect and in light of other historical instances(I can't remember them now) there indeed seems to be a connection between oil and terrorism.
I could go on and on and perhaps in other posts I will elaborate. Personally, I am not sure I accept that oil can really explain everything that goes on in the world, but I am certainly fascinated by the attempts to do so and I think that even if there are other factors, it does not negate the importance of oil and energy, and there must be some truth in these attempts.
In history and politics, I have encountered this phenomenon with regards to oil. Now, I know that often oil can be considered part of conspiracy theories, especially when it comes to the recent war in Iraq, however, we have to understand that ever since the industrial revolution of the 1800's, all modern and advanced countries are dependent on this precious resource that is known as oil, whether for personal transportation or industry. Right now, I will attempt to provide a small insight into several processes that are intrinsically connected to oil and perhaps, at a later point in time, the discussion will continue.
Oil is very important for an American living in Israel for two reasons. One, America is the largest oil consumer in the world and therefore has a tremendous effect and influence on all that happens in the oil markets, from the process of drawing the oil through its purification and to the setting of its prices. The second reason that oil is so personal is that at least 60 percent of the world's oil is found in the greater Middle East.
Now, everyone knows that the world markets are down, especially the American market. In almost every article on this subject, the price of oil has been mentioned. This is simply because all modernized, industrialized countries run on oil.
There is a specific reason Bush refers to Venezuela and Iran as the axis of evil. Both are very involved in OPEC, the organization for oil producing countries, and both are leading the calls to keep the price of oil as high as possible.
Traditionally, America was able to control the price of oil through Saudi Arabia, who, as the most fruitful country in terms of oil had a large amount of influence on the other countries. America would sell weapons and military equipment to the Saudis in return for guarantees that prices remain reasonable. Ever since the Asian market crash of 1997, Saudi Arabia's power and influence, as well as American influence in Saudi Arabia has dropped only to be replaced by Iran, who is not willing to deal with the Americans and the feeling is obviously mutual. Iran and Venezuela lead the cries that the West is taking advantage of the oil countries by bribing them with weapons. They want to ensure that those who want oil will pay its true worth.
As of now, it seems that Iran and co. are winning the battle as oil prices have been over 100 dollars per barrel. This is one factor in the current recession (or not, depending on definitions of recession) in the US. When oil prices are high, highly industrialized economies slow down because they cannot afford to purchase the same amounts of oil that they might have when the prices were lower. What will eventually happen (it has happened before) is that the prices will rise and rise, countries will buy less and less oil, until the price of oil drastically drops because there is no longer any demand.
It must be understood that most of the work in oil producing countries is done by foreign workers. There are enormous amounts of foreign workers in countries such as Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar etc. When the price of oil dramatically drops, most of these workers find themselves on their way home, unemployed (see the beginning of the movie Syrianna). What this leads to is eventual waves of terror.
I am fully aware that not all terrorists are poor and unemployed, in fact, most are educated and middle class. However, it must be understood that the processes described above are exactly that, processes. They are processes that take place over several years at a time. For example, the energy crisis of the 1970's eventually let to the First Intifada in the 1980's. It must be kept in mind that obviously the energy crisis was not the direct cause for the Intifada, but it definitely had an effect and in light of other historical instances(I can't remember them now) there indeed seems to be a connection between oil and terrorism.
I could go on and on and perhaps in other posts I will elaborate. Personally, I am not sure I accept that oil can really explain everything that goes on in the world, but I am certainly fascinated by the attempts to do so and I think that even if there are other factors, it does not negate the importance of oil and energy, and there must be some truth in these attempts.
Saturday, March 15, 2008
Israeli academia
A recent study has been published by the Hebrew University Shein Center for Social Sciences written by doctoral candidate Tal Nitzan. (I have not read the paper myself, all following information is based on journalistic sources.) The thesis is called, "Controlled Occupation: The Lack of Military Rape in the Palestinian Conflict." Mrs. Nitzan recognizes the fact that Israeli soldiers rape Palestinian women relatively less than soldiers in other occupations armies. For this she provides two possible reasons, none of which include any moral or religious values that absolutely forbid the act of rape. The first reason given is that the Palestinians are so intensely dehumanized that no normal soldier would ever consider raping a Palestinian, same as he would never consider raping a cat or a dog. The second answer that she gives is that Israel has such a demographic problem that if Israeli soldiers were to think of the consequences of raping Palestinian women i.e. that the children would be Palestinian, they would immediately remove all thoughts of rape from their minds.
Without entering the discussion of occupation vs. no occupation, and ignoring the absolutely ridiculousness of her first proposition (I was a soldier myself, and no such dehumanizing occurs), I would like to address her second supposed answer. The first problem is that not everyone agrees that Israeli is in the midst of a demographic crisis. Each demographic study has different standards of who to count-to include or not to include citizens abroad etc.-as well as different ways to interpret the numbers. Aside from that, in Africa, warring tribes serially rape the women of the other tribe. This is not done for sexual pleasure, rather they hope to impregnate the women so that they do indeed give birth to as many children as possible. This is done after all the males have been brutally killed off. The purpose of the rape is to bring about the complete destruction of the tribe in the worse way possible i.e. not by killing everyone, but by completely "contaminating" all the female members. What is ridiculous about Tal's proposition, is that she assumes that Israeli soldiers so dehumanize the Palestinian women, yet at the same time, they won't rape them because they are worried about the supposed demographic problem. If Israeli soldiers are indeed as brutal as she makes them out to be, they would be raping as many women as possible if only to produce Israeli kids. If Israeli soldiers are indeed so disgusting, they would not let the product of their rapes be Palestinian. She assumes the worse, yet at the same time holds the soldiers to a higher standard in that they would have to count the children as Palestinian and not as Israelis.
This is all aside from the ridiculous fact that she ignores any possible moral and or religious reasons for not wanting to rape. In her mind, its obvious that all "brutal" occupying soldiers should automatically be looking to rape those they are occupying and there must be some reason why Israeli soldiers don't. It doesn't even cross her mind that Israeli soldiers are not brutal, disgusting pigs and that we try to be good, moral, and some, religious, people.
So, now we are getting blamed for raping Palestinians (type in something to the effect of "Israeli soldiers rape Palestinian women" at Google or Youtube and see what you get...) as well as for not raping them!
This points to the status of current Israeli academia where the Israeli Sociology Association even gave Nitzan's paper a mark of excellence. :(
Did you all know, that the British attempts last year to excommunicate Israeli academia was initiated or at least supported by an Israeli, Dr. Ilan Pappe, formerly of Haifa University?
Sorry to leave off on a depressing note.
Ayal
Without entering the discussion of occupation vs. no occupation, and ignoring the absolutely ridiculousness of her first proposition (I was a soldier myself, and no such dehumanizing occurs), I would like to address her second supposed answer. The first problem is that not everyone agrees that Israeli is in the midst of a demographic crisis. Each demographic study has different standards of who to count-to include or not to include citizens abroad etc.-as well as different ways to interpret the numbers. Aside from that, in Africa, warring tribes serially rape the women of the other tribe. This is not done for sexual pleasure, rather they hope to impregnate the women so that they do indeed give birth to as many children as possible. This is done after all the males have been brutally killed off. The purpose of the rape is to bring about the complete destruction of the tribe in the worse way possible i.e. not by killing everyone, but by completely "contaminating" all the female members. What is ridiculous about Tal's proposition, is that she assumes that Israeli soldiers so dehumanize the Palestinian women, yet at the same time, they won't rape them because they are worried about the supposed demographic problem. If Israeli soldiers are indeed as brutal as she makes them out to be, they would be raping as many women as possible if only to produce Israeli kids. If Israeli soldiers are indeed so disgusting, they would not let the product of their rapes be Palestinian. She assumes the worse, yet at the same time holds the soldiers to a higher standard in that they would have to count the children as Palestinian and not as Israelis.
This is all aside from the ridiculous fact that she ignores any possible moral and or religious reasons for not wanting to rape. In her mind, its obvious that all "brutal" occupying soldiers should automatically be looking to rape those they are occupying and there must be some reason why Israeli soldiers don't. It doesn't even cross her mind that Israeli soldiers are not brutal, disgusting pigs and that we try to be good, moral, and some, religious, people.
So, now we are getting blamed for raping Palestinians (type in something to the effect of "Israeli soldiers rape Palestinian women" at Google or Youtube and see what you get...) as well as for not raping them!
This points to the status of current Israeli academia where the Israeli Sociology Association even gave Nitzan's paper a mark of excellence. :(
Did you all know, that the British attempts last year to excommunicate Israeli academia was initiated or at least supported by an Israeli, Dr. Ilan Pappe, formerly of Haifa University?
Sorry to leave off on a depressing note.
Ayal
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
Truth vs. Unity
After I began blogging last week, I realized my blog was solely based on my university lectures, that, to my sorrow are supposed to finish in exactly a month. Ever since this realization, I have been pondering how, if at all, I can continue my blog over the summer. Fist of all, I will indeed have two lectures a week that are to continue after Pesach both of which provide a ray of hope. Secondly, I still have several papers that I have yet to research and write which should still provide me with opportunities to blog, albeit, less frequently. I realized this, when, yesterday, I couldn't come up with something random and interesting from my lectures until I started doing some preliminary research for one of my papers...
There are two basic prototypes that demand our attention regarding the authority that is recognized in Torah scholars. The first is the legitimacy that is granted from bottom up. This legitimacy is based upon our recognition of the scholar's superior knowledge. We thus obligate ourselves to obey this scholar only because of his knowledge and the relevance of his arguments. The second is legitimacy that is from top down. We are obligated to listen to and obey such a scholar because his legitimacy is more or less G-d given. It is our obligation to accept his words and teachings no matter what their content is.
To make a crude generalization, it seems that the second model fits the chareidi community whereas the first model seems to jive more with modern orthodoxy and others. What's interesting about this is that regarding the second model, one of the many reasons given for our strict adherence to the scholars words-no matter what they are-is that we are interested in preventing halachic anarchy i.e. that everyone does what they see fit(Sefer Hachinuch). For this reason, we find Talmudic statements to the fact that even if a scholar tells you that right is left and that left is right, you must listen and accept it. What we see is that, the chareidi community (again a gross generalization), a community that often makes claims of containing absolute truth actually has little interest in what the truth actually is, whether left is right or right is left. What concerns the chareidi community is to ensure scholarly unity in the face of anarchy. On the other hand, the first model i.e. that of a scholar's authority based on his superior knowledge, is one that is generally adopted by more open communities. These same communities are more apt to opinions and positions that negate or lessen absolute truth. Yet, in light of the model mentioned above it is specifically those same scholars who are not so much looking to protect scholarly unity at all costs. Rather they seem to be striving to reach the truth (which is ostensibly less important, or even non-existent) because it is their scholarship, their knowledge, their arguments that grant them our legitimacy.
It is important to note, that in real life, nothing is so extreme and generally we find ourselves somewhere in between the two models, or creating some combination of both.
If the above is not 100 percent clear, I apologize. I am not even sure it is clear to myself. But when I read it, I thought that it reflected a certain inconsistency in our understandings of the different communities and/or perceptions of halachic authority.
Have a good night.
There are two basic prototypes that demand our attention regarding the authority that is recognized in Torah scholars. The first is the legitimacy that is granted from bottom up. This legitimacy is based upon our recognition of the scholar's superior knowledge. We thus obligate ourselves to obey this scholar only because of his knowledge and the relevance of his arguments. The second is legitimacy that is from top down. We are obligated to listen to and obey such a scholar because his legitimacy is more or less G-d given. It is our obligation to accept his words and teachings no matter what their content is.
To make a crude generalization, it seems that the second model fits the chareidi community whereas the first model seems to jive more with modern orthodoxy and others. What's interesting about this is that regarding the second model, one of the many reasons given for our strict adherence to the scholars words-no matter what they are-is that we are interested in preventing halachic anarchy i.e. that everyone does what they see fit(Sefer Hachinuch). For this reason, we find Talmudic statements to the fact that even if a scholar tells you that right is left and that left is right, you must listen and accept it. What we see is that, the chareidi community (again a gross generalization), a community that often makes claims of containing absolute truth actually has little interest in what the truth actually is, whether left is right or right is left. What concerns the chareidi community is to ensure scholarly unity in the face of anarchy. On the other hand, the first model i.e. that of a scholar's authority based on his superior knowledge, is one that is generally adopted by more open communities. These same communities are more apt to opinions and positions that negate or lessen absolute truth. Yet, in light of the model mentioned above it is specifically those same scholars who are not so much looking to protect scholarly unity at all costs. Rather they seem to be striving to reach the truth (which is ostensibly less important, or even non-existent) because it is their scholarship, their knowledge, their arguments that grant them our legitimacy.
It is important to note, that in real life, nothing is so extreme and generally we find ourselves somewhere in between the two models, or creating some combination of both.
If the above is not 100 percent clear, I apologize. I am not even sure it is clear to myself. But when I read it, I thought that it reflected a certain inconsistency in our understandings of the different communities and/or perceptions of halachic authority.
Have a good night.
Sunday, March 9, 2008
"Scholars, take care with your words!"
The Mishnah in Pirkei Avot warns the chachamim to take care to monitor the words that they speak. The reason given is that the scholars have an enormous responsibility to ensure that their words and teachings are understood properly, that they should not be taken out of context. This, according to the Mishnah leads to eventual exile. I think that this is a lesson we can all apply to our daily lives and discussions. We have to make sure that we use the proper terminology, otherwise we may not be understood in the way we had originally intended.
In the realm of politics (of course) one such example is the separation of religion and state. The differentiation must be made between Arab and secular calls for separation of religion and state in Israel. We must understand that the dry, simple meaning of the concept refers to a complete and utter detachment of all religion from the state. In the case of Israel, this would mean the discontinuation of the "Jewish State" as we know of today, where most (if not all) of our national symbols are based upon the Jewish tradition. Even many of our laws are based upon Jewish law. As you can imagine, this is the type of state that many Israeli Arabs call for; a state for all of its citizens. The concept that is most commonly intended when discussing the separation of religion and state, especially in Israel, is the struggle between the religious and the secular. When those from Meretz and others like them call for separation of religion and state, they have absolutely no intention to negate Israel's Judaism! They only want to remove the power of the religious institution, that they not be coerced to get married and divorced according to specific religious regulations etc. that do not particularly have any meaning for them.
As we have seen, we must be careful when using certain terminology, that everyone knows what we are referring to. Keep in mind that when discussing the separation of religion and state in Israel, most often the reference in only to institutionalized religion as it exists today, and not to the absolute disconnection between religion and state. If you partake in such a discussion, perhaps clarify in a sentence or two to what exactly you are referring.
As a side point, its interesting to note that there are even modern religious philosophers that make claims in support of separating religion and state in Israel, something which seems to contradict our entire concept of religious zionism as normally viewed by Rav Kook and others.
Have a good night.
Ayal
In the realm of politics (of course) one such example is the separation of religion and state. The differentiation must be made between Arab and secular calls for separation of religion and state in Israel. We must understand that the dry, simple meaning of the concept refers to a complete and utter detachment of all religion from the state. In the case of Israel, this would mean the discontinuation of the "Jewish State" as we know of today, where most (if not all) of our national symbols are based upon the Jewish tradition. Even many of our laws are based upon Jewish law. As you can imagine, this is the type of state that many Israeli Arabs call for; a state for all of its citizens. The concept that is most commonly intended when discussing the separation of religion and state, especially in Israel, is the struggle between the religious and the secular. When those from Meretz and others like them call for separation of religion and state, they have absolutely no intention to negate Israel's Judaism! They only want to remove the power of the religious institution, that they not be coerced to get married and divorced according to specific religious regulations etc. that do not particularly have any meaning for them.
As we have seen, we must be careful when using certain terminology, that everyone knows what we are referring to. Keep in mind that when discussing the separation of religion and state in Israel, most often the reference in only to institutionalized religion as it exists today, and not to the absolute disconnection between religion and state. If you partake in such a discussion, perhaps clarify in a sentence or two to what exactly you are referring.
As a side point, its interesting to note that there are even modern religious philosophers that make claims in support of separating religion and state in Israel, something which seems to contradict our entire concept of religious zionism as normally viewed by Rav Kook and others.
Have a good night.
Ayal
Thursday, March 6, 2008
Random Pieces of Information = RPI
So I have wanted to start a blog for a while now and I only recently thought of something that I could regularly or at least semi-regularly write about. The nature of studying Political Science and Middle-Eastern History is that I am bound to come across random pieces of information that I (and hopefully others) find especially interesting. From all my lectures, I think that I can provide about one "rpi" per day. Once again these will random pieces of information that I found particularly interesting and ones that I would want to remember so that I can use them in future conversations etc.
I would like to start off with something from a lecture called "Islamic Jurisprudence." The class delves into the different school of Islamic thought and legislature, their basic tenets, the differences between them etc. This past Wednesday we were dealing with the strictest of the four schools of thought, the "chanbalim." One of the more famous students of Ahmed Ibn Chanbal (the founder) is a scholar by the name of Ibn Taymiah. He is know for his strict adherence to the sacred Islamic texts and his dramatic rulings regarding Jihad. He was the first to categorize non-observant Muslims as heretics, therefore opening the door for the permission to fight against them. He was essentially the first to officially sanction the killing of Muslims by other Muslims. Ibn Taymiah is known as the philosophic father of all modern fundamentalists. This is most interesting when considering his opinions and rulings regarding the status of Jerusalem. Despite popular Islamic belief that Jerusalem is the third holiest city in Islam, there are many scholars that disagree and give little sanctity to Jerusalem. Ibn Taymiah is one who harshly opposes the giving of any sanctity to Jerusalem on the account that he considers it one of the best examples for "bid'ah" which in Arabic means innovation and is something that strictly forbidden. This all just goes to prove that the Jerusalem issue is only political and has nothing to do with religion. The fact that there are opinions that sanctify the Holy City and others that don't, just goes to prove that the Muslims that do claim sovereignty over Jerusalem do so for political reasons only. Furthermore, the issue of Jerusalem reappeared in Islamic scholarship only after the start of Zionism.
As a side point, Muslims do not have the same conception of consistency when it comes to following one scholar or one opinion. They are known for legitimately picking and choosing, something which is generally looked down upon from a strictly Orthodox perspective. So for them there is no real contradiction between adopting the policies of Ibn Taymiah in one area and completely ignoring them in another. Either way, I thought this was a particularly fascinating random piece of information.
I would appreciate any and all feedback.
Shabbat Shalom
I would like to start off with something from a lecture called "Islamic Jurisprudence." The class delves into the different school of Islamic thought and legislature, their basic tenets, the differences between them etc. This past Wednesday we were dealing with the strictest of the four schools of thought, the "chanbalim." One of the more famous students of Ahmed Ibn Chanbal (the founder) is a scholar by the name of Ibn Taymiah. He is know for his strict adherence to the sacred Islamic texts and his dramatic rulings regarding Jihad. He was the first to categorize non-observant Muslims as heretics, therefore opening the door for the permission to fight against them. He was essentially the first to officially sanction the killing of Muslims by other Muslims. Ibn Taymiah is known as the philosophic father of all modern fundamentalists. This is most interesting when considering his opinions and rulings regarding the status of Jerusalem. Despite popular Islamic belief that Jerusalem is the third holiest city in Islam, there are many scholars that disagree and give little sanctity to Jerusalem. Ibn Taymiah is one who harshly opposes the giving of any sanctity to Jerusalem on the account that he considers it one of the best examples for "bid'ah" which in Arabic means innovation and is something that strictly forbidden. This all just goes to prove that the Jerusalem issue is only political and has nothing to do with religion. The fact that there are opinions that sanctify the Holy City and others that don't, just goes to prove that the Muslims that do claim sovereignty over Jerusalem do so for political reasons only. Furthermore, the issue of Jerusalem reappeared in Islamic scholarship only after the start of Zionism.
As a side point, Muslims do not have the same conception of consistency when it comes to following one scholar or one opinion. They are known for legitimately picking and choosing, something which is generally looked down upon from a strictly Orthodox perspective. So for them there is no real contradiction between adopting the policies of Ibn Taymiah in one area and completely ignoring them in another. Either way, I thought this was a particularly fascinating random piece of information.
I would appreciate any and all feedback.
Shabbat Shalom
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)