As I write this, the Jewish Festival of Shavuot is about to begin. The Festival is rooted in a celebration of the springtime grain harvest but has also become the time Jews recall and commemorate the giving of the Torah at Mt. Sinai.
It is customary to read the Book of Ruth during synagogue services on Shavuot. The custom is an old one, being mentioned in a non-canonical Talmudic work, Masekhet Soferim, which was probably edited in its current version in the 7th or 8th century CE.
There are several reasons proposed for choosing this as a special Shavuot reading but the lines from the book that are best known and that bear on our topic today are:
וַתֹּ֤אמֶר רוּת֙ אַל־תִּפְגְּעִי־בִ֔י לְעָזְבֵ֖ךְ לָשׁ֣וּב מֵאַחֲרָ֑יִךְ כִּ֠י אֶל־אֲשֶׁ֨ר תֵּלְכִ֜י אֵלֵ֗ךְ וּבַאֲשֶׁ֤ר תָּלִ֙ינִי֙ אָלִ֔ין עַמֵּ֣ךְ עַמִּ֔י וֵאלֹהַ֖יִךְ אֱלֹהָֽי׃
But Ruth replied, “Do not urge me to leave you, to turn back and not follow you. For wherever you go, I will go; wherever you lodge, I will lodge; your people shall be my people, and your God my God.“
And so it was that Ruth became a part of her late husband’s community. Ruth, a Moabite, whose forbears had a difficult history with those of her husband, declared herself a part of their community. That declaration, followed as it was by her adherence to their customs, residence among them and acceptance of their God, was sufficient to make Ruth the most famous of Israelite/Jewish converts.
Conversion to Judaism would later become much more difficult. Traditionally, in fact, a person expressing an interest in converting to Judaism was supposed to be denied three times before being accepted even to study for conversion.
Controversy over “who is a Jew”, which is an issue of parentage, validity of conversion process, and demonstration before appropriate witnesses of understanding and sincerity, continues to be among the most contentious in the Jewish world today.
It is interesting that it was in the context of responding to a person who presented himself as a potential convert that we find Rabbi Hillel’s statement that we are calling The Silver Rule. The person asked Rabbi Hillel if he could explain to him the entire Torah “while standing on one foot”. Hillel replied:
“That which is hateful to you, do not do to another; that is the entire Torah, and the rest is its interpretation. Now go and study.” (B. Talmud Shabbat 31a)
While there have been some minor exceptions, normative Judaism has never been a proselytizing religion. Nothing in its history or scriptures suggests to Jews that Judaism is a religion for all. Quite the opposite.
Judaism recognizes and accepts that it is the religion of a people apart from others. And that other peoples will have other religions. At the same time, though, Judaism understands that some laws found in its scriptures; the seven Noahide laws, specifically; are binding on all humans.
In a prior note on Parashat Behar I wrote about the limits on territorial expansionism by the Israelites and about the fact that, if they were to have an influence outside their territorial limits, it would have to be obtained by other means: via trade and provision of services, for example.
So now we add another element of restraint: the Israelites are to be neither territorially nor religiously expansionist.
That, among other things, distinguishes Judaism from Christianity and Islam.
Religious expansionism comes in two basic varieties: superiority and supersession.
The superiority argument says: “this religion is superior to that one”, for some reason. These gods are the ones we really need, not those. This specific god is more powerful than that specific god. This way of thinking or life or sacrifice or worship is more effective or appropriate or correct, etc. than that one. Or, this person, who is representative of my religion, is superior to that person who is representative of yours.
The superiority argument does not claim that the “other” religion is no longer valid or “in force”. It just says mine is better than yours, so choose mine.
Supersession, however, is another matter. Supersession says, this religion has come to supersede and subsume that one. That one is no longer valid. It is wrong and inappropriate and its practice is an affront to the Deity and to the adherents of the superseding faith.
Theopedia provides this definition with specific reference to Christian supersessionism:
“Supersessionism is the traditional Christian belief that Christianity is the fulfillment of Biblical Judaism, and therefore that Jews who deny that Jesus is the Jewish Messiah fall short of their calling as God’s Chosen people.
Supersessionism, in its more radical form, maintains that the Jews are no longer considered to be God’s Chosen people in any sense. This understanding is generally termed “replacement theology.”
Note that the failure of Jews to recognize Christianity’s supersession is a fault on their part. There is not a disagreement; there is a denial. There is not a missing of the point; there is a falling short. This is language of value judgment and of culpability. And culpability, of course, opens the question of punishment.
Christianity has clearly been religiously expansionist as well as supersessionist. Some would argue that absent those characteristics it would cease to be what it is. From its earliest days, Christianity has been a missionizing religion seeking to spread its teaching as widely and as rapidly as possible.
During some of its history, Christianity has also been territorially expansionist. The church clearly held much secular power in Europe for hundreds of years. However, the expansion of secular power by some Christians must be distinguished from a territorial expansionism of Christianity itself.
While it is clear that “spreading the good word” is a fundamental element of the Christian enterprise, Christianity itself is not driven to acquire territory as a matter of religious expression. Across the broad sweep of history, Christian expansionism has been religious, not geopolitical.
One of the things that an expansionist religion needs to provide is ease of entry.
In the days of Ruth, the Moabite, one could become a part of the Israelite people by living among them adopting their way of life, their god and their religious rituals. But the Judaism that developed over the centuries thereafter became a community that created significant barriers to entry rather than actively seeking new adherents.
Christian conversion, on the other hand, in its early centuries and through the expansionist middle ages, was a relatively easy matter. Details changed over time and from place to place, but the general attitude was welcoming and facilitative. In some substantial cases, conversion was a matter actually forced upon individuals and populations under threat.
The Christian conversion question has become more complex in modern times but it continues to adopt a clearly welcoming and supportive stance: supportive of its still-expansionist motives.
Islam is both religiously expansionist and supersessionist. Unlike either Judaism or Christianity, however, Islam is also territorially expansionist.
Importantly, Islam is supersessionist with respect to both Christianity and Judaism. It recognizes the lineage of prophets from Abraham through Moses and Jesus, for example, and it specifically identifies that the God of Abraham and Jesus is the God of Mohammed. However,
“…according to Muslim theology, while some of the Abrahamic prophets were sent to a particular tribe or nation, Muhammad carried the final and perfected Divine message to all of humanity. In addition, Muslims believe that aspects or parts of the earlier messages sent by God were altered, deformed, corrupted, or otherwise derailed from their initial purpose, and Islam was sent to reclaim and restore the original message to its pristine form.
El Fadl, Khaled M. Abou. The Great Theft: Wrestling Islam from the Extremists (p. 116). HarperCollins. Kindle Edition.
Islam argues that both the Hebrew and Christian scriptures clearly foretold the coming of Mohammed as the final and true Prophet, but the Jews and Christians modified their scriptures to conceal that truth. The truth is restored in the words of the Koran and the Sunna. Note the words of El Fadl, above, in which he states that Mohammed carried the Divine message “to all of humanity”.
Islam is not a religion for a single people and Mohammed is not the prophet of a single people. Both are meant as universals.
The claim of Islam to religious supersession is clear and that it is claimed is beyond question. The same is true of the facts of Islam’s religious and territorial expansionism. What is less often noted is the relationship between the religious and territorial expansionism.
Mohammed preached Islam in his hometown of Mecca for twelve years before moving to Medina. In that 12-year period he attracted only 150 followers. Medina was a more welcoming community whose population was about half Jewish. The Muslims who went to Medina with Mohammed were poor and stricken with illness. After a year, gaining few new adherents, Mohammed began to prepare to make war.
The authoritative “Life of Mohammed” (trans. Guillame, I415) states:
“Then the apostle prepared for war in pursuance of God’s command to fight his enemies and to fight those polytheists who were near at hand whom God commanded him to fight…Then he went forth raiding in Safar…”
The account of Mohammed’s life continues with account after account of raids, attacks and battles undertaken by Mohammed and his fighters. There is little to suggest a religious motive as the primary one in these accounts.
“Mohammed had become a political force unlike any ever seen before in history. The fusion of religion and politics with a universal mandate created a permanent historic force. Muslims believe there will be no peace until all the world is Islamic. The spoils of war will provide the wealth of Islam.”
Warner, Bill. The Sira: The Life of Mohammed (A Taste of Islam Book 2) (p. 21). CSPI Publishing, Inc. Kindle Edition.
Prior to his death, Mohammed brought essentially the entire Arab territory and population under his control and after his death the geographic expansion continued, initially under the caliphs. During that expansionary period:
“Conversion initially was neither required nor necessarily wished for: “(The Arab conquerors) did not require the conversion as much as the subordination of non-Muslim peoples. At the outset, they were hostile to conversions because new Muslims diluted the economic and status advantages of the Arabs.”[11]
Only in subsequent centuries, with the development of the religious doctrine of Islam and with that the understanding of the Muslim ummah, did mass conversion take place.” (Wikipedia: The Spread of Islam)
Even though the spread of Islam does appear to have been a case of religion following material aims, it is clear that many of those in Muslim-dominated areas chose over time to embrace Islam. The spread of the religion was at least a secondary motivation to the primary material one.
And as time passed and the Golden Age of Islam came and went; as the territory dominated by Islam began to shrink rather than expand; the motivation of religious expansionism became more the primary one. Expansion, however, had now become a matter of increasing the penetration of Islam within a given geography rather than in new territory.
So, the question asked regarding ease of conversion in religious expansionism is important.
According to www.religionofislam.com:
“Becoming a Muslim is a simple and easy process. All that a person has to do is to say a sentence called the Testimony of Faith (Shahada), which is pronounced as:
I testify “La ilaha illa Allah, Muhammad rasoolu Allah.”
These Arabic words mean, “There is no true god (deity) but God (Allah), and Muhammad is the Messenger (Prophet) of God.”
Once a person says the Testimony of Faith (Shahada) with conviction and understanding its meaning, then he/she has become a Muslim. (emphasis added)
The first part, “There is no true deity but God,” means that none has the right to be worshipped but God alone, and that God has neither partner nor son. The second part means that Muhammad was a true Prophet sent by God to humankind.”
It is, of course, desirable that a convert have a greater understanding of the tenets of Islamic faith and demonstrate sincerity of purpose but, in fact, the recitation of the Testimony, even if not witnessed, is sufficient to create a valid conversion. It is, indeed, “a simple and easy process” that presents no real barrier to entry into the Muslim religious community.
The contemporary Islamic scholar Khaled Abou el Fadl in his book “The Great Theft: Wrestling Islam from the Extremists” discusses the current battle within Islam between the moderates and those he terms the “puritans”. The puritans would include, for example, the Wahhabis, the Taliban, ISIS, Boko Haram, etc.
The puritan Muslims continue to espouse a territorially expansionist ideology.
Some of the moderates, if I read El Fadl fairly, might harbor some nostalgic ideas of the attractiveness of conquest and return to secular glory but are not actually or actively expansionist in a territorial sense.
In summary then:
Judaism is neither religiously nor territorially expansionist. Conversion is difficult.
Christianity is religiously supersessionist and expansionist but it is not territorially expansionist. Conversion requirements historically were relatively easy but are now somewhat more complex; varying among denominations.
Islam is religiously supersessionist. Its expansionism was initially more territorial than religious. But religious expansionism is a clear ideal and motivation. Current religious expansionism is facilitated by a very simple and easy conversion process. Current territorial expansionism is largely found in the puritan sects, but in those sects it is an important motivator.
It is not sufficient that conversion to a religion be easy, of course, for an expansionist enterprise to succeed.
Conversion also has to appear to be an attractive option. In later posts we’ll come back to this issue and distinguish between options that appear to be attractive for material reasons versus those that seem attractive for religious or spiritual reasons.
©Charles R. Lightner