the well-known jewish blogger dovbear has written a very interesting piece here in answer to the following question:
Why do solid Jews get so insecure around caftans and fur hats?
a frummily-dressed and therefore "proper" jew yesterday
the answer he gives is, in part:
It seems to me to be a mixture of perhaps four things. First, we are all brought up to admire frumkeit. Even wholly non-practising Jews look at Rabbis with respect and – at least until the whinging, preaching, chumras and demands for money become too much – affection. And the Charedim are ritualistically frum, which is actually how we define frumkeit. A man who davens 3 times a day, wears arba kanfot and is careful what he eats – that’s a frum man. A man who always looks after the sick, goes miles to do nachum aveilim and is always there when someone needs support – that’s a mensch. Different.
he adds:
Secondly, we are inculcated into believing that real Jews do not interact with the secular world.
Thirdly, the Charedim are successful in evolutionary terms (now there’s a delicious irony). That is to say that they succeed in breeding more Charedim. That this is done by depriving people of what we regard as modern freedoms and opportunities is, in evolutionary terms, beside the point.
Fourthly, we are not good at providing for ourselves. The MO world should be able to provide its own Rabbonim, shechita, mohellim and so forth but we largely don’t.
my question is – to what extent can the same be said of muslims? i’m no expert and i’ve got nothing against hareidim that have nothing against me (although the car-wash machine the hat was nicked from might not agree) but it seems to me that you guys suffer from much the same thing.
thoughts?
22 Comments
Buffaloed by beards and floods? Jamaatis would love that.
Frumkeit = Fiqh
Chumra = Nawafila (superogatory acts of devotion)
Daven = Adhkar/Ad`iya (litanies/supplication, and these can be, in some cases, formalised into routines, particularly in Sufi orders)
Tallit katan = no direct equivalent, although other items of clothing are seen as part of the Muhammadan example like the imama (or turban) for instance
Kosher = (obviously) Halal
Nachum Aveilim = no real equivalent as the rites of mourning as normally confined to three days, although there is some observance of coming together to finish recitation of the Qur’an the reward of which is passed on to the dead. This is done in some Muslim cultures after 40 days. Visiting graveyards on Fridays and praying for the deceased in recommended. There are annual or more regular celebrations of the deaths of saints in some cultures.
Mensh = can’t find an exact equivalent but there are many other terms that have similar connotations like Muhsin, ‘Abid, Khadim and so on.
Yeshiva = Madrasa/Dar al-`Ulum (yes, from the colonial period and after, but there are exceptions)
Charedim = yes many equivalent self-defined neo-traditionalist movements
Modern Orthodox = the reformist movements of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries in the Muslim world, and yes they don’t really provide for their own imams, dhabiha or khatn either.
The parallels are so close it’s uncanny. Truly cousins in the way that Muslims and Christians are not, because attachment to the Law among Muslims and Jews and the challenges of modernity produced similar reactions, retrenchments and innovations.
I think that is precisely the case.
What compounds it, is that there is a tendency for others, particularly those in the business of interacting with ‘religious communities’, to regard beardy people as “real Jews” (or Sikhs or Muslims).
This is one of the reasons why it is so important to persuade the state to interact with us all, as citizens, rather than as members of a confessional group.
This is rather determined by what is meant by “attachment to the Law”. I would suggest that consideration of the same might be motivated by dovbear’s comment:
Yahya’s comment seems to want to trade on a distinction between frum and frei, the direct implication being that Christians are less than interested in the Law and are frei (as an antonym of frum.
Yet, this ignores the explicit comments of Jesus that he was interested in the “inward” character of the Law (its essence) and less in the external, outwardly expressions of the same. Recall that he argues that he came not to overturn the Law but to revive it. This revival means a turning towards its meaning, especially its moral force – and a rejection of mechanical elaboration or repetition of “law for law’s sake”.
Further, the idea that Muslims are interested in the Law requires considerable reservation, as the whole notion of the Law in Islam turns on the notion of Shari’a – the idea of a movement towards something, a passage, a travelling onwards. The implication that for Muslims that the Law is something unalterable, fixed, suspended above time and space perhaps may be seen as contrasting highly with the opinions of those who see Shari’a as the negotiation between the eternal and divine Word and the realities of life.
Attempts to draw lines between the interpretations of such items as Law in the three Abrahamic faiths falls foul, of course, of the multiplicity of interpretations placed upon such terms in the first place and across all three faiths.
yahya,
firstly, thanks – that is most a) interesting b) utterly unsurprising.
interesting – but chumras are particularly concerned with the reduction of risk (that you might not have fulfilled the commandment adequately, correctly or sufficiently) in terms of ritual observances. for example, the recent controversy about microscopic crustaceans in the new york water supply or the periodic bans on strawberries – once, inspections by eye might have been sufficient, but now the use of microscopes, filters, soap and water are mandated, that sort of thing. to me, a “supererogatory act of devotion” is more like “hiddur mitzvah” or “chesed”.
i’d say davenning is more like regular five-times-a-day salat, as it’s our three-times-a-day routine. the supplication part of it is known as “nefilat ‘apayim” or “tahanun”, or, as during the high holiday season, “selihot”.
well, orthodoxy is defined by its opposition to the “progressive” movements,reform, conservative, liberal and reconstructionist judaism. the most significant m-o grouping in the uk is the united synagogue, that of the chief rabbi – it’s the “mainstream” by definition; you seem to be talking more about a “progressive” equivalent.
b’shalom
bananabrain
dear bananabrain,
It was a quick stab at comparison to be honest, but let me try again!
‘Churma’ as you describe it might be more like wara’ or scrupulousness, although in the example you provide there would also another counterbalancing concept of taysir (ease). Under the rules of halal for instance, there is a growing tendency towards the use of pharmocology in determining which food additives are halal or not. Although I’ve not come across anything as exacting as the example that you give. Water from municipal sources is assumed to be ritually pure under traditional Islamic law unless there is tangible evidence to the contrary like a change in its colour, taste or viscosity.
This is a topic that’s fascinated me for some time, but probably requires setting out in more length. Briefly, however, I believe that similar divisions are articulated within Islam today but are not so well defined in terms of having developed and separate religious institutions or leaderships. This becomes more the case the more one moves away from tradionalism or neo-traditionalism. The “reform” movements is a vague formulation, but basically by that I mean movements that criticised traditionalism while basically remaining within its overall logics and paradigms but did make some concessions to modern life at the same time. When it comes to individuals, it’s all more likely to be on a graduated spectrum in any case.
wa s-salam, yahya
It’s interesting that most nominal Christians have no comparable inferiority issues when they meet other Christians who are more ostentatiously religious or prious – i.e. when they meet Christians who have visible crosses, say grace before meals, eat fish on Friday, go to Church on Sunday etc.
Instead they are inclined to regard such people as ‘nutters’, ‘weirdos’, ‘bible-bashers’ etc etc.
This is a a sign of progress, I’d say! It’s absurd that peoples’ worth or goodness is measured by their archaic clothes, their quantities of facial hair or by the volumes of mumbo-jumbo they choose to chant at each other.
My point exactly, Al-Qanaas – and one that Yahya is studiously avoiding (as is his wont when his attempts to smuggle in religious conservatism are questioned).
Abu Faris — don’t really get your point.
Btw, I did contact the Spittoon editor to get your contact details, but didn’t get a response.
Yahya Birt why do you bother with the extremist loons at Spitoon?
Youre a Sufi right? -Have you seen how they abuse and malign Sufi Sheikhs?
http://www.spittoon.org/archives/2590/comment-page-1#comment-11759
Dont you recall how they tried to imply the City Circle (which I believe you were involved with) was some kind of extremist sinister Islamist front
http://www.spittoon.org/archives/1214
This level of irrational hatred of Muslims really isnt suspectible to rational debate
I thought my point was fairly clear, Yahya.
Here is is again: http://www.spittoon.org/archives/3501/comment-page-1#comment-13730
I believe you had left your contact details. These were the same as the ones you publicly display.
How’s the Islamic Foundation going these days by the way, Yahya? Are all those Sayyid Qutb books still flying off the shelves?
that sounds far more likely – the counterbalance for “chumra” is “kula” – thus one who follows strict interpretations is said to be “machmir” and one who is lenient wherever possible is said to be “makil”.
oh, don’t worry, you will eventually, people being what they are.
the proper standard to apply in the case of ingesting a non-kosher animal is “if you can see it, it’s something to be concerned about, but if you’d need a microscope, that’s OK”, but as i say, some people won’t be happy until they’re not allowed to do anything at all. idiots. i don’t see haredim being especially machmir about hygiene, health and safety, courtesy, business ethics or careful driving, although of course i know that there are certainly people who do take that as seriously as they should – it’s just not part of the agenda.
i’d be interested in helping out with that. one might start with how the mcb has pretensions to being considered the islamic equivalent of the board of deputies when, in fact, its behaviour, constituency and credibility would be far more similar to the united synagogue – hence iqbal sacranie getting knighted the same time as jonathan sacks – and if the mcb hadn’t made such a spectacular arse of itself over its relationship with the government, i dare say lord sacranie would be taking his seat right about now.
that’s partly because islam has a systematic theology which can be translated into divisive sectarianism in a way that judaism hasn’t, or at least not as often. the sunni-shi’a schism is far more comparable to the protestant-catholic split (i’m oversimplifying of course). we never really had theological splits before the enlightenment, unless you count the karaite schism, which was more about rabbinic authority.
after the enlightenment, of course, we had a whole bunch of differing takes, including the neo-traditionalism of hasidism, but “modern orthodoxy” was basically a reaction against both reform and the ideological warfare between hasidut and the “mitnagdim” of the eastern european yeshiva tradition. this never happened in the sephardi world, where we spent most of our time dealing with the fall-out from the shabbetai tzvi false messiah catastrophe in the C17th and dealing with the secularist agenda of the “alliance israélite universelle”.
oh – well that *does* sound like the agenda of modern orthodoxy, as r. samson raphael hirsch put it: “torah ‘im derech eretz” – Torah and the “way of the world”. it’s just that use of the word “reformist” has a particular set of connotations within the jewish world.
whaaaat? have you seen how catholics defer to priests, or even the most unreligious anglican to the local vicar? you must be joking.
oh, that’s nothing – you should try working as a musician in the field of “world music” with a middle-class london accent. according to the critics, the music isn’t really “authentic” unless you’re a blind peasant from a malian village.
b’shalom
bananabrain
“whaaaat? have you seen how catholics defer to priests, or even the most unreligious anglican to the local vicar? you must be joking.”
I would guess though, that this has more to do with traditional ideas of religious and social hierarchy.
My point was that seeing random Christians with beards, cross jewelry etc, doesn’t seem to make nominal Christians feel inferior or less pious, less worthy etc.
Al-Qanaas
The Coptic Pope, His Holiness Shenouda III, looks uncannily like Sadaam at his time of capture; but with a big hat and lots of gold…
Incidentally, I have it on good authority that one way to guarantee an audience with His Holiness is to smuggle in some chocolate for the sweet-toothed Pontiff.
Ha ha ha! I’d never thought of that before but now you mention it, the resemblance is striking:
http://www.theorthodoxchurch.info/blogs/news/2009/02/pope-shenouda-travels-to-us-for.html
The Copts are actually a case in point – it’s all about who’s got the biggest beard, the funkiest headgear and the biggest, shiniest, goldest cross!
Al Qanaas Al Misri
Your hatred of Coptic Christians is disgusting
You do realise that you are utterly mad, don’t you, Winter?
why Abu Faris ? Al-Qanaas Al-Masri’s attack on Copts was a disgusting sectarian attack
No, it was not, Winter – it was a light-hearted observation. It was militated by my comment that the Coptic leader, Pope Shenouda, bore an uncanny resemblance to the fugitive Sadaam, just before the latter’s arrest.
I live amongst and work with Copts – many of them having family members in the Coptic Church hierarchy. Copts find the smells, bells and Byzantine outfits of the Coptic clergy highly amusing.
Stop being so precious.
Abu Faris
Posted November 6, 2009 at 11:25 PM
Abu Faris
Posted November 7, 2009 at 2:54 PM
Looks like Abu Faris is an Islamist
I’ll rephrase my earlier comment for you Winter, as you are clearly hypersensitive:
Good night, troll.