העורך Editor

Rabbi Elyashiv’s 2 Reasons For Not Going to the IDF

Quoting “The Partial View”:

An acquaintance recounts how, during his tenure of study in Israel, he sat by Rav Elyashiv zt’l, as a ‘chayal’ from a hesder yeshiva, walked in and inquired as to the Kashrus of a Mezuzah at his military base.

Here’s the conversation: ‘L’mah ata mitkavain’ – what do you mean to infer, queried the Rav. ‘She’zeh dira ba’al korcho’ – that a domain in which an individual is coerced to abide in, is not a normative dwelling place, and is therefore absolved of Mitzvas Mezuzah? [See Tractate Yoma 10b]

“Zeh lo ba’al corchi, ani merutza la’asot tzavah!” – it’s not against my will, countered the soldier, I’m agreeable to army service!

“Zeh tzorich li’yot ba’al corchacha” – it should be against your will, said Rav Elyashiv.

Then he asked the zkan Haposkim the $64,000 question: “Lamah lo osim bnei yeshiva tzavah?” – and quoted the Rambam that it’s a mitzvah to defend the Yishuv in Eretz Yisrael against an enemy.

Rav Elyashiv answered: Yeshivaleit are not obligated to train, they’re only ‘mechuyav’ to fight – and then Tzavah won’t take them. Then he continued: And even if they are enjoined to train, you’re not mechuyav to put your life in the hands of Arik Sharon [Sar Bitachon at the time]. The Posek Hador provides clarity and perspective for this crucial issue.

End quote.

Well, I don’t understand the first answer at all. And the second answer applies to all Jews, not just those studying Torah!

Sheikh Abu Zant, the Mohamedan Hoppe: A Death Sentence Fatwa… All Based on a Hostile Press Release

A true story by Khalid Durán, “How CAIR Put My Life in Peril”:

On April 4, 2001, a self-described advocacy group based in Washington, D.C. by the name of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), issued a press release1 attacking my forthcoming book, Children of Abraham: An Introduction to Islam for Jews.2 CAIR’s attack snowballed into a campaign of personal vilification, which eventuated in a Jordanian political leader calling me an apostate (murtadd).3 Neither CAIR nor Sheikh ‘Abd al-Mun’im Abu Zant of Jordan’s Islamic Action Front had ever read or even seen my book, but the CAIR attack prompted the latter to issue an appeal to Muslims, asking them to unite to kill me. According to most interpretations of the Shari’a (Islamic law), an apostate from Islam must be executed.

At the time, it was not clear whether Abu Zant’s outburst constituted a formal fatwa–a religious edict. But the sheikh was unequivocal in calling for my “blood to be shed.” For its part, CAIR denied that Abu Zant called for my death and claimed that my American publisher concocted the death threat in order to increase sales,4 even though the threat first had been reported in a Jordanian newspaper, Ash-Shahid. Abu Zant lay low for a time, but on July 22, he again called me an apostate, and declared it lawful (halal) to shed my blood. This time Ash-Shahid expressly called his statement a fatwa and bragged about the worldwide media coverage given to Abu Zant and Ash-Shahid.5

The inflammatory language used by Nihad Awad, CAIR’s executive director, to vilify my book, was bound to incite reactions like that of Abu Zant. Put differently, the accusations and the language used by CAIR in its statements, especially those in Arabic, could not but result in calls for violence against me. And so I find myself, the author of a book written to promote a wider understanding of Islam, under a death threat and in need of protection. CAIR has put my life in peril. Its actions are the culmination of a campaign meant to intimidate and silence not only me, but any Muslim in America who would speak out in favor of freedom, tolerance, and dialogue.

…

Here is the original Hoppe piece being referenced.

‘A Pharoah Who Knows Not Joseph’ and Mohammedan Assured Destruction

Ooh, don’t you love reading those allusive bureaucratese articles? Even when they say something sensible and crucial, they do an excellent job of blunting the alarming edge.

“Before lecturing Israel, Britain and France should look in the mirror” by David Hermelin on Israel Hayom.

“London and Paris often speak in the name of Western values. But the demographic and political changes taking place within their own societies should prompt a debate over the future of their nuclear arsenals.”
Bleh. Here’s my version:

Britain and France (so-called) [and Germany, too!] may Islamize — and your explosive means will go to genocidal-leaning Mohammedans (or be governed by them even before they take the reins). Start destroying your nuclear bombs now (instead of what you’re actually doing, which is massively building up your destructive capabilities and stockpiles), you fools! Nukes don’t care who is whom; they just respond to being physically activated. No time or standing to lecture Israel on existential risk (now or ever).