[garygreen]

big wall of text

So you've never visited an Arab nation.  Got it.

I'm not interested in discussing the Saudi monarchy or any other repressive government.  The fact that many Arabs live under oppressive regimes isn't to me a rational justification for advocating for violence against Arab citizens or speaking of them as subhumans. 

I'm interested in discussing your sole possible justification for advocating for violence, that Arabs represent an existential threat to Jews.  You claim that the Quran commands all non-Muslims to submit to Islam in conversion, taxation, or death.  You claim to be well-versed on the Quran, so perhaps you could point me to the relevant passages that demonstrate the accuracy of this characterization. 

I've been doing a bit of reading myself, and I have yet to find an academic source that agrees with you.  I keep finding descriptions like this one from Quran commentator Muhammad Asad:

The term jizyah, rendered by me as "exemption tax", occurs in the Qur'an only once, but its meaning and purpose have been fully explained in many authentic Traditions. It is intimately bound up with the concept of the Islamic state as an ideological organization: and this is a point which must always be borne in mind if the real purport of this tax is to be understood. In the Islamic state, every able-bodied Muslim is obliged to take up arms in jihad (i.e., in a just war in God's cause) whenever the freedom of his faith or the political safety of his community is imperilled: in other words, every able-bodied Muslim is liable to compulsory military service. Since this is, primarily, a religious obligation, non-Muslim citizens, who do not subscribe to the ideology of Islam, cannot in fairness be expected to assume a similar burden. On the other hand, they must be accorded full protection of all their civic rights and of their religious freedom: and it is in order to compensate the Muslim community for this unequal distribution of civic burdens that a special tax is levied on non-Muslim citizens (ahl adh-dhimmah, lit., "covenanted" [or "protected"] people", i.e., non-Muslims whose safety is statutorily assured by the Muslim community). Thus, jizyah is no more and no less than an
exemption tax in lieu of military service and in compensation for the "covenant of protection" (dhimmah) accorded to such citizens by the Islamic state. (The term itself is derived from the verb jazd, "he rendered [something] as a satisfaction", or "as a compensation [in lieu of something else]" - cf. Lane II, 422.)

[garygreen]

Oh, and you're just plain wrong with all of this nonsense about Saudi Arabia.  Jews can travel to Saudi Arabia.  Israelis cannot.  They also won't let in anyone with an Israeli visa, but you can just request a duplicate passport from the State Dept.  Use duplicate to go to Israel.  Use regular one to go to Saudi Arabia.  Problem solved.  No one will try and kill you for being a Jew.  That's absurd.

[Yonah ben Amittai]

Saudi Law makes it clear that no Jew can enter the Kingdom for any reason whatsoever. In fact, during the first Gulf War, when our soldiers were there to defend them, that law had to be placed in temporary abeyance so that our soldiers who were Jewish would be allowed to be deployed there. My brother who was in the military was aware of this problem. So I would encourage you to get your facts straight on the matter.

I too, have read the argument you quoted regarding the Jizyah tax. Read the following for a response.

QUOTE: "Jews in Islamic Countries:
The Treatment of Jews
(Updated September 2011)

Jews in Islamic Countries: Table of Contents | Jewish Refugees | Arab Anti-Semitism

Print Friendly and PDF
   


Arabs sometimes claim that, as "Semites," they cannot possibly be anti-Semitic. This, however, is a semantic distortion that ignores the reality of Arab discrimination and hostility toward Jews. Arabs, like any other people, can indeed be anti-Semitic.

The term "anti-Semite" was coined in Germany in 1879 by Wilhelm Marr to refer to the anti-Jewish manifestations of the period and to give Jew-hatred a more scientific sounding name.(1) "Anti-Semitism" has been accepted and understood to mean hatred of the Jewish people.

While Jewish communities in Arab and Islamic countries fared better overall than those in Christian lands in Europe, Jews were no strangers to persecution and humiliation among the Arabs and Muslim. As Princeton University historian Bernard Lewis has written: "The Golden Age of equal rights was a myth, and belief in it was a result, more than a cause, of Jewish sympathy for Islam."(2)

Muhammad, the founder of Islam, traveled to Medina in 622 A.D. to attract followers to his new faith. When the Jews of Medina refused to convert and rejected Muhammad, two of the major Jewish tribes were expelled; in 627, Muhammad's followers killed between 600 and 900 of the men, and divided the surviving Jewish women and children amongst themselves.(3)

The Muslim attitude toward Jews is reflected in various verses throughout the Koran, the holy book of the Islamic faith. "They [the Children of Israel] were consigned to humiliation and wretchedness. They brought the wrath of God upon themselves, and this because they used to deny God's signs and kill His Prophets unjustly and because they disobeyed and were transgressors" (Sura 2:61). According to the Koran, the Jews try to introduce corruption (5:64), have always been disobedient (5:78), and are enemies of Allah, the Prophet and the angels (2:97­98).

The Dhimmi
Still, as "People of the Book," Jews (and Christians) are protected under Islamic law. The traditional concept of the "dhimma" ("writ of protection") was extended by Muslim conquerors to Christians and Jews in exchange for their subordination to the Muslims. Peoples subjected to Muslim rule usually had a choice between death and conversion, but Jews and Christians, who adhered to the Scriptures, were allowed as dhimmis (protected persons) to practice their faith. This "protection" did little, however, to insure that Jews and Christians were treated well by the Muslims. On the contrary, an integral aspect of the dhimma was that, being an infidel, he had to openly acknowledge the superiority of the true believer--the Muslim.

In the early years of the Islamic conquest, the "tribute" (or jizya), paid as a yearly poll tax, symbolized the subordination of the dhimmi. Later, the inferior status of Jews and Christians was reinforced through a series of regulations that governed the behavior of the dhimmi. Dhimmis, on pain of death, were forbidden to mock or criticize the Koran, Islam or Muhammad, to proselytize among Muslims or to touch a Muslim woman (though a Muslim man could take a non­Muslim as a wife).

Dhimmis were excluded from public office and armed service, and were forbidden to bear arms. They were not allowed to ride horses or camels, to build synagogues or churches taller than mosques, to construct houses higher than those of Muslims or to drink wine in public. They were not allowed to pray or mourn in loud voices-as that might offend the Muslims. The dhimmi had to show public deference toward Muslims-always yielding them the center of the road. The dhimmi was not allowed to give evidence in court against a Muslim, and his oath was unacceptable in an Islamic court. To defend himself, the dhimmi would have to purchase Muslim witnesses at great expense. This left the dhimmi with little legal recourse when harmed by a Muslim.(4)

Dhimmis were also forced to wear distinctive clothing. In the ninth century, for example, Baghdad's Caliph al-Mutawakkil designated a yellow badge for Jews, setting a precedent that would be followed centuries later in Nazi Germany.(5)

Violence Against Jews
At various times, Jews in Muslim lands were able to live in relative peace and thrive culturally and economically. The position of the Jews was never secure, however, and changes in the political or social climate would often lead to persecution, violence and death. Jews were generally viewed with contempt by their Muslim neighbors; peaceful coexistence between the two groups involved the subordination and degradation of the Jews.

When Jews were perceived as having achieved too comfortable a position in Islamic society, anti-Semitism would surface, often with devastating results: On December 30, 1066, Joseph HaNagid, the Jewish vizier of Granada, Spain, was crucified by an Arab mob that proceeded to raze the Jewish quarter of the city and slaughter its 5,000 inhabitants. The riot was incited by Muslim preachers who had angrily objected to what they saw as inordinate Jewish political power.

Similarly, in 1465, Arab mobs in Fez slaughtered thousands of Jews, leaving only 11 alive, after a Jewish deputy vizier treated a Muslim woman in "an offensive manner." The killings touched off a wave of similar massacres throughout Morocco.(6)

Other mass murders of Jews in Arab lands occurred in Morocco in the 8th century, where whole communities were wiped out by Muslim ruler Idris I; North Africa in the 12th century, where the Almohads either forcibly converted or decimated several communities; Libya in 1785, where Ali Burzi Pasha murdered hundreds of Jews; Algiers, where Jews were massacred in 1805, 1815 and 1830 and Marrakesh, Morocco, where more than 300 hundred Jews were murdered between 1864 and 1880.(7)

Decrees ordering the destruction of synagogues were enacted in Egypt and Syria (1014, 1293-4, 1301-2), Iraq (854-859, 1344) and Yemen (1676). Despite the Koran's prohibition, Jews were forced to convert to Islam or face death in Yemen (1165 and 1678), Morocco (1275, 1465 and 1790-92) and Baghdad (1333 and 1344).{8}

As distinguished Orientalist G.E. von Grunebaum has written:
It would not be difficult to put together the names of a very sizeable number of Jewish subjects or citizens of the Islamic area who have attained to high rank, to power, to great financial influence, to significant and recognized intellectual attainment; and the same could be done for Christians. But it would again not be difficult to compile a lengthy list of persecutions, arbitrary confiscations, attempted forced conversions, or pogroms.(9)

The situation of Jews in Arab lands reached a low point in the 19th century. Jews in most of North Africa (including Algeria, Tunisia, Egypt, Libya and Morocco) were forced to live in ghettos. In Morocco, which contained the largest Jewish community in the Islamic Diaspora, Jews were made to walk barefoot or wear shoes of straw when outside the ghetto. Even Muslim children participated in the degradation of Jews, by throwing stones at them or harassing them in other ways. The frequency of anti-Jewish violence increased, and many Jews were executed on charges of apostasy. Ritual murder accusations against the Jews became commonplace in the Ottoman Empire.(10)

By the twentieth century, the status of the dhimmi in Muslim lands had not significantly improved. H.E.W. Young, British Vice Consul in Mosul, wrote in 1909:
The attitude of the Muslims toward the Christians and the Jews is that of a master towards slaves, whom he treats with a certain lordly tolerance so long as they keep their place. Any sign of pretension to equality is promptly repressed.(11)

The danger for Jews became even greater as a showdown approached in the UN over partition in 1947. The Syrian delegate, Faris el-Khouri, warned: "Unless the Palestine problem is settled, we shall have difficulty in protecting and safeguarding the Jews in the Arab world."(12)

More than a thousand Jews were killed in anti-Jewish rioting during the 1940's in Iraq, Libya, Egypt, Syria and Yemen.(13) This helped trigger the mass exodus of Jews from Arab countries.

Sources:
1. Vamberto Morais, A Short History of Anti-Semitism, (NY: W.W Norton and Co., 1976), p. 11; Bernard Lewis, Semites & Anti-Semites, (NY: WW Norton & Co., 1986), p. 81.
2. Bernard Lewis, "The Pro-Islamic Jews," Judaism, (Fall 1968), p. 401.
3. Bat Ye'or, The Dhimmi, (NJ: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, 1985), pp. 43-44.
4. Bat Yeor, pp. 30, 56-57; Louis Gardet, La Cite Musulmane: Vie sociale et politique, (Paris: Etudes musulmanes, 1954), p. 348.
5. Bat Yeor, pp. 185-86, 191, 194.
6. Norman Stillman, The Jews of Arab Lands, (PA: The Jewish Publication Society of America, 1979), pp. 59, 284.
7. Maurice Roumani, The Case of the Jews from Arab Countries: A Neglected Issue, (Tel Aviv: World Organization of Jews from Arab Countries, 1977), pp. 26-27.
8. Bat Ye'or, p. 61
9. G.E. Von Grunebaum, "Eastern Jewry Under Islam," Viator, (1971), p. 369.
10. Bernard Lewis, The Jews of Islam, (NJ: Princeton University Press, 1984) p. 158.
11. Middle Eastern Studies, (1971), p. 232.
12. New York Times, (February 19, 1947).
13. Roumani, pp. 30-31."

Source: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/anti-semitism/Jews_in_Arab_lands_(gen).html

[garygreen]

Saudi Law makes it clear that no Jew can enter the Kingdom for any reason whatsoever. In fact, during the first Gulf War, when our soldiers were there to defend them, that law had to be placed in temporary abeyance so that our soldiers who were Jewish would be allowed to be deployed there. My brother who was in the military was aware of this problem. So I would encourage you to get your facts straight on the matter.

Again, the actions of a theocratic, absolute monarchy are not rational reasons to advocate for violence against Arabs or to speak of them as subhumans.

That said, you're wrong.  I've watched you be wrong with my own eyes.  Israelis are not permitted into Saudi Arabia.  Anyone with an Israeli visa is not permitted into Saudi Arabia.  American citizens of any religion are typically permitted into Saudi Arabia.  Once there, no one will try to kill you for being a Jew.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/gulliver/2011/06/delta-saudia-arabia-and-jewish-travellers

It is true that some Jewish travelers—usually people who were born in Israel or who have evidence of travel to Israel on their passports—sometimes have trouble obtaining visas for Saudi Arabia and some other Middle Eastern countries. This is not a new development. But there are ways to get around the restriction, and Jewish travelers can fly to Saudi and have done so in the past.

That's cool that the Jewish Geocities Library compiled of a list of all the times some Arabs were shitty to some Jews, though.  Sweet paper.

[Yonah ben Amittai]

I'll keep that in mind the next time the law has to be put into abeyance so that American soldiers can defend the Kingdom. Granted, it is possible that the law has been in abeyance since 1991. But I do know that up to that date, a Jew could not enter the Kingdom, because they had to place Saudi laws into abeyance in order to permit our soldiers of Jewish Faith to do so. It is possible that this was never changed. Again, get your facts straight. And I will get mine up to date.

And I'll be sure that after I claim my Israeli Right of Return that I try to get around Saudi Law forbidding my entry to the Kingdom. Not that I have any desire to enter such a hole in the first place. But the point is not that. The point is to indicate that with the exception of Israel, most of the nations of the Middle East are savage pits of wrath where it basically sucks to be you unless you are a Muslim. Israel is the ONLY democracy in the Middle East, and the ONLY country that allows freedom of religion to its citizens. Even to the so-called "Palestinians", it allows considerable freedom, given that they are under military occupation. I have indicated that earlier in the thread.

Let's be honest, and call a spade a spade. Most ME countries live under some level of Sharia. Depending on the country, this can be more or less. Saudi Arabia represents one extreme, and Turkey represents the other. Most fall in the middle somewhere. But, with the exception of Turkey (and even they have been flirting with it a little), ME countries other than Israel expect their people to adhere to a code designed for the Seventh Century. Adultery? Cut your head off. You're a woman and you get raped? Well, too bad you can't prove it was rape, must have been your fault. Cut your head off, or at the very least, an honour killing. If you aren't a Muslim, well, it DEFINITELY sucks to be you. Welcome to Egypt, where it is a noted fact that Coptic girls are kidnapped every day and forcibly converted and married to their Muslim kidnappers.

The only country that treats its minorities at all well is Morocco, from what I understand. For whatever reason, the present King's father invited Jews to live in the Kingdom, and promised full civil rights. There are now 5,000 of them there. And they are treated well, I gather. Iran treats her minorities as second class citizens, but mostly leaves them be if they stay very quiet and duck.

So, out of all the countries in the Middle East, which is the only one that is civilised, and treats its citizens equally? Israel. There are Arabs serving in the Knesset. There are Arabs on the Supreme Court. There are Arabs who serve (voluntarily) in the IDF (they are NOT subject to the draft, as Jews are). All citizens in Israel are allowed to practice their faiths openly, and access to the Holy Sites are guaranteed.

So, don't whine to me about Muslims and Arabs until I start seeing countries like the KSA treat me with the same respect that Israel treats Arabs. Don't even go there with me.

[Yonah ben Amittai]

QUOTE: "Israel’s Population at the Exodus

What was the population of Israel at the Exodus from Egypt. When one looks at the figures given in the Bible, it appears that there could have been as many as two and a half million people (if one includes the women and the children). Is this possibly correct?
 
The Book of Numbers in two places (once at the beginning of the Exodus and again at the end) shows a population of adult males to number just over 600,000. There can be no doubt that these figures in both accounts in Numbers are correct, but this would not square with some other historical data that are found in the account of the Exodus. [See Appendix Six for information on this matter.]

The key to understand the true approximation of the number of people is given in the Bible itself. It concerns one census of people upon which all the rest hinges. What is that census? It is that of the firstborn. We are told how many firstborn there were from a month old and upwards (including even the oldest of the men who were firstborn, and remember that some actual firstborn children could be substituted with others if the need arose—Genesis 48:14; I Chronicles 5:1,2—even daughters could take on the role in certain cases—Numbers 27:1–11). The census of firstborn showed there were 22,273 (Numbers 3:40-43). This means there were that many firstborn who made up the population of Israel. Yet a full third of that number would have been underage and had yet produced no families of their own, and another third would have been old and beyond the age of child bearing and they would have fewer family members. If we say that about a third of the firstborn would have had families (male and female) under their control, then each family would (we are guessing here) might have 8 to 10 members in it. Eight to ten times the one third having families would equal about 70,000 people (and with youngsters and oldsters added to them it would be no more than 120,000 (not two and a half million).

And in the episode with the Moabites just before the Israelites entered the land of promise (Numbers 25:9) they lost 24,000 men (Paul said 23,000 but that was from the initial plague ("in one day," I Corinthians 10: eight) and not the 1000 or so that died afterwards. This reduced the population of Israel to about 95,000 people (both males and females) who crossed over the Jordan into the Land of Canaan. It is interesting that when the twelve tribes of Israel went to war with the Midianites near the end of the Exodus, Joshua asked for only 1000 men from each tribe (Numbers 31:1-5). This number fits in nicely with a total population of about 40,000 men who were capable of making war when Israel crossed the River Jordan. And what do we have Joshua telling us just after Israel crossed the Jordan and just before they attacked the city of Jericho? Notice it carefully. Joshua said: "About forty thousand prepared for war passed over before the Lord unto battle, to the plains of Jericho" (Joshua 4:13).

But what about the prodigious numbers of men mentioned in the two censuses (one at the beginning of the Exodus and the other at the end) which yielded just over 600,000 men, which would give a total population (with women and children) of about two and a half million? This can easily be understood if one will recognize a peculiar way the biblical people looked on their ancestors. Note this point carefully. When Abraham died, he was said to be "gathered to his people" (Genesis 25: eight). This same expression is said of others when they died. Ishmael (Genesis 25:17), Isaac (Genesis 35:29), Jacob (Genesis 49:33). And though Moses and Aaron were brothers, each of them were gathered to their own people (that is, people who were ascribed to them). Note how God said to Moses: "die in the mount whither you go up, and be gathered unto your people; as Aaron your brother died in mount Hor, and was gathered unto his people" (Deuteronomy 32:50). In the case of Jacob being "gathered to his people," he specifically requested that he be buried in the cave of his fathers in the land of Canaan because he and his posterity had inherited that cave and that land from the time of Abraham (Genesis 49:29-33).

The Bible tells us that God has what he calls "The Book of Life" (better, it means "The Book of the Living" and it is so rendered in Psalm 69:28). This book in heaven contained the names of the righteous dead (as well as those then alive and in good standing in the community of Israel), but it was still called "The Book of the Living" even though the majority of people written in the book were in fact dead. Among those in the book were the people of Abraham (who were worthy), those of Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, Aaron etc., etc. Now the genealogical tables maintained by the Israelites were similar. Note that when Moses asked for the number of the men at the census in Israel, he asked the leaders of the tribes to "declare their PEDIGREES after their families" (Numbers 1:18). In the census of just over 600,000 men, the total number also included all the names they had in the genealogical tables (who were also destined in the resurrection to inherit the Land of Canaan) who were their ancestors—the dead as well as the living.

The apostle Paul used this same principle in reverse when he stated that Levi was in the loins of Abraham his father (though he was a fourth generation descendant) when Abraham met Melchizedek (Hebrews 7:9,10). This aggregate number of people (both living and dead) recorded in the genealogical tables and counted in the censuses of Israel reached back to include Abraham and all his early family, because when Abraham died even he was "gathered to his people" (Genesis 25: eight). Yes, even the earlier ancestors of Abraham were included, and the tables no doubt embraced various family names (this is, pedigrees) that could have reached back to Noah, and even to Adam himself.

When Jacob went to Egypt there were about 70 people who went with him (Exodus 1:5), but they multiplied exceedingly (Exodus 1:7). In five or six generations, until the time of Moses, there could have been almost 500,000 Israelite men who were living when Moses was born. At that time, Pharaoh began to kill the males of the Israelites when they were born (though the midwives at first did not obey Pharaoh— Exodus 1:17) and there was a great reduction in Israelite population just before the Exodus. However, if one would count all the Israelites from the time of Jacob unto Moses (counting the names in "the pedigrees" as Moses commanded) and add the number of Israelites at the Exodus about 120,000, then the figures given in the two censuses can be reasonably understood. In a word, the Israelites counted the names of their pedigrees (the Israelites and their ancestors who were dead but still to inherit the land)."

Source: http://www.askelm.com/secrets/sec095.htm

QUOTE: "The Population at the Exodus

In Question Ninety-Five I answer the so-called problem of the population of Israel at the Exodus that has given people so much trouble over the centuries. To keep my answer short for the question itself, I did not present some of the problems that scholars have had to face if one takes the men of the two censuses to be living men who accompanied Moses with the rest of the Israelites out of Egypt. We get into imponderable difficulties if we do so. The answer I give in Question Ninety-Five presents the most reasonable explanation of this matter. But let us look at some of the problems that Question Ninety-Five attempts to answer.

In the first place, when Israel left Egypt they had 603,550 armed men for war if all of those men were living at the time (Numbers 1:46). This number included all able bodied men from the age of twenty (Numbers 1:45) to the age of retirement at year fifty (Numbers 4:3;John 8:57) or sometimes sixty (Leviticus 27:7). But if all the women, children and older people over fifty (or sixty) are included, the number of Israelites who left Egypt must have numbered about two and a half million. This is a vast amount of people going into a desolate desert area east of Egypt. Let us assume for a moment that all the men of the census were indeed living at the time and were not a part of the pedigree records that were mentioned by Moses which also included (the dead and the living). Let us look at the difficulties if we reckon all the men as then living.

Moses took the Israelites along the regular roads of communication. They went by “the way [highway] of the wilderness of the Red Sea” (Exodus 13:18); “the way [highway] of Mount Seir unto Kadesh-barnea” (Deuteronomy 1:2); “and the king’s highway” (Numbers 21:22). These roads in the latter part of their journey connected various settlements with water wells, springs and mountain passes. They were usually constructed by governments for military and commercial purposes. The ancient roads were similar to ones today in their routings but they had no asphalt coverings for high speed transport. They were normally graded roadbeds which wagons or caravans could use. Israel used the well-traveled roads in their journeys from Egypt to Palestine. And herein comes the first difficulty.

When our American west was being settled, wagon trains followed the various trails. A typical wagon train could have had some 250 people in it and was a quarter of a mile or so in length. Thus, if a wagon train were extended to a mile in length, there could theoretically be nearly 1000 people in it (though in practical terms there would no doubt be less). But Israel supposedly numbered two and a half million people if all the people of the censuses were then living. But Moses promised the king of Edom that “we will not pass through the fields, or vineyard. . .we will not turn to the right hand nor to the left” (Numbers 20:17). In other words, Moses said that Israel would stay directly on the narrow road through the country of Edom. If one mile of road could hold about 1000 Israelites with wagons, etc. (which is very reasonable), then the length of the Israelite march would be at least 2,500 miles long. Such a length of people would stretch from Egypt to the border of China. This, of course, is hardly possible. Even if the wagons went ten abreast, the train would still be 250 miles long. If they journeyed a hundred wagon abreast, such a massive wagon train of Israelites would still be 25 miles long. As anyone can see, Israel would never have been able to stay on the roads with such a mass of people. Yet Moses told the king of Edom that Israel would never step off a single road through his territory.

A Further Difficulty

After traveling some six weeks into a desolate wilderness, the Israelites came in contact with the Amalekite army (Exodus 17: eight). Israel had in their army no less than 600,000 men (that is, if the men were all living men)—more than all the combined armed forces of Great Britain today. And yet, the armies of Amalek were able to defeat Israel while the hands of Moses remained unlifted (Exodus 17:11). Israel finally prevailed and conquered the Amalekites. But herein lies a problem. For any army to defeat another in normal combat, the winning army usually has a superior force. Were there also some 600,000 Amalekite soldiers out in the middle of the Sinai desert as well? While Israel had miraculous water and food to sustain them alive in such a desolate environment, did the heathen Amalekites also have the miraculous food and water supplies? How could such a vast heathen army provide for itself in such hostile conditions?

Of course, with the explanation that I have given in Question Ninety-Five, this is not a problem of importance.

Another Dilemma

If all those 600,000 men were living men, then we have other difficulties. Soon after the defeat of the Amalekite army, Jethro, the father-in-law of Moses, met him not far from Mt. Sinai (Exodus 18). Jethro was amazed that Moses had yet to establish a chain of command in judging Israel. He hastened him to initiate a rulership of men over thousands, hundreds, fifties and tens (Exodus 18:21) so that Moses would not be worn out by trying to settle all the judicial affairs of 2 1/2 million people. But this information represents a major problem. Israel had already been on their journey some six weeks and they numbered about the size of the city of Los Angeles on the move (that is, as I have been pointing out, if the men were all living men). Would it not be impossible to muster such a prodigious quantity of people into some kind of orderly march without various chains of command already established? This is a major difficulty as anyone would admit who looks closely at the matter.

Another Perplexity

After wondering forty years in the wilderness, Israel invaded the land of Canaan under the leadership of Joshua. Though all the first men of war died in the wilderness, a new generation of Israelite men numbering 601,730 were armed for war (Numbers 26). This means there were still about two and a half million people who crossed the River Jordan and were responsible for capturing the city of Jericho (again, if all the men were living men). But this does not square with the facts. Look at this.

The ruins of Jericho (the city that Joshua conquered) are still to be seen today. There can be no doubt of the identification of the site. When I have taken people to Israel and show the ruins of ancient Jericho, they express amazement at its smallness. It’s an area of about ten acres. Professor Kenyon, who excavated the site from 1952 to 1956, says that the greatest population that Jericho could possibly have had was 3,000 souls. The area of Jericho was a little under two square city blocks. If we allow that Jericho had a population of 3,000 people, then the Israelites would have outnumbered those Canaanite residents over 800 to one if all the men were living. Some have wondered why God had to cause the walls to tumble down when Israel had such an extraordinary advantage.

Let’s put it another way. On New Year’s Day in Pasadena, California there is the annual Rose Bowl football game. About 106,000 people can sit in the stadium bleachers. Suppose the ancient city of Jericho were placed in the center of the Rose Bowl stadium, one would have to have 24 times the New Year’s spectators to equal the amount of Israelites who conquered little Jericho. No miracle would have been necessary to subdue Jericho.

The former Prime Minister of modern Israel, David Ben-Gurion, saw the problem of having so many men as recorded in the censuses. He thought his ancient forefathers of the Exodus did not number 600,000 armed men for the war, but only 600. If that were so, the logistical problems associated with the above examples could be better dealt with. However, with only 600 Israelite soldiers leaving Egypt (or some 2,500 people when the women, children, and older people are included), the Egyptian Pharaoh could hardly have said “Behold, the people of the children of Israel are more and mightier than we” (Exodus 1:9). BenGurion’s suggestion would also be counter to Bible information which says Jethro, Moses’ father-in-law, told Moses to divide up judicial responsibility among the Israelites into thousands, hundreds, fifties, and tens (Exodus 18:21). The thousands that Jethro had reference to certainly represent more than 600.

And there are further problems. Some scholars have shown that since Jethro did not suggest that Moses place rulers over “a hundred thousand,” over “fifty thousand,” or even over “ten thousand,” Jethro may have been aware that Moses’ army of men were less than ten thousand in number. This is because Jethro’s suggestion started out only with thousands (and then downward). However, we are told that 40,000 (not 600,000) did in fact cross the Jordan River (Joshua 4:13).

These are some examples of some of the problems with Israel’s population at the Exodus if one does not read what Moses said carefully. Indeed, Moses was including in each of the censuses the pedigrees of the Israelites (and these genealogical tables listed people with the living Israelites who could have numbered the actual amount of men Moses mentioned). In truth, Moses included the dead (the pedigrees) as well as those living in his census accounts. This means that even though the dead were dead, they still were reckoned by Moses (and by God) as having their inheritance along with the living Israelites to the Land of Canaan. This was simply a way in which all were guaranteed their right of inheritance, and in the resurrection from the dead which will occur under the leadership of the new Joshua (Jesus, that is Christ Jesus), all Israel and all Christians will indeed inherit the promises. Read Question Ninety-Five again for the biblical answer to these so-called problems."

Source: http://www.askelm.com/secrets/sec107.htm

Although this is a Christian response, it contains much good information, so I thought I would include it here. Please note that I have written the number "8" as "eight" because the machine kept registering it as an emoticon.

[beardo]

tl;dr

[Tau]

The Buddhist treatment of Christians in Burma is sufficient justification for my serial killings of American Buddhists (note for law enforcement officers: this is an analogy. I am not actually a serial killer)

[Ghost of V]

sandokhan is yaakov's alt.

[Yonah ben Amittai]

I freely admit that Yonah and Yaakov are the same person. But I don't know Sandokhan at all.

[beardo]

There used to be a muslim on the old site for some time. I'm sure you two would have gotten along well.

[Vindictus]

Ah, I remember him! Can't remember the name though.

[beardo]

It was something muslimy.

[spanner34.5]

QUOTE: "Anyone promoting genital mutilation of children, male or female, should be banned forever. Consenting adults should be allowed to mutilate themselves, if they wish. Subjecting minors is just plain wrong!"

 Ok. Let's deal with this rude and immature comment first, shall we (NOTE TO CENSORS: Not an insult to the person who made the remarks, but rather a commentary on the remarks themselves; there is a difference)?

Point One: 1. I am sure that if you looked up the word "bris" in a Hebrew dictionary, you would get a different definition. Point Two: 2. Male circumcision is practiced by non-Jews often in the USA as a health measure to aid in the cleaning of the penis. It causes very little or no pain, and in no way damages the penis. FGM, on the other hand, serves no valid purposes, is not backed by ANY religious practices whatsoever, and causes permanent and lasting harm to the female genitalia, aside from being horrifically painful. Conclusion: My advice, Spanner, would be to grow up, and cease to be an anti-Semitic, uninformed child, and begin to act like an adult (NOTE TO CENSORS: Also not an insult, but rather, a fair observation on the maturity or lack thereof of a person). That would benefit us all.

An interesting rant. I have never posted anything anti-semitic and never will.

I will react no more to someone whose opinion I despise.

[Yonah ben Amittai]

Ok, let me break it down for you. Anybody who can't figure out the difference between FGM and standard male circumcision can be clearly defined as anti-Semitic. Anyone who would illegalise one of the primary rituals of our Faith can be defined as an anti-Semite. I don't know how you get around either of those two things. Ergo, you are posting things that are anti-Semitic. Ergo, you are an anti-Semite. I am not trying to insult you, I am just defining what you are.

I don't care whether you respond to me or not. That sounds like a personal issue if you ask me. By not responding to me, you have acknowledged the superiority of my argument. Thank you. Have a pleasant day.

[Yonah ben Amittai]

Saddam, you are illogical. No further comment is necessary. And by the way: Godwin's Law. You lose.

[Yaakov ben Avraham]

Ok. Now that the ban has expired, I shall return as Yaakov, with thanks to the Censors for allowing me to be Yonah. I shall attempt to behave myself as Yaakov. Let me assure my mates here that Yonah is indeed Yaakov, but there are no other alts out there. As you can see, I'm not very good at pretending to be someone else.

[Particle Person]

We're allowed to completely circumvent our bans with alts?

[Blanko]

We're allowed to completely circumvent our bans with alts?

No.

[beardo]

Is that a question for a Jew, or just a general question directed to no one in particular? If the latter, please stay on topic and ask a Jew anything.