Interpretation as wish-fulfillment

Fire can be a metaphor for self-improvement, for becoming better human beings. On the other hand, idolaters and would-be gods take “fire” literally, and use it for the destruction of others. One could say, then, that interpretation of scriptural words, like fire, for example, is a matter of life and death. The most traumatic story in the Hebrew Bible, the “sacrifice of Isaac,” can be read as a dire warning about interpretation. And perhaps not coincidentally, this story inextricably links the meaning of the word for “burnt offering” to human sacrifice.

Abraham thinks God has told him to sacrifice his son, Isaac. God has told Abraham to make an oh’lah,, a word that can mean either “burnt offering” or “go up” the mountain. Abraham interprets the word to mean that God would be pleased by the odor of Isaac’s burnt flesh. The seminal commentator on the Hebrew Bible, Rashi, in the 11th century, wrote that God meant: “Abraham,…I did not say to you ‘Slay him,’ but ‘Bring him up.’ You have brought him up, bring him down.’9 That is, Abraham misinterpreted what God said when God said, Oh’lah. One could ask if Abraham misinterpreted God because he (unconsciously) wanted to kill Isaac. In that case, in each generation, we can confront our wish to sacrifice human beings, even our beloved children, and burn that desire.

What comes first, then, scripture or interpretation, God’s wish or the wishes we impose on God? We are prone, like Abraham, to interpret the way our hearts lead us. Abraham, by his wife Sarah’s and God’s wish, had just sent Ishmael, his first son, by Hagar, an Egyptian mother, into the desert. He was told that Ishmael would be the progenitor of a nation, but would not inherit the Jewish tradition. Isaac, his son with Sarah, would. Perhaps Abraham was angry with God (and Sarah) for separating him from his beloved Ishmael. Perhaps he redirects his anger toward Isaac. Perhaps Abraham had not reconciled himself to Isaac as “thy son, thine only son whom thou lovest, even Isaac”10 as God identifies him. It is not clear that Abraham loves Isaac at all when they start their trek up Mount Moriah.

These are possible motives; but the fact of the double meaning of oh’lah remains for every generation to probe. We can also ask why Jews, even to this day, do not acknowledge Abraham’s misinterpretation, his secret wish for human sacrifice. Are there interpretations that are not tinged by our wishes, secret or otherwise? Yes. But that comes with the hard work of searching our hearts.

Islamic scripture has become an important underpinning for the terrorist cults. What comes first, the Koran, or the wish to destroy America? Human life hinges on the interpretation of a word in the Koran: jihad. A terrorist sympathizer, Muhammed Ishrat Husain, a retired accountant, wrote in the opinion section of Dawn, the largest English-language newspaper in Pakistan: “Literally speaking, jihad means struggle and/or striving in the cause of Allah and includes killing and being killed in his way. It encompasses the whole of the life of a believer and can be divided into three major segments: 1) against the enemies of Allah and his religion – Islam, 2) against Satan; 3) against the evil inclinations of one’s inner self.” 11 The third one is metaphorical, very similar to the meaning of “fire” as tool for self-refinement, rather than for exterminating others. How can one know for sure that jihad does not always mean “against the evil inclinations of one’s inner self”? If human beings want to make war, why attribute the wish to a god? It makes for pliant warriors. In another article in Dawn, Bernard Haykel, a professor of Islamic law at NewYork University, wrote, “As a professor of Islamic law I have researched the law of jihad and can state unequivocally that the war bin Laden has engaged us in cannot be labeled a jihad….According to Islamic law there are at least six reasons why bin Laden’s barbaric violence cannot fall under the rubric of jihad: 1) Individuals and organizations cannot declare a jihad, only states can. 2) One cannot kill innocent women and children when conducting a jihad. 3) One cannot kill Muslims in a jihad. 4) One cannot fight a jihad against a country in which Muslims can freely practice their religion and proselytize Islam. 5) Prominent Muslim jurists around the world have condemned these attacks and their condemnation forms a juristic consensus (ijma) against bin Laden’s actions. This consensus renders his actions un-Islamic. 6) The welfare and interest of the Muslim community (maslah) is being harmed by bin Laden’s actions and this equally makes them un-Islamic.”12

The terrorists pre-empted these objections. Professor Haykel spoke of the writings of Sayyid Qutb, (who was executed by the Egyptian authorities in the mid-1960’s for inciting resistance to the regime –):13 “’Qutb said the rulers of the Muslim world today are no longer Muslims, ‘said Mr. Haykel. ‘He basically declared them infidels.’ He did so, Mr. Haykel added, in a particularly persuasive way, by reinterpreting the works of a medieval intellectual named Ibn Taymiyya. A towering figure in the history of Muslim thought, Ibn Taymiyya lived in Damascus in the 13th and 14th centuries, when Syria was in danger of domination by the Mongols. Mr. Qutb equated Ibn Taymiyya’s intellectual and political struggle against the Mongols with his own struggle against Gamal Abdel Nasser and the other Arab rulers of his day. It was a risky move, because Islamic tradition states that if one Muslim falsely calls another an infidel, he could burn in hell, Mr. Haykel said….But decades after his death, Mr. Qutb’s equation continues to inspire radicals like Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman, who was convicted of conspiring to blow up the United Nations and other New York City landmarks, and Osama bin Laden. ‘By opening the Arab peninsula to the crusaders, the regime disobeyed and acted against what has been enjoined by the messenger of God,’ Mr. bin Laden wrote in his 1996 ‘declaration of War against America.’ In so doing, the Saudi leaders ceased to be Muslims, he concluded.” Will the real idolaters (infidels) please stand up? What leads people to interpret jihad to mean killing Americans? Metaphorical interpretation of scripture is much harder to sell than the literal. Especially when the metaphorical promotes self-criticism while the literal promotes killing others. Especially, if killing is what one wants to do in the first place.

Finally, an angel calls out to Abraham, the father with the hand raised to sacrifice his son, to stop. God says, “And in thy seed shall be blessed all the nations of the earth because thou hast hearkened to my voice.”14 Readers often think this means, “You were willing to obey Me, even if it meant sacrificing your son.” But it could also mean, “You heard my angel in time to stop yourself from doing what you told yourself I wanted. It was you, Abraham, not I, who wanted to sacrifice Isaac.” By then, Abraham’s heart had changed. He loved Isaac. God abhors human sacrifice, never meant for Abraham to kill his son, and now Abraham, recognizing his own capacity, his own desire to do just that, sacrifices that wish. The question of what kind of sacrifice God wants from human beings was settled once and for all. Why on earth would human beings want to worship a god who wants human sacrifice?