Skip to main content

On The Karmic Debt Owed By The Jews To The Muslims

There is such a thing as karmic debt in this world. It carries from past lives into this one. It operates at the group level and at the individual level. You can owe it even if you didn't do anything wrong - meaning that someone got hurt as the result of your actions, even if they were justified.

My personal belief is that the current rampage of radical Islamism connects with a karmic debt owed by our forefather Abraham to Ishmael and his mother, Hagar. 

If you remember the story in the Bible, Abraham slept with Hagar, Sarsh's servant, to conceive Ishmael. He did this because Sarah was thought to be too old to bear children. 

If Sarah had not conceived Yitzchak, Ishmael would have gone unchallenged as Abraham's only heir. But of course G-d had other plans.

Let's think about this for a moment, about the pain and karmic debt incurred by Abraham and Sarah toward Hagar and Ishmael. 

Hagar had no right to self determination. Her body belonged to both Sarah and Abraham. Like every woman for most of history, she was part of a system of legitimized institutionalized lifelong rape.

Ishmael could have brought her respect and status, but with Yitzchak's birth it was just the opposite.

They tell us in school that it is not for us to question G-d or the greatness of our forefathers and foremothers. But it is possible to ask questions. That is the whole point of recording the stories. There is a way to ask but still retain faith.

Bottom line. What happened to Hagar and Ishmael is indescribable. They went from being part of Abraham's camp to being cast off and abandoned. 

For this, we the Jews owe the Muslims a karmic debt. For all the shame and humiliation they faced, we owe them extra respect to compensate. For being forced out of the encampment, we owe them to stay off of their land and show respect for its integrity - meaning don't infiltrate, set up bases, attack their culture, etc. 

When we live in truth from a spiritual point of view the bloody differences we see on Earth will dissolve and we will usher in a golden era of world peace and prosperity with no more need for fighting.


All opinions my own.

Popular posts from this blog

What is the difference between brand equity and brand parity?

Brand equity is a financial calculation. It is the difference between a commodity product or service and a branded one. For example if you sell a plain orange for $.50 but a Sunkist orange for $.75 and the Sunkist orange has brand equity you can calculate it at $.25 per orange.

Brand parity exists when two different brands have a relatively equal value. The reason we call it "parity" is that the basis of their value may be different. For example, one brand may be seen as higher in quality, while the other is perceived as fashionable.

All opinions my own. Originally posted to Quora. Public domain photo by hbieser via Pixabay.

What is the difference between "brand positioning," "brand mantra," and "brand tagline?"

Brand positioning statement: This is a 1–2 sentence description of what makes the brand different from its competitors (or different in its space), and compelling. Typically the positioning combines elements of the conceptual (e.g., “innovative design,” something that would be in your imagination) with the literal and physical (e.g., “the outside of the car is made of the thinnest, strongest metal on earth”). The audience for this statement is internal. It’s intended to get everybody on the same page before going out with any communication products.Brand mantra: This is a very short phrase that is used predominantly by people inside the organization, but also by those outside it, in order to understand the “essence” or the “soul” of the brand and to sell it to employees. An example would be Google’s “Don’t be evil.” You wouldn’t really see it in an ad, but you might see it mentioned or discussed in an article about the company intended to represent it to investors, influencers, etc.Br…

Nitro Cold Brew and the Oncoming Crash of Starbucks

A long time ago (January 7, 2008), the Wall Street Journal ran an article about McDonald's competing against Starbucks.
At the time the issue was that the former planned to pit its own deluxe coffees head to head with the latter.
At the time I wrote that while Starbucks could be confident in its brand-loyal consumers, the company, my personal favorite brand of all time,  "...needs to see this as a major warning signal. As I have said before, it is time to reinvent the brand — now.  "Starbucks should consider killing its own brand and resurrecting it as something even better — the ultimate, uncopyable 'third space' that is suited for the way we live now.  "There is no growth left for Starbucks as it stands anymore — it has saturated the market. It is time to do something daring, different, and better — astounding and delighting the millions (billions?) of dedicated Starbucks fans out there who are rooting for the brand to survive and succeed." Today as …