Over the course of the year I have been consuming information on dialogue and conflict that has opened up my mind to more than I could have imagined. I have learned and gained countless experiences and understanding about my Muslim counterparts. Now the time has come to put that knowledge into action. When I was given this assignment I knew right away that I wanted to create something different than a research paper, something that will actively engage both “sides” in dialogue. As I began to recap my personal experience, I realized that I wanted to create a game that would allow both Jewish and Muslim students to learn more about each other’s characters and individuality as teenagers before engaging in conflict dialogue and debates. I have decided to work on a game that contains both fun and educational aspects to it, which will help both groups to build trust and feel comfortable with each other. Subconsciously without even realizing what was in the making, I was trying to achieve a form of dialogue that engaged the participants in creative communication.

When I was reading the text on almsgiving I stumbled upon words that really astounded me more for their power than the phrase’s meaning. The sentence read, "These two basic religious activities are clear indicators of the importance of the vertical relationship between humankind and God through prayer and obedience, on the one hand, and the horizontal relationship of Muslims with one another through the giving of one’s wealth, on the other."

The words “vertical relationship” and “horizontal relationship” were a significant inspiration for the board game because before we could talk about Jewish and Muslim vertical connection to God, it was important, in my mind, to establish a horizontal relationship within the group. During the first two inter-school meetings our topics of conversation were structured by the facilitators geared towards getting to know each other cultures and lifestyles. However, many times throughout the meeting we would hit awkward moments of silences because students felt obligated to answer the questions when they did not necessarily had anything to share. Even though the board game would require physical and vocal contribution from the participants, certain tasks and questions would be posed to a group of students where anyone in that group could take on the response.

Ideally, the Jewish and Muslim students would be put in two intermixed groups with both teams having Muslim and Jewish participants. The students then would use the board game as a guide to answer questions about religious texts, their cultures, and their opinions on various topics. Moreover, the teams would engage in trust games along the way to establish comfort in the group through fun and learning. The questions answered correctly would be awarded with points allowing that team to move forward in the game, and questions unanswered would back track the team giving them an opportunity to regain the lead on the next turn. Playing the game would create a competition to a certain degree between the two teams motivating the students to contribute and pay attention, but at the same time, having no tangible prizes for the winning team, would ensure that students realize that their main goal is not to win but to become friends and enjoy the experience.

Amongst the different ways of dialogue, creative communication ultimately prevails. Where banal communication feels boring and avoids intimacy or surprises, antagonistic communication engages in heated debates and discussion that in a way counters the purpose of dialogue. The middle path between boring and defensive conversation is creative communication, which promotes diversity and imagination pursuing understanding and meaningful connections.

This project in essence incorporates my personal experience from the inter-school meetings as well as my understanding of the text over the course of the year. I have learned that, we, as Jewish and Muslim teenagers who live far from the “Middle Eastern Conflict” have little to dispute, and in order to bring two communities closer in America we need to engage in dialogue. The only way our feelings and subconscious reservations about each community could be transformed is by sole interaction, something no book or media can achieve. Therefore, the board game has the potential to separate individual religious views and instead create understanding of inter-group liking and love, or what Todd L. Pittinsky calls allophilia. There is no doubt that creative communication is the key to changing people’s minds and beliefs. In a game with no prizes, where each team enjoys the interaction and the competition with in it, each individual is a winner.

Both Islam and Judaism can agree on the fact that Abraham had two sons, Ishmael and Isaac. Both agree that Ishmael was older than Isaac and born to Hagar, Sarah’s servant, and that eventually Sarah requested that Abraham remove Ishmael and Hagar from their household. At this point the similarities end, and although the stories themselves are quite similar, the differences outnumber the similarities. It is at this point that one sees one of the most fundamental problems that deter Jewish-Muslim relations. In Islam it is clear that God commands Abraham to sacrifice his son Ishmael. In Judaism it is clearly written that God wants Abraham to sacrifice his son Isaac, not Ishmael. Besides this basic difference of whom Abraham sacrifices, the style in which both narratives are written and the details the narrator chooses to include completely change the way one understands that specific story. Each story includes different aspects that then change the focus of the story and the moral a person gets from that narrative. Although both texts tell very similar stories, with the exception of who it is that is sacrificed, they too are very different because each story is written in a way that displays and promotes the main principles of faith and the main ancestors of that religion.

The story the Qur’an tells goes as follows: Abraham tells Ishmael that he saw a vision in which he was supposed to offer Ishmael as a sacrifice to God. Ishmael tells Abraham to do as he is commanded and sacrifice him. He convinces his father to submit to the will of Allah, and so Abraham prepares Ishmael out to be sacrificed. At that point the Angel Gabriel stops Abraham and says that he has done what God wanted and is righteous and will be rewarded. Abraham’s reward is his new born son, Isaac, which makes it clear to Muslims that Ishmael was sacrificed, although his name was never mentioned. It is very short, and almost no details are given. Only the important parts of the story, the bare minimum of facts, are actually described and even then the description is rare.
The Qur’an emphasizes the principles and morals rather than the details of the story itself and all of what occurred between Abraham and Ishmael. It is written in the Qur’an “And when they both submitted to Allah and Ibraheem laid down his son prostrate upon his forehead for sacrifice.” Clearly the Qur’an is emphasizing the idea of submitting to the will of Allah, one of the main ideas of Islam. Islam itself literally means “surrender or submission”, which is exactly what both Ishmael and Abraham do in the Qur’an’s telling of this story. The imagery of Ishmael being literally bound and put prostrate upon his forehead for sacrifice, and having done so willingly, already shows this idea of obedience to God’s will. Abraham also complies with God’s demand and follows what God tells him to do.

Another important aspect of the Qur’ans telling of this story is that although Abraham is blessed and called righteous, it is Ishmael that is “hero” of the story. Abraham does not immediately surrender to God; rather he looks to Ishmael to tell him what to do. Ishmael is the one to really submit to God’s will and he is the one who directs Abraham to sacrifice him. This shows how the Qur’an emphasizes its main prophets. It is from Ishmael that Muhammad is descended and it is Ishmael that is first “branch” that separates Muslims from Jews. Ishmael is one of Islam’s main prophets and by making him the one who exemplifies this aspect of faith he becomes a more important prophet. Besides that, making Ishmael the “hero” separates him from Isaac, in the narrative in the Torah. Isaac does not know what is going on, he is not the one to “surrender” to God and Ishmael does making him more laudable according to Islam’s standards.

The story in the Torah is told in a completely different style. Not only is it longer, but there is much more detail building up to the actual sacrifice of Isaac. God tells Abraham to take his favorite son, Isaac, and to offer him as a sacrifice, and the next morning Abraham complies. On their third day traveling Abraham tells the two servants to stay behind and takes his son. In this version, Isaac is completely unaware of what is happening and asks his father where the sheep is for the sacrifice. Instead of telling him the truth, Abraham answers that God will provide a sheep for sacrifice. They arrive to their destination and Abraham binds Isaac and picks up the knife, and as he is about to slaughter him an Angel comes down from the heavens. The angel tells Abraham not to sacrifice Isaac because he now knows that Abraham fears God enough to do such an act. A ram then appears to be sacrificed in place of Isaac.

This version told in the Torah sheds a completely different view on this story. Every aspect of the “journey” to where the sacrifice is to take place is documented with so much detail. Unlike in the story told in the Qur’an the sacrificed child, namely in this version, Isaac, is not aware of what will be done to him. Abraham does not share with his son that he is going to sacrifice him and up until the moment his father binds him and is about to sacrifice him Isaac does not know of this “test.” Isaac even asks his father at one point “Here are the firestones and the wood; but where is the sheep for the burnt offering?” Clearly, unlike Ishmael, Isaac is not the main focus. In the Jewish religion, Abraham is the forefather. He is the one Jews credit as our forefather: we address him in the Amidah and it is he who is mentioned often when discussing the covenant between God and the Jewish people. So it is important that in this version it is Abraham who is made the “hero.” He is the one who does not question God and submits to him.

Another aspect of the story that can be seen in the Qur’an as well is the emphasis on submitting to God; however, from a Jewish perspective this comes from a fear and respect of God and God’s power, not because of complete faith in God’s authority. Rambam, a Jewish scholar, explains that, “the account of Abraham our father binding his son, includes two great principles of our faith. First it shows us the extent and limit of the fear of God. Abraham is commanded to perform a certain act, which is not equaled by any surrender of property or by any sacrifice of life, for it surpasses everything that can be done…” As Rambam manages to explain, the Torah’s version of the binding of Isaac shows what Judaism is partially based on, which is the extent and limit of God’s power and how one should give everything up for God and surrenders to God’s will. Rambam also states that “Abraham did not hasten to kill Isaac out of fear that God might slay him or make him poor, but solely because it is man’s duty to love and to fear God, even without hope of reward or fear of punishment.” Again Rambam connects the story of the binding of Isaac to the main ideas in Judaism. Abraham agrees to surrender to God’s will because one does so out of duty rather than wishing for a reward or being frightened of getting punished.

Because the stories are so different, scholars from both religions have tried to legitimize their religion’s account or reconcile the two different versions. There are accounts since around the rise of Islam of scholars trying to find a way to make sure that it is Isaac or it is Ishmael that is considered the “favorite” son. The religious leaders feel it is important to make sure that it is their account which is genuine. It is a long standing conflict; for whoever is considered to actually be the “favorite” son in the end, is the religion that is then more legitimate. Whoever’s ancestor is the one that was chosen becomes the religion that is genuine.

In the Hadith literature it is written such: “Another proof of our speech [that the sacrificed was Ishmael] is reported by Ibn Ishaaq: "Muhammad Ibn Ka'b narrated that 'Umar Ibn 'Abd al-'Aziz sent for a man who had been a Jew then converted to Islam and showed signs of true Islam. [Before his conversion], he was one of their scholars [i.e., he was a Jewish scholar] so he asked him: which son did Abraham sacrifice? He replied: 'It is Ishmael, By God, O Commander of the Believers, the Jews know that but they envy you - the Arabs.” The writer of this text realized the importance of making Ishmael the one who was to be sacrificed for the Islam religion and so has a Jew state that it was Ishmael who was chosen. By having a Jew say that in reality the Torah is wrong and admit to it being Ishmael makes it much more believable for many that Ishmael was really the one who was almost sacrificed.

In the Jewish tradition there are also countless Midrashim that try to prove that it was Isaac who was chosen by God to be sacrificed. One Midrash states: “Isaac said to Abraham: ‘father, tie me and tie my two hands and my two feet in order to restrain me.’” Although this Midrash does not try to state that it was Isaac over Ishmael, it too tries to legitimize the story told in the Torah. In the Torah, Isaac is unaware of what is occurring, unlike Ishmael who bravely tells his father to sacrifice him. By having Isaac command his father to tie him up and sacrifice him, Rabi Eliezer tries to put Isaac at the same level of bravery as Ishmael. By doing this, Isaac becomes just as special as Ishmael and exemplifies the same faith, making him just as good as Ishmael. Since the Midrash was written around the time of the start of Islam, it makes sense that aspects of Islamic tradition would be incorporated in order to make Judaism still seem genuine and Isaac still seem like the chosen ancestor. Any Jew that might have considered Islam would be able to see this midrash and find the same bravery in Isaac. Another Midrash, states more plainly the fact that it was Isaac over Ishmael that God told Abraham to sacrifice. In this Midrash, Abraham asks God which son he means for him to sacrifice. God answers your only son. Abraham answers well this son is the only one for this mother, and this son is the only one for his mother. God answers the one you love. Abraham then asks God if there is a separation in his gut for who loves more. To this God only replies, take Isaac. Again this Midrash is making it clear that it is Isaac who was sacrificed. Although Abraham loves both his sons and considers them both to equally be his sons, God is the one who tells him to take Isaac, something that is hard to argue with.

Overall, both the narratives in the Torah and in the Qur’an are written in a way that emphasizes the main principles and ideals of the religion as well as presenting the ancestor of each religion as the forefather. The Qur’an, focuses on the aspect of submitting to God and presents Ishmael as the force behind the story, the one to tell Abraham to submit to God. In the Torah, however, Abraham chooses to sacrifice his son in order to do what God wants. Although there will always be the argument of which story is more legitimate, and scholars from both religions will always try to prove that it was Isaac or that it was Ishmael, ultimately that doesn’t matter. The conflict overshadows the moral of this story. Both religions extract the same ideal from the story, and any human being, no matter from what religion, can understand the same message when reading this story. In the end both Islam and Judaism display the same basic idea of faith through this story. Both stories send the message that absolute faith and devotion to God is what is important. Submitting to God’s will without hoping for a reward or for fearing punishment, but doing so blindly because one loves God and so one wants to submit to his will, that's what is important. That is what Ishmael does, that is what Abraham does. In the end it doesn't matter if it was Isaac or Ishmael, if it was his ancestor or his ancestor that was chosen, rather it is what we take from the story of the almost sacrifice that matters and is important to religion and to God.

Today, who would think it possible for a Jew to become the most powerful man in a Muslim state? While it may not seem realistic today, Shmuel HaNagid successfully managed to become Vizier, chief advisor, to two kings of Granada, Spain. Not only this, but he became among the most famous poets of the age. His life story relates to the Unity Program in many ways. Shmuel was able to have peaceful relations with Muslims in a time when few nations were able to cooperate with Jews. Also, his poetry is a demonstration of Hebrew poetry commonly written in the time of Al Andalus, Spain. Hebrew poetry during the time of Shmuel HaNagid was similar in theme to Muslim poetry while written in their own language. The past is littered with moments when the Jews had to run in fear and had no time to settle and make any one place their home. The fact that Jews were able to take a piece of the culture they were in and make it their own during the time of Shmuel HaNagid shows how peaceful and reflective the Jews were able to make themselves. By studying Shmuel HaNagid’s life through his poetry, one can learn how to make peaceful relations with others and, together, rise to power the way Shmuel rose to power in peace.

Al Andalus, the region of present day Spain where Shmuel HaNagid lived, was a place where Jews peacefully lived under Muslim rule. In 711, Arabs and Berbers unified under the Caliphate Umayyad from Damascus and, during the next seven years, managed to conquer the entire Iberian Peninsula. In 750 the Caliph was overthrown by the Abassids, a family that wanted to rule. The entire Umayyad line was killed – except for one member. He ran away to Spain, where he managed to establish himself as the ruler and reunite the region of Al Andalus. Al Andalus, a prosperous place for Jews in Spain under Muslim rule, lasted for five hundred years, when the Isabella and Ferdinand of Spain managed to take over all Spain. Granada, where Shmuel HaNagid lived, would go on to be last stand point of the Muslims before Isabella and Ferdinand eventually conquered the rest of Spain in 1492.

Shmuel HaNagid was known by several names during the time he lived in Cordova, including Abu-Ibrahim Shmuel ben Yosef Halevi ibn Nagrela and Abu Ishaq Isma’il bin Nagrillah. His family was originally from Merida but when Merida was conquered by the Berbers, they fled to Cordova. Shmuel HaNagid was born there in 993. He grew up learning Arabic philosophy, as well as the Koran. In 1011, he met Ibn Hazim, a well known Muslim poet who would remain his friend for most of his life. Throughout Shmuel HaNagid’s life, he used poetry to demonstrate what happened to him. In 1013, Shmuel was forced to flee Cordova as a civil war broke out and a Berber chief began to rule there. In a poem that Shmuel wrote called, On Fleeing His City, he describes what it was like to leave Cordova. “What good is the pulse of man’s flesh and its favors when the mind is in pain?” This line from the poem is important because it shows the agony and pain that he felt about leaving his beloved city. He is asking what the point of living is when one is heartbroken, in his case over leaving Cordova. In the end, leaving Cordova was good for Shmuel HaNagid, it is what led him to vizier to the king of Granada.

There are few conflicting ideas on how Shmuel HaNagid made the remarkable transition from fleeing Cordova to suddenly being vizier to King Habbus of Granada. One idea we get from Ibn Daud, a historian who tends to be inaccurate. According to Ibn Daud, after Shmuel fled from Cordova, he opened up a small shop in Malaga, the same neighborhood as the home of the vizier to King Habbus, Ibn Al’Arif. A servant of his would constantly go to the Nagid, asking him to write letters for her to her master. The vizier, master, was impressed by the letters and asked to have Shmuel meet him. He liked Shmuel and asked him to stay in the palace. The vizier saw Shmuel’s wisdom and began to use Shmuel for advice as to what to advise the king. Soon, the vizier became sick. King Habbus became upset, asking who would give him such good advice as before. The vizier replied that the advice was not his, but a Jew’s who had been working for him. He then asked the king to appoint Shmuel vizier in his place and the king obeyed the dying man’s request. Another thought simply argues that Shmuel HaNagid succeeded against many challenges, eventually making his way up in the court to becoming vizier to the king. During this period in Al Andalus, most Jews were doctors or financial experts. According to the third idea as to how Shmuel became vizier, he was initially a financial expert. He accumulated lots of wealth as a tax collector among the Jews and was in charge of several places in the kingdom. In 1020, he was discharged due rumors being spread about him. He later got a new job as a secretary to King Habbus’s minister, Aba-al’Abbas. After the minister died, Shmuel HaNagid managed to wrest the job away from the minister’s, and his benefactor’s, son. While each of these theories has its differences, they all contain important similarities. No matter which way you look at it, Shmuel HaNagid always started fleeing Cordova and in the end was vizier to King Habbus.

In 1038, Shmuel HaNagid suffered a quick political crisis when King Habbus died. There were two claimants to the throne: King Habbus’s two sons. While many in the court wanted the younger son to be king, Shmuel HaNagid supported the older son, Badis. Shmuel won and that same year, Badis was crowned king. There were some Muslims who did not approve Shmuel HaNagid taking part in who would choose the new king. One can see his reaction to this in his poem, The War with Yaddayir. “ He disputes my alliance with kings. This, I say, is my lot and inheritance. He fears the face of their wrath. My refuge and hope, I respond, is in God.” This shows that there were those who disliked Shmuel HaNagid’s influence in politics because he was a Jew living in a world ruled by Muslims. It also shows, how he responds to it, and that while he may not like it, he is accepting of it. Moreover, it shows that his simple response is that everything he does, he does for God. While Shmuel did not have any standing with the new king at the time, King Badis, he quickly gained some when he saved the king’s life. Some people wanted to replace King Badis with his cousin, Yaddair. The Nagid hid Badis behind a curtain and pretended to conspire with the people. He even offered them his home to work out the details. Also in this year, Shmuel HaNagid got his highest position yet that year, in 1038, when he was made into the head of the army.

In 1038, Shmuel HaNagid began his military campaign, constantly fighting. He was in the camps several months a year and between 1038 and 1056, there were only two years in which he did not fight. Shmuel HaNagid was such a good fighter that there is an old story about him. There were many Muslim countries who disliked the idea of a Jew holding the esteemed position of a military commander and, not thinking him capable, went up in arms against Granada. King Badis sent him out as the army commander and the Nagid managed to beat every army that came against him. It was not only these armies that disliked the idea of a Jew leading the army. There were few Muslim historians who mentioned that Shmuel HaNagid commanded the army because they were ashamed that their idea of a heretic was in a position that was generally reserved for the highest of the Muslim nobility. At the same time, most of our information about the battles Shmuel HaNagid fought was given to the world through his poems about the battle. There are two especially important moments in the poem, After the Siege. One is at the beginning. “No my son as you hold this the cursed enemy has fled an scattered itself on paths and hills like chaffs driven by wind.” This is relevant because it shows how Shmuel HaNagid managed to convey that he won a battle through his poetry. At the same time, you get the description of how the army fell through the wind and chaffs line. The chaffs would be the enemy’s army and the wind would be Shmuel HaNagid’s army. Chaff is a type of wheat. When looking at wheat, one can notice that it is something which tends to try and stick to its natural place, the battlefield, but is swept away. Through Shmuel HaNagid’s description, one can acquire an idea of how well the battle went. A second quotation is from the middle of the poem. “I’d had in my heart the fear of death, like that of a woman’s first labors, the Lord came across it like a down pouring drought.” While Shmuel HaNagid was generally known for being vain, he was also known for rarely taking credit for battles being won. Generally, he would claim the glory of his accomplishment either for the army or God. In this case, one can see that he attributes the magnificence of his success to God. God is the one who is getting the credit for saving Shmuel and winning the battle. God and Judaism played a large role in the life of Shmuel HaNagid.

It is important to note that while Shmuel HaNagid had a standing relationship with Muslims, he was also treated as one with the Jews. As he rose, so too did the Jews. Much of the Muslim population knew Shmuel HaNagid as the vizier to the king of Granada. However, to the Jews, he was known as the Nagid, meaning prince, a title he acquired in 1027. Nagid was a Jewish term reserved for the highest among the Jewish scholars. When he lived in Cordova, Shmuel Nagrela (HaNagid) studied under Rabbi Hanokh ben Moshe. His father, Rabbi Moshe ben Hanokh, were at one point sold as slaves in Cordova. Under Rabbi Hanokh’s tutelage, Shmuel came to be known as the greatest Talmudic scholar in Spain. He had many poetry volumes that reflected biblical books such as Psalms and Proverbs. He also founded yeshivot that later came to have great historical scholars such as Rabbi Yitzchak ibn Gias, the head of the Jewish community for a time, as well as the Rambam. Not only was Shmuel HaNagid known for his ability as a Jewish scholar, but also for his generosity. He would buy many copies of Talmud, Mishnah, Bible, and would distribute them to people who were too poor to have a Jewish education.

Throughout Shmuel HaNagid’s life, he was known for many things: his political agenda, his military prowess, and his role in Judaism. Through it all, he was always known for his poetry, which helped to determine his life. Everything that he did, there was always at least one poem written about it. People in the Unity Program can learn from this man because he was a Jew who managed to live in peace and coexistence with Muslims in a Muslim world. If this one man can do it, everyone should be able to, especially in a world that is not dominated by any one religion.

How do you think any of the Al-Iman students have changed their perceptions of you and your classmates since that first encounter?

I think something I understand now more than I did in the past was the blind faith that the Al-Iman students seemed to have. What seemed to draw the greatest divide between us and the Al-Iman students was the way in which they followed and practiced their faith and the way us Heschel students did. What I observed in that first meeting was that they did what they were told because the “prophet commanded it” and pray without really understanding the meaning of what they were saying. As I look back on it now I understand this blind faith a lot more. This feeling of obligation to God is something they are taught and something they learn to live with. One of their main practices is the belief in God and in the belief in Muhammad as his prophet and therefore it would not make sense for them not do what he commanded if they really believed in the words of the prophet. This type of thought is so different from what I know and understand of Judaism; at Heschel we are taught to question and challenge God and the text. We are instructed to challenge our beliefs and pre conceived notions about Judaism in order to make Judaism meaningful and understandable to us. I really feel that in the field trip I almost looked down on them for thinking that because I could not understand how they could follow something so blindly. Now I sort of see it as something beautiful and really powerful. They have so much faith and so much belief in God that they don’t need to question it. To them it is a way of life and a way of understanding their lives and gives them meaning. I find it so powerful to just be able to believe in something so strongly that they do it without challenging it and without questioning it. So now instead of questioning their faith and understanding I see it as something powerful. I still appreciate the fact that I can challenge my beliefs but wish that part of me could have as much faith as they do.

Dr. Ivry, professor emeritus of Hebrew and Judaic Studies and Middle Eastern and Islamic Studies at NYU spoke to the Al-Iman students about comparative sacred text, specifically referencing the Joseph narrative common to both Islamic and Jewish faith. His research interests include medieval Jewish and Muslim philosophy, as well as medieval philosophy, the history of philosophy and modern Jewish thought.