Trump's Plans for Gaza in 2025

In early 2025, U.S. President Donald Trump unveiled a controversial proposal concerning the Gaza Strip, suggesting that the United States should "take over" and "own" the territory. This plan involves relocating the Palestinian population and transforming Gaza into an international resort destination under U.S. control. The proposal has sparked widespread debate and criticism from various international actors, raising questions about its feasibility, legality, and potential impact on regional stability.

Details of the Proposal

During a press conference with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the White House on February 4, 2025, President Trump outlined his vision for Gaza. He proposed demolishing existing structures in the enclave, relocating its over 2 million Palestinian residents to neighboring countries such as Egypt and Jordan, and redeveloping the area into a resort that would attract global tourists. Trump emphasized the need for a new approach to Gaza's future, describing the current situation as untenable.

reuters.com

International Reactions

The proposal has been met with significant opposition from key stakeholders in the Middle East. Egyptian authorities have firmly rejected the idea of resettling Palestinians within their borders, citing concerns over national security and the potential undermining of the Palestinian cause. An Egyptian government spokesperson stated that such displacement would threaten regional stability and contravene international law.

reuters.com

Similarly, Jordan has expressed reservations about absorbing a large number of Palestinian refugees, highlighting the strain it would place on the country's resources and infrastructure. Both nations have reiterated their commitment to a two-state solution, viewing the proposed mass relocation as a deviation from this objective.

Within Israel, reactions are mixed. While some officials appreciate the U.S. administration's proactive stance, others, like Israeli opposition leader Yair Lapid, have proposed alternative solutions. Lapid advocates for a plan that emphasizes economic development and improved living conditions within Gaza, rather than displacement and external control.

foreignpolicy.com

Feasibility and Legal Concerns

Experts have raised numerous concerns regarding the practicality and legality of President Trump's proposal. The forced relocation of an entire population could be considered a violation of international law, specifically the Geneva Conventions, which prohibit mass forcible transfers. Additionally, the logistics of resettling millions of people, securing international support, and managing the redevelopment of Gaza present significant challenges.

Analysts also warn that such a move could exacerbate tensions in the region, potentially leading to increased violence and instability. The displacement of Palestinians may fuel anti-American sentiment and provide propaganda material for extremist groups. Furthermore, the proposal could disrupt existing alliances and complicate U.S. relations with other Middle Eastern countries.

chathamhouse.org

Alternative Approaches

Critics of the proposal suggest that instead of pursuing unilateral actions, the U.S. should engage in multilateral diplomacy to address the underlying issues in Gaza. This could involve collaborating with regional partners to promote economic development, infrastructure rebuilding, and political reconciliation within the Palestinian territories. Emphasizing human rights and adhering to international law are deemed essential components of any sustainable solution.

In summary, President Trump's 2025 proposal to take over the Gaza Strip and relocate its population has ignited a complex debate involving legal, ethical, and practical considerations. The widespread opposition from regional stakeholders and the international community underscores the challenges inherent in implementing such a plan. As the situation continues to evolve, it remains imperative to seek solutions that prioritize peace, stability, and the rights of the affected populations.

Global Reactions to Trump's Gaza Proposal

reuters.com

Egypt rejects proposals to displace Palestinians

Today

theguardian.com

Tracking Trump - updates on the presidency's first 100 days

Today

Proofs of Israeli Terrorism in Gaza since October 2023

Since October 2023, the Gaza Strip has witnessed a significant escalation in hostilities, leading to severe humanitarian crises and allegations of war crimes. Various human rights organizations and international bodies have documented numerous incidents implicating Israeli forces in actions that may constitute terrorism and violations of international law.

1. Indiscriminate Attacks on Civilian Populations

Reports indicate that Israeli military operations have resulted in extensive civilian casualties and the destruction of non-military infrastructure. Amnesty International highlighted that entire families in Gaza have been obliterated due to Israeli airstrikes, suggesting a pattern of disproportionate and indiscriminate attacks. These actions raise serious concerns about compliance with the principles of distinction and proportionality under international humanitarian law.

amnesty.org

2. Forced Displacement and Siege Tactics

Human Rights Watch reported that Israeli authorities have deliberately displaced over 90% of Gaza's population—approximately 1.9 million Palestinians—since October 2023. This mass displacement, coupled with the destruction of homes and essential infrastructure, has created a dire humanitarian situation. The use of siege tactics, restricting the flow of essential goods and services, has exacerbated the suffering of the civilian population, potentially amounting to collective punishment.

hrw.org

3. Targeting of Medical Facilities and Personnel

The United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) has documented attacks on medical facilities and personnel in Gaza. Such actions impede access to healthcare for the wounded and sick, violating protections afforded to medical services under international law. The deliberate targeting of healthcare infrastructure not only endangers lives but also undermines the overall medical response capacity in the region.

ohchr.org

4. Detention and Abuse of Palestinian Detainees

Incidents of abuse against Palestinian detainees have been reported, including severe beatings and mistreatment by Israeli soldiers. For instance, five Israeli reservist soldiers were charged with assaulting a Palestinian detainee, inflicting serious injuries such as cracked ribs and a punctured lung. Such treatment of detainees contravenes international standards for the humane treatment of prisoners and may constitute torture.

wsj.com

5. Destruction of Civilian Infrastructure

The extensive destruction of civilian infrastructure, including residential buildings, schools, and water facilities, has been a hallmark of the military operations in Gaza. The United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) reported ongoing aerial, land, and maritime bombardments resulting in civilian casualties and the obliteration of public infrastructure. The systematic targeting of such infrastructure disrupts daily life and hampers access to essential services, contributing to a humanitarian catastrophe.

unrwa.org

6. Allegations of Genocidal Acts

In December 2024, Amnesty International concluded that Israeli actions in Gaza amounted to genocide. The organization's research indicated that Israeli forces continued operations despite awareness of the catastrophic humanitarian impact, including widespread civilian deaths and displacement. This assessment underscores the severity of the alleged violations and the imperative for international accountability.

amnesty.org

7. International Responses and Calls for Accountability

The international community has expressed grave concerns regarding the situation in Gaza. The United Nations Human Rights Council's Independent International Commission of Inquiry has found evidence of war crimes and crimes against humanity committed by Israeli forces. These findings have prompted calls for thorough investigations and accountability for those responsible for violations of international law.

ohchr.org

Conclusion

The period since October 2023 has been marked by intense conflict in Gaza, with substantial evidence suggesting that Israeli military operations have involved actions constituting terrorism and serious breaches of international law. The documented incidents of indiscriminate attacks, forced displacement, targeting of medical facilities, detainee abuse, and widespread destruction of civilian infrastructure necessitate urgent international attention and action to address potential war crimes and to prevent further humanitarian deterioration in the region.

James D. Tabor on Paul: The Apostle Who "Created" Christianity

James D. Tabor, a renowned biblical scholar and historian of early Christianity, has contributed significantly to understanding the origins of the Christian faith. One of his most compelling arguments, outlined in his works such as Paul and Jesus: How the Apostle Transformed Christianity, is that the Apostle Paul played a decisive role in creating what we now recognize as Christianity. According to Tabor, Paul diverged from the original teachings of Jesus of Nazareth and established a theological framework that redefined Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection.

Tabor’s provocative thesis has sparked intense debates among scholars, theologians, and lay readers alike. To better understand his argument, we must examine Paul’s background, his theological innovations, and how his influence shaped the Christian faith as we know it today.

---

Who Was Paul?

Paul, originally named Saul of Tarsus, was a Pharisee and devout Jew who zealously opposed the early Jesus movement. According to the New Testament, he experienced a dramatic conversion on the road to Damascus, after which he became one of the most influential figures in spreading the message of Jesus.

Tabor highlights that Paul’s role in early Christianity was unique. Unlike the original apostles, who were close companions of Jesus during his ministry, Paul never met Jesus in the flesh. His knowledge of Jesus came through what he described as divine revelations. This distinction, Tabor argues, is crucial to understanding Paul’s approach to faith and theology.

---

Jesus and the Kingdom of God

To grasp the differences between Jesus and Paul, we must first look at Jesus’ original message. Scholars agree that Jesus preached about the imminent arrival of the Kingdom of God—a transformative age of divine justice, peace, and restoration. His teachings, rooted in Jewish eschatology, called for repentance, ethical living, and fidelity to God’s commandments.

Tabor emphasizes that Jesus’ focus was not on founding a new religion but on reforming Judaism and preparing his followers for the coming of God’s reign. He maintained a strong connection to Jewish law (Torah) and traditions, as seen in his frequent references to the Hebrew Scriptures.

---

Paul’s Radical Departure

Tabor argues that Paul fundamentally transformed Jesus’ teachings, creating a new theological framework that eventually became the foundation of Christianity. While the early apostles, such as Peter and James (the brother of Jesus), continued to operate within a Jewish context, Paul introduced ideas that diverged significantly from this framework.

1. Jesus as the Divine Savior
   Paul elevated Jesus from a Jewish prophet and teacher to a cosmic, divine figure. In Paul’s letters, Jesus is depicted as the preexistent Son of God who came to earth, died for humanity’s sins, and rose from the dead to bring salvation to all. This interpretation goes far beyond the historical Jesus’ self-understanding and mission.

   For example, in Philippians 2:6-11, Paul describes Jesus as existing “in the form of God” and taking on human form to fulfill a divine plan. Tabor notes that this Christological vision laid the groundwork for later doctrines such as the Trinity and the Incarnation.

2. The Centrality of Faith over Works
   One of Paul’s most revolutionary ideas was the doctrine of justification by faith. Paul argued that salvation came not through adherence to the Jewish law but through faith in Jesus Christ’s death and resurrection. This idea is most clearly articulated in Romans 3:28, where Paul declares, “For we hold that a person is justified by faith apart from the works of the law.”

   Tabor points out that this emphasis on faith over works represented a dramatic departure from the Torah-centric practices of Jesus and his earliest followers. Paul effectively universalized the message of Jesus, making it accessible to Gentiles (non-Jews) by removing the requirement to follow Jewish law.

3. A New Covenant
   Paul introduced the concept of a “new covenant,” superseding the covenant between God and Israel. In 2 Corinthians 3:6, Paul describes himself as a minister of this new covenant, which he associates with the Spirit rather than the letter of the law. This theological shift distanced Paul’s teachings from the Jewish roots of the Jesus movement.

---

Conflict with the Jerusalem Apostles

Tabor highlights the tension between Paul and the original apostles, particularly James and Peter. These early leaders of the Jesus movement remained deeply rooted in Jewish tradition and viewed Jesus as the Messiah within a Jewish framework. They emphasized adherence to the Torah and the continuation of Jewish practices among Jesus’ followers.

Paul’s mission to the Gentiles and his rejection of Torah observance created significant conflict. In Galatians 2, Paul recounts a confrontation with Peter in Antioch over the issue of Gentile inclusion and dietary laws. Tabor interprets this episode as evidence of a fundamental rift between Paul and the Jerusalem apostles.

Despite these tensions, Paul’s vision ultimately prevailed, largely due to his prolific writings and the spread of his ideas through the Roman Empire. By the time the Gospels were written, decades after Jesus’ death, Paul’s theological framework had already become dominant within the emerging Christian community.

---

The Birth of “Christianity”

Tabor argues that Paul’s influence effectively transformed the Jesus movement into a new religion—what we now call Christianity. While Jesus and his earliest followers operated within a Jewish context, Paul universalized the message, emphasizing faith in Jesus’ atoning death and resurrection as the path to salvation for all humanity.

This transformation had profound implications. By detaching Jesus from the Jewish law and reinterpreting his mission in cosmic terms, Paul created a faith that could transcend ethnic and cultural boundaries. This universal appeal helped Christianity spread rapidly throughout the Roman world, eventually becoming a major world religion.

---

Critiques of Tabor’s View

Tabor’s thesis is not without controversy. Critics argue that his distinction between Jesus and Paul may be overstated. Some scholars contend that Paul’s ideas were not as innovative as Tabor suggests and that elements of Paul’s theology can be traced back to Jesus himself or the broader Jewish tradition.

Others question whether Paul’s letters, which form a significant portion of the New Testament, represent a radical break or a natural evolution of Jesus’ message. They point out that Paul saw himself as a servant of Christ and believed he was faithfully interpreting Jesus’ teachings for a Gentile audience.

---

The Legacy of Paul

Regardless of one’s stance on Tabor’s arguments, it is undeniable that Paul’s writings have had an enormous impact on Christian theology and practice. His letters, written decades before the Gospels, are some of the earliest Christian documents and provide invaluable insights into the beliefs and struggles of the early church.

Tabor’s work challenges us to reconsider the origins of Christianity and the role of Paul in shaping its core doctrines. By highlighting the differences between Jesus’ teachings and Paul’s theology, Tabor invites readers to explore the diversity of thought within the early Jesus movement and reflect on how this diversity continues to shape Christian faith today.

---

Conclusion

James D. Tabor’s argument that Paul “created” Christianity offers a fascinating lens through which to view the origins of the faith. While Jesus’ teachings focused on the Kingdom of God and adherence to Jewish law, Paul reinterpreted his message in universal terms, emphasizing faith, grace, and salvation. This shift allowed Christianity to grow beyond its Jewish roots and become a global religion.

Whether one agrees with Tabor’s conclusions or not, his work underscores the importance of understanding the historical and theological dynamics of the early church. Paul’s vision of Christianity has shaped the beliefs of billions, making his story—and Tabor’s analysis of it—essential to understanding the development of the world’s largest religion.

A direct and open letter to Mr Abdur Raheem Green (by Alburr Al-Hameed)

Dear Mr Abdur Raheem Green, 

You probably don’t remember me, but I have a very vivid recollection of who you are. You are a very famous preacher and you did come to Salford University, in Manchester on a few occasions to deliver some speeches, back in the early 2000s. Although it has been over a couple of decades, the memories are as vivid in my mind and a couple of our interactions which I remember having with you.  

I remember the first time you came to the Mosque in Salford University to give a talk titled “Sex, drugs and rock and roll”. I did try to come and acquaint myself to you but you gave me the cold shoulder and did not make the effort to engage me in a conversation. I asked you your name, and where you were from. Your answers were simply one worded and you turned your back at me.  

The following year you came again to Salford university to give a speech in the lecture halls and I was the one who gave you a ride to Piccadilly Station so that you could catch the train to London.  

The following year, you came again to Salford to give a speech at the Mosque.  

Unfortunately, I must be brutally honest with you, your manner of speaking was very condescending, rude, holier than thou and very judgmental – especially in the Mosque. I was too young and unexperienced to be able to understand these things but I have decided to let the truth be known to you. When I interacted with you, you did not treat me with respect or courtesy. You deliberately did not make eye contact with me, and you even called me gullible and naïve when I was talking about the Holocaust, Zionism and Israel with you surrounded by other young men and that too without making eye contact with me. You had no right to insult me like that. You had the choice of correcting me by being civil, yet you chose to put me down in front of others.  

When I was giving you a lift and you were sitting beside me, I did mention that I was from Karachi. You replied “I did not like Karachi” coldly. That was a rather insensitive and rude remark Mr Green. It just shows your lack of people skills. Also, there was a repulsive odour coming from you, to be very frank. 

I don’t know if you are aware of this, but your body language and behaviour is extremely arrogant, rude and judgmental towards those who according to your paradigm, don’t practice Islam as it should be practiced. When you gave the talks at the Mosque, you were talking down at your audience, instead of talking to your audience.  

Who gave you the authority to judge? Are you so flawless and pure that you have assumed the authority to pass moral judgments on others? Are you omniscient? Do you know people inside out?  

Why are you engaging in Dawah? Is it to enhance your publicity or do you genuinely care for people and are concerned about their wellbeing? From your behavior and attitude, it is very apparent that you don’t care about people, but simply to enhance your popularity. You are a well-known speaker indeed! I am letting you know these things directly, rather than backbiting about you. Be brutally honest with yourself. 

I strongly suggest that you take a critical look at your own behavior rather than trying to correct other people. You clearly are a very arrogant, rude and a snobbish person, who lives in a very black and white world and is hence extremely judgmental. You are a bully to be very blunt! 

I am being extremely direct and am not beating around the bush Mr Green, and I am writing this letter to make the truth be heard. Your behavior, I have found very objectionable in particular and even though it happened a long time ago, I am letting it all out. I am not looking for an apology, and neither for your sympathy nor empathy. I am voicing what I have observed about you.  

I sincerely wish that you pay serious attention to your people skills and learn to treat people the way you would like to be treated. That is called integrity. Without integrity, you won’t gain trust nor respect. If you are giving Dawah, then at least show people that you are concerned about them and their wellbeing. Remember, manners are the most important concept of a decent and civilized person. It's not what you say, but how you say it.  

Asalamualikum Wa rahmatullahi wabarakatuhu, 

Alburr Al-Hameed

A PhD Measures a Person’s Diligence, Not Intelligence

For many, the letters “PhD” conjure images of intellectual prowess and academic brilliance. It’s easy to associate the highest level of academic achievement with superior intelligence. However, while earning a PhD is certainly an impressive accomplishment, it does not necessarily reflect one’s intellectual capacity. Instead, it is primarily a measure of diligence, perseverance, and the ability to follow through on a long and challenging academic journey.

To understand the true nature of a PhD, we must explore what it takes to obtain one, what it measures, and why intelligence—at least in the way society commonly understands it—may not be the most important factor in the process.

What is a PhD, Really?

A Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) is a research-based degree that requires several years of intense focus on a highly specialized topic. It involves:

1. Coursework – Often focused on advanced theories and research methodologies.
2. Comprehensive Exams – Designed to test a student’s grasp of the subject matter.
3. Original Research – The heart of the PhD process, culminating in a dissertation that contributes new knowledge to the field.
4. Defense of the Dissertation – A formal process where the candidate must defend their research before a panel of experts.

The process can take anywhere from 4 to 10 years, depending on the field of study, the individual’s pace, and other external factors. It demands extraordinary discipline, resilience, and focus. What it doesn’t necessarily demand is exceptional intelligence in the conventional sense.

The Role of Diligence in Earning a PhD

The PhD process is a test of endurance and dedication. Unlike a standard university degree, it is not about memorizing facts or passing exams. It’s about the ability to work independently, stay motivated over an extended period, and overcome countless obstacles.

1. Persistence Over Brilliance

PhD candidates face numerous challenges, from navigating bureaucracy to dealing with failed experiments or dead-end research leads. What sets successful candidates apart is not their IQ but their ability to persist through setbacks, stay organized, and meet deadlines.

Many brilliant individuals drop out of PhD programs because they lack the perseverance or patience required to see the process through. On the other hand, some of the most successful PhD holders are those who may not possess extraordinary intellectual abilities but have an exceptional work ethic.

2. Time Management and Self-Discipline

PhD candidates are often left to their own devices, especially during the dissertation phase. Unlike structured undergraduate programs, there are few external motivators or deadlines. This lack of structure requires self-discipline and excellent time management skills.

Those who succeed in completing their PhDs are typically those who can set goals, break them into manageable tasks, and work steadily toward their objectives without immediate rewards or recognition.

3. Adaptability and Problem-Solving

Research is inherently unpredictable. Hypotheses can fail, data can be inconclusive, and experiments can go awry. PhD candidates must constantly adapt, reframe their research questions, and find creative solutions to complex problems.

Again, this skill set is more about persistence and creativity than raw intellectual horsepower. It’s about learning from mistakes and continuing to move forward despite obstacles.

Intelligence: A Complex and Misunderstood Concept

When we talk about intelligence, it’s essential to recognize that it is not a singular trait. Psychologists have long argued that intelligence is multi-faceted, encompassing a range of abilities such as logical reasoning, verbal and mathematical skills, emotional intelligence, creativity, and social intelligence.

A high IQ score might indicate strong analytical abilities, but it doesn’t capture the full range of human intelligence. Nor does it guarantee success in a PhD program—or life, for that matter.

Types of Intelligence Relevant to the PhD Process

1. Emotional Intelligence (EQ) – The ability to manage emotions, cope with stress, and build positive relationships is crucial during the emotionally taxing process of earning a PhD.
2. Practical Intelligence – Knowing how to navigate academic systems, build networks, and get things done often matters more than raw cognitive ability.
3. Creative Intelligence – Particularly in fields that require innovative research, the ability to think outside the box is invaluable.

The Problem with Equating a PhD with Intelligence

The assumption that a PhD is a mark of superior intelligence is not only misleading but also harmful. It creates unrealistic expectations for PhD holders while discouraging others from pursuing advanced education.

1. Creates Unfair Expectations

PhD holders are often seen as experts in all areas of life, not just their narrow field of study. This can lead to pressure and unrealistic expectations that they must have the answers to everything. In reality, most PhDs are highly specialized and may have little knowledge of areas outside their field.

2. Discourages Potential Candidates

Many capable individuals never pursue a PhD because they believe they aren’t “smart enough.” By equating a PhD with intelligence, we overlook the qualities that truly matter—persistence, curiosity, and a willingness to learn.

3. Neglects Other Paths to Success

Some of the world’s greatest thinkers, leaders, and innovators never earned a PhD. Intelligence and success can manifest in countless ways, from starting a business to creating art, developing technology, or building communities.

Why Diligence Matters More

In the long run, diligence—combined with curiosity and a love for learning—has a far greater impact on success than raw intellectual ability. Here’s why:

1. Learning is a Lifelong Process – Intelligence is not static. Those who are diligent and committed to continuous learning will always find ways to grow and improve.
2. Hard Work Beats Talent When Talent Doesn’t Work Hard – This popular saying underscores a fundamental truth: effort often matters more than innate ability.
3. Resilience is the Key to Long-Term Success – In both academia and life, the ability to bounce back from failure is one of the strongest predictors of success.

Conclusion

A PhD is an extraordinary achievement, but it is not a definitive measure of intelligence. It is a testament to an individual’s diligence, persistence, and ability to navigate complex challenges over an extended period.

Understanding this distinction is crucial not only for how we perceive PhD holders but also for how we approach success and personal growth. Intelligence is a valuable asset, but it is not the sole determinant of achievement. The true key to success—whether in academia or any other field—lies in hard work, adaptability, and the willingness to keep going when the road gets tough.

So, the next time you meet someone with a PhD, remember that their degree is a symbol of their perseverance, not necessarily their IQ. And if you’ve ever doubted your ability to succeed in academia or elsewhere because you didn’t feel “smart enough,” know that your potential lies in your grit, not your IQ score.

James D. Tabor on How Paul Misused the Hebrew Bible: A Critical Examination

James D. Tabor, a respected scholar in the fields of biblical studies and early Christianity, has been at the forefront of critical discussions on how Paul of Tarsus engaged with the Hebrew Bible. Tabor’s analysis reveals that Paul’s use of the Hebrew Scriptures was not merely interpretive but often involved recontextualization and theological reshaping to support his emerging Christian message. This approach, according to Tabor, significantly departs from the original intent of the Hebrew texts and raises important questions about Paul’s role in shaping Christian doctrine.

In this article, we’ll explore James D. Tabor’s key arguments on how Paul misused the Hebrew Bible, focusing on his interpretive strategies, theological motivations, and the implications for understanding both Paul and early Christianity.

---

Paul’s Use of the Hebrew Bible: A Redefinition of Meaning

Paul, a Jewish Pharisee who converted to the Jesus movement, viewed the Hebrew Bible (what Christians later called the Old Testament) as a foundational text. However, rather than interpreting it in its historical and Jewish context, Paul often reinterpreted passages to fit his new theological framework—one centered on Jesus as the Messiah and Savior for both Jews and Gentiles.

Tabor highlights that Paul’s readings of the Hebrew Bible were not objective or neutral. Instead, Paul frequently employed midrashic (interpretive) techniques that allowed him to extract new meanings from ancient texts. This was not unusual for Jewish teachers of his time, but what set Paul apart was how radically he altered the intended message of these texts to align with his gospel.

For instance, Paul’s use of the Abraham narrative in Genesis is a prime example. In Romans 4 and Galatians 3, Paul argues that Abraham’s righteousness came through faith, not through the Law, and that this faith foreshadows the salvation available through Jesus. Tabor emphasizes that Paul’s interpretation disregards the original context, where Abraham’s faith is about trust in God’s specific promises, not a rejection of the Law. By transforming Abraham into a proto-Christian figure, Paul builds a theological argument that detaches God’s covenant from Torah observance and makes it accessible to Gentiles without requiring them to follow Jewish law.

---

Misquoting and Reframing the Texts

Another key element of Paul’s approach that Tabor critiques is his tendency to misquote or decontextualize passages from the Hebrew Bible to support his arguments. One of the most striking examples comes from Romans 10:6-8, where Paul quotes Deuteronomy 30:12-14. In its original context, this passage emphasizes the accessibility of God’s commandments, stating that the Torah is near and attainable for Israel. Paul, however, reinterprets the text to refer to the nearness of Christ, transforming the meaning entirely.

Tabor points out that this kind of reinterpretation would have been unrecognizable to the original audience of Deuteronomy. The text, which was meant to affirm the sufficiency of the Torah, is repurposed by Paul to argue for the sufficiency of faith in Christ—a move that shifts the focus from covenantal obedience to personal belief.

Hosea 2:23 and Isaiah 29:16 are other examples where Paul extracts lines out of context and reshapes their meaning. In Romans 9, Paul uses these texts to support the idea that God’s covenant is no longer limited to ethnic Israel but has expanded to include Gentiles. While the original passages have specific historical and prophetic meanings, Paul employs them as proof texts for his theological innovations.

---

Theological Motivations Behind Paul’s Interpretations

According to Tabor, Paul’s interpretive liberties with the Hebrew Bible were not arbitrary; they were driven by his theological agenda. Paul believed he was living in the last days and that Jesus’ death and resurrection had inaugurated a new phase of God’s redemptive plan. This eschatological urgency shaped his approach to Scripture.

Paul’s primary goal was to create a theological framework that could unite Jews and Gentiles under the banner of Christ. To do this, he had to redefine key elements of Jewish tradition, such as covenant, righteousness, and salvation. The Hebrew Bible, reinterpreted through the lens of Jesus’ death and resurrection, became a tool for Paul to construct this new theology.

Tabor argues that this theological reframing is what ultimately set Paul at odds with the early Jewish followers of Jesus, who saw no need to abandon the Torah or reinterpret the Hebrew Bible in such radical ways. For these early followers, Jesus was the Jewish Messiah, but this did not imply a rejection of the Torah. Paul’s radical reinterpretation, however, laid the foundation for a new religion—what would eventually become Christianity.

---

Implications for Early Christianity

Tabor’s analysis of Paul’s use of the Hebrew Bible has significant implications for how we understand early Christianity. Rather than being a seamless continuation of the Jewish tradition, early Christianity—at least in its Pauline form—emerges as a radical departure.

For Tabor, this raises a key question: Was Paul the true founder of Christianity? While Jesus and his earliest followers remained firmly rooted in Jewish tradition, Paul’s letters reflect a new theological vision that transforms the movement into something distinctly different. By reinterpreting the Hebrew Bible to support his teachings, Paul effectively redefines the identity of God’s people and the nature of the covenant.

Tabor’s work also highlights the tension between Paul and the Jerusalem church, led by James, the brother of Jesus. This early conflict was not merely a matter of differing opinions; it was a struggle over the very nature of the movement—whether it would remain a Jewish sect or evolve into a separate, predominantly Gentile religion. Paul’s innovative use of Scripture played a central role in this transformation.

---

Conclusion: A Radical Reinterpretation

James D. Tabor’s scholarship invites readers to reconsider the foundations of Christian theology and the role Paul played in shaping it. By reinterpreting and, in some cases, misusing the Hebrew Bible, Paul creates a theological framework that diverges from its original Jewish context and lays the groundwork for a new religious movement.

For those interested in the historical Jesus and the early Jesus movement, Tabor’s work is an essential resource. His analysis not only sheds light on Paul’s interpretive strategies but also forces us to confront deeper questions about the relationship between Christianity and its Jewish roots. Understanding how Paul used the Hebrew Bible is crucial for anyone seeking to grasp the origins of Christian doctrine and the complex evolution of the early church.

Why I totally oppose the politicization of the Hijab (by Alburr Al-Hameed)

Over the decades, the hijab has become quite a common practice in many parts of the Muslim world. Since the Iranian Revolution in 1979 and after the failure of secularism in many parts of the Arab world; many Islamic institutions and organizations have become quite vocal and assertive in promoting the hijab on women. It is considered a social taboo to question it and to raise any criticisms or concerns regarding it. 

The concept of hijab has acquired such a powerful status that it is almost equated as an obligation and considered sinful to remove it or to question it. It has become heavily politicized that those women who don’t wear it, are put on the spot and even socially pressured into wearing it. It is promoted and enforced as a core element of the Muslim identity.

There are far many pressing issues that deserve concern and need to be seriously addressed especially in the Muslim world and in the Muslim communities in Non Muslim countries. Human rights abuses - such as honor killings, domestic violence, FGM (Female Genital Mutilation), child marriages, forced arranged marriages, rape victims being denied justice, misogyny, patriarchy, women being trapped in marriages because they cannot get a khul (divorce), women being domesticated and being denied opportunities for advancement, not being allowed to travel solo, not being given the autonomy to choose their marriage partners, not being able to decide how they want to dress, not being given the choice on the number of children they want, being tricked into visiting their parents’ countries (if they are immigrants in the West) under the guise of a holiday but being forcibly married, poverty, illiteracy, being denied the chance to go to school or to advance in their careers, not being welcome in many Mosques around the world – many Mosques simply don’t welcome nor allow women in and even if they do, the women are given very small spaces (the misogyny is very apparent in this context)…. The list is not exhaustive. Unfortunately, the Muslim world has done an extremely poor job in addressing, confronting and attempting to combat such issues. To add insult to the injury, they have made women into scapegoats and blamed the whole failures of the Muslim world onto the womenfolk. Many patriarchal and misogynistic men feel entitled to own, police and control their women under the guise of honour. It is also the women who internalize this misogyny and force their younger sisters or daughters to conform to such oppressive standards. 

What the politicization of the hijab does is completely whitewash and ignore such pressing issues, and keep women submissive. They are conditioned to believe that by wearing the hijab, they will earn God’s pleasure and that all the injustices that they are facing will fade away. Absolutely nothing or hardly anything is done to confront any of the injustices that have been listed above. Whist there is nothing wrong with wearing the headscarf itself as it is a very modest and beautiful clothing – women in many cultures such as Russia, Eastern Europe, India – Hindu and Sikh, Jewish, Christian used to and even still wear the headscarf – the whole politicization brings in a very totalitarian and suffocating experience. Women in post revolutionary Iran after 1979 did not have a choice to wear or not to wear the hijab. They were arrested, beaten and even tortured for not being covered properly or for showing any hair. The Muttawwas (religious police) in Saudi Arabia were known to hit women with a stick if they weren’t covered properly. There was an incident in 2002 in a girls’ school in Mecca that caught fire. The girls and women attempted to escape the school but were forced back, pushed and beaten with sticks by none other than the Muttawwa (religious police) because they didn’t have their hijabs on. Tragically, many of the girls died due to asphyxiation by the smoke. This incident was silenced and not one of the religious police faced justice. In Afghanistan under the Taliban, the women are forced to endure a hellish life by being forced to veil in public and not even being allowed out of the house without a male chaperone. The Taliban are known to beat women with a stick if the latter aren’t dressed properly. So when Muslim women in the West or even in Muslim countries claim that “hijab is my choice” or “hijab dignifies women” – this is a very one sided and a subjective claim. It ignores the realities of women in despotic regimes or who even come from oppressive families who have no choice but to wear the hijab. Some young women have even been honour killed because they were dressed “inappropriately” or even physically assaulted and brutally insulted. Many misogynistic and insecure men have known to take the law into their own hands to make themselves feel high and mighty. Rape victims have been shamed for being too “provocatively” dressed (“provocative” being subjected to the whims and arbitrary interpretations of the predator).

While the hijab could protect women from being harassed, molested and even allow them to be recognized as decent women – the context of the Quranic verse in question needs to be critically analysed. The illa (cause) needs to be examined. If the illa (cause) is no longer present, then the commandment needs to be reinterpreted. The apologetic rhetoric claims that women who wear the hijab are less likely to be targeted or sexually assaulted. This claim is very disingenuous to put it bluntly. The hijab clearly did not protect Muslim women in the aftermath of 9-11. In fact, many Muslim women wearing the scarf were assaulted or targeted. In countries where Islamophobia is on the rise, women with hijabs are singled out and discriminated against and even in Muslim countries that are secular, women with hijabs have been known to be harassed or attacked. 

The hijab cannot simply protect women from being assaulted or groped if the predator has clearly made up his mind to target his victim. Predators don’t simply look for women who are dressed “provocatively”, they look for easy targets – easy targets being those victims who are less likely to resist or fight back. The same way muggers, armed robbers or even rapists look for easy targets. A target who looks confident, or has a strong body language, or one who looks like he/she can fight or wont be an easy target; are less likely to be targeted. There are many cities in the Muslim world that have a very notorious record of street sexual assaults or harassments. Even women who are fully veiled have not been spared the agony. 

The hijab does add restrictions and close many doors in the realm of sports. So for example in sports such as Olympics, marathons, tennis, squash, football, basketball, swimming, boxing, Muay Thai, wrestling, ballet dancing, women face restrictions and hardships and are unable to participate in such sports without difficulties or hardships. The hijab in such contexts does not make life easy and puts an additional burden. If women do not participate in sports and are unable to undertake in activities, that will deprive them of areas where they can develop and utilize their talents. 

The conservative patriarchal cultures claim that they treat their women like queens or princesses. Furthermore, they claim that women from advanced countries are very promiscuous and are living in misery because they are sexualized by society and are encouraged to show off their bodies as much possible. The flip side of this reality is that in such patriarchal and misogynistic cultures women are expected to cook, clean, do the housework, take care of the children, feed them, clean them, and become domesticated. This is not a queen nor a princess, but a maid or a nanny. In many low income or poor families, women cannot afford to live like queens – as they need to work to make ends meet. That is why this claim of treating women in patriarchal and conservative cultures like queens is very disingenuous. Furthermore, women in advanced countries, apart from the West, such as Japan, Hong Kong, Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan, China are given equal opportunities to fully participate in society.  They are independent and educated and make their choices in life as they would like to live. The founding father of Pakistan, who was known as Muhammad Ali Jinnah was reported to have quoted that “No nation can ever achieve the heights of glory if your women aren’t side by side with you. It is a great crime against humanity to keep them shut up within the four walls of the house. We are products of evil customs and nowhere is there any sanction for this deplorable practice”. 

There is no nation nor civilization that has progressed nor advanced with half of its population being subjugated. Israel which is an advanced and developed country, has learned how to utilize the power that women can provide. Women serve alongside men in the IDF (Israeli Defence Forces) and it has had a very powerful Prime Minister known as Golda Meir. She was known as an Iron Lady and had a very strong personality, who would not be easily subjugated. It was she who made sure that her husband would only have the chance to marry her if he agreed to immigrate with her to Palestine from the US. They both had to struggle when in Palestine financially, but she would never give up on her goal of settling in Palestine. My point is that Israel, due to utilizing the power of half of its population (this being among the factors) is a very powerful and advanced country. 

It is the men and male scholars who are deciding the awrah (parts of the body that may be shown) of women. There are hardly any female scholars and jurists and women hardly are given a voice to raise their concerns on the awrah. In fact many of them have internalized the patriarchal mindsets and further propagate them. It is time to critically analyse and investigate these paradigms. 

The concept of the Shariah is to remove obstacles, hardship and suffering and encourage and promote ease, felicity and comfort. 

With these factors in mind, we can work towards changes in mindsets and paradigms.