Letters

The Legacy of Abraham

"Because Muslims, Christians and Jews all claim Abraham as their father, are Americans supposed to forget about Sept. 11?" Bob Franz Placentia, Calif.

As an American Muslim, I greatly appreciated your article on Abraham [RELIGION, Sept. 30]. It was thought provoking and opened my eyes to connections among the three great faiths. It was nice to read something that didn't vilify Islam and the Muslim tradition. Articles like this make me feel there are reasonable, objective people out there who are willing to accept their differences in order to understand the commonalities. Faiz Faseehuddin Nashville, Tenn.

What makes anyone think that Christians, Muslims and Jews can unite behind any man, when they cannot live in peace under the one true God they all believe in? The search for peace through Abraham will lead only along the path we have already traveled--to disagreements, discord and strife. The sole solution is for people of the three faiths to live together as children of God. George J. Steele Amsterdam, N.Y.

Perhaps the problem with the legacy of Abraham is that all three monotheistic faiths have yet to come to terms with the historical development of their own traditions. If we could see all sacred scriptures as a common record of the universal human search for meaning and not as the revealed word of God, we would recognize that for millenniums we have been reading meaning into these texts instead of getting understanding out of them. Rabbi Richard Hirsh Wyncote, Pa.

It is misleading to think the current conflict in the Holy Land is a continuation of the mythic struggle between Abraham's sons. There is nothing holy about savage bloodshed that has destroyed generations of innocent lives for the sole purpose of maintaining political power and control of land and water. Makram Talih New Haven, Conn.

When Jews, Christians and Muslims shed their exclusive claims on Abraham and recognize that he is the patriarch of all three faiths, maybe these cousins can coexist in peace. But that requires courage and compassion. Are we up to it? Hasan Zillur Rahim San Jose, Calif.

If God were to speak to Muslims, Christians and Jews today, would the message be any different from the one given to Abraham at the moment he was about to take his son's life? If God constrained Abraham from killing his son, aren't we, as children of Abraham, also forbidden to kill one another? William Dodd Brown Chicago

I wonder what response God would have received had he asked Isaac's mother Sarah to take her son's life. If any God asked me to sacrifice one of my two sons, even if it were only a sadistic test of my devotion, I would say that such a God is not worthy of being worshipped. Joanne Mitchell Rochester, N.Y.

Your reporting on Abraham was evenhanded and perceptive. It is certainly the right of anyone to seek interfaith understanding. For those of us who believe there is only one way to please God, however, the key to maintaining harmony among competing faiths is a democratic and pluralistic society that allows full and free expression of diverse religious beliefs. Charles T. Buntin Mayfield, Ky.

>> Did Abraham really exist? Skeptical readers objected to our cover story as nothing more than myth. "To treat Abraham as a historical figure is like presenting Noah's Ark as fact, complete with measurements and an inventory of all the animals aboard," wrote a Kansas man. Equally unconvinced was a Californian who declared, "Bringing together Christians, Jews and Muslims through their love of Abraham is about as likely as unifying them through a belief in Santa Claus." And a New Jersey reader went the furthest: "More important than recognizing the shared significance of Abraham would be acknowledging that the story itself is fiction. People rarely kill one another over the differences between Star Wars and Star Trek."

Of Muscle and Morality

Michael Duffy's "Does Might Make it Right?" ultimately frames the debate on attacking Iraq as one about standards and the need of evidence for a pre-emptive attack [WASHINGTON MEMO, Sept. 30]. Duffy marginalizes the more important issues: the Bush Administration's hypocritical, self-serving rationale and the ignored consequences. Doesn't anyone remember President Eisenhower's eloquent warning about the military-industrial complex and its potential for misplaced power? Doesn't anyone recall the lessons of history, about how countless nations have bankrupted themselves morally and financially through the same toxic blend of paranoia, patriotism and hubris peddled by the Bush Administration? Our biggest danger isn't from Saddam Hussein; it's from an Administration's obsession that is compounded by congressional acquiescence. Fred Drumlevitch Tucson, Ariz.

The dangers posed by terrorists may have increased dramatically, and conventional military strategy (including nonconventional weapons) may no longer defend a country against non--state-based forms of aggression. But to start a new war against Iraq is more like business as usual and not proof of a new way of thinking. At best, attacking Iraq may be explained as turning the rifle from a moving target--Osama bin Laden--and aiming at a more or less stationary Saddam. What the world truly needs is a strategy that fights hatred and nations' inferiority complexes through confidence-building measures in the fields of politics, economics and culture. That way the U.S. would acquire friends, and bin Laden would lose them. Karl Ulrich Voss Burscheid, Germany

America needs to control the rich, oil-producing regions in the Middle East. And given the state of most European armies, the U.S. also needs to defend the interests of its allies and friends. Let us hope that a successful pre-emptive strike on Iraq will leave in its wake the preventive medicine of fighting corruption in the Middle East and will reduce radicalism there. Stefan Collinet-Adler Nancy, France

Why Go to War?

Don't people understand that an attack on Iraq would not have Saddam at one end of the street and the American military at the other with no one else involved [IRAQ: WEAPONS INSPECTIONS, Sept. 30]? This would be a war involving millions of innocent people. Saddam would be safe and sound, while helpless Iraqis would experience the same horror that the victims of Sept. 11 did. Oil and politics are the factors that are deciding the fate of Iraq's people, not moral values. Where is our humanity? Look at the promises the U.S. made to Afghanistan before the war there. Afghan officials now claim there are not enough funds to build the promised infrastructure. Not enough funds? And the U.S. wants to start a new war? Is there something wrong with this picture? Pavlik Stooshnoff Vancouver

A lot of politicians and busybodies are describing bad scenarios of street fighting in Baghdad and other Iraqi cities and towns, claiming that Saddam's troops will fight to the last man and the last bullet. But many of Saddam's enemies inside Iraq are just itching to get back at him and will cheerfully clear the way for U.S. troops to walk in. I want President Bush to step in and liberate the Iraqi people from this monster. The U.S. will earn the gratitude and blessings of the Iraqis, just as it did from the Afghans. Jehangir Medora Toronto

Peace in the world will not be achieved by attacking Iraq. Peace will come when a nation like the U.S. understands that we are all part of the same human species and what happens to those in Rwanda or Zimbabwe or Iraq or India is as important as what happens to people in New York City. Adam Hess Cape Town

A Rankling Remark

Your item "Bush's Furor Over Der Fuhrer" [NOTEBOOK, Sept. 30] reported that President Bush "lost it when he heard that German Justice Minister Herta Daubler-Gmelin compared him to Hitler." As an American living in Germany, I was a little concerned about all the fuss created by Daubler-Gmelin's supposed remarks. What ever happened to free speech? From my President, the leader of the free world, I would expect a more intelligent and grown-up reaction. Wayne A. Graves Essen, Germany

Let Rosie Be Rosie

If Gruner & Jahr, publisher of Rosie, thinks it can profit from Rosie O'Donnell's name and ignore her views, it's living in the past [PEOPLE, Sept. 30]. It obviously doesn't know the real Rosie. Her appeal is her honesty and straightforwardness, and this flap over editorial control of the magazine Rosie just makes those qualities all the more real to her fans. Go, Rosie! Jade Walsh Jackson Hole, Wyo.

Reaping the Whirlwind

In "Not In My Back Bay" on the off-shore wind farm proposed for the Atlantic Ocean near Cape Cod, Mass. [SCIENCE, Sept. 30], the typical shortsighted vision of corporate America is once more on display. The former CEO of Phelps Dodge Corp., a massive copper-mining company, is concerned because his view of the bay may be tarnished by the presence of an environmentally sound, renewable source of energy. And this comes from a man whose wealth was built in part on a nonrenewable resource, the extraction of which has ruined beautiful landscapes across the globe! It's clear to me why corporate America is filled with endless stories of corruption, greed and the sacrifice of the many for the needs of an elite few. Jeff Franzmann Winnipeg, Man.

I'd take a view of those graceful, nonpolluting windmills over that of a nature-threatening oil spill any day! Suzanne Collins New Harbor, Maine

Take It Back

You said that the actions of the two fans at Chicago's Comiskey Park who attacked a first-base coach were "a move rarely expected outside Yankee Stadium" [PEOPLE, Sept. 23]. As a native New Yorker, I am tired of such gratuitous, negative references to New Yorkers, implying that violence, rowdiness or boorish behavior is exclusive to us. I am proud to be a New Yorker and a Yankee fan. John Costanzo New York City