Nissim Rejwan, The Jews of Iraq. Jolies pensées sur l'institution du mariage, à l'époque des juifs de Babylone :

"Considering what a wife could fo for him, the Jew was enjoined to love his wife like his own self and to honour her even more. Few things were considered as peace within the home and the family. This is one reason why polygamy seems to habe been rare amongst Babylonian jewry ; they practised monogamy despite the fact that the Bible permits a man to have more than one wife. Also, because of the insistence upon a quiet, peaceful and dignified family life, great care was exercised in the selection of a husband or a wife for one's daughteror son. Disparity in age between husband and wife was discouraged ; and marriages based primarily on financial considerations were greatly condemned.

Hereditary hazard were stressed, and the probability of children who would be freak or extreme as much as it was possible. Thus the rabbis urged that a tall man should not marry a tall woman lest their children be lanky. While a short man should not marry a short woman lest the children be dwarfish. Even a fair man should avoid marriage with a fair woman, lest their children be "extremely fair", while a dark man should not marry a dark woman lest their children be exeedingly dark."

Sur le mu'tazilisme, dont on devrait bien s'inspirer pour débattre des compromis politique au Moyen-Orient :

Cité par al Humaydi, le récit (scandalisé) d'un certain uléma espagnol :

"At the first meeting, there were present not only people of various (islamic) sects, but also unbelievers, Magians, materialists, atheists, Jews and Christians - in short, unbelievers of all kinds. Each group had its own leader, whose task its was to defend its view, and every time one of the leaders entered the room his followers rose to their feet and remained standing under he took his seat. In the meanwhile, the hall had become overcrowded with people. One of the unbelievers rose and said to the assembly : "We, are meeting here for a discussion. Its conditions are known to all. You, Muslims are not allowed to argue from your books and prophetic traditions since we deny both. Everybody, therefore, has to limit himself to rational arguments."

Sage mesure, qui évitait à tous de se voir par la suite accusé de blasphème contre le Coran et le Prophète (crime puni de mort) et aussi compréhension que là où on laisse le sacré intervenir, il n'y a plus de discussion possible. Aussi, pour régler le sort de Jérusalem, de la Palestine et d'Israël, il faudrait une assemblée d'où seraient bannis les mots et les notions de sacré, droit divin, imprescriptible, national et droit tout court au fond. Rien que des arguments rationnels, pragmatiques, pouvant seuls aboutir à un compromis, le compromis étant un accord d'où chacun ne part qu'avec le sentiment d'avoir été à demi-lésé, mais de n'avoir pas tout perdu.