As the only son of the great medieval Jewish philosopher Moses Maimonides, Abraham (1186-1237) followed in his father’s footsteps, serving as official head of Egypt’s Jewish community and its leading religious authority. In response to what he believed was a widespread spiritual crisis, he sought to reinvigorate Jewish piety by importing ideas and practice from Sufism, the mystical school of Islam then greatly influential in North Africa. This effort is the subject of a recent book by Elisha Russ-Fishbane. (Interview by Alan Brill.)

Historians of Jewish philosophy often consider it remarkable that the son of the great Maimonides—considered a champion of rationalism and moderation against mysticism and asceticism—would so blatantly stray from his father’s course and choose the mysticism of Sufism over the sober ideals of philosophy. The truth, as usual, is much more complicated.

Philosophy, in its medieval guise, was no less dedicated to personal liberation from physical attachments than was its Sufi counterpart. Mysticism, for its part, did not always entail a rejection of reason. In practical terms, Jewish philosophers and mystics of the medieval Islamic world advocated ways of life that were remarkably similar in orientation. . . .

Abraham . . . understood the path of [Sufi-influenced] pietism as the logical extension of the core principles of his father’s doctrine. That said, Abraham made far more extensive use of Sufism’s spiritual terminology than his father ever did, although there is [a scholarly] consensus that the father was not devoid of a modest Sufi vocabulary of his own. Even more meaningfully, Abraham embraced concrete Sufi practices within his own pietist circle and openly praised his Muslim counterparts, at times holding them up as a model for his own community.

While it is commendable that administrators of several universities finally called upon police to crack down on violent and disruptive anti-Israel protests, the actions they have taken may be insufficient. At Columbia, demonstrators reestablished their encampment on the main quad after it had been cleared by the police, and the university seems reluctant to use force again. The school also decided to hold classes remotely until the end of the semester. Such moves, whatever their merits, do nothing to fix the factors that allowed campuses to become hotbeds of pro-Hamas activism in the first place. The editors of National Review examine how things go to this point:

Since the 10/7 massacre, Columbia’s Jewish students have been forced to endure routine calls for their execution. It shouldn’t have taken the slaughter, rape, and brutalization of Israeli Jews to expose chants like “Globalize the intifada” and “Death to the Zionist state” as calls for violence, but the university refused to intervene on behalf of its besieged students. When an Israeli student was beaten with a stick outside Columbia’s library, it occasioned little soul-searching from faculty. Indeed, it served only as the impetus to establish an “Anti-Semitism Task Force,” which subsequently expressed “serious concerns” about the university’s commitment to enforcing its codes of conduct against anti-Semitic violators.

But little was done. Indeed, as late as last month the school served as host to speakers who praised the 10/7 attacks and even “hijacking airplanes” as “important tactics that the Palestinian resistance have engaged in.”

The school’s lackadaisical approach created a permission structure to menace and harass Jewish students, and that’s what happened. . . . Now is the time finally to do something about this kind of harassment and associated acts of trespass and disorder. Yale did the right thing when police cleared out an encampment [on Monday]. But Columbia remains a daily reminder of what happens when freaks and haters are allowed to impose their will on campus.