The biblical account has the Hebrews building “store” cities where grain would be kept and farming grain. (de Mille actually followed the bible on that point.) Monuments are not mentioned, that I recall.
Of course you’re supposed to seek out and kill Amalekites. It is forbidden to read the Bible in context and realize that it was part of a no-holds-barred intertribal warfare, was a command given to a given generation of Israelites, that Orthodox Judaism holds that it does not apply to today’s vastly different ethnic composition, that as a command to the Jews it is only considered applicable to Christians by those who completely ignore the repeated assertions of Jesus and Paul about how the Law has any reference to Christianity. You are forbidden to take any of those things into consideration, because that might interfere with ridicule of someone else’s faith on the basis of the very sort of prooftexting that you ridicule them for doing.
I’m glad we had the opportunity to clear that up for you.
Got it. Thanks, it all makes sense now. 
At least, except for thee follwing when you say:
Your welcome, but again, I am of jewish descent, so it is my faith too, acording to the scriptures, even if I don’t want it.
I say we take off and nuke the site from orbit. It’s the only way to be sure.
Where did old al-Mas‘udi get his information from? Were the Amalekites recorded as such in independent lines of Arabian oral tradition? Or did al-Mas‘udi simply elaborate on Isra’iliyat (Bible stories)? In general, nearly all of those early Arab authors, writing on Biblical topics, drew upon Isra’iliyat to fill out the details of the stories. Some of them were Bible versions, others must have been derived from Talmudic stories or some other, perhaps local, Jewish oral tradition. The Qur’an retells many Bible stories, but in a terse, concise manner, leaving out most details. The commentators must have felt they had to flesh out the stories more fully, and there was a source for ready-made expanded versions: Jews.
At any rate, in the Arabic language the word ‘imlâq, plural ‘amâliqah, originally the Biblical name of Amalek, is used to mean ‘giant’. That’s giant as in fairy tales like Jack and the Beanstalk. Translated into Arabic, Jack the Giant Killer would be Jak, Qâtil al-‘Amâliqah. The name survived only for beings of fantastical folklore. This was based on Biblical commentaries that there were giants in the land when the Israelites were conquering Canaan. Such as Og the King of Bashan. I know, I know…
OG SMITE!!
Let’s just get all the Og out of our system before continuing. Ahem. Now, then…
When the Arabs retold these stories, it was always from the starkly simple Israelite point of view: Israelites=good guys, everyone else=bad guys. This suggests to me that the Arabs picked up these stories from Isra’iliyat sources, not indigenous Arabian tradition.
Johanna, that is a very good point and I think ---- Oh my God
Did you just read what ExTank just suggested? I can’t believe it!
The perfect solution to the age old conflict and I never realized it!
Thank you, ExTank. 
Great job on distinguishing the literal and figurative uses of “Amalekite,” Johanna. I’ve always been wryly amused that the Doper tutelary deity is Og, King of Bashin’
I thought the execution of Haman in Esther (Happy Purim, btw!) fulfilled the extermination of the Amalekites. Btw, it also may have fulfilled the God & Magog Exekiel 38-39 prophecy (sorry, Russophobes!).
You’ve lost me, Friar Ted. I thought Haman was Persian. What could a Persian have to do with the Amalekites, unless the Biblical exegesis you practice takes unfathomable liberties? For that matter, in the Qur’an, Haman is Egyptian. Was Haman just an ancient name for “international bad guy henchman”? If this character were resurrected a la Jurassic Park, he could be Dr. Evil’s Number Two.
If Jews could be in Persia, why not the last of the Amalekites?
Esther 3
- After these things did king Ahasuerus promote Haman the son of Hammedatha the Agagite, and advanced him, and set his seat above all the princes that were with him.
Easton’s Bible Dictionary
Topics: A’gag
Text: flame, the usual title of the Amalekite kings, as “Pharaoh” was of the Egyptian.
(1.) A king of the Amalekites referred to by Balaam (Num. 24:7). He lived at the time of the Exodus.
(2.) Another king of the Amalekites whom Saul spared unlawfully, but whom Samuel on his arrival in the camp of Saul ordered, in retributive justice (Judg. 1), to be brought out and cut in pieces (1 Sam. 15:8-33. Comp. Ex. 17:11; Num. 14: 45).
Topics: A’gagite
Text: a name applied to Haman and also to his father (Esther 3:1, 10; 8:3, 5). Probably it was equivalent to Amalekite.
They killed at least eleven Amalekites at that time, but there’s no indication that there were not others beside Haman descended from Agag, and moreover, no indication that the ten sons of Haman killed were a) his only children or b) childless, making their deaths the end of their family line.
I don’t see how that would have fit at all. The war described in Ezekiel centered not around the Jews in general, but around Jerusalem.
It’s interesting that Scott brought up this passage. I was brought up in Church of Christ, who insist that the Bible is absolutely right all of the time and never contradicts itself. I started questioning that and other Christian beliefs when I was about 10 years old, and this is one of the verses that got me started. God very clearly says “Thou Shalt Not Kill”, and then goes on to order genocide. In fact, he punishes Saul because he doesn’t kill with sufficent ruthlessness. Maybe, my 10-year-old mind said, this God is a hypocrite. But that didn’t fit in with what my conception of a good and just god, which is the only god worth worshipping. But people are quite hypocritical, so maybe that means that God is only a figment of people’s imaginations, and that they put words in God’s mouth that they want to hear.
As you can imagine, pre-teen Sunday school conversation was very lively that day.
I became a full-blown athiest when I was about 12, and it is only in the last few years, partially because of my exposure to the more intellectually inclined theists of the SDMB, that my animostiy toward religion has been tempered with tolerance.
I assume you know that “thou shalt not kill” is a mistranslation.
So killing is cool with God, then? In that case, I’ve got some folks to visit!
Killing is cool with God. Murder isn’t. So, if you’re the duly authorized representative of the state and these people have been sentenced to death after a legitimate trial, or you’re a soldier in a legitimate war, or you’re defending yourself, feel free.
Captain Amazing, please read the old testament/torah. Let me give a ridiculous example of how god clearly has ordered me to kill. Let’s say I am caught in one of those darn holes in reality you see everywhere. I find myself in the middle east in ancient times. I see young women giving water to her sheep. She harming no one, but due to her family name, I can tell she is a relative of King/Duke/Chief Amalek. I sneak up behind her and bash her head in with some kinda ancient middle eastern…sheep. No, a stone. That’s it. A stone. That would clearly be murder, but it would clearly be something that god has told me to do. I am not about to start going against the will of god, because I don’t want to be smited.
If the law said you were required to do it, and you met all the conditions to fufill the law, it wouldn’t be murder.
You also have to know the difference between personal and general commandments. Individual Jews are not supposed to go out and fight the Amalek - Israel as a nation is supposed to do it, preferably by using an army.
Incidentally… I have to say, Scott_plaid, you’re starting to come off as a bit of a wise guy. Only the truly witty among us (a rarified group that contains neither of us) can get away with that kind of approach to GD. Just FYI; it’ll save you some trouble further on.
So the ethics of the act vaires by situation then. The morality of killing is relative to the context in which the killing takes place. Indeed, Scott should be celebrated for his killing of the Amelekite, even though she was also created by God, because of her inconvenient habit of living on some land that God’s chosen people were promised.
Interesting that God’s general commandments would be so at odds with his personal commandments, don’t you think? What does that say to you about the nature of God?