Islam and Noahite Law - Revision history

פטר חמור at 20:41, 24 June 2024

2024-06-24T20:41:45Z

פטר חמור at 00:21, 30 June 2022

2022-06-30T00:21:39Z

פטר חמור at 01:48, 29 November 2020

2020-11-29T01:48:52Z

פטר חמור at 22:45, 28 November 2020

2020-11-28T22:45:25Z

פטר חמור at 22:38, 28 November 2020

2020-11-28T22:38:00Z

פטר חמור at 22:36, 28 November 2020

2020-11-28T22:36:45Z

פטר חמור at 22:36, 28 November 2020

2020-11-28T22:36:24Z

פטר חמור at 20:15, 28 November 2020

2020-11-28T20:15:47Z

פטר חמור: Adon Joe DDiv moved page Islam and Noahide Law to Islam and Noahite Law

2020-11-28T20:10:44Z

Adon Joe DDiv moved page Islam and Noahide Law to Islam and Noahite Law

פטר חמור at 17:42, 16 November 2020

2020-11-16T17:42:36Z

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 Islam began as a 7th century Noahite reform among the [[Elagabalites]] and other people of the Middle East. However [[Hagarim]] of that time soon rose up to suppress their [[Idumean]] and other Karaite Judaic teachers as they followed Christianity back down along the path of [[Supersessionism]].
-There has been much less halachic literature written about Islam compared to Christianity.  It has been suggested that this is due, in part, to the fact there has not been in the way of substantial polemics directed at Islam.<ref>Much of this article is based on 'Islam and the halacha'' in ''Judaism: A Quarterly Journal of Jewish Life and Thought'', 6/22/1993, Author: Shapiro, Marc B.</ref>  Almost all halachic authorities follow Maimonides and rule that Islam is not idolatry. Many halachic authorities disagree with Maimonides and rule that Muslims enjoy, at least in part, the status of a ''[[Ger Toshav]]''.  Although concerning both these points there are major halachic authorities with dissenting opinions. The most serious issues with Islam from a Noahide point of view is the non-acceptance of Jewish scriptures and the "[[replacement theology]]" of the Prophethood of Muhammed. The Brisker Rav said that for Muslims to be considered Noahides, they must accept the 7 mitzvos because Hashem commanded it at Sinai. Additionally, they must honor the prohibition of "shfichas domim".
+There has been much less halachic literature written about Islam compared to Christianity.  It has been suggested that this is due, in part, to the fact there has not been in the way of substantial polemics directed at Islam.<ref>Much of this article is based on 'Islam and the halacha'' in ''Judaism: A Quarterly Journal of Jewish Life and Thought'', 6/22/1993, Author: Shapiro, Marc B.</ref>  Almost all halachic authorities follow Maimonides and rule that Islam is not idolatry. Many halachic authorities disagree with Maimonides and rule that Muslims enjoy, at least in part, the status of a ''[[Ger Toshav]]''.  Although concerning both these points there are major halachic authorities with dissenting opinions. The most serious issues with Islam from a Noahide point of view is the non-acceptance of Jewish scriptures and the "[[replacement theology]]" of the Prophethood of Hanzala. The Brisker Rav said that for Muslims to be considered Noahides, they must accept the 7 mitzvos because Hashem commanded it at Sinai. Additionally, they must honor the prohibition of "shfichas domim".
 ==Islam and the halachah==
@@ Line 21: / Line 21: @@
 ===Rishonim===
-Maimonides strongly put forth the view that Muslims were not idolaters. Although, to be sure, Islam was heresy,<ref>See Hilchot Teshuvah 3:8 (uncensored version).</ref> this did not stop Maimonides from expressing a positive view about Islam - or even about Christianity, which he considered to be idolatry.<ref>Regarding Christianity, see the uncensored versions of his commentary to Mishnah Avodah Zarah 1:3 and Hilchot Akum 9:4.</ref> He ruled that although Islam and Christianity are both in error, they still have some value in that they prepare the world eventually to accept the sovereignty of G-d<ref> Hilchot Melachim 11:4 (uncensored version): All those words of Jesus of Nazareth and of this Ishmaelite [i.e., Muhammed] who arose after him are only to make straight the path for the messianic king and to prepare the whole world to serve the Lord together. As it is said: "For then I will change the speech of the peoples to a pure speech so that all of them shall call on the name of the Lord and serve him with one accord" (Zephaniah 3:9) </ref>
+Maimonides strongly put forth the view that Muslims were not idolaters. Although, to be sure, Islam was heresy,<ref>See Hilchot Teshuvah 3:8 (uncensored version).</ref> this did not stop Maimonides from expressing a positive view about Islam - or even about Christianity, which he considered to be idolatry.<ref>Regarding Christianity, see the uncensored versions of his commentary to Mishnah Avodah Zarah 1:3 and Hilchot Akum 9:4.</ref> He ruled that although Islam and Christianity are both in error, they still have some value in that they prepare the world eventually to accept the sovereignty of G-d<ref> Hilchot Melachim 11:4 (uncensored version): All those words of Jesus of Nazareth and of this Ishmaelite [i.e., Hanzala] who arose after him are only to make straight the path for the messianic king and to prepare the whole world to serve the Lord together. As it is said: "For then I will change the speech of the peoples to a pure speech so that all of them shall call on the name of the Lord and serve him with one accord" (Zephaniah 3:9) </ref>
 In Maimonides' system there was one point on which Christianity, although idolatrous, actually stood above Islam. The Talmud states that it is forbidden to teach Torah to non-Jews, and this interdiction is clasified as halacha by Maimonides. However, he makes an exception for Christians, because they believe in the same text of the Bible as the Jews and it is thus possible that, after having studied, they will recognize the error of their ways. For Muslims, however, because they do not accept that the five books of Moses are Divine, such a possibility is not to be considered. It is, therefore, forbidden to teach them Torah.<ref>Teshuvot ha-Rambam, ed., Joshua Blau (Jerusalem, 1989), no. 149.</ref>
-However from this ruling, one can conclude nothing about the basic worth of Christianity vis-a-vis Islam. The prohibition to teach Torah to Muslims was due to the specific reason cited, and did not speak to any of the broader issues involved in evaluating their religion. In appears that it is Islam that was more favorable in Maimonides' eyes. As we have seen, according to him, both Christianity and Islam have a positive role to play in the world. However, with regard to Islam, despite certain critical comments regarding Muhammed,<ref> A.S. Halkin, ed., Moses Maimonides' Epistle to Yemen (New York, 1952), pp. 14, 36. Maimonides also refers to Muhammad as "the unfit one" (pasul), see Ibid., p. 38. See also Yehuda Shamir, "Allusions to Muhammed in Maimonides' Theory of Prophecy in his Guide," Jewish Quarterly Review 54 (1974): 212-224, and George F. Hourani, "Maimonides and Islam," in William M. Brinner and Stephen D. Ricks, eds., Studies in Islamic and Judaic Traditions (Atlanta, 1986), pp. 153-158; Netanel b. Isaiah, Maor ha-Afelah, ed., Joseph Kafah (Jerusalem, 1957), p. 121; Hayyim Vital as quoted in Saul Cohen, Lehem ha-Bikkurim [reprinted Bnei Brak, 1981], appendix, p. 14.</ref> the fact that Islam is not idolatry creates a crucial distinction between it and Christianity and leads to numerous consequences, both in law and theology.  [[David Novak]] argues that this explains Malmonides' belief that Muslims, as sons of Ishmael, are required to circumcize their sons.<ref>Hilchot Melachim 10:8; David Novak, "The Treatment of Islam and Muslims in the Legal Writings of Maimonides," in Brinner and Ricks, Op. cit., pp. 240ff.</ref> Maimonides rules that although a Jew may not obtain benefit from wine handled by a Christian, that is not the case with regard to a Muslim. However, Maimonides does agree with the view of the Geonim that it is still not permissible to drink this wine. According to Maimonides, this ruling was supported by "all the Geonim"<ref>Hilchot Ma'achalot Asurot 11:7; Teshuvot ha- Rambam, no. 269</ref> According to R. Asher of Montanzon<ref>R. Asher of Montanzon (14th century), Sefer ha-Pardes (Jerusalem, 1985), p. 6</ref> Maimonides saw the works of "all the Geonim." The Radbaz was of the same opinion <ref>R. David ibn Zimra (1479-1573), She'elot u- Teshuvot Radbaz (New York, no date), no. 281, and Azulai, Birkei Yosef, Yoreh Deah 16:3.</ref> However, it is not clear that this really means "all" as there were Geonim who do not agree with this position<ref>Cf. Tur, Yoreh Deah, 124</ref>, Nahmanides says that "some Geonim" agree with the law as codified by Maimonides.<ref>Nahmanides, Hiddushei ha-Ramban to Avodah Zarah, ed., M. Hershler jerusalem, 1970), column 237</ref> and, as we have already noted, this stringency had nothing to do with Islam as a religion but was to prevent socialization with non-Jews generally.
+However from this ruling, one can conclude nothing about the basic worth of Christianity vis-a-vis Islam. The prohibition to teach Torah to Muslims was due to the specific reason cited, and did not speak to any of the broader issues involved in evaluating their religion. In appears that it is Islam that was more favorable in Maimonides' eyes. As we have seen, according to him, both Christianity and Islam have a positive role to play in the world. However, with regard to Islam, despite certain critical comments regarding Hanzala,<ref> A.S. Halkin, ed., Moses Maimonides' Epistle to Yemen (New York, 1952), pp. 14, 36. Maimonides also refers to Hanzala as "the unfit one" (pasul), see Ibid., p. 38. See also Yehuda Shamir, "Allusions to Muhammed in Maimonides' Theory of Prophecy in his Guide," Jewish Quarterly Review 54 (1974): 212-224, and George F. Hourani, "Maimonides and Islam," in William M. Brinner and Stephen D. Ricks, eds., Studies in Islamic and Judaic Traditions (Atlanta, 1986), pp. 153-158; Netanel b. Isaiah, Maor ha-Afelah, ed., Joseph Kafah (Jerusalem, 1957), p. 121; Hayyim Vital as quoted in Saul Cohen, Lehem ha-Bikkurim [reprinted Bnei Brak, 1981], appendix, p. 14.</ref> the fact that Islam is not idolatry creates a crucial distinction between it and Christianity and leads to numerous consequences, both in law and theology.  [[David Novak]] argues that this explains Malmonides' belief that Muslims, as sons of Ishmael, are required to circumcize their sons.<ref>Hilchot Melachim 10:8; David Novak, "The Treatment of Islam and Muslims in the Legal Writings of Maimonides," in Brinner and Ricks, Op. cit., pp. 240ff.</ref> Maimonides rules that although a Jew may not obtain benefit from wine handled by a Christian, that is not the case with regard to a Muslim. However, Maimonides does agree with the view of the Geonim that it is still not permissible to drink this wine. According to Maimonides, this ruling was supported by "all the Geonim"<ref>Hilchot Ma'achalot Asurot 11:7; Teshuvot ha- Rambam, no. 269</ref> According to R. Asher of Montanzon<ref>R. Asher of Montanzon (14th century), Sefer ha-Pardes (Jerusalem, 1985), p. 6</ref> Maimonides saw the works of "all the Geonim." The Radbaz was of the same opinion <ref>R. David ibn Zimra (1479-1573), She'elot u- Teshuvot Radbaz (New York, no date), no. 281, and Azulai, Birkei Yosef, Yoreh Deah 16:3.</ref> However, it is not clear that this really means "all" as there were Geonim who do not agree with this position<ref>Cf. Tur, Yoreh Deah, 124</ref>, Nahmanides says that "some Geonim" agree with the law as codified by Maimonides.<ref>Nahmanides, Hiddushei ha-Ramban to Avodah Zarah, ed., M. Hershler jerusalem, 1970), column 237</ref> and, as we have already noted, this stringency had nothing to do with Islam as a religion but was to prevent socialization with non-Jews generally.
 ===Ovadiyah the Proselyte===
@@ Line 49: / Line 49: @@
 [[Rav Hayyim Soloveitchik]]'s discussed at length the issues involved.<ref>Maimonides' Iggeret Ha-Shemad: Law and Rhetoric," in Leo Landman, ed., Rabbi Joseph H. Lookstein Memorial Volume (New York, 1980), pp. 284ff.</ref>  However, one thing which appears to be sure, is that it was the Maimonidean acceptance of Islam's monotheistic character that enabled him to come to the defense of the crypto-Jews, even if he does not argue this point explicitly. Either he felt that this notion was so obvious, he did not feel the need to defend it. Alternatively, one could say that his refusal to argue the case that Islam is not idolatry was because he regarded the crypto-Jews as never having truly accepted the religion in the first place and, therefore, his argument was able to proceed along a different line, one which argues that, even assuming that Islam is idolatry, the Jews still have not violated the idolatry prohibition.<ref>See Soloveitchik, Op. cit., pp. 286-287.</ref> However, had the Jews truly accepted Islam, one could probably have expected Maimonides to argue that, whereas the Jews may have been heretics, they were not idolaters. By assuming that the Jews never adopted Islam, Maimonides can argue the way that he does.
-However, Rabbi Soloveitchik argues that, since Maimonides identifies the denial of prophecy with idolatry, "why should the Shahadah, with its assertion of the primacy of Mohammed's prophecy, not be on a similar footing? The contemporary nature of Judaism changes little whether one asserts that there never was a revelation or whether one claims that it occurred but is now outmoded. Both statements would seem to be equally treasonable" (pp. 285-286). The Magen Avraham, <ref>Orah Hayyim 128:37</ref>, who argues that, at least in one respect, Maimonides equates conversion to Islam with idolatry.
+However, Rabbi Soloveitchik argues that, since Maimonides identifies the denial of prophecy with idolatry, "why should the Shahadah, with its assertion of the primacy of Hanzala's prophecy, not be on a similar footing? The contemporary nature of Judaism changes little whether one asserts that there never was a revelation or whether one claims that it occurred but is now outmoded. Both statements would seem to be equally treasonable" (pp. 285-286). The Magen Avraham, <ref>Orah Hayyim 128:37</ref>, who argues that, at least in one respect, Maimonides equates conversion to Islam with idolatry.
-Some authorities, after Maimonides, who, while clearly aware of the monotheistic nature of Islam, still disagreed with Maimonides' position, and asserted that Jews must give up their lives rather than be forced to convert to Islam. Their rationale was based on the fact that if one gives his agreement to Muhammed's prophetic mission, this is the equivalent of denying the validity of Torah. According to this opinion it is a capital offence to deny the Torah,<ref>Cf. Soloveitchik, Op. cit., p. 285.</ref> and they thus viewed idolatry as merely a manifestation of this denial. R. David ibn Zimra quotes the renowned R. Yom Tov Ishbili (c. 1250-1330) as holding to this view and expresses agreement with him.<ref>She'elot u-Teshuvot Radbaz, nos. 344, 1163. See also R. Jacob Emden, Migdal Oz (Jerusalem, 1969), p. 28b. The halachic status of a convert to Islam with regards to marriage, divorce and ''yebum'', is a complicated issue. For the Geonic opinions on the matter, see B.M. Lewin, Ozar ha-Geonim to Yevamot (Jerusalem, 1984), pp. 34-37.</ref>
+Some authorities, after Maimonides, who, while clearly aware of the monotheistic nature of Islam, still disagreed with Maimonides' position, and asserted that Jews must give up their lives rather than be forced to convert to Islam. Their rationale was based on the fact that if one gives his agreement to Hanzala's prophetic mission, this is the equivalent of denying the validity of Torah. According to this opinion it is a capital offence to deny the Torah,<ref>Cf. Soloveitchik, Op. cit., p. 285.</ref> and they thus viewed idolatry as merely a manifestation of this denial. R. David ibn Zimra quotes the renowned R. Yom Tov Ishbili (c. 1250-1330) as holding to this view and expresses agreement with him.<ref>She'elot u-Teshuvot Radbaz, nos. 344, 1163. See also R. Jacob Emden, Migdal Oz (Jerusalem, 1969), p. 28b. The halachic status of a convert to Islam with regards to marriage, divorce and ''yebum'', is a complicated issue. For the Geonic opinions on the matter, see B.M. Lewin, Ozar ha-Geonim to Yevamot (Jerusalem, 1984), pp. 34-37.</ref>
 ===Muslim as Ger Toshav===
@@ Line 61: / Line 61: @@
 ===Rabbi Nissim Gerondi===
-In a medieval commentary attributed to the famous sage, Rabbi Nissim Gerondi (c. 1310-1375), but possibly written by another scholar, one finds R. Nissim's discussion of Christians bowing to holy objects and Muslims bowing to Muhammed. Although the comment is not entirely clear, it appears to be saying that even though the Muslims do not turn Muhammed into a G-d, one must regard their actions of bowing down to him as idolatry, thus putting them in the category of idolaters.<ref>Hiddushei ha-Ran (Jerusalem, 1958), to Sanhedrin 61b. Benveniste, Op. cit., p. 20a, says that R. Nissim's view is "a great novelty." See also P'ri Hadash, Yoreh Deah, 19:6.</ref> This is a complete reversal Maimonides' view and it is unusual that there would be no reference to Maimonides' position. In any event, we have reason to believe that R. Nissim did not hold to this view, and we are in possession of a responsum of his in which he declares unambiguously that Islam is not a form of idolatry.<ref>She'elot u-Teshuvot R. Nissim ben Gerondi, p. 45. R. Nissim repeats this view in his commentary to Alfasi, Avodah Zarah, p. 26b in the Alfasi pages.</ref> Although some scholars have attempted to reconcile these two views, for example R. Eliezer Waldenberg.<ref>R. Eliezer Waldenberg, Ziz Eliezer (Jerusalem, 1990), vol. 18, no. 47</ref>
+In a medieval commentary attributed to the famous sage, Rabbi Nissim Gerondi (c. 1310-1375), but possibly written by another scholar, one finds R. Nissim's discussion of Christians bowing to holy objects and Muslims bowing to Hanzala. Although the comment is not entirely clear, it appears to be saying that even though the Muslims do not turn Hanzala into a G-d, one must regard their actions of bowing down to him as idolatry, thus putting them in the category of idolaters.<ref>Hiddushei ha-Ran (Jerusalem, 1958), to Sanhedrin 61b. Benveniste, Op. cit., p. 20a, says that R. Nissim's view is "a great novelty." See also P'ri Hadash, Yoreh Deah, 19:6.</ref> This is a complete reversal Maimonides' view and it is unusual that there would be no reference to Maimonides' position. In any event, we have reason to believe that R. Nissim did not hold to this view, and we are in possession of a responsum of his in which he declares unambiguously that Islam is not a form of idolatry.<ref>She'elot u-Teshuvot R. Nissim ben Gerondi, p. 45. R. Nissim repeats this view in his commentary to Alfasi, Avodah Zarah, p. 26b in the Alfasi pages.</ref> Although some scholars have attempted to reconcile these two views, for example R. Eliezer Waldenberg.<ref>R. Eliezer Waldenberg, Ziz Eliezer (Jerusalem, 1990), vol. 18, no. 47</ref>
 ===Halachic Rulings===

@@ Line 47: / Line 47: @@
 Also important for understanding Maimonides' view of Islam is a well known letter than he wrote around the year 1165, when he was still a resident of Fez, having not yet travelled to Erez Yisrael and Egypt. It was addressed to the inhabitants of Morocco, who had been threatened by the Almohads with conversion, exile, or death. It so happened that an anonymous scholar who had been living outside of the Almohads' reach had issued a ruling that Islam was idolatry and that, therefore, one must give up his life rather than convert to Islam. If one did not, he was to be treated as no different than a true apostate. This ruling created somewhat of a storm among the crypto-Jews of Morocco, and it was in response to this confusion that Maimonides wrote his letter, which was a marvelous defense of a Jewish community that was forced to hide its religion because of persecution.<ref>Regarding the debate as to whether Maimonides himself was a crypto-Jew while be lived in Fez, see the recent discussion by Jay Harris, "Maimonides in 19th Century Historiography," Proceedings of the American Academy of Jewish Research 54 (1987), pp. 133ff.</ref>
-Rabbi Haym Soloveitchik's discussed at length the issues involved.<ref>Maimonides' Iggeret Ha-Shemad: Law and Rhetoric," in Leo Landman, ed., Rabbi Joseph H. Lookstein Memorial Volume (New York, 1980), pp. 284ff.</ref>  However, one thing which appears to be sure, is that it was the Maimonidean acceptance of Islam's monotheistic character that enabled him to come to the defense of the crypto-Jews, even if he does not argue this point explicitly. Either he felt that this notion was so obvious, he did not feel the need to defend it. Alternatively, one could say that his refusal to argue the case that Islam is not idolatry was because he regarded the crypto-Jews as never having truly accepted the religion in the first place and, therefore, his argument was able to proceed along a different line, one which argues that, even assuming that Islam is idolatry, the Jews still have not violated the idolatry prohibition.<ref>See Soloveitchik, Op. cit., pp. 286-287.</ref> However, had the Jews truly accepted Islam, one could probably have expected Maimonides to argue that, whereas the Jews may have been heretics, they were not idolaters. By assuming that the Jews never adopted Islam, Maimonides can argue the way that he does.
+[[Rav Hayyim Soloveitchik]]'s discussed at length the issues involved.<ref>Maimonides' Iggeret Ha-Shemad: Law and Rhetoric," in Leo Landman, ed., Rabbi Joseph H. Lookstein Memorial Volume (New York, 1980), pp. 284ff.</ref>  However, one thing which appears to be sure, is that it was the Maimonidean acceptance of Islam's monotheistic character that enabled him to come to the defense of the crypto-Jews, even if he does not argue this point explicitly. Either he felt that this notion was so obvious, he did not feel the need to defend it. Alternatively, one could say that his refusal to argue the case that Islam is not idolatry was because he regarded the crypto-Jews as never having truly accepted the religion in the first place and, therefore, his argument was able to proceed along a different line, one which argues that, even assuming that Islam is idolatry, the Jews still have not violated the idolatry prohibition.<ref>See Soloveitchik, Op. cit., pp. 286-287.</ref> However, had the Jews truly accepted Islam, one could probably have expected Maimonides to argue that, whereas the Jews may have been heretics, they were not idolaters. By assuming that the Jews never adopted Islam, Maimonides can argue the way that he does.
 However, Rabbi Soloveitchik argues that, since Maimonides identifies the denial of prophecy with idolatry, "why should the Shahadah, with its assertion of the primacy of Mohammed's prophecy, not be on a similar footing? The contemporary nature of Judaism changes little whether one asserts that there never was a revelation or whether one claims that it occurred but is now outmoded. Both statements would seem to be equally treasonable" (pp. 285-286). The Magen Avraham, <ref>Orah Hayyim 128:37</ref>, who argues that, at least in one respect, Maimonides equates conversion to Islam with idolatry.

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:48, 29 November 2020
Line 1:		Line 1:
−	Islam began as a 7th century Noahite reform among the [[Elagabalites]] and other people of the Middle East. However [[Hagarim]] of that time soon rose up to suppress their [[Idumean]] and other Karaite Judaic teachers as they followed Christianity back down along the path of [[~~Suppressionism~~]].	+	Islam began as a 7th century Noahite reform among the [[Elagabalites]] and other people of the Middle East. However [[Hagarim]] of that time soon rose up to suppress their [[Idumean]] and other Karaite Judaic teachers as they followed Christianity back down along the path of [[Supersessionism]].

	There has been much less halachic literature written about Islam compared to Christianity. It has been suggested that this is due, in part, to the fact there has not been in the way of substantial polemics directed at Islam.<ref>Much of this article is based on 'Islam and the halacha'' in ''Judaism: A Quarterly Journal of Jewish Life and Thought'', 6/22/1993, Author: Shapiro, Marc B.</ref> Almost all halachic authorities follow Maimonides and rule that Islam is not idolatry. Many halachic authorities disagree with Maimonides and rule that Muslims enjoy, at least in part, the status of a ''[[Ger Toshav]]''. Although concerning both these points there are major halachic authorities with dissenting opinions. The most serious issues with Islam from a Noahide point of view is the non-acceptance of Jewish scriptures and the "[[replacement theology]]" of the Prophethood of Muhammed. The Brisker Rav said that for Muslims to be considered Noahides, they must accept the 7 mitzvos because Hashem commanded it at Sinai. Additionally, they must honor the prohibition of "shfichas domim".		There has been much less halachic literature written about Islam compared to Christianity. It has been suggested that this is due, in part, to the fact there has not been in the way of substantial polemics directed at Islam.<ref>Much of this article is based on 'Islam and the halacha'' in ''Judaism: A Quarterly Journal of Jewish Life and Thought'', 6/22/1993, Author: Shapiro, Marc B.</ref> Almost all halachic authorities follow Maimonides and rule that Islam is not idolatry. Many halachic authorities disagree with Maimonides and rule that Muslims enjoy, at least in part, the status of a ''[[Ger Toshav]]''. Although concerning both these points there are major halachic authorities with dissenting opinions. The most serious issues with Islam from a Noahide point of view is the non-acceptance of Jewish scriptures and the "[[replacement theology]]" of the Prophethood of Muhammed. The Brisker Rav said that for Muslims to be considered Noahides, they must accept the 7 mitzvos because Hashem commanded it at Sinai. Additionally, they must honor the prohibition of "shfichas domim".

@@ Line 167: / Line 167: @@
 <references />
 [[Category:Islamic_Religion]]
 [[Category:Noahide Islamic Religion]]

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:38, 28 November 2020
Line 1:		Line 1:
−	Islam began as a 7th century Noahite reform among the [[Elagabalites]] and other people of the Middle East. However [[Hagarim]] of that time soon rose up to suppress their [[Idumean]] and other Karaite Judaic teachers as they followed Christianity back down along the path of ~~the~~ [[~~Suppressionists~~]].	+	Islam began as a 7th century Noahite reform among the [[Elagabalites]] and other people of the Middle East. However [[Hagarim]] of that time soon rose up to suppress their [[Idumean]] and other Karaite Judaic teachers as they followed Christianity back down along the path of [[Suppressionism]].

	There has been much less halachic literature written about Islam compared to Christianity. It has been suggested that this is due, in part, to the fact there has not been in the way of substantial polemics directed at Islam.<ref>Much of this article is based on 'Islam and the halacha'' in ''Judaism: A Quarterly Journal of Jewish Life and Thought'', 6/22/1993, Author: Shapiro, Marc B.</ref> Almost all halachic authorities follow Maimonides and rule that Islam is not idolatry. Many halachic authorities disagree with Maimonides and rule that Muslims enjoy, at least in part, the status of a ''[[Ger Toshav]]''. Although concerning both these points there are major halachic authorities with dissenting opinions. The most serious issues with Islam from a Noahide point of view is the non-acceptance of Jewish scriptures and the "[[replacement theology]]" of the Prophethood of Muhammed. The Brisker Rav said that for Muslims to be considered Noahides, they must accept the 7 mitzvos because Hashem commanded it at Sinai. Additionally, they must honor the prohibition of "shfichas domim".		There has been much less halachic literature written about Islam compared to Christianity. It has been suggested that this is due, in part, to the fact there has not been in the way of substantial polemics directed at Islam.<ref>Much of this article is based on 'Islam and the halacha'' in ''Judaism: A Quarterly Journal of Jewish Life and Thought'', 6/22/1993, Author: Shapiro, Marc B.</ref> Almost all halachic authorities follow Maimonides and rule that Islam is not idolatry. Many halachic authorities disagree with Maimonides and rule that Muslims enjoy, at least in part, the status of a ''[[Ger Toshav]]''. Although concerning both these points there are major halachic authorities with dissenting opinions. The most serious issues with Islam from a Noahide point of view is the non-acceptance of Jewish scriptures and the "[[replacement theology]]" of the Prophethood of Muhammed. The Brisker Rav said that for Muslims to be considered Noahides, they must accept the 7 mitzvos because Hashem commanded it at Sinai. Additionally, they must honor the prohibition of "shfichas domim".

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:36, 28 November 2020
Line 1:		Line 1:
−	Islam began as a 7th century Noahite reform among the [[Elagabalites]] and other people of the Middle East. However [[Hagarim]] of that time soon rose up to suppress their [[Idumean]] and other Karaite Judaic teachers as they followed Christianity down along the path of the [[Suppressionists]].	+	Islam began as a 7th century Noahite reform among the [[Elagabalites]] and other people of the Middle East. However [[Hagarim]] of that time soon rose up to suppress their [[Idumean]] and other Karaite Judaic teachers as they followed Christianity back down along the path of the [[Suppressionists]].

	There has been much less halachic literature written about Islam compared to Christianity. It has been suggested that this is due, in part, to the fact there has not been in the way of substantial polemics directed at Islam.<ref>Much of this article is based on 'Islam and the halacha'' in ''Judaism: A Quarterly Journal of Jewish Life and Thought'', 6/22/1993, Author: Shapiro, Marc B.</ref> Almost all halachic authorities follow Maimonides and rule that Islam is not idolatry. Many halachic authorities disagree with Maimonides and rule that Muslims enjoy, at least in part, the status of a ''[[Ger Toshav]]''. Although concerning both these points there are major halachic authorities with dissenting opinions. The most serious issues with Islam from a Noahide point of view is the non-acceptance of Jewish scriptures and the "[[replacement theology]]" of the Prophethood of Muhammed. The Brisker Rav said that for Muslims to be considered Noahides, they must accept the 7 mitzvos because Hashem commanded it at Sinai. Additionally, they must honor the prohibition of "shfichas domim".		There has been much less halachic literature written about Islam compared to Christianity. It has been suggested that this is due, in part, to the fact there has not been in the way of substantial polemics directed at Islam.<ref>Much of this article is based on 'Islam and the halacha'' in ''Judaism: A Quarterly Journal of Jewish Life and Thought'', 6/22/1993, Author: Shapiro, Marc B.</ref> Almost all halachic authorities follow Maimonides and rule that Islam is not idolatry. Many halachic authorities disagree with Maimonides and rule that Muslims enjoy, at least in part, the status of a ''[[Ger Toshav]]''. Although concerning both these points there are major halachic authorities with dissenting opinions. The most serious issues with Islam from a Noahide point of view is the non-acceptance of Jewish scriptures and the "[[replacement theology]]" of the Prophethood of Muhammed. The Brisker Rav said that for Muslims to be considered Noahides, they must accept the 7 mitzvos because Hashem commanded it at Sinai. Additionally, they must honor the prohibition of "shfichas domim".

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:15, 28 November 2020
Line 1:		Line 1:
		+	Islam began as a 7th century Noahite reform among the [[Elagabalites]] and other people of the Middle East. However [[Hagarim]] of that time soon rose up to suppress their Idumean and other Karaite Judaic teachers as they followed Christianity doen along the path of the [[Suppressionists]].
		+
	There has been much less halachic literature written about Islam compared to Christianity. It has been suggested that this is due, in part, to the fact there has not been in the way of substantial polemics directed at Islam.<ref>Much of this article is based on 'Islam and the halacha'' in ''Judaism: A Quarterly Journal of Jewish Life and Thought'', 6/22/1993, Author: Shapiro, Marc B.</ref> Almost all halachic authorities follow Maimonides and rule that Islam is not idolatry. Many halachic authorities disagree with Maimonides and rule that Muslims enjoy, at least in part, the status of a ''[[Ger Toshav]]''. Although concerning both these points there are major halachic authorities with dissenting opinions. The most serious issues with Islam from a Noahide point of view is the non-acceptance of Jewish scriptures and the "[[replacement theology]]" of the Prophethood of Muhammed. The Brisker Rav said that for Muslims to be considered Noahides, they must accept the 7 mitzvos because Hashem commanded it at Sinai. Additionally, they must honor the prohibition of "shfichas domim".		There has been much less halachic literature written about Islam compared to Christianity. It has been suggested that this is due, in part, to the fact there has not been in the way of substantial polemics directed at Islam.<ref>Much of this article is based on 'Islam and the halacha'' in ''Judaism: A Quarterly Journal of Jewish Life and Thought'', 6/22/1993, Author: Shapiro, Marc B.</ref> Almost all halachic authorities follow Maimonides and rule that Islam is not idolatry. Many halachic authorities disagree with Maimonides and rule that Muslims enjoy, at least in part, the status of a ''[[Ger Toshav]]''. Although concerning both these points there are major halachic authorities with dissenting opinions. The most serious issues with Islam from a Noahide point of view is the non-acceptance of Jewish scriptures and the "[[replacement theology]]" of the Prophethood of Muhammed. The Brisker Rav said that for Muslims to be considered Noahides, they must accept the 7 mitzvos because Hashem commanded it at Sinai. Additionally, they must honor the prohibition of "shfichas domim".

← Older revision	Revision as of 20:10, 28 November 2020
(No difference)

@@ Line 135: / Line 135: @@
 # 17:36 And pursue not that of which thou hast no knowledge; for every act of hearing, or of seeing or of (feeling in) the heart will be enquired into (on the Day of Reckoning). <br>'''— Prohibition of Limb of a Living Creature #6''' (see Surat al-Ma’ida 3, Surat al-Baqara 173 for direct prohibition. The prohibition of blood mentioned in 2:173; 5:3)
-Concerning the term "Muslim" which means "submission", it should be noted that in the Torah, everywhere the word "Kenite" used, it is translated to Aramaic as Salamai or Muslamai. Some suggest this refers to the great numbers of non-Jewish believers who came to sacrifice the Qurban Shlamim in Jerusalem together with the Jews. Salamai, Musalamai, Muslims. This could be a clear indication in our literature that Islam is an ancient religion, dating back to second temple times, at least. And if Islam's roots are the same as what we call ''Bnei Noah'', then it is much older, it is the religion of Noah, and Adam himself.
+Concerning the term "Muslim" which means "submission", it should be noted that in the Torah, everywhere the word "Kenite" used, it is translated to Aramaic as Salamai or [[Muslamai]]. Some suggest this refers to the great numbers of non-Jewish believers who came to sacrifice the Qurban Shlamim in Jerusalem together with the Jews. Salamai, [[Musalamai]], Muslims. This could be a clear indication in our literature that Islam is an ancient religion, dating back to second temple times, at least. And if Islam's roots are the same as what we call ''Bnei Noah'', then it is much older, it is the religion of Noah, and Adam himself.
 ==Sheich Palazzi's Speech at the Conference on Noahide Council==