Author Topic: Ask JTF Question About Muslims/Noahides  (Read 1774 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Binyamin Yisrael

  • Silver Star JTF Member
  • ********
  • Posts: 5382
Ask JTF Question About Muslims/Noahides
« on: August 12, 2014, 04:01:05 PM »
Quote
Dear Chaim, what are your thoughts on Orthodoxy's idea that Muslims are Noachide? How can we call Allah the same G-d we worship?


Muslims are not Noahides. They believe in One G-d but they also support murder and stealing which are specifically forbidden in the Noahide Laws. Also, they are guilty of not setting up courts of law to enforce the Noahide Laws. Some are also guilty of sexual immorality. Perhaps they are guilty of blasphemy as well since they take the One G-d and turn him into a monster.

I think Islam only keeps two of the seven. Those are the prohibition of Ever Min HaChai and the prohibition of idolatry.


Offline muman613

  • Platinum JTF Member
  • **********
  • Posts: 29958
  • All souls praise Hashem, Hallelukah!
    • muman613 Torah Wisdom
Re: Ask JTF Question About Muslims/Noahides
« Reply #1 on: August 12, 2014, 04:05:30 PM »
I never heard that they were Noachides. I know Rambam doesn't consider Islam Avodah Zara though.
You shall make yourself the Festival of Sukkoth for seven days, when you gather in [the produce] from your threshing floor and your vat.And you shall rejoice in your Festival-you, and your son, and your daughter, and your manservant, and your maidservant, and the Levite, and the stranger, and the orphan, and the widow, who are within your cities
Duet 16:13-14

Offline Kahane-Was-Right BT

  • Honorable Winged Member
  • Gold Star JTF Member
  • *
  • Posts: 12581
Re: Ask JTF Question About Muslims/Noahides
« Reply #2 on: August 12, 2014, 05:14:06 PM »
Their religion supports murder.  They cannot be Noahides.

Offline Tag-MehirTzedek

  • Silver Star JTF Member
  • ********
  • Posts: 5457
Re: Ask JTF Question About Muslims/Noahides
« Reply #3 on: August 12, 2014, 05:22:04 PM »

I think Islam only keeps two of the seven. Those are the prohibition of Ever Min HaChai and the prohibition of idolatry.

 Maybe none, because perhaps its not only about keeping but also accepting that they keep it because it was given in the Torah on Mt. Sinai. I saw many times Muslims claim that the Torah we have today isn't the real Torah but "corrupted" and made up by the Jews.
.   ד  עֹזְבֵי תוֹרָה, יְהַלְלוּ רָשָׁע;    וְשֹׁמְרֵי תוֹרָה, יִתְגָּרוּ בָם
4 They that forsake the law praise the wicked; but such as keep the law contend with them.

ה  אַנְשֵׁי-רָע, לֹא-יָבִינוּ מִשְׁפָּט;    וּמְבַקְשֵׁי יְהוָה, יָבִינוּ כֹל.   
5 Evil men understand not justice; but they that seek the LORD understand all things.

Offline kyel

  • Pro JTFer
  • *****
  • Posts: 684
Re: Ask JTF Question About Muslims/Noahides
« Reply #4 on: August 12, 2014, 05:50:10 PM »
Most Rabbis will say that Muslims don't commit avodah zarah and there are statements all over the internet that Islam is Noahide and I believe that I have heard they are noahide before from a Rabbi. I just can't accept that praying to the schizo Allah moon idol is like praying to Hashem after reading their sicko book.

Offline Zelhar

  • Honorable Winged Member
  • Gold Star JTF Member
  • *
  • Posts: 10687
Re: Ask JTF Question About Muslims/Noahides
« Reply #5 on: August 12, 2014, 06:41:13 PM »
So that Syrian rebel who pulled out a beating heart out of an Asad supported and ate it is a Noachide?

Offline Tag-MehirTzedek

  • Silver Star JTF Member
  • ********
  • Posts: 5457
.   ד  עֹזְבֵי תוֹרָה, יְהַלְלוּ רָשָׁע;    וְשֹׁמְרֵי תוֹרָה, יִתְגָּרוּ בָם
4 They that forsake the law praise the wicked; but such as keep the law contend with them.

ה  אַנְשֵׁי-רָע, לֹא-יָבִינוּ מִשְׁפָּט;    וּמְבַקְשֵׁי יְהוָה, יָבִינוּ כֹל.   
5 Evil men understand not justice; but they that seek the LORD understand all things.

Offline Israel Chai

  • Silver Star JTF Member
  • ********
  • Posts: 9732
  • 112
Re: Ask JTF Question About Muslims/Noahides
« Reply #7 on: August 12, 2014, 07:42:12 PM »
Dear Chaim, what is your position on Orthodox's stance that we should listen to the Lubavitcher Rebbe in all things? Please clarify how the other "types" of "Judaism" declare that pisslam is Noahide.
The fear of the L-rd is the beginning of knowledge

Offline muman613

  • Platinum JTF Member
  • **********
  • Posts: 29958
  • All souls praise Hashem, Hallelukah!
    • muman613 Torah Wisdom
Re: Ask JTF Question About Muslims/Noahides
« Reply #8 on: August 12, 2014, 07:52:01 PM »
Dear Chaim, what is your position on Orthodox's stance that we should listen to the Lubavitcher Rebbe in all things? Please clarify how the other "types" of "Judaism" declare that pisslam is Noahide.

Did you just make this up? Since when is there a stance that we should listen to the Chabad Rebbe in all things? Never heard of this nor read it anywhere, nor have any Rabbis I learn from said this.

I would say it is a good thing to know what the Rebbe said because on many things he was dead on correct.

You shall make yourself the Festival of Sukkoth for seven days, when you gather in [the produce] from your threshing floor and your vat.And you shall rejoice in your Festival-you, and your son, and your daughter, and your manservant, and your maidservant, and the Levite, and the stranger, and the orphan, and the widow, who are within your cities
Duet 16:13-14

Offline muman613

  • Platinum JTF Member
  • **********
  • Posts: 29958
  • All souls praise Hashem, Hallelukah!
    • muman613 Torah Wisdom
Re: Ask JTF Question About Muslims/Noahides
« Reply #9 on: August 12, 2014, 07:53:11 PM »
Most Rabbis will say that Muslims don't commit avodah zarah and there are statements all over the internet that Islam is Noahide and I believe that I have heard they are noahide before from a Rabbi. I just can't accept that praying to the schizo Allah moon idol is like praying to Hashem after reading their sicko book.

It is not just 'rabbis' it was the finding of Rambam, the author of Mishneh Torah and Guide to the Perplexed, who ruled that Islam was not avodah Zarah. Many other great sages also found the same although there is dissenting opinions.

http://www.torah.org/advanced/weekly-halacha/5772/bo.html
You shall make yourself the Festival of Sukkoth for seven days, when you gather in [the produce] from your threshing floor and your vat.And you shall rejoice in your Festival-you, and your son, and your daughter, and your manservant, and your maidservant, and the Levite, and the stranger, and the orphan, and the widow, who are within your cities
Duet 16:13-14

Offline Ephraim Ben Noach

  • Silver Star JTF Member
  • ********
  • Posts: 5019
Re: Ask JTF Question About Muslims/Noahides
« Reply #10 on: August 12, 2014, 08:16:29 PM »
In no way in HELL are they Noachide! They might be monotheistic but that's it! Even if they don't commit idol worship, they sure as hell don't worship the G-d of Abraham or Noah!

At lest the Christians keep 6 and a half of the law's.

And their stupid rock box(mecca) is a freaking meteor.
Ezekiel 33:6 But if the watchman see the sword come, and blow not the horn, and the people be not warned, and the sword do come, and take any person from among them, he is taken away in his iniquity, but his blood will I require at the watchman's hand.

Offline kyel

  • Pro JTFer
  • *****
  • Posts: 684
Re: Ask JTF Question About Muslims/Noahides
« Reply #11 on: August 12, 2014, 09:08:14 PM »
Dear Chaim, what is your position on Orthodox's stance that we should listen to the Lubavitcher Rebbe in all things? Please clarify how the other "types" of "Judaism" declare that pisslam is Noahide.


Reform Jews probabbly think it is a Mitzvah to be a Muslim   :::D

Offline Israel Chai

  • Silver Star JTF Member
  • ********
  • Posts: 9732
  • 112
Re: Ask JTF Question About Muslims/Noahides
« Reply #12 on: August 12, 2014, 09:58:18 PM »
Did you just make this up? Since when is there a stance that we should listen to the Chabad Rebbe in all things? Never heard of this nor read it anywhere, nor have any Rabbis I learn from said this.

I would say it is a good thing to know what the Rebbe said because on many things he was dead on correct.

I was saying that asking why Orthodoxy's stance on something is that way is absurd since there are many types of religious Jews.
The fear of the L-rd is the beginning of knowledge

Offline kyel

  • Pro JTFer
  • *****
  • Posts: 684
Re: Ask JTF Question About Muslims/Noahides
« Reply #13 on: August 12, 2014, 11:09:03 PM »
I was saying that asking why Orthodoxy's stance on something is that way is absurd since there are many types of religious Jews.

What are you talking about I just used Orthodoxy interchangeably with Judaism since reform and conservative don't count and Haredim (chabad) and other movement are just branches of Orthodox Judaism. I think you're just getting worked up on semantics.
« Last Edit: August 12, 2014, 11:23:13 PM by kyel »

Offline Binyamin Yisrael

  • Silver Star JTF Member
  • ********
  • Posts: 5382
Re: Ask JTF Question About Muslims/Noahides
« Reply #14 on: August 12, 2014, 11:36:51 PM »
In no way in HELL are they Noachide! They might be monotheistic but that's it! Even if they don't commit idol worship, they sure as hell don't worship the G-d of Abraham or Noah!


How can someone worship a god that is not the G-d of Noah and Abraham and not be an idolater? They might not worship a physical idol but in Judaism, any worship directed at someone other than Hashem (What you call the G-d of Abraham and Noah.) is still idolatry. There is no other term in English to describe it. The Hebrew term Avodah Zarah is more accurate. It literally means foreign worship. Someone can say they worship one pagan god but it's still idolatry. I think Sikhs fit into this. They believe in one god but they don't believe in the G-d of the Bible. They are basically Hindu monotheists. At least Christians believe in the G-d of the Bible. They just made up the Yeshu and "Holy Spirit" part. Muslims do believe in the G-d of the Bible but they changed the stories. They believe they are descended from Abraham and Ishmael. They believe in our G-d but added false prophesy to the original Bible and also removed some parts and/or changed it such as "Akeidat Ishmael" in Mecca instead of Akeidat Yitzhak in Jerusalem.


Offline Israel Chai

  • Silver Star JTF Member
  • ********
  • Posts: 9732
  • 112
Re: Ask JTF Question About Muslims/Noahides
« Reply #15 on: August 13, 2014, 12:09:09 AM »
What are you talking about I just used Orthodoxy interchangeably with Judaism since reform and conservative don't count and Haredim (chabad) and other movement are just branches of Orthodox Judaism. I think you're just getting worked up on semantics.

I wasn't talking about silly deform stuff. I was saying that you can't just say "Orthodoxy's stance", because there's a hundred ways Rabbis will answer questions if you talk to fifty of them, so you have to clarify where you heard such a thing. I met lots of Rabbis that don't like pisslam. Also, read Rambam on it in laws of kings. He says it's monstrous. I googled it and there was one "Rabbi" but David Yerushalmi says that the OU and ADL are both pro-sharia in the same sentence, so the question is how is the OU pro-sharia? Do they allow the OU certified food to also be chalal?
The fear of the L-rd is the beginning of knowledge

Offline Israel Chai

  • Silver Star JTF Member
  • ********
  • Posts: 9732
  • 112
Re: Ask JTF Question About Muslims/Noahides
« Reply #16 on: August 13, 2014, 12:10:00 AM »
http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/09/a_response_to_rabbi_shmuly_yanklowitz.html

September 24, 2011
A Response to Rabbi Shmuly Yanklowitz
By David Yerushalmi

Shmuly Yanklowitz, who wears the title of "Rabbi" and is a Hillel director at UCLA, has penned an essay in the Jewish Week against the anti-sharia movement.  He takes the time to mention me by name.  This is my response.

The sum and substance of Yanklowitz's essay is that it has zero substance, only polemics. Where it does make specific attempts to be substantive, or impliedly so, Yanklowitz's essay is simply wrong on the facts.

For example, the essay begins with two paragraphs of pure polemics using such descriptors as a "slight discomfort," which magically came over him while in a cab in Paris with a Muslim driver -- why?  Because "American religious fanatics had succeeded at convincing me to be afraid."  He goes on to tell us that "fear and hate" are a part of Jewish communal discourse as well.  So, the table is set.  Truth and peace on the one side versus hatred, fear, and religious bigotry on the other.

Then, in the third paragraph, we learn that we know of this ugly anti-sharia movement because the Orthodox Union and the Anti-Defamation League have told us about it.  But Yanklowitz does not tell how they know this.  Are the rabbis of the OU expert in sharia?  Do they understand its jurisprudential principles?  Do they understand its pedigree and the implications for jihad and national security?

Is Abe Foxman of the ADL such an expert?  Or, more tellingly, does Abe Foxman and the ADL have the character and integrity upon which to base such an argumentum ad verecundium reliably?  Was it not Abe Foxman's ADL that was successfully sued for over $10 million for defaming a Colorado couple accused of bigotry?  A judgment confirmed by every court that reviewed it, and a judgment ultimately but grudgingly paid by the ADL?  The largest defamation judgment in the history of the State of Colorado...paid by whom again? Yes, the Anti-Defamation League.

After my cameo appearance in the fourth paragraph as presumptively the paradigmatic Jewish religious bigot, Yanklowitz attempts a caveat by conceding a bit of concern over violence and extremism in the Muslim world.  But even here, another caveat: he assures us that this extremism is isolated, and moreover, he reminds us that we must not discriminate against sharia as the baby in the dirty bath water.  The problem in this caveat of a caveat is that Yanklowitz assures us that this concern over Islamic violence and intolerance is not really a threat.  But Yanklowitz's assurances are merely gestures in the air.  What are the facts?  The facts, not something you'll find in Yanklowitz's essay, are these: the World Public Opinion Survey in 2006 of Muslim attitudes in the Muslim world (where 98% of the global 1.2 billion Muslims live), found that between 50% to 70% (depending on the specific country) of Muslims surveyed desired a regional if not global caliphate and an al-Qaeda-like sharia.


In 2010, Pew conducted its own survey of Muslim attitudes in the Muslim world, and lo and behold, we learn that Muslims in the main approve of al-Qaeda, Islamic political order, and death for apostasy.  Yanklowitz knows what apostasy is, surely -- it is what we call in the West "freedom of religion."

Having argued that we ought not discriminate against political evil of the sort promulgated by the majorities in these surveys, Yanklowitz then attempts to drag Maimonides (the Rambam), the greatest Jewish legal codifier and philosopher since Moses, into his polemical diatribe.  We're informed by this "Rabbi" (I'm curious where Yanklowitz earned his rabbinical ordination) that the Rambam not only ruled that Islam was free of idol worship (one of the gravest sins in Jewish law), but also that we might learn much from Muslim thought.

Let's assume this is Yanklowitz's first real effort at substance -- Jewish law and philosophy, subjects a rabbi ought to know something about.  Unfortunately, Yanklowitz seems to know little more than what he might have picked up with a quick Google search.  Indeed, the citation to Maimonides' work (more properly set out as Mishne Torah, Sefer Kedusha, Hilchot Ma'achalot Asurot, ch. 11, halacha 7) does in fact rule that Islam is not idol-worship.  So what?  Islam was not unique in this regard; Rambam mentions it because it is the dominant religion in his world.  In that particular legal reference, the consequence of Islam's monotheism simply means that a Jew may enjoy a benefit from a Muslim's wine but not drink it, which is the case for the wine of any non-Jew who doesn't worship idols.

Nowhere in this reference or anywhere in Rambam's legal works is there praise for Islam or Muslims.  Indeed, in the uncensored penultimate chapter of this great legal work, Rambam points out that while Christianity and Islam were prophesized by Daniel to be tests for the Jewish people, they both had the benefit of spreading the belief in one G-d ([Hebrew] Rambam L'Am, Sefer Shoftim, Hilchot Melachim, ch. 11, halacha 4, pp. 415-416).  But beyond the correctness of monotheism, what does Rambam say of Islam and its founder, Mohammed?

One of Rambam's most well-known public letters is his letter to the Jews of Yemen (available in Hebrew at Rambam L'Am, Igrot, "Igeret Teiman [or] Petach Tikvah," pp. 103-193), who were suffering during the "Golden Age," as it is so often called, of Islam.  Just as Rambam had been chased out of Andalusia (Spain) by marauding Muslim armies from the Maghreb, the Jews of Yemen were being persecuted by the Muslim mujahideen in the Arabian Peninsula.  In this famous letter, Rambam terms Mohammed the psychopath (Meshugah) and describes the ugliness and the viciousness of the Muslims toward Jews as the worst the Jews had experienced since the Exile.  Indeed, Rambam, who most certainly understood the theology of Islam, points out in this letter that Islam was theologically corrupt as well, having taken the Jewish Torah and effectively rewritten it for its own purposes.

Presumably, Yanklowitz did not mean to cite Rambam's legal work or his epistle of encouragement to the Jews of Yemen, written in Rambam's role as a Jewish leader.  Maybe, when Yanklowitz tells us that Rambam thought we might gain something from Islamic thought, he was referring to Rambam as Jewish philosopher and, notably, as author of Moreh Nevuchim, or Guide to the Perplexed.  But even here, Rambam has no good words for Islam or Islamic philosophy.  What Rambam does appreciate and pay respect to are a handful of Muslim neo-Aristotelians, notably Alfarabi (especially as noted in Rambam's letter to Ibn Tibbon [see, e.g., Moses Maimonides, The Guide of the Perplexed, trans. by Shlomo Pines, v. 1, "Translator's Introduction," pp. lxxviii-cxxxii).  But the Muslim neo-Aristotelians -- those who sought to apply Reason to Revelation -- lost out.  Islam thoroughly rejected such innovations and never adopted Reason.  Thus the end of the "Golden Age."  Al Ghazili, Ibn Taymiyyah, and their progeny -- the Muslim Brotherhood, the Wahhabis, and the Deobandis, among the Sunni -- were the theological, legal, and social victors, especially as we scan the contemporary surveys noted above.

So it is that Yanklowitz appears to know little of Rambam's writings or Islamic history.  But his essay moves on to the area of the contemporary legal effort to "ban Islamic law" -- an effort I am presumptively leading (but cf. American Thinker).  Unfortunately, no one of substance in the anti-sharia movement is trying to ban Islamic law.  Yanklowitz is simply wrong on the facts once again.  What the anti-sharia movement is doing -- at least those elements which have passed the American Laws for American Courts draft legislation I crafted (Tennessee, Louisiana, and Arizona) and which have promoted ALAC in dozens of other states, where it is in the legislative process for enactment -- is prohibiting state courts from applying any foreign law or judgment (sharia being only one of many possible offending foreign laws) which violates fundamental constitutional liberties like due process and equal protection.

What part of due process and equal protection does Yanklowitz not like?  If two Muslims want to apply sharia to work out their personal problems, so be it.  But if you go into court afterward and ask the state to use its authority to enforce that sharia ruling, you'd better be certain that the law as applied does not violate fundamental constitutional liberties.  Specifically, you'd better be certain that a Muslim woman is not being treated as chattel, which is often the case.  For example, sharia allows a man to divorce his wife with but a verbal expression not permitted to the wife.  Further, after a young age, children are awarded to the Muslim father, irrespective of the best interests of the child.  A women's testimony is worth but half of a man's.  This list goes on, but you get the picture.

Alas, Yanklowitz concludes his essay with a plea to embrace unconditional love and to abandon any vestige of hatred, presumably even hatred of the mujahid who seeks to murder the Jew and his family.  Indeed, Yanklowitz beheads his straw man with a jihadist-like stroke of polemical penmanship -- but should he find himself in the company of real jihadists, it won't be the straw man's skull separated from its perch.
The fear of the L-rd is the beginning of knowledge