Torah and Jewish Idea > Torah and Jewish Idea

Throwing a stone at Markolis and Islam

<< < (5/5)

edu:
In one of Rambam’s responsa letters he deals with an argument that broke out between Ovadia, who converted from Islam to Judaism, (who also appears to have been quite knowledgeable in Torah law) and his Rabbi concerning Yishmaelites who practice Islam.
Ovadia held that Muslims are not idol worshipers while his Rabbi insulted Ovadia over his viewpoint and claimed that they are, because they throw stones to Markolis.
Rambam sided with Ovadia the convert.
 Rambam admitted that Muslims incorporated within their worship, pagan practices of throwing stones at Markolis, as well as pagan practices associated with the worship of the idols, Peor (mentioned in Bamidbar/Numbers 25:18) and Kemosh (mentioned in Bamidbar/Numbers 21:29).
But Rambam’s contention is that because the Muslims have monotheistic intentions when they do these things or bow in their houses of worship, this is a reason to exempt them from the severe sin of idolatry. He adds that the foolishness and the stupidity of the Yishmaelites are in other areas, but that he could not put it in writing because the wicked of Israel might inform on him {to the Muslims} regarding what he wrote.
He then ends his letter stressing how much we have to love the convert and how it was very wrong for Ovadia’s rabbi to insult Ovadia and he demanded that Ovadia’s rabbi should apologize.

edu:
The following is the Soncino Translation to Tractate Avoda Zara 54b (and a little bit of 55a)

--- Quote ---A philosopher asked R. Gamaliel, ‘It is written in your Torah, For the Lord thy God is a devouring
fire, a jealous God.24 Why, however, is He so jealous of its worshippers rather than of the idol
itself?’ He replied, ‘I will give you a parable: To what is the matter like? To a human king who had a
son, and this son reared a dog to which he attached his father's name, so that whenever he took an
oath he exclaimed, "By the life of this dog, my father!" When the king hears of it, with whom is he
angry — his son or the dog? Surely he is angry with his son!’ [The philosopher] said to him, ‘You
call the idol a dog; but there is some reality in it.’ [The Rabbi asked], ‘What is your proof?’ He
replied, ‘Once a fire broke out in our city, and the whole town was burnt with the exception of a
certain idolatrous shrine!’ He said to him, ‘I will give you a parable: To what is the matter like? To a
human king against whom one of his provinces rebelled. If he goes to war against it, does he fight
with the living or the dead? Surely he wages war with the living!’25 [The philosopher] said to him,
‘You call the idol a dog and you call it a dead thing. In that case, let Him destroy it from the world!’
He replied, ‘If it was something unnecessary to the world that was worshipped, He would abolish it;
but people worship the sun and moon, stars and planets, brooks and valleys. Should He destroy His
universe on account of fools! And thus it states, Am I utterly to consume all things from off the face of the ground, saith the Lord; am I to consume
man and beast; am I to consume the fowls of the heaven, and the fishes of the sea, even the
stumbling-blocks of the wicked!1 — i.e., because the wicked stumble over these things is He to
destroy them from the world? Do they not worship the human being; so am I to cut off man from off
the face of the ground!’2
--- End quote ---
Footnotes
(24) Deut. IV, 24.
(25) The idol is a dead thing, so God does not wage war with it.
(1) Zeph. I, 2 f. The Talmud requires this translation. E.V., I will utterly consume etc.
(2) Ibid.
According to the parable used by R. Gamliel, of the son who says "By the life of this dog, my father!"
what is more annoying to the king, a simple dog raised by the son which the son calls "my father" or a fictional character, who is accepted by the false prophet of an enemy nation as the one and only king, which the son calls "my father"?

edu:
Rambam in his response to Ovadia the convert (siman 488) provides several different monotheistic excuses that Muslim in his days used to justify throwing stones at Markolis in Mecca.
Among them he says, some of the clever Muslims say, "we know it was an idol but we are throwing stones at it as a sign of disgrace".
Although Rambam seems to accept this argument as a reason to exempt Muslims from idolatry according to Rashi and Ramach as I brought earlier in this discussion, this is not a valid reason to exempt someone from the crime of idolatry.
I do, however, have to do further investigation, if there is a Markolis idol, but no one in the city believes in Markolis any more, would this be grounds even according to Rashi and Ramach to look differently upon a person who throws a rock at it, as a sign of disgrace.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[*] Previous page