Do Muslims Worship Idolatry When they Visit the Kaaba? –Rabbi Tovia Singer

[Hrvatski Noahid]

https://youtu.be/cUBHyPoeLB4

[edu]

I have to disagree with Rabbi Singer on this issue.
Responsa of the  Rambam (Maimonides) 448
(To R' Ovadia the Convert) A question regarding these Yishmaelites (Muslims) that you said, they are not worshiping foreign worship (Avoda Zara) and your Rabbi said to you, that they are worshiping foreign worship and the stones they toss at their false holy place (called by an embarrassing nickname) are to the Markolis idol. And he responded to you improperly until you were saddened and ashamed and he said about you the verse, "answer the fool according to his foolishness".
Rambam admits the Muslims do Peor, Kemosh, and Markolis rituals at their fake holy place but offers excuses why not to hold the Muslims guilty of idolatry. In the same answer, Rambam also states straight out that is too dangerous for him to put in print some of the stupid beliefs of the Muslims, but calls them monotheists.
Rabbi Singer seems to be siding with the Rambam, disregarding Rambam's overt statement, he was not free to write about the faults of the Muslims.
Other big Rabbis who were under less pressure than the Rambam held that the Muslims were guilty of idolatry by merely doing the Mecca rituals, regardless of their Monotheistic beliefs.
Sefer HaEshkol brings the opinion of one of the Gaonim, that at this time (he lived at the time of the Muslims) the Yishmaelites are guilty of idolatry at their fake holy places, even though they do not recognize they are doing idolatry.
Meiri also brings the sages of Spain that hold the Muslims are guilty of idolatry due to their rituals at their fake holy places.
In his commentary to tractate Avoda Zara 64b Meiri leans towards that view point.
Rashbatz brings an uncensored version of the Kuzari that accuses the Muslims of idolatry because of their stone throwing ritual at their fake holy place.
Regardless of this question, for other reasons the Muslims are guilty of Avoda Zara, but I am not planning to write a major essay on this here. Instead I urge you to research the subject.

[Hrvatski Noahid]

I have to disagree with Rabbi Singer on this issue.
Responsa of the  Rambam (Maimonides) 448
(To R' Ovadia the Convert) A question regarding these Yishmaelites (Muslims) that you said, they are not worshiping foreign worship (Avoda Zara) and your Rabbi said to you, that they are worshiping foreign worship and the stones they toss at their false holy place (called by an embarrassing nickname) are to the Markolis idol. And he responded to you improperly until you were saddened and ashamed and he said about you the verse, "answer the fool according to his foolishness".
Rambam admits the Muslims do Peor, Kemosh, and Markolis rituals at their fake holy place but offers excuses why not to hold the Muslims guilty of idolatry. In the same answer, Rambam also states straight out that is too dangerous for him to put in print some of the stupid beliefs of the Muslims, but calls them monotheists.
Rabbi Singer seems to be siding with the Rambam, disregarding Rambam's overt statement, he was not free to write about the faults of the Muslims.
Other big Rabbis who were under less pressure than the Rambam held that the Muslims were guilty of idolatry by merely doing the Mecca rituals, regardless of their Monotheistic beliefs.
Sefer HaEshkol brings the opinion of one of the Gaonim, that at this time (he lived at the time of the Muslims) the Yishmaelites are guilty of idolatry at their fake holy places, even though they do not recognize they are doing idolatry.
Meiri also brings the sages of Spain that hold the Muslims are guilty of idolatry due to their rituals at their fake holy places.
In his commentary to tractate Avoda Zara 64b Meiri leans towards that view point.
Rashbatz brings an uncensored version of the Kuzari that accuses the Muslims of idolatry because of their stone throwing ritual at their fake holy place.
Regardless of this question, for other reasons the Muslims are guilty of Avoda Zara, but I am not planning to write a major essay on this here. Instead I urge you to research the subject.

See Responsa of Rambam ch. 160, where he explains that the Muslims who bow down to God around the Ka'aba stone in Mecca (and in Rambam's time they would throw rocks specifically at it, and not at any other statues) are not performing an act of idol worship, since their intention is only to bow down for God. In an earlier time (before Mecca was conquered for Islam), this stone was a Merculis, and people used to throw rocks at it as a worship ritual at that exact location. However, the Muslims who continued that custom had no intention for it to be a means of worshiping the stone as an idol.

[edu]

Here is the Sefaria.org translation of Sanhedrin page 64 with their commentary:
https://www.sefaria.org.il/Sanhedrin.64a.16?lang=bi&with=all&lang2=en

The halakha is that one who defecates before Ba’al-Peor is obligated to bring a sin-offering to atone for idol worship, as this is its typical form of worship, even if he intends to demean the idol. Like-wise, one who throws a stone at Mercury is obligated to bring an a sin-offering to atone for idol worship, as this is its typical form of worship, even if he intends to stone it.


The Gemara relates: Rav Menashe was going to a place called Bei Torta. The people there said to him: There is an object of idol worship situated here in this pile of stones. Rav Menashe picked up a stone and threw it at the idol to demean it. They said to him: It is Mercury, and it is worshipped by throwing stones at it. Rav Menashe said to them: We learned in the mishna that one who throws a stone at Mercury as a manner of worship is liable, whereas I intended to demean it.


Rav Menashe went and asked the Sages in the study hall whether his interpretation of the mishna was correct. They said to him: We learned in the mishna that one who throws a stone at Mercury is liable, which implies that he is liable even if he intends to stone it in order to demean it. Rav Menashe said to the Sages: If so, I will go and take back the stone I threw. They said to him: Both one who removes it and one who places it is liable, as each and every one of the stones taken away from Mercury leaves space for another stone. Taking a stone away from Mercury provides a place for other stones to be thrown at it.

[Hrvatski Noahid]

Here is the Sefaria.org translation of Sanhedrin page 64 with their commentary:
https://www.sefaria.org.il/Sanhedrin.64a.16?lang=bi&with=all&lang2=en

The halakha is that one who defecates before Ba’al-Peor is obligated to bring a sin-offering to atone for idol worship, as this is its typical form of worship, even if he intends to demean the idol. Like-wise, one who throws a stone at Mercury is obligated to bring an a sin-offering to atone for idol worship, as this is its typical form of worship, even if he intends to stone it.


The Gemara relates: Rav Menashe was going to a place called Bei Torta. The people there said to him: There is an object of idol worship situated here in this pile of stones. Rav Menashe picked up a stone and threw it at the idol to demean it. They said to him: It is Mercury, and it is worshipped by throwing stones at it. Rav Menashe said to them: We learned in the mishna that one who throws a stone at Mercury as a manner of worship is liable, whereas I intended to demean it.


Rav Menashe went and asked the Sages in the study hall whether his interpretation of the mishna was correct. They said to him: We learned in the mishna that one who throws a stone at Mercury is liable, which implies that he is liable even if he intends to stone it in order to demean it. Rav Menashe said to the Sages: If so, I will go and take back the stone I threw. They said to him: Both one who removes it and one who places it is liable, as each and every one of the stones taken away from Mercury leaves space for another stone. Taking a stone away from Mercury provides a place for other stones to be thrown at it.

If we explain that even if one intends to disgrace an idol and not accept it as a deity, he is still liable if his action is the customary manner of serving the idol, then why did the intent of the Muslims matter, and make them exempt from liability for throwing the stones in that location at Mecca? Rather, it must be because the worship of Merculis had already become extinct in the world, as explained by Ran on Tractate Avodah Zarah ch. 3. But surely, if they had been throwing stones at it or bowing down to it while it was still being served by people in the manner of Merculis, they would have been liable.

[edu]

When Muslims "stone the devil" at Mecca, the following implies they have different ideologies why are they doing it.
https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2012/08/09/the-worlds-muslims-unity-and-diversity-4-other-beliefs-and-practices/

It is important to note that while belief in jinn is widespread, relatively few Muslims in the countries
surveyed believe it is an acceptable part of Islamic tradition to make offerings to jinn.
As discussed in Chapter 6, Bangladesh is the only country surveyed in which more than a fifth of Muslims (28%)
 say appeals to jinn are acceptable. In 18 of the countries, no more than one-in-ten say this is an acceptable practice.

[edu]

Sanhedrin 65
https://www.sefaria.org.il/Sanhedrin.65a.18?lang=bi
Rava said to Ulla: One who burns incense to a demon is an idol worshipper
Ran to Sanhedrin 61a
The average person who offers incense to a demon doesn't accept it as his Deity but nevertheless it is called idolatry.

[Hrvatski Noahid]

Stoning the devil is not its customary manner of serving.

[edu]

Hajj pilgrims in symbolic stoning of the Devil
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R2gAF8Kk0uU

[edu]

Here is another short video with an explanation that the ritual is to "ward off the devil"
https://www.wsj.com/video/at-hajj-pilgrims-throw-rocks-to-ward-off-devil/1AC40CA2-A251-4F8E-9B05-5E23D41CB71E.html

[Hrvatski Noahid]

Hajj pilgrims in symbolic stoning of the Devil
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R2gAF8Kk0uU

So what? Merculis is gone and throwing stones is not the traditional way of serving Satan.

[edu]

So what? Merculis is gone and throwing stones is not the traditional way of serving Satan.

I question both assumptions.
Also Rambam himself thought no one at all in the world who throws the stones, serves it in the way that would be classified as idolatry.
שו"ת הרמב"ם סימן תמח
אין אדם בעולם משליך אותם האבנים ולא משתחוה לאותו המקום ולא עושה דבר מכל הדברים לשם ע"ז לא בפיו ולא בלבו אלא לבם מסור לשמים.
The Rambam didn't do an extensive pew research survey and probably relied on certain Muslim theologians.
The man on the street does not necessarily follow these theologians.
This issue do we follow the theologians or the man on the street came up in another modern controversy concerning usage of hair from an Indian idolatry temple for wigs.
The theologians had portrayed the shaving of hair for the idol, in a way where the hair might (according to some Rabbis but not all) might not be classified as an offering to a deity. When Rabbi Dunner interviewed the common people who were doing this ritual he found out some of them did offer their hair as an offering to the idol.
You can read a bit about the Indian wig controversy at https://www.5tjt.com/halachic-musings-shaming-sheitels/

[edu]

More background on the Indian hair controversy
http://rabbikaganoff.com/can-a-sheitel-be-prohibited-because-of-avodah-zarah-2/