The following is an excerpt from a larger article on this site, entitled:
Muslim Idolatry Trees – Do They Interfere With Davening Mincha on the Temple Mount?
Revised: Wed, 29 May 2024 = 21st of Iyyar, 5784
Is There a Dispute About the Definition of Islam Between Rambam and Rabbeinu Nissim, “The Ran”? Did Rambam Really Intend to Give an Eternal “Kosher Certificate” to all Sects of Islam and for All Ages Regarding the Issue of Idolatry?
In the responsa of Rambam, siman 448 in a letter to R’ Ovadia the Convert, Rambam established:
“And these Yishmaelites (Muslims) today all of them, including children and women have had idolatry cut off from their lips. And their mistake and stupidity is in other things that it is impossible to express them in print because of the rebels and wicked of Israel, but in the matter of the unity of G-d, let He be exalted, they do not have any mistakes”.
It is not clear from some of the commentaries to what extent was Rambam offering approval of Muslim beliefs and service of the Creator and to what extent did he have criticism. Whatever criticism he had, it was certainly significant enough to make him fear extreme danger if he would put it in print.
Rabbi Ovadia Yosef and Rabbi Yehuda Henkin have written that Rambam was offering complete approval on the issue of “foreign service” for Muslims or in Hebrew, “Avoda Zara” for all sects of Islam and for all times.
Other prominent Rabbis, such as, the Rogatchover Gaon disagreed with this interpretation of Rambam and implied that Rambam knew that Muslims were guilty of Avoda Zara despite being monotheists but was hiding it because of danger.
Rabbi Yosef Karo’s Position
Rabbi Yosef Karo author of the Shulchan Aruch seems to have initially been under the impression that Rambam was speaking the pure truth when he stated: “And these Yishmaelites (Muslims) today all of them, including children and women have had idolatry cut off from their lips”. On the basis of this understanding he decided to pay a visit to a Sufi Muslim house of worship called a Tekke. The Magid of Rabbi Yosef Karo severely castigated Rabi Karo over the visit and warned him:
“Be careful from now on and continually think about in your heart about my Torah and let the fear of Hashem, be so much attached to you that if it will occur that you see or hear an “Erva” matter, it will make no impression upon you at all and you should never again enter the house of the Baal Idols and you will return to your holiness” (Magid Meisharim, to Bechukotai, the 28th of Iyar).
The Holy Ohr Hachaim’s Position
Ohr Hachaim Hakadosh (Rabbi Chaim Ben Atar) in his book “Pri Toar”, Yoreh Deah chapter 19 comment 10 was not sure whether Rambam hid a very negative detail about the faith of the Muslims. This came up for discussion when there were Muslims who demanded from Jewish slaughterers to say in Arabic the equivalent of “El Kabir” right before slaughtering animals. Ohr Hachaim was not sure whether the intention of the Arabic expression was also to also associate the prophecy of the man they consider a prophet with the Creator of the world; but in any case Ohr Hachaim held that some Muslims in his time were blurring the lines between G-d and their prophet and were guilty of Idolatry. See also Pri Megadim, Mishbatzot Zahav, Y.D. 19:4 who seems to approve of what the Ohr Hachaim had to say on this issue.
The Certificate of Kashrut for Islam as Being Clean from the Sin of Idolatry Has Expired if it ever existed at all at Some Point in History
Conclusion: It is wrong to simply ignore the Muslim tree idolatry problem today, simply because 8 and a half centuries ago, Rambam might have wrote something nice about the Muslims of his time.
New Addition: At the Outset Even the Rebbe of Sanz – Klausenberg Chassidut, Rabbi Yekutiel Yehuda Halberstam Was Not Aware of Ohr Hachaim’s True Position on this Issue.
Rabbi Halberstam writes in his responsa, “Divrei Yatziv” on Orach Chaim 90:2 that he was initially agitated over what Ohr Hachaim had written earlier in his book, Pri Toar on an issue related to Islam. He was happy to find out that later on in the same book, the Holy Ohr Hachaim clarifies his position and states what has been brought above in this article.
Sometimes new information or new developments within an ethnic group can cause a change of status.
Rambam himself, brings a precedent that ethnic groups can change over the course of centuries. In Rambam’s commentary to the Mishna on tractate Brachot chapter 8, he explains the Cutim (Samaritans) which is the nation that Sancheriv brought from the land of Cuta and settled them in the cities of Samaria originally according to the Bible feared Hashem but they also served their Deities. However, in the course of time they learned the Torah and interpreted it according to a simple definition; and the particular commandments that they did decide to keep, they were very meticulous to observe and preserve them; and there was an assumption that they had common religious beliefs with the Jewish people, monotheistic and not serving any Avoda Zara (foreign worship/idolatry). This continued until the sages investigated and found that they viewed Mount Gerizim as holy; and when they investigated why, they found they had on that mountain an image of a dove and it became known that they are worshipers of Avoda Zara (Idolatry).
Then they demoted them to the status of complete Gentiles for all their matters and all that you will find in the Mishna regarding the Cutim (Samaritans) that indicates they are better than the Gentiles but worse than Israel, for example, to make a zimun with a Cuti (Samaritan) and a ruling about a Cuti who blesses, etc.; all this was before they made the investigation about them; but after they had investigated them and found the results that we spoke of, behold they are much worse than the Gentiles (here ends the summary of Rambam).
The Actions of the Patriarchs as a Prophetic Sign to their Descendants
Even Avraham our forefather, of which they said about him that he had a tractate on Avoda Zara consisting of 400 chapters (See tractate Avoda Zara, 14b) did not discern that his son Yishmael worshiped Avoda Zara (Idolatry). Sarah saw the son whom Hagar the Egyptian had borne to Abraham making sport (Genesis 21:9).
Rashi on the word for MAKING SPORT states:
מצחק MAKING SPORT — This means worshipping idols, as it is said in reference of the Golden Calf, (Exodus 32:6) “And they rose up to make merry (לצחק).” Another explanation is that it refers to immoral conduct, just as you say in reference to Potiphar’s wife, (Genesis 39:17) “To mock (לצחק) at me.” Another explanation is that it refers to murder, as (2 Samuel 2:14) “Let the young men, I pray thee, arise and make sport (וישחקו) before us” (where they fought with and killed one another) From Sarah’s reply — “for the son of this bondwoman shall not be heir with my son״ — you may infer that he (Yishmael) was quarrelling with Yitzchak about the inheritance, saying, “I am the first-born and will, therefore, take a double portion”. They went into the field and he (Yishmael) took his bow and shot arrows at him (Yitzchak), just as you say (Proverbs 26:18-19) “As a madman who casteth firebrands, [arrows and death] and says: I am only מצחק mocking” (Genesis Rabbah 53:11).
Ramban to Genesis (12:6) Avram passed through the land as far as the site of Shechem, at the terebinth of Moreh. The Canaanites were then in the land.
AND AVRAM PASSED THROUGH THE LAND. I will tell you a principle by which you will understand all the coming portions of Scripture concerning Avraham, Yitzchak, and Yaakov. It is indeed a great matter which our Rabbis mentioned briefly, saying: “Whatever has happened to the patriarchs is a sign to the children.” It is for this reason that the verses narrate at great length the account of the journeys of the patriarchs, the digging of the wells, and other events. Now someone may consider them unnecessary and of no useful purpose, but in truth they all serve as a lesson for the future: when an event happens to any one of the three Patriarchs that which is decreed to happen to his children can be understood.
Based on what Ramban taught, it is possible to understand Avraham’s shock at finding out that Yishmael was worshiping “Avoda Zara” as a prophetic omen for the future. That certain big scholars of the Jewish people would be shocked to discover that the Yishmaelites (Muslims) practice “Avoda Zara”.
Muslim Demon Worship Idolatry
One Who Offers Incense to a Demon – Insights of “the Ran” to Tractate Sanhedrin 61b
Introduction
A Jew should be willing to sacrifice his life rather than worship Idolatry. But what if he makes the wrong choice and does not sacrifice his life? The Talmud says the punishment for those that serve Idolatry out of love and fear is less severe than someone who does not have this excuse. Most commentaries understand that love and fear, means love of a person or fear of a person. Rambam however has a different understanding of love and fear which “the Ran” criticizes.
“And Rambam of blessed memory in chapter 3 (of the Mishna Torah) on the Laws which discuss Idolatry, defines, “out of love”, such as, he desires an image because its service is very attractive – or when one serves it out of his fear of it – i.e., he fears that it will harm him – as the [idol] worshipers imagine that it provides benefit and harm but did not accept it upon himself as a Deity, he is exempt”.
The Ran disagrees with the definition of serving “out of love and fear” offered by the Rambam and brings as proof the ruling of the Gemara, that someone who offers incense to a demon is considered to have served Idolatry.
Now the normal case of someone who offers incense to a demon is that he does not accept it as a Deity but nevertheless incense worship to demons is classified as Idolatry.
“The Ran” concludes that anyone who does an act of worship to any form {or image} in order to derive from it some benefit, behold he has in essence given it, Deity status and dominion in that matter and therefore the one that serves it is doing an act of Idolatry.
The Ruling of the Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh Deah, Chapter 179 Halacha 19
He who offers incense to a demon to bring it and to compel it to do his will, he is liable on account of serving Idolatry (see Tur and Beit Yosef commentary for background on this ruling).
Whoever Doesn’t Want to Hide His Eyes From Reality Will Discover That Some Muslims Offer Incense to a Demon.
The following is Pew research results of what the Muslims say about themselves.
Overall, Muslims in Central Asia and across Southern and Eastern Europe (Russia and the Balkans) are least likely to say that jinn {demons} are real. In Central Asia, Turkey is the only country where a majority (63%) of Muslims believe in jinn {demons}. Elsewhere in Central Asia, about a fifth or fewer Muslims accept the existence of jinn. In Southern and Eastern Europe, fewer than four-in-ten in any country surveyed believe in these supernatural beings.
In general, Muslims who pray several times a day are more likely to believe in jinn {demons}. For example, in Russia, 62% of those who pray more than once a day say that jinn {demons} exist, compared with 24% of those who pray less often. A similar gap also appears in Lebanon (+25 percentage points), Malaysia (+24) and Afghanistan (+21).
The survey also asked if respondents had ever seen jinn {demons}. In 21 of the 23 countries where the question was asked, fewer than one-in-ten report having seen jinn {demons}, while the proportion is 12% in Bangladesh and 10% in Lebanon.
It is important to note that while belief in jinn {demons} is widespread, relatively few Muslims in the countries surveyed believe it is an acceptable part of Islamic tradition to make offerings to jinn {demons}. 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.
According to reports on the internet offering incense of such things as frankincense and similar materials is part of the gift offerings they give to the demons.
And so I found on the internet a report of Muslims of offering incense to demons at the web site:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r7waqNdtOF4&ab_channel=WildFilmsIndia
Clarification: Although “The Ran” (Rabbeinu Nissim) in theory would classify Muslim demon worship as idolatry, the issue actually raised by “The Ran” was Muslim worship of dead people. That is to say “The Ran” made a comparison (see his commentary to Sanhedrin 61b) between the worship of the dead maniac with demon worship.
Article by Shlomo Moshe Scheinman
Author of the article on Argaman in Techumin #26