12

I am currently studying Arabic in university and have the following question:

If it is known that the Arabic Language Studies department at a particular school is vehemently anti-Israel and anti-Semitic (which are somewhat in vogue these days), and that in the past, openly religious Jews who have tried to go far in the study of the language have not done well and have "mysteriously" gotten poor grades (which have discouraged them from continuing their study of Arabic), may one present themselves, upon entering their study in the department, with an Arabic name and instead of a kippah wear a kufi (of a style not necessarily unique to Muslims), wear their ssissith in, and on holidays wish their teacher and fellow students "Eid Mubarak" (Arabic for "happy holiday") if the intent of all of this is merely to allow them to assume that such a person is a Muslim?

According to Jewish law may one allow the Arab staff of a university and their classmates to incorrectly assume that they are a Muslim in order to protect their GPA, especially if they never directly say that they are a Muslim? Have Jews in history ever allowed Muslims in their societies to believe that they were Muslims in order to protect themselves from potential loss? Are there any sources that discuss this?

Thanks. Kol tuv.

  • I've heard that the Rambam (among others) pretended to convert to Islam. – Scimonster Jul 05 '15 at 19:44
  • 3
    He just changed the Q from 1st to 3rd person, and added "Are there any sources that discuss this? ". This is ridiculous, why not take the question as such, and answer with sources, instead of bothering the user. i mean, only after the Q is in third person, there's a "חלות" of valid question?. This question was an excellent one from the beginning. +1 – Emilios1995 Jul 05 '15 at 22:59
  • @Emilios1995, that's effectively the process for changing a question from a request for p'sak to a general knowledge question. Ideally, a CYLOR note would be appended. – Noach MiFrankfurt Jul 06 '15 at 01:07
  • 1
    @Scimonster he was under duress(if the story is true) – MoriDowidhYa3aqov Jul 06 '15 at 01:41
  • 1
    @scimonster,I find that very hard to believe since the Rambam used choice words to describe their leader and he also wrote about the Igerres Hashmad – sam Jul 06 '15 at 13:13
  • Considering that many (most?) do not consider Islam to be AZ in the slightest, what is the problem with EVER wishing them Eid Mubarak? That issur only applies to the acum, not a stam non-Jew... – Isaac Kotlicky Jul 07 '15 at 17:36
  • see also http://judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/28390/conversion-to-islam – wfb Mar 01 '16 at 17:55

1 Answers1

2

The Shulchan Aruch in Yoreh De'ah siman 157 siff two discusses some of your suggestions. See especially the end of the Ramma which would seemingly rule that any possible leniency of wearing clothes without any verbal proclamation would not apply being that this is not a time of gzeira but rather just a financial interest.

אסור לאדם לומר שהוא עובד כוכבי' כדי שלא יהרגוהו אבל אם כדי שלא יכירוהו שהוא יהודי משנה מלבושו בשעת הגזר' מותר כיון שאינו אומר שהוא עובד כוכבי': {הגה: ואפי' לובש כלאים (נ"י פרק הגוזל בתרא) ואע"ג דאסור לומר שהוא עובד כוכבים מכ"מ יוכל לומר להם לשון דמשתמע לתרי אפין (נמוקי יוסף פ' הגוזל) והעובדי כוכבים יבינו שהוא אומר שהוא עובד כוכבי' והוא יכוין לדבר אחר וכן אם יוכל להטעותם שהם סוברים שהוא עובד כוכבים שרי (ת"ה סי' קצ"ז) וכן בדרך זה מי שלבו העלה טינא וחושק באשת איש אם תוכל אשתו לבא אליו ושיסבור שבא על הערוה שרי (שם בנ"י) וכל זה לא שרי רק במקום סכנה אבל שלא במקום סכנה כגון שילבש בגדי עובד כוכבים שלא יכירוהו שהוא יהודי ויעבור מכס או כדומה לזה אסור. (אשיר"י ונ"י פרק הגוזל בתרא ות"ה סימן קצ''ו ושאר פוסקים)

Although under normal circumstances we assume Muslims are not idol worshippers as the brought in the halachos concerning stam yayin, here the issue is not acting as if one has accepted a new forbidden religion, here the issue is appearing to have abandoned Hashem's chosen path for us, which is living according to the Torah.

This is apparent in the Shach who focuses on Chilul Hashem and not on Avoda Zara. One is still making a chilul Hashem when he abandons Judaism for a different monotheistic religion. And all laws of chilul Hashem apply.

user6591
  • 33,638
  • 2
  • 39
  • 81
  • 1
    Nice source. However, Muslims are not idolaters. This would apply more if the question were about pretending to be a Christian or a Hindu, I think. Kol tuv. –  Jul 06 '15 at 04:42
  • 1
    @maimonist , according to the Rambam they aren't but not everyone agrees,the Ran holds it is that's why many poskim don't allow jews to enter a mosque for no reason because of this Ran who assurs it – sam Jul 06 '15 at 13:01
  • @Maimonist the Shach by using the wording chillul Hashem seems to imply the issue we are discussing is the apparent abandonment of Judaism, not necessarily related to the acceptance of a different faith. He also discusses the issue of lying and the fact that the gemara was more lenient for a talmid chacham when he says something that can be taken two ways as we are not as concerned that he will be 'pakar tfei'. This also leads me to believe we are discussing an issue of abandonment of faith, not a proclamation of acceptance of a new one. – user6591 Jul 06 '15 at 13:14
  • 1
    @sam - Those who held Islam to be avodhah zarah were under the false assumption that Muslims worshipped the Kaaba and other such things. And because of these misunderstandings regarding them among some of the rishonim, some of the ahharonim re-adopted these incorrect positions in their writings. The fact is that Muslims many times have a purer sense of monotheism than many Jews. And their status as non-idolaters was firmly established in the writings of the Rambam (particularly in iggereth hashmadh and in his response to Ovadya HaGer). –  Jul 06 '15 at 13:41
  • @user6591 - that's essentially my understanding of the seif that you have brought here. But the question is not talking about abandoning anything, nor is it talking about making positive declarations to the effect that someone is a different religion, it is only talking about doing otherwise permitted things and allowing those of another faith to assume what they want. Kol tuv. –  Jul 06 '15 at 13:45
  • @Maimonist which the Ramma brings is assur for monetary concerns. Changing one's clothes while saying nothing is assur if it's in order to avoid a tax, and muttar if done for self protection. – user6591 Jul 06 '15 at 14:28
  • 1
    The Rema ONLY discusses this as being assur in regard to ovdhei kokhavim. He never discusses any other type of non-Jew. Muslims are NOT idolaters and therefore do not fit into the comments of the Rema. To my mind, it could be little more than allowing someone to assume that you're a secular communist in order to avoid loss. I just don't see how the Rema applies here unless we're discussing ACTUAL idolatry. Kol tuv. –  Jul 06 '15 at 16:38
  • @Maimonist By agreeing to the reading of the Shach you have lost the ability to argue that. And pretending to be a secular communist might be more comparable to idolatry. Here we have three levels. Judaism, monotheism, and idolatry. Someone can pretend to be a nonjewish monotheist without idolatry involved and the Shach is telling us that is still a chillul Hashem. Nothing to do with avodas kochavim. It's simply an abandonment of Hashem's plan for us as Jews which does not equate to any monotheism. – user6591 Jul 06 '15 at 17:39
  • I said essentially. And I do not concur with the Shakh. I concur with the Rambam. I have not lost anything. Kol tuv. –  Jul 06 '15 at 18:14
  • @Maimonist I have no reason to think Rambam would disagree. Although he was seemingly more lenient concerning professing belief in Muhammad in order to save one's life, we don't find him being lenient as concerns money. The proof to this difference is the Rivash brought a few times in Shulchan Aruch concerning the Anusim. People who were shmadded and brought up children in that situation, The children are tinok shenishba. If the reason to stay was money, there is no leniency. Listen, we can choose to disagree about this, But from your comment to Sam, all I can say is be careful. – user6591 Jul 06 '15 at 18:21
  • Sorry, but there are strict gedarim around what is hhillul hashem and the Shakh (with all due respect to kavodho harav) does not get to come along and say, "Well, I think that it is..." And even still, who says that the Shakh, the Taz, or anyone else gets to invent new instances of hhillul hashem? On a related note, this is why I generally feel like the way in which the Shulhhan Arukh as it is printed and learned today is not viable since it is a labyrinth of subjective opinions, most of the time almost completely removed from the sources themselves. Kol tuv. –  Jul 06 '15 at 18:26
  • Again, NO ONE IS TALKING ABOUT PROFESSING BELIEF IN MOHHAMMED. Not me, not the question. You are addressing a question that was never asked. This is allowing people to maintain their false impressions. Period. And it is a historical fact that those who held Islam to be idolatry were doing so out of mistaken impressions. –  Jul 06 '15 at 18:29
  • @Maimonist I never said the question was about professing belief in Muhammad. I only mentioned that as a logical proof to try to reason with you that Rambam would possibly agree with Shach and possibly not allow any type of sneaky behavior when the only concern is money. – user6591 Jul 06 '15 at 18:50
  • 1
    @Maimonist , do you mean that the Ran was mistaken when he wrote this : חידושי הר"ן מסכת סנהדרין דף סא עמוד ב

    ולמדנו מכאן שהקדשים של כותים וגם המשוגע של הישמעאלי' אף על פי שאין טועין אחריהם לעשותן אלהות הואיל ומשתחוים לפניהם השתחואה של אלהו' דין ע"א יש להן לכל דבר אסור של ע"א שלא בהדור לבד הם משתחוים פניהם שאין הדור למתים אלא כענין עבודה של אלהות היא עבודתן:

     – sam Jul 07 '15 at 01:27
  • @sam - If I understand him correctly, then yes, I do believe that Ran was mistaken in his sentiments about Muslims being idolaters. The mistake for the poseqim who held this way was that they assumed that they were worshipping the Kaaba and this is just not true. Islamic understanding of bowing toward the Kaaba is no different than the Jewish one with regard to the Beth HaMiqdash. –  Jul 07 '15 at 03:43
  • I am not saying one way or the other,I respect all opinions ,and I definitely am not a person to choose who is right,just to point out in the ha'aros of the Yalkut Yosef on hilchos netilas yedayim 4:56 he brings many shittos as usual,and writes regarding this Ran that if he(the Ran) saw the teshuva of the Rambam he would have been Chozer (if I remember it correctly ) – sam Jul 07 '15 at 04:33