Q&A: An Offer to Convert to Islam in Captivity
An Offer to Convert to Islam in Captivity
Question
The hostage Rom Braslavski said that his captors offered him the option of converting to Islam in exchange for improved conditions. He refused.
According to Maimonides, Islam is not idolatry. If that is indeed so, would a halakhic responsum still have forbidden him to do it?
In addition, presumably this is a kind of coercion, and it would all be only lip service. On the other hand, he reported that this was not a matter of life or death, but rather an offer to improve his harsh conditions.
If he had called to consult with you about this, what would you have answered?
Assuming there is no halakhic problem, do you see some ethical value here that would make it worthwhile for him to refuse, in the extreme situation of captivity?
Answer
I think there is no difference whether it is idolatry or not. Islam is another religion, and therefore there is an estrangement from Judaism here. It is highly doubtful that this would be permitted even in a situation of danger to life, and certainly not when it is not a matter of danger to life.
I later saw that the Ritva indeed wrote in Pesachim 25b that any religion that denies the Torah of Moses is considered idolatry, even if its adherents hold that there is one God. Consequently, according to this, Islam too is considered idolatry (and all the more so Christianity), and one must give up one’s life rather than convert to Islam; and so the Radbaz ruled (4:92). Following this, the Divrei Yatziv ruled (Yoreh De’ah 40) that it is forbidden to enter a mosque, just like any house of idol worship. I am not sure that he means to say that it has the full legal status of idolatry against the view of Maimonides. More likely, even if this is not idolatry in the full halakhic sense, it is still another form of worship (= foreign worship) created by someone who invents a religion out of his own mind.
If this takes place before ten people, then in any case it is forbidden as a time of religious persecution.
The fact that it would be only lip service exists in every case of coercion to violate religion (even if it is actual idolatry), and nevertheless it was forbidden.