Dear Brother Joseph:
Salamun Alaikum.
First of all, let me congratulate and thank you for maintaining this brilliant site and forum where you have encouraged rational thinking and discussion over the Book of Allah. I firmly believe this is the correct approach of studying the Book and I consider myself as a fellow journeyman in the same path as yours.
There are many occasions where your comments have opened a fresh perspective about a particular statement from Qur'an to me and have thus made me ponder. Most often I find your analysis and conclusions enlightening and acceptable. That being said, there are a number of items where your conclusions have surprised me or at least confused me to the extent that I had to take a conclusion different from yours. If you permit me I would like to discuss them with you one by one with the sole intention of learning from each other. I am 100% open to the idea that discussion might clear my confusions just as well they may lead you to reconsider some of your conclusions.
The first article that I would like to examine critically is the one captioned here - about food restrictions.
As per your ground rules, let me first state my points of agreements with you:
1. The seeming 'lack of prohibition' on wild animals IS NOT an evidence that the Qur'an is incomplete and Islamic Secondary sources are indispensable in understanding Qur'an. Qur'an being the complete guidance for the believers must include the full details about any food restrictions for the believers.
2. We must understand the directives keeping in perspective all relevant verses of Qur'an.
However, my understanding differs from your interpretation for the verses: 005:001 and 006:145, and to some extent 006:142. Before closing in to the points of contention, let me briefly summarize your argument as I understand it. Please do correct me if I have followed your arguments incorrectly:
According to your analysis - before the unlawfulness of swine is mentioned in verse 5:3, verse 5:1 unequivocally and explicitly informs the reader of what is lawful. Verse 5:1 already restricts the permission to "Grazing livestock" so the question of eating lions, dogs etc. does not even arise. You have further concluded that 6:142 and 16:8 additionally assigns some livestock (e.g. horses, donkey) for the purpose of carrying weight / show and not for eating.
Now I'd like to point out the arguments which seem week:
A) Let's look at verse 5:1 first - according to the translation that you used, the verse says:
005:001
"O ye who believe! Fulfil your obligations. Grazing livestock (Arabic: bahimatu l'anaami) is made lawful (Arabic: uhillat) to you (for food) except that which is announced to you (herein), game being unlawful when ye are on the pilgrimage. Lo! God ordains that which pleases Him"
So it is clear that Allah says, "Grazing livestock is made lawful to you (for food) except that which is announced to you (herein)". Can we conclude from here that grazing livestock is the ONLY kind of animal allowed as food? If that was the intension, Allah could have used the word "Innama (only)" before the statement - but He did not do it. So, it seems to me you are reading the word "ONLY" where it is not there. Furthermore, if for argument's sake we accept that grazing livestock is the ONLY kind of animal allowed by Allah, where does it leave the poultry?
If someone says X is allowed for you excluding X' (X' being a subset of X), that does not mean Y is disallowed where Y is a set totally outside X.
B) Now let's see the verse 6:145:
006.145
“Say: I do not find in what has been revealed to me anything forbidden to an eater to eat of except that it be what has died of itself, or blood poured forth, or flesh of swine - for indeed, that surely is impure - or that which is a transgression, is dedicated to other than God. But whoever is driven to necessity, not desiring nor transgressing the limit, then surely your Lord is Forgiving, Merciful.”
As per your explanation this verse is a clear response to the unwarranted claims in the previous verses (6:143-44) where some have forbidden certain animals from within the category of grazing livestock (bahimatul-anaam). You are absolutely right about the context. But note - the tone and emphasis of verse 6:145... Allah SWT is clearly directing the messenger to declare there are NO OTHER restrictions in the entire revealed scripture other than the few selected items categorically mentioned in the verse. To me it seems you are overlooking the tone and generic applicability of the verse and overly restricting it to the narrow context.
If someone says, "they say I restricted P, but in all that I say - the only restriction for you is X, Y, and Z", I believe we can safely assume, like P and Q and R being outside the list of prohibited items are also "not-prohibited".
C) I am also having difficulty accepting your inferences from 6:142 and 16:8. Yes, very clearly these verses imply that Allah created certain animals for food and certain others for other purposes. But does that automatically imply that the ones created for "other purposes" are prohibited as food? Without a clear statement from Allah wouldn't that be reading too much into what Allah said? Using the argument the other way, would you say animals which are good as food (e.g. cows, camels) are not suitable as carriers or for show?
D) You have also argued that lions, dogs etc. have always been prohibited for the people of the book - so for the Quran to allow the consumption of other animals especially not in the scriptural tradition of previous monotheistic followers, one would arguably expect an unequivocal explicit verse, not implicit, ambiguous deductions. My refutal to this statement are as follows:
i. it is not true that the said food restrictions have always been there for monotheistic followers. Allah clearly informed us (3:93) that All foods happened to be allowed for the children of Israel except which Israel made prohibited upon his soul from before that Torah was sent down. It proves there was no food restrictions before Israel - meaning in period of Abraham, for example. Haven't we been specifically told (2:130) to discard the religions of jews and christians in favor of upholding Millat-i-Abraham? Shouldn't we rather argue - to give any restrictions in addition to what Abraham followed, Allah must unequivocally and explicitly mention in Qur'an - like how He mentioned the flesh of swine?
ii. for me verse 6:145 is unequivocal and explicit enough to conclude that the ONLY restrictions from Allah are those categorically mentioned in this verse. How more explicit would you like Allah to be? You want Allah to list down all the foods that are lawful?
iii. you must have noted verse 6:145 is immediately followed by verse 6:146 where Allah is saying that certain food items (including all creatures with claws) were prohibited for those who were Yahudi as a repayment for their envy. To me this coupled with 6:145 is an absolutely clear indication that the food restrictions followed by the jews mentioned in 6:146 - are now null and void.
Dear brother Joseph - you have been very careful and consistent about the prohibition on music and gold for men etc. - that we must not innovate any restriction which Allah has not explicitly mentioned. Please think again, on the question of food restrictions have you followed the same logic with equal understanding?
That pretty much sums up my contentions with your article. However, any concerned reader may ask, what is my conclusion then. Am I saying lions and dogs are edible? To me the answer lies in 5:1 indeed, but in a way slightly different from how brother Joseph has interpreted it. My translation for the verse is as follows:
5:1
O! Those who have believed – fulfill (the obligations) by your contracts. The animals of the Grazing livestock, except what is recited on you, are legitimized for you - without legitimizing the hunting while you are under prohibition. Indeed Allah judges however He intends.
[Please feel free to critic my translation - I am eager to improve my understanding of Arabic.]
To do perfect justice to the verse, we have to ponder first what is the relationship between fulfilling contracts and food restrictions. When we enter a contract with someone there are some explicit clauses as well as some implicit clauses which are not clearly mentioned in the contract. For example - following the laws of the land, maintaining manners etc. are not always mentioned in every contract but they are implicit. Fulfilling the contract implies fulfilling all clauses both implicit and explicit. (For example, I may have a contract with a person for the delivery of a parcel, but that would not mean the delivery man is allowed to break-in to the destination house if the incumbent is not present at the time of delivery - even if such a situation is not explicitly covered in the contract.) It is this fulfillment of both implicit and explicit clause that is emphasized by placing this commandment along with the food restrictions where Allah is saying such and such food items are allowed for you without giving you any permission of hunting which is prohibited (an implicit understanding). We know that virtually everywhere in the developed world hunting / killing of wild animals and pet animals are prohibited and illegal. Allah may not have explicitly prohibited these animals, but that does not give us the right to overrule the prohibitions that our state / society impose on us. Understanding the second part of the verse only in the context of ritual "ihram" during pilgrimage, to me, is too narrow an interpretation.
There are certain countries and societies in the world where unusual dietary practices are lawful and acceptable. For a person in rural Korea eating of dog may be as normal as eating chicken. Someone from that society may be interested to adopt the religion of Allah. I do not see anything in Qur'an that will make me go and stop him from eating what my Master has not explicitly prohibited. But I will welcome him to accept the minimum food norms and etiquettes which have now become global for mankind - and such norms does not allow eating of dogs. Eating of horse, donkey etc. is also, per my understanding, acceptable as a secondary use for the animal in societies and countries where such practices are legitimate.
Qur'an has been absolutely consistent and persistent regarding the dietary restrictions. The ONLY restrictions imposed by Allah
from the perspective of the eater for the believers are:
1. The dead.
2. The blood (poured forth).
3. The FLESH of Swine and
4. What has been dedicated to other than Allah / upon which Allah has not been remembered.
These are prohibited always with a caveat that whoever is driven to necessity, not desiring nor transgressing the limit, then surely our Lord is Forgiving, Merciful.
This has been confirmed and reconfirmed in verses 2:173; 5:3; 6:145 and 16:115.
There are certain additional restrictions
from the perspective of food processor in 5:3 - but with 5:4 our Kind and Merciful Master has implicitly exhonerated the eater from any excesses committed by the food processor as long as the food processor is trained in the appropriate method and the name of Allah is remembered over the food.
We can impose as many additional food restrictions upon us as we wish - for health, environment or culture - and by all means we should follow such restrictions - but we MUST NOT attribute any additional restriction (except the 4 above) to Allah - that my friends is my humble conclusion from the relevant verses of Al Qur'an.
Show Posts