Messages

31

General Discussions / Re: Are the Articles of Islamic Faith Foundational for people on this forum?

« on: February 11, 2014, 05:43:47 PM »

Dear Brother Daniel:

Salamun Alaikum.

Qur'an doesn't itemize the elements of faith, so the itemization is a product of the secondary sources. But Qur'an requires the believers to believe in a variety of concepts including Oneness of God, The afterlife, the angels, the messengers and the holy books. So, if somone compiles such a list from Qur'an - we cannot necessarily say such a list is Un-Qur'anic (unless the list contains items which is not mentioned in Qur'an).

My humble understanding based on my limited knowledge of Qur'an is that the bare minimum requirement for getting a rewarding afterlife is to a) have faith in Allah (or, One true God) and b) believing in the Last Day and then c) acting appropriately / righteously. This understanding is based on numerous verses of Qur'an, for example - 2:8; 2:62; 2:126 etc.

The pious people (al-birra) are identified as ones who believe in Allah (or, One true God) and the Last Day, and the angels and the book and the prophets - in addition to certain other qualities. This is supported by the following verse:

2:177 Piety is not that you turn your faces towards the east or the west; on the contrary - pious is (one) who believes in Allah and the last day, and the angels and the book, and the prophets; and gives the wealth, despite love for it, to near relatives, and the orphans, and the needy, and the distressed travelers (literally: sons of the path), and the beggars , and in (freeing) bondage (literally: necks) ; and establishes salaat and gives zakaat; and ones fulfilling their covenant whenever they make it; and the patient ones in adversity and hardship and time of pressure  – They are the ones who are (on) truth and they are the conscious.

[My personal translation - I encourage to cross check.]

Hope this was helpful. May Allah guide us all to the straight route.

Regards,
Arman

32

General Discussions / Re: Food dedictated to other deities instead of Allah

« on: February 11, 2014, 01:35:11 PM »

Dear Brothers:

Salamun Alaikum.

I believe and support the conclusions that you have reached. Like you I am also convinced that remembering Allah's name at the time of slaughter is not an absolute necessity. The responsibility of remembering the name is upon the person who is eating. I also believe we should try to avoid eating any kind of food (animal or vegetarian) that has been dedicated to anyone other than Allah/God. But if we do so unknowingly, unintentionally or under compulsive situations remembering Allah over it - our Master is Forgiving and Kind.

The reason why I jumped to reply on this chain is to highlight another point. Please let's not make the pronouncement of the exact words "Bismillah" as a mandatory requirement. Certainly if we make a habit of saying Bismillah that helps - but, Allah asks us to remember Him over the food and appreciate Him. So, irrespective of whether we pronounce Bismillah or Alhamdulillah or just silently appreciate Him - all suffices the purpose. Here our intension matters, the exact words don't.

May Allah guide us all to the straight route.

Regards,
Arman

33

General Discussions / Re: Critique - DOES THE QURAN ALLOW ... DOGS, CATS, RATS ETC? by Arman Aziz

« on: February 10, 2014, 05:08:27 PM »

Salamun alaikum.

• The only main counter argument is an argument from silence and reading of verses out of context. With respect, this is neither a cogent argument nor approach.

Regards,
Joseph

Dear Brother Joseph:

From your above quoted post it has seemed to me you that have somewhat inclined to engage with me on the topic based on logic and arguments, rather than brushing me aside as a personal attacker. So, I have decided to respond with one last post on the topic from my side as well. Since I raised the topic - I felt a proper closure from my side is also warranted. The readers of the forum knows your conclusions - so they should also note what my conclusions are and they for themselves evaluate and judge what makes more sense. Allah will guide whomever He wills to the straight route.

[Please note through-out this post I will use my personal translation of the verses of Qur'an. But please do cross check with other translations or even best - the original Arabic text. I also welcome any criticism of my translation.]



Firstly, let me clearly state in a nut-shell that I have not been convinced with the logic of BJ (and others supporting his view) - mainly because it seems to me that, with respect, BJ is somehow over-emphasizing an arguable deduction from one ayat (5:1) - to overrule clear guideline from at least 3 ayats at 3 different locations in the holy book [2:173-176; 6:145 and 16:115-116]. This is strictly a critique of the argument of BJ - not him as a person. If my tone and enthusiasm have seemed inappropriate before, I apologize for that - but unfortunately my core contention remains unchanged.



Secondly , let me very briefly reply the 2 most frequently asked questions to me:

1) Why does Allah categorically mention "Grazing Livestock" in 5:1?

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.

I have actually discussed this in my very first post. Per my understanding what this ayat is saying ... even something as commonly understood as halal as Grazing Livestock will no longer remain halal if you engage in prohibited hunting. The clear example of grazing livestock is brought here to illustrate that even in "the most explicit permissions" there are implicit underlying conditions which need to be observed... in following the scripture, as well as in fulfilling contracts.

The "Grazing Livestock" has come in this ayat as an example only.... there are several categories of obviously halal animals/creatures - like poultry and fish - outside grazing livestock. So, from a strictly academic and linguistic point of view it is not a valid argument that this ayat restricts halal animals to grazing livestock.

The context of the ayat is in the ayat itself. Before accusing others of using ayats outside the context, let's make sure we do not fall in the trap ourselves.


2) Can you give one single ayat that says all other foods other that the stated restrictions are halal?

In sha Allah, I can - but, what is the point? If you have a pre-conceived prejudice that everything must be read in the context of what you believe - then even if I bring all the ayats of Qur'an you will not be convinced. Let me try anyway.

5:93   No offence on those who believe and act appropriately for what they eat whenever that they are conscious and they believe and they act appropriately, (and) later they are conscious and they believe, (and) later they are conscious and they be nice; and Allah loves the ones being nice.

I believe that this ayat reflects exactly the same sentiment that we find in Gospel (in the form we have today):

Mark 7:18 (NIV) "Are you so dull?" he [Jesus] asked. "Don't you see that nothing that enters a man from the outside can make him 'unclean'?
Mark 7:19 (NIV) "For it doesn't go into his heart but into his stomach, and then out of his body."

The key takeaway is - the food habits of man does not make him pious or impious; righteous or wrongdoer. It is what he believes in the soul and what is reflected in his action that make him so.

The messengers and religious preachers throughout ages have emphasized moral and behavioral teaching. In addition as a matter of necessity they taught certain food manners consistent with their socio-cultural norms and practiced some themselves - but soon after their departure their followers have taken the food manners as the centerpiece of the religion and de-emphasized the moral teaching. And to justify their superiority they kept on inventing restrictions and attributing them to Allah - to create division and to spread hostility based on food prejudices towards alien cultures. Unfortunately, the same trend is seen among the followers of Qur'an as well.


My third business of the day is to refute a misconception. Somehow it has been floating around that I am saying eating lions, and dogs and rats, and wood and paper are acceptable. Absolutely NO. I have not said these, nor did I want to mean this. If it has seemed that I am saying these then that must be a limitation of my communication ability. Dogs and cats are men's household pets throughout the world. The people who eat dogs and cats probably do so only because they are disconnected from global food ettiquate of men. I have seen Koreans who once ate dogs, but now no longer does so because they have now come to the understanding that dogs are not edible.

Lions and tigers are wild animals. I am strictly against any kind of killing of wild animals by modern men except in situation where they somehow threat humans. The days of hunter-gatherer societies are gone. With all the intelligence and material achievements that Allah has given men it is time we focus on conservation of the bio-diversity. That is our appropriate course of action as Allah's representative on earth. Since it is not a feasible idea to raise tigers and lions as food in firms - they are not men's food items.

Horses and donkeys, yes I believe they are meant to be carriers NOT FOOD. And cockroaches, rats are PESTS - neither wholesome nor delicious. And wood and paper, come on... can we even imagine these as edible?

Allah has again and again and again encouraged us to eat lawful and wholesome/delicios (tayyibat) food - not only to believers, but to mankind in general. We must use our brain and eyes to decide what is wholesome / delicious food. On this point WE ALL SEEM TO AGREE. Our debate is whether Lions and dogs must also go through the same filter of common sense, or is there a prohibition against them in Qur'an. I believe the former is the case - these items are simply not food because our socio-cultural context don't accept them as delicious (Taiyyibat). Such items may be considered as allowable only in societies and cultures where such practices are still acceptable. But I wish soon they  will catch up with the rest of us.



Now, as the fourth and last item of my final post on this topic, I would like to present my understanding of food restictions based on Qur'an.

1. For mankind, in general, Allah's command is to eat whatever they can acquire lawfully and find delicious (based on their own tase, judgement and morality). This command has clearly come in Surah bakarah.

2:168   O! Mankind - Eat from whatever in the earth is lawful, delicious  and don’t follow the footsteps of the devil. Indeed he is an obvious  enemy to you.

2:169   He only commands you to wickedness and immorality and that you say upon Allah what you don’t know.

2. Soon afterwards, for believers Allah has mandated 4 additional restrictions - to establish their separate identity as believers. These 4 restictions are - (i) the dead, (ii) the blood (poured out), (iii) the flesh of swine, and (iv)any food dedicated to other than Allah. A true believer - as an attestation to his faith in Qur'an - must not violate these restrictions nor should they add any restrictions to these to attribute on Allah.

2:172   O! Those who have believed - eat from the delicious things that We provided you and appreciate Allah if He is the One you are slave to.

2:173   He has only prohibited for you the dead, the blood and the flesh of swine, and what has been initiated  with it - for other than Allah. Then whoever is compelled - neither coveting  nor recurring  - then no sin on him. Indeed Allah is Forgiving, Kind.

2:174   Indeed, those who conceal what Allah has sent down of the book and exchange it for a small price, they are the ones who don’t eat in their inside  but fire and neither will Allah speak to them on the day of resurrection nor will He purify them, and for them - a painful suffering.

2:175   They are the ones - who exchange deviation from guidance and suffering for forgiveness – then what is their endurance on the fire?

2:176   That is because Allah has sent down the book with the truth. And indeed those who differed with the book are surely in wide schism.

The later ayats above (2:174-176) emphasizes the importance of taking Allah's instructions in face value and overrules inventing any additional confusion in the name of Allah in extremely initimidating words! There is a clear indication that any additional effort to promote "invented" restrictions in name of Allah would result in Scism. Also note how clearly the warning identifies the wrongdoing people as the ones exchanging suffering (as in 2:174) for forgiveness (as in 2:173).

When we start to take men's judgement and deductions and start promoting them as God's rule we start to create all these groups and sub-groups; sects and sub-sects. So much debate on whether horse, or insect, or rabit, or ostritch, or shark, or deer is halal - we will keep on debating until we surrender to the exact words of Allah and take them as enough! Let's avoid what Allah says haram - and for evertything else let's use our brain. Such a simple solution! If we keep on duducting this and that as halal and haram - never will we agree and never will find true peace.

[Those of you who want to read these verses "in the context" of your arguable deductions from 5:1, could you please help me understand why Allah has totally seggeregated these verses from Sura 5 and put them in an earlier Sura?]

3. "The food of the people of book are legitimate for us, and our foods are legitimate for them" - this, by no way implies that Jewish food restrictions (in part or whole) are still applicable for us. This is again another creative deduction. Qur'an clearly says that Jewish food restrictions were merely a punishment for their envy. Furthermore, the following verse mandates that - for any food to be prohibited by Allah there needs to be explicit prohibition in the scripture - otherwise judgement of which food is delicious is left to men -

3:93   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. Say, “So bring the Torah and recite it if you happen to be sincere.”

4. Allah discusses the food restrictions in details in Sura 5 (al-Maidah) and 6 (al-An'am). The overall theme of these suras regarding food-restrictions is that the contemporaries of the messenger were inventing various food restrictions by themselves and attributing them to Allah. Allah clearly denounces and rejects any such innovations. In my earlier posts I have disucssed there are additional restrictions on how animals should be killed for food in 5:3, but strictly from the eater's perspective the 4 restrictions have been reiterated once again. The verse 6:145 - carries the final verdict on this topic in as general and unequivocal wording as possible.

6:145   Say, “I do not find in what has been inspired to me anything prohibited to an eater who eats – except – that it happens to be dead, or poured-out blood or flesh of swine; then indeed it is pollution or willful disobedience originating for other than Allah with it.” Then whoever is compelled - neither coveting nor recurring; then indeed your Master is Relenting, Kind.

Now I have seen there is a strong "tendency" in reading the above verse "only" in the context of preceeding verses where some innovations relating to grazing livestocks are discussed. Let me ask you this hypothetical question - In my annual office party my colleages offers me wine. I refuse and say, "I never drink any kind of alcoholic drink." The next day, my colleage sees me drinking whisky at a pub. Shouldn't he be surprised? If I say, my comment about not drinking alcoholic drink was made only in the context of office party and wine - would that be a satisfactory explanation? NO, it won't be. Because though I made the comment in a given context - the WORDING of my statement was GENERAL, so my colleague has every right to take the statement at its face value as a general statement applicable in all context. Similarly the above verse (6:145) carries a statement with GENERAL WORDING and hence its scope supercedes any given context. This is one verse that nullifies every Islamic secondary source that innovate false hadises attributing to our Messenger saying he prohibited this and that in addition to what Qur'an says.

Unless of course, you believe Allah is a little bit casual in his word choice - He really doesn't mean what he says etc. My kid sees a big elephant and says, "Wow! This is the biggest thing I have ever seen." - We all know he means this is the biggest "animal" that he has seen because surely he has seen the sun and the moon - which are much bigger. So, just like the statement of my kid which we have to understand (with a little bit of sympathy for his immaturity) within the given context - we have to understannd the verses of Allah with a little bit of grain of salt. Nauzubillah. Sorry, my friends - I cannot support such a point of view. If Qur'an is the verses from the Master of the Universe, which I know it is - We MUST take His general statements at face value - not cast doubt over them assuming they are meant to be understood in a restricted context. His words are final and precise and there is no doubt in it.

5. Finally let's come to Sura 16 (Surah al-Nahl), After a fair bit of gap Allah raises the issue of food restriction for one more time and gives us his clear words -

16:114 So eat of what Allah has provided you - legitimate, delicious - and appreciate the blessings of Allah if He is the one you are slave to.

16:115 He has only prohibited for you the dead, the blood and the flesh of swine, and what has been initiated for other than Allah - with it. Then whoever is compelled - neither coveting  nor recurring  - then  indeed Allah is Forgiving, Kind.

16:116 And do not say that for which your tounges attributes the lie - "This is legitimate and this is prohibited." So that you invent about Allah the lie. Indeed those who invent about Allah the lie, will not succeed.

Now, after receiving such crystal clear instructions from my Master, how can I attribute any additional restrictions in name of Allah which is not clearly declared as "haram" in Qur'an. I will promote a lot of things as not delicious [Tayyibat] and hence not permisible - but clarify that it is my own judgement and Qur'an mandates application of sound judgement. But, The restrictions from Allah are those declared by Allah clearly and consistently in Qur'an. Nothing more, nothing less.

If you still deny my friends - I have no choice but to resort to 6:147.

6:147   Then if they deny you then say, “Your Master is vastly full of mercy but His pressure will not turn away from a criminal people.”

There are numerous "Quran only / God only" forums in the internet. My evaluation is that all of them that I found - reject the "innovations" brought by the so-called "traditional scholars", but in turn brings new prejudices, innovations themselves. Apparently Brother Joseph and you people on this forum seemed to be such an exception! But, if you prove me wrong, then my time and effort is better spent in personal study of the words of my Master.

May Allah guide us all to the straight route.


Best regards,
Arman

34

General Discussions / Re: Critique - DOES THE QURAN ALLOW ... DOGS, CATS, RATS ETC? by Arman Aziz

« on: February 01, 2014, 08:03:33 AM »

Salamun Alaikum.

Dear Nura - congratulations for surrenderring to the will and words of the Master of the Universe. For everyone else - I only have to offer you the clears words from Our Master, [recheck the translation though and feel free to use any other translation of your choise]. Emphasis added.

Surah Al-An-am (Grazing Livestock); Verses 145-147

6:145   Say, “I do not find in what has been inspired to me anything prohibited to an eater who eats – except – that it happens to be dead, or poured-out blood or flesh of swine; then indeed it is pollution or willful disobedience originating for other than Allah with it.” Then whoever is compelled - neither coveting nor recurring; then indeed your Master is Relenting, Kind.

6:146   And upon those who are Yahudi We prohibited every (creature) with claws; and of the cows and the sheep We prohibited upon them their fat/lipid  except what carried their backs or their entrails or whatever is joined with the bones – that is their repayment for their envious acts. And indeed We surely are sincere.

6:147   Then if they deny you then say, “Your Master is vastly full of mercy but His pressure will not turn away from a criminal people.”

May Allah guide us all to the straight route.

Till our paths meet again ... Fee Amanillah.

Arman

35

General Discussions / Re: Critique - DOES THE QURAN ALLOW ... DOGS, CATS, RATS ETC? by Arman Aziz

« on: January 30, 2014, 03:09:46 PM »

Salamun Alaikum Brother Joseph. Let's now discuss your rebuttal.

In your rebuttal you have assumed my core contention is in Point A. This is actually not the case. My core contention is more around B - you have ignored clear, explicit, unequivocal and unambiguous words from Allah in 6:142 (as well as 2:173 and 16:115 - which you didn't discuss much) in support of an extremely vague and week derivation from 5:1. As if you seem to imply Allah has again and again casually mentioned He ONLY prohibits a, b, c and d - while in fact He also wanted to prohibit X, Y and Z - we are supposed to derive it from some other verses. No! With due respect to your research - the clear words of our Master are enough for me and I do not need to derive anything while I have explicit words from my Master right in front of me. Our Master doesn't say anything casually - His words are precise and final. And the conclusive decision is with Him.

That being said, I am still respectfully refuting remaining of your points with the hope that this will help you and other readers to evaluate the strength of the arguments. I am assigning numbers to your arguments just for the sake of convenience of referencing.

Your argument 1:
From my understanding of the Quran, the Quran does not present Shariah compliant commandments in such a manner which would warrant an expectation of the elucidatory comment 'ONLY' as you kindly suggest.

My Refuttal: Allah has used the word innama (only) numerous times in Qur'an and I believe He understands where He needs to use it and where he needs not. Allah has used this word in 2:173 and 16:115. In both of these verses He mentioned what the ONLY food-restrictions from Him are. Do you say Allah used "ONLY" when he meant "Not really only" and forgot to use the word in 5:1 when that would have been essential to establish what He supposedly wanted to say? I would rather depend on the judgement of our Master.

Your argument 1 - example a:
For example, God permits fighting in verse 2:190. The limitations and remit are given. However, fighting outside this remit is understood to be forbidden.

My Refuttal: It is not really "understood" to be forbidden. Allah clearly says in the same verse "... and do not transgress." Which explicitly implies fighting outside the remit would be transgression.

Your argument 1 - example b:
God makes intimacy 'uhillat' (permissible) in the night of the fasts. (2:187). The context / remit is 'fasting'.  Therefore, intimacy outside this remit during the context of fasting is understood to be forbidden, (In other words, during the daytime of the fasts, intimacy is forbidden).

My Refuttal: It is not really "understood" to be forbidden. Allah clearly says in the same verse to have pleasure with them and eat and drink until a specific time at dawn and then complete the siam up to night. The key word here is "Hatta (until)". These wordings clearly establishes what are the prohibited items during siam - as opposed to leaving it for derivation.

Your argument 2:
Furthermore, from a Quranic perspective, it could better be argued that God could have said only 'swine' is prohibited and everything else is lawful if that was the intention.

My Refuttal: Hasn't He clearly said ONLY what is prohibited in 2:173 and 16:115? Hasn't He made it clear in 6:145 with even more elaborate wordings that there are no other food-restriction for the eater in the entire revealed scripture?

Furthermore, why would He say everything else is lawful - while many foods are unlawful because they have been earned in unlawful manner? For example even fruits and vegetables would be unlawful if they are stolen, right? And why don't you refer back to your own articles about music and gold for men - didn't you conclude they are lawful even though Allah didn't explicitly mention them?

Allah has clearly mentioned what are the ONLY food-restrictions from Him. Everything else is left to the common sense of men.

Your argument 3:
the context 'X' is 'animals for consumption / eating'. I am not suggesting another 'Y'. Other animals for consumption such as lions, dogs and cats are not 'Y'.  If I were for example, talking about animals for riding, that would be a different context and remit and hence, a different 'Y'.

My Refuttal: The X is "animals from Grazing Livestock". Lions and tigers (say Y) do fall outside of the X. Someone saying X is legitimate does not automatically mean Y is prohibited. Your point is - since Allah says Animals from Grazing Livestock is legitimate for you - that means every other kind of animal is automatically prohibited. This my brother is a very weak and arguable derivation. The fact that we have "poultry" as a confirmed exception to your argument clearly shows how weak such an argument is.

Would you really stick to such a weak derivation when clear and explicit verses on the subject are available? From what I read from your numerous articles I do believe you have the intelligence and courage to see your own mistake if there is one.

May Allah guide us all to the straight route.

Regards,
Arman

PS: I will be offline for next few days, so please expect delay in any further post from me.

36

General Discussions / Re: Critique - DOES THE QURAN ALLOW ... DOGS, CATS, RATS ETC? by Arman Aziz

« on: January 30, 2014, 12:39:24 PM »

Salamun Alaikum.

Let me quickly respond to brother Ismail and sister Abbsrayray before I go into the discussion with Brother Joseph in my next email.

For brother Ismail:

Per my understanding, the other restrictions from the perspective of food processor (as in 5:3) include restrictions on the animals suffocated and the ones hit and the ones dropped down and the ones gored and what has been eaten by predatory animals – except what "you make aromatic (through legal slaughter)" [dhakkaytum]. These restrictions relating to the method of killing of the animal can be observed only by the group who are processing the meat from the live animal. Most often the people who eat the meat are not directly involved in this process. For them it should be OK if they ensure the people who processed the meat from live animal have been trained properly in the method mandated by Allah - and then eat whatever they manage to bring - in good faith - remembering the name of Allah upon it. Per my understanding that is the spirit of the next verse - 5:4.

The separation of restriction on food processor and food eater is supported in 6:145 where Allah is commanding the messenger to proclaim - “I do not find in what has been inspired to me anything prohibited to an eater who eats – except – that it happens to be dead, or poured-out blood or flesh of swine; then indeed it is pollution or willful disobedience initiating for other than Allah with it.” [Please note I am using my translations with emphasis added- any criticism of the translation is much welcome.]


For sister Abbsrayray:

Sorry for the length of my argument - the summary is at the bottom. If you read from the point where I said, "Qur'an has been absolutely consistent and persistent ... " In sha Allah you will get the summary of what I tried to say.

You have asked, am I saying people can eat dogs, cats, lions, horses, tigers, bears, rats? Or God does not make it unlawful? Let me ask you, does God say that you should not eat raw meat, or soil, or metal, glass or petroleum.. and so on and so forth? Or do you say Allah has made these things unlawful? Then bring Qur'an and prove it if you are sincere. Allah has always encouraged use to eat the delicious (Taiyyibat) - and it is up to us to find the delicious and pure food in the best possible form within our respective socio-cultural context. Allah has given us our brain, our eyes, our smelling ability and our taste-buds - and it is up to us to make the best use of them. The eating of dogs, cats, lions, horses, tigers, bears, rats etc. is also no exception. If we make a wrong choice - the result would be immediate - in the form of indigestion or disease or jail! Furthermore, as I have already discussed in detail, though Allah has not explicitly prohibited wild animals - that does not mean we are allowed to engage in illegal hunting (5:1).

However, we must segregate these common-sense restrictions from religious restrictions. Through-out Qur'an Allah has been consistent in saying prohibitions from Him are limited to the few items - the dead, the blood, flesh of the swine and what has been initiated for other than Allah / Allah not remembered over it. Read for yourself Al Qur'an 2:172-176 and 6:145 and take the words of Allah exactly as they are - you'll invariably see these are the only Quranic food-restrictions. To promote any other food-restriction attributing it to Allah would potentially place us among those who "write with their own hands and then say it is from Allah to exchange it for a small price". May Allah save us from being one among them.


Best regards,
Arman

37

General Discussions / Re: Critique - DOES THE QURAN ALLOW ... DOGS, CATS, RATS ETC? by Arman Aziz

« on: January 29, 2014, 05:57:05 PM »

Salam,

Is it meant all the dead,all blood or the dead swine and the blood swine?

Wa alikum As Salam.

I understand Qur'an prohibits eating of all dead animals (i.e. which is not killed for the purpose of eating), any kind of blood poured forth from any animal and the flesh of swine. These are 3 separate restrictions.

May Allah guide us all to the straight route.

Regards,
Arman

38

General Discussions / Critique - DOES THE QURAN ALLOW ... DOGS, CATS, RATS ETC? by Arman Aziz

« on: January 29, 2014, 02:12:11 PM »

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.

39

Discussions / My Journey in search for "Good"

« on: January 28, 2014, 02:00:19 PM »

Salamun Alaikum.

By way of introduction, I would like to post a brief account my "Personal journeys in discovering true Islam".

From my very childhood my mission was to be a "good person", and I have tried to be a religious person, i.e. a "good muslim", because I thought good people are religious people. But as I grew up, my conviction started to get shaken. Firstly, I discovered, I don't know what "good" really is. And secondly I discovered "apparently" religious people are not necessarily always good people or people with sound judgement. So I had to start searching for answers. For me the primary question was to tackle what "good" is, rather than what is a true religion. Only if I know what "good" is will I ever know if religion is good or bad.

So, I had to take an internal journey in search of "good"... is it really a myth? Is our sense of good and bad a mere illusion created by our society or are there things fundamentally good or bad? I came to learn that Socrates asked this question a long time back - "Are good deeds good because God said they are good, or did God recommend good deeds because fundamentally they are good?" I was searching answer for the same question.

The story of my journey of logic is a facinating one and someday I intend to put all these in a paper - but the conclusion that I reached from all my deliberation is as follows: Good and Bad cannot be mere illusions created by society. We humans have an inherent basic sense of good and bad (Unique to our species) built into ourselves. Just like our vision and hearing this is a sense that we inherently poses to guide us in using the extremely powerful tool we have - our intelligence.

This inveriably leads me to the conclusion that the process of creation of man cannot be a haphazard coincidence. Whatever forces of nature has created or evolved us must have carefully endowed us with this sense of good and bad - the sense of morality and rationality. It must have done so as part of a bigger scheme to see how we use our intelligence - whether we pay heed to the sense of morality and rationality or whether we surrender to our whims. And thus the forces of nature cannot be blind coincidences - they must be reflection of an intelligence beyond and above anything we can imagine. It has got to be the same intelligence which has created the universe - the One, Only and Supreme  -no matter which name we call Him.

Thus I have decided to surrender myself to my creator by wholeheartedly accepting what is good and rejecting what is bad making the best possible use of my rationality and intelligence. That - to me is my resolution. That to me is my world-view, my Deen (arabic). I wan to be a good human being. To me being a good human is synnonymous to being a good servant of my Master. There is absolutely no difference.

However being a good human is not a like guided tour. There are numerous alternate paths and options to choose - which all seem good from different moral perspectives. I am extremely afraid if I depend solely on my own senses, my desires / whims may lead me astray and I may divert too far to come back. Am I missing out on any additional supporting material that would help me stay on right course? I would not want to take any chances - after all I have only one life to experiment with.

To me there comes the role of religion (millat) and scripture. The creator of the Universe has also created or at least allowed to be created numerous paths and religions and sects. It is up to us to choose the path and the interpretation that we find most appealing to our morality, rationality and intelligence. Then if I remain faithful within the bound of the religion without compromising our inherent morality and rationality - I can at least rest assured - if ever my Master asks me about my life, I would be able to say, yes my Master I sincerely tried to the best of my ability which you gave me.

So, my response to the age-old question of Socrates was, good things are good because God has taught us to perceive them as good - not because He said so in any book. If we have a real book from "God" - it cannot be but a reminder to our inherent morality and rationality. If anything in our religion / rationality contradicts our fundamental sense of morality (crude example - someone encourages me to be a suicide bomber) - that, to me is an alarm bell. We must rethink. It has got to be either we misunderstood the scripture or we are following the wrong path.

Being born in a muslim family I have been taught to pray everyday to my Master again and again and again to guide me to the straight route. That I do pray with all my sincerety and I believe in backing up my prayer with my own action. My search for the straight route starts with the book that I have been taught to believe as the direct words of Allah. Once these ideas became clear to me, I suddenly realized that my family, or religious teachers never really encouraged me to dig deep into the book. Rather they encouraged me to blindly follow their "prescriptions" - which often have ideas that conflict with my sense of morality. So I have decided to keep true to my resolution - my deen - and check for myself the holy book to see where in it do we differ.

So far the book of Allah has not disappointed me by an atom's weight. I am convinced this is the true words of my Master - perfectly alligned to my sense of morality and making the highest appeal to my intelligence. My journey continues.

May Allah guide us all to the straight route.

Best regards,
Arman

40

Prophets and Messengers / Re: The Meaning of Messiah

« on: January 27, 2014, 01:57:54 PM »

Salamun Alaikum.

Thanks to brother Daniel, Abbsrayray and Duster for taking up my question. I feel I need to elaborate a bit on my take from Al Qur'an 7:157-158.

To analyze these two ayahs, let us first look at the context. Starting from 7:103 the discussion is on the incidents from the life of Prophet Moses. In 7:155 we see Prophet Moses praying to Allah and Allah responding to him. The response extends into 7:157 where Allah mentions about a Prophet whom "they find written with them in the Torah and the Gospel". Since Allah is saying "They find" - I believe it would be unreasonable to think that it was a part of Torah/Gospel which is since lost. I would take this as an indication that the writing should be easily found in Torah and Gospel in whatever form it has been preserved at least till the days of Qur’an revelation.

Now, the most likely portion from Torah that relates to this statement is the one below:

The LORD said to me: What they say is good. I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their brothers; I will put my words in his mouth, and he will tell them everything I command him". Deuteronomy 18.17-18

The similarity between 7:157 and Deuteronomy 18-18 is quite obvious. The reference of "Ummi" Prophet in Al Qur'an 7:157 most like correspond to the idea expressed in Deuteronomy as "I will put my words in his mouth." Both Prophets Jesus and Muhammad only spoke what Allah taught them, not from knowledge learnt in religious schools - so this narration and the adjective "Ummi" can be applied to both of them.

Now putting everything into chronological context - it seems a bit awkward to me that Allah would give Prophet Moses indication about Prophet Muhammad without hinting about Prophet Jesus who would be the Messiah for the children of Israel. Interestingly our present day Christians also strongly claim Deuteronomy 18.17-18 to be referring to Jesus the Christ - but in spite of the statement clearly mentioning a Prophet (and not a Son of God / God himself) - they continue to be confused.

Similarly, Al Qur'an 7:157 is addressed to the followers of Moses and encouraging them to follow the messenger who would free them from their burdens and chains - which more appropriately refers to Prophet Jesus – a messenger to the children of Israel (please see Al Qur’an 3:49-50). Although the Prophet is not named – a careful reader of Al Qur’an 3:49-50 would easily get the impression that the reference is indeed to Prophet Jesus.

Based on all this, to me, both Deuteronomy 18.18 and Al Qur'an 7:157 almost obviously seem to be referring to the same Prophet - Prophet Jesus.

As if to reinforce the idea, in 7:158 Allah SWT is directly addressing the messenger of Qur’an to proclaim himself as "a messenger of Allah to you altogether" – presumably meaning to all mankind – not only to children of Israel. Also please note, there is no indication in these two consequtive ayahs that they are talking about the same Prophet (other than the common adjective “Ummi”). In fact - from the point of view of Prophet Muhammad, it makes 100% sense to ask the followers of Prophet Moses to believe in Prophet Jesus first, and then to believe in him. If the Jews do not accept the Prophet within their own ancestry whom they find written in Torah and Gospel - and who already eliminated the restrictive practices their ancestors followed - would they ever believe Prophet Muhammad who was from outside their ancestral chain?

On the contrary, the argument that the “Ummi” adjective means unlettered / gentile and thus can only refer to Prophet Muhammad is a bit too restrictive for me. So, please excuse me if I am not convinced with the argument that both 7:157-158 must talk about the same “Ummi” Prophet.

One concluding remark - Allah SWT has chosen not to give the names of the Prophets in Al Qur'an 7:157-158; so even if we have difference in opinion about who they are – there should not be any reason to “fight over it” – we should be able to amicably live with our differences in opinion. The bottom line is – we need to have full faith in BOTH Prophet Jesus (as Messiah) and Prophet Muhammad (as the seal of Prophets) – peace be upon them.

May Allah guide us all to the straight route.

Best regards,
Arman

41

Prophets and Messengers / Re: The Meaning of Messiah

« on: January 24, 2014, 05:11:06 PM »

Salamun Alaikum.

Dear brothers. I have gone through the articles by brother Joseph regarding Prophet Jesus and find them mostly aligned with my understanding. I would like to raise one more related point for your attention - I am not sure if this has been discussed before - from my reading I uderstand Al Qur'an 7:157 talks about Prophet Jesus and 7:158 talks about Prophet Muhammad - although traditionally it is believed both ayats talk about Prophet Muhammad. Allah SWT has not named the messenger(s) in either ayat. I believe He intends that we use our intellect over this. Appreciate your views on this.

May Allah guide us all to straight route.

Best regards,
Arman

42

Islamic Duties / Re: salat

« on: January 24, 2014, 04:30:12 PM »

Salamun Alaikum.

Just one small note to the initial post by HOPE. I feel the statement that you quoted is a bit problematic in view of Al Qur'an 2:185 "... Allah intends for you ease and does not intend for you hardship..." Though this was mentioned with respect to Siam, the statement is general and should carry a general guideline. I feel the salat rituals should be better viewed as our facilitator to stay focused in our deen - not as "trial" to forsake comfort and convenience.

May Allah guide us all to straight route.

Best regards,
Arman

43

Women / Re: Doctors

« on: January 24, 2014, 04:15:29 PM »

Salamun Alaikum.

I am a new member of this forum. Though this is an old thread, thought this would be relevant as it is a general topic.

I believe Al-Qur'an (24:31) gives the relevant guidelines on this topic. Below is the translation by Sahih International:

And tell the believing women to reduce [some] of their vision and guard their private parts and not expose their adornment except that which [necessarily] appears thereof and to wrap [a portion of] their headcovers over their chests and not expose their adornment except to their husbands, their fathers, their husbands' fathers, their sons, their husbands' sons, their brothers, their brothers' sons, their sisters' sons, their women, that which their right hands possess, or those male attendants having no physical desire, or children who are not yet aware of the private aspects of women. And let them not stamp their feet to make known what they conceal of their adornment. And turn to Allah in repentance, all of you, O believers, that you might succeed.

Note the phrase: "those male attendants having no physical desire".

I believe with this phrase Allah SWT allowed compromising privacy to doctors (who are supposed to swear not to be physically involved with the patient - known as "Hippocratic Oath") - in case of emergency.

May Allah guide us to all to straight route.

Regards,
Arman