Messages

61

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

« on: February 08, 2014, 04:46:39 AM »

As-salam alaykum

Thank you all for your contributions on this thread.

As many of you will be aware, the Quran asks the People of the Book at the time of the Prophet's ministry to judge by their own books (5:43), inferring the laws within them. The Quran even goes as so far as calling them 'Kaffir' (disbelievers) if they fail to judge by what God has revealed to them (5:44).

Leviticus 11 states: (NIV)

11 The Lord said to Moses and Aaron, 2 “Say to the Israelites: ‘Of all the animals that live on land, these are the ones you may eat: 3 You may eat any animal that has a divided hoof and that chews the cud.

Exceptions are further stated. This is also confirmed by Deuteronomy 14:4-8. Therefore, animals such as the goat, sheep, ox, deer and gazelle are thus lawful for the People of the Book as these animals chew the cud.

Therefore, the reason that 'grazing livestock' is explicitly mentioned in verses 5:1 and 40:79 of the Quran was not only to confirm the general category of animals that is made lawful for believers but also to remove the restrictions from believers that were imposed on the People of the Book by God from within the category of grazing animals. For example, within the category of grazing animals, extra restrictions had been placed on the People of the Book:

Leviticus 11:4 (NIV)
"'There are some that only chew the cud or only have a divided hoof, but you must not eat them. The camel, though it chews the cud, does not have a divided hoof; it is ceremonially unclean for you.

Leviticus 11:5 (NIV)
“The hyrax, though it chews the cud, does not have a divided hoof; it is unclean for you.”

Leviticus 11:6 (NIV)
“The rabbit, though it chews the cud, does not have a divided hoof; it is unclean for you.”

Leviticus 11:8 (NIV)
“You must not eat their meat or touch their carcasses; they are unclean for you.”

Restrictions imposed on the People of the Book are also confirmed by the Quran.

006.146
"And to those who are Jews (who follow the Jewish Law), We forbade every (animal) with undivided hoof, and We forbade them that fat of the ox and the sheep, except what adheres to their backs or their entrails, or is joined with the bone. That is their recompense for their wilful disobedience. And indeed, We are lawful".

This is further confirmed in the following verse:

016.118
"And to those who are Jews, We prohibited such things as We have mentioned to you before. We did them no wrong, but they were used to doing wrong to themselves."

Furthermore, if it were just a case that such restrictions were placed exclusively on the Jews, then this argument is also unwarranted as swine is still prohibited to the believers. This infers a general prohibition against swine from grazing livestock and the extra prohibitions within the category of grazing livestock for the People of the Book was due to their transgressions. As believers are not responsible for the transgressions of another community, therefore those prohibitions have arguably been lifted.

This does not mean however that the Quran allows for the consumption of all animals. The focus and lawfulness still remains restricted to a particular category of animals. (i.e. grazing animals).

Similarly, where lawfulness in general of the catch of the sea is expressed (5:96), this removes some of the restrictions that were imposed on the People of the Book. (See Leviticus 11:9-10). Here again, the Quran clarifies for believers. Similarly, if the intention was to make all animals lawful, the Quran could have arguably given a similar explicit statement (such as the catch of the sea) to make lawful all land animals. It did not but once again, restricted it to a particular category (5:1, 40:79).


THEREFORE IN SUMMARY FROM MY HUMBLE PERSPECTIVE

• Verses 5:1 and 40:79 explicitly confirm the particular category of animals which is made lawful for believers to consume as food (i.e. grazing livestock / animals). If all animals were to be made lawful, arguably there would be no need to explicitly state a specific category which was already known as a category of animal consumption. The Quran makes clear what is lawful and unlawful. In this case, it has explicitly stated lawfulness. The Quran is not averse from giving general approval as it has done for the catch of the sea (5:96). However, it has not done so for land animals thereby restricting the category by explicit mention (i.e. grazing animals / livestock).
• The People of the Book never consumed animals that did not chew their cud.  Therefore, the Quran would be expected to clarify that all animals were now made lawful for consumption if this was the case, in stark contrast to what was known to previous Abraham faiths of which the Quran's message was a continuation. It did not make this clarification. This is no different from the extent that the Quran goes to clarify the general lawfulness within the category of grazing livestock.
• Given the fact that only animals in a particular category are lawful for People of the Book, it would be inconceivable that by virtue of verse 5:5 of the Quran all animals were now lawful for them if one asserted that the Quran allows the consumption of all animals. "...and the food of those who have been given the Book is lawful for you and your food is lawful for them..." (5:5)
• Verse such as 6:145 should be read in context of previous verses where the Quran is clarifying that there are no self-imposed restrictions within the category of livestock as have been mentioned in the previous verses 6:143-144. Verse 6:145 is not a cue to make lawful all animals, but a response to verses 6:143-144. This is also supported by verses 2:173, 16:115 and 5:3 where in the context of previous verses, the lawfulness is given within a particular category of food.
• 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


RELATED ARTICLES

[1] FOOD & DRINK (Articles)
http://quransmessage.com/articles/food%20FM3.htm
[2] FOOD & DRINK (Q&As)
http://quransmessage.com/articles/q&as%20FM3.htm

Wassalam,
Thank you brother Joseph Islam for this useful post.
Regards,
Optimist

62

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

« on: February 08, 2014, 04:44:08 AM »

It is the responsibility of any State, for that matter, to bring legislation on matters of health.

Salaam!

We are discussing the Quran and its laws and therefore it is sufficient to discuss about a state that implement Quranic Laws.

Also, it is the individual's paramount responsibility to guard his health, keeping in mind, his individual, constitutional requirements.

No doubt the first responsibility is on individuals.  (1) They should only eat permissible animals (2) They should only eat what is Tayyeb.  By using the term Tayyeb Allah has left to the individuals and the collective Muslim society to decide on what is Tayyeb.   I believe this term can cover many cases including slaughtering and eating animals having transmittable diseases (the state would be fully justified even to make a complete ban on slaughtering animals when there is fear of transmittable diseases).

You know Auto Urine Therapy?

Kindly explain what your point is.  Are you saying that, since there is auto urine therapy one is allowed to drink one's own urine? This is disgusting, and naturally speaking, urine is toxic stuff and the Quran places extreme importance on cleanliness and clean eating (Tayyab).  OR are you saying that one is allowed to drink urine as part of undergoing auto urine therapy?  You know, Alcohol is prohibited in the Quran, however, it goes on to state that in alcohol there are some benefits for the people, but the evil is greater than the benefit.  Anyhow, just one simple question:  Can you prove any disease which can be only cured through auto urine therapy? 

By the way, can you please respond to post no.112?

Regards,
Optimist

63

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

« on: February 07, 2014, 11:12:49 PM »

Now, among Allah's myriad kinds of creatures - millions of them on this Earth, will you count as unwholesome all, other than the Baheemathul An'am of (5:1)?

Salaam!

1. Firstly man is essentially NOT a meat-eater.  In fact, there are millions of people who are  only vegetarian by choice

2. The point to be considered is  whether the number of permissible animals are able to meet the needs of man.

3. A similar counter question could be asked.  Why all animals out of millions of creatures on this Earth should be allowed except Swine? especially considering creatures like rats, even if permission is granted to eat, no one would be willing to slaughter rats and eat.  I think of a hadith now in which it states If a fly falls into the drinking water of any of you, let him dip all of it and then throw it away and use the water in the vessel and also an hadith about drinking cámel urine. 

Regards
Optimist

64

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

« on: February 07, 2014, 04:17:59 PM »

For example, here in India, as far as I have seen, when any animal like a bull, sheep or poultry nears its death especially due to some disease, and the keeper loses hope of its recovery, it is rushed to some Mullah, who slaauters it in the name of God. And everybody considers it allowed.

At the same time, everybody agrees that it doesn't taste good. Naturally, all the poison produced in its body by the disease will be there in its flesh.

Salam,

It is good to know you don't consider it as good.   However, this could be thousands of times better than slaughtering cats and eating!!

Anyhow, it shall be the responsibility of an Islamic state to bring subsidiary rules within the purview of what is "Tayib" to protect the health of the people.

Please respond to my previous post at your convenience if you think as appropriate (not necessary).

Regards
Optimist

65

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

« on: February 06, 2014, 02:51:43 AM »

The following is an off-the-cuff answer:

Supposing, all the boys in a school have gathered for the morning prayers.

There, the Principal announces, by naming three boys belonging to the 4th Standard that they are allowed to attend classes.

After the prayer meeting, all the boys, including the named ones will march to their respective classes.

Nobody will think that what the Principal meant was that only the named ones should attend classes.

Similar is the case of (5:1) as regards allowing the named category. The context here seems to be any possible doubt or a question regarding the continuation of the traditional culture of eating Al An'am. I have already dwelt on this in a previous post.

Salam alaikum brother Ismail,



Actually, you know, this analogy will create problem for you.   By naming three boys belonging to the 4th Standard and informing them that they are allowed to attend classes  (in a case where all are supposed to go to classes after prayer meeting), it would certainly mean that these boys were NOT allowed to attend classes after prayer meeting (since they were under some sort of punishment or so).  THINK.  Based on this analogy it would mean that grazing animals were not allowed before the verses (5:1-3) were revealed.  Do you have such a case?   Please bring some other example if you can.  Take it as a challenge.  Let us evaluate.
 
I will tell you simple analogy (I mentioned earlier).   Suppose in a class room, a teacher says, "all boys are permitted to go outside except those in the back seat", does this instruction in any way apply to the girls in the classroom?   The answer is BIG NO.  And if girls are also allowed to go outside, will any teacher make any such statement focusing boys?  CERTAINLY NOT.

Regards,
Optimist

66

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

« on: February 05, 2014, 01:32:58 PM »

But I have seen people slaughter poultry on the altar of a Hindu temple in Andhra Prdesh, India.

Regards,
A. Ismail Sait.

Salaam Br Ismail. Poultry and grazing animals are eaten as part of lawful food. Do you know of any community or communities now or ever where dogs, cats, rats, lions or anything thing but livestock was sacrificed to gods?? especially at the time around Arabia when prophet muhammad (saw) was preaching?  Thanks Saba

Don't worry Saba, in future there is possibility of this happening if discussions like this take place in muslim community (sigh)!

67

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

« on: February 05, 2014, 01:25:31 PM »

Salaam.

DO YOU EXPECT THAT ALLAH IS FORBIDDING HERE (ALSO IN 6:145)  PEOPLE FROM DEDICATING  RATS, CATS, MONKEYS, AND DOGS TO OTHERS OTHER THAN ALLAH? (ALLAH FORBID!!)

But I have seen people slaughter poultry on the altar of a Hindu temple in Andhra Prdesh, India.

Regards,
A. Ismail Sait.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts after reading the one highlighted in red...!!!!!!!

68

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

« on: February 04, 2014, 11:48:37 AM »

Salaam Optimist,

Was your last message to me? I only asked BJ about body parts.

I am so done with all this.

Salaam

Wassalam,
For your question, I think JI has answered you
Regards
Optimist

69

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

« on: February 04, 2014, 03:43:10 AM »

Allah makes things unlawful when He mentions them explicitly in the Quran, just because other categories are not mentioned does not make them haram! Now, I ask you guys to give me a verse from the Quran that mentions other categories by name and makes them unlawful. Not verses from where you implicitly deduce such a prohibition, clear explicit verses.It can't be done because there is no such verse!

Salaam!

I believe this is your main point in the entire discussion.  If you are saying as a general principle that whatever not explicitly mentioned in the Quran as prohibited cannot be considered as forbidden, you are wrong.   If that is the case, the Quran would contain endless lists of prohibitions and permissions.  Based on the same logic, will you also say that Allah makes things lawful only when He mentions them explicitly in the Quran?  Your demand to show you explicit verses from Quran mentioning the categories of animals by names that are made unlawful is very silly.   Are you sure that the Arabs were even aware about all different categories of animals?   It is just sufficient to state the permissible animals in order to understand what are not permissible. 

Anyhow, it need not necessary that all lawful and unlawful things are to be explicitly mentioned in the Quran to make them lawful and unlawful.   At the same time, Quran being a complete source of guidance, we shall be able to deduct the permissibility and non permissibility of any given issue either through explicit verses,  implicit verses, including general principles contained in the Quran.  For example, permissibility or non permissibility of organ donation, smoking, etc is decided not based on whether they are explicitly mentioned in the Quran, but based on deductions and general principles contained in the Quran. According to me, even the instruction in the Quran to eat what is Tayib is sufficient to prove Dogs, Cats, Rats, etc are not allowed.

A perusal of the Quran indicates that not many things we face in our day today affairs are declared explicitly as Haraam.  For many things simply boundary lines are drawn.  And human thought and intellect is left independent, free to soar, within the boundaries thus prescribed, so that it is free to find the solutions for the different issues and problems. Islam is a collective system of life where affairs are decided by mutual consultations focusing on the principles and general guidelines contained in the Quran.   Based on this, if an Islamic society reaches a decision, say for instance, organ donation is permissible, the decision should be respected and binding on all, irrespective of individual differences of opinion. 

Correct me if I have made anything wrong in the above comments.

Regards,
Optimist

70

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

« on: February 03, 2014, 08:51:17 PM »

Anyway to make the point clearer let's take a look at some other verses,
 033.059
“O Prophet! Tell thy wives and daughters, and the believing women, that they should bring down (Arabic: Yudnina) over them their outer garment (Arabic: jalabibihin): that is most convenient, that they should be recognized (Arabic: Yu'rafna) and not given trouble. And God is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.”

In the above verse, Allah uses the word ' Jilbab', Why does He do it? Because the Arab women were familiar with the term 'Jilbab'. now, can anyone say that Jilbab' is the only acceptable garment for women when they go out?? ' Jilbab' is named explicitly here, so other clothes that cover appropriately should still be haram according to the logic you guys are using.

Allah uses the word Jilbab because it covers the body appropriately and also it was a clothe the Arabs were already familiar with, that does not mean only Jilbabs are allowed for women! Similarly, from the other verses we can conclude that ' grazing animals' are halal. we cannot conclude other animals are haram. There is not enough information in the verses to deduce such a thing.

All the verses you guys are quoting just makes 'grazing animals' halal for consumption. They do not make other animals haram for consumption!

Salaam!

Sorry to say the discussion in the verse is not about JILBAB, whether wearing it is halaal or Haraam.  The question is regarding using Jilbaab to cover their bossom (24:31) without displaying their beauty. Therefore, I cannot find any links here with "grazing animals". 

About the donkey, mules and horses verse, yes, it is said that they are made for show and  for us to ride, but the verse does not say they are not for food! This is again a deduction! 

I can agree it is a deduction, but based on clear facts.  You have to read 16:8 with 6:142 where in it is clearly mentioned “some for burden and some for meat”.  The reference here is NOT about animals used simultaneously for burden and meat.  I can agree with you if you say their meat is not prohibited as such, however, their meat is not meant for food for us.  It may be that the horses were the main force for Jihad and were the protectors of the divine system and this could be one of the reasons why eating their meat was not encouraged and also it is quite logical that considering their valuable contribution in Jihad and other different uses, people (everywhere) do not normally eat them which Quran concurs (i.e., eating discouraged without bringing it under the category of prohibited animals).

Still my question; why all exclusions and discussion of animals are only from the category of "grazing animals"?  For all other categories of animals there are no exceptions mentioned...according to you, it is permissible to eat anything and everything.  As brother Joseph Islam has pointed out, if all animals are allowed,  God could have simply said only 'swine' is prohibited and everything else is lawful if that was the intention!!

Regards,
Optimist

71

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

« on: February 03, 2014, 07:38:51 PM »

Salaam Nura,

I would like you to listen to Verse 6:141 in Arabic. God is saying ya min anami and  hamūlatan.
Than these words, mutashābihan /waghayra/mutashābihin repeated again, these words Allah is talking about Fruit. Now compare that about the animals. BJ already laid out the words on bahimatu l'anaami. FOCUS on the word “ḥamūlatan” Than what BJ wrote will make sense hopefully.  This is the only way for those who are so focused on the grazing word to understand it when it is listened to when recited in Arabic. I say listen to these in Arabic because there are many arabic words that have no english meaning, so some are guessed on given the sentance.

Again, you are justifying stuff because Allah hasn't spelled it out to you. Sea creatures, I still stand to what I said earlier. There is something in the Quran still that will link to several verses about pacific things out of the sea for food consumption. Although BJ, put down it is any, we just need to connect the dots to something in the Quran that is more clearier to why certain sea creatures.

To me anyways, there are MANY creatures in the sea that are POISONOUS; I find it impossible for Allah to tell us to eat stuff that will cause Kidney Failure even if the creature is cooked. This is not me saying this, but medical fact of many cases that happened. There are a chance one will get us paralyzed, severe nerve damage and so on.. HARMFUL!!  Puffer Fish for example will cause you and HAS caused paralysis and eventually, death.  Are you saying that our Merciful God who created these sea  creatures being poisonous and deadly evolved different types of predatory and defensive mechanisms in order to survive themselves  that He is going to tell us to eat such and have harmful consequences? People 1400 years ago when the Quran was revealed do not have the means to know what is poisonous and what is not; it is not mentioned in the Quran.  When Allah says He provides what is good for you and pure He certainly is not talking about Poisonous creatures He created.  So is Allah contradicting Himself when He says He provides what is good for us? I do not think so, one must use their brain. The sea is full of snakes that only live in the sea.  Is Allah saying one can eat that too?
I can list you hundreds of creatures from the sea and land that even if you cook them, they still will cause extreme medical harm and even kill you, many people have died or are living with severe medical issues that has inflicted their entire life and it is irreversible and permanent, because on consuming some creatures from the sea. Do you think God does not know this but He is telling us to eat what we want from the sea? It does not make logic sense. God will not do this, it is like giving someone a loaded gun, with one bullet in it and telling them to pull the trigger and there are chances you will get the bullet that is in there or not when you pull the trigger. God is too merciful and just and will not do that. To me anyways it makes no sense. I do not say this because I am an animal lover, I cannot prohibit stuff or say Allah said it is prohibited when He does not, but there is certainly more in the Quran we have not found when it comes to the Sea creatures.  You mention sea weeds (great for facials btw, lol) but you know how much fungus weeds, among many other plants that live down in the sea that will kill you within minutes after you consume it? So did Allah mean everything in the sea knowing what He created down there will kill you? Is Allah trying to trick us and make us die after He tells us go ahead the sea it is open for everything?  How would the people way before the Quran was revealed know that some of these creatures will kill them if they consumed them? How would the people know this when the Quran was first revealed? They certainly did not. Why would Allah say such and contradict himself on wanting what is good for us?
taʾkulūna    laḥman    ṭariyyan
In verse 35:12 and other verses, it is some fresh tender meat. How can a poisonous creature be fresh tender meat? It is suppose to be good for us right? So how is that so? Does God have to spell it out for us or it is considered lawful? People are arrogant to understand that Allah does not have to spell everything out; it does not mean it is lawful. God tells us throughout the Quran to use our intellect. Therefore as for me, it makes no logic sense.  Knowing the God I love and respect above all things, He would never do that to His servants. As Allah says in many verses, 31:27 And if all the trees in the earth were pens, and the sea, with seven more seas to help it, were ink, the words of Allah could not be exhausted. Lo! Allah is Mighty, Wise. Same thing with verse 18:109. I wonder how confused people would be if He sent more books with the Quran? They still would justify things and not understand.
I seriously can careless what people do, but understand what God is saying instead of saying He is saying this and that. If one is unsure, we can guess but that leads to confusion and causing people to do things that God is not allowing. One needs to study and ponder on what God is saying. It is one HUGE do’s and don’ts, that all meets in the middle on every subject. Each verse in the Quran is so filled with knowledge and compacted in little few words for some and more for others to get the message out.

Thank you for posting these comments!

Regards,
Optimist

72

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

« on: February 03, 2014, 02:16:18 PM »

I agree with brother Ismail when he says that 'grazing animals' is specifically mentioned because Arabs were consuming them during the 7th Century. And so Allah says they can continue to consume 'grazing animals' with the exception of swine.

Dear Nura, Ismail,  Salaam!!

I believe, it is preferable to address different points under different posts. So, let us check further whether there is any logic in the above statement. 

According to me, ONLY under a circumstance when people specifically ask a specific question whether it is permissible to eat “grazing animals”, Allah would be stating that it is permissible to eat “grazing animals”.  Please think.  As you know, there are many verses in the Quran which start with “they ask you about” so and so and Allah says “tell them” and then the Quran goes on to state the related injunctions.  The verses 5:1-3 are not just verses making just a confirmation of something people already considered as lawful,  rather it was providing a comprehensive instruction with detailed exceptions.  Anyhow, there is absolutely no other reason other than a specific question from the people to focus on "grazing animals".   Unfortunately;

1. There is no implication in the verse that such a specific question was ever asked by the people.

2. There is no possibility for people asking such a specific question because eating grazing livestock is generally accepted as allowed and permissible and people had been eating the same. 

Therefore, two possibilities;

1. Allah wanted to explain through the Quran (being a complete guidance for the people) the animals permissible for them to eat (by default the rest not permissible). 

2. The people wanted to know what are the animals allowed for them to eat (please note, in order to know the animals permissible to eat, no one with common sense would make a request for a list of prohibited animals since it would be a long list and it would be required to extract the permissible excluding the prohibited).  THINK.   A similar example could be found in marriage prohibition where Quran lists down those people to whom we are prohibited to get married in order to explain those we are allowed to marry (being infinite).  It would require to explain the prohibited to make people know what is permissible.  This is simple logic.

And again, the question still remains to be answered; why to focus on something which is already considered as permissible and lawful by the people (as I said, even a silence on this could be termed as permissibility); and why no focus on other animals which are considered as unlawful and not permissible.   

Regards,
Optimist

73

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

« on: February 03, 2014, 04:54:04 AM »

Dear Nura, Ismail,   Salam alaikum

Due to time constraint now, let me ask you a few small questions briefly before I post my comments for many points raised.  I hope to respond later in detail when I have enough time. 

Suppose in a class room, a teacher says, "all boys are permitted to go outside except those in the back seat"

1. Does this instruction in any manner apply to the girls in the classroom?   And if girls are also allowed to go outside, will any teacher make any such statement focusing boys?

2. Don't you think the girls by default are exempted from this instruction even without using the word "ONLY boys...."?

Well, can you satisfactorily explain why Quran has brought up an exception clause in 5:1 along with permissibility of eating grazing livestock and start to mention such exceptions in 5:3 without focusing on all animals?  If all animals are allowed to be eaten, it should have been specified in 5:3 that the prohibition for eating the dead, the blood, and dedicated unto any other than Allah are applicable for all animals. 

DO YOU EXPECT THAT ALLAH IS FORBIDDING HERE (ALSO IN 6:145)  PEOPLE FROM DEDICATING  RATS, CATS, MONKEYS, AND DOGS TO OTHERS OTHER THAN ALLAH? (ALLAH FORBID!!).  You don‘t know what a twisted barbaric analysis you are making.  Even the eyes of shame should bow down in shame if you go for such ridiculous explanations.

Also can you satisfactorily answer why so many exceptions are provided for grazing livestock which is normally eaten by people (Quran clearly says “some for burden and some for meat” (6:142) horses and mules and asses for you to ride (16:,8), etc),  whereas no exceptions are not provided for animals which are normally NOT eaten by people in the world (including you!)? Among all other animals everything is allowed..(sigh!)

Regards,
Optimist

74

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

« on: February 02, 2014, 04:06:32 PM »

Use logic brother Ismail before postingl.   You are saying they are specifically mentioned because they are lawful.   Why other categories of animals are not mentioned since they are also lawful (according to you), say dogs, cats, rats, etc.   Actually, if the logic of mentioning is "they are lawful and they are the one generally consumed all over the world", more than the need to mention about permissibility of grazing animals (since they are already considered as lawful by people), it should have mentioned about permissibility of eating dogs, cats, rats,  etc (feel like vomiting!) since they are generally considered as unlawful and not good.

Salaam optimist....thank u for this. I was about to give up!!! I am so glad that on this occasion I am not going crazy!!!!. My point precisely which no one was answering....Why mention something which is already staple diet!!!??? One would think it would be more appropriate to mention other animals which were not common to eat or not mention anything at all.. Why single out grazing stock which everyone knew to eat anyway... Thx!!! 

Thank you for your comment....I was just stating a common sense

75

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

« on: February 02, 2014, 03:46:54 PM »

Salaam.

Also, the extreme way of speech in {6:145}, is an eloquent testimony to the fact, that it's context is not confined to the immediately preceding Verses.

Regards,
A. Ismail Sait.

Salam!

Thanks for admitting 6:145 has a connection with preceding verses.  Tell us what is your evidence that its context is not confined to the immediately preceding verses?  Remember the proverb, one foot cannot stand on two boats.  You cannot row two boats at the same time.

Regards,
Optimist