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

[Armanaziz]

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.

[Deliverance]

Salam,

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

[Armanaziz]

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

[Ismail]

Salaam.

Abul A'la Maududi, in his Thafseer Thafheemul Qur'an, mentions what is called "Fiqh Al Qur'an", which, he says, is compiled from reports attributed to Hazrath 'Aisha (R A), wherein, all animals, birds, reptiles and insects are decreed as Halaal, except those mentioned in (6:145).

Of course, it is another matter, that, for us, surely, the crystal clear verse (6:145) unequivocally restricts the prohibitions to just the four items.

However, please explain:

"There are certain additional restrictions from the perspective of food processor in 5:3" (emphasis mine).

And, dear Joseph Islam, I just made haste because I had something to say, as you have seen.

Regards,
A. Ismail Sait.

[AbbsRay]

Salaam Armanaziz,

I am lost by that long message..
Are you saying people can eat dogs, cats, lions, horses, tigers, bears, rats? Or God does not make it unlawful?

I am just wondering, it is not an insult question...

[Joseph Islam]

Wa alaikum assalam Armanaziz,

Thank you for your comments / questions in the form of your critique. May I also extend my gratitude for following the format which God willing, will bring out the best in any future discussions.

I think the core of your contention is given by point A. As I understand that you do not respectfully agree that a restriction is present in this verse, all other contentions B-D (ff) in my humble view, are natural consequences which I would like to discuss later if possible.
 
Hence, please respectfully allow me to address what I humbly perceive are your core contentions in 'A' before we discuss further, God willing. In that regards, please note my responses to your comments in blue italics.

You kindly comment:

"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."

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.

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.

Similarly, God permits the eating of certain types of animals in verse 5:1. The limitations and remit are given in the subsequent verses. Therefore, eating of other animals outside this remit is understood to be forbidden.

With a view to cite another example, 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).

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.  After all, such an expectation is not unreasonable as God presents clear verses of the types of marriages that are forbidden first (4:23) and then makes it clear that everything outside this is 'lawful'  - 'wa-uhilla lakum ma waraa dhalikum...' (And are lawful to you what is beyond that...) - (4:24)

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?"

I have discussed poultry in section 4 of the main article that deals with food permissibility and prohibitions below [1]

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.

Indeed. But 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'.

Similarly in the examples I have shared above, the 'X' / context is specific, i.e. 'fighting', 'fasting' and 'marriage' respectively.

I hope that clarifies my perspectives on the contention you have raised.

Please feel free to share your views further on these points and once we agree / agree to disagree, we can God willing, discuss further in due course.

Regards,
Joseph


REFERENCE:

[1] FOOD PERMISSIBILITY AND PROHIBITIONS
http://quransmessage.com/articles/food%20restrictions%20FM3.htm

[Armanaziz]

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

[Armanaziz]

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.

[Joseph Islam]

Peace Arman,

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.

What is this dear Arman? Why do you make such accusations against me and my humble efforts? Having gone through my articles do you really think I 'ignore "explicit, unequivocal and unambiguous words"? Why do you make such a judgment / accusation against me? 

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.

You can respectfully disagree in your opinion from an academic perspective, but why the judgmental accusations against me? I do not find acceptable the insinuation that I am ignoring explicit words of God and His words are not enough for me.

My conditions for discussion made it absolutely clear that:

"Absolutely no Ad Hominem or personal attacks of any kind will be tolerated. No demand for my ‘authority’, my credentials, my cultural, social or academic background, my race, my upbringing, my knowledge of languages (both classical or modern) or any sort of comment,  opinion or judgement will be made. I have chosen to publish my works with complete anonymity, hence any claims that I make can never be verified and thus it is futile to make such demands. I have shared my arguments with evidence. Therefore, the focus will remain solely on dealing with the arguments presented. If there is a disagreement with my perspectives or reasoning, clear evidence must be cited as to the reasons why, without any personal opinions or judgments against me."

With respect, why would I even contemplate taking time out of my intense schedule to respond to you when it is clear that you have such a judgmental attitude towards my position and approach? Any time I give to you, I could be attempting to assist others, God willing.

Sadly, this is a consistent pattern I have noted with so many that attempt to critique articles and I am becoming increasingly disillusioned with providing responses.

this will help you and other readers to evaluate the strength of the arguments.

I will leave your attempted rebuttal for other readers to make up their own opinion, but I already sense how this discussion will proceed. With respect, I am very disappointed and will not be responding to your queries. It is certainly not that I cannot and the readership are well aware of my willingness to engage, but more importantly because with respect, I feel it a futile exercise and a drain on resources that I sincerely do not have.

Maybe you do feel that I ignore clear verses but I cannot assist you with your views. However, I believe that my Lord knows best my approach, commitment and sincerity to His message. I pray that He forgives me for any transgressions that I make, Insha'Allah.

Regards,
Joseph

[Deliverance]

Salam Arman,

What aboutthe Story of the "People of the Cave" when they were woken up they should buy pure Food in the City although they were in danger to be stoned they send one to the buy something to eat.If they risk their live they could also eat their companion(the dog) but they didnt.And when their were put to sleep again the People found their dog withthem if the environment where Dogeater they would have taken the dog and would have sold him for a high Price but they didnt because they saw it as a sign of These People and these dog(maybe for Humans and Dogs in general).

Similar Story in Sura :2 this time a Man and his beast of burden where put as a sign.

Further we get to know about the camel of salih not to be hurt( a hint not to eat camelmeat?)

My two Cents wa salam

[QM Moderators Team]

Arman,

Brother Joseph has made it clear that he does not wish to engage with you any further on this and we urge you to remain conscious of 2(d) of the forum policy and point 7 of the conditions of debate.

Please feel free to respond to others on the thread openly but remaining conscious of point 7 mentioned above.

Thanks!

[Duster]

Shalom / peace bro Joseph >>> I just think so many just don't know how to debate without getting personal. I think it is only fair that you also ask - if they are going to debate with you >>> where their own work can be critiqed...for example, do they have articles which can be studied?? their website which can be analysed??? This is the best way for a level playing field. Otherwise you will always have ppl just coming on and attempting to challenge you whenever they feel like it. That is one thing I like about bro's like Wakas that at least provide you with links to their works etc so you can see their views in more detail and don't get personal.  just my few pennies / cents .

[AbbsRay]

 
Salaam Arman,

 What Brother Joseph put in his article/writing is 100% correct. You need to show us as he does what proof you have on what you are saying.

What I find very sad is people still try to find ways to justify their actions wants and desires without understanding the message in the entire Quran. Had Allah spelled everything out for us, He knows the human would never open and study his Holy Scripture the Quran. Allah has said what He has in a way for whatever reason for us to use our brains and ponder and examine His scripture. There are commandments in there that He spells pretty clear, like killing for instance, He knows if He does not, people are going to not use their head and kill for whatever reason... Even if that is in there clear and to the point, people still find ways to justify it because they just did not get it. Prayer and worship, it is spelled out clearly, people still argue and dispute it. When Allah says this book is complete and has everything in it, He means just that. 

Brother Joseph has been blessed to help many people realize the Truth on Islam. He does not come out and just says this is what the Quran says, HE HAS PROVEN IT EACH TIME AND SHOWED US HIS RESOURCES ON WHERE THE PROOF COMES FROM.

I have sent his articles on the Prophet Muhammad was not illiterate to many sites and Muslims who even are finally getting what the Quran says, but still believe that Muhammad was Illiterate. They reply back to me, how they were wrong and how they could not have seen this... and some still hold their stand on thinking Prophet Muhammad was an illiterate man because their Hadith tells them that or they think unlettered means illiterate when the first verse in the Quran is sura 96 and than sura 68, which God is ordering him to Read and write. 
I have visited many of those site on their writings who hold this stands, and My God save us, they have changed it to exactly what Brother Joseph put after they seen the proof themselves. 

Many countries do eat things that make’s a person scratch their head; it does not mean God has allowed it. They simply are lost and confused and sick in the head if you ask me especially when snakes, dogs, lion are being eaten. 

Brother Joseph has been blessed by Allah who has given him the wisdom to understand and navigate in the Quran to find all what is being said to us and share it with us. Looking at Muslims now, they and when I say “They” I mean 95% have completely fell off the wagon on what Islam is and what the Quran says. Whether they use secondary sources or have no clue to what the Quran says as they take verses out of context and hide the truth on the real meaning from others to serve their own agenda or to serve their own ego that they can only tell us what Allah really is saying. Brother Joseph is not prohibiting stuff; he is showing us what Allah is prohibiting according to the Quran. Some may like it and some may not, it is how it is to Allah.
It still amazes me how people who are Muslims, born and grew up with it, have NO clue on what Islam is and what the Quran says and means, but those who either converted or had no religion (I have no idea if Brother Joseph is either, nor do I care nor do I want to know, but in speaking terms in General is what I mean) absolutely get what Islam is and the true meanings of the verses in the Quran. Not only that, they are the ones who are TRUELY are submitters and past the stage of being a Muslim but Mummineen, which means they have connected directly with Allah. Those are the ones who are not following blindly. I again do not care what Brother Joseph was, is.. What I do know is Dear God, Thank You for allowing a man with such wisdom to educate our illiterate and ignorance understanding about a religion we were raised in and followed blindly.
Here is how I broke it down, it is exactly how Brother Joseph said, but I consider insects and different birds to be on the list and anything that eats another creature is considered prohibited because insects are impure and God tells us not to eat anything impure.

THANK GOD I am a Vegan!

All terrestrial predatory animals and beasts, i.e. animals that hunt with their teeth, are considered Haram, such as a lion, cheetah, tiger, leopard, wolf, fox, dog, cat, etc. (This category goes in with Verse 5:3, These animals eat other animals, blood is part of it, although Allah is not prohibiting animals to eat other animals or blood, He is prohibiting us.. by eating these animals we are consuming what He is prohibiting in verse 5:3, including how almost each description He is saying in the verse, except Swine.) see how it wraps all on to WHY we are prohibited…. No one seems to get why He clearly focus on SWINE as haram/ prohibited. People assume it is because pigs are dirty; they eat their own feces and so on. NO, Chickens eat their own feces; other animals do that as well. Allah prohibited Adam and his wife to eat a fruit from a Pacific tree... when Allah does not prohibit fruits at all. It is because He wants to see if we follow his command. I believe it goes the same for pigs... God does not have to say that is the reason to ponder it sure might be. We will never know and only Allah knows why.
Animals mentioned in 16:6, although He is not clearly "prohibiting" He is CLEARLY telling you what HE created them for, there for technically HE is prohibiting with the absence of the word prohibiting. Another Example…
“It is Allah Who made cattle for you, that you may use some for riding and “some” for “min'hā “  and “wamin'hā “  food.” (Surah Al-Gafer, 40:79)

Pretty much anything that eats another creature is prohibited including insects, many birds that catch their prey in their claws and teeth.  Insects and rodents for instance are considered impure, Allah tells us not to eat impure stuff.  I mean how the heck can someone slaughter an insect when Allah clearly states to do it in a manor He tells one how to in the Quran?
Sorry if this is confusing…. As always I am in a rush.
Ps. I really recommend you watch some videos from Gary Miller and Jeffrey Lang. I just sent both of them article from Brother Joseph on stuff they misspoken about.  I even send PM George Galloway some articles with the link to Brother Joseph’s site, and I got a reply with a Thank You very Much from him, how much it is different than what he is being told (everyone knows he converted to Islam, it is no secret, I am trying to save him before the brainwashing of the Hadith is crept in his head any further) lol
Salaam

[Saba]

Salaam Abbsrayray. Thank you so much for your post which I agree with.


I'd like to put Armanaziz'a his own argument to him. @armanaziz - you admit that 5-1 makes it halal for 'grazing animals'. Ok then - please find me a verse which makes lions, cats and dogs etc halal. Just like the 5-1 verse. One clear verse please. If you say that this is a silly argument or expectation .....- then why did Allah say grazing animals. Why did He mention them at all? Couldn't he just left it out like other animals if they were all halal? Why mention grazing animals specifically??? He could have simply said only pig is haraam.  Saba 

[AbbsRay]

Salaam Alikium Saba,

You are very welcome.. Thank for liking....