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

[optimist]

Salaam.

Saba says: "Why did Allah mention grazing animals for lawfulness in verse 5-1 if all animals were halal anyway?"

Because they are lawful, and, because, they are the ones generally consumed all over the world, or at least in the then Arabia.

Salaam,

Use logic brother Ismail before posting..!!.   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 and even a silence on this point could be taken to mean as permissibility), the Quran should have specified about permissibility of eating dogs, cats, rats,  etc (feel like vomiting!) since they are generally considered as unlawful and not good.

Regards,
Optimist

[Saba]

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!!! 

[AbbsRay]

Allah esayid marato Ismail.. 

[optimist]

Allah has used the following verse to summarize what He has forbidden:
 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.”

Notice that Allah mentions 'swine'. He could have mentioned other animals by name or category, if he wanted to forbid them. He does not run out of words nor does He forget  

Salaam!

There is one point I missed to mention in post number 50 about your comment (I have highlighted in blue above).  Your comment here is not convincing at all.    Just like the dead animals forbidden in 5:3 is linked to the category of permissible grazing livestock mentioned in 5:1,  the dead animals prohibited in verse 6:145 is linked to 6:143-44 from the discussion of grazing livestock, including certain categories of grazing livestock people themselves have prohibited without any mandate from Allah.   What Quran is highlighting in 6:145 is that people cannot whimsically prohibit permissible grazing livestock except the dead, blood poured forth, etc. 

Please note, the Quran is completely  consistant at both places (5:1-3 & 6:143-145) which is the reason why Swine is mentioned at both places as prohibited.  If we consider your logic and conclude from this verse that all animals are allowed, except dead, flowing blood poured forth, flesh of swine and dedicated to other than God, it would make many Quran verses like 6.142  and 16:8 inconsistent where Quran clearly says horses, mules and donkeys for us to ride and for use for show and not for meat.   

By the way, the Quran says that we should eat only that meat on which Allah’s name has been pronounced at the time of the animal’s slaughter (6:119).  Are you going to make people slaughter cats, mouse, rats, etc mentioning Allah's name and eat, like we slaughter and eat other animals?

Regards,
Optimist

[optimist]

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

[optimist]

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

[Nura]

Salam everyone,:)

Catch of the Sea:
Verses 05:96
 "Lawful (Arabic: uhilla) to you is the pursuit of game  (Arabic: saydu) of the sea (Arabic: bahri) and its use for food (Arabic: ta'amuhu), for the benefit of yourselves and those who travel; but forbidden is the pursuit of game of the land as long as you are in the sacred precincts or in pilgrim garb. And fear God, to Whom you shall be gathered back"

The context of the verse is food allowed while in the state of Ihram. But that does not mean it is unlawful to consume catch of the sea during other times. Here, it is clearly said that the pursuit of game of the sea, by that, it means animals that live in the sea. by and its  food, well it means the food of the game of the sea, which includes, seaweeds, other small fishes, crustaceans  all are lawful.

If, something is not explicitly declared haram, it is halal! here we see clearly that animals that live in water are lawful.

 006:143

"(Take) eight (head of cattle) in (four) pairs: of sheep a pair, and of goats a pair; say, has He forbidden the two males, or the two females, or (the young) which the wombs of the two females enclose? Tell me with knowledge if ye are truthful:

006.144

"Of camels a pair, and oxen a pair; say, has He forbidden the two males, or the two females, or (the young) which the wombs of the two females enclose? - Were ye present when God ordered you such a thing? But who does more wrong than one who invents a lie against God, to lead astray men without knowledge? For God guides not people who do wrong.

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.”

yes the above verses are saying that in a context, again it is not confined to the context! yes, certain 'grazing animals' were declared unlawful by the Arabs, and we can see how Allah used ' I do not find in what has been revealed to me anything forbidden ' here why did Allah not mention 'grazing animal'  and say no animal within the category of 'grazing animal' is haram with the exception of swine? After all this verse was revealed to rebuke the practice of dedicating animals to God and forbidding people from consuming them!Allah is not ambiguous people! He did not mention the category 'grazing livestock' in this verse because other animals belonging to other categories are not haram. When Allah makes something Haram He mentions them clearly He does not live it upto us to deduce!

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. If we can lay down a cow, chicken or goat for slaughter, why  can't we slaughter , dogs, cats or other animals in the name of Allah? just because the culture we live in frowns upon it??

Nowhere in the verses making 'grazing animals' lawful does Allah use the word 'only' or hints that animals in other categories are haram! sorry, but it remains an implicit deduction and Brother Joseph himself in his article says so, that it is a deduction!

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!

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! Cows are also mentioned, some for burden , some for food, but does that mean that the same cows and camels we use for burden cannot be used for food? The verse is asking us to think about Allah's mercy and how He has made other animals subservient to us to make our lives easier. Nowhere in the verse does Allah say they are not for food! or they are only for riding and for showing!

Basically u guys are asking for explicit verses from us ( me, brother Arman and brother Ismail) making animals from other categories lawful. Well we have told you guys that the Quran is silent about other categories of animals, that does not make it unlawful. 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!

[Saba]

Salaam Nura . You keep repeating the same old argument over and over again. It really isn't convincing. Allah makes lawful and unlawful in the Qur'an. In verse 5-1 he makes GRAZING LIVESTOCK halal - lawful. There are two deductions from that:

(1) Other animals are therefore haram
(2) All other animals are halal as well

You are also deducing when you say number (2) which the Quran gives you no right to as well if you think deduction is wrong. I keep asking why mention a category of animals at all if all animals were halal anyway?. Sorry but none of your answers or bro Ismail's make any logical sense. Sorry - but to me they don't and I'm sure others agree!

And you know, demanding proof isn't against the Qu'ran. The Qu'ran was speaking to Jews and Christians too and they never ate this kind of stuff so it would have made sense that the Qur'an clarified... but instead it only confirmed the general category of grazing livestock which they knew to eat anyway!!!!! How else would the food of the people of the book be lawful for believer's and believer's food lawful for people of the book such as Jews and Christians? (5:5) How can cats and dogs and lions be lawful for Jews and Christians?

Also you keep quoting br. joseph, yet he made it clear to ArmanAziz with examples how the Quran prohibits before ArmanAziz decided to get personal with br. Joseph.  You are also deducing, but your deduction ...just does not stand up to examination.

Simple q which you, or Arman Aziz or Ismail could not answer properly....

"Why did Allah mention grazing animals for lawfulness in verse 5-1 if all animals were halal anyway?"

Saba

[Saba]

Oh yes! and one more thing ... by your own logic Nura .....


If Allah has made mates for us and makes lawful for sex other humans with nikaah- then why do you prohibit another category such as bestiality which has nothing to do with humans? By your own method - Where does the Qur'an make haram this separate category which has nothing to do with humans!!!!? You just can't get out of this. By your own reasoning your method is inconsistent!!!!

Anyway - don't want to go off topic .. just shared that to show the inconsistency of your method!!!! Salaam Saba

[Nura]

Salam Saba

Regardin bestiality and homosexuality,

the use of the phrase "mates from your own kind" closes the scope of sleeping with animals!! this is not a deduction!! the phrase is there "your own kind'! this make only humans lawful. Allah is not silent here. He has said 'mates from your own kind'

" what's wrong you approach men with lust?  also closes the door for homosexuality...where is deduction here??

and also we are not using the verses that u people are using to make carnivores and omnivores haram to justify consumption of carnivores and omnivores. We are using the absence of a verse prohibiting such a behavior to justify consumption of carnivores and omnivores!

I said from the verses u guys quote  we can only say that herbivores are halal!! we cannot say carnivores and omnivores are haram!! because they are not mentioned in the verse! there is no recommendation or prohibition on consumption of carnivores and omnivores in those verse!! these categories are not mentioned! if the word 'only' had been used in the verses making 'grazing animals' halal. I would have never argued with u guys . I am not too keen about eating dogs or cats, trust me!!

we have told you repeatedly that 'grazing animals are mentioned because people in Arabia were already consuming them before the advent of the Quran! just like the way the words 'Jilbab' and ' khimar' are used to refer to clothes because they are clothes of the 7th century Arab!!we  gave u a reason for the usage of the phrase 'grazing animals', u are not convinced. its fine. Its not our job to convince u or vice versa!! I have said before as well, if I am wrong may Allah guide me!!

 

[Nura]

Salam Saba,

I told u before certain foods were made unlawful for people of the book as punishment!!the Quran says so..

now if the Quran says that those animals are not prohibited explicitly, then Allah has lifts that prohibition!just like the way the Bible says circumcision is mandatory, but the Quran does not say any such thing. so I beleive it is not mandatory. The Quran is a guide over Bible and it sometimes overrides the verses of the Bible!! the Quran says this, " the Quran is revealed to lift some of the the burden from them.

and also only the foods that are halal declared in the Quran can be eaten. people of the book eat some foods that are not halal for us!!! so we can eat those food that are already halal in the Quran.

[Saba]

Salam Saba,

I told u before certain foods were made unlawful for people of the book as punishment!!the Quran says so..

now if the Quran says that those animals are not prohibited explicitly, then Allah has lifts that prohibition!just like the way the Bible says circumcision is mandatory, but the Quran does not say any such thing. so I beleive it is not mandatory. The Quran is a guide over Bible and it sometimes overrides the verses of the Bible!! the Quran says this, " the Quran is revealed to lift some of the the burden from them.

and also only the foods that are halal declared in the Quran can be eaten. people of the book eat some foods that are not halal for us!!! so we can eat those food that are already halal in the Quran.

Salam Nura - You are still not answering my question and this discussion is going around in circles. So let me ask the question again ...

The Qu'ran was speaking to Jews and Christians too and they never ate this kind of stuff so it would have made sense that the Qur'an clarified... but instead it only confirmed the general category of grazing livestock which they knew to eat anyway!!!!! How else would the food of the people of the book be lawful for believer's and believer's food lawful for people of the book such as Jews and Christians? (5:5) How can cats and dogs and lions be lawful for Jews and Christians?

"Why did Allah mention grazing animals for lawfulness in verse 5-1 if all animals were halal anyway?"

Now with rest of you what you stated -

the use of the phrase "mates from your own kind" closes the scope of sleeping with animals!! this is not a deduction!! the phrase is there "your own kind'! this make only humans lawful. Allah is not silent here. He has said 'mates from your own kind'

Why, where does it say that according to your logic? Why are you comparing humans with animals? This is no different from saying we made lawful for you grazing livestock. This also closes the scope of eating any other animal. By your logic, this is also not a deduction.  The phrase is 'grazing livestock'. this makes only grazing livestock lawful.

" what's wrong you approach men with lust?  also closes the door for homosexuality...where is deduction here??

The deduction is that the Qur'an is asking a question why do you approach men with lust?? That means then SEX with them is forbidden. Its called a deduction. Now, if the Quran said - DO NOT HAVE SEX WITH MEN - then that would be an explicit statement and no need for a deduction. Please try to understand what I am saying here ...

Saba 

[Duster]

Shalom / Peace ... just imagine >>>> what traditionalists will be thinking ... you quran-only people can't even decide what to eat and you lecture us about our divisions and sects! ... I sometimes think we are our own worst enemies.

[Duster]

Btw - I find the evidence that only grazing animals are lawful because of the first verse of Surah Maida (5.1) as it is explicitly stated most convincing.

[Saba]

Shalom / Peace ... just imagine >>>> what traditionalists will be thinking ... you quran-only people can't even decide what to eat and you lecture us about our divisions and sects! ... I sometimes think we are our own worst enemies.

Salaam Duster. This is actually a very important point that you r saying. A recent post was made by br. Joseph which was soo true and I think it is very related. I'll share it here as I think there is a lot of good points in it.

https://www.facebook.com/joseph.a.islam/posts/375493445921122

When one is asked to leave the blind beliefs of their forefathers, they must feel confident that what is being presented to them as an alternative, is far better than their existing ways.

Unless and until Quran-focused groups can become a more concerted, scholarly force to reckon with, they will continue to be looked at by suspicion by the masses.

When fundamental concepts, such as salat, its meaning, its numbers, fasting, zakat, whether or not intoxicants are forbidden, meaning of well understood Arabic words etc. are questioned, hotly debated at times with vitriol, harm is only done to the 'approach' as it displays rudimentary fluidity of thought.

I pray for a day when excellence in the form of Quranic studies becomes the mainstay of many institutions and communities around the world.