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

[optimist]

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

[optimist]

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

[Ismail]

Salaam.

All things that are khabees are forbidden to be eaten. It is the opposite of thayyib.

I pointed out AUT only to show, that the number of things used as medicine is mind-boggling.

Nobody (in the mainstream), especially a Mo'min, eats or drinks things that are khabees (unwholesome).

I only sited blood cancer as an example of an intractable disease, and the desperate methods adopted.

It is hoped that Allah will forgive the prescriber and the user.

I am not talking about a so called Islamic State.

Self improvement, and bidding good and forbidding evil is what is fundamental..

That is what leads (slowly but steadily), to a society which lives a thoroughly moral life, Umar, or no Umar.

Regards,
A. Ismail Sait.

[optimist]

Nobody (in the mainstream), especially a Mo'min, eats or drinks things that are khabees (unwholesome).

Does anyone (muslims or others) eat Rats and consider its meat good to eat?  What makes you consider it thayyib?

[Saba]

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

Salaams br. Joseph ... thank u so much for this and summary v. useful!!...Saba   

[QM Moderators Team]

Can we please remind respected forum members to start a new thread if the topic is a little separate from the main purpose of the thread. Previous posts better dealt with as a new topic have been moved to a new thread below:

http://quransmessage.com/forum/index.php?topic=1143.msg4985#msg4985

Thanks.

[Armanaziz]

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

[Deliverance]

Salam,

Can someone clarifie and give a proper translation about the vers 3 in Sura 5 after counting what is unlawful then comes a place where it is talked about an exeption and at this point the different translations make the following lawful too and others do not make it clear whats haram/halal.   

[optimist]

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.

Salaam,

Sorry to bring up this topic again.  I have started to analyse the issue in a different perspective.

Firstly, your explanation for the context of the verse is not really convincing.   
I have started to understand that it need not necessarily "grazing animals" as such which is the point of discussion in the verse.  I noticed the following explanation given by "Beheema" by G.A.Parwez.

Beh, heh, miim
Al-bohma: solid rock   
Al-abhamo: solid and composite thing: dumb: ambiguous: without flow:
Bohma: difficult matter to understand:
Abhamal amro ibhama: the matter became ambiguous and it was beyond comprehension as how to solve it:
Hai tun mubhamun: means a wall which has no opening or door: Ibn Faris says that its basic meaning is for something to become such that no way towards it is perceived: or to become indistinct and ambiguous.
With reference to dumbness, baha-im (singular is al baheema) means all animals who cannot speak  or their voices are ambiguous and they cannot be understood: all animals including   aquatic animals are included in this: but the Muheet's compiler and Raghib both maintain that wild carnivores and birds are not included in this.

Therefore, baheemathul anhaam actually does not refer to grazing animals as such, but includes all animals who cannot speak or their voices are ambiguous, however, eating animals like DOGS, CATS, RATS and wild carnivores, etc are prohibited because there is clear instruction in the Quran in verse 30:30 to FOLLOW THE NATURE MADE BY GOD, THE NATURE ACCORDING TO WHICH HE HAS FASHIONED MANKIND.   The term nature "Fitrah" here means an inborn natural predisposition which cannot change, and which exists at birth in all human beings.   It is against natural predisposition to eat Rats and Dogs and wild carnivores.  It is not required to give any specific instruction not to eat rats and dogs, because the instruction is there already when Quran states you adhere to the firtah in which Allah created human being.  To state another instance, we humans do not eat or drink like cats and dogs and it would be foolishness to look for any express prohibition in the Quran against this. 

I have just started to think about the issue in a different way.  May Allah forgive me if I am making any error.  My only intention is to evaluate this reasoning if anyone can bring up strong objection.

And finally, to say that Quran permits eating creatures like rats and if anyone prefers to eat rats he has to slaughter it mentioning Allah's name and to be dedicated to Allah alone is a Monstrous crazy analysis. 

Regards,
Optimist

[AbbsRay]

Salaam Ismail,

I really think you need to study the entire Quran, which will help you. It ties up all the verses together in a way on the message Allah is telling us.
the "grazing animals" He is pacifically telling you what kinds are allowed. I know some people think Deer is one of them, as I do not think that. Allah actually mentioned the 4 kinds and mentions them by name, and it turns to eight when He says two of each meaning female and male.
As for the Deer, you can not catch a Deer without shooting it and or killing it with an arrow. When clearly Allah is telling us how one must slaughter it. That is my opinion as I still need to ponder more on the verses again as I lost all the research I was putting together on this on my other laptop. L

As for the sea creatures, although it is not in the dictionaries correctly, "seyud" which means “gaming fish“. As in fishing  “FISH” You can not fish a shark, dolphin, ect.  The exotic fish, or certain fish that carry poison in them are at the very bottom of the Sea and you are not going to be fishing it out unless you dive down there and get it that way.

Most Arabic speaking people know what Allah is referring to as fish.
For instance, Muslims never ate crab before, some do now because the scholar told them everything is permissible. How do crabs get killed so it can be consumed? They boil it inn steaming hot water alive!! God created that creature as He created us, I have NO DOUBT He is not allowing such horrific practice. There is no other way I believe that because a crab lives in water and on land for days and can survive either way. Now this is still my opinion, and I need to redo my research. I do believe without doubt that the Quran is complete, clear and detailed as we are told from Allah, Himself. So I have no doubt since what I mentioned above, is all in the Quran somewhere, but we are not understanding it or have not found it yet. I do also believe that Allah created His creatures for certain reasons and to live like us and have communities and He is only allowing us to only consume certain ones He tells us as a favor from Him, no more no less and not to transgress.
Again, it does not mean because Allah said do not eat dogs, cats, rats, squirrels that it is permissible. Some Muslims use “lard for an example, and other parts of the pig that is not considered meat to them, as permissible to consume or have in their foods. It shocks me because what part of Swine does Allah need to make clear. Not is He only telling us not to eat it, if He says that than no one should be killing it, therefore how can anything come out of it?

InshaAllah when I get time I will work more on the permissible food thing to make it more clearer to you. The above is based on my opinion and views as I am thankful I do not consume any animal flesh nor byproducts’ as my choice.

Salaam

[Saba]

Salaam...

I know this is gruesome (warning link) - but I cannot see how any of Allah's scriptures ever approved eating of all animals whether 'implied' or 'expressed' ...!!!!!!!!!!!


Is this the world's most gruesome food market? Dogs, rats, bats and monkeys among the animals roasted WHOLE in Indonesia

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2569111/Held-tiny-cages-animals-await-fate-alongside-remains-dogs-rats-monkeys-creatures-flame-roasted-WHOLE-Indonesian-market.html

[Armanaziz]

Salamun Alaikum.

Most of us who try to find the true message of Qur'an tend to agree that veiling the head and face of women is not a "mandatory" requirement in Qur'an. Now think of a respectful old lady who has spent her entire life behind the veil to please Allah believing that is what Allah wants from her. When she would be presented with the conclusion that face/head veiling is not mandatory - she will find this a "Monstrous Crazy" analysis which is bound to destroy the very fabric of our society  - because after spending a lifetime within a certain prejudice her ability of looking objectively beyond her deeply held conviction would be shaken. So, even when she is presented with clear verses from Qur'an she will see in the verse only what she wants to see OR has been taught to see.

When it comes to dietary laws - almost all of us are in a position similar to that of the respected old lady. Our prejudices on this matter are so deep that we comfortably overrule crystal clear verses (like 6:145) and ironically insist to call ourselves "Quran-centric" etc.

There are communities in this world who eat dogs, there are others who eat horses. Sharks and frogs are part of regular diet for billions of people in China and Japan. In the large forest areas there are tribal people who live on all sorts of wild animals. We have become so blind-sighted in our prejudices that we believe these people are acting beyond their human nature - in other words we consider them sub-human - Allah does not bless them, nor their food - as if they are surviving for generations based on mercy of devil! This is a sorry pathetic state of our community. 

May Allah guide us all to the straight route.

Regards,

Arman

[Saba]

Salaam Armanaziz. Or may be it is you that does not accept crystal clear verses like 5.1 that makes it clear what we are allowed to eat......have you heard the phrase pot calling the kettle black? Lets not go over this again......it's really getting boring now!!!!!!

[AbbsRay]

Salaam Arman,

I can not believe you are comparing a head covering to taking an animals life that Allah created. HUGE difference... Brother if you are on this subject to get anyone's approval that it is okay, I do ot thing anyone is going to give you that unless they are just not getting what Allah is saying.. Animals were created right after Prophet Adam and if you really think the reason for their creation was for us to have an open access to slaughter and consume them, than you better really ask Allah for guidance to have you see His verses more clearer. He is ONLY doing humans a favor and one should be thankful that He even Allowed it in the first place.


Salaam

[Deliverance]

Salam,

Brother Joseph should add to rules of the Forum"...please do not take verses of the Quran in Isolation to build up an opinion..."