Food Prohibitions

[Anwar]

I want to commend the author of this forum for these articles:

http://www.quransmessage.com/articles/does%20the%20quran%20allow%20the%20eating%20of%20all%20animals%20FM3.htm

http://quransmessage.com/articles/food%20restrictions%20FM3.htm

Every time I read 5:1, it left me with a certain impression that this was a limitation on what sort of animals we should be eating and I am extremely glad that I came across an article that tackled this. Otherwise, why the need to mention that it is lawful given the other clear prohibitions that allowed these animals.

Where I dissent somewhat is in the definition of words. I use Classical Arabic lexicons like Lisanul-Arab, Sihah-Al-lughah, Mu'jam Al-faadhu Al-Quran and others, like Taj al-arous and Muheetul-Muheet to arrive at the proper meaning of Classical Arabic words, meanings that when it comes to the Quran have to be able to applied pre-Quran. Some of these lexicons can prove deficient so using as many as possible usually completes the picture for the word. You can find many of these lexicons at www.baheth.info. They are only in Arabic.

I have found Lane's lexicon to be deficient in many ways and I often wonder why he just didn't outright translate Taajul-Arous or Lisanul-Arab instead of arrogantly trying to compile his own lexicon. Colonialist agenda? Ego-centrism? I have found clear falsities and deficiencies in his work when compared to the original Arabic Lexicons. This is why I no longer use Lane's lexicon.

Having said that the Qur'an's use of baheematul-an3aam indeed refers to pastured animals who eat herbage alone. Baheemah specifically refers to 4 legged animals, be they land dwellers or water dwellers.  So the limitation here is on 4 legged animals. In particular, the four legged animals that we eat have to be eaters of al-kala' also known as 3ashb, which in Arabic refers to all herbage dry or fresh. Their being eaters of herbage in particular has to do with the term an3aam which means any 'maal(un) raa3iyat(un)' or maal raa3iyah. Maal in this context is taken in its meaning of 'hayawaan' or 'animals.' Raa'iyah means to be herbage eaters when applied to animals. So we can eat any 4 legged animal of land or water as long as it eats herbage.

This has implications on what we catch from the waters, and limits it to animals of the sea that do not have 4 legs unless those animals with four legs are eaters of herbage.

This would seem to take water creatures like alligators who have 4 actual legs/feet, as well as frogs and toads out of the dietary picture (Ecologically this is a bit unfortunate seeing that alligators in places like Africa need their numbers taken down, but I guess they could be hunted, ground up and used for fish food). Hippos would be fine, as long as they have not been seen eating carrion which they rarely do. It is assumed that they do this due to aberrant behavior (mental deficiencies?) or nutritional deficiencies.  They are however almost exclusively known to pasture on grasses and occasionally eat aquatic plants. There are also herbage eating lizards like the iguana. Lizards are 4 legged animals. Many monkeys walk on all 4's as well and are exclusive herbage eaters. Not all.

Snakes do not have 4 legs and do not eat grass, but neither do birds so I think the restriction on bahaa'im (4 legged creatures) only refers to 4 legged creatures. The Quran mentions snakes but there is no prohibition on them. I think the same thing can be said of them I mention later when I speak of insects.

As it concerns the section: "THERE ARE SOME GRAZING ANIMALS WHICH ARE SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED FOR TRAVEL AND NOT FOR FOOD"

Let's look at:

6.142

    "Of the An3aam (herbage eating 4 legged animals) some are for burden and some for meat: eat what God has provided for you, and follow not the footsteps of Satan: for he is to you an avowed enemy" 

The word used for meat here is 'farsh.' Farsh is defined in Mu'jam Al-faadh AL-Quran as 'Al-farsh are the pastured animals that are ridden.' So farsh refers to the riding of the animals. Hamulah in this case most likely refers to their ability to carry loads. Lisanul-Arab gives Tha'lab's definition of farsh in this context as meaning 'the big camels.' It can also mean 'the small camels.' Abu Ishaq says that most of the linguists agree that it means small camels.  It is also said that it means all camels, cattle and sheep that are only good for slaughtering and nothing else.

So the word farsh here has a number of definitions. The closest meaning of 'for meat' is in how it means grazing animals that aren't good for work or for loads but only for slaughter. This does not imply that some of them (like horses) can only be used for riding and not meat, while others like cows can only be used for meat. Both cows and horses have been ridden and eaten for thousands of years and they are both herbage eaters, so there should be no problem eating either of the two. This includes donkeys and mules as well, which are also technically an3aam. The verse implies when farsh is taken this way that some of them are not good for work and are only good for slaughtering for food. I understand how the author sees a prohibition on eating the horses, donkeys and mules in 16:8. However, if we read from 16:5-8 we see that the same animals that we eat in 16:5 also carry our loads to faraway lands in 16:7. Horses, Mules and donkeys historically and probably genetically have more use as burden animals than food animals but they still have been eating when not good for work or burdens or when there is not use and food is more important. I see 16:8 as distinguishing the particular blessing that they are as riding animals and animals of beauty but not that they cannot be eaten. I however can admit that the use that God distinguishes for them should be what we use them for before we think of slaughtering them for food just because they are lawful for slaughter. So I think it may be safe to say that horses, mules and donkeys that are of no use for work or riding can be slaughtered and eaten.

As for birds we have the mention of the salwaa during the children of israel's journey after Egypt. The word can mean honey, as well as a bird that is described as either the sumanaa (understood as a quail) or a bird like the quail.  56:21 mentions how we can eat birds of any kind in paradise and I'd like to note that 2:25 says the believers will be given things similar to what they have been given in this life. This means that what we will be given in paradise we have been given here, but of course paradise is flawless and everything in it is purified unlike the things we have here. Hence why we have 56:19 implying flowing wine which does not inebriate, which relates to the rivers of wine in 47:15.

So technically we can eat any sort of bird, even the birds of prey. You could by indirect means understand that the birds who eat carrion are not allowed because one would also be indirectly eating carrion by eating the flesh of such a bird. This may make the bird dirty or filthy. Many birds like chickens and vultures are scavengers who don't always eat rotten carrion but will if they get the chance. It would also disallow all fish who eat anything dead in the sea as well as any other creature big enough and safe enough swallow.

Perhaps it is safe to say that the Quran takes the stance that the biology of a bird no matter what it eats is not the same as the biology of a non-herbage eating four legged mammal or lizard. But if the bird looks unclean or smells unclean it is probably safe to consider it rijz/rijs/khabeeth. The same can be said for a sick cow, cows that are not fed grass or a cows in a disgusting environment.

As for insects, there are a few insects mentioned in the Quran. Ants (naml), locusts (jarad, being large types of herbage eating grasshoppers), spiders, flies, lice and bees. None of the above are mentioned as food although people have eating locusts, bee larvae and bee parts in honey and honey comb for thousands of years. The honey of the bee is understood in Mu'jam al-faadh al-Qur'an as the saliva of the bee. This is also how it is defined in Lisanul-'Arab. We know now that it is actually the vomit of the bee. Notwithstanding, the Quran actually praises this food that has been understood and is known to be from the bodily fluids of an insect. The smaller particles in honey are full of bee parts as well. So I think it is safe to say that God is okay with us eating insects.

I believe the difference comes in whether those insects are rujz (filthiness), khabeethah (objectionable because of its badness) or rijs (filthiness/dirtiness) because they eat or are associated with impure things like feces, urine or decay. We are expected to avoid contaminated things on all levels because they are harmful. 74:5

I'd like to thank those who read this and Joseph Islam for addressing this. As one last item when it comes to the foods we are too eat I think we should address the Sunnah of our last prophet and messenger (saas) as it concerns his slaughtering of animals. In Surat-ul-Kawthar he is told to 'pray to your lord and slaughter.' So not only should we be mentioning God's name before we slaughter but we should be saying a prayer before we do it, which in its most basic sense according to " most of the Ahlul-lughah (Arab Classical linguists) is calling (du'aa), blessing (tabreek) and/or praising (tamjeed)," 'Mu'jam Al-faadh Al-Quran.' This is Sunnah/Uswah of God's messenger (saas) before we slaughter any animal for consumption.

Salamun 'Alaykum and thank you for reading this.

[good logic]

Greetings Anwar.

May I ask a couple of questions:

1-  What is "sunnah of our prophet"?

2-Does the word وَانحَر really mean slaughter in {108: 2}?

Thanks in advance.

GOD bless you.
Peace.

[Anwar]

Greetings to you,

1. Sunnah is the more common expression for the terms uswah or qudwah. uswah and qudwah mean example. As far as I know it has this meaning as well as pattern. This is what most Muslims mean by Sunnah, unfortunately they believe that the sunnah/uswah/qudwah of the prophet Muhammad is to be taken from hadeeth and not the Qur'an.

2.  Yes. There is a Quranic reading for 2:71 that says 'fana7aroohaa' instead of 'fadhaba7oohaa.' So yes na7ara is synonymous with dhaba7 in its meaning of 'to slaughter'. na7r is also used for a specific type of slaughter where usually a camel is stabbed in the upper chest/lower neck area but it can be applied to all types of slaughter.

Peace.

[good logic]

Greetings Anwar.
Thanks for your explanation.
In my opinion, Qoran clearly explains the 2 points I was clarifying with you:

1- I deduce from Qoran That there is only " Sunnah of our Lord" i.e" Sunnah of Allah"..  All the prophets /messengers of God were followers of this. Uswah/qudwah as you put it was the example of " We hear and obey" GOD Alone.

19:58
These are some of the prophets whom God blessed. They were chosen from among the descendants of Adam, and the descendants of those whom we carried with Noah, and the descendants of Abraham and Israel, and from among those whom we guided and selected. When the revelations of the Most Gracious are recited to them, they fall prostrate, weeping.
أُولٰئِكَ الَّذينَ أَنعَمَ اللَّهُ عَلَيهِم مِنَ النَّبِيّـۧنَ مِن ذُرِّيَّةِ ءادَمَ وَمِمَّن حَمَلنا مَعَ نوحٍ وَمِن ذُرِّيَّةِ إِبرٰهيمَ وَإِسرٰءيلَ وَمِمَّن هَدَينا وَاجتَبَينا إِذا تُتلىٰ عَلَيهِم ءايٰتُ الرَّحمٰنِ خَرّوا سُجَّدًا وَبُكِيًّا


2-In the context of [108:2}, there is no mention of any animal. How can we deduce " slaughter"? .It may mean the general" sacrifice" that one should forgo for GOD as part of the total loyalty and submission to Him. As for [2:71]  there is no "Naharooha" in it? Is it " dhabahooha"?:

2:71
He said, "He says that she is a heifer that was never humiliated in plowing the land or watering the crops; free from any blemish." They said, "Now you have brought the truth." They finally sacrificed her, after this lengthy reluctance.

قالَ إِنَّهُ يَقولُ إِنَّها بَقَرَةٌ لا ذَلولٌ تُثيرُ الأَرضَ وَلا تَسقِى الحَرثَ مُسَلَّمَةٌ لا شِيَةَ فيها قالُوا الـٰٔنَ جِئتَ بِالحَقِّ فَذَبَحوها وَما كادوا يَفعَلونَ


But of course you are entitled to your understanding also.

GOD bless you.
Peace.

[Anwar]

Salaam,

1. I was using the more common (and still valid) understanding of sunnah. There is not only 1 Sunnah. Everyone has a Sunnah and technically we should emulating all good and godly sunnah's. Please don't be so closeminded or dogmatic about these concepts, claiming that they can only be used in the way the Quran uses them. Secondly, who told you 'we hear and obey' is the only Uswah of rasoolullah? We are given many examples of the behavior of God's last messenger in the Quran as well as the direct commands to him. Allah put them there on purpose as an 'ibrah from which we are to take lesson from. We are to imitate them. This is clearly his Uswah. We also have the Uswah of other messengers of God in the Qur'an. We should also be emulating them, especially that of Abraham (saas). 

2. As for na7r. I said there is a Quranic reading (actually it says harf Abdullah, implying an an alternative text that was extant at the time of Abu Bakr Al-Qasim who was the author of Mu'jam Al-faadh Al-Quran) for 2:71 that says 'fana7aroohaa' instead of 'fadhaba7oohaa.' You are reading ONE reading. As far as I know most readings say dhaba7a. The fact that one actually says na7ara proves the connection citing Quranic readings. Linguistically, as I stated na7ara means to sacrifice an animal. The animal does not have to be mentioned along with the word. If I just said 'na7ara' it is understood that I sacrificed an animal as this is implied in the basic meaning of the word, just like dhaba7a.

In addition to sacrificing an animal here are some of the things it can be:

ونَحَرَ الرجلُ في الصلاة يَنْحَرُ: انتصب ونَهَدَ صَدْرُه

"The man na7ara in prayer means that he put down and lifted his upper chest/lower neck." This means bowing. Because the passage says 'fasalli lirabbika wa-an7ar' the context can be taken as prayer and can mean to bow down. Na7ara coming from sacrificing in the upper neck and check area takes on various meanings involving this area of the body.

Mu'jam Al-faadh Al-Quran says: "It is said that it is a command to put one's hand on one's chest (during prayer)"

This is from it being a verb that implies actions involving the chest. I did not pay attention to this one before and find it valid and very interesting.  I may be incorporating this into my prayer.

Here is what it cannot be:

قال طائفة: أُمِرَ بنحر النُّسك بعد الصلاة،

"A group of people have said (the verse 'fasalli lirabbika wa-an7ar) means: He was ordered to direct himself towards his religious rites and rituals after prayer.'

Nahr here means to face towards, more literally understood as 'to show one's chest or forward part towards.' The religious rights and rituals is a theological interjection.

Mu'jam Al-faadh Al-Quran says that "It is said that it means killing one's self (na7ru-n-nafs) by suppressing one's lusts/desires (qam3u-sh-shahwaat)." This is from it being a verb that involves killing/slaughtering. Tanaahara and intahara mean to kill each other (literally and figuratively) as when one slaughters an animal/camel according to Lisanul-Arab and Mu'jam Al-faadh Al-Qur'an.

I find this meaning of killing one's self by suppressing lusts/desires to be taking theological license with the word, as the word does not have self, lusts or desires as part of its meaning. Intahara however does mean to kill/sacrifice one's self but it is not the form of he verb that is used in Suratul-kawthar

Salam

[good logic]

Peace Anwar.

Please accept my apology if you think I am "close minded" or " dogmatic".

1- I was simply stating my opinion. To me, when it is a  choice between what others say and what Qoran says, I choose Qoran that s all.

2-There is the question: What word did GOD use originally in [2:71]  " Naharooha" or " dhabahooha"? I would have thought this is very important.

Thank you for the conversation.
GOD bless you.
Peace.

[Anwar]

Good logic,

1- I was simply stating my opinion. To me, when it is a  choice between what others say and what Qoran says, I choose Qoran that s all.

And it is an extreme oversimplification.

2-There is the question: What word did GOD use originally in [2:71]  " Naharooha" or " dhabahooha"? I would have thought this is very important.

There is no way of figuring out which was the original. All Mutawaatir readings are equally the most authentic. Mashoor and other readings are not although they can serve as tafsirs for the Mutawaatir readings when consulting all of them still results in a lack of clarity on an issue.

Do you know about the readings (Qir'aat) of the Qur'an?

Please read the links found here: 

http://quranists.proboards.com/thread/60/links-readings-quran

[good logic]

Greetings Anwar.

If :

There is only one Qur'an,
The indisputable conclusion that the Qur'an was not tampered with.

How can one  deduce: There is no way of figuring out which was the original.

GOD bless you.
Peace.

[Anwar]

If :

There is only one Qur'an,
The indisputable conclusion that the Qur'an was not tampered with.

How can one  deduce: There is no way of figuring out which was the original.

GOD bless you.
Peace.

Who said there is only one Qur'an? There are many versions of the Qur'an and all the ones that are mutawaatir are equally authentic. There is no way of figuring out which is the original. It is easy to see this as coming from reciter or copyist error. However, the most important thing from what I have seen is that they all coincide in meaning. And that is actually the goal whenever comparing one reading to the other for further clarification. So it does not matter which was the original and as I said this is impossible to figure out. If you take it from the 7 ahruf theory then many different variations of the same Qur'an were revealed with synonymous but slightly different vocabulary and pronunciations. Besides what is the point of trying figure out if the original Quran actually said wa instead of fa in a certain place? The differences are that slight which is why I am a bit confounded by your aversion to me showing you how one reading has na7aroohaa for dhaba7oohaa. Additionally the differences are a small percentage of the entire Quran.

But I guess you hadn't heard of the different readings of the Quran and that this was a first. In that case I can understand why you are perturbed. It perturbed me at first too because it goes against all the lies we have been taught and all the lies we wanted to believe. It's clear even from the Yusuf Ali translations if we read his commentary that there are at least 2 most popular versions, being Hafs and Warsh. I haven't looked much into what the Quran has to say on its own about its variations. I need to do that.

God bless you as well,
Peace

[good logic]

Greetings Anwar.

Yes of course I heard and seen the different versions. However there is only one original Qoran.

"The original Uthmani Qoran as written by the scribes of the revelation, according to the order by the messenger, Peace be upon him, according to the Holy spirit, Gabriel, according to God be He glorified."

Praise be to GOD for preserving the original version for us.

GOD bless you and thank you for your posts.

Peace.

[Anwar]

Peace,

I'm not sure where you got that quote from, but the Uthmanic text being the original text is very debatable and to state such a thing is grossly untrue according to what we have of Islamic history.

Salam

[good logic]

Greetings Anwar.

As per [17:36], we have to search for the truth. How does anyone know anything unless they search and " keep what makes sense/what is best".

It does not make sense that multiple versions of Qoran came down at once?

85:21
Indeed, it is a glorious Quran.
بَل هُوَ قُرءانٌ مَجيدٌ

85:22
In a preserved master tablet.
فى لَوحٍ مَحفوظٍ


Every letter ,every word, every verse, every surah are preserved for all generations.

The invisible soldiers of GOD that guard the original Qoran were/are/will be at work since it was sent down to the prophet. No one can even add or takeaway a single letter to that original! Whatever exists besides/outside  is GOD s trial to the people.

Praise be to GOD.

GOD bless you.
Peace.

[Anwar]

Peace,

If I were you I would open your mind up a little bit more about the form and manifestation of that master tablet.

Yes, Praise be to God.

God bless you as well.

[good logic]

Greetings Anwar.

Please think about it, does GOD not keep His promise? GOD is making sure His original Qoran reaches all the generations.Which one is it out of all the versions?

22:52
We did not send before you any messenger, nor a prophet, without having the devil interfere in his wishes. God then nullifies what the devil has done. God perfects His revelations. God is Omniscient, Most Wise.*
وَما أَرسَلنا مِن قَبلِكَ مِن رَسولٍ وَلا نَبِىٍّ إِلّا إِذا تَمَنّىٰ أَلقَى الشَّيطٰنُ فى أُمنِيَّتِهِ فَيَنسَخُ اللَّهُ ما يُلقِى الشَّيطٰنُ ثُمَّ يُحكِمُ اللَّهُ ءايٰتِهِ وَاللَّهُ عَليمٌ حَكيمٌ

 
GOD bless you.
Peace.

[Anwar]

Peace,

The original Qur'an is contained within all of those versions. You don't know how the Quran was revealed to the prophet Muhammad (saas). It could very well have been revealed in a way that allowed for all of those versions. In the end the meaning is the same and the wording exact for the majority of the Qur'an. The existence of the versions doesn't bother me because He preserved the meaning despite the versions (which some may see as errors) and that indeed is a miracle.

I am done talking to you about this or anything else to be honest. I find you to be very narrow minded and dogmatic in your approach and thinking process. Forgive me for making this observation.

Peace.